Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOPH to Stillwater 1988 • *- LAW OFFICES OF ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF & VIERLING 1835 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 LYLE J. ECKBERG (612)439-2878 JAMES F. LAMMERS FAX(612)439-2923 ROBERT G. BRIGGS PAUL A.WOLFF MARK J.VIERLING VICKI L.GIFFORD December 14, 1988 GREGORY G.GALLER The Honorable Bruce R. Douglas Judge of District Court Washington County Government Center 14900 61st Street North Stillwater , Minnesota 55082 Re: The City of Oak Park Heights vs. The City of Stillwater Court File No. C1-88-005009 Dear Judge Douglas: Enclosed herewith please find Appell. - ,s Brief with regard to the above matter . ,r'' Respe• tf ly . .mitted , MJV:brsa k J. Vierling Enclosure cc : Kenneth Raschke Assistant Attorney General David T. Magnuson, Esq. Attorney at Law Howard R. Turrentine , Assistant County Attorney LaVonne Wilson, City Clerk ,/ City of Oak Park Heights D-240 Oak Park Height • A-4466 Stillwater BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Shirley J. Mihelich Chair John W. Carey Vice Chair Kenneth F. Sette Commissioner IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ) THE DETACHMENT OF CERTAIN LAND FROM ) FINDINGS OF FACT THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF STILLWATER ) AND ORDER PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414.061 ) The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Minnesota Municipal Board pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414, as amended, on June 15, 1988 at Stillwater, Minnesota, and was continued to June 29, 1988 at Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. The hearing was conducted by Terrence A. Merritt, Executive Director, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.01, Subdivision 12. Also in attendance were Shirley J. Mihelich, Chair, John W. Carey, Vice Chair, and Kenneth F. Sette, Commissioner. The City of Oak Park Heights appeared by and through Mark Vierling and Lyle Eckberg, Attorneys at Law. The City of Stillwater appeared by and through David Magnuson, Attorney at Law. The petitioner appeared by and through Howard Turrentine, Attorney at Law. Testimony was heard and records and exhibits were received. After due and careful consideration of all evidence together with all records, files and proceedings, the Minnesota Municipal Board hereby makes and files the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. FINDINGS OF FACT 1 . On March 17, 1988 a petition for concurrent detachment and annexation • -2- • by the sole property owner was filed with the Minnesota Municipal Board. The petition contained all of the information required by statute including a description of the area proposed for concurrent detachment and annexation, which is as follows: Lots 11 , 12, 13, 14, and 15, Block 5, Mc MILLAN AND COOLEY'S ADDITION TO STILLWATER, according to the recorded plat thereof. Together with that part of the North 20.00 feet of Lots 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of said Block 5, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the north line of said Lots 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. Together with that part of vacated Eugene Street that accrues to the above described parcel, hereinafter referred to as "Parcel A." That part of former Hazel Street platted in Mc MILLIAN AND COOLEY'S ADDITION TO STILLWATER which lies north of the easterly extension of the south line of the North 20.00 feet of Lots 16 through 30, inclusive, Block 5 of said plat and south of the center, line of former Prairie Street. Said south line of the North 20.00 feet is measured at a right angle to and parallel with the north line of said lots, hereinafter referred to as "Parcel B." That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter distant 262.83 feet north from the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, said point is also the intersection of said west line with north right of way line of Trunk Highway 212; thence East along said north right of way line 351 .31 feet to the point of beginning; thence East continuing along said north right of way line 60.98 feet; thence East continuing along said north right of way line 204.96 feet along a tangential curve concave to the north having a radius of 1395.09 feet and a central angle of 8 degrees 25 minutes 03 seconds to the west line of former 7th Street; thence North along the west line of said former 7th Street 558.67 feet to the northeast corner of former Lot 28, Block 2, MURDOCK'S ADDITION TO OAK PARK, now vacated; thence West 83.78 feet to the northwest corner of former Lot 27, of said Block 2; thence North 189.74 feet to the southwest corner of former Lot 27, Block 1 of said vacated plat; thence West 41 .88 feet to the southwest corner of former Lot 26, of said Block 1 ; thence North 139.57 feet to the northwest corner of said former Lot 26; thence West 358.81 feet to the intersection of the south line of former Lot 12 of said Block 1 and the east line of the West 18.00 feet of said former Lot 12; thence North 139.42 feet along the east line of the West 18.00 feet of said former Lot 12, Block 1 to the north line of said former Lot 12; thence North 25.00 feet continuing along said last described • -3- • course to the center line of former Prairie Street; thence West 130.73 feet along said center line of former Prairie Street to said west line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South along said west line 890.04 feet; thence East parallel with said north line of Trunk Highway 212 a distance of 351 .20 feet; thence South parallel with the east line of former Hazel street of said plat 166.00 feet to the point of beginning, hereinafter referred to as "Parcel C." A resolution supporting the concurrent detachment and annexation was not received from the City of Oak Park Heights. 2. Due, timely and adequate legal notice of the hearing was published, served and filed. 3. The area proposed for concurrent detachment and annexation, hereinafter called the subject area, is presently within the City of Oak Park Heights, abuts the City of Stillwater, and is approximately 11 acres in size. The perimeter of the subject area is approximately 30% bordered by the City of Stillwater. 4. The City of Stillwater had a population of 10,196 in 1970, 12,290 in 1980, and it is projected to have a population of 13,200 in 1990. 5. The City of Oak Park Heights had a population of 1 ,256 in 1970, 2,591 in 1980, 3,669 presently, and it is projected to have a population of 3,800 in 1990. 6. The -subject.area has a population -of 0. 7. The City of Oak Park Heights is approximately 1,142 acres in size. 8. The City of Stillwater is approximately 4,360 acres in size. 9. The City of Stillwater is the county seat for the County of Washington. Both the City of Stillwater and the City of Oak Park Heights are in Washington County. 10. Parcel A is presently used as a portion,of the county government • -4- • N center parking lot. Parcel B is part of Panama Avenue. Parcel C has two houses located on it. Additionally, the land is vacant and open with slopes generally over 13% from the northwest corner diagonally to the southeast towards the central part of the parcel and then south along the eastern end of the parcel to the southeast corner. The soils in Parcel C have excessive natural drainage and slight foundation limitations. They have low water-holding capacity. 11 . The City of Oak Park Heights has approximately\138 acres in residential use, approximately 405 acres in institutional/tax exempt use, approximately 75 acres in commercial use, approximately 300 acres in industrial use, and approximately 202 acres in vacant land. 12. The City of Stillwater has land zoned for residential use, multiple-residential use, commercial use, institutional use, and industrial use. 13. The subject area has land in institutional use as part of a parking lot for the courthouse complex, street use, two houses, and the remainder of the land is vacant. 14. The City of Oak Park Heights has approximately 14 miles of highways, streets, and roads. 15. The subject area has approximately .05 miles of city streets. The subject area includes part of Panama Avenue and abuts Oxboro Avenue on the western edge of Parcel A; 62nd Street on the northern edge of Parcels B and C; Paris Street on the eastern edge of Parcel C. • 16. The City of Stillwater has state highways, county roads, and city streets. 17. The City of Oak Park Heights has a zoning ordinance, subdivision • • -5- • regulations, an official map, capital improvements program and budget, fire code, floodplain ordinance, wild and scenic rivers ordinance, on-site sewage treatment sanitation ordinance, and a comprehensive plan. 18. The City of Stillwater has a zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, an official map, capital improvements program and budget, fire code, shoreland ordinance, fioodplain ordinance, wild and scenic rivers ordinance, sanitation ordinance (on-site sewage treatment), and a comprehensive plan. \\ 19. The County of Washington has a zoning ordance, subdivision regulations, an official map, capital improvements program and budget, shoreland ordinance, floodplain ordinance, wild and scenic rivers ordinance, sanitation ordinance (on-site sewage treatment), and a comprehensive plan. 20. The Metropolitan Council completed a review of the City of Oak Park Heights' Comprehensive Plan on May 14, 1981 . The Metropolitan Council completed a review of the City of Stiliwater's Comprehensive Plan on April 23, 1981 . 21 . The subject area is presently zoned R-2, low and medium residential . 22. The present Oak Park Heights zoning of the subject area would not allow the expansion of the courthouse as a permitted or conditional use. 23. The City of Stillwater does not have any proposals within its comprehensive plan for the subject area. 24. The City of Oak Park Heights amended its Zoning Ordinance so that no regional facilities could be located within its existing R-2 zone even as a conditional use. 25. The present Washington County Courthouse lies immediately north of Parcel A and immediately west of Parcels B and C. 26. The County of Washington has made no formal request for the re-zoning • -6- • N of the subject area so as to allow it to be built on as an expansion area for the courthouse. 27. The area adjacent to the present courthouse, in the present uses: to the north and immediately west for churches; south of the church property, west of the present courthouse, for multi-family residential; south of the courthouse single and one- or two-family residential uses; north and northeast of Parcel C is single- and double-family residential use; southern part of the eastern boundary of Parcel C abuts multi-family residential use; and the western part of the southern boundary of Parcel C abuts one- and two-family residential use. 28. The City of Oak Park Heights presently provides its residents with water, sanitary sewer and waste water treatment, storm sewer, fire protection, police protection, street improvements and maintenance, administrative services, and recreational opportunities. 29. The City of Stillwater presently provides its residents with water, sanitary sewer and waste water treatment, storm sewer, fire protection, police protection, street improvements and maintenance, administrative services, and recreational opportunities. 30. Presently the Washington County Courthouse receives sanitary sewer service from the City of Oak Park Heights. The Ci of Oak Park Heights provides water service to the existing City 9 P 9 courthouse, along with water for fire hydrants. 31 . The City of Oak Park Heights provides approximately 20 homes ,,within the City of Stillwater with sanitary sewer. 32. The City of Stillwater provides sanitary sewer and water to approximately 8 homes within the City of Oak Park Heights. 33. Presently on a case by case basis, agreements are worked out between -7- • the City of Stillwater and the City of Oak Park Heights for provision of sanitary sewer and/or water within the neighboring city's jurisdiction. These agreements are reached when such service can be done more economically by the neighboring city. 34. The City of Stillwater has waterlines serving the property north of 62nd Street, which is immediately north of the existing courthouse. The City of Stillwater has sanitary sewer lines in Panama Avenue, North at the junction of -Orleans Avenue, which is north of Parcel C. 35. The City of Stillwater is willing to provide the subject area with all of the services It presently provides its residents. The City of Stillwater would be willing to extend municipal sewer and water to the subject area If an agreement cannot be reached with the City of Oak Park Heights to provide the area with sewer and water. 36. Within the City of Stillwater, the only other areas available for the expansion of the courthouse would be within the City of Stillwater's industrial park. The City of Stillwater has .a policy that the industrial park • should be used for tax-generating development. 37. If the subject area were annexed to .the City of Stillwater, t - development -as' the expansion of the county courthouse would be consistent with the City of Stillwater's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Y .existing P 38. The same waste water treatment plant serves the Cities of Stillwater and Oak Park Heights. The .plant is to be improved and • its ;capacity increased. Based on these plans, there is sufficient capacity to service the subject area. 39. The concurrent detachment and annexation of the subject area from the City of Oak Park Heights to the City of Stillwater would not impact .,_upon the school district. -8- S 40. The subject area is tax exempt and has no assessed value. The market value of the subject area is as follows: Parcel A - approximately $50,000; Parcel B (street) - $0.00; and Parcel C - approximately $319,000 for a total market value of approximately $369,000. 41 . The County of Washington has performed a Facilities Study which looked at service through no-growth or a moderate growth on the county offices by the year 2008. Either projection resulted in an analysis that there will be a need for more space. • 42. The assessed valuation in 1987 for the City of Oak Park Heights is approximately $52,969,221 . The city has tax exempt property with a market value of approximately $36,699,400. 43. The assessed valuation in 1987 for the City of Stillwater is approximately $80,795,336. The city has tax exempt property with a market value of approximately $85,075,800. 44. The mill rate in 1987 for Washington County In the City of Oak Park Heights was 28.407, and in the City of Stillwater it was 25.64. 45. The location of the courthouse addition within the City of Stillwater reduces some potential problems with bond financing for the project. 46. The City of Oak Park Heights has a 1987 mill rate of 17.034. The school district mill levy for the City of Oak Park Heights is 56.467 47. The City of Stillwater has a 1987 mii1 rate of 29.07. The school district mill levy for the City of Stillwater Is 54.32. 48. The City of Stillwater has a present fire insurance rating of 6. 49. The City of Oak Park Heights has a present bonded indebtedness, as of December 31, 1987, of $1,503,000. 50. The City of Stillwater has a present bonded indebtedness, as of -9- • December 31 , 1987, of $15,025,000. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 . The Minnesota Municipal Board duly acquired and now has jurisdiction of the within proceeding. 2. Concurrent detachment and annexation of the subject area is in the best interests of the property. 3. The City of Stillwater can provide the subject area with the necessary governmental services. 4. The City of Oak Park Heights can continue to survive without the subject area. 5. The Minnesota Municipal Board should issue an order approving the concurrent detachment and annexation of the subject area from the City of Oak Park Heights to the City of Stillwater. O R D E R 1 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: That the property described herein in Findings of Fact 1 be, and the same hereby is, detached from the City of Oak Park Heights and annexed to the City of Stillwater, the same as if It had originally been a part thereof. 2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the effective date of this order is October 31, 1988. Dated this 31st day of October, 1988. MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD 165 Metro Square Building St. Pau innes to 55101 bilYgte, 1l Terrence A. Merritt Executive Director 1 i D-240 Oak Park Heights/ A-4466 Stillwater MEMORANDUM ' The Municipal Board, in ordering the concurrent detachment and annexation, notes that the City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Stillwater fi were unable to resolve their disagreement over the placement of the expansion to the county courthouse. In the board's eyes, the county shares the blame for this disagreement, too. While the petitioner has met its burden of proof for the concurrent detachment and annexation of its property, the board takes this opportunity to advise these three local units of government that they should work together more closely. They should avoid spending the taxpayers money needlessly over disagreements that can be ironed out at the local level . The board reminds Washington County and the City of Stillwater er of the Y extensive testimony about the proper berming and screening that will be used around the courthouse addition to mitigate its impact on the neighborhood. The board is confident that the appropriate mitigation methods area employed. The ravine in Parcel C should assist in the lessening of an impact on the neighborhood. The board would hope that the Cities of Stillwater and Oak Park Heights will resolve any differences so that the courthouse expansion can be served in the most economical fashion possible: !Q_ v_g TT o 111 That assumption is based upon several isolated cases where the City of Oak Park Heights has allowed its services to go beyond its boundaries and serve areas that the city of Stillwater was incapable of serving. Each of those was based upon a residential homeowner ' s need for utilities and is supported by a separate development agreement. Each of those is reviewed on a case by case basis and voted on independently by each city council . No application has been made to the City of Oak Park Heights by the City of Stillwater or the County of Washington to serve water and sewer facilities to either of the lands proposed for annexation. There is no guarantee that the City of Oak Park Heights will serve those areas . Assuming the , annexation/detachment is allowed , and that the City of Oak Park Heights would not allow the areas to be served with its lines , it is clear that the county would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring water and sewer services to an area that is obviously ill-suited for its proposed development . (d) The County Planner assumed that the City of Oak Park Heights would gladly rezone the area in 1980 so as to allow the county' s proposed use assuming that its use of the property had precedence over the neighboring property' s utilization of their properties. The Washington County Planner testified that he simply assumed that the City of Oak Park Heights would allow the rezoning of the Heuer property prior to its purchase feeling that the county use had a priority over that of adjacent land uses . The fundamental flaw of that rationale is the arrogance in - 20 - i • assuming that government exists to be served by the people as opposed to government serving the people. The neighboring land owners have every right to have their properties protected and their use and peaceful occupation of those properties preserved . The county government center can only realistically be classified as a high density commercial use inappropriately located next to existing residential facilities . This factor weighs heavily in favor of denying the Petition. (g) Analysis of whether there are existing or potential environmental problems and whether municipal consolidation will improve such problems . As already indicated , there are no pollution or environmental problems with the possible exceptions of traffic, use , noise and light already discussed . (h) Analysis of tax and governmental aid issues involved in the consolidation in the included municipalities. This particular annexation does not have any impact on fiscal or tax consolidation insofar as we are dealing with a governmental property owner who has a tax exempt status on its property regardless of which municipality it is located in. However , as noted above , if Washington County is not successful in this petition, it is presumed that they will market the property for sale as a residential development in conformance with the existing code and Comprehensive Plan of the City of Oak Park Heights which has been in existence since 1980. The tax - 21 - . . revenue from approximately 11 acres of land and predominantly the 10 acre Heuer parcel (Parcel C) would be of significance to the City of Oak Park Heights . ( i) Analysis of the affect of consolidation on area school districts . Except as noted above, in the event of residential development of the Heuer parcel , there would be no impact. ( j ) Analysis of the applicability of the State Building Code . Insofar as the City of Oak Park Heights , the City of Stillwater and Washington County all equally apply and enforce the State Building Code. There should be no impact on this particular factor . III. LEGAL ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE PETITION OF WASHINGTON COUNTY. As noted previously, the County of Washington, in its Petition , signed by Sally Everett, the Chairman , the Board of Commissioners, and Mr . Charles Swanson, Washington County Administrator , cite within paragraph 4 their rationale for the request for annexation as follows: The reason for the request for this boundary adjustment is the property proposed for annexation is required for the expansion of the Washington County Government Center and Minnesota Statutes require that the services proposed to be located in the expansion must be in the County Seat. The City of Stillwater is the County Seat for Washington County and the land proposed for the expansion of the Government Center is located in the City of Oak Park Heights . Presently municipal services - 22 - such as police, fire , sanitary services are being provided to the existing Government Center by the City of Stillwater . When the Government Center has expanded those same services will be needed by the expanded Government Center and those services can be most efficiently and effectively provided by the City of Stillwater . As has already been pointed out , the statement made within the Petition that municipal services are presently being provided to the existing facility by the City of Stillwater is false . Municipal water and sanitary sewer services are currently provided to the Government Center by the City of Oak Park Heights. Security and police services are provided by the Washington County Sheriff' s Department . Fire services are supplied on a first-come, first-served basis and , of course , there has never been a fire need at the existing government facility, but due to the size of that facility, it is unlikely that a single fire department would be able to respond to the call . Aside from the factual irregularities and false statements contained within the Petition , the county' s entire rationale in proceeding with this application has been to try to convince the Municipal Board that the county is legally required to have the Government Center located within the City of Stillwater . Initially, it becomes obvious that this position of the county is a recent creation insofar as the county never advanced this philosophy back in 1980 and 1983 when it made its previous Applications for Rezoning and Conditional Use Permits to the City of Oak Park Heights. The county was more than willing - 23 - • 411 at that time to construct its administrative offices within the City of Oak Park Heights. One can only question why Washington County has taken eight years to find a statute that was in existence since 1909. Although the county' s argument in this regard has some degree of appeal prior to trial , the county' s expert witness , Ms . Stephanie Gailee from the firm of Holmes & Graven, an attorney and presumed expert in this field , testified that the statute did not prohibit the construction of a facility within the City of Oak Park Heights . It was Ms . Gailee ' s opinion that the statute only required that the county maintain an office of the Sheriff in the County Seat and that additional offices could be constructed wherever the county board saw fit . Further , it was her testimony that Section 382. 04 of the Minnesota Statutes only applied to the constitutional offices of Auditor , Treasurer , Register of Deeds, Clerk of District Court, Sheriff and Judge , and did not impact in any regard the other many functions, offices, departments of the county that could be housed and located in the area. Consequently, when one considers that the existing office of the Washington County Sheriff is already located in the City of Stillwater , housed within the basement of the existing courthouse building , and that the concept development proposed to the County Board Commissioner was to construct from off of the eastern wall of the Sheriff' s Department - to the east - across to the Heuer property, it is obvious that the Sheriff ' s - 24 - • Department can and would be maintained within the City of Stillwater , even though the jail facility would be constructed within the City of Oak Park Heights. When one further considers the existing facilities for workhouses that are constructed away from the County Seats , such as the workhouse in Plymouth serving Hennepin County, with the City of Minneapolis being the County Seat, it is obvious that the legal rationale for the county' s Petition for Annexation has its basis in convenient fiction but not in legal fact . Obviously, there is not legal basis nor factual basis for the county' s Application for Detachment/Annexation. Ironically, the county is in the unusual position of advocating a detachment/annexation which, even when allowed , would require the City of Oak Park Heights to provide services to the property. There is no question but that there exists other commercial lands within the City of Stillwater upon which the jail facility could be constructed with a lesser degree of land use conflict than exists in the current proposal . Yet the hesitance of the City Planner for the City of Stillwater acknowledges that the City of Stillwater is desirous of having the existing facility expand , it is simply not happy with the concept of the county facility taking up what is currently privately-owned taxed generating property for the City of Stillwater and building a jail facility upon it. Consequently, even though the City of Stillwater has already come to a zoning agreement with the County of Washington to rezone the subject property as soon as it comes in to allow the construction of the jail facility, Washington County would - 25 - • obviously find a much lesser reception by the city if it abandoned its proposal and sought to construct the jail facility in the industrial park of the City of Stillwater where such a facility is best suited. In sum, upon reviewing the statutory factors set forth within Minnesota §414.051, Subdivision 5, together with the legal cause cited by the county in its initial Application for Annexation/Detachment, it appears there is no legal basis to allow the annexation as requested. IV. CONCLUSION. It is at best unfortunate when government which is supposed to act as the role model for society proceeds in a manner which is calculated to avoid the rule of law and circumvent the requirements of due process in public and open hearing that are otherwise provided for . In this particular instance, Washington County is asking the Minnesota Municipal Board to treat it in a manner different than any developer of a parcel of land would be treated . Indeed , Washington County is proceeding as a developer on this property with an attitude towards that development that should not be tolerated by the City of Oak Park Heights and certainly would not be tolerated by the Washington County Planning Department or the City of Stillwater if approached in a like manner by any other developer . In essence , Washington County told the City of Oak Park Heights either to grant them the permit that they desire , to - 26 - 411 411 f build a courthouse which has not yet been identified , or they will take their land to another jurisdiction that will . The petitioners have tried to make the issue of the construction of a county courthouse facility the issue rather than the concept of the annexation of lands as otherwise provided for in the statute . The Municipal Commission does not exist for the purpose of approving specific developments of land . It is within the exclusive province of the municipalities to zone and to control development on land regarding land use and adjacent land owner concerns . It is within the province of the Minnesota Municipal Board to determine when lands cannot be supplied municipal services and are in need of annexation to adjacent communities so that those services can be provided efficiently, economically, and in a manner calculated to promote efficient and reasonable land use . The matter now before the Municipal Board has nothing to do with the issue or the provision of municipal services. The land in question is now served by the City of Oak Park Heights and will ultimately continue to be served by the City of Oak Park Heights . This annexation matter also has nothing to do with the efficient provision of municipal services for the same reason . It is not within the province of the Municipal Board to determine the need for extended county facilities as that is a function solely within the jurisdiction of the individual county board. Moreover , it is instructive in this particular instance that absolutely no testimony was received from Washington County - 27 - as it affected its rationale and basis surrounding its decision to build an addition to the existing Government Center . Based upon the evidence that was received in the two days of hearings before the Municipal Board , there exists no factual , legal or jurisdictional basis to grant the Petition of Washington County for the concurrent annexation and detachment sought. Knowing that there is no legal , factual , or jurisdictional basis for its petition, Washington County has nonetheless presented this matter before the Municipal Board seeking a political solution to the problem it created in 1980 when through the process of poor judgment, Washington County made a decision to acquire land. In 1980, Washington County did not even act as a reasonable developer to even bother to check appropriate zoning and ordinances prior to purchase. As a developer , they did not act reasonably to review other options in building opportunities for the property which could result in a substantial benefit, both financially for the developer and for the community. They now seek the Minnesota Municipal Board to ratify that poor decision and to join them in their efforts to take a parcel of land that is ill-suited for particularized development and to implement that development avoiding the due process constraints that would otherwise be provided citizens and the controlling municipality as would otherwise be afforded in law. If the Municipal Board makes a decision to treat Washington - 28 - 1 110 • County in the manner it would any other developer of land , there is no conclusion that can be reached but that the Petition of Washington County be denied . Respectfully submitted , ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS WOLFF & VIERLING By: v Mark J Vierling and Lyle J. Eckberg , Attorneys for Oak Park Heights 1835 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater , MN 55082 ( 612 ) 439-2878 Attorney I. D. No. 112823 Attorney I. D. No . 25495 - 29 - • i districts and/or environmental concerns . Additionally, the land as presently owned is tax exempt regardless of the municipal designation. II. STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION. The Petition for Washington County was presented to the Municipal Board pursuant to Minnesota Statute §414 . 06, Subdivision 5. That statute requires the board to conduct its hearing and issue its order , all pursuant to Minnesota Statute §414. 041 , Subdivision 5, and §414 . 09. Minnesota Statute §414. 041, Subdivision 5 requires the board to consider the following factors: ( a) Present population, past population growth, and projected population of the included municipalities . Within the respective exhibits received from both the City of Stillwater and the City of Oak Park Heights , population data as projected by the Metropolitan Council has already been received. Population may be impacted depending upon how the proposed lands are developed . If the lands remain within the City of Oak Park Heights and are developed residentially, as planned since 1979, an impact upon housing and , therefore, population can be anticipated. The ten acre parcel which constitutes the former Kenneth Heuer property (Parcel C) could ostensibly be developed into a major residential subdivision having an impact on these factors. - 12 - • • (b) Quantity of land within the included municipality; and natural terrain including topography, major watersheds, soil conditions and such natural features as rivers , lakes and major bluffs . Again, the exhibits already received from both the City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Stillwater as it affects Comprehensive Plans, housing studies, terrain , topography, watersheds and soil studies clearly identify the subject property. Of significant concern as it affects its topography is that the parcels identified as B and C consisting of Panama Avenue and the former Kenneth Heuer property do drain predominantly into the Oak Park Heights storm sewer tax improvement system #1. That drainage will only increase as development occurs upon the property having a major impact upon the use of existing facilities and storm sewer drainage utilities within the City of Oak Park Heights. If allowed , the annexation would be allowing property to develop and yet contribute nothing to the cost or use of those facilities' wear , tear , maintenance and operation insofar as the entirety of the storm sewer tax improvement district is being paid for by use of ad valorem taxes for which Washington County contributes nothing . If the property remains within the City of Oak Park Heights , it would ultimately be developed as residential being returned to private ownership which would make a contribution to those utilities and services . ( c) Degree of contiguity of the boundaries between the included municipalities . - 13 - • The boundary existing between the City of Stillwater and the City of Oak Park Heights currently exists along established streets and identifiable boundaries within the two cities especially within the area of the County Government Center . The proposed annexation would take what many already view as a confused boundary and make it worse by removing the identifiable barriers of existing streets which separate the two cities in establishing an arbitrary meets and bounds description on the Heuer property on its north , east and southern borders in lieu of identified streets. Further the annexation of parcels A, B and C into the City of Stillwater would further intrude and make an island of existing territory within the City of Oak Park Heights located to the east, south and west of Parcels A, B and C. This factor affecting the contiguity of boundaries weighs heavily in favor of keeping the property as it is presently identified within the respective cities and not allowing its concurrent detachment and annexation. (d) Analysis of whether present planning and physical development in the included municipalities indicates that the consolidation of these municipalities will benefit planning and land use patterns in the area ; present transportation network and potential transportation issues including proposed highway development. It is clear from the construction of the existing Washington County administrative building which was completed in 1985 and 1986, that its location in that area together with the adjoining problems it has created with the neighboring property - 14 - a • owners has been the result of non-existent planning between the City of Stillwater and Washington County and the Oak Park Heights residence resulting in monetary damage to those residents . The appraisal prepared for Mr . Swenberg ( as already received in evidence) denotes a $10,000 depreciation in value between the Swenberg homestead and the existing county government facility. Even though the City Planner for the City of Stillwater and the Washington County Planner ' s Office talked in glowing terms of landscaping , green space, screening and vegetative barriers , it became eminently clear from the photographs that were received from the City Planner and the visual inspection that had been made at the property that Washington County' s existing development of its courthouse facility has not provided any degree of reasonable landscaping and screening that was promised , or talked about, by the county in its testimony. An individual or developer can only be judged based upon its past performance and in this particular case, Washington County has miserably failed to produce any degree of confidence in the public as a result of its poor and inefficient development of its existing properties now located within the City of Stillwater . One can only assume that they will continue their poor practices if this annexation is allowed to occur . The physical development now existing within the area already presents a conflict in land use , transportation problems, noise , light and use conflicts which will only be aggravated if the annexation/detachment is granted. Transportation problems have been documented since 1980 as existing within the area . - 15 - • Although Washington County and the City of Stillwater dispute the transportation problems, there is no question that they took no issue with the transportation problems highlighted within the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan when they granted their approvals of that plan in 1979 and 1980. Having agreed that those problems exist, now they appear before the Municipal Board seeking to dispute the problems that have existed for almost a decade. The City of Stillwater and Washington County propose no solutions for those problems. Indeed , they have not even identified to the Municipal Board the concept of that which they wish to construct and develop in the area if the annexation were allowed to occur . They have simply requested of the Municipal Board to grant them a blank check , i .e . to annex the land to the City of Stillwater who in turn will allow the county to do as they please . The existing county government facility was granted permission to build without even so much as a public hearing being held to address issues of landscaping , screening , transportation, noise , light and use which have created so many problems for the area for so many years . It is clear that the detachment/annexation of these lands will not benefit existing planning and land use patterns but will only aggravate and exacerbate the problems that exist. The present transportation network going from the Washington County Courthouse to the west appears to be adequate but the present transportation network to the east of the county facility is obviously grossly inadequate and that problem will only be continued. Compounding the problems further , Washington County has engaged in the practice - 16 - • of acquiring residential parcels not subject to these proceedings but which are located to the north of Parcel C. The county' s acquisitions in this area are a clear statement of the recognition of the problem and conflict and land use that currently exists within the area. An additional impact for the City of Oak Park Heights is the loss of already scarcely existing vacant land . As testified to by the City Planner , the City of Oak Park Heights has no substantial vacant land existing which has not already been identified for development within the city for purposes of planning and future use. Loss of the ten acre site consisting of Parcel C (Heuer property) will not only confuse existing land use patterns but impair the City of Oak Park Heights existing plans for residential development and land use . ( e) Analysis of whether consolidation of the included municipalities is consistent with Comprehensive Plans for the area. The Metropolitan Council , the City Planner for the City of Stillwater , the Planner for the City of Oak Park Heights, the Washington County Planning Department, and others, all recognize that the proposed development is inconsistent with the City of Oak Park Heights existing Comprehensive Plan. Neither the City of Stillwater nor Washington County address within their Comprehensive Plans the proposed use of the area . Again this factor weighs heavily in favor of not granting the annexation/ detachment as this proposed use has neither been planned for or allowed within any governmental unit which serves the area . — 17 111 ( f) Analysis of whether governmental services now available in the included municipalities can be more effectively or more economically provided by consolidation. There is no question but that annexation/detachment of this area as petitioned for will severely impair the provision of existing municipal services to the area. Even though the City of Stillwater has joined in the Petition seeking this land to be annexed to it, the testimony solicited from its own engineer is that the City of Stillwater is economically not capable of providing municipal and water services to this area. The existing courthouse facility is already served by the City of Oak Park Heights water and sewer mains . Water and sewer facilities for the City of Oak Park Heights surround the land sought for annexation on three sides . The land sought for annexation is also served by City of Oak Park Heights storm tax improvement district #1. The present government center contributes to the drainage that flows through that area. In addition, the flow is anticipated to increase that drainage as development in the area occurs. Knowing that it is incapable of providing services to the area effeciently and economically . Washington County and the City of Stillwater have advocated a fool ' s argument to the Municipal Board by suggesting that we can merely "presume that the City of Oak Park Heights will agree to serve the area." - 18 - 4 • • The City of Stillwater and the County of Washington have made erroneous assumptions which have brought us to this point over the past decade . In Review: ( a) Washington County assumed there was no zoning problem when it acquired the property from Kenneth Heuer identified as Parcel C. That assumption was false in that zoning did not allow the construction of the facility that the county sought . ( b) Washington County assumed that there would be no conflict in land use by applying for rezonings and conditionally used permits to put in their proposed facilities . In fact, existing Comprehensive Plans issued by the City of Oak Park Heights , and acknowledged by the County of Washington, City of Stillwater , already identified ( prior to the County' s purchase of the land) the existing problems with competing land uses between the county government facility and the neighboring residential properties . The county' s poor planning and inability to deal with these issues resulted in their withdrawal of two of the three applications that they brought before the City of Oak Park Heights ( with both of those first applications being removed prior to the public even having the opportunity to comment at public hearing as to the nature of the application) . (c) The County of Washington and the City of Stillwater assume that the City of Oak Park Heights will agree to serve the area if detached from the City of. Oak Park Heights and built upon by Washington County. - 19 - P BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Shirley J. Mihelich Chairperson John W. Carey Vice Chairperson Kenneth F. Sette Commissioner File No. D-240 Oak Park Heights/A-4466 Stillwater IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ) FINAL WRITTEN DETACHMENT OF CERTAIN LAND FROM THE ) ARGUMENT AND CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND ANNEXATION ) MEMORANDUM OF TO THE CITY OF STILLWATER PURSUANT TO ) LAW SUBMITTED MINNESOTA STATUTES 414.061 ) BY THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS Pursuant to the order of the Minnesota Municipal Board at the hearings conducted in the above-referenced matter on June 15, 1988 , continued and completed on June 29, 1988 , the City of Oak Park Heights herewith submits its Final Written Argument and Memorandum of Law in opposition to the petition requesting detachment of certain land from the City of Oak Park Heights and Annexation to the City of Stillwater . I. Statement of Facts. In 1979, the City of Oak Park Heights completed its Comprehensive Plan and forwarded same pursuant to law to its neighboring municipalities in Washington County for purposes of comment by those adjoining governmental units . The City of Stillwater now seeks the annexation of certain lands from the City of Oak Park Heights which were identified in that Comprehensive Plan for purposes of use by Washington County for construction of a jail expansion facility r. • • on the site. The annexation proceedings presently before the Municipal Board factually involve three parcels of land which have been identified by the petitioner ' s letters A, B and C, and by commentary from the various parties . The three parcels involve lands as follows: (A) a relatively small piece of land located in the southwest corner of what is now the existing Washington County Government Center parking lot as constructed in 1985; (B) a section of land occupying what is now Panama Avenue within the City of Oak Park Heights in which there is a paved and completed street and local and municipal utilities in the City of Oak Park Heights inclusive of water mains , sewer mains , and storm sewer drainage facilities ; (C) an approximate eleven acre parcel acquired by Washington County from Kenneth and Beverly Heuer on January 3, 1980 . For purposes of identification within this document , Parcel A shall reference the small parcel located in the southwest corner of the parking lot; Parcel B, the lands involved in Panama Avenue; and Parcel C, the former Kenneth Heuer property. The predominant issues involved with regard to this annexation affect Parcel B and C. Both are located within an area of the City of Oak Park Heights which has always been zoned for single and multiple family. The 1979 Comprehensive Plan prepared by the City of Oak Park Heights and approved by the Metropolitan Council provides as to Parcel B and C as follows : Three major concerns should be addressed in regards to the future planning for this district. The immediate concern should be the preservation of the present housing stock. Throughout the neigh- borhood , early signs of deterioration are appearing and the blighting effect should be arrested . A - 2 - • • i housing maintenance code and various assistance programs available to the city to aid the homeowners in protecting their property values should he utilized. A second concern has arisen over the proposed expansion of the new Washington County Adminis- trative facilities , as this active center has already adversely impacted the adjacent neighbor- hoods ( excessive traffic, lights , and noise occurring at all hours of the day) . The expansion of the county offices will have considerable impact upon Oak Park Heights, as the city stands to lose both existing homes through condemnation and vacant land potentially available for new owner occupied housing . As the proposed expansion will result in the loss of additional tax revenue producing property in the City of Oak Park Heights and may create further negative impacts on remaining residential uses, the City of Oak Park Heights should actively and aggressively participate in the planning efforts for the facility' s expansion . The use to which the remaining vacant parcels in the district are put is one final concern. Scattered vacant sites should be infilled with single family homes. This is already occurring as several new homes have recently been constructed . Additional housing opportunities could be provided if the large vacant site off Panama Avenue is available. Owner occupied housing variety should be emphasized with the overall developed density for this district being mid-density ( 4-10 units per acre) , reflecting the character of the existing housing stock in the surrounding area. Prior to its purchase of the Kenneth Heuer property (Parcel C) , Washington County had received the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan and in its letter directed to Martha Greenwald of Midwest Planning & Research on November 27, 1979, Dan Koehler of the Washington County Planning Department stated : In general, this proposed plan is well prepared and detailed . With the few exceptions noted , the plan is consistent with existing and proposed plans for Washington County and adjacent townships . - 3 - • Jw � The balance of Mr . Koehler ' s letter did not in any detail object or discuss the application of the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan to Parcels A, B or C. li In like manner , the City of Stillwater had received also a copy of the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan and its Mayor , David C. Junker wrote on March 25, 1980: The City of Stillwater has reviewed the Compre- hensive Municipal Plan of Oak Park Heights and has found no apparent major conflicts with the plans being developed for the City of Stillwater . Nonetheless , Washington County, without conferring with the City of Oak Park Heights, or reviewing applicable zoning and ordinance restrictions , on January 3, 1980 purchased the Kenneth Heuer property intending same to be used for an addition to what was then the existing Washington County Courthouse. On March 7, 1980 Washington County filed a request with the City of Oak Park Heights for a Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit to allow for the future expansion of what they were then proposing as the Washington County Administrative Offices ( see city' s Exhibit C) . At that time, Washington County was proposing to locate on Parcel C ( the Heuer property) . The new county government facility which would house Washington County Social Services, Community Services and several satellite offices which were being brought into the Stillwater area . On an interim basis, the county sought a Conditional Use Permit to use the former Heuer homestead as an office until such time as the new county government center would be constructed . - 4 - In its commentary on the county' s plan as proposed in 1980, the Oak Park Planning Consultant, Northwest Associated Consultants , stated : The Washington County existing facility has already adversely impacted adjacent neighborhoods. The location of the Washington County Administrative Offices draws traffic off of Osgood Avenue through the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, as the Sheriff' s Department is located adjacent to these residential neighborhoods, nearby residents have been forced to accept noises and light typical of active commercial uses and clearly not compatible with residential areas . In their recommendation section, the Planning Consultants provided: We have found rezoning the proposed site to an R-B District would be questionable based upon the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use. To permit the rezoning prior to reviewing any specific plans for the facility would allow for the possible development of additional incompatible uses if the county decided that facility area needs would not require the entire site and replatted accordingly with the intention of selling the unneeded remaining lots. The county, in 1980 , sought rezoning as they were proposing the construction of a government facility that would be in excess of 35 feet in height . The existing residential zoning , although allowing government buildings as a conditional use , did not allow their construction in excess of 35 feet and , hence , the county' s application for rezoning was made at that time . At the April 14, 1980 meeting of the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights, the city made its minutes reflect : The County has decided not to pursue the rezoning at this time. - 5 - • i Consequently, the county withdrew its application for rezoning in 1980 and proceeded no further at that time. In 1983 , Washington County again requested the City of Oak Park Heights approve a Conditional Use Permit to expand the county courthouse onto the ten acre Heuer y property ( Parcel C) . The county also requested that Panama Street be vacated to provide for a single unified site within the existing courthouse site in Stillwater. . In its Planning Report of 4 August 1983 by Northwest Associated Consultants as it affected the 1983 application by Washington County, the City of Oak Park Heights Planning Consultant provided as follows : The Washington County existing facility has been cited in the past as creating compatibility problems with adjacent residential uses. This county facility, which also houses the County Sheriff ' s Department has forced nearby residents to accept high traffic volumes, noise and lights that are typical of commercial uses and are clearly not compatible with residential areas*** Past actions by the county indicate that they recognize that the proposed courthouse facility is better suited to a commercial zoning district when, in March of 1980 , the county requested that the site be rezoned from R-2 to an R-B zoning district. At the time of the rezoning request, no development plans were provided by the county*** Review of the recently submitted site plans for the courthouse expansion has not alleviated any of the concerns that would prevent the rezoning of the property; rather , the size of the office facility may have enhanced the problems of incompatability with nearby residential uses . The official Minutes for the City of Oak Park Heights at a special meeting held on Wednesday, August 17, 1983 for the express purpose of hearing the county' s request for the rezoning - 6 • • that had been submitted in 1983 , reflected that Mayor Sommerfeldt opened the meeting promptly at 7:00 o' clock p.m. and read the following letter received by the City Clerk on August 17, 1983 : The County of Washington hereby withdraws its Application for Conditional Use Permit to permit construction of an administrative office building which application was dated June 9 , 1983 and which was scheduled for public hearing on August 17, 1983 , and the Petition to Vacate Panama Avenue which was filed in conjunction with the Application for Conditional Use Permit. Signed , C. A. Riebel , County Administrator . As referenced by City Exhibit E, the Memorandum of Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc . to the City of Oak Park Heights , Washington County in November of 1983 submitted an application requesting the City of Oak Park Heights amend their Comprehensive Plan so as to allow the construction of governmental buildings in the area each of the existing Washington County Courthouse ( the Heuer property - Parcel C) . In addition, the county again requested that the zoning be changed from its current and previously existing R-2 Low and Medium Density Residential Classification to R-B Residential Business Transitional District. Again , the county applied for a Conditional Use Permit in addition to the rezoning and requested that the height limitation be extended from 35 to 45 feet within the ordinance. In its December 12, 1983 regular meeting of the City Council of Oak Park Heights , public hearing was open with regard to the application from Washington County and the official minutes reflect the following action was taken: Motion made by Carufel , seconded by Seggelke , moved to approve the zoning request on the - 7 - above project. Aye voting by Carufel , Nay votes by Sommerfeldt, Mondor , Seggelke , and O'Neil . Zoning request denied . Following the December , 1983 action, Washington County took no appeal to the Board of Hearings and appeal to the City of Oak Park Heights nor did they pursue any appeal or request for review to the District Courts . In 1985 and 1986, Washington County constructed and completed the administrative office complex that it had been pursuing on the south lawn of the then existing county government facility which was entirely contained within the City of Stillwater with the exception of Parcel A as noted above . Washington County pursued and received no permit from the City of Oak Park Heights to implement parking as a principal use as to Parcel A, nor did they seek or secure any building permit from the City of Oak Park Heights as it affects that property. Negative neighborhood impact as a result of that construction continued to occur with complaints from residents being frequently received from the City of Oak Park Heights and as noted , damage to adjacent properties having occurred to at least one property owner , as is reflected by the October 29, 1984 appraisal by Raymond W. Kirchner of the Donald Swenberg property at 1490 North 60th Street, Oak Park Heights , reflecting a $10,000 depreciation in value of Mr. Swenberg ' s property as a result of the construction of the Washington County administrative facility. It should also be noted that at no time prior to its 1980 Application for Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit or prior - 8 - • ! to either application in 1983 for Rezoning and Conditional Use Permits, did Washington County ever approach the City of Oak Park Heights and request detachment of the Heuer property from the city claiming that those facilities by law had to be located within the City of Stillwater. By correspondence dated March 15, 1988 , the Washington County Attorney' s Office served upon the City of Oak Park Heights , its Petition for the Detachment Annexation of Lands pursuant to Minnesota Statute 414.061, Subdivision 5. Cited within the Petition of Washington County was the following rationale for their request for Detachment/Annexation : The reason for the request for this boundary adjustment is the property proposed for annexation is required for the expansion of the Washington County Government Center and Minnesota Statutes require that the services proposed to be located in the expansion must be in the county seat. The City of Stillwater is the County Seat for Washington County and the land proposed for the expansion of the Government Center is located in the City of Oak Park Heights . Presently municipal services such as police , fire and sanitary services are being provided to the existing government center by the City of Stillwater . When the Government Center is expanded , those same services will be needed to the expanded Government Center and those services can be most efficiently and effectively provided by the City of Stillwater . The uncontested testimony received from the County Administrator , Mr . Richard Moore, the City Engineer for the City of Stillwater , and Mr . Joseph Anderlik , the City Engineer for the City of Oak Park Heights, together with Mr . Roger Benson, Public Works Director for the City of Oak Park Heights , is that, in fact, presently the existing Washington County Courthouse - 9 - constructed in 1967 and 1968, and the county administrative building constructed in 1985 and 1986 , is being served by municipal water and sewer services from the City of Oak Park Heights . The further uncontested testimony received from both engineers for the respective cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater was that it was impractical for the City of Stillwater to attempt to provide sanitary sewer service to any extension of the existing governmental facility as would be constructed on Parcel C, B or A. The municipal water and sewer services for the City of Stillwater are several hundred feet away from the existing site and would require extensive construction costs inclusive of lift stations, condemnations of rights-of-way, restoration costs, and other expenses to provide services to the area. The testimony also received uncontested at the time of hearing is that the City of Oak Park Heights now has water and sewer lines on three sides of the Heuer land (Parcel C) inclusive with its lines within Panama Avenue which is also being proposed for detachment and annexation to the City of Stillwater (Parcel B) . Neither the City of Oak Park Heights nor the City of Stillwater have their own sewage plant and both rely upon the sewage treatment plant owned by the Metropolitan Waste Commission within the City of Stillwater for all treatment. Additionally, the uncontested testimony received at trial was that the Heuer property together with Parcel B is included within the City of Oak Park Heights storm sewer improvement taxing district #1, as the area due to existing contours feeds storm water runoff - 10 - 4110 v . b1 - through the City of Oak Park Heights . The City of Oak Park Heights has constructed storm sewer facilities within the area to serve the property which are being repaid by the taxpayers of Oak Park Heights through ad valorem increases in taxes as opposed to assessments. With regard to the balance of municipal services testified to at trial , it is clear that the area does not need any other municipal services nor is there any conflict that would be presented by maintaining services being provided by the City of Oak Park Heights . There is virtually no difference in fire services either provided by the City of Oak Park Heights through its contract with Bayport Fire Department or the City of Oak Park Heights with its own part-time volunteer fire department. Police services to the existing government center are currently provided by the Washington County Sheriff's Department with its own system of security, bailiffs , and courthouse patrol . Backup services are provided either by the City of Oak Park Heights or by the City of Stillwater , both of which having been called for backup by Washington County Sheriff' s Department in the past . Washington County Government Center does not use the municipal offices , of either the City of Oak Park Heights or of the City of Stillwater , as it has its own administrative offices complete with records , maps, drawings and ordinances of both cities . Additionally, it is eminently clear that the property as it presently exists within the City of Oak Park Heights and which is the subject of these proceedings presents no issues for school - 11 - • S Page two - Minutes 11/14/88 O'Neal , seconded by Doerr , moved to schedule a public hearing on request from James A. Beyer for a Home Occupation License. Hearing to be conducted Monday, November 28 , 1988 at 7 : 00 P.M. 5 aye votes. Carried. Torgerson, seconded by Doerr, moved to grant approval to James Corey to alter placement of e ara e units on Permit #2895. 5 a g g Y votes. Carried. Seggelke, seconded by Torgerson , moved to schedule workshop meeting to discuss Hall Expansion Tuesday, November 29 , 1988 at 7 : 00 P.M. 5 aye votes. Carried. Doerr, seconded by Seggelke , moved to adjust salary from $3 .`50 to $4 . 00 for warming house supervisors in 1988 . 5 aye votes. Carried. O'Neal , seconded by Torgerson, moved to direct City Attorney to appeal to State Municipal Board regarding its decision on the land adjacent to Washington County office building. 5 aye votes . Carried. O'Neal, seconded by Doerr , moved to direct City Attorney to pursue negation and appeal request from Washington County Government Center for a 308 car parking lot in the Single Family Residential District located east of the County Government Center between Panama and Paris Avenues. 5 aye votes. Carried. O'Neal, seconded by Torgerson, moved to approve minutes as presented of October 11th and 24th. 4 aye votes cast by Torgerson, O'Neal,Seggelke, and Sommerfeldt. Abstain by Doerr due to his absence at one meeting. Carried. Park Commission to meet Monday, November 21st at 6 :30 P.M. at City Hall. Doerr, seconded by O'Neal , moved to approve requests from NSP to install gas mains on Upper 61st St. East of Beach Road and at 15425 Upper 59th St. N. Aye votes cast by Sommerfeldt , Torgerson, Doerr and O'Neal. Abstain by Seggelke . Requests approved. Residents interested in information on fall watering for lawns and shrubs or drought effects on trees may obtain such at City Hall. Doerr, seconded by Seggelke, moved to pay bills as presented and approve Treasurer ' s Report. Details available at Clerk' s office . 5 aye votes. Carried. Doerr, seconded by O'Neal , moved to adjourn. 5 aye votes. Adjourned at 9: 10 P.M. La Vonne Wilson Administrator/Treasurer An Equal Opportunity Employer ��� Phone: {612)296.2428 40 Jet py��„, 1 4,„ r 1/I STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 165 Metro Square 7th & Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Parties of Record FROM: Terrence A. Merrlt Executive Director DATE: November 3, 1988 SUBJECT: D-240 Oak Park Heights/A-4466 Stillwater The enclosed is a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order approved by the Board on October 31 , 1988 approving the concurrent detachment/annexation in the above-referenced file. The paper you previously received for the above-referenced file was not a copy of the approved order. We hope this has not caused you any inconvenience. TAM:sg D-240 Oak Park Height • A-4466 Stillwater BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Shirley J. Mihelich Chair John W. Carey Vice Chair Kenneth F. Sette Commissioner IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE DETACHMENT OF CERTAIN LAND FROM ) FINDINGS OF FACT THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF STILLWATER ) AND ORDER PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414.061 ) The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Minnesota Municipal Board pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414, as amended, on June 15, 1988 at Stillwater, Minnesota, and was continued to June 29, 1988 at Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. The hearing was conducted by Terrence A. Merritt, Executive Director, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.01 , Subdivision 12. Also in attendance were Shirley J. Mihelich, Chair, John W. Carey, Vice Chair, and Kenneth F. Sette, Commissioner. The City of Oak Park Heights appeared by and through Mark Vierling and Lyle Eckberg, Attorneys at Law. The City of Stillwater appeared by and through David Magnuson, Attorney at Law. The petitioner appeared by and through Howard Turrentine, Attorney at Law. Testimony was heard and records and exhibits were received. After due and careful consideration of all evidence together with all records, files and proceedings, the Minnesota Municipal Board hereby makes and files the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. FINDINGS OF FACT 1 . On March 17, 1988 a petition for concurrent detachment and annexation D-240 Oak Park Height • A-4466 Stillwater BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Shirley J. Mihelich Chair John W. Carey Vice Chair Kenneth F. Sette Commissioner IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ) THE DETACHMENT OF CERTAIN LAND FROM ) Fi NDINGS OF FACT THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF STILLWATER ) AND ORDER PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414.061 ) The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Minnesota Municipal Board pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414, as amended, on June 15, 1988 at Stillwater, Minnesota, and was continued to June 29, 1988 at Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. The hearing was conducted by Terrence A. Merritt, Executive Director, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.01, Subdivision 12. Also in attendance were Shirley J. Mihelich, Chair, John W. Carey, Vice Chair, and Kenneth F. Sette, Commissioner. The City of Oak Park Heights appeared by and through Mark Vierling and Lyle Eckberg, Attorneys at Law. The City of Stillwater appeared by and through David Magnuson, Attorney at Law. The petitioner appeared by and through Howard Turrentine, Attorney at Law. Testimony was heard and records and exhibits were received. After due and careful consideration of all evidence together with all records, files and proceedings, the Minnesota Municipal Board hereby makes and files the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order. FINDINGS OF FACT 1 . On March 17, 1988 a petition for concurrent detachment and annexation • -2- • by the sole property own e r was filed wi t h the Minnesota Municipal Board. The petition contained all of the information required by statute including a description of the area proposed for concurrent detachment and annexation, which is as follows: Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, Block 5, Mc MILLAN AND COOLEY'S ADDITION TO STILLWATER, according to the recorded plat thereof. Together with that part of the North 20.00 feet of Lots 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of said Block 5, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the north line of said Lots 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. Together with that part of vacated Eugene Street that accrues to the above described parcel , hereinafter referred to as "Parcel A." That part of former Hazel Street platted in Mc MILLIAN AND COOLEY'S ADDITION TO STILLWATER which lies north of the easterly extension of the south line of the North 20.00 feet of Lots 16 through 30, inclusive, Block 5 of said plat and south of the center line of former Prairie Street. Said south line of the North 20.00 feet is measured at a right angle to and parallel with the north line of said lots, hereinafter referred to as "Parcel B." That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter distant 262.83 feet north from the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, said point is also the intersection of said west line with north right of way line of Trunk Highway 212; thence East along said north right of way line 351 .31 feet to the point of beginning; thence East continuing along said north right of way line 60.98 feet; thence East continuing along said north right of way line 204.96 feet along a tangential curve concave to the north having a radius of 1395.09 feet and a central angle of 8 degrees 25 minutes 03 seconds to the west line of former 7th Street; thence North along the west line of said former 7th Street 558.67 feet to the northeast corner of former Lot 28, Block 2, MURDOCK'S ADDITION TO OAK PARK, now vacated; thence West 83.78 feet to the northwest corner of former Lot 27, of said Block 2; thence North 189.74 feet to the southwest corner of former Lot 27, Block 1 of said vacated plat; thence West 41 .88 feet to the southwest corner of former Lot 26, of said Block 1 ; thence North 139.57 feet to the northwest corner of said former Lot 26; thence West 358.81 feet to the intersection of the south line of former Lot 12 of said Block 1 and the east line of the West 18.00 feet of said former Lot 12; thence North 139.42 feet along the east line of the West 18.00 feet of said former Lot 12, Block 1 to the north line of said former Lot 12; thence North 25.00 feet continuing along said last described • -3- • I f• course to the center line of former Prairie Street; thence West 130.73 feet along said center line of former Prairie Street to said west line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South along said west line 890.04 feet; thence East parallel with said north line of Trunk Highway 212 a distance of 351 .20 feet; thence South parallel with the east Iine of former Hazel street of said plat 166.00 feet to the point of beginning, hereinafter referred to as "Parcel C." A resolution supporting the concurrent detachment and annexation was not received from the City of Oak Park Heights. 2. Due, timely and adequate legal notice of the hearing was published, served and filed. 3. The area proposed for concurrent detachment and annexation, hereinafter called the subject area, is presently within the City of Oak Park Heights, abuts the City of Stillwater, and is approximately 11 acres in size. The perimeter of the subject area is approximately 30% bordered by the City of Stillwater. 4. The City of Stillwater had a population of 10,196 in 1970, 12,290 in 1980, and it is projected to have a population of 13,200 in 1990. 5. The City it of Oak Park Heights 1 ,257 1970, 2 r i hts had a population of ,257 in 0 2,591 Y , , 9 P P in 1980, 3,669 presently, and it is projected to have a population of 3,800 in 1990. 6. The subject area has a population of 0. 7. The City of Oak Park Heights is approximately 1 ,120 acres in size. 8. The City of Stillwater is approximately 4,360 acres in size. 9. The City of Stillwater is the county seat for the County of Washington. Both the City of Stillwater and the City of Oak Park Heights are In Washington County. 10. Parcel A is presently used as a portion of the county government • -4- • center parking lot. Parcel B is part of Panama Avenue. Parcel C has two houses located on it. Additionally, the land is vacant and open with slopes generally over 13% from the northwest corner diagonally to the southeast towards the central part of the parcel and then south along the eastern end of the parcel to the southeast corner. The soils in Parcel C have excessive natural drainage and slight foundation limitations. They have low water-holding capacity. 11 . The City of Oak Park Heights has approximately 138 acres in residential use, approximately 405 acres in institutional/tax exempt use, approximately 75 acres in commercial use, approximately 300 acres in industrial use, and approximately 202 acres in vacant land. 12. The City of Stillwater has land zoned for residential use, multiple-residential use, commercial use, institutional use, and industrial use. 13. The subject area has land in institutional use as part of a parking lot for the courthouse complex, street use, two houses, and the remainder of the land is vacant. 14. The City of Oak Park Heights has approximately 14 miles of highways, streets, and roads. 15. The subject area has approximately .05 miles of city streets. The subject area includes part of Panama Avenue and abuts Oxboro Avenue on the western edge of Parcel A; 62nd Street on the northern edge of Parcels B and C; Paris Street on the eastern edge of Parcel C. The county conducted a traffic study around the existing courthouse. The county anticipates that any addition to the courthouse in the subject area will not cause a significant increase of traffic on the adjacent streets. • -5- • 16. The City of Stillwater has state highways, county roads, and city streets. 17. The City of Oak Park Heights has a zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, an official map, capital improvements program and budget, fire code, floodplain ordinance, wild and scenic rivers ordinance, on-site sewage treatment sanitation ordinance, and a plan. comprehensive lan. P 18. The City of Stillwater has a zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, an official map, capital improvements program and budget, fire code, shoreland ordinance, floodplain ordinance, wild and scenic rivers ordinance, sanitation ordinance (on-site sewage treatment), and a comprehensive plan. 19. The County of Washington has a zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, an official map, capital improvements program and budget, shoreland ordinance, floodplain ordinance, wild and scenic rivers ordinance, sanitation ordinance (on-site sewage treatment), and a comprehensive plan. 20. The Metropolitan Council completed a review of the City of Oak Park Heights' Comprehensive Plan on May 14, 1981 . The Metropolitan Council completed a review of the City of Stillwater's Comprehensive Plan on April 23, 1981 . 21 . The subject area is presently zoned R-2, low and medium residential . 22. The present Oak Park Heights zoning of the subject area would not allow the expansion of the courthouse as a permitted or conditional use. 23. The City of Stillwater does not presently have any proposals in its comprehensive plan for the subject area. 24. The City of Oak Park Heights amended its Zoning Ordinance so that no regional facilities could be located within its existing R-2 zone even as a conditional use. • -6- • 25. The present Washington County Courthouse lies immediately north of Parcel A and immediately west of Parcels B and C. 26. The area adjacent to the present courthouse, have the present uses: to the north and immediately west, church, institutional ; south of the church property and west of the present courthouse - multi-family residential ; south of the courthouse - single and one- or two-family residential uses; north and northeast of Parcel C - single- and double-family residential use; the southern part of the eastern boundary of Parcel C - multi-family residential ; and the western part of the southern boundary of Parcel C abuts one- and two-family residential use. 27. The City of Oak Park Heights presently provides its residents with water, sanitary sewer and waste water treatment, storm sewer, fire protection, police protection, street improvements and maintenance, administrative services, and recreational opportunities. 28. The City of Stillwater presently provides its residents with water, sanitary sewer and waste water treatment, storm sewer, fire protection, police protection, street improvements and maintenance, administrative services, and recreational opportunities. 29. Presently the Washington County Courthouse receives sanitary sewer service from the City of Oak Park Heights. The City of Oak Park Heights provides water service to the existing courthouse, along with water for fire hydrants. 30. The City of Oak Park Heights provides approximately 20 homes within the City of Stillwater with sanitary sewer. 31 . The City of Stillwater provides sanitary sewer and water to approximately 8 homes within the City of Oak Park Heights. 32. Presently on a case by case basis, agreements are worked out between -7- S the City of Stillwater and the City of Oak Park Heights for provision of sanitary sewer and/or water within the neighboring city's jurisdiction. These agreements are reached when such service can be done more economically by the neighboring city. 33. The City of Stillwater has waterlines serving the property north of 62nd Street, which is immediately north of the existing courthouse. The City of Stillwater has sanitary sewer lines in Panama Avenue, at the junction with Orleans Street, which is north of Parcel C. 34. The City of Stillwater is willing to provide the subject area with all of the services it presently provides its residents. The City of Stillwater would be willing to extend municipal sewer and water to the subject area if an agreement cannot be reached with the City of Oak Park Heights to provide the subject area with sewer and water. 35. Within the City of Stillwater, the only other areas available for the expansion of the courthouse would be within the City of Stillwater's industrial park. The City of Stillwater has a policy that the industrial park should be used for development of tax-generating uses. 36. If the subject area were annexed to the City of Stillwater, its development as the expansion of the county courthouse would be consistent with the City of Stillwater's existing Comprehensive Land Use Plan. 37. The same waste water treatment plant serves the Cities of Stillwater and Oak Park Heights. The plant is to be improved and its capacity increased. Based on these plans, there is sufficient capacity to service the subject area. 38. The concurrent detachment and annexation of the subject area from the City of Oak Park Heights to the City of Stillwater would not impact upon the school district. IL . -8- • 39. The subject area is tax exempt. The market value of the subject area is as follows: Parcel A - approximately $50,000; Parcel B (street) - $0.00; and Parcel C - approximately $319,000 for a total market value of approximately $369,000. 40. The County of Washington has performed a Facilities Study which looked at service provided to county residents through no-growth or a moderate growth of the county offices by the year 2008. Both projections resulted in a determination that there will be a need for more space for county offices. 41 . The assessed valuation in 1987 for the City of Oak Park Heights is approximately $52,969,221 . 42. The assessed valuation in 1987 for the City of Stillwater is approximately $80,795,336. 43. The mill rate in 1987 for Washington County in the City of Oak Park Heights was 28.407, and in the City of Stillwater it was 25.64. 44. The most probable financing method for the building of additional county offices would be by selling bonds. The location of the courthouse addition within the City of Stillwater reduces some potential problems with bond financing for the project. 45. The City of Oak Park Heights has a 1987 mill rate of 17.034. The school district mill levy for the City of Oak Park Heights is 56.467 46. The City of Stillwater has a 1987 mill rate of 29.07. The school district mill levy for the City of Stillwater is 54.32. 47. The City of Stillwater has a present fire insurance rating of 5. 48. The City of Oak Park Heights has a present bonded indebtedness, as of December 31 , 1987, of $1,503,000. 49. The City of Stillwater has a present bonded indebtedness, as of Al III -9- • t' December 31 , 1987, of $15,025,000. CONCLUSIONS OF LM 1 . The Minnesota Municipal Board duly acquired and now has jurisdiction of the within proceeding. 2. Concurrent detachment and annexation of the subject area is in the best interests of the property. 3. The City of Stillwater can provide the subject area with the necessary governmental services. 4. The City of Oak Park Heights can continue to survive without the subject area. 5. The Minnesota Municipal Board should issue an order approving the concurrent detachment and annexation of the subject area from the City of Oak Park Heights to the City of Stillwater. ORDER 1 . iT IS HEREBY ORDERED: That the property described herein in Findings of Fact 1 be, and the same hereby is, detached from the City of Oak Park Heights and annexed to the City of Stillwater, the same as if it had originally been a part thereof. 2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the effective date of this order is October 31 , 1988. Dated this 2nd day of November, 1988. MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD 165 Metro Square Building St. Patel , Minne to 55 01 1 liCAMNAC- I ' f Terrence A. Merr ft Executive Director • 410 D-240 Oak Park Heights/ A-4466 Stillwater M E M O R A N D U M The Municipal Board, in ordering the concurrent detachment and annexation, notes that the City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Stillwater were unable to resolve their disagreement over the placement of the expansion to the county courthouse. In the board's eyes, the county shares the blame for this disagreement, too. While the petitioner has met its burden of proof for the concurrent detachment and annexation of its property, the board takes this opportunity to advise these three local units of government that they should work together more closely. They should avoid spending the taxpayers money needlessly over disagreements that can be ironed out at the local level . The board reminds Washington County and the City of Stillwater of the extensive testimony about the proper berming and screening that will be used around the proposed courthouse addition to mitigate its impact on the neighborhood. The ravine and its natural berming in Parcel C should assist in the lessening of the impact of the addition on the neighborhood. The board is confident that the appropriate mitigation methods for the subject area will be employed. The board hopes that the Cities of Stillwater and Oak Park Heights will resolve any differences concerning this matter so that the courthouse expansion can be served by sewer and water In the most economic fashion possible'' 11_2/W • MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Vierling FROM: Curtis Gutoske northwest DATE: 9 June 1988 associated RE: Oak Park Heights - Courthouse Detachment Proceedings consultants, Inc. FILE NO: 798.02 - 88.06 (6121925-9420 MXWAXKI VWX,X X X0. mtnneapohs. mn 55416 4601 Excelsior Blvd. STE. 410 Enclosed please find a revised version of the stipulation form for the Courthouse Detachment Proceedings. The stipulation form has been revised as per your comments in your 1 June 1988 letter. Please review the changes that have been made and call if further work needs to be completed or if you have questions. cc: LaVonne Wilson Joe Anderlik Frank Leier Encl . WLIT•IV - MT(_T Thr. VPV.V IVJ - RTr P may DTAN - ■• •Tr e LEASE CROSS OUT ANY A IHAT CANNOT EE STIPULATED Ai 41, ANY ATTACHMENTS • NECESSARY. To: Minnesota Municipal Board 165 Metro Square Building St. Paul , Minnesota 55101 S T I P U L A T I O N The City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Stillwater stipulate and agree to the following facts concerning Minnesota Statutes 414.031, Subd. 4 to wit: [The term "subject area" referred to herein means the area that is proposed for annexation.] (a) Present population, past population growth and projected population of the property proposed for annexation and the annexing municipality: 1 i I 1987 I Projected in I Source-I 1 1970 I 1980 I Current i Five Years I of Qata, _I (OPH) Present City 11,257 1 2,591 I 3,669 j N.A. i Met Council (SN) Present City -- 1 --- --- --- t 1 1 1 1 I Subject Area I N.A. I N.A. i -0- 1 N.A. (b) Geographic Features: (OPH) (STW) I Present I Present I Subject 1 . I Cl-U .City Ar a l L Total Acreage j I I 2. Describe any waterways in or adjacent to the subject area: (rivers. streams, shorelands, protected water, protection wetlands) None 3. Describe the soils rid terrain in th sub ect area Soils having excessive natural drainage, and foundation l ation imitations and low water holding capacity. Area contains some slopes, generally near 13%. (c) Contiguity: 1 . The perimeter of the subject area is approximately 70 % bordered by the municipality. (0.P.H. ) . (d) Present pattern of physical development of the subject area and city: 1 . There are the following land uses: (Please fill in acreages or percentages if avallapd )instead of yes(S 160no. ) 1` City * ( City 1 Subject Area yes I no I 05 j no I yes I no Residential 138 Institutional I I I I I (tax exempt) 405 J 1 1 1 I Commercial 75 Industrial 300 I 1 I I I Agricultural AA 1 X I Sant Lands 202 I 1 I I I ource: Oak Park Heights; Comprehensive Plan, 1979 **See Attachment A • • 0 -2- 2. hat t e of .development is proposed for the annexation area? expansion or Washington County Government Center.*** . *** See Attachment A 3. The present transportation network: 1 1 Highways, Streets Number of miles of: I .nd RQ.ds ' Present City I 14 miles Present Town I --- I Subject Area 1 .05 miles I 4. Are any transportation changes planned in the subject area? yes X no , in the city? yes no (e) Land Use Controls and Planning: 1 1 . Comprehensive Plan: Adoption Date & I 1 Status of Plan L No Existing Plan , City 12/18/78 1 Township i County 1972 j Region N.A. L i 2. Have any area planning authorities adopted an official position on the proposed boundary adjustment? (planning commissions, boards, Joint boards, Met Council , State Planning Agency, region, county) , Yes X No Supportive Non-Supportive If yes, describe: Met Council - Sewer extension is no problem. 3. Please check where the following exists and give any necessary explanations on how it relates to the proposed action. (Since it may be possible that two or more plans attempt to regulate the same area, please circle whcmo)rdin% L Lprese ntly applies to the subject area. ) ►��11 City I City: l . . _ ( County: 1 Date Adopted L Yes I �Jo I Yes I No i Yes' _Jo 1 OPH STt4 : County Zoning I X l I X j I X 1 2/79 1 1972 i Subdivision 1 i I i i I I Regulationt I X I 1 X I I X I I I 197? Official icial 1 X I l X I i X I I 1 1972 I Capital Improve- I I I I I I I 1 ments Program & I X I I X I X I I 1 1972 Budgets 1 i I I I I 1 1 1 Fire I I I I I I I I 1 Code I X I i X l I I X I I 1 Shoreland I I i i I I i 1 1 Ordinance I i X I X I X I I I 1 1972 Floodplaln I I I I I I I I 1 Ordinance ( X X I I I X I I 1 1972 wild & Scenic I I 1 I I i I 1 Rivers Ordinance I X I l X I I X L 1 _ I _ 11972 Sanitation Ordin- I I I I I I I i I ante (on-site I X I i X i i X 1 1 1 11972 sewage treatment) I I I I I I I I 1 0 -3_ 0 4. What is the current zoning of the subject area? "R-2", Low & Medium Density *** *** See Attachment A. Residential 5. What do you anticipate the zoning will be If this annexation is approved? "R-B" , Residential/Business Transitions 6. is the subject area, or any portion X hereof in Green Acres (M.S. 273. 111 )? Yes No 7. Has the city adopted Urban/Rural Taxing Districts (M.S. 272.67)? Yes No X (f) Present governmental services being provided in the annexing municipality and the property proposed for annexation: ll HHJ) (OPH) (0PH) (STW) (STW) I City Pro-iCity will City City (City Pro- vides to (provide provides provides 1 'vides to Subject to Sub- to C3t)' to Sub- ICity: Area Ij.ect Area ject Area i Yes! No Yes No I Yes! No Yes No Yesl No i I I I 1 * Water I X I X I X i X I X ** Sanitary Sewer i I 1 1 1 d Waste Water I X ( X 1 X 1 X 1 X Treatment I I I I I Storm I ( 1 i Sewer I X ! X I X I X I X Solid Waste I I 1 1 1 Collection I I 1 1 X 1 X 8 Disposal I j I ' I J i Fire I I i Protection I X I X 1 1 X X I X Police I I 1 1 1 X X Protection I I I ] X X 1 X Street I I 1 I Improvements i X I X 1 X i X I I X Street Maintenance I X I X 1 X I X �X I Administrative I I 1 1 1 I Services I X I X 1 1 X X I I X Recreational I X j X ( j X X j 1 X Other i I j 1 I I 1 * If city does not provide water to the subject area, who does? Would city take over or allow existing use? ** if city does not provide sewer to the subject area, who does? Would city take over or allow existing use? (g) Describe any existing or potential environmental problems and the need for additional services to resolve these problems: (Example: ground or surface water problems, water quality and levels, sewage treatment, air • S -4- pollutant emissions, noise, odors, affect on fish or wildlife; affect on historical resources, archaeological resources, aesthetic resources; impairment of park lands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers, critical area; abandoned dump or disposal site, etc. ) (h) Plans and programs by the annexing municipality for providing needed governmental services to the property proposed for annexation: ( 1 ) Fiscal Data: (OPH) I (STW) I Trend over last Present I Present I Subject three years: Classification: City: 1 City 1 Area: (e.g. increasing, Year:. ? 1 year 87 I Year: decreasing* stable). Assessed 180,795,336 l 13,288**** ` 52,969,221 Valuation 1 J Miil Rate: I 25.64 1 --- County 28.407 I I Local Unit ( 29.07 I of Gov't. 17.034 1 I ""- School I I 54.32 District 56.467 I I """ Special I I _ Tax-i-ng--0-1-s-t. .701 I ""- I --- Insurance I 6 I Rating (fire) NSA I --- Levy Limit 899,,145 1 2,086,152 1 --- Actual Current Levy 899,000 1 2,577,267 1 --- Total Bonded 1 15,025,000 i1,503,000 l Indebtedness j (j) Would the proposed action affect area school districts or adjacent communities? Yes No (k) Are new services necessary for subject area? Yes No X Does township have capacity to provide? Yes No ( I ) Could necessary governmental services best be provided by incorporating _ or annexation to an adjacent municipality to township? Yes No • -5- • (m) If only a portion of the township is annexed: 1 . Does the remainder of the township have the ability to remain as Is? Yes No 2. Should the remainder be annexed to another city? Yes No 3. Should the remainder be annexed to another township? Yes No STIPULATED TO BY: City of this day of , 19 Mayor City Clerk STIPULATED TO BY: Town of , this day of , 19 . Chair Town Clerk 8/86 ATTACHMENT A ** In a recent inventory of vacant lands conducted by the City (12 April 1988) , it was found that the vacant land within the City has been reduced to 90. 1 acres. In addition, much of this land is currently committed for development or is in a preliminary stage of the development process. As such, less than 25 acres currently exists as pure, uncommitted vacant land. *** The expansion of the Government Center is intended to include a new County Jail facility. The property in question for detachment/annexation is currently zoned R-2, Low and Medium Density Residential . The City of Oak Park Heights Zoning Ordinance does not allow for this type of use within an R-2 District. The permitted and conditional uses allowed within this district are as follows: Permitted Use Conditional Use Single Family Detached Public or Semi-Public Recreational Buildings City Parks and Playgrounds Neighborhood or Community Centers Two Family Dwelling Units Elementary, Junior-High and High Schools Religious Institutions Water Supply Buildings, Reservoirs, Wells , and Elevated Tanks Townhouses, Quadraminiums, Cooperatives and Condominiums Multiple Family Dwelling Structures of not more than four (4) units. Group Care Facility In addition, no formal request has been made at this time to the City of Oak Park Heights to alter the current zoning of the subject property. If this were to be pursued, a rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be required as the City's Comprehensive Plan currently calls for this area to be developed as low-medium density residential to coincide with the surrounding uses. **** The assessed valuation of the subject property is only $13,288, however, the estimated market value of the property is $394,700 (Source: Washington County Assessor) . The large difference being the vast majority of the property is County owned for which those parcels do not have an assessed valuation. • MEMORANDUM TO: Lyle Eckberg/Mark Vierling FROM: David Licht northwest DATE: June 3, 1988 associated RE: Oak Park Heights - Washington County Courthouse consultants, inc. 1621925-9420 F I LE N0: 798.02 - 88.06 / Mf �dikkkA/ J L t /m�nneapolls. mn 55416 4601 Excelsior Blvd. Suite 410 For your general information, attached please find copies of plans submitted by Washington County in 1983 for the possible expansion of the Courthouse facility. We have available large scale copies of this material . I would again urge that we have a meeting during the early part of next week to organize our response to the detachment proceedings. cc: LaVonne Wilson Joe Anderlik Frank Leier WHTTP - (1RT(.TNA1. W.T.Tf/4 - RTT.P MPY PTNW - !` RTT.R 1I V1OS3NNI H31VM11I15 • 1E11y a 1r A fill a F b .ri ° #`a �t • NOISNVdX3 3Sf1OHWUO tel ;t lj f l _Iii s E I I,1NflOO NOIONIHS`dM d i it H l I 1 1_1 1 1 ,� r8 z H1HON 3fN3AV S#iVd —^_...^ -----_,--_—--._---— - H I 1 I 1 pi • \ 81,1, z /,' 0'� �6�'\\1J / 1 � 14V,MY I ‘ ?.....41,44rel , *\t,\,'''',At ! - -- '— , yr ' ,k. r , tt\� \ �u 'r, �11 ll1 llri�61 1 !O MR ��i _ _; ''' 1;1. Id :�a3N��...tl "i1' ) �xP. �jtc AAA VA 1�0.� C �i nt of 4 �f11j 4',� IN �� 4�� d M0..I°V 1 , m •.�I,. , , ,k4,ii.S vb.. 2 N112,' '`, .• r ,79,.41 rn,'' . ,,%,\ ''',\\ , •\,•°-ii.:-: . ,, ,/ iot‘ ‘,„ 4‘,,,,,, 1 I 1 ,,, /. . , , L . ,,,,,, ,,, A,,,‘ ' t R i p- R , v K ' ?e , I � 1Vi a 1 1 7 p k µ1�33 ri . _ ■ PilliariliWigr- .... i , • 11 SI j , ' i 1, i , ; , a , . , . ..,. • ,,,,,,-- . - a a, I N ' I I r ', i 110 l l I a' LL.— , , , , , , „ • , iL__,,,, r] , l . rH=HH #Lry , i : ; ; , , , , , . , — _ 11 cm [—ii „.... ......._ . i : i I 1 —i Iy H1HON 3f1N3AV 01:109X0 • • a 'In pa ` s >j t ViOS3NNIW'Li31VM1111S Q i F1 rail!a i y j 1; Cn : fgta2 NOISNVdX3 3Sf1OH1 4 01 f l�_ !8if3Rl ; , AiN(lOO NOL9NU it 1i I It VII rz a. • J _11,, W W J ,...::-, - / 1 9 , • '.. -• / V^ . O U2 1.w. - i, • i i f A , / ,..., • .. .... ....._._ . : ,,‘ i t, .i, .. , ,. \ . , . . ...... ..... ....___ , ..... ., . ...._„.. . 1111, I , 1 ler -.--._,/ ' ri ; 1 j i • VIOS3NN1141 1:131VM11113 ,'.• il. U);'' 1/ClIgt j!!I I-P ill!! ! ill r, h ., I 0 il f:t Si ''l fillii NOISNYdX3 3S1-10HlitiPsJ .c , I AiNnoo NOIONIH M I....:. i I il i h dell° !Illiir.— '.. . - . " 2 Z 1 ' C.:1- n IT ci_ . - c,, ..., 1 w . , _I ' \ -iinit,m. \,\\ ),,,,i,,,..• .......„,o, ., : • • - ,,, ..' / „, b , ‘‘..q . -,..,.:!;.•,, "•••,',...k"•., st 4:. kl , . .., . ... .. ,' . ... .. ',4 • ," . . ".. . ' r■ - '. W ...,' ,v \ • . , ... ). , .. , .. •s. 1 • I ' ''':',I • . ! C ' I • . )* . ,,.. ''..1-,t-:1 1 / •.• '.'"3 • N - -•7-,I ', "; / . •",r;r-,",„ . . ,.,J.ii..„.,. -- , x .— . . ., . ,,44,CA,,, ', •/ .. . .. . . . ' . ...., Vt,';;;;'14::',4$1■4;'■*S.AP ' . ,.; ift):.4.R.'1,- '44.''''"-:•-•• ' , ,.. 4g.."77-1.S•t' 0 , ' , ,.'A-#.:' -i''' .''1' ..4.:2:7:7,.;-':':;:i.i's.rt:','n't?'':',7'''''.':,:`' ,,.':,,rq. ..."'IH'. ''?-,' :' '.';' .. .'-''''''' ''''.::'::''''''-' ,.:1' Ir;' 1:1;i400■';'4j'''''il:V.;j•*'i';':.:";:2'''.'■::.'-.1 .1.:'-t''..i,:t.''''ii''-1■?,;', "..'''' ''f;'.. .'. ... . 4 :,..,t,,,,:- .:..,..,:::-,:,,..,...-_-::.,-,...,, ,.,. .'. .. ,..„,,L,,,-.1-;,-, .,,, 1,14..PA4':::".;;:ii:17.442441irg1;:'....'...,.' ,..-'1'.:."••:.'' ' '...:".'":':-...,:'.-"'•'' 4,;.'''':''''' '''.'.;;,'•7•.-1.;‘7:".....' :.•t'•"...,..::.F,,t,?.e.z''.!4'74.-...l'.':?,..1.7''''`•":..'" ' -''. ' ,. ••":.7.•'1,...:-..,.., '.• •,-.'•!:i..r,,,:.'a.,41..;;0•74(..1.,,.$3,,,,'..,":',,i".,...f,-.•;■••45:,,it's,',.'"..1.4',:,,;‘'.;•.','• :.'........•,•,,,•..., .•_, .. ."-..:, •2,-,, :. ••• :'''''..;. • . .',.::::.1-:. ',.:::::::,:. .7',::‘,...."...;,,,',.. ;".'...".' .• .' '' '' •':, '•:"..:•1-....'.,:., • (1 :: 164-04.2-.4;?•;X •4'""..z.c:t[:11-:•;;."."•• ,..4.'''..... .•',%3::••..•::'i''1:: '•: -', :. "•:.•',.; '''..- ...."' • ".",' :- ' •' ' ' -'7• ' :,.'''''.:n".ii.:";:i•-.",:Y.,:■....-.".": ','' . '... ' ''.. ' : -,A..;:::•.:',. e '1; 4,?.'"!`,:e'' '•''''I'':'.'l.44T,Z.4.:1'. .;?•:''.'";"...":,:'•:;.--i....--,',! ‘"...,•:•"',,,' ...',.„'.;•,,':.. .;,.,'. ''.• ••:,',,.'..' •,'' '.-:- •: , .'. :' li_< 4 .•.,_ :','!...'.';'..,,"':'2.:. ,,''.':..-',..•i'.- ''' '. ' .'':.. k . 4 i.,...1;.,,,:f.1,,,,•:',..- 1,A,..,44;44.•`,'-k-•,,,,„..,'",',/.,r,"",-.'',..5 ,14,..•;;.•,:';',.. .-T,';','•,,','•'-'• -;'•'•'':' '''--•'''••''' ''' ,:••''',.. : ' -'1•. .:''''•-•',:, ''''• '.:''J ' • • , , , •'''..-•,. ' r,..:-.'!-•,;'.'4,4,...,1,:',7f1,,,i.%:•••,,.-,- ,',..:•.•‘.,. ...,;•.: ::•.51,...,1;,„4t,..•,,...,,'...• -•:,-.-ti,';:,,...,.:,,, ,, L. ,.,.....,...,-,. ,•..,..... •.....,.- .., .,:,._-...., ..,.., 7,;• ....., , ,.:. .,, .,,, ,,,: ,,,.., 1. ,,,, ,..,%,,.,...,,,..;4...„,,,,,,,2•„1.1.,,,,,,,,;....:,...:.;4!,N,q-:,..1,,,,,:••.,i,,T,,,..,,,,,,...,,;,,f,,.......,....„,,,,,,,...:,...,.:.::::,:•:,.•:..,:..•,-.,--:...,,,-.-•,,l.,...:•,.,....,E, ...: ' :....,,...,.,,',.. ...,., .„,,.,:.„„..„ ,,,,,,.,,,,.,•. , ....__,,.. •-•.. •.. , .., .2.,;.:,,,,,,,: , ,,...::,,,,.:,;',,..,,,,,,,,,,i,:i.,,,,-.•,,,:'?t,,,,,,;.7.,,z- igir,:,,,. .,.:,, ,,,,,"L'.::;;:,,,..:;:,-,•-•:: :.,',.:.,.,,'..,::•;.';'..,-.;..,.•;,•:::::';:,-,.-•,,, •,•,....'..•,;-,',.....:;.1., 'Y'..".'•--..1-7.-'.:,':':'1:-:::::-T..7:.,.' : , .•-,';:‘1.-:,•' ',•'$)' ''',.'g..i...i!:IF,]"•;;-,5'1:1P.,-;i:14'‘i.. .i.1, -,,;•;';...":. :4.-1'•':,:.'::‘..1,`,. .".."'":',.).7..,:-...;•••;;.:'',:-",--,::';',1-••!..*::' ''.:::..-'....••.•:-:••: .. .•-•...':::77:-. • • .,..':. i ..:* ,!1;:)..`-';:',A*,::,',4.,',„:,:i.,.;:.;;:t::::t..4 T'''..:•,',',..:;.,7,•',',,:-.;;:.;:',7•H'.'!;'-.•,• ;.'•'i•'''''. '..' 7'..7',..*,'".., •,••••.:..-.;. ::.'.'•. •.'„,-..".:',,.'..' :'•••••.,','•:;•.','2, - . . „ . •::..±.:..,.: ;•.-.::•i'.''',"';;,;:,','' • ' ''".-','- . "'"',.,4'!.:.,1..',';',.',t.;:,-;•',','..,''..;..07,V,,,:t..:,..;:',',. .;'•:*-: i'',2-''''''••r-•:"--,,:';:j.:•,:':''',."...:.;. ,!.1-:''..127. .. .C .,: '.'':.-.".•1.. .;:::•;,-, . ..... ,.., ., . . ..-",'•:-.';',.:• : •-.1,•'.',,,:r,..k,'•.:',•''',:'''';',..,:ij,',.i;j:J. P.F. ..•'••,'..... ,' :.'•'.., .. •••,,•,.•':,.-,,7-':....--..:••''• -,•:..":.•:--•". .'-;.■'-'-s.• •;'.:•'..:;•;.,.".1.!..-',••:1";i?''. 7-'''.. :::.. - . '.':':::.::• •!..:.••• . , : •.,,'•:',.,, 1 '',..l';',':4;;;.• •,'.::;;:':". .;1•Vtif"I'''•Y'''':.„*..,',..1'.:', '....:- *•:"..•''.'-..•'•':::.fi',:...;.'''''.2J.,-''...::.',':■-:'..;•'-'''.;:•'•''''.',-:.''''':,':•i;''j.9.;:i . - ..., ,, .. : •,..,. , ,•,', '•,;;',,;;;;..,',;;;,;..,••••-••': ..,'.,•:vt't '•,,..'....:,''...'7,•::..,.,..:'.• ..i...•-t;'--":•".',.••''.''',::''''':,g,-,.;•,.'•";i.7'.',',44!:■;''''';''-,':•-;'' ■;•I'':'-'•J,"'':'''''.,.,..,7.,.. .:.... ..... ,...,,...,.-.. - ...,- )•:••;.•,;.„,;,:. • :•,-,-‘,,:•.7,L ;: e,''',.tai' ii', :'t'17,-'-'''-'-''''::';V:-•'''1°,..'•"•''''';' ':•,': ,'''''''''-' .•';''''''' ' ;•:;';::-' ''•'' ''-':'.::• ....,,'-. ,:. ' . , ' ' ', ..,'''''. .... .•.• "'"'•',5''f'.).;:`,.. .,:;7'4•,•i,•.::.,::f:vi2;7i.,••„,.....:.!:i:...':::':-.., .;:,:.':1,';'',-."'„'',.;::,' ''':::.-•', '••:'; • •• .....:. . ' ...".:„ ' : ..,::f,:',,',.., ',. '.',':' ":'.'•'' —. ••':,•-,-• - . '''':' ••';',■.•:-,,:,.:.„.-'•':,,,.;:f:',Sie•,-I.,,,,7 ,'",•: :::' .,'7,'•:—.7'.:;,-,•,.;•!.,•-!••.,,-.:',...".••;,,,•••,,•i.,:'•!•••., . ..:::: •,•::: ' •" ',• • .. • ••• • ,.•• ,; ' —':'•, '':::r •-••• ,'''..: : ---•'---• '• : '. ' •''',''.,-'''',..2.•;;:::''',.;..•••‘'',0:%:.'1: .::". .'-' -....;!..?1,..1'•••" :,.. .::,'..•;,.::..-,•-•■ •.;.:.;•, ..:".••••,," •.`, ,. • •:•:,, '•:.,•• . . ,', .-;'4•1; . ., .'•.. . • ' :-..' ;' ',.•:,.,,:-.,3,;•••::',.-i;•''.:1:••',■•:•;...t!i'' .f.•:;i"..,,•::':.7.,•:,4,,''.•.'-.'"•.;••,:-.:,:',..'.'•,••:, .11..:: ' •■•••..r--,''''.,';'7:,":-..,• , ',- -.; ...••*,: 2 '. '''''''...'%',, i' . , s . ;' ',':.•••.::,:•:'',•'.''._'-';',-- ";;'•;,1.tj,4';',..•,-... . ,...i ••'_.-44•-';' ,'.--";•:•. -.7-,:':'•...'.,',,. •:',".- ' •,'''-'''.;,. ,•.;,'-, • ', . .,;'...'",: . ,. :,. . •' 2.-;,- '..: '- - . .... . ,: :.....:.....,.. : 1,t ,.,...i ,::4`,4-4,:ii..,,qt,,1,:,..:*.i''..,,...:_:,;y..,,,i',.:„.;,...:•;,,..i.::,,,,,,•;.:. ..,...;-:;:•...,,,:,;•,,,,,,,,•••••:,,...i.L:,...;,.. • .,.. i. .. ,: .,',•,..:,...:„: . ,.,•,..,...,, • .,,,••,.•::,..•' .•• • . ..4,• , , °• :‘,'•,i:7-•:',..,:,-, o1,.rf,s44„•,,,,,,y;',.,..,•,.. ,;,-;,••,,,,:.".,,r,P;j:::..1 C:''' : ,..' .i,••!".' '.", ,- ;• '1;1 ' • ...,'.,... ..-4, ',',:,...2,. ":,'...';',,,;•,.-.. ',,,'.,.... ' .- , :. ".:,.,., ,,,,,7'.+,1,,:, ;' 0, ,'.... ,.4'. .':•1 i' 1" i,....'r•,:,';.. .-:c..'•'',.••:;'..''• ' ''.,,,.,-,.',.:-•. ''.''',..•:,,. ',,-• .',,,-'....,'.i :''.•';'+.•.,',''';';;I::'' ,c;••,'''.',''''.•:,,':,"..".',,i''',!4;4:,..,::i','","..'.'',..,,..',..-:''''".•-::',:":_, -..!:i, ,' ".....413.i'•1:.,'..:-..`.k4.7.',",il'i.11.,"):-.4s.,!.T,,,:;4,,,,4',..A:;,i,,,:..1',..:',;:,:,;!,.","''f-;"-',','..-..:,.I.,,7,,4-:'.",-,',';',',b''.1";,';',i,t;;.,,'..,;,..,l',;':!:.*:-;,,4,...':!. ,:4;,:'..7,','„'''''''i;''','''',';',.-14'i'',','..".': ";''' ''''''' ''' 1-''''- ''''''..7..2!',', ; $1,1.14■17.11:::FiZ.,:',j,!lizii:.:',14,-;-'4'ik''''.'7".,.'7.'.1 '3,'"'k■4,'el.,•','J 7.;—,-''':.'''''''',';''....-'',';'.'7'.4:.P.'• :'',_C.'''•'.-':n ''!".'.'":77.."!`". '''''. [,,■,.•::41•■,,f.-''‘i`,::!:';,i'•:1•;;;;;i';',1:'',',1',,.■1-'','."- ,' :—.1',!..-7..''''''''..'7: ' 'A.T...i,';..-....-..E•,..7:Z„4.':,4•',1:'')'S:;i,..'.I2l'.."fi,'.'.:,,4.';.'i,%4','t,;:".!1•-,;:,-,,.'..Z,:;'•,''',, ;'..1i,,;'',''-'.,':4':'1..,:"::%'.''!'',;•.,..-,1',-`,-:;::•_'-:,.':'.*':,,,''.7',,.',.....'`....';:.,`-.;.'',1':'::.:--..:":-'".'.:',.'...:::.;-.,''.'•-..!'.:.-..:.:.:•.,,I;..':::-..:.',':-':-.-;,.'.'.-..'-..—::.7,.i.;'".•.'•.:::'.:..::,'.''i'•;'..';',,i.'.''::4:':'',:'.:',t.... •"'' .:.',;',;.''.;..:..;'4:•C','e,,:'.i.'.4j'i''''.,:".;.''..''•,4 *):::,l.',,;,./'!',.;:T.'",.-4.,;l;..i',j-'";'.:'.•..ty",;-3:•‘:,•;,'1',4..k,1:'4,:•;'.„i.,i.':.-1-1.1-;.`,1,;,•;,;1,.,•1.'377',:-,.,':•: 4't:-,:'::4 ...',',.‘•.'.*'.:...-;..'L.;'''....•.,•,.,Y1•''-.,-,.•:,,..":.!'.;!.-,'-•(.,',:,••..,!i'.:',.'';-:•,-.7:-::':,•",.,-.,'.•,"":,.'.I,:-'!1;..;':.:•..',"',.;'-;-:;'.1:.-.'.,,..,,-°.',":z•7••7'.,..:.-- - ''. 2"*-'..-*•::.'-.:-.;;•,',''',-;,;7';"-.•7-,:..:.,7..4'•",,'-.-.t %, : . , .1,,,; , ,,f , s.. . -. . i : ': ' :, ' ,':-:'''-7, *.% ''•7 • .. . •zt r 11 1 U)• , . • ffil :if. i 0„, • — r 1!$ ,,,i F.1. 1 ..„.„,...... . x .. t . , VIOS3NNIN'El31VAATILLS 7,,,; F1, ., !.., .1 loth :.qrs, 1411° J 1. frit:•, 4 cif.- ' !' rP.,-,!, !Iii!t, , i ei, A f.dk <C — NOISANiVNcinX030 3NSOTOHN*I /V9 '.. i;1 I I • \ ■....w I,, Ei , . \ ., . 01 I ‘..,.\ I i _1 _I. , Il.. >- ...-- 1.1.1 ( , • --' • , -— .• ', . . . '''. ', '..;,7' ',•,. • -, - ... :.'. ':'.:`"*"• / ,,,.,.../ • ...•'..,., : , • j''''•..... ',',:b x •,',:, ' , %. .;,',.'74,..s.,.'.',..,':.!,y.:`iii.,:•'•' :',''7' :-' g, -, -,„ , ., , ••:,„7 '-' , ‘•„, - :--,",-411,:.:'•••::•-•'..;.',..:::).-,..:,.-','•••......". --. 'i' . ,. . , ..'",4"4. '..',:::•i-'.0,.','*".",'':.....'-.*".'.,-*'' *-%. ' ).' .-..., •-, "I .. -..':-...',.' *• ' — • •k • ‘, *I'' ,3, -'• ''t r .-i x- . , / `.."' .-: ...-.'. '- _;. .4-:7;:i..-,-,.•:!--, s „t,, ....... .-",--,t..,..' ' I ,I , . -- ----0."` i .•I 'I L I ' • :1 ' r ', ,• •:,( - ,,,,..„, ,\, .•,,0 .,„; t,..,..,,,,....,,f.,;, , , ,,.._ -- . ,,,',.„...k.k.,:!\ ,, .,, . ,...,:;',,„...,",....--,..:....,:.,•:„-;•-,.; , _ , . . .,. , • ,. 7 ‘ •";.X '7..,'-:...... .i."'.. . T • 1 ,•1,..i,1; ,v . ,\. ,,',,'1,■ 0 ,,:',.., .,......,.,;„ :..„,,,,,,,,,,..,, --wi.':'. ,':.7.;,.;--.'.-... .''''"7.T.7..!•;:::...--i-:•`-.7:`-'i'''' ,, , . • J./' .. 1; i .;•,.: ' '•',. .,,. . ., . - - . (• • V , .'• ''p.:•.'-.t,...i:.7,z:-,,-.• '.• •'... ' ''.,'.' ..: ; .. ...-,.. .. .'7 -,. '••••• ... , .. .•, , ..., 4 -- ',. ''•r" , %-, i • 4,..... ,..,:',...:'-'," -,t;.,,.,:.....,:.:,,,...7,t*ii . ,_'/, ), - ■ ,„tee'r';-.G.t. ...,....,,. •,-- ':', ' ''' ''.6. • .i, .g.t•-'.! -1--i.t.e'''..,,-4; -,i,...'7, -.:,.:'•'',"•,''''.- --..', . .' ' 7-,'-...---.7.7:-..:;.- ' ..:.'''' ,-. *'.4.","`' "..:-...."1,•,;;,-,..-:.%'..:.:::.,':::,„*.; ''' '• . •', -:' 1'.',, ,-'' ,•-, iP .1.;..:....''....:.,';:l':...1.4.,rqic.,,,,vi,..711,,> . - ....,p.';',.,..-"=7r.,,, ),*1„.,....,,„„,...,,...., .„:„.........„:.....,... ..........„..,.....,;...,,,,,,.:„:.,,„,....„.,.,.;... .,..,:..,„ '',:'*4/,:'..;,*14.,..,44,,f, ,44.114,..,, 44 . .*:',,,,';,%..''..7.,;g7.34..?!..1.*;,:t.-.5..,...--;',.:-)"---,:,..-4.7!- ,, -,,,., ,,...,..N''*"';"..*•* '7. :**.-;'• ...;.*''*. '1"".....7..''' . *'.'......','''.''*.'4..77.T.44;.';;%*...';'. 7..1.7.7.*'',7.....',:.P:q*,,''. , ... ':■r:''','.':..1!“.. .*:'': . .7‘"***....„ -:.:...7,-....:--...... '1'.,';--, 7,:',',",,.-'i,..''',",..7;;;;r:'e'ry,,i,....ic.k:::■:".7.. ..,,L.,,,,..„...„,;'?',,-;:-.,".,,!, ':'•'::•'.1. .•',, : :t'•;''''''''::`ri--'1'=•'''': '=0A.4,:g1•-••11.4.z.,,,-•,:o.,...6,,,,,,,.,,:,..,,.,,,,4.,,.....,,v.t, ,Ilir::•,,,i1::,•--c..-..,•••:.,::`' :•„•,.„:, . -,,... f'''." .'',..;',,,,r..!.i',:!,."..•,,,;!,.'1.-:;!...eq..-:•.1.','-4.;`,-;.„."t.ts1'41.,,,,14,f,g .,,,A.Iti,;-.-,444,;(,,i..'.:','"'4,''..!-.T'i*;:.,*,,.;'''.4.!*1.**' '••-..".. ,-:'..-4,::*-..,'-.. ..-`;'•.**.':-'-.'''.**,'P.': !,,V,,•;•kii.,*,,,,;.',‘1,L.**..:,-,7•.;;;-, ':.• ',,'.-.,-.:.'1,-,-, --.'.:5:-7::°:.::,:r.'t'...",-.-,::::,:`,•.t.„..i.."'.:4'44'-';`,1-''sTr:;'4"-''',:'-: • '-t,:",,ki',.•,,•,....:',,,,,,,.,.,;1t3:-.,..,-;;:c..-•,7,,'„i:,,,,,',',.,:.;■:z......,:::'..,,,I,?:',' .,,,,,-,:i.,;;,:,i1.1..,...7,-,-..• .-....---.,•:,•)•-,...,,::,,!.,f.: 71-,.. ,:f.:::...,-4,,`,...:.:',,:,:•,;.•..-. :••,'.,----,,,.., ,.'..., •.i.".{.-,.,-::,14,-,- -;;L:-.::•ttfLti. 04,:':' '7"4,--,fht.e:=7;sP'.-;„,• .44.1',*•^:"%:-.., $ :!!!...:.'r•''.',.'4..,:-'47-::,..-1".•i''.. 'i'.-7•4'4""C'''''''7‘;''''','''."''A''": 4...t...!;1,?,ALi•....,.;;,.:,,•:.:,,,,..,:v.I.:.:..:,,,,1:,.,......,„,,,:..:,,., ,.,,;I.,::',.::,,.::'1..1..,1'1.:3,..,I*',:f,,.:41,..*:: ..,',...''',:,I.,:l..:,,,,,,,t,,.1::*':.**...,t i!it.f*;t:;41.'!4",.i,1**ti*C:t*:tiFit;v:'t';:.!,,4....;7,.,,....7Z,,ti',17,...,r.,..'(1.,S,,, ,,4:,,!.:,i1,,,1;,.■:.*.;.41',.:...'i2:7,11‘:' *:::":;1!:.e...1'',;::;,:f':::..,;:,1:40;i..,;..Vc:V7,k'ir'::.,/:',1*#1.,; <:4;;;71'Z''','': :..7'..'7'....''''i 4,'.:'. '*' '**''''....'...'.. '....'' ***:,.*:..'.I',?..f...:* '':4;.*Iilltt,A'...7i ci:7717,...404.*.‘ ..''n.,''.4'..i.70 i''' t:V',....'.■....:*'..,.'1'. ,,.."..,.." .+,..",.,•,,■-.,,';•* .,",-*1*,*..:-.;•-,.;.•., - *;',.-''..,•*.:•.*,. .,*'1.:*'.." i'...***. :11,'.**,"'•'• '••••••. * . •' *.-; ;*.',•-••-...**.'+. *, ,'1,41.!■*Y..."'4*'1'* `"J"4;*--.4ii*,41.*P54'..1,!. ....!i'l."1,:'•'..:'**1‘k*il;**•'• :r,'..,'.',.'''.',V-;. :-..",-'.'....- ,'...'t,i,;',,,'''. ...," . — '.-.,- 1 ;;(i',7r":■-•'.::..;:.r-:j.',.J.-:',‘'''''.:'''''.., . ' •'.,..',-,.."'. '.-':'''''-..`',''',,,■.:,;''.H."4;-.'.. ''',-'.','2,:,:-;:,'''."'".!''''..,7:.C.,:.'4.,5%r.-',"'",,,,s•`.i'4'1::i.,.V.;....;,,,i1.-.1..,. .':-.,(,-,'..,.,.,..,■,;;,r.,,,.';-, :', .".„-:•,,:',,.'-',--...,, -,,:„.'..-",,' •--..','' : -' ---.-,;" . . ...,.,...—. , . . i., ,..... ,,:'-:,..,...:f',,,,,::-.7,-,,,,,'',.'0-■ :.,-.‘:,•.,.:&..-- , -.. - .. '''•''',-:::: ,.. .*--...H.... 2,::,-`.:-..i::-.,;'..-,.•,.,r.,--;y:7'.-':',,,:-;;J',';;;;;.iiT4,4!';'.!-::-.',.:-... ,.';-.. '"!'i-..!,,'-,.'::..‘..':-'4.'.:'•-:-'';',',..';,-:::.' -...,:-.......A.I.•.....:. ,_ ' , .,.. ...; ',•'j-,,—4.,..r. ....lc . ' . . ' .' , '„i ',.. •.,,,.—...: . ,. ,.-.,,:::• ..1i ..i..'.i,',;;;-'',,•,.,;;;',.',';',..*::.:.'''••:.''',-. /-;'::.':''''''''..: '....'.: :','Yi.s..;-1;-.:: !''''''' ' '''''1 L.:...-- •-:,'''"... • .. .,' '. . . ' , ' ., , ,.'. .'' . :., .' ,'''.. ..*.t!..1'..°'-'! :::'.-e..:4-...il. ''',--,.,-,°',,'.','"'. :".;.• .''',". ''''?;,....'....!:', L'. .'', .2;., '..::,..,,,,,',„.,';.:'-'; ‘:. ,,.`...",.' .....'..,!...''','': ,;.. ' '-, . ' .,...,' „ :' — ':' ''.'-- ',,.-7 :.- ,,''•"7,1'.''.•.,':•••,";!i":1"',;.,'::''';'!. ':: ' '7', -,t,:f:1,.. ',..' ...sr,'..:-'•;:::%;;-''L-,....1-'4 L, -7;. ':".- .,,.,,... , ., ' ,. • •. - - •.. ' •:-'• .'-' .:,'.' r.•-„::-.'^,',...:,‘:1‘,'-4:4'i.'.:''',,'7,',.!1F2,4, /',:.' "..,:r7t,.:t:4;...r,:..:.c,;..,..; : ,- '; ''7 ., ... .;':.:',,*,....,',,'..'.,:.......7,.: . :. - •-- ' '.•- .,:-, • •,.• •.'i,....•',;"i:: ''s':,.:,-":•.",.',-:,,T7,'I,x...:1,4:,,'74tik.',=:',?.14•:-•,'•i;.7,'','4.4'4-'",•,:•-• -•,••••';,-....• ':,1,'-',-'-, •^'.',4:*''''.41: ;''"..'■ **..*:,• '....'• •''. '''''''"*,l.'* ,: *,'',, - .. , ..'•.;‘* ' ,"..,,'"'**.*C.*l*.•••'..*71Z...%,7,.7.;,;4■,e,:i.4.4,‘fiV.:'1.4.14,-t',,*...,;'.:7,',A1,74:.:'',,r3r,;:',;:;::::--,•'•,•1..'„1:.• .''1:-.*:,-'-''':.i•s'. '•-.•'41-Y::'''.':::',"':7 7,;,-.7.-,.'••:.--•;:.',..:!_,-.' .•,;,,,,„ ..,,,-, -, ..• . '.• ..' •-•, .•`•, .•,..,",':'.:':;:--.":,;:,,",,A,.,,t,•,,,is„,,, dif..7,,,i:",‘,,,..7.;:;-' 1":%::'...'„'f,:;.,:„.`,.,4"-.".fi.,::;....•"!,`!„,:,„ .'7,ii:':' ...,%,.!•,,!::::,:'.:•-.7,. .„!.:1' ,',.. -..-7.,*-• • •-,'''-•••••• •7:',.: - :', -. '' ' 7'' -: ': •'' •'•, '•.. •-•t-.:'7:-.7..s',?,..: ..,...-2::,...,::,:li,:-"r;,;,;,,t:;:,•,;••.-; .":ir , -,:.;'..:.*:,"-.•'7-.: --",,r,.,,,,:,i':.;....,,,,, ',7::::,--...';',.."`.. ".. ,''., . . , .':,,. ',. ' , , : . ':' .'.... ' ..',':::',;,',7*,'f.1.'-'Y'e'....t,;:,`,-.;;,..",it'.,„ii,,„;"";--",,,,,...,..,,,.'.... .,...,.,. .:%;`,''.."...".....'1.:,,, ,z , .:' ::,' :.,,,,,-7.,, ,;■,..:.' •-","f''....'-,•■•:::!..',„ . ,„ , . , - :, . ' ',. ^ -...L4,-''',' '-,•„,..,,,,.;;,,..-';.;.,,:: '.,;:....,,,n4,1;.''.;.V4.'i-i'7q ",..',:.''7; ' 1,,,.."--.:,::'''' ',P: ':'-I: ' s.;...i-4,1s'4,:''..,i;:(2t:';:•'•:.-2 'i-'. , , . ,,,.„...,,,,...r:,,,,,, ..,.:.,.,,k..,,,,:,,i1,.„!..,,,„,,i:.:,,,14,:‘,.,,•,,,,..,•,,,i,•,,, ,,,,,,.,,,,,..,...,,..",:...:''-.,'''..`.'1:.,.."-;',1 r.',.'-',"t"...."6,:"..,''.,•=.-,• .',,-.-„,-,'r''' ..-7.- :.,. ., .,, . . ..... , '.:„:.:. ",'.',:,•,•:',.r,„‘,5;!‘•.;',..',;,4,„':-Ti.•.,1'iti„,,•,!tira.:Tir.',1","t+,,::''',,-..•:-`:'.. ; . -•,-..::--`,:,:: . •-• -.' '.''f-••'.',:::. ••.:,'•:-.,..• ..;,,,:••''... ,. ., ,,. .. .. •' ''-, ' ' 3 .: 1g SN! a t i c 1'01 VIOS3NNINI'i31VMl1LLS R" tA7 iii 3 tilt fi;i0 t . Q.. r �;;+: � 1, d elf IgV 1' NOISNVdX� �SnOH O W 3 : x`14" '_8 d t S AiNnOO NOIONi M i,.: Jill i ?` U) z 0 - is jr).: f W ()1 r • ` ',I.' . Ili" x..,... „ ' .., ..,.:..,,-,..,.,......: { C A i�� ('-'/- i"," It ■ '-(, s_,: ,.., ,,,. .,. t i F rn•- �' '1,1/ I 1 , ' ® ■ II - 1 IS i` j 3 .• . t 1 ,ky r X93';'n rw'qi ■ I y `r • . -:n 1 III; / s.. n' T �7 S ■ 1.4f.ztitt ■ p e � Y-,r V i;•,';,,,......,, t �-(-� t•-:,:';'..),.',-..',-.... \l <` r` 4 1 '...• L• t 'u ((I-a , , ( a , }+f a am y, C k - _ k sI� , t w / •;.',',1";•,',,:',• n Q III t , ... 1..- t.. . ,t....,,,, ,.._ 'fi '!.-;:n!.....-,,-, nt- : ._,,„.- rc • Z ', t W 7-42,t . w ` / 1,`.t Z VIOSaNNIVC831VM1111S 9 . 1 icor" I litti, NOISNYdX3 3S(10HAK ':-:: '..) I I I., flii; II ills 11111 AINC100 NO.LONI Li J I I i Z . 0 _ ,X777;3,7.7 I-- 0 ,. ,-.- .- w Cl) ,,<._,.. ,-.;:-------; .,,,,,. cn ( 1 t,'i:; " Cr) \ .,.F.:-s.,, •,!•,,,'...c.',' 0 \ .5,,, ,, 't.•‘,.•,. cc (..) _, :-,..?.. :•.,-,,,...,kir, . ,••:,:,;,5i,:'!:,;•,;.,::: „ iit•• 24 i ', , ',.4,',,,...:,-, -,-?, • • . .-T1,•;, :•••-• ,_ • :, _ . i-,.•• •. .,,„....0. (1 _ \ . i 0 § ,, 0. k t 3 . k — ;, ____ ., f., i....,-•'.• ,,,,,,• ,„ ,... ' 1 . .• ': )._ ,.., ,'---, r •■ -....••., f , • I. • ;i-..;-.,f`g, II i\>11 '='''''' ti,•...,..,,,, , , '''"---'..•:: '- ,-.,, '-'—‘,..) i r. t 'Iii ''.. ?: 11 . 41 .9' ' 9 1...'.i.r.:.? i ''' .)1c -i."•;.',..'",. ,,..•'•,,,,:;•,..,,. - ,;(1.t...t.-,.•;,./.,:,,,:•;,,..tr,-,-;.;. .1,f.'4,A.Z..,'.',,,,:,*'..•''' ',.-''.''': , s °• •••••'t.;...,.;', ,...,•,..' .•',,,,-,,,'',.''.•:"r '.'•'—''' ';'' (' 1 — ..;;,,,,..4:1.r.'•!:!1'!,Z.:.,(7;44•,7, '''' .,! .;,"•!:,‘7. .,',,,'.'....;r:V";',. ; ! ; , ;... . ..•- ..,.- -'f',.1 .c.',..'•;....-,.•.0„,,,' •. t .'-"---.'-'-----,-,„_,,,, / ,, '.0"....■::.:1'”'eh/1'. -"---- ' .E "' -13:„. '..i-As...'"L;:i.:,;•'..•-:,..- 3 . . : -* :-':..'••••‘-'7.7.'"-•;:'-' 4"Jk••".••••-,..- -.'?,,, ,:,:,",;,:t:1";,"!.;,•'.*,`,_:`•::••:,',:::'..!•,.,• .t.,;,,,;-,.,„,,,-•:.,•.,;•,,....-•;•:''''''-:;'- 41.:It,,!.....?,,,,,,,r,-- .g ,.......,.,,.::,,74stt4. K.;:'"Vr :g NIc.) *,-•;',, :. .rt! "-!.",;":•,"4,' 17; w , — 7---- ‘‘',..',,•'4',',::,'''.',•:„....••"•" ''' ::.1 i•.,:f;a, ''..,;,,.:.;'?•',, :,'.:.• -;!.: •,';';'...:''',:.,....•,':••:',:/,','..'",,..• .. , .., , . .... ' .... ' ..• .—. .„,'.. .. •,•., • ,,,••••••• ,'., . . .—_ ___---. -.gt:i• CD 'tell 3s001-k-1-4 m '- (.41•t `23 ‘,...v . 0... t '+ \ 't. sOISI\Ndri(o30 1431°N1 , 'A`t‘l •i? • it Itt '61'1 t11,\Ai '''g, \ vinali i N J.. ..., ., w , ..„ , .,..........„„N.,,,,./ , , ,4 4. ' I . !i5. '• . 7‘' • ,,, i ' 1 - ., .\ \ \ :'"•• ' ;;W10101°.P.1111FL _...„-- . • , .- . • . . . -' '' 1 q ,• ,.. •••, ' _ , • • t , . • • -,,, , . ., ' A \ r) / . \ , - , , i . c- ,,, , A; '',V . . . . • A'•';'•' , .4 . • "; ./ .),,',. 4- ,v..:,.,:;.:,.?„,,,, ...,,t..-„,•,..,, : ..:::,. ... ::::::...1, .,. . . . .• . • 0,4_, , / ., : , . . . . . ,I..„.,,A;,,.,,,,, , --.,, 4.4.e .t1,:.„.. 4V:, ,•..,::::••• ,"'':!.'..::,".::• -::. .' .'••'•':,-...;;;.: . , . •. - .. . •-ci.A.,, -.4, •'‘'. -. : ig."1,`.• ":.:• •...‘,-;.,'.-:-.--,..••••••,,.'..-c,•••.'-- '-.•: . ' - --••,•'., . fr .:;.......1.•_4!,.•:!•‘•. ••••s., ....!,-,...:•,-„-„,. ,,t j,, ,-,-,s.,,.:„•,%',:'%,',y.',. '::,,.,-.,:-.;:..,, .- .' ", "",- ', --',. ,,tAtv.v,,,A*11:44'.t,';,;::.,:;,,.:,,bt.,. .,-,-,,,--",`,11.'k., .•,,$,•'',..■10,..'.t;',..=,.1.', •,'•'',. ,''.;4',2:',... ' '::.,,, '"'.', ' ,, :. ' ' ,- '"-;••••!=. •-.;:i.-:* .;•.. ...•••. ..-,-co.;;;',.4•,„.•.v..;.:„.•.;-...,••;:... ,•-...•••'••••,'.:•., ....:..-- --: ,•.... ••• •., ,• •,•,• ...,•, . , ,. , • 7•.:',.,.',i..;;. 4.t•;.'!...il•-'-:4•,,It.;',.4:' 4Yft'-',',„'-'...•••':-. •-.-.::,•:,!...,..,-..ir,--' '..:'•-•:''•','- •-.-•-•,.''''.r'• ••''-' `.., ,...'-,-..• .-...••••,'„•,':... -- , .-.•,',I:. .!.:''4:''' ''''S - ,■"+'' ;■41i ;',.;',.. .'.";: \'''',''.,',.;,41..u,'.: '„'..,,•,', ,,-:,---.,'•:‘,-, :, - . ,,,,,'1,..,....:i. .'-..,`:.:::,,',:,•.., ' ,.et.,1,,t, vi,, k.4-,it,.4,,, , „ ''.;,'.! „.,;'-i,',',.,`;''.‘-';' ;::",.,':=;..4.".'-..'2:.., •::..'-'...;,)'%,''''. -:.:::.:''.''''''''';''''' : . '*.:''''t:'-''''', .-,,..'.-",..*,=i';.,,k., , ,,. ',1;,t;',P!..i.. : , ..4:?; ,''r... „■ ,i, ..;:',',...',!!',1 :'''.:,,,l';',7..0,.1.-,,-.':,.',, '..-.:7•,..,",.. ,....•.`,.,',,:,,,,',-,.' "; ',...•t;;;.,7',,, •.'',, . -',''' '' ;." ''' 'ti • , :■` tteli.41:?•i.4 ,":''.7':',7...)'■,;.!.,;',';',.':.:',5,;,,`..;:i:VI :',. .1.:: '".-:'.: ';'''.,. ' "' . r--.,—,:`..• ..,.- , ., ,,.....' .■ '',1„Itlii ,f,:,;t6,::Y,.. ,t;)1,..;•.. ;t'..•' '...' t;,,,V,y,'t.,i,‘4■'.- ',,-,-""',....;,:. : ;,...,:'',,;• ', ... :'. .:, .., :. ,,',•■;:....;:e. '''.xr,:',;::::•:",t,fie,•;^.:. .''''. :.:.:,,1 ..... . . '• .....,,:..4.:*, , ';■t,.. .4::4 ,V is'i,;;;;!;.i,A,...,,14:.'4.,,,,, ,er,..%,..,',,, r..,:•?:,1, ',..,,q,,,,,,,,•• ; —;.,., .`...,..,,,.:, ■ ,, ., . , ...,... •, .• ,;,...^p.A. t ,...; .. '.'r*,''■ !t ' / , , ,10;"3 '," '',11')"...1,":■.1‘,i',.,,til,0,4.',..‘‘rys;..:9',,...': ...':,'.;.;'.:;:,1`•.,±...,.,',:f. ' .•, t.-,,,,,',;.,xt.■.-t%;4-...",..;1',,-;,:t•T,- ''''..`,1,Ft,:',',',;,..,,,;,,-.,',,•..•.„ •,'..,--- ..,,, ,•'7•■-:••',:'',''',,,,'.,'''' -',' ' .',,%,,V 74* ;".ki,•''''`-'4'4'ir''7'•'? . ''' ' ' ' '• i ,'',,.•.11'''•''.';`,,,,.."-ti-',"','.,''f,,4A.,,,tZt"''''; ,, t,,,'':''...,,..,1,..,,„,, ,••••',' .' .4,., ;,' .:,k, ,, ,, , ,.,„.„,,,,;,,,.,. ,,,..,,i,,,,,,,„ ''' ';',.'';'.'.:.•0','''''' .:,''',,'.••.•',', •.', r• '"-'. \ •,4.',.',''.?!•,' .,,iill',4 ,;4';.,,?;,,ti,;',‘,,r,i.,`:;,''.',',s• ,', ',-':;7•2'.:,' .'., ;' ,2,',, `''." ''-,'`"' 7 •‘,4,': ...,'.:, :;Vi4.1 11.::.It'..,%1.4:1‘11.'Ags4rt,1:-..-V,i':.`"'; .:•''''.''.'''.' '' ''' ''''''".' -,:',.■','^ :.''..::'`;':.:::c.,.'',',.'";:.'",-'`.'%.';'''.':::,"..".'.‘ft;';',k,',0',.' ' .':14'1'..:.:::::*.';`,.;;"::,4::',,-■'11.3.::'....1:,',,;:.';',7.Y.','‘,.' ''...L7‘', ::;-':,).:-::'.. '"•''': ',..„:','71".,..:4;‘,1.'', ...,;,::',.',-1...:-.7!:.-..., ',:..,1:jik. :: ...,..';'-''''' .' '.' , , .' .' , ...... ' -,'-c:‘;":',1 ?)I 1 ti/;'?"'",',.r.:”..i.ec:%‘'.:14,`t.••:--•;'.N.;.iz,.;-••:"....•••'.••..'''..''''.'-..'• I.‘'..,-;,.•;••,,,,,. • ,,•„.".•,1,,,:.„!,•:.,-•„.,,.•:•;„:,...-.:,•,,,,,,,,...,.,...„, .;,..,.;;...,-;:,:!:::,..,,•„1•1,,.• ' -- . ‘, ".'•• :-""'::::;.•.'-'''' '''',-i•:''' '..',:e• •-... ..;•.•''.•„...:,-...q'2•'''';','..2'. .,.''•;•,''.,•;•:;••:;,•••,.-.F :,;•;.••!....",,',; ..•:v•••.i,;:.-... ., ,..•-;•..-••: ••••,:..,.,14,-.. -: •••••.-•...,••••;--...--."•• '• . . ? '.. . ''. ",•••7••••.=!•.•:4.2.•..4v'''.'"f:.,•;,•...4;,--",..`...•.:„..:,:f7;••••••,:-:.•,.....,*:,•;,..,t',•..„--•,,...:::....::••..•-:-.•.:.-•'''..--• •.•• - - :.,.......44.-. . , . . . . . , ,.,. ' -.,;,*:.4.4,4,-.0:7'.A.1,,,....;.?"...'.„-;..'4,','\'''''•..‘.-•-,`; ..1.".•.•„`-••,"0,''..-•• • .--: -..-. •', •• • •'''''''''''• . . . ...,•,,... . ••- - ...• - ' • ' ••-:',•:r'-• ' • •'.' •'',.''.:'''..;- '..`Pk.-i'!..-,,.':,,I.•• •••••'.111•".-•:,!•,-..:-:•'.-,'''...-.•.•,`...-,-;•.';''..‘...'•••••••.'..., ..'.•••• ' •-:. •.. ',. -•', • ' ' •..•••‘,7•-,7::: •.•..''s.-1•`'' ',...i.-•,•...•s.•;'",;2"- ':".,,'=.',..,..7'."7--7--,:',.!%:'',':,'':••;,'• ',.,:::.. . . `- '''.. •, -;,'-,-i' '••- '- ' ., , ',',:•/`*.i,..., .„, ''''•‘4,,,'.::,'''''';•:.[''''',3•ilt.S;',t,',i;',:.1■,,',••;•?'i..,'''s.' :,•4 k. ‘,",', .'.c*,,,•'.;•„'1.'7;t•:-,' ''' ','' .,..,•!.,, ' • , ,;,:,,''H."'f'4,‘:‘,,, . ,. ' . ' •' '- "' ' .' ' • •• '.' •,, '''.`'''•':,;','•,‘?;':,';''',•, ;:;;;.;t''1•,•;,;;TA:•• ••:i•:2: 7,1•::''''';''.'1,,l',,)::.;..'.'':1.-,• •,-''''•,' ',:••',1•''';',.•'. ' •''•: 1' ,,,..',,'*,;','',*,,,I.;;',.';;;;,„ .; ,,, , . .- . ' • •4,,,,';'. 2.:„..:.-:,,c1.•:,`,.•,•'',".',.;. ,', ,-.',.,,,'.'„ t.''''..•;...•''• : •''' ':•‘•.‘-' •. .'.- . , •,‘,`1^'''' t1:43.''q'ttOr,F 1 ,, .-;. ,..,If•.:,: ;,„,;,:, ?....',, • ,,,, ,'.:''• ;2; 1,..; .. ,..,,,,,,, :t. "':. ''.,;•I!: ..'i' 4 ' .,. ., ..,:,, ,::,i7 , .,:r.e,:i ,,,,,,,t,50,..,. .,.,..,,:, ,,,, , ,,,:•.-''.; :".. -' - ,,, '„'-- , ','; ,,',';',',...,•:,,-,',,' ,z, , ,.; ,q .:9,,-;, ,,'.4.: ''1,.= t:'''' ' •'' . ,.:, , '".-1..,:7',,..;.•'.-'' S.' '''. '''..,-2t.T.' .4', . ;.*.A•; '.,:..-,',6..1``,Y1,X.):::,;:."f• ' ..'• ":;.,",\'': .".1. ,.. ,,'' '..L , .ri `,.%7•7:-..r.:,-•.F.. ''.....%.}:7.,`...3 7:, ',-,4,,','',.,,..14.44;;,.;4::: .1,......,1',4i,;,"?,14:?,,,..,,.,'.• .s' .••''''.'''••;'...•••4.,'''' ,•■•,•.'•'•'' ' 4:.i.2•%•-' ' '• 1' ''• •' s''' •• ' '•'• . :"%• •'1'.',1%..!:''";'!!' .‘'.1; "": "0'.,'',01.,!,..% '. - ' •••'•• - •' . - ' -'•51;,'-' •7•..-Wir,. .;*,`;`:i',1,:::.,,h+.,F4'4,87..ill'`.;:,4,1,;;;‘,s;.'%.:''.--:-.-'', ''‘:::''.'"..-'7,,.".',,..,..,'..: ... .,,. ....--,-!..":,',.'',.,'..',,,''-•-'..1'i r:si,J,,l':'''l,, \' '''‘z,,.,,'*.-%i..f.,'3.,-,..;i,,C;‹ *i; 4.`;',i.,..''-t,',';-'-.'..i;;4,..,.'..;'e'7-v`;'.,,,,-...,',',.,1-,.''....:....f.•,„:-,:'.'.'..;.c1,',«4. .`J"i;.i:{.!',;.:''',,,,;',':,,'.,-,'5.;:•.,;...',1- -....-':4.1 ' .,.,-.,,..-'*,.%',,t,•,- f -: - 'T, -,,. , ..4.,,,,,...,1),. ,- .-,:.... ,. — . tn.,'.:.:4•,:t:-,,•; 4,,,A•w,,•;.,...-:tr. ,.... . . .... . . . . ., • ,., .. . , .. '.. • ' .. .,. ' :S•11,-. i ........, •. .... . .....,. ,, , . . • — . . ........ .... . ... ,,... ., ... . .... . ..... — . .... . , . . ....., . . , .,— .....,. '•.,..., . w, . . • , . . .. . .. . . ., . . . ... ' ■ . c ... F • NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Oak Park Heights Mayor and City Council FROM: Stephen Grittman DATE: 21 November 1983 RE: Washington County Courthouse Expansion FILE NO: 798.02 - 83.05 BACKGROUND Washington County has filed a request that Oak Park Heights amend their Comprehensive Plan to allow governmental buildings in the area east of the existing Washington County Courthouse (see Area Location and Site Plans, Exhibits A and B) . In addition, the County has requested that the zoning in the area be changed from its current R-2, Low and Medium Density Residential classification to R-B, Residential Business Transitional District. Finally, a conditional use permit is requested to provide for a governmental building in the R-B zone and that the 35 foot height limit be extended to 45 feet. It should be noted that the County will still request a vacation of Panama, however, the vacation will begin one foot south of the adjoin- ing property owner's property line, and 62nd will remain a through street. In our memorandum of 4 August 1983, the preceding steps were outlined as being necessary to consider the County's office building request. It was additionally pointed out that such an amendment would require Oak Park Heights to substantially re-evaluate its development and land use objec- tives for this portion of the site. ANALYSIS There are tremendouspolicy implications associated with this issue and the proposal is recognized to be highly controversial . In consideration of this, our report will attempt to present to the City the various advantages and disadvantages from both sides of the project. Pro Position As the County building now stands , several problems exist on and near the site. Among these are excessive traffic on the local streets and roads adjacent to the Courthouse site are crowded with on-street parking. Other incompatibilities include noise and lights at all hours and a general intensity of use were characteristic of a commercial area, despite the fact that it is virtually surrounded by single family residences. 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 • • Oak Park Heights Mayor and City Council 21 November 1983 Page Two The City has no control over the activities or the development on the present site. Through the rezoning and conditional use permit process, the City could solve a number of existing compatibility problems in the area through requirements placed on the proposed development. Among these could be the requirement of substantial screening of on-site traffic and parking, expanding the number of off-street parking spaces, the elimination of on-street parking, and screening to reduce noise emanating from the site. In this manner, Oak Park Heights would gain a limited amount of development control over land not technically within its jurisdiction. Should the City elect to approve of the County's application, the following conditions should be required of the project: • The proposed 420 car parking lot south of the existing Courthouse should be terraced (the County has expressed this intention) and both levels completely screened from any visual contact with adjoining residences. • The 150 car proposed parking lot and access road north of the new building should also be completely screened from any visual contact with adjoining residences , both to the north and east. • The new County office building should likewise be screened from the view of surrounding residences to avoid the glare of building lights to the neighborhood. • We believe the design of the building to adequately address the constraints of the site and that the 35 foot height limitation be raised to allow the proposed design. At Panama Avenue, the elevation of the new building would be less than 35 feet and visual impact to the southeast is minimal due to topography and existing vegetation. • Steps should be taken to discourage the use of 60th Street and Panama for access to the east entries of the 420 car lot. The access to this lot should be encouraged at the west end entrances off of Oxboro Avenue, perhaps through signage. • The number of total proposed parking spaces appears to be adequate to handle the traffic generated by the site. The County has suggested re- ducing the number slightly, however, in light of present parking problems, we do not believe this should be permitted. The proposal shows a supply of 720 parking spaces. The actual number required through strict interpretation of the Ordinance is near 850. However, over 35 percent of the entire development is "Operating Support" area such as utility, storage, lunch room, etc. The County indicates that these areas will not generate any employment. We have calculated parking need con- sidering this area as warehouse which requires one space per 500 square feet. Our total calculations estimated a demand of approximately 700 spaces. Oak Park Heights Mayor'and City Council • 21 November 1983 Page Three • The City should further eliminate all on-street parking on City streets surrounding the County facility. Also, Oak Park Heights should enter into a development agreement with the County which would require the provision of additional off-street parking by the County should the need be demonstrated and requested by the City of Oak Park Heights. • Provisions of the Oak Heights Zoning Ordinance Section 401.03 F re- garding the provision of off-street loading be met. • Grading plan must be approved by the City Engineer with regard to stormwater runoffs and detention ponding toward the goal that stormwater runoff from the site does not increase over the existing volumes. Con Position The reasons for opposing this development are well documented. In our memorandum of 4 August 1983, several potential conflicts are mentioned. In general , these are compatibility and policy related. The intensity of the use is proposed to be increased substantially. The County is planning to consolidate several County functions into one central location. The amount of traffic, both employee and walk-in generated are sure to increase. Increasing, too, will be site generated noise, lights and other undesirable characteristics of such a facility. Located in the midst of a residential area as it is, such incompatibilities are unacceptable at best. The expansion of such a use would likely tend to cause even more problems than now exist. Apart from the compatibility issue is the policy of the City regarding the direction of future development in the area. The Comprehensive Plan states in several places that its goal is for the area to infill with single family homes and that the existing structures in the neighborhood be revitalized to avoid the depreciation of neighborhood property values. A decision by the City to accept the County Courthouse expansion in this area involves a major policy switch. The County has recognized this by applying for a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a change in zoning district. For more detail on this position, the Council may wish to refer to the memorandum from this office of 4 August 1983. i • Oak Park Heights Mayor and City Council 21 November 1983 Page Four SUMMARY Due to the significant policy implications of this issue, the purpose of this memorandum is to provide technical information and analysis rather than recommendations . As stated here, the proposed Washington County Courthouse expansion will increase the intensity of use in the area , in addition to changing significantly the land use goals for this portion of Oak Park Heights. On the other hand, approval of the development would give the City the opportunity to control some of the problems that already exist. Sugges- tions in this regard are included in the "Pro" section of this report. cc: LaVonne Wilson Mark Vierling Joe Anderlik Frank Leier Washington County • • northwest associated consultants, inc. June 1, 1988 Mr. Lyle Eckberg Mr. Mark Vierling Eckberg, Lammers, Briggs , Wolff and Vierling 1835 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: Oak Park Heights - Washington County Courthouse - Detachment Proceedings FILE NO: 798 . 02 - 88 . 06 Gentlemen: Our office has given some thought to the proposal by Washington County to detach from the City of Oak Park Heights and enter the City of Stillwater. At issue is not so much the matter of jurisdiction over the County' s property, as is the "uncontrolled" impact of County expansion plans on the City. We are assuming in this regard, that the County will generally pursue development plans which are similar to those presented to the City in the Fall of 1983 . At the basis of this situation is the fact that the Courthouse was inappropriately located when initially developed. The expansion plans simply add further to and complicate an already major land use compatibility problem. The present detachment proposal is a means to circumvent properly addressing the fundamental issues which are involved in this matter. A review of our files suggests that reports from our office dated 4 August 1983 and 21 November 1983 contain the major basic arguments which the City could utilize in its objection. To a limited degree, these could be updated and enhanced to establish a stronger and more detailed position. In this regard, we have attached copies of these reports for your review. If you believe these items should be further addressed, please so advise. 4601 excelsior blvd., ste. 410, minneapolis, mn 55416 (612) 925-9420 4 • Mr. Lyle Eckberg Mr. Mark Vierling 1 June 1988 Page Two We would also request confirmation of our participation in the hearing and if we are to be involved, it is suggested that a strategy session be held early next week to organize and coordinate the approach being taken on this matter. Very truly yours , NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC . David R. Licht, AICP President DRL/nd cc : LaVonne Wilson Joe Anderlik Frank Leir • NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS INC. MEMORANDUM TO: Oak Park Heights Mayor and City Council FROM: Alan Brixius DATE: 4 August 1983 RE: Washington County Courthouse Expansion - CUP FILE NO. : 798.02 - 83.05 BACKGROUND Washington County has requested that Oak Park Heights approve a conditional use permit to expand the County Courthouse onto a 10-acre parcel of land located between Panama Street North and Paris Street North (see Exhibit A) . The County has also requested that Panama Street be vacated to provide a single unified site with the existing Courthouse site in Stillwater. ZONING The site in question is zoned R-2 Low and Medium Density Residential District. The purpose of this district is to provide for low and medium density resi- dential dwellings and directly related, complementary uses. Section 401.06.D2 as follows establishes governmental buildings as a conditional use within the R-1 district. Section 401.07.D1.. carries this conditional use into the R-2 zoning district. Section 401.06.D2: Governmental and public utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community including municipal administration buildings, police 4nd fire stations, community center buildings, public libraries, and other municipal service buildings, ` except those customarily considered industrial in use. This provision identifies these governmental facilities as municipal facilities that are necessary for the health, safety and general welfare of the community. This suggests that the facilities would be of a size and intensity charac- teristic of the City and compatible within a low density residential zoning district. The Washington County existing facility has been cited in the past as creating compatibility problems with adjacent residential uses. This county facility, which also houses the County Sheriff's department, has forced nearby resi- dents to accept high traffic volumes, noise and lights that are typical of commercial uses and are clearly not compatible with residential areas. The proposed courthouse expansion includes 81,220 square feet of additional 4820 minnetonka boulevard, suite 420 minneapolis, mn 55416 612/925-9420 • Oak Park Heights Mayor and City Council 4 August 1983 Page Two space and 570 additional parking stalls on a 10.26 acre site. The new addition nearly doubles the size of the existing courthouse and the large amount of additional parking suggests a significant increase in use intensity. The size and intensity of the facility is more comparable to commercial activities and would be better suited for one of the city's more intense commercial zoning districts. Past actions by the County indicate that they recognize that the proposed courthouse facility is better suited to a commercial zoning district when in March of 1980, the County requested that the site be rezoned from R-2 to an R-B zoning district. At the time of the rezoning request, no development plans were provided by the County. The City found that rezoning the proposed site to an R-B district would be questionable based upon the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land uses. To permit the rezoning prior to reviewing any specific plans for the facility would allow the possible development of additional incompatible uses if the County decided that facility area needs would not require the entire site and replatted accordingly with the intention of selling the unneeded remaining lots. Review of the recently submitted site plans for the courthouse expansion has not alleviated any of the concerns that would prevent the rezoning of the property; rather, the size of the office facility may have enhanced the problems of incompatibility with nearby residential uses. A Comprehensive Plan amendment and possibly a re-evaluation of the develop- ment and land use objectives for this area of Oak Park Heights would be necessary prior to rezoning this area to a more intense zoning district. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT In our March 14, 1980, planner's report, it was suggested that the proposed facility would possibly be allowed within the R-2 zoning district as a condi- tional use. This possible alternative was suggested during the earlier planning stages of the courthouse expansion. No plans or information on the proposed facility's size or design were available at the time of that report. Review of the recently submitted site plans indicates that the proposed facility would not be appropriate within a low and medium density residential area as recommended by the City Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Section 401.16.A5 of the Oak Park Heights Zoning Ordinance establishes the following factors that must be considered when evaluating a conditional use permit request. • 1. Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. 2. The geographical area involved. 3. Whether the use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. 4. Character of the surrounding area. 5. The demonstrated need for such a use. • 4111 Oak Park Heights Mayor and City Council 4 August 1983 Page Three Comprehensive Plan Consistency The Oak Park Heights Land Use Plan recommends low to mid-density residential development for this area of the City. The Land Use Plan includes a public • land use designation; however, this designation indicates that this type of land use was not intended for this area of the city. The proposed site is located in Planning District 2 as identified in the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan. This section of the plan addresses the planning concerns and recommendations for this area of the City as follows: Three major concerns should be addressed in regards to the future planning for this district. The immediate concern should be the preservation of the present housing stock. Throughout the neighbor- hood early signs of deterioration are appearing and the blighting effect should be arrested. A housing maintenance code and various assistance programs available to the City to aid the homeowners in protecting their property values should be utilized. A second concern has arisen over the proposed expansion of the new Washington County Administrative facilities, as this active center has already adversely impacted the adjacent neighborhoods (excessive traffic, lights, and noise, occurring at all hours of the day) . The expansion of the County offices will have considerable impact upon Oak Park Heights , as the City stands to lose both existing homes through condemnation and vacant land potentially available for new owner occupied housing. As the proposed expansion will result in the loss of additional tax revenue producing property in Oak Park Heights and may create further negative impacts on remaining resi denital uses, the City of Oak Park Heights should actively and aggressively participate in the planning efforts for the facility's expansion. The use to which the remaining vacant parcels in the district are put is one final concern. Scattered vacant sites should be infilled with single family homes. This is already occurring as several new homes have recently been constructed. Additional housing opportunities could be provided if the large vacant site off Panama Avenue is available. Owner occupied housing varieties should be emphasized with the overall developed density for this district being mid-density (4-10 units per acre) , reflecting the character of the existing housing stock in the surrounding area. While the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan encourages an active partici- pation in the planning of any Washington County Courthouse expansion, the land use objectives for this area is for residential rehabilitation, restoration and development. The proposed expansion site is specifically identified for medium density residential development. • _. Oak Park Heights Mayor and City Council 4 August 1983 Page Four To accommodate the applicant's request for expansion of the Washington County Courthouse into this area of Oak Park Heights will require an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan and possibly a re-evaluation of the development objectives for this area of the City. The County Land Use Plan consists of the completed plans of the cities and townships in Washington County. This suggests that the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan comprises a portion of the Washington County Plan. Thus, expansion of the Courthouse without amending the Oak Park Heights Plan would be inconsistent with the County Land Use Plan and the following County land use policy: "Washington County shall recognize and consider individual township plans when making county-wide decisions." Land Use Compatibility The area surrounding the proposed expansion site consists primarily of older single family homes. The existing Courthouse has already negatively impacted these low density neighborhoods (excessive traffic, lights and noise, occurring at all hours of the day) . The addition of a new 80,000 square foot office expansion with the additional traffic can be expected to contribute to the existing nuisance in this area. Expansion of this size on a 10-acre site within a residential area could significantly change the character of this area of Oak Park Heights. This area of the City contains some of the older single family homes within the City and the introduction of an office facility of this size and area would not be compatible with the intensity and type of residential uses that already exist. The City's planning objectives for this area is to retaip the neighborhood's character through the restoration and rehabilitation of these homes. SUBDIVISION The proposed site is comprised of a number of previously platted lots and dedicated alleys. These lots must be combined and the dedicated alleys vacated to form a single parcel to allow for this type of development. The combination of these lots and alley vacation would be required prior to the issuance of any building permits. RECOMMENDATION Based on our review of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit, we found that the use is inconsistent with the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan and land use policies, the intent of the City Zoning Ordinance to provide for compatibility between different land uses, and specifically, Oak Park Heights Mayor and City Council 4 August 1983 Page Five the R-2 zoning district which is intended to provide for low and medium density residential dwellings and directly related and complementary uses. Based on the current Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, we cannot recommend approval of the conditional use permit for the expansion of the Washington County Courthouse. cc: Lyle Eckberg Joe Anderlik LaVonne Wilson • 4 • { • ,' LAW OFFICES OF ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF & VIERUNG 1835 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE P.O. BOX C STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 (612)439.2878 LYLE J. ECKBERG FAX(612)439-2923 MARK J. VIERLING JAMES F. LAMMERS JAMES I. MOBERG ROBERT G. BRIGGS June 1, 1988 VICKI L. GIFFORD PAUL A. WOLFF GREGORY G.GALLER Mr . Curtis Gutoske Northwest Associated Consultants Incorporated 4601 Excelsior Boulevard - Suite 410 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 Re : City of Stillwater request for annexation of lands adjacent to the Washington County Government Center Your File No . 798. 02 - 88. 06 Our File No. 1501-5709 Dear Mr . Gutoske: • I am in receipt of your draft of the form stipulation per Minnesota Statutes 414. 031, Subd . 4. Thank you for your work in assembling this data . I would suggest , however , that we consider making amendments to the following areas : Under item ( d) 1 - Vacant Lands, I would suggest that we , by asterisk , indicate that although the City of Oak Park Heights is 202 acres of vacant lands, the vast bulk of that has been dedicated to development projects which have already been earmarked within the City of Oak Park Heights, resulting with little or no vacant land for the City in which to expand. You may wish to check with David Licht on this matter , as he testified to same at the time of the annexation hearing as it affected the property West of Oakgreen Avenue . Under item (d) 2 on page 2 regarding what type of development is proposed for the annexation area, I wish a little more in depth discussion, such as City of Stillwater is proposing location of a new Washington County jail on the site and is seeking annexation to accomplish same. The present area is zoned within the City of Oak Park Heights as R-2 low and medium residential density, and the following uses would be allowed within the area under current zoning within the City of Oak Park Heights, and then list the uses. Following , a statement to the effect that no formal request has been made to the City of Oak Park Heights to alter the current zoning on the subject property. Mr . Curtis Gutoske June 1, 1988 Page 2 Under item ( e) 3 on page 3 where is lists the zoning , subdivision, etc . controls which affect the property, the first column labeled "City" I presume is intended to be Oak Park Heights. I would suggest that the letters "OPH" be printed in above the word "City" . Under the second column, entitled township, I suggest we strike out the word township and insert "City of Stillwater" , indicating that they, too, have zoning and subdivision regulations , an official map, capital improvement program, budgets, fire code and a sanitation ordinance. Thereafter we shall circle the ordinance for the City of Oak Park Heights which currently provides ordinance control for the area . Under item ( f) , I suggest a similar notation above the affected columns indicating what the City of Oak Park Heights currently provides, and indicating in another column those applicable to the City of Stillwater , and that the City of Stillwater cannot and will not provide to the area water , sanitary sewer and storm sewer as the same is already provided by the City of Oak Park Heights, which system currently surrounds the territory. Under item ( i) regarding fiscal data, I would suggest that we obtain the same fiscal data that we had for the City of Oak Park Heights for the City of Stillwater also, crossing out the word "township" in the second column and inserting the current fiscal data for the City of Stillwater . Also , the fiscal data should be obtained for the subject area. If you would prefer that this office obtain the same directly from Washington County, we may certainly take on that task if it would be more convenient. Also , please review your files to determine the existence of past applications by Washington County affecting the use of the parcel . We have no file of record that would indicate that Washington County or the City of Stillwater has ever proposed a zoning change for the subject property, nor have they ever applied for a conditional use permit or other permit so as to locate a jail upon the subject property. Additionally, if you could review copies of the Washington County Comprehensive Plan, as well as the City of Stillwater Comprehensive Plan, to determine whether or not they have ever projected this type of utilization of the property or this annexation, the same would be appreciated. It will very probably be necessary from a testimony standpoint for someone from your office to give evidence to this item at the time of the hearing . . . • Mr . Curtis Gutoske June 1, 1988 Page 3 Should you have any questions in regard to this matter , please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours very truly, Mark J. Vierling MJV:ks c : Joseph C. Anderlik La Vonne Wilson 41/1 Metro po litan Council of t h e T win Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tel . 612 291-6359/TDD 291-0904 DATE: May 31 , 1988 TO: Patricia Lundy, Mn. Municipal Board FROM: Robert Overby, Metropolitan Council gO SUBJECT: Correction to Information Submission of 5/23/88, D-240 Oak Park Heights/A-4466 Stillwater Based on new information received from your staff, the following correction should be made to the Information Submission for the Stillwater/Oak Park Heights annexation hearing: The last sentence in paragraph two of section VII-B-1 ("However, the City of Oak Park Heights has passed a resolution indicating its consent to the con- current detachment and annexation of the 11 acres.") should be deleted , as the resolution attached to the petition was actually from the City of Still- water -- not the City of Oak Park Heights as was first described in the petition from Washington County to the MMB. cc: V LaVonne Wilson, Oak Park Heights City Clerk Mary Lou Johnson, Stillwater City Clerk 1I MEMORANDUM 1 1�ya (, (,, TO: LaVonne Wilson FROM: Curtis Gutoske northwest DATE: 31 May 1988 associated RE: Oak Park Heights - Courthouse Detachment consultants, Inc. (612)925-9420 FILE NO: 798.02 88'06 9 q'it tipOihyl/M9//s/V mrneapohs, mn 55416 4601 Excelsior Blvd. Suite 410 Enclosed please find the stipulation form completed for the County Courthouse Annexation/Detachment Request. Please review for accuracy in the questions which you have knowledge of. The form was completed with the exception of engineering matters or questions which did not apply to the request at hand. The City Engineer and City Attorney may wish to comment on the questions we did not answer and also on those we did to verify for accuracy. Please call if you have questions or if further information is needed regarding the stipulation form. cc: Lyle Eckberg Mark Vierling Joe Anderlik Frank Leier Enclosure `� WHITE - ORIGINAL YELLOW - FILE COPY PINK - C FILE olitart [j/ • Metropolitan Counoi 0 = 300 Metro Square Building t Seventh and Robert Streets t�+ St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone(612)291-6359 May 23, 1988 Patricia Lundy Assistant Director Minnesota Municipal Board 165 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, MN 55101 RE: D-240 Oak Park Heights/A-4466 Stillwater Dear Ms. Lundy: In accord with a June, 1983 Memorandum of Understanding agreed to by the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Municipal Board (MMB), the Council has prepared an information submission for the proposed annexation of approximately 11 acres of land, consisting of three parcels ("A" , "B" , and "C" ) located generally north of the Highway 36 north frontage road and south of 62nd Street, between Oxboro Avenue and Paris Avenue. As noted in the report, the Council's primary concerns are the provision of sanitary sewer service to the land parcel; and the coordination between the City of Stillwater and the City of Oak Park Heights in planning for future land uses and development in and around the area to be annexed. If you need additional information, please contact Robert Overby at 291-6381 . Sincerely, S� 1 Steve Keefe Chair Attachment cc: Parties of Record Robert. Overby ca An Equal Opportunity Employer 4 • PLEASE CROSS OUT ANY A APT CANNOT E E STIPULATED AI dSANY ATTACHMENTS • NECESSARY. To: Minnesota Municipal Board 165 Metro Square Building St. Paul , Minnesota 55101 S T I P U L A T I O N The City of Oak Park Heights and the town of stipulate and agree to the following facts concerning Minnesota Statutes 414.031 , Subd. 4 to wit: [The term "subject area" referred to herein means the area that 1s proposed for annexation.] (a) Present population, past population growth and projected population of the property proposed for annexation and the annexing municipality: 1 1 1 1987 1 Projected in I Source 1 1970 I 1980 i Current I Five Years I of Data, 1 Present City 11,257 1 2,591 1 3,669 1 N.A. i Met Council Present Town I -- I --- 1 --- I --- Subject Area 1 N.A. J N.A. 1 -0- 1 N.A. 1 (b) Geographic Features: _ 1 Present 1 Present 1 Subject 1 . I 1C10� I Town I fiera Total Acreage 1 I i yy i 1 2. Describe any waterways in or adjacent to the subject area: (rivers. streams, shorelands, protected water, protection wetlands) None 3. Describe the soils and terrain in th sub ect area- Soils having excessive natural drainage, slight foundation limitations and low water holding capacity. Area contains some slopes, generally near 137. (c) Contiguity: 1 . The perimeter of the subject area Is approximately _ 70 % bordered by the municipality. (O.P.H. ) . (d) Present pattern of physical development of the subject area and city: 1 . There are the following land uses: (Please fill in acreages or percentages if available instead of yes or no. ) City * I lgwnship 1 Subject Area yes I no 1 yes 1 no I yes I no Residential 138 1 I 1 1 I institutional 1 I 1 1 (tax exempt) 405 Commercial 75 i i f 1 I Industrial 300 I 1 1 i I Agricultural I X I I I ant Lands 202 1 i J J 1 ource: Oak Park Heights; Comprehensive Plan, 1979 • . • -2- 2' txpanslon of f WashingtontCounty oGovernmenttCenter annexation area? 3. The present transportation network: Highways, Streets I Number of miles of : I and Roads I Present City I 14 miles Present Town I --- Subject Area ! .05 miles 4. Are any transportation changes planned in the subject area? yes X no ., in the city? yes no (e) Land Use Controls and Planning: 1 . Comprehensive Plan: Adoption Date & Status of Plan i No Existing Plan i City 12/18/78 I Township County 1972 1 Region N.A. ; 1 2. Have any area planning authorities adopted an official position on the proposed boundary adjustment? (planning commissions, boards, Joint boards, Met Council , State Planning Agency, region, county) Yes X No Supportive Non-Supportive If yes, describe: Met Council - Sewer extension is no problem. 3. Please check where the following exists and give any necessary explanations on how It relates to the proposed action. (Since it may be possible that two or more plans attempt to regulate the same area, please circle whose ordinance presently applies to the subject area. ) City: 'Township: I County: I Date Adopted Yesl No 1 Yes! No I Yes! No 1 City I Town 1 County Zoning X j I 1 X I 2/79 J 1 1972 - Subdivision I i I I I Regulations X I [ I I X I I 1 197? Official I I I I I i I Map X 1 I 1 1 X 1 I 1 1972 Capital Improve- i I i I I ments Program & X I I I X I I 1 1972 Budgets I I 1 1 I L I i Fire I I i I I I Code X 1 1 1 I X I 1 Shoreland I I I I I I Ordinance I X I I X 1 1 1 1972 Floodplain I I I I i I Ordinance X I ! j X j L I 11972 Wild & Scenic I I I I Rivers Ordinance X I l L X 1 -. 11972 Sanitation Ordln- I I I I I I ance (on-site X I i I x I 1972 sewage treatment) I i I _ - -. - . • . -3- III 4. What is the current zoning of the subject area? "R-2", Low & Medium Density Residential 5. What do you anticipate the zoning will be i.f this annexation is approved? "R-B" , Residential/Business Transitional 6. Is the subject area, or any portion thereof hereof in Green Acres (M.S. 273. 111 )? Yes No 7. Has the city adopted Urban/Rural Taxing Districts (M.S. 272.67) ? Yes No X (f) Present governmental services being provided in the annexing municipality and the property proposed for annexation: 'City Pro-iCity JLIIITownship 'Township City Pro-'vides to 'provide 'provides (provides 1 vides to ( Subject Ito Sub- Ito Town- ito Sub- City: I Area: Iject Areal ship iject Area Yes! No i Yes' No i Yes' No I Yes' No 1 Yes.' No * Water X I I X I 1 [ 1 I I j ** Sanitary Sewer I I I I I I I I I & Waste Water X J I X I I I I I i I Treatment i I I I ! i I i l Storm i I I I I I I 1 i Sewer X 1 I X i i ' I I 1 1 Solid Waste Collection I I I i I i I i I & Disposal I I [ 1 - 1 ( 1 i I Fire I I I I i I I I I Protection X I I X I I l 1 I I 1 Police I I I i I I I I 1 Protection X I X 1 I I I I 1 Street I I I i I I I I Improvements i X i X i 1 [ i I 1 Street I I I I i I I I i Jla i ntenance i X i I X 1 i i i 1 I Administrative ( ( I I I I I I Services I X I I X I I I I I • Recreational I X I I X I I I I 1 1 1 I I I I I i i Oth er I I 1 i I i [ 1 * If city does not provide water to the subject area, who does? Would city take over or allow existing use? ** If city does not provide sewer to the subject area, who does? Would city take over or allow existing use? (g) Describe any existing or potential environmental problems and the need for additional services to resolve these problems: (Example: ground or surface water problems, water quality and levels, sewage treatment, air . 0 r -4- • pollutant emissions, noise, odors, affect on fish or wi ldl ife; affect on historical resources, archaeological resources, aesthetic resources; impairment of park lands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers, critical area; abandoned dump or disposal site, etc. ) (h) Plans and programs by the annexing municipality for providing needed governmental services to the property proposed for annexation: ( 1 ) fiscal Data: I 1 1 Trend over last 1 Present Present I Subject 1 three years: Classification: ) City: Township: 1 Area: 1 (e.g. increasing, i Year. k 7 Year: I Year: Idecreasing. stable). Assessed I 1 1 Valuation 152,969,221 I I Mill Rate: I I I County [ 28.407 1 1 I Local Unit 1 17.034 I I of Gov't. 1 1 School 1 I 1 1 District 1 56.467 1 1 I S peci-a-I 1 1 1 1 Tax4-R$--D+s-t. 1 .701 1 1 J Insurance 1 I I I Rating (fire) I N/A 1 1 1 Levy I —1 1 1 Limit 1 899,145 I 1 1 Actual I I I I Current Levy 1 - 899,000 1 1 Total Bonded 1 I I I Indebtedness 1,1,503,000 1 1 l (J) Would the proposed action affectXarea school districts or adjacent communities? Yes No (k) Are new services necessary for subject area? Yes No X Does township have capacity to provide? Yes No ( I ) Could necessary governmental services best be provided by incorporating or annexation to an adjacent municipality to township? Yes No X • ' -5- • (m) if only a portion of the township is annexed: 1 . Does the remainder of the township have the ability to remain as is? Yes No 2. Should the remainder be annexed to another city? Yes No 3. Should the remainder be annexed to another township? Yes No STIPULATED TO BY: City of , this _ day of , 19 Mayor City Clerk STIPULATED TO BY: Town of , this day of , 19 . Chair Town Clerk 8/86 • C • Metropolitan Counci 300 Metro Square Building �` ..- "� Seventh and Robert Streets W I 2. St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone(612)291-6359 I14IN C11- " May 23, 1988 Patricia Lundy Assistant Director Minnesota Municipal Board 165 Metro Square Building Saint Paul, MN 55101 RE: D-240 Oak Park Heights/A-4466 Stillwater Dear Ms. Lundy: In accord with a June, 1983 Memorandum of Understanding agreed to by the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Municipal Board (MMB), the Council has prepared an information submission for the proposed annexation of approximately 11 acres of land, consisting of three parcels ("A" , "B" , and "C" ) located generally north of the Highway 36 north frontage road and south of 62nd Street, between Oxboro Avenue and Paris Avenue. As noted in the report, the Council's primary concerns are the provision of sanitary sewer service to the land parcel; and the coordination between the City of Stillwater and the City of Oak Park Heights in planning for future land uses and development in and around the area to be annexed. If you need additional information, please contact Robert Overby at 291-6381 • Sincerely, Steve Keefe Chair Attachment cc: Parties of Record Robert. Overby I , v fir.. An Equal Opportunity Employer II • I Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Tel . 612 291-6359/TDD 291-0904 DATE: May 23, 1988 TO: Minnesota Municipal Board FROM: Robert Overby, Metropolitan Council Staff SUBJECT: Information Submission Minnesota Municipal Board Annexation of Land from Oak Park Heights to Stillwater BACKGROUND In accord with the Memorandum of Understanding agreed to by the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Municipal Board (MMB) on June 28, 1983, Council staff prepares an information submission for any MMB hearing within the Metropolitan Area. The information submission presents demographic, land use, environmental and utility information for the jurisdictions involved in the hearing. Most of the information provided comes from the local comprehensive plans, Council policy plans and Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework forecasts. I. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Oak Park Heights Council Forecasts 1970 1980 1990 2000 Population 1,256* 2,591* 3,800 3,900 Households 377* 868* 1,300 1,400 Employment 508* 2, 180 2,500 3,000 * Census Data Stillwater Council Forecasts 1970 1980 1990 2000 Population 10,196* 12,290* 13,200 13,300 Households 3,035* 4,065* 4,600 4,800 Employment 3,100 5,700 7,500 8,000 * Census Data II. GEOGRAPHIC FEATURES A. Total Acreage Oak Park Heights = 1 ,142 acres Stillwater = 4,360 acres it • B. Soils and Terrain The Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan (1978) shows slopes "generally over 13 percent" in Parcel C, from the northwest corner diagonally to the southeast towards the east-central part of the parcel, and then south along the eastern end of the parcel to the southeast corner. The plan indicates a general soil suitability in the areas to be annexed as "soils having excessive natural drainage, slight ht limitation for found- ations and low to very low water holding capacity" . III.LAND USE A. Area Proposed for Annexation The current land use of the area proposed for annexation is as follows: Parcel "A" is used as part of the parking lot for the Coounty courthouse; Parcel "B" is used for the west side of Panama Avenue; Parcel "C" has two homes located within it, one at the southeast corner of Panama Street and 62nd Street and the other located on Panama Street, immediately south of the first home. The remainder of Parcel "C" is vacant, open land. There are homes located adjacent to Parcel "C" on the south, north and east. The Washington County Government Center is located immediately to the west. The Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan proposes public and semi-public land uses in Parcel A, and low to mid-density (3 to 10 dwelling units per acre) in Parcels B and C. The Stillwater Comprehensive Plan (April, 1980 revision) does not propose any future land use for the areas proposed for annexation. Plan comments that indirectly reference the area to be annexed are listed in Part VII-B. b. Building Activity in the City and Township 1. Residential Building Permits Oak Park Heights 1987 23 SF 0 DU 0 MF 0 TH 0 MH 1986 1 SF 4 DU 0 MF 16 TH 0 MH 1985 2 SF 0 DU 119 MF 0 TH 0 MH 1984 2 SF 0 DU 0 MF 32 TH 0 MH 1983 1 SF 8 DU 0 MF 6 TH 0 MH 1982 6 SF 0 DU 0 MF 0 TH 0 MH 1981 4 SF 0 DU 4 MF 0 TH 0 MH Stillwater 1987 74 SF 0 DU 30 MF 15 TH 0 MH 1986 53 SF 2 DU 64 MF 0 TH 0 MH 1985 34 SF 0 DU 2 MF 2 TH 0 MH 1984 27 SF 2 DU 8 MF 11 TH 0 MH 1983 32 SF 28 DU 18 MF 12 TH 0 MH 1982 16 SF 2 DU 3 MF 3 TH 0 MH 1981 7 SF 2 DU 0 MF 0 TH 0 MH • • • 2. Commercial and Industrial Permit Valuation Oak Park Heights Stillwater Commercial Commercial 1987 $ 530,000 1987 $3,630,000 1986 $ 0 1986 $ 777,000 1985 $ 404,000 1985 $2,479,000 1984 $ 344,000 1984 $2,751,000 1983 $ 411 ,000 1983 $ 290,000 1982 $ 0 1982 $1,512,000 1981 $ 68,000 1981 $ 447,000 Industrial Industrial 1987 $ 0 1987 $4,800,000 1986 $ 0 1986 $ 0 1985 $ 0 1985 $ 750,000 1984 $ 60,000 1984 $ 0 1983 $ 157,000 1983 $ 0 1982 $ 0 1982 $ 0 1981 $ 0 1981 $ 334,000 IV. TRANSPORTATION The three parcels of land (A, B, C) are generally located north of the north frontage road for highway 36 and south of 62nd Street, between between Oxboro Avenue and Paris Avenue. The Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan classifies Oxboro, Panama and Paris Avenues, along with 62nd Street, as local streets. No problems with the regional highway system were identified as a result of the proposed annexation. V. SEWERS Oak Park Heights Oak Park Heights had a 1987 sewer flow of 127.9 million gallons (.353 mgd) and has a planned 1990 sewer flow of 155.5 million gallons (.426 mgd), based on the city's 1980 Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan. Stillwater had a 1987 sewer flow of 838 million gallons (2.268 million gallons per day average). The city has a planned 2000 sewer flow range of 956 to 1,008 million gallons per year (mgy) according to the Council's Water Resources Management Wastewater Treatment and Handling Policy Plan of February, 1988. Sewage from the area proposed for annexation from Oak Park Heights will be treated at the Stillwater treatment plant. There is sufficient treatment capacity to handle the additional sewer service area, based on the planned improvements to the Stillwater plant. • • The city of Stillwater will have to submit to the Council: 1 ) an amendment to its Comprehensive Plan changing its 2000 Urban Service Area limits to include the area proposed for annexation, and changing the city's land use plan and map to reflect the possible future land uses for the annexation area that the city would support; and 2) an amendment to its Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan to show the timing and staging of sewer service to the area. Both plan amendments must be reviewed and approved by the Council before sewer service can be provided to the annexed area. VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES As noted above, there are areas of Parcel "C" that have slopes in excess of 13 percent,and soils that have excessive natural drainage, with a slight limitation for foundations and low to very low water holding capacity. No environmental problems were raised by Council staff in regard to the servicing of the land area by sanitary sewers. VII.STATUS OF COUNCIL ACTION A. Plan Reviews Council review of the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan was completed on May 14, 1981 . Council review of the Stillwater Comprehensive Plan was completed on April 23, 1981 . The Council has not received a plan amendment for the proposed annexation. B. Consistency with Local and Regional Plans 1 . Local Plans The Stillwater Comprehensive Plan (April, 1980 revision) contains the following indirect references to the areas proposed for annexation: Page 55, Land Use Distribution No. 8. "It is not ed that the preliminary City Plan of Oak Park Heights expresses some concern over the location of the new County Office Building in close proximity to housing; future potential expansion of County Facilities in this area should be a matter of planning coordination between the two communities. Little or no land use conflicts between the two Community plans or existing land use is apparent other than the issue of County facilities so noted by Oak Park Heights." There is no Orderly Annexation agreement between Oak Park Heights and Stillwater to coordinate planning in the area to be annexed. However, the City of Oak Park Heights has passed a resolution indicating its consent to the concurrent detachment and annexation of the 11 acres. S Page 73, Land Use, Goal No. 20. "Annexation of land adequate to accomodate the population growth and housing needs of an urban population with full urban services [will be needed] as the demand will be created by new business and industrial employment in the City. New business and industry should be properly controlled and designed to help preserve the "Village" atmosphere and environment." The proposed annexation area is needed for the expansion of the County Government Center. Page 81 , Land Use, Policy No. 24. ".. .In annexation areas, drainageways , streams, ponds, swamps, lakeshore, and other natural features will be protected and preserved as appropriate." The Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan indicates that there are steep slopes and drainageways cutting diagonally across Parcel "C" from the northwest to the east-central part of the parcel , and then extending south along the eastern edge. Page 91 , Land Use Plan, Proposal No. 1 . "The City should consider an annexation plan that would gradually and in stages extend the City limits outward to eventually encompass an area bounded on the north by Highway No. 96, on the west by County Road 15 or Manning Avenue, on the south by Highway 212/36 (minus that land to remain in the City of Oak Park Heights), and on the east by the St. Croix River. Page 97, Land Use Plan, Proposal No. 8. "Any future expansion of the County Office Building complex should be planned in cooperation and coordination with Oak Park Heights." Page 115, Highway 212/36 Corridor Study; Policy, Goals and Standards, Goal No. 3. "Non-residential developments should not be in conflict with adjacent or nearby residential uses." There are two homes in the annexation area, as well as homes adjacent to the area on the north, east, and southwest. Page 116, Highway 212/36 Corridor Study; Land Use/Traffic Guides. "For a proper land use mix, exceptions should not be made to existing zoning without careful study for affects [sic] upon traffic circulation and area amenities ." The proposed expansion of the County Government Center in the annexation area would generate more traffic through local streets and on the highway 36 frontage road. The amount of existing open space would be decreased. The Stillwater Comprehensive Plan does not specifically mention the area proposed for annexation as being planned for future annexation, but the area is located within the potential future city boundaries (highway 36 on the south, highway 96 on the north, and County Road 15/Manning Avenue on the west -- minus the land that is to remain in Oak Park Heights). Currently, the area to be annexed is located within the urban service area of Oak Park Heights. The city of Stillwater will have to submit a plan amendment to the Council amending its Comprehensive Plan to create a new urban service area boundary for the year 2000 that includes the area proposed for annexation, and to change the city's land use plan and map to reflect the possible future land uses in the area to be annexed. • . Stillwater will also have to submit an amendment to its Comprehensive Sewer Policy Plan to show the timing and staging of sewer service to the area to be annexed, and receive Council approval of the plan amendment before sewer service is extended to the annexed area. 2. Regional Plans The city of Oak Park Heights is part of the Stillwater Freestanding Growth Center. A freestanding growth center is a larger urban center that is located within the rural portion of the seven-county Metro- politan Area. In the 1986 Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDIF), freestanding growth centers are described as follows: "The Council considers the freestanding growth centers as detached portions of the metropolitan urban service area and as areas that are intended to accommodate regional population and emplopyment growth that might otherwise occur in unserviced areas. Where additional land is needed to accomodate growth, the community should extend municipal municipal services in a staged, contiguous manner, consistent with their ability to provide such services . Annexation through an orderly annexation agreement is the preferred alternative, when the additional land is in an unincorporated area." The Council's policy "supports urban-density residential, commercial and industrial development in freestanding growth centers" and "will make investments in metropolitan systems serving freestanding growth centers based on the fully developed and developing area policies, as applicable" . R00018 PROTX3 ! i LAW OFFICES OF ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF & VIERLING 1835 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE P O.BOX C STILLWATER,MINNESOTA 55082 (612) 439-2878 LYLE J.ECKBERG JAMES F. LAMMERS ROBERT G. BRIGGS PAUL A.WOLFF May 10, 1988 MARK J.VIERLING JAMES I. MOBERG VICKI L.GIFFORD Northwest Associated Consultants Incorporated 4601 Excelsior Boulevard - Suite 410 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416 Re : Oak Park Heights detachment - D-240/Stillwater annexation - A-4466 Gentlemen: Pursuant to my telephone call of this morning , I am enclosing herewith copies of the pertinent documents and information with regard to the detachment/annexation of area from Oak Park Heights to Stillwater , contiguous to the Washington County Government Center , as follows : 1. Petition by Washington County; 2. Signature lists of Oak Park Heights residents opposed to detachment/annexation; 3 . Objections by City of Oak Park Heights ; 4. Letter from Municipal Board dated May 5, 1988; 5. Notice of Hearing . I would appreciate it if you would review the enclosed and contact me with any ideas or suggestions. I do not believe a meeting is necessary at this point. As you will note , a hearing before the Minnesota Municipal Board is set for June 15th at 9: 30 a.m. in the Board Room of the Washington County Government Center . Yip-Ur s , ier r y, ( y e J. Eckberg 2:;) LJE:ks Encs. c : La Vonne Wilson • Phone: (612)296.2428 An Eque! Opportunity Employer 411 Jr'�>> . - v; "f, STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 165 Metro Square 7th & Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 May 5, 1988 LaVonne Wilson Oak Park Heights City Administrator 14168 - 57th Street, North P.O. Box 2007 Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 Re: Preparation for detachment hearing - D-240 Oak Park Hgts/A-4466 Stillwater Dear Ms. Wilson: A hearing will be held by the Municipal Board on the above-proposed al Board to boundary adjustment. Minnesota Statutes 414 requires the Municipal consider certain specified factors in arriving at its decision. It is important that you are prepared to present adequate testimony since the evidence you present will be the sole basis for the board's decision. State aids to your governmental unit may be adjusted because of the board's decision and wil l be based d u on the evidence received at the he hear ing. One example is tha t the Department of Rev enue will adjust the Local Government t 9 on the Aids distribution based on the data y ou present at the boa rd hearing following: (1 ) population of the territory proposed for detachment, the city, and the township, (2) the assessed value for the property proposed for (3) the city township, ( Y mill levy, for city the city, and the t p, detachment, th y, purposes only, on the area proposed for detachment payable in the year of the detachment. The parties involved may jointly stipulate specific facts which will expedite the proceeding.ex P he roceedin . Enclosed is a suggested format for preparing a stipulation that is used for annexation and which may be helpful even though some parts may have to be modified for detachment. Please cross out any areas that cannot be stipulated and make any attachments necessary. The stipulation should not be regarded as complete evidence for the proceeding. Its aim is to assist those involved in preparation for the hearing. If complete and accurate evidence is presented, it will facilitate a more expeditious decision. We also call to your attention the Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Board recently amended and specifically Rule 6000.1200, which requires the petitioner to notify the board at least seven days prior to the hearing of any ).04/1..1?0.43 • • LaVonne Wilson May 5, 1988 Page Two personal knowledge of controversy regarding the hearing. Notice may be given either by a letter or phone call to the Municipal Board Office. Any request for continuance of a hearing should be submitted to the board 10 days before the hearing. Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Board may be purchased from the Documents Section, 117 University Avenue, St. Paul , Minnesota 55155, (612) 297-3000. The Rules are also contained in Minnesota Statutes Annotated immediately following Chapter 414 in the pocket part. If you are going to have legal representation at the hearing, it is strongly recommended that you forward this letter to your attorney. Please contact our office if you have any questions or if additional clarification is needed. Sincerely, MUNICIPAL BOARD Patricia D. Luny Assistant Direc or PDL:sg Enclosures • s D-240 Oak Park Heights/ A-4466 Stillwater BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Shirley J. Mihelich Chair John W. Carey Vice Chair Kenneth F. Sttte Commissioner IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ) DETACHMENT OF CERTAIN LAND FROM THE ) CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND ANNEXATION ) NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE CITY OF STILLWATER PURSUANT TO ) MINNESOTA STATUTES 414.061 ) Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414, as amended, before the Minnesota Municipal Board in the above-entitled matter. The hearing will be held on the 15th day of June, 1988 in the Board Room of the Washington County Courthouse, Stillwater, Minnesota commencing at 9:30 a.m. All persons shall be given an opportunity to be heard orally and to submit written data, statements or arguments concerning the above-entitled matter. The right to testify and the admission of testimony and other evidence shall be governed by the Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Board. [The Rules of the Minnesota Municipal Board may be purchased from the Documents Section, 117 University Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155, (612) 297-3000.] The property proposed for concurrent detachment and annexation, located within the County of Washington, State of Minnesota, is described as follows: Parcel A: Lots 11 , 12, 13, 14, and 15, Block 5, Mc MILLAN AND • • -2- COOLEY'S ADDITION TO STILLWATER, according to the recorded plat thereof. Together with that part of the North 20.00 feet of Lots 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of said Block 5, as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the north line of said Lots 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. Together with that part of vacated Eugene Street that accrues to the above described parcel . Parcel B: That part of former Hazel Street platted in Mc MILLIAN AND COOLEY'S ADDITION TO STILLWATER which lies north of the easterly extension of the south line of the North 20.00 feet of Lots 16 through 30, inclusive, Block 5 of said plat and south of the center line of former Prairie Street. Said south line of the North 20.00 feet is measured at a right angle to and parallel with the north line of said lots. Parcel C: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 34, Township 30 North, Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter distant 262.83 feet north from the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, said point is also the intersection of said west line with north right of way line of Trunk Highway 212; thence Ea t along said north right of way line 351 .31 feet to the point of beginning; thence East continuing along said north right of way line 60.98 feet; thence East continuing along said north right of way line 204.96 feet along a tangential curve concave to the north having a radius of 1395.09 feet and a central angle of 8 degrees 25 minutes 03 seconds to the west line of former 7th Street; thence North along the west line of said former 7th Street 558.67 feet to the northeast corner of former Lot 28, Block 2, MURDOCK'S ADDITION TO OAK PARK, now vacated; thence West 83.78 feet to the northwest corner of former Lot 27, of said Block 2; thence North 189.74 feet to the southwest corner of former Lot 27, Block 1 of said vacated plat; thence West 41 .88 feet to the southwest corner of former Lot 26, of said Block 1 ; thence North 139.57 feet to the northwest corner of said former Lot 26; thence West 358.81 feet to the Intersection of the south line of former Lot 12 of said Block 1 and the east line of the West 18.00 feet of said former Lot 12; thence North 139.42 feet along the east line of the West 18.00 feet of said former Lot 12, Block 1 to the north line of said former Lot 12; thence North 25.00 feet continuing along said last described course to the center line of former Prairie Street; thence West 130.73 feet along said center line of former Prairie Street to said west line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South along said west line 890.04 feet; t ence East parallel with P • -3- said north line of Trunk Highway 212 a distance of 351 .20 feet; thence South parallel with the east line of former Hazel street of said plat 166.00 feet to the point of beginning. After all testimony is complete and the record is closed, the Board will meet from time to time to deliberate, approve and issue its findings and order. Persons desiring to be present at such meetings or conference call meetings should contact the Board Office. Dated this 5th day of May, 1988. MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD 165 Metro Square Building St. Paul , Minnesota 55101 . .e44E75; Patricia D. Lundy Assistant Director S T I P U L A T I• O N 1 . Those involved in a proceeding for boundary adjustment may jointly stipulate facts into the record to expedite the proceeding. Attached is a suggested format for preparing a stipulation. The stipulation should not be regarded as complete evidence, but rather a tool to assist cities, townships, and property owners involved in a bounder adjustment proceeding prepare for the hearing. 2. Please provide all information possible. Attach additio al sheets and maps as necessary. (Petitioner/city should have already fil =d maps with the Municipal Board as described in M.S. 414.012. ) Other -uggested maps include: Map of existing highways, thoroughfares and streets (wi h indication of maintenance responsibility for each roadway). In case of new development proposals, description of thoroughfares an. streets in development area should be provided with a description of the effect upon traffic patterns and need for upgrading existing road ays. Aerial photo map. Map showing existing city services and proposed or need-d extensions of city services because of proposed boundary adjustment. Map showing existing hydrologic features. surface dr. inage, surface contours, soil types. Maps showing farmland, such as State Conservation Servi e classes I, II, and III or SCS prime farmland maps by counties. 3. The last page of the stipulation lists data resources and other agencies which may be helpful in providing data, resource inf•rmation, and assistance. PLEASE CROSS OUT ANY AREETHAT CANNOT BE STIPULATED AND OE ANY ATTACHMENTS '4 NECESSARY. To: Minnesota Municipal Board 165 Metro Square Building St. Paul , Minnesota 55101 S T I P U L A T I O N The City of and the Town of stipulate and agree to the following facts concerning Minnesota Statutes 414.031, Subd. 4 to wit: [The term "subject area" referred to herein means the area that is proposed for annexation.] (a) Present population, past population growth and projected population of the property proposed for annexation and the annexing municipality: I I I I Projected in I Source 1 1970 1 1980 I Current I Five Years I of Data Present City I J I 1 I Present Town I I I I I I Subject Area I I I I ] I (b) Geographic Features: I Present I Present I Subject 1 . I City I Town . Area I, Total Acreage I I 1 2. Describe any waterways in or adjacent to the subject area: (rivers, streams, shorelands, protected water, protection wetlands) 3. Describe the soils and terrain in the subject area: (c) Contiguity: 1 . The perimeter of the subject area is approximately % bordered by the municipality. (d) Present pattern of physical development of the subject area and city: 1 . There are the following land uses: (Please fill in acreages or percentages if available instead of yes or no. ) I City I Township j Subject Area I yes I no j yes I no I yes [ no Residential j j I 1 I Institutional I 1 I I I I (tax exempt) I 1 I I 1 1 •II II Industrial I I I I I I Vacant Lands I I 1 I I I -2- S 2. What type of development is proposed for the annexation area? 3. The present transportation network: Highways, Streets I Number of miles ofi I and Roads I Present City I Present Town I I Subject Area I I 4. Are any transportation changes planned in the subject area? yes no , in the city? yes no (e) Land Use Controls and Planning: 1 . Comprehensive Plan: I Adoption Date & I Status of Plan I No Existing Plan City I i Township I I County Region I 2. Have any area planning authorities adopted an official position on the proposed boundary adjustment? (planning commissions, boards, Joint boards, Met Council, State Planning Agency, region, county) Yes No Supportive Non-Supportive If yes, describe: 3. Please check where the following exists and give any necessary explanations on how it relates to the proposed action. (Since it may be possible that two or more plans attempt to regulate the same area, please circle whose ordinance presently applies to the subject area. ) City: ITownship: I County: I Date Adopted Yes1 No I Yesl No I Yes[ No I City I Town I County Zoning I I I I I 1 I I Subdivision I I I I I I I Regulations I 1 I I I I I Official I I I I I I I Map I Capital Improve- I I I I I I I ments Program & I I I I I I I Budgets I 1 I I I I I Fire I I I I I I I Code _I I I I I I Shoreland I I I I I I I Ordinance I 1 I I I I I Floodplain I I I I I I I Ordinance 1 1 Wild & Scenic I I I I I I I Rivers Ordinance I 1 I I I I I Sanitation Ordin- I I I I I I I ance (on-site I I I I I I I sewage treatment) I I I I I I I -3- 4. What is the current zoning of the subject area? 5. What do ou anticipate the zoning will be if this annexation is Y P 9 approved? 6. Is the subject area, or any portion thereof In Green Acres (M.S. 273.111 )? Yes No 7. Has the city adopted Urban/Rural Taxing Districts (M.S. 272.67)? Yes No (f) Present governmental services being provided in the annexing municipality and the property proposed for annexation: I City Pro-'City will Township Township (City Pro- vides to 'provide provides provides 'vides to Subject Ito Sub- to Town- to Sub- 'City: Area: IJect ArQIship Ject Area I Yes! No Yes No I Yes' No Yes! No Yes' No * Water ** Sanitary Sewer I I I I I & Waste Water Treatment I I I I I I Storm I I I I I I Sewer I I I I I I Solid Waste I I I I I I Collection I I I I I I & Disposal I I I I I I I Fire I I I I I I Protection I I I I I I Police I I I I I I Protection Street I I I I I I Improvements I I I 1 1 1 I I Street I I I I I I I Maintenance I I I I I I 1 I Administrative I I I I I I I I Services I I I I I I I I I Recreational I I J I 1 1 I I I 1 Other I L I 1 I I I I 1 1 * If city does not provide water to the subject area, who does? Would city take over or allow existing use? ** If city does not provide sewer to the subject area, who does? Would city take over or allow existing use? (g) Describe any existing or potential environmental problems and the need for additional services to resolve these problems: (Example: ground or surface water problems, water quality and levels, sewage treatment, air -4- • pollutant emissions, noise, odors, affect on fish or wildlife; affect on historical resources, archaeological resources, aesthetic resources; impairment of park lands, prime farmlands, wild and scenic rivers, critical area; abandoned dump or disposal site, etc. ) (h) Plans and programs by the annexing municipality for providing needed governmental services to the property proposed for annexation: ( i) Fiscal Data: 1 1 Trend over last Present 1 Present 1 Subject I three years: Classification: City: 1 Township: 1 Area: 1 (e.g. increasing, Year: 1 Year: I Year: Idecreasing, stable). Assessed I I 1 Valuation I I Mill Rate: 1 1 County 1 Local Unit 1 1 of Gov't. I I School 1 1 District I j Special 1 Taxing Dist. I I Insurance I Rating (fire) I I Levy I I Limit I I 1 Actual Current Levy I J I Total Bonded I Indebtedness (j) Would the proposed action affect area school districts or adjacent communities? Yes No (k) Are new services necessary for subject area? Yes No Does township have capacity to provide? Yes No ( I ) Could necessary governmental services best be provided by incorporating or annexation to an adjacent municipality to township? Yes No -5- • (m) If only a portion of the township is annexed: 1 . Does the remainder of the township have the ability to remain as is? Yes No 2. Should the remainder be annexed to another city? Yes No 3. Should the remainder be annexed to another township? Yes No STIPULATED TO BY: City of , this day of , 19 . Mayor City Clerk STIPULATED TO BY: Town of , this day of , 19 . Chair Town Clerk 8/86 • DATA RESOURCES • 1. Population: (Twin Cities Metro Area) Metropolitan Council State Demographer 300 Metro Square Building 200 Capitol Square Building 7th d Robert Streets 550 Cedar Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612) 291-6464 (612) 296-2557 2. Geographic Features: County Soil and Water Conservation Office University of Minnesota Department of Agriculture Planning Information Center Agricultural Extension Office Soil and Water Conservation Board LL 65, Metro Square Building 490 Coffey Hall 90 West Plato Boulevard 7th d Robert Streets 1420 Eckles Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55107 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 (612) 296-3767 (612) 296-1211 (612) 625-1915 3. Land Use: Affected City, Township, and County Offices and Planning Department Metropolitan Council Planning Information Center 300 Metro Square Building LL 65, Metro Square Building 7th 8 Robert Streets 7th 8 Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (512) 291-6464 (612) 296-1211 4. Transportation: Local City and Township Offices Minnesota Department of Transportation Transportation Building County Engineer John Ireland Boulevard St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 (612) 297-1177 5. Environmental Local City, Township, and County Offices MN Pollution Control Agency Minnesota Department of Health Planning Information Center 1935 West County Road B2 717 Delaware Street, Southeast LL 65, Metro Square Building Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440 7th R Robert Streets (612) 296-7373 (612) 623-5665 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612) 296-1211 6. Planning County Zoning Administrator State Planning Agency Metropolitan Coucil 100 Capitol Square Building 300 Metro Square Building Regional Development Commissions 550 Cedar Street 7th 8 Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Local Planning Board R. Commissions (612) 296-3985 (612) 291-6464 7. Governmental Sarvices: City, Township, County, and Regional Development Commission 8. Fiscal Data: City/Township/ and County Auditor City, Township, and County budgets Financial Reports made to the State Auditor. Other Sources of information: A helpful slide/tape show, Orderly Annexation: A Way to Grow, may be checked out from the State Planning Agency, 101 Capitol Square Building, 550 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612) 296-3985. Useful publications are available from the League of Minnesota Cities, 183 University Avenue, East, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612) 227-5600: Annexation of Land to Minnesota Cities, Consolidation of Citiess and A Guide for New Cities. • • LAW OFFICES OF ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF & VIERLING 1835 NORTHWESTERN AVENUE P 0.BOX C STILLWATER.MINNESOTA 55082 (6121 439-2878 LYLE J. ECKBERG JAMES F.LAMMERS ROBERT G.BRIGGS PAUL A,WOLFF April 27, 1988 MARK J.VIERLING JAMES 1.MOBERG VICKI L.GIFFORD Minnesota Municipal Board 165 Metro Square Building 121 East Seventh Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Re: Petition of Washington County to detach certain land from the City of Oak Park Heights and annex said land to the City of Stillwater Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith find Objections by City of Oak Park Heights , together with an Affidavit of Mailing , in regard to the above matter . If there should be any questions , do not hesitate to contact us. L c7—tckberg LJE:ks Encs. c : La Vor ne Wilson • . BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION BY ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THE CONCURRENT DETACHMENT OBJECTIONS BY AND ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 414. 061, SUBDIVISION 5 The City of Oak Park Heights hereby formally declares its objection to the Petition of Washington County to detach from Oak Park Heights and annex to Stillwater that land described in Exhibit A of said Petition. The City of Oak Park Heights bases its objections on the following factors: 1. The detachment/annexation is unnecessary as the present Washington County Government Center has more than adequate capacity to serve the needs of the County. Any expansion of the Government Center would be unnecessary. 2. In the event that the Washington County Government Center does need to expand in size , land is available located wholly within the corporate limits of the City of Stillwater , upon which to build such additional facilities. 3 . Minnesota Statutes do not require additions to the Courthouse to be wholly situated within the city limits of the county seat. Accordingly, the Washington County Government Center addition could be built on the land in question without having it be detached from Oak Park Heights and annexed by Stillwater . r► s 4. The City of Oak Park Heights services the land in question with municipal sewer , water and storm water facilities. Such service also includes new streets and curbs. Should the annexation be allowed , the City' s ability to control , collect fees for use and maintain said facilities will be impaired . These improvements were completed after the expenditure of substantial sums of money by the citizens of Oak Park Heights . These expenditures were approved with the express understanding that the improvements would service residents of the City of Oak Park Heights within the boundaries of the City of Oak Park Heights. To grant the Petition would mean that the residents of Oak Park Heights will be the unwilling donors of the substantial improvements they paid for , for the use of themselves and their fellow citizens. 5. That said Petition was initiated so that the City of Stillwater could take advantage of the substantial improvements already made by the City of Oak Park Heights . 6. If the Petition is approved and the City of Stillwater is allowed to use the substantial improvements paid for by the City of Oak Park Heights , the City of Oak Park Heights will then face a continuing obligation to serve the City of Stillwater with water and sewage service. 7. Residents of the City of Oak Park Heights who live completely. around the area in question will have no avenue to seek redress from their government for the area that they are supporting through their tax dollars. These residents of Oak Park Heights will be spending tax dollars to provide services to the City of Stillwater and yet they will be unable to approach the government of the City of Stillwater for redress because they are not citizens of of Stillwater . Also , they will not be able to seek redress from the City of Oak Park Heights because the land in question will not be within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Oak Park Heights. 8. The Petition of Washington County is incorrect and misleading in paragraph 5 thereof, in which it states that the City of Oak Park Heights has consented to this detachment and annexation proceeding . - 2 - 111 The City of Oak Park Heights respectfully objects to the Petition of Washington County for the detachment and annexation of certain land situated in the City of Oak Park Heights to the City of Stillwater . Dated this 19th day of April , 1988 . CITY OF a i' HE TS By Lyre J. Eckberg ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS, WOLFF & VIERLING Attorneys for City of Oak Park Heights 1835 Northwestern Avenue P. O. Box C Stillwater , Minnesota 55082 Telephone : ( 612) 439-2878 c: Sally Evert, Chair/Washington County Board of Commissioners Charles Swanson, Washington County Administrator Richard M. Arney, Washington County Attorney Howard R. Turrentine, Assistant Washington County Attorney Wally Abrahamson, Mayor/City of Stillwater Mary Lou Johnson, City Clerk/ City of Stillwater David T. Magnuson, City Attorney, City of Stillwater - 3 - • ! • Page two - Minutes 3/28/88 Torgerson, seconded by Doerr, moved to approve request from Northwestern Bell to bury telephone cable on south frontage road at Osgood and Highway #36. 5 aye votes. Carried. Doerr , seconded by O'Neal, moved to direct City Attorney to file objection to Washington County request for detachment of property located within the city. 5 aye votes. Carried. O'Neal, seconded by Doerr, moved to table Ordinance #702 relating to road restrictions until meeting of April 11th. 5 aye votes. Carried. Park Committee meeting scheduled for Wednesday, April 6th at City Hall commencing at 6 :30 P.M. , Torgerson, seconded by Doerr, moved to adjourn. 5 aye votes. Adjourned at 7 :55 P.M. `'''.5 7: Vonne Wilson istrator Adman Treasurer/ • • RICHARD /��NGTON.C�G 3i � Y � (OCSTY ATTORNEY Richard M. Arney, Washington County Attorney Civil/Social Services Division (612)779-5404 Washington County Government Center 14900 61st Street North — P.O. Box 6 Criminal Division (612)779-5405 Stillwater, MN 55082-0006 Telephone: (612) 779-5405 March 18, 1988 Minnesota Municipal Board 165 Metro Square Building St. Paul , MN 55101 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: I would like to correct an error in Paragraph 5 of my Petition for Detachment/ Annexation. In that paragraph I mistakenly stated that Exhibit A was resolution number 7870 of the City of Oak Park Heights. As you can tell from Exhibit A, it is actually resolution number 7870, the City of Stillwater. Very truly yours, RICHARD M. ARNEY, COUNTY ATTORNEY WASHINGTON c749.INNESOTA A—JUD— )00/\,j;S- Howard R. Turrentine Assistant County Attorney HRT/sb cc: Nile Kriesel1//' Lavonne Wilson • Washington County does not discriminate on the basis of race,color,national origin, sex, religion, age and handicapped status in employment or provision of service. OGW@ f An Equal Opportunity Employer of.l.ii Phone: (612)296-2428 V:' T 7 7� O;tfi`C 4,s7 4:1NI�E� STATE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 165 Metro Square 7th & Robert Streets St, Paul, Minnesota 55101 March 17, 1988 Howard R. Turrentine Assistant County Attorney 14900 61st St. North P.O. Box 6 Stillwater, MN 55082-0006 Re: D-240 Oak Park Heights/A-4466 Stillwater Dear Mr. Turrentine: The Minnesota Municipal Board acknowledges receipt of the petition for concurrent detachment and annexation of land from the City of Oak Park Heights to the City of Stillwater. Please refer to the above docket number in any future communications regarding this proposed boundary adjustment. We have received a resolution in support from the City of Stillwater. Have you contacted the City of Oak Park Heights and do they wish to adopt a resolution in support of the detachment/annexation? Please confirm the status of this matter for our records. The Department of Transportation Cartographic Unit will review the property description and you will be contacted if there are any problems. A hearing will be scheduled on this matter. You will receive further instructions prior to the hearing. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please feel free to contact this office. Sincerely, MUNICIPAL BOARD Patricia D. Lundy Assistant Director cc: 'Mary Lou Johnson, Stillwater City Clerk LaVonne Wilson, Oak Park Heights Administrator - ' ss � J • yyd RICHARD �NG CY COUNTY ATTORNEY \ o¢ Richard M. Arney, Washington County Attorney Civil/Social Services Division (612)779-5404 Washington County Government Center Criminal Division (612)779-5405 14900 61st Street North — P.O. Box 6 Stillwater, MN 55082-0006 Telephone: (612) 779-5405 March 15, 1988 Lavonne Wilson City Clerk City of Oak Park Heights 14168 - 57th Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 Dear Ms. Wilson: Enclosed herewith and served upon you by United States mail please find the Petition of Washington County for the Detachment and Annexation of Certain Land pursuant to Minn. Stat. §414.061, Subd. 5. The map mentioned in Paragraph 5 of the Petition is rather bulky and difficult to send. If you desire a copy, please contact me. Very truly yours, RICHARD M. ARNEY, COUNTY ATTORNEY r WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA I 1 Howard R. Turrentine Assistant County Attorney Enclosure HRT/sb Washington County does not discriminate on the basis of race,color,national origin, sex, religion, age and handicapped status in employment or provision of service. 690 • • TO: Minnesota Municipal Board 165 Metro Square Building St. Paul , MN 55101 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION BY ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THE CONCURRENT DETACHMENT AND ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 414.061 , SUBDIVISION 5 We, the undersigned, Sally Evert and Charles Swanson, being the chairman and administrator of the Washington County Board of Commissioners on behalf of Washignton County as the owner of the land more particularly described in the attached Exhibit A, hereby request the Minnesota Municipal Board to detach said property from the City of Oak Park Heights and annex it to the City of Stillwater, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.061 , Subd. 5. In bringing forward this Petition, the petitioners state that: 1. Washington County is the owner of the land in the area proposed for detachment/annexation. 2. The property is presently within the City of Oak Park Heights and abuts the City of Stillwater in the County of Washington, State of Minnesota. 3. The property proposed for detachment/annexation is approximately 11 acres. 4. The reason for the request for this boundary adjustment is the property proposed for annexation is required for the expansion of the Washington County Government Center and Minnesota Statutes require that the services proposed to be located in the expansion must be in the County seat. The City of Stillwater is the County seat for Washington County and the land proposed for the expansion of the Government Center is located in the City of Oak Park Heights. Presently, municipal services such as police, fire and sanitary services are being provided - 1 - • • to the existing -Government Center by the City of Stillwater. When the Government Center is expanded, those same services will be needed by the expanded Government Center and those services can be most efficiently and effectively provided by the City of Stillwater. 5. Attached to this Petition as Exhibit A is Resolution No. 7870 of the City of Oak eights consenting to the concurrent detachment from the City of Oak Park Heights and Annexation to the City of Stillwater of the land that is the sub- . ject of this proceeding. 6. Attached to this Petition is a map showing the property proposed for detachment/annexation and its relationship to the City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Stillwater, including the proper legal description. Date: 1rv■a,mA is lq gg WASHINGTON COUNTY, A BODY POLITIC AND CORPORATE Sally Evert, a rman, as ington County Board of Commissioners Charles Swan on, ashington County Administra r - 2 - • • • RESOLUTION NO. 7870 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONCURRENT DETACHMENT AND ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS LOCATING IN THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS, PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. § 414.061, SUBD. 5 WHEREAS, Washington County, a body politic and corporate is the owner of certain lands located within the corporate limits of the City of Oak Park Heights and legally described on the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, Washington County desires to have their land concurrently detached from the City of Oak Park Heights and annexed by the City of Stillwater so as to have their land located within the corporate limits of the City of Stillwater; and WHEREAS, Washington County will be initiating proceedings for the con- current detachment of their property from the City of Oak Park Heights and ursuant to Minn. Stat.etition its annexation to the City of Stillwater by a p P § 414.061, subd. 5; and WHEREAS, if the Minnesota Municipal Board, after conducting hearings finds that the concurrent detachment and annexation will be for the best interests of the Municipalities, the City of Stillwater would accept the annexation of the land owned by Washington County to the City of Stillwater; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Stillwater consents to the concurrent detachment from the City of Oak Park Heights and annexation to the City of Stillwater of the land described in Exhibit A upon the conditions set forth above. Adopted by Council this 16th day of February, 1988 G i MAYOR ATTEST: )41/X4 CITY CLE 1 EXHIBIT A 411 EXHIBIT A , ,. PARCEL A Lots 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , and 15 , Block 5 , Mc MILLAN AND COOLEY'S ADDITION TO STILLWATER, according to the recorded plat thereof. Together" with that part of the North 20 . 00 feet of Lots 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 and 20 of said Block 5 , as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the north line of said Lots 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 and 20 . Together with that part of vacated Eugene Street that accrues to the above described parcel . PARCEL B That part of former Hazel Street platted in Mc MILLIAN AND COOLEY'S ADDITION TO STILLWATER which lies north of the easterly extension of the south line of the North 20 . 00 feet of Lots 16 through 30 , inclusive, Block 5 of said plat and south of the center line of former Prairie Street. Said south line of the North 20. 00 feet is measured at a right angle to and parallel with the north line of said lots . 1 • `y. 411 PARCEL C That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 34 , Township 30 North, Range 20 West , Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows : Commencing at a point on the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter distant 262 .83 feet north from the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, said point is also the intersection of said west line with north right of way line of Trunk Highway 212 ; thence East along said north right of way line 351 . 31 feet to the point of beginning ; thence East continuing along said north right of way line 60 . 98 feet ; thence East continuing along said north right of way line 204 . 96 feet along a tangential curve concave to the north having a radius of 1395 . 09 feet and a central angle of 8 degrees 25 minutes 03 seconds to the west line of former 7th Street; thence North along the west line of said former 7th Street 558 .67 feet to the northeast corner of former Lot 28 , Block 2 , MURDOCK'S ADDITION TO OAK PARK, now vacated; thence West 83 . 78 feet to the northwest corner of former Lot 27 , of said Block 2 ; thence North 189 . 74 feet to the southwest corner of former Lot 27 , Block 1 of said vacated plat; thence West 41 . 88 feet to the southwest corner of former Lot 26 , of said 2 Block 1 ; thence North 139 . 57 feet to the northwest corner of said former Lot 26 ; thence West 358 . 81 feet to the intersection of the south line of former Lot 12 of said Block 1 and the east line of the West 18 . 00 feet of said former Lot 12 ; thence North 139 . 42 feet along the east line of the West 18 . 00 feet of said former Lot 12 , Block 1 to the north line of said former Lot 12 ; thence North 25 . 00 feet continuing along said last desribed course to the center line of former Prairie Street; thence West 130. 73 feet along said center line of former Prairie Street to said west line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South along said west line 890 . 04 feet ; thence East parallel with said north line of Trunk Highway 212 a distance of 351 . 20 feet ; thence South parallel with the east line of former Hazel street of said plat 166 .00 feet to the point of beginning. 3 • CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS MINUTES OF MEETING HELD MONDAY, MARCH 14 , 1988 Call to order by Acting Mayor, Doerr. Present: O 'Neal , Seggelke , Torgerson, Eckberg and Wilson. Absent: Sormerfeldt. Mr. Sam Griffith, Washington County Housing & Redevelopment Authority, discussed projects being considered in the city. Proposal from TMT Recycling, Inc . was tabled until council receives further information. Torgerson, seconded by Seggelke , moved to table the resolution request from Washington County regarding detachment of property located within the city. 4 aye votes. Carried. O 'Neal , seconded by Torgerson, moved to adopt Resolution #88-3-6 formally rejecting the above detachment request as presented March 14 , 1988 . Roll call vote taken with 4 aye votes cast. Resolution adopted. O 'Neal, seconded by Seggelke, moved to approve minutes of February 8th and 22nd as presented. 4 aye votes. Carried. O'Neal, seconded by Seggelke , moved to advertise for street sweeping bids. Bids to be opened Monday, April 11 , 1988 at 7 :00 P.M. Completion of project is Friday, May 27, 1988 . 4 aye votes. Carried. Torgerson, seconded by Seggelke , moved to hire Arthur Londroche as part-time patrolman upon Chief Ostendorf ' s recommendation. Starting salary is $10. 17 and to start immediately . 4 aye votes. Carried. O 'Neal, seconded by Torgerson, moved to approve fire protection contract with the City of Bayport. Copy available at Clerk' s office. 4 aye votes. Carried. Seggelke , seconded by O'Neal, moved to approve payment of bills and Treasurer' s report as presented. Details available at Clerk' s office. 4 aye votes. Carried. O 'Neal, seconded by Torgerson, moved to adjourn. 4 aye votes. Adjourned at 8 :30 P.M. Vonne Wilson Administrator/Treasurer ,�GTON C� • • Donald C.Wisniewski,P.E. y¢ G,L Director Public Works/County Engineer WASHINGTON COUNTY Mark L. Mattson, Assistant County Engineer 0 �5° PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Richard D. Herold, �9iHVYPGGPE Engineer En in/Construction 11660 MYERON ROAD NORTH, • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082-6058 Desi 9 9� 612/439-6058 John P. Perkovich, Parks Director Lawrence W. Bousquet, Traffic and Maintenance Engineer February 22, 1988 Lyle C.Doerr, Facility Manager Mayor Frank Sommerfeldt City of Oak Park Heights 14168 - 57th Street North Stillwater, MN 55082 RE: Resolution Request Detachment of Lands Owned by Washington County from the City of Oak Park Heights Dear Mayor Sommerfeldt: As discussed with the City Council on February 8, 1988, Washington County is requesting detachment of lands owned by the County east of Panama Avenue and in the southwest corner of the government center com- plex presently within the city limits of Oak Park Heights. We have requested and received approval from the City of Stillwater for annex- ation of this property to Stillwater. The concurrent detachment and annexation procedure is facilitated by receipt of resolutions from both cities, agreeing to the action. Therefore, Washington County hereby formally requests the City of Oak Park Heights to consider and approve the attached resolution, consenting to detachment of the County owned lands from Oak Park Heights. We ask that the City respond to this request by April 1, 1988. I appreciate the time and attention you have given this letter. I shall look forward to hearing from you regarding his matter. Sincerely, Ce4-11-CLQ- rti: Donald C. Wisniewski, P.E. Director Public Works/County Engineer DCW/ea Enclosure cc: Sally Evert Richard Arney Charles Swanson Robert Turrentine Washington County does not discriminate on the basis of race,color,national origin, sex,religion,age and handicapped status in employment or the provision of services. • • Resolution Authorizing Concurrent Detachment and Annexation Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 414.061, subd. 1 WHEREAS, Washington County, a body politic and corporate, is the owner of certain land located within the corporate limits of the City of Oak Park Heights and legally described on the attached Exhibit A; WHEREAS, Washington County desires to have their land concurrently detached from the City of Oak Park Heights and annexation to the City of Stillwater of the land described on Exhibit A above; WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights consents to the concurrent detachment from the City of Oak Park Heights and annexation to the City of Stillwater of the land owned by Washington County; and WHEREAS, this proceeding can be accomplished pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 414.061, subd. 1 by submitting to the Minnesota Municipal Board the resolution of both the City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Stillwater describing the land and stating their desire to detach and annex the land; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 414.061, the City of Oak Park Heights consents to the concurrent detachment from the City of Oak Park Heights and annexation to the City of Stillwater of the land described on the attached Exhibit A. Attest: City of Oak Park Heights, Minnesota By: Clerk Its Mayor '.;;fit*, • EXHIBIT A ' PARCEL A • Lots 11 , 12 , 13, 14 , and 15 , Block 5. Mc MILLAN AND COOLEY'S ADDITION TO STILLWATER, according to the recorded plat thereof. Together'with that part of the North 20.00 feet of Lots 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of said Block 5 , as measured at a right angle to and parallel with the north line of said Lots 16 , 17 , 18, 19 and 20. Together with that part of vacated Eugene Street that accrues to the above described parcel . PARCEL B That part of former Hazel Street platted in Mc MILLIAN AND COOLEY'S ADDITION TO STILLWATER which lies north of the easterly extension of the south line of the North 20.00 feet of Lots 16 through 30, inclusive, Block 5 of said plat and south of the center line of former Prairie Street. Said south line of the North 20.00 feet is measured at a right angle to and parallel with the north line of said lots. • • PARCEL C That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 34 , Township 30 North , Range 20 West, Washington County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the west line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter distant 262.83 feet north from the southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, said point is also the intersection of said west line with north right of way line of Trunk Highway 212; thence East along said north right of way line 351 .31 feet to the point of beginning; thence East continuing along said north right of way line 60.98 feet; thence East continuing along said north right of way line 204 .96 feet along a tangential curve concave to the north having a radius of 1395.09 feet and a central angle of 8 degrees 25 minutes 03 seconds to the west line of former 7th Street; thence North along the west line of said former 7th Street 558.67 feet to the northeast corner of former Lot 28, Block 2, MURDOCK'S ADDITION TO OAK PARK, now vacated; thence West 83. 78 feet to the northwest corner of former Lot 27, of said Block 2; thence North 189. 74 feet to the southwest corner of former Lot 27 , Block 1 of said vacated plat; thence West 41 .88 feet to the southwest corner of former Lot 26, of said 2 Block 1 ; thence North 139.57 feet to the northwest corner of said former Lot 26; thence West 358.81 feet to the intersection of the south line of former Lot 12 of said Block 1 and the east line of the West 18.00 feet of said former Lot 12; thence North 139.42 feet along the east line of the West 18.00 feet of said former Lot 12, Block 1 to the north line of said former Lot 12; thence North 25 .00 feet continuing along said last desribed course to the center line of former Prairie Street; thence West 130.73 feet along said center line of former Prairie Street to said west line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South along said west line 890.04 feet ; thence East parallel with said north line of Trunk Highway 212 a distance of 351 .20 feet; thence South parallel with the east line of former Hazel street of said plat 166 .00 feet to the point of beginning. • 40 01 Itll We are residents of Oak Park and tax payers of Washington County, but no one asked us if we wanted a new jail in our neighborhood. No one ever asked us if we wanted the Washington County Government Center here. We don ' t want our money being spent without our approval - who represents us? Who cares about what we want? What happened to government for the people? We want our representatives to care about us - we want to matter and we want our opinions considered. And most of all we don ' t want a new jail in our neighborhood now or ever --- Na 7 Address `�(, . ► / l 2-83 /q//t Cat c- 'Y/Lo C2 0 � /7 '5 & --ti ' ( - & -iA /0«o 64 A• rl 4 t-1.1. ._ • . ,. CAI 1 (2 /7c --P t c2w '71,49-v. j o 6/ 7 A ► c 1�`� ( - ' ,.1 -_, f � ate .. *AMP _ 6?- 06 e4ris Ai& ' 3,- a1019 8 -6'o , rQl. Igo • !! g,o!r4o'1me- r y, r, .1 X20 7- ° ' Ls 0 7— b Y-41 & -1,10 c I �/ 3� � di-r te' r Lt3 u /1 cm,.. /l /1/..--r_i-1./- 1-7-,j--i.0.--m....:-. --le->e_c_i 6 /.... ye , e, ' F,. . (/V v12ctJ . \CL.406-C.,e) 61 1.....-; G/Ak <7 .6.,,,ie 0 .11 j( As.1k `Ia r i. . -• /.1, , IMillik OP i 41, . We are residents of Oak Park and tax payers of Washington County, but no one asked us if we wanted a new jail in our neighborhood. No one ever asked us if we wanted the Washington County Government Center here. We don' t want our money being spent without our approval - Who represents us? Who cares about what we want? What happened to government for the people? We want our representatives to care about us - we want to matter and we want our opinions considered. And most of all we don' t want a new jail in our neighborhood now or ever - Name Address i ) 1 a o_... I, r A fc, 1.,..*“el 4.-— I- ./ .e,.VK---- /0 3 444' ci.j2) 1 / S- / CA c:=K--- ( 9 (50 - dill 1 4 I V; 1 ' (1 i --.,e4, 40.0- ... . .7.e.$)._ C),(i6„.2../.--- 7 Y-ye,Azi .f.(7<-42,0"( _.) - -, ..4., . _ . 4 — -, /fi_. /d../2/ 3 ,7'/Y- 2i-Mv-e-irtz;:z.. ---/-7-9--'7--(:) „'.. ,1-:-<,--.--) .7l_r- 1Z1--ttl- 62 Ai, —,PiWA,„4, • ' Ltl _.-41z CO • 3/5 7aiti-c- . so-e . 4 ,. e. . ))), ,I:t4,fu,....., 6 3 44? S// je€14,41tA2)iitn ..5-: /Sic )1, _ _ p-o- v/ 6 34,-(,11-1, giiitabA'//. ) .-.- IjoVe -s1-1/ IC2 r'c'l -- S- (6"/ C 3 5 phi n , • , , P4 ,..„ v._ ....„.„...,\L....... .........----, v-31-?5 cA - fi-- rip,4 . Lia,, ,-711,,,Jeta , e 1 1.11 — 4 • ,ut ,, • ,, , , #'' YvV4‘e.""LIT 41" d VA'114-41' ' ' .i ij qi?Ja__,,...e._, o< 2 .0" -t--,-rt- II , n • 0 , . Name Address ...... _ Ji.L.....x.:diJA &s.12- II ,i 8- 1 ...--) c,. _ 7, ihi of 1.1 _ ‘ AA' r • . & - ct-c-t-Leiz.--• 6 0 g 1 Pcv74.4... ; _ ,.).4.4.4.__bh. • . _ _ _i___ _4$6---- — r .64 tt V • • el__ i ) -7( _k2.‘2.6i co-A--0 c i..-e-,-. d ' /f L11/ 4 _ E9A -1 . __eitaY __ litsq iv...4' ..-... ........--■•.- .--- ..-.....-......_ .. - i,oxnali iL262_2 s _ z , &_13, 6-ci?d..a. _ .._CL 82_.41._A gt,d-• . ,,,) 8 ...5:1r) 0-.A, . - , - ,,, C77,---k. ,\ ),-)() ' ', (1, ,- i 4 „ ..... ,..... -441-:.:.1...m.... ....c...... --'4'..‘-'"....-.....--..... .. -.....,............... - -,,--,-...:, v , ( - __,...t.,),.4. ......:2.:.,'-t.",:,,_, 1..... _... ..._ _ (.5 r),.;,..,::i,2 ,-4 ."-'`,"`..4f yi ..... if:442 / • /:) :.--- . „, - _ _ _____ _______ _ ______.... ._ ..... ____ _ /, 14-1 ) i i _.1.4.1 _ ._,L(L. ),i 2. „--, zfLa-21.1,2i_i___ Lli ....th•f, 1,,) .., _ _ _.._ 44 , ____ . , - 0 • Name / Address tv1:7/1(Zi atifi;-& //0 ,1 47 ,051Q4&i L/-J , . 14 21. &1 1 6 V-4�zz--th -tiii 41. . n, . .. 4 I 1 ' 2 :, 11( �t _Rim& _1,3 ___ __0,, /5 )7 N. logi sf, riAIM a t e t4:.2 /S�na -(4?-3 /S7: .D . ..411Milf:._ As-v ?.2 - ,,,,fit /ovow -, 7)-,r- - - /S-01( - C.? =i +�- Si-- 410,- `-�..S r.- Cleritl -4 e 1/a4-7),-- 6 i Par Cr v:-77,0 ° /-- / Sal�' z, I' 2 ,�at4 ✓ 1JAA-r ili rJil.d d/ .1/.r///.i�s./ ‘„:// /3,g e i y d +A •.■....--.....a. n —i - /1'/ P_Lcc-e e2-vx—e------'.. j 7( / zA die v�,,-- 4, /k/ P e e ' ' ,, /3/ 9,z - 1.I1 fr), //i. A9 -kizei/ (. gift.v lc/ 7a 1,92J Xt✓. i.4zi -' t_e- 9k. --_,_g_4,,,„ 16.1 -1 (9.2.4-1Q/ - 00 . ) /.1';_,.. _ ,.,_ _ . . __ _ ' - : _ ' _I/ (__,.......: Z._._ 2; 4 lt, _ (( kit.i. 3.0- G ru., 13a. t.;\ Acks 0 ,7_,L.H _41.tc, /L./ 6, -e,66 1.9.a. t.:\ .. ..t.Le 0 . a e/6s- �_�t J Z— `77 - fMg.0� I/ /lid'5 .z1 s `d 6 111 , PA, CC,e_.`Yk . 4,11 oe ,,, 4 23(-1,4w,, 6 ill- Pc `1,1,i-irk 6#- y' • 0 Name A d d r e s s .._ -.- -4 .-- ,.::. ) .. -./. 7 /. ( r , .,‘ /.:, , —, , 6;c _ -1t:Lzi/ _iy ii. is-ct,--/-Li _. - ,,,, L, )_,,,_4,, . . , _ oi... ..,/r fcs...,:ji .,_. __... It 147/..• -. .....-... /(2//// C.......1 _+ / fr 5— , ,i)4r 71"I errli 4 ..,-,...- Lea _____________ .............._ hill ...roma* rm.ma -rm....rm. .... a...........ram.. .. ..rar 7 , 1 , 411 410 , STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT WASHINGTON COUNTY OF WASHINGTON TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT The City of Oak Park Heights, C1-88-005009 a Municipal Corporation, Petitioner , v. APPELLANT'S BRIEF The City of Stillwater , a Municipal Corporation, and Washington County, Respondents. In the Matter of the Petition for the D-240 Oak Park Heights Detachment of Certain Land from the A-4466 Stillwater City of Oak Park Heights and Annexation to the City of Stillwater Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.061 TO: The Honorable District Court Pursuant to the agreement of counsel and the Order of the Honorable Kenneth J. Maas , Jr . , the Brief and Memorandum of the City of Oak Park Heights is herewith submitted to the District Court. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS In 1979, the City of Oak Park Heights completed its Comprehensive Plan and forwarded same pursuant to law to its neighboring municipalities and Washington County for purposes of comment by those adjoining governmental units. I'I • The City of Stillwater now seeks the annexation of certain lands from the City of Oak Park Heights which were identified in that Comprehensive Plan for purposes of use by Washington County for construction of a jail facility on the site . The annexation proceedings before the Municipal Board factually involved three parcels of land which have been identified as Parcels A, B and C. The three parcels involve lands as follows : (A) a relatively small piece of land located in the southwest corner of what is now the existing Washington County Government Center parking lot as constructed in 1985; (This area originally housed the Washington County Courthouse Annex occupied by the Washington County Attorney' s Office and the Department of Child Support and Collections. That building was removed as part of the construction of the . Government Center addition in 1985 ) ; ( B) a section of land occupying what is now Panama Avenue within the City of Oak Park Heights in which there is a paved and completed street and local and municipal utilities in the City of Oak Park Heights inclusive of water mains , sewer mains , and storm sewer drainage facilities; (C) an approximate eleven acre parcel acquired by Washington County from Kenneth and Beverly Heuer on January 3, 1980. For purposes of identification within this document, Parcel A shall reference the small parcel located in the southwest corner of the parking lot; Parcel B, the lands involved in Panama Avenue ; and Parcel C, the former Kenneth Heuer property. The predominant issues involved with regard to - 2 - T S • • this annexation affect Parcel B and C. Both are located within an area of the City of Oak Park Heights which has always been zoned for single and multiple family. The 1979 Comprehensive Plan prepared by the City of Oak Park Heights and approved by the Metropolitan Council provides for to Parcel B and C as follows : Three major concerns should be addressed in regards to the future planning for this district. The immediate concern should be the preservation of the present housing stock. Throughout the neigh- borhood , early signs of deterioration are appearing and the blighting effect should be arrested . A housing maintenance code and various assistance programs available to the city to aid the homeowners in protecting their property values should be utilized . A second concern has arisen over the proposed expansion of the new Washington County Adminis- trative facilities, as this active center has already adversely impacted the adjacent neighbor- ' hoods ( excessive traffic , lights, and noise occurring at all hours of the day) . - 3 ' , _ ! S The expansion of the county offices will have considerable impact upon Oak Park Heights, as the city stands to lose both existing homes through condemnation and vacant land potentially available for new owner occupied housing . As the proposed expansion will result in the loss of additional tax revenue producing property in the City of Oak Park Heights and may create further negative impacts on remaining residential uses , the City of Oak Park Heights should actively and aggressively participate in the planning efforts for the facility' s expansion . The use to which the remaining vacant parcels in the district are put is one final concern. Scattered vacant sites should be infilled with single family homes. This is already occurring as several new homes have recently been constructed . Additional housing opportunities could be provided if the large vacant site off Panama Avenue is available . Owner occupied housing variety should be emphasized with the overall developed density for this district being mid-density (4-10 units per acre) , reflecting the character of the existing housing stock in the surrounding area. - 4 - r • • Prior to its purchase of the Kenneth Heuer property (Parcel C) , Washington County had received the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan and in its letter directed to Martha Greenwald of Midwest Planning & Research on November 27, 1979, Dan Koehler of the Washington County Planning Department stated : In general , this proposed plan is well prepared and detailed . With the few exceptions noted , the plan is consistent with existing and proposed plans for Washington County and adjacent townships . The balance of Mr . Koehler ' s letter did not in any detail object or discuss the application of the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan to Parcels A, B or C. In like manner , the City of Stillwater had received also a copy of the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan and its Mayor , David C. Junker wrote on March 25, 1980 : The City of Stillwater has reviewed the Compre- hensive Municipal Plan of Oak Park Heights and has found no apparent major conflicts with the plans being developed for the City of Stillwater . Nonetheless, Washington County, without conferring with the City of Oak Park Heights, or reviewing applicable zoning and ordinance restrictions, on January 3, 1980 purchased the Kenneth Heuer property intending same to be used for an addition to what was then the existing Washington County Courthouse . On March 7, 1980 Washington County filed a request with the City of Oak Park Heights for a Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit to allow for the future expansion of what they were then proposing as the Washington County Administrative Offices ( see city' s Exhibit C) . At that time, Washington County was proposing to locate on Parcel C (the Heuer property) . The new county - 5 - government facility which would house Washington County Social Services, Community Services and several satellite offices which were being brought into the Stillwater area. On an interim basis , the county sought a Conditional Use Permit to use the former Heuer homestead as an office until such time as the new county government center would be constructed . In its commentary on the county' s plan as proposed in 1980, the Oak Park Planning Consultant, Northwest Associated Consultants , stated : The Washington County existing facility has already adversely impacted adjacent neighborhoods. The location of the Washington County Administrative Offices draws traffic off of Osgood Avenue through the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Furthermore , as the Sheriff' s Department is located adjacent to these residential neighborhoods , nearby residents have been forced to accept noises and light typical of active commercial uses and clearly not compatible with residential areas . In their recommendation section, the Planning Consultants provided : We have found rezoning the proposed site to an R-B District would be questionable based upon the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use . To permit the rezoning prior to reviewing any specific plans for the facility would allow for the possible development of additional incompatible uses if the county decided that facility area needs would not require the entire site and replatted accordingly with the intention of selling the unneeded remaining lots. The county, in 1980, sought rezoning as they were proposing the construction of a government facility that would be in excess of 35 feet in height . The existing residential zoning , - 6 - 4 • . although allowing government buildings as a conditional use , did not allow their construction in excess of 35 feet and , hence , the county' s application for rezoning was made at that time. At the April 14, 1980 meeting of the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights, the city made its minutes reflect: The County has decided not to pursue the rezoning at this time. Consequently, the county withdrew its application for rezoning in 1980 and proceeded no further at that time. In 1983, Washington County again requested the City of Oak Park Heights approve a Conditional Use Permit to expand the county courthouse onto the ten acre Heuer property (Parcel C) . The county also requested that Panama Street be vacated to provide for a single unified site within the existing courthouse site in Stillwater . In a Planning Report of 4 August 1983 by Northwest Associated Consultants as it affected the 1983 application by Washington County, the City of Oak Park Heights Planning Consultant provided as follows : The Washington County existing facility has been cited in the past as creating compatibility problems with adjacent residential uses. This county facility, which also houses the County Sheriff' s Department has forced nearby residents to accept high traffic volumes, noise and lights that are typical of commercial uses and are clearly not compatible with residential areas*** Past actions by the county indicate that they recognize that the proposed courthouse facility is better suited to a commercial zoning district when , in March of 1980, the county requested that the site be rezoned from R-2 to an R-B zoning district. At the time of the rezoning request , no development plans were provided by the county*** Review of the recently submitted site plans for the courthouse expansion has not alleviated any of the concerns that would prevent the rezoning of the - 7 - 1 • • property; rather , the size of the office facility may have enhanced the problems of incompatability with nearby residential uses. The official Minutes for the City of Oak Park y Heights at a special meeting held on Wednesday, August 17, 1983 for the express purpose of hearing the county' s request for the rezoning - that had been submitted in 1983, reflected that Mayor Sommerfeldt opened the meeting at 7: 00 o' clock p.m. and read the following letter received by the City Clerk on August 17, 1983 : The County of Washington hereby withdraws its Application for Conditional Use Permit to permit construction of an administrative office building which application was dated June 9, 1983 and which was scheduled for public hearing on August 17, 1983 , and the Petition to Vacate Panama Avenue which was filed in conjunction with the Application for Conditional Use Permit. Signed , C. A. Riebel , County Administrator . As referenced by City Exhibit E, the Memorandum of Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc . to the City of Oak Park Heights , Washington County in November of 1983 submitted an application requesting the City of Oak Park Heights amend their Comprehensive Plan so as to allow the construction of governmental buildings in the area each of the existing Washington County Courthouse ( the Heuer property - Parcel C) . In addition , the county again requested that the zoning be changed from its current and previously existing R-2 Low and Medium Density Residential Classification to R-B Residential Business Transitional District. Again, the county applied for a Conditional Use Permit in addition to the rezoning and requested that the height limitation be extended from 35 to 45 feet within the ordinance . In its December 12, 1983 regular meeting of the - 8 - s City Council of Oak Park Heights, public hearing was open with regard to the application from Washington County and the official minutes reflect the following action was taken : Motion made by Carufel , seconded by Seggelke , moved to approve the zoning request on the above project. Aye voting by Carufel, Nay votes by Sommerfeldt, Mondor , Seggelke, and O'Neil . Zoning request denied . Following the December , 1983 action , Washington County took no appeal to the Board of Hearings and appeal to the City of Oak Park Heights nor did they pursue any appeal or request for review to the District Courts . In 1985 and 1986 , Washington County constructed and completed the administrative office complex that it had been pursuing on the south lawn of the then existing county government facility which was entirely contained within the City of Stillwater with the exception of Parcel A as noted above. Washington County pursued and received no permit from the City of Oak Park Heights to implement parking as a principal use as to Parcel A, nor did they seek or secure any building permit from the City of Oak Park Heights as it affects that property. Negative neighborhood impact as a result of that construction continued to occur with complaints from residents being frequently received from the City of Oak Park Heights and as noted , damage to adjacent properties having occurred to at least one property owner , as is reflected by the October 29, 1984 appraisal by Raymond W. Kirchner of the Donald Swenberg property - 9 - i i at 1490 North 60th Street, Oak Park Heights , reflecting a $10, 000 depreciation in value of Mr . Swenberg' s property as a result of the construction of the Washington County administrative facility. It should also be noted that at no time prior to its 1980 Application for Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit or prior to either application in 1983 for Rezoning and Conditional Use Permits, did Washington County ever approach the City of Oak Park Heights and request detachment of the Heuer property from the city claiming that those facilities by law had to be located within the City of Stillwater . By correspondence dated March 15, 1988, the Washington County Attorney' s Office served upon the City of Oak Park Heights, its Petition for the Detachment Annexation of Lands pursuant to Minnesota Statute 414. 061, Subdivision 5. Cited within the Petition of Washington County was the following rationale for their request for Detachment/Annexation : The reason for the request for this boundary adjustment is the property proposed for annexation is required for the expansion of the Washington County Government Center and Minnesota Statutes require that the services proposed to be located in the expansion must be in the county seat. The City of Stillwater is the County Seat for Washington County and the land proposed for the expansion of the Government Center is located in the City of Oak Park Heights. Presently municipal services such as police , fire and sanitary services are being provided to the existing government center by the City of Stillwater . When the Government Center is expanded , those same services will be needed to the expanded Government Center and those services can be most efficiently and effectively provided by the City of Stillwater . - 10 - • i Thz thrust of the county' s Petition has been based entirely on an interpretation of the Minnesota Statutes which the county argucs requires that the proposed addition or expansion to the existinc Government Center be constructed within the City of Stillwater . The portion of the county' s Petition referencing sanitary ser,ices being provided to the existing Government Center by tF City of Stillwater is misleading in that it is uncontested ;:hat all water , sanitary sewer and storm sewer drainage facilities are provided to the property currently by the City of Oak lark Heights. The county relied entirely upon the testimony of an attorney hir ;d by the bond consulting firm of Holmes & Graven for its support . f its decision on the interpretation of the statutes in issue . E :efanie Galey was called to testify by the county as to the bondi .g and financing of the proposed expansion and as to the interpre.:.ation of the statutes affecting the location of county facilities within the county seat set forth within Minnesota St ..tute §382. 04. Initially, Ms . Galey noted that no formal opini:.n has been rendered as to bond counsel because there has been no _. oject finalized by the county describing in particular w' at it wished to do with the subject property (T129 - Lines 10 thr, ugh 14 ) . Additionally, Ms . Galey noted that there were two opp.;rtunities to finance the project , one which would be by construction of the expansion by a private vendor and then leased back to the county, the second being by construction and ownership by the county for its own use . Ms . Galey testified that in their earlier preliminary letter to the Washington County - 11 - Attorney' s Office , marked as Petitioner ' s Exhibit 8, she was asked to assume for the purposes of that opinion that the Sheriff's Office in its entirety would not be located within the county seat but would be housed in a facility outside the City of Stillwater (T140 - Line 24 through T141 - Line 3 ) . However , upon further examination, Ms . Galey' s testimony made it clear that as long as an administrative office of the sheriff remains located within the City of Stillwater , the statute does not preclude the construction of additional or ancillary offices or jail facilities in any part of the county regardless of whether or not it is in the county seat . Question: And if we were to assume hypothetically that the Washington County Sheriff ' s Department , as presently located , is in the City of Stillwater and in the County Courthouse , and if we were to also assume hypothetically that the building would extend further west and across the boundary into the City of Oak Park Heights , as long as the Sheriff's Department maintained some facility at the county seat, you would have no objection, as bond counsel , to whatever would be constructed adjacent to the county structure? Answer : I think that' s correct. It was--it has been my understanding that some of these functions would be moved entirely out of the City of Stillwater into this expansion project, which is in Oak Park Heights, but , yes, you' re right. I think there would be compliance with the statute as long as there was some facility within the county seat . " (Transcript cross-examination Galey 134 beginning at line 8 through page 135, line 1 ) . In referencing the application of the statute, Ms. Galey testified from a standpoint of bond counsel that the statute is not exclusive, that is to say, as long as facility of a mandatory office is maintained in the county seat, ancillary facilities and services related to that office or an integral part of that office, may be maintained outside of the county seat. - 12 - 411 Question: If I were to tell you, assuming hypothetically, that Hennepin County maintains a workhouse in the City of Plymouth--obviously, we can assume that the City of Minneapolis is the county seat for Hennepin County. Is it your opinion that the location of a workhouse outside of the county seat in Hennepin County may violate that statute? Answer : No . I don' t think that this is exclusive, and if, in that sense , you meant "permissive," I agree with you. I think it is mandatory that such facilities be maintained at the county seat. I don' t think it means that those facilities be maintained exclusively at the county seat. Question: So a county could maintain several facilities , and as long as they had the rinci al one in p p the county seat, it would not be , in our opinion , Y detrimental to have ancillary or annexed facilities in other parts of the county? Answer : In my opinion, that' s correct, with respect to--each of these functions needs to be maintained at the county seat . (Transcript page 133 - line 3 through 25) . Curiously, Washington county in its presentation before the Municipal Board made it emminently clear that no plans had as of the date of hearing been prepared to make any specific commitments to housing any particular offices, services or facilities, simply if, for no other reason, that no particular plans had been drawn up as it relates to the construction of any such building . (See testimony County Administrator , Charles Swanson, transcript page 50 - lines 16 through 25; testimony Donald C. Wisniewski , Director of Public Works , transcript page 200 - line 23 through transcript page 201, line 2. ) Affecting the issue of public utility service to the proposed area for annexation , the uncontested testimony received from Charles Swanson, the County Administrator , Mr . Richard Moore , the City Engineer for the City of Stillwater , and Mr . - 13 - t . . Joseph Anderlik, the City Engineer for the City of Oak Park Heights , together with Mr . Roger Benson, Public Works Director for the City of Oak Park Heights, is that, in fact, presently the existing Washington County Courthouse constructed in 1967 and 1968, and the County Administrative Building constructed in 1985 and 1986, is being served by municipal water and sewer services from the City of Oak Park Heights . The further uncontested testimony received from both engineers for the respective cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater was that it was impractical for the City of Stillwater to attempt to provide sanitary sewer service to any extension of the existing governmental facility as would be constructed on Parcel C, B or A. Question: Mr . Anderlik, from an engineering standpoint , do you have an opinion as to the reasonableness of serving the area subject to the annexation proceeding with water , sewer and storm sewer facilities in terms of a municipal provision? Answer : The site can most economically be served by using the existing in-place Oak Park Heights facilities . Question: Might it be economically prohibitive to try to service the area from the City of Stillwater? Mr . Magnuson: In order to' avoid further testimony, we would agree that that' s true . That' s what the City of Stillwater 's Engineer also testified to , no problem with that. (Joseph Anderlik, City of Oak Park Heights Engineer direct testimony transcript page 344 beginning at line 23 to page 345, ending line 12. ) The municipal water and sewer services for the City of Stillwater are several hundred feet away from the existing site and would require extensive construction costs inclusive of lift stations, condemnations of rights-of-way, restoration costs, and - 14 - i other expenses to provide services to the area. The testimony also received uncontested at the time of hearing is that the City of Oak Park Heights now has water and sewer lines on three sides of the Heuer land (Parcel C) inclusive with its lines within Panama Avenue which is also being proposed for detachment and annexation to the City of Stillwater (Parcel B) . Neither the City of Oak Park Heights nor the City of Stillwater have their own sewage plant and both rely upon the sewage treatment plant owned by the Metropolitan Waste Commission within the City of Stillwater for all treatment. Additionally, the uncontested testimony received at trial was that the Heuer property together with Parcel B is included within the City of Oak Park Heights storm sewer improvement taxing district #1, as the area due to existing contours feeds storm water runoff through the City of Oak Park Heights. The City of Oak Park Heights has constructed storm sewer facilities within the area to serve the property which are being repaid by the taxpayers of Oak Park Heights through ad valorem increases in taxes as opposed to assessments . With regard to the balance of municipal services testified to at trial , it is clear that the area does not need any other municipal services nor is there any conflict that would be presented by maintaining services being provided by the City of Oak Park Heights. There is virtually no difference in fire services either provided by the City of Oak Park Heights through its contract with Bayport Fire Department or the City of Stillwater with its own part-time volunteer fire department. Police services to the existing government center are currently - 15 - • . provided by the Washington County Sheriff ' s Department with its own system of security, bailiffs , and courthouse patrol . Backup services are provided either by the City of Oak Park Heights or by the City of Stillwater , both of which having been called for backup by Washington County Sheriff ' s Department in the past . Washington County Government Center does not use the municipal offices, of either the City of Oak Park Heights or of the City of Stillwater , as it has its own administrative offices complete with records , maps , drawings and ordinances of both cities . Additionally,dd onally, it is clear that the property as it presently exists within the City of Oak Park Heights and which is the subject of these proceedings presents no issues for school districts and/or environmental concerns. Additionally, the land as presently owned is tax exempt regardless of the municipal designation. On October 31, 1988 , the Minnesota Municipal Board issued its order with two members of that three-member board voting in favor and one member (John W. Carey, Vice-Chair and practicing attorney) voting against. In its memorandum accompanying that order , the two members that voted in favor of the order provided : "The Municipal Board , in ordering the concurrent detachment annexation, notes the City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Stillwater were unable to resolve their disagreement over the placement of the expansion to the County Courthouse . In the Board ' s eyes, the County shares the blame for this disagreement , too ." - 16 - • II. DISTRICT COURT SHOULD VACATE THE ORDER OF THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD ENTERED ON OCTOBER 31, 1988 IN ITS ENTIRETY INSTRUCTING THE MUNICIPAL BOARD ON REMAND TO ENTER ITS ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION OF WASHINGTON COUNTY. A. The Minnesota Municipal Board had no jurisdiction to act. The Minnesota Municipal Board cited for jurisdictional authority Minnesota Statute §414. 061 Concurrent Detachment Annexation of Incorporated Land Initiated Under a Property Owner Under Subdivision 5 Thereof. Although that provision of the statute provides that property of one municipality which abuts another may be concurrently detached and annexed to he adjoining municipality, the Minnesota Municipal Board must nonetheless confine its activities to those which were within the p;.Arimeters established within Minnesota Statute §414. 01 rec_ :ing the purpose and intent of the legislature in creating the Municipal Board. It is the purpose of this chapter to empower the Minnesota Municipal Board to promote and regulate development of municipalities to provide for the extension of municipal government to areas which are developed or are in the process of being developed for intensive use for residential , commercial , industrial , institutional and government purposes or are needed for such purposes ; and to protect the stability of unincorporated areas which are used or developed for agricultural , open space , and rural residential purposes and are not presently needed for more intensive uses ; to protect the integrity of land use planning in municipalities and unincorpor- ated areas so that the public interest in efficient local government will be properly recognized and served. Minnesota Statute §414. 01. It is clear from the order of the Minnesota Municipal Board and from the record of all the roceedin s that P g transpired before it, that the only purpose for which this - 17 - . . annexation and detachment has been ordered is to facilitate Washington County' s Plan to construct a courthouse addition upon the subject property. Consequently, the sole purpose for which the order has been issued by the Municipal Board is to foster the development plans of a particular development associated with a particular property owner , i .e . , Washington County. None of the purposes for which the Minnesota M. i unic al Board was created are served b P by this order . This particular order does not foster the extension of municipal government service. The area is clearly bounded and in fact, almost entirely surrounded by the City of Oak Park Heights municipal water , sewer and storm sewer facilities. The irony and absurd conflict raised by the order of the Municipal Board recognizes that although the property is being taken away from the City of Oak Park Heights, the property remains nonetheless wholly dependent upon the City of Oak Park Heights for rovision of municipal services of p pa eLVices o water , sewer and storm sewer drainage . There is no issue but that this property could remain within the City of Oak Park Heights and be developed for multiple family housing or single-family housing development utilizing the full range of municipal services and returning a handsome profit to the property owner . Nonetheless , the property has been ordered detached from the City of Oak Park Heights to serve a particularized development. - 18 - • • Neither does the order protect the integrity of land use planning in municipalities. The clear and unambiguous record notes that the City of Oak Park Heights in 1979 identified the area as fraught with planning problems from adjacent property owners whose residential utilization their property was in conflict with the existing government facility in addition to this subject property. Washington County and the City of Stillwater not only did not take issue with that Comprehensive Plan that they were served and provided copies of, but in fact , within their own comprehensive plans, did not project any utilization of the subject property for their purposes. The entire premise upon which municipalities and county governments were required to submit comprehensive plans to the Metropolitan Council are effectively undermined by this order . In effect , the county stands as a developer of land assuming a position that would not normally be tolerated by any other regulating government subdivision. The county has , in essence , said if the City of Oak Park Heights will not give us our particular development, we will take our land into another city where we know that they will . The clear and unmistakable impact of the county' s application to the Municipal Board is to circumvent the requirements of the City of Oak Park Heights Zoning Ordinance and to avoid regulation of the development by the City of Oak Park Heights on behalf of its citizens. - 19 - AC Y • . The county' s statement contained within their Petition that they sought this annexation of the land in order to comply with Minnesota Statute §382. 04 is a complete sham as evidenced by the testimony of the county' s own expert witness . The county could easily comply with the requirements of the statute by building its jail in any section of the county it so chose to do so . The Minnesota Municipal Board was not created to allow owners and developers of land to escape from disputes over zoning regulations with municipalities . Additionally, the Minnesota Municipal Board was not created to foster , protect , or promote particularized developments and specific projects . If Washington County truly believes that the zoning requirements of the City of Oak Park Heights are unreasonable and arbitrary, they should have submitted to the process and filed their application with the City of Oak Park Heights following the application through completion and then , if not prevailing , appealing to District Court on the zoning issue . Instead , Washington County, although having initiated the process several times, had withdrawn their applications to avoid public hearing , public comment, and final determination by the City Council of the City of Oak Park Heights of the application of the zoning ordinance to this area. Endorsing a philosophy that the ends justifies the means , it has pursued authorization for its proposed (although yet unidentified ) development through the Municipal Board by way of altering a municipal boundary. - 20 - The Minnesota Municipal Board is wholly without jurisdiction to grant what is , in essence , approval on a particular development and a reprieve from having to comply with the requirements of an existing zoning ordinance . B. That the order of the Board is arbitrary, capricious , oppressive, and in unreasonable disregard for the best interests of the territory affected. The Minnesota Municipal Board interpreting what it believed to be the requirements of Minnesota Statute §414. 061 , Subdivision 5, made findings within their order referencing 9 several of the factors set forth within Minnesota Statute §414. 041, Subdivision 5. However , the evidence contradicts and in some cases is wholly absent as it regards each of those factors . No . 37. "If the subject area were annexed to the City of Stillwater , its development as the expansion of the County Courthouse would be consistent with the City of Stillwater ' s existing Comprehensive Land Use Plan ." Yet, the record reflects that the Metropolitan Council submission to the Minnesota Municipal Board in response to their inquiry received by the Director of the Municipal Board and made part of the records of these proceedings (Transcript page 6 ) reflects as follows : "The Stillwater Comprehensive Plan (April , 1980 revision) does not propose any future land use for the areas proposed for annexation." - 21 - • ( See Exhibit A-i May 23, 1988 letter from the Metropolitan Council directed to Patricia Lundy of the Minnesota Municipal Board) . No . 45. "The location of the Courthouse addition within the City of Stillwater reduces some potential problems with bond financing for this project." Notably, all of the testimony submitted by Washington County as referenced within the Statement of Facts references that Washington County has not yet identified any particular project design or P 7 g identified specific utilization of the space to be involved with the construction of any courthouse addition. (See testimony Charles Swanson, County Administrator , Transcript page 61; also see testimony Donald Wisniewski , Washington County Public Works Director , Transcript page 203 and 204. ) Additionally, the testimony of Stephanie Galey, Bond Consultant with Holmes & Graven , who was consulted by Washington County as it affected the preliminary discussions of the proposed expansion of the overnment facility,ty, clearly identifies that any building to be constructed within what is defined as Parcel B and C, the area proposed for construction , can clearly be y constructed within the City of Oak Park Heights in a manner so as to not offend the provisions of Minnesota Statute §382. 04. In fact , the clear and unambiguous testimony of Ms . Galey is that Washington County could construct its jail facility in any portion of the county it so chose to do so whether or not it was in the county seat. No. 36. "Within the City of Stillwater , the only other areas available for expansion of the courthouse would be within the City of Stillwater ' s - 22 - f • ! . • Industrial Park. The City of Stillwater has a policy that the Industrial Park should be used for tax generating development." As already referenced , the jail facility itself does not have to be constructed within the City of Stillwater and the county' s own expert witness clearly testified that the same was not a requirement under the statute as long as the Washington County Sheriff' s Department retained an office in the county seat which currently exists . The further implication of the finding is that the City of Stillwater somehow should not be burdened by the loss of tax revenue within its Industrial Park by acquisition of that land by Washington County for purposes of use as a jail facility or for any other purpose . Realistically, there is no manner by which the City of Stillwater could prevent the county' s acquisition of land within the Industrial Park or that acquisition of land by any other non-profit entity which would effectively deprive the City of Stillwater of tax-generating revenue. The finding does not mention that the City of Oak Park Heights also loses the potential for tax-generating revenue from the over eleven acres of land lost within this annexation . The Minnesota Municipal Board made no finding that the City of Oak Park Heights was in any way incapable of providing less than all necessary governmental services to the subject area. Nonetheless , the Minnesota Municipal Board concluded : No . 2. "Concurrent detachment/annexation of the subject area is in the best interests of the property. " - 23 - Notably, the requirements of Minnesota Statute §414. 041 , Subdivision 5 requires that the Board find that its order affecting a consolidation be in the best interests of the municipalities , not of the subject property. The Minnesota Municipal Board made no such finding . Of the matters that are required to be addressed by the Municipal Board as set forth within Minnesota Statute §414. 041, Subdivision 5, the evidence that was submitted clearly identified the problems attendant to detaching this property from the City of Oak Park Heights and annexing it to the City of Stillwater . Those factors which the Board was required to consider are in conjunction with the evidence are as follows : ( a) Present population , past population growth , and projected population of the included municipalities . Within the respective exhibits received from both the City of Stillwater and the City of Oak Park Heights, population data as projected by the Metropolitan Council has already been received . Population may be impacted depending upon how the proposed lands are developed. If the lands remain within the City of Oak Park Heights and are developed residentially, as planned since 1979, an impact upon housing and , therefore , population can be anticipated . The ten acre parcel which constitutes the former Kenneth Heuer property (Parcel C) could ostensibly be developed into a major residential subdivision having an impact on these factors . - 24 - y r • • (b) Quantity of land within the included municipality; and natural terrain including topography, major watersheds , soil conditions and such natural features as rivers , lakes and major bluffs . Again, the exhibits already received from both the City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Stillwater as it affects Comprehensive Plans , housing studies , terrain , topography, watersheds and soil studies clearly identify the subject property. Of significant concern as it affects its topography is that the parcels identified as 13 and C consisting of Panama Avenue and the former Kenneth Heuer property do drain predominantly into the Oak Park Heights storm sewer tax improvement system #1. That drainage will only increase as development ment occurs upon the property having a major impact upon the use of existing facilities and storm sewer drainage utilities within the City of Oak Park Heights. If allowed , the annexation would be allowing property to develop and yet contribute nothing to the cost or use of those facilities' wear , tear , maintenance and operation insofar as the entirety of the storm sewer tax improvement district is being paid for by use of ad valorem taxes for which Washington County contributes nothing . If the property remains within the City of Oak Park Heights , it would ultimately be developed as residential being returned to private ownership which would make a contribution to those utilities and services . (c) Degree of contiguity of the boundaries between the included municipalities . / - 25 - • • The boundary existing between the City of Stillwater and the City of Oak Park Heights currently exists along established streets and identifiable boundaries within the two cities especially within the area of the County Government Center . The proposed annexation would take what many already view as a confused boundary and make it worse by removing the identifiable barriers of existing streets which separate the two cities in establishing an arbitrary meets and bounds description on the Heuer property on its north , east and southern borders in lieu of identified streets. Further the annexation of parcels A, B and C into the City of Stillwater would further intrude and make an island of existing territory within the City of Oak Park Heights located to the east, south and west of Parcels A, B and C. This factor affecting the contiguity of boundaries weighs heavily in favor of keeping the property as it is presently identified within the respective cities and not allowing its concurrent detachment and annexation. (d ) Analysis of whether present planning and physical development in the included municipalities indicates that the consolidation of these municipalities will benefit planning and land use patterns in the area ; present transportation network and potential transportation issues including proposed highway development. It is clear from the construction of the existing Washington County administrative building which was completed in 1985 and 1986 , that its location in that area together with the adjoining problems it has created with the neighboring property - 26 - owners has been the result of non-existent planning between the City of Stillwater and Washington County and the Oak Park Heights residence resulting in monetary damage to those residents . The appraisal prepared for Mr . Swenberg (as already received in evidence) denotes a $10, 000 depreciation in value between the Swenberg homestead and the existing county government facility. Even though the City Planner for the City of Stillwater and the Washington County Planner ' s Office talked in glowing terms of landscaping , green space , screening and vegetative barriers , it became eminently clear from the photographs that were received from the City Planner and the visual inspection that had been made at the property that Washington County' s existing development of its courthouse facility has not provided any degree of reasonable landscaping and screening that was promised , or talked about, by the county in its testimony. An individual or developer can only be judged based upon its past performance and in this particular case, Washington County has miserably failed to produce any degree of confidence in the public as a result of its poor and inefficient development of its existing properties now located within the City of Stillwater . One can only assume that they will continue their poor practices if this annexation is allowed to occur . The physical development now existing within the area already presents a conflict in land use , transportation problems , noise , light and use conflicts which will only be aggravated if the annexation/detachment is granted. Transportation problems have been documented since 1980 as existing within the area . - 27 Although Washington County and the City of Stillwater dispute the transportation problems , there is no question that they took no issue with the transportation problems highlighted within the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan when they granted their approvals of that plan in 1979 and 1980 . Having agreed that those problems exist, now they appear before the Municipal Board seeking to dispute the problems that have existed for almost a decade . The City of Stillwater and Washington County propose no solutions for those problems. Indeed , they have not even identified to the Municipal Board the concept of that which they wish to construct and develop in the area if the annexation were allowed to occur . They have simply requested of the Municipal Board to grant them a blank check, i .e . to annex the land to the City of Stillwater who in turn will allow the county to do as they please . The existing county government facility was granted permission to build without even so much as a public hearing being held to address issues of landscaping , screening , transportation , noise , light and use which have created so many problems for the area for so many years . It is clear that the detachment/annexation of these lands will not benefit existing planning and land use patterns but will only aggravate and exacerbate the problems that exist. The present transportation network going from the Washington County Courthouse to the west appears to be adequate but the present transportation network to the east of the county facility is obviously grossly inadequate and that problem will only be continued. Compounding the problems further , Washington County has engaged in the practice - 28 - • • of acquiring residential parcels not subject to these proceedings but which are located to the north of Parcel C. The county' s acquisitions in this area are a clear statement of the recognition of the problem and conflict and land use that currently exists within the area. An additional impact for the City of Oak Park Heights is the loss of already scarcely existing vacant land . As testified to by the City Planner , the City of Oak Park Heights has no substantial vacant land existing which has not already been identified for development within the city for purposes of planning and future use. Loss of the ten acre site consisting of Parcel C (Heuer property) will not only confuse existing land use patterns but impair the City of Oak Park Heights existing plans for residential development and land use . ( e) Analysis of whether consolidation of the included municipalities is consistent stent with Comprehensive Plans for the area . The Metropolitan Council , the City Planner for the City of Stillwater , the Planner for the City of Oak Park Heights , the Washington County Planning Department, and others, all recognize that the proposed development is inconsistent with the City of Oak Park Heights existing Comprehensive Plan . Neither the City of Stillwater nor Washington County address within their Comprehensive Plans the proposed use of the area. Again this factor weighs heavily in favor of not granting the annexation/ detachment as this proposed use has neither been planned for or allowed within any governmental unit which serves the area. - 29 - r • • ( f) Analysis of whether governmental services now available in the included municipalities can be more effectively or more economically provided by consolidation. There is no question but that annexation/detachment of this area as petitioned for will severely impair the provision of existing municipal services to the area. Even though the City of Stillwater has joined in the Petition seeking this land to be annexed to it, the testimony solicited from its own engineer is that the City of Stillwater is economically not capable of providing municipal and water services to this area . The existing courthouse facility is already served by the City of Oak Park Heights water and sewer mains. Water and sewer facilities for the City of Oak Park Heights surround the land sought for annexation on three sides. The land sought for annexation is also served by City of Oak Park Heights storm tax improvement district #1. The present government center contributes to the drainage that flows through that area. In addition, the flow is anticipated to increase that drainage as development in the area occurs . The order of the Municipal Board is arbitrary in that it ruled only on the merits of the particular development which is not a matter properly before the Municipal Board and disregarded the best interests of the affected municipalities on which it made no findings. The order of the Municipal Board is unreasonable in that it disregards the process of zoning applications and reviews by the Oak Park Heights City Council - 30 - • • that could determine the best interests of the territory affected together with its adjoining property owners. The Municipal Board has acted to effectively rezone the territory in issue and disregard of the City of Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan which has been approved by the Metropolitan Council after having received approval by both the City of Stillwater and Washington County in 1980. C. The Order of the Municipal Board is based upon an erroneous theory of law. (i) The Minnesota Municipal Board lacks clear standard to guide it in reviewing requests for annexation and detachment under Minnesota Statute §414. 061. The Minnesota Municipal Board received a Petition from Washington County pursuant to Minnesota Statute §414. 061, Subdivision 5, which provides : Property Owner Initiation. Property owners may initiate proceedings for the concurrent detachment of their property from one municipality and its annexation to an adjacent municipality by Petition signed by all of them. The Board shall conduct hearings and issue its Order as in the case of consolidations of two or more municipalities under Section 414. 041, Subdivision 5 and Section 414.09. The legislature attempted to govern the Municipal Board' s hearing process under §414.061 by adopting by reference the factors and procedures set forth within subdivision 5 of the consolidation statute , Minnesota Statute §414. 041. Unfortunately, upon a reading of subdivision 5 of Minnesota Statute §414. 041, it becomes eminently clear that there is no rationale basis to apply much of the matter which is - 31 - V • r • • a contained within that subdivision as it is tailored exclusively for consolidations of entire municipalities into one another . Even the factors cited as A through J of that particular statute require a tortured construction to be applied to proceedings for concurrent detachment annexation, specifically provisions in subparagraphs D, E, F, G, H and I if read literally cannot be applied to these circumstances. Further , Subdivision 5 of Minnesota Statute §414. 041 goes on to provide: "The Board shall order the consolidation if it finds that consolidation will be for the best interest of the municipalities. In all cases , the Board shall set forth the factors which are the basis for the decision ." Obviously, the Municipal Board in these circumstances made no rulings or findings on any of these points . Additionally, a literal reading of Subdivision 5 of Minnesota Statute 5414. 041 leads one to the inescapable conclusion that no proceeding for concurrent detachment or annexation of a portion of a municipality can be rationally examined under those provisions of Minnesota Statute 5414. 041 , Subdivision 5. Minnesota Statute 5645. 17 (1) advises the courts by allowing the court to presume that the legislature does not intend to result that is absurd , impossible of execution or unreasonable . However , under these particular circumstances, there is an apparent lack of any standard governing the Municipal Board in these proceedings which would , in essence , make every decision under 5414. 061, Subdivision 5 an arbitrary , capricious , - 32 - • . . unreasonable and absurd decision if , for no other reason , than there are no factors legislative instructions or statutory constraints on their power . Minnesota Statute §645. 17(5 ) requires the court to presume that the legislature intends to favor the public interest as opposed to any private interest . That presumption is particularly important in this matter since if it is not in the best interests of the public and , in this particular case , the interest of municipalities to require developers to come before them to submit to the process of zoning review and application as opposed to circumventing that process. The municipalities are governed by extensive regulations and statutes requiring them to create comprehensive plans, zoning and subdivision regulations , all of which are promolgated in the public form subjecting them to the scrutiny of the public and the review of the district courts. The County of Washington would have the court believe that the best interests of the affected property and not of the municipalities is to be the basis for the Board ' s decision. If that were so , then this interpretation of the statute would clearly favor private interests to the land owner over the public interests of the municipality in adopting , utilizing and enforcing its comprehensive plans, zoning and subdivision ordinances. The predominant standard within Minnesota Statute §414. 041, Subdivision 5 upon which the Board must focus is the best interest of the affected municipalities . Since the Municipal Board did not focus on the best interests of the City - 33 - y • • of Oak Park Heights , nor on the best interests of the City of Stillwater , and did not make any findings with regard thereto , and has no other applicable standards within the statute that is specifically applies to these types of provisions, the Board obviously acted on an erroneous theory of law that it only had to find what was in the best interests of the affected property ignoring the best interests of the affected cities and municipal regulation requirements . ( ii) The Minnesota Municipal Board proceeded under the erroneous theory of law that the requirements of Minnesota Statute §382. 04 impacted this development and were relevant to the proceedings held before it. Initially, it must be noted that the application of Minnesota Statute §382. 04 only comes into play because Washington County happens to be the owner of the subject property and attempts to argue that its utilization of the property compels that it be within the City of Stillwater . That is obviously an argument identified with a particular developer as to a specific development. The Minnesota Municipal Board does not have legal authority granted to it within the authorizing statute to promote the interests of a particular developer or of a particular development . Even if the county' s claims were correct (which they are not) , the function of the Municipal Board is to look at the concept of development in the metropolitan sense , i .e . : " It is the purpose of this chapter to empower the Minnesota Municipal Board to promote and regulate development of municipalities to provide for the - 34 - y ,-,` . • extension of municipal government to areas which are developed or are in the process of being developed for intensive use ." Minnesota Statute §414. 01, Subd . l. Obviously, here the concept of municipal development is readily provided for within the existing municipal boundaries of the City of Oak Park Heights. The subject property is surrounded on three sides by municipal water and sanitary sewer service facilities owned by the City of Oak Park Heights. The subject property is also serviced by existing storm water drainage systems constructed and in place serving the subject property by the City of Oak Park Heights . The area is ripe for residential single-family or multiple-family development which will utilize the full range of municipal services providing for intense development of the area or urban purposes . It is not the function of the Municipal Board to weigh the public benefits of one particular development over that of another. The determination of the merits of specific developments is expressly reserved to the jurisdiction of the municipalities. Hence , the recognition and creation by the legislature at the Regional Development Act of 1969 found in Minnesota Statutes §462. 381 and the multitude of planning and development regulations found within the Minnesota Statutes affecting the powers and in relationship between the political subdivisions. Even if the Minnesota Municipal Board did have power to approve specific developments so as to enable developers to circumvent local regulation, the rationale provided by Washington County for its particular (although yet unidentified) development - 35 - is without merit. The county' s own evidence as it affects the application f R i of Minnesota Statute §382. 04 indicates that it may clearly build its jail at any section of the county it wishes to do so , yet maintain an office of the Sheriff in the current County Government Center and fully comply with the statute. The countys throughout this state currently do and shall continue to have ancillary and satellite facilities located outside of county seats for jails, workhouses, additional court facilities, and other county government functions . Similarly, the county' s reading of the additional tonal statutes cited, Minnesota Statute 375. 14 Officers cers and Supplies Furnished for County Officers, and Minnesota Statute §373. 05 County Buildings, have never within any jurisdiction of this state to be applied to be exclusive so as to mandate all county services to be exclusively maintained within the county seat. There is not a single metropolitan community in the State of Minnesota that can comply with such an interpretation of those affected statutes . Obviously, the matter that appeared before the Minnesota Municipal Board had nothing to do with the provision of county or city services and the construction of government facilities to accomplish same. Similarly, the evidence demonstrates that the matter had nothing to do with the issue of provision of municipal sewer and utility services nor did it have anything to do with the provision of police and fire services ervices to the area in question. - 36 - vr� 411 410 Knowing that there is no legal , factual or jurisdictional basis for its petition, Washington County had , nonetheless, presented its Petition and Matter before the Municipal Board seeking a political solution to a problem created in 1980 when through a process of poor judgment, it made a decision to acquire land without consulting the local municipality to determine the impact of the existing zoning ordinance. Based upon the evidence that was received in the hearing before the Municipal Board , there clearly exists no legal or factual or jurisdictional basis to grant the Petition of Washington County for concurrent annexation and detachment of the subject property. The City of Oak Park Heights respectfully requests the District Court to vacate the decision of the Minnesota Municipal Board dated October 31 , 1988 and instruct the Minnesota Municipal Board to enter its Order denying the Petition of Washington County in this matter . Respectfully Submitted , ECKBERG, LAMME' : , B: GS WOLFF & ER 1G BY ,.462m■ M. .k 4 . -'ling Attor ey I.D. #112823 Attorney for Oak Park Height 1835 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater , Minnesota 55082 (612) 439-2878 - 37 - 1 BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Shirley J. Mihelich Chairperson John W. Carey Vice Chairperson Kenneth F. Sette Commissioner File No. D-240 Oak Park Heights/A-4466 Stillwater IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ) DETACHMENT OF CERTAIN LAND FROM THE ) REPLY BRIEF CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND ANNEXATION ) SUBMITTED ON TO THE CITY OF STILLWATER PURSUANT TO ) BEHALF OF THE MINNESOTA STATUTES 414.061 ) CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS Pursuant to the Order of the Minnesota Municipal Board at its hearing conducted , the above-referenced matter on June 15, 1988 , continued and completed on June 29 , 1988 , the City of Oak Park Heights herewith submits its Reply Brief in opposition to the Petition requesting the detachment of certain lands from the City of Oak Park Heights and annexation to the City of Stillwater . REPLY In the Petitioners ' Brief , although reference is made that the issue presented within this annexation dispute is not a zoning dispute, the Petitioners nonetheless spend the entire balance of their brief arguing zoning issues. The devoting of their entire brief to a discussion of issues of zoning on appeal is a clear recognition by the Petitioners that there is no merit to the annexation . They are using it as a defacto appeal from a zoning dispute between the Petitioner and the City of Oak Park Heights . • i Although the Petitioners again allege problems with bonding , the Respondent City of Oak Park Heights reminds the Municipal Board that the Petitioner ' s own expert witness testified that there were no problems anticipated with bonding inasmuch as the Sheriff' s Office now presently located within the City of Stillwater remains within the City of Stillwater , i .e . , it makes no difference where the jail itself is constructed as long as a Sheriff ' s Office remains within the City of Stillwater . As earlier referenced , the Petition of the City of Stillwater and the County of Washington is merely an appeal to the Municipal Board seeking a political solution to a problem created by Washington County lending itself to neither a legal or factual basis for resolution. We respectfully conclude that the requirements of law mandate that the Petition be denied . Respectfully submitted , ECKBERG, LAMME• WOLFF . V 7A+' NG Dated: n$q By: -rk . Vier. lin. Lyle Eckberg , Attorneys for Oak Heights 1835 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater , MN 55082 ( 612 ) 439-2878 Atty. I. D. No. 112823 Atty. I. D. No. 25495 - 2 * � • . AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF WASHINGTON ) Laura Anderson, being first duly sworn on oath , deposes and states that on the 2nd day of August, 1988, she mailed a copy of the attached Reply Brief Submitted on Behalf of the City of Oak Park Heights , to the following names, parties/agencies , by plaacing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope , postage prepaid , and depositing the ssame in the U.S. Mails at Stillwater , Minnesota , directed to each of them at their last known address , as stated below: Mr . Howard R. Turrentine Assistant County Attorney Washington Co. Government Center 14900 61st Street North Stillwater , MN 55082 Mr . David T. Magnuson Stillwater City Attorney 324 South Main Street - Suite 203 Stillwater , MN 55082 Mr . David R. Licht City Planner. Northwest Associated Consultants , Inc . 4601 Excelsior Blvd . Suite 410 Minneapolis , MN 55416 Mr . Joseph Anderlik City Engineer Bonestroo , Rosene, Anderlik & Associates 2335 West Highway 36 St. Paul , MN 55113 AO Laura Anderson Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2nd day of August , 1988. OLN 4NSq rYBO Ok SAGN NOT ArsY 1`UBLUC—MINNESOTA RAMSEY COUNTY My commission exoires Nov, 15,1990 • • D-240 Oak Park Heights • A-4466 Stillwater BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Shirley J. Mihelich Chair John W. Carey Vice Chair Kenneth F. Sette Commissioner IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE DETACHMENT OF CERTAIN LAND FROM THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND ANNEXATION PETITIONER'S BRIEF TO THE CITY OF STILLWATER PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414.061 This Detachment and Annexation Hearing was held on the 15th day of June, 1988, before the Minnesota Municipal Board. At the conclusion of the Hearing, the parties were given until July 25, 1988, to file their final arguments in the form of written briefs. At issue is the request of Washington County to have a portion of the boundary between the City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Stillwater adjusted such that certain land owned by the County would be included within the corporate limits of the City of Stillwater. If this were simply a zoning dispute, Washington County could have challenged the Oak Park Heights Zoning Ordinance in Court. Based on Town of Oronoco v. City of Rochester, 197 N.W.2d 426 (1972), the County would have argued that the property is exempt from the Oak Park Heights zoning ordinance. Town of Oronoco involved efforts of the City of Rochester to replace its existing waste disposal facility with a sanitary landfill located in Oronoco Township. Both Olmsted County and Oronoco Township refused to grant the City of Rochester a special exception permit. • • In a case of first impression, the Minnesota Supreme Court examined the general rule exempting governmental bodies from zoning restrictions where pro- perty is to be used for governmental purposes. The Court refused to adopt the general rule and instead adopted a "balancing of public interest" test. The Court discussed the environmental issues raised by The Town and County but held that since those concerns were mitigated by the Pollution Control Agency con- ditions, a balancing of public interest favored exempting the property from the zoning ordinance, thereby allowing the City of Rochester to construct a sanitary landfill in Oronoco Township. For Washington County to maintain the existing level of governmental ser- vices through the year 2009, an additional 350,000 square feet of expansion is necessary. Centralization of these services is the most efficient and effective way of providing those services. The most logical expansion site is adjacent to the existing facility. The only other property available is a remote facility in the City of Stillwater's Industrial Park. Since County property is tax exempt, this would be inconsistent with the City of Stillwater's plan to generate tax revenue from industrial and commercially zoned property. The public interest served through the expansion of the government center is the ability to provide those services necessary for the health, safety and welfare of all residents of Washington County including the residence of the City of Oak Park Heights. The public interest served by holding the County to the Oak Park Heights zoning regulations is the light, traffic and noise concerns of the adjacent pro- perty owners. As indicated by all planners who testified, however these con- cerns can be mitigated through propery barriers and screening. 2 • • Although the expansion is not "an ideal land planning scheme", it is con- sistent with the existing neighborhood and not incompatible with the surrounding uses. How much more intrusive can it be for the courthouse to expand eastward in comparison to the residential neighborhood expanding westward? In both cases, a government center would border a residential neighborhood. Although light, traffic and noise are certainly legitimate concerns, proper barriers and screening can solve these problems as was done in the area surrounding the St. Croix Mall. As a zoning dispute, this represents the efforts of the neighbors to protect their neighborhood through the use of their zoning ordinance. Initially, the zoning ordinance permitted the expansion of the government center with a con- ditional use permit. In response to the County's plans for expansion, the Oak Park Heights zoning ordinance was amended to prohibit such an expansion. Did the City of Oak Park Heights seek to be in a better position to defend them- selves by making the County challenge a zoning decision rather than conditional use permit? In zoning matters, government is formulating public policy as to permitted uses; in reviewing applications for conditional uses, the public policy has been established. In a rezoning matter, the government's decision will be upheld if there is any rational basis to support it. Hohn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409 (1981) , O'Dell v. City of Eagan) 348 N.W.2d 792 (1984). In con- ditional use permit cases, the Court will substitute its judgment in order to determine if the denied use would have a substantial adverse impact on the health, welfare, and morals, etc. of the community. Larson v." Washington County, 387 N.W.2d 902 (1986). By using their political influence, certain Oak Park Heights residence have increased the hurdles the County must overcome in order to expand the Government Center. 3 • • The objections of the neighbors dictated the posture of Oak Park Heights in j g P this proceeding. Those objections must be given the proper weight by the Municipal Board. The Supreme Court has discussed the "role of neighbors" and in p one case has given a thoughtful guideline for all governmental officials who deal with land use questions. In Northwestern College v City of Arden Hills, 281 NW 2nd 865, 869 (1979) , the Court cited R. Anderson American Law of Zoning, Section 18.80 (2d ed 1977) to support their holding that neighborhood sentiment may not constitute the sole basis for granting or denying a special permit. Anderson draws the following conclusion about the effects of public opposition to a proposed land use: "The number of persons who are for or against the granting of a variance is neither irrelevant nor a proper consider- ation in determining the merits of an application. One Court observed that if this were not true, the result would be a government of men rather than one of law. It is improper for a board of adjustment to place weight upon the number of protestants rather than on the merits of an application. The strenuous objection of residents is not a legitimate basis for the denial of a variance. Revocation of a variance is not adequately supported when the principal reason for such action is that 1,000 persons signed a petition protesting the variance. The quality of the protest rather than the quantity of its signers must guide the discretion of the Board." Emphasis Added. This is not simply a zoning dispute. Even if the City of Oak Park Heights were to consent to the expansion of the Government Center, the expansion would be contrary to M.S.382.04, 375.14 and 373.05 requiring the Government Center to be in the county seat. Such violations could create liability against the County and County officials for malfeasance of duty. These theoretical concerns present practical problems since the only reaso- nable method to finance the expansion is through municipal bonds. A disclosure in the bond offering documents that the expansion is contrary to Minnesota Statutes would adversly affect the marketability of the bonds and thus the ulti- mate financing. 4 • • Both Stillwater and Oak Park Heights can provide adequate municipal ser- vices to the courthouse, although the services provided by the City of Stillwater are somewhat superior in terms of police protection, fire protection, planning services and general amenities. Neither city will gain or lose finan- cially since the property is tax exempt. The municipal improvements provided by the City of Oak Park Heights have been paid for to the extent that the City of Oak Park Heights chose to request payment from the county, therefore Oak Park will not suffer a financial loss. The property can be serviced by municipal sewer, water and storm sewer either by the City of Stillwater or the City of Oak Park Heights and there is no reason to believe that the City of Oak Park Heights would not choose to ser- vice this property as they have done with other properties in the past. If Oak Park Heights chose to "cut off their nose to spite their face", those services could be provided to the property by the City of Stillwater and paid for by Washington County although at a higher price. There are no environmental or fiscal concerns which leaves the major objection being the incompatability with the City of Oak Park Heights comprehensive plan. The comprehensive planning process is a reflection of community values. We are nevertheless a government of laws and not men. The County is asking the Municipal Board to rise above this neighborhood zoning dispute and balance the interest served by the expansion against the harm caused. In this situation, the minimal inconvenience suffered by surrounding property owners is far out- weighed by the benefits provided to all residents of all communities within the County. 5 110 This together with the statutory requirements for a courthouse location and practical problems in financing the expansion of the Washington County Government Center are ample grounds for the Municipal Board to find that the boundary adjustment is in the best interests of the municipalities. Dated this oW day of , 1988. Respectfully submitted, WASHINGTON COUNTY RICHARD M. ARNEY, COUNTY ATTORNEY By: ' Howard R. Turrentine Assistant County Attorney 14900-61st Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 612-779-5404 and CITY OF STILLWATER By V`1 David T. Magnuson Stillwater City Attorney Suite 203, Grand Garage 324 South Main Street Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 612-439-9464 By Ann L. Dieperink Assistant City Attorney 6 • r it BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Shirley J. Mihelich Chairperson John W. Carey Vice Chairperson Kenneth F. Sette Commissioner File No. D-240 Oak Park Heights/A-4466 Stillwater IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR THE ) FINAL WRITTEN DETACHMENT OF CERTAIN LAND FROM THE ) ARGUMENT AND CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS AND ANNEXATION ) MEMORANDUM OF TO THE CITY OF STILLWATER PURSUANT TO ) LAW SUBMITTED MINNESOTA STATUTES 414.061 ) BY THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS Pursuant to the order of the Minnesota Municipal Board at the hearings conducted in the above-referenced matter on June 15, 1988, continued and completed on June 29, 1988 , the City of Oak Park Heights herewith submits its Final Written Argument and Memorandum of Law in opposition to the petition requesting detachment of certain land from the City of Oak Park Heights and Annexation to the City of Stillwater . I. Statement of Facts. In 1979, the City of Oak Park Heights completed its Comprehensive Plan and forwarded same pursuant to law to its neighboring municipalities in Washington County for purposes of comment by those adjoining governmental units . The City of Stillwater now seeks the annexation of certain lands from the City of Oak Park Heights which were identified in that Comprehensive Plan for purposes of use by Washington County for construction of a jail expansion facility • • on the site. The annexation proceedings presently before the Municipal Board factually involve three parcels of land which have been identified by the petitioner ' s letters A, B and C, and by commentary from the various parties . The three parcels involve lands as follows : (A) a relatively small piece of land located in the southwest corner of what is now the existing Washington County Government Center parking lot as constructed in 1985; (B) a section of land occupying what is now Panama Avenue within the City of Oak Park Heights in which there is a paved and completed street and local and municipal utilities in the City of Oak Park Heights inclusive of water mains, sewer mains, and storm sewer drainage facilities ; (C) an approximate eleven acre parcel acquired by Washington County from Kenneth and Beverly Heuer on January 3, 1980 . For purposes of identification within this document, Parcel A shall reference the small parcel located in the southwest corner of the parking lot ; Parcel B, the lands involved in Panama Avenue; and Parcel C, the former Kenneth Heuer property. The predominant issues involved with regard to this annexation affect Parcel B and C. Both are located within an area of the City of Oak Park Heights which has always been zoned for single and multiple family. The 1979 Comprehensive Plan prepared by the City of Oak Park Heights and approved by the Metropolitan Council provides as to Parcel B and C as follows : Three major concerns should be addressed in regards to the future planning for this district. The immediate concern should be the preservation of the present housing stock. Throughout the neigh- borhood , early signs of deterioration are appearing and the blighting effect should be arrested . A - 2 - ` •, 411 housing maintenance code and various assistance programs available to the city to aid the homeowners in protecting their property values should be utilized. A second concern has arisen over the proposed expansion of the new Washington County Adminis- trative facilities , as this active center has already adversely impacted the adjacent neighbor- hoods ( excessive traffic , lights , and noise occurring at all hours of the day) . The expansion of the county offices will have considerable impact upon Oak Park Heights, as the city stands to lose both existing homes through condemnation and vacant land potentially available for new owner occupied housing . As the proposed expansion will result in the loss of additional tax revenue producing property in the City of Oak Park Heights and may create further negative impacts on remaining residential uses , the City of Oak Park Heights should actively and aggressively participate in the planning efforts for the facility' s expansion. The use to which the remaining vacant parcels in the district are put is one final concern. Scattered vacant sites should be infilled with single family homes . This is already occurring as several new homes have recently been constructed. Additional housing opportunities could be provided if the large vacant site off Panama Avenue is available . Owner occupied housing variety should be emphasized with the overall developed density for this district being mid-density ( 4-10 units per acre) , reflecting the character of the existing housing stock in the surrounding area. Prior to its purchase of the Kenneth Heuer property (Parcel C) , Washington County had received the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan and in its letter directed to Martha Greenwald of Midwest Planning & Research on November 27, 1979, Dan Koehler of the Washington County Planning Department stated : In general , this proposed plan is well prepared and detailed . With the few exceptions noted , the plan is consistent with existing and proposed plans for Washington County and adjacent townships . - 3 - 4 • The balance of Mr . Koehler ' s letter did not in any detail object or discuss the application of the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan to Parcels A, B or C. In like manner , the City of Stillwater had received also a copy of the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan and its Mayor , David C. Junker wrote on March 25, 1980: The City of Stillwater has reviewed the Compre- hensive Municipal Plan of Oak Park Heights and has found no apparent major conflicts with the plans being developed for the City of Stillwater . Nonetheless , Washington County, without conferring with the City of Oak Park Heights , or reviewing applicable zoning and ordinance restrictions, on January 3, 1980 purchased the Kenneth Heuer property intending same to be used for an addition to what was then the existing Washington County Courthouse . On March 7, 1980 Washington County filed a request with the City of Oak Park Heights for a Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit to allow for the future expansion of what they were then proposing as the Washington County Administrative Offices ( see city' s Exhibit C) . At that time, Washington County was proposing to locate on Parcel C (the Heuer property) . The new county government facility which would house Washington County Social Services, Community Services and several satellite offices which were being brought into the Stillwater area . On an interim basis, the county sought a Conditional Use Permit to use the former Heuer homestead as an office until such time as the new county government center would be constructed . - 4 - • In its commentary on the county' s plan as proposed in 1980, the Oak Park Planning Consultant, Northwest Associated Consultants , stated : The Washington County existing facility has already adversely impacted adjacent neighborhoods. The location of the Washington County Administrative Offices draws traffic off of Osgood Avenue through the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, as the Sheriff' s Department is located adjacent to these residential neighborhoods , nearby residents have been forced to accept noises and light typical of active commercial uses and clearly not compatible with residential areas . In their recommendation section, the Planning Consultants provided: We have found rezoning the proposed site to an R-B District would be questionable based upon the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use. To permit the rezoning prior to reviewing any specific plans for the facility would allow for the possible development of additional incompatible uses if the county decided that facility area needs would not require the entire site and replatted accordingly with the intention of selling the unneeded remaining lots. The county, in 1980 , sought rezoning as they were proposing the construction of a government facility that would be in excess of 35 feet in height . The existing residential zoning , although allowing government buildings as a conditional use , did not allow their construction in excess of 35 feet and , hence , the county' s application for rezoning was made at that time . At the April 14, 1980 meeting of the City Council for the City of Oak Park Heights, the city made its minutes reflect : The County has decided not to pursue the rezoning at this time. - 5 - • Consequently, the county withdrew its application for rezoning in 1980 and proceeded no further at that time . In 1983, Washington County again requested the City of Oak Park Heights approve a Conditional Use Permit to expand the county courthouse onto the ten acre Heuer property (Parcel C) . The county also requested that Panama Street be vacated to provide for a single unified site within the existing courthouse site in Stillwater . In its Planning Report of 4 August 1983 by Northwest Associated Consultants as it affected the 1983 application by Washington County, the City of Oak Park Heights Planning Consultant provided as follows: The Washington County existing facility has been cited in the past as creating compatibility problems with adjacent residential uses. This county facility, which also houses the County Sheriff ' s Department has forced nearby residents to accept high traffic volumes, noise and lights that are typical of commercial uses and are clearly not compatible with residential areas*** Past actions by the county indicate that they recognize that the proposed courthouse facility is better suited to a commercial zoning district when, in March of 1980 , the county requested that the site be rezoned from R-2 to an R-B zoning district. At the time of the rezoning request, no development plans were provided by the county*** Review of the recently submitted site plans for the courthouse expansion has not alleviated any of the concerns that would prevent the rezoning of the property; rather , the size of the office facility may have enhanced the problems of incompatability with nearby residential uses . The official Minutes for the City of Oak Park Heights at a special meeting held on Wednesday, August 17, 1983 for the express purpose of hearing the county' s request for the rezoning - 6 - 110 that had been submitted in 1983, reflected that Mayor Sommerfeldt opened the meeting promptly at 7:00 o' clock p.m. and read the following letter received by the City Clerk on August 17, 1983 : The County of Washington hereby withdraws its Application for Conditional Use Permit to permit construction of an administrative office building which application was dated June 9, 1983 and which was scheduled for public hearing on August 17, 1983 , and the Petition to Vacate Panama Avenue which was filed in conjunction with the Application for Conditional Use Permit. Signed , C. A. Riebel , County Administrator . As referenced by City Exhibit E, the Memorandum of Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc . to the City of Oak Park Heights, Washington County in November of 1983 submitted an application requesting the City of Oak Park Heights amend their Comprehensive Plan so as to allow the construction of governmental buildings in the area each of the existing Washington County Courthouse ( the Heuer property - Parcel C) . In addition, the county again requested that the zoning be changed from its current and previously existing R-2 Low and Medium Density Residential Classification to R-B Residential Business Transitional District. Again, the county applied for a Conditional Use Permit in addition to the rezoning and requested that the height limitation be extended from 35 to 45 feet within the ordinance. In its December 12, 1983 regular meeting of the City Council of Oak Park Heights, public hearing was open with regard to the application from Washington County and the official minutes reflect the following action was taken : Motion made by Carufel , seconded by Seggelke , moved to approve the zoning request on the - 7 - • • ; a above project. Aye voting by Carufel , Nay votes by Sommerfeldt, Mondor , Seggelke , and O'Neil . Zoning request denied . Following the December , 1983 action, Washington County took no appeal pp to the e B oard of Hearings and appeal to the City of Oak Park Heights nor did they pursue any appeal or request for review to the District Courts . In 1985 and 1986, Washington County constructed and completed the administrative office complex that it had been pursuing on the south lawn of the then existing county government facility which was entirely contained within the City of Stillwater with the exception of Parcel A as noted above. Washington County pursued and received no permit from the City of Oak Park Heights to implement parking as a principal use as to Parcel A, nor did they seek or secure any building permit from the City of Oak Park Heights as it affects that property. Negative neighborhood impact as a result of that construction continued to occur with complaints from residents being frequently received from the City of Oak Park Heights and as noted , damage to adjacent properties having occurred to at least one property owner , as is reflected by the October 29, 1984 appraisal by Raymond W. Kirchner of the Donald Swenberg property at 1490 North 60th Street, Oak Park Heights, reflecting a $10, 000 depreciation in value of Mr . Swenberg ' s property as a result of the construction of the Washington County administrative facility. It should also be noted that at no time prior to its 1980 Application for Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit or prior - 8 - • • to either application in 1983 for Rezoning and Conditional Use Permits , did Washington County ever approach the City of Oak Park Heights and request detachment of the Heuer property from the city claiming that those facilities by law had to be located within the City of Stillwater . By correspondence dated March 15, 1988 , the Washington County Attorney' s Office served upon the City of Oak Park Heights , its Petition for the Detachment Annexation of Lands pursuant to Minnesota Statute 414. 061, Subdivision 5. Cited within the Petition of Washington County was the following rationale for their request for Detachment/Annexation: The reason for the request for this boundary adjustment is the property proposed for annexation is required for the expansion of the Washington County Government Center and Minnesota Statutes require that the services proposed to be located in the expansion must be in the county seat. The City of Stillwater is the County Seat for Washington County and the land proposed for the expansion of the Government Center is located in the City of Oak Park Heights. Presently municipal services such as police , fire and sanitary services are being provided to the existing government center by the City of Stillwater . When the Government Center is expanded , those same services will be needed to the expanded Government Center and those services can be most efficiently and effectively provided by the City of Stillwater . The uncontested testimony received from the County Administrator , Mr . Richard Moore, the City Engineer for the City of Stillwater , and Mr . Joseph Anderlik , the City Engineer for the City of Oak Park Heights, together with Mr . Roger Benson, Public Works Director for the City of Oak Park Heights, is that, in fact, presently the existing Washington County Courthouse 9 • . constructed in 1967 and 1968, and the county administrative building constructed in 1985 and 1986 , is being served by municipal water and sewer services from the City of Oak Park Heights . The further uncontested testimony received from both engineers for the respective cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater was that it was impractical for the City of Stillwater to attempt to provide sanitary sewer service to any extension of the existing governmental facility as would be constructed on Parcel C, B or A. The municipal water and sewer services for the City of Stillwater are several hundred feet away from the existing site and would require extensive construction costs inclusive of lift stations, condemnations of rights-of-way, restoration costs, and other expenses to provide services to the area. The testimony also received uncontested at the time of hearing is that the City of Oak Park Heights now has water and sewer lines on three sides of the Heuer land (Parcel C) inclusive with its lines within Panama Avenue which is also being proposed for detachment and annexation to the City of Stillwater (Parcel B) . Neither the City of Oak Park Heights nor the City of Stillwater have their own sewage plant and both rely upon the sewage treatment plant owned by the Metropolitan Waste Commission within the City of Stillwater for all treatment. Additionally, the uncontested testimony received at trial was that the Heuer property together with Parcel B is included within the City of Oak Park Heights storm sewer improvement taxing district #1, as the area due to existing contours feeds storm water runoff - 10 - • through the City of Oak Park Heights. The City of Oak Park Heights has constructed storm sewer facilities within the area to serve the property which are being repaid by the taxpayers of Oak Park Heights through ad valorem increases in taxes as opposed to assessments. With regard to the balance of municipal services testified to at trial , it is clear that the area does not need any other municipal services nor is there any conflict that would be presented by maintaining services being provided by the City of Oak Park Heights . There is virtually no difference in fire services either provided by the City of Oak Park Heights through its contract with Bayport Fire Department or the City of Oak Park Heights with its own part-time volunteer fire department. Police services to the existing government center are currently provided by the Washington County Sheriff' s Department with its own system of security, bailiffs , and courthouse patrol . Backup services are provided either by the City of Oak Park Heights or by the City of Stillwater , both of which having been called for backup by Washington County Sheriff' s Department in the past . Washington County Government Center does not use the municipal offices , of either the City of Oak Park Heights or of the City of Stillwater , as it has its own administrative offices complete with records , maps, drawings and ordinances of both cities . Additionally, it is eminently clear that the property as it presently exists within the City of Oak Park Heights and which is the subject of these proceedings presents no issues for school - 11 - i • districts and/or environmental concerns . Additionally, the land as presently owned is tax exempt regardless of the municipal designation. II. STATUTORY CONSIDERATIONS REQUIRED FOR BOARD CONSIDERATION. The Petition for Washington County was presented to the Municipal Board pursuant to Minnesota Statute §414. 06, Subdivision 5. That statute requires the board to conduct its hearing and issue its order , all pursuant to Minnesota Statute §414. 041, Subdivision 5, and §414. 09. Minnesota Statute §414. 041, Subdivision 5 requires the board to consider the following factors: ( a) Present population, past population growth, and projected population of the included municipalities . Within the respective exhibits received from both the City of Stillwater and the City of Oak Park Heights , population data as projected by the Metropolitan Council has already been received. Population may be impacted depending upon how the proposed lands are developed . If the lands remain within the City of Oak Park Heights and are developed residentially, as planned since 1979, an impact upon housing and , therefore , population can be anticipated. The ten acre parcel which constitutes the former Kenneth Heuer property (Parcel C) could ostensibly be developed into a major residential subdivision having an impact on these factors . - 12 - S • ♦ (b) Quantity of land within the included municipality; and natural terrain including topography, major watersheds , soil conditions and such natural features as rivers , lakes and major bluffs . Again , the exhibits already received from both the City of Oak Park Heights and the City of Stillwater as it affects Comprehensive Plans , housing studies , terrain , topography, watersheds and soil studies clearly identify the subject property. Of significant concern as it affects its topography is that the parcels identified as B and C consisting of Panama Avenue and the former Kenneth Heuer property do drain predominantly into the Oak Park Heights storm sewer tax improvement system *1. That drainage will only increase as development occurs upon the property having a major impact upon the use of existing facilities and storm sewer drainage utilities within the City of Oak Park Heights. If allowed , the annexation would be allowing property to develop and yet contribute nothing to the cost or use of those facilities' wear , tear , maintenance and operation insofar as the entirety of the storm sewer tax improvement district is being paid for by use of ad valorem taxes n property which Washington County contributes nothing . If the p p ert y remains within the City of Oak Park Heights, it would ultimately be developed as residential being returned to private ownership which would make a contribution to those utilities and services . ( c) Degree of contiguity of the boundaries between the included municipalities . - 13 - • • The boundary existing between the City of Stillwater and the City of Oak Park Heights currently exists along established streets and identifiable boundaries within the two cities especially within the area of the County Government Center . The proposed annexation would take what many already view as a confused boundary and make it worse by removing the identifiable barriers of existin g streets which separate the two cities in establishing an arbitrary meets and bounds description on the Heuer property on its north, east and southern borders in lieu of identified streets. Further the annexation of parcels A, B and C into the City of Stillwater would further intrude and make an island of existing territory within the City of Oak Park Heights located to the east, south and west of Parcels A, B and C. This factor affecting the contiguity of boundaries weighs heavily in favor of keeping the property as it is presently identified within the respective cities and not allowing its concurrent detachment and annexation. (d) Analysis of whether present planning and physical development in the included municipalities indicates that the consolidation of these municipalities will benefit planning and land use patterns in the area ; present transportation network and potential transportation issues including proposed highway development. It is clear from the construction of the existing Washington County administrative building which was completed in 1985 and 1986, that its location in that area together with the adjoining problems it has created with the neighboring property - 14 - 411 • • owners has been the result of non-existent planning between the City of Stillwater and Washington County and the Oak Park Heights residence resulting in monetary damage to those residents. The appraisal prepared for Mr . Swenberg ( as already received in evidence) denotes a $10,000 depreciation in value between the Swenberg homestead and the existing county government facility. Even though the City Planner for the City of Stillwater and the Washington County Planner ' s Office talked in glowing terms of landscaping , green space, screening and vegetative barriers, it became eminently clear from the photographs that were received from the City Planner and the visual inspection that had been made at the property that Washington County' s existing development of its courthouse facility has not provided any degree of reasonable landscaping and screening that was promised , or talked about, by the county in its testimony. An individual or developer can only be judged based upon its past performance and in this particular case, Washington County has miserably failed to produce any degree of confidence in the public as a result of its poor and inefficient development of its existing properties now located within the City of Stillwater . One can only assume that they will continue their poor practices if this annexation is allowed to occur . The physical development now existing within the area already presents a conflict in land use , transportation problems , noise , light and use conflicts which will only be aggravated if the annexation/detachment is granted. Transportation problems have been documented since 1980 as existing within the area. - 15 - 411 410 • Although Washington County and the City of Stillwater dispute the transportation problems, there is no question that they took no issue with the transportation problems highlighted within the Oak Park Heights Comprehensive Plan when they granted their approvals of that plan in 1979 and 1980 . Having agreed that those problems exist, now they appear before the Municipal Board seeking to dispute the problems that have existed for almost a decade. The City of Stillwater and Washington County propose no solutions for those problems. Indeed , they have not even identified to the Municipal Board the concept of that which they wish to construct and develop in the area if the annexation were allowed to occur. They have simply requested of the Municipal Board to grant them a blank check, i .e . to annex the land to the City of Stillwater who in turn will allow the county to do as they please . The existing county government facility was granted permission to build without even so much as a public hearing being held to address issues of landscaping , screening , transportation, noise , light and use which have created so many problems for the area for so many years . It is clear that the detachment/annexation of these lands will not benefit existing planning and land use patterns but will only aggravate and exacerbate the problems that exist. The present transportation network going from the Washington County Courthouse to the west appears to be adequate but the present transportation network to the east of the county facility is obviously grossly inadequate and that problem will only be continued. Compounding the problems further , Washington County has engaged in the practice - 16 - . • of acquiring residential parcels not subject to these proceedings but which are located to the north of Parcel C. The county' s acquisitions in this area are a clear statement of the recognition of the problem and conflict and land use that currently exists within the area. An additional impact for the City of Oak Park Heights is the loss of already scarcely existing vacant land . As testified to by the City Planner , the City of Oak Park Heights has no substantial vacant land existing which has not already been identified for development within the city for purposes of planning and future use. Loss of the ten acre site consisting of Parcel C (Heuer property) will not only confuse existing land use patterns but impair the City of Oak Park Heights existing plans for residential development and land use . ( e) Analysis of whether consolidation of the included municipalities is consistent with Comprehensive Plans for the area. The Metropolitan Council , the City Planner for the City of Stillwater , the Planner for the City of Oak Park Heights , the Washington County Planning Department , and others , all recognize that the proposed development is inconsistent with the City of Oak Park Heights existing Comprehensive Plan . Neither the City of Stillwater nor Washington County address within their Comprehensive Plans the proposed use of the area . Again this factor weighs heavily in favor of not granting the annexation/ detachment as this proposed use has neither been planned for or allowed within any governmental unit which serves the area. - 17 - • . ( f) Analysis of whether governmental services now available in the included municipalities can be more effectively or more economically provided by consolidation. There is no question but that annexation/detachment of this area as petitioned for will severely impair the provision of existing municipal services to the area . Even though the City of Stillwater has joined in the Petition seeking this land to be annexed to it, the testimony solicited from its own engineer is that the City of Stillwater is economically not capable of providing municipal and water services to this area. The existing courthouse facility is already served by the City of Oak Park Heights water and sewer mains . Water and sewer facilities for the City of Oak Park Heights surround the land sought for annexation on three sides . The land sought for annexation is also served by City of Oak Park Heights storm tax improvement district #1. The present government center contributes to the drainage that flows through that area. In addition, the flow is anticipated to increase that drainage as development in the area occurs. Knowing that it is incapable of providing services to the area effeciently and economically. Washington County and the City of Stillwater have advocated a fool ' s argument to the Municipal Board by suggesting that we can merely "presume that the City of Oak Park Heights will agree to serve the area." - 18 - . . The City of Stillwater and the County of Washington have made erroneous assumptions which have brought us to this point over the past decade. In Review: ( a) Washington County assumed there was no zoning problem when it acquired the property from Kenneth Heuer identified as Parcel C. That assumption was false in that zoning did not allow the construction of the facility that the county sought . ( b) Washington County assumed that there would be no conflict in land use by applying for rezonings and conditionally used permits to put in their proposed facilities . In fact, existing Comprehensive Plans issued by the City of Oak Park Heights , and acknowledged by the County of Washington, City of Stillwater , already identified (prior to the County' s purchase of the land) the existing problems with competing land uses between the county government facility and the neighboring residential properties. The county' s poor planning and inability to deal with these issues resulted in their withdrawal of two of the three applications that they brought before the City of Oak Park Heights (with both of those first applications being removed prior to the public even having the opportunity to comment at public hearing as to the nature of the application) . ( c) The County of Washington and the City of Stillwater assume that the City of Oak Park Heights will agree to serve the area if detached from the City of Oak Park Heights and built upon by Washington County. - 19 - d u That assumption is based upon several isolated p cases where the City of Oak Park Heights has allowed its services to go beyond its boundaries and serve areas that the city of Stillwater was incapable of serving. Each of those was based upon a residential homeowner ' s need for utilities and is supported by a separate development agreement. Each of those is reviewed on a case by case basis and voted on independently by each city council . No application has been made to the City of Oak Park Heights by the City of Stillwater or the County of Washington to serve water and sewer facilities to either of the lands proposed for annexation. There is no guarantee that the City of Oak Park Heights will serve those areas . Assuming the annexation/detachment is allowed , and that the City of Oak Park Heights would not allow the areas to be served with its lines, it is clear that the county would spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring water and sewer services to an area that is obviously ill-suited for its proposed development. (d) The County Planner assumed that the City of Oak Park Heights would gladly rezone the area in 1980 so as to allow the county' s proposed use assuming that its use of the property had precedence over the neighboring property' s utilization of their properties. The Washington County Planner testified that he simply assumed that the City of Oak Park Heights would allow the rezoning of the Heuer property prior to its purchase feeling that the county use had a priority over that of adjacent land uses . The fundamental flaw of that rationale is the arrogance in - 20 - S • assuming that government exists to be served by the people as opposed to government serving the people. The neighboring land owners have every right to have their properties protected and their use and peaceful occupation of those properties preserved . The county government center can only realistically be classified as a high density commercial use inappropriately located next to existing residential facilities . This factor weighs heavily in favor of denying the Petition. (g) Analysis of whether there are existing or potential environmental problems and whether municipal consolidation will improve such problems . As already indicated , there are no pollution or environmental problems with the possible exceptions of traffic, use , noise and light already discussed . (h) Analysis of tax and governmental aid issues involved in the consolidation in the included municipalities . This particular annexation does not have any impact on fiscal or tax consolidation insofar as we are dealing with a governmental property owner who has a tax exempt status on its property regardless of which municipality it is located in. However , as noted above , if Washington County is not successful in this petition, it is presumed that they will market the property for sale as a residential development in conformance with the existing code and Comprehensive Plan of the City of Oak Park Heights which has been in existence since 1980. The tax - 21 - r 4. revenue from approximately 11 acres of land and predominantly the 10 acre Heuer parcel (Parcel C) would be of significance to the City of Oak Park Heights . ( i) Analysis of the affect of consolidation on area school districts . Except as noted above, in the event of residential development of the Heuer parcel , there would be no impact. ( j ) Analysis of the applicability of the State Building Code . Insofar as the City of Oak Park Heights , the City of Stillwater and Washington County all equally apply and enforce the State Building Code. There should be no impact on this particular factor . III. LEGAL ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE PETITION OF WASHINGTON COUNTY. As noted previously, the County of Washington, in its Petition, signed by Sally Everett, the Chairman, the Board of Commissioners, and Mr . Charles Swanson, Washington County Administrator , cite within paragraph 4 their rationale for the request for annexation as follows: The reason for the request for this boundary adjustment is the property proposed for annexation is required for the expansion of the Washington County Government Center and Minnesota Statutes require that the services proposed to be located in the expansion must be in the County Seat. The City of Stillwater is the County Seat for Washington County and the land proposed for the expansion of the Government Center is located in the City of Oak Park Heights . Presently municipal services - 22 - I 411 such as police, fire , sanitary services are being provided to the existing Government Center by the City of Stillwater . When the Government Center has expanded those same services will be needed by the expanded Government Center and those services can be most efficiently and effectively provided by the City of Stillwater . As has already been pointed out , the statement made within the Petition that municipal services are presently being provided to the existing facility by the City of Stillwater is false . Municipal water and sanitary sewer services are currently provided to the Government Center by the City of Oak Park Heights . Security a nd police services are provided by the Washington County Sheriff' s Department. Fire services are supplied on a first-come, first-served basis and , of course , there has never been a fire need at the existing government facility, but due to the size of that facility, it is unlikely that a single fire department would be able to respond to the call . Aside from the factual irregularities and false statements contained within the Petition , the county' s entire rationale in proceeding with this application has been to try to convince the Municipal Board that the county is legally required to have the Government Center located within the City of Stillwater . Initially, it becomes obvious that this position of the county is a recent creation insofar as the county never advanced this philosophy back in 1980 and 1983 when it made its previous Applications for Rezoning and Conditional Use Permits to n was more than willing the City of Oak Park Heights . The county g - 23 - • 411 at that time to construct its administrative offices within the City of Oak Park Heights. One can only question why Washington I County has taken eight years to find a statute that was in existence since 1909. Although the county' s argument in this regard has some degree of appeal prior to trial , the county' s expert witness , Ms . Stephanie Gailee from the firm of Holmes & Graven, an attorney and presumed expert in this field , testified that the statute did not prohibit the construction of a facility within the City of Oak Park Heights . It was Ms. Gailee' s opinion that the statute only required that the county maintain an office of the Sheriff in the County Seat and that additional offices could be constructed wherever the county board saw fit. Further , it was her testimony that Section 382. 04 of the Minnesota Statutes only applied to the constitutional offices of Auditor , Treasurer , Register of Deeds, Clerk of District Court, Sheriff and Judge , and did not impact in any regard the other many functions , offices , departments of the county that could be housed and located in the area. Consequently, when one considers that the existing office of the Washington County Sheriff is already located in the City of Stillwater , housed within the basement of the existing courthouse building , and that the concept development proposed to the County Board Commissioner was to construct from off of the eastern wall of the Sheriff' s Department - to the east - across to the Heuer property, it is obvious that the Sheriff' s - 24 - • • Department can and would be maintained within the City of Stillwater , even though the jail facility would be constructed within the City of Oak Park Heights . When one further considers the existing facilities for workhouses that are constructed away from the County Seats, such as the workhouse in Plymouth serving Hennepin County, with the City of Minneapolis being the County Seat, it is obvious that the legal rationale for the county' s Petition for Annexation has its basis in convenient fiction but not in legal fact. Obviously, there is not legal basis nor factual basis for the county' s Application for Detachment/Annexation . Ironically, the county is in the unusual position of advocating a detachment/annexation which, even when allowed, would require the City of Oak Park Heights to provide services to the property. The re no question uestion but that there exists other commercial lands within the City of Stillwater upon which the jail facility could be constructed with a lesser degree of land use conflict than exists in the current proposal . Yet the hesitance of the City Planner for the City of Stillwater acknowledges that the City of Stillwater is desirous of having the existing facility expand , it is simply not happy with the concept of the county facility taking up what is currently privately-owned taxed generating property for the City of Stillwater and building a jail facility upon it. Consequently, even though the City of Stillwater has already come to a zoning agreement with the County of Washington to rezone the subject property as soon as it comes in to allow the construction of the jail facility, Washington County would - 25 - ! • obviously find a much lesser reception by the city if it abandoned its proposal and sought to construct the jail facility in the industrial park of the City of Stillwater where such a facility is best suited. In sum, upon reviewing the statutory factors set forth within Minnesota S414. 051, Subdivision 5, together with the legal cause cited by the county in its initial Application for Annexation/Detachment, it appears there is no legal basis to allow the annexation as requested. IV. CONCLUSION. It is at best unfortunate when government which is supposed to act as the role model for society proceeds in a manner which is calculated to avoid the rule of law and circumvent the requirements of due process in public and open hearing that are otherwise provided for . In this particular instance , Washington County is asking the Minnesota Municipal Board to treat it in a manner different than any developer of a parcel of land would be treated . Indeed , Washington County is proceeding as a developer on this property with an attitude towards that development that should not be tolerated by the City of Oak Park Heights and certainly would not be tolerated by the Washington County Planning Department or the City of Stillwater if approached in a like manner by any other developer . In essence , Washington County told the City of Oak Park Heights either to grant them the permit that they desire , to - 26 - A build a courthouse which has not yet been identified , or they will take their land to another jurisdiction that will . The petitioners have tried to make the issue of the construction of a county courthouse facility the issue rather than the concept of the annexation of lands as otherwise provided for in the statute . The Municipal Commission does not exist for the purpose of approving specific developments of land. It is within the exclusive province of the municipalities to zone and to control development on land regarding land use and adjacent land owner concerns . It is within the province of the Minnesota Municipal Board to determine when lands cannot be supplied municipal services and are in need of annexation to adjacent communities so that those services can be provided efficiently, economically, and in a manner calculated to promote efficient and reasonable land use . The matter now before the Municipal Board has nothing to do with the issue or the provision of municipal services. The land in question is now served by the City of Oak Park Heights and will ultimately continue to be served by the City of Oak Park Heights . This annexation matter also has nothing to do with the efficient provision of municipal services for the same reason . It is not within the province of the Municipal Board to determine the need for extended county facilities as that is a function solely within the jurisdiction of the individual county board. Moreover , it is instructive in this particular instance that absolutely no testimony was received from Washington County - 27 - f ,F 411 410 • 1 as it affected its rationale and basis surrounding its decision to build an addition to the existing Government Center . Based upon the evidence that was received in the two days of hearings before the Municipal Board , there exists no factual , legal or jurisdictional basis to grant the Petition of Washington County for the concurrent annexation and detachment sought . Knowing that there is no legal , factual , or jurisdictional basis for its petition, Washington County has nonetheless presented this matter before the Municipal Board seeking a political solution to the problem it created in 1980 when through the process of poor judgment, Washington County made a decision to acquire land. In 1980, Washington County did not even act as a reasonable developer to even bother to check appropriate zoning and ordinances prior to purchase . As a developer , they did not act reasonably to review other options in building opportunities for the property which could result in a substantial benefit, both financially for the developer and for the community. They now seek the Minnesota Municipal Board to ratify that poor decision and to join them in their efforts to take a parcel of land that is ill-suited for particularized development and to implement that development avoiding the due process constraints that would otherwise be provided citizens and the controlling municipality as would otherwise be afforded in law. If the Municipal Board makes a decision to treat Washington - 28 - 110 • V A County in the manner it would any other developer of land , there is no conclusion that can be reached but that the Petition of Washington County be denied . Respectfully submitted , ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS WOLFF & VIERLING .A1111011.Pcl By: Mar J. Vierling and Lyle J. Eckberg , Attorneys for Oak Park Heights 1835 Northwestern Avenue Stillwater , MN 55082 (612) 439-2878 Attorney I. D. No. 112823 Attorney I. D. No . 25495 - 29 - A A NOTES . . For building locations , utility dd1a, and ,Che .= � site topography information, refer to the ' ! "TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY" of these premises ~.uy�~_ ! prepared by the Washington County 3&rveyor's Office, dated May 24, l983 | | ` ~ ^ ' r . . Four,Each of the lots in Fo�� and � | Five of McMlLLAN AND COOLEY'S ADDITION TO . . ' , " STILLWATER have recorded dim� 'sion6 of 40 \ 'N ' feet by 135 feet, Each of the lots in !� | Blocks One and Two of MURDOCKS ADDITION TO ` | / ` \ OAK PARK have recorded dimensions of 42 feet by 140 feet except Lots 14 and 15 in each 'of said , locks One and Two which have recorded dimensions of 40'4 feet by 140 feet. | | The nails found at the intersections of the platted streets were verified as being in the � positions established by Arthur M. Holm, RLS 7447^ in his survey of Oak Park Heights in l967 . The rails the ties recorded by . . ) `- ~ ' Arthur M. Holm. The on3i4" and distances between the nails fit well with what Arc°,' ! ` y M. Holm recorded in his notes. These nails ! were used to determine the boundaries of the platted property in this survey. The positions established by Arthur M. :»\ ` RLS 7447, for Paris Avenue North (formerly Seventh Street) arP on the centerline o f the • east half of the pla.:ted street. ^ -- - �n . _ tf) Panuo� A^enue North .er trc Soo[hwest �uurter of the Sou ihwest/f0rn �rly Hazel ��r"'t) __- � �U�r�er uf Sec�i�r 34 rf tne �cut��es (-O.f 7he su^rh � i�e uf this property west 4ve,ue Nerch xas es a � �� ! . ppp~ :outn of c a nor The south line �roperty west u t ) .�. ~ ( ` r�numa ,:venue %crtk ^u� established ;»/^/ / ' u^d feet �nutn cf tne north ! ,'c f M �ii | �� rhry 30 Of Block Five o � - �~ ^DC`-IO ■ -J Sr`L ]ATER. Th, 4 , � �s^e�ljs�e� .o/u\ 1°l w` ^ - � .^ ^ '�' ^ ` - 'r - ; i '''�' • ,` method used in this survey reflects the best 'o-�u, i`. method for its location. This method fits the tra/eled road well . __ �� \ ` | . LEGEND ` Bearings are based on the Washington County ` Coordinate Svstem, South Zone. ) L`�i L � ` Denotes 3/4 inch by 18 inch iron pipe -~ � 0 ' ~ monument set marked by a brass cap inscribed WASH. CO. R/W & CONTROL MON. and stamped RLS 12279. | ' 0 Denotes nnuwents marked as indicated, found in good position and used to ' ^ detern/�:� the boundaries of this property. = A Denotes nails found in good position and used to deterwine the boundaries of this bro;:erty. • Denotes —nnwients qiarked as indicated, fount] in the course of this survey but used to deterl:]ine the boundaries of rtis . � -pi . = !ata ta;-*n from o, calculuteo � the n/qnwo �qht-o -"uyma, an d ~ / 1escri:,yi�rs on tna ... ....,; •r , .. , ..,r . r.l.r ,...., `-k°,;t ,;., ;,4' ., :,,,tt,'It.;,1,,:.7.,;-:,..•„:,.=i-.',.;''' ,,, Tc r...I t.'„:-......... C,• ^- ..,,,,..•..." ,,.."4.-•,,,,)"..„,...,,..t'Ir•r".1-11.' x'''''•'''''1',",*-';"...,''' L;'''''' ''-,'''' , ''-, ,'-,,..rr,-,"•-`e..',,c,5,i.-A4 tv,"P•c"':$'0,c-,''"`ric,r--"r.:!7r:•.':-,,•.--,•-1•',..'''l''' '-.•--,',.'.,'' -' ,:e_, ...,- r.1. ..: ''.,. :,z.,',""...,'"'..4-.•`-'1'...--,A.1-4)'..,..", '.:1",'„,.i:ir..!..:1-irr....,,‘",',...".' " ' c:'''''' _...',",' • 1,. - '•- ,.--- '-'' ..t: C . . ■r r r ■. ,., . i - '' '','''`'-',,,','.,,!.'''''1,.',.',',"''''.kUt.,•.'•'it'.4'!#''Ot'.'g,0"$-",X.`4';,:?.,:•,--.'-.:.''':....''"', .''': . ', ..- , ,,---- -..- ., , :) 7-3 :3 ' - '-''''''''''','''''''t ''',"11."1.1::=•,;;;'!.).,:`,'"-s,•„1,,."3.1'...+,1', , ,,'. , . . ..„, ' .;',■' ''',,'",•4-..-'•sti'.-3.,*-;•!'•-.:•.."4•6'f-.•••,,.,-,,,.,--,-. ; , ., • ,ii -.I..--- '•:, -,,--•14,:i.i.--*..t,'..t4';'••=-....',.',;.:4,,-.,;•:•i,,,i.,,..5I(..;!..ti':',.''',':---:,-,;'''.'•..,...'..,. s ' - .r..) ,-_-,,, ir ,'.•J C. C ..- i %cc r:3 d, c•-') r'.... •.1-) 4-.1 ,- ,.... 1''-',-''' ' .' -3 -.'., .•3 '.:L'-''' ,i, C) (....i . i • ■') a.) .,... ,,, ,..._„ .1 ,,', f 0 -- ■ --', . . . Cr "' 0- - 1 c‘•.'" . . ,I) ,.t.., <1.; ,...) c',..) .y. 0 C7, cz3-. Or 0. 0' . . 1.. ..--, rt) to_ •:7 •r•- „.. •c...-3 4- ta_ CA. 4..)... Cl. C... CI , ,--C C,J `•-• .. • . • • ,..,) t J '(I 7D 13 1 . , -I, Q.) u co ,I-' (1, c (.1.i CU C) U) 4._ c.n -,•-•-: ,„, t. ,... ' 4- 4- `•- 4-- 4- 0 0 0 0(:.) 4- :. C) V C) U.) `-. ■,_, La.■ ,C, LA .-...*..) C,Cc) .1..1 ,' (1,) >- 0 C) U C. J ('j C\J C`.1 C",cc.) .-cc+ > el) ".. ,.._ '..- -,,._ ..,..,. .._.,,. -.. -",r: ..-.)•."- ,r- ,;) r-..-.) •"..," 0 C-1 c-' ;,•;' :...1 C L) C-) o C) cf.:, L.C.`, 1.-3 Cl ;....„ ,_ = •• C) . (o .1..) C) Ci.., C.., 33 •-•-- )I) C.I. ••- cl, 4-- sZ: . - ',. -- II ..".'' ,-i s 1.• , 11 :., ',...! 1 1 --.. '., , . VP. .• • I'•• +•} .• 1••••• .•• r i • 3 • s .P U 4 • r. 'C * i I a =' i •p I awe 3 I 6 rib r I • i Al 1 4 • •• vii 4 I r r I • _ • • its, i !ft -�� a 2 -• • P 2 ' 2 • •1 t i tAt x ` • • .�+ta. •: `• • a) (t • II ■ O . • ` • _ Z •' - - f - O• p MON* 33"‹ ..rte FM r •• t Ii +• I a♦ t 18 4 I i 23 11 1 fin ... . k 14 a 3 •4 tit M • 1 i i • ! 1.. 1 OS ill, 1 Petit +ti.•n7 • '• •• +J • 1 1 11 • • • ` • • y • • .. ; 1 t t•t i • . . r•