Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPrison Site 1977 • 4.04*.Oat Park *Wits' Sets Meeting On Proposed Prison The Oak Park Heights council Those customers who have had Monday night announced a public water pipe breaks and Were informational meeting Monday, advised to let water .continue Feb.21,at7 p.m.at the municipal running in pipet in ~bower or bundi, to review the proposed business places, Will MC, maximum security prison— overcharged .,but- receive a` facility. minimum billing for Mat Drawings and displays will be first quarter. After April 1, all ,presented by personnel from the customers on village water-will Minnesota State Department of be charged, for all gallons ns Corrections. The representatives metered. ' will '.a,be available to answer The council set a public hearing regarding the facility. March 21 at 7 p.m. , in the `Don Mondor presented municipal building to review mily of the late Mayor, Swager's proposed Plan No. 7, ?ftaynioncl Johnson, with a and to hear citizens regarding a -,001tOltition prepared in special use Permit requested **Ignition of his many years of from Robert Zaczkowski to *Voted service as mayor of Oak operate a beauty salon at the Park Heights. Southwest corner of Oldfield Ave, and the Highway 212 service lane. In other council business:,. The cil adopted Ordinance Two contracts were awarded 1503 which annexes certain for' replacement of the control property ,;located •In Baytown pallet fee well No.1,to repair and township to the City of Oak.Park install damaged electrical lines Heights.The property constitutes resulting from water damage. aboat 13.84 acres,which is owned ' The council received but took by the City of Oak Park Hem�ets, no action' on two resignations. on which the city's water wellN.. plizabeth Sherrard resigned as 2 was constructed. tiog control officer, effective R. S. Torgersan was elected iroluedifttc4Y. John Cox, police acting mayor by his fellow reserve officer and Director of ''i councilmen.. Civfl,Defense, also.resigned. ' The council authorized the TO. city.„established a new application of Comprehensive, policy for thawing frozen water Educational Training Act funds services,effective Merck 1.Clerk (CETAI .te. add an additional; en Heuer was directed to advise police officer, each water customer',by letter,of The fire contract for'Oak Park new polity. The city will Heights,for fire pi(otectlon from continue to thaw out water the City, of 'Bayport, was ap- > rs, but property'owners will proved. have sole responsibility for water The,•council also approved;the service f . the city, main to`;1978 financial report ak, their'house er place Of business. Bated/Awl Rte, 4aciA 8 teldtiociatett, Asa ewe .2335 ?!/. cluath aighwalf 36 Otto G.Bonestroo, P.E. Robert W.Rosene, P.E. Si. /Oaa4 Mi edo& 55/13 Joseph C.Anderlik,P.E. Phone: 6364600 Bradford A. Lemberg,P.E. Robert D.Frigaard, P.E. Richard E. Turner, P.E. James C. Olson, P.E. Lawrence F.Feldsien, P.E. p Glenn R. Cook, P.E. 8 March 8, 1977 Keith A. Gordon, P.E. Thomas E. Noyes, P.E. Richard W, Foster, P.E. Robert G. Schunicht, P.E. City of Oak Park Heights Marvin L.Sorvala, P.E. Charles A. Erickson 6141 Panama Ave. N. Stillwater, Mn. 55082 Attn: Mr. Ken Heuer Re: Proposed Prison File No. 55 Gentlemen: In response to your request in regard to capacity in the sanitary sewer system and sewage treatment plant as well as water usage from the City water supply for the proposed new prison, we do not feel that any problems exist to provide this service. The City should be aware that the sewage treatment capacity is not a concern of the City of Oak Park Heights but belongs to the Metropolitan Waste Con- trol Commission. The interceptor sewer which may have to be extended along the old railroad right-of-way for service to this parcel may put the City in a position that the sewer board will acquire the interceptor sewers. It would be our opinion that the City would not relinquish this con- trol. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. • o''/wa Otto G. Bonestroo OGB:li •■•■••=111111.11111=1.1111 /Val. Pc 0..*1* Aft 1/e (.?, C44,1 - ( / 64-41 ° C.. Lci,. (4. / 7 e7Z.i..c7.90' ,.. • ..)7/:, :7-'--/ \„41/4 rm Lis/2=6 e - • / ô 4zi x i'''■.' 1-J-A LIA e's\l'' L-, ‘',"' /C 74! A-4/A/, (.,,C , Q / - 0 a t z ett,,,i 7 L-77/tY17)7"E 4-400 0 j 4. / D azit X , ) (,) ■ (..` :. /0 7/z /e,...i2, ' _ 0 -1'r, ■, --/ -2, / , •57.00L L./P ,,..) 4,,t-:7 f—t4',." '' '' )e .4.-,36-.;-,4.,-- _--.:7 i 7 .-, IDuL. ,S4 'C-/- x Sao 'r / -',o' f 73, . NNI Basted/ma, Rte, 4ade,4444 g ,Q &cacc , 9,zc. .2335 W. T e!(G,LI„_._36 �arsrrl�lir� �y SL per" �I a 55ff3 Otto G. . nestraa, P.E. Ak����� Robert W.Rosen,P.E. o : 636-4600 Joseph C.Anderlik,P.E. Bradford A.Lemberg,P.E. March 10, 1977 Robert D.Frigaard,P.E. Richard E. Turner,P.E. James C. Olson,P.E. City of Oak Park htS Lawrence F.Feldsien, P.E. 6141 Panama eig Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Ave Ave. N. Keith A. Gordon,P.E. Stillwater, Mn. 55082 Thomas E. Noyes, P.E. Richard W. Foster, P.E. Robert G.Schunicht, P.E. Re: New Prison Prop Marvin L.Sorvala, P.E. OSal Charles A. Erickson Our File No. 55 Gentlemen: Mr. Bruce McManus from the Department of Corrections and Mr. Thomas their architectural firm was in our office Monday to advise us of for the new prison and the services they may Lynch from for to keep their being p you informed as to the information exchanged. is being At this meeting a letter was delivered expressing the requirements water service to the site and requesting our determination as to th of the Oak Park Heights systems. A q nts for sewer and responded officially to this correspondence buts indicated serve the proposed the sanitary sewer tachede adequacy system was designed to serve this area and is adequate to op osed We have not prison. We also indicated that we felt that the water supply system was also adequate but indicated that the total fire If the fire requirements could be met b protection requirements should be reviewed exist. However, if there was some question eofxadequac , additional ti problem on-site facilities may be required, adequacy, additional on-site Sewage treatment capacity is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Waste Con- trol Commission and poses no problem for the City. The proposed land use gener- ally ally has less demand for services than other types of development and should Con have minimal impact on the water and sewer systems and treatment plant Mr. McManus suggested P capacity. ggested that the City to receive the additional state aids swhich are sbasedt popuon annexation lation, while t he of the she demand for other City services would be practically non-existent. Optimism was expressed by Mr. McManus on receiving funding for this ro the State Legislature particularly because the land has been owned b y the Depart- ment of Corrections for so long and the compatibility of the design o t h e e from If we receive any other input or comment we will forward them for you site. tion and review. y r informa- Yours very truly, BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK NDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. ... .,,,,,aie Jose (i 6,44 4,6 P Anderlik JCA: li Encl. rR • WINSOR/FARICY ARCHITECTS, INC. 7 March 1977 Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. Consulting Engineers 2335 West Trunk Highway 36 Roseville, Minnesota Attention: Joseph C. Anderlik Re: Water and Sewer Service for New High Security Facility Department of Corrections State of Minnesota (Oak Park Heights) Dear Mr. Anderlik: As Architects for the new High Security Facility for the Department of Corrections, to be located in Oak Park Heights, we would like to have you verify water and sewer capacity for this facility. This facility will house 400 inmates and require a staff of 160 during y the day shift. We have estimated our liquid waste requirement at 110 gallons per day per inmate plus 25 gallons per day for staff. This totals an average usage of 48,000 gallons per day. 110 x 400 = 44,000 gallons 160 x 25 = 4,000 48,000 gallons The type of industry use has not been determined at this date. However, our design is based on "Light Manufacturing" use. Our estimated water usage is 56,000 gallons per day with a peak demand of 180 G.P.M. Our design, at this time, is to run a 15" Sanitary Sewer from the site, northward 1300' into Valley View Park, following the Park Roadway to Manhole #65, which has an invert of 781.86 and has an 18" outlet. 260 METRO SQUARE SEVENTH AND ROBERT STREETS SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101 612 -227-0655 iv Y i • Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlike and Associates, Inc. 7 March 1977 Page two An 8" water service would be extended from the end of the Oak Park Heights water main on Osgood Avenue (County Highway 67) south approximately 1250' , then eastward on the site to the building. It is also intended to provide on-site underground storage of 90,000 gallons of water for fire protection. Please advise if capacities of Oak Park Heights systems are adequate for this estimated usage. Sincerely, WINSOR/FARICY ARCHITECTS, INC. Thomas F. Lynch AIA PROJECT ARCHITECT TFL:t cc: Dick McManaman - Kirkham Michael Associates Chuck Sullivan - Kirkham Michael Associates Max Fowler - Dept of Administration/Department of Corrections Bruce McManus —Department of Corrections Wayne Winsor - Winsor/Faricy Architects, Inc. .CITY of OAK PARK HEIGHTS QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY ENGINEER COUNTY ROAD 67 (OSGOOD AVENUE) Will this road in your estimation be eble to handle the increase in traffic if the proposed prison is constructed. 2. If present road has to be renovated to handle the additional traffic will the width have to be expanded, if so, whose land will the expanation take place on. • 3, What is the load limit on this road, will it be able to handle supply trucks, heavy equipment ect. 4. Will this road in your estimation need additional street lights for safety purposes, if so, who will pay for this added expense. SEWAGE SYSTEM 1. What is the present sewage system load. 2. Can the present sewage system handle the additional sewage that will be generated by the proposed prison. 3. If the present sewage system cannot handle the waste generated by the proposed prison will it have to be expanded. 4. If sewage system has to be expanded account of the proposed prison, who will pay for it. WATER SYSTEM 1. What is Oak Park Heights present water capacity. 2. Can the present water system handle the proped prison water needs. 3. If the water system is overloaded account of the proposed prison, what are the solutions to remedy the sitution. 4. If the proposed prison is constructed, will the citizens of Oak Park Heights be guaranteed of no water shortage. §ubmi e by Vat LeClaire likkA/ NrY r) Upper 55th Street Oak Park Heights •CITY of OAK PARK HEIGHTS • QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY PLANNER EXPANSION 1. Will the surrounding area of the proposed prison site be used for industrial development to accommadate the institutions needs, if soy does the City of Oak Park Heights want this kind of expansion. 2. Will the proposed prison stop the redidential area expansion of Oak Park Heights. POLLUTION 1.. Will the increase traffic on Osgood Avenue cause excessive pollution. 2. What will be done for excessive noise control. 3. Has a concept been developed to handle these two extremely inportant questions. CITY BUSINESS 1. How is the surrounding property of the proposed prison site zoned. 2. What will happen to the property value for the entire City of Oak Park Heights. 3. Will additional police have to be added to control the excessive traffic that will be generated if the proposed prison is constructed. 4. Would increased traffic on Osgood Avenue especially during shift changes, tie up our school buses. bmitrtby at LeClaire Mike 7' — .LLy— Upper 5th Street/ Oak Park Heights • • LAW OFFICES OF ECKBERG, LAMMERS, BRIGGS 8c WOLFF 126 SOUTH SECOND STREET STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 439-2878 LYLE J. ECKBERG 14733 60TH STREET NORTH OF COUNSEL: JAMES F. LAMMERS OAK PARK HEIGHTS. MINNESOTA 55082 WINSTON E. SANDEEN ROBERT G. BRIGGS 439-9464 PAUL A. WOLFF HOWARD R. TURRENTINE March 17 , 1977 Mr. Donald Mondor, Mayor City of Oak Oark Heights 14616 North 57th Street Stillwater, MN 55082 Re: Proposed maximum security prison Dear Dewey: Pursuant to the request of the Council, enclosed herewith please find the proposed resolution opposing the proposed maximum security prison facility. I would appreciate you and the Council reviewing the same and should you have any questions , additions , or corrections , please advise our office, if possible, prior to the meeting to be held Monday, March 21 , 1977 . Yours very truly, i James F . Lammers JFL: jw Enc. cc: Ken Heuer John P. Groth Richard Seggelke John C . Lang Robert Torgerson 411 1 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE PROPOSED NEW MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISON FACILITY PLANNED TO BE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF OSGOOD AVENUE AND PARTIALLY IN THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS WHEREAS, the Minnesota State Legislature is considering the construction of a Four Hundred (400) bed maximum security prison proposed to be constructed on the East side of Osgood Avenue and partially in the City of Oak Park Heights; and WHEREAS, the Oak Park Heights City Council has held public hearings concerning citizen opposition relative to the proposed maximum security prison; and } . S • 3 . No consideration was given regarding the effects of the proposed facility on the new Valley View Park project, located in the City of Oak Park Heights and adjacent to the proposed site. That a total of $250,000.00 has or will be expended for the purchase and development of said public park. That the value of said park will be severely diminished if the proposed maximum security facility is constructed adjacent to it. 4 . The City Council of Oak Park Heights has never been informed of what impact the proposed facility might have on the City utilities, land and access, although the City Council is of the opinion that the facility could place an undue burden on the • • • STATE OF MINNESOTA 612-296-6133 , .! DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS NNE O SUITE 430 METRO SQUARE BLDG. • 7th & ROBERT STREETS • ST.PAUL,MINN.-55101 • March 21, 1977 Ms. Charlotte Kerby 13131 40th Street North Oak Park Heights, Minnesota 55082 Dear Ms. Kerby: As you will recall, at the February 15th meeting at the Washington County Court House, a number of questions were raised during the discussion. We indicated at that time that we would respond to the questions in writing to you. Attached, you will find those questions and our response. We have attempted to answer each question in keeping with our commitment to you of providing as much information and details of the proposed institution as we can. If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me directly. Very truly yours, ` ) „dames Zellmer Project Coordinator JBZ:jw Attachment AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER..-.. • S < k. QUESTIONS ASKED'AT OAk PARK REIGHTS MEE 'ING .. ` _ w-,,! .•:' Q. What is the-possibility y of stopping'escapes in the a new:prison? • ' •. ' ' ' , ' A. The proposed high security facility,is be1n9 developed to minimize: ," • the opportunity for escape.. As with any •cbr,ettional institutions` ' , • ► where people are•held against their will,-At is anticipated that . - ` '' there will be attempts to escape frdn this Institution, however, .. . every effort has been made to minimize thk ,potential for escape end • • to insure the safety of the public. , . . J . 2. Q. Where is the entrance? .� • A. The primary entrance to the institution w411 be located .approximately_ 825 feet East of county road 67 (Osgood Avenue). Entrance will be gained to the institution through the administration building., . 3. Q. How"much money was allocated to a poll of the community? : . ' .. _. A. No money was appropriated for a poll of the'comnunity. This project ' was implemented at the direction of the 1976 State Legislature 4nd a site was selected from property presently owned by the State of .r • Minnesota and operated for prison purposes for over 60 years. Q. Now much money was allocated to wildlife issue? A. No money was appropriated for the issue of wildlife. However,- the selection process took this issue into consi'Ieration.° The ONR:has ' ,^ been fully advised of this project and does not oppoie.it. , ' 4. Q. Site 1 versus site 2 -- Was site I selected because there were 'less people to -contend with? A. One of the criteria used for site selection was the.( ffect of the new facility on developed areas. The measigre used was to,actual,iy count . the number of ;residences and commercial buildings within a 3/4' mile radius of the center of each site. The number of residences within this radius was considered important in the selection process. 5. Q. How many tax dollars would it cost the people to connect with the, sewer? . A. The usual ,cost of connecting the new facility to the sewer will be . or y the State. Q. What about the cost of improving the road? A. The road is a county road. If local legislators request and obtain approval to change the road to a State highway, .the .Sta;te would be r ; responsible ^ • . '-6.. Q. What was wrong with site 3? 4 t ' -. A.`.Through a detailed process, the consul•tarZts. and' the project management ' team developed a list of 11 criteria that,speciftcally.address the selection of the. best site from those. avai3ables Data Mc-compiled on . each. site by site visits, consultations.with appropriate parsops, *value- • tion of. areial photographs and quantifying relative 4is,tances and/off other units of measure. Each site then became .subject to evaluation °r' with 11 criteria to determine the one best for •the"-high "security facility. ° ' ' ,.' ^ In the evaluation, site 3 received the lowest number of points of the ,.` • five sites evaluated. Using these 11 criteria-for measurement, it was . `. ^ determined that site 3 was not suitable "for the construction of this 4 ` facility. I'"7.igl':.Me4WM..r.+R.yy..M-,r, NNPo.'lk#:r,.... .........{wrt..... ,,........w^F�+*r.e:a w.,r!a.. .,+. .1...,..e.:. xntM,....n'Y"' "tits.^n...vYW.-...•..."..y,.i..,......,.,,yA,..FN'MM`d4!^w'Cv:M"°.¢!.wM'x1P'a.p.RYfe#7F4I1R:MAi "r!KF^..mw*sr+'V.4+elsYM r . 7. Q. Questioned other prison land that wasn't on the map.: - ' •. A. All property presently owned by the prison was on the map and was . ,considered for this project. " ; . 8., Q. Why, not 'spend $20.8 million in remodel t ng •,the .ol d'prison---cost Mlou.Td' be 'less? s • ' A. Minnesota Task Force on Correctional :Institutions' report to the . ' - - ' Legislature dated February 16, 1976, recommended against remodelipg the old prison into a high security foci l i ty. They .i ndtcated, that since the original construction of the prison beliefs and practices • , concerning prison architecture, security programming' and management have changed radically. They indicated that r'enovat ton•for, ,th_e prison would not correct the major deficiencies of the institution. The size. of the prison population is nmanageable and endangers the safety of . inmates and staff. They estimated at that time that the_ cost of total renovation would be in excess of $17 million dollars. They also said that were the present facility renovated, the condition and age of the buildings would still require an increasing amount of repair and replacement in incoming years. Therefore, they concluded that it wdul'd . be an uneconomical use of state funds to totally renovate the Minnesota State Prison for a high security facility. 9. Q. Where is the feasibility of a different site? How much dollars has been spent on other site possibilities? , A. Eleven criteria were used to evaluate each of the five sites under consideration. A great deal of time and effort went unto the site - selection and is thoroughly explained in Chapter 6 of our report to the legislature. After it was determined that site lE Was the most suitable site for selection, no monies were spent for additional planning of other sites. 10. Q. Why 6.5 million for remodeling old institution and then $20.8 for the new prison shortly thereafter? A. The 6.5 million dollars has been requested by the department to main- tain-We present facility until the new facility is completed.—TF-ie tupo,1 - present prison has this need in order to properly maintain it as suitable for housing the present population. - 11 . Q. Was the plan presented to present staff at the prison? A. Yes, the plan has been presented to staff at both the present institu- tion and at the State Reformatory at St. Cloud. The reaction to the . plan has been most favorable by these practitioners. ; A `- 1g. . Q. Vietnam wire - explanation requested.A. The matter of some form of barrier between the exterior wire fences will be examined in great detail and an agreeable solution will be reached before any material is utilized. . The purpose of such barrier is to deter-escape trys and to hinder the4proces's of excape attempts. . 13. Q. How .close will the fence come t- sotith end of State property? . A. Approximately 300 feet at its closest point. • , • • • • J. 14. Q. How far will the security fence be from .the road going into ,the,park?' A. Approximately 250 feet at its closest point. • "" 15. Q. Has an environmental assessment been done? A. An environmental assessment work sheet is presently being prepared. _ 16. Q. Concern abbut smoke stacks to heat prison -- exhaust being seen. tom' Q p 9 A. This institution will not have a power plant, 'thergfore there wil/ be. no smoke stacks visible or emitting 1pollutign. The amount of exhaust being ex a 1$d by the institution will only be the'amount required by building codes. • 17. Q. Any chance that 50 feet or so of property could be given directly to • the proper owners to plant trees and brim the land? A. It is extremely doubtful that 50 feet of land will be given by the State to the property owners abutting the State property. 18. Q. If sewer goes through, will people be forced to hook up to it. If not now, when in the future? A. The sewer for this intitution will be a line running directly to an . 18" sewer main. To our knowledge, need does not affect any other property owners. 19. Q. Mentally ill---Why bring them from St. Peter? A. Inmates will not be brought from St. Peter to this facility. We will have a 32 bed capacity for adult, male inmates who become acutely mentally ill . If the illness persists or becomes chronic, they will be civilly committed to the State mental hospital system. 20. Q. Why was the site selected first, then the building? • A. It is a normal procedure when developing a building project that you select the site upon which you wish to build first. Otherwise, one would have no idea what type of structure to design. The topography, soil conditions and many other factors must be considered when developing the design of the institution. 21. Q. What material is being fed to the Legislators? A. The Department of Corrections has presented the Master Plan For a High Security acility to the 1977 Legislature and will be responding to requests for additional information on hearings by the legislature. • • f e STATE AL MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF the determination of the need for an Environmental ORDER FOR HImpact Statement on the proposed AND NOTICE HEARING ARING High Security Facility in Oak Park Heights and Baytown Township, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 116D (1974) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, and notice is hereby given, that a contested case hearing con- cerning the above-entitled matter will be held on June 21, 1977 in Room 51 of the State Office Building, Wabasha Street and Park Avenue, St. Paul , commencing at 9:00 a.m. Pursuant to Minn. Rule HE 204(b), the Chief Hearing Examiner has waived the require- ment that the order for hearing be served at least 30 days prior to the hearing. The hearing will be held before William Seltzer, Hearing Examiner, Room 300, 1745 University Avenue, St. Paul , Minnesota 55104, (296-8105) , a Hearing Examiner appointed by the Chief Hearing Examiner of the State of Minnesota. All parties have the right to be represented by legal counsel or any other representative of their choice throughout the contested case procedures set out in Minn. Stat. § 15.0411 through Minn. Stat. § 15.052 and Minn. Rule HE 201 through 222. Questions concerning the issues raised in this Order or concerning informal disposition or discovery may be directed to Special Assistant Attorney General William Dorigan, Room 303, Capitol Square Building, 550 Cedar Street, St. Paul , Minnesota 55101 , (296-2711) . The hearing will address whether an Environmental Impact Statement is needed on the proposed high security facility in Oak Park Heights and Baytown Township, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 116D (1974) and Minn. Reg. MEQC 21-41 . Pursuant to Minn. Reg. MEQC 24 8.2, the Minnesota Department of Corrections prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet on the above-entitled matter, determined that no Environmental Impact Statement was needed on the project, and, pursuant to Minn. Reg. MEQC 27C, filed a Negative Declaration with the Minnesota Environ- mental Quality Council (EQC) . The Negative Declaration was published in the EQC Monitor on April 18, 1977, commencing a 30-day review period of the decision. On May 18, 1977, a petition signed by more than 500 persons objecting to the Negative Declaration was received by the EQC. ALL PARTIES ARE ADVISED that no factual information or evidence, except tax returns and tax reports, which is not part of the hearing record shall be considered by the Hearing Examiner or the MEQC in the determination of the above-entitled contested case. Failure to appear at this hearing on the part of any party may prejudice such party's rights and result in an adverse determination of this matter. Since the hearing will be held less than 30 days after commencement of this contested case, the Chief Hearing Examiner has indicated that parties need not file Notices of Appearance prior to the hearing. The identified parties to this contested case are Baytown Township and the Minnesota. Departments of Administration and Corrections. Any other person desiring to inter- vene as a 'art must formals •etition the Hearin, Examiner before 4:30 '.m. on June 10, 1977. A copy of the petition must also be served upon al existing parties. III/ ' The above cited procedural rules are available for review at the Office of Hearing Examiners or may be purchased from the Documents Section of the Department of Administration, 140 Centennial Building, St. Paul , Minnesota 55155, (296-2874). They provide generally for the procedural rights of the parties, including: rights to advance notice of witnesses and evidence, right to a prehearing con- ference, rights to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and right to purchase a record or transcript. Parties are entitled to issuance of subpoenas to compel witnesses to attend and produce documents and other evidence. Persons attending the hearing should bring all evidence bearing on the case including any records or other documents. STATE OF MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL By y Peter Vanderpoel Chairman Dated: 25th day of May, 1977 • • 0 S 1 ""4 %.,---.• \ STATE OF 1 1111N SOTA '�n 4,�� ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL CAPITOL SQUARE BUILDING 550 CEDAR STREET ST. PAUL, 55101 May 25, 1977 Please take notice: Attached is the Order for Hearing and Notice Thereof for the contested case hearing on the need for an Environment II Impact Statement on the proposed High Security Facility in Oak Park Heights and Baytown Township. The exist:—.: parties to this case are Baytown Township and the Minnesota Departmer 3 of Administration and Corrections. Any other peso : wishing to intervene as a party in this contested case hearing and thereby receive the procedural rights of a party must formally petition the He aring Examiner in accord with Minn. Rule HE 210; the petition must be received by the hearing Examiner before 4:30 p.m. on June 10, 1977.. A copy of the petition oust also be served on all existing parties. Persons who do not intervene but wish to present testimony on the need , for an Environmental.. Impact Statement on the proposed development at the contested case hearing are asked to send the attached Notice of Appearance to the Hearing Examiner prior to the hearing. 1 Minn. Rule HE 201 through HE 222 are available for eeview at the Office V of Hearing Examiners, Room 300, 1745 University Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55104, (296-6914); the Rules may also be purchased from the Documents Section of the Departmnet of Administration, 140 Centennial Building, St. Paul , Minnesota 55155. Questions on Minn. Rule HE 201 through HE 222 should be referred to the Office of Hearing Examiners. For other questions, please call Nancy Onkka (295-8253) of the MEQC staff. "AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER" • • STATE OF MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER of the determination of the need for an Environmental NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Impact Statement on the proposed High. Security Facility in Oak Park Heights and Baytown Township pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 116D (1974) Date of Hearing: June 21 , 1977 Name, Address and Telephone Number of Hearing Examiner: William Seltzer Room 300 1745 University Avenue St. Paul , MN 55104 Telephone Number: 296-8105 TO THE HEARING EXAMINER You are advised that the person named below will appear at the above hearing: Name of Person: Address: Telephone Number: Person's Attorney or Other Representative: Office Address: Telephone Number: Signature of Person or Attorney: Date: • • —..- J.1 C-4 TE L� Gt J '1 � 11: STATE OF MINNESOTA A rvESO� ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COUNCIL' CAPITOL SQUARE BUILDING 550 CEDAR STREET ST. PAUL, 55101 June 17, 1911 Re: Contested Case Hearing on Proposed High Security Facility in Oak Park Heights and Baytown Township Please take notice: We understand that the petition challenging the decision of the Department of Administration that no Environmental Impact Statement is needed on the above project has been with- drawn. Therefore, the contested case hearing on the matter, scheduled tocommence at 9 :00 a.m. on June 21 , 1977, is cancelled. When we receive documentation of the withdrawal of the petition, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) will no longer be required to review the matter. We will notify you when this occurs. If you have any questions, please call Nancy Onkka of the EQB staff at 296-8253. cc: Shelly Michalis, Stillwater The Honorable Gary Laidig Charlotte Kirby, Clerk, Baytown Township Ken Heuer, City Clerk, Oak Park Heights Bruce McManus, Department of Corrections Howard Turrertine, Baytown Township Attorney Anders Hausen, Stillwater William Seltzer, Hearing Examiner Duane Harves, Chief Hearing Examiner EQC Technical Representatives James N. Bradford, Department of Corrections Joan Volz, Department of Administration Paul Cummings, State Architectural Engineer Dorothy Smith, Clerk, City of Bayport • ''AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER" . • ,__ 4 k • • rc J / n • 1,�� /1 ,t:= ',, ENVIRONMNa;INNTAL QUALI'T'Y COIF CIL CAPITOL S(I- IJARE BUILDING 550 CEDAR ST LERT ST. PAUL, 551.01_ June 23, 1977 Paul F. Cummings State Architectural Engineer Department of Administration G-10 Administration Building 50 Sherburne Avenue St. Paul , MN 55155 RE: Proposed High Security Facility in Oak Park Heights and Baytown Township Dear Mr. Cummings: As you know, on May 18, 1977, a petition was filed objecting to the Negative Declaration submitted by the Department of Administration on the above project. On June 16, 1977, the attorneys for the petitioners withdrew the petition. No other objections were filed during the 30 day review of the Negative Declaration. Since there are no remaining obje cti ons,your dec isi on that no Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed on the project stands. Therefore, review by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) is not required and final actions to approve or commence the project may now be undertaken. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, t1f t {),.C., „:.:,)r E J,.„:,.. \_,\' ''1(A- Nancy I. Onkka Environmental Planner NI0/dh cc: Shelly Michalis, Stillwater The Honorable Gary Laidig Charlette Kirby, Clerk, Baytown Township Ken Heuer, City Clerk, Oak Park Heights Bruce McManus, Department of Corrections Howard Turrentine, Attorney, Baytown Township Anders Hansen, Stillwater William Seltzer, Hearing Examiner James N. Bradford, Department of Corrections Joan Volz, Department of Administration Dorothy Smith, Clerk, City of Bayport EQB Technical Representatives "AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER" • • To: Oak Park Heights City Council c/o Ken Heuer, Clerk 6141 Panama Ave. N. Stillwater, Mn. 55082 • Re: MMB Docket Number A — 3c a. Proposed Annexation to the City of ©oak PO* HeZylts Gentlemen: The Town Board of -Roltewn Township, Wcitshioitoh County pursuant to a resolution duly adopted by the town board on Avq,29,14177hereby (Date) objects to the proposed annexation of the following described property to the City of 04 k Park t-4et909r • PropQt 4-1 owner : State o1 M•nneschc.•, b ece r,pF:on: (PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND PROPERT OWNERS NAME) c y e� Sect'oo -1 , �4 1� Date Z i' 7 Rungc 4.0 w, Wc.s�►In((tc'i n�y Signature -,r���� "' Qv�.i«a.+�• PLEASE NOTE: OBJECTIONS MUST ALSO BE FILED WIT/HE CITY 411 4/9-1dvi-vn-e)/; A-3212 Oak Park Heights BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD ., OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Gerald J . Isaacs Chairman Robert W. Johnson Vice Chairman Thomas J . Simmons Member County Commissioner Ex-Officio Member County Commissioner Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION ) AMENDED FOR THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN ) LAND TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK ) NOTICE OF HEARING HEIGHTS PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA ) STATUTES 414 ) Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414, as amended , before the Minnesota Municipal Board in the above-entitled matter . 24th The hearing will be held on the 1-7th- day of October, 1977 in the Oak Park Heights City Hall , Oak Park Heights , Minnesota , commencing at 9 : 00 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 , 140 Centennial Building , St. Paul , Minnesota. ) The property proposed for annexation is described as follows : E 2 of SE 4 of Section 4 , Twp . 29 N , Range 20 W, Washington County , Minnesota . After the testimony is complete and the record is closed, the 4 -2- 111 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 calls should contact the Board office . Dated this 16th day of September, 1977 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 165 Metro Square St. Paul , Minnesota 55101 Patricia D. Lundy Assistant Executive Secretary Amended Notice dated this 6th day of October. lf 114100°J.0 Patricia D . Lundy .41,0 • • • S TURRENTINE AND MAGNUSON Attorneys-at-Law 14733 60th Street North Stillwater, Minnesota 55082 (612) 439-9464 David T. Magnuson September 22 , 19 7 7 Howard R. Turrentine Council of the City of Oak Park Heights c/o Kenneth Heuer, Clerk 6141 Panama Avenue North Oak Park Heights , Stillwater, MN 55082 Re : Petition of the State of Minnesota for Annexation, etc. Dear Sir: Enclosed herewith and served upon you by mail pursuant to the statutes , please find copy of Objections to Petition for Annexation. Yours very truly, TURRENTINE and MAGNUSON By k--/1142. - David Tagnuson DTM/cn �� enc. C o Tn the M3tt.er of the Pc t i_t:ion of the State of Minnesota for annexation of the territory of the proposed High OBJECTIONS TO Security Facility to the City of Oak PETITION FOR Park Heights . ANNEXATION TO: THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD, Suite 165 , Metro Square Building , St . Paul , MN 55101 , and THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS , MINNESOTA, and its Attorney LYLE J . ECKBERG, Esq . , 126 South Second Street , Stillwater , MN 55082 Comes now the Township of Baytown, Washington County, Minnesota, a Municipal Corporation, and for its objections to the Petition of the State of Minnesota, for the annexa- tion by Ordinance of certain lands located in the Township of Baytown to the City of Oak Park Heights , respectfully states and alleges as follows : 1 . That the 14th Amendment of the United States Constituion prevents States from manipulating political subdivisions , so as to defeat a federally protected right . 2 . That denying the right to vote on an annexation to all the residents of a Township deprives them of due process , contrary to Minnesota. Constitution Article 1 , Sec. 7 and the U. S . Constitution, Article 5 and 14. 3 . That the proposed annexation would not provide for better fire protection to the maximum security facility since both the Township of Baytown and the Village of Oak Park Heights contract with the :Village of Bayport to provide fire protection. Fire protection would be the same in any event . • 4. That the police protection available to the maximum security facility would be jeopardized and threatened by the annexation since the Washington County Sheriff ' s office polices misdemeanor violations occurring under the State Law in Townships . The proposed annexation would make mis- demeanor violations , occurring under state law at the Prison, the obligation of the police department of the Village of Oak Park Heights , which obligation the County, because of their large and professional staff, would be better able to perform. 5 . That the prosecution of misdemeanor violations occurring under state law in Townships is handled by the Washington County Attorney' s office and the proposed annexa- tion would require the Village of Oak Park Heights to prosecute misdemeanor violations occurring at the Prison under state law, all of which the County, because of their large , full time staff would be better able to perform. 6 . That the Village of Oak Park Heights would have no further ability to provide services to the maximum security facility than has the Township of Baytown , since the Township of Baytown possesses Village powers under Minnesota Statutes , Section 368 . 01. 7 . That the proposed maximum security facility does not amount to urban or suburban development , since urban or suburban denotes future development and future growth along with providing incidentally growing services . It contemplates the subdivision of land and resultant growth of streets and sidewalks and the expansion of sewers , both sanitary and storm. -2- • Urban or suburban means schools and shopping centers , FP g neighborhood and business districts . It does not mean State Prisons . That the proposed maximum security facility, once completed, will be finished and no further growth is contemplated. 8 . That the proposed annexation would defeat the rights of the residents of the Township of Baytown and all of the residents of Washington County to exercise any voice or rights concerning aspects of the operation of the facility , since the proposed annexation would make the entire facility wholly within the jurisdiction of the City of Oak Park Heights . The participation of residents and elected officials with minimum jurisdiction and police power is an interest superior to the expediency of administering the facility under one Village government . 9 . That jurisdiction over land use controls and building code requirements is now in the Township of Baytown and the County of Washington. Washington County has a staff of professional planners and building officials who provide the residents of the County and the Township with adequate assur- ances that all building codes and zoning restrictions are complied with. If the proposed annexation would be granted , the only municipality with any zoning or building code control would be the Village of Oak Park Heights . The large and professional staff of the County makes them better able to perform these duties . -3- . . 10. That the Village of Oak Park Heights has consistently, over a period of years , attempted to annex portions of the Township of Baytown solely for the purpose of growth at any cost . 11 . That the desire for development has so enamored the Village of Oak Park Heights that they are the only Village in the County of Washington that has abolished their Planning Commission , so as to defeat the rights of its citizens to participate in a planning and zoning process . 12 . That in view of past action, the proposed annexation would further the plan of Oak Park Heights to gobble up the Township to the detriment of all its citizens . 13 . That in all respects , because of the concurrent jurisdiction of Washington County in Township affairs , all police power, zoning and subdivision regulations and the administration of building codes are , in fact , superior in function and design to the similar powers and services offered by the Village of Oak Park Heights . 14. That the Township of Baytown opposes the proposed maximum security facility, based on an adulteration of the ecology , environment , and society of the surrounding area . However , if the State insists that the Prison be located at its proposed site , and there are no administrative or judicial appeals from their decision , then and in that event the boundaries should remain as it is now so as to avoid the residents of the Township of Baytown being deprived of sub- -4- 111 stantial state aids , including a share of the cigarette tax, and federal revenue sharing funds that are based upon per capita considerations . By locating the Prison where it is proposed, but changing the municipal boundaries , would leave the residents of the Township of Baytown with an adulterated environment neighborhood and at the same time deprive them of the only possible benefit from such an institution. • 15 . That officials and representatives from the Depart- ment of Corrections have consistently and steadfastly main- , tained that the institution would be a significant benefit to the Township of Baytown. However , the exact elements of the benefit are unknown to the Township of Baytown at this time. Officials of the Department of Corrections , however , will be called to testify at the hearing and enlighten all the parties to this proceedings on the specific reasons why Baytown Township would benefit from having the proposed maximum security facilities within their boundaries . Respectfully submitted, TURRENTINE AND MAGNUSON BY David T . Magnuso Attorneys for the f['pwnship of Baytown 14733 60th StreetThorth Apprgved: Stillwater, NTH 55082 Jot • Ever Chairman of Town Board -5- ADMIN. 1000A (REV. 8/781 • STATE 014,NESOTA DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL BOARD Office Memorandum TO Ken Heuer s City Cit Clerk DATE: 10-6-77 FROM Bonnie Meadows kil" PHONE: 296-2428 SUBJECT: A-3212 Oak Park Heights Annexation Enclosed is a certification to continue the Oak Park Heights annexation hearing to 1e- October 24th. If you can't appear in person, you can designate someone, or put a notice on the door. This continuance was requested by the Attorney General's office and the board granted it. Please return the certification • signed to me. Thanks. 4 411 A-3212 Oak Park Heights BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Gerald J . Isaacs Chairman Robert W. Johnson Vice Chairman Thomas J . Simmons Member County Commissioner Ex-Officio Member County Commissioner Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION ) AMENDED FOR THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN ) LAND TO THE CITY OF OAK PARK ) NOTICE OF HEARING HEIGHTS PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA ) STATUTES 414 ) Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414, as amended , before the Minnesota Municipal Board in the above-entitled matter . 24th The hearing will be held on the 1-7th- day of October , 1977 in the Oak Park Heights City Hall , Oak Park Heights , Minnesota , commencing at 9 : 00 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 , 140 Centennial Building , St. Paul , Minnesota . ) The property proposed for annexation is described as follows : E 2 of SE ; of Section 4 , Twp . 29 N , Range 20 W , Washington County , Minnesota . After the testimony is complete and the record is closed, the 111 r 411 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 calls should contact the Board office . Dated this 16th day of September , 1977 MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 165 Metro Square , St. Paul ,ul Minnesota 55101 "IjsfP,:et■e:40404? 4.1414 Patricia D. Lundy Assistant Executive Secretary Amended Notice dated this 6th day of October . if ein.../.:ez4z-1 49• mt. Patricia D . Lundy • • • ce -frz e- ,2- A-3212 Oak Park Heights BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL BOARD OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Gerald J . Isaacs Chairman Robert W. Johnson Vice Chairman Thomas J . Simmons Member Millard Axelrod Ex-Officio Member Art Schaefer , Jr. Ex-Officio Member IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ) FINDINGS OF FACT, ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND TO THE ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW , CITY OF OAK PARK HEIGHTS ) AND ORDER The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Minnesota Municipal Board pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414, as amended, on October 24, 1977 , at Oak Park Heights , Minnesota . The { hearing was conducted by Gerald J . Isaacs pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414 .01 , Subd. 12 . Also in attendance were County Commissioners Millard Axelrod and Art Schaefer, Jr . , ex—officio members of the `. board. The City of Oak Park Heights appeared by and through Lyle Eckberg ; the Township of Baytown appeared by and through David T . Magnuson ; and Sheila Fishman appeared on 'behalf of the petitioners , the State of Minnesota . 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 August 18, 1977, a copy of a petition for annexation by the sole property owner , the State of Minnesota , was filed with the Minnesota Municipal Board. The petition coi to i fled all the i n r o r- mation required by ,statute including a description of the territory subject to annexation which is as follows : E 1 of SE 4 of Section 4, Twp . 29 N , Range 20 W, Washington County, Minnesota . An amended petition was properly filed at the hearing changing the property description to read as follows : -2- East half ( E 1 /2 ) of Southeast quarter (SE 1/4) of Section 4 , Twp . 29 N , Range 20 W , Washington County, Minnesota . Except a point on the Southeast quarter (SE 1 /4 ) of the Southeast quarter (SE 1 /4) beginning on a point on the South line of said Section 4 - 666 . 3 feet East of the Southwest Corner of the Southeast quarter (SE 1/4) of the Southeast quarter (SE 1 /4) of said Section 4 ; then North and parallel to West line of the Southeast quarter (SE 1 /4) of the Southeast quarter (SE 1 /4) of said Section 4 , a distance of 35 feet; then in an Easterly direction to a point on the East line of the Southeast quarter ( SE 1 /4) of the Southeast quarter (SE 1 /4) of said Section 4 , 43. 8 feet North of Southeast Corner of said Section 4 ; then . South along the East line of the Southeast quarter (SE 1 /4) of the Southeast quarter (SE 1 /4) of said Section 4, 43. 8 feet , M/L to the Southeast Corner of said Section 4 , then West along the South line of said Section. 4 to the point of beginning. An objection to the proposed annexation was received by the Minnesota Municipal Board by Baytown Township on September 1 , 1977. The Municipal Board upon receipt of this objection conducted further proceedings in accordance with. M. S . 414. 031 , as required by M. S. 414 . 033, Subd. 5. A resolution supporting the annexation was received from the annexing municipality. 2 . Due , timely and adequate legal notice of the hearing was published , served and filed. 3. Geographic Features a . The area subject to annexation is unincorporated and abuts the City of 0a.k Park Heights . b. The total area of the territory subject to annexation is 80. 15 acres of unplatted land. c . The perimeter of the area to be annexed is 50% bordered by the municipality. d. The natural terrain of the area , including general topography , major watersheds , soil conditions , rivers , lakes and major bluffs is as follows : Eastern part of site is swampy wetlands , previously used as agricultural for state farm . Site has ravine , some wooded area , steep slope dropping sharply. 4. Population Data a. The area subject to annexation 1 ) Present population : zero 2) Projected population : approximately 400 inmates 411 -3- 410 5 . Development Issues a . What, if any, are the plans for the development of the property proposed for annexation? A high-security prison to be operated by the Minnesota Department of Corrections will be constructed . b. What land use controls are presently being employed. 1 ) In the City of Oak Park Heights : a. Zoning - Yes b. Subdivision regulations - Yes c. Housing and building codes - Yes , state building code enforced by city officials . 2) In the area to be annexed: a . Zoning - Yes , by Washington County . b. Subdivision regulations - Yes , by Washington County. c. Housing and building codes - Yes , state building code enforced by township officials . c. Does the city require future growth space? Yes. If so, will the area subject to annexation provide the City of Oak Park Heights with necessary growth space? No . d . Development of the following types is occurring : 1 ) In the City of Oak Park Heights : a . Residential - Yes , low-cost housing ; home for the elderly. b. Industrial - Unknown c. Commercial - Unknown d. Institutional - Unknown 2) In the area subject to annexation : a. Residential - No b. Industrial - No c. Commercial - No d. Institutional - A high-security state prison will be constructed . e. What will be the effect , if any , of the annexation on adjacent communities? None . 6. Governmental Services a . Presently , the Township of Baytown provides the area subject to annexation with the following services : -4- i 4 1 ) Water - No 6) Street Maintenance - Unknown 2) Sewer - No 7) Recreational - Unknown 3) Fire Protection - Yes , by contract with City of Bayport. 4) Police Protection - Washington County sheriff. 5) Street Improvements - Unknown b . Presently , the City of Oak Park Heights provides its . citizens with the following services: 1 ) Water - Yes 5) Street Improvements - Yes 2) Sewer - Yes 6 ) Street Maintenance - Yes 3) Fire Protection - Yes , by 7) Recreational - Unknown contract with City of Bayport. 4) Police Protection - Yes c. Presently , the City of Oak Park Heights provides the area subject to annexation with the following services : 1 ) Water - No 5 ) Street Improvements- No 2) Sewer - No 6) Street Maintenance - No 3) Fire Protection - No 4) Police Protection - No d. Plans to extend municipal services to the area subject to annexation include the following : The City of Oak Park Heights can provide sewer and water. e. There are existing or potential pollution problems which are : Community sewer is needed for a large institution. The following additional services will help resolve this situation : community sewer 7. Fiscal Data a . The area subject to annexation has not been assessed. It is state-owned property. The area is exempt from taxation pursuant to Const . Art'. 9 % 1 , M. S. 272.02. b . Will the annexation have any effect upon area school districts? No . 8. Is annexation to the City of Oak Park Heights the best alternative? Yes . . a. Could governmental services be better provided for by incorporation of the area subject to annexation? No. -5- b. Could governmental services be better provided for by consolidation or annexation of the area with an adjacent municipality other than Oak Park Heights? No.. c. Could Baytown' township provide the services required? No. • d. Can Baytown township continue to function without the area subject to annexation? Yes . 9. A majority of property owners in the area to be annexed have petitioned the Minnesota Municipal Board requesting annexation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1 . The Minnesota Municipal Board duly acquired and now has jurisdiction of the within proceeding . 2. The area subject to annexation is now or is about to become urban or suburban in character . 3. Municipal government is required to protect the public health , safety and welfare in the area subject to annexation . 4. The best interest of the City of Oak Park Heights and the area subject to annexation will be furthered by annexation . 5. The remainder of the Township of Baytown can carry on the functions of government without undue hardship . 6. Annexation of all or a part of the property to an adjacent municipality would not better serve the interests of the residents who reside in the area subject to annexation. 7. This annexation proceeding has been initiated by a petition of a majority of property owners and, therefore , this Minnesota Municipal Board order is not subject to an annexation election . 8. An order should be issued by the Minnesota Municipal Board annexing the area described herein. O R D E R . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: That the property described herein situated in the County of Washington , State of Minnesota , be and the same is hereby annexed to the City of Oak Park Heights , Minnesota , the same as if it had been originally made a part thereof: East half (E 1 /2) of Southeast quarter (SE 1/4) of Section 4 , Twp . 29 N , Range 20 W, Washington County , Minnesota . Except a point on the Southeast quarter (SE 1 /4) of the Southeast quarter (SE 1 /4 ) beginning -6- on a point on the South line of said Section 4 - 666. 3 feet East of the Southwest Corner of the Southeast quarter (SE 1 /4 ) of the Southeast quarter ( SE 1 /4 ) of said Section 4 ; then North and parallel to West line of the Southeast quarter (SE 1 /4) of the Southeast quarter (SE 1 /4) of said Section 4 , a distance of 35 feet; then in an Easterly direction to a point on the East line of the Southeast quarter (SE 1 /4 ) of the Southeast quarter (SE 1 /4) of ' said Section 4, 43.8 feet North of Southeast Corner of said Section 4 ; then South along the East line of the Southeast quarter (SE 1 /4) of the Southeast quarter (SE 1 /4) of said Section 4 , 43 . 8 feet, M/L to the Southeast Corner of said Section 4, then West along the South line of said Section 4 to the point of beginning . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED: That the effective date of this order is November 29 , 1977. Dated this 29th day of November , 1977. MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL BOARD Suite 165 Metro Square Sc J-- ul , Minnesota 55101 1 ffX/A:ct , William A . Neiman Executive Secretary it . 7 4 .. . _.„ .,....„ .t r d . 1,�n •. i- ; ' ''''• Ally• k � E'f ,, p, cgx ,. x`/a.- p r ti'Vz .p r ttiy •i- i 'r" g r fE 4 ° ,Ir ' flit.,l "h ppyyII r k- • t k : i` s -:e..•••;.*Ik..,,,,,,,,k,.. •. .—•::,,„.....1 : — ';- • , •-,' \ -,t,4 '' . a,y y, .aA �r r' � /0. • i t*ip i t # !r " t �- ' J '„ >i ' � ae <`' �$ " � 1= e ,0, 1 . r• • f . » � {d 3 - -•—•• N:i'l . Q *! 5 [4:ylis'y ,.4„,44-,'„,..e • . '.RS'',. , 'h r / ::::..,4,,..- r Zc '1, ( 1 i , 1} r `t�A .a [ � _ I! \ \• • ,;• Pity' ,4.: ,. --‘ , t t t !!` s. . I/' i : I//tiN ;Ii4‘ . , , 1 ' �•. a •e s� r 4 ill -Jill , ',4 ., ',.'..-4-'4,,, : , *_ •> � . r -4, gyp ! eft , . ! .2' s r� r ate: • I. N �t t lili\ . \ ,1 . / \ ' it 1 M . *.1.0pF `' �. 1 t . • ` : \'Ltillie tilts \ ; AMP . • .01\ i ,v141 4. i‘ \ \ ,I \tS<: .. _ \ t . r • • ii. 1 T 1. L R . 1 .0 ... . A \ ', i 4,. ... li Illilk \ •1 , t'` r n.,.T, 1•1 . \ '' ...„ I