Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A - Busacker Annexation CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue S.E. Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: NOVEMBER 17, 2003 9A JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A JOINT RESOLUTION FOR ORDERLY ANNEXATION BETWEEN THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE AND SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES 414.0325 (BUSACKER) DISCUSSION: History: Tradition Development, on behalf of Lavina Busacker, the owner of a total of 10.90 acres of land located in Spring Lake Township, has filed a request to annex this property. The purpose of the annexation is to allow the development ofthis property. Current Circumstances: The property in question is located within the Spring Lake Orderly Annexation Area. Under Minnesota Statutes, a request for annexation may be initiated by resolution of either the Township Board or the City Council, or by joint resolution of both bodies. The property owners have met with the Spring Lake Township Board to discuss this request. The Township Board approved and signed a joint resolution on March 13, 2003 (see attached). The Board did not attach any conditions to the resolution. The property owners are now requesting that the City Council sign the joint resolution and forward it to the Minnesota Office of Boundary Adjustment. ISSUES: Minnesota Statute 414.0325 lists the criteria to be used to determine if an area should be annexed. This criteria includes: a) the subject area is now or is about to become urban or suburban in character and that the annexing municipality is capable of providing the services required by the area within a reasonable time; or (b) the existing township form of government is not adequate to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; or (c) annexation would be in the best interests of the subject area. In this case, the area is adjacent to the City limits along its north boundary. Municipal sewer and water will be extended in l70th Street to this site as part of the City project in 2004. www.cityofprior!ake.com 1:\03 files\03 annex\busacker\annexation cc rppfffine 952.447.4230 / Fax 952.447.4245 Page 1 If both the City and the Township agree to the joint resolution, the resolution is forwarded to the Minnesota Office of Boundary Adjustment for review. If we are unable to reach agreement on the joint resolution, the City could annex the property by resolution upon receipt of a petition by the property owners. This method of annexation does not require approval of the Township but does require a public hearing by the Office of Boundary Adjustment. This method is not as cooperative in nature to the joint resolution process. At the November 3rd City Council meeting, Councilmember Zieska asked whether the provision in the recent orderly annexation agreement requiring payment to the township of 2X the amount of taxes that would have been paid to the township. According to the City Attorney, the property owner, not the City, will be required to pay the Township (Provision 6.7 of the OAA). The City will be responsible for collecting "two times (2X) the amount of taxes the property owner would have to pay the Township" as a condition of subdivision approval and as provided for in the Development Agreement relating to subdivision. The City is required to pass through this fee to the Township pursuant to the OAA. This provision does not apply to properties annexed prior to 2004. In any event, the petitioner has already paid the township $1,875.00 for lost tax revenues, and should not be required to pay a second time. The petitioner has provided the attached letter as documentation of this previous payment. It must also be noted that this property is not included on the City's Comprehensive plan or Zoning Map. If the City Council agrees to annex the property, either the City Councilor the applicant must initiate an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map to include this area. This property is adjacent to 170th Street behind County Market. As part of Phase III of the ring road project, properties receiving benefit from the extension of sewer and water and the construction of the ring road are to be specially assessed. Since this property was not part ofthe City at the time the ring road phase III project was initiated, it has not been included in the special assessment calculation or notices. Staff considered amending the joint resolution to memorialize the responsibility of the property owner to pay special assessments and waive their right to appeal. Since such an amendment would require readoption of the joint resolution by the Townboard, problems could be created for the larger annexation awaiting approval. So, instead of amending this joint resolution, the staff has notified the property owner (see attached letter) and her attorney of our intent to reassess or reapportion approximately $78,000 in special assessments against the property as permitted by State law, or in the alternative, to include these fees as part of a subsequent development agreement for this property. Similar 1:\03 files\03 annex\busacker\annexation cc rpt.doc Page 2 CONCLUSION: FISCAL IMPACT: ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: action will be taken for other properties which benefit from this project, but which are not to be annexed into the City until a later date. Approval of the joint resolution is the most cooperative method of annexation for this property. Development of the property should occur within the City limits, since sewer and water service are available to serve this site. Budf{et Impact: Approval of the annexation will allow the development of the property within the City limits, which will increase the City tax base. The City Council has three alternatives: I. Approve the Joint Resolution as submitted. 2. Approve the Joint Resolution with modifications. 3. Authorize further examination of the annexation by ordinance process. The staff recommends adoption of Alternative #1. A motion and second to approve the Joint Resolution as submitted is required. The fully executed document will be forwarded to the Minnesota Office of Boundary Adjustment for their 30-day review and comment period. 1:\03 files\03 annex\busacker\annexation cc rpt.doc Page 3 JOINT RESOLUTION CITY OF PRIOR LAKE AND SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP AMENDING THE ORIGINAL ORDERLY ANNEXATION AGREEMENT DOCKET #A-2148(OA)-2 A RESOLUTION ANNEXING PROPERTY FROM SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP INTO THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE RESOLUTION # WHEREAS, this Joint Resolution designates an area in need of orderly annexation; provides for the conditions for its annexation; designates that no consideration by the Minnesota Office of Boundary Adjustment is necessary, but the Office may review and comment, but shall, within 30 days, order the annexation in accordance with the terms of this resolution; and reflects that the City of Prior Lake and Spring Lake Township hereby jointly agree to the following: 1. That the following described property in Spring Lake Township is subject to annexation pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 414.031 and the parties hereto designate this area for orderly annexation, to wit: That part of government lotS, section 11, Township 114, range 22 Scott county, Minnesota, lying west of the east 28 feet east of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the north line of said Government lot 5, distant 225 feet east of the northwest corner; thence southerly parallel with the west line of said government lotS to the shoreline of Crystal Lake and there terminating. 2. That the City Council of the City of Prior Lake and the Board of Supervisors of Spring Lake Township, upon passage and adoption of this resolution, and upon acceptance by the Minnesota Office of Boundary Adjustment, agree to the annexation of the aforementioned property into the City of Prior Lake. 3. That there is no change in electrical service provided for the subject annexation, therefore, State Statute 414.0235, Subd. 1 A, is not applicable. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA, THAT: The City of Prior Lake approves the proposed annexation of the aforementioned property from Spring Lake Township into the City of Prior Lake. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Prior Lake, Scott County, Minnesota, this _ day of ,2003. Mayor ATTEST Frank Boyles, City Manager Motion by: Second by: YES NO Haugen Blombero LeMair Petersen Zieska NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP, SCOTT COUNTY, MINNESOTA, THAT: It hereby approves the proposed annexation of the aforementioned property from Spring lake Township into the City of Prior Lake. A~ted by the Township Board, Spring Lake Township, Scott County, Minnesota, this ~ day of fV) tl/ (~ A , 2003. ATTEST: a ~i I!t~ Spring Lake T r'l'ship Clerk This instrument was drafted by: City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 Chair, ring Lake Township Board Motion by: 5 if 1/( ~'f / s 0 Y\ Second by: eLl; f rt f 6",(' 11 \ YES NO X X Location Map for Busacker Annexation r=:H---mo~ H" '" I JI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWW II. _ ~~M"'-Y..~LffiJ W.Lr I ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~}= P?"\ r ~ I I~ .. I; . /~~ "'::(l ,L, cJ{i'(~ c- c: j /' ~/ /11"1 ~t "b 11J~~rnummp'=14<Tr ----.,~,I ~ J / IlIJlL~W l~ '~~' I iJJ) \-~/:f~~---C" t @ll1}~'" "~~'~>>t, 1 r-~ fC-==--:I~ ~\~i/<;-~F..~..... ~ ---ijj I \ ~ :TDt- -!5tit~) i ~ ....." -/1 I: I:, t; I--! I \ 7<~ I- - 1ft ! - "%1, . 1 i I-~ -iE ~-;; I!~ ),- j h ~.. !~/~ ......" / ! \\ 11 acres '(z'_ f-- Fa! '""'T'" 1/.. I \ I I \ \ ~ ....."" . ~ 1J){ M. I ;-'(1 ~8=3i==i ,~\b~~ ~\& 1,// ,\ -~~ ). 0]]] '~! ;:=\@IIIIJITID\illD& " L- 'I\~~ I ~ .-)1'T] / I \ 1ft ' .1\'" /~ '" \ I I I I- ,~m l[c4i'jJ-" III l~~ K:~~ iILB~.....'o....:: -::j v~~1--\i~ t-l iJfll/ / ::= ~:.\\~/ ~ \, - -ko ..-- ~) ~: i;:: f ~ / - - .-. ~/ ./ ~ ~ ,\.. r= ---j--{ [./ '-. I- ---I 'T / - /; _ ; .'= ---'/ L ~ =1 ~ ~c ! /\ // ~ ~ ,11= > L/ I ~ ,~ ~,-- - Rice La e (~ ) "', ~ rl 11 ~ 1000 I o 1000 2000 Feet I N + Fy- o.------L May 19, 2003 Thomas Miller MilLER LAW OFFICE, P.A. Oak Point Business Center, Suite 6 26357 Forest Boulevard P.O. Box 807 Wyoming, l\1N 55092 RE: RING ROAD, PHASE 3 IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 02-06 Dear Mr. Miller: . I received your letter dated May 13, 2003 regarding the property owned by Lavinia Busacker that abuts the subject project. City staff met on Thursday, May 15 to discuss the issues addressed in your letter and have the following responses to your three items: 1. Per the. City's special assessment policy, the Busacker parcel should be assessed as a large tract or oversized residential parcel. In that case, the first 150 feet of the . parcel wiY be assessed at the 40% rate for street and storm sewer improvements . as 170th Street does provide access to the site. Using the proposed assessment rate . outlinec;lin the Feasibility Report of $92.62/front foot, the estimated assessment for street and storm sewer improvements would be $13,893.00. The remainder of the frontage will be paid through the City's Collector Street Fund or Municipal State Aid Funds. 2. The City requires developers to extend sewer and water to adjacent properties. Therefore, we feel that the proposed assessment for sanitary sewer and water main is supported. In this case the property across the street is sharing in the cost of the utility extension, which is also beneficial to the Busacker property as they don't have to bear the entire cost of the utility improvements. The proposed assessment for sanitary sewer and water main would be $60.00/front foot multiplied by the entire front footage of 1,067 feet equaling $64,020.00. 3. I believe that the information I have provided in Item 1 above will address the concerns you have with the limitations imposed on the property due to the topography. . In summary, the total estimated assessment for the Busacker prope almost half of the original $150,000 that we estimated. We hope that 16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY' EIVlPLOYER be further reduced by working with the property owner to eliminate the retaining wall planned along the east end of the property. I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (952) 447-9831. Sincerely, ~~MV~-it Sue McDermott, P.E. City Engineer CITY OF PRIOR LAKE Cc: Frank Boyles, City Manager Lavina Busacker Thomas F. Miller Tom@MillerLawOffice.com MILLER LAW OFFICE, P.A. Oak Point Business Center, Suite 6 26357 Forest Boulevard P.O, Box 807 Travis D. Stottler Wyoming, MN 55092 Travis@MillerLawOffice.com (651) 462-0206 Fax (651 ).462-3309 May 13, 2003 ~ .:If f'I 11'""::l..-\ --- JD\'I...{O,(-::Jn~ fI i ! G ! L:J i,~ f I n{7 1""5 n.! 1/'; .~- L..::l L.J : ' / I i I rl .11' I! I~ ) - -" i .i/ ,. i -!;. i / I iLiu'! MAY 1 4 .200" Ii) t rI ... ~ J U /1 v "IJ . L'j' 18 v' . '''~. ; ~ Susan McDermott, PE City Engineer City of Prior Lake 16200 Eagle Creek Ave SE Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714 I ,...,....-. . <1...:::+ ~/\.......,l"~ I c;:., (j ~ ,_J '_ Re: Busacker/I'radition Ventures Our File No. 00-269-TFM IDOO ,.,u~.."" -q' . Dear Ms. McDermott: This letter is. a follow-up to our meeting on Monday, May 12; 2003 regarding real property owned by Lavina Busacker, designated as parcel ill No. 119110250 (the "Property"). Based upon our meeting and a review of the January, 2003 feasibility report prepared by you, it appears that Ms. Busacker's Property is proposed to be the subj ect of an assessment for improvements to Trunk Highway 1311 70th Street which runs along the north boundary of the Property. The project designation for this improvement project is 02-06. It is my understanding that the project is proposed to be completed during 2003, however the issue of annexation of the Propertyby the City is currently on hold. The feasibility report did not contain an estimate of theprop.osed assessment for the Property. Additionally, my client and I have received various and differing figuring as to the assessments ranging from $104,000.00 to $284,000.00. However, at our meeting, you indicated that, and I will assume for purposes of this letter, the assessment amount would be approximately $150,000.00 for all improvements i.e. street, sanitary sewer, stomi sewer, etc. Further, at our meeting you suggested that a letter be prepared on behalf of my client proposing any reduction in the .anticipated assessment and providing you with supporting facts and/or documentation for consideration by the appropriate committees and ultimately the City CoUncil for the City of Prior Lake. This letter is in response to that suggestion. By way of background, as I am sure you are aware, the City's ability to assess for public improvements is, among other things, limited to the benefit provided to the Property. Moreover, the benefit is measured by ,an increase in the value of the Property as a result of the improvements in question. Based upon this analysis, it is my client's position that very little if any of the improvements to be constructed by this project will benefit my client's Property. The basis for this statement is as follows: Susan McDermott, PE May 13, 2003 Page 2 1. As to the street improvement, I would initially point out that the street (Old Hwy 13/170th Street East) while running adjacent to the Property will not constitute frontage for any of the lots proposed to be constructed within the Property. In this regard, I enclose for purposes of your consideration a concept grading plan dated March 24,2003 (the "Grading Plan") and two (2) drawings respectively showing the front streetscape (dated 4/8/03) and floor plans for the first floor of the units proposed to be constructed in the Property. As you can see, the development in question will be centered around and front on a new street to be constructed at the developer's expense and thereafter dedicated to the City of Prior Lake as a new street constructed in accordance with City standards and specification. Based upon the Grading Plan, it is clear that there is in reality no "frontage" along 170th Street and my experience with attempted street assessments for non-fronting streets is that such improvements provide marginal benefit to adjoining properties, if any. Clearly, since there are no separate driveways and similar frontage related components present in this development (which is the highest and best use of the Property), we would propose that the street component of the assessment be significantly reduced or eliminated in its entirety. 2. As to the storm and sanitary sewer components of the improvement project, you have indicated that no additional cost is being proposed for installing the sewer at a depth so as to provide gravity feed accessibility to the proposed development of the Property, In reviewing the Grading Plan and the site itself, it is quite apparent that utilizing an overall front footage calculation based on the entire length of the Property is inappropriate in this case and will inevitably lead to an assessment which cannot be-justified under the principals of Minnesota public improvement assessment law. As support for this I would urge you to review the discussion set forth at number 1 above. Additionally, please note that the main lines themselves will only run approximately 300 to 350 feet along the Property before access will be achieved via the utilities to' be installed by the developer as part of this development project. Thereafter, all of the units constructed within the development will access the lines installed by the developer as part of its public improvement project and therefore, there is no additional benefit from the remainder of the lines being constructed in 170th Street. Thus, because the underground improvements provide only a limited benefit to the Property, it is our position that the sanitary and storm sewer component should be significantly reduced. 3. Finally, as we discussed at our meeting, I believe the limitations imposed upon the Property relating to its development must be considered. Referring to the Grading Plan, it is evident that the developable portion of this Property roughly approximates a little more than half of its actual size. This issue is created by a combination of the environmental lake designation of Crystal Lake, the City's shoreland management ordinance, the City's setback and related regulations and the overall topography of the Property. For this additional reason, I believe it would be highly unlikely that an assessment at the level you have proposed will be supportable and it is more likely that very, little, if any benefit, can be shown based upon a property value increase analysis. As we discussed, my client desires to sell her Property and has a proposed purchaser at this time~ However, prior to proceeding to execution of a purchase agreement, the issue of the amount of Susan McDermott, PE May 13, 2003 Page 3 the assessment should be determined and agreed upon between the City and my client and thereafter between my client and the proposed purchaser. Reaching agreement will also benefit the City in that, I assume, if an acceptable level of assessment is agreed upon the parties will be able to execute a waiver of assessment and thereby save the City a significant amount of cost and more importantly risk in defending a challenge by my client against the assessment. Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, on behalf of my client, Lavina Busacker, I respectfully request that the proposed assessment be significantly-reduced and thatthe arguments made in this letter be considered by the appropriate City committees in this regard. I would propose that, once you have completed your discussions and received some feedback from the City representatives, you provide me with a proposed assessment figure so that I can analyze it and discuss the figure with my client and the proposed purchaser. It would be my hope that, prior to consideration by the City Council, we could reach agreement at the staff level and with my client's consent as to the level of assessment which could be levied without my client exercising her right to appeal the assessment on procedural or valuation grounds. I thank you for the opportunity to submit this letter on behalf of my client and I look forward to your response thereto. Verj truly yours, $.... LE~LAWOFF.IC.E'.P...A.. ~ A. . 4 J~. ,...- ~1i1!1 ,l/I J t~"h.~. .f-:' J/I Lr ..,fA ..... ).-/'" f/~"""y .' .' --- '--:J Thomas F . Miller TFM:lt Enclosure cc: Lavina Busacker TRADITION . rle(}e(~i"menC March 26, 2003 ~ ah,+<"" ~lcp~~ ~kc.~ # L{Ct5t m \\~1$".O-O '3 - 2~ - c 3 Bonnie 10 Mueller Spring Lake Township 15870 Franklin Trail SE Ste. 104 Prior Lake, MN 55372 Dear Ms. Mueller, Enclosed please find the requested fee for the annexation of the Busacker property. Please release the approved resolution to the City of Prior Lake as soon as possible. Thank you for your help and prompt attention to this matter. Sincp-ely, 1:1",./ ,~.;:g.fi,c 7~ t./- ~ . cott M. McMahon Tradition Development 6'd'tJtJ g:-".,.,,.t>.. J4f....,.... ~.~Jt, .../.~.~.. /J'd', ,f1~..'"'''' ./t...,.,...tJ,,.~,., .f'.f'4~.f' .....Jt,..QlrOW~~JtI'w-hi,.P.;~,).P~tJ. d'.PtJtJ ~,.~~ /"..... rd'd'd' ,).PJltJ. tJtJ~/