HomeMy WebLinkAbout10D - Annexation Requests
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
ISSUES:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
JUNE 2, 2003
lOD 1
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A JOINT RESOLUTION FOR
ORDERLY ANNEXATION BETWEEN THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
AND SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA
STATUTES 4l4.0325.
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 of this 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.
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 170th Street to this site as part of the City project in
2003.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (952) 447-4230 I Fax (952) 447-4245
1:\03 files\03 annex\schiltz & schneider\annexation cc rpt\.!lPEQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page I
CONCLUSION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
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 ordinance. 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.
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 $7',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
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.
Budget Impact: Approval ofthe 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:
1. Approve the Joint Resolution as submitted.
2. Approve the Joint Resolution with modifications.
3. Authorize further examination of the annexation by ordinance process.
1:\03 files\03 annex\schiltz & schneider\annexation cc rpt.doc
Page 2
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
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\schiltz & schneider\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 lot5 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
Motion by:
Second by:
YES NO
Haugen
Blomberg
LeMair
Petersen
Zieska
ATTEST
Frank Boyles, City Manager
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} tV {~ A , 2003.
Chair, ring Lake Township Board
Motion by: 5 if vt ~'t /5 0 Y"\
Second by: fw tf f rt f 6",(' n. \
q
YES NO
X
)(
IlfJL
This instrument was drafted by:
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
rr~c------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, MN 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 staffmet 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 se~er improvements
. as 170th Street does provide access to the site. Using the proposed assessment rate
outlined in 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.
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (952) 447-4230 I Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
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,
~w-~\V~*
Sue McDermott, P.E.
City Engineer
CITY OF PRlOR 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
!~I ""~. --
liD .1'- it\.! "" n n~
1[; ! L.; ! L7 i i:l II ,{f is r---, J
! < :-- ~ L W Ls I F' if
II P !. . ! '/ !:I
II fU' i MAY 1 4 .?DO'J I!, II
jL.! .;. _' J U /1
v : I. 'j
i L/J
i8v j
I J==--- i
~
Susan McDermott, PE
City Engineer
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
I
,...,__ <o:,f
~/\.:...."....-/'---
;~)(J
IDOO
.... (..~.-re_".
.-g' .
Re: BusackerITradition Ventures
Our File No. OO,-269-TFM
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 ID 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 13/170th 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 Property by the
City is currently on hold.
The feasibility report did not contain an estimate of the. prop.osed assessment for the Property.
Additionally, my client arid 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, storm 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
I. 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'beinstalled 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 thanhalf
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.
Very truly yours,
$... .LERLAWOFFICE,P..A.
~ A ,..---. 4
J it.. vi!1 ,(if
J 9 . .G ~ ,f. f;i 'L....,
. ~'~..h.... r: J" rJ _! ..<,,...
J /~ i!I ---iY '.' .' -'- - -'
Thomas F.Miller
TFM:lt
Enclosure
cc: Lavina Busacker
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
ISSUES:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
JUNE 2, 2003
lOD2and3
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
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.
History: Bruce and Maggie Schlitz and Jeff and Alissa Schneider, the
owners of a total of 35.63 acres of land located in Spring Lake Township,
have filed a request to annex this property. The purpose of the annexation is
to allow the development of this property into lots for single family
dwellings.
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 May 14, 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.
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 east boundary. Municipal sewer and
water will be available to serve this site upon development of the adjacent
property (scheduled for 2004).
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (952) 447-4230 I Fax (952) 447-4245
1:\03 files\03 annex\brown\annexation cc rpt.doc AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page 1
CONCLUSION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
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 ordinance. 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.
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. The adjacent property
is designated for Low to Medium Density Residential uses (R-L/MD). This
would also seem to be the most logical Comprehensive Plan designation for
this property.
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.
Budflet Impact: Approval ofthe 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:
1. 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 Ad' stment for their 30-day review and comment
period.
1:\03 files\03 annex\brown\annexation cc rpt.doc
Page 2
-
--
'~
iL
Location Map for
Schlitz/Schneider Annexation
~::;tJ
atyLimit~ ~~' ~~
------------ \ ~~~
~~
o ( ~.
/r--r~
/// \
35.63acres ~ ~ \r:C ( " \~\ (?
tobe,amteXl! I ~ I~ I " 'y... '
( r i'~ h E ~""tg;,~ \;
,J Lr:: ~iJff ...\~ --IL
l ~ J AT
U I //f Y
L-- / L------- -
It</5
f-/
\- '\~-' ~~~ii
-.- Ii ~~~ ~t
tT
.....cc
Spring Lake
13
~~ ~)), l r~
~ ~~ F;P/ . ,.~~
I ~ )7 -\~1\2 i"~
~____ ~/ ,~_L TTTTT
l .j:~~2/TIi,I*i TIili
.~/"/~ r-- I I
I /;1111 I III II II I I nL ,-r---
t=Y/ r ~
.- ,__] <~\\~j l~
I I r l P / ~n\ \\\
=>~ ~ I
I I II I
I(
2000
I
N
+
o
2000
4000 Feet
I
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 the South 465.44 feet (as measured at right angles) of the South one-half of
the Northeast Quarter (S1/2 of NE1/4) of Section 5, Township 114, Range 22, Scott
County, Minnesota, lying Southerly of the following described line:
Beginning at the Northwest comer of said South 465.44 feet; thence East along the
North line thereof a distance of 1552.48 feet; thence deflecting to the Right at an angle
of 54 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds a distance of 280.00 feet; thence East parallel
with said North line of the Northeasterly to a point on said North line of the South 465.44
feet distant 285.00 feet West of the Northeast comer of said South 465.44 feet; thence
East along said North line a distance of 285.00 feet to the Northeast comer and there
terminating.
Containing 25.66 acres more or less.
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
Motion by:
Second by:
YES NO
Haugen
Blombera
LeMair
Petersen
Zieska
ATTEST
Frank Boyles, City Manager
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.
AdO~d by the Township Board, Spring Lake Township, Scott County, Minnesota, this
~-klay of <Y'1r"'J ,2003.
Su ervisor
Su rvisor
Su ervisor
NO
This instrument was drafted by:
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
..
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 orderty annexation, to wit:
The North 365.80 feet of the Sough 831.24 feet of the West 1190.81 feet of the South
half of the Northeast Quarter (S 1/2 of NE %) of Section 5, Township 114, Range 22,
Scott County, Minnesota.
Subject to an easement for ingress and egress over that part of the South half of the
Northeast Quarter (S 1/2 of NE %) of said Section 5, described as follows: A strip of
land twenty (20) feet in width the center line of which is described as follows:
Commencing at the Northwest comer of the South 831.24 feet of said South half of the
Northeast Quarter; thence an assumed bearing of North 88 degrees 31' 59" East along
the North line of said South 831.24 feet a distance of 498.00 feet to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence South 70 degrees 41' 02" East a distance
of 200.00 feet; thence South 89 degrees 08' 14" East a distance of 504.29 feet, more or
less, to the East line of the West 1190.81 feet of said South half of the Northeast Quarter
and there terminating. The side lines of the above described easement are to be
shortened or extended as required to intersect the North and East boundaries of the first
described property.
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
Motion by:
Second by:
YES NO
Hauaen
Blombera
LeMair
Petersen
Zieska
ATTEST
Frank Boyles, City Manager
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.
Adop~d by the Township Board, Spring Lake Township, Scott County, Minnesota, this
eL.l::!ray of if? d ' 2003. ; ,
Su ervisor
Su ervisor
Su rvisor
NO
ATTEST:
J/~
This instrument was drafted by:
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue SE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
06/02/03 16:19 FAX 952 937 5822
WESTWOOD PROF. SERVICES
@OOl
T
R
A D I
.
cletfe(o-/
T I
o
N
ment
June 2, 2003
Jane Kansier
City of Prior Lake
VIA FACSIMlLE 952-447-4245
Dear Ms. Kansier:
Tradition Development, being the applicant for annexation of the Busacker property,
respectfully requests postponement of consideration at tonight's meeting and asks that
that the application be considered at the next available City Council meeting.
We apologize for the late notice and appreciate your cooperation with us on this matter.
;? 7r 2----
O'd't7CJ ,Sr..Q.,..c... Nv-",,,,a... ./...a.c,i. ../a.,:t", /.7d'. ~af..",Q.. "/1...",,,,,,,;;..,.&,,, .5.54'y5
/*,,[p.,..,,, (.P.5.!).P.!CJ-.5/tJCJ /tr-~ (.P.5?),9.?CJ.tf.9t7CJ t...II/..u (d'd'd').9.?tJ. tltI.:J/