2006 07-26 CC PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

REM P mms JUN 14 2006 government services are provided fairly and in a timely manner. The long history of development issues between Gem Lake and the Petitioners calls into question whether the same can be said for Gem Lake. (I) The degree of continuity of the boundaries of the subject area and adjacent units of local government. The Subject Property would, if annexed, be a peninsula of Vadnais Heights jutting into and surrounded on three sides, by Gem Lake. This, in and of itself, is not a major concern. Gem. Lake also has a peninsula of land that juts into Vadnais Heights and there was no testimony that this has caused any issues over the years. Furthermore, the planned land use for the Subject Property is very similar regardless of which city has jurisdiction. In reality, it is more likely that the concern of Gem Lake is that Vadnais Heights will approve development whereas Gem Lake will continue to find ways to postpone it in an effort to keep its rural feel. (m) Analysis of the applicability of the State Building Code. There are no issues affecting the state building code with respect to this petition. CONCLUSIONS Detachment of the Subject Property from Gem Lake and Annexation to Vadnais Heights Should Be Denied. After considering the factors for incorporation in Minn. Stat. §414.02, subd. 3, the proposed action shall be ordered on finding that it will be for the best interests of the municipalities and the property owner.67 This has been interpreted to mean that detachment and annexation must be in the best interests of both municipalities and the property owners.68 Consideration of the statutory factors in this matter demonstrates that the detachment and annexation would benefit Vadnais Heights. It would enhance its tax base with a prime piece of developable commercial property and allow it to spread its public utilities and other chargeable costs over a larger base. The property owners would also benefit. Clearly, they see a better opportunity to get the necessary services for development from Vadnais Heights at lower costs and in a more timely manner than they can from Gem Lake. Because of Gem Lake's reputation for being difficult about permitting development, the value of the Subject Property may actually rise simply, because of the annexation. Whether it would benefit Gem Lake is a thornier question. On one hand, Gem Lake would be rid of the dilemma of how to develop the Subject Property 67 Minn. Stat. § 414.061, subd. 5. sa City of Lake Elmo v. City of Oakdale, 468 N.W. 2d 575, 578 (Minn. App. 1991). 17