2006 07-26 CC PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

m sY JUN 1 4 2006 consistent with its zoning ordinance while preserving the rural feel of the city. In a case with many similarities, the Minnesota Court of Appeals stated: The concurrent detachment and annexation will allow that land which is appropriate and ready for development (the subject land) to be serviced by a community that is servicing land immediately adjacent to it. It will also allow the community that wishes to remain a rural residential community to remain s0.69 The "present pattern of physical development, planning and intended land uses" of both cities makes annexation by Vadnais Heights the more logical alternative. This would allow both cities to continue to operate on the basis of their respective comprehensive plans and community goals. Granting the petition would relieve Gem Lake of the financial burden of providing water and sewer resources to the Subject Property when it is clear from its own survey that the citizens are opposed to extension of sewer and water services and their attendant costs. On the other hand, it would clearly be a loss of potential tax base for Gem Lake to lose the Subject Property. Assuming that Gem Lake ever really allows the Subject Property to be developed, the resulting increase in property tax revenue would be significant to the comparatively small Gem Lake budget. The importance of this potential tax revenue is, however, tempered by the fact that the citizens of Gem Lake seem to prefer minimal services thus reducing the need for the revenue. Also, given its history of resistance to development, it is uncertain how far in to the future such development will be put off, leaving the revenue to be unrealized by either community. For the detachment and concurrent annexation to be approved, there must be a finding that, after a review of the statutory factors, such action would be in the best interests of the property owners and the municipalities. If Gem Lake proceeds with reasonable zoning ordinances and enforces them in a fair, open and reasonable manner, appropriate development of the Subject Property will likely occur in relatively short order. This would be beneficial to both municipalities and to the property owners. Loss of that opportunity, at this time, would not be in the best interests of Gem Lake. If, however, Gem Lake obstructs reasonable opportunities for development, it will likely encounter more law suits and additional petitions for detachment, which, as the mayor of Gem Lake pointed out, are expensive. Should unreasonable resistance to any development of the Subject Property occur in the future, it may be that it would be in the best financial interests of Gem Lake to detach the Subject Property so as to avoid further petitions. At that point, the balance may tip and the detachment may in fact be in the best interests of Gem Lake. Those benefits may not be as significant as the benefits to the b`' Id. W