Locally Grown

Ross, thank you for posting your thoughts. As you know, I’ve tried to schedule any of my necessary travel between Planning Commission meetings, but as it’s turned out, the process delays will result in my missing two very important meetings - last Tuesday’s, and May 6 - so it was most helpful to read through your thought process, and consider the issues and values that need to be weighed in making this decision on annexation.

My single largest concern is that we MUST choose some mechanism for designating any land annexed in this area so that it is used for its intended purpose (commercial) and not sold to a residential developer who can make a sweeter offer to the landowner after the land becomes part of the municipality.

#2

Indeed, there are a couple of articles in today’s Northfield News about this issue:

Hearing is Tuesday on annex requests
http://www.northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStory=22513

EDA names reasons to annex 530 acres
http://www.northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStory=22511

Renee, you’re welcome for my driving viewers to your advertisers.

#4

Good Comments, Ross.
There are a lot of unanswered questions on this one:
* If the TIP plan recommended 120 Ac. for a biz park, how did we move up to 530 Ac. ? (especially remembering that NF is only about 1700 Ac.total)

* The Chamber moved their desired amount up to about 220 Ac. initially; how did they then move to 530?

* Are there other reasons to annex this land besides for Comm/Indust. use? i.e. to preserve or protect it from”wrongful” development?

* Why has a concept plan for the development been waived in this instance by the City Council? They said cost to the applicant, but this is a major step to take, and should involve carefully assessed knowledge of the benefits to Northfield, not concessions to the landowners.

* How is residential development “out there” to be avoided? It is closer to the highway and that’s an attractive selling point for a developer; however the Planning Commission has said “No more housing now; we are oversupplied”. And, disturbingly , part of the area is marked for residential development on one of the maps.

* At the joint EDA/PC meeting last week, the idea was presented that it was all 530 Ac or zero. Again, why this huge amount? and what would the owners do with this land if not all annexed now? At some point it will be annexed , but all say for the time being they wish to continue farming.

* Staff has repeatedly said that the point of most control for the city is at the time of annexation, because it can be accepted or rejected, based on the concept plan. REMEMBER, no concept plan is being required by the council. Is this looking out for Northfield’s interests?

*** Lastly, why is this a wise thing to do before the completion of the new Comp Plan? Why is it not more efficient for Northfield to adjust the urban expansion boundary to include this area that the landowners are willing to have annexed , DESIGNATING it on the Future Land Use Map for Comm/Industrial, and in that way gaining Jurisdiction over its future annexation, and the uses the land is put to, for the best benefit to the community ?

#6

Just a few thoughts:

If a client asks to see what land is available to build their corporate office or plant, and the land is not annexed to the City, they will not even come to look at Northfield. Our hands are tied. Planning for the future needs to be done now.

If a current business is experiencing growing pains, how do we address their needs?

Development agreements as well as zoning address the majority of the concerns listed and noted here.

The pretty drawings…were done to help paint a picture of what could be. It was never provided as a means to “pick apart” nor paint a “blue sky” picture. In fact the developers have a series of drawings that coukd work based on the market demands. These designs were based on numerous successful developments in mind in addition to the wants and needs of a growing community. The future markets are diffiuclt to predict. The need for buffering and green space will be addressed as the development moves forward.

There have been a series of financial cost and revenue analysis reports done….over and over again.

I hope this answers a few of the comments noted here.

#8

Norman - you hit the nail on the head that few people understand this issue.

I would think most people choose to live in Northfield because of the aesthetics of the community. But in all discussions over land use there seems to be a tension between practicality and aesthetics in development. This probably stems from no strong overriding vision among citizens for what Northfield wants to become. Having a strong “generally accepted and understood” vision would increase the land values, the tax values and the aesthetic value.

I put quotes around “generally accepted and understood” because although many well meaning documents have been created regarding Northfield development I do not think they are strong tools for building a “generally accepted and understood” vision for development.

My suggestion would be more focus on drawings of what Northfield wants - 1) this is what we want for housing 2) this is what we want for commercial, etc. Maybe even an architectural contest displayed at the historic society where citizens could vote on what styles of development they find appealing. If the council put up a $10,000 prize that would probably get tons of architects thinking about Northfield which would pay big dividends as a marketing opportunity for the city.

Another suggestion that might work well with Locally Grown would be a citizen rating opportunity for concept & built developments (like Norman’s back patio addition which should get a 10/10). This would help developers understand and profit from knowing what Northfield likes and what it does not like (the web as an information tool allows direct citizen input in a way that can enhance committee structures which are in fact also an information tool).

#10

Norman, some basic responses to your questions, which answers you may know but others might find helpful.

Dundas and Northfield are different “units” (as they are municipalities,) from Bridgewater, Northfield Township and Greenvale, which are Townships. Different rules apply to municipalities and townships.

Elko/New Market were two municipalities that merged. This was very unusual. Muncipalities annex property from townships as needed, which decreases the land in the township and increases the municipality, but rarely do two municipalities see eye-to-eye enough to make merging possible, and it would not be practical to completely merge a township unless the township has already been shrunk by annexation.

Municipalities (supposedly) have the structure to protect their citizens and make for orderly development. (Townships less so, and this is why Bridgewater has adopted zoning in order to protect its residents against what might be County micro-management of allowing unwanted industry in the township.)

Most municipalities will never merge. Just as there is a Minneapolis, St. Paul, Edina, Richfield, etc. each municipality may wish to maintain its independence even if it is “land locked.”

Sometimes we join in “joint powers” agreements when different entities have the same goal.

Cities can annex land from townships without the townships agreement or permission. This can be contentious, so townships may form agreements with the city to smooth the process, and to guarantee that the township gets something for its loss. However, the township cannot stop a municipality from annexing the land that is contiguous to that city’s border. (They can make it uncomfortable, but they cannot stop it.)

When a land owner requests annexation, as in the case of the land in this discussion, it is a unique opportunity for the city that may be fleeting–so Northfield may want to take a good look at what it is turning its nose up at–because later it might not be available or economical to annex.

If Northfield has an annexation agreement with the township in question, it may need to look at whether it is affordable and practical to annex.

The question of whether Northfield can afford to supply services to that property is certainly premature. Northfield would block development if the development would not pay for the services, so it is somewhat of a moot point.

It may be practical for the townships to plan for eventually being taken over by the surrounding cities, but that is certainly not what the residents of the township want. The municipality will always have the power invested by the state over a township–which is to annex their land under “orderly annexation” rules.

We should be planning for the practical expansion of our municipalities and that is what the “plans” are for. The question is whether the annexation of this property will negate or make a mess of the current plans. Obviously some think it will interfere with current plans.

#12

Here’s how Dundas and Bridgewater Township approached industrial development.

The Dundas-Bridgewater annexation agreement allows specific, reasonable industrial development proposals without any acreage llmit for the next 27 years. It is one of the reasons why the College City Beverage development went through smoothly. From our township’s perspective, this scenario encourages the city to grow in a balanced way, adding jobs for both city and township residents and an industrial tax base which benefits the city. Healthy industrial development creates a healthy city.

That same annexation agreement puts acreage limits on residential growth thus discouraging residential sprawl, hop-scotch development, and over-extended municipal utilities, which is expensive to taxpayers. Compact growth also creates a healthy city, and conserves farmland and natural resources for current use, and future benefits.

#14

Thanks Kiffi, for itemizing many of the questions which should be both asked and answered.

For Charlene: where can we read the cost/revenue analyses? My experience on the Planning Commission and now as just an interested citizen is that the analysis stated in staff reports at public hearings or described by staff is general at best. Please share the numbers with us.

David L - You’re technically correct about what annexation accomplishes. However, your true comment does not address the questions: why this much land and why right now before land use regulations are completed?

I’m not opposed to annexation or development per se, but because the consequences (both positive and negative) are large and because annexation is the point of maximum discretion for the Council, annexation is also the point at which these issues must be discussed and answers provided.

#16

Betsy: Why this much land - because that is the owners’ request - 530 acres, Why right now - because now is when the owners made the request, and I am fairly certain that the request is time-sensitive. This is a completely different situation than when landowners make an annexation request because they have a development project that they want to pursue.

Northfield can’t zone the land until it is within their jurisdiction. Once it is annexed, then Northfield can discuss zoning and cost/benefit analysis.

If we fiddle around and the landowners withdraw their petition, or if we don’t accept their petition, we may not get another opportunity for a voluntary annexation.

One of the true advantages of this request is that it allows Northfield to “skip” over St. Olaf’s land.

#18

Ross,

Thanks for opening this discussion in advance of tomorrow night’s Planning Commission meeting. This is a critically important decision for the community, and deserves full examination.

I want to say up front that I recognize that Northfield needs additional commercial and industrial development (both expansion of existing businesses and attraction of new businesses) to diversify and strengthen the tax base and increase employment opportunities in the community. However, that does NOT mean that any and all proposals to facilitate commercial/industrial development should be accepted uncritically. I know that there are those who will say (and have already said) that a “no” to this annexation would be a clear indication to the business community that Northfield is not business-friendly, but I think there is a world of difference between being business-friendly and letting business call all the shots.

I share the concerns you raise, Ross, and agree with a number of the comments above (particularly those of Betsey in comment #3 and Kiffi in comment #6). A few particulars that I would like to add follow.

From page 2 of the staff packet for tomorrow night’s meeting:

• “The Urban Expansion Area is a planning boundary first established by Rice County in an attempt to direct growth to urban centers, thus preserving the rural, agricultural atmosphere of the County. The City of Northfield established a similar boundary in Dakota County in an effort to anticipate future urban growth (Pages 7-27).
• The Priority Growth Area is a 20-year supply of developable land, which will accommodate forecasted household growth as well as commercial and industrial demand based on historical absorption rates and regional market demand. During the process of estimating land needs to 2020, a 50% overage was calculated into the total land demand to allow for fluctuations in the market place and unanticipated spikes in land demand (Pages 7-27).”

1. The 530-acre annexation covers a huge area of prime farm land at a time when world food supply is under intense pressure. This is essentially all flat, fertile, productive soil. This 530 acres would increase the City’s geographic area by 13% (from the existing 4,097 acres per Table 1.5 in the “Built Environment” chapter of the draft revised Comp Plan). The same table indicates that there remain 253 acres of vacant land and 2,121 acres of ag land within the Priority Growth Area. 90 acres of the proposed annexation (that owned by St. Olaf) would not be developed in the forseeable future. Only about 120 acres of the remaining land in the proposed annexation is within the City’s identified Priority Growth Area from the 2001 Comp Plan, and 320 acres falls outside the Priority Growth Area. In other words, 73% of the land likely to be developed in the annexation area lies OUTSIDE the Priority Growth Area, which in itself includes 50% overage to take into account the possibility of long-term red-hot development pressure.
2. The corner of the proposed annexation closest to town (the southeast corner) is more than three miles from downtown Northfield, more than one mile from the nearest residential neighborhood within existing city limits, and would require crossing one-half mile of undeveloped St. Olaf land with infrastructure. Northfield has spoken, through extensive public input in the Comprehensive Plan revision process, in favor of compact development. In particular, the Land Use Principles (adopted by the City Council on July 16, 2007), include the following:
• Principle 3: The preference for accommodating future growth is in infill locations, then redevelopment opportunities, and then on the edge of existing developed areas. (I must stress again that in no meaningful sense is this site even “on the edge of existing develooped areas.”)
• Principle 9: Rural character of certain areas of the Community will be protected.  The rural character is a defining element in creating Northfield’s identity. It provides the setting for the “small town” character. The primary elements that make up this character are the rural roads, expansive agrarian views, and rural architectural vernacular. The open space and land currently in agricultural use in the Community will be strengthened, and protected where appropriate.” The proposed annexation seems completely out of step with these formally adopted Land Use Principles.
3. At a time of soaring gasoline, diesel and petroleum prices, uncertain future supplies of petroleum and uncertain future transportation priorities (will industry and commercial interests prefer more-efficient rail transport to truck transport, for example, in a world where diesel prices are sky-high?), is it prudent to put all of our commercial/industrial eggs in this particular basket remote from the rest of the community, with good highway/interstate access but no rail access?

In summary, I would need to see a lot of compelling information that has not yet been made public to be convinced of the wisdom of annexing land primarily outside the Priority Growth Area, in a remote location, at a time when there is very low market demand for land, and every indication that the majority of the community prefers more compact growth. Of course, it’s not my decision, but the Planning Commission’s (and ultimately the City Council’s). May you all decide wisely!

I look forward to a lively meeting tomorrow night!

#20

Great comments, folks. I hope you’ll all prepare them for the hearing - in writing or for oral testimony. This is a HUGE decision, and the Planning Commission must be encouraged to look at it from every angle. I haven’t been to the meetings, David (post #10), so I don’t know what you mean about the commissioners’ objections being personal. I think we each should make statements which are based on our reading of current planning and use policies and encourage the commission to make decisions based on the same.

David, I remember your comment at the first Comprehensive Plan public meeting about our needing to consider tax base and business development as part of our planning process, and as I told you at the time, I agree these are a critical needs in Northfield. The big question, is how best to achieve these goals.

In my mind, it is unfortunate that this has come up before the council has had a chance to approve the revised Comprehensive Plan.

#22

Much of the financial work included numerous assumptions. How much commercial, industrial, dare I even mention any housing, and then what size buildings, what about the market, supply demand, etc., there is much to be determined.

Every time a series of drawings were looked at, (15 actually were done so far) the drawings changed the calculations.

So, one needs to determine, what numbers are you seeking? Revenue dollars generated from the taxes, or is it just the cost that are associated with the infrastructure or developing the property?

I am not sure how many tables or series of numbers were run on each location or with each drawing. I only know the cost of money and time changes often. The use in each building and how it is built is difficult to determine. Thus no matter how you run the numbers, someone will have something to say about the assumptions made. This puts a damper on any numbers you create. If you make these numbers a matter of public record….then again, I am not sure anyone has the ability to forcast the cost of materials or labor over such a long period of time.

If you build a 100,000 square foot building, and it is just a shell for basic warehouse operations, the cost will be much less than a building used as a call center. Those numbers could increase tremendously per square foot. So again, what assumtions do you place in your calculation? The blue sky dream of building only corporate offices that bring the value of land up tremendously? Do you mix up the buildings and create a diverse economic base?

It is my understanding that the calculations were based on the current tax base and numbers for Northfield. Meaning, the current values for each category of what we currently have was used. One can then argue is that the correct approach?

Again, running numbers and making assumptions based on the next 20-30 years is a very difficult task and one that will not win everyone over. There is to much room for error.

I think the bottom line here is, Is the City willing to annex based on the hope for opportunities and proper development for the future and a willing person looking to annex? Yes or no? That is the real question.

#24

Charlene, I understand that all calculations depend on assumptions about what could happen. Indeed, educating the council and planning commission, as well as the public, about those assumptions is critical.

Charlene said:

I think the bottom line here is, Is the City willing to annex based on the hope for opportunities and proper development for the future and a willing person looking to annex? Yes or no? That is the real question.

No, I disagree. The real questions are

• whether land being considered for annexation is suitable for the anticipated development
• whether anticipated future development is consistent with the city’s planning documents regarding land use, transportation, environmental protection, wastewater, etc.
• if projections (which I hope are based on data rather than just hope) for revenue and cost are reasonable and demonstrable.

We need to see a summary of the assumptions and the results before this decision is made.

#26

Kiffi, I am jumping in here and I am sure David will respond. However, as a landowner I know that whether your land is in or out of the city limits defines how you market that land.

If the city of Northfield ever plans to grow, which is a reasonable assumption, and if it will ever grow to the North and West, which is also a reasonable assumption, why would you deny annexation of land into the city at the request of the landowner?

It is almost as if you are protecting the planning commission from actually having to think and plan.

There is no harm to the city in annexing land (except in the case of Dundas-Bridgewater where an onorous agreement puts penalties on the city). The city does not lose out on anything by annexing bare land.

#28

In answer to Jane Moline, an orderly annexation agreement takes months to years of work to accomplish. Bridgewater Township, as I recall, would not sign off on the annexation for the Target complex until the agreement w/Nfld was complete and agreed upon.

Same with the annexation agreement w/Dundas except that it took much longer in negotiations. Yes it’s very possible the annexation agreement may have been finalized in July with formal annexation in December. But I never had the sense that our township favored the residential project. Far from it.

Too bad Greenvale has no annexation agreement in place. They had a short-term agreement w/Nfld to bring in the new hospital, a St. Olaf senior housing project and a Pavek residential development for a total of something over 200 acres. The sewer/water is extended to those parcels, but what of sewer capacity for an additional 530-acre business park? That question will surely come up tonight. Hard to calculate if actual proposals are not known, I suppose….

I agree that the new Nfld Comp Plan should be in place before decision made on this 530-acre piece. But, my experience with Northfield is that they don’t like to be bothered with process considerations.

I would hate to see a repeat of the I-35 fiasco, with over 1000 acres rezoned for highway commercial in the Rice County Land Use Map and no infrastructure. Landowners are in limbo.

#30

In today’s Nfld News: Groups say not annexing would harm city.

Margit Johnson, a former Planning Commission member, said that while the city needs new businesses, land needs to be annexed for industrial, and not commercial, use. A decade ago the commission tried to balance the city’s residential and commercial development, but within months of a rezoning that allowed industry at the corner of Hwy. 3 and County Road 1, Target pushed forward a change to the plan, bringing lower-paying jobs than an industrial park would fetch.

#32

I attended last night’s meeting for a couple of hours and was impressed by the speakers. There seemed to be agreement among the serious participants that annexing a large parcel is not a bad idea. Opposition, aside from procedural matters which went over my head, seemed to be based on what might happen on the property in question. Speakers with reservations mentioned, big box retailers, or residential sprawl, or ‘commercial’ development of any kind.

I don’t quite understand why there are these concerns if zoning can be used to prohibit these kinds of ‘negative’ development after the land is annexed. Is it because citizens do not trust the city council to maintain the desired zoning? If so, wouldn’t that then be a concern on any parcel, anywhere, inside or outside the city? That seems to be a risk inherent with representative government. Assuming incompetence (or worse) on the part of our elected officials will surely doom any development.

#34

David L: I’m sorry, nothing but a differing opinion is meant; but your cursory explanation of the process surrounding the “T” process is so incomplete, and expressed with such (IMHO) bias, that it cannot be meaningful to understanding that process, and only contributes to a general misunderstanding that is beginning to build itself as “History” .

I did the liaison work, with their attorney, for the 8 Northfield citizens who sued the City, over the process, and the violation of the existing Comp Plan, and the presumed violation of the MN Environmental Rights Act. So I feel I am somewhat qualified to speak on this issue. That suit was not without merit, and stood the chance, in the eyes of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, of being a test case for the entire country, which is why they joined with an amicus brief at the application to the MN Supreme Court level. Unfortunately the MN S.C. refused to hear the case, which was somewhat expected. Once Target was allowed to join the case, on the side of the city, it was sort of like 8 citizens suing the state and Northwest Airlines.

This annexation bears little resemblance to that former situation. I would just say that I hope the City does everything correctly this time; when the Bridgewater land was annexed for the Target development, a letter was put in the state’s permanent files that stated although the annexation was approved by the state office, there were some serious problems with it’s procedures.

I only revisit the Target situation because you brought it up, and I thought were in danger of creating a false history.

#36

And just to forestall any misunderstanding before its time - I’m generally in favor of this proposed annexation. But the devil is in the details, and following the proper process is crucial.

‘Nuff said for now.

#38

I agree with Tracy; annexation seems like a reasonable option for the city - but it will be important to do everything possible to assure that the annexed property will be developed in accordance with Nfld’s still-in-process Comprehensive Plan.

Kiffi’s challenge to the Planning Commission, (verbalized at the meeting, and summarized by Stephanie Henriksen in Post #33) to enforce the Council’s existing friendly amendment of July ‘07, would seem to be an excellent place to start. For starters, the city needs to follow the will of the council. But their amendment (and I trust that her notes on the amendment are accurate) sounds wise: it would obligate the owners/developers to sign a written pledge to comply with the Comprehensive Plan, once it is finalized.

It’s not a cure-all. As Jim Pokorney said to me, a future city referendum - or even (I would assume) a future Council’s decisions - will always be able to trump whatever pledges and zoning decisions are made in the here and now.

But a written pledge would set the bar that much higher.

#40

These comments were attached to another message thread. I’m copy/pasting them here for the benefit of all.

Stephanie Henriksen  April 30, 2008   4:07 pm 

Speaking of process, it became clear at the annexation hearing last night that staff was bending the rules (a petition for annexation of 530 acres without a concept plan?) for someone’s benefit. And what’s the rush? Nineteen people spoke, only six of them promoting the annexation. The other 13 had concerns and good questions.

Township residents were buzzing as to how Larry Larson of Land Vista LLC (company owned by Kevin Green) approached each of the land owners. I spoke with him afterward, likeable guy. He continued to say there were no developers on the horizon.

I hope some of you show up at Lansing Hardware tonight with a little food for the grill (6-9 pm?) to say goodby to the store. Brings a lump to my throat.

===============

Randy Jennings  May 1, 2008   7:53 am 

Stephanie,

Unless you are discounting the landowners and their representatives, at the planning commission meeting the speakers for and against this annexation were a little more evenly divided than your count and the Northfield News’ headline would suggest.

A couple of things I found interesting at the meeting:

There apparently IS a concept plan attached to this annexation request. At least one speaker made reference to it, in the context of challenging an area labeled as potential housing. (At the moment, the marketplace and casual observation suggest this is not something Nfld needs more of in the immediate future…although who knows what conditions will be in 20-25 years as this land is developed?). Whether that concept plan meets some legal standard for detail, I can’t say, but it is apparently not accurate to say that there is no plan. Further, if the concept plan the landowners have provided is not up to snuff, the city council can certainly factor that into its consideration of the annexation request.

If I was following Kiffi Summa’s summary of a council meeting last July, there was a discussion of how the council (or at least some members of it) would like an annexation request to be formatted and what they would like a concept plan to propose. But… it doesn’t seem logical that council opinions can preemptively require a landowner to do anything other than submit a request that conforms to established policies and procedures. Apparently the landowners have submitted the proper documents requesting annexation; the council will, within the proscribed time frames, have to take action on the request. Again, as I understand it, they can accept or reject the request. I assume there is some structure as to how they justify rejecting a request, should they do so. That is a point at which the submitted concept plan is considered, positively or negatively.

More interesting was the actual amount of developable land. 530 acres sounds like a big, scary number, but Pete Sandberg made it pretty clear that St. Olaf’s 90 acres is HIGHLY unlikely to ever be developed, and will remain part of the campus’ natural lands. That’s a nice green buffer. Dan Olson said that the staff’s preliminary assessment is that there may be 100 acres that can’t be developed due to environmental issues or suitability for building. Of course, there are no guarantees about any of this, but assuming that environmental issues do inhibit or prevent building on that portion of the annexed land, we’re down to an actual development of about 340 acres, or pretty much the size development the Chamber has been advocating for many years. Viewed as a 25 year land inventory, this doesn’t not seem out of line.

I think Margit Johnson’s cautions are very valuable. Ironically, I see her narrative, and David Ludescher’s coda about how a citizen initiative and referendum effort actually pushed the changes that allowed the Target/Cub commercial development, to be a strong rationale FOR annexing this land in a timely way. As several speakers noted, the city has NO control over land use beyond its borders.

What I heard among the speakers opposed to the annexation is a lack of confidence that the planning/zoning/development functions of the city — all citizen led — have the discipline to shape development in Nfld’s community interest, as those speakers define it. While it makes logical, if somewhat cynical, sense to protect ourselves from processes that don’t seem to function quickly enough or with enough discipline to make decisions that adhere to long-term community plans and priorities, denying this annexation request seem like cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Truthfully, in the current economy it is difficult to predict what sorts of industries might be interested in locating on the fringes of a community like Nlfd. But it seems pretty clear that we need significant, thoughtful expansion of economic activity and the asociated tax base, if we are to support the community amenities and lifestyle to which we are all attracted. If we don’t take some action to provide access to the initial resource — land — a new or expanding business might need, we effectively vote by pocket veto not to participate in the economic recovery that will follow our current malaise.

=================

David Ludescher  May 1, 2008   9:00 am  ·

Stephanie and Kiffi: To add to Randy’s comments - Once the land gets into the City - then the City can have complete control. It may be that Randy and I have completely different opinions about what should happen to that land once it is in. But, let’s get it in so that we can have that discussion.

===============

Stephanie Henriksen  May 1, 2008   11:07 am

Randy, here are the six speakers of a total of 19, who promoted the annexation:

Rick Estenson, EDA

Atty David Hvistendahl

Atty David Ludescher

Cathy Feldbrugge, Chamber

Leif Knecht

Ruth Lysne, land owner

More detailed comments are appearing on the “Thoughts on annexation” topic. Here was mine:

Margit’s warning was key. Of the other comments, Kiffy Summa’s stands out to me. She read from her notes of the July 9 City Council meeting where realtor Larry Larson of Land Vista LLC (company owned by Kevin Green) came with his proposal. Cashman asked where this was coming from. This is outside the process of the ordinance. Administrator Roder said it does not meet the letter of the law. O’Connell said that was most importantly in regard to a concept plan. Cashman spoke again. (He?) said without a concept plan, they were asking for trouble. The Mayor asked how to proceed. O’Connell suggested a modified plan w/topography, etc. Arnie Nelson remarked that as a builder he was (in disbelief) they would consider an annexation without a concept plan. Cashman asked there be a protective agreement that land owners would abide by the Comp Plan. Vote was unanimous.

Kiffy named page and section (I assumed to be from staff report in the Planning Commmission packet), saying there is no mention of the friendly amendment. She asked staff if they had such a letter from the landowner. She said she hoped it was just an error (oversight). She asked the Planning Commission to get the tape and watch it. It showed the serious concerns of the Council and (Brian) O’Connell.

================

Randy Jennings  May 1, 2008   12:04 pm

Add Larry Larsen (an interested party, to be sure, but a proponent), Pete Sandberg (proponent of contiguous annexation, but no comment on the merits of the annexation overall), plus I’d read Victor Summa as both a proponent (in his property owner and EDA roles) and an skeptic… Victor is a complicated person.

On the opposing side Johnson, Anderson, Nakasian, K. Summa, Frey, Dobros (sp?). I had to leave when Mr. Langer took the podium, so I don’t where he stood on the issue, nor who followed.

Even so, I still don’t feel that the opposition was as out of balance with proposition as suggested. Interesting that the News has different headlines on its print and electronic editions, the print highlighting the arguments of the opponents and the electronic highlighting the proponents. That pretty much sums up the meeting, but you have to read both headlines to get it…

=================

Stephanie Henriksen  May 1, 2008   2:02 pm

My reply to Randy Jennings is that Larry Larson of Land Vista and Sandburg of St. Olaf spoke during the staff presentation. Public comment began with Rick Estenson of EDA (who had attempted to interject earlier), followed by Margit Johnson. Too bad you had to leave before Greg Langer (speaker No. 15), Greenvale Township farmer against the annexation, spoke. Next was Jerry Hurlbutt of a neighborhood association who called for more data.

Edrick Lysne delivered a message from his uncle James, who said the project will be an environmental disaster and he would move away. Edrick said the Lysne farm was one of the only natural areas with hardwood, birds and wildlife left in the area and asked that it be protected. It certainly brought back my own feelings about our family farm in Iowa, lost at auction in 1983.

His mother, Ruth Lysne, then spoke about reasons she and the other two landowners decided to sell when Larson approached them. Last speaker (speaker No. 19) was a student studying use of St. Olaf ag land. He thought it was a shame to take prime ag land out of production, yet saw the interest in having business there.

#42

Bruce -

I do hope “Herr Hvistendahl”, as he was called during the Public Hearing, will be there to give us a “how-to” on welcoming Waterford businesses to the Northfield commercial community.

- Ross

#44

I’m having a hard time understanding why we would oppose this request for voluntary annexation. I mean, I just can’t think of a single legitimate reason to oppose the request. What’s the downfall? I re-read this entire thread to try to figure it out…

In post #2, Tracy’s concern seems to be to ensure that we promote commercial growth and not residential growth. It seems as though the city would have control over zoning, and that residential growth is currently not economically viable. (Maybe in a few years, but certainly not now given the market.)

In post #3, Betsy’s expressed concern is that the annexed property may not jive with the city’s comprehensive plan. But the logic behind that concern seems circular to me. The old comp plan is old and the new one hasn’t been finalized yet.

In #6, Kiffi is concerned with the lack of a concept plan. But isn’t that premature as well? By allowing annexation now, we are not giving up any rights to control development later…quite the opposite, in fact.

I guess I just don’t get what the hubbub is all about. David L’s comments make the most sense to me.

#46

Britt,
I think the goal is to get the owners to put their intentions down on paper. A clear understanding on both sides might help avoid future conflicts.

#48

I think the intention of the Planning Commission is to know what the land up for annexation is intended to be used for, relying on Staff’s advice that the time of greatest control is at the point of annexation, because of the legal requirement for a concept plan to be presented with the formal annexation request.

If there are maps that say “to be determined” as there is in the Public Hearing/PC packet (Figure 5/ Concept #10), then the planning commission has legitimate concerns about the use that land will be put to. The Planning Commission has the responsibility of making land use decisions, and they want to be fully informed, cautious, and responsible in their decision making.

They should be encouraged, not criticized, for gathering ALL the information they asked for, taking all the time they need, including the 60 day extension if they need it, and making a decision which is as right as they can get it, for NF’s future.

It is a weighty decision to take ag land out of production. There has been an un-equal amount of focus on this annexation as opposed to the active promoting of infill sites; that is somewhat understandable as it is easier to focus on a request for 530 Ac than it is to sell developers on scattered sites.

But I am very tired of hearing that old saw about NF not being business friendly being brought out every time someone wants to criticize the Planning Commission; maybe the “sell ” should be focussed on a group of infill sites , scattered all over the community, which afford companies and their employees to be part of a community which has a character rather than a ubiquitous aspect, a healthy respect for the beautiful land which surrounds it, good schools for their kids, an engaged citizenry which cares deeply about the quality of small town life which fosters the best of community .

That’s what I’d like the EDA and the Chamber to work on …

… and before anyone says that’s “elitist” … when a town like NF offers the benefits it does to its residents, it is defining a large part of the definition of elite, i.e. “the best part of anything considered collectively” … well, if that’s considered a negative , then I don’t understand why we have so many cultural tributes to small town America.

#50

Kiffi: I’m not sure what additional information the Planning Commission needs. There is only one annexation request