I was asked by Suzanne Rook of the Northfield News for comments on the proposed annexation of land in the northwest. Some of you may have read her article in Wednesday’s paper on the joint EDA-Planning Commission Work Session last Tuesday night. It is my expectation that she is writing a piece for Saturday’s paper.
Several of the people who read my comments have asked me to post the complete statement on Locally Grown. I have done so below.
There will be a public hearing on the issue at next Tuesday night’s Planning Commission meeting.
Suzanne -
You asked for my take on the upcoming annexation request. I will attempt to briefly summarize my perspective. I would also suggest that you directly contact the other two-thirds of the “Troublesome Trio”, Ron Griffith and Alice Thomas, who, along with myself, continue to ask questions about this request. You might also want to speak to the Chair, Greg Colby.
I have served on the Planning Commission for five years. During that time, I have learned that one of the most alarming actions, if not THE most alarming, the Planning Commission can take is going against perhaps the most primary and important document of the Commission, the Future Land Use Map.
When the concept of this annexation request was first introduced to the Planning Commission, almost all of the land being considered was located outside of the city’s Priority Growth Area. Best Practices indicate that a city should use up the available land (in our case, several hundred acres) before annexing in additional land. Generally, the answer to such a request would be a straight-forward “no”. We, I guess I’m referring to the “Troublesome Trio”, have just been, at least in my mind, asking for the compelling reasons for which we should ignore the standard and recommended procedures and grant the request.
Over the past year, the land for which annexation is being requested has been back-filled with additional acres so that now about 40% of the land is within the Priority Growth Area. The total area now being considered is 530 acres. Folks with a history in this area have suggested that it is the largest request in anyone’s memory.
As you may have heard in the two joint EDA-Planning Commission Work Sessions that you attended (I’m not sure that you were at the the first of three, back about a year ago), everyone agrees that Northfield needs additional commercial land, for tax base and job creation. At least according to my sense of the situation, it has been the Planning Commission’s unspoken agreement that we would only annex land for commercial purposes, at least for the foreseeable future.
The City Council, about a year ago, voted to sweep aside the usual requirement that there be a Concept Plan for any land annexed into the city. Therefore, the Planning Commission has been forced to consider this request with only a colored pencil drawing representing, I guess, a vague idea of how the land might be developed. As you may have noted in the staff’s report, “The applicant will not be required to adhere to the concept plan”.
This apparently meaningless drawing shows about 30% of the land being developed as office space, 25% of the land being developed as mixed-use or housing, 25% as light industrial, 10% as retail and 10% as public space. The land to be developed as light industrial, what we’ve been told for about two years is Northfield’s greatest need, doesn’t even occur until Phase 3 and Phase 4 of the project. I can’t speak for the rest of the Commission but at least for me, if we’re going to “break the rules”, we should only do so with the assurance that the end result will be the meeting of the community’s greatest need.
Then there is the size of the parcel being considered for annexation. The City’s Comprehensive Economic Development Plan says we need 120 acres. The EDA has told us that they disagree and that we need 220 acres. The Chamber of Commerce has argued that we need 200 to 300 acres. I hesitate to speak for the “Troublesome Trio”, but I think we’ve just been asking for the data on which they base their recommendations which differ so substantially from the CEDP. Again, I would be more comfortable “breaking the rules” if the reasons were clear and explicit.
At least for me, it comes down to wanting to hear the compelling reasons for “breaking the rules” for this particular parcel, I would like to hear the basis for annexing in almost four times the recommended amount, and I would like to hear how the ultimate decision-makers, the City Councilors, are going to assure that this land be used for light industrial and not housing.
I hope this statement has been helpful to you. If you have any other questions, please let me know.
Thanks much,
Ross
193 Comments
So what alternative sites for 120 or 200 or 300 acres lie within the appropriate comp plan designation? Who is asking for the annexation? Have they given no reasons at all for the request?
It would really help if you could fill in the blanks a bit.
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.
Thanks for your thoughts, Ross. I agree that the policy change eliminating the Concept Plan requirement and disregarding the Future Land Use Plan should set the red flags waving.
I was Planning Commission Chair during the last annexation boom during 2000-2002 when the Planning Commission recommended caution, especially as our Comprehensive Plan was being revised, but the Council acted to annex several hundred acres (which seemed large at the time, but shrinks in comparison to the current request) for residential development. My own red flag in this deal is that the city’s plans are currently being revised and pushing this annexation through before new, substantially changed, land use regulations are adopted is potentially suspicious or, at least, will be likely to raise questions about grandfathering non-conforming uses.
I’ll be at the hearing, but I hope the Troublesome Trio and their Four Friends on the Commission will demand (and continue the hearing until they get) answers to these questions:
1. “Bruce Morlan questions” quantifying the the impact on the waste water treatment.
2. Has the city done a detailed fiscal impact analysis of the proposed development including a projection of the infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, electric, gas) construction and maintenance costs, costs of servicing the new development (police, fire, etc.), as well as estimating of the revenue to be derived from the project (property taxes, fees, etc.). And could these numbers be made public?
3. Has the city assessed the environmental impact of this development? Does it impinge on park and open space planning efforts now underway?
4. If this development planned to create more jobs? How many and what impact will these workers have on housing, school district, library, and other city resources? Are the costs to the city for providing additional services met by additional tax base (and how does the city know)?
5. Why now rather than after the new comp plan and land use regulations are adopted?
And, I’d like to see the Commission consider the political impacts. It’s not your job to answer the political questions, but knowing that providing additional land for commercial development is an identified need in the community, that business leaders and the EDA back the plan and, as a result, the Council is going to feel pressure to approve this request, what alternative recommendations can the Commission propose which might be politically palatable but not just allow the annexation without additional controls?
I agree that Northfield needs more land for commercial/industrial development…but that doesn’t mean that any proposal to acquire it has merit. We need more data.
Good luck and keep up the good work.
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.
Ross: The landowners are only making one request - to be annexed into the City of Northfield. Being annexed does not grant them any development rights, nor any right to city services.
There are substantial advantages to granting the annexation request:
1. All other annexations, at this time, have to be hostile.
2. Some of the land has already been designated as a good locale for business development.
3. The transportation system there is better than any other direction, except south where Northfield is already up against the City of Dundas.
4. Additional available land will make infill development more likely because there would be more land on the market to compete. It will also open up the possibility that other surrounding landowners will want to compete.
5. If Northfield waits for a business opportunity to annex, (e.g. College City Beverage), there is not enough time to go through the political process to accommodate the request.
6. If the landowners change their mind, we won’t even be able to consider the request.
7. If Northfield doesn’t grant this request, it will be hard to convince the business community that Northfield is serious about business development.
Here are some considerations that are premature to address:
1. How will it be zoned? The Planning Commission can decide later.
2. Will it be economically feasible? That is the EDA’s issue.
3. Will future leaders change our plans? If necessary, yes.
4. Is it more than we planned? Annexation and development are different.
5. Will it change the character of “our” town? Not as long as they keep planting corn on it.
6. What about the wetlands? They will still be wet after annexation.
The only downside I heard to annexation at the meeting was that Northfield would have to maintain the roads (and ditches?) without any corresponding monetary benefit.
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 ?
Thus far, there are very few comments and opinions on this very important subject, especially in view of the meeting on Tuesday. I think that this is because so few people (me not included) understand it, don’t know what or how to ask questions, yet are very concerned. May I approach it from another direction even if it exposes my naivety, lack of civics 101, etc.
Recently, Elko and Newmarket merged into one ‘unit’. Why and how ie what does it mean?
Fifty years from now, Northfield, Dundas, Greenvale, Bridgewater, and presumably Waterford will be one ‘unit’. What is the normal procedure from getting there from here?
Presumably, annexation means that the landowner is now permitted to sell his land to a developer under the scrutiny of the City and hopefully in the best interests of the community as understood by the Council.
So, I suppose my question is…why annex, why not merge? Then during this rather long political process, take a new inventory of everything and look fifty years ahead.
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.
Charlene is correct in saying: “Development agreements as well as zoning address the majority of the concerns listed and noted here”.
However, The concern on that issue is that it has been, in the past, difficult to get land use regs put in place which protect, yes protect, the community’s vision. And the city council often overrules the Planning Commission, which although it is their right to do, is not very “representative” of them if there have been large public outcries at the PC’s public hearing.
So there is a strong “public” apprehension of what will happen if all is left to the development agreements and zoning ordinances.
What still is not addressed is the growth of this recommended increase of land for Comm/Industrial from 120 Acres to 530 Acres. Any landowner who is approached by a developer who wishes to be in the city, will apply to the city for the land to be annexed. Dare I mention the Hanson/Target annexation?
There is too much being made of the need for this land to be actually annexed, rather than jurisdictionally controlled.
P.S. Since Brian O’Connell speaks as Community Development Director, for both the EDA and the Planning Commission, how can the goals of both groups be fairly represented?
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).
All this annexation request does is move the boundary line of Northfield. It has no effect upon zoning other than putting the zoning ability into Northfield’s hands. My read on the Planning Commission was that their objections were primarily personal.
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.
Kiffi, I think you got your numbers wrong in your post #6. The size of Northfield is 4480 acres (7 sq miles x 640/acres per square mile), not 1700 acres. Thus the requested 530 acres for annexation is a bit more than 10% of Northfield’s current area.
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.
Except that you could not get more hop-scotchy than the Bridgewater Heights development, which also over-extends municipal utilities, which is expensive to Dundas taxpayers, so I guess that agreement doesn’t work that well for Dundas.
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.
Is there any way someone could post the proposed site drawings for this proposal?
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.
Christine -
Tracy did so on a previous post:
http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/archives/3032/
- Ross
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:
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!
In answer to Jane Moline (comment #14), the Bridgewater Heights annexation came up BEFORE we had an annexation agreement w/Dundas. It was, indeed, a nightmare without adequate planning for roads (Cty 1 entrance and at 115th, in particular) or sewer and water. I doubt Dundas residents realized what the consequences would be, in higher taxes.
Bridgewater Township began working on an annexation agreement w/Dundas as a result, and hopefully there will not be a repeat of the “hopscotch” effect in the 27 years remaining of our agreement. Giving industrial land free of the yearly quota I consider a mistake. Who can say what is “reasonable.” I trust current Mayor Chad Marks and the Dundas Council will make good judgment calls, but who knows what future leaders will do. The township has 3 seats (out of 7) on the Dundas Planning Commission, which is some comfort.
It is imperative that anyone who cares about the future of Northfield come to the public hearing tomorrow night at City Hall and get complete details on the plan for a “business park” by the hospital.
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.
St. Olaf has a has a 90 acre request -land that it does not intend to develop. So clearly, annexation does not mean the land will be developed; in fact, it gives Northfield more development control than if it lies outside the Northfield boundary.
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.
Stephanie, (#20), the Bridgewater Heights was part and parcel of the annexation agreement with the township. The annexation agreement was done in July of 04 and the annexation of Bridgewater Heights was December of 04.
The annexation agreement between Dundas and Bridgewater unfairly favors Bridgewater–there was no advantage for Dundas. The elected officials who worked on the agreement were absolutely working for the benefit of the Bridgewater Heights development. The taxpayers of Dundas lost out, and the taxpayers of Rice County when we have to pay for the improved roads. It is an example of a poorly planned, disastorous development that the orderly annexation rules were supposed to prevent, and which rules were circumvented by having an “agreement” between Dundas and Bridgewater Township.
My point is that Kathleen Doran-Norton is praising an agreement that has NO BENEFIT for the citizens of Dundas, and in fact, harmed the city and the county. It should not be used as template for Northfield except to identify what NOT to do.
However, I hate to agree with David Ludescher just because I hate to agree with him, but I think he is right–when the property owner comes to request annexation, the city better listen as it is a great time to bring property into the control and planning of the city. That does not mean that the city has to allow the development of that land–Bruce Anderson is also right that planning for industrial acres away from rail access limits the market.
This land could be brought into the city limits and zoned agricultural or open land, or whatever. It does have good truck transportation access for industrial (and would thus have been a better location for MOM warehouse than Faribault–at least for us.)
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:
No, I disagree. The real questions are
We need to see a summary of the assumptions and the results before this decision is made.
DaveL: If this is a “completely different situation than when landowners make an annexation request because they have a development project they wish to pursue” … then it seems to me that the landowners, NOT being pushed by a live contract, would be glad to wait until the new Comp plan is done and the new zoning regulations are in hand.
Why would it not suit their purposes just as well to be ID’d in the Priority Growth Area of the Urban Expansion Boundary, and since they want to continue farming for now, as they have stated, wait until a more hospitable climate for their annexation request exists?
If it is as you say, then patience would seem to be a virtue.
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.
Jane: You don’t have to agreee with me. I will agree with you.
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.
Jane: I am totally in agreement with the concept of needing some land for this type of development, I understand the farmers’s desire to be able to farm for as long as they wish to , and have the option of selling their land when the opportunity arises ….we all need to make the best deal we can on what is usually any individual’s largest asset, i.e., the real property they own, house, land, whatever … but question the need to do this before the Comp Plan is completed.
No one has stated the necessity re: the timing. Therefor when the council has waived a fullscale concept plan, it begs the question of this being the best time for the CITY’s interest to annex; how would it disadvantage the landowners to have this land all in the Urban Expansion Boundary AND designated as Priority growth Area? What am I missing here, does that not give both sides of the deal workable controls?
I’m for designation, not annexation, hoping to give both the landowners and the city, as represented by the PC, a win-win.
In today’s Nfld News: Groups say not annexing would harm city.
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.
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.
William: I think your assessment is correct. Margit Johnson’s “cautionary” tale about Target actually tells two stories. If I recall correctly, Margit was chair of the Planning Commission at the time. At the time, there was no provision in the zoning regulations permitting a big box retailer to locate in Northfield.
As a member of the City Council, we twice asked the Planning Commission to provide input on zoning changes that would permit a big box retailer to locate in Northfield. Twice the Planning Commission responded that they were unable to do the task assigned to them. The City Council then undertook the task of doing the zoning regulations ourselves.
Before the City Council could complete its process, the citizens initiated a referendum to change the zoning to permit a Target. It passed.
The cautionary tale for the Planning Commission is that they need to think about the greater good of the community, and make planning decisions based upon what is needed for the community, not their individual (bobo?) preferences. We now have Target, and that is good because that is what the people wanted.
The Planning Commission needs to trust that future decision-makers will be as competent as they are. They don’t need to tie future decision makers hands. Rather, they need to provide the vision that makes multiple options possible.
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.
David - please remember that the Target referendum barely passed.
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.
Kiffi: I only brought up the Target issue because Margit used it as a “cautionary” tale, and others have referred to it as the key to their objections. The caution to the Planning Commission is: if you don’t act, the Council, or even the people are prepared to act without you. The City only has 60 days to make a decision. If the Planning Commission tries the same tactic they did in 1998, then they won’t have a voice in what happens.
With regard to the 8 people who sued the City after the fact on Target, it was presumptuous to think that a referendum of the people would be overturned. Even if the referendum had been overturned, the City Council would have been prepared to change the Comp Plan to permit it. Thankfully, the judge agreed that there was no merit to the case even before trial.
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.
David L: Here we are in a Target argument. The City was out of compliance with its own Comp Plan for several Months; lets not forget that. At that time there was no rush to amend it BEFORE annexation, and if I may say so, and of course I may … a rather high degree of arrogance in thinking that step did not need to be taken in order to be legally (by both NF and MN law) in compliance.
These comments were attached to another message thread. I’m copy/pasting them here for the benefit of all.
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
I’d like to encourage those on both sides of the annexation debate to come to Politics & a Pint this Sunday (the Cow, 6pm). I haven’t made up my mind as yet, and I’m hoping to hear a wide variety of arguments on both sides. So thanks in advance for coming to convince the uninitiated!
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.
Tracy, as they say at the SuperBowl, a win is a win, whether it is a 30-point blowout decided at the end of the first half or a one-point victory eked out in overtime. One game may get better ratings than the other, but the players get the the winners’ rings, no matter what. If Tiger Woods wins by one stroke, does anyone say he shouldn’t get the tro
In fact, a simple majority is the most fair way to decide things. Requiring a supermajority of 65 percent or more just leaves a small fraction of people holding all the power. Even if the vast majority of folks want something, the dissenters can block it.
The Target deal didn’t barely pass, it passed. The councilors who won their elections two years ago don’t owe a new election to a handful of cranky people who feel their opinions matter more than those of the voters…
The Planning Commission is appointed, not elected and the Council has the final say. If the planners can’t get the majority of people to buy into their ideas, they need to change their ideas or start doing a better job of selling them to the majority.
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.
Anne,
A simple majority is of course a “win” as you say - if by “win” you mean forcing a particular change on the community. But on a very divisive, controversial issue which has significantly affected the character of the town, a 51% “win” can leave up to 49% of the town very unhappy and resentful. See Target.
If the parties involved in this present annexation proposal (the owners and the city government) can put some extra words down on paper before completing the annexation, it may go a long way towards calming the fears and concerns of those who mistrust/oppose the annexation due to the bitter outcome of the last go ’round.
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.
Of course, the best outcome is to have consensus, but requiring 90 percent agreement, for example, means you can have 89 percent of the people unhappy while that 11 percent hold all the power.
Majority vote isn’t perfect, but it is fair.
Kiffi: I’m not sure what additional information the Planning Commission needs. There is only one annexation request before them. Some of the commissioners seem to think that they can control the development before it comes under the City’s jurisdiction. The only way to control the development is to annex it. It worries me that some of the commissioners think that this is a complicated decision.
Even St. Olaf wants annexation. That should tell the commissioners everything that they need to know.
So how many parcels and how many acres of infill really are available, that is, zoned and for sale? Is there enough land available to satisfy existing needs? The EDA doesn’t think so. I’m surprised there isn’t an online directory of every commercial building and site, as other cities have.
David, I have neither heard nor seen any public indication that “even St. Olaf wants annexation.” What Pete Sandberg, St. Olaf Asst. VP for Facilities, said at the Planning Commission public hearing was that St. Olaf is participating in this annexation request to “facilitate discussion” of the issue. Period. St. Olaf has no stated plans to develop their 90 acres included in the annexation request in the foreseeable future.
I have two primary concerns about this proposed annexation: It promotes sprawl, and it opens up a significant amount of prime farmland for development at a time when everything possible should be done to PROTECT, not develop, prime farmland.
I just expanded on these concerns in a blog I posted on my website under “Unsustainable development.” I will paste those comments below as well. Prepare to rip my bobo heart out.
Unsustainable development
There’s been a lively discussion on the Locally Grown Northfield website of the request by four landowners that the City of Northfield annex 530 acres of land in Greenvale Township.
Ross Currier, member of the Northfield Planning Commission, blogged on the issue for Locally Grown in advance of the April 29th public hearing on the annexation request. There have been a number of thoughtful comments before during and after the well-attended (perhaps 80 people on hand) public hearing, from folks in favor of the annexation, those opposed, and those in the middle and/or looking for more information prior to forming a firm opinion.
Some advocates say it’s a no-brainer: this is a way to be proactive in bringing significant acreage under Northfield’s planning and development control, and facilitates potential commercial and/or industrial development. Advocates believe this is a critical step to take to signal potential developers that the City of Northfield is “open for business” and ready to facilitate development that will broaden the tax base and create local jobs.
Those who question the wisdom of this annexation (myself included) have a variety of concerns. I can only speak for myself. I certainly am in favor of broadening Northfield’s tax base, and adding good jobs would absolutely be a good thing. I simply don’t think the proposed annexation is the right way to accomplish these laudable goals.
In the simplest possible terms, I think this annexation would 1) promote sprawl, and 2) open up a significant amount of prime farmland for development at a time when everything possible should be done to protect prime farmland.
City staff addressed the issue of sprawl on pages four and five of the Planning Commission public hearing packet. They stated the “2001 Comprehensive Plan Criteria” #2 as “New development is contiguous to the urban areas already served by municipal infrastructure. Skipping over vacant undeveloped land is not a cost effective approach to extending urban services and makes the skipped over parcel less usable from an agriculture or development perspective.” The staff response followed: “This property is adjacent to the existing City limits and contiguous to urban areas already served by municipal infrastructure. Therefore, no undeveloped land would be skipped over.”
This staff response is demonstrably incorrect. While the land in the annexation request is indeed adjacent to City limits, it is so only because St. Olaf College agreed to include 90 acres of its land, the land adjacent to the existing City limits, in the annexation request to “facilitate discussion of the annexation request,” in the words of St. Olaf facilities director Pete Sandberg at the public hearing. St. Olaf has stated publicly that is has no plans to develop these 90 acres in the foreseeable future. The proposed development land (the remaining 440 acres of the annexation request), at its closest point, is therefore half a mile west of any developed land and municipal infrastructure (the Northfield Hospital, which is itself already half a mile west of any other developed land). The staff response is incorrect: if a developer comes to the City with a development proposal for this proposed annexation, infrastructure will have to skip over half a mile of undeveloped land, the St. Olaf land agricultural land between the development property and the Northfield Hospital, at a minimum.
This contributes to sprawl in three ways:
The 440 acres of proposed development land is almost all prime, nearly flat farmland with high-quality soil. (A relatively small wooded area and a small wetland area are included in the area as well.) At a time when food riots are breaking out in numerous countries around the world, the world hunger problem is growing worse, food prices are soaring in the U.S. and around the world, it is more important than ever that we be good stewards of farmland. If we need industrial development land, let’s find it in other areas that won’t take this huge amount of farmland out of production. We can do so if we get creative.
I’m not at all convinced that we need a 440-acre industrial park to attract the kinds of businesses that will help Northfield thrive in the future (by increasing the tax base and providing new living-wage jobs). I’m thoroughly convinced that planting a 440-acre industrial park in a remote location at a time when
is NOT a good idea. It certainly isn’t my idea of economically, environmentally and socially sustainable development. I think we can do better than this. The Planning Commission, and the City Council, should reject this annexation request.
David L: I understand that YOU are not sure of what additional information the PC needs. They have voiced it often enough; no need to reiterate it once again.
But David, you are “re-writing” history again… Pete Sandburg, of St. Olaf stated very clearly at the public hearing why St. Olaf was agreeing to have their 90 Ac annexed: he said they had absolutely NO plans to develop any of that, and they had agreed ONLY for the sake of “contiguity”, because they do not believe in “leapfrogging”. He could not have been clearer on the matter; theirs was a very qualified and limited agreement.
I am surprised that the pro-business folks David L, David Hv, others?) don’t also recognize that this is a big business deal for the City and so there is a substantial amount of due diligence which needs to be done before signing off. The deal may be a very good one.
I agree wholeheartedly: Northfield lacks land for non-residential development
It is true: commercial tax rates are higher than non-residential
But I still haven’t seen any details of the impact analysis of the proposed annexation which evaluates the good stuff (more land, increased tax and fee revenue, job creation, etc.) and the challenges to the sustainability of the project (environmental impact, infrastructure costs, increase in public safety/service costs) in any detail whatsoever.
The financial boon to the city will vary widely depending on what is actually built (so we should know what uses are planned and how the city has calculated the benefit). The costs can also vary widely depending on how well the city manages the infrastructure development, location, phasing, etc.
As a shareholder of the company, that is, a taxpayer, I want this deal to enhance the value of Northfield. Britt and David L, claiming that you can’t understand how anyone could object just begs the questions. I don’t object to the annexation, I just don’t have sufficient information to decide.
And, as a shareholder of a company which has invested many dollars in planning efforts, I’d urge the city to get value from these planning dollars and make sure that this annexation meets the standards we have been developing.
.
Betsey and Bruce: I can understand the concerns about DEVELOPMENT; but I don’t understand the concerns about ANNEXATION. All annexation means is transferring jurisdictional control from Greenvale Township to the City of Northfield.
David: This land would not be developed in the foreseeable future under Greenvale Township’s jurisdiction. It will remain one homestead per 40 acre ag land. By annexing the property, an “annex it and they will come” mentality will unavoidably increase the likelihood that sprawl development will take place.
Bruce: That is true. But, if we don’t annex it, they can’t come. This the only area of town that is feasible to have significant industrial/commercial development. Further, annexing this land will make it MORE likely that the infill portions will develop because buyers will have more options, thus driving down the prices for the infill land. It is a win-win for the no growth and growth people.
I have to respectfully disagree, David, that annexation is a win-win for growth and no-growth advocates. How can annexing land, thereby increasing the likelihood of development of a non-contiguous 440 acres of prime farmland, woodland and wetlands, be considered a win-win for no-growth advocates, even if it does increase the likelihood of development of infill or closer-in land? I also have to respectfully disagree that this is the only area of town (and it is NOT part of town–it is farm land in Greenvale Township) where it is feasible to have significant industrial/commercial development. It is the only large chunk of land where landowners have requested annexation, but that certainly doesn’t make it the only FEASIBLE area.
By the way, I am not a no-growth advocate. As Bob Dylan opined, “He not busy being born/Is busy dying,” as true for a community as it is for an individual. I am an advocate of smart, sustainable growth. What I oppose is growth for the sake of growth (”the ideology of the cancer cell,” in the memorable words of the late Edward Abbey). I am in favor of growth that truly benefits and enriches Northfield as a community. Therein lies the rub: How do we define healthy, beneficial growth? I think that leapfrog development, and the pre-requisite annexation of prime farmland with the intention of developing it, is not likely to be healthy, beneficial growth for the community.
What is the role of Land Vista in this annexation process? Could they just be characterized as “friends of farmers?
When Mrs. Lysne spoke at the public hearing she said they (the landowners) were concerned about continued stewardship of the land; the current owners are all ready to quit farming in the near future, and she felt this owner group could guide a better future than a more divergent group of heirs might.
Then why do we hear that all is not happy in Greenvale township among the other farmland owners, many of whom do not wish to lose the rural character of their township? Since Dakota county gives zoning discretion to its twps., why do the supervisors send NF a letter of agreement (to let the land be annexed) if it does not represent the wishes of their constituents?
What are we to make of the remarks , at the public hearing, of Greg Langer, a farmer who has worked tirelessly to preserve the rural quality of the area?
Since/ or IF , NF cannot afford to extend services to the area, without a active development proposal in hand, what is the advantage of land, still being farmed, as opposed to that new buzzword: “shovel ready” ? Is that a case for DESIGNATION, not annexation?
When the proposal comes actively up for consideration/vote at the Planning Commission, is that when the 60-day rule kicks in? Is that when they would ask for a sixty day extension? Or is the timing tied to City Council action?
120 days is 4 months; is that time for the Comp Plan to be finished? When will the land use regulations that bolster the Comp Plan be completed?
IF they (PC and EDA) have differing ag