Comments on: City and township could sign annexation agreement next month http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/post/7257/ The people, issues, and events of Northfield, MN Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:26:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: kiffi summa http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/post/7257/comment-page-1/#comment-78688 kiffi summa Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:36:50 +0000 http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/?p=7257#comment-78688 <p>Just an additional step in the whole big annexation issue ... last night the council agreed to change the wording in the city's annexation ordinance ( 891 ). The packet states that this change would make the ord "conform to state statute and prevent legal challenges". ( David Bly was quoted as telling a constituent that municipalities have the right to be more restrictive than state statute, but not less restrictive, so some of the packet reasoning seemed like the proverbial red herring. )</p> <p>The change relieves the applicant for annexation from having to obtain written agreement from the Township supervisors approving/agreeing to annexation. </p> <p>Staff reassured the Council that this would not affect the specific/individual agreements that the City of Northfield has with each Township...</p> <p>What ??? there's something here I am not getting ... there seems to be a built in opportunity for legal challenge if the ordinance says one thing and the agreement with the Twp. says something else. </p> <p>There were a lot ( 30? ) of Waterford Twp residents in attendance, and a lot of interest in this change.</p> <p>Maybe that concern, was all misplaced ... but I remain questioning of the need for this change .. I wouldn't be totally surprised if this 'story' continues...</p> Just an additional step in the whole big annexation issue … last night the council agreed to change the wording in the city’s annexation ordinance ( 891 ). The packet states that this change would make the ord “conform to state statute and prevent legal challenges”. ( David Bly was quoted as telling a constituent that municipalities have the right to be more restrictive than state statute, but not less restrictive, so some of the packet reasoning seemed like the proverbial red herring. )

The change relieves the applicant for annexation from having to obtain written agreement from the Township supervisors approving/agreeing to annexation.

Staff reassured the Council that this would not affect the specific/individual agreements that the City of Northfield has with each Township…

What ??? there’s something here I am not getting … there seems to be a built in opportunity for legal challenge if the ordinance says one thing and the agreement with the Twp. says something else.

There were a lot ( 30? ) of Waterford Twp residents in attendance, and a lot of interest in this change.

Maybe that concern, was all misplaced … but I remain questioning of the need for this change .. I wouldn’t be totally surprised if this ‘story’ continues…

]]> By: kiffi summa http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/post/7257/comment-page-1/#comment-78538 kiffi summa Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:36:40 +0000 http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/?p=7257#comment-78538 <p>Betsey is, of course, completely correct that there is no plan to build housing at this time........ However, why did the staff who negotiated the annexation agreement take it upon themselves to feel that that option had to be in the agreement NOW, saying that THEY didn't feel the 'city's' "hands should be tied". Everyone knows a development agreement can be changed with the decision of both parties, if that was an issue to be re-visited in the future.</p> <p>I look at this as the staff making what should have been , and actually was... by resolution last June, a City Council policy decision.</p> <p>I don't understand why this council went along with this 20% housing inclusion; half of them being new is no excuse. There was no big discussion of the issue, no permission sought and received; I believe it was just brought to the council as a staff recommendation at a work session, which they then accepted without exploration of the previous council and the Planning Commission's policy decisions. </p> <p>As I said, Betsey is completely correct on the fact; the backstory and rationale need more explanation........ done deal or not.</p> <p>What is the point of big idealistic Plans, Comprehensive or other, if they are not honored?</p> Betsey is, of course, completely correct that there is no plan to build housing at this time…….. However, why did the staff who negotiated the annexation agreement take it upon themselves to feel that that option had to be in the agreement NOW, saying that THEY didn’t feel the ‘city’s’ “hands should be tied”. Everyone knows a development agreement can be changed with the decision of both parties, if that was an issue to be re-visited in the future.

I look at this as the staff making what should have been , and actually was… by resolution last June, a City Council policy decision.

I don’t understand why this council went along with this 20% housing inclusion; half of them being new is no excuse. There was no big discussion of the issue, no permission sought and received; I believe it was just brought to the council as a staff recommendation at a work session, which they then accepted without exploration of the previous council and the Planning Commission’s policy decisions.

As I said, Betsey is completely correct on the fact; the backstory and rationale need more explanation…….. done deal or not.

What is the point of big idealistic Plans, Comprehensive or other, if they are not honored?

]]> By: Betsey Buckheit http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/post/7257/comment-page-1/#comment-78517 Betsey Buckheit Fri, 13 Mar 2009 01:00:45 +0000 http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/?p=7257#comment-78517 <p>Norman, you're right that the annexed land is intended for industrial development. Creating a master plan for the new business park will be a major part of the EDA's work along with Council members and relevant boards and commissions, public, etc. </p> <p>The infamous 20% residential is by no means guaranteed or even on the table at this time. The rationale is that it would be unwise to contractually eliminate the possibility of residential or retail uses. I'm somewhat dubious about this rationale as I am about most aspects of the NW annexation, but there are no plans to build housing.</p> Norman, you’re right that the annexed land is intended for industrial development. Creating a master plan for the new business park will be a major part of the EDA’s work along with Council members and relevant boards and commissions, public, etc.

The infamous 20% residential is by no means guaranteed or even on the table at this time. The rationale is that it would be unwise to contractually eliminate the possibility of residential or retail uses. I’m somewhat dubious about this rationale as I am about most aspects of the NW annexation, but there are no plans to build housing.

]]> By: norman butler http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/post/7257/comment-page-1/#comment-78503 norman butler Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:52:31 +0000 http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/?p=7257#comment-78503 <p>I was under the impression (misunderstanding?) that the annexed land was to be an industrial park. Now I hear that 20% of the land has been dedicated to housing and retail. Any explanation/clarification?</p> I was under the impression (misunderstanding?) that the annexed land was to be an industrial park. Now I hear that 20% of the land has been dedicated to housing and retail. Any explanation/clarification?

]]> By: kiffi summa http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/post/7257/comment-page-1/#comment-78461 kiffi summa Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:30:26 +0000 http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/?p=7257#comment-78461 <p>Well, what happens now? With Greg Langer beating out the incumbent in Greenvale, actually, I think two of the incumbents being unseated.........what is the status of the annexation agreement? Can the new Greenvale supervisors protest to the State Office of Boundaries before the annexation agreement is ratified? What are the possibilities?</p> Well, what happens now? With Greg Langer beating out the incumbent in Greenvale, actually, I think two of the incumbents being unseated………what is the status of the annexation agreement?
Can the new Greenvale supervisors protest to the State Office of Boundaries before the annexation agreement is ratified?
What are the possibilities?

]]>