The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-05-09 Planning Commission Meeting - Materials Distributed at Meeting CliTTVINLI2a)UMW. VJ h.bt•t‘l 5414541 Cl*k's2 May,2019 Metropolitan Council 390 Robert Street North St.Paul,MN 55101-1805 Re: Comprehensive Plan for the City of Oak Park Heights Dear Metropolitan Council: For the past year-plus,our city's staff,consultants to the city,the City Council and the Planning Commission have all been working on the Comprehensive Plan(Plan)i-smoat-eo-ie, by the Metropolitan Council(Met Council).To date the Plan for our city of fewer than 5,000 has cost the taxpayers more than$150,000:,nd-is more than 150 pages long,y and it remains unacceptable to the Commented[DW1]: would recommend removing the Met Council. taxpayer reference,as the Met Council does have a grant program for offsetting this cost.At present,OPH isn't eligible,but Bayport and Stillwater are.We should investigate. What follows are some of the thoughts,ideas andsuggestions for addressing th frustrations that we on the Planning Commission have had during the process. First,we all understand that every city,regardless of size,should have a :,bus_:planning process to assure that the community continues to be a vibrant and attractive place not only for its citizens and their families but also for businesses and visitors. i,owever,tThis approach does not seem to be a focus efseems to her._ a reduced focus in the Met Council's once in ten ycarcurrent process.Indeed,the . -• .. . - -. ' The process could be improved by reducing the emphasis on technical requirements and instead focusing more time and resources on enhancing community engagement in the planning process. 27,2019 letter to the city's consulting planner,Scott Richards.Both letters arc filled now with,"how can "needs"to do and,for example,how"the Plan will be found inconsistent with the Council's housing fit us into the"Council's...policy."To date,at the request of Met Council staff,the City of Oak Park Heights has made XX revisions to the Plan submitted this past fall,requiring X'separate meetings and Commented[DW2]:I think it'sthree,but please verify. $IX,XXXlin contracted staff time.All of the requested changes concerned technical requirements that nos Commented[DW3]:Could Scott or Erie add this up,even if Its only had little material impact on the implementation of the plan at a local or regional level;many of the a ballpark estimate? changes concerned issues that had little-to-no relevance for a smaller,fully built-out city such as ours. This represents time and resources that could be better used on community engagement efforts that allow •el, -•_ - - -_ - .'e , •• ' = • e e- •, -e--- e' :.• - •- •the citizens of Oak Commented(I)W4]:I merged points 1 and 2 as they're so Park Heights are to more actively participate in planning for their future and the future of the city but as related. an effort by the Met Council to force the City to fit itself into the Met Council's plan., Th+rdSecond,the Met Council reviewers seem to have no desire or need to give a rationale for why it is they wish to have the information for which they ask;all they demand is merely put under a headnote of"REQUIRED INFORMATION"and we are told if we don't provide what they wish in the form they wish to have it the"Plan will be inconsistent with the Council's"plan.This further suggesi :iat the focus of the Met Council's current regional planning process has become less about helping communities plan for their future within both a local and regional context, and is instead a largely technical and bureaucratic exercise that includes too many broad,sweeping requirements for the more than 400 highly diverse municipalities in the seven-county region. SAt best,such a document is written-for planners to be read by plans to impress planners.It surely is not a-cloeurnentsomething that can he become part of the fabric of what happens or should happen as our city moves into the next generation. D IFourth;-does anyone really believe that a city of under 5,000 residents and which is fundamentally fully r Commented[DWS]:Two related points merged again. "built-out"needs a plan that is over 150 pages long? • - >_- -- -=---= .- ---- Metropolitan Council May,2019 Page 2 i fthThira,pcost.Putting together the required plan with all its related maps,documentation and narratives is very expensive.As alluded to above,our city contracts for many of the required services and the cost can be in excess of$150,000.Does this process really provide$150,000 in benefits for the city?Is it worth$1,000 a page or more than$30 for each resident of our city?Would these financial resources not be put to better use,such as more extensive community engagement or more small area planning? SixthFourth,it seems to those of us on the Planning Commission that -; edwhat we need from the Met Council is more of partnerin planning and less of a dogmatic t et-overseers of that planning. that,in our city's planning process.Indeed,after spending more than a year involved in this process, many of us areit seems fair to questioning why it is that a local Planning Commission,such as ourselves, even exist5is involved in the comprehensive planning process.If we must do all as the Met Council • • • •• - • .. .- • .• • - ---- • -the focus of this process is ensuring technical requirements are met,then there is little value in having local representatives volunteer their time and insights to work on making our community better in the future. Our Planning Commission believes there are two relatively easy steps the Met Council could take to shift its relationship form a dogmatic overseer to partner with cities such as ours.First,why not recognize that cities under a certain population and/or limited capacity for growth do not need to address complex growth issues in the same way and format as much larger cities and/or cities that are facing continued rapid growth_,For example,Lake Elmo and Hugo face far more complicated growth issues than do we.What makes sense to include in a comprehensive plan for Minneapolis or Saint Paul does not always make sense for a city like Oak Park Heights.The type of tiered system we are suggesting would be more useful for us and,we suspect,for the Met Council.It would also be more cost effective-, allowing limited resources to be put to better use in our planning processesnd could be'do a in fewer than 50 pages. Second,the Met Council should have someone from the Met Council,perhaps the area representative, be the point person for that city's Plan.That person should be responsible to meet with the city's Planning Commission at least once a year to get a feel for what is happening in the city.During comprehensive planning years those meetings should become more frequent.This would enable greater dialogue,understanding,and trust between individual local communities and the Met Council. Most of us presently on our city's Planning Commission will not be-around-fefhavelterms that will expire ---Commented(Me ionly chary*thlsbecauseat ffrst it prior to our next Plan,but we do hope the Met Council takes steps to become more of a partner inroundadNkavawould hawall woad away"'0 developing that plan. Thank you for your consideration in this. Sincerely, Timothy Freeman, Chair of Planning Commission,Oak Park Heights