HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-05-09 Planning Commission Ltr to Met Council - DRAFT enc.. * !o
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) mandated 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, is more than 150 pages long and it remains unacceptable to the Met Council.
What follows are some of the thoughts, ideas and frustrations that we on the Planning Commission
have had during this process. First, we all understand that every city, regardless of size, should have
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. This approach does not seem to
be a focus of the Met Council's once in ten-year process. Indeed, the present process seems to us
like a test to see if we are able to check all the boxes that the Met Council believes are important for
our city.
The above view is confirmed not only by the Met Council's "preliminary review" but by Ms. Torres'
March 27, 2019, letter to the city's consulting planner, Scott Richards. Both letters are filled not with,
"how can we work with you to develop a better Plan for your city?" but with statements about what
the city "needs" to do and, for example, how "the Plan will be found inconsistent with the Council's
housing policy." There does not appear to be any understanding of our city or its needs but merely
an effort to fit us into the "Council's . . . policy"
Second, and related to the above, the process does not appear to be one in which the citizens of Oak
Park Heights are planning for their future and the future of their city but as an effort by the Met
Council to force the City to fit itself into the Met Council's plan.
Third, 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.
Fourth, does anyone really believe that a city of under 5,000 residents and which is fundamentally at
full "built-out" needs a plan that is over 150 pages long? At best, such a document is written for
planners to be read by planners to impress planners. It surely is not a document that can become
part of the fabric of what happens or should happen as our city moves into the next generation.
I9 /Ic(
Metropolitan Council
May , 2019
Page 2
Fifth, cost. 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?
Sixth, it seems to those of us on the Planning Commission that we need partners in planning and not
overseers of that planning. From our perspective the Met Council has not been a partner but an
overseer, and a dogmatic one at that, in our city's planning process. Indeed, after spending more
than a year involved in this process, many of us are questioning why it is that a local Planning
Commission, such as ours, even exists. If we must do all as the Met Council mandates in the way it
mandates there really seems to be 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 from 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 cities that are facing continued rapid
growth. For example, Lake Elmo and Hugo face far more complicated growth issues than do we. 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 and could be done 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.
Most of us presently on our city's Planning Commission will not be around for our next Plan but we
do hope the Met Council takes steps to become a partner in developing that Plan.
Thank you for your consideration in this.
Sincerely,
Timothy Freeman,
Chair of Planning Commission, Oak Park Heights