Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-09-24 CC Packet Enclosure Oak P:rk Heights Request for Council Action Meeting Date September 24th,2019 Time Required: 5 Minutes Agenda Item Title: Consider Communication to the MET COUNCIL-Related to the City's J__)nlprehensive Plan Process&Re.uirements Agenda Placement New Business Originating DepartmenttRequestor• F., 4 ity Administrator Requester's Signature Action Requested Discussion,13, sible Action Backgr-ouncVJustification(PA-,./..e indicate if any previous action has been taken or if other public bodies have advised): r The City Planning Commission has developed the attached letter to be sent to the Metropolitan Council with the purpose of the conveying their concerns regarding the review costs and its processes toward the development of the required 2018 Comprehensive Pim In short,the Planning Commission is expressing concerns with cost,responses from MET COUNCIL staff and what the expected role of the document should be. It also outlines possible changes to the comprehensive planning process in the seven-county metro area based on type or size of community. As a communication of this type should come from or at least have approval from the City Council,they have sent this document forward for review. For what it is worth,City Staff does concur with the language and hopefully will give the MET COUNCIL some future guidance as to how to engage communities in 2028 and that not all cities can be treated the same. Page 99 of 116 ss City of Oak Park Heights Page 1 of7 14168 Oak Paris Blvd. N•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082•Phone(651)439-4439•Fax(651)439-0574 September 17,2019 Meredith Vadis Regional Administrator METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 390 Roberts Street N. St.Paul, MN 55101 Re: Comprehensive Plan for the City of Oak Park Heights Dear Metropolitan Council: For more than a year our city's staff,consultants to the city,the City Council and the Planning Commission have been working on the Comprehensive Plan(Plan)as 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 and is more than 150 pages long,yet it has NOT yet been accepted by the MET COUNCIL What follows are some suggestions for addressing the 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 robust 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. However, this approach seems to have a reduced focus in the MET COUNCIL's current process. The current process could be improved by reducing the emphasis on technical requirements and instead focusing more time and resources on enhancing the community's engagement in the planning process. To date, at the request of MET COUNCIL staff,the City of Oak Park Heights has made numerous revisions to the Plans submitted, requiring separate meetings and additional costs in contracted staff time. All of these requested changes from the MET COUNCIL to date essentially concerned minor technical requirements that not only had little material impact on the implementation of the plan at a local or regional level. But,also many of the changes concerned issues that had little-to-no relevance or practicality 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 would allow the citizens of Oak Park Heights to more actively participate in planning for their future and the future of the City. Second,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 suggests that 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 to advance the MET COUNCIL'S plan that includes too many broad,sweeping requirements for the more than 400 highly diverse municipalities in the:--.yen-county region. Such a Page 100 of 116 document is surely not something that can become part of the fabric of what happens or should happen as our City moves into the next generation. Third, 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? Lastly, it seems to those of us on the Planning Commission that what we need from the MET COUNCIL is more of a partner in planning and less of a dogmatic overseer of that planning.Indeed,after spending more than a year involved in this process, it seems fair to question why it is that a local Planning Commission,such as ours, is involved in the comprehensive planning process.If 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 from 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 rrwre 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 processes. Second,the MET COUNCIL should have someone from the MET COUNCIL,perhaps the area representative,be the point person for each 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 have terms that will expire prior to our city's next Plan,but we do hope the MET COUNCIL takes steps to become more of a partner in developing that plan. Thank you for your consideration in this. Sincerely, Timothy Freeman, Chair of Planning Commission,Oak Park Heights Cc: Weekly Notes Francisco Gonzalez,Metropolitan Council Member,District 12 francisco.gonzalez@metc.state.mn.us Conin Wendell,Sector Staff Liaison Corrin.Wendell@metc.state.mn.us Page 101 of 116 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK c _ (r,. r-2 „. � ,('fir s Page 102 of 116