09-01-92 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The primary justification for extension of the MUSA to the proposed area has from the beginning been the possibility of having a large, valuable office building built on the site. The fact that the site would be owned and controlled by one, financially stable landowner has been part of the attractiveness of the whole proposal. It has been rumored in the press that this potential developer is a "large insurance firm". However, so far this potential developer has remained a "phantom developer" to this Council as a body. We as a Council, myself included, have been willing to go along with this "phantom" for quite a while. However, now it is time for this Council, acting as a body, not just one individual, to make decisions which will have long lasting and very significant effects on this City. Now it is time for this Council to contemplate paying up front at least part of the costs of providing the utilities to this land, in the expectation that future taxes from the phantom development will more than pay the City back. I contend that it is plain wrong for this Council to be making these decisions on the basis of a "phantom" These decisions should be made only when we have a developer's agreement which assures us that the City of Lake Elmo and its general taxpayers will not have to finance those utility costs indefinitely. We all know that the costs to provide water and sewer to the proposed MUSA area will be very large. Perhaps Oakdale will help pay for them because they could service their own property as well, but perhaps not. Perhaps the phantom developer will pay all the costs up front without blinking, but perhaps not. Perhaps the phantom developer will pay the costs with a program of deferred reimbursement as other, intervening properties hook up, but perhaps not. Such details of providing utilities to this area should be worked out before we proceed. It is good planning. It is good stewardship of our taxpayers' money. What might happen if we proceed with extending the MUSA and extending services to this area, but we do not get this phantom development or it is not as valuable or big as we have heard? The landowner will have had his land rezoned for commercial use and utilities will have been provided. What uses might appear? Will we get another large, valuable proposal? Or will we get another strip mall? The metro area does not need another mall or any more sewered, general office space, with vacancy rates already running in the 20% range. No, either the "phantom development" becomes a REAL development, or there should be no MUSA extension. I am not one to simply sit back and "just say no". I try to make constructive suggestions as to how to proceed. I am about to make one of those suggestions now. But before I do, I will state that my mind is very firm as to what has to be done before I will vote favorably on this MUSA extension and Comprehensive Plan amendment. My position has been stated up front, publicly, and I emphasize concisely. If other Council members feel the need to launch into lengthy discourses on this subject, I cannot stop them, but it will only serve to prolong our meeting unnecessarily. I move that consideration of this Comprehensive Plan amendment be postponed until there exists a develo ers'�° s'f � t, signed by the landowner, and acceptable to this City Council, which commits P the landowner to building a structure of a certain value within the proposed MUSA area by a certain date to be determined, and which specifies how the utilities to the area, especially sewer and water, will be financed. Furthermore, the City staff is directed to transmit this decision to the landowner with the request for prompt action in arranging a meeting between the proposed developer and this City Councilk .,h!' (�j- _ "" , . ' I i� CIA 1. I L,) b � s,L- n� car