Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-17-02 CCMSpeech to the Lake Elmo City Council, 9/17/02 Re: Response to Met Council rejection of LE Comp Plan Very briefly, I urge you to fight the Met Council with everything we have. I urge you to hire the best zoning lawyer you can find. I urge you to mount an educational: campaign aimed at informing Lake Elmo's residents about the long term consequences of our losing the fight. I urge yqt to mount a public relations campaign aimed.at publicizing Lake Elmo's desim for" self-determination and exposing the Met Council's obvious favoringof developers. I urge you to mount a lobbying cam 4i n p g Y Y� g pa g with the State Legislature aimed at exposing this abuse of power by the Met Council and raising the legitimate question as to whether this abuse is what the Legislature had in mind when it established this non -representative board. I urge you to contact the newly elected governor, whoever that may be, and lobby to get Met Council members appointed who are sympathetic to our interests, rather than to developers. Finally, I urge you to have a non -binding, advisory referendum in November's election, asking the Lake Elmo residents whether or not they want you to raise our taxes for a limited time in order to pay for this fight..ObAviously, this is similar to:I}.}r-" ' situation in 1988 when we voted to raise out tal es to fund the fight againstal " landfill in the Regional Park Reserve, which referendum passed by a 4:1 majority, you may recall. There is an argument to be made for trying to compromise with the Met Council, such as agreeing to extend the MUSA line along I-94 in exchange for revising the Metropolitan Development Framework to show no MUSA extension anywhere else in the City. The problem with such a compromise is that such a Framework revision may not last long. Once the sewer is in along I-94, it will never be removed. But as long as we have unsewered land in the City, the Met Council can always plan to extend the MUSA later. Just as future City Councils are not bound by decisions made by you today, future Met Councils are not bound by decisions made by the current board. Thus, on balance, I would rather fight to have it decided by the courts now whether or not Lake Elmo has the right to self-determination in this matter. Finally, some may claim I am just trying to hang onto the past; that we should just bow to the inevitable and accept our future as having sewer over large parts of our City. At the risk of being overly dramatic, I respond by asking about the current war on terrorism. Are we as a nation just hanging onto the past in fighting terrorists? Why not bow to the inevitable and accept our future as being no better than the current mess in Israel and the West Bank? The answer is that our nation's freedom and a future free from the tyranny of terrorism are worth fighting for.In the same way, our City's freedom of self-determination and a future free from the tyranny.of the Metro Council are worth fighting for. It is possible that future residents and City Councils may decide to extend the MUSA line into large areas of our City, although I most earnestly hope not. But at least it will be our decision. Now is not the time for the Council to be timid and accommodating. This is the time for the City Council, our elected representatives, to lead the way. This is the time for you to show that Lake Elmo's future is up to Lake Elmo, not up to the Metro Council. If you lead, I am confident the great majority of Lake Elmo residents will follow. Thank you for listening and thank you for your leadership. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 Mayor Hunt called the workshop to order at 5:00 p.m. at the Lake Elmo City Hall. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss annexation of 49 acres to Oak Park Heights. PRESENT: Lake Elmo City Council: Mayor Hunt, Council members Chuck Siedow, Steve DeLapp, and Rose Armstrong. Oak Park Heights Council. Mayor David Beaudet, Council members Mary McComber, Mark Swenson, Jack Doerr. Mayor Hunt explained the two Councils were in attendance to consider a joint request to detach from Lake Elmo and annex into Oak Park Heights about 49 acres of land. This request for annexation by landowners, Bernie and Louella Nass, Tom Bidon and Robert Buberl, came after the Lake Elmo Council denied the property owners request to approve commercial development of the 49 acres. The land parcel is located adjacent to and south of Highway 36, near the Kern Center. Mayor Hunt stated Lake Elmo wants to be your neighbor, and he knew OPH wanted to be our good neighbors. He noted that he and three Lake Elmo Council members, present, all oppose annexation. Hunt assured OPH that absent Council member Dunn would oppose annexation as well. The Council felt there is a tremendous benefit for the land to stay in Lake Elmo because the Council feels the area is very environmentally sensitive. The land needs to be developed carefully to keep from changing water drainage patterns. Lake Elmo is concerned with what could happen to the adjacent neighbors. OPH Council Member McComber said she knew there were battles before and she didn't want to go there. If there is not an agreement, she would not be in favor of annexation. OPH Council Member Mark Swenson stated every time you bring that "A" word up, somebody's getting offended, somebody's getting hurt, somebody's losing something. Somebody's not gaining enough. He suggested that officials from both cities first decide if this is something they even want. For himself, he would not support anything coming into Oak Park Heights unless Lake Elmo's entire Council supports it and all the landowners support it. Council member DeLapp criticized the landowners annexation request, which he hoped would not create a situation where we have to give in order to allow somebody to make more money than anybody else in Lake Elmo is going to make just because they happen to have contiguous property with another city. Council member Armstrong indicated the proposed annexation was beyond the scope of what Lake Elmo really should be doing, this annexation back and forth so people get a better deal. Council member Siedow said he opposed annexation, but he was sympathetic with the landowners and hopes the City will work with them further toward a compromise. He could understand where the people are on our borders wanting more development rights for their property because of the financial benefits. Siedow said he would like to see the City lighten up the zoning ordinances to get our borders developed at a high density rate than what we normally allow. OPH Council member Jack Doerr agreed that the annexation proposal should be rejected if not supported unanimously. He wouldn't agree to anything that we're going to have to go into court and fight for. He would not support a joint powers agreement in which OPH would extend sewer or water service into a revised development in Lake Elmo. Mayor Hunt responded he thought there is certainly some potential future cooperation on this parcel, but a joint powers agreement can go south quickly if e officials that author them are unseated in ensuring election.,,,,,,, Mayor Hunt applauded the City of Oak Park Heights for faking tim4• come down to talk to Lake Elmo and listen and explain where they are coming from. Adjourn workshop a 5:30 p.m.