HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT, TOO?

SCENE: Eureka Planning Commission holds a meeting earlier in the summer and is discussing the Comprehensive Plan update.

A few citizens ask to speak at the meeting and are heard. They "advise" the Planning Commission that it (the PC) could be "instrumental" (as in being out front trailblazing) in implementing Commercial/Industrial (C/I) use in the Township. They implied the PC could steer things in the "right" direction. Seems all the Commission needs to do is to take the bull by the horns and just include this use in the current Comprehensive Plan update and progress shall be made.

Never mind that the Commission was simply directed by the Board to "update" the current Plan. It was even told by one then-Supervisor, Kenny Miller, "It shouldn't take you long; there aren't any major changes."

One of the citizens who came before the PC didn't seem to even realize (based on his facial expression), until the Chair so informed him, that the Comp Plan can be updated at any time and even repeatedly if desired- NOT just every ten years! This is the same person who publicly stated  AS A PLANNING COMMISSIONER that Eureka would be better off with no ordinances at all! Hello!? How can one be a Planning Commissioner and do one's job under our Ordinances which include the description of the role and duties of the Commission, if one is in direct opposition to even having local laws? I do not know why one believing so would even apply to be on the Commission.

As Chair of the Commission I told the citizens that this "direction" of theirs might wash if we wanted to be a ROGUE Commission, but we were actually following the Town Board's direction. Thank you very much.


Okay, so first the PC is castigated for following the Board's direction. Hold that thought.



NOW FAST FORWARD TO AUGUST 1ST MEETING OF THE COMMISSION:
(I, as Chair, was not present being on a trip to Canada, so Vice Chair Fritz Frana chaired the meeting.)


Chair Budenski, as related in an earlier post, in July instigated a direction to the Commission to hold a public "hearing" on "public opinion" regarding making four specific properties C/I. (See earlier post.) There was no detail at all as to what the properties might be used for exactly or anything else, such as performance standards. None.



Discussing -not scheduling- this "hearing" was on the PC agenda in August. The opinion was expressed that scheduling it may not be appropriate at that time under the circumstances.

Evidently, this opinion met with some intense pushback from some members of the public in attendance who lectured (my word) Frana to schedule the hearing "or it will be done for you!" These members included those individuals speaking at the earlier meeting first referenced.

Frana did not yield to this pressure.

This sort of "hearing" on "public opinion" on an ill-defined idea has never been held before that I am aware of!

Further, the proposal is out of sync with state statute and the Comprehensive Plan and the results of the C/I study results approved by the Board (including Budenski) at the time. Hey, not an issue: just go ahead and do it because we said so. I have to say that I would have supported Commissioner Frana on this matter.

Here's the rub:

Ordinance 2 Ch. 3
Chapter 3: Planning Commission
Section 1 – PURPOSE
 This Ordinance is enacted for the following purposes:
A. To encourage sound and harmonious growth of the community and its environs and efficiency and economy in the provision of facilities and services, to ensure maximum returns for expenditure of public funds, and to avoid errors and waste resulting from unplanned and uncoordinated development. (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007) 
 B. To plan for the physical development, to recommend a zoning plan for the Township of Eureka and provide rules for the operation thereof.
 C. To prepare and maintain in current form a comprehensive plan with related studies, statement of policies, regulations and ordinances to guide the development of the Township of Eureka. 
D. To establish a Planning Commission under the authority granted by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 462.354.

                                   AND

Section 6 - FUNCTIONS, POWERS AND DUTIES
The functions, powers and duties of the Commission shall be, in general:
A. To acquire and maintain in current form such basic information and background data as is necessary to an understanding of past trends, present conditions, and forces at work to cause changes in these conditions.
 B. To prepare and keep a current comprehensive general plan for meeting present requirements, and such future needs as may be foreseen.
 C. To establish principles and policies for guiding action affecting development in the Township and its environs.
 D. To prepare and recommend to the Town Board ordinances, regulations, and other proposals promoting orderly development along lines indicated as desirable by the Comprehensive Plan. 
 E. To determine whether specific proposed development conforms to the principles and requirements for the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinances. Ordinance 2 Ch. 3
F. To keep the Town Board and the general public informed and advised as to all planning and development matters.
G. To conduct such public hearings, as may be required to gather information necessary for the drafting, establishment, and maintenance of a Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances and regulations relating to it, and to establish public committees for the purpose of collecting and supplying information necessary for the Plan, or for the purpose of promoting the accomplishment of the Plan in whole or in part.
H. To perform other duties which may be lawfully assigned to it, or which may have bearing on the preparation or accomplishment of the Plan. In connection with its duties, and within the limit of its funds, the Commission may make, cause to be made, or obtain maps, aerial photographs.
(Emphases mine.)



As I presented to the Board during the Public Comment period at their August meeting, the Comprehensive Plan would have to be updated first to move forward with C/I zoning. The Comprehensive Plan calls for a thorough study of this use. To date, this has not been completed. Things such as a fiscal impact study, as called for, just MIGHT be important!?! The Township CANNOT implement ordinances that are in conflict with its Comprehensive Plan. This is a state statute matter. So then, is the Planning Commission supposed to follow such direction blindly, or are we supposed to help the Board understand the legal as well as the planning issues involved here?

NOTE, as I pointed out to Budenski in July, the Board can resume and could always resume the study at any time. Preferably when economic conditions improve as was recommended from the market study, of which I for one do not see any real evidence. The Board could then, if it thought it appropriate, ultimately call for an update of the Comprehensive Plan along those lines.



Then there is the matter of using up what could be argued as prime C/I land for the future with uses that will not go away and that will not be of any significant benefit to the Township. Things such as outdoor or even enclosed storage, truck depots, etc. do not bring in significant taxes. The one commercial/industrial use that is there (by mishap in my opinion) is already paying C/I taxes, so no net benefit there, either.

Do you know that we currently have residences in the Township that pay more taxes than some of the existing (truly grandfathered) commercial uses do? Some of these uses are similar to those low-tax-benefit uses mentioned above.



Now, also during the Public Comment time at the August Board meeting, some of the same individuals that were at the PC meetings referenced above came forward and complained about the PC's hesitation about going ahead with holding such a (meaningless-my opinion) "public hearing." The PC Vice Chair was personally denigrated for doing what he thought, with GOOD reason, to be the right thing. Aspersions were cast on the Commission as being a poor reflection on Eureka. Urgency for C/I use was expressed - again, contrary to the study results.
None of the four specific property owners were present, interestingly. Nor have they come in to any meetings recently.

Okay, so now the Planning Commission was being castigated for not immediately following the Board's direction to hold a hearing on "public opinion" for four properties and their use- even when it knows that that direction is ill-founded.

AFTER the July Board meeting, some Ordinance language was submitted to the Town Clerk for the hearing by Chair Brian Budenski. Problem there is, the Board had never seen this language, never discussed it, never agreed to send it forward for a hearing. This was not coming from the Board at all! So now the PC is expected to include this language for the hearing based on one Supervisor's desire?


This ordinance language talks about a C/I "District," but never says where that might BE! Presumably, then, it could be anywhere in the Township???

I always thought that there were five members on the Town Board. We used to say it was good to get five different viewpoints on issues. Now, ONE member evidently wants the PC to move ahead to hold a public hearing on ordinance language to create a C/I district. AGAIN, the trouble is, that CANNOT be done until the Comprehensive Plan would be updated, preferably following further study. (That pesky state statute again)


POINT: How would it make any sense to hold a public hearing on an ordinance that CANNOT EVEN BE ADOPTED at this time? Is THAT a wise use of your taxpayer dollars?

                        WE'RE STILL NOT DONE! 

Before the PC September meeting, lo and behold, a map highlighting the four properties shows up plus some language supposedly from 1966 that holds no import today! This submission was attached to the ordinance language that came earlier from Supervisor Budenski and was in our packets. Commissioner Frana, Supervisor and Liaison Behrendt, and I all commented that we had never seen these items before. None of the Commission had. So again, never has the Board seen this, discussed it, or agreed to send this forward!

Supervisor Behrendt made the point at the September PC meeting, as he also had at the August Board meeting (at which Budenski didn't show), that the Commission does NOT have before it any language from the Board on this subject. He stated that, as far as he is concerned, this came from an individual, not from the Board. Further, in August, the Board tabled the idea of holding a hearing on "public opinion" at least until further clarification might be made.

                  CARE FOR A PIECE?