WHY LET THE FACTS GET IN YOUR WAY?????

That's what I said to someone after the last Commercial/Industrial (C/I) "work group" meeting on December 17th.

At the "work group" meeting the preceding Monday, the 10th, the members of the group were asking each other if they could remember what questions had been asked at the Open House. I kid you not. Since the Open House was NOT recorded and evidently no one was taking notes, they were reliant only on their collective recall.

They did come up with some of the questions. For example, they remembered that people wanted to know how this all got started. Also they remembered they heard some of what they took as objections to the make-up of their group. Taken as in opposed to them in particular. These comments they pretty much dismissed as beside the point, in my opinion. (See earlier blog about this group's make-up.)

They remembered that questions had been asked about annexation and incorporation, but responded as they had at the Open House that "That's up to the Board. That's not our task." I guess "we" fail to see the connection or interplay between the issues of C/I and those topics.

They remembered that it was raised that there are entities within the Township now that are commercial and are not being monitored to the satisfaction of the questioner. Again, that has nothing to do with trying to establish more such uses. "That's up to the Board. It is not our task."


What they did not seem to recall were the questions asking them to relate to those in attendance what the Met Council representatives have already told the Township about what would be involved in even asking for consideration that Eureka be allowed to connect to sewer and water. When the question was asked about what housing density might be required to be able to hook-up, they declared that "now you're getting too detailed."  I asked why they were not answering this question when the Township has already been informed of this fact.
Guess that's too detailed, too. No answer was given.


A major point was raised at the Open House about enforcement of Ordinances and how well that might go with these new uses, when the Township seems to struggle with enforcement with only ag zoning. No real answer there either.

One individual made the statement that the "work group" had said they were holding the Open House "to hear from the public." He then asked them to indicate what they were taking away from what they had heard by this point of the meeting. Big silence followed at first. Not sure they knew how to characterize THAT! Or wanted to...



So we have a very faulty recall of some of the most important points made. Did we waste our time?
Novacek said he was "shocked" that their "suggestion box" wasn't stuffed full from that night.

As I later raised to the Board, "If they haven't answered questions 1, 2, and 3, why would an individual ask questions 4, 5, and 6?" There were a lot of questions and very little information given out.

OH! One important thing that Butch Hansen said was that he either has or can get a letter from the Met Council stating that they are going to let Eureka connect to sewer and water. Since making that statement, he has been asked about this a few times in public thus far and all he has said that I remember is that he can get that letter. NO LETTER has surfaced yet. If he has it, why not bring it forward?


Novacek also made the statement that the Township had spent "$30,000" on the last Comprehensive Plan update. When no one corrected that, I said I had to interrupt to correct that "fact." The Township spent $18,000. Divide that by the ten years, and that is hardly excessive to obtain professional help!

Novacek also commented that he "had heard" that the Comp Plan update "was rejected" and had to be resubmitted. He also has heard that set straight a number of times already. It was not rejected, simply more information was asked for. At least Ceminsky corrected Novacek on that one. I added that this was all part of the usual, normal process. Another fact that seems to escape.

Okay, so all that happened at earlier meetings. At this December 17 meeting they had received approval from the Board to invite a planner from TKDA to this meeting so that a proposal with associated costs could be submitted.
(The planner stated, "So, you are a committee..." They responded, "No! We are a 'work group'!" Can someone tell me the difference?)

There were a number of  "misrepresentations" of what has come before made during this meeting:

1. That the 2011 C/I Task Force had looked only at office building uses.

FACT: As a member of that Task Force, I corrected that as politely as I could. ("I'm sorry, Butch, but that's not quite accurate..." and went on to say what had actually been done.)

2. That MAC didn't want to be annexed to Lakeville, it is that we "refused" to give them sewer and water.

FACT: What MAC wanted and has said repeatedly is their interest was to have city services in compliance with their own airport policies. That's what they cared about.

3. That the Menasha building "had nothing to do with sewer and water." That the owners of the property had asked Eureka to build "a warehouse," but were told Eureka did not allow C/I.

FACT: The fact that Lakeville was the only municipality that could give them sewer and water was PIVOTAL to their asking for annexation. This continues to be misrepresented in the face of the facts of what actually happened. Talk to Lakeville. As I have stated before, if the 98 acres (not 87 as was pronounced by a "work group" member; "small" fact but can't get even that right) had remained in Eureka Township, it would still be a cornfield.

What developer is going to sink very significant money into such a structure and have it be serviced by "an advanced" septic system? And what about water?

4. That we want to develop the northern corridor (established/spoken of now by the group as the area they think is best) so we can have the C/I that's "inevitably coming," not Lakeville. "It's coming, so let's get in front of it and keep it for ourselves."

FACT: That putting C/I property along such a border only encourages annexation has been raised so many times, but it is always ignored. It was clear to me that this group may not even yet have read the 2011 Task Force Report. This very point was concluded in that report.

When the planner asked to see the report, Mark Ceminsky said, "I suppose we could find a copy of it around here somewhere," or words close to that. Why don't they have those copies with them at their meetings? HAVE they read the report or haven't they?

Why not benefit from the work that was done before by citizens with professional assistance from Township Planner, TKDA? When Phase I of the 2011 study was completed and the rest was put on hold because of the findings of Phase I, it was determined that if/when the economy improved significantly, it could be picked up again and Phase II would come into play. So why not update the market study that was accomplished with brokers in the C/I real estate field to get an informed opinion of where things really stand right now? How much has that status changed?

Why not do a cost/benefit analysis or fiscal impact study to have some real facts about what this will cost the Township and what is a realistic estimate of what it will bring in? There was also a significant amount of engineering work to be done to lay out the future sewer plan for a minimum of 1,000 acres of various uses, including high density housing. This had to be invested in before the Met Council would consider a request for hook-up to sewer and water. They don't tell you ahead of time that they are going to approve it. They can still say "no, try again for 2040" which is the time at which they have told us they see Eureka getting city services.

To learn more about the 2011 C/I Task Force Final Report and other matters, go to this Township website link.

5. This move to C/I uses and areas has been characterized as a "done deal" as far as the Board is concerned.

QUESTION OF FACT: Do they mean to represent that the public has no (worthy) input about what happens in their community? Are they saying the Board isn't open to public opinion, changes, or recommendation? These are two of your Supervisors speaking...

6. When they asked the (in my opinion naive) question of why would any business want to be annexed to Lakeville when it could stay in Eureka, the planner responded in a couple of ways.

PLANNER'S TAKE: She said that it might be technically possible to service some C/I uses by "advanced" septic systems, but that she wasn't sure that "it would be worth it." Judging from the response from the "work group," I think they missed her point that the business might not find that worth it and would still prefer sewer and water.

She stated that in her experience with the Met Council, she is "not so sure" they would accept a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Eureka allowing these uses. She will look into it further by speaking to the Met Council.

7. I thought the planner was at least mildly surprised when Hansen said at this meeting that the Met Council has told him the Township can hook up to the MUSA. He also stated that the Township has never actually applied to do so.



Actually, the fact is the Township submitted an incomplete application to the Council which it, of course, rejected as incomplete! Hansen has attributed this to the fact that all this was "dumped in my lap" at the last minute. Still doesn't explain to me why he didn't make sure (with the attorney who was to assist) that the application was filled out. I believe the fact is that it simply involved much more technical input than he ever acknowledged or, when informed, wanted to accept. But don't "blame" him!

Hansen keeps pointing out that the interceptor runs along Eureka's northern border, so it would be easy to hook up to it.

The fact that this does NOT make it Eureka's interceptor seems to get by him. The Met Council is in charge of that aspect.

8. As I said above, I corrected something early on in the 17th meeting. And I asked for clarification from the planner about zoning, nonconforming uses and future uses, depending on the way this might be enacted, which she confirmed. It is important that the group understands this fully. Sometimes I think they do, but then again sometimes they say something that leads me to think they really don't.

When a few more things were misrepresented, I raised my hand and had it up for a long time. Finally, it was asked whether they should call again on someone from "the audience." Hansen, who I feel had tunnel vision when it came to my raised hand :-), replied that "if you start that, it'll never end." Of course, I had already been allowed to make two contributions. (Probably because the planner was there.) So perhaps a third just plain wasn't welcome.

I stated that the "work group" had made some "misrepresentations" of facts that I would like to address. I agreed that if the "work group" does not want to hear from a member of the C/I Task Force or a member of the public at this stage, that is up to them. In response, Hansen declared to Novacek, "See what I mean!" There was no curiosity that I could discern about what I felt they had stated inaccurately.

So I ask: Why let the facts get in your way?

MY TWO CENTS' WORTH

The Planning Commission held the public hearing on the gravel pit storage of non-gravel-related items on November 19th. Following are my comments regarding this proposal.

I believe that this text amendment should have been paid for by the individual who first brought this forth to the Township. Instead, because the Board voted as it did, now the taxpayers are paying for it. I'm sure some taxpayers are against this idea, but because of the Board's action, they are paying for it anyway.

For the Township to take on a text amendment that was first brought up by an individual, to me compromises the appearance of neutrality and objectivity. How does the public hope to have any of its objections taken seriously enough to actually stop the adoption of this language, which is supposedly always an option? The appearance is that Township officials may have already made up their minds even before the public can testify. Are we just going through the motions?

What is the purpose of this amendment? Is it in accordance with the original intent of the Mining Ordinance to excavate the gravel, reclaim the land, and return it to ag use as quickly as possible? Or is it simply a way certain officials see a use subject to a legal settlement agreement being able to in effect expand beyond its property to which it is restricted? Is this a way for the use to circumvent the agreement? Note that this use was actually storing its product in the gravel pit earlier and, following a complaint, was directed by the Board to remove it as it was in violation of the Ordinance. Neither the gravel pit owner nor the people associated with the settlement agreement live in the Township to my knowledge. Therefore, would they ever have to live with the negative effects of this storage as residential neighbors will have to? 

Is this a backdoor approach to allowing contractors' yards in Eureka? What is the connection between gravel pits and construction equipment and construction materials anyway? We do not allow contractors' yards, but now one can get one, albeit on an interim basis, in a gravel pit? This is really a commercial/industrial use that otherwise is not allowed.How is that not contradictory to the Comprehensive Plan?

Even the C/I "work group" currently meeting recognizes that a Comprehensive Plan update would be required to start to allow such uses. Their discussions have also included the requirement that there would be no outside storage in any C/I area. How do you reconcile that with this proposed language?

Going through the proposed language, I would point out the following issues.

Section 2 adding No. 3 to Ordinance 3, Chapter 2, Section 1 (D) references "property for which an interim use permit has been issued" as the only properties eligible to apply for a storage IUP. When raised before, the attorney replied that the older mining uses are now considered non-conforming uses. That is correct, but they were issued CUPs. Presumably the CUP would govern the NCU. HOWEVER, none of these "grandfathered" uses outlined in the legal descriptions in the Ordinance has ever applied for an IUP to my knowledge. In fact, Ordinance 6, Chapter 13, Section 1, states that they can continue "...without first obtaining an interim use permit for a mineral extracting facility...," so how does the language stating that an IUP has been obtained include these "grandfathered" uses?

Under A, I would insert the words "for storage" so that it reads "...shall first have applied for and obtained an interim use permit for storage..." This would distinguish it from the IUP that a use has have in order to have a gravel pit in the first place. I could see future bodies finding this a little confusing in application.

Chapter 10, B, 2. I question whether this use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. We allow mineral extraction. We do not allow commercial storage. There is no connection between storage of construction materials and equipment and gravel mining, so this is contorted, in my opinion. The same lack of connection applies to gravel mining and storage of "ag" products. They are two totally different uses. The Ordinances are supposed to "flow from" the Comprehensive Plan, not the other way around. Ord. 6, Chapter 7, Section 1, L, states that "Any vehicles, equipment or materials NOT ASSOCIATED with the mineral extraction facility....may not be kept or stored at the facility." Are we to understand that "associated with the mineral extraction facility" and "associated with mineral extraction" are two different things and that by including the proposed storage by however a convoluted reasoning MAKES these materials and equipment "associated" with the facility? Or does this have to be changed also? Again, I ask why would we do this?

Chapter 10, B, 4, regarding the negative effects on existing land uses nearby. I believe the words "and reasonably" are perhaps meant to be "unreasonably."

Chapter 1, C, material to be stored. If an applicant comes in with a list of ag products, construction materials, and construction equipment, none of which is hazardous as described under this portion of the proposed language, how can the Board "reserve the right and authority to deny permission to store any material or equipment described on the application?" If an applicant meets the requirements of what is to be stored and the Board denies some part of that material, how is that not "arbitrary and capricious?" Section F, 1, again references the Township's ability to modify the list. Repeating, how is that not "arbitrary and capricious" if the applicant's list includes items allowed for storage?

D, Application, again states that the property must have an IUP in the first place. "Grandfathered" mines do not have IUPs, so again are we limiting this use to only the two newest mines at present as they are the ones with the IUPs?

E, Permitting Procedure, 2, talks about the Comprehensive Plan again. Since we do not allow C/I uses in the Comprehensive Plan, wouldn't the amendment to the Comp Plan also mentioned here have to take place before this Ordinance could go into effect? Let me stress once more that there is no natural connection between gravel extraction and the storage of ag products, construction materials, and construction equipment. How did construction materials and construction equipment come to be included in this language? Is this another small minority wanting a use that the Comp Plan does not afford them? And why is the Township taxpayer paying for this then?

F, 2, applies to conditions limiting height, size, and location of a structure. If this structure is to be used for interim storage of the allowed items under this proposed language, should it not be specified that this structure can otherwise be used only for purposes directly related to gravel mining?

F, 3, speaks to modifying the size and location of the proposed outdoor storage area. Since this proposed additional use has been said publicly to not be visible from the road, perhaps that requirement for outdoor storage should find a place in this ordinance.

F, 6, mentions signage and lighting of signs. Is this as good idea to allow for this 9-month activity?

F, 7, speaks to protecting adjacent or nearby property by fencing, etc.  Again, I would suggest that the "no visibility from the road" be included. At a use that required berms and limited stack height, a passer-by can still see the product sticking out even above the berms and the trees planted there. Should residential neighbors have to look at another C/I use in addition to the mining itself?

F, 8, requires "regular and periodic" inspections of the structure and the outdoor storage area to confirm all conditions are being met. Shouldn't there be a number of inspections and a frequency given? These are presumably outside of complaints. These would incur inspection costs for which the IUP holder  should be responsible.

It is of note that Ordinance 6, the Mining Ordinance, currently requires the Board to ensure that all conditions are being met by the newer gravel pits each year at their February reviews. When I was on the Board, I noted this and followed up on it. One of the newer pits was NOT following its conditions. I brought this to the Board's attention. The owner of that pit was then even on the Board himself. What followed was month after month after month of my endeavoring to see that these conditions, to which the gravel operator had agreed, were being met. When it came to having the Township engineer verify these as provided for in his Development Agreement, he resisted that as well. Eventually this was properly addressed.

However, in the years since, I have never once heard the Board reference this part of Ordinance 6 at the February reviews. These reviews are no longer just a question of how much did you excavate, how much do you owe the Township, and are there any complaints, as they were in the past. Have the Boards been aware of this and ignored it, or are they unfamiliar with this? Either way, not good. My opinion.

G mentions "...the right and authority to grant 'acceptations' to the hours..." I believe this should be "exceptions."

H refers to the length of the IUP for storage. It has been mentioned publicly that such a use would provide a source of income during the months that mining is idle. If that is the intent, I suggest that 9 months is too long. The gravel pits are active more than 3 months in the year.

There is no requirement that a mine be actively mining gravel to be allowed this non-gravel-related storage. If an older pit is an NCU governed by a CUP, which "runs with the land" and does not "go away," what is there to prevent an older mine from just becoming a storage facility with no mining occurring? The current proposal is for temporary storage. Are we on the proverbial slippery slope with pit uses? (Some testifying at the public hearing suggested so.) The CUP would include the reclamation plan when the gravel is exhausted. If this never occurs, does not this use just continue? (The IUP expires either when the gravel is gone or after a certain number of years have passed.) Should there be amending of the CUPs? What happens to the building for storage after the primary use of mining disappears? No accessory use without a primary use is allowed under Ordinance. Therefore, should not ag use or an accessory structure to a residence be outlined for this building's after-pit use?

For those of you not in attendance at the C/I Open House, this very ordinance proposal was brought up in general reference to the Township's enforcing ordinances. People objected to changing the ordinances to accommodate those who have violated them!

In closing this blog post, I would have to say I strongly disagree with this text amendment proposal. I see the ordinance language as highly flawed. I disagree with the concept. I believe we have Comprehensive Plan issues here. Why are you and I paying for this?

The Planning Commission by a 4-1 vote recommended denial of this amendment. I believe that those four Commissioners felt strongly about this, based on their discussion. Will the Board be listening to its Planning Commission, or are they beside the point?



Following is a comment I received.
Eureka Concerned Citizen has left a new comment on your post "MY TWO CENTS' WORTH": 

Thank you for the well thought and thoroughly done article. This is a must read for ALL Eureka Township officials. But I have my doubts it will be read because many are showing their minds have already been made up. 

EUREKA TOWN BOARD BUZZ!

                                   November 13, 2018

                            Eureka Town Board meeting

     The Dakota County
Sheriff attended the meeting.
He reported minor thefts are
happening due to cars left
outside unlocked. Remember
to secure your vehicles.

    There continues to be illegal
dumping in the Township
ditches. This includes dirt as well as 
miscellaneous items.

     The Sheriff advised to secure the license number and
vehicle description when reporting an incident to the Sheriff's
Department.

     The Sheriff will address with the appropriate County
department the reported dumping of loads of dirt in the
Township ditches.

                                   
                               
                                                  
 ILLEGAL MOVING OF BUILDINGS WITHIN OR 
INTO THE TOWNSHIP:  A citizen attended the meeting 
regarding buildings he moved onto his property.
Unfortunately it seems he was not aware of the Eureka
Ordinance that addresses this issue. The citizen was 
required to obtain permits for each building and pay
a double fee of $1,400. 

     Refer to the Ordinance Book, Chapter 4, Section ll - Moving
 Buildings Into the Township.

                                 
                                                                     
COMMERCIAL ZONING UPDATE:  Mr. Hansen and 
Ceminsky presented a map and information regarding
the work they, along with Commissioners Novacek and 
Fredlund, the latter a voice of reason, have done at the 
"workshops." Mr. Hansen stated "We worked very hard 
to get this done in a short amount of time because the 
Township is notorious for dragging things out for months,
months and months." There was no information available 
to hand out to the public.

     Housing to industrial or industrial to housing is included in
the draft language and it "can go either way." Mr. Hansen stated,
"This is draft language that literally can be PLOPPED down any
place in Eureka Township." (Really????) Types of industries,
impact, building heights, designs, septic systems, water tower 
and possible grant money was incorporated into the draft language.

     Mr. Hansen stated, "According to the Lakeville Comprehensive
2030 Plan, Lakeville is going to annex portions of the Northern 
corridor.".
(In my opinion, it might be fun to play in the sandbox
building water towers etc. with no experience in planning; 
however, at what expense to the Eureka citizens? Once all the
work and money has been put into
this Commercial/Industrial endeavor, it is very possible
Lakeville will annex areas of the Northern Corridor. This
perhaps makes the area more attractive. Perhaps there might
be consideration for portions of the draft language along 
Cedar Avenue).

     Questions were submitted to the Township attorney.  The
attorney stated that the Township could not prohibit sexually
oriented businesses but can put conditions on the business.
The questions and answers were not available to the public.

      Supervisor Barfknecht inquired as to how many open houses
were being proposed and if there was enough pertinent
information to hold an open house.

     The workshop group asked the Board to approve a budget for
post card mailings and a minimum of 2 open houses and 1 with a
Planner or possibly 2 with a planner.  Hansen stated, "This is
a minimum." There is also the cost of printing postcards and
any materials needed for the open houses, attorney input, maps
and perhaps special meetings.

If this presentation had been done correctly,
 a proposed budget would have been submitted for the Board to 
consider and act on at the meeting.  (My opinion).

     Clerk Finke tried to explain the process utilized for 
addressing post cards which also includes email notices
which the Board decided on previously.  Mr. Hansen could
not resist loudly and rudely excoriating Mr. Finke
during the postcard discussion. (This happens too often
and is unseemly and very unprofessional).

     Chair Murphy, utilizing common sense and his experience in
business, suggested that because the information
is new to the Board, another meeting should be utilized
to discuss the budget, number of meetings and how much
should be invested in the total process.

     Mr. Hansen and Ceminsky disagreed and were adamant 
regarding holding an open house regardless of the busy
Holiday season.

     An open house is scheduled for November 27, 7:00 p.m., at the
Eureka Town Hall.

(Information was gleaned from the November Town Board
meeting CD which can be purchased for $5 at the
Town Hall).

     If you are interested and plan to attend the November 27 
meeting, I suggest you might want to read the previous blog 
"YOU MAY WANT TO APPEAR - OPEN HOUSE." The blog offers
many very good questions that should be considered when
addressing the possibility of Commercial/Industrial and the
$$$$$$'s that might be spent possibly for naught!

     

                                 

                              

YOU MAY WANT TO APPEAR....

The Commercial/Industrial Open House is going to be held as proposed by the "work group" of Hansen, Ceminsky, Novacek, and Fredlund, even though that means it will be the Tuesday after Thanksgiving, November 27, at 7:00 p.m.  Not the best timing, but do come and let your opinion be known.
The truth as I have known it is that the Township has had the common sense to have NEVER held an Open House during the holidays. So, even though I suggested to the Board that this was not a good time to get public input, the Board went ahead and scheduled then anyway.

Following are the public comments I made at the last Board meeting on Tuesday, November 13.

Nancy Sauber, 9445 225^th St. W., Lakeville

I have a few comments about the Commercial/Industrial (C/I) “work group.”

1. By Ordinance, since this group was appointed by the Board, this should be a Special Committee of 5 people, minimum. (Ordinance 2, Chapter 4)
2. As such, it is subject to the Open Meeting Law. Contrary to that, there have been no recordings of the meetings per Township policy. There are no posted agendas or minutes on the website. Not all currently scheduled meetings are even on the website at present. A meeting was held last night (November 12) on a federal holiday, which is not allowed. Even more important, there have been no public copies of documents being discussed. These have not been “open meetings.”
3. How much money has been spent by this group? Was it all pre-approved by the Board (as is necessary in the normal course of business)?
4. It is quite something to listen to comments such as: [Should this C/I area] be on the section lines? Maybe the quarter-quarter lines? Let’s go up to the railroad. Should it go to 235^th or all the way to 250^th? Do you ever envision a C/I area around Town Hall? Based on what? A planner is sorely needed.
5. There has been mention of setbacks, but not of performance standards generally. Anything goes?
6. There has been mention of new roads, curb and gutter, sewer and water, water towers, uses ranging from sexually oriented businesses to fast food restaurants and so on. Where is the factual basis for these discussions? To blindly act on the “Everybody knows that such-and-such is going to happen” rule is irresponsible.
7. “Market forces” have been mentioned several times. Instead of listening to amateur and largely uninformed opinion, the professional market study from the earlier C/I Task Force should be updated. That would be responsible leadership.
8. Do we have a realistic idea of the costs and benefits to the Township? As outlined in the earlier C/I Task Force document, a fiscal impact study should be conducted to get a clearer picture of this. That would be responsible leadership.
9. It is premature to hold an Open House at this time, not to mention it would be during the holidays. If the Board intends to go through with this, professional guidance should first be sought. With zoning authority comes certain responsibilities to all the citizens of Eureka.

Thank you.

In case you need a reminder, look at the earlier blog on this. The "work group" is talking about all the way across the northern border of the Township, down Dodd Blvd., and down Cedar Avenue, even to 250th St. W.

Some of the costs incurred could be construction of streets, maintenance of streets, including plowing and patching or resurfacing pavement.

What other questions occur to you? Come and ask them.

AMATEUR HOUR IN EUREKA!

+

Once again, I attended the (November 5th) meeting of the "work group" on Commercial/Industrial uses that the Board appointed a couple of months ago. This time, I was joined by three other citizens. After going through the document that the group has been editing (and the public has not seen), the group moved on to looking at maps of the Township for placement of the Commercial/Industrial zones.

Since these maps were laid out on the side table, I moved forward to stand to observe the discussion and the locations pointed out. As the meeting went on, I took notes of what was being said. (Although Mark Ceminsky has previously told the Board that these meetings are being recorded, this one was not, nor has any other one I've attended.) I will give information in bullet points as it was delivered and as I took notes.

*The group looked at a map of the Township that had sticky notes of different colors stuck to it. The different colors denoted the different levels of intensity of use. Note that they originally had industrial as "Heavy Industrial" and then changed it to "just Industrial." I would suggest that "Light Industrial" is the term they perhaps intend and should be using.

*It was stated that "there are two ways to do this." One is to say this is the area in which we will "allow" C/I, but only when and if the landowner requests this use. The other is to say, "All this area is zoned commercial."




*Ceminksy said he thought the group should map the different areas of intensities. Hansen stated that the Township is "not going to have that step-down every time." (See earlier post.) Fredlund stated that the whole southern edge of the area looked at north of 225th St. would have to be "neighborhood commercial" as there are residences there, north and south of the street.

*Hansen stated that there is already heavy industrial [sic] in Lakeville. The question is are we going to allow it in Eureka. If there is a house there, then can do only neighborhood commercial (next to the house).

*Ceminsky again offered that the group should set up the different areas. Hansen disagreed and said that (the way he is proposing it), "We're still in the driver's seat." Novacek tried to clarify by saying Mark is saying we're going to set up a zone here. Hansen replied that the group has been agreed that landowners will be able to decide when and if there might be C/I uses. "We can't say you can't build a house."

You should note that one of the questions that the group is submitting to the attorney is whether instating these uses can be done in the way they have described- that is, leaving it up to the individual landowner when and if C/I is requested. Given the number of times Hansen emphatically stressed that the group is agreed that it will not "force" zoning on anyone, I have to say that the idea popped into my head that the onus might be shifted to the attorney in his response to their question. "We wanted to leave it up to the landowner, but the attorney says no."
Again, repeating what my colleague stated in her post, the group might be well advised to learn about spot zoning. During a meeting, Novacek said he didn't get why spot zoning was so bad. Fredlund countered with, "I think it is illegal." Hansen then stated that HE has "never seen in writing" why spot zoning would be illegal to do.

*Ceminsky commented that the Township is zoned ag now and that the long-term plan "has to be more defined."





*Novacek said there is an "element of chaos" and that the other side of that is that there is the "element of forcing it. We want something in the middle." (I wondered what THAT might be!)

*Then there was a discussion during which it was suggested that this "would figure itself out." (REALLY?) Ceminsky stated that he was uncomfortable with Hansen's statement that this "would figure itself out." Hansen replied that otherwise "then you're going to force people into rezoning their property." Just say we're going to "allow" C/I uses in this area.

*Fredlund asked what if a certain parcel is already put into industrial uses and then an adjacent landowner wants houses? Hansen replied, "First come, first served." Fredlund again stated that the edge along 225th would have to be neighborhood commercial as there can be more houses along 225th in the future.

*Ceminsky stated that he and Hansen are "in the same trade" and "people need visuals." He wanted something more defined on the map. He had transparent sheets that he wanted to place over the map to draw in the different areas of use.

*Novacek said that the 225th area is the most likely for C/I development. "It's coming anyway...It could all go to houses...(depends on) if the market forces bring it." It was suggested 2,000 feet either side of Cedar Avenue could be C/I as well.

*The group pointed out the borderline that it had discussed at one of its first meetings. To the west, it was delineated along just the northernmost quarter-quarter lines, then dropped  down to include Scotts Miracle-Gro and the airport property, and then back to northernmost quarter-quarter lines to the east.

* The thought was expressed that four businesses could effect the step-down just among those four businesses.

*The group stated that there are 1080 acres along the "northern corridor," 1400 acres possible along Cedar Avenue, possibly 560 acres in a gerrymandered area along Dodd and over to north of 225th and west of Dodd. Hansen stated that (these) are "the three that everybody wants to do." In adding up acreage, the group included the airport property that at this point remains in Eureka. Since this is MAC property, I didn't understand the sense of this. (Not to mention Hansen wants a friendly annexation of that area to Lakeville anyway. Regardless of what he wants, the airport will be annexed to Lakeville, even if it is in chunks as allowed by law.)

*Novacek again stated that the Township has to manage the "market forces or it'll run over us."

SAY, HERE'S AND IDEA!: HOW ABOUT UPDATING THE MARKET STUDY FROM THE EARLIER TASK FORCE ON C/I? This was done professionally by Jon Commers of Donjek through TKDA. Mr. Commers met with various commercial real estate brokers in the area and got their feedback on the possibility of C/I uses in Eureka.
Someone who doesn't see studies as roadblocks thrown in the way but as the smart way to do something like this would perhaps agree!





*At this point, Hansen offered something very interesting. He alluded to "the three people who've really put pressure on me to do this." He said he has told these individuals that "this has to be done in phases."

At one point Ceminsky referred to "giving landowners more options/opportunities with what to do with their land along the northern border." Does this include landowners who want to live there, I wonder, or just a "chosen few?"

* Lakeville and annexation is an issue. Has it occurred to the "work group" that landowners along the northern border could still request annexation once they are deemed C/I and thus perhaps more attractive to Lakeville? At a Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Funk mentioned this very idea that came out of the earlier C/I Task Force. Hansen did not agree.

I have a few further comments of my own:
First, I believe this "work group" of four appointed by the Town Board is really a Special Committee as referred to under our Ordinances. See Ordinance 2, Chapter 4. As such, it should have a minimum of five members, is subject to the Open Meeting Law which means copies of documents under discussion for the public, perhaps recordings since we do that in Eureka, and minutes to be published for the public to see.

This "work group" is going to request money from the Board to send out notices for an Open House to be held before Christmas. I find this very premature. They don't have much that is clear even to themselves at present, and more importantly, the Township hasn't even engaged a planner yet. Hansen says this "work group" is saving planner money as they are doing the groundwork first. In my opinion, they are WAY out of their depth and wasting their time. The "work group" wants answers from the attorney before an open House, but although it has said this will go to the planner, haven't presented it to the Board for its input or to send to the planner as yet. I believe they plan to tell the Board at its November meeting what they want to present to the public at this Open House.

The group has spent money on maps. Has this been pre-approved by the Board? That money cannot be spent without that approval. Has this been done? How much oversight is the Board exercising over this group?

ADDENDUM TO "ATTN. ALL CITIZENS!"

As the only audience member, I attended the Commercial/Industrial "work group" meeting on October 31st. At the meeting the next meeting dates were set:

Wednesday, November 7th

Monday, November 12th and 

Tuesday, November 20th.

All meetings start at 7:00 p.m. and typically last until around 9:00 p.m.

IT IS, PERHAPS, OF SPECIFIC INTEREST TO THE CITIZENS ALONG THE ROADS MENTIONED IN THE TITLE OF THE LAST POST THAT THE INTENTION FOR THE MEETING ON THE 7TH IS TO START LOOKING AT MAPS TO "PLAN" THE AREAS  AND THE TYPES OF C/I THAT WILL GO THERE. THESE WILL BE IN THE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE TOWNSHIP TO BE CONSIDERED.

Also, it was discussed at the last meeting that the intention is to not rezone until and unless the landowner requests it. HOWEVER, it was also said that the "ugly truth" is that it may come down to imposing the zoning anyway. As I said, everything is debatable.

You may want to show up sooner rather than later!

ATTN: ALL CITIZENS, ESPECIALLY THOSE ON 225TH, DODD, AND CEDAR !

Did you know that there is a work group that has been meeting and discussing the idea of forming some commercial/industrial areas/uses in Eureka? This group has already met for at least five meetings. The most recent was scheduled for and held on Monday, October 22, from 7-9 p.m. Another is scheduled for October 31, 7-9.

The work group consists of Planning Commissioners Ralph Fredlund and Al Novacek, as well as Board Supervisors Mark Ceminsky and Butch Hansen. This group, notably, was formed during a Board meeting with the latter three "diving in headfirst," and Commissioner Fredlund volunteering to round out the group.

There has been mention made several times in the last few meetings that the other members of the Planning Commission were never even given a chance to indicate an interest in being a part of this work group. That's because if they weren't at that particular Board meeting when this was discussed, they didn't even know about it yet! (In fact, since this blog post came out, a Commissioner reminded me that the whole topic was added to the agenda the night of the meeting. Therefore, most did not know ahead of time it was even going to come up that night!) This did not sit well with the other Commissioners. They have asked for more "transparency."


It has also been discussed that "nobody" knew when and where this small group was meeting. I have attended three meetings to date, along with one other Commissioner and two other citizens who attended October 22. Other Commissioners have wanted and even tried to attend an earlier meeting, but were told there would be quorum issues or that the meetings still were not posted properly to allow them to attend. The posting should have allowed them to attend the meeting on the 15th, but it wasn't done properly, it was decided by Hansen and Ceminsky. Thankfully, this appeared to be rectified for the October 22nd meeting.


These meetings are open to the public (now that you know about them!). Audience members are allowed to listen and observe, but so far have not been allowed to contribute any input or comments during meetings. It is in the work group's ability to request this, especially in its early stages. At the end of the last meeting, a citizen asked a few questions which were attempted to be answered.

You should know that at some point, there will be Open House(s) held to gather public input. Of course, I would hope that the group's work would first be presented to the Board for its input before going to the public. The work group has said that it will present its work to the Attorney as well as to a Planner------yet to be contracted for this project. (TKDA is the Township Planning/Engineering firm.)

Watch for postcards to be sent regarding the Open House(s).

Since you will be asked for your opinions, and since this affects the entire Township, it would be a good idea for citizens to educate themselves about the work this small group has done and the topic before us. I am hopeful that at some point this will be available on the Township website for your convenience. Thus far, nothing has been available for public view during the meetings even though documents are being worked on and discussed.



To quickly summarize some of what has been discussed thus far, I will attempt to give some information on two points: different levels (and zones?) of commercial and industrial activity and whether or not the Township is going to ask the Metropolitan Council to be allowed to hook up to sewer and water. Anything reported here is not written in ink yet and may change, perhaps drastically.

The levels of use that have been looked at are light industrial, heavy commercial, general commercial, and neighborhood commercial. I will give a couple examples that have been mentioned of each:
light industrial: distribution center, lumberyard, trucking companies, bulk mail
heavy commercial: 24-hour gas station, optical manufacturing, cabinet shop, auto painting
general commercial: bowling alley, pet shop, mortuary, furniture upholstery
neighborhood commercial: doctor's office, barbershop, gas stations that are not 24-hour

It was reported that up to 1500 acres north of 225th from east to west across the Township, or acreage along Dodd, or along Cedar, or south and near Jacquard Avenue when/if extended by Lakeville into the Township, or along the railroad tracks from Lakeville south to 240th St. W. are all being considered as possibilities.

It has been said at the group that land will not be zoned C/I unless and until the landowner asks for that change. The first question that pops into my mind upon hearing that is how does the Township deal with the issue of spot zoning. Spot zoning, as you may know, is not permitted. Uses should be together and buffers next to adjoining uses are needed to separate the uses and mitigate negative effects.

It has also been stated that the only C/I use that can abut residentially used land is neighborhood commercial. And that commercial buildings may not be any closer to a residence than 250', similar to agricultural buildings now.

The uses would "step" thru the four categories of intensity according to the "plan." In other words, the uses wouldn't go from a machine welding shop to a residence right next door. Or from a lumberyard right next to a doctor's office. These juxtapositions are missing a level of intensity in between them and thus are not "stepped." How much and where area is taken for each level of use is open to question in my mind. These are all topics being discussed.

Butch Hansen has indicated that he thinks sewer and water would still be desirable for any of these uses. He is of the opinion that a proposal has never been formally submitted to the Met Council. Well, that is probably correct insofar as the Met Council representatives (including the gentleman in charge of sewer issues) who attended the March 29, 2016, joint Planning Commission and Town Board meeting have told us what is necessary before they would even consider such a proposal. This meeting centered to some extent around the airport annexation possibility, but touches on sewer and water as well. FIND MINUTES HERE. Since these requirements were never addressed, there could be no formal submission to request sewer and water.

The Council representatives have also submitted details to the Township as to what such a request would require. You may have heard some talk of 1,000 acres set aside for much higher density housing (possibly 3/acre) and other uses and NOT just commercial/industrial. In other words, the government unit requesting sewer and water hookup is proposing making a definite move toward urbanization. Of course, the Met Council, which has Eureka as agricultural and without urban services until some time after 2040, can always turn down a community's request. They just won't even start to consider it until the acreage location, along with sewer plans, etc., have been submitted, which hasn't happened yet. A "sort-of" attempt was made a year or so ago, while Hansen was pushing for it, but the Met Council indicated that what was submitted was insufficient and the forms were not even filled out entirely--as I remember it.