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?