The following was sent from Jeff Otto to Amy Liberty, Deputy Clerk/Treasurer, who works with the Planning Commission.  In spite of his honest effort to be of assistance based on lots of experience on this topic, there was no response of any kind received.

Of additional note is the attachment Jeff sent regarding Lakeville annexations of Eureka properties. I was in attendance at that PC meeting. Chair Melanie Storlie was unclear on exactly what properties have been annexed and asked Amy Liberty if there was a map. The Deputy Clerk replied she did not have one. Apparently, Mr. Otto had no difficulty in procuring one.

From: ottojs@frontiernet.net <ottojs@frontiernet.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2024 12:12 PM
To: 'Eureka Township Deputy Clerk' <deputyclerk@eurekatownship-mn.us>
Subject: PC Zoning Study

Hi Amy,

Please share with all PC members.  Note attached 2023 map and legend from Lakeville showing Eureka properties that have been annexed.

The population of Eureka is approximately 1600 with about 900 of voting age, not all owners live in the township.

You all would be better served and save time by first having a detailed discussion with the Met Council representative assigned to the townships of Dakota County to understand the change thresholds that would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. This includes the plan detail requirements (sewer, water, road infrastructure) for such an amendment.  You are likely to get up-front information of some aspects the Met Council may not consider since they have at least four times that I am aware of over the past 18 years indicated that they do not want Eureka to increase density or change zoning until 2040.  Two major reasons for this is still available housing rights and the concern to protect gravel resources for the metropolitan area.  They do not want to repeat the mistake of allowing major gravel resources in Apple Valley area to be lost to massive development of all types covering them.

For many years the Met Council rep assigned to Eureka was Mr. Patrick Boylan.  I don’t know if he still is. One general point I remember is if they would allow us to do anything significant, they required a “sustainable development plan” of at least 1000 acres that includes details for adequate services for sewer, water, and roads. Multiple zoning categories, for example,  encourage high density housing to be within walking distance of neighborhood services such as drug store and groceries.  If anything requirements may be more stringent now, but I don’t know. This is why a fresh dialog is essential.

Lake Elmo was sued by the Met Council about 25 years ago for not having a Comprehensive Plan that the State-authorized Met Council approved.  Lake Elmo spent $200,000 in legal fees ($400,000 in today’s dollars) fighting and was forced to change half their zoning area to match the Council’s oversight directive.

Even in 2006 when I made my first (of 3) thorough study of Eureka properties and cataloged them in a computer database, our Council representative was shocked that Eureka had 80% more housing rights than they had assumed from our common “Agriculture” zoning of 1 house per quarter-quarter section of the Public Land Survey system. Zoning in Minnesota (and most states) is derived from the survey grid done when becoming a territory. Incorporation into a municipality authorizes much more flexibility for area zoning with many zoning categories to enable very high density development with thoughtful buffering from high-impact development to less intrusive. Lakeville is a good example and obviously Minneapolis is a classic big city.

While it can be more convenient to describe township zoning by acreage, it is misleading and can result in poor land use choices such as thinking going to 10-acre lot sizes is a good idea (which is properly described as 4 houses per quarter-quarter section, known as “Rural Residential”).  Actual 10-acre minimum size is one of the worst choices for the long term for reasons too lengthy to describe here and clearly contradicts goal of critical preservation of ag land.  This also would automatically make 104 currently buildable lots (between 2 and 10 acres in size) fall into the Grandfathered protection category (by State law), meaning they would still be buildable but then those owners would have to go through the process of obtaining County property record documents to prove grandfather status before being allowed to apply for a Eureka building permit. We already have about 180 housing rights in this category that must be accurately tracked as used or transferred.

ALL property owners should of course receive a postcard (doesn’t have to be more expensive letter) for a MAJOR ZONING CHANGE survey and open house describing both and response deadline, encouraging use of web survey (with website and link highlighted on postcard) with option to instead get paper copy from town hall or by mail if desired. Besides some owners not using computer communication, there are also some property owners located outside the area or out of state.    

To cherry pick who you think should be informed and trust word of mouth on something of this wide potential impact is to invite a significant lawsuit. Hiding behind simple legal publication requirement will not sit well with public when some discover too late what may be allowed next to them. Transparency.

A proper survey must have unique ID  traced to owner name whether via web or paper (not PID since there are many owners with more than one property) to avoid ballot stuffing. I guarantee some will want to do it because I witnessed it at a previous open house when people could place stars on images.  A couple people took a full page of stick-ons and used them all on only a couple options as in NO-NO-NO.

Attached is the southern portion of the July 2023 Lakeville Zoning Map showing Eureka and airport land now part of Lakeville.  Starting with the airport in the right center, next east is 97-acre Hat Trick property taken about 2009 (my Board era), then the recent Adelman property and about the same time to the far left is the group of parcels on the west side of Dodd.  The legend image is the entire list of zoning colors and classes for all of Lakeville.

Using the same zoning class names as Lakeville where the definition may fit could be a benefit to a potential buyer. Does anyone really think the Lakeville professional planner is too dumb to see parallels in descriptions that might be used here?

By the way, it is understood that a major negotiating mistake with the 1973 plat proposal to establish the 75 lots of Eureka Estates was to not include the cost of paving 240^th Street from Dodd to the Eureka Estates entrances in the developer’s cost plan. Eureka taxpayers have instead been paying for higher gravel road maintenance for 50 years and counting. 

Jeff Otto

Town Board 2007-2010, twice Chair and attorney liaison

Member or Chair of several zoning-related task forces and Zoning Ordinance amendments