DANKE, MERCI, GRACIAS, THANK YOU!

A big thank you to Jeff Otto for his thorough work on writing up the procedure for application for a transfer of building rights under the recently adopted Ordinance, complete with the appropriate forms from the attorney.

As a member of the Transfer Task Force, I can attest to Jeff's dedication to this matter.  As Chair of the Task Force, Jeff had an agenda for each and every meeting, was thoroughly prepared for each, spoke to the attorney when necessary, spoke to individuals in other local governments, and followed through.  This latest effort from him is just his following through once more for the benefit of Eureka citizens.  It was clear to Clerk Linda Wilson and to the Planning Commission that Jeff had (once again) spent considerable time on his work which he presented to the Commission last evening, and they thanked him for it.

It is encouraging to see a citizen volunteer his time in such a selfless manner: no private agenda, just a sincere wish to help his community. His is a great example to all of us.

I hope this doesn't  embarrass  Jeff too much, but he deserves the recognition and thanks, and not just at a meeting of the Commission or the Board!  :-)

IT GIVES ME NO JOY---HOLIDAY OR OTHERWISE...

...but you, as a Eureka citizen, should know how you have been represented lately.  There was a public hearing held recently concerning an application for a church Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on what is a residential site.  These things ought to go smoothly, but that was not the case.

I spoke about this during the "Public Comment" time at the most recent Board meeting, but I know, as you blog-followers should know by now, that those remarks will not be transmitted to the public via the minutes.  "Nancy Sauber made comments" doesn't quite capture it.

When I make a public comment, I am certainly addressing the Board, but sometimes I am also addressing the rest of the public, not just those at the meeting, but all of you. Since the Board will not enter public comments into the minutes the way the Board used to do, I guess I shall have to do it here.

First, let me say that the "price of admission" of five dollars for a CD recording of the meeting is worth it, if only to listen to the three public speakers from that evening.  Jeff Otto's comments, in particular, would be of interest to blog followers. Listen hard, and you will hear the thunderous, silent applause from the audience during and after his remarks!

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON LIVING WATERS CUP PUBLIC HEARING by Nancy Sauber, 12-09-13:

I would like to express concerns regarding the public hearing for the CUP for Living Waters church.

First, let me state that, during my public testimony, I supported the change of use to a church at 22222 Dodd Blvd. This is a permitted, allowed use of the property, something my husband and I are all for!  It is also probably a good use for this property, given that Uponor is to the north and apparently a commercial use is to the south.  Not your typical 2-million-dollar housing site by any means, in my opinion.

Second, this application was submitted without a site plan, which would be highly

recommended from the Township’s point of view.  A plan that details uses in specific buildings, parking, lighting, and the like would hold until the applicants may wish to make changes.  At that time, because of the site plan, an amended CUP would need to be applied for.  This would give the Township the opportunity to place conditions as if for a new CUP, an important benefit to Eureka. An informal site plan came through via i-pad at the hearing; it needs to be formalized and be made very specific.  I would recommend that the CUPs for Glory to Glory and Prairie Creek School be looked at to assist the Commission and the Board. There is a list of "Documents Required for a Complete Application" on the website. This should be consulted.

Third, it would appear to me from comments made at both the Board and the Commission level, that there is a lack of understanding that, if an applicant is willing to abide by any and all reasonable, related conditions, the Township MUST grant the CUP.  I learned that at the very first training session I went to as a Planning Commissioner: “Your Role as a Planning Commissioner,” presented most ably by John Shardlow, currently a senior planner at Bonestroo. The Township cannot require the applicants to paint everything red because that is the Board’s favorite color, but it can require downward-cast, hooded lighting and sufficient parking spaces, for instance.  If the applicants agree to these and other reasonable, related conditions, the CUP is theirs.  At the public hearing, the applicants expressed real concern over what happened at the last (November) Board meeting,  I believe they have been made to feel, unnecessarily, that they are on shaky ground.  They should be assured that they are not.  The Board and the Commission are bound by the Ordinance, which permits the use.

Fourth, I was dismayed to hear Commissioner Hansen move at the hearing to “recommend approval of the change of use.”  This was without any discussion of possible conditions, no formalized site plan, and no Finding of Facts.  I was allowed by the Chair to quickly inform him that the Township approves the change of use through means of granting the CUP.  Hansen stated  “I'm not talking about the CUP, just approving the change of use.”  This makes no sense.  What are we about?  Public officials making decisions about people’s property need to educate themselves about the ramifications of what they are voting on.  Thankfully, the motion was thwarted.

Fifth and last, I need to bring to the Board’s attention something that occurred at the hearing.  Commissioner Hansen signed in as a speaker at the hearing, came around to the podium, spoke as a member of the public, and then proceeded to go back around to his Commissioner’s seat and resume his role there!  This is not at all appropriate.  I ask the Board and the Attorney to take measures to assure that this does not happen again.  Again, where is the understanding of proper procedure and roles?  Surely, we can do better.

There was no response from the Board at that time. When the CUP hearing came up later on the agenda, Commissioner Hansen told the Board that there had been "a lot of interaction" during the hearing.  He had Clerk Wilson pass out papers to the Board which contained his motion.  He again made "his case" to the Board that he was "not talking about the CUP, just about approving the change of use." He said the applicants would still have to come in to get the CUP, but approve their change of use to a church now. (You can lead a horse to water...) He then suggested to the Board that they "ask me questions."

The Board was quiet for some little time, whether because they understood and agreed with my points, because they weren't sure themselves, because they weren't sure what to ask him, or for some other reason, I couldn't say.  Finally, Chair Storlie asked the attorney, Chad Lemmons, for comment.

I will not quote Mr. Lemmons, but he stated that (1) a church is a Conditional Use under Eureka's Ordinances which allows the Township to place conditions, (2) the granting of the CUP and the approval of the change of use take place as one, and (3) it appeared the application was not complete.  

When asked whether, once the application was made complete, would there have to be another public hearing, Chad replied, "Yes, there would." Now a public hearing costs the applicant some money for Commissioners' time, letters sent to adjacent property owners, publication in the newspaper, and possible other fees such as attorney consultation.  Here, I agreed with Mr. Hansen when he said something along the lines of, "This is our mess and we should clean it up.  They shouldn't have to pay for another public hearing."  The Board eventually agreed as well.  (I think the church representatives' and the realtor's dealing with the frustration is enough of a price to pay.)

It should be stated that these have been some tough times for the Township of late.  Clerk Nanett Sandstrom has resigned and Linda Wilson has been doing her best to fill the position, which is a big one, until a replacement can be found. I acknowledge Linda's efforts and certainly sympathize with her. She is doing her best without a lot of training-in.  Knowing this, perhaps those who have been around much longer than she could step it up and see that things go a little more smoothly by advising her. Everyone benefits from an understanding of what is involved in granting a CUP, how the process works, what the applicants' "rights" are, what is the proper role of Commissioners at the hearing, and so on.  

I know it is not easy up there; I've been there.  It can be a little scary, folks. It should be; it's serious stuff! (Fortunately, I had some great, experienced people to rely on while I tried to find my way.  I was very thankful for that!)  But that is precisely why those who put themselves forward to fill these positions must be willing to seek advice and to go to training sessions provided by non-profit organizations to help them do their jobs.  When one is making decisions about peoples' properties that can even last "forever," he needs to act very carefully. 

Generally, my thought is that every newly elected Supervisor would benefit greatly by attending the New Supervisor Training offered by the Minnesota Association of Townships insurance and general attorneys each summer. (It's been very aptly titled "New Supervisor Or What Have I Gotten Myself Into?")  These attorneys offer sound advice to keep the official and the township out of legal difficulty. Even those officials who have been around a while would benefit from attending the sessions designed to keep them up to date. Planning Commissioners would be well-advised, in my opinion, to go to at least "Your Role as a Planning Commissioner," and the "Basics of Planning and Zoning," both of which are offered multiple times each year by Government Training Services. Some of Eureka's Supervisors and Commissioners, including some currently in office, have availed themselves of this information; others have done little or nothing along these lines.  Perhaps Commissioner Hansen might consider this so he can be better prepared? In the past, while in office, I attempted twice to make what I suggest above required for new Supervisors and Planning Commissioners.  The response was always, "Well, it certainly would be good for people to go, but we don't know that we want to require it."

Why not, I ask?  Grassroots government is great in theory, but can get a little messy in

practice.  At the Township level, let's just all acknowledge, as some humbly have, that we are amateurs who would be wise to seek advice from professionals.  We are very limited in staff compared to other local government units, such as cities and counties, which grant the same kinds of permits we do.  That means that the Planning Commission and the Town Board actually act, in large part, as their own staff. This is a big responsibility and can be difficult and time-consuming.  Yet it needs to be done and done well.

By the way, the fellows from the church, including the pastor, and I struck up a few conversations sitting at the Town Hall.  They seem very friendly and engaging.  I welcomed them to the neighborhood!

EUREKA ENGAGES AN AGRI-TOURISM TASK FORCE

    

After "kicking the can down the road" for several months, the Eureka Town Board appointed a Task Force at the October 15th Town Board meeting to address the possibility of developing ordinance language which would allow agri-tourism in Eureka Township.
     At the September Town Board meeting, the Board had discussed the number of applicants that would be accepted as Task Force members. The Board also requested the Task Force report to the Board monthly regarding progress. The ordinance states there must be a minimum of 5 members, an uneven number, allowing a Task Force to have a majority vote. I believe there was logical thinking applied as it is most feasible to have an odd number and minimum of 5 when this was implemented in Ordinance 2, Chapter 4. The majority of the Board members voted to have 6 members.

     During the discussion at their October meeting, Supervisor Budenski re-visited the issue and asked the Township attorney for his comment on what the appropriate number of members should be.  The attorney's response stated "the ordinance requires only a minimum of 5, but I would recommend the Board to select an odd number; with an even number, the Task Force members could deadlock. If there is a chance of a deadlock, the report then would not serve much of a purpose and would not be practical." Supervisor Storlie stated "With all due respect, I feel having 6 members forces them to come to a solution." The attorney's advice was ignored and 6 members were selected.

Butch Hansen

Appointed to the Task Force are Fritz Frana (photo not available) and Charles "Butch" Hansen, current Planning Commission members;










Phil Cleminson,a partner in a consulting firm and a member of the Transfer of Building Rights Task Force; Mark Parranto, owner of the Applewood Apple Orchard;

Phil Cleminson

Mark Parranto

Atina Diffley

Cory Behrendt

 Cory Behrendt, past Chair of the Eureka Town Board, past Planning Commission member and a computer engineer in technical services with the Minneapolis firm, Clifton, Larson and Allen. He has twice served Highview Lutheran Church in a leadership role on call committees, established the church data base and maintains it. Cory stated he is open-minded, fair and sees things from all sides; and Atina Diffley, an organic vegetable farmer who educates consumers, farmers, and policymakers about organic farming through the consulting business Organic Farming Works which she owns with her husband. Atina and her husband owned and operated Gardens of Eagan.

     Embracing the concept of agri-tourism and developing ordinance language is a very complex and strategic planning process. The stated purpose of the zoning ordinance is to protect the public health,
safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare; to protect and preserve lands identified for long-term agricultural use; promote well-managed and staged development of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas; conserve and manage the use of natural resources; and provide for the compatibility of different land uses and the most appropriate use of land throughout the Township. Addressing these issues should be a very good starting point.
     The Board and Task Force applicants heard a statement from Jeff Otto, a Eureka citizen who served as Board Chair and legal liaison; as well as a task force chair and legal liaison. He also participated in several other committee and ordinance revision efforts for the Township. Mr. Otto submitted what he believes is the "proper procedure and process to study a subject of complexity, to communicate issues and recommendations effectively to audiences large and small, and to manage legal and technical guidance for maximum benefit and value to the Township."

Jeff Otto

      Mr. Otto stated that he appreciates the time and effort serving on the Board and Planning Commission can entail. He stated that each of the Board members has taken on particular subjects involving extra commitment to do well that has benefited the Township; however, he felt that as a Board, their management of the agri-tourism issue has not yet been one of their better efforts and felt it is not too late for course correction. I believe Mr. Otto presented a very valid argument for a proper process to evaluate the feasibility of agri-tourism in Eureka in his presentation to the Board members and Task Force applicants.

THE FOLLOWING ARE COMMENTS BY JEFF OTTO ON THE TASK FORCE PROCESS:
TIMING: First of all, what is the rush? The Board has been involved in this subject for nearly a year, directed the Planning Commission to conduct two hearings, and ignored thoughtful early research and draft input on the subject from the Commission.  The sum total of the Board's consideration and vision on the subject after all these months was one paragraph that was open-ended and unenforceable except for hours of operation; and those hours provided no consideration for the nature of an operation, seasonal variation in daylight hours, or possible safety, noise, and light pollution issues for night activity.
                                                                                                                
Now the Board is dumping this broad and diverse tourism subject into a hastily assembled committee, inadequately advertised to the entire Township, with the direction to make its recommendations in 60 days, taking it through Thanksgiving and nearly to Christmas Eve. The option is left open to possibly allow a thirty day extension so the committee can work through Christmas and New Year's to provide recommendations in early January. 
The Board is expecting a lot for that which they couldn't produce in over 9 months. The sham of boxing the Task Force into such an unrealistic time frame is unfair to the volunteers, as well as doing superficial disservice to the complexity of the subject. If the result is to put more time into the effort, the original volunteers are best positioned to advance the subject. If the decision is to produce draft ordinance language working with the Town Attorney, again, the original volunteers are best informed to advance the subject. When, not if, ordinance language on this subject goes to the Met Council for review with answers to traffic, road and sanitary impacts, the original volunteers are best informed to advance the subject. All volunteers need to be informed up front of that possible time frame. Too much loss of continuity in the Task Force will delay overall progress and risk seriously undermining key issues carefully resolved but later re-visited by new members not having the benefit of the earlier discussions.
A point was made by a Board member that this Task Force should need less time because of all the "data" already collected in the two hearings.  A structured public hearing is not an adequate substitute for the open exchange and dialog that a public open house provides. Much of the hearing "data" is little more than opinions raising issues and concerns, not dialog to resolve those issues or detail reasonable regulation.

SCOPE: The scope of the Task Force must be clearly focused on public agri-tourism Township wide. It must not be allowed to digress into another venue for debating what is included and not included in private and commercial agricultural. That is a separate issue being handled in other appropriate venues, including the ongoing legal proceeding. A prerequisite for agri-tourism is being comercial ag, whatever that includes and is resolved outside the Agri-tourism Task Force. The Board continues to suggest that a task force doesn't need to develop explicit language but only provide "recommendations." The implication is that broad recommendations can be done more quickly and then refined into more specific language by others later. This is a completely false economy of effort and time by both the volunteers and Town legal counsel. Who better to provide carefully worded language than the group that has studied and discussed the issues in detail, and done so in concert with the Town attorney so that the concepts are sound and legally supported? This would still recognize that final legal language adjustments may be needed, but the confidence level that the final proposals are workable and proper will be much higher than vague language hastily drafted to meet an artificial deadline. Being able to answer questions specifically and thoughtfully at public meetings is a major factor in elevating the confidence of the public that the study has been
performed diligently.
   
TOWN BOARD SUPPORT: The Board should demonstrate its serious regard for this initiative in the following three ways:
1. The time frame needs to be made longer and can be tied to clear milestone decision points. The Commercial/Industrial Task Force reached an intermediate decision point and recommended no further pursuit. The Transfer Task Force completed its initial charge, but only then was asked to continue on to the final tasks. Of course, it is reasonable and proper for any task force or committee to provide monthly status reports to the commissioning body. This Board has seen that this has been done consistently, speaking of the seven years I have been active in the Township.

2. A Professional Planner needs to be engaged up front to work with the Task Force due to the nature and breadth of the subject. This is not only to provide technical support and experienced input on the subject to the Task Force or ask questions, but importantly to provide knowledgeable external perspective and validation of diligence for the 1100 owners of Eureka Township for whom the Board works. Government transparency and constructive dialog depend on public gatherings and outside objectivity. Only then will public confidence in the process and support for an initiative grow. Concerns about the value of professional consulting are often traced to misunderstanding and mis-management of the consulting service. A common mistake is to try to save money by asking very narrow questions. This limits the opportunity for a consultant to understand the goal and use their experience to identify alternatives and trade-offs. Adding a planning consultant later in the process rather than from the beginning will delay progress while the consultant is brought current with what has already transpired. As with legal guidance, bringing such knowledge and experience into the process at a later stage can result in important insight that will motivate the Task Force to reconsider
and possibly re-work portions they thought were complete, causing delay. 

3. An Aggressive Schedule requires direct access to legal counsel via the Task Force Chair or a designated legal liaison with the Task Force. Not all questions can be efficiently handled in writing alone. There may need to be dialog to clarify the question or the answer, as well as follow up questions based on the initial response. This was true in more than one instance with the Transfer Task Force to avoid spending time on a path outside the authority of a township, not being aware of the risks for a course being considered, or swinging effort to a better alternative suggested to the Task Force. A 60 or 90 day time box certainly allows no room for external delays impacting the progress of the Task Force.

A copy of the entire content of the presentation by Jeff Otto can be obtained from the Township Clerk in written form or on a CD of the Town Board meeting. Eventually, the written presentation should be posted on the Township web site as an attachment.