Dayton City Council — Transcript
Monday, September 14, 2026
City Code and Ordinance Overhaul
Affordable Housing Aid (LAHA) Policy
Purchase Agreement for The Triangle Property (P 31120 2213 022) with Opus
Purchase Agreement for Robinson Street Property (P 31121223156) with Pride of Homes
EDA Funding of Park Recreation
EDA Future Land Acquisitions in Oldtown
Staff Updates and Current Projects
Votes (3)
Old Business: City Code and Sign Ordinance Review
Dissent: None
Moved by Jack [9:29] · Seconded by Unknown [9:32]
Discussion regarding the city's outdated sign ordinance evolved into a broader call for a comprehensive review of the entire city code, including parking requirements, which are seen as onerous and impede development. It was noted that other cities like Elk River are undergoing similar overhauls with external input. The EDA legal counsel clarified that re-codification is primarily a City Council role but the EDA can advise on business impact. The Planning Commission is also addressing specific ordinance updates, but the EDA advocates for a larger, third-party-informed approach.
Public Hearing: Resolution EDA 226 Approving Purchase Agreement for The Triangle Property (P 31120 2213 022) with Opus
Dissent: None
Moved by Unknown [26:17] · Seconded by Unknown [26:24]
The public hearing concerned the sale of a tax-forfeit property to Opus. Key debate centered on the architectural design, specifically the required 40% glass on street-facing sides, which Opus found excessive for market pricing. Opus proposed alternative language for 'enhanced architectural features' and prominent glazing. The EDA expressed concern that Opus's proposed language allowed for a design similar to a less aesthetically pleasing building they previously constructed across the street, seeking a 'wow factor' for this gateway property. The EDA attorney suggested a contingency during the due diligence period for architectural plan approval or explicit language stating that the existing Opus building design is not satisfactory.
Public Hearing: Resolution EDA 32026 Approving Purchase Agreement for Robinson Street Property (P 31121223156) with Pride of Homes
Dissent: None
Moved by Unknown [32:56] · Seconded by Unknown [33:04]
The EDA approved the sale of another tax-forfeit property, P 31121223156, to Pride of Homes for $103,000. The developer is required to build a dwelling (single-family or multi-family) within five years (by September 1, 2031). A key point of inquiry from an EDA member was the maintenance of the property during the five-year development period, recalling past issues with undeveloped parcels. Legal advised that property maintenance would be handled by standard city code enforcement rather than conditions in the purchase agreement.
Notable Quotes (11)
I think the entire city code needs to be reviewed and updated. And there's been a number of things including things like not only signs but parking that I've heard a number of applicants in their meetings with the city need to either get variances or whatever for these codes because they're out of date.
Ordinances are really more the purview of the council. That said you can certainly advise them that you're hearing that that the current ordinances are impacting the business community. But in terms of actual we call it recottification, that's really a city city council role.
I mean I hope the motion that I put forward is detailed enough that council understands this isn't the planning commission doing a review of the ordinance. I think it's bigger than that.
The language that we had proposed for the windows was that they needed to provide a visually pleasing structure and the developer shall have no less than 40% glass on each building side with street frontage... Opus necessarily misunderstood, but they were concerned that that was not something that the market would support.
40% is way above and beyond what we normally do. that puts us out of the market pricing and we'd like to work with you to come up with other materials recognizing that we feel like we can come up with a a blend and working together to reach consensus of a very attractive building.
The pictures in the packet are totally different than this. And that's what I'm worried about. is that way they have it written, they could build this versus what I think is in our vision.
An option would be they have a due diligence period where they have to that's where they are going to be getting all of their approvals for the project... So, we could propose that during that same due diligence period, we have a contingency um that is approving some some level of approval on the architectural plan set.
The idea with this purchase would be a new development um for almost town home style rentals um along Robinson Street.
The buyer is going to be required to build a a dwelling uh within 5 years. So September 1st, 2031, um that dwelling could either be a single family or multif family.
We went through this recently on a parcel elsewhere where the developer was given time to develop and which was all fine, but what we found is that they were not maintaining the property... Is there good language in the purchase agreement that covers us on that to make sure that they are maintaining the property during that uh period prior to development?
The purchase agreement wouldn't be a good place to put that because it would it's not a condition that's going to live after we sell the property. So, our better mechanism as the city is code enforcement.
Ordinances & Resolutions (7)
Approving the purchase agreement for P 31120 2213 022 (The Triangle) with Opus.
Approving the purchase agreement for P 31121223156 (Robinson Street) with Pride of Homes.
City ordinance under review for potential updates.
Local Affordable Housing Aid policy being discussed.
General city regulations identified as needing a comprehensive review and update.
Updated plan for the Oldtown area, with a new city center small area plan grant awarded.
Broader city planning document, mentioned in context of data centers.