Dayton City Council — Transcript
Thursday, October 1, 2026
Interim Use Permit for Home Extended Business (RV/Boat Storage)
Ordinance Amendment and Conditional Use Permit for Vehicle Leasing/Sales
Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Sundance Green's 12th Edition
Votes (3)
Public Hearing for Interim Use Permit for Home Extended Business at 14847 Vixsburg Lane
Dissent: Keith [49:46] voted against, citing concerns about zoning non-compliance and setting a negative precedent for city planning, consistent with his earlier discussions.
Moved by Darren [48:30] · Seconded by Keith [48:36]
The applicant, Eric Odigard, sought to renew and expand a storage business that had been operating since 2018 under a 5-year IUP which expired in 2023. The proposal included adding two new buildings, bringing the total commercial floor area to over 50,000 sq ft on an A1 agricultural property. Commissioners raised concerns about the scale of the business misaligning with 'home extended business' definitions (e.g., 30% of home floor area, one accessory building) and potential precedent-setting. The applicant justified the expansion due to market demand and fire code requirements for multiple, smaller buildings, and requested a 20-year term to recoup significant investment. Residents offered support, noting minimal traffic impact and the service provided. Debate ensued on the IUP term length, balancing the applicant's financial needs against the city's long-term planning, particularly the future Dayton Parkway and residential development in the area. Some commissioners felt a 10-15 year term offered more flexibility for future city control over land use.
Ordinance Amendment for CUPs in the I1 Zoning District and CUP for automobile and other vehicles of transportation exceeding such weight rental and sales at 18350 118th Avenue
Dissent: None, the motion to table passed unanimously, driven by concerns over existing non-compliance and applicant's absence.
Moved by Darren [1:09:59] · Seconded by Keith [1:10:04]
MTL, an existing industrial facility, requested an ordinance amendment and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow vehicle leasing/sales in the I1 industrial district, primarily to transfer their Minnesota leasing license from Brooklyn Park to their Dayton address. Staff presented this as an administrative 'paperwork change' with no anticipated alteration to external operations, subject to conditions like no public road parking or vehicle advertising. However, residents, including John Waldron and Eric Supple, voiced strong concerns about existing non-compliance at the MTL site regarding over-capacity outdoor storage, noise, and unmaintained buffer areas. Commissioners expressed disappointment that MTL representatives were not present to address these issues and noted clear evidence of violations from aerial photos. The discussion explored the implications of granting a new CUP while existing compliance issues were unresolved.
Amending 2040 Comprehensive Plan related to Sundance Green's 12th Edition
Dissent: Keith [1:35:19] voted against, reiterating his broader concerns about the city's approach to planning, inconsistencies, and previous re-zonings.
Moved by Commissioner [1:34:52] · Seconded by Commissioner [1:34:58]
This item was a request from city staff to amend the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to align with a previously approved zoning map amendment for Sundance Green's 12th edition and to correct existing land use guidance errors related to Dayton Farms Park. The proposed changes involved adjusting small slivers of land between 'low density residential' and 'golf course' or 'parks and open space' classifications. A resident, Eric Supple, advocated for tabling the item, arguing the public hearing notice was fundamentally misleading due to incorrect land use definitions (parks and open space vs. golf course) and that the underlying zoning amendment and preliminary plat approvals from August were invalid. Commissioners largely viewed this as a clerical correction of a past oversight, emphasizing that the primary land use decisions were already made with the zoning approval.
Notable Quotes (12)
I mean, I view it kind of as a negotiation. I'd start by saying we can terminate what we want and see what they say.
I'm just wondering because this to me sounds a little bit more like a business extended home instead of a home extended business. Right.
I, at the time we did this, I, I really didn't pay attention to the 5-year. I thought we get the permit and it stays in effect until we stop storing. And that's when it lapsed.
My big hangup on the whole thing is this revolves around the zoning. if we're not going to pay any attention to what we've zoned the city at, you know, we're trying to do a a reasonable plan for the city into the future. And this doesn't fit that plan.
This is essentially allowing us to do what they currently already do as part of their operations, just doing it from their Dayton address rather than their Brooklyn Park address.
Yeah, Because I again I live right there and that lot's full. Actually, it's over full. It's over the capacity of what's supposed to be there. And they do have product outside, you know, just on on pallets that are exposed to the elements.
It'd be helpful if the applicant were here. Yeah. I'm disappointed that they're not here because I have a lot of questions for them. I can't I'm surprised that they're not here.
Now I I do agree that the infraction should be looked at because they're clearly blowing that number. Unfortunately, you can look at multiple years and it's an issue on multiple images and the issue extends to the property to the east. I drive by it all the time and I know what we approved.
I guess what what you're telling us is this is what the intent was initially that somebody just screwed up with the maps. Is that what I Yes.
As published, the purpose is incorrect and therefore the public notice criteria, in my opinion, is not satisfied.
The comprehensive plan, you're setting a vision of what how the city is going to develop or not develop in over the next 20 years. With the comprehensive plan, it's intended that the zoning is con is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
And and again, in my thought process, it wouldn't have been any different as far as because the zoning and the and the land use are generally our thought of consistent and we approved the resoning. So,
Ordinances & Resolutions (12)
Temporary land use authorization, distinct from Conditional Use Permits.
Permanent and transferable permit for specific land uses, subject to conditions.
Document outlining the conditions for the original 5-year Interim Use Permit.
Proposed change to the city's code to allow new uses in specific zoning districts.
State license required for leasing more than five vehicles per year.
Document from a 2022 Planning Commission meeting detailing approved outdoor storage stalls for MTL.
Statute governing the publication requirements for public hearing notices.
City's long-range plan guiding development over 20 years, subject to amendment.
Change to the city's official zoning map, ideally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Change to the future land use map within the Comprehensive Plan.
Grant-funded project to revisit and update the master plan for the city center area.
Future update planned for the city's comprehensive plan.