e is 6:30 we will call the October 3rd Planning Commission meeting to order first order of business is pledge allegiance of the United States of America to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all all right uh next on the agenda role of the Planning Commission I am not going to read that tonight uh item four approval of agenda any corrections or changes to the agenda no I'll make a motion to approve the agenda second we have a motion and a second all those in favor I I all those opposed motion passes 5 Z next item of business consent agenda uh we have the Planning Commission minutes from September 5th any corrections comments Mo approved second we have a motion in a second to approve the consent agenda all those in favor I I all those opposed motion passes 0 next item item six open form uh public comments limited to 3 minutes for non-agenda items anyone here for open form all right um I'm assuming no one online uh one person online if you want to raise your hand for open form all right we will move on uh Count Council [Music] update okay so for September 10th we had um before Danielle left she had set up this adopt a park actually I'm not sure who set up I thought it was her anyways um groups and her individuals can now adopt a park and periodically make sure that it stays clean uh there was the Cannabis Sony ordinance most of that went I think the way the same way you guys had kind of set it up um it was for the most part going to be treated as off sale liquor and there were some other minor issues but that went through we had a Code Enforcement issue um that looked like it was boiling up to go to court and the um two sides got together and kind of hammered out differences and that was approved by the council what those were 2025 budget was approved well um initially it was rejected and then there was a very quick um discussion and one of the people that voted against it then changed his vote um but you know there's a lot of details in that if you're you have questions about so it eventually passed three to two um so if you're concerned about what what was in there why was it voted for or against you might want to get a hold of the individual council members and that was for the 10th the 24th um we were asked to put together so the Met council is making some changes I think it's on your agenda for tonight uh the Met council is making some changes and uh they have a comment period and um so we kind of gave staff some of our thoughts um and what those comments should be DCM Farms concept plan I think a lot of those issues were uh similar to what you guys had brought up uh I think there was a few of us concerned about the the density the number of small Lots um it was oh it was also established that the whole commercial area will be another plat it'll kind of be treated as a I think you you had known that too it was kind of kind of be treated as a as an outlaw for the purposes of this one uh then we had an item for a uh National Fitness campaign apparently it's a a thing where you build a fitness Court in one of the parks um but it looked like the budget hit was going to be somewhere around 200 Grand if we weren't going to get enough grants and so um we basically put it back in staff's hands to see what grants were really available because I think um a lot of us felt that we could spend 200 okay better elsewhere in the parks there was the zoning change request on um uh M Creek Park on that small property out there that was approved from uh EG to R R1 neighborhood Parkway neighborhood uh where those apartments are there was an EA that they went through and the ew had determined there was no Eis environmental impact statement needed so this was to affirm that that pass Five to zero and then there was um um approval for the parks to off for bids to get irrigation into some of our bigger Parks uh a few of them were going to need Wells but it was to uh um God forbid on all the equipment needed in that past five and that is it thank you any questions or comments all right moving right along uh item eight public hearing uh approval of compr comprehensive plan Amendment zoning map Amendment and preliminary plat for Diamond Creek Edition thank you Mr chair so um it as you described there's three applications with this project and I'll um kind of briefly explain each introduce each one and then go into a little bit more detail uh first of all the project is located off of diamond I'm sorry uh Dayton Parkway in Brockton so this is Dayton Parkway uh Interstate 94 will be over here and then Brockton over here so it's both the I'll refer to this as the north half and the South half um the applications are for a comprehensive plan Amendment a zoning map Amendment and then a preliminary plat uh one thing that's unique about this project is the prelimary plat is for all outlots uh the developer does not know what the eventual use is going to be so the intent is to build the streets now and then Market The Outlaws for development by others and so um this area is guided for General mixed use meaning it it could be a mixture of uh whether it's multif family commercial retail or um I'm going to say light industrial and what mean very very light I'll describe that in a little bit with the comprehensive plan Amendment uh the amendment is specific to to amend the uh sewer staging plan um Dayton is intended to grow both South to north and east to west uh we have this is kind of our growth plan of when sewer could be extended to any property in which decade for this project or this area it's guided as 2020 the intent is to amend this map so that it is in the current stage so it's a real relatively minor Amendment but it's a process that we need to go through is the attent John the whole area south of 94 that we're amending or is it just these Parcels right now it's just these Parcels um I I guess my preference would be to do the whole triangle but makes sense um I've got to advertise for that so I'll I'll come back again uh specific to the zoning map Amendment again the property right the properties are zoned A1 agricultural uh the intent is to rezone it to GMU 5 or general mixed use Southwest um listed on the screen is is an example of what the permitted uses uh which include multifam with a minimum of 12 units per acre as well as a offices uh schools Hotel retail in manufacturing that have manufacturing warehousing but it is limited to 50% of of a building that can be Warehouse so once again this isn't intended for a distribution center but rather a manufacturing use where that has some warehousing let's see um one of the challenges with this property I'm starting to digg in the preliminary PL is the amount of wetlands and flood plane so we have um several outlots uh a number of them are are actually Wetland so again the intent is to market the dry out lws for development in the future um when in I should say an outlaw is not buildable as it is um so this would require a future developer to come back in and replant the out lot as as a buildable lot at which time we would look at any easements that are required whether it's for uh storm water ponding or sidewalks trails and uh as well as land escaping requirements and other design standards okay critical issues with this um three that I I want to draw attention to uh the first one is the extension of the RightWay from uh Dayton Parkway to the north property line uh the property that's adjacent to the north is landlocked um there's somewhat of a question if the county would allow an access off of the roundabout um in previous conversations with the county the answer has been no um but there I don't know if that's been changed so that's a confirmation that is still needed from hennipin County uh the second item is the width of the RightWay on the south part uh staff's recommendation is to require 80 ft of RightWay that's uh RightWay with whereas 50 ft is proposed and then third item is uh we need further review for the grading and storm water plants and just uh forgot I had this slide can I can I jump in quick our packet did have a couple other critical issues have those since been resolved specifically moving the trail from the East side to the west side I I'm going to say they're resolvable so moving the trail it is well they are yeah okay um this drawing on the right is uh the parkway neighborhood so the intent is Three Rivers Park District will build a trail or we'll have a trail that will run along the west side of this road and then through this project as well um on the preliminary plant the trail is on the east side it it's should be a minor change to move it to the West agreed thank you um general questions we have the developer here also we do that when we get there you mentioned the RightWay with um that staff recommended 880 and they have 50 um and then Council also something about 60 yes did is Staff still recommending 80 yes okay got it so there's no expectations that you know whether it's the council or the commission are always going to follow staff's recommendation but we still uh have a obligation to to make recommendations that it that's it that's pretty short and sweet yeah that's the idea any other questions for staff would the applicant like to come forward [Applause] nice to be with you my name is Ken speeder I represent the sheney group this is Vicky Vanelle from WSB engineering just go over a few of these things uh start out with uh the uh preliminary PL or the uh issue regarding the street the road to the north so um we have talked to that land owner and they have assured us that they aren't landlocked that they've talked to the county they can get off the roundabout and they're fine we have sent a letter not not from me and not from Vicki we had the attorney for the client sent a letter to the city saying before we develop any any building there before we get those out Lots turned into Lots we will have worked out the transportation to the satisfaction of the neighbor of the north and that's of record you got the letter Council has the letter we delivered it we had yeah I remember I do not have have a cop this is from your attorney yes yeah I don't have a copy of it but I remember you I handed them out at the council meeting to everybody uh so we don't we we don't want to Plat it now cuz we don't know where the road's going to go so we met with the council and the council said that's fine put the cuer sack just a little cuer saac I got to get a road over to that our lot there so that I can sell the land people can do soil borings people can do uh we can look at grading we can do Environmental Testing but they got to get there but right now we're kind of water locked and and to some extent we're landlock if the neighbor to the north wasn't such a nice guy and let go in that way once in a while so it it's very reasonable we've committed that we're not going to build anything there other than the the KAC until uh uh we have a user and we're going to then work it out but it's likely that we really don't need a full Road there because we have had for example apartment Builders who would look forward to combining the two lots and then they would have their own internal system but you know I understand your role is to kind of play the what if game you know what if the two lots don't gets so what if well we got a letter into you saying we're just here to build roads for the last three years all I've wanted to do is build some roads so we can sell some land off your brand new bridge and this has been a big hangup we thought it was resolved it's it's coming back up here tonight and I'm prepared to answer any questions about it but I got to be candid with you and say there is no reason to Plat it tonight when nobody knows where it's going to go go ahead yeah I'll just add to that a little bit he here to keep me honest um so last September we did have a council meeting it was a very big concern of ours to have this road being platted all the way to the north property line because we don't know what's going to happen we don't know where the road is going to want to go what if it goes to the right what if somebody proposes something on the west side so um that was very important to us that's why we took it to the council last September um to talk about this and the council at that time had said they did not think we needed to put the RightWay all the way to the north property line so we were happy moving forward and then we met with staff again and we talked to them and we said how can we make all of us happy about this so at that time it was our recollection that staff had recommended preliminary platting that right away but not final platting it at that time until that Outlaw is developed because that Outlaw cannot be currently developed in its current state it can't be developed the issue T it has to come back so the issue tonight tonight is we have a preliminary plat that's going to show one thing we're going to have a final plat that shows something else and now the question has come up is that such a great idea so our idea is to show them on either one because either either way we have nothing but outlots we can't do everything on those lots without coming back to you and coming back to the C so it isn't like we're pulling something to our side of the table and you're on the short end of the stick you got control what's the mechanism for the city if there's not a preliminary platter that Road's platted to someday make sure that that road gets in there be it when that that Outlaw's developed is that our opportunity um yes but so our concern is um that Outlaw may not develop or may not develop for many many years it might uh the triangle piece of property might develop first or want to develop first in which case if it's landlocked um it has no access to the street it has no access to sewer water so you know Ken's project would would hold that triangle piece hostage until RightWay is is brought in and so in theory if we platted the road and they want to develop their parcel they'd have to probably pay for the entire Road anyway which is probably not going to happen meaning it'll hurt their feasibility analysis it could okay well let let me add to that I hate talking about this stuff because it comes up like a saying bad things I'm not trying to say bad things put it in this perspective if we don't develop the north side at all you got no sewer and water you got no road so so it's the road has become an issue but but it's a red herring it's an aggravation not not a real problem because I got to get sewer water to my own land I got you're not going to let me uh hook up to the sewer and water without the development I I just can go on and on about this this is after years of working with the Army Court of let me cross that water so could it ever occur that may be Crossing it now with permission is the right answer in case they changed their mind but we planning to cross it with this project are they wait they recording this these SS are recorded we're not on TV but we're recorded no you know we're just not that kind of folks you know I mean we're we're we understand how the game is played but but we're not playing fair and now we're in a pickle because we were told to do it this way with the preliminary plat you on one thing and the final plat now somebody saying that's not such a good idea I don't care I'll do one or the other but tell us what to do but I don't want to show that road on the final plat or the prelim plat I personally don't think that was a good idea to begin with but you know I'm preliminary plat what's that it's currently on the preliminary plat and we'll take it off or you can tell us to take it off so if you want to Market this piece of land this multi family piece of land um and eventually develop it that's your intention right if you find a user to do it and and I believe you in in saying that why not cross the Wetland now because it's it's not much further it's not really going to dictate the alignment of your roadway yet I think because that's my fear my fear is the Wetland is going to be the major impediment to actually getting over there this piece of land may never develop um you know stopping short of the Wetland I I get staff's concern in in that piece landlock but then it doesn't establish the full alignment want us to connect it at this point the guys to the north we've talked about it yeah and and the other thing is well you wouldn't you'd barely you I mean we're only talking getting a little bit further than what you're showing it now have the temp called a sack on the other side of the Wetland boundary and you know because we don't know what we're going to do we don't even know from our perspective we want it in the center of our lot so we can develop on both sides do we want it way to the one side so that it's out of way so to speak you know I mean you're you're already establishing the Direction with the curve of the road right you're already establishing a horizontal curve but by the time you get to that culdesac you're you're already showing where it's going at least to jump the Wetland that that's what I'm arguing for is is at least jumping the Wetland and all that's going to do is make your piece of land more marketable in the future too right um that's kind of where my head is at on that one it it doesn't lock you into an alignment through the entire you know piece of that multi family cuz you know in reality the way you already having it B you're probably going to cross the Wetland right there anyways it's the narrowest part of if I'm not mistaken here's why Vicki's here we got to have somebody with some brain here uh correct me if I'm wrong we really didn't have much decision making in that CU we tried to cross at one of the narrowest spots number one and then the curvature of the road was kind of mandated by how that that curb cut on yep where the curb cut is upd in Parkway and then the curvature to come in and through it had to cross at that point but the question is you're right could it turn west could it turn or go straight or continue yeah I mean I think it's going to the Wetland yeah yeah I think it would cross the Wetland right here it's like I said what I'd be advocating for is getting getting that temporary culdesac on the other side of the Wetland and that's the that's the plan and our current plans oh I guess I'm not seeing that in the drawings further down is it okay maybe I'm just looking at the wrong sheet page 54 yeah cuz our go okay so 20 oh okay that was the concept my apologies that's okay our goal was to make sure we got on the same page stuff at the same time CU you guys know how difficult that can be oh yeah then that's the page I was hoping to be on too question is planing commission okay with it being on the preliminary plat I know you don't deal with the final plat I guess in the approval process in your city but but or should we just leave it off now that you know what we're doing so you're saying the the culdesac is not part of the final plat cuac will be part of part of the final plat not there's a temporary culdesac it's not platted as a cuac correct it's going across the Wetland and then there'll be a temporary C there let me let me think back to another project Sundance Woods when it was put in um that road Rush Creek Parkway was temporary for I don't know five years six years and then they came through and platted it I mean that's the same situation we're dealing with here is it not to some extent um similar you're talking off Fernbrook off of Fernbrook to what what is now Sundance scens to the wood line more or less I don't know they agree that was in place before my involvement but Road existed so we have we have some precedence of something similar happening where a temporary Road was put in for use by residents of Sundance Woods to get here it's a little different because it's all your parcel but you don't know how it's going to at least in what's shown we you don't know how that Outlet's going to develop I don't see an issue with it no the issue is striking the preliminary plat from it the road from the preliminary plat yeah yeah um I'm kind of with Peter in the sense that it's just uh it is just that it's a preliminary plat and it's a commercial lot so it's like maybe in a residential neighborhood the preliminary plats are way more important because you're laying out tons of lots and if all of a sudden you change the road it can impact density this is a commercial lot I don't I don't know if I see the importance of it the flexibility might be very helpful but not only for our side of that line the guy on the North as well especially if we combine the two this could be a big big economic thing but a but a big developmental thing it also brings in a little bit bigger parcel of property should something fall out of the sky commercially that would decide it wanted to be there retail wise okay let me go on my next one uh the the only Vicki better to talk about this with me but the only thing on the 50 foot wide road is that's your code and I'll kind of just jump right in because it's hard to explain this is where we need it yeah the marginal versus um road which we had originally had this as a private drive on that South Side so we have dayon Parkway we have the roads coming south and we were going to just do a private Drive heading to the west to get across that other little um drainage ditch to get to that other parcel so we had a private Drive shown and so then it wanted to be public so that had come up last year we had talked about it and um it had been recommended to go to 60 and then we had looked at the code and said well this is really only a Marginal Road like this is a 50ft RightWay by code so we were went with that saying why you know cuz every foot that we don't put in RightWay gets to be sold and taxed so it just seemed like it was unnecessary in our mind um so we made it a 50- foot road so it sounds like they want to have a 36 foot face to-face Road and we're hoping we can do that in the 50 ft um so that is our goal that is our the thing we wanted to bring up that's right and and uh I guess the only other comment I would say you you touched on when when you look at the impediments we have we're we're kind of scrambling with uh development cost not your problem I understand but development cost you know having some inventory left by the time we give stuff away now I don't VI give the road as a give away we need the roads to get to the people but but we're trying to trying to condense that as much as we can now I I did say because I didn't understand I didn't realize the code was 50 I'm not sure any of us realized the code was only 50 feet at the time I did say to the council if you want 60 feet I'll go 60 feet and um I'm that guy you want the 6 huh if you want the 60 feet I said we'd give you 60 ft even though I shouldn't have said it I'm there but it isn't unfair that we're reminding you that your Cote only requires us to do 50 and I don't understand 80 at all so the north on the North half that's an 80 foot right away and that to us was a dictated by City because those are City roads and this was a separate private drive going to a separate lot that does not have a through at all so this was City dictated what that needed to be that was 80 ft these are City roads this was a private drive that became public that we're like here's another thing you start doing a couple retailers on those two immediate Lots we need a lot of room on those streets for turn lanes and this and that that that's a whole different you got your your Trails there yet right Trails there potentially yeah you got a lot of stuff going on up there and you got a lot of traffic in a very condensed area which I can't control cuz we hit the water so 80 ft made a lot of sense to me there yep coming into the intersection the only intersection that H is all that stuff going to the South and to the east to the north triangle so it was and especially if we put um uh residential on our parcel or the parcel goes residential to the north even if we don't do Residential on ours you know you got a lot of action in a fairly concise area here we would have a a project at the end of the road so to speak not the same situation um so ra there's also the issue of should this be a public Street or a private Street well we've agreed to make it public I think it kind of depends on the use a little bit too and we don't know that I know what that is if you're wondering what some of us are waiting for we're waiting for the two Engineers to chime in I I I if if that's what you're looking for I think 60 ft is probably the best for that road we don't know what the outlaw will be it does provide room for potentially turn Lanes if you would need it depending on the use inside the cesac and then further to the South um there's not a ton of stacking room between that uh we'll call it the what's labeled now as a self private Street um and by the time you get to that signal so that that would be my feeling from an engineering standpoint 60 ft seems appropriate through there given the discussion that has already been had with city council um you know you get 80 ft a right away you can put a lot of stuff in there I totally get that and we don't know what's on the outlaw F but I think city council has provided their direction as well that you know 60 foot is something that they were would be agreable to and and I think you can make that work um for a street that will it be a culac right it's not going to go anywhere I I I will live up to my big mouth are we well and are we envisioning on this um private well this the street that we're talking about is there Trails or sidewalks on that it looked like a sidewalk was called out I mean then then i' I'd lean towards you know 50 ft but or 60 ft 5 foot long 5 foot yeah yeah the the reason 50 comes in is I can sell land to somebody and tell them they got to put a trail on yep okay and it's in their 10-ft drainage of utility that most cities have and on these areas we might want to have a little bit bigger green area there cuz it's hard to make a I got two Engineers here it's hard to make it's hard to make that turn to come in and make a parking stall with only 10 feet if you get out 20 feet now you can get the guy in a lane and aart so that 20 ft is going to be gone so the question is do I give it to you in a street or do I sell it on behalf of my client that's that's what it's all about because at the end of the day you want the trail you got to have uh you might have some drainage utility that don't fit in that Street area they could go in my 10 20 ft that that's why I think 50 isn't totally unfair but again I said I go 60 Jason does the city allow utilities underneath Trails or do we require those to be off the pavement area preferably the trail would be in the right away the utilities be off the we do have situations where they do run under the trails dual trench or dual joint trench um they're typically joint trench in what we do both sides um it's a good question we have come across it a lot okay cuz that occupies it you know I mean there's it gets pretty tight at 50 there probably wouldn't be anything on the S just it's not developed on that you would probably only need it on one there was discussions of a trail on one side Sidewalk on the other Emergency Services wanted a bypass lane if you will in case of a stalled or otherwise stranded or a vehicle on the side so that was the reason for a 36 minimum and then with a trail and a sidewalk that was the preference for a wider yet right away Trail and sidewalk is kind of plus the bypass lane is what helped get you guys to that 80 recommendation yeah I mean that's our our typical for a commercial just to fit all that stuff in there I mean another way to to look at it I maybe Crossing comments here that I was reading but you know to your point Ken is maybe put it in an easement um but just to note not that it couldn't be amended or an overlay but dnu easement does not support Trail use as their standard there can be an overlying easement to allow Trail use but yeah just to not they can't just automatically go within that area should I go on to the next item this is a quick one uh the uh this is kind of a new item to us um they would like a a temporary easement uh to go at the end of what we're currently calling a private Drive which is really a city street uh uh for fire SE this brand new to us as a matter of fact this this is uh been a lot of aggravation on my part here this is one of the bigger ones because I begged for that and then everybody said no you can't do it we can't do it we can't do it so now I'm being mandated to do it so I talked to John today and I think we've resolved this now I don't want to speak for you well you are but yeah it's it's workable it's workable and and and just so everybody knows and if I misspeak you'll you'll get in uh you know it it should be the first person who velops in that area that does it I don't know why it's my responsibility because somebody else is building 640 units for me for me to provide fire access for him but I'm not against being cooperative we'll give you a temporary easement for the thing we just don't want to build and pay for that stretch of road we're building paying for a lot of stretches of road so I I don't think that's unreasonable but the idea that it came up aggravated me to no end because I wanted it and then nobody wanted to give it to me and now it's a mandated thing but where we are right now is this we'll we'll Grant the easement we'll show it on the preliminary plat we'll show it on the final plat but what we want to do is we don't want to be responsible for it because not ours and I think we talked about with John tell me if I'm wrong U but that whoever builds first if that does happen to be us that needs it for fire access build a building you know all of a sudden you need fire access to get here for these Parcels on this property then we would be the one to have to put it in I don't want anybody think that our roads are building yeah we're just this is a road project project so if I can provide a little bit of context so the property to the east is the parkway neighborhood there's 650 units that are being proposed here um and whatever gets built here is built here but all of this is coming out on one access point if this intersection or or uh entrance is blocked for whatever reason nobody's getting out there is an existing Farm Road that goes along the South property line um we've discussed this in depth if this can be used as the emergency access road the problem there's two problems with this one is that it's in the flood plane it it if there's a flood it doesn't work as an access point two is that there's a weight restriction on the culbert that crosses the creek here uh so the solution that that staff is is uh requiring is that there be a temporary emergency access road that goes uh from this kisac to Brockton and the reason why I'm saying it's temporary because we don't know what's going to how this outlaw is going to get laid out um the intent is that there will be a permanent easement for an emergency access we don't know where that's going to be it'll be figured out once this outlaw is um developed and so with as part of the development agreement uh Ken will dedicate an easement for the RightWay or for the easement for the emergency access and intent is whoever builds first would actually build the emergency access so so to clarify Ken's not responsible for building the road just providing space for it unless he builds first unless he builds first what sort of road is this to put it perspective is it uh paved it it's paav so I mean it'd be up to the the fire chief so generally speaking I'm thinking we would like 20 ft um yeah I think it'd be up to the Fire Marshall uh to determine um they have been accommodate accommodating to lesser than a 20 foot but they do want it to support an engine so it' be a pretty robust section yeah so it' be a fairly heavy construction we have fire lanes are 20 ft wide that allows uh whether it's fire engine or ladder or whatever to set out rigor so the truck might only be eight or 9 ft wide but it takes 20 ft to set up um within the temporary ement there's they're not going to set up so they just need to get from point A to point B and then just to recap can you're okay with the easement and who as long as whoever goes first builds the road yeah and that's kind of what staff is saying too right and I think it's key that it's temporary because as he said we don't know exactly how we're going to develop so got to have a little wiggle room for for everybody to work but yeah I think the intent of this one was a 16 foot e probably a 12 or a 14ot paved Road through there uh if needed if this site were to develop we would just work with the development layout to create a permanent access through here if it's an apartment building it would just be a heftier section of the parking lot just for example out to the rightaway okay John John getting some credit he had the best line he says Ken why do you get upset when you were right just that's a great line John we we love that line that that was good I I enjoy that I haven't studied the plans enough but does it I mean I'm looking at it it seems like the grades are less it's a shorter distance to go back up to Dayton Parkway um and not Crossing Wetland if it's temporary just thinking from a cost saving stand point if a row could be selected we could look at that so just you know it's to a and the the intent was to have a second access that does not rely on the intersection of Dayton Parkway because that's where an accident or other blockage might occur he just say you'd rather have it separate to a different in case just giving you guys both you guys and and the other property more flexibility and whatever is cheaper yeah appreciate seems to make sense to look at at least unfortunately the secondary out is so close to the miss the primary not much separation for safety purposes you could still have a crash that blocks both and I think we have a six or seven foot grade change right at the road Edge there too so um I I appreciate where you're going and I think um having it a part of the development as we move forward like Jason just said I think would be very helpful if it's just a beefed up section in that drive aisle I think that's acceptable to all of us next item was the trail uh the only comment is I wish we'd have learned that earlier so we didn't have to spend the time and money to switch it but where the good news is we've analyzed it and we can do it without having to go back to the Army court that was our main concern what if it's more Wetland Phill or what if there's some concern about that and I don't dislike those people but that's a career move I've had marriages that haven't lasted as long as I tried to get those water Crossings okay and then the last one is I want to be very articulate about this and this is again where this is vandel will help me out so I'm going to give I want to give I'm willing to give I'm all on board with giving drainage and utility easements over those outlots where we have Wetland now there's a lot of reasons for that one of them I don't care and the other one is if I don't do it the Army Corps approval goes away so so guess what we're going to do that what I don't want to do is give drainage utility easements now when you don't need them because we're not doing anything over all of our land now that didn't come from me that came from uh the sheny group's attorney we're not going to do it and you don't need it and the only way I can develop anything is when I come back in I got to show my storm ponds I got to show how I'm controlling all that water you don't need a drain utility easement over these outlots when nothing's happening on them I don't know why I raised my voice do you seem like nice people why am I yelling what am I doing but I'm so sincere about it I I mean what do you need it for and Jason I think the intent is that we have an ease I don't think it's an easement over the entire Outlaw it's an easement from like say the the RightWay to the white land or to whatever structures we have no we've done it as a general practice so any outlots that are going to be further subdivided or developed we do put a drainage and utility easement over it in case there are any intermittent drainage issues in which case the property owner is probably not going to respond to the case that would give the city the ability to go and rectify it or any of a safety concern or any others without claims of trespassing or other other concerns one thing we have done this has become an issue with some other developments as well they don't like to dedicate it on the plat because now whates a recorded document which you must later vacate through a public hearing process what we've done is not in required the easements to be dedicated with the plat but instead a separate agreement be uh entered and recorded against the property that having a clause or a provision in there to automatically expire U when a final plat is later determined on there so that that has lowered the red flakes if you will um through the title process when there's Acquisitions and transactions going on so we've had good luck with it um we would recommend having that on there just for protection of the city but if you if you didn't want to have it I mean to their point there is not utilities or facilities that need to be maintained by the city on a regular basis so it could be considered to go without but we would recommend it just as a precaution is that the first time you've heard of that agreement Ken from the city yeah and let me add to that why don't why don't we come to that road on bad choice of words why don't we come to that after we do something Beyond build roads Jason how's it decided where the easy goes do it just follow the road ising the road okay yeah I I see the point of not having a du over the entire when you got to record it unrecorded and it just can make it cumbersome I like the agreement wrot better period I guess myself but and it's not uncommon and you know to to request something like that like Jason had said it's if there's a drainage issue somebody has to go Rectify it um and and often times if there isn't you know the developer is not currently there working on a project they don't have iron nearby they don't have you know they have to pick up the phone and call somebody to get them out there and Public Works has got a dozer or they've got a frontend loader they've got dump trucks they can get there right away if they need to to do something and then they're not TR I suggest why I suggest this why don't you make if we're getting along here why don't we make the Motions that we've talked about throw that one in there I'll be able to talk to the attorney about it this kind of coming it's kind of like the trail we we switch sides you know kind of like the color we all of a sudden we got a new we got a new extension to the road but you know why don't we do that because I I I want you to be happy and it sounds like you especially you know I saw a lot of heads bobing Sarah are you on board with that yeah yes all right I I just want to be sure I I want to move I you know I'm getting old I got to get this done before I die I want to get this thing done so why don't you put it in your recommendations and then I'll run that up to flag pole it sounds reasonable to me but I'm not the lawyer so let's do and we don't make decisions up here anyways right the decision that's made by city council you have some time to figure that out I was more Curious on you know it doesn't seem like there's a ton of improvements going on on this site so how would you deal with it if there was flooding issues today I mean that's that's the way I was thinking about it it's the same but they they are changing direct patterns with okay so but it is largely in touch yeah and how I was thinking about it too is say they sold an out lot it got developed we still have all these other Outlaws now what if an issue came out that may be a good time to readdress this to be honest with you I thought of that as well you know what we come in with something because that that person even if they handle all of their water could have an impact on on something else not so much the little lot on the North left but we start going down and doing that big lot now we're you know just the Waterway away from we're a Waterway away from everything you know I I hear what you're saying that's a good time to you know you do something on the North you better think about all of it you do something on the south you better think about all of it if there was a drainage issue was it hurting today it's not the owner right if once a lot gets developed if there was one that's concern I guess for this I I'm not the expert in this field but I would seems unne that the easement now just let it go until the development occurs but yeah I'm okay with no easement I'm okay with the agreement if we can figure it out myself yeah uh Jason or somebody see me the effort of trying to correspond between plat sheets and grading plan sheets the ponds that are being proposed on both the North segment of the project and the South segment of the project are all of those are they are not within the outlots correct the outlots are outside of those areas there sep out Lots what's that separate outlots so the ponds the permanent bmps are within their own outlots and I think the the applicant is providing permanent easement on those okay because those really are the items that would potentially need maintenance right those I would yeah I would say those are essentially critical they'd be placed over that the others would be based on we don't have a problem with those mhm yeah part of the agreement I guess this is just a question for Jason and yourself Ken is once an Al lot develops you're not planning to grade a lot of the other Al lots that you know some problems with drainage could arise correct because of that we have to get the grading plan in separately approved here anyway right uh yeah I mean typically the grading plan is approved with the preliminary plan okay well we have a grading plan in but obviously if somebody starts moving stuff around everybody's going to look at it well and we're surrounded by Wetlands right so these kind of outlets are really their own pieces so I see them each developing individually unless there's some dirt sharing that can happen and therefore we would transfer dirt but other than that I don't see them being graded at the same time M yeah and I was just more thinking if you don't grade them at the same time that can create potential storm water issue yes but really they're locked between Wetlands that's where the it's a unique site for sure I got some good news I got nothing else thank you anything else for the applicant I don't have any questions all right this is a public hearing so at 7:19 I will open the public hearing anyone here to comment on this one anyone online for this one all right well then I will close the public hearing any further discussion I would just say with some of the critical issues just to make sure we're kind of in particular I want to be on the same page as the couple Engineers up here um the only one that um seems like it's a little up in there maybe it's not but is the road right away with I guess if you guys have strong opinions on something I'd like to hear it before I can weigh in I mean if Ken's open to going to 60 ft I'm fine with that agreed if it's if it has to be 50 I'd like to see a section and put a little more thought into it but 50 seems or 60 seems plenty to to be workable okay and in the current plinary plat that we're approving is at 60 or we going to make it a condition that it's 60 John um I I believe the developer is going to revise the plat okay before it go to Cil got it okay and I'm assuming that it sound like we all shook our heads that we were okay with no no no the road doesn't necessarily have to be shown on the preliminary plat north of the culdesac correct yep so so to be clear the CAC ends at I'm going to say the just north of the Wetland the Wetland right there and then this will not be shown on the preliminary or the final and I'll clarify I was wrong on that when I was looking at the looked to be the concept plan that started I was looking at that first one too yeah cuz it it first one in the packet it's first one in the packet so that's exactly where my focus went so you know really my original concern on that was fixed by the drawings further in the packet comments I will make a motion to approve a comprehensive plan amendment to move this from 2020 staging to current staging as well as to amend the zoning map from A1 to GMU 5 and I'll also make a motion to approve the preliminary plat um subject to the conditions we discussed here the 60 foot RightWay and not showing the RightWay to the north property line yeah and I guess I don't know if this is part of it but the condition of uh I'm well we didn't really I'm okay with just the agreement on the dnu over the Outlaws versus having a dnu eement okay second we have a motion in a second any further discussion all right all those in favor I all those opposed motion passes 5 Z thank you so much for taking all this time I appreciate a lot everything thank you and good luck this goes to my client by way this goes to councel uh October second thank you again all right next up we have uh item 9A resolution finding of the acquisition of certain Properties by the city of Dayton is in compliance with the city's comprehensive plan we're trying to make a short title for you uh so there's a story with it um so the city is in need of a third fire station uh the council has agreed to purchase a ladder truck which we would take agree take delivery in 2028 uh by that year by 2028 it needs a place to go so currently the ladder truck would only fit in station one and two if there's other trucks that are moved out of there and if we move those trucks and they also need a home so the intent again is to build a new uh Fire Station 3 by the year 2028 um we had looked at uh building a fire station on a tax forfeit property off of Dayton Parkway in County Road 81 uh the council determined that that is not the highest and best use of that property and then directed staff to find another location uh we the city completed a fire Services study and I'm not sure if that's the right term for it but um I'll call it that in uh this past May um the study had determined the uh optimal location for fire station um without any uh assumptions as far as future growth goes so the idea is if station one and two were replaced by a new station one and two um these are the best places to go where they would provide an 8 minute response time to every most places in the city um neither one of those locations have access to sewer and water and station three will need access to se water uh so that criteria the search criteria then for us became the the area along 117th and East French Lake Road so this is 117th East French Lake Road uh we reached out to many property owners and have negotiated the sale price or the purchase price uh for this property uh it is 9 and 12 acres um it's probably larger than what we would need for a fire station uh We've also discussed having a fire training center um in potentially a future location for a Civic a future Civic campus so City Hall um and anything that might go with it over the next I'm going to say for the the next 50 to 100 years so um staff's position is to look at this as kind of a big picture item of what is our needs uh for the time when we're built out right now the need is for a fire station statutorily in order for us to purchase land the planning agency is requ the statue requires the planning agency to review uh compliance with the comprehensive plan so this is the comprehensive future comprehensive land use plan at the left uh the location is here circled in white uh the land is guided um medium density residential as well as commercial neighborhood commercial and Greenway overlay area The Greenway overlay area would be I'm going to say this Wetland complex and the woods that connect the two uh the comprehensive plan does not designate any land for a future Public Services area it's just not something that we had thought about um so again the dis the request tonight is for the commission to to determine if this is compliant with or consistent with the comprehensive plan I have a question um I was I've been out talking to people in the city for reasons um and uh someone mentioned that at one point we were in in a were starting agreements with Rogers and Champlain to get fire like to share fire Services closer to the borders and so that we don't all need to go buy this equipment right we can share it and put a fire station closer to the Border um and that that plan just kind of fizzled and died during the transition cuz there was a lot of turnover everywhere in the city at that time um so just wondering was like what happened with that sure I I'm it might be a better question for Dennis what happened with that um I think about uh when we had heard OA was starting to look at putting in their own station and whatnot um Zach had reached out to them and um I think he also talked to Rogers at the time oigo wasn't interested uh I don't know that there was a lot of interest right Rogers um but there's also been some churn over there I don't know I do not understand it because each City having all these facilities to me is bunkers yeah um but here we are it would make more sense to share it I agree but um yeah and so you know whatever regardless of what goes into this land um you know there's probably it probably has some utility you know even if we're not talking about a station but so yeah right does it have utility as future water plant area or is that kind of too far out of where we're hoping to put the saltwater plant no that would actually be right in the area that's what I thought too I was like it seems like a good spot for right in the middle of our proposed well field so got it that's what I thought and and you know what if we can't use it we can sell it but I guess my my only thought on it I mean I don't mind certainly don't mind the the the added fire station closer closer to my neighborhood um CU at one point I looked at joining and and technically I was too far by by minutes to to joining uh the fire department um but one of the things that that just struck me as a training facility here this doesn't seem like the op of the three fire locations station locations this doesn't seem like the optimal training facility so that'd be my only concern this is definitely at least currently in much more residential maybe in the future future when there's more stuff around it but with the the new buildout and knowing how vocal that that neighborhood was when we when the substation wanted to build out um just something to note so that seems like a great spot from a proximity to neighborhoods in our future you know commercial hub with Dayton Parkway extension could be a great spot for a to allall that gets relocated or um yeah I agree the the training side I mean but again like a some point a lot of dating gets built out right like you know if you want training you got just kind of find a spot and that's big enough that you can isolate it a little bit we have fire training that's happening right now yeah here yeah I mean doesn't doesn't mean there always doesn't mean they're starting fires it just means they're training on the equipment and and procedures I'm thinking back to the days when I lived in the West Metro Fire Department District in Crystal and the training facility they had in New Hope was pretty pretty substantial I'm thinking about that one not not what they're doing here the stuff they do here is fine I mean I live right here it doesn't bother me at all y so it's kind of cool when they bring the helicopter in once in a while got the kids like it so that'd be the only thing just to make sure whatever gets built there outside of an actual station probably get some input yeah um my thoughts and it really doesn't relate to what we're tasked with meaning consistency with the comp plan um but I just don't think this is a great fire station location from a standpoint this is some pretty optimal land I mean you just look at the surrounding features I hate to put public infrastructure there when that's better suited I get we need land and this is the one that was available but it's just such great natural features there for some subdivisions that people wish we hadn't Aon and if you put a fire station there that's gone whether that be a medium density or even low density I mean it's surrounded by areas that aren't going to change because of the topography and the wetlands that I'm just I I I I would hope that we could find a better location and I'll just leave it that you know whenever we put this fire station in the land's probably only going to be 10 to 15% of the overall cost so I I wish we would be focused on the land now and not saying this wouldn't be a good site for the city maybe for something else um but buying a site now just for a fire station when it's not maybe the and maybe this was the ideal location I'm not sure there was other locations that people thought more ideal I I would have figured it'd be better to be closer to Dayton Parkway I mean it's not like it's that far away but it's you know now that Dayton Parkway shifted it's further away thus our current comp plan has this commercial because Dayton Parkway was right next to it John any advice on how to interpret consistent with the comp plan when it's a public institutional use because sure so I I'm going to say the black well it's open interpretation by the Planning Commission so you'll add you know when you look at the future land use map I mean we have land that's just that's guided for parks in open space um not for uh government or institutional uses it's just it's we're a small category um you know Parks take up a lot of space and so it's easier to say okay we're we're looking long term and this land should be designated Park or open space it's harder when you look at you know whether it's a fire station or a public works garage or New City Hall um those can go many different places but uh it kind comes down to when when you need to when you need to build it that's when you need the land yeah and I would think that even I mean I don't know this but even with the ddl site I would hope that I mean they're going to have land for sale once they get it figured out is how much land do we need for a fire station is I I want to say yeah was just going to round it 5 to 10 so yeah well I I think they can get by with three but they want six in case there's a training center and you know is that common that there's training centers with cities that's no that's a potential Revenue potential revenue or potential liability depending on how it goes yeah right now they can't make the money work unless we get a big Grant yeah again I'm not I get we need a fire station down there and we need land I would just hope that uh the city leaders would stay open-minded versus if you buy the site for the fire station and lock into it I mean even if you end up buying the site i' keep keep looking around for potentially a better site I think you're going to have to to lock in pretty soon though 2028 is really not that far away we're almost 2025 you've got to get through architectural you've got to get through all that and then you got to build the thing um and and at some point you're going to have to pull the trigger on what it's going to be at some point kind of soon um fire trucks often get delayed so I wouldn't be shocked if it's 2029 when that thing shows up but um I you know to to your to what you're saying I I I don't think if if you say let's buy this and let's keep looking I don't think that window's even really that big to keep looking because I do think at some point that you got to move and and start developing some plans to build something on it you know I mean it's just not that far away um from the perspective of whether or not it's consistent with a comprehensive plan is it a reach to think you know the the master plan that we had looked at we had looked at all three options has this varying from low to medium uh density residential understanding uh residential areas need a fire station that's not a reach right I mean so I think it would be consistent if you're planning this area for residential I think putting a fire station there is consistent or you know public institutional use I think is consistent with the comprehensive plan IE I do like all the multi multifaceted possibilities for the site though it is larger than a fire station needs but you know we have talked a lot about an additional water you know a new water plant and having it right within the wellfield area uh you know makes that a pretty good multi-use site but I don't disagree that it would be a great residential development site as well how much space does the water treatment need good question question I don't I don't know off the top of my head I want to say our initial look was 10 to 15 acres for the full build out of the plan it wouldn't need to be that big initially but we'd want the room to expand to that it would it be a central plant when it's done it'd be a central to serve the South half of the city essentially so that's still big enough then for both no that's pretty big though that yeah it's a lot of land um and that might be a conservative just to make sure we we uh protect enough for the the future expansions but pressure filters or gravity filter gravity was what was originally considered well the downside to is it's a little land locked I mean there's a property to the west but that property looks like it's pretty nice property um and you got Wetlands to the east so if you needed to grow it to get more room for the water system or something it wouldn't really be able to be a challenge but you I think the location isn't consistent I would agree location General is good it's on 117th it's right by all the developing neighborhoods it's going to be really close to the where dayon Parkway comes through yeah I'm not I'm not really contending with the consistency issue I'm struggling the concept A little bit but I don't think that that's what I just think that there's better sites for a fighter station in particular along Dayton Parkway especially you know we're if long-term planning um there's going to be a pretty dense area to the north MH like having it a little bit closer there but I get it if that if we have timelines I mean it is what it is most like d Parkway won't be there yet when just get but even even if that you could find a site on Dayton Parkway that would help tremendously we don't even know where Dayton Parkway is going at no no closer on 117th yeah yeah and you know I'm I don't know this I just know that when I campaigned I know two of those homeowners that theyd s any day so like they can't wait they quit quit fixing up their homes and everything because they thought it was going to happen so what's being asked is for a motion and a second for approve a resolution so this is a resolution finding that the acquisition of certain property by the city of Dayton is in compliance with the city's comprehensive plan I make a motion to approve that alliance with the comprehensive plan we have a motion and a second all those in favor I I I I all those oppose motion passes 5 Z next item discussion of met Council imagine 2025 this a quick one uh so I and I know the commission's familiar with this but I'll try to explain it for anyone that's not so um the city has a comprehensive plan which is a 20-year guide which which we update every 10 years of how we would like the city to grow and it's both for uh land use water transportation there's this whole laundry list um our comprehensive plan is based on the Met council's comprehensive plan and they don't call it a comprehensive plan it's a a long list of policies and and goals um the Met council is going through their draft policy statements currently it was issued in the middle of August and they're taking public comments through uh Monday uh the document itself is over a th000 Pages um I I've struggled to get through I've got through three chapters of it but um but again the the Met council is soliciting public comments on it um issues that we've noticed that affect Dayton are specific to density and I'm going back up a little bit so the me Council has jurisdictions over the Seven Counties uh each Community or each portion of the community is provided a community designation so in Dayton we are designated a Suburban Edge Community um here we are similar to Ramsay Maple Grove and portions of Rogers and corporate uh within the Suburban Edge communities currently we are guided to have a residential density of 3 units per acre uh that is proposed to change to four units per acre and so trying to figure out what does that mean um generally speaking it means more smaller lots and so uh for Dayton this would be more R3 zoning districts rather than R1 zoning um we do have as the commission is probably aware of the majority of the projects that have been coming through have been coming through either in the R3 District or as a PUD um this graphic below is is uh the density gross density and net density metrowide as well as in Dayton uh so again this line here is the 3 units per acre that is the current guide um if it's shifted to 4 units per acre 4 units per acre uh net density uh the dark blue line is what Dayton's net density has been since 2009 with a couple years that are missing so as we have development and and development is I can't pronounce this word changes how about that okay sick sickal there we go uh you know some years we have a lot of development going on and then the next year it's more of a build year and then year after that it it's more you know when I say development it's prelimary plants and final plants that are approved um so for example in 2022 we had 3.7 units per acre in 2020 we had 1.5 units per acre so it goes up and down but the intent again is that it averages out to three units now that to clarify that's what was proposed in that given year of the platted or is that for final plats final plats received that's not the net density of of of the whole the whole city as it's developed um and it makes a difference huming lot you know so uh 2023 we had three plats that went through um you know two of them were very small projects and one of them was a Sundance screen's ninth Edition I don't remember how many unit that were but want to say it was a couple dozen um so again kind of what does this mean for uh Dayton is if the intent is only to have single family housing we're we would really struggle to reach that four units per acre um what's the project that are being proposed have a lot of town homes um as we start growing we're going to get more pressure for multif family that's going to bring up our density um one of the other changes is that the me council is going to require that we reach these 4 unit density marks within a 10-year cycle so um for example if we're guiding certain land for low density within a 10-year period um we have to have another piece of another area that's guided high density in order to balance it to four units um I think the council had a question if you know what happens if the density doesn't get built and it just doesn't get built and we can't control the market we can only plan for it what else um question of what is net density so you have the gross density so say just use Simple Math of a 1acre lot or 1acre project you take the gross density of that acreage and subtract out Wetlands water um parks and trails public open space arterial roadway so this is not the local streets this is more so the county roads uh steep slopes in any land that is uh permanently protected um so the intent here is uh like drainage utility easement is not permanently protected a conservation easement is and so the thought and this is just thinking out loud when we get to projects that have a very low density um if the lack of density is is a concern we can require conservation ements which would then take land out of that net density calculation you said net net density you said the word require can we legally require someone to put a conservation he's been on as part of the plating process we can yeah I'm not aware of any communities that have done this purposely so this is I don't know how this is going to work in reality I just think of like if if you're trying to require a certain amount of open space we can't really dictate that either I mean we well if our code allows it allows it cuz a conservation easement is essentially open space so it's maybe if it's just converting open space the conservation easement it's no big deal I'll use the example with the plane unit development where everything is flexible so yeah that's PUD different story I get it yeah so let's say there's something we're trying to preserve whether it's a a wetland buffer area or a wooded area that can be included as a conservation ement rather than just a general whether it's a drain utility ement or just nothing at all I have a question about the well I have feelings um but the four per acre that's only for new buildings they're not looking at anything else that's already here or not here the Met Council will look at it Citywide so that that is also I've forgotten that that is also a change between the current plan and the F the 2050 plan um the city the Met Council wants us to have four units per acre Citywide so it's not just looking at connected to sewer new development right so places that AR that is just new development but you could still slap high density on something that's already developed you can redevelop it yeah yeah right meaning to meet the requirements though you could put high density on it even though it's currently I'm just low density to meet the requirement do you eventually pinch yourself though to the point because don't we need met council's approval to make those changes at some point you might get to there and force yourself into only being able to develop high density say once we get to a full buildout scenario you get there and the only thing we're looking at is high density and the Market's not supporting it so then it just sits what are the ramifications if we don't hit it like what can they do well yeah what can they do to us they do well it's nothing then it just Cycles through to it'll be another 10e cycle before we maybe three more Cycles before we got to push it somewhere else right but one of the problems is that I see with this that we've encountered here is someone a developer will come in and they'll have you know two two units per acre or something like that and we'll sit and argue about it that it's not meeting the Met Council yeah um that's that's one of the the concerns I've I've had for the longest time is just you know Med council is only going to force us to go denser yeah yeah and yeah those screws aren't going to loosen right going to see more developments come in that have more more of the um the the tight lot right and when I say with the high density of targeting existing areas you try to be strategic about what might actually happen someday because that's also what Spurs Redevelopment sometime is is you know if it's actually right for development it might not be you know that increases their property value tremendously that they're like yeah let's sell and move on to somewhere else does correct me if I'm wrong but didn't we have a a zone that is not calculated as part of our density uh rural estate rural estate so if I understand the Met Council correctly that would be included in the Met density calculation for City would be now would be now it would be now but it wasn't in the past you should confirm that that would be something to confirm that that's my understanding cuz that I mean that's one way certain properties could get out of this and if you go back to what the the classifications were yeah new Properties or we can't create any more re according to council those are in the comp plan if it's in the comp plan they can put their stamp of approval on it or not if it's not in the comp plan that's Up For Debate what happens if they don't approve our comp plan eventually it goes to court and we become a uh they'll sue you yeah and then their threat to you is that if you don't comply you owe this because we put this infrastructure in and then you eventually have the cave because we can't pay that if the court wins our court willes it really depends on um yeah I mean the initial one was I don't remember which city it was but Lake Elmo Lake Elmo and basically mcil came in and did all their planning for them for a while um Oak Grove has sued them a couple times or they've taken Oak Grove to court a couple times and they've lost but it's depends on the topic and it's not pretty well it seems to me at four units an acor everyone in the City Planning Commission Community people we have to really think hard with what we want our city to look like from a standpoint of you know how we spread different products around the city um and part of it might be is trying to contact some Market participants that are willing to come in and talk about different products so we all become more knowledgeable on them um like the 40 foot Lots it's like I I don't want to see a ton of that and I think I think it's kind of a fad too it's just a function of the market but I was also just thinking about Urban Lots like when you drive through some of the older cities is maybe we have to have some areas that it's still single family but it more resembles Urban Lots I don't know if the Market's there for that product because it doesn't really exist mhm but but things are going to change fast when you know people have to scramble to make it work especially because multif family is you everyone's correct here that it goes in cycles and there could we could easily see very little multif family unless it's affordable housing for next five um if I may there was another um topic that they had brought up uh I think they referred to it as an iup which is unfortunate acronym but they want cities now to tell them they want a section in the comp plan that will tell them what we're going to do with undeveloped land before it's developed what we will allow to have happen to it so right now where we have an ordinance this says 40 per acre Mt Council doesn't know about that this section would tell them that that's going to be um what we're going to allow to prop property uh prior to it being developed which means they can now not approve the comp plan because of that section does that make sense so basically I think there's a loophole right now where we can go down to some acreage before we can leave something guided as low density but we can subdivide it down um this section would allow them control over that I don't know how else to describe it I mean at the meeting they were saying that without that we really can't subdivide any egg Lots So So currently the the agricultural dis zoning District it's one uh one house per 40 acres 40 acre minimum lot size and that's preserve um agriculture as well as preserve land for uh future tour development um with the new comprehensive planner this new phase they're looking at allowing some flexibility of doing uh referring to four per 40 density so four homes per 40 acres and this is I think this was discussed at the meeting that you're referring to it received a letter yesterday kind of confirming this um so we have the ability now to change our agricultural zoning to 1 per 10 um think what we're talking about is is instead 1 per 10 it's just four units per 40 acres it's still the same number of homes but there's flexibility in lot size so you might have a 5 acre lot and a 15 acre lot but it averages out to the same density John did that L you say we could um with the 2050 comprehensive plan so I guess that the with the new next uh comp plan phasing so the followup question is can we do that now yeah um I don't know the answer that all right I think I know the answer to it but I think we can but uh guess that's up to the lawyers to decide but so this is still I mean it's still open for comment until October 7th yes yes but they don't care about our comments they do they'll take comments after October they might not listen or might not agree with you might not agree yeah but I mean if they don't if like I guess my question is if everyone came out and said we hate this what are the chances they're going to change it yeah so then they don't care about our comments like if that's like me asking my students for their opinion and then not doing anything with that information I'm like well I really care about your opinion except for it doesn't matter because nothing you say will change anything like if nothing we say will change anything then they don't care about our comments so the the Met Council consists of I believe it's s 17 appointed members so they represent you know three and a half million people and I don't remember how many cities so we're one of several cities I mean I'm happy to comment It's just sometimes it feels like all this was decided long ago would was there any discussion about and more think in the longer term and what product might look like but with fully developed cities is this going to impact them at all are they weigh over four units an acre because of they're redeveloping or they just denser because those different product types then so I'll show an NOA for an example is at uh we'll say 14 units an acre they're y but they're different because they're such a little footprint and then they have like a bigger downtown dense area Government Center area compared to most these so Bloomington would be classified the same also built out what are they 14 units in Area 14 how about a Brooklyn Park cuz they're almost besides the their commercial stuff they're pretty much built out seven units maker I mean same same with champ Maple Grove is pretty much built out too well built out too they're the same classification but when they built out they were able to build out at a smaller density what do they add do you have them four units they're four same as well that's that's what they're going for GU that's what they guided but they're basically built out and they were able to build out at a smaller unit per acre because they built out ear because they built out earlier yeah like minona they their code still requires half acre lots so I don't I don't think we're going to find a comparable I was more trying to think of what is four units an acre look like for people to think about product types it's just more multi family right find well you drive through Brooklyn Park if that's a good example it's a big it's a mix of Brooklyn Park is probably I would guess there's portions of Brooklyn Park that are easily four units per acre yeah the Zayn Avenue is loaded with Apartments yeah yeah put the apartments in so you can have other areas of the town that are bigger Lots fck so in our R3 zoning District the minimum lot size for single family is 6,500 Square fet um which is well over four units an acre you you still have have to account for streets and you have St water what's the minimum lot width in R3 again 62 on average 62 average 50 that's going to that's going to dictate it more than the size yeah you're going to end up with average lot bigger Lots if that's you got to meet that average but it feels like when we do these apartments and stuff and we say we're going to bank it so we can have these larger lot like it feels like we never actually do that well it's all the we haven't built Apartments because of the market but it's yeah it's all based on the developers coming to us right it's not us the one developments yeah the one thing we can do with Apartments is again our apartment code is light on the minimum units per acre I think to protect ourselves we need to get that up to a a level that's going to help with this code because I believe is it 12 units only uh yes yeah we need to have that north of 20 well and see I'm of the opposite opinion because if we make it north of 20 now in 10 years we're going to be looking at seven units per acre as our minimum explain met council is going to change it from 4 to 7 and and then and then we're going to have to build 30 units per acre at the apartments at that time versus we can get by with 12 units per acre now I'm ex I'm I'm more saying that the product type that goes up should be three to four stories minimum we're not precluding that though right now we're not precluding that we would let a two-story multif family unit go up and meet the 12 units in anchor and that is leaving and but that that was that be leaving density even if we stayed at three four or five but us doing that now doesn't doesn't doesn't help us in the future when met counil says you can't go from you can't go four anymore you got to go to seven yeah so when you say it doesn't help us right but what can't what doesn't help us either is if they build two stories because it's more feasible today and then we play more catchup we got to play more catchup then we got to play but I thought they don't look at previous stuff they're only looking at new stuff aren't they that's my understanding was they're only looking at new build not not existing builds so if I thought he said the entire city has to be formed I'll I'll need to confirm that either way yeah it doesn't go back I mean stuff that's so it does yeah there's a little bit of Disconnect because I thought the entire city had to No it's it's just development so Peter go ahead I just need to clear question so you're you're implying that the more successful you are in driving that number up the higher that Council will push us in the future that so you're saying it what I'm saying is if we if we make our own requirements stricter on units per acre that doesn't do us any good now that means we're going to be building all of our multif family will be more dense now than it needs to be and when the Met Council goes to tighten when the Met Council goes to tighten tighten the screws to make it seven units an acre or eight or whatever that's already built that's used up all that's already done in the past now we're building now we're building 30 units per acre on multif family yeah but if it's look if it's looked at I don't know if it's annually or five year 10e period on so 10year period that you in that 10e period all new development has to reach four units per acre now then the next 10 year period has to reach seven it doesn't hurt us to have higher now because it's just more people in in tax base and residents they supporting businesses and everything right that we're driving now it it does not hurt us but we're not precluded from doing that we can build a 12 unit per acre or we can build a 20 unit per acre right now but why make ourselves more restrictive on Market I mean back to the market what's driving the market well the Market's not going to build below 20 right now anyway understand I would make our well what's going to happen in the market is that the cheaper the product and someone just wants to sell their land cuz that's why most stuff doesn't happen at 12 units an acre is the land price is pretty minimal once you start getting the then people sell their land but that's why it's like why not have that minimum to make sure we're covered with density even at three units an acre I mean if we want bigger Lots elsewhere in the city we got to require more density some somewhere else but my problem with that thought is is if we Bank stuff now when the threshold is lower and they turn the screws essentially what we're putting in the bank is shrinking right we're getting a negative return on our investment of banking it for the future and Peter when you said well Maple Grove did this cuz they built out earlier to me that screams well we better be building building now to the minimum you know building as big of lots as we possibly can now because that screw is going to keep getting turned and I don't know that met counil is necessarily going to look at us and say hey you're doing really good you're you're overshooting your projection let's turn it harder no I just think with time they're just slowly going to turn no matter it's just going to keep going and keep going and keep going and I think if we want to preserve even with this even with this 10year cycle though I mean that's the whole point if we really want larger Lots then we need to make up density somewhere else but we need we need I would argue we just do that later and no I'm saying with this 10e cycle of four an acre if cuz most multif family probably won't even get built yet kind of whatever we designate might not get built we don't know I mean single family will but but that's my whole point if you want bigger Lots we need to make it up somewhere and we're not going to make it up in a 10e cycle I'm just afraid they're slowly going to take it away you know our our idea of bigger Lots right now are going to be quite a bit smaller than when we can actually cash in on what we banked we may I I I truly believe we've got the best you know at Heart by doing that and hey cool we can do high density here that's going to save us in the future but I think it's going to get compressed and it's going to get shrunk and you're going to get to the Future and you go oh great that's not that's not what we hoped right because it you know we got we got squeezed even further well also I think if you require that higher density there are going to be properties where that's just not feasible and then they won't do any multif family right like if they can't meet that maximum then they're going to do something else entirely where if we have if if it's still open to a lower option now let's be as low I I want to go for the minimum as much as possible um because then that saves you know make that requirement I would just hate to see properties that could be a low medium density I guess be forced to do low because they can't do a high because we've taken out the medium as an option if that makes sense in our general mix use districts for example 12 units aner is what we're is what what our requirement is yeah I'm afraid we're going to get to a point where you know right now we're hearing people like we're building too many cookie cutter houses right right now cookie cutter houses are 65 foot Lots right we're going to get to a point in time where we're going to wish we could still bu build 65 foot Lots we need to build those 65s now that's what I'm saying we need a road huh that we need a road called Dayton Park but you know what I mean right I think there's going to be a point in time where we're going to wish we could build 65s and we just can't what What's um Dean's proposal what's his he didn't have many he because he ton of billas though because to try to get us some 65s right it's already going was a big end I mean from 40 to 40 50 55 and 65 I think we all agree there what his what was his density in the end uh no one ever calculated the n that just so you know John that would be very useful for all these conversations to have that in those packets I get sometimes when the applicant doesn't make it easy on you doesn't make your job easy but that's a good point to try to compare it to what we saw yeah cuz that was a lot of that's pretty that was pretty dense I think I I think I C A five because I was trying to do some math and that was more gross so the net will be you have to pull some me if we're going to build an apartment building somewhere why not get them to build as D of apartment building is we can so we can get a development like Deans to spread out and have more 65ts but nothing yeah in this current I get that argument too if you can build an apartment and you can really smash some density so that with the same plat you can get some some larger Lots I think that's but doesn't that require them to be doing those at the same time within the same period and but not but even just the same Builder can like one Builder be like well that Builder is doing in a big giant apartment complex so therefore I'm going to take even though we have nothing to do with each other ultimately that would be up to the land developer selling to the different timing and sequencing building developers like the what's the name of the apartment going against the freeway like that should be as dense as crazy right right next to freeway let's go yeah I mean that should be as many I think Paul's articulating what I was trying to say better meaning that that's kind of what I was trying to say is is that in certain areas we have these minimums that are probably the reality is the Market's going to build more anyway so I'm not that concerned um yeah no one's going to build multi family at 12 units of I I agree with that Paul though so because if you do have an apartment let's go as as dense as we can stack another floor on it because it will help us to build larger Lots I just don't I guess my gripe was we got to stop thinking we're banking it for the future I wasn't meaning the bank I was meaning our code that when something gets built we short sell ourselves because you know it's like detach garages too in multif family I mean that's what'll happen if you go go really low density they're going to say well then we want detach garages too maybe that's okay with people but I'd prefer a little higher quality product yeah I agree I think the residents would too yeah MH Mr chair members of the Planning Commission I will say that I did do a rough calculation of the DCM farms for net density and it was right around 5 units per acre okay so you were right it felt dense gross was about 3 and a qu and net is what we care about yeah no I don't comforting and we Trimm that down felt when we looked at it meaning less 40 Lots yeah so Dean if you're listening and again that's Market that's Market driven right because he's not doing that for M Council he's doing that market for a market for the home yeah for the homes itself there he's talking to home buers did mention that he had heard us over the years talk about banking density and and you know the banking density might make sense if the me counil wouldn't keep turning the screws and we could do it across the the buildout but now that they've come down to these decade measurements and they are turning the screws I think banking is no longer it's a net negative return on your banking that's not good it's a 10e game then right exactly beginning of the 10year game you want to make sure you're building that then you want a bank sure right so you get screwed in the end four the decade but is it a moving is it like a rolling every 10 years it moves every 10 years so if we're looking at when would this start uh 20 it says 2050 is that when it starts or when it ends it's when it ends when it end 2030 20130 so in 2030 to 2040 would be the snapshot 2040 to 2050 would be the other it's not that okay we're in31 now it's 2031 to 2041 that's going to create a lot of challenges for a City like Dayton because high density goes in phases y so it's create a lot of challenges and well and just think if Dayton Parkways not happens that doesn't get built for 15 years is we don't have a bunch of great spots for high density right I mean we're very dependent on Market demands um you know we're fortunate to have 94 and the that's you know we've got Lane that's guided for high density Apartments it's likely that the market will re will fill that yeah it's full of wetlands too it's full of wetlands too can't go too tall on those buildings you know if we said okay you know build apartments in the middle of Dayton that's not going to happen we don't have a market for that we're not going to have a market for 20 30 years do have question in in Dayton Parkway yeah you can get off do you need any more direction from the Planning Commission on no I'll so my intent is to submit a comment on behalf of the city uh just with some of our our concerns and you did talk you did talk about trying to add a diversified rural area it it is and I so the Diversified rural area this light green y um you know so the oak grve Northern Andover um you know kind of the third or fourth ring that goes around the city um there's an area divers well I'm sorry this is the middle grade grade of green so there's some uh existing developed areas along the Crow River and Rogers the thought was is to just extend that through Dayton and make a green belt around the village and then the village would then become a rural Center can can we get that added to properties north of uh River Road as well just the single family that kind of go down to the park can they already re oh they are lot them a lot of them are re already yep I think it from this map it it look it would make it look more uniform and there's a reason to do it with so no matter what the Met Council says we still have uh zoning restrictions uh because the Mississippi River Corridor so um that's always going to be low density you know the one thing I just caution you about a diversified rural District too is I know that that is maybe trying to accomplish a lot of the the goals of the city but uh I've seen it happen too that the property owners involved that impacts them if they don't want it they're also now the ones suing us because we hurt their property value cuz someday they can't do what they thought they were going to do with it correct so there there's a balance when we try to keep everybody happy we're going to make everybody mad mhm so I mean that's just the reality of it I feel like we could look for win-wins um one of the questions I had so part of the Met council's excuse for this is um because housing is so ridiculously expensive and that's why but um the reason why it's gotten so expensive is because more and more you know um investment firms are buying up single family homes to turn them into rentals and they're driving up the prices is there any discussion about limiting the amount of rentals in a neighborhood so that they can't do that there has not been at the council level okay where has there been such conversation um not in day okay so I know other communities that are built out where there's um I'll say more affordable housing uh that that is a big concern where you have corporations that are buying you know uh $150 $200,000 homes and using them as rentals um I don't know how many rental properties we have but it yeah um few enough that we it's not been a concern in date okay a sidebar question just cuz we did see a mobile home par expansion a few years ago how does that play into our for the density yeah it helps um just I don't know so that that land that was intended to be an expansion for the mobile home park has sold I don't know what the new owners intend on doing with that those sewart connections that they but it it's also immediately adjacent to a rapidly expanding Industrial Park that's likely what it will become you would think just just more there's a lot of I'll just say the land's challenging mean around the mobile home park yeah that piece that sold yeah all right any further comments or questions all right moving on to item 10 notice and announcement for updates uh looking forward to the November meeting so it will be a more busier one uh we have three or four items so we'll have a Fisher Farms we'll have an interm use permit for a permanent Event Center um territorial Grove which is the name for a py project off of Territorial Road and East French Lake Road uh so we had a concept plan a couple months ago connects to the previous py neighborhood yes so that's a 42 single family lots and then I believe we'll have the parkway neighborhood so this is the 650 um apartment units so for the parkway neighborhood this is a large project they this will be done in phases um they're specifically looking for phase one which is 180 units do they want to make it [Laughter] 220 only to get a quick trip that's right that's right get one across your highlight other side too yeah the three definitely the three projects I can think of that we'll have uh oh no the fourth one is a cannabis Ordnance okay and Hayden is doing an excellent job writing I believe it research too um so that is it for updates I have a question about the the sign ordinance uh for like garage sale signs graduation signs and the like um I have seen a lot of comments on Facebook about people being very unhappy with how that has rolled out um what is the process if that's going to be Revisited like how like what's the process to do that sure so to provide a little bit of History so um the city received a number of complaints about signs and the Rital way so I'll just use like the pray to home signs as an example for that um excuse me in researching the ordinance we we did not prohibit signs in the city RightWay in the county right away they were prohibited and they prohibited from State RightWay also uh so the council uh adopted an ordinance amendment in 2023 that prohibited all signs with the RightWay um temporary permanent uh I say The Only Exception was for pre-existing permanent signage which there's three of them it's a Sundance golf course and then two signs for a Daytona Golf Course um so otherwise everything has to be out of the RightWay we're interpreting now the RightWay width varies road to Road um we're our interpretation is 10 ft behind the pavement whether it's pavement or curve um so every Friday uh Public Works goes around picks up the signs uh within the RightWay um off times later on that evening they go back again or at least a lot of the builders will put the signs back again we'll pick them up the next week is it Builders or is it more advertisers like lawn service I'm not picking on any business but you know you see all the Advertising Signs it's both but what what I'm seeing you when I'm going home at night is a truck and trailer full of the Builder signs that are going up are we getting less and less week by week are they getting the hint um or are we chasing our own tail for the most part we're chasing our own taale that's what I was afraid of they got more people than we do right we've only got so many and there's a lot of Builders and there's a lot of people cleaning windows and there's a lot of people own Lawns cleaning ducks exactly yeah I mean so they figured it out I think after the first two weeks to put the signs up Friday night and or Saturday morning sure so um we had a number of signs that were collected um that not build huh yeah so so um a lot of the signs that people are complaining about were collected that same weekend uh I noticed there were 21 Builder signs just on the roundabout on Pine View 21 I see I see the builders they've got a big they got a truck with a big trailer they got a ton of signs in the back of the trailer so I assume I suspect so the mechanism is contact your Council and say fix this okay um it was passed 4 to one and you just got to get two people to say this is dumb because it's not it's not working it's not and and I I knew it wasn't going to work because as soon as they said we can't preclude Johnny's graduation sign I knew we were headed for trouble so and and SAR I don't know if you're going in this direction or not but the question of can we um prohibit certain signs and not others and and the answer is no we have to treat them all the same and that was the problem I was concerned about lost dog sign and stuff like that right so we can regulate the size of signs and the location but not the content so the content is all protected by the First Amendment whether you have a a builder sign or a 118 sign it's all treated the same okay so they need to contact their Council people to get it fixed yeah if if there's enough the council will direct staff to let's rip this ordinance out and then yeah $1 off your water bill for every sign you bring up for oh well then I got things it's good Grassroots thing 50 cents I don't know I got a I got a rink to fill soon I better start collecting signs I have a quick comment SLS suggestion to staff but we haven't had a development of dat all year yet and what I mean by that is it just be good for all of us to be knowledgeable of what's going on with development we don't see when phase five or six or nine we don't see anything so we just have no idea so it'd be good to have something going on about the active subdivisions that we get something I mean doesn't have to be every meeting but you know what more it should be at least twice a year if not four times a year okay well part of that is like if we're trying to meet the Met ccil like I have no idea if we were even close to meeting yeah like we you know so how how am I supposed to say oh we're good or not good I don't know I have no idea because we see the very early stages and have no idea what actually cuz that apartment the apartment that might get us a lot of that's been coming I've seen that now but it's been years and that's I have no idea when it's actually going to like will it ever actually get built so yeah that would be very helpful okay I think it also would help us understand the importance of other 2020 staging areas that maybe haven't been opened yet like like we I have no idea how much like in two our year are we going to be out of lots that's what I'm trying to understand sure so I I don't not pushing the open land I just want to make sure that we're studying what's next so we have the issues identified before we it's not just thrown in our plates yeah I I don't have a staging plan so um we're right now we're I'm going to say the last 5 years we've averaged around 200 homes a year um and about 50 acres of land it's been eaten up uh where's a good map you know so right now the development is focused south of 117 so we have uh bra bur that's in this area I'm going to call it bra braver trails and braver trails Trails East braver Trails East I was going to say one and two or east and west we have DCM Farms that they will be submitting a prelimary plat as soon as possible so you're going to see that this winter um these are very large projects so my my guess is that once these are platted you know that you'll have pre- elimary plat and final plat will be in stages and it's going to take several years to for these two projects I wouldn't Bank on that I don't know where interest rates are going but your comment's going to be very dependent on what happens with interest rates sure yeah if interest rates drop because of there's a recession we're quickly going to be out of recession in terms of Home Building mhm yeah if interest rates drop it's going to be wild yeah so I that's why I just want to make sure we're understanding what's going on with the different staging areas and what we have to identify and not because how many homes have we built this year so far like roughly year to date right I mean interest rates have been high this year and in my community we built the most homes that we have in the last six years in aun I work in um with interest rates through the roof yeah Mr chair members of the Planning Commission I did do a little snapshot uh last week for um development lots available lots that have been final platted uh preliminary platted lots that are awaiting final plat approval um year to date we've processed 181 new single family uh home permits um anticipated the total of available platted Lots currently is about 305 so that's they've gone through final plat process um and infrastructures in are in the process of going in exactly yeah um and then anticipated lots to be final platted so these are the lots that have been preliminary platted but not yet final planted is uh I think the count that I had was 193 so so we're looking at about a two-year Supply just keep in mind the market likes to stay about a year year and a half in front of it and for our net density it really depends on how many acres that is right for that our final plaed yeah you know so so not just the number of houses it's how many house how many acres is being developed with those houses because if we only had four houses on a single acre we would technically meet the requirement MH if nothing else was being built that year yep am I understanding that correctly you are and you know granted we're still looking at a 10-year cycle so you know some years we're going to meet it some we won't like we could say every year we're only going to build I know we're not but we could say my my math brain is turning this into a math problem we could technically say every year we're going to build out one acre with four houses on it we have now met our four houses per acre and that's it we're done no more houses no more houses we're done this year and we would Council might not approve that complex I understanding that but we would be meeting the letter of their law yes we had zero houses we would still meet it okay so yeah so let's just stop building we got stuff to pay for oh well then maybe we shouldn't Budget on what something may or may not happen we should Budget on what we actually have make a motion toour we have a motion to adjourn do I have a second a second a motion and a second to adjourn all those in favor I I I all those opposed meeting we're for