It is 6:30. We will call the September 4th planning commission meeting to order. First item of business, pledge of allegiance. Pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. All right. Uh, next item is role of the planning commission. It is on the agenda for those interested to read it. Uh, approval of agenda. Item four. >> Make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Any changes from staff? We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed? Motion passes. 5-0. Uh, next item is consent agenda. The only thing on the consent agenda is planning commission minutes from August 7th. Any additions, corrections, notes to add? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Uh we have a motion from uh Keith and a second from Darren. All those in favor? >> I >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes. 5-0. Open form. Open form is limited to three minutes for non-aggenda items. Anyone here for open forum? >> Anyone online? >> If anybody is online for open forum, please feel free to raise your hand through Zoom and we will uh unmute you to uh let you speak. >> All right, seeing none, we will move on. Uh council update. No council updates tonight. >> All right. There's there's been two meetings since our last meeting. >> Read those meeting minutes. >> Next item is uh 8A public hearing for preliminary plat of Dayton Field Fifth Edition. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. Uh tonight you're asked to consider uh providing a recommendation to the city council on a preliminary plat site plan review for contractor's operation and conditional use permit for accessory outdoor storage. Now this was a project that you'd recently seen in June of this year uh through the concept uh meeting that we had uh where you were able to provide feedback. You along with the city council were able to provide feedback to the applicants regarding their concept design. Um and as such had the the uh applicants have come back and incorporated some of those items within the uh new plans here. Um so now they're here asking for formal approval from the city to proceed with their development plans. Uh the property is located on the corner of West French Lake Road and 121st Avenue. Um overall site is about 8.43 acres. Um you remove the wetlands out of that, the net area is closer to 5 acres in the site. Um currently guided industrial and uh zoned I1 light industrial uh which uh contractor's operations are a permitted use within those zoning districts as well as uh the accessory outdoor storage is uh conditional conditionally approved uh individually on a case-byase basis. This property is currently in the Musa staging area current uh that is in the uh 2040 comp plan and has access to utilities already. Um the site was previously approved for a similar use just a background in 2023 uh was a QT commercial uh development uh that never proceeded with construction. So overall just a general layout of the site um 26,000 square foot uh building split between 8,000 uh square ft of office space and 18,000 ft of warehouse and shop area. um both of which are permitted in the I1. Um single access proposed aligned with the invent building directly to the north of the property uh or the capital partners building as some people refer to it as. Um employee and customer parking is oriented in the front of the building towards the northwest corner of the property as well as just the north uh between the building and the front property line. Um additionally, there's roughly 36.5,000 ft of outdoor storage proposed. um 10,000 uh give or take of which is proposed to be asphalt surfacing uh is actually an increase of roughly 5 to 700 square ft of asphalt more shown in than in the concept review. Uh and the remaining area is proposed class 2 aggregate. Um all of which is proposed to be fenced in and fully screened uh from view off the property. Um I will note that there was a discussion that came out of this concept review regarding the surfacing materials for um outdoor storage and industrial districts uh where the city council had requested that they be offered the opportunity to allow it on a case-byase basis to not be um asphalt or concrete. Um that was previously approved prior to this um occurring. I believe that that was approved by the city council in July. So here was the uh site plan provided. Um you can see here that uh I have a I've got a better slide that shows the outline of the fence line. But uh you can see here that there is open public parking spaces here from the access um which allows for the public parking area and the building to be fully uh viewable from the street. And as well there is a 8ft chain link fence proposed to be um completely surrounding the property up to this building corner here. Um and I'll provide a little bit more context on that as we get into this. Uh just to touch base on the architecture, nothing uh changed from the uh original submitt of the architecture or the building elevations. Um the uh even through the concept review, we found that the the proposed materials were consistent with the I1 district standards providing a combination of concrete and metal finishing um including accent materials such as different colors that are provided as they were uh shown in the packet there. Um and then a combination of those uh um vertical and horizontal panels. And here was the colored elevation that was provided by the applicant. Just for perspective, here's a view of the site. You can see this is the invent location um proposed access there uh where it already is currently being utilized, whether it be for farm purposes or whatever it may be. Uh this was detailed out in the packet as well, but uh we go through the building and uh parking setbacks as well as some other site design uh requirements that are uh to be reviewed against the uh standards in the I1 district zoning ordinance section. Um all of these uh front side and uh rear yard setbacks are met. Um and uh some of them with significant distance from uh adjacent property lines. And here are the parking setbacks. Uh the side interior was noted just as the uh 20 ft given the property adjacent to this is a vacant lot that is guided for a manufactured home park. So we did utilize that just for reference that uh the ones in parenthesis there that you see are if it is adjacent to residential that is what the parking setback is. Um so even if that property whether it becomes a manufactured home park in the future or not the setback is met in this regard. uh maximum impervious surface is about half of what is allowed by uh the zoning ordinance. Um the maximum building footprint is only 8.24%. Again, as I noted, that's a gross measurement of the total site uh or the total uh size of the property. Um and again, that uh percentage gets greater as you take out those net areas of steep slopes or wetland areas that are not buildable. Uh previously in the concept meeting there wasn't any information related to the proposed height of the building. Uh the uh elevation drawings that were uh provided did clarify that uh the building is 28 ft 8 in and I believe if I'm not mistaken the clear view height within the building itself is 24 ft. Um and then the outdoor storage coverage is only about half of what would be allowed on an industrial property of this size. uh consistent with that standard in the code. And just to touch base, the parking uh the parking layout stayed the same. Uh the uh applicant is proposing 77 total parking spaces on the site. Um office space does require one space per 200 square feet of floor area and uh which would amount to 40. And then the shop area is uh one space per 2,000 square feet uh requiring roughly nine spaces. So significantly more parking than necessary on this site. Um the landscaping the number of trees are compliant uh with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. um staff had reviewed uh the the types of species of those um and found that there were uh this will be noted in the conditions of approval as we get into this as well, but uh there were ash trees and elm trees that were proposed on the property. Um under certain circumstances through the zoning ordinance, it does allow for specific types of elm trees to be planted um only if they meet a certain threshold of uh I guess uh I don't know what you would call it, immunity from Dutch elms disease. and uh through our review the proposed elm trees that were provided um did not meet that threshold. The applicant doesn't have to provide a different type of species for this as the number is the thing that uh the zoning ordinance is uh more concerned with. So if those numbers of ash trees and elm trees were revised to reflect the other trees proposed on the site, um staff would be would find that satisfactory with the zoning ordinance. Um so that would be a condition of approval. Um and then the wetland buffer previously through our the measurement in the concept plan it was found that uh the wetland buffer did not at that time meet the 25 foot average. Um the applicant uh did uh revise that and uh it showed and reflected that uh the proposed wetland buffer on the property does meet that 25 foot average. Now, um the applicant will be working through uh development um with public works to place uh conservation easement or wetland buffer signs um on those areas delineating where the buffer begins as the intent of the buffer is to maintain its natural look just like it would be as the wetland. Now, the one thing that I wanted to note that uh wasn't really addressed in the um staff report was the proposed fence. The applicant is proposing an 8-ft uh fence, chain link fence surrounding the outdoor storage area and actually sectioning off. And I'll move to this here to show you what I'm what I'm seeing here from the proposed plan. So the fence is proposed to be 8 ft chain length with opaque slats. It wouldn't be uh transparent throughout the front end of the property. Um, so essentially the way that the code reads and there's a little bit of a a contradiction within the code versus standard property fencing versus outdoor storage screening being um served as that fence. So um this is the reason that we wanted to bring it to your attention just because there was a little bit of a contradictory when what is the fence what is the fence's purpose overall. Um, so this year generally if you're looking at it from the landscaping and screening section of the code of just standard fence allowances essentially right here would be the cut off of where the opaque fence would be allowed to be. Um, the applicants has stated that they do prefer and they do ask that uh consideration be put into having this area still all the way up to the front property line, not on the front property line as uh it would be uh I think encroaches about 2 feet within that drainage and utility easement that separates the parking area to the front property line. They are requesting that this area be maintain its opaque nature with the uh I guess the filledin um slats of the chain link fence. Um, so I think that that would be really the through staff's review that's kind of the main point of discussion um, in terms of site design today. Um, and uh, we'd be happy to get your feedback and the applicants are here to provide their context on why they feel that it is necessary. Um, from a staff standpoint, given the contradictory in the code in terms of fence purpose on a property, staff can see that uh there could be an opportunity for this to be a non-transparent fence up on the front side. Um, provided that visibility is still allowed without the fence line going up through this parking area for the public parking area and the overall design of the the building. Um but again that is not uh something the city staff can do um administratively and would like uh some feedback from uh the planning commission. >> So the role of the planning commission tonight is to uh hold a public hearing for uh the proposal. Notice was sent to surrounding properties within a quarter mile of this area as well as published in uh the Champlain Dayton press. um please provide a recommendation uh to the city council on the requested development proposal. Um all in all uh through the review and the staff report there and staff does recommend approval with the following conditions um and any conditions that the planning commissioner and city council feel necessary to include as well. Um the applicant shall submit a petition for vacation of easements on the property prior to or concurrently with the submittal of a final plat application. Essentially, when this was platted as an outlot in Dayton Field fourth edition, there was a drainage and utility easement there that uh was established around the wetland area on the property even though it was still an outlot. Um so it would really be just more of a formality to vacate that easement, let the new plat reestablish the easements on the property. Um site signage shall be in accordance with the zoning ordinance section. Um that is relevant. The outdoor storage is li uh lighting is limited to 20 feet in height to be consistent with uh the code standard and uh the remaining site area lighting is to be uh 30 feet in height and not to exceed that. All lighting is required to be uh downcasted and with a cut off of 90 degrees or less within the packet. As well you can see that the applicants did provide a photometric um that provided consistency with the zoning ordinance standard. Um let's see here. The outdoor storage uh shall be limited to the area delineated on the site plan. Um that uh would be sheet number C2.1 attached to the report. Um the gravel surface area is limited to 27,000 square ft of overall outdoor storage area and it is required to be surfaced with class 2 aggregate um to maintain dust control. rooftop and ground motor mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from view consistent with the zoning ordinance requirements of new construction in industrial districts. And then the same condition that I had referenced regarding the landscaping with the trees um the proposed elm trees and ash trees should be replaced uh with uh different species um pursuant to staff's uh approval upon review of a revised landscape plan. Um, as I said before, staff recommends approval for this, um, pending the conversation that is to be had about the fence. Uh, and I'd be happy to stand for any questions. >> Any any questions for staff? >> Um, I I have a couple. The the fencing, the opaque. Um, do we have 8 foot fencing like that any place else in this city? Yeah, I believe that there is a 8ft opaque fence adjacent to the truck area parking with uh MTL. >> Yeah, u invent that's across the street from the site will have 8 foot fence. Um yeah, MTL >> not that the not that those properties are have opaque fencing on the in the front yard, >> right? um that I do not believe that we have and if we did it was likely a legally non-conforming um fence that was installed prior to the zoning ordinance being in place for that standard. MTL has an opaque fence against the uh mobile home park, but it's from the street you can't really see it. >> The other question I have uh deals with the adjacent property that's zoned at some some form of residential. I forget what you said. >> Yeah, the manufactured home park. >> Manufactured home park. >> Does what we do here affect the ability of the whoever owns that in the future to use that in accordance with our current zoning? >> No, it does not. And I will also just note too that uh this discussion was brought up during the concept meeting regarding outdoor storage being adjacent to uh residentially guided properties. Um through our conversation with the city council and actually our conversation with the property owner, we actually had another uh um part of that ownership group reach out to us and let us know that uh they are actively open to sale and they are um more focused on trying to uh uh sell that property for an industrial use. Um there is no intention for those that property to pursue um a manufactured home park expansion in that area. Um given the information with that that was provided to the city council, the city council felt comfortable moving forward with outdoor storage in this area. Um and then as well too, there is a very significant wetland that uh crosses the property line in that area that uh would provide significant buffering on top of what is already being proposed. But the short answer is no. It would not uh inhibit any any ability to uh develop that property. Adjacent. Hayden, if I can. Um, can you can you just explain a little bit more uh maybe clarify the um issue with the fence as far as in the front yard and the in the backyard and and what the concern of staff is regarding the opaque fence in the front yard? Yeah, I would say that it's not necessarily a concern, but more so just the contradiction that I wanted to bring up is that there's a section of the fence code that says that in commercial and industrial districts, uh, a fence can be 8 ft tall and it can be chain link, but it has to be transparent. It has to be clear slats, open um, so as to be viewable from the street. Um the contradiction comes in when you look at the screening requirements for the outdoor storage section of the property um and of the ordinance that says that with fencing it needs to be completely screened from view of adjacent properties and right ofway. Um now additionally whether you consider this area outdoor storage or not um this is slated as a as an additional component of the outdoor storage area whether those are going to be um commercial vehicles that are going to be parked there overnight and things like that. The applicants have stated that not only is this for screening of that equipment but also for security purposes as well. Um, with that contradiction, staff didn't feel comfortable making an administrative decision saying, um, yes, this is okay. I just wanted to bring it to your attention so you understood the kind of that that thing that I found when we were in review of this. >> Yeah. >> Um, and I'll also note too Oh, go ahead. >> I was going to say I would assume that Dayton does not have restrictions as far as where that outer storage can be located in relation to the building itself. >> That is correct. Yes. Generally, cities like them in the side or rear yard only, but Dayton says wherever you delineate it on your site plan, we'll review it as such. In this case, the applicant is stating that potentially some of that outdoor storage would be located in the front of the building, which would require the opaque fence around that area for security and for other reasons. >> Correct. Yes. And I will also say that uh you know with the with the fencing and the outdoor storage being in front um they have they have informed that uh you know the large equipment that they need to utilize for the aggregate area is going to be up there. Um so our anticipation I wouldn't say that it would be an expectation at this point or anything that we would want to include into the conditions of approval of what is allowed to be stored up there. um especially if it is okay to be a fully screened f fence on the front yard or excuse me in the front yard. Um but our anticipation would be that it would be those likely those smaller commercial vehicles. >> Has there been any consideration or conversations maybe at a staff level that would limit outdoor storage to behind the building or behind the front line of a building? I mean, to me, it makes sense where if if we as a city don't want to see this application where there's an opaque fence in front of a building because it's it's surrounding or screening outdoor storage uh because we want to see the front of the building. Um that would that would help alleviate that. It would also severely limit where the outdoor surge can be on properties, but uh that's that's part of that scenario too or part of that calculation, I suppose. >> Certainly. I think in this case especially, it probably brought it to our attention more so than just uh doing a review of the code or anything like that. And that could certainly be something that uh the planning commission could provide a recommendation to additionally in the future to potentially change that ordinance. >> Um but I would say that it is uh more rare than not to have >> to not have a delineated yards to have outdoor storage, >> right? I mean, this is a brand new property, right? There's it's not a redevelopment. this is a brand new development and this is, you know, when you want uh other future brand new developments to happen uh in the way that Dayton wants to see them happen, that's when you take a look and see if if it would make sense for that type of amendment. Um, you know, in this case, I think that if if the developer is saying, "We're going to use it for outdoor storage and there's there's materials and trucks and so on and so forth that they want to have screened and hard to see or get at, I think that it makes sense that the opaque fence would be a good application in that area. However, I could see the other side of it, too. Is if if you're uh if you want to see the front of the building, it's kind of hard to see through at some point two panes of 8ft opaque fencing to see the front of the building. >> So, where does the opaque part come from? Is that a request from the city side or is that the the applicant that wants to do that? No, it's a requirement for outdoor storage screening um in the zoning ordinance where a transparent chain link fence without any uh filled slates slats on the uh fencing is not going to provide screening. >> Correct. >> So that's where that would come in. >> Um but again chain link is that uh is an allowable material for uh fencing within that and in order to be able to create it as a screening method um that's where the filling of the slats would come in. Does staff have any of a concern with the visual appearance of a chain link fence with with slats to achieve the opacity? What I'm getting at here is that um you know generally that's that's the way that larger industrial properties like to do it because it's really cost effective to do it that way. um you know those slats get get dried up in the winter in the summer with the summer heat and if you know if they get run into or anything inevitably they're going to break or snap and sometimes they will anyway with strong winds or whatever it is. So there's maintenance issues there too. Um considering if there is a an option where they achieve the opacity in the front of that yard without the the slat option. just something thrown out there for the rest of the the commission. >> Are you suggesting like plantings? >> No, not planting. I mean, there's other there's other ways to achieve a fence without the, you know, an opaque fence without the slats in there. Um, obviously I'm not going to be spending the money for the developer, but there's there's obviously it's going to be more expensive than just the slats and the in a fence. Um, but if we're okay with that, too. It's just another option if it's the give and take, right? So, um, condition use permit requires, you know, conditions of approval, and that could be one that the city would want to see happen if they're concerned with the visual appearance of that type of fence in the front yard. >> Um, to provide one other example, so we have the Heinand storage off of South Diamond Lake Road in Pine View that has metal siding. So I don't know if that's a better example or worse example, but it's a it's an alternative. >> Zanzibar. >> Yes, Zanzibar in South D. >> To your point, Commissioner Sergeant, I would say that uh you're correct. I was going to bring that up as well as as part of the conditions of approval for the outdoor storage. If the goal is to utilize that front fence line as screening for the outdoor storage, if there is a material of some sort, whether that be uh vinyl or wood, um that would uh I guess soften that look as you're driving down the street, um the planning commission is certainly uh welcome to add that condition as uh as they feel necessary. Anything else for staff? >> I got one general question about cups for outdoor storage. Um, is it standard that we just issue a cup for outdoor storage or do we kind of talk about what they can store there a little bit because I'm not seeing that in the packet and I just think some of the concerns that just in the long term is, you know, the applicant obviously knows what they want to store there. So that's kind of like incorporating some of that into the cup. So, you know, usually when outdoor storage gets a bad rap, it's because it's 30 years later, it's on its second or third user, maybe, and everything's just completely different than what got approved. So, part of me says that the CUP should be not like overly specific, but specific to their needs at least. It's so that, hey, we kind of know it. meaning what's being stored where the heavy machinery and stuff like that. Obviously, they're going to store it on the one end of the property, but the cup should probably define that a little bit because if we just have a blanket cup, someday the outdoor storage could be everywhere in that area and that's not what we probably fully intended. Um, so I think that should be given some thought when we write the cup. Just to piggyback on that, I've seen that before, too, where cities will have setback requirements for the outdoor storage in that area. They'll have um height requirements, so you can't store anything above the height of the fence type of thing. Very hard to do with if you're storing machinery. And I think that's >> I think it would be could apply for materials though. >> Materials for sure. So you can't stuff like that. And when the applicant gets up here, that'd be good to hear what you know what they think. >> Also, types of materials being stored. So it's not, you know, you know, chemicals or any kind of hazardous material being stored. I mean, you don't know what byproducts might be with with what they're being stored or what they're you any company, not just the applicant here today. Um, the other consideration is where that outdoor storage is going to be located in relation to the needs of uh the fire department. Let's say they need to get into the back of the building. Are they going to have a clear path to get back there? Where is that path going to be? Should it be unencumbered at all times? So emergency vehicles could get back there and fight a fire if they have to. >> Certainly. Yeah. Uh I' I've seen I've seen things like that too without getting overly specific. But they did list of they did provide a list of materials that could be referenced in the conditional use permit uh resolution that uh we can certainly add in there. Just noting this is what you are proposing to use. Um and we can reference that plan sheet that will be a part of that resolution. and uh thinking about >> yeah the prior application on the site we did get a little specific with that. >> Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. And uh you know I think that if it if it comes down to having a condition of approval that is related to things that can be screened or things that can be fully screened from the fence um shall be such as not piling on materials on top of another towering over. Obviously, there are certain vehicles and equipment that uh you won't be able to do that with, and that just comes with the kind of the practical look at uh what the zoning ordinances intent is overall. Um, but those can certainly be things that uh can be added to that. That's all I got. >> No questions for me. >> One other one for me dealing with the the runoff water from this. Can you pull that slide back up that shows the the overhead view looking to the south? I guess now the plan is to build a holding pond down in the corner where the two roads join together. Correct. In addition to the the water that's standing there today, where is the runoff from the parking lot going to go? >> Is it going into the new holding pond? >> Correct. So, we're not directing any water into the the current pond that's there. >> That is my understanding from uh conversations with the engineering department, but uh the engineer that uh put the plan together can certainly clarify that as well. >> Right. My my concern there is not that I care where water goes into which pond, but I know what that original holding pond was built for. I know why it's there. It's a sewage lagoon that was built by the trailer court back in the probably 64 65. >> And and the the sewage from or the untreated sewage from the trailer court ran through that waterway that runs into that pond. And that's why that dam is there to start with was to create that sewage lagoon because they got the state got off there for because they were running that water right into a fresh lake. >> Sure. and they made them put the sewage lagoon there. So, I mean, all the water and all the sediment for 20 plus years of 300 plus homes in that mobile home court all ran into that untreated. >> Yeah. And I guess my my measurements were off when I had seen a uh a map that showed an idea of where those ponds were, but actually what I had seen in terms of those sewage ponds was actually north of 121st Avenue. >> Right. Those were the newest two that they built. >> Sure. Okay. Okay, that was probably a plan that I was looking at. >> Right. Those are underneath Graco or whatever the building is that's next to that. >> Well, it's now it's a storm water pond. >> Well, part of it part of the new ones are under the parking lot there on the under the adjacent structure. There were two large >> oxidation ponds or sediment ponds where they pump the water out into there before it was allowed to be discharged if any. >> All right. Any other questions, comments for staff at this time? Um, I am going to open the public hearing at uh 7:02. Um, if the applicant would like to come forward, >> Good evening, members of the commission. Thank you again for entertaining our proposal. As you recall, obviously we were here back in June. >> So, we we've um talked about many of these items. Um Aiden, if you could put up the fence again for a moment. >> And Tim, if you could just in introduce yourself. >> I'm sorry. >> Tim McShane McShane Development. >> And if you could also move the microphone over. >> Sorry. I think I haven't done this before. Uh Tim McShane, McShane Development. Got my address? >> Sure. 6975 Fox Glove Circle, Excelsier, Minnesota. And I'll have Dave introduce himself here. >> Uh David Brandeshaw. I'm with uh uh Telkom Construction, live at 1360096 Street Northeast at Sego. >> So, I was just going to address uh the fence for just a moment. Um as you as you can see there, you can see the building with the fence doesn't go all the way around the front. So, you're going to be able to see that building and anybody driving down that road either direction is going to see the building. They won't be able to see it if they're stopped at a certain point there on that road, but they're going to be able to see the building. I guess I would just like to point that out. In terms of the opaque um desire on the fence, that's largely for security as well as screening, but this is going to be known as a construction company. They have equipment there and I can let Dave maybe speak more to this what's going to be there, but you know there is theft and things that happen on these sites. People know the stuff is there and so when they can see in it just encourages more of that activity. So that's that's probably the biggest concern. And Dave, I'll let you speak to not only that, but uh the other >> Yeah. uh outdoor storage things that >> All right. Thank you. Yeah, we have uh a lot of uh 350s and 250 trucks which are short that won't be seen in half tons, but we do have bucket trucks uh both 550s which will have the bucket on top which is higher than 8 feet but not much. And then we'll have bigger line trucks. They are and they're probably 11 feet high with the bucket. So that that'll be above. We don't have a lot of them, but a few of them. Our semis are typically low low boys that you might see the cab a little bit in the stacks. And then we have what we call our board trucks are like cube trucks. I'll say like a Sch Swans truck, a cube like that. And we'll have them parked there. We'll have like you'll see the orange duct reels that you probably see around. Those are seven feet high. And typically when we're stacking our h handles, they fit inside each other. We stack them about five feet high. We don't get them too high. It's a work comp deal. if they're too high. And the rest of the items are typically under eight feet for sure. And then our poles are laid flat on the ground and they'll definitely won't be seen. >> So, just one other clarification, the larger items that he referred to will be in the back. >> Yes. the um that area up front is will be for the for more of the 250s, the 350s, regular trucks, but we just don't want that seen from the road to encourage again that activity. >> We've had several catalytic uh converters stolen and on a dump dump truck there about $15,000 to replace. It's been a while. I'm not I'm gonna knock on board, but that's one of the big things where was hot a few years ago. >> If we were to consider a condition as part of the outdoor storage on like vehicles is what you're saying is that for the most part everything in the asphalt area to the call it the west of the building, front of the building, that's all vehicle storage for the most part. Correct. Perfect. So, a condition like that wouldn't hurt your guys' business if we put that on there and just said, "Hey, it's outdoor storage, but it's for fleet vehicles and stuff like that." >> Yeah. And we might stage a a a duck trail or something, but it wouldn't be there. And then it was a good point on on the uh fire department uh items are stacked in rows, so we we can have a access with fork clips to back it in and out. So there's definitely room with that. >> Do you have you converse with the fire department as far as I mean I'm sure there's going to be a gate right that's going to be closing all this off. Is there access for the fire department through that gate at any time? Is there a lock box or security codes or anything like that for them? >> I'm assuming there would be at other uh locations there are. >> Okay. If I could provide some clarification just when the uh applicants end up applying for a fence permit when that gets installed or prior to that getting installed. Um, generally in a situation like this, I I contact the fire chief to let him know about the situation of a of a fence in completely enclosing a portion of a property and then uh him providing some suggestions on whether it's a breakaway gate or something like that that offers the ability that when nobody is there and in the event of an emergency or something, they still are able to access that. Now, whether that be a fire lock box or a breakaway gate, that can be uh worked out through the permitting process of the fence. Um, so just with the out don't mean to hop back and forth between the fence and outdoor storage, but we might be doing that a little bit. Um, so I'm just trying to making sure what what what conditions that we might I might propose for the outdoor storage is. So we got fleet vehicles up there. You're going to have some bigger vehicles and materials mainly in the backyard. And if I recall correctly, it was the track vehicles why you want the class two. >> Correct. >> Um, okay. And so I'm not as concerned about the height in the back of the building. And you know what? For what you're talking about, I'm not concerned about the vehicle height in the front either. But but if we were to say that you had materials in the back of the building, are we hurting how you're going to run your business if we say not to exceed the fence height or is that getting too specific? I mean, obviously, unless there's a complaint, no one's going to care. And if there's a complaint, it's because there's a problem. So, >> Oh, >> well, I think um one of the things Dave mentioned is, you know, the height of something might be higher than 8 ft. The ability to see it is going to be very difficult. >> That's why I'm not as concerned back there. That's why I was just curious is if there's a height because, you know, if we're going to put a condition on, we kind of need to call it a height. So, I don't know if it should be like 8 feet, 12 feet. Um, but you know, it has to have a height otherwise it's it's nothing to measure it by I guess if it's something becomes a problem. >> And I just want to clarify, Commissioner Brown, that you were referring to the material related, not necessarily bucket trucks. >> Correct. I'm referring to materials. I think it when we have write the CUP for outdoor storage, we should be specific about >> vehicles versus materials. >> What's in what's the use of screening it then if you're not going to limit it to that? It can't be over the height of that screening, right? That that's my take on it. I mean, I know if you have one piece of equipment that happens to be 8t 6 in tall, that's not as concerning to me as you have, you know, three three five foot pieces that are stacked on top of each other and now it's over the height of that fence. So, I'd be a little bit more I mean, again, this is, you know, a newly developed property and the property in the area is also going to be developed sometime. Uh, the conditions permits do run with the land. So even if you guys were to sell, uh that condition use permit for outdoor storage still stays on that property. So subsequent owners from you can use it the same way that is going to be outlined in the conditions of approval. So, I would air on the side of being a little bit more um conservative as far as how we want to see that outdoor storage just for uh the ability for us to go back to this resolution if we ever needed to to say, "Hey, look, you guys are way overstepping your bounds. The conditions say you can't be over the height of the fence and you're twice that high." Whatever it might be, right? So, I think that's always a a good good thing to have in your back pocket if you need it. And Jeeoff, I mean, every site's a little unique. And just to give you a little context, when this site came here before, we approved over the height of the fence because they were stacking installation. And so, I do think I mean, I agree with what you're saying. It's But we I I want to be specific of this site, too, because I also agree with the applicant saying is that you're looking up at it that but that's why I still would rather call it a height. And so, if you think there's a height, I mean, I'm putting a little pressure on you on the spot and I but I just, you know, we can't just say the fence. We can't just say so it's not visible it's easier to call it a height. So in particular 40 years from now if there's an issue we have something to enforce. >> Can I interject >> please? >> Joe Ratic uh contour development or contour civil design in this case. Um, I did work with Mark putting together the outside storage and the the fencing plan. And I think what what you guys are saying makes sense, but I do think maybe we could delineate like front line of the building and back where 12 ft front and forward were below the fence. That way there's some flexibility. If they do get some materials that are a little higher, they can see them come in the back. But if it's up front, you know, they they keep it below unless it's vehicles. >> Yep. Yeah. Exactly. Unless it's so eight below the fence in the front up to 12 ft in the back is you think would be adequate? >> I think that would be adequate for what you're trying to do. Yeah, >> I mean I'm okay with that. Obviously, we'll have some more discussion with it, but that just that's one thing I wanted to get clarified with what you guys are comfortable with. >> Thanks. >> Thanks, Joe. >> Oh, when you came in June, we were trying to encourage you to move that fence line back to the corner of the building. Um there was a little bit of heartburn with it just poking out a little bit. Now it's all the way to the street. Um I understand the functional and safety concerns there, but even though it's an industrial area, a lot of heartburn having a fence right on property line like that on the street. Um it really changes the way that looks. It's a nice vista down that road. We got a development just to the north that's, you know, it's an industrial building, but there's nice landscape. It's a nice yard on the side of it. Um, you're going to have a long fence here. It's eight feet tall. It will obscure this the view of your building until you get up close to it. Um, I mean, would you consider open slat, black vinyl fencing or something that becomes a little less visible or is that just too much of a security threat? >> And Paul, just to clarify for the applicant, you're talking in front of the building. >> Yeah. And I mean 12st. >> Yes. And I would even challenge the concept that this front parking lot is storage and not parking lot. You know, is I mean the back half is all storage. You're fencing a parking lot in the front because you happen to be parking vehicles overnight, but it's a parking lot in my opinion, which wouldn't classify the ability to put a fence in front of it. >> Well, there there's also that outdoor storage area. to the on the west side there. I mean, that's predominantly probably why they >> correct. And that's what you had fenced previously. And in June, you had the area just to the left of the main drive coming in fenced, but the front parking lot was all still open. >> I don't think so. >> Well, I'm going to have Joe address >> that. >> He's draw. >> I don't want to misspe either, but I recall the fence being pretty similar to what we showed here. >> But my lines right there. Oh yeah, see there you go. >> Yeah, I keep I keep all my stuff and I look back. >> Well, we probably redrawn this several times, >> but I know why. They do have crews traveling throughout the state that are gone for, you know, five >> sure >> 10 days at a time and and with their vehicles parked there overnight, >> you know, in these industrial areas when there's not a lot of residents around, they're ripe for for theft. That's why they want it. So, >> um it's unfortunate, but that's the purpose. And of course to screen the outside storage. >> Yeah, >> I understand the function of it. >> There's no room in the back of the building for those vehicles for a longer term. >> That's where they're storing all their materials >> and other equipment, >> right? >> And I guess just from a I mean logistically thinking about it from an operation standpoint, you have a crew going out. That crew's vehicles need to stay in one spot. they may have four other crews working out of the back of the building during that time. So, >> and and maybe there's an opportunity to pull that corner in to highlight some more landscaping because we had that kind of a cute corner there that >> Yeah, >> we just kind of cornered it off just to kind of close it in, but we could run that fence north, put a nice, you know, some evergreens and try and soften that fence up. And even with landscaping on the outside of the fence, I mean, there's a sewer line there, but we could do some shrubbery to break up that fence so you're not just seeing a slatt of fence. And I think the landscape plan does have some things like that, but we could look at it. >> Yeah, I mean, we can look across the street and see what that looks like. Please farms development has a continuous fence and some landscaping and all you see is fence in my opinion. >> This is a shorter distance though. Well, for for sure it's >> not industrial part, >> but yeah, I'm just saying that like it's a fence is a fence. >> Yeah, but I there's there's a short road here and there's three industrial properties. To me, like when I think about it, this isn't a high highly trafficked road. I mean, who are we worried about the other industrial users in the property? So, for me, I I understand your point, but I'm not to me it doesn't it's not overly I guess. I don't know if this matters a whole lot. I mean, I understand where Mr. Crossson's coming from because it, you know, it would be visually appealing better if there wasn't a fence there, but I guess I understand the function of it. I'm not super concerned, but what color are the slats going to be? Because, you know, I've seen bright white, I've seen tan, I've seen light gray, but does that factor into any decisions here? Um, what might soften it? I mean, white seems brighter, I guess. >> Is that better? I mean, >> I don't know. I think I don't think we're trying to soften it. I' I'd go with a more neutral tone than white, but >> yeah, like a tan or gray or something. >> Yeah, I'm not I mean, obviously that that's a big discussion here, so people have more questions on if they should keep firing away. >> Yeah. I mean, that becomes opinion at that point, right? I mean, a green fence would look nice in the summer with landscaping in front of it, but in the winter it's going to stick out like a sore thro thumb, right? So, a white fence is going to look great in the winter, but it's going to look terrible in the summer. >> What about light and light gray? You get both. >> I think every what I've >> What I've seen is is >> light gray seems to be the most un unobtrusive color for all seasons. Yeah. Yeah. And I've seen that in a lot of applications and it's and it's been chosen for that very reason. It's kind of a least >> draws the least attention. >> Yeah. And I know that some people mentioned maybe wood. To me, it's fence is a fence right on the boulevard in an industrial park. So, I really don't think the materials, you know, and I'm not, you know, obviously if you made some decorative concrete one that look really pretty, but that's not reasonable. Wood requires a lot more maintenance and that can look bad quickly. >> I don't know. It's an industrial area, but there's a nice nice boulevard of trees and natural trees. You got the the trailer court there that's got it's all trees >> when you drive by in spring when there's no vegetation either. >> Yeah. But then there's the vista of the lake off in the distance. And then we're gonna have 100 plus feet of just fence. >> Is that what it is? About 100 feet. >> I did not measure it. [Music] >> Call it 200. >> Yeah. >> 23 stalls at 810 stall. Squaring it off and putting, as Joe mentioned, putting some landscaping there would help. >> It would break it up as you're coming down because I think your concern is as you're coming east down the road, you see the fence, but if we try to soften that corner up, I think that would certainly help. >> Yeah, it take about 50 ft of fence off, too. >> Yeah, if your scaling is correct, it's 350 ft of fence if you go to that corner. So I will note for the commission as well that uh this fence line although it may appear that it is on the property line it is a setback roughly um 19 ft from the property line and then from the property line to the curb of the street that is an additional 15t. So just for a matter of perspective on that um proposed location roughly 7 and 1/2 ft currently from this uh sewer line that is running through the property. So, so you're saying that the fence is >> roughly 33 to 35 ft from the propert. >> From the curb. >> And we do have a fair amount of landscaping along that edge between the street. >> Do we have a landscape plan? >> Yes. Yep. It's in the packet. >> Yep, I do have it. Actually, I got it pulled up here. Looks like a mixture of evergreens, over stories, and ornamentals. Excuse me. Not the easiest to see, but there's like two ornamentals, five evergreens, two over stories, three ornamentals, over story, three ornamentals, over stories. And you know, those could be intermixed. We could take some trees from there's a ton of trees on that slope going down the pond. I mean, if you guys would rather see more trees over here, we can reallocate whatever, you know, if you guys think that would look better. I was going to say contrary to you know Paul you're you're saying driving down 121st the the view of the lake I'm more concerned looking across the lake and seeing what we can see. So I'd rather have that landscaping >> on the on the west side >> or the east >> east side with the uh the lake >> and there's plenty of trees to the south here too that >> you know reallocate some of those trees that you see on the south side as far from your southwest. You have another slide that shows that better. The landscaping. >> Oh, the second the second uh page, >> right? >> Actually, I'm not sure if this >> It's still that same page. It was just zoomed out. >> There you go. >> Doesn't come up very well on Adobe. So Joe, you were referring to >> Well, down here, >> for example, we've got, I don't know, 20 trees here. What are we screening? There's another industrial property here. This is all wooded >> pond. You know, a lot of these trees could be reallocated >> throughout the site if we thought that they're better fit over there. I I mean this is just me, but I'm not a landscape designer. But I think the ornamental trees in front of the slat fence in the front would be good because sometimes the overstory I mean it's just going to block things, be compact and not create a corridor as much because it's more open above it. But again, I'm not a landscape designer. And and maybe we think about more evergreen trees, you know, that kind of year round break up versus an ornamental or overstory deciduous tree. They lose their leaves and then you kind of lose that effect. So we could sprinkle some more evergreen on that front. >> Yeah. Even like the some of the dwarf evergreens would be seem like a good idea. Yeah. >> Limit their height so they get 20 25 feet and that's it. >> Right. What one thing and Joe you're going to have to correct me but I believe there's sanitary sewer that covers the western half along the front of the fence. >> There is >> so that would have some limitation you know really on on >> I mean it some cities say no other cities are well it's 10 ft down it doesn't really affect it and I think historically hasn't been too worried about it. go to Lake Ammo, you can't have a tree within 15 feet of a sewer, even though it's 20 feet of the ground. So, I I don't get too worried about it, but every city's different >> because the roots aren't about a tree without >> I think it's more the concern and the risk to the property owner I'd be concerned about is if they had to do something, >> right, >> the property owners doesn't get compensated when their trees get taken if they're in the easement. But >> do we have a policy? >> No. >> Okay. >> On um trees within an easement >> within a dnu. Yeah. >> Yeah. The only language that is in there is uh in the landscaping um section and it refers to the allowance of landscaping and fences to be located within the drainage and utility easements on properties. And just as uh Johnny had mentioned in the event that and you had mentioned in the event that um work needs to be done within that easement area, the landscaping or the fence will be removed at the owner's expense. Um I think in this case if we approved something because of the landscape plan being tied to the conditional use permit, we would also require the replacement of such fence and or landscaping to meet the standards and requirements of the conditional use permit. >> That would be correct. and we'd be fine with that. >> Hopefully foolproof, right? >> Any other questions for the applicant? not going to promise that we don't have some more when we start talking. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh is there anyone online for the public hearing? >> Um again, if you'd like to speak during this uh public hearing, feel free to use the raise your hand function. Feel free to proceed, Mr. Chair. >> All right, with that at uh 7:26, we will close the public hearing, and I'll open it up for discussion amongst the commission. >> Seems we should try to tackle the two things, the fence and the outdoor storage requirements, a little separately so we don't hop over. Um, I guess I would propose, if you guys are okay adding it to the cup, that the outdoor storage on the west part of the building, front of the building is limited to vehicles. Um and then materials and vehicles are allowed in the the rear slash salt of the building and as well as a height requirement that anything in the rear/salt of the building the materials are limited to a height of 12 feet. I don't think we need to address height in the front of the building because we're going to probably limit it to vehicles to begin with. So, just to make it easy on staff, make it easy on the applicant on on sheet C2, there's a list of storage summary. Would it be fair to say the the utility trucks and machines listed? >> Yeah. >> Generally compromises the front >> utility trucks, machines, and employee vehicles that are left there. They're they could be there for a week or you know if they're out >> overflow parking I mean >> you can that that generally encompasses the list >> and then the materials this is a representative but not not limited to but a representative of the type of materials that could be stored behind the building. >> Yeah. And I I guess I don't know if I want to get as specific in the cup and materials because um I would just say materials used in the operations of the occupants business because I'm more concerned if you keep the height. Well, I suppose we could hand I don't think we need to call out no hazardous materials are allowed because they have a separate permit for that. Is that correct? >> The hazard >> that gets on the fire code. >> Yeah, we don't need to call that out, do we? No. Yeah. So in the front yard it would be vehicles and the they call the front yard. In the backyard it's going to be vehicles and >> materials >> and the materials >> and equipment >> are Yeah. and equipment and the materials are limited to a height of 12 feet. >> Yep. It is not a bucket truck that's 12 feet tall a vehicle. What do we call is that something that we need to spell out differently or that be a vehicle pick up for a car? I think what Darren is trying to uh um delineate here is the separation between there will be a height restriction for the materials placed on the property. However, the vehicles that are stored in the rear are essentially are what they are and essential to the business um and are not subject to a height standard is is what he's essentially saying, >> right? And but he also defined vehicles in the front of the building too. So how high is the vehicle for the front of the building? is a 20 foot bucket truck sitting in the front of the building, which we clearly don't want. >> Is that Does that still fall within the guidelines that we're spilling out? >> That that would >> Well, we want that in the back. >> We would want that in the back. >> It sounds like we can do that. Um, so maybe we put a vehicle height on the front. if he >> I think it might be it might be more simplistic with the conditional use permit to um address it being taller than the fence or not in the front of the building. >> Yeah. >> Where if you just say the commercial vehicles that are going to be utilized >> that's that's going to be tough because >> I mean we're talking I think Jeff said it 8 foot 6 in and we have an 8 foot fence. >> That's a that's a cube truck. >> Yeah. >> Is 8t. Yeah, I I mean >> I mean is there a certain kind of vehicle or like other way that we can measure that because parameter the question is is 12 feet acceptable? >> I mean the height of the fence isn't kind of variable but is 12 feet acceptable? >> Is 12 feet adequate >> for materials or vehicles? >> Vehicles in the front. >> What's the max going down the road? 149. 149 is typically bridge clearance. >> So 136 would be kind of our tallest. >> It's a semi. >> Do we want semi-trailers and parked in the front of the building behind? >> I think if I understand and I'm I'm going to step up to the screen and maybe the applicant can correct me. The stripe parking stalls adjacent to 121st. That's your your 350s, your maybe your maybe some 550s, but mostly 350s. >> This is >> I just want to >> or or maybe maybe you can help describe this a little bit. >> A lot of our people travel. So, a lot of those folks would park here and then when they come back with a 350, 450 or 550 on a third Thursday night, they they've been gone for 10 days. the work vehicle would would be parked here and then they would take their personal vehicle home. A lot lot of our our traveling employees that are foreman will drive straight home with our vehicle. So they're but like we like to keep our people who travel in inside the fence safe for them, right? And if they get a flat tire, we could support and that kind of stuff like that. So, a a lot of those smaller vehicles will be parked there. >> And then and then this area here, I mean this area here for storage in the front. What do you envision there? >> I'm speculating though. >> Yeah. And >> I I don't see us storing a lot of stuff here to be truthful. This is more to just drive through >> maneuver. I was going to say it's kind of a tight corner. load stuff here. >> I don't see us storing stuff here >> and I'm I'm trying to help you and help them. >> So, all your bucket trucks and line trucks and all the they'll all be back in there. Anyway, >> our our cats with cleats will be parked back here >> and and things like that. >> We do have some idle stuff that doesn't belong much that's marked back here. >> So, I guess maybe maybe in uh if the applicant would be open to it, what I would propose is the only condition we put is along 121st, those stalls be uh call it a 550 or smaller. everything else. So, this row here and all of this, if they need to stage a truck overnight, they can they can stage a low boy, load it up, ready to go the next morning, they can use that, but it's it's back off. It's not providing that height. That's what I would propose for vehicle heights. >> And then we we we do have some vans that they travel in. I >> honestly don't know. >> I mean, a 550 is pretty big. So, >> yeah, a 550 is big and and then our vans if you want. >> It's like an I I I uh agree with that proposal from uh from the chair as far as what should be stored up front. I think that that's reasonable. I think that's probably what the applicant's going to use anyway. Um, that kind of language in the resolution again would also be our our ability to go back if there is ever a complaint that, hey, there's four semi trucks being stored up front and they haven't moved for three months, right? Not that that's ever going to happen, but that gives us the ability to say you guys got to got to move. So, I I uh I like that amendment to the >> I support what Peter says. Is Is that clear to staff? And >> yeah, I'm trying to figure out how to word it. The idea is you're you're not going to allow a semi-truck to park there, but you're going to allow >> Can you word it like Peter said, 550 trucks or is that going to be 30 years from now? Is that going to be >> Yeah, I'd get away from spec. I would I mean >> I would you put a probably a gross vehicle weight. I don't know if that's 12,000 pounds or >> F550 or you're you're going to have like a I'm called a high roof van. It's going to be more I would I would >> So if I look at the bill of the bill of storage or the storage summary, you've got pickup trucks. Um, and I think I think if we limit it to pickup trucks or smaller vehicles, that encompasses the 550s, they're considered a pickup. And then, uh, but it allows them the flexibility to use that that elongated space next to the, you know, as we go further back into the site for some of the other stuff that's on on the bill of materials. Um I don't know called one ton truck or similar >> and the delineation that Jude had mentioned was this front parking lot line. >> I >> I think he's even referring to the front stalls. I'm only I'm being trying to be as flexible as we can with just the front stalls. just the the front stalls adjacent to the road >> and the cup still don't limit this area to vehicle parking. Yeah. And we're just now getting more specific about what in the front where the height is where the height that's that's the biggest concern, right? If they're if they're parking a box truck against the what's what's the south fence line up in the parking lot, you're not going to necessarily see it when you're driving down 121st. And that's what we care about. So, I'm trying to also be somewhat practical. Will there be anything? I mean, I'm thinking that's a pickup truck still is going to be less than 8 feet in height. So, I don't know if you'd ever have like a high top van or anything that's taller than 8 feet. >> I was going to mention I don't know if we we would ever have a sprinker van. >> Uh sometimes techs do that. We've kind of downsized off them today. I'm not saying 30 30 years from now we might not have one there. Uh the times are changing with that. We t typically don't uh on a 550 you usually have a head headache rack. So it might be about maybe this tall. >> Yeah. >> And then a strobe light on top of that. So I don't think it's 8t tall. I I think if we're talking about what would otherwise be a passenger vehicle, right? So the pickup trucks or even the the sprint vans, if we do limit the height, I don't think that's going to be an issue. All the other larger vehicles or taller vehicles are going to be stored in the back anyway. >> So >> So we could go 10 feet and be okay with anything else. >> Anything along the fence, 10 feet. >> Yeah. >> Google says a sprinter band's 9 ft with the high high top. So >> and we used to have them. We don't have them. >> Yeah, >> I think that's easier for staff and clarity is vehicle storage in the front row has to be limited 10 to 10 feet or less in height. >> You guys incur >> the general concept. Yeah. >> Yeah. We got we got other things to talk about. I know. >> I guess that I would Yeah, I would say that the the 10 feet is practical, but even just limiting it to passenger vehicles might be just that flat line where there's sprinter vans there. But certainly if there are passenger vehicles, 10 feet or smaller, whatever it may be. Um, >> I I would I would suggest to do the the height requirement just because then if Dayton doesn't have a a definition of what a passenger vehicle is or a commercial vehicle, you could get into some issues with well, that's that is a passenger vehicle. No, it isn't. We'll prove it's not. >> We almost we almost had those definitions. >> Yes. >> And cities struggle with that because of what you consider a passenger vehicle or not. So >> I would limit it to the height or keep it at the height requirement. Okay, I'm just taking notes here and >> Okay, >> so that is one um >> for rear storage. >> I think the rear storage was >> 12 ft >> 12 ft for materials and then for vehicles >> and equipment. >> Yeah, vehicles and equipment on the front. anything else specific to the height of storage. I've got a couple more notes on what we've previously discussed that I just want to circle back to. Um there was a note about proposed storage items are limited to these listed on the site plan. Is that a condition of approval that you are willing to I again it it's one of those things where even with the uh the allowance or the height requirements of these specific materials within the outdoor storage area. Um, this wasn't information that I, um, didn't think about when I was putting this together, but also looking at it from a practical enforcement standpoint with John and myself being the ones that are kind of monitoring these properties, um, as as we can. I mean, um, a lot of it comes down to practicality of enforcing the conditional use permits. So, these things weren't lost on me that we've discussed tonight. um I wasn't sure how to provide between John and myself a well-rounded understanding with some of these uh items that we've discussed today. So that I appreciate the feedback and the and the conversation that's been. >> If I if I can I you know what Darren was saying before I think a a better condition might be uh materials that are normally associated with the goings on of the business >> primary business. In other words, if they start storing an RV back there or their family boat, well, that's not the intent of our outdoor storage condition use permit, right? So, >> uh that way it gives them flexibility where if it's, you know, an item not specifically listed on the the site plan, then they're okay as long as it's used for the business. And and maybe maybe the way the way I was thinking about it at least is is you write it as materials such as these types of materials and you list what they have and then you know if if if they've got you know 7 foot reels of duck of duck bank and and there they also have seven foot reels of copper wire. I mean that's reasonable to assume they're >> wire. Yeah, they're pretty close. But if they start bringing in hay bales, well, I guess in a construction that that is a thing, but um if they start bringing in, you know, uh yeah, like a boat or an RV, it's not not >> construction material such as >> comfortable with the height that I'm not super concerned. That's why >> when I focus on the height, that's what we're concerned about, too, >> is that I mean it runs with the property forever. So, and that's >> that's where I would say associate with the business because it could I mean they're designing the building to be four tenants based on the front of it. So, >> and see that's where I have the problem with like we're agreeing to this cup. I get it runs with the building but we're agreeing to this cup for this use at this time. And so that's where I don't agree with just leaving it blanket. If they if it change if the building changes hands, an additional tenant comes in and they want to they want to store something else out there that's associated with that use of the business. We may not be in agreement >> less than 12 ft in height. Can you think of it? I can probably think of some examples that we might not be okay, but usually they fall under like hazardous materials and other stuff too. >> I Yeah. you know, like pile of tires. >> A p Yeah, like like a pile of tires would be a great example. Um that was exactly 12 feet. I don't know. You know, I mean that's I mean in the end of the day in some of the older or the urban areas that's why outdoor storage has such a bad rap is you know 60 years later it's it's not the primary use that is the issue. It's what's happened 60 years later >> and they have no enforcement issues because the cup was a very blanket. >> So I do understand where you're coming from Peter. By adding what you're saying though I think you're trying to add it in a way that's so flexible that it probably won't matter anyway. it it probably won't matter for Yeah. >> So, I think it's easier to keep it simple at 12 feet. >> I'm fine with that. >> But in the primary business and >> that was on my list as well. And I will just note for the the commission's understanding the while the conditional use permit does run for the land. If the operation of the conditional use permit ceases to exist or ceases operation for a year or longer, the conditional use permit is automatically revoked regardless of whether this is recorded against the property or not. Um, however, I will just note that it is at that time that it is staff's responsibility to proceed with that revocation um of the uh conditional use permit that uh I have not ever been involved with, but just know that the there is a process related to um this not being there forever if the applicants were to uh otherwise leave the site. Okay. >> So, how much difference does there have to be in the in the future owner and use of the property to trigger that? It's um so if they found a new location, say hypothetically, if they found a new location 20 years from now and decided to leave this site and go to another site and p put this up for sale, um and it stayed vacant for a year, that would be the cease of operations of the outdoor storage area for a year and the conditional use permit would go away. Now, if that property was sold in six months and they were going to continue use of it, they could do so. But I just wanted to >> with a with a completely different operation. >> Yes. As long as they still meet the conditions of approval in that conditional use permit. And if that is not the case, they would be required to come back and seek an amendment to that original conditional use permit. You could have a case where there's a user of the building that doesn't need any outdoor storage and never uses outdoor storage for more than a year and then that can issues permit also. >> Same scenario, >> right? So it's not just a vacant property that triggers that. So >> okay, >> I guess Peter want to get everyone more comfortable. Imagine if this property sold and became a landscaping company, right? They would probably have their their trucks and stuff parked in the front just like we're allowing and they'd be doing all their material staging and stuff in the rear. And so if anything, maybe you add something to the CUP2 about dust and noise and stuff like that. But I mean, we kind of already have orders for that, right? Or no? >> Um construction. I mean, if if they were to operate 24 hours a day, they could. So, and I guess I'm not overly concerned if even if it became a landscape company. I'm just trying to think what other kind of uses would come here >> and use a site like this >> auto repair. >> Yeah. >> Outdoor service. >> Auto salvage. >> Some sort of auto sal. I'm more that's actually that's probably what I'm most concerned about would be some sort of auto salvage. >> Yeah. I mean, we have examples of that on >> operating vehicles as part of the requirement for the storage. Then >> that's a standard uh nuisance code requirement that all vehicles on site are uh licensed and operable. So they got to have up-to-date tabs and >> Right. So that the salvage yard one >> unless you're drove salvage operation >> unless you are a a salvage yard. Those are specific circumstances that uh >> is that a specific condition use permit? >> No. Um do you mean the allowance for those types of >> for a salvage operation or a junkyard or a whatever you might want to call it? I would have to look into that. Uh my assumption would be yes. Um but again I I don't know off the top of my head 100%. >> Yeah, we had that on the 113th. I can't remember >> what permit they they received. >> Um I do just want to make one more note on here. There was one more on my list uh regarding the revised landscape plan to um enhance that front fence line more. Um Perhaps we should talk about that front sign first. >> Sure. I think a couple people want to talk about it. >> Are we good on outdoor storage staff before we move on? You guys understand the conditions that we talked about? >> Yes. >> You know my feelings. >> I'm less concerned about the fence than you guys, I guess, or than Paul. Um, I just feel like it's an industrial neighborhood and there's, you know, I'm assuming and hoping Arlo Steel builds their property next door. I mean, it's going to be a big steel beams coming in and out of there. It's just I mean, I I understand the purpose of this road, but it is not going to be a heavily travel corridor. >> I I I echo Darren's comments. I would say to me the front of the building and we've already seen it this this a couple times this site the front of the building is more French Lake Road than it is 121st from a what I would consider the front as far as where I put my emphasis on. So the the parking lot on 121st no big deal >> being fenced in. So you have fencing on the front of the building and in your district >> and and outdoor shores there. Um >> where where >> it's a tough it's a tough site >> and in my in my realization tonight one of the things that maybe we need to address in a future >> I mean this this applicant brought forward a as Hayden said a you know a plan that that meets our our code um as far as outdoor storage in the front. Maybe that's something we need to address in the future, but it's allowed in today's world uh the way it's written. So, I have no problem with that. >> I would still challenge that. But this is a parking lot, not storage. >> If this is just a standard parking lot, would they be allowed to fence it? >> Uh yes, but it would have to maintain that transparency. Um but fences are allowed in the front uh in the front yard on commercial and industrial properties. Um, but it's that it's that transparent versus opakeness that uh kind of has that contradictory language. Now, again, I will note that the applicants have talked about recessing this fence line from this corner um to potentially to the edge of the parking lot and the turnaround here. Um if that is something that you are interested in uh including as a condition of approval just to ensure that it is complete uh through the fence permit process that could certainly be considered as well. >> Yeah it's a it's improvement for sure especially if you get some landscape on that corner. Um I mean I do think a black chain link vinyl coated fence with no slats in it would be less obtrusive in the front. I understand there's sec security security concerns, but um that would be my recommendation. >> Don't know. >> Yeah, I mean commissioners agree with that, but >> you know, I think I mean I'm I won't go with the pun that I'm on the fence on this one. I but I I understand both sides, right? So, I don't know how how effective a opaque fence is in actuality from preventing theft or security issues, especially if it's a chain link fence. It's a quick hop and you're over anyway. Um, I'm more concerned with the visual appeal of of what it's going to look like. uh the precedents that could be set for allowing an opaque fence in the front yard in an industrial district. Um but understanding that that fence is 30 feet from the curb or more. Um it's it gives me a little bit more um ability to understand that this might not be terrible. Um as far as being able to see the that front of the building, um I I don't necessarily agree that you you're going to be able to see that building until you're right on top of it. Right. So, um especially, um traveling east there, uh even traveling west, you're not going to see the front of that building really until you're past it anyway because of of how it's oriented on the on the property itself. So, those are are considerations we would have to make as far as why is the ordinance in place that you want to see unslatted or transparent fencing around parking lots in the front of industrial properties. I think it is for that visual sighteline reasons, right? To be able to see through um for those aesthetic purposes and that's not going to be achieved here. You are going to get a fence that is heavily landscaped potentially. Um that might be the difference in uh what that compromise could be. So I understand the security nature. I understand that, you know, a fence is a good way of keeping things um secured. So is security security uh cameras. So our other reasons for or abilities to be able to make a site secure. Um I don't know. I'm kind of on on Paul's side here, too, as far as as what it actually will look like when it's all said and done. So I'd be happy to hear other commissioners Wonder if police would actually prefer a opaque or a transparent fence there because when they drive by at night, they could see if there's activity going on in there with opaque fence. It's they could be stealing every Cadillac converter they want in there and no one's going to catch it unless there's security cameras, which I assume you'll have anyway. But >> yeah, I mean one inch by one inch fences are supposed to be anti- climb, you know, for security purposes. I mean, there's options out there. >> I'll just note that though I didn't bring this uh specific question up to the police department about the front fence line, um these plans are uh sent to the um all the departments for review and I received no comments related to this proposal from the police department. So, I don't have issue with um with a fence that people can't see through. But I understand exactly why you'd want that. I mean, the fence is there. Whether you can see through it or can't see through it is not going to make any difference to somebody that wants to try to climb the fence or go through cut through the fence. But for somebody going through and casing the neighborhood, trying to look out there at any given time and see what's out there, if you can just drive by on the road and case the whole parking lot and see what's in there, then you're going to pick and choose when you're going to go in there and you're going to wait until that specific vehicle is there or that equipment that you want to steal and you're going to go in there and do that. If you can't see what's in there, that's an advantage to the to the owner of the property. I don't have a problem at all with the defense being opaque at all. I mean, I I think the applicant made a good point that, you know, the tan or light gray is kind of an unobtrusive color. I mean, it kind of blends in with whatever is around it. And I think that would be perfect whichever they choose. I don't have a preference on that, but I think it makes sense for us to make or to let the the applicant shield, if that's a better or right term, his property from people that are driving by and just casing the whole thing. >> And I think to that point, I mean, we we talked about a little bit of the this the condition of the the conditional use permit and the the type of use. We heard from the applicant that employees are going to be parking here for a couple days at a time overnight. It's a little bit different than a normal parking lot where you have vehicles coming and going during shifts or operational hours. I mean, they're here for I I know people who work at construction who are gone for weeks at a time. And so to give the them to to exactly your point, Keith, to give some some sense of security of they don't know what vehicle is going to be there at any given time when they're driving by. >> The other thought that I had too, you we're talking about the fence and what kind of slatting you're going to going to put in the fence. Um, I think consideration should be given that more planting should be outside of the fence. Whether that means moving the fence away from the road to uh, you know, to accommodate that, but if a plantings are on the outside of the fence, that helps with people not being able to see in there too. I mean, you're going to have the fence that people can't see through and you have the the plantings, tree, shrubs, whatever. If they're on the outside of the fence, then if the fence is, you know, offensive to some folks, they're not going to be able to see as much of the fence either with the trees and the and the brush brush brush shrubs and stuff plantings on the outside of the fence. I think you might take that into consideration, too. and some of the plannings that that um showed on our on our packet here dealing with the backside of the property so to speak where there is nothing developed back there yet. Someone else owns it, I guess. Um I don't see a lot of sense putting a lot of plantings back there. I would suggest that some of those plings go up around 121st and and along French Lake Road. I mean, that that gives a better view from across the lake. So, if you have the fence that people can't see through, but if if the if the trees grow up and the shrubs grow up and you can't really see the fence at all, that's not going to be offensive to them either. You'll be looking across the lake, you'll see greenery and you won't see a fence. Now, that take a few years for that to happen, but at least that thought would be into, you know, worked into that and you'd be able to to uh, you know, change the or soften the look of that solid fence and you'd still have the privacy where people couldn't see in in the meantime until the trees grow up so that they couldn't see the fence. I think that would make some sense. I don't know what sense it makes to have a ton of shre or green on the backside when there's much back there anyway. If you have an area back there that you don't mow, in three years you're going to have box elder trees and and Chinese elm trees and it'll be full of greenery anyway without you spending all that money to plant stuff back there. Nobody's going to get shielded from it anyway. Nobody's back there. So, I guess my question would be, would the planning commission be interested in uh attaching a condition of approval related to that enhancement of the landscape plan on the front fence line? Um, not necessarily adding um planting requirements or anything like that, but maybe just a relocation of some of the plants that are proposed on the plan. Yeah, I mean I I would say for sure to have that um as a condition uh to enhance the landscaping along that uh the street there and to to get rid of the the triangle, right? To >> recess this triangle. Yeah. >> And I would just stress to be size appropriate with landscaping because we what you say it was 37 feet between the curb and the fence. >> Yes. and roughly 7 and 1/2 ft from the fence to the >> storms that you know have 30 foot spreads. >> Certainly, >> Mr. Chair, we're missing a landscape architect on the commission. So, I guess my suggestion would be is to um you have the applicant's landscape architect kind of see what they can do. I think it's clear of take taking some of the vegetation that's on the back side and moving it on the front. Um, but I think their landscape architect would be do a better job than us in figuring out >> Yeah. >> what to place where >> what's appropriate there. Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm >> I think that's fine. So, I was just going to summarize the extent of the conditions that we're going to add here in terms of uh moving towards a motion um for a recommendation. >> Um >> all all items essentially the storage area here, the front parking lot area is limited to those uh vehicles that are 10 feet or less, 10 feet or smaller in size. All items stored on the property must be associated with the business. That was another one that was included there. Um, storage of materials in the rear yard is limited to 12 ft in height. That's materials. Um, and the fence be recessed uh in the northeast or northwest corner of the property. uh essentially aligning what the parking lot is shown as and we can certainly work with the applicant to show that that change. Um and then uh relocation of certain uh landscaping uh to from the rear or as applicable from wherever location on that's not going to obviously be the language in the resolution. Um but uh as as best determined by their landscape architect and staff will certainly work with them on that as well. With the CUP, I think you didn't mention, but I would limit the storage in the front of the building to vehicles only. So, if the use ever changes, we don't have a bunch of other stuff out there, too. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> It's a nice landscape space. I will make a motion to approve the site plan. CUP for outdoor storage. Nice vista. >> Is there one more thing we need? >> And the preliminary plat for Dayton Field fifth edition >> and the preliminary plat for Dayton Fields fifth edition subject to the conditions that staff had the report as well as the conditions that we added. >> And for clarification purposes, that includes the opaque fence in the front yard. Correct. >> Yes. It wouldn't be addressed in the conditions of approval, but it would be just a part of the site plan as proposed. >> Okay. >> We have a motion. >> I'll second the motion. >> And we have a second. All those in favor? >> I >> I All those opposed? I Nate say >> motion passes four to one. >> Um I would like to clarify too for the record that it is by nay vote is for the opaque fence that I don't believe that's a precedent that we should set even in an industrial area. >> That will be clarified in the minutes. >> Thank you. >> All right. And this goes to council September 23rd. >> Thank you guys. Good luck. >> Appreciate your time. >> Thank you. >> All right. Notices and announcements. >> Okay. >> This is kind of the fun part of how fast can I get through this. Uh so first uh we'll have an open house for states manufacturing on Thursday, September 13th at 3 pm. uh plan commissioners are invited if we be very appreciated if you're able to attend. Um this is located at the uh the cubes building. So the photo here is an example of one of the products that they manufacture. >> Can you clarify the date? >> 3 p.m. >> I'm sorry. >> Oh yeah, >> I don't believe the 13th is a Thursday. No, >> 13th is a Saturday. So, >> oh well, >> Thursday the 11th. >> That must be >> over time, huh? >> I'll clarify that before uh we finished updates. >> Okay. >> So, >> thank you. >> Um can't think and talk at the same time. Uh related to the this. So, the states is occupying half of the cubes, 500,000 square feet. Um the other half has been vacant for some couple years. um that does have a new tenant. So it is uh Datex which is a subsidiary of mass HVAC. Uh they are a manufacturer of HVAC systems. They have a a partial shared ownership with states. And what I mean by that is they have there's a a separate company that owns portions of of both states and mass HVAC. So it's all related manufacturing. >> So is that the remainder of the building or just >> Yeah. So cubes is or will be full. It is leased up. So that's >> pretty nice distribution center we got there. >> Yes. Um yes, for those that were >> I'm happy for the manufacturing. Yes. >> Yes. For those that were on the commission and when the cubes was approved and the discussion of how many delivery vans could be leaving the site, I want to say it was like three a minute or so, something like that. So this is better. This is much better use for that location. They have plenty of doors. >> They have many doors. Yes. Quick Trip will be opening on Thursday, October 2nd. I do remember that's a Thursday, not a Saturday. Um the site is is changing every day, so they have a a litany of um trees and shrubs that are sitting out there waiting to be planted. Now, uh the uh monument sign is up. The tall pylon sign has not been I haven't noticed that it's been delivered yet. >> Are they doing a grand opening? >> Any kind of celebration? >> I not that I've been told. >> Okay. >> I I would imagine that they will >> believe they built it in the wrong location. >> The sign? >> No, the building. >> Oh, >> what you mean in >> Yeah, it should be on both. Oh, >> you just you just live in the wrong part of town. >> I believe that there might have been something mentioned uh about a uh open house or a grand opening for that. Um but we can clarify that and send out an invite to the planning commission. Uh because we have that. >> Okay. Next >> that question on the on the quick trip the intersection there. Did we do anything with the intersection onto Dayton Parkway out of there? They want to know whe they were talking about stop lightss. >> Yes. So, that is still the plan. Um, we have I believe we've put that out for bids. Um, it's going to be a few months before that's installed. So, um, I think the idea is, you know, right now there's stop signs on Holly, not on Dayton Parkway. Um there's an alternate to the bid to install a temporary traffic lights until the permanent ones are available. Um but I know I've been told that the permanent lights are whenever they're approved there there's a fourmonth um uh backlog to get the actual signals >> approved by who? >> Council city council. >> So the plan is that at some point this truck stop will open up with nothing but a stop sign on the side streets. >> Yes. Oh lord. >> How'd we end up in that hole? >> Timing. Um yeah. So similarly uh you know the quick trip on 81 has a stop stop sign. You know that's going to be less traffic but um similar condition. LC Stevens Park master plan. So this is an update to the master plan. Um we have two concept plans under review. The kind of the left and right. Uh there is a a special committee that has uh Paul Crosslin it representing planning commission. Um I believe we will should be having a meeting sometime in the month of September to go over these concept plans and uh any changes before it goes back to um or before it's presented at the city council. adopt a park. So, uh the names of parks that are available for adoption has not changed in the last couple of months. So, I would encourage anyone that may be watching this and has one of these parks in their neighborhood uh cons to consider adopting it. Uh the uh commitment is that you're essentially cleaning or picking up litter on a monthly basis at the park. So the adopt park is a little diff little similar to adopt a highway but the frequency is more next back to school movie night. Who doesn't want to watch the wild robot? Uh so this will be Friday September 5th at uh LC Stevens Parks and cribage and coffee. So this is at the activity center in the old village on uh the second and fourth Thursday of the month. Then the giving garden. So I've been impressed that uh most days where I've looked outside, there is something sitting out there um offered to people. So if if you're gardening and you're harvesting and have more than what your family needs, uh you know, please consider providing that to the uh the giving garden for others to take. Date and car show, there's one date left. So that is Friday, September 12th. Um I know I believe the last couple of shows I've been told we've had uh hundreds of people that have attended this. perfect place for that show. >> And then Saturday, September 20th will be uh the Dayton Heritage Days. So they will have a band called Zero Below. Uh that is the Dayton Heritage Days will be or day will be uh 1110 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. I believe it will still feature a parade. Next plan commission meeting is Thursday, October 2nd. Um, and just clarify a couple things. Uh, the open house for states manufacturing is Thursday, September 18th, not the 13th. >> 18th. >> Um, and then one more item before I forget is uh we are being asked to reschedu the December 4th meeting. Uh, we ran into this last year too is that it it conflicts with the the holiday parade. So, if you're able to >> just cancel it. >> Well, we we may have items that need uh >> No, for sure. >> Attention, but you look at your calendars if if you're able to uh on either the previous or the following Thursday. >> The following Thursday's Thanksgiving, >> Wednesday, the Could also be an option. December previous. >> Yeah. December 3rd. December 3rd was that meeting they need. >> Uh right now it's December 4th. December 4th. >> Wednesday, December 3rd could be an option. >> I prefer to just push it to the 11th one when we later on. Keep it on Thursdays. But >> yep, >> I'm available the 3rd or the 11th for that matter. >> Third works for me. >> Do you work for >> if I'm pushed into it? Yeah. I'd not prefer it, but >> okay, >> I think that they're going to work for me, too. >> I won't know my hockey schedule for a few more weeks. >> We can come back to this. >> Don't you have to juggle around that anyway? >> Yeah, but >> I hear you. >> I won't know for a few more weeks which which team she lands on, so I have no preference at this point. >> Okay. Do you want to set a date or wait? >> We can revisit. >> I propose we just wait. >> Sure. >> Next meeting. >> I I will say I probably won't know at next meeting. So if you're waiting on me, >> then that doesn't make any sense. >> If you're waiting on me, it's not worth waiting. >> I I just don't know my schedule right now off the top of my head. So I'll have to >> But if Yeah, >> review and come back. Yeah, I'm fine if if once you hear Jeff's schedule if you pick a date and let me know. That's where I'm at. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Same here. >> So, just for clarity is we will not have a planning commission on Thursday, December 4th. We don't know what date it will be, but all of the >> Let me ask this. Uh knowing knowing that we have stuff coming up, does it make sense to and and Keith I hear you and pushing it out as as a potential concern. Does it make sense to push it out two weeks, have a mid December and and maybe skip January? >> I don't know. >> We won't know. >> I But something to consider because the January one lands over >> push it back. >> Yeah. would be January 1st, New Year's, >> right? Cuz we're going to change that one anyway. >> So, we're going to change that one. >> I struggle I struggle cancelling one considering some items take two hours each. >> What I'm saying is do we have a mid December late enough? >> Do we have a mid December and then and then hopefully not have a January one. >> There'd also be 60-day rules and everything like that, too. As far as when the planning commission approves something and when the next available city council meeting would be to take that up. January's long because the first is Thursday. It's five weeks till the February 5th meeting, too. So, we have a long >> So, it may be worth just kind of looking at all that stuff as a whole. >> I was just going to look at the calendar to see if we had proactively scheduled the January planning commission meeting for the 7th. >> We probably haven't set that schedule yet. Uh so you know um the expectation I think when a when it lands on a holiday is that that is not technically the first working Thursday of the month. >> Um so we would uh >> have one on the eth >> likely push that to the eth. >> That would be the eth. >> Oh I'm going to stick with what I said is once you hear Jeff schedule if you tell me the 3rd or 11th it works for me. >> Sure. Yeah. Me too. >> Okay. >> I'm sure either one will work. I just want to double check. So >> sure. Okay. >> So, I want to make a motion to all >> on Jeff shoulder. Second. >> We have a motion and a second to adjurnn. All those in favor? >> I I >> I. >> All those opposed motion. >> Meeting is adjourned.