the Thursday, January 8th, planning commission meeting to order. First item of business is the pledge of allegiance. 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. >> That's the first test. Figure out where to put the >> All right. Uh, roll call. >> Yes, we have we have everyone present. So, uh, item three, role of the planning commission. Um, it's on the agenda for those to read. Um, next item in business, item four, approval of agenda. Any changes or corrections, John? >> No. >> Okay. >> Make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? >> I >> I'm sorry. Who is the seconder? >> Uh Darren. All those opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Uh consent agenda. Uh only item on the consent agenda is planning meeting minutes from December 3rd. Any changes or corrections? >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion from Paul, second from Jeff. All those in favor? I >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes. 5-0. Item six, open form. Anyone here for open form? Anyone online for open form? Uh, no. If there's anyone online that wants to speak about something not on the agenda, feel free to use the raise your hand function. >> All right. Um, moving on. Item seven, council update. Uh so for December 9th, we uh voted on the budget. Uh that was very similar to what was passed in September. Um uh EDA appointment, we reappointed um Hunter as chair. The IUP for um the herbs property was not amended. the IUP for the sign um on uh on the Riverwood was approved and then the concept plans uh the the facility on the sand side of the road was was was uh um I don't think we had much to add other than what You guys had discussed the building shape. The L1 was the one that they seem to endorse. The concept plan for the one across the street was not received very well because of the height. Um I think one of the suggestions was that they look at um just keeping it twotory on that end on the housing end. They were going to look at and see what that would take but it was pretty clear that three stories there wasn't going to work. uh the A3 district district. We um approved that to go off to Matt council. We formally killed the aerial truck, the ladder truck for the fire department. One of the suggestions was that at some point we could look at a used one. We still have another engine coming, so that would give us three engines. The long-term plan was approved as as it's been discussed over the past, you know, pretty much the whole year. Um, approval for the moving our part-time officer to a full-time that was approved and then the park name was approved. Uh, the area 21 park is now known as Dayton Farms. uh December 30th. I think the only thing we had on there was uh >> accounts payable and union contracts. >> Union contracts. That's what it was. That was approved. And I think that was it. >> Yeah. >> So, yeah, that's it. Any questions or I guess a question kind of for staff and maybe to the mayor, but with the two versus three story and the senior housing, I fully get where everyone's coming from, but if three stories is allowed, isn't that potentially going to be a problem? It >> Well, it's allowed with three stories is allowed with a conditional use permit. >> And one of the things on our agenda is maybe not making it a conditional use. >> Oh, with a conditional >> with a conditional use permit. >> Got it. for the third story. >> Got it. >> Okay. >> So, and they are looking at reducing the number of floors. >> Okay. >> I think they were going to look at >> whether it's even feasible at that point. It may not be feasible. >> Okay. >> Yeah. The contractor did reach out to us after the uh council meeting just to uh inform that they were going to look at a design that uh was a one-story facility at that location. Oh, how does one story work, but two don't? >> Yeah, that's a good question. >> It might be like switching to the different care levels, care models. Might be. >> And maybe at that point, you don't need stairs. You don't need those space. You don't need the elevators. Maybe. Yeah. I don't know. Maybe that does make sense that two doesn't work, but one works. >> All ahead. All right. Questions? All right, with that we'll go into item 8A uh site plan review for Minnesota auto auction. >> All right, thank you Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. Yeah, as uh noted in the packet tonight, you're asked to review a site plan uh that was uh uh submitted by Carvana at the Adessa location at 18270 Territorial Road. Uh the site was originally approved uh by conditional use permit for an auto auction in 1996. Um since then the code has been changed in the industrial districts to allow auto auctions as an interim use. I'll just note that uh because this was previously approved as a conditional use permit. Uh the use does run with the land and there is not a time frame that was established for the use. Um so the use itself will be able to continue as long as uh the operation was going on there um until one year after non-use of this site. Um m one of the things that I noted about uh maybe I didn't note this very well and it wasn't very clear to me either uh when reviewing the resolution for the conditional use permit in 1996. There was no um conditions of approval related to future expansion of the area or anything like that. Um as such we have uh presented this as a site plan review um as standard building code review for um code requirements. Um the applicants have submitted a plan for a 68,700 ft building um for inspection and reconditioning. Uh minor repair, minor auto repair has been uh listed as a potential use in this site and that is a permitted use within this facility. Um however, I'll just note because this is a site that is not accessible to the public. these types of uses are not considered um I guess commercial in nature because there isn't really people coming to the site to utilize these. There's not uh people making appointments and dropping off their vehicles. This is a reconditioning and minor repair site for the cars that Carvana purchases for the lot to be sold direct to the consumer at their location offsite. Um the one thing I will note is that since between the time of the application being submitted or I'm sorry the uh agenda being um posted online and this meeting tonight is that uh they have revised their plan overall uh specifically related to the car wash that was going to be the addition on that one existing building. Uh now they are proposing that to be just incorporated into the new facility uh due to some setback restrictions that were noted at the time. Um so operations within the building are consistent with what currently occurs on the site. Um and as I mentioned the area is fully uh um the area where the building is is gated access um and not accessible by the public. So here's an overall uh view of the site. uh do rough calculation of this area for uh the removal of the parking lot um space to accommodate this building was about 350 spaces in total. Um it was noted by uh some uh people on site when I was out there taking pictures that their inventory has been reduced uh very significantly not requiring the need for this much parking. Uh so the reduction in parking is seen as a kind of an accommodation to um switch the outdoor parking areas and then we'll have standard parking locations within the building itself. Just a floor plan of the building. There is a photo booth down here. Um there's areas for uh maintenance repair. There's a painting uh body area. The paint booth will be utilized as well. And then here is that area where the car wash edition will be located on this uh revised plan. Again, not accessible uh for public use. Uh in reviewing the uh the site plan and the uh building elevations, the one thing that did uh come up to mind was a little bit of a inconsistency with the overall design of the building itself in comparison to the I1 requirements. Uh the only one that staff would uh at this point would concede or say that uh is being met is the contrasting yet complimentary material colors. So um through the building permit application process, city staff would not issue a permit unless these sections of the architectural requirements would be met. Um so staff will continue to work with the applicant uh to uh address those. uh whether there are things like uh design elements, maybe a skirt of a brick face around the bottom or something like that to accommodate the type of uh facility. Um I put I pulled this picture from the website and uh the applicant provided clarification on what the prefinished metal was and they are Santa Fe wall panels. Um and uh I guess in uh my uh time in planning and zoning, this has been considered an allowable architectural metal for um siding. So it's not going to um present itself to the public like a uh a pole building or a standard uh metal building. >> So what's the difference between that steel and a pole burn steel? >> Uh >> because that's what that looks like. >> This does here. I I think it's more of the uh the compacted. There aren't any fasteners that are exposed to the exterior of the building. Um and and and things like that. So um >> assuming they're insulated panels, too. >> They are insulated panels. Yep. So that's uh that's another component of that. Um but the roof would be required to be a standing seam metal roof if it was to be metal. Uh which is currently what is proposed and the applicants have stated that uh they don't have an issue with meeting that. Um, but to your point, I I don't have a a great answer for what the specific difference is other than what the the exposed fasteners, um, and just the design of this. Um, given the the horizontal design of the of the Santa Fe wall panels, um, some could consider this to look like a a pre-cast building as well. And I can uh I can print off this if you if you if you feel that a closer look would would help. >> I think it would help at least for me anyway. The uh if if we do approve that type of steel on the exterior of the building. You said brick facade or is there something else that we would require or is that what we're going to see? No, it's ju well this is the type of uh main um exterior finish that you would see on that. But looking at this section of the code, there are three of the following elements that would have to be met with the design of this building in the industrial park. So the way that is currently I don't think I have a I did not provide the elevations but uh um the elevations would essentially have to be reworked to make sure that we can ensure that three of these seven items are being met as part of the design of the the building. um whether that's a combination of horizontal, vertical siding, um I guess uh accented areas for entrance or something like that that isn't just a standard plain wall all the way through. Um those types of accents would be something that we would look for as well. And again, I don't know just from a practical standpoint, the only side of this facility that is viewable from the street is the south elevation. Um so whether this is a requirement for um all four sides the way that I would I have seen the language in the code is really more addressing the areas that are viewable from the public from the public right away. >> So the elevation drawings are in the packet >> and I'll pull them up here on the on the screen as well. Um in the packet as well I noted that uh all the setbacks are currently met uh with the proposed design of this single building. Um I think I noted as well in there that they are proposing um an area for fuel storage that of course will have to be will require a separate permit for that which will be reviewed by the fire department as well as the building official. Um the >> is that above ground storage or below ground? above ground if and I'm sure that the applicant can confirm that, but I do believe that it is above ground storage. Um the other thing that I I noted too was the the landscaping. They are proposing a landscape buffer along Territorial Road. Um although not required uh for the design of this building, um staff certainly encourages keeping that in the plan um as that kind of uh provides a little bit more of an appealing look from the street. Um there is uh additional plantings that would be required around the building itself to break up the long wall. Um so staff will work with the applicant as well for that. Um again I just want to reiterate that uh the the regulations of the zoning ordinance um take precedent when it comes to a building permit review. Um, as these things are continued to get worked out, staff will not issue a building permit until we can verify that these items are going to be met. Um, and staff has been in open communication with the applicant and they've continued to provide revised plans uh as needed. Um, as I mentioned, this was a uh a review of a site plan. Um, site plans part of the zoning ordinance do not require a public hearing. Um, so the planning commission is asked to review the overall plan and the resolution that included conditions of approval and consider providing a recommendation to the city council on this matter. Uh, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Any questions for staff? >> Hayden, the one question I asked you earlier just to confirm and if you can get that answer before it goes to council, but just to confirm we have what we need for right away and drainage, utility, sewer easements along that. self property border or wherever they're connecting to eventually service the properties the west. >> Yeah, absolutely. Um >> appears we do but >> Yep. And I I uh I provided a high level. Jason wasn't able to make the meeting tonight and he'll certainly uh provide more context on this, but uh the water in this on territorial road was extended to the west almost to Brockton Lane to accommodate the Dayton storage facility uh for their fire suppression system. And the uh sewer line is actually stubbed right here on the western access of this property going into this property as well. Um originally when this property was platted the right ofway uh requirement was 80 ft and that was what was provided as part of that. There are some properties you can barely see it here but this property is currently unplatted. If this property ever gets developed as would require a plaque and we would uh seek to accommodate that matching right away with I'm going to pull up the uh elevations here and my last question and maybe this is for the applicant but can we do you know the relationship between Caravana and Odessa? Is it like Caravana I think is new to the site? Is that correct to say? Yeah, that is my understanding as of uh maybe 2023 or 2024. Uh we do have a representative from Carvana on uh Zoom and I'm sure that she'll be able to clarify that as well. So this is the this would be the south elevation of the what you would see from the street. Um, from what I can gather too, my fellow commissioners, I believe those vertical accent lines are gutter downspouts from what I can gather. >> Yeah, the bigger ones. >> Yeah. So, it's not like articulation in the skin. It's the flat wall with gutters. >> Yeah. And you can kind of see that here on this edge. >> Yeah. So really, I think that that would be kind of the uh the one thing that the staff will obviously continue to work with the applicant on to make sure that uh we meet those guidelines that are established for the industrial district. >> Where on the property is the fuel storage schedule to go? Um, let me pull up that. So, it is within the secured area um bound by the fence that is currently there. Um, it is right here where I'm hovering over this. And again, this was the original proposed car wash location. That is not um not proposed anymore. The change is the this area here now with the floor plan. So the landscape improvements that are being provided obviously are just being placed where it's convenient, not necessarily screen the new building. >> Yeah. Again, the uh the screening um in this matter is not necessarily a requirement of the code. Um I think that uh and I I'll let the applicant speak to the the reasoning for installing uh landscaping within this area. um when it comes to uh building expansion or um things like that that don't require that aren't a part of a plat uh design um would just be related to that requirement of shrubbery to around the building to kind of break up that wall. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Any other questions for staff at this time? What requirements do we currently have around fuel storage such as they're proposing here? >> Um, I don't think that there is anything in the code specifically relate the zoning ordinance specifically related to fuel storage, but the requirements that they'll have to adhere to are more so in the uh state fire code. >> So, >> so that'll be like ballards around the area so there isn't any um any worry for damage or anything like that. setbacks, principal buildings, emergency shut offs, everything like that. It's >> in that detail. I guess the I didn't do an analysis of the setbacks in comparison with the uh um the location of the proposed storage area. Uh staff is confident that setbacks can certainly be met on this property with these. >> You know, asking this question because I don't know. Um fuel containment, should there a leak occur in the tanks? I mean what what does the code require for that? >> I mean a lot of facilities are using the double wall tanks. >> Yeah. >> So that you have that extra >> I I don't know. I mean I I can say from what I've seen and I don't know if it's required but I'm assuming it's a double hole tank with kind of a refer to it as a bathtub. So if there's a leak it's going to stay within that bathtub confinement. >> Yeah. I've also seen other facilities where they actually have a concrete barrier all the way around the tank. So if the tank did leak, it would stay in the barrier and what goes in that barrier doesn't run out into the storm sewer and such. I just curious because I don't know the answer. >> More like you know the spills are going to happen when you're fueling a vehicle. You know where the vehicle is, not necessarily where the tank is. >> That's a small spill compared to That'll all be um administered by the building code too, right? So the the plan review process by the building official will review to make sure that that spill containment and requirements are met. >> Yeah, that's good to ask. >> I've just been asked that question and I didn't have an answer to it. So that's what I bring up. >> Yeah, I don't know the correct answer either, but I recall during the landscaping home business that that came up and there's a lot of state inspections involved, codes that they got to meet. So they're the ones really enforcing whatever is required. >> It it is and it's also based on the size of the tank. So there's a threshold where you know you have fewer regulations versus more. All right. Any other questions? Applicant. Putting the applicant form. >> Name and address. >> Got it. Um, yeah. Again, my name's Alan Ketch. >> Just uh speaking to that mic there. >> Uh Alan Ketpool with Kimley Horn Engineering, 767 Eustace Street, St. Paul. We also have Jen Ralden online uh with Carvana uh to answer any questions that I can't answer. Um I guess to answer a few of them, yes, the fuel storage like I said and Jen can confirm, but I think Carvana's uh they leave or they when the car leaves it's half full or twothirds full. So that's more the reason for that fuel containment there on site. Um car wash, like I said, in its previous location, we were having setback issues. Um and one of the conditions was non can't be a standalone building. So that was one of the reasons we had just swapped it uh this week to be attached to the new building. Um landscaping yes we will with one of the conditions with you know with this we'll look at landscaping along the front of the building. Typically it's you know they want a hard surface perimeter around it for drainage and all of that. Um landscaping doesn't do doesn't do always great against the building. Um, but we'll look at it uh and install some along the south uh south side of that building at least. Um, you know, with the multiple garage doors, it's kind of pieced in there, but we'll do our best. That's why we kind of showed it out along the road to get some landscaping in there. Um, you know, just to do some screening for the site at least at a minimum. Um, but otherwise, yeah, I mean, Hayden hit on most of the points. Happy to answer any questions I can or Jen online. >> Yeah. The one question I had and I maybe Jen's the right person but just to describe the relationship between Odessa who I believe is the owner of the site. >> Correct. >> And Carvano. >> Okay. Oh, here she is talking. We cannot hear her. Let me >> TV speaker. >> It's working back there. You said See if we can hear her now. Jen, go ahead and try and talk here. >> Okay. There we go. >> Yes. Okay, sounds great. Um, so good evening. Um, happy to answer that question. Essentially, the relationship between Adessa and Carvana in at the end of 2020 acquire all Adessa options across the nation. And so Carvana is essentially a parent company to Adessa. >> Thank you. >> Um, and so that's the relationship. the two um at this particular site um is loosening this particular site and so we are just wanting to expand the overall operations here. Um really no change to the existing um uses of the facility. And is this all one property? >> It is not. >> It's multiple buildings on same site or is it separate properties? So you can see here um this is one large property roughly 35 acres and then these buildings are separate parcels >> and the parent the parent company now owns all three parcels. >> Yes, it's still under the same ownership as previous uh >> whatever the legal entity name is but carbon is the controlling entity. Okay. >> So, this is the first building on that property then. >> Yes, >> that is correct. >> There's a wetland complex up here. Um, and then vacant uh land over in this area and the rest of it is uh surface parking. >> I know we're kind of talking about it as three properties, but to me it's one property. Do they actually even have cross easements for access in place? I don't necessarily think they should because it's one owner, but I'm just saying I think it in my mind I'm using this one property. Not that I don't think it matters, but >> Yep. >> Yeah. I did not verify whether there were uh access uh agreements or anything in place. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Just the smaller one on the west doesn't have direct access to territorial. the other building on the south or east does have access it looks like. And then obviously the bigger property has access too. So and I guess the the cross access uh could be something that would solve that access for that parcel. Um, at the same time, if that individual parcel was ever sold, uh, because they do have, uh, street um, access or they are adjacent to the public street, they would be, uh, able to install their own access on that property. Again, if it was ever sold to a different entity, >> I think this is just my perspective. I don't know how it should if it needs even go into any conditions. But to me, the parcels, all three of them should be tied together as part of an approval because if for some reason they start peace milling it off, it's not good for the city for how effective development plan will ever proceed forward, whether that's 50 years from now, 70 years from now. It would be not pretty, not efficient. >> Sure. and which ultimately relates to less property taxes per acre or however you want to look at it. >> Sure. >> So, in other words, having site plan review approval that's tied to all three parcels. >> Like in this case, we're just looking at site plan review. >> Yeah. And then correct. >> Yeah. >> And it's more of a Well, it's a cup, correct? >> Currently. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So the does the current cup have anything in there about if they can sell off things individually? >> Not that I recall. No, because I believe that the original approval of this was one whole piece. And if I'm if I'm recollecting correctly, um I believe that they parcled off the areas when these facilities were built um in regard to access charges that were on a per acre basis. >> Right. And so the my concern is I guess where they're placing this building. Not that it's wrong because that's how they're working it all together because they're viewing it as one property I'm assuming. Yeah. >> Um but in the long term it's creating a mess if it were to ever be sold off separately or tried to for redevelopment and it's just >> it's not a not a very efficient use. And I think that no one probably ever thought about that because one one you didn't need to because there wasn't a building. It was all surface parking lot was likely if they ever sold it's because Adessa chose to sell the land and take that money and go somewhere else. And obviously Carvana probably just plans to stay here forever. But it just I don't know how you can tie that into as a condition. But to me in the long term like 50 years from now if there's a different model of selling cars and for example that at that time they might have a higher value is hey let's sell them as three buildings that's not good for the city. >> I guess the the other question I have too is that in 1996 you said the condition use permit was approved for this type of use. Was it for all three parcels or just one parcel or how do how is that? >> Uh it was for the parent parcel which is essentially all three of them combined. It's >> all three combined. >> Yep. So they the conditional use permit is tied to the entire um site. >> So then any new construction related to a conditional use permit um Dayton considers as a site plan approval and not an amendment to that conditional use permit. Yes, I would say I would say yes in terms of reviewing this when they originally submitted um only because the use itself is not changing or expanding the use the parking area is basically just turning into covered parking. Um they're already doing reconditioning on the site. Um and staff the footprint of the the use itself did was not considered to be an expansion I guess in this regard. >> Okay, >> that was my interpretation. Was the original CUP allowing for minor repairs and reconditioning? >> Uh, no. The CUP was specific to auto auction. Minor repair for auto in the industrial district is permitted. >> Yeah. I don't know if it meets the requirements for a CUP amendment, but um I'm going leave that for you guys to decide or other planners in the room that know a lot more about that. But my cons that was my that's my concern is >> it's just whether >> in 50 years from now all of a sudden if for if the highest value is to sell the three individually, why wouldn't they do that? >> But that's not good for the city. >> Well, that that brings up a question just playing around on the county GIS. The owner of these three lots that we're talking about also owns one lot to the west. So, a fourth one. >> Is that part of the UP, too? >> And that's that was my question. >> You are you talking about this parcel here? >> Nope. Just to the west of that. >> This here? >> Yep. There's a a 4 acre parcel there as well or 3.8 acres. >> So, that I'm not familiar with. I do not believe that the conditional use permit included that originally. Um, I believe that uh there was an interim use permit requested for additional properties, one to the south of Territorial Road that was approved, never actually occurred. Uh, things must have changed with uh their plans or something like that. So, from from a high level, for all I know is that they may have purchased that property and uh tried to incorporate that into that interim use permit that did not uh continue on. Yeah, it it looks like from record it was purchased after afterwards. Just >> wanted to confirm. >> Yeah, >> I hate to incur additional cost on the applicant, but >> yeah. >> Is it and I don't if you don't know the answer, you don't have to answer, but is it super expensive to just replplat it and combine the three lots to one? That would solve the issue. Yeah, >> because at this point you're not going to incur any fees any additional fees by doing the would they? >> No, I mean there were reasons they divided. I think it was back in 2021 we as part of one of our agendas early on that they broke it out and just had the buildings on the individual parcels. Um there's I'm trying to I don't know if there'd be issues with multiple buildings on the same property. I think they're far enough apart it would be a problem. I'll just note as well as part of the site plan review, I'm not uh too familiar with this, but I'm not sure if the city can require a replat of a property based on a site plan review application. >> Like I said, I think those were parcled off due to connection fees um that were pretty steep at the time. So that's why they kind of parcelled them off for water and sewer connections. They got rid of the wells and septic So, with this new building, yes, I mean, Carvana is going to incur hefty fees um because it's tied to the entire >> rest of the site. >> Rest of the site parcel. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, if it is easy to replplat it, I'm not saying it is. I'm sure it cost I know it cost something. >> I think it would solve my concern. I mean, I have generally have no concerns about the project. I just want to make sure the city's set up for for some reason this whole model changes in 50 years. >> Jen, I I I don't know if you want to answer this, but would you have any objection to combining the three parcels into one? I guess my only concern um with that would be the connection fees because then at that point the total acreage would grow. >> So do the fees. >> The connection fees are already paid on the other two though. >> Um yes it we can figure that out so that it's not uh you know it's not increasing. I guess >> the other thing I do want to caution is I again on a high level I'm not sure if uh the city outright allows three three principal facilities on on one one parcel. >> So that would be another thing that we would have to look into before anything move forward with that. >> I just what the again nothing against this project it's the hodge podge design that's getting created with the plat that I just don't think that's a good practice for the city to get involved in. This is a big chunk of land, >> but it's legal, right? I mean, they're able to do it. They're they're legally able to do it with with the property that they have, and I'm sure their attorneys have looked at over this and said, "Here's how we want to do it." Um, so yeah, I I I agree that it could be messy in the future, but um, you know, I think that's something that that Dayton can contend with if it ever came to that in 50 years. I think we should have our legal team understand too as if they truly do or do not need a CUP amendment for this. >> Uh Jen, just to be clear that combining, excuse me, combining the three parcels is something you would consider if there's not additional uh connection fees associated with it. >> It would be something we would be willing to consider. It's not anything that I would be able to speak to or give an answer to tonight. Um but potentially I like I mentioned before I think my largest concern is the connection fees. Um we're going in for quite a bit for those project and the existing um acreage as it currently sits. >> Yeah. >> I know that Henipin County does um minor combinations pretty frequently. There's like very little cost involved with that. It's a form that you fill out. I don't know if it's for three lots. It might only be from two to one. I don't know if it goes from three to one, but essentially you essentially give the three P numbers. You say where, you know, the lot descriptions, all this stuff. You give to Anipa County, they create a new lot with one P for tax purposes. They do that all the time. So, I don't think that process is going to be too cumbersome for the for the owner if they want to pursue that. The other advantage to that potentially could be that you don't have to worry about internal lot lines meeting setbacks for for car washes. So I mean there's some advantages if you want to look at it that way as well. >> Yeah, as commissioner Sergeant said, we do have an administrative process for that in our code um that we work with Henipin County with. >> Yeah, I know Ramsey County just did one that I was working on where five parcels adjacent parcels were combined into one. >> Yeah, we can look at it. I have no other questions for the applicant. Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any other further discussion on this item? It's a site plan review. Not at public hearing. So any encourage staff to continue to work on the architectural requirements like you said you're going to see what you can do to make sure this building meets those. So not a lot you can do with metal building, but anything we can do to clean it up a little bit would be good. I think yeah un unfortunately this is the largest parcel we have on 81 right now or on the the BNSF side >> yep >> of 81 and we did not address concerns that I brought up at the when we talked about the opus development of screening from that side >> from 81 >> from 81 yeah and so that's a concern of mine with this project. Um, you know, yes, we do have a freight rail corridor in there and that's what work it's a budding, but I think as as you as I expressed at that time and I'll express it again is, you know, it's a wide open corridor and yeah, there's there's infrequently a train through there, but I think the screening on that side isn't is just as important as it is on the territorial side. Um the the packet notes that the building height is about 21 feet. Um if I remember correctly the the railroad track is above the higher elevation than 81. Could be wrong. Um so the thought probably the the railroad track is going to hide at least the lower half of the building. I mean, we're just exchanging open parking lot for building. So, >> yeah, I guess my concern is we be we could have and be more thoughtful about providing >> maybe some vegetation on that side than >> we're seeing parking lot, >> right? >> Then volunteer stuff that's going on the rail. So, >> I think the only if I can speak. Yeah. The only >> um if you could come up to the mic. So everything to the north, the only concern is we have that uh there's a large gas line uh running like right along that property line. So I also wanted to put landscaping up there, but with that uh gas man running in there through that easement, I can't put anything along that entire north property line and even along the uh western side uh of the new building. So that is one of the drawbacks or limitations for landscaping up there. Y >> unless the building was shifted farther away from the property line. >> Does that gas line show up on any of our exhibits here? >> Yeah, it's on the 12th page of the of that specific um it's on the survey. So, there's a colored picture of what right there. That one has the uh all the easements laid out on there. >> And that's the the formerly new star snowco line. Correct. >> I think it's jet fuel or whatever. >> Yeah. Yeah. Is there a certain easement off of that line that you have to stay away from? >> I'm sorry. >> Is there 50 foot wide easement? >> We we've had to deal with it in a couple of developments. >> Yeah. >> And since we don't own easement, we wouldn't have the ability to approve a landscape design in there without their permission. >> Yeah. And you wouldn't want the applicant to have to put stuff in there and then someday watch it all get removed. >> All right. Any other >> looking at looking at the the current street view? Um the highway isn't at any different elevation than the railroad. You can you can drive by now and look over the railroad and you can see the cars parked in the parking lot. So there can't be much elevation difference if any >> between the two. >> I didn't remember that there was either. But >> it's been a few years since I've walked those tracks when I was a kid. All right. With that, we'll move on to item 8B. >> Or we could use a motion. >> Oh, a motion. Yeah. Do we need a motion? >> We need a motion on the site plan. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> A recommendation. I guess I'd make a motion to uh recommend the site plan uh for the Carbana slash um Adessa site at 818270 Territorial Road for the Adessa Auto auction uh as presented by staff. >> And I'll just add that I hope that the applicant can combine the parcels. I'm not making it. >> I don't think we can make a condition. >> No, I don't believe we can either, but we can ask. >> We can encourage. >> Please. >> Uh, can I before we proceed with the vote, um, make a suggestion or proposal that the building moves 15 ft south to allow buffer between the parking and the gas line to allow one row of trees. See if the applicant can look into that. I don't I don't know what the official buffer would need to be in order to get trees successfully planted at 15 ft enough or not. But >> so um first we'll just take a second for the motion if there is one before the discussion. >> Sure. >> All right. We need a little administrative help here. If we second we have to vote before we >> No, the discussion occurs prior to >> Right. >> But if you second, we have to vote on the motion. We have to vote on it. We got to either I'll second it and then we'll deny it and restart or >> I'll second. So one my question I have with Paul's suggestion is is that a condition that we can even make if the buffer requirements are not laid out for the industrial district as requested. We cannot require something like that for a site plan review. And uh I'll just note as well is that the setbacks are in general being met on the property as well. >> So Paul's comment would be another good suggestion to the applicant to consider. >> I would say it would be a good a good suggestion. However, I would caution the um the planning commission from including that as a recommendation. The only other consideration then is to um if your legal team decides that this is actually a a condition use permit amendment then a that type of condition could certainly be applied to that uh application. But if this is just a site plan approval then if it's meeting all minimum code standards as presented then I agree that we have to act on what's being presented in front of us tonight. And I don't know the legal terms of it, but it seems when you're substantially increasing the amount of building, like does it triple? I'm not sure. To me, that seems would fall under our CUP amendment. And obviously, we didn't write the CUP. It's from the past, so maybe it doesn't. But in general, it seems to me you're amending the CUP when you have that big of an addition. >> Yeah. And we'll certainly clarify that. So, we have a motion in a second. Any further discussion? >> All right. >> I'll just be clear to the applicant if in my opinion and this is just my opinion, but if a CUP amendment was required just because if they end up going down this route, they want to know. I don't think I'd have an issue with it. I might support Paul's suggestion. Um, I would like to see all one plat, but other than that, I don't really see anything different other than staff's recommendations. Mr. Chair, if I could just clarify. So the motion and second is to recommend approval as the resolution is written. Um but also request that Carbana consider combining the three properties into one and for Carbana consider uh to consider adding a tree line buffer along the railroad tracks. >> Yeah. And before this goes to the council, I think it'd be good to understand if the CUP amendment is really needed or not. Sure. >> Based upon what was approved. So just just for clar clarification for me, what staff is advising is that all of the conditions that we're thinking about or talking about um are something that we cannot do because of what's sitting in front of us because it fits our ordinances. Yep. Okay. >> Because it doesn't require a Well, current interpretation, it doesn't require a CUP amendment. >> Good thing we're here. >> Good thing you're here. Yeah. It's beautiful night out. Yep. >> Yeah. It is a little odd if it's a site plan review that you can't make comments about site plan at tree line. >> Yeah. My question is be why why are we even looking at it if if we have no input on >> the whole plan? >> It's a it's the fir it's the first building on this property >> essentially, right? >> It is the way it's written. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> With it being three units. >> Usually we would screen buildings. So, >> well, we we ran into that though at we ran into that with the opus of we our ordinance the way it's written is we have it on a street frontage and I argued that the 81 side is a street frontage. If I could just ask a question about the buffer concern being that this is uh adjacent to um a major roadway and the properties across the street from this area are all um zoned the same as industrial. I I guess my question would be what is the uh what would be the benefit of requiring a buffer in this regard because a lot of the times those buffers are for um more intense uses uh next to adjacent properties that may be residential or maybe commercial in nature um that aren't as intense. So offering that buffer kind of lessens any potential nuisance factors. So I guess I would just ask what would the what would the benefit be for for a buffer? when we went through the cubes at least the landscaping we we had landscaping along 81 and that's what the buffer is providing is providing the landscaped area against the major roadway. >> Okay. Yeah. It's a obviously it's a it's a major roadway that just cuts the corner of our city. Um it's an industrial area but why not have vegetation lining that road as opposed to industrial buildings, right? it is industrial area but you can still have vegetation lining the road to make the road experience more pleasant. >> I think some of those concerns also revolved around the fact that uh some of these other buildings especially industrial would have loading docks that might have rows of semi- traffic or semi-trailers being stored which may not be as appealing to motorists driving by as the back of a building. In this case, you you probably won't have that. So, I'm not as concerned, but I could see uh the chair's concern with potentially wanting to screen um outdoor storage essentially of trailers. And I do believe, if I'm not mistaken, that might have been the triggering factor for the Cubes building being those loading docks are adjacent to 81. Um and if there's specific provisions within uh the code for loading docks related to what are the things that you need to do if you're going to have this area on the site. >> Certainly difficult when you have a two-sided property, right? You have rights away on two sides and which one do you want to take precedence over the other? >> I mean, these aren't overly attractive buildings, >> right? So, >> they're industrial buildings. >> They're industrial buildings. They are what they are. Um why not be a good neighbor? They own a lot of property. Um, I t assume they're planning on staying here for a while. Plant a row of maple trees and just make it look a little nicer. >> Certainly. Yeah. I didn't I didn't mean anything by >> No, I mean, we're a recommending body. I'm I'm recommending it. Whether it gets a part of the the formal approval or not, it's it's on the record. They're hearing it. They can decide if that's what they want to do or not. >> Right. >> And I understand where Commissioner Crosslin and Peter are coming from. I probably side more with Commissioner Sergeant that I'm not as concerned. I think it would be a improvement if you did what um Mr. Commissioner Crosslin is suggesting but and I'm it's more consistent with you know how the Opus and Scanel deals went down to my opinion it is 81 there is a rental corridor um but I understand wholeheartedly where commissioner cross's coming from and it's chair there's there's nothing aesthetically pleasing when you look from 81 and you see multiple acres of nothing but vehicles sitting there. That's not pleasing to the eye at all. The uh the the problem we have is with the railroad and rightway. That rightway changes every time they come through there and cut all the brush down along the tracks. If they let the brush grow, you'd have a forest between 81 and the tracks and you'd have another forest between >> uh between their property and the tracks. Unfortunately, we don't have any control over that. I mean, the railroad's going to come in there and they're going to clear that out. One year may you may not be able to see any cars from there and the next year they come through and they clean it all out and you go, "How'd we miss that?" Well, we're here saying we shouldn't be missing that. We should be doing something along the corridor along the the railroad property as close as we can that's going to shield that something that we can control. >> I think that's what Paul's talking about. And that makes sense to me because we have no control over what the railroad does. I've seen them trim that out of there probably every five, six, eight years. They go in there and clean cut the whole thing down. >> We used to get ticked off when we were kids because they wrecked our forts in the trees. >> Shouldn't be playing along 81. >> Or the railroad track then because they went by at 75 80 miles an hour, right? >> All right. Well, >> it does I just want to reiterate something to staff too that Commissioner Crossen brought up. does seem strange that we don't have any input when this is the first building on this parcel, but hopefully they combine the parcels and hopefully they take some of the recommendations we gave here in consideration. >> And like I said, we'll certainly reach out and uh clarify the question about the conditional use permanent amendment. and your comments are well taken and we'll certainly reach out and ask that question as well as what are the what is the I guess the latitude that the planning commission has in regard to site plan reviews um site plan reviews are typically not brought forward to the planning commission in um other communities uh a lot of the times if the use is permitted um again this is a little bit of a unique situation but uh under certain circumstances if the if a property is proposed to be developed veloped and meets all the requirements. Doesn't require a conditional use permit in general. Um it does not is not seen by the planning commissioner, city council. >> That's what makes Dayton such a special city. The people that live in the city and the in the commission that represents those people wants to see those things. They don't want a rubber stamp of it from somebody else. They want to have input on it. That's why we're here. So, I believe we have a motion and a second with a couple of strong recommendations >> and some homework for staff. >> Yep. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I >> I >> no. >> We motion passes four or four to one. Sorry, I've been called worse. So, this would tentatively go to the city council on January 27th at their meeting. Um, we'll certainly provide a summary to the applicant about the recommendations related to the conversation had today. All right. Item 8 8B. Uh, a question before we get into 8B through >> Thank you, sir. >> and good luck. >> Thank you. Have a great night. A question before we get into 8B through I. >> Can we hold the public hearing as one >> or do we need to do one for each one? >> Um it was posted as one public hearing. Okay. Um, it'd probably be a little easier to do rather than ch switching subject from subject to subject since I don't remember if there's a seven or eight items. >> Considering we have a huge audience online and in the room might not matter. >> That's where I'm going with that is unless we have someone on on for a specific one. >> It would be easiest for the minutes the uh >> if we open and close that's that's fine. Just wanted to we'll we'll do that >> more gall. >> All right. 8B. >> Okay. So, as we roll into these, just to kind of give you a little bit of a view. So, we we have kind of a laundry list of different ordinance amendments that um we've just kind of kept on the back burner until we have time to do things. Uh typically in during the month of December, it slow us down a little bit and that's the time to write ordinances. And so being that this is January, we now get to see all these different items. So first item is uh for uh section 101.03 for rules and definitions uh related to rounding. Um so in uh this past spring uh the city council or the plan commission city council reviewed a concept plan for a a project in which the a topic came in came up um we round a lot area up uh for the purposes of determining density. So in this case it's 117 12 acre parcel. um if it's rounded up to 120 um they're the density is such they're able to get another lot out of it and the direction from the planning commission was not to change the ordinance and that the uh developer should apply for a variance. Um, in discussions with the city council, not necessarily specific to this item, but just ordinances in general, uh, the council, I asked of you, usually like when we have an ordinance, we'll bring it to the plan commission. If if the plan commission gives direction of don't change anything, it just dies. And the council would like to see everything um whether the plan commission recommends a change or not. So that's why you're seeing this again tonight. So again, the plan commission's recommendation was not to round anything and just leave the ordinance alone. Um staff agrees with this. Um although we have an ordinance amendment prepared that would round and it's really hard to see here, but it says the new language would states that for the purposes of measuring minimum lot area, the lot area shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. you know, for example, 1.5 equals 2. Um, for staff's recommendation against this is that there's we'll probably keep using this term of unintended consequences is that u when we change one area of the code, it affects other areas um that we may not anticipate at the time. So, one example is how we measure um property for animal units. Uh you know previously we're talking about using the measurement of acres. In animal units we use the measurement of square feet. Um so in this case uh you need 90,000 and one square foot in order to have one head of horse. Um n that 90,000 one square foot is equivalent of 2.06 acres. and that would be rounded to two acres which is less than 90,000 which means you can't have a horse. Um it's probably not the best example. Um but that's one that kind of came to mind. >> I I happen to be looking at that ordinance right now. >> Yeah. >> Um that specific section also mixes square feet and acres. >> Yeah. >> That says if you're less than 5.0 acre Yeah. Anytime you change units and suddenly your rounding changes, you got a math problem. >> Yeah. >> Hey, and I guess that's even with the drafted ordinance, that was my first question is why are we now doing acres versus square feet? When do we because sometimes it's about square feet. Sometimes it is about acres. >> I think variances are there for a reason and I think if it comes down to a couple square feet, I think the variance is going to be easily approved. But I think the council should be aware of why it's being approved and how it could be potentially affecting the city. So I agree that we shouldn't we should not do any rounding at all. Leave leave the ordinance as is. >> I agree with Jeff too. I think it just opens up a there's more unintended con consequences we can even think of with the square feet and and lot densities like 2.5 versus 2.6 lot slots per acre. It just opens up all can worms and it's not our problem. I believe Commissioner Sergeant said this originally. It's not our problem to solve these things with the rounding area and that's is what variances are for and even with the potential barren property. If they want to come in for variance to go to 120 to 17 from 117.5 I mean that is ultimately going to be a decision of the council and how it meets their initiatives and not and what's the risk of it and I think it's the better route. I don't think anybody's opinion on this whole subject has changed from the last time it was discussed. No, >> I'll just mention as a public hearing, we did publish a notice in the uh the press that was published on December 25th, 2025. >> So with that, at 7:35, I will open the public hearing. >> Anyone here to speak on that? You should put down. I >> don't >> um >> Yeah. Yeah. I I mean I've kind of had the same opinion that we have here. I think one of the things we challenged on this too, John, and I don't know if you've done any research on this, but I'm recalling, you know, how, you know, what impacts would this have or, you know, other governmental agencies like the Met Council and us using rounding and how would that be impacted there? So, don't necessarily need to get our hands slapped on things like that as well. I don't know if you have any more input from that but >> no I mean I I you know it's not a good analogy but you think of spelling of you've got you know three different versions of there and they have different meanings you should have that's not how math works it should be all be the same answer. All right, with that it's 7:36. I will close the public hearing. Um, to be clear for this uh motion, are we making a motion to approve or deny rounding or what's what are we making in a motion? >> If you don't want anything to change, it would be a motion to deny the ordinance amendment. >> I will make a motion to deny the ordinance amendment. >> I'll second it. >> Uh, we have a motion from Darren and a second from Keith. Any further discussion? No. All those in favor? I. >> All those opposed? Motion passes 5-0. >> Next item 8 C. Okay. >> Okay. We're going in order of sections of uh code rather than um recency for previous discussions. But uh yeah, uh 8 C is a uh consideration of an ordinance ordinance amendment to section 1010051 uh residential district specific requirements. Um this section was added to the uh zoning ordinance to allow for event centers uh on an interim basis within the agriculture districts. Um at that time the ordinance uh adopted requires currently still requires parking count equivalent to one stall per 200 square feet of occupiable space. Um through review of the Thicket Hills Vineyard Event Center. If you recall uh it was found that this requirement was inconsistent with similar uses in the commercial district um such as community centers and assembly halls that require one stall per 300 square feet. Um and then uh the applicants at that time had also prevented presented some evidence related to what our surrounding communities requiring for this type of use. Um so to make it consistent across the board within the city of Dayton specifically um staff has uh drafted a ordinance amendment to change that from 200 ft to 300 ft. Um in review of this area as well specific to the parking for event centers. Um staff has also included a provision that allows for overflow parking to be on an unimproved surface as was approved for um a couple of uh event centers within the um within Dayton Deans Pumpkins and Magnus Veterans Foundation both have overflow parking as uh unimproved surfaces. Um so those are the two sections. The full draft uh ordinance amendment is in your packets. Um, again this is a public hearing and uh the planning commission has asked to provide a recommendation. >> Aiden, what is this overflow parking? >> Uh, in excess of what is required >> a code. >> Okay. In other words, that's really saying they can park on the grass if they run out of parking spots. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Which Magnus does for major events that they have on their sites. And I I would suggest for future cups, if we don't have language, we kind of put some language in those cups that if overflow parking becomes needed on a very regular basis, the parking needs to change. Obviously, for special events, overflow parking is very appropriate. >> Sure. You mean if it's routinely utilized on site? >> Yes. But for for current regulations, the overflow parking can only be on impervious surfaces unless they're given permission by the council. All parking currently is um required to be on an improved surface such as class 5 or asphalt or concrete. Um however the uh interim use permit approvals for those event centers um I guess did not adhere to the approvals did not adhere to that those requirements at that time >> but they were still given permission to park on the grass. Right. >> That is correct. >> So if we change this then they don't have to ask permission. They can just park on the grass anytime they want. >> Is that am I reading this wrong? No, no. This is this is essentially requires that you have to have parking uh parking count on an improved surface that matches that one stall per 300 square ft. Um if you choose to have designated areas as overflow parking on the property, if needed ever, it can be on the grass. So, what I'm saying is if there is a major event at Magnus Veterans Foundation, we're not going to go in and send them a violation notice because they had to utilize grass space um for an event that they had on site. >> So, how do they currently, Hannah? Do they ask for permission prior to the event? >> The parking that >> or do they just park on the grass when the parking lot fills up? >> The parking that was uh proposed at that site on unimproved surfaces was approved as is um as part of the intermuse permit. I forget exactly how it went down, but I believe Magnus and Dean's pumpkin patch >> were kind of after the fact, >> meaning they both were already approved and then we came up with the event center code. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> That that I was not clear. >> Existence. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. They're already operating. >> What that what that language does is essentially codify what they are doing on site >> in the city. Correct. >> You're doing that in parks too. Correct. >> I think the proposed ordinance is reasonable as presented. Um I guess I would recommend approval, but we >> if there's any other discussion that >> I'm going to open the public hearing at 7:42. >> The backup here in your special requirements lists one stall per two yes or one stall per three yes. Am I seeing that correctly or am I not looking at the right Is this >> I saw that highlighted. >> Let's see. Yeah, it's in the highlighted text in the packet you provided >> under the residential area special requirements. >> Community centers, theaters, assembly halls, auditorium, sports arena is one space per three patrons at the max occupancy load. >> That is a separate section. That's the parking regulation for the commercial uses of community centers and assembly halls. The highlighted text prior to that is that separate section that we are discussing right now. >> Yeah. And that one also one stall per two guests based on maximum occupancy of the building. >> Correct. >> Which is different than the one per 300. >> I think what Commissioner Crosslin is asking is we help connect the dots between what's in the package with the guest and the one per 300. >> Yeah. Are we using different >> I might have confused myself here. standby >> standards because an assembly occupancy is actually like 15 square feet per person. So 300 square ft is 20 people. And so then if it's one stall per every three patrons, now a sudden you've got six and a half stalls for that 300 square ft. Might have conflated the calculations here when I drafted the ordinance. Let me pull up the >> You didn't use the math from the previous proposal, did you? >> Yeah. Well, we're changing units. >> That's Yeah, I think that uh I actually created a discrepancy in the ordinance amendment. I don't think that that was the intention to change it from one to one per 200 square ft or one per 300, but it's more of that patron number. >> Yeah. >> So, I guess I would introduce a um an amendment to that ordinance uh for your consideration. I think bottom line, if it's consistent with the how the city's treating other similar uses, I'm in support of making that consistent across the board. >> Yeah. So, I guess uh I really appreciate you uh bringing that up, Commissioner Crosslin, because that was a mistake that I made in the ordinance amendment. Um the intent of this was to change it from one stall per two guests to one stall per three guests, not on a square foot basis. that is that amendment that I just verbally said is consistent with the commercial use of community center and assembly hall. So if you were to recommend approval of an ordinance amendment to match those um I would request that it be uh the one per three one per three patrons. So I apologize for that. >> The good news is your drafted ordinance amendment is one per three. Yes. >> Yeah. Just your PowerPoint was wrong. >> Yeah. And then just to be clear that the threeperson uh the determination on that is based on the occupancy of the building or the uses that are going to be used for that event. Correct. >> That is correct. The occupancy of the building. So forget what I said. I guess it would be a >> repeat or in the guest >> one stall for three guests. >> Okay. So in essence what we're doing is we're reducing the lot size that has to be impermeable gravel whatever. >> Yeah. >> Reduce we're reducing what they have to provide currently. >> Yes. >> And saying that they can park in the grass or in the field. >> As long as they are they have established parking on an improved surface that meets that standard. Then there would be the uh allowance for parking on grass >> as overflow. and and we and we set the parking lot that's going to be on gravel or asphalt or whatever now based on the occupancy of the building at the event center or facility. >> That's correct. Yep. >> So is that a hard number that we have written down for each event center that we have in the city currently? >> So it's no it's it's dependent on the specific building that they are proposing at that time. uh the the occupancy isn't essentially um tied to how many stalls are there because um the the occupancy stays the same. But what I'm saying is it's not going to be a one to one. So I think what you're asking is is that if there is a full event and they are at maximum occupancy, you would think that they would be able to park on the improved surface and not have to have overflow parking. But this is a one stall per three person. So there is going to be a third of the parking space is there in connection to the full occupancy load of the building. So there's still that there could still be that need for overflow parking. My question is how are we how are we currently regulating the parking that they currently have before they go into overflow if it's one one for two or one for three. I guess I don't really have a a big issue with that. How are we deciding or is that number written somewhere for each event center that we have? Has to have a maximum occupancy, right? >> How do we know what the occupancy of the buildings are? And that that's based on building code, >> right? Okay. So, we know if we know that number, then we know how much parking they're supposed to have before they hit the grass, >> correct? Yep. So, that is all reviewed through the interim use permit process. So in take uh the thicket hills um example say that their max occupancy is 300 people and that is in the plans that is provided by the architect. Now in connection with that what is provided by the architect for the building plans then the site plan shows here's what we need for improved stall counts for that occupancy and that's based on that calculation. So, it's all all of that uh improved surface parking is determined at the time of the interim use permit review. >> Then even at the IEP review, it's important to take into consideration where the overflow would be. >> Um like three of the four event centers, I think it's pretty clear. Um the orchard dot that it's not clear, but she's obviously got an orchard on on the other land. So maybe, you know, it's just stuff like that that you'd consider when the IUP is approved to, you know, where the parking's positioned and and where the overflow might be. >> And even at the IUP level, it's important to keep in mind that, and I'm not trying to pick on the Orchard at all, but they don't really have a building that has commercial occupancy at currently. Or even if they did, they might there might be a use. And that was back to my original comment. There might be a use that does require more than the one per three, but this is the baseline. >> And at the IEP level, that's when you can, you know, make it more stringent or not stringent. >> You keep in mind that the minimum parcel size for an event center is 30 acres. So, I mean, there's >> it's more how they use the parcel. It might not be easy to have overflow parking. Keep in mind that you might say, "Yeah, you need to carve out more >> of whatever you're growing to attract people there." Yeah, >> you might you might lose some of that if you if you need it. >> Um I'm generally in favor of this uh as Hayden wrote in the ordinance, one stall per three guests. >> I'm going to close the public hearing 7:49. And I guess again the big reason I'm in favor of it, same as Commissioner Sergeant, is this is what we do on other similar type uses, assembly halls, churches, etc. Makes sense. And I'm assuming too that this is what you also vetted surrounding communities are more in line with too. >> Correct. Yep. I've seen anywhere from one to one per three to one per five. >> Yeah. Can I make a motion to approve based on one stall per three occupants? >> I'll second. >> Motion from Paul, a second from Darren. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed? Motion passes 5. Item 8 D, mixed use districts. >> All right. So, this is this is stemming from a conversation we had uh in review of two concept plans for assisted living nursing home facilities uh in the GMU4 Balsam mixeduse district. Both the planning commission and city council reviewed this in December and uh provided positive feedback on the uses in general um with some uh additional comments or recommendations that were provided for the uh applicants to incorporate in a subsequent application. Um currently multif family uses are permitted within uh the district as such. the draft ordinance currently proposed um for assisted living and nursing home facilities as a uh as a principal use um to be allowed as a permitted use within this district um just to be uh consistent with other multif family uses in the district. There was a lot of discussion about whether this uh uh should be a permitted use or a conditional use at both the planning commission and city council level. staff provided the recommendation that uh it be allowed as a permitted use. Again, as noted uh previously, excuse me, that uh any building three stories or larger would require a conditional use permit separately. Um, if the planning commission does uh wish to recommend approval of the uh ordinance uh to be a conditional use for assisted living and nursing home facilities, um staff will revise the ordinance amendment um prior to the city council reviewing. Um again, uh as written, staff does recommend approval. Uh and this is again a public hearing as well. All right, with that I will open the public hearing at 7:52 for discussion. You know, I appreciate staff with the recommendation. I think at the original meeting I was more on the line as I can understand why it could just be a permitted use. So I appreciate you guys speaking up and driving that home. my my more concern of maybe and I'm kind of on the fence so I'm interested in hearing other commissioners but obviously senior housing is a business as much as it is uh multif family units and the other big probably the bigger concern is that I don't think our GMU4 district has a true identity and that's a little scary um not to pick on Mr. the Hutner Enterprises, but even when they came in here, we had to do we basically had to push the code aside for the approval for his expansion and and it made sense, right? The the code for GMU4 is written for something that essentially requires the redevelopment of all these parcels. And that's where I think the I don't know how that ties into a CUP or not, but I think that's my bigger concern with this area and this CUP in this area is it just doesn't have a good identity and a good long-term plan right now. And so for that reason, I maybe would lean more towards COP, but I do understand where you're coming from and I don't see a ton of harm in if it was per permitted use. >> And again, like with a site plan review, um separate from a conditional use permit where you can tack on additional conditions related to the permit, um they're still going to have to meet all of the guidelines of the GMU4. Um >> I just think it's going to be very flexible in particular next um comp plan around it's like what's really going to happen here because that's probably when the discussion is going to occur. >> I think the only I guess the uh >> and and the other thing I would just say too is if we really if the city really wants to see redevelopment here, they have to think about the when and how they're going to help that happen because it's not going to happen otherwise. These uses are just going to continue. Um, and not saying you shouldn't do that to be honest. >> Well, the major block of land for this GMU4 area will be taken out now, right? We've got the town homes, we got two apartment buildings, we'll have senior living center on the on the river road, and now all that's left is the existing businesses, which a lot of them probably don't have a plan to move, right? So, the it's >> and need variances like Hutner did if they want to do anything different. >> Yeah. So the only thing that could really happen then is a redevelopment of the corner gas station into a more robust convenience store. >> Quick trip. >> It may be a quick trip. I would call them if I was provided their phone number. Um >> yeah, I think that the west side of this or the excuse me, the east side of Balsam Lane has been uh approved under uh this current language in the GMU4 district. Um, I think just going off of what that uh that situation with um the Hutner Enterprise B building, um, if I'm not mistaken, I think there was an ordinance amendment that was drafted or adopted after the fact to allow for an expansion in this area of non-conforming uses for commercial. I believe up to 20 or 30% of the building width can be or the building size can be added on to without requiring a variance or something like that. Um but yeah, I certainly understand what you're what you mean. >> Even if it's related to I don't want to get too sidetracked here because we're going to stay on schedule and set a record here, but um even within the GMU4, it was intended for redevelopment, but if we're going to cap it at two stories or CUP at three stories, it's just that much harder for redevelopment to occur. And it makes complete sense because of the abuing uses that it shouldn't be, you know, probably tall buildings. So Darren, are you pushing for this as a permanent use or as a >> I think the argument for a CUP is it allows us more flexibility when an applicant comes in while we figure out the GMU4. But with that being said, I don't know if it's going to really change anything like if it was permitted. I just like Hayes said, they still got to meet all the code requirements and I don't think it's I don't think we're going to if it's over two stories, it already needs a cup. So, I don't think we're going to do much different with senior housing either. So, that's why it's like a kind of on the fence. That's why I'd be curious of other people as they chime in. >> So, I would be I would be leaning towards CUP and leaning strongly that way. Still, I I think um what's really an issue to me is that um when these areas like the G4 like we're talking about on this whole lane here, but residential areas, we haven't in the code in my mind set any kind of a buffer zone between what we're sticking in there for commercial properties and the residential properties that are adjacent to it. I think on those areas where they have butt together, we strongly need to look at something that's some kind of a buffer. You know, it's across the street along the county road is one thing, but when you're building it in somebody's backyard, those houses have been there for 20, 30, some of them probably almost 40 years now. >> No edition been there a whole lot longer than I can't remember when I wasn't there and I'm old. So, um I think there needs to be in the code some kind of a transition between the two. I mean, we had the we had the uh the homeowner that was here that would that next to this property that was going to be three stories high that they were proposing in his backyard. I mean, that's a horrible thing to stick against residential. And if we change the code so that I think we back ourselves into a corner just like we were talking about earlier with you know with the development with carving. If we back ourselves into a corner say well we can't do anything because they meet all the and they meet all the requirements then we've taken ourselves right out of the whole picture. >> I I want to add some clarity. So this is specific to assisted living. Should it be permitted use >> or conditional use? >> Right. And on top of that, I'll just note there are transitional feature requirements in the code that properties have to adhere to when they're adjacent to a less intense use. In this example, a mixeduse district is adjacent to a residential district. Uh requiring additional screening and landscaping along that buffer along >> the setback requirements. >> The setback requirements. >> Yeah, they're still buttered right up to these people's backyards, right? >> Yeah, they are. Uh there are requirements or additional setback requirements when they are adjacent to residential. Now maybe that's a 10-ft setback or I'm sorry a 20ft setback in comparison to a 10ft setback. >> What is it in this area currently? >> I off the top of my head I'm not sure. >> Looking at that site plan that we saw it's not significant. It's probably 30 feet max. >> Well, there's also overhead utility lines that are along the property line too. >> Yeah. which that again any use apartment could come in two not that twotory apartment ever going to happen but they could come in right now and build up to 40 ft or whatever the code says >> and again maybe I shouldn't be picking on senior housing because I that's why I'm on the fence I don't know if it matters >> I don't want it to come off like I'm have anything against senior housing I don't I clearly don't I mean the the the property that was proposed along along Dayton Road there I think it's a perfect fit for that area. I mean, it's it's a a needed thing. I mean, it's going to be aesthetically a pleasure you're pleasing to people driving by. I don't think it's going to be some big ugly thing that's stuck in somebody's backyard. It's I mean, everybody expected along there to be commercial along there anyway. It's probably going to be a whole lot nicer than some other things that could come in and get stuck in there, but it's on the other side of the street that bothers me, the side that bothers or that that boards borders up against the residential area. the I don't have an issue with the nursing home thing >> at all on either property. Although on the smaller, I don't know how the heck they make that work, but I really have an issue with a multi-story in somebody's backyard. >> I think it comes down to Yeah. I think it comes down to like what path allows us to still have say control over how these properties are developed against other properties, right? So, If we allow this to be a condition, part of the approved uses, do we still have that ability to look at that concept plan and make changes and force them to, you know, do things that will help the neighborhoods, right? Or is it better to not approve have this include it and let it be a cup so it we we have more of those conditional per uses that we can add to it? I think something to should that should be considered here is what Darren was kind of saying is that right now this this district does allow four apartment buildings as a permitted use. So regardless of if if it's an ugly threetory or twotory apartment or an ugly twotory senior care facility, it's still a building that could be that close to the property line with the potential of being three or more stories with a conditional use permit. So I I in in that in that sense I think that allowing uh these assisted living facilities or senior homes uh facilities as a permitted use is still consistent with other like intense uses that could be allowed as a permitted use. The other question is whether or not we would want to look at degrading that and allow and saying okay now all apartments that could be two or three stories everything that it's multifamily should be a conditional use instead of a permitted use right so maybe that's the the consideration that we have to make if we want more of of that um say over what goes in or how close to property lines things of that nature then maybe we should be looking at whether or not everything should be a conditional use and not permitted >> or everything over potentially everything over one story is a cup. Um and then seniors >> do it that way >> or everything C cup but the area kind of it just I don't know it kind of lacks and I I mean we they took they developed the low hanging fruit and we've got two vacant parcels that they're attacking and the most dense parcel if it ever redevelops would be the or actually the rainree plaza has a huge chunk of vacant land too. That to me is completely different planning than the rest of the stuff that abuts the single family homes. >> The only other thing I will say is that it's every city has this issue with that type of transitional between residential and commercial and industrial. It is every sing every single city has this problem with what is that appropriate transition between residential and the hired hiring. >> You know, it's not even just commercial to residential. I mean, right next to me, I've got 11 three-story houses. >> Yeah. >> And and the the the development was allowed to build up six feet on top of that. So, they're looking right down into my bedroom. >> Uh it's it's just one of those things where you almost wish every different development type had some sort of buffering, but that would be just >> you'd have a lot of land that was >> So, so if I could, there's two different directions. I think the plan commission is going one is uh preferring a conditional use permit versus permitted versus assisted living and then the second direction is looking at the whole uh GMU4 district from the bottom up. >> Yep. >> I me personally I don't know if it's worth tackling the whole GMU4 at this point in time. >> Um especially since we have two applications I don't know what's going to happen with them >> because that would likely delay them. >> Yep. and and and if that's the case, that's the case. But to me, I think that the issue that everyone's bringing up is we could just add to the amendment like if we decided senior housing was a permitted use, we just add another layer amending the GM Ford that either all uses are a CUP or all uses over one story or our CUP. I personally think we make it that simple unless we're really I mean those other properties aren't going to probably redevelop anytime soon. So to me it I don't know if the effort of figuring out this whole area right now is worth it. >> Mhm. >> I wish somebody 15 years ago had figured out that it was worth it. >> Yeah. >> Maybe it's time we looked at it and fixed it. >> I'll just note too that I did write >> I think there's bigger things we could fix. But yeah, >> I did write the uh the public hearing notice to incorporate the whole section. So if that it wasn't specific to that, what is it? you allowed for use in that multif family. So, if there was an added amendment to the ordinance, amendment proposed to require a conditional use permit for facilities uh two stories and taller, you could do that tonight. >> One thing just to clear in my mind, is there if you apply for a CU versus a regular application, there's different fees. Is that correct? >> Yes, but it's not a choice. Um >> I guess I was you said if you apply for a cup versus I mean the the code's going to dictate what is required. >> So for example the senior housing that had three stories they have to apply for a cup. What's the additional fees versus if they only said no we're going to go two stories or one story? >> Well they would have to still apply for a site plan review. So there'd be two fees and I believe that it's $400 a piece. >> Okay. So nothing substantial >> plus the escrow. >> Yep. But in my experience, I just asked them to submit the most expensive escrow of the two. >> Yeah. >> Rather than both of them. >> I would be all in favor of supporting a cup for anything over one story. I don't know if I'd be curious to see if other people think I don't know if a cup on all uses is necessary. Do we on the one-story front and just thinking about some of the buildings that are out there and is there a cup required for a certain height limit not necessary story and that's it's it's a little subjective because to to Dennis's point of well they could build up six feet I get that as Well, >> do I guess it would really depend on what the height requirements are. >> Yeah. >> Uh for a one I mean it probably doesn't even call it out. Well, it probably doesn't call it out if we're doing CD for two stories. The height is probably >> Oh, there's probably a maximum height. And my guess, if I'm not mistaken, it might be like 45 ft. >> Then we get to deal with all the fun ways of measuring height. >> Yeah. >> Right. Is it before they put the 8 ft of that one in? >> No rounding. >> Yeah, no rounding. >> Nope, it just says two or three. It only references uh stories. >> It seems like there should be a building height. I mean, to me, if you're going to allow a commercial use in there, is industrial actually allowed in GM4? I think that was the issue with our >> two. I don't believe it's no longer in allowed use. >> It's not really a >> I don't think he's a business. >> He's like a Yeah, he's a commercial auto repair. But and and some of those other ones are really not industrial, but they're kind of borderline. >> I mean, they're not doing anything industrial, but they're, you know, have small contractor operations and use a garage or whatever. Because if industrial is not allowed, I'm not too concerned about height. I mean, what are they going to build one story? That's crazy. >> Yeah. >> Industrial is not allowed. Uh then I'm not concerned about the height. >> And I'll say too that uh just going back to the concerns about the traditional or the transitional features. Regardless if a conditional use permit is required, there's still going to be that requirement for the buffer on these singlestory facilities that are adjacent. Um and then there's also requirements for headlight screening um along property lines as well. I think that's where the buffer requirements really come in. not necessarily towards the building height, but trying to um eliminate that potential nuisance of someone pulls in continuously to a mixeduse facility, commercial building um that has more traffic and you're shining lights into the backyard of a single family residential property. So, those are really the the types of um reasoning for screening in that regard. So the original question is should a assisted living be a permitted use or a conditional use? >> I think it's a permitted use if we also amend the code to say a CUP for anything over one story. That's my opinion. >> I'd agree with that. >> I can get behind that as well. >> I'm good with that. >> Yeah. I don't think any of the discussion was that they shouldn't be permitted there, right? I mean, nobody at least my thought process was >> well permitted versus cup. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think a senior living center looks no different than an apartment building >> or a one-story building that's already there. >> Yeah. Right. >> So, >> and just as it gets over two stories, that's all we're trying to well, one of the factors we're managing. >> If they go two or higher, then we get a little bit more control over >> who they're about. how it works. And yeah, >> just just and this is kind of to your point at the beginning, Darren, of assisted living facility is more like a business. Is there a is there something tied to that with um occupancy that we would be concerned about um related to you know a a 50 person? I think it's more about parking and deliveries which is more driven by our code for parking already for assisted living senior housing. Um and they're well the two applicants well the one applicant was going way over our code because most of the occupants I think almost all well depends on the level of care but when you say senior housing you can get pretty broad but if it's assisted living or memory care they don't usually have cars. Uh, understood. But do we want a facility that has where I'm going with this is, you know, are we we we're painting a broad brush here and and maybe it in in my mind this kind of I mean we we have the apartment buildings there as well already. Um, but is there an occupancy from a residential standpoint where it needs where it should be a CUP? >> You you get what I'm saying? If it's if it's an 8 unit place, it's probably not that big a deal. But if it's a 50, >> it it >> I wouldn't think it's I'd be more thinking about the square footage of the building >> because memory cares are like hotel rooms. Assisted living are bigger. Um independent is like apartment unit size almost. So sometimes you can get in a trap when you focus on units and I said the footprint of the building is really what's going to drive a lot of it as far as how it looks to the neighbors and and that and I'm I'm trying to to back mine up one one level too and look at multi multif family as a whole, >> right? Not not focus on the assisted living as as like we should allow that. Yes. It's the if it's if it's tied in with the multif family. Do we is there a number of units or a a size that we want to have see for a cup here as well? >> Um I think well think about the two multif family units that were already approved in this district without a cup. Um the big difference is they didn't have but single family homes where now um well I shouldn't say now because there's still areas that you know the senior housing deal could fall apart and that becomes multif family but and Peter might be on to something but I think we cover that completely by saying a cup over one story because anything with density that we're concerned about is going up. Okay. So I think we're covered with the one story and above. No one's going to build a one-story apartment building. >> If I recall, I think that those both those uh sand company properties are 50 50 units. >> No. >> And so I mean I could see the concern with density, but we're going to be covered with the one story. >> Does that answer your question? >> I I think so. Um maybe maybe my head's more on the redevelopment side of you know >> if two parcels got combined. >> Two parcels get combined. >> But then again it's going to be because they're going up. Otherwise they it's hard to justify tearing down anything that's there if you don't put density on it. >> Meaning that the price of what's there is going to be worth more than the dirt unless you go up. Did you close the public hearing? >> I did not. >> We'll close the public hearing at 8:14. So, I'm going to make a motion to have assisted living be treated as a permitted use in the GMU4 zoning code and to also amend the GMU4 zoning code that anything over one story requires a CUP. I'll second that. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor? >> I >> I >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Zero item eight uh 8E. conditions. >> Okay. Uh this is a conversation that we also had previously. Um the city council has indicated that they want to have a discussion on this item at uh one of their upcoming council meetings likely January 27th. Um the feedback that I received from the planning commission last time was essentially a um 4:1 understanding that um requiring a uh a uh homesteading of a property in order to uh get a home extended business. um further hinders the opportunity for um renters in uh Dayton that are in our community that uh have the ability to utilize this home extended business pro section of the code. Um if they can meet all of the intent of the uh code for an interim use permit, um this would essentially eliminate their allowance to do so. Um in uh some cases, I will say that city staff does struggle to verify the place of residence when applicants submit an application. Um, and with the homesteading requirement, we can confirm that that is their primary place of residence. Um, so those are kind of the two sides of that uh of that coin. Um, again, the last time that I had brought this forward, um, it was essentially a 4 to one that this was not necessary to have within the code. Just wanted to bring this back to touch base to get uh, kind of a reiterate what you guys previously said before this goes to the city council. So >> with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. >> What do we currently require from the as far as proving that they live there? >> I mean, if they don't have a a state issued ID that has that residence on it, then they don't live there, right? >> It's not required. >> There those are those are types of things that we will ask. I know that uh I know examples of people in the community that have lived in town for years and have not changed their their driver. violation of state law if they do that though. >> Well, that's yeah um that may be. So, um the other thing that we utilize is uh utility bills that uh people provide to prove that they uh live there as well. Those are kind of the two things that uh >> is there any issue currently with us not being able to prove that people live there? Because I think that's come up, right? We've had applicants here, you know, before before this body and before the council that in discussion it was clear that they weren't the people that were actually living on the site, that it was a son or a daughter or whatever it might be. >> Yeah, it does make it tricky because it ends up becoming a hearsay conversation of who who says where they live and what is the information that we have. If someone's coming to me and they're telling me I want this, right, because I live in the city and here's my here's proof that I live here. I mean, I can have my my uh I can have my my phone bill, my electric bill, my gas bill. I can have all those things mailed someplace else. I don't have to get those at my house. They could go to a PO box. They could go to my daughters up in central Minnesota. As long as I'm paying, I don't think they really care. So, I I'm just I'm just confused as to why we wouldn't use a stateisssued ID and if they can't provide you with a stateisssued ID that says that they actually live at that address. Why would we allow them permission to run a business out of that address? That just seems so dang simple to me. It's unreal. I mean, how do we get into this whole discussion? And how do we how do we end up giving people permission to run a business out of a home that they can't prove to us that they live in? What have what have they given us that that you know to give them that that it that that permission in the first place? What have they provided to the city? And if they provided something that's not true, then maybe they shouldn't be running we shouldn't give them permission to run a business there. >> So going back to the the intent of this is should it should renters be allowed to have a home extended business or should it be limited to the homesteaded owner? I don't know why they wouldn't be required to do it if they're living if No, no. If if the renter is renting that property and they're running a business that fits within our guidelines, although we've kind of made those pretty big, but if they fit within our guidelines, why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? As long as they're meeting all the other requirements of a homebased business. I think the the the trouble that has come recently with uh discussions of whether people live at certain places that have these types of permits right now are that maybe at the time they went through the approval process they live there. Um and maybe at now it starts to come into question that they may not live there anymore yet their ID may say that. How else would you prove that otherwise without an investigation of some sort that plan that is beyond planning and zoning? >> Right. So that that just gets back to what you were talking about before unintended consequences, right? Do we really want to make, you know, put a sign up on Dayton that says if you're renting here, you can't run a homebased business, period. I >> mean, I don't know that we want to do that. I bet you there's a lot of people out there that are actually doing that that we probably don't even know about. And there's probably some that are doing it that we do know about. I don't know why we would want to take that opportunity away from people to get that stepping stone in running their business and and moving forward in life. I guess a question I would have is is Dayton more concerned with the fact that there's renters running a homebased business or that people are purchasing single family homes with the intent of solely running a business out of there and never living there anyway. >> Right? So those are two different the >> right. So, has Dayton or staff come across instances where people have purchased these single family homes solely for renting or for conducting a business out of that home and not actually living in there? >> Yes, >> I Yeah, I think that at least one >> I can think of two that I wish that are great. Not saying that they're wrong, just great. So there is a concern I mean there's a there's a obvious concern that that the ordinance would allow for someone to purchase the home solely to conduct a business out of that home and not live in there. >> So then the question is how do you verify ownership of that home or not even ownership how do how do you residency >> right? So, I mean that's that's the question cuz I mean renters come up, you know, I maybe I'm I'm renting something for a year at a time, you know, and and now my license, I mean, it's it's laxed a little bit because of, you know, me not getting the DMV in time or it's it's not expired for another five years or whatever it might be. And, you know, this is the fourth place I've lived in in the last three years type of thing. >> Example of a bad the worst case scenario. Not even like nothing's bad about it. It's more skirting maybe some of the code would be is I'm the parent. I'm have the capital. I need a place to run my business that needs some outdoor storage and on this 10acre parcel. Um I don't want to move but hey, guess what? I'll rent the house to my son or daughter. Not a big deal. And now so now it's just a gray area and the son or daughter could run be even a name on the business. Is it that right or wrong? I don't know. I'm just I don't know what we're trying to tackle here. I get where Keith's saying like a state issue ID would help too of verifying it that way. >> Well, that's why I asked up front, you know, what are we requiring now for those folks to prove to us that they actually live there before we give them permission to run the business? >> Let's let's think about the intent of the >> the home extended business, right? The intent of the home extended business is to run a business out of a home. Do we really care who's living there >> versus I was going to say >> I do. I do. 10acre yard, they're 10acre lots are going to become contractor yards all day long. >> They're already They already are. >> But what more of them are going to keep happening >> and they're never going to leave when development comes because they're too profitable. They're never going to leave. They can operate like that. Now, I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just saying it's going to be a hindrance on development. >> I'd be I'd be more concerned that no one's living there and running a business than if than who is living there and running. >> And that's where I'm getting with the intended use of the property is being used as a home. Do we really where where does the concern lie if if if I buy a home because it's got acreage and and I'm running my business in the back and it's not >> it's it meets all of our codes for a home extended business. It's meeting all the setbacks. It's meeting all the >> all the receptacles and then I'm renting out the the primary part the primary dwelling. Does it hinder anyone except for that that person renting it? That's probably the most important person. >> Right. That's a question that >> I think it hinders all the neighbors and I'll just tell you I won't want to be on this plan commission if we have to deal with these non-stop. Not I'm not trying to say that as a threat. I'm just saying that it's so subjective. There's neighbors that come in and are all upset about it. And then here we are making a decision about is this guy woman going to operate a business that doesn't disturb the neighbor? It's like we don't know. >> Yeah. But we currently allow them. >> No. Right. So, >> let's be very clear. We currently allow them by CPU. >> That's what I'm saying. So, what I what I'm saying is that if if the council is going to be always inundated with these concerns from neighbors as far as how a property is being used because of a home extended business, then they can then make the decision not to allow home extended businesses anymore, >> right? And that's essentially what they could do. The the bottom line question is, should the council care who's actually residing in that house? Our current current code says we do. Correct. >> Our current code says that the the applicant is required to live there. >> Yes. >> And that's what he's looking for is ways to >> I I would say >> maybe beef up the verification of that. >> So now to answer um Peter's question, I would be I'd be on board with saying that my business that I'm running on my property is the same property that I'm residing in. Right? So you don't have a situation where I'm I'm purchasing a 10acre property. I'm the one using >> the the outdoor storage, but then I'm renting the the building itself for somebody else to live in. That's a business. That's my business. That's a business. That's not a >> because I'm renting out. I'm getting income from the rental and I'm and I'm storing my business material on that property. There's no there there's no home occupation at that point. >> My home's somewhere else. >> I think I think the homebased business should be based on who's actually residing there has to be their business as well. I agree with that 100%. Um then the question is how do you confirm that that's the case? And that's where the we started this conversation, right? So, >> and I'll I'll say too that the the IUPs that we've reviewed since I've been that since I've come on board, I haven't had a problem with verifying um the location or the residency of the people that are applying, but it's the ones of previous that have been around for a while that may may have uh changed situation where they may not live there anymore, but when they did go through the process, they did live there. Um it it's not I guess a it's not a contemporary issue I guess with current with the current situation but more so the ones that have been previously >> it's a condition conditional use permit right to allow that to happen if >> somebody breaks it >> then that conditional use permit should be just pulled I it just seems simple to >> if the grounds of revoking that how do you know >> based on what I mean >> just because you meet the guidelines today doesn't mean you'd meet them 10 years ago or 10 years from now when you changed all the rules. >> Yeah. >> One of the challenges that we have so the intent is the applicant is the >> is living in the property and the and also owns the business or operates the business. The challenge that we have is proving ownership. >> Is there examples that people can think of that even homestead doesn't always homesteading doesn't do a good job of proving ownership? Usually it does because in Minnesota you can only homestead one home >> but you can also buy it homestead and then move two years later and keep going >> two months later. But then you have to the homestead you lose the homestead if you so you could homestead it and buy a different home and never homestead the other home. >> You could maybe homestead two and no one knows I guess no one follows it but >> there's some there's chang I do like case ID that we should be looking at state issued driver license too. It just seems like a no-brainer >> and of the ones that we >> it happens to be different. It's just a logical question. Why is it different? See what they say. >> The burden of proof is on the applicant, not on us to prove that they don't live there. They have to prove that they do, right? >> Or they don't get the cup. >> Y >> I agree. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, the the direction that I'm hearing is don't change anything. >> I don't think Homestead hurts adding that as a requirement. >> I I just don't think it helps cure your issue though. That's the whole problem. >> Well, and you prelude renters. It doesn't clear. I think the renters, right? Our code already precludes renters. >> No, cuz I can rent a property and then do my business. >> Go back to what our code says. Does our codeclude? >> You can rent there. Rent and live. >> Not currently, but homesteading would do that. Would do that. >> Okay. >> Would preclude you from running a business there. Homesteading would >> correct. >> But the current rules don't. I could I could rent. >> Your renter could apply. I just think that there can't be multiple parties living on the property, I guess, is the kind of the issue here because you could skirt the rules, I think. And in in in reality as well, you know, if there is a gray area where there was one that was approved and now there may be questions of whether someone lives there or not, um if that gray area persists and you're not sure and you have a hard time and you don't have a case to pull the permit, um to me, then that falls back on the intermuse permit timeline to where if that time lapses, um then at that point that would require the verification to be re-uped. And if that they don't meet that, they wouldn't receive renewal of that permit. >> Well, I think staff could require verification of residency at any time. So, you get a complaint, you get a complaint from a a neighbor >> saying the guy's never here. He just comes to drop off of a load of equipment and and picks it up in, you know, in the morning, drops it off at night, and that that's the only time you ever see him, >> right? >> I think staff could knock on the door and say, "Show me that you live here. Prove prove to it." Because you need to meet the requirements of the IUP. Do the current requirements give you that latitude >> or does does a cup just give you >> a certain time limit at the end of that you get to ask. Can you ask any time during that >> to verify? >> I would think so. Yeah. >> That's perfect. That's what we need to do. >> I don't think you need to change anything. And I I I guess I understand a lot now where Keith's coming from the more I think about it because one of their ways they could prove it is showing that they have it homesteaded too. But making it a requirement um I guess I would struggle I mean I already struggle with some of these IUP. Well I haven't approved them or loading for it but I would have a harder time approving it for a renter. Well and one that was more intense with some noise and equipment and stuff like that. >> So this is a public hearing. I will open the public hearing at 8 8:30. I see Marsha's got her hand raised. There we go. Go ahead and unmute your mic, Marca. >> Hold on here. Hello. >> Yep. We're we're adjusting the volume. >> Go ahead. Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Oh, okay. Well, um it appears to me that Dayton is becoming a haven for contractors buying up small parcels of land and parking their equipment on it. We have a neighbor about three doors down. Last summer, they pulled out every blade of grass. They tore down every tree on their property that's about a 2acre lot. And the whole thing is nothing but dirt. and they're parking all sorts of heavy equipment on it. There's another house over on West French Lake Road kind of near that riding stable. Same thing. He He's parking all sorts of heavy equipment in his front yard and his backyard's got camper trailers and stuff in it. And there are several more properties in my area here in the south part of Dayton that contractors are doing this. And I think there has to be some sort of control. I want to get out of this. >> This type of a home business, if you want to call it that. It's not a home business. What they're doing is they're buying a house and they're parking their proper their belongings there because it's much cheaper than renting a facility somewhere else or building a facility and and making it a commercial property. So, I think that you guys really need to clamp down on this contracting buying up property and just totally destroying it. That they're supposed to be residences. They're not supposed to be parking lots for heavy equipment. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I've been curious about that property just north of you. Watching that. >> Yeah. Trying to figure out what >> I don't know what's going on there. >> All right. I do just want to caution about that property is that there is a property on Fernbrook just north of that area that is guided and zoned industrial. So >> that's the that's that's not it. >> It's not it at uh >> that's the old fence place, right? >> Yeah, it's not three. I will close the public hearing. >> Yep. >> Um >> I don't know what the heck you're doing here. feel like we sidetracked a little bit and I'm >> kind of understanding the rejection of the homestead more so um from a standpoint that whether you're a renter or an owner, I can understand how you can have a business, you still got to come forward and get your IUP. >> That's true. >> Um I would prefer that everyone lived there and owned it because I feel like it's going to >> they're going to care more. But that can be decided at the IUP time. >> There isn't a um current requirement of home ownership, is there? It's just residency. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> I mean, is that the other option to take is that you have to I mean the incentive to be able to run a an home extended business is also that you're you're a vested resident as far as owning that property and living in the property as well, right? So that could be the direction that you that Dayton takes is says, "Hey, look, you you're the owner of the property. You're the resident of the property. Now, if you want to do a home extended business, you can do that." And so it would ex it would exclude renters, but it would give kind of a incentive for ownership to say you're a vested resident in the city and now if you want to do this home extended business, you certainly can do that. >> And I if you want to curb contractor yards, that's going to help because contractors can have two houses somewhere, live partly at one another. I mean, it's easy, too, because they got to get up early in the morning, get in their truck. They might spend half their nights at one, but their other house is homesteaded. >> Mhm. >> It's just a contractor yard is what it is. >> But the bottom line here is they have to prove to us that they actually live >> on that site. >> If it's not homesteaded >> that way, if >> you don't I mean there's no law that says you have to be homesteaded. They should still have to prove there because you can homestead it. And like I said, you could probably homestead two properties in Minnesota and it's there's a lot of records to go through to make sure you only homesteaded one. >> But you can live you can legally live in a property and not homestead that property. There's no requirement for that. So I don't know how >> we force somebody to homestead a property when they don't legally have to. It'll force them though that if they have another home that's much more expensive to give up a slightly favorable tax treatment to homestead a contract yard. But I still agree with Keith that you know state issued IDs matter. >> You wouldn't you wouldn't force them to homestead if they were never going to do a home extended business. You'd only force them to homestead in this case homestead >> if they want. So you could say you don't have to homestead if you don't want to. But then you don't get your home extended business. >> But they could still qualify under our current rules. they could they could live there and >> under the current rules under the current rules and still run a business homebased business and we don't have an issue with that, right? >> So why would we take that away? I mean, I think we're making this whole thing way more complicated than we have to. If if we make them prove to us through a stateisssued ID that they actually live at that residence, then we'll consider their request for a homebased business. If they can't do that, then we don't consider it. >> I mean, that that's the other that's the other way to go for sure. Again, just to clarify, staff did not present a proposed amendment or anything like that. This is just for a matter of discussion. Um, >> I think we're giving the council a little bit to chew on, right? Which is a good thing. Um, and I think it it boils down to the to the idea of does the council really want it to be the resident and owner of the property, the resident of that property being the one that's conducting the homebased business. And how do you get around these contractor yards where I'm, you know, I'm renting it out, but I'm my stuff's in the backyard and the person who lives there isn't has anything to do with my stuff. >> And ultimately comes on what Keith said is staying on them about proving they live there. And it's not >> Yep. >> It's not easy. >> Even with the state issued ID, it's not easy. Well, that was another thing that I was just going to bring up is that these interim use permits for home extended business come with such great levels of nuance in each specific situation and the monitoring that is required for it. Um, I know that it is a part of the code as well, but uh, at the end of the day, John and I are just two people at, you know, a part of a 12,000 >> and we want to be clear that there's a tons of different home type businesses, >> but the focus is on contractor yards because that's what's going to happen. >> That's what is happening. >> Maybe part of the requirement for the cup is they periodically provide you with updated proof that they actually live there. Well, if if you know, so >> then you don't have to chase them down. They have to bring it to you. And if they don't bring it to you, then they lose their cup. >> Make them do the work. I don't know. I don't want you guys out there chasing around and all that stuff. >> Put the onus on the person that's asking for the cup and running homebased business. >> Then you're going to need a record system to keep track of that. >> The hard part is they're can they can provide documents and if they're willing to lie, it's still the issue. >> I don't know how you get around that. People can make a phony driver's license, too. But I think you just have to assume that most people are giving you >> sure proper document. >> What is the problem that we're trying to solve? It's homebased businesses that are creating nuisance to their neighbors. And if that's the case, we can use the nuisance laws to revoke the the intern use permit. Doesn't matter who lives there. >> You know, there's another irony here, too. If they don't own the business, they can make all kinds of racket. We've got a lot of places around here that they're driving dump trucks. They don't own the business, but they're driving dump trucks and they're parking them in their yard. >> Yep. >> And we have no control over that. And I'm not saying we should. I'm just some of this this consternation we have about these extended businesses is, I don't know, becomes such a gray area that it becomes a very personality beast whether we're going to give it or not. And that's irritating. And it's really hard because if you own 10 acres and you had to live next to it, it would kind of annoy you a little bit. But a lot of people that own 10 acres too, they're they've lived there a long time. And it doesn't take a rocket science to figure out who's going to pay you the most for your property. >> It's not someone that wants to live on 108 or they usually can't afford it, but it's a contractor is going to pay you a lot more than uh people. It's the asphalt and concrete company that's on Brockton that had a skid steer that was incorporated into this home extended business intermuse permit when all the neighbors surrounding that are on have have skid steers on their properties. Now maybe they're utilized for personal use, but the sounds that they make, the nuisance that they provide or create is not different related to a personal or commercial use in that regard. >> Um >> I think a commercial use is more frequent. if they're if you have a landscaping business, you're constantly loading. I mean, that's why I think that even on that one on on uh that abut at Dayton Parkway. Um I just I struggled with it because we didn't even we just allowed too much. And again, I get it's probably not hurting anybody and those people all have different exit plans. And some of them that were like the neighbors like I don't want to complain too much because these this is who's going to buy my house. >> Well, neighbors already left. Is there a consensus? >> I don't know if homesteading is going to solve our problem we're trying to solve. >> I don't think so either. >> I say don't require the home homesteading. I mean I I would just hate for unless that's again the council choose what they want to do. >> I think it will make it harder if we require homesteading for con and that's the whole problem. There's lots of homebased businesses here. >> Yeah. Um, but it will make it harder for contractors to like, oh, we got to have it homesteaded. >> I know people have rented their homes for 5, 10, 15 years, right? I It's just their home after a while, but they're just happen to rent instead of own. >> So, why would you not allow that person or that individual the opportunity to also run a business out of their home, right? They don't own the property, but it's their business. It's their residence. So, >> in particular, Yeah. If it's a non even a non what do you call invasive business, >> right? Right. So, um I don't think homes sending is the issue. I think you know just more of a uh you know a proactive approach from staff level at the time of the application to ensure that residency is is what's needed in this case. >> Okay. Passport. >> Do we need to change anything for you to require a driver's license? >> Do you have to that's something that we require with the new ones coming in. Um, again, like I mentioned, it's the previous ones that uh can become the issue. And it's a >> you should put together a form letter because I think it's going to be a popular letter for you to send out in the coming years. >> I think we have our direction though on the the conversation and like I said, we'll bring this forward to the to the city council to motion on this one. >> You I would say helpful. Yeah. Yeah. >> The motion would essentially be >> the motion to know what we want you to do. >> Yep. Yep. >> Well, we don't have an ordinance written. So, they didn't deny. >> So, no. >> I would I would still request that the planning commission provide a motion to recommend denial of requiring homesteading um as part of a home extended business intermuse permit application. Okay, >> I'll I'll I'll make that motion with the addition of providing a Minnesota state issued ID in order to get a COP approved residence. >> Have a time back. >> That helps you or helps the council decide whether to do them or not. >> You can codify that. That's fine. That's something that we uh we reach out for regardless. >> But if it's there, you can point to it and say, "Sure, you know, there it is." >> Maybe they'll read it and they won't even come here. I don't know. So, we have a motion on the floor. >> To to be clear, we're seconding Keith's motion to deny Homestead but require state issued ID. >> Yes. >> Um yeah, we'll wait for a second for discussion. >> Do I have a second on this one? I hesitate with the state ID. Just >> I'll second it and then we can uh start discussing. >> All right. Uh so we have a motion and a second to require a state ID but not homestead. Open it for discussion. >> All right. Let's hear the reasons not to require >> state IDs are every 5 years and people just don't update them. >> Would it be a reason for them to update? >> It would be. Yeah. It would enforce them. If you want to start a business or run your business, you go to DMV and update your business. that I think it's a simple thing. If you want to if you want a cup to run a homebased business in the city of Dayton, get yourself legal with the state. >> So, >> get your driver's license. >> So, my my argument on that gets back to maybe our the comment on renters and let's say I'm looking to rent a 10 acre parcel or 15 acre parcel. I want to do a home extended business. I still got to go through the IUP and all that stuff. What if it doesn't go through then? And for me to run my business, I can't get there. Now, I'm >> just making So, in other words, before you license, >> to say it this way, too, is before you before you decide to rent this house, just like any other applicant, you want to come in front of this commission and get your IUP approved. So, you don't have you haven't updated your license yet. >> Yeah. >> So, maybe >> I could get more behind providing an updated license >> within two months of running your business. Maybe. >> Oh, absolutely. Yeah. >> Versus at the time cuz I get why not at the time now from Peter's point. >> Yeah. >> I mean, >> that's a good point, Peter. >> That's just something I'm thinking about. You know, the other the other one that I was thinking about and I mean, you guys can disagree with me back to my my comment of why can't why can't I own let's say I own two parcels next to each other and I want to use the space and rent out the other house. I mean, that's that's where my my whole hesitation on some of this is. I get there's I get there's the we don't want contractor yards um comment, but you know, if I got a 5 acre parcel and I'm next to a 5 acre parcel and that one's got a really nice barn on it and mine's and it goes for sale and mine's, you know, just a shed. Well, I can rent that. I don't want to move. I'm right next door. Like there's nuances to all this stuff that >> Well, I think that issue has been discussed ad nauseium at the council. I mean, if you if you're going to run a business, either it's a e either you get a homebased business permission from the city to run it or you put the business where it properly belongs in an industrial zone or commercial zone or wherever the wherever the business belongs. I don't see that as a impediment at all to what we're trying to do here. Yeah, I think the code is the the reason for the code is to give home or residents the opportunity to also run a business from their home. >> Right. >> Right. Um so that would imply that you can't rent out if you don't actually physically reside on the same property that you can't rent out the house for someone who doesn't who's not operating that business. Right. So, I mean that that's the whole bottom line is that the homebased business is kind of the is kind of a, you know, it's not the privilege, but it's it's something that the owner or the the resident could potentially do if they wanted to. I think that's the intent of the code, right? So, I think we shouldn't mess around with that. Um, in my opinion, just because of the fact that you are getting away then from savvy business people buying a house, renting it out and then also using the yard for for their own needs. That's 100% business in my in my mind at that point >> and it belongs in an area properly zoned for them. >> We have a motion and a second on the floor. If we wanted to amend that, we need to >> Yeah, I'm sorry. Let let me yeah I'll I'll respond to the the um the motion too. I would be hesitant on codifying the requirement of a stateisssued ID for any any any amount of time. It just I think it's it falls down on administration and and what the staff at the time is doing as far as um their requirements to fulfill the obligation of residency. >> Um I'm speaking right now. Thank you. We we'll get to you. I just want to make my point across. I'm just I'm just saying that, you know, the staff has a job to do at the time of accepting the application to ensure the residency is taking place. And I think um any means that they do that is is is good for me as far as that. You already say you're taking state IDs. I I think that conversation here today, you're not going to change that, right? You're going to still require the state IDs. I I would just be hesitant on codifying that for whatever reason it might be. you're going to come across the time where they just don't have it in front of them or if it says within two months is staff going to be calling them in two months and you're going to have record of that to call them in two months to say let me see your state ID now and then they don't have it then what then we say okay we're revoking your IUP I mean there's a lot of stuff that we just don't want to get into at that point I I think that if you make application you show residency that's going to be good enough >> I don't think that puts a burden on them at all >> if you write if you write that in the cup that if they don't have that license today that they have to provide it to you within two months and they don't provide it to you in two months, it's write it right in the cup that it's that it's null and void after that two months. >> Well, there's a process to essentially revoking an interimm use permit. It's the same as approving it. >> Yeah, you have to go through the whole process again. I'd be concerned about tracking that, too. >> Yeah, it'd be hard to track. I I mean I just think I think staff's going to do the job they need to do to ensure residency of a property through an IUP I IUP process without needing to codify that you're going to be looking at a state ID otherwise and again I don't think homesteading is is is needed either. So, >> so right now, let's say a neighbor comes up cuz neighbors do. Um, and they say, "Hey, my neighbor doesn't live here anymore." >> The requirement is that they own the home today. Correct. >> Or sorry, that they live there. >> They live there. Yeah. Can you go to that residence and say, "Show me something that says you live here." >> Yes, but we have to prove that they don't live there. >> And that's difficult to do. >> Yeah. Okay, I get it. >> Without staking you out, >> right? >> Well, even then, you don't Yeah. >> Check the refrigerator. >> Mr. Crosslin, Mr. Demouth, where do you stand on the state issue ID? I I think it on the surface it seems like a really simple good idea, but I just I feel like I trust staff to to to do their verifications. They're doing that. I don't know if we have to codify it like Jeff is saying. >> I think if if we were to include it, we include it as a list of provide one of these type of items >> similar to the residents, which is what we're doing now. I mean it if we're doing the electric bill now and that's in there we're you know we can we can use that as a method. It shouldn't be the only method. That's that's where I stand on it. >> And there isn't an identified list in the code of what they need to provide. Um, I guess in my experience, if I received a stateisssued ID that didn't have that address on it, um, at the time of them applying, I would tell them that they would need to resolve that if they wanted to obtain a home occup or an home extended business permit for that property. So, I don't think that uh because it's not explicitly stated in the code, I don't think that that um negates my ability to say that's not proof of residency is kind of where I where I stand on that. >> So, we don't need to add it is what you're saying. >> I I would say no. >> I agree because that is part of the process anyways. >> I'll I'll amend the motion to remove it. >> We got to put a new motion up. I believe it's the right process. Well, >> you can amend. >> Can you We don't motion to We have a first to amend the amendment. >> Got a vote. >> Okay. >> First and second to deny. >> Just do it. >> I hear you. >> We have a first and a second to deny the >> homesteading and and require uh >> stateisssued ID. >> A state issued ID. All those in favor? I All those opposed? >> Nay. >> Motion fails 4 to one. >> I'll throw the motion a new motion on the table to um essentially do the ordinance as is and not require a homestead designation for a property that is conducting a home extended business. >> I'll second the motion. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> We close the public hearing. >> We did. All those in favor? >> I >> I. >> All those opposed? Nay. Motion passes. >> Four to one. All right. Item eight. >> Who said no to that? >> That was me. Oh, okay. 8G. >> I was just >> Yeah, go ahead. >> Um 8F just wanted to note uh staff is continuing to work on this. Um we didn't uh given the rest of the ordinances that we've been uh bringing forward holiday season. Um we're continuing to work on this related to the parking ordinance to see if there's any uh additional discussion to be had about changes to the commercial and industrial parking requirements. Um we did publish notice for this. So staff is requesting that the planning commission open the public hearing and continue it to the February 5th um meeting date. >> All right. Don't so that just to clarify, open the public hearing, don't close it, just state to continue until February 5th. >> So we will open open the public hearing for item 8F on parking regulations and move on. >> Make a motion to table it. Do we not have to do that? >> Yep. You can make a motion to table it after he's uh continued it. And I would just state the date of that next meeting. Um so we have a continuation date for that public hearing. >> So that would be part of your table. >> Make a motion to table the item until the February 5th planning commission meeting >> and continue the public hearing. >> Continue the public hearing at that time. >> I'll second. We have a motion and a second to table the public hearing till February 5th. All those in favor? I. >> All those opposed? Motion passes 5. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Item 8G is in regards to landscaping. Um it in the staff report it and I I'm trying to to outline kind of where the origin is of every problem and and I reference um the council discussion at telecom or for telecom and reviewing the the tape for that. It didn't come from the council during telecom. I'm not sure where it came from. Um but I just want to mention that there's an error in the U council report. So uh where this is coming from. So in our landscaping requirements um non-s single family developments are required to meet three out of the four requirements. So you have A, B and C that references different types of trees and then D is a reference to shrubs and uh the comment that has come up is are we requiring too many shrubs and and this has come up in in a few different projects. Um, we looked at uh we did a comparison for surrounding cities and if you only look at the five surrounding cities, yes, we are um I'm going to say excessive in our shrub requirement. I will say that every city has a different way that they write the code and different math formula on it. Um but in this case of of kind of doing an apples to apples comparison of how would uh Quick Trip, Scodel, and Telkom be treated in the five neighboring cities. Um you know I apologize it's difficult to see the font here. Um but we do require in excess of the mountain shrubs. Um so if we're on the high end, who's on the low end? So Oxiggo and Rogers do not have landscaping requirements. Um, Maple Grove has some uh they do not have requirements for shrubs. So for these three cities, it really relies on uh the city council to make a a requirement um project by project. And so then the next question is is um is it does it really matter in the end? So if you have uh here we have a a quick trip in Oiggo which has no landscaping requirements versus the quick trip in Dayton um which had requires a lots of of shrubs. Um is there a preference of either one? Is there a problem with either one? >> The question I have is no different than in single family homes. Mhm. It looks beautiful today. 15 years from now, maybe Quick Trip will do better than some neighbors do in residential neighborhoods, but smoke like crap if they don't. >> Yeah, >> it's very tight. >> Um, as it relates to Telcom, you know, the Telecom project was a small building on a large property. Um, the the math for shrubs is based on open space. And so if you're not taking if if you're not building a lot, you just have a lot of greenery, you're going to have to have a lot of shrubs. >> I just the quick trip photo there. I just there's a lot of shrubs. >> There's a lot of trees though, too. So >> yeah. Yeah, I'm not commenting, >> you know. One of trees, too, actually. Yeah. >> He's saying there's too many shrubs. >> Too many shrubs. And there might even be too many trees when I'm a big fan of commercial properties being able to see them in and out. And when you put all this landscaping in there, it's no different than a residential neighborhood. How many times you come up to an intersection and landscaping you have to creep forward to make sure there's no car coming. Exact same thing happens in these. And again, Quick Trip's a different operator. I have a feeling they'll maintain it better. But if we put too much in there, it just gets overgrown and too thick and it it hinders things, I think. I mean, it is beautiful and I want some landscaping, don't get me wrong. So, I'm not saying no landscaping. I do want a landscaping requirement, but I think ours is overburdensome. >> Yeah, I think I mean, just for the chart that you put up initially, I think that um it might indicate that Dayton requires a little bit too many shrubs. Um I said that a little tongue and cheek because it looks like we're about four or five ten times as much as any other community in the area. Um, you know, generally speaking, I mean, I think that, you know, some of these larger developments are going to have, you know, professional landscape architects do their, you know, do their their layouts anyway. Um, even if Dayton were to say, you know, remove the shrub requirement or reduce it by a lot, you're still going to get a nice looking product when it's when it's all said and done. I mean, that's just the, you know, those uh landscape landscape architects take pride in in putting something together that's going to be visually appealing because their job depends on it, right? They're not going to get the next job if their current job doesn't look aesthetically pleasing. Um certainly there's a good, you know, relationship between um trees and shrubs and overstory trees and deciduous and coniferous and all that stuff too. And I think the LA's do a good job of of doing that requirement. Um, but I think uh I think Dayton could potentially reduce the number of shrubs that is required. Um, I also read in the staff report that some of these um developers might be misinterpreting the requirement of three of four and do all four. >> Uh, I I don't think they're doing all four. I think it's just that, you know, you're reading ABCD. I have to do all of them. No, you don't. You >> one of the four, right? They went up. Okay. So, yeah. I don't know that's just might be a you know reiteration at the time of application that hey it's only three of the four type of thing but >> and just to reiterate so even if they only do the tree requirement and no shrubs they're still required to put shrubs around the the perimeter of the building and in the parking lot island. So that doesn't change. So I think looking at this chart it's interesting at least compared to Champlain Corkran and us if we look at any of these properties while we might be excessive in shrubs look at the tree counts the tree counts on the overstory trees are are the exact opposite. I think the ornamental trees make up for that though. >> Uh when you have 800 trees on the scale property and we only have 300 versus >> Yeah. I don't think Champlain would require 882 overstory trees on the scale. >> That's that's what the chart say. >> I don't what I agree. >> And 600 in cork. I mean >> so so >> I wonder if that's a typo because that seems like not possible for overtorm trees. So the Champlain uh Maple Grove 82 >> has virtually no requirements >> virtually. >> How many how many developments all council it's all council approved at? >> Yeah. Like and a lot of them are PUD too. >> Yep. Yep. >> Almost everything's PUD. So that's how they >> I'm sure that's through a you know they have a the landscape plan and the council says looks great or maybe add another overarchy or you know whatever it might be and that's how they approve it. >> Are they are they all overies? I I was I I didn't I thought a lot of them are >> otherwise they got a lot of special districts that are the only things left >> left that's why they're in PUDS >> again what's driving this >> we're requiring too many shrub like our last three lands I shouldn't say three but >> the two landscaping plans we had to give variances or exceptions >> I I think part of it is a different mentality So, you know, Scanel, I don't think really complained at all about the landscaping requirement. Um, you know, in Telkom, we we had a a developer that came in from outstate um who probably wasn't used to having any requirement and well, this is a Twin Cities and so we we're more restrictive in in everything. So, I think a lot of it is just what you're used to or what the what the applicant is used to. So, you know, in here, I mean, kind of my interpretation of what I'm hearing from the the commission is yes, we are um excessive in what our landscaping is, but we don't have an answer for what the right number is. >> Yeah. I don't know how to come up with what the ratio is. I mean, I don't know if we can reach out to some of our landscape architect partners that we've used for some of our parks or something and just get their input to >> Sure. >> get a recommendation before it goes to council or something. >> We can do that. There's no ordinance that amendment that was written for this. So, it's more of trying to identify what the problem is. I >> mean, I think a blend of of different type of trees and shrubs is good and that's what makes good landscaping. So, I don't think we want to go down to nothing, but um it's obviously a little out of whack right now. >> Our tree counts seem reasonable. Like I think when we've looked at plans of landscape plans that meet the requirements, the trees feel about right. You know, I don't I don't think I've ever looked at a plan and said, "Wow, there's a lot of trees on here." >> I keep looking at the scan plan and I think you should even double check Corkran. Um it just doesn't seem it seems out of whack to put that many overstory and evergreen trees on a property. >> Yeah. >> Well, maybe they have the same problem we have with shrubs. They might >> just the trees. >> Yeah. >> I don't know. The trees are more impactful than the shrubs are too. Obviously, the shrubs are more the human scale around the building and the entry points and stuff, but >> so this is a public hearing. I will open that at 9:05. Um, >> so to be clear, the shrub requirements already required or landscaping is already required around the perimeter of the building and islands. >> Yes. With that in mind, I don't even know if we need a much of a shrub requirement. Most of these cities don't have them. >> Other than saying you have to provide them in these locations and then let them decide what's right, >> what and what more they want to add them. >> Yeah. >> And with that being said though, I do think that just to make sure we're not missing something, we should revisit the other three categories >> for the number of trees, >> the overstory evergreen because we are currently out of whack with what they're saying for those other two cities. But I think ornamental trees kind of fit in with the other three. >> I don't think that they should have their own C. I actually think ornamental trees sometimes are better on commercial properties than having a massive oak tree that has a 60oot spread someday. >> So are Rogers and Aigo also only PUS? >> Um I I don't know. I just find it hard to believe that they spend a lot of time on countermanding what the business wants. >> Yeah. >> I I think it's more because saying they have very devel specific development districts >> and it's it's no different than our uh south of the freeway. All those are they're CUP, not PU, but kind of the same thing, aren't they? >> Every use south of the interstate is isn't that a require >> PUD? Yes. Yeah, it's a PUB. And so when you have those areas that are new developing at once, it's just like a big catch all for them and they have a lot of control, but they also have a lot more experience like Maple Grove. Like Corkran, I don't know. They would >> Yeah. >> But Maple Grove has so much experience that >> they know what they're looking for. >> Yeah. >> On a site plan staff probably. Yeah. >> They probably have an in-house landscape architect. >> Or three might. So, this this ordinance also, I mean, we talked about it earlier tonight with the uh the Adessa property and do we want to tie something into landscaping with adjacent to to I want to say the specific corridors. Um, >> I think it's more about screening than landscaping if that's what you're trying to accomplish because the the screening is landscaping. >> Well, this is landscaping and screening, >> right? But if you want to screen certain things from corridors, your choices are burming, landscaping, combination of it >> and and but build that into as staff works on their their draft ordinance here. Um, I can think of a couple other examples that may not be the rail specific to the rail, but maybe a um maybe a trail or maybe something along those lines where it's not owned by us. It's owned by Three Rivers. It's their rightway. we, you know, still may want to >> I'm a little hesitant to do that because when you think of what's going to develop in current staging, it's kind of like I mean to me that's when we get on different corridors, I think that's when we start tackling that. I'm just so think if you can think of an example in current staging, I'd be more okay, but I feel feel like we're going down a path that maybe is not necessary right now. Well, we've had two properties in the last and I think that 81 I think there's a mixed opinion on whether we would require it. So that's before we put staff on a path like that. Let's see if there's enough concurrence I guess before we put them to work on it. The additional part of it I and I get where you're coming from 81. I just I'm also the point that I don't know that I would say require more screening on 81 given it's industrial and I get where you're coming from, but I I'm just of the opinion that I want I'm not concerned about that screening and having more landscaping there >> because it's industrial. >> You keep in mind that 81 is outside of 94 is the busiest highway in the city and will remain that way for all of our lives. >> Yeah. And there's already some of the prettiest uses will be visible forever 1081 because they're already there. >> So the consensus I'm hearing is bring this back, do a bit of research and bring this back at a future meeting, >> less shrubs. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Or no shrubs and confirm what's going on with the other three. >> Okay. or expand your search >> maybe >> as far as as the code research for from other for other cities to see how they do it as well. >> I would try to I mean not that Maple Grove is a good example but >> I would try to think of like cities like us. >> Sure. >> Like Elmo. >> Yep. >> And you might find out that they're just like us that part >> but de a developing city >> then you know you're >> on the fringe. >> Yep. >> Yeah. And I would use the resource of some of our landscape partners that I know we've worked with for our parks developments and stuff like that and just reach out to them and get their flavor on what they're seeing and what they >> Stantech might have some resources. Yep. >> Yeah, that'd be good. >> Okay. So, >> I'm I'm in favor of of of putting more data together that we can look at. >> Okay. >> I'm not sure where there's any benefit at all to the city to just whacking numbers that we have there. I mean there I suppose there are some sites where it makes no sense to do what you know what our regulations say to do and I think council has probably made changes and and allowed people to do less or move things around. >> We we've frequently allowed people to have drugs. >> We've recommended less than frequently over the years. So I think when you see these numbers here it's like yeah those shrub numbers are a little out of whack. >> Could I suggest uh a motion to table? I'll make a motion to table. I'll second. Uh, are we >> Are we tableabling the public hearing as well? >> Never opened it. >> Or did we? >> I did. 905. >> I would I would suggest we table the public hearing as well. >> Amend my motion to table the public hearing as well as the um item at hand. >> I will second that. We have a motion to table both the public hearing and the >> and the uh by item. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed. Motion passes. 5. >> Uh administrative enforce and enforce. >> Yeah. Remember which one this was again. >> Site planner games. Um oh oh okay site plan review there we go I start getting confused which which one is which. Um okay so this is in relation to when a site plan is reviewed. So site plan is review site plan review is required for any um non any new development or expansion other than in single family. Um this past year, uh we had a a site plan review for the Spain project. Uh it was about 768 acre or 768 square ft. Um I believe um but it was on it was also an expansion on a small building. Um when this was reviewed by the EDA, the EDA's recommendation was for the council to consider not requiring site plan reviews as it is a hindrance to businesses. Plan commission reviewed the Spaniard project in November. No, I'm sorry. I don't remember what month it was, but we talked about the site plan review in November. And the recommendation from planning commission was to to allow administrative approval of an expansion if the expansion was within five years of a previous approval. Um staff's recommendation is to allow administrative approval if the expansion and when I say expansions really building addition is uh 10% or a th00and square feet or or less than that. So in other words small addition. So how does that apply using the Spaniard project as an example? Um, so this is a 780 foot addition. Um, but that amounted to a 30% um, building condition. So by current code, that does require a site plan review. Um, by staff's recommendation, it it would not um because it's less than,000 square ft. I'm reading your amended text here and I the zoning ordinance and you're saying it says an increase in floor area not exceeding 10% of floor area or 5,000 square ft. >> So you're right. It's kind of not matching up with the slide. >> You're you're right. >> I guess my intent is that small projects should be able to be approved administratively versus having to go through a public hearing. involved. It's not public hearing process, but uh having a essentially a two-month delay to go through the plan commission city council process >> is staff's recommendation. What's in the ordinance or the >> Oh, I'm going to say what's in the ordinance. >> Okay. >> Finding spots where it says 10% but it doesn't say the,000 square feet or less. >> It says 5,000. It's an or. Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm I'm supportive of this from our previous conversation. >> The 10% >> 10% or >> Yeah. I just I am too. I was if staff has a reason for something else. I guess that's make sure it's correct. >> Okay. So at supportive of the orans as it's written in the packet. >> Yeah. The 10% or 1,000 ft. Is that one? >> 5,000. >> 5,000. >> 5,000. Yeah. >> Whichever is less. >> Yep. >> Correct. >> So I apologize for making the slide out from memory and both. So, in this example, just so so we're clear on this, >> cuz this is a 30% addition, but it's less than the 5,000 square ft you would require. >> It would require >> over on one of them. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And the logic at the planning commission meeting was that some of these smaller uses also are potentially changed to other uses and redevelopment that >> or like this this specific example is we might be putting a road right next to it. It's like >> we want to just understand all that's going on. >> Yes. >> And we want to put a square footage to it as well so that >> a big building >> you don't do 30 or you know >> the >> 10% Yeah. addition to the cues is 100,000 square feet. >> Yeah. And if they fall without outside the fiveyear from the previous site plan, then they still have to >> Yeah. >> come in five years and two months. >> Okay. I'm going to back up. How the ordinance is written is based on what the planning commission recommended in November. >> So, it's good that you're agreeing >> with yourself. >> With yourself. Yes. I do think five years is a long time, but I can handle that. >> Meaning a lot can change in five years. Yeah. >> Well, they could put out multiple additions within that 5 years. And now you're expanding the bu building from year 1 to year five by 30% but never needing planning commissioner, city council. >> It's not the intent of the ordinance though, is it? >> It's not the intent. I mean, I've heard of projects doing that, you know, not necessarily in Dayton. Um, >> it's a phased project or whatever it might be. >> Just not go back to the city council >> maybe one time in five years. >> So it does boil down to the intent of the site plan approval, right? I mean, one of the first cases tonight, we're kind of grappling trying to grasp at the why are we reviewing this if it meets all the city requirements, >> meets all code requirements, why are we even seeing this? We can't even put any conditions on this, right? So, I think it does boil down to the fact of of why, you know, what is the the requirement or need for the planning commission to review >> a site plan? >> Yeah. >> Right. It already meets all code requirements, whatever it might be. What what I've seen in the past is that sometimes, you know, you do want that um oversight from a a commission to say, "Yes, we agree that it meets all the code requirements, but that's what staff has paid for to make sure that it does." Um there might be some instances where there might be some gray area that that staff would want a planning commission or council approval on just to make sure that that everything is is going well. >> Um >> like the Spaniard, the road coming through, >> correct? There might be instances where there's design guidelines that are in place where, you know, staff's interpretation might be different than a planning commission or council's interpretation on whether or not the design guidelines are being adhered to properly. So, I could see those instances, too. Um, so I mean, I agree with with as written as far as is the 10% or 5,000 square ft. If there's if there is a loophole for someone to jump through, >> they'll find it. >> They will. They will. Trust me. 40 years of negotiating labor contracts tells me that. Yes. >> If you leave the door open, someone will go through that door. My my point is that um you know, the number >> was uncomfortable to me in the first place when we had this discussion before. >> When you say the number, which one? The 10. >> The square. Yeah. The square footage. >> Both of them. 10% and 5,000. >> Yeah. Well, more than >> Yeah. >> Whichever's less. >> Yeah. I was uncomfortable with them both. And I was uncomfortable with the fiveyear. Clearly, if you go back and look at what our discussions that we had, >> you make me way more uncomfortable with it. Now, when you talk about the idea, well, wait a minute, if that door is open, somebody wants to do this every year for the next five years. >> They can >> they can do that. I don't think that's the intent of what we're asking, you know, you guys to keep a handle on. >> But the bottom line is if if every time they're coming back and they're meeting code standards, they're not asking for variances, they're not asking for a condition use permit, they're not asking for anything else except for what is allowed. >> But if they came and asked you for that permission to do those five additions at the same time, then they'd have to >> stillow. It wouldn't matter, >> right? I guess that's my question to >> Would it be over the numbers that we gave though% would be back at the first item for tonight's meeting is that we're just reviewing it for the sake of reviewing it and saying yep staff you did a good job and it meets all our code >> we have a lot of suggestions but you don't have to do them right >> um so you know I'm trying to think of examples of that so we we've have I'm going to say examples of that as as it relates to environmental review um you know there there's a catchall when you get in state environmental reviews that uh and I don't know how it's written but they look at the overall site the overall addition so you know you can plan you know addition bit by bit by bit but eventually um the whole addition or the whole project has to be considered and you have kind of a clawback period um you know so that's where you you know usually those are larger projects where there's a whole lot more money involved and you have people that are smart enough to figure out okay how do I get around all the laws. Um, we're probably not going to deal with that with the smaller uh building projects. Even if it's a big building project, >> even the big building projects, we won't be dealing with it. >> Yeah. Right. >> I don't think. >> Yeah. >> I think you're going to be dealing it with it with more people with less experience that are kind of figuring out as they go. And we we've seen a few of those at this point. I I think the great example with this that that maybe one is like Fisher Farms, right? >> That was what I was thinking of. >> They they came through with a whole grand plan of a site plan, but that's one we want to see again and again, right? >> And unfortunately, theirs is on a napkin and that was part of the problem. >> Yep. Um the purpose of having them come back to us, just to be clear here, >> is that so we can give suggestions like we did earlier today. >> Mhm. >> That's about it. Because if it meets code, and you guys are already going to vet it whether it meets code or not. And if it doesn't meet code, they probably won't even come here >> or they'll get a variance or ask whatever it might be. Then then we'll have that discussion. So the question really becomes is how valuable do we think it is to be able to give them our suggestions? >> Well, but there is value to it >> for sure. >> I mean most most development partners want to be partners with the city. They don't want to be adverse to the city especially if if some of the requests are simple. The other thing is that reviewing site plans gives staff and it gives planning commission and council opportunities to see what are we doing right and what are we doing wrong right? So if you review a site plan over and over and over again you say this one thing just keeps bothering me about whatever it is then we can make a decision to change the code to correct that. >> It's a shrub requirement. So, so >> the other the other thing that this allows us to to potentially do too is if there's a ch if that site plan's coming back. Let's say um the cubes as an example I'll use where it sat vac it was built as a spec building sat vacant forever it seemed like and then a use comes in. Well, what if that the building is not compatible with that new use and they're wanting to come in for an addition and we kind of want to know what's going on with that and why. >> And staff handled that all administratively, I'm assuming with how the outdoor truck storage went. It went from truck storage to parking. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> So, there's a lot of examples, but that case, the building size never changes. >> The building size never changed. I'm using that the vacancy of a building though to to to give a point of it may change >> what the building is. >> And even no different than when they build out spec buildings staff is involved because that's when they actually confirm parking. >> Yep. >> Um so again, the the ordinance that's in here is based on the plan commission's recommendation from November or whenever this was. >> I'm still comfortable with the 10% or 5,000. I know Keith might think that's a little um steep. I listened to his suggestion if he wants to change those numbers. I do think that I'm not real sure why the five-year mark. I know that everything's arbitrary and I think that we talked about this and a lot of cities have it at within one year. >> Um I guess I don't see I don't know I don't know why it could be couldn't be two or three, but on the same token I don't know why it couldn't be five. So, I'm really looking for staff direction here because this is not something that's I'd normally see or maybe Commissioner Sergeant with his advice being a planner. These are pretty usually sizable capital improvements for business to take on. I don't doing a one-year thing is not I mean they barely have time to grow into the building, let alone know if they want to add on. That's where I like I feel like five years is enough time for business to kind of rightsize itself and decide if it needs to increase or not. And if they go at six years, they just go through the process, right? So it's just kind of gives them the ability like yeah five years a long time but in the scheme of things it's not that long when it comes to >> I guess I'd be more concerned how the thing and again I can't do anything about it. So that's why I'm not against 5 years, >> but how the area around it develops, then maybe if their expansion is now maybe adverse to a neighboring use, but again, if it's meeting code, we can't do anything about it anyway. So >> I think if we're going to allow these additions to happen without our review and just staff review, there needs to be some sunset on it. >> Yeah. >> So that we do get the chance to go back because the neighborhood might change, other outside forces might change, whatever. And so it does give them a little bit of leeway to say, "Oh yeah, we got to rightsize our business, simplify the process. If it's beyond that window, then they come back to us." That's how I see it. It gets me back to the point where I'm uncomfortable with dissimilar interests, different properties, residential versus commercial or manufacturing. I mean, we have manufacturing facilities now that are that are close to residential areas. I would and I don't think they're I don't think they're close enough to the property line that it would preclude them from doing something like this. Is that really what we want? I mean, >> I think the issue is if we can't do anything about it besides suggestions because it's meeting code. Uh again, not trying to pick on any certain project. I don't think it's enough we approve, but MTL house adjacent to um the housing development. Um, you know, if they expanded closer to that, would we have an issue? Some of us might, but if it meets code, >> you know, we really had to take care of it through the first >> approval. But that that was my whole point all along is that we're not looking at those areas where those two those two dissimilar, you know, industries or >> I don't know what's the right >> businesses butt up against each other. those those before us obviously screwed it up or we wouldn't wouldn't be looking at it now and people wouldn't be up in arms about it. I >> mean, I've had a lot of people talk to me about that, you know, both prior to coming on the planning commission and and and be, you know, and and now that I'm on the planning commission, I mean, they're just really uncomfortable with that. And if we just keep not doing anything about it, it's just going to keep reoccurring itself. It's like a pimple. just won't go away if you don't do something about it. It keeps popping up. I mean, maybe we're not the right, you know, the right body or maybe this isn't the right time to do about it, but it just that, you know, no matter which subject we talk about here when we're talking about these issues, that just keeps popping up into my mind. I mean, it's like this ugly mold that keeps popping up between these two dissimilar activities. And if we don't do anything about it, the city doesn't do anything about it. There's no manufacturer that's going to give a rip one way or the other. They don't care about that. Only thing they care about is building their business and making money. And I get that. I really do. That's why you got to stay on the planning commission when we go through the 2040 comp plan because that's going to be our best opportunity to think about plan compatibility. >> Okay. What would you like to do on this? >> I'm comfortable. Um if Mr. sergeant. I was kind of looking on him if he had any advice on the five-year, but I'm comfortable with the 5-year. It's just I'm just I don't have any experience with it and it seems like a long time, but I'm comfortable with it if other >> Yeah. I mean, just my my take on the five-year, I think Paul kind of hit it. These are big capital investments. I don't think anybody's going to go into this unless they come to the city first saying, "Hey, this is a phase project. We are planning on phase one being this year, phase two being in two years, whatever it might be." I don't think anybody it's just gonna not going to be economically feasible for them to do a 10% addition every year for five years. It's just doesn't make sense. >> Um so the fiveyear in my estimate really is negligible at that point. Um I don't have any problem with keeping that at five years. >> We have the garbage facility come back to us within a year and want to change things. >> Yeah, sure. >> Some more for it somewhat. >> But they won't come back in the next year with another change. And then I mean >> there was theirs was more a use versus expansion >> and this is only tied to expansion >> and generally we only make suggestions too. So I'm comfortable with it given that it's a suggestion and we don't have much control long as there long I don't want to make it sound like we don't have control because our control is the code. >> If we don't like something we need to change the code. Correct. >> And that may be the the valid reason to have them come back more than five years >> or less than five years. >> Less than five years >> because then we maybe can catch something sooner. >> Yeah. Maybe we change the code next year. >> Yeah. >> And we gave them five years to come back. >> Well, if we gave them five years, they would still have to follow the current code, whatever is in place when they came back code when they got approval. >> Correct. >> Yep. >> Yep. 100%. Can I suggest a motion, >> please? >> Yeah. Is the public hearing closed or opened and closed or >> Yeah, I didn't open the public hearing. So, 9 9:31 I will open the public hearing. >> John, you have a suggestion. >> Oh, uh, that for someone to make a motion. >> Oh, I thought you were going to give us a motion. >> We're waiting for the gavvel. >> All right, we will close the public hearing 9:32. I'll make a motion to um make a recommendation for the fiveyear 10% or 5,000 square foot whichever is less. >> So it's just >> approving the ordinance as drafted. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I'll second that. >> We have a motion and a second to approve the ordinance as drafted. Can I get a clarification on the ordinance? An increase in floor area of structures not exceeding 10% of the floor area or 5,000 square feet, whichever is less. Are we talking building square footage or actual footprint of the building? Because it says floor area. >> I would I would recommend footprint of the building. >> Probably I would recommend footprint also. Okay, >> let's get clarification because because now the way it's written, I am going to deny that. >> You mean you want a new motion suggesting the amended language? >> No. Because Paul said as drafted >> if it's based on foot >> floor area or footprint >> footprint versus square footage of the building. So now we're allowing them to go up. >> Oh, >> without coming through. >> Right. the the intent. >> If they can go up and change their square footage with a mezzanine buildout, >> as long as they don't change the >> exterior of the building, I'm not too concerned and industrial. >> But but keep in mind this is not >> just commercial industrial buildings. This is all buildings. >> All buildings, >> houses. >> Yes, >> it is just commercial and industrial buildings. This site plan review uh section of the code does not refer to residential properties. >> Okay. No apartments either. >> Uh no apartments are considered uh a part of that. The really is the >> part of >> it's multif family and non-residential buildings is what the the code says. >> Okay. So this is purely industrial office retail. >> Yep. And multif family and multi. >> So it's it's multif family and non-residential facilities >> and senior housing. >> So this this is part of the equation with that though. Yes, but not single family. That's where the two stories. >> So, the intent really is for building expansion, >> right? And footprint is concerned, not necessarily up as far as a 10% or 5,000. >> The the existing language uses the term floor area, but I think the intent is footprint. So, >> high ceilings and you put it in mezzine, you shouldn't come back. >> You have you have to come back in the staff because it could impact parking. And >> sure, you read on >> guys. Here's where your fiveyear deal comes in, right? >> We're talking about where they want to do it every year. >> Picture the picture this one >> nursing facility that we're talking about on this lot that's we think is >> it's not >> very difficult to build on. The first year they build one story, the next year they come back and they go up. >> They want to do that. They need to pay for anything. >> I could see the odds of people that I've priced so many properties where they got vertical air rights to go up and it never happens because it's just not feasible. So cost prohibitive. >> You need to see. >> But they wanted three stories to start with. So you don't think that's on their mind? >> Not if you build one story first and then add two later. Not possible. Not financially >> buying that. >> The doors open >> because you have to tear the roof off. >> How hard is it? >> You have to relocate everybody. >> It's cheaper to go up than it is to go out. >> Yeah. You got to do it all at once, not peace mill going up. >> But how hard is it if that's not what we want to have happen? How hard is it for us to shut that door now so that it can't? >> I think that's a bad example. We got to think of a different example to sway me over on it. >> I I think it the mezzanine portion. >> I don't care about that in an industrial building. I think that's I trust staff >> to vet it, make sure that they have the parking. Um, yeah, they're increasing the floor area, which means they have to come in and go to staff and make sure they got the right parking and all that stuff for the use, but that's not what I'm trying I'm thinking building expansion like the footprint is getting bigger. >> That's what I would be concerned about is because it's changing the site plan, right? >> If the footprint gets bigger. >> So, m Mr. Chair, if I could, we So, we have a motion and a second to approve the the language as it's written, but an amendment um to change the term floor area to footprint. But if it's friendly and the motion or well, >> yeah, you know where I'm going. >> So it prints friendly to me. >> Okay. >> So we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? >> I >> I. All those opposed? >> No. >> No. >> I was an I. Sorry. >> I Okay. Motion passes three to two. Is there any direction the uh NAS want to give for the record for the council since we kind of just ended it quick? >> I I think we need to consider um some sort of vertical element as well as part of this. I'm not I'm not dictating what it is or where where my where my thought is is is it does change the characteristic of the building and the site depending on what it is. And so that's that's where my head's at with this. >> Maybe it should have matching this existing stories of the building or something >> and and that this council could add. >> You know, a a great example is in that regard is, you know, at one point we've we've had a certain ceiling height. Well, that building was built at that ceiling height and now you know if you had a block industrial building, you could easily go up. >> But the issue is you're not changing the floor area or footprint if you go up. Doesn't matter. >> Yeah. >> You're not adding a story. You're just going up for more. >> And you're still building within the conf. >> But they may be building a mezzanine in there or something that that changes the square footage. >> But >> well, yeah. I mean, >> it there's something there's something to it that that just doesn't sit right with the way it's written in my head that doesn't consider a vertical element. >> Yeah. >> So, I'll say it that way. >> Maybe council could consider adding matching the volume of the existing bed or something or if it changes the volume like the that would in height >> more I'm more concerned about the height of the actual building changing than I am >> square footage >> on >> on a for an addition >> an addition yeah >> I could see it happen more in residential happened in my neighborhood they turned a one story into a two-story home which again as long as it meets code it's but I don't I just don't I'm not super concerned in commercial it's so expensive to go vertical if you don't do it from day one >> it's Very rare. Very rare. >> Can we move to the next item? >> Yes, please. >> Uh, this would be accessory building and structures. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, so this is the last ordinance on the agenda tonight. Um, accessory buildings and structures specific to shipping containers. Uh so I I did did not realize this till uh recently is that we do require building per well yeah I guess it' be a permit which would be a building permit uh to have a shipping container um but for a maximum of 9 months and there's exception for like uh I think it's construction trailers and and um school uh module school rooms or buildings. Um, as I'm sure the commission is aware, we have shipping containers throughout Dayton, if if you look hard enough. Um, we've had a few projects that have come before the planning commission, city council that have shipping containers and have relatively been supported um by the commission and the council. So, you think of uh Dean's uh pumpkins for example uses shipping containers as part of their uh their haunted maze. Uh the first picture here we have a Fisher Farms that uses a shipping container for a a concession stand. Um so the question is is they're not allowed. Um there seems to be acceptance to allow them. Uh so what is the threshold between permitted versus non-permitted? Uh so staff suggestion is to permit them on 10 acres or more within the A1, A2, A3 and industrial districts with no permit uh for up to three shipping containers. Doesn't matter what the size is. >> When you say require a permit, are you talking about the ones that are and maybe this is all of them, but above 200 square feet? Um, well, there's a little bit of a caveat there because there's a conflict within the code. >> I was going to say that. Yeah. >> So, we don't require permits for accessory buildings that are 200 square ft or less just plainly because we can't we can't keep up with that. So, just allowing that. >> It's also state. >> Well, yeah. >> Uh, the shipping containers, you know, they come in different sizes. The larger ones will be more than 200 square feet. Will smaller ones they can >> um >> will they do they come that small? I don't know. >> You can get them 8 by8 all the way up to 40 with 10 foot interior. >> So why wouldn't we make those consistent with everything else? >> I I couldn't tell you. >> Okay. >> Why the Iowa district is my first question. Um, so using the the middle photo as an example and I can't remember what business is here, but this is industrial property. >> Is that the one on Fernbrook? >> On Fernbrook. um you know so the thought here it's more prevalent in industrial districts that you're going to have um shipping containers as outside storage whether it's intended for um you know maybe that's part of their business where they're a contractor and they're they're bringing job site trailers or shipping containers from point A to point B um or they're using it to store materials that they can't fit in the the actual building could be either one but it's more prevalent that it's going to happen in industrial district. >> Yeah, this is a tough one because I that industrial building is so different than the rest of our industrial stuff and its location, but in general, I guess I wouldn't be in favor of just saying you can put it in I1. Okay. >> Um I just think of all the uses and I don't even know if people would put them there, but we don't need to have if your building's not big enough to store your stuff, you need a bigger building. That's the whole point of having buildings and codes in I1 in particular with the new developments and what's existing down the industrial part. Um, again, I say that and it's like, well, here's the example that maybe maybe it's okay. Well, the the reason for using a shipping container in the first place is the cost. >> Oh, >> I can't build a stick building that size for anywhere's near. You can you can buy uh well depending on where you get it from, but you can buy uh 20 foot or the huge 40 foot ones for under $3,000. I mean, you're probably going to pay another thousand to get it delivered to your property. But you can buy one for that. You can't build a building for that. And you certainly can't build one that's as bulletproof as those things are. >> I mean, they're airtight. They're watertight. >> You can store things in there and not worry about critters getting in them. You can't with a stick building. That's tough to do with an outside building. So, I get the I get the lure of why people want to use those. You can seal them up. They're secure. You can lock them. You know, nobody's going to kick a hole in the side or bust through a window because most of them don't have I don't have a problem with those on larger tracks of property. But what I do have a problem with is the fact that they come in green, orange, red, and all these ungodly colors. and they're like a, you know, a sore thumb stick and all over the place. I think that's what makes them stick out, not the fact that they're a steel building. It's just they're blood ugly because of what they're painted. If you're going to you're going to allow them to be here, then they need to conform, you know, to the neighborhood that they're in. Meaning, it has to be painted to similar color like the one on the bottom there. It should be the same color as the building that it's next to. >> It should be a requirement for them to do that. We can make that a requirement. >> Well, of course we can, but I mean, >> and it's hard to see on this photo. There's actually two shipping containers side by side. >> Yeah. There's a brown one and a green one. >> Yeah. The top one looks nice. Matches the barn. >> Yeah. One's a 20footer and one's a 40footer. >> Well, I think to get this conversation to an ending point because this is one that could go a long time. >> Yep. >> It's about I think we talk about the districts first and what if we're going to allow them, what sort of requirements we want them. Um my concern about the A1 and A2 districts and A3 districts is some homes on 10 acres. It's also about the placement of storage container and the color and you know some people it's no different than an accessory building in an A1 district. The accessory building doesn't have many requirements. I >> mean as far as materials I'm assuming >> it can be a pole barn. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And so I don't I guess we want to I'd want to be consistent with that from that standpoint I guess or just say you know and you know the other part is I think event centers should have their own category. I could care less if a Fisher Farms or Deans Pumpkin Patch has more of them as part of their setup. They're going to take care of them. They're going to be way more than a storage container. >> So So the other the other thing in the AA districts that we that we may need to consider just thinking about it is home extended businesses and where if we're going to allow them to have these or not or or how >> I >> based on our earlier conversation, it sounds like this this is a nuisance part of some of that. >> Well, it's I think it's the visual aspect more than the fact that there's a a building there, right? it visual nuisance, >> right? So, that can be fixed. >> So, I know some people might say they're concerned, well, they'd want higher taxes because they're cheap. That's not my concern on event center sites. I'd rather have them be successful. They they're running events with temporary large crowds and it makes sense. So, to me, I think we should carve something out for centers that if it's part of their design, um it can work differently. >> Sure. Okay. Well, it's what the It's what it's being used for. I mean, that top picture is not being used for storage. It's a concession. Yeah. Now, you close up the shop. Now, you're storing that stuff, but the real use of that building is as a concession stand, >> which is kind of a cool use for that type of thing. It'll last forever. >> Yeah. And I think that it's it works probably well with with the the property and the use of the property overall. >> Um, yeah, I agree that, you know, they aren't always the best looking. Um, if we treat them as other accessory structures as far as needing to match similar colors and setbacks and everything like that, I think I think it's doable at that point to to keep them in that kind of requirement. Um, you know, they're not sitting out in a front yard type of thing. >> Do we h do we have color requirements in the A1 district for accessory buildings? I don't >> I don't think we do. >> No, we do not. >> Which would make sense. >> Even on the in the R districts, what >> the Rwood? So, we used to have slope, color, blah, blah, blah. Clearly slope you can't do. I don't at some point I thought we removed a lot of those requirements. We might have kept the color, but even the color is kind of bogus because you're never going to match. >> It's almost complimentary. >> Similar compliment. >> I think that was the terminology. Right now, the the accessory structures for matching what the principal home looks like on the property is limited to residentially zoned districts under an acre. So, if you are over an acre and you are R1 or R2 or something, you do not have to meet those. You could build a pole shed if you'd like to, >> whatever color you want. >> Correct. >> Yeah, I thought we'd change that. So, I did see a absolute butt utly garage on an R2 replaced with one of these and it actually looks much better. >> Exactly. >> Well, that's the whole issue. I know you say people say these can be nuisances and they rust, but they can be painted just like a garage. There's like Dennis is saying, there's plenty of garages that >> Yep. It's a steel building. Somebody could say that about a pole shed. I mean, that's steel. And if they if they last long enough, you might have to paint them because they will rust. They're not >> impervious to weather and these are no different. I mean, >> yeah, I like >> they need to paint them. >> I like these things. >> They need to make them look decent. >> This is making it difficult to get to a recommendation. >> Is this a topic you want to solve tonight or do you want to >> I think we I think it'd be good if people could give some feedback to staff specific about >> do we do we have an opinion whether to allow them or not? I know we're talking about why people use them. I think we all get that. Do we want to allow them or not? And if so, how many and where? >> Write that on what size >> property. >> Yes. And I think we're all safe to assume we want them to follow whatever the accessory structure code requirements are, >> right? You don't want somebody having a 40 foot >> on a 60 ft. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Maybe they get it 8 by8 or a 10 by 10, which is what you'd the size of what you'd buy for one of but ugly Menard's buildings. But >> so 10 acres is a it narrows down quite a few properties. >> Yes. >> So So the amendment allows as it's written allows on 10 acres in A1, A2, A3, and I. I don't like the I1, but like I said, as soon as I say that, it's like, well, there's an I1 and that probably should be A1 with uh, you know, a non-conforming use, but >> and that that's for no permit. >> I would think they would Well, I guess it's up to you guys, but it seems to me it's an accessory building. It should follow those rules. Well, you can build a 10 x 10 without a permit, right? >> You can not >> not in commercial. >> No, not >> no res or industrial. >> So that's why I think we got to keep our conversation focused to I1 and currently A1 through3 unless people really want to introduce other districts. >> So metal storage containers for use exceeding 9 months may be permitted is the way it's written. And a lot of people that want storage too, like I get it on the ground's easier because you don't need forklifts and stuff like that, but what's stopping these people can just park semi-truck. That's what people do. >> That's what people do in the I1 district currently. More people you see >> a truck parked that they're using for storage than an actual, >> you know, on the ground. Mhm. >> So, let's let's just why what's the intent of requiring the permit and and limiting them to three? I mean, are is this something we're going to be able to enforce? >> Or why three? I mean, three sounds like a lot on 10 acres, but it sounds like not that much on 40 acres >> and and well, and for 9 months like >> it depends on how big they are, too. >> We got three 10 x 10. So you got three 8 by or 10 by 40. >> So So let's walk through. >> We don't need to make this look like a defense ordinance. >> But and that's kind of where I'm getting is is what's the intent of this and why are we why are we limiting limiting it to nine months? Is this actually enforceable? um you know >> the the 9month my assumption is with the existing code is that it allows someone like say for instance if someone's renting a pod and they're moving okay so you've got a pod in in your driveway or wherever for 9 months while you go from you know house A to house B >> so if it's more than 9 months that's when it >> then really it's not a temporary storage situation anymore >> it's more permanent >> and so what's preventing me from moving my Besides the fact that I don't have equipment, but me moving my green one and my red one and Oh, we moved them and they're not temporary. They're they're being moved. >> I mean, nine months. >> Yeah, every nine months I I switch the orientation. >> Define that by on your property. I think it's from on the property. >> I think that one would be easy to solve. >> So So just making sure we're not only hitting loopholes, but why are we why are we doing this? Um >> I part of why we doing this come up because of the event center storage containers. >> Um it's it's a pattern. So it's the Fisher Farms, Deans, uh Herbs, interimm use permit. >> Um >> but the event center specifically, they're using them way differently. >> So >> yes, >> I don't I think that that's a separate category. >> That that's Yeah, >> sure. That's fine. Well, that one is. I don't know that they all will be. They're just using them for storage, >> right? I think the ones that they're using as a different function either for the scare thing or I don't think we should have a cap at three. I think it's, you know, it's part of their it's part of their event center. >> Okay. So, if we separate it and just say with an event center, we're going to deal with this. >> They use them for storage. Now, it's different. >> They use them as part of a function. >> Off season, they use them for storage. >> They use them for the They won't be empty during the off. >> I I I disagree. We have to we we have to permit them. I I agree with you what you're saying, but I think we we have to treat them like the other ones because we don't know what the use is. >> Correct. >> You drive by, you see it, you don't know what the use is, >> right? Then I don't think the neighbor cares what you're using it for. >> Yeah. >> It just is part of >> I think it makes it simple. >> Or a seed. >> Well, I guess I don't think I think of a Dean's pumpkin patch. Like I don't know if this year thing is going to take off or not, but why three? >> Well, so that that was so I'm trying to peacemeal this um on where they're permitted. I think we we allow them permitted in. Does everyone agree on A1, A2, A3? >> I would say for the most part the challenging is when you look at some of the A3 parcels, they got to be more than 10 acres. >> Well, that's what it says. >> True. Yeah. the way it's written on more than 10 acres. >> Okay. >> I think we limit similar to our I we we probably have to add it in here as part of our accessory buildings. >> The count >> like how many units you can have storage units. >> Okay. So, right now it's just written as three. You can make whatever number you want. Our accessory buildings are prorated for acreage. >> And that's where I was going with that is we should prorrate it for acreage >> on >> and these are considered accessory buildings. >> So if you want to put one of these up versus a shed. >> So just for clarification um egg properties over 10 acres would be permitted I believe. Actually I take that back there in egg it's not prorrated. It's only 10% of impervious surface is the limitation. >> I guess not >> residential districts. No residentially zoned district is allowed to have more than five. And that is prorated. Obviously, if you are on a um if you're in an R3 district, you get one one structure not to exceed 800 ft. So, and and where my head's at is we need to prorrate this with the egg range >> within the egg >> to some to some extent that that's >> I mean the staff is considering these accessory structures correct? >> Yeah. I mean egg you use that can >> but then but then is that is that a permanent or a temporary >> access permanent >> and why do we care because it's a nuisance where in in these three districts is there examples of nuisance not in residential districts >> um I so fortunately for us it's it's seldom that we get zoning complaints although you know you you proactively talk to someone and they're going to complain about um you know it's not not in this conversation. We've had complaints about both of these properties >> because they have a storage container. >> Uh that was part of it. Yes. On a fairly >> Is it because they're told they can't have one in a residential district? Um >> or is it because they're told anything >> it's is the complaint because it's ugly? What's is it what's the nature? >> The complaint that that I get is that they're not required. Why doesn't the city tell them they can't have that there? >> Yeah, >> because it's not allowed. >> Uh, it's not allowed. >> We do not do proactive enforcement. So, something goes out. >> Well, why are we changing it if we Is there push on the council to change it? I mean, I don't I think there's examples of where it can fit. >> Yeah. But I think we're going way too broad >> because it'll it'll it's just going to be a difficult code to write and >> it could have >> it is because multiple um property owners are asking if they can have them. The city had a number of them on the old public works building for ever >> years. Um, so yeah, residents are asking and they're scattered around. We have them in here. Um, and I guess I I would encourage you guys to look at more than just that >> because I I agree. I think it should be I should we should look at all all the lots that we have and I think it should be poor proportion just like somebody would build a a shed in their backyard. >> Yeah. Well, I think the residential is simple than just as an accessory structure. >> Categorize the same. >> So, so then do we just take out the I mean >> do all we have to do is take out the strike the language that's in here that disallows them and don't address >> treat them as an accessory structure. >> Yeah. Don't address where where we do allow them. Treat it as an accessory structure like anything else. If they wanted that instead of a shed, they could have that, but it's still an accessory structure. >> Guys, if it's treated as an accessory >> building under our current code, does that mean that the outside of it has to look decent? >> Only only on residentially zoned properties under an acre. So, the basically this would just uh reflect what you would see in residential properties. So these these pictures that we're looking at here, it would have nothing to do with them because they still look butt ugly. >> Well, none of these are zoned. >> So, >> um, >> correct. >> But that's what we're talking about. >> Yes. >> I think they should all look decent. That's my point. >> If you're going to allow the structures there, and I and I firmly believe you should because I understand why people want them. I've toyed with that idea for years to store hay in, right? It's just it's easy access in and out. You can go in and out with a with the skid loader. I mean, and it's airtight. You don't have to worry about critters making homes in there. Um, I've chosen not to do that. I've got a big, you know, pole barn that we use for that. But I think I think um I think there's a demand for that and I think people would appreciate it if we would let them do that, but not if it's butt ugly. If people can put a shed in their backyard that they, you know, that they buy from one of the stores and that shed has to conform with some kind of color code or something so it somewhat matches the residence that they're in. I think that same thing should apply. I mean, if I wanted to put one next to my barn, my barn's tan, right? >> If I could just >> that it should be, you know, similar in color to the other accessory structures that are on the property. >> Yeah. The like I said the aesthetic requirements to match the house is only required for properties under an acre. So >> why the under change that though? What's that? >> Why the the under the acre seems a little arbitrary? Like there's a few homes in my neighbor. I mean grant we have different architectural standards but that pushed 1.2 acres. >> Yeah. >> So I think the one acre is a little arbitrary for this type or accessory structures. I think at the time, as I recall, the thinking was some of these developments we we wanted to have some control over the looks. Um, >> personally, I' I'd almost leave that up to HOA as if they're there. >> HOAs won't allow these then it becomes your enforcement right there. >> Um, yeah, >> we we've never had control over egg. They can do they can have purple barns, they can have red barns, they can have whatever. Um, >> but you don't see that though, Dennis. I mean, people put up there. >> So, let's let's >> They're reasonable colors, right? >> They are without requirements. >> Let's go this way, though. Are are accessory structures required to get building permits on egg? >> Yes. >> Over 200 feet. Unless it is dedicated for an agriculture use, then we cannot require a building permit for that based on state statute. >> Y has setbacks and all map but not building code. >> Correct. It has to meet the zoning ordinance requirements, but it does not require a building code. >> Okay. >> So, if someone's using it for storage on an egg property to store agricultural stuff, we have no control over that. >> Our current code says they're not allowed, right? Well, even an egg, >> it's statue, I believe, if it's used for egg use. >> If egg is if it's used for egg use, I don't even think on non egg. >> Maybe I'll maybe I'll get one and stand it on in and paint a sign on it and call it a >> a silo. sucks. >> I guess I guess where I'm where I was going with this is is maybe we just tie in not not to the point of of what's in our current code for building for the residential of of your sheds matching your house. But maybe we tie something in there, weave it in there that if you're going to use one of these, you got to apply for the building permit. The building permit says you you can't have the the bright green. You got to have it, you know, muted, a more muted complimentary color. >> And maybe that just solves it right there. Keep it simple. >> Um, I forget the name of this subdivision, Peter, but all these houses too are more than an acre. >> Yep. >> So, this would be a great example. Not saying not to allow them, but that's where you want like um is to have them complimentary to the home because right now it wouldn't even require it. >> Well, >> you could use say all residential >> um districts. districts need to have complimentary color, >> but we don't for structures. >> Well, and that's why that's where I'm saying we we got to change that part, the accessory structure part, but not >> the one acre ordinance doesn't it doesn't make that happen. >> That >> right? Is that what >> I think staff needs to do some more research on this for shipping containers and >> what do you want to allow? Like we'll we'll figure out the match, right? >> We'll figure it out. would you want to allow? >> So I >> my suggestion would be to treat these as any other accessory structure. >> So it's it's up to the owner if they want to have this or a plastic shed from Menard's or if they want to build their own stick structure storage shed in the backyard. Give them the option, but they still have to meet all the requirements as any other accessory structure in any zone. I I do like the idea of potentially lifting the one acre requirement and having that to be all residential zone properties or maybe single family home properties or whatever it might be and then give everybody the ability to choose what they want to do at that point. Once you start peacemealing these things out, then you get into the problem of you can't write a code that's going to fit like right >> on the other side of that, there's going to be certainly people that are using pods or similar >> um type of structures just for the purpose of moving. And I think anybody driving by would understand that if one of these things is sitting in a front driveway, that's probably what it's there for. >> Yeah. >> I mean, that's that's something that that you staff could take care of pretty easily with. you know, any kind of, you know, just insight or, you know, you get a complaint, it's like, "Hey, these guys are moving. They're using this to, you know, store their stuff for a time being type of thing." >> That's my suggestion. >> And you know what would make this easier, too, is we have a lot of homes that are zoned is it that are zoned like R1 that are big lots. Yeah. >> But then we have a ton of homes that are zoned A that are the exact same situation in neighborhoods. And that's my issue is that before you try to implement something that could work for all zoning districts, we need to clean up our zoning code. I know there's a lot of stuff on North Diamond Road along there. There's a lot of homes that there's still zoned egg, but they're like 5 acre lots. It's like what are we doing? And maybe there's some bad consequence of reszoning them. I don't know that. >> But, you know, that's what makes a code like this difficult when you do it by zoning and we don't even have true consistency. They're true residential uses. If you if you just count them accessory structures, >> but it's going to be >> that doesn't make any difference what size lot you have. Right. >> I don't know that you're going to be able to plug all the holes. >> Yeah, exactly. But everything about this is going to be driven by each zoning district. And if we don't have our zoning districts fully aligned, that's to me what makes it more difficult. >> Anything an acre or under has to match the house or whatever the >> language is for complimentary. Yeah. So, you're going to put >> the feelood language. >> I I >> Is that language just for color or is that for building material also? >> Uh, essentially if there's brick or stone on the front facade of a house, the intent would be to match that. Now, what I >> would even be able to use these on those types of properties because they're metal. What the the one area that I'm not uh I guess I don't uh know directly off the top of my head is whether that is um exempted for properties or for an accessory building that is in the rear yard versus a sideyard because when that's more being more visible to the street that's kind of where that requirement comes in. So I think and that's I mean that's kind of where I'm reading the what's we're talking are you going to require this in egg well I or or I think we're talking new right >> what do you mean by new >> so if we change this code here existing structures do they have to come into compliance >> with their color >> you I would say yes because they they're not allowed currently, >> you know. >> No, no, no, no, no. Someone who who has a a a shed and it's painted bright green and their house is red. >> That's what he's talking about. >> Do they have to go paint that shed now to match the house? >> They would be illegal non-conforming. The issue is that if they came in for a minor addition, does our code require them to make everything conforming now? >> That's and that's where I'm going with that. >> I mean, >> so we got to be careful with what we change and how we how we address this. >> I don't think anyone wants to see these type of buildings everywhere in the city, and I don't think that they're going to pop up even if we've approved it, but it's just a challenge with the way our zoning is. Um, I don't know. It's just >> because if if we're requiring new ones to match, I I think that makes sense even in egg. I mean, I don't see an issue if if someone wants to put up a new barn. If we say, "Hey, your color has to be complimentary to your other structures on your property." They're going to say, "Okay, >> which one though?" >> Well, >> yeah, >> the primary one. >> I I right now we've also got these cloth garages everywhere. I I really I I I don't know. I >> Yeah, it So, we got all these I mean, I'm just throwing out these examples of how difficult this is when you just say A1. All the single family homes along the I shouldn't say all. More than half of the homes, single family homes along the Mississippi River are zoned A1 and they're on two acre or less lots probably. And that's the challenge here is we don't it it just too hard to implement by zoning it to write a code for everybody. It's just going to be impossible. It's >> there's going to be so many different scenarios of where it's appropriate and when it's not. >> If you have a twoacre lot, >> which goes back to treat it as an accessory structure, but now we're dealing with >> I think it's uh up to four, not to exceed like square feet in total. >> In total. Um so my suggestion is that we well we haven't opened and closed the uh public hearing yet I don't believe um would be my my suggestion is to open the public hearing um table it uh so the direction that I have and correct me if I if I'm misinterpreting this. So the shipping containers would be treated the same as any other accessory building. Um they would be permitted in in all single family residential districts and all accessory buildings um need to complement the the house in every district >> which again would I guess I'd want the specific code but it sounds like that's not going to be possible. >> I don't think it's possible but >> because unless you got a metal home >> unless you compliment is a weasel word right? Well, that's very somewhat look like it >> unless you just reduce that requirement to color. >> I think complimentary color is important. I think we leave some of the other ones in there for this the residential, but complimentary color is an important one. >> Yeah, it is a we is a word. I mean, when I did my barn, it was supposed to match color-wise. You can't get prairie weed in steel. >> You can't. >> You can't replace prairie. Yeah. I So, yeah. I don't know how you how you how you deal with that. So, they have to come in for a permit. >> Yeah. >> What's that mean? Because it's clearly not a building permit, >> right? I'm sorry. >> It's clearly not a building permit. So, what do they come in for? Just a site plan. >> We'd have to call it a building permit. >> We don't have another name for it. >> Okay. >> There's no construction, but it's a building permit. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, that makes the uh permit feel a lot cheaper. >> I do think you should look into carving out separate separate for event centers. I guess I I've been just thinking about that use. I guess I disagree. It's no different than vetting someone where they live. If they say they're going to primarily use it as a bar and they store stools and stuff in it in the offseason, who cares? I mean, if it's part of their event center use, I think that that's just different. And that's where you're, you know, maybe they have to come in for an IUP amendment, but it just makes sense that if it's part of a function, I don't think there should be caps on numbers and >> Mhm. >> how it ties into their use. >> Okay. >> I I don't have an issue with that. >> And it's going to be tough putting caps on the A districts. >> Yes. Yeah, there is. Well, >> I'm just looking at all these parcels zoned A1. >> There's there already is. >> There's tons of them that are two acres size accessory can't be more than so many square feet. >> Oh, >> right. >> And if we just pretty much struck the 10acre size requirement zone district, >> which I'm not against, but meaning if you're including our residential district >> based on percentage of I can't build a barn as big as my property though. >> No, there's a certain percentage 10%. >> All right, I will open the public hearing. 10:14. Okay. >> May I suggest someone make a motion to table? >> I'll make a motion to table the discussion on the accessory building structures regarding the uh storage containers and table the um >> public hearing. >> Public hearing. Thank you. >> We have a motion, >> a second >> and a second. All those in favor? >> I. >> All right. >> All those opposed? Motion passes 5-0. >> All right. 9A promise to our residents. This is important and I a little tired and don't feel like reading this, but this is important. So, um, this is we've done this for a couple of years. Uh, the attention and I'll say this is borrowed from Champlain. um is to make a promise to or a pledge essentially uh between commissioners and commission and staff and staff of the commission and the public. So um just to read this out uh we realize that as appointed officials and city staff a significant level of trust has been granted to us by the citizens of Dayton. We believe that the public trust requires mutual trust among amongst ourselves in order to succeed. Planning Commission and staff pledged to build and maintain trust among ourselves and within the public by upholding these principles in our role as public policy adviserss. There's five of them. Uh number one is to honor the principle of civility in interactions with fellow planning commission members, city council staff, citizens by respectfully debating the issues and facts associated with them, not personal character or motives. Uh item two is to focus on the present and future needs of the city using the past only if it can enlighten the present in a positive manner. Three to exercise judicious restraint when making public pronouncements whether written oral or in ways that affirm in respect fellow planning commission members, city's council staff and the citizens. It shall be the intent of commissioners to share such communications with fellow planning commission members. city council and staff in in advance whenever possible. Uh four is to maintain ethical standards honoring the letter and spirit of all ordinances, laws, policies related to ethics, conflicts of interest and disclosures. And five is to recognize that the citizens of Dayton are partners with the city who must be informed and in invited to fully participate in our decisions and actions. We'll read this next January again questions. Nope. >> Okay. Go on to the next update. Um annual check-in and I apologize that this is late in the hour. Um so the intent here is to check in with the planning commission of how we're doing and if there's anything that we can do better. So, um, looking at 2025, we had 12 12 months, 12 planning commission meetings, uh, the average meeting lasted 3 hours and 9 minutes. Um, and the average plan commission packet was 90 pages long. So, in thinking of how we assemble reports and what we include them, and I've got kind of a listing of of what's included in there, I guess is my question for the commission is, is there anything in here that I'm going to say either not enough or too much or something that we should change that would help you um in your uh recommendations? And as you're thinking and and if you'd you know this is a poor time to ask this. We can also discuss this at another meeting where it's uh shorter and a little bit more lively. >> I'm a big fan of like not to shorten up a packet for any reason. All of us up here have different expertise >> and what I get out of one section of the packet might mean nothing to someone else and vice versa and that's what we can go through and decipher too. So I I like as much more information is better. >> Okay. >> So on that note so when we have PL or or site plans or whatever um you know there might be it might be 30 pages of drawings and and half of them are specs. So like what is the size of a manhole and so on. Do you want to see that? >> Yes. >> See, see, I was like, I don't care about >> to some extent. Yeah. I mean, if it's a public infrastructure, yes. If it's if it's a manhole that is Odessa's only manhole access, I could care less. >> Okay. So, we will include the the whole um PL I'm just going to call planning sheets with the packets. We need the measurements on how how deep the manhole is from the surface of the road. I'm >> sick of my teeth getting jarred on my head. >> Well, that might not be in there. >> Okay. Um, with the powerpoints, um, too much, too little information. >> So, >> I find a lot of value in the presentations you guys provide. Mhm. >> When when we put these together, we're trying to kind of stick it to roughly two to four slides per uh topic, but >> you know, as conversations get going, we kind of realize that, you know, something comes up in conversation that we weren't anticipating, we don't have a slide for it. >> Can I make a somewhat of a suggestion? Is there a way to get a draft? Well, it kind of goes into the next one as well. Can we get as part of the packet, can we get the slides in advance as well? And maybe a little bit further in advance. So if there is something like, hey, I'd really like to see this exhibit in there, we can make that recommendation, >> not on the same day. Um, we we've have had that as a goal with the city council for probably the last year or so and have it failed every meeting. Um, so in the council's perspective. So, in part, all this is, you know, kind of dependent on staff and how we assemble projects or or packets together. Um, with the council, council meets on Tuesdays. The goal is to get packets out on Thursday. If not Thursday, then sometimes it's Friday morning. Um, our goal is to get um I'm going to say packets out on Thursday and PowerPoints out on Friday. Usually Friday becomes Monday and then now you got council meeting on Tuesday. planning commission, it's a little easier because you're meeting on Thursdays. Um, we can try to get a PowerPoint together say on Monday, the Monday of the the week, but not probably not the same time as the planation package. >> And it in my recommendation in this, it doesn't have to be a it doesn't have to be the formal one that's presented. It's here's the exhibits we're and the talking points and then you guys can fill in the the rest of the stuff >> if that makes sense. >> So, it doesn't have to be the final draft. It's just a draft to >> this is what we think we're including. >> Is that easier or is that more difficult? >> Um both. >> So, I mean, when we're, you know, it's sort of like once you're thinking about it, it's easier to just keep continuing it until it's done. >> Um but we Mondays are kind of our easy day on the week. So, >> my my recommendation is you keep doing what you're doing. Just get us the draft and then that gives us a chance to look at it and Paul may say, "Hey, I want to see this building rendering in there." and he can get that to you >> even if it's Tuesday or Wednesday or whatever. >> Yeah. So, keep doing what you're doing just maybe >> from on the keep going front. >> Yeah, we can do that. >> I think the way that you guys present is really really good at the fact that you have a PowerPoint presentation, but then you can easily revert back to your PDF of all the plans to have to go dig down specific to a a sheet that we were talking about that didn't happen to meet the PowerPoint presentation. So the way you guys are presenting that I think is is good. >> That's our plan B. So yeah, good. Okay. Um what else? Do you guys feel prepared for what the jobs that you're doing or do you is there any training that you would like to have? you know whether it's uh you know you all of you come here with um specific knowledge and and expertise or subject matter experts um but you know do you do you feel comfortable with the decisions that you're making? Do you do you want to have more training whether it's um you know I'm saying got here planning and zoning 101 or or law um or whether it's meeting facilitations or or uh things that you can do or not do. Um before the meeting we had kind of a conversation or commissioners had a conversation about last January and the difference between the two years were. Um, so as you recall last January, we had a very contentious item in a packed room. Um, that's rare that we have that, but it's also very difficult to manage that situation. >> Going into that meeting, did you guys even know what was going to happen? >> We knew that residents were coming. Um, but we didn't know that many and and we didn't. >> Yeah. >> You know, in that case, that most most if not all the complaints that we were receiving were from non Dayton residents. Can I can I make a suggestion that kind of ties into this and it's probably the meeting facilitation part. I'd like to see on some of on and I don't know what the right way to do this is because I know there's timing aspects of things. I'd like to almost see a workshop on items and then either bring them that same day or or >> um Champlain. I'm not sure >> like in the ordinance case, right? Workshop where we're reviewing stuff with you guys, helping helping pinpoint stuff and then next meeting it gets voted on. >> I don't know if Champlain still does. >> So, New Hope does that >> or who >> we do that? Oh, New Hope. Yeah. So, we actually So, it's a little bit different because we right now have a plan commission of of nine. >> So, we're able to divide pretty much four and four. So there's no quorum and then we have a floater, right? So we have subcommittees, one's uh codes and standards and one's design review. The design review will take any noncode issue and review it. So any any of your land use applications will be reviewed ahead of time by the subcommittee. We'll hash out all the all the questions, all the responses, whatever it is. The applicant is actually at that meeting, too. So there's a back and forth, very informal, like a work session type of meeting. no decisions are made, but they get that information so that that half of the planning commission could kind of champion those things that are coming forward because they've heard all the all the responses and give their response to the to the staff who then could put that into the staff report, right? So, um the the problem with that or kind of some of the barriers of that is that that meeting is generally like at 7:30 in the morning. So those planning commission members are either retired or they're able to go going to work late, right? And they they know that sometimes it might not be until 11:00 that they are, you know, it we see how long we take here, right? So um that's that's just part of it. And then the codes and standards would take care of all the um upcoming text amendments. There's been times where we had not as staff brought any of the code uh text amendments to the planning commission because that design or that code design and st or codes and standards committee said let's not even touch this. >> Yeah. And and I think where where my head's at is right now is like concept reviews would be a really good opportunity for us to Okay, tonight we're starting workshop planning commission workshop on concept review at 6:30 and then we go into the meeting at 7 that night or 7:30, right? >> Start it at 6:00 and start the meeting at 6:30 or whatever. >> Yeah, we have a hard stop that we have to start the meeting at. But it's also that time where we're spitballing ideas and working through stuff, what works, what doesn't work. >> Um, >> I like Peter's suggestion from the standpoint that it gives people like myself. >> I can't tell you how many meetings I go home, it's like, "Oh, I wish I would have, you know, someone just brought up a really great point, but as my brain was thinking about it, you know, you know, it gets that it gets your brain going if you haven't thought of something that especially something that could be a big concern that you didn't think of." Um, do you want to do it on the same night or a different night? >> So, I think if you're doing it on the same night, it's going to be very similar to if the concept plan is just on a regular meeting. >> You're just going for >> the informal part of it probably help a little bit, but it really depends on how complex they are. >> Yeah. You know, DCM Farms was probably our longest and most difficult project this year. >> I think big plats like that are separate meetings, the workshop meetings. >> Totally. And that and maybe that's just where you know having lived through that a couple you know couple of those recently by recently in the last year or two right having a couple things come through that it makes sense to >> would you be supportive of having a second meeting that's just for concept plans and you know items like ordinance amendments where it's uh generated by staff or or the I think it would be wouldn't be any dissimilar to tonight's meeting minus the one applicate applicant in the beginning, right? So, we we're still taking a >> certain amount of time plus the fact that we devoted tonight because it was a light agenda with everything else to be able to sit down and talk about these and they're not pressing needs. You compiled a bunch of them all at once. we don't have to come back again next month and go through the same thing, right? So, I think it worked out this, you know, this time pretty well. >> Yeah. >> I mean, should there just be like a standing workshop every other month or something that is separate that we can >> the applications that we need to like I think of the other application um what the heck was it? The opetan application. Yeah, >> that would have been a good one to have workshops on because there were so many moving parts with how it ties into our comp plan and and just to get that all flushed out before we start just doing it all in meetings. >> So really to me it depends on the complexity. >> Yeah, >> I think there's a place for it. I think doing the same night >> I think makes to me makes sense. I think part of it is having a less formal portion Makes sense. And then, you know, you got the one person who comes and wants to ask about, you know, on open forum about something that's not on our agenda. They don't have to sit here. >> Mhm. >> You know, or that's obviously at the beginning, but you know what I'm saying? Sure. >> Is >> so I'm trying to think of, you know, how do we schedule this? >> We have like three you have three applicants and the first, you know, the first item is takes an hour long and the third applicant sitting there. >> That's that's what I'm trying to avoid. Yeah. >> And and if we can hash through some of the details beforehand, maybe in a more, you know, maybe it's the first half hour and if we have three items that night that we need to discuss at the workshop, 10 minutes for each >> spitballing ideas and then we actually talk about it formally at the meeting. on some of the complex ones like the the DCM farms or opedin you guys probably started working on that with the applicant what how many months before they actually presented >> um I mean we have conversations many many months but when we actually have something to review it's often a couple you know two weeks before it goes on >> so we don't have we don't have the opportunity the month before meeting >> no I mean they're they're all on >> but even with that month before meeting I think that even bringing us up to speed on some of these and the the the hot points that staff are thinking about that maybe they want feedback on. Um that would maybe help everyone too. >> I I would also not be surprised by some of those applicants to want to engage at some of these workshops >> if they knew we were having them. >> Yeah. >> Oh yeah. >> So I don't think the workshop has to always be about the meeting that night. I guess is my point. there's things that you've been working on that you know are getting close >> and so a month in advance obviously like you said you don't have the final package but you kind of have identified some of the what you're telling the applicant what they're telling you >> um stuff like that >> so for examp BJ uh the um assisted living on the west side of Balsa um that was an apartment for quite a few months and then it just came in as assisted living and that was a surprise for us Um >> the same people. >> Same people. Yeah. >> Sounds to me like one can happen. >> The drawings that we have prior to the submitt of a concept plan are usually very I don't want to say poorly written, but there there's not a lot of detail with it. It's a lot of times it's just a verbal idea before there the applicant wants to spend tens of thousands of dollars and putting in a drawing. >> Yeah. I would only suggest if you're going to do work sessions um for specific cases and you're going to invite the applicant, which I think is probably a good thing to do, that you need to devote at least a half hour. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. >> For that. I mean, because 10 minutes flies by if you have three of them that you're trying to get half hour. >> Yeah. >> I'm thinking more if we're if we're on some of the concept plans where we we've spun and spun and spun. >> Um >> I don't know if we've done anything in a half an hour. Yeah, 10 minutes is going to be rough. >> In thinking how this works is okay, so let's say if if the if the workshop is the same night as a planning commission meeting, so the workshop's going to start at 6:30 and it's going to have a a hard stop at 7. Um, is that any different than a normal planning commission meeting? >> I'd say unless we feel that that workshop's going to speed up the planning commission meeting, I don't know if it's worth it. >> I don't know how it does. I don't know how this either. >> Not not being back to back like that. >> If it's on the same night feel like we're just going to have to rehash things twice. >> Yeah. >> Do you want to have a separate meeting then for workshop items? I would say probably not concept plan. Well, not nothing that require that has a a time deadline on our part. I think it's as simple too like with single family subdivisions like once you start getting over a 100 lots and granted they're not probably developing them all at once >> but that's when it's like all right we should probably have a workshop um to identify if there's any concerns with the transportation plan anything else stuff like that >> and then do you want these regularly scheduled or just as needed >> seems as needed. >> As needed. Okay. or do you do you just schedule on the opposite every two weeks a work session for us and we just use it or not but it can also be time to talk about ordinances offhand so then like on night like tonight we're literally just clicking through them because we've already worked through it so tonight could have been an hour instead of four hours because we workshopped them >> that's where I think a workshop could come in handy because you could talk about ahead time and the homework we've given you >> you can do and then you can report back to us at the real meeting and maybe >> I think a lot of cities do that and then up here the planning commissioners >> voice their support or opposition for it and so the public knows where we stand and then you vote. >> Yeah. I mean we should take a field trip to Maple Garland's planning commission meetings. >> Yeah. >> I mean they are efficient as can be. >> You vo like I said you voice your opposition. you know everything about >> they've done all the the leg work ahead of time >> and it is quick >> and it's all Mr. this Mrs. that. It's there's very far. >> No, I don't want to go there. No, no, I don't. No, >> it's fine. I'm just saying it's like it's a very different beast >> and I'm fine. I like our the camaraderie that we have, but I'm just saying like, you know, >> I I think >> here's where my head's at with this and and I think part of the where you're getting is I like that aspect of it and I like the camaraderie of it. I think that's where we can be more efficient. We've we've been here oftentimes and how many times have we called back up someone >> because we've closed public hearing but then they're raising their hand and they're jumping up and down in the back and it's like well let's just move on you know and that nights like tonight obviously we had a lot of of meat in our agenda but those nights sometimes we have no meat in the agenda and we're sitting here >> yeah we got >> revisiting topics >> I think in general need to be a little better about following priority rules and like when people come up they get a certain amount of time and because sometimes they sit there for 10 minutes and then not necessarily the applicant but somebody else comes up and sits there for a long time it's like we should probably limit that >> and I think that's where our looseness up here sometimes translates to that and that that's where maybe this workshop idea it would tighten help tighten up up here without losing that aspect of what >> you guys recorded that meeting too about Robert rules. Uh I know I missed the meeting but I watched it. I believe Peter's the one that suggested it. It helped a lot. It helped me a lot. I think any new planning commissioner would benefit tremendously unless you're part of doing regular meetings and you understand it. But I it helped me a lot. >> Yeah. And I think there's still a few things we're not quite doing right. >> Yeah. >> Examples >> like motions. Well, I mean starting >> we we close the public hearing, right? And then I think >> my understanding we should make a a motion right away and then have discussion. >> Yeah. >> Sometimes I don't know sometimes it helps to have a brief discussion. >> So you know >> if there's a majority the majority makes the motion. >> Sure. >> And then you'd now try to have discussion to see if someone in the majority changes their mind. >> Yeah. Under Robert's rules of order, you don't have discussions until there's a second to a motion. >> I don't know if you need to be that tight, but >> yeah. Can you make uh amendments to motion? >> You can, but I was we we just went we just chased our tail around and got to the same place. So, >> right. >> Okay. We can because we did five minutes later. So, >> we didn't for you, but we did for me. Anything Anything else on >> um any trainings on just planning and zoning in general? I mean, the League of Minnesota Cities has a couple of um there's like a 15inute class and an hour class, you know, this is just all >> I think like for me personally, like I don't do the zoning stuff all the time and like all the CU IEP, I don't live it all the time. Like it never hurts for me to hear that more often. >> So, I would take advantage of something like that. I think uh in regards to some of that too, it might be nice to have a cheat sheet or uh >> Yep. what what you can and cannot do or require. >> I mean that being incorporated in the staff report would be helpful too. >> We used to have um this before my time and I think Kayen used to use this previous city that the pyramid of um I don't know what what it was called. It's just a land use pyramid that basically gives uh planning commission and city council an understanding of their discretion of uh rules and regulations where your comprehensive plan is your ultimate discretion as a as a body and then you lose a little bit of that or it becomes more limited with zoning and and such. So, >> and and maybe to that to your point is Jeff is spell out and in there what we can or can't do >> when it's appropriate. Yeah. >> Yeah. When it's appropriate. I mean, >> yeah, >> the site planet tonight was a great example. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Would it be nice if we all knew all of that? That's what we hired them for. >> Yeah, that's right. I mean, obviously, we we we're getting direction from the staff, right? and the staff uh what we have to do is understand that the staff are professionals. Um they know the insides, outsides, left and right of the code, right? And we're essentially here to react to staff's opinion on whether or not something should or shouldn't be brought forward to the city council or how it should be brought forward to the city council. Again, we're a discretionary panel. We do only give a recommendation. We all understand that. um you know all the cities that I have worked for it's really been led by staff saying here's what we think is best for the city for these reasons and then planning commissions will say yes or no and obviously they understand that the council would make that final decision. >> Um the council doesn't want to rehash all this stuff at their meetings. they rely on us as a planning commission to be that authority to really drill down and make sure everything is is according to code and the way that we feel uh should be handled at a city level, you know, as far as the direction we want to see of the city. So, you know, always keeping that in mind um that we are getting direction from the staff, we take that direction um put a spin on it if we think is necessary and then we give that to the council for the ultimate decision. Um, you know, I will say the, you know, I'm going to say the the 10 or so years that I've been involved with Dayton one way or the other, um, we've never had a commission that's rubber stamped staff's recommendations. So, um, you know, as resident, I appreciate that. I mean, you all put a lot of thought into it. Um, and it's not something that we take for granted. >> Okay. You should have been around here 30 years ago. >> Okay. >> Then you'd be gray-haired by now if you were >> I won't tell you where I was 30 years ago. >> 30 years ago and I haven't shut up. So the call >> um Okay. I'm going to try to breeze through this. Uh we had the city has an app. I don't know if uh you all were aware of this, but this is kind of our our official um social media form of communications. Um snow plowing and street policy uh is 2 in or more uh we start plowing um as well as uh if there's drifting snow or icy conditions or uh the time it snows in relation to when there's heavy traffic. I don't mean to delay the conver. Is there data? There must be data on how long it takes for cities to complete their routes and like comparatively I'm curious where Dayton sits on like regarding how long it takes us to complete our full plow compared to other cities and like >> are we in in line with that something for later. But >> I know the plow comes by right after I'm done shoveling. >> Yeah, for sure it does. Yeah, >> it's it's done that way on purpose. Yeah. See, we need trackers in the trucks on the Dayton app. We can pull up that right where our plow's coming. >> Yeah. >> Marty's tipping that blade just a little bit more. >> Yeah. Planning commissioner tip that. >> Are are there any of the new streets in Dayton that are plowed by the by the associations? >> Um or all of the city streets >> only like private town home development might have a few streets like that. Yeah, we've added a lot of streets over the years. >> These guys do an awesome job that they're doing all of those. >> They do. >> Awesome. >> Um, ice rinks, uh, Central Park is open unless it's closed. Uh, Sundance Woods is closed this season to allow, uh, the turf to establish. So, we put in an irrigation system last summer and want to ripped up all the grass in the process and want to let that get established. That's why there's no ice rink out there. Did they get that seated last fall? >> Yes, >> they had a hydro motor. >> Did they? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. Third annual medallion hunt, which you can find out more information on the Dayton app. Um, so every day there will be a a clue that will be posted whether it's on at city hall or the website um the city's Facebook or Instagram or the Dayton app. Um the uh the medallion will be hidden on public property w within the city within view. It's not going to be buried. It's for anyone that I I don't know where last year's was. Um but it's a fun activity. So if if if you do find it, um you can uh email konggomery at daytonm.gov with the time and location and a photo of where you found it. Um, just in case you're the second person that found it within the same morning or day or whatnot. Where was last year's? >> I don't remember. >> No one remembers. >> That's my wife over at Elsie Stevens. >> Is this something that someone can actually pick up or is it permanently affixed? >> No, you can pick it up. >> You can pick it up. >> Like their first date. >> So, if you pick it up, nobody else is going to get a picture of it, right? >> Uh, if you walk away with it. Yeah. >> Right. Is that the whole purpose? >> I couldn't tell you. I couldn't either. I've never I don't know. >> Uh wellhead treatment plant uh should come online in about four weeks. Um I know we we'll have more detailed information about that in the uh the spring uh Dayton communicator. So this is off of uh Dayton River Road um across from LC Stevens Park. Play place is every Tuesday from 9 to 11. uh deal in Dyson dominoes on the second fourth Wednesday at 1 to 3 at the activity center. Uh social worker dropin sessions third Wednesdays 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Um EDA owns some property in the old village which uh we are trying to sell. Uh it's 1.2 acres of zone GMU3 mixed use. EDA went through three different uh conceptual plans uh choosing the one that's on here now which includes a restaurant on the that's a small building on the left with a commercial retail on the first floor and apartments above. So um the property's for sale for $259,000 that we're trying to market this around to developers and uh you know anyone or restaurant operators. So, we're kind of trying to push this out, hoping that somebody is going to know someone who knows someone that would have an interest in this. >> What's the address to that? >> Uh, it's Robinson and Richardson. Um, >> so be a great name for a restaurant. >> When you say apartments above, how many stories are allowed? >> Um, >> two or three. >> I think we allow three, but practicality the assumption is there'd be four units on a second floor. Um that avoids an elevator and extra expense >> that was and there's no uh this where this is located there's a water table so there's no underground parking likely. >> Correct. There's also flood plane so that we packed as much as we could fit in here. >> I probably can't help you. >> Next plan commission meeting is February 5th. Let's make a motion to adjurnn so we can get closer to that meeting. >> I'm going to not second that extra language. >> Sorry. >> I'll second it. >> Amend that motion. >> I'm going make a motion to remove my commentary. >> I got a motion and a second. All those in favor? I All those opposed meeting is ajourned. Not