Call to order. >> Tuesday, July 22nd. City Council stand to the flag of the United States of America to the stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Okay, we need a motion and a second for the agenda. Motion second. >> That to thank you. >> Um any changes, discussion? >> Yes, mayor. Uh one item for the mayor and the council. Uh we need to remove item D out of the consent agenda. That donation was actually written out to the fire relief and we weren't aware of that till we got the check. So >> um it's not the city. So, we just need to remove item D out of the consent agenda. >> Thank you. >> Any other changes? >> If we have corrections for the minutes, they can still stay in the consent agenda. Correct. Or do they have to get pulled if there's corrections? >> Uh, no, you should be able >> during your discussion. You can make the we can make them and okay. >> Okay. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> All those opposed say no. Agenda carries 5 to zero on the consent. I need a motion and a second. Motion Dave. >> Second. >> Okay. Discussion. So for the council meeting minutes from our last meeting um about the DCM farms um final plat. We had explicitly said that the agreement was to pay 2 million for the 100 not up to 2 million. So I want the up to stroke from the record. So, the agreement is to pay $2 million and that anything extra and the excess funds would go. So, that was the correction. Um, and then also just in addition, we had also explicitly asked that the document come back to the consent agenda when and it's not technically in the minutes. So, if we could add that to the minutes that it's coming back um for the consent agenda when it is completed, which I believe when will it be? It's not on this one. Is it next meeting? Okay. as long as we can get the developer and us to come to a mutual agreement and that's why it's not on here tonight. >> Okay. >> Anybody else? >> Hi, Miss Go ahead. >> Question item B. Um, in the payment of claims, Chief Ena, I think this one maybe is you got a couple of expenses for automotive emergency auto emergency automotive technologies. Is that who we use for lights and radios and stuff on new cars? >> Yep. There are outfitter squad outfitters. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anything else? >> That's all I have. >> Anybody else have any? >> All right. >> I do have a question. >> Go ahead. >> Um, it's maybe not to a particular item, but we have like car wash charges on here continuously. Do we have a Can we buy a package or like cuz it's like $39 on this one. $39 and it's like every time it's that >> it's like the same amount. I was like is there a way that we can car? >> Yeah. >> I don't know if that's one car wash. You just said car wash. >> Is that a monthly fee? >> I think it's a monthly fee. >> Members of members of council um we have two chief one chief two. Um we have them Kevin as is with Mr. Carwash. I have one that's closer to my house, but it's a onetime fee for unlimited wash each month. >> So, we typically have car wash packages that we buy. So, we have one with Quick Trip for like the police, the cars. They have one there. Otherwise, we have a couple with other various car washes and it's one price and then you get a limited washes for the whole month. So, if you see a oneoff car wash, it's probably >> How much time do we wash in a month? >> Quite a bit. >> They wash the trucks every time they come back. So, I don't >> Okay. They don't. This isn't for the trucks. This is for the pickups of the vehicles. Yeah. >> I'm just wondering like and I'm not saying that I don't agree that they should be washed. I was just wondering if like that was just a wash or is that a subscription? >> That's a subscription to be washed and I bet you they use it. It has to be at least four more than four times a month. I bet you it's >> I believe that. I was just wondering just for clarification. >> Probably twice a week. I would guess it's washed. Something like that. >> Probably more in the winter too. off in St. B. I haven't watched it yet. So, >> all right. >> Um, I have a another question for clarity for the RFP for audit services. Yes. >> Um, >> what was special about 2022? I'm just curious. >> The year 2022, we're going for the award. There was some award. >> Oh, so we're trying to So, the idea is that we'd like to go for the distinguished um financial award, financial statement award. It's not anything more than just basically says that we do a good job with our financial statements. It's kind of a pat on the back for us. Doesn't do anything for us financially really besides we get certified that says that we did a good job. >> But 2022s, >> I'm going to guess I meant 2025. >> Okay, that's kind of what I figured. So that's why I wanted to clarify that. So make sure it says 2025. And then I feel really suited for having this question. Is the mayor elected every two years or over four years? It says four years in the document. Okay, I did that as well. >> Some settings are four. >> It's up to the city. >> Well, that's why I was like, wait, I swear it was every two years. And I could have probably looked it up, but anyway. So, um, those are just two things I found in that. So, nothing. >> We did use another city's one, so I did my best to update it best as possible. So, >> sometimes copy paste, you know, >> it was not corporate. >> Oh, there for you. >> Um, so I think let's see here. I will make that adjustment though. Thank you very much, Council Member Vanast. >> And then and I also have a question about the amendment for the accessory structure height in the agricultural districts. Um it says we're changing it, which I like what we're changing it to, but um so this is on page 65 of the document. It says accessory building height shall be limited to the height of the principal dwelling on the property or 35 ft whichever is less. Would that not completely undermine this entire thing? The whichever is less. >> Mr. Mayor, members of the council, there is a clause before that section that's not being changed that essentially limits with the cup that it's 35 ft. So with the conditional use permit, the proposal would be to exceed the ex uh the principal dwelling height up to 35 ft by way of conditional use permit. >> So on egg, they still have to get a Cup, but >> if they want to exceed the principal dwelling height, um but that CUP would be not to exceed 35 ft. And essentially that would the conditional use permit would trigger the submitt of building plans that would identify what the proposed height of the structure would be. So it wouldn't be an ambiguous condition of approval that it can't exceed 35 ft. >> That came up with the planning commission to >> Okay. >> Does that make sense? >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I just it came because it says conditional use permit and then it has that stuff. So that looked like it was part of the conditional use permit. So that implies that even with the conditional use permit, it's whichever is less. >> If you want, I can include that section. Basically, what that there's the section that's not included shows what the requirements would be to meet that conditional use permit. And that includes that language about the >> the height of the structure is limited to the maximum um allowed height in the zoning district, which is 35 ft. >> Okay. Okay. I think I'm okay. We can always fix it again. It turns out that it's not okay. Okay. Um and then I had one more question on Jay, the outdoor surfacing requirements. Did we want to limit it um put an explicit limit on it? Let's see here. It's on page 71 about um it says so it says consideration may be given to allow a portion of the outdoor stage area to be surfaced with crushed eggate. Do we want to limit that to like 50% 75% 25% or do you want to just leave it as a portion and leave each individual case up to what a portion is? Think that also came up right. I'd be okay with leaving it up to the >> individual. >> Individual. Yeah. >> To the project. >> To the project. Yeah. >> I would say there should be a criteria there. >> Um each each particular build has parking stall requirements. Correct. >> Correct. You wouldn't want to have uh 80% crush black top and uh 20% parking if uh to me if that took up most of the of the lot. >> Well, it does specify that or it's for the outdoor storage, not the parking. >> So then we're good. >> Okay. Okay. I just wanted >> just outdoor storage is fine. >> Okay. Okay. Those are my things. >> All right. Anybody else? Okay. Uh all those in favor say I. I >> I those opposed same. >> Consent passes 5 to zero. On to open forum. Is anybody here for open forum? Come on up. Limited to three minutes for non-aggenda items. State your name and address. No council action will be taken and items will be referred back to staff. Hi, I'm Marcia Grover 11320 from Brooklyn. Um, and I wanted to ask a question. Our motto is live the difference. What does that mean? Do you guys have any idea what that means? Um, on the wall behind you on the star on the city stationary, what does that mean? I see no difference between the houses being built in Maple Grove and the houses being built across the street from me. And if a developer wants to build houses, he should be responsible for all the infrastructure. After all, he needs the roads to build the houses. We shouldn't be involved in paying for any of the roads. We shouldn't be making deals for any of the roads. We shouldn't be issuing variance variances left and right to help the developers. The shi city should be helping the current residents who are affected by the builder. I I suggest you change the motto of Dayton to look, we're going to be just like Maple Grove. There's no difference happening here. What is the difference? Every time you take a vote on something, ask yourself if this was if this will make us different in a good way from our neighbors. If this is not going to make us different in a good way from our neighbors, then you need to vote no on whatever you're voting on. If you can't find a reason to make us different, you shouldn't be sitting up there. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else? Come on forward. Keith Grover, 113th in Fernbrook. Um, one of the things I wanted to bring up tonight is something that seems to be a a reoccurring issue. I've talked to Hayden about it many times and Zach and I have talked about it is the the signage for development. Um, we have a sign regulation on what size of sign they're supposed to put up. I don't think any of them are putting up the correct sign to start with and the only time they change is when Zach or Hayden or somebody from the city actually gives them a call or sends them a a letter telling them they have to change. I wonder if we couldn't be a little more proactive or direct the staff to be a little more proactive on that for these developers are actually working in the city when they first come into the city or For the ones that are here now, we know who they are. If we couldn't just send them all a renotification saying here, this is what Dayton sign ordinance is. If you have signs that aren't in compliance with this, please fix them so that they are. I mean, today was too hot to do anything outside for an old retiree like me. So, I just took a drive around the city. I wanted to look at some of the newer areas that we've developed and some of them look really nice. Um, but a few of them that jumped out at me, especially dealing with these signs on Rush Creek Parkway in Glacier Lane. Um, Lamar Sundance Greens has a sign that's probably close to 10 by 10. That's nowhere near, you know, the the 4x8 sign that we require. That's been there for quite a while. Um, also on Rush Creek Parks Way or Parkway in Kingsu Lane, um, Hansen Final Sundance screens, that sign's got to be at least 8 by 10. It's huge. They're like billboards. They're not the signage that we, you know, or that you guys wanted them to have up on the north end in the development along um, Dayton River Road. That's a development to me that really jumps out as being a real nice place for people to move into. I like the way it looks. I like the roads they put in there. But on Pioneer Parkway, which is the major parkway going in there, there is a huge sign there that deals with uh Riverwalk Pool and Clubhouse sign. And if you follow into the development, I forgot to write down the address for it. There's another sign in the development that's just as big and oversized as the one that's out on Dayton Road. Those are just a few that jumped out at me. I didn't hit every road in the city, but and these are ones in addition to that I've already talked to Zach and and Hayden about before. I I just don't know what I mean, I could keep pointing them out. I don't know that that's my responsibility to do that, but I you what can we do from the city standpoint to put these folks on record that hey, this is the signage they're supposed to put up and they shouldn't put up bigger signs than this. And if they continue to do that, and some of them have, some of them have across the street from me. Two times I've had to call in and point out that the sign out there is 10 x 10 or 12 x 12 from the same developer. We shouldn't have to do that. There should be some kind of a um a progressive scale that the first time maybe they get a buy. Well, maybe the buy should be just you telling them the first time when they start developing. Here's the sign ordinance. if you vi violate the sign ordinance, here's the penalty for it. Here's the second step, and it should progressively get worse if they're just going to flip the bird at you and just ignore you, which is what I see is going on. The other thing is a safety issue for me. um on Rush Creek Parkway in Ithaca, the the center medians along the divided parkway that we have there, those things every week they get worse because the growth of the foliage and the flowers and the shrubs and everything else that we allowed them to plant between the lanes gets higher and higher. If you're sitting on Ithaca to try to cross Rush Creek Parkway headed south, you can't see the cars coming headed east on Rush Creek Parkway. You have to nose all the way out into the middle of the intersection because that stuff on the on the median in the center is so high before you can actually look down to see if any cars are coming. And the same thing is true if somebody's coming through on the Parkway. that stuff, whatever you want to call it, flowers or shrubs or whatever, is at such a height that you can't see kids crossing the street. They can leave the the curb on the north side of Rush Creek and come all the way across the westbound lane of Rush Creek and be in the middle and you're coming the other direction. You don't see them till they're literally in front of your car. And we really have to get that stuff out of there. I mean, the flowers look pretty. I understand that looks great, but it pretty is not something that we should be putting above >> people's health and people's safety. And that's really really screwed up that whole and there's an um if you drive out through there, there are several roads in there that are the same way. Some are better than others because they have lower growth, but they're most of them are I mean they're like this stuff is like this high and the the median in the middle of the road is already 2 feet higher than the road. So you're just building a wall so people can't see anything if you um and a good example of that is on the uh Pioneer Parkway that's up on off from Dayton Road. If you drive into that development on that parkway, when you get to the intersections, they're not like that at all. And the reason they're not like that is because those intersections are big enough to turn a semi around in. Where we would on on Rush Creek Parkway, you'd have to clear off the shrubbery that's along the sides of the road in the median there. They've already cleared off. They made the whole made a black top. So, it's like 40 50 feet on each side of the intersection. There's nothing. So there's no place for any of that to grow. That's a really open area. And there those intersections when I drove through I'm like, "Wow, this is really a safe intersection." You got a perfect line of sight view of all the corners coming through the intersection. People crossing there can see the cars. That's just the exact opposite of what we get on Rush Creek Parkway. And I really think that we should um direct staff to look at that to see if we can't fix that before some little kid gets run over. The speed limit in there is what, 35, right? We know how fast people drive when this speed is 35. And if you can't see a kid until the last 30 feet before it gets to your car, you know, I don't want to see what happens. So, >> thank you, >> Keith. I know uh a year or so ago now that doesn't mean that and it might be a while since then. I know Marty did clear the signs a sign down on Balsam. That was a great big builder sign, but I don't know if you've been back at it since then. It's kind of like the speed limit signs. people don't obey them either until you get a ticket. So, >> well, well, that's the whole point of the progressive thing, right? Get their attention. >> I don't disagree. >> Yep. >> Thanks, guys. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? Come forward. >> Thank you. Oh, I think this is on the agenda. >> This is going to be on the agenda, maybe. >> Oh, >> so we'll actually invite you up to speak during the item. >> During the item? >> Yeah. >> Are you looking for um item? K. >> It's going to be on the agenda. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else for open forum? Anybody online? Okay, we'll move on to staff consult council updates. >> Can I just ask one question? >> Okay. Is it got to do with something on the agenda? >> Yes, it does. >> Okay, then we'll bring you up later. >> Well, I got to know if we can talk during this park on this curbside waste concept plan review. >> Yep. >> Yep. Yep. >> Can we talk when that goes up? >> Yep. Thank you. >> Hi. Hi. Good evening, Mayor Council. Um, I only have one item just to let you know FYI. I know that Jason will probably bring it up a little bit and he knows more information, but um South Diamond Lake Roads project will start um tomorrow. That's the plan start for the concrete work near the um elementary school to get the safe routes to school stuff. So that was approved during the uh consent agenda. So that will be starting tomorrow and then roughly two to three weeks after that the Millan overlay project will start something like that. >> Yep. >> Um so um appreciate again the coordination with the safe routes to school stuff that we've kind of thrown in the last minute. Um the idea is to make the project one cohesive project versus making it done part this year and part next year and then we have cold cuts and issues within pavement. So appreciate the last minute but >> is it going to be done in stages or >> one piece? As far as I'm aware >> the yeah the pedestrian crossing will be constructed completely and then they'll do all of the mill and overlay together. >> But like the the all of South Diamond Lake from will be closed that entire while. >> They're going to do it under traffic. So there will be flaggers. There will be delays, but it will be open. >> But it will be open. Okay. Thank you. >> Everything will be open, but again, just under >> As someone who lives there, I want to know how I'm going to get in and out of my house. >> Makes total sense. Okay. >> Yeah, you should be able to drive on Millan overlay. Again, you just have to drive across the rumble strips if they don't have pavement down. But okay, >> you're good to go. That's all I got. Thank you very much. >> I have no >> I have a couple uh wellhead treatment plant. The Masons been working on the exterior block. Um unfortunately, rain stopped play for them for a few days. Um they're not going to be back out there till Monday I believe. Now um inside the building they've been working on the process pipe working. Um and that's there's a a lot of pipe work on the pressure vessels already got gone in. So that's moving along even though we can't keep going on the outside. Parks irrigation uh projects. Um last last time I spoke we're struggling with the u electric companies. Uh they have since got um a couple of the the places done. Uh the power is available at Hayden Hills, Iron Gardens, and River Hills is scheduled for power on uh August 10th or 11th. Um Elsie Stevens and Hayden Hills need the wells connected to the power. I own Gardens is already to go for irrigation startup and Sundance is ready for irrigation startup as well. So we'll keep moving along with that. Um, area 21 is moving along again slowly because of the rain and stuff. Um, we did find some soil corrections that need to be done up there on the parking lot. Um, which means we're going to add some extra quantity of sand underneath the parking lot to make it a stable subbase and we'll be adding fabric there. So, there'll be quantity overruns a little bit on those, but I'm not sure what the cost is on that yet. Um, playground equipment. I did get revised quote quotes from uh Pro Playgrounds. Um I'm looking at those. Um I'm doing reference checking with some of the references that they've sent us. Um I'm also going to go back to game time to see that their quotes are still good. That'll be going in front of the park commission of the August meeting and then coming to you guys with their recommendation. Um unfortunately um we had to make a decision to cancel the chain ming concert tomorrow because of the bad weather that's coming in. Um it's a difficult decision to make but you know you got to there's nowhere else that we can hold the event. So we're trying to reschedu that one. Um Elsie Stevens master plan the community survey closes this Friday. Um I think we have something like 170 responses. Um, so far once that data is evaluated, concepts will be started, but they've started putting pen to paper a little bit on the information that I've got already. Um, that's about all I have. Chief, >> good evening, mayor, members of council. On Thursday, August 7th, I'll be sending out a hyperreach um, our emergency communication notification to the neighborhood in that area. Fire department is going to be conducting some training with the U. Minnesota Air Rescue Team. So, there'll be a state patrol helicopter um doing some uh landings and takeoffs in that vicinity of LC Stevens along the river banks uh practicing picking up uh firefighters from the river banks and if uh canoes and so forth get in that area. So, want the community to be aware. >> Evening, mayor, members of the council. Just wanted to thank everybody who could make it out to training on Wednesday. Yeah, I know. I appreciate it and all my officers appreciate it. So, thank you. >> We get to do that again next week. >> Next week. >> Next week. >> Sure. >> Maybe next week. >> I mean, that was the first run. We get better with two or three practice. >> It was fun. You're still going to die, but >> I didn't die. You had to die. >> Nothing. Jason. >> Um, there will be an open house held for the study along the uh River Road Corridor that the county is doing. Uh that'll be held tomorrow from 5:00 to 7:00 at the Mississippi crossings in Champlain if and it's open to the public for updates on on the findings of the report. >> I got nothing. >> Well, that was going to be my thing, but Jason said it. So, um go to the open house if you not even just if you live on Dayton River Road, but like it affects all of us. It's one of our major corridors and it is open to the public. Um, I also was just curious, we had talked about um, progressive finding or um, and Keith brought up, you know, like we know we've got some repeat offenders. I was just wondering where we were in the process of that or if that had died or if it's still something we're talking about. >> So, that'll be an ordinance amendment. I'm going to rely on John for that. >> Uh, we we issued a a memorandum to the council and didn't get any feedback. >> Well, I got feedback from one. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, >> the phone. >> Oh, yes. Yep. Two >> two. >> We'll bring something back to council soon, but we'll work on that with um John and Hayden and bring that back to the council, but >> Okay. >> It was something that was brought up and I'm aware. >> Okay. Um and then I was wondering about the A3 update, if we'd heard any word where that's at. Um meetings, next steps. Um that council where >> we have not heard a response back from that council as of today. >> Okay. response, >> zero response whatsoever from our memo that was responded sent out uh which was two weeks ago now, Wednesday, and I sent that out to the council last week. So, >> yeah, more than 10 days. >> They had 10 days or something, right? >> Yep. >> They we told them to do it in 10 days. >> So, >> so we have heard no response. So, I think the idea is that we were still going to move forward with the plan discussion based on the last council meeting is that we still have it at the planning commission and then following the council just based on the last conversation we had, >> but we'd still like to talk with Met Council before those things happen. So, >> ideally, >> um, we are still moving forward regardless. Um, but we'd like to have a conversation before we continue to move forward. So, we will push on that council again. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. >> Is that it? >> That was it. Um, so I was going to bring up the the River Hills sign because it's in River Hills for River Walk >> and it's a honken big sign and that's not the first time and I don't think it's the second time um in these progressive findings. I think that's one thing I easily get behind is is uh the second letter we have to send it comes with a administrative fine or something. I don't know if we can enforce that, but >> we can. Um, so that would be the process at this point would be to find the um owner of the sign essentially. Um, but we can do that process and that's most certainly fine with city staff. It just ends up coming down to how much time do we have and how many can we send out. Um, there are multiple them as long as you know, and I appreciate Keith bringing those to our attention and and we can send letters and comment them and sometimes they'll respond, sometimes they won't. So, we do our best and we give them the 30 days that it is and then 30 days after that we do a $500 fine. Well, by that time they take 60 days, they remove it and then it goes back >> put on sign up. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Well, yeah, if we can somehow and I don't, you know, I don't know if that means we want to apply this, you know, progressive concept to other things, but to me those big signs are an easy one. >> Y >> well aware. Well, yeah, we'll keep posted and let you guys know and Hayden and I are working on those together. You know, just a thought on that, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, we can certainly uh reach out to them and have them um uh fill out a a temporary sign permit or something like that to kind of have it on the record that if there is a development sign out there, we are aware of it. We're aware of the location and the size. Um historically, it just hasn't happened. So, we can certainly do that. Uh would we limit it to like a size again or I mean >> the the requirement for temporary development signs is uh 32 square feet and no taller than 8 ft in height. >> Okay. But what would the permit apply to >> that specific sign that they want to put up for uh to >> because the issue is we don't even know that they're here. >> Correct. >> If they have at least filled out the form, we at least know where they're supposed to be and we know to go check on them. The only way for us to find out is either somebody lets us know because unfortunately I'd love to say I get out and about in the community often. I don't. >> But but if they don't know or don't care about a a size requirement, why would they care about a permit requirement, >> right? >> It's possible. Yeah. >> Oh, okay. >> But could we add that to the fee then? Like you also didn't fill out the form. So here's another $500 fee. Um it wouldn't be an additional but >> well they care the most if Marty just takes a chainsaw and moves it. >> We have done that too. >> I know we have did that happen Van asked and that would at that point it would be a double fee essentially for having them fill out the sign from a retroactively. >> Well yeah ponder see what you can come up with but >> I like the chainsaw idea. Okay. >> We can have both and a fine and a chainsaw. Yeah. Um, no. I did just want to say thank you to Chief Enga and the the rest of the police department for giving us that opportunity last week. It was really a glimpse into the kinds of situations that the our officers can come across and uh I'll just speak for myself. Um, I got shot every time. So, you know, the besides being a little bit embarrassed about that, the you know, it gives you a glimmer into the the kinds of situations that can come up and we expect uh our officers to make the right decision every time with a really limited amount of time to assess the situation. So, it was um eye opening to me and I appreciated the opportunity. >> I'm nothing. >> Nothing. All right. Let's move on to council business item K, curbside waste. And for those that want to speak, we'll I'll let you speak after uh um staff and applicant have a chance. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh so curbside waste had received initial use per in 2022 for transfer station for uh yard waste. Uh the operation began in April of 2025. uh this they are applying or intend to apply for an EAW uh to allow other types of waste. So this is a municipal solid waste, organics, construction debris um and recycling. Uh the facility itself is not being proposed to expand. There'd be no noticeable changes to the property itself. It's just the the amount of waste, the types of waste that would be coming into the site. Um, this is a concept plan, so there's no formal approval or denial of it. The intention is to gauge um, opinions, recommendations from each individual council member. Um, that's kind of the quick summary with it. Uh, question of what is a transfer station? What do they actually do? Uh, so this is, uh, the transfer station is the building that's on the left photo. Essentially, garbage trucks would come in uh dump their loads inside the building and then a front end loader scoops them up and and puts it into a larger truck uh which then goes to it, uh whether it's a a processing station or its final destination uh whatever for whatever waste that is. So, in this case, we're just talking about yard waste. Um the permitting process uh again this is a concept plan. Um the next stage is to apply for an environmental assessment worksheet or EAW is the acronym. Uh this is reviewed by the uh EQB or the environmental quality board and the MPCA. So it is not the city in this case because it's a waste facility. Um with the EAW, the state determines whether another a more intensive environmental study is required or not or if the EAW is accepted. Um, it would then come back to the city uh for an ordinance amendment to allow waste other than yard waste as a transfer station or in a transfer station as a conditional use permit and then curbside would have to apply for a conditional use permit for those other waste. So, this is sort of step one of a long process. The EAW itself is is expected to last 12 to 14 months for its writing and review. Uh so if there's a change in the actual land use as a conditional use permit, this would be I'm going to say one to two years from now with a conditional use permit. Um this is a permitted use with conditions. The conditions are intended to to mitigate any uh potential nuisance factors. So in this case, we're looking at nuisance factors such as noise visual noise, odor, litter, and traffic. uh visually uh the building itself would not change. Uh they would just sit as it is. Uh noise with different types of voice, you're likely to have different types of noises. So, and for example, yard waste uh typically doesn't have or is a lighter uh material than construction debris as an example. Uh with odor, different waste will have different odors. The same thing with litter. Uh so recycling you might have lighter weight items that are lighter weight than you would have with the yard waste and traffic. Um currently the operation is operating below its capacity. Um if it's operating at capacity, it's still operating as it was intended when the 22 uh use permit was approved. Comments from the planning commission. Uh the commission was supportive and this is individually uh supportive of adding construction demolition debris. Uh there was not support for municipal solid waste and organics. Um they also uh commission recommended installing doors and was concerned about increased traffic on East French Lake Road. Uh the EA EA EDA uh was supportive of the project as it was proposed. So with the additional waste And we do have the applicant here for any questions that council may have. >> I can start with an easy one. Um, who is the environmental quality board? >> I couldn't tell you individually. So, it's it's a function of the MPCA. >> Okay, that's my question. >> Is where that what government unit that was affiliated with. What? Anybody else have any? >> I got a couple questions for staff, I guess. Uh on one of the resident pieces of paper here, and I don't remember back uh three years ago when we approved this thing. Um there's some statements here. Truck parking restricted to 30 trucks parked in the air in the parked area. Apparently, that's not followed. I mean, we don't I don't know how how we track any of these. >> Um, >> uh, there's four bullet points here that all of them are u accusing of not following the guidelines when it was approved. >> The CP. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> What are we doing to um check on that or uh I I I think with the guidelines in place, we do have to track these things other than approving them and just forgetting about them. Sure. So, as far, you know, I'll back up a little bit. So, we did receive, I believe it was, uh, three letters from residents plus a response from curbside uh, that was provided to the council as just paper items prior to the council meeting tonight. So, a short turnaround for reviewing that. Um, as far as checking uh to see if curb site is compliant with the the conditional use permit, um, our intent as staff is to do annual inspections of all CUPs and IEPs. We we've not been able to do that just because of time. Um, but that is the intent of going to all these different businesses or uses um, with the original uh, resolution and and just seeing are they still in compliance with those conditions. So, we have about 40 or so of those since I don't know, I'm going to say the last 20 or 30 years. Um, as far as the individual conditions, so the resolution approving this is included in the packet. Um, I'll say that there were when this project was approved in 2022, it was both curbside and MTL and they're the same owner, same developer. So there was a lot of conversation of um requirements that were specific to one site that may carry over to the other and vice versa. Um for parking, I the site plan does include uh parking for essentially dump trucks and I believe that those are in compliance. There are many more than what 30 trucks are shown. So, that might have been a statement that was given at the council meeting back in 2022, but that's not what was approved in the site plan. Um, one thing to note is, um, you know, that the curbside does offer a public drop off site. um that was not part of the original 2022 uh approval >> for yard waste >> for uh or for anything for uh >> so if I'm going trying to get rid of I don't know a couch or something I can take it to curbside today um that was not a part of the 2022 appro approval >> so Scott I don't know if that answered your questions >> I wouldn't that I don't really care about the uh if an individ that's between curbside if they want to take that or I don't I don't have it's it's it's either that or Marty's going to have to pick it up along the highway someplace. >> Um so that's a that's a good deal. I think that benefits the city itself. >> Um I don't know if that answered my question or not, but sooner or later we have to uh if we're making these rules on these C cups, we got to we got to follow them. >> Yeah. Otherwise, it's just complaint basis. >> Yeah. Right. The only thing I can remember about this deal was the uh the fees when permit fees when the building went in and everything. It was a fiasco getting that solved. So, um at any rate, we'll see where this goes. Um how many have we got? I mean, somewhere I thought I seen we have any complaints. We haven't received any complaints since they opened. >> No, >> they've only been open 3 months. with >> I mean but like the part that's going to trigger complaints has only been happening for three months. We've had the first Yeah. the yard waste and the first opportunity where the residents actually felt like they could be heard. We have quite quite frankly I would call an outpouring of complaints. So I think it's disingenuous to say that there have been >> you come up and >> no complaints. >> We have not. Yeah. So mayor members of council. So to answer the question that you had asked is have you received active complaints prior to the concept plan being on the agenda is zero. >> Um obviously you have the ones in front of you based on the ones from the concept plan being on the agenda between planning commission and now and then obviously we send letters and notifications out to people. But >> have you uh staff talked to So my understanding is organics is the smell problem. Is that kind of >> I would think so. >> Anybody talk to Maple Grove to see how they deal with it or Brooklyn Park? Is that the other or where's the other one? >> Map Oh, Maple Grove. Yard waste would be the largest. I >> mean, but organics is different than yard waste. >> But I thought they also took organics. >> I am not aware of that. Yeah, I don't take organics. I don't >> I know they take yard waste but >> yeah, I'm not aware of them taking organics and I don't know another sorry mayor members council. I don't know if they anybody else does to be honest with you. I mean I'm sure they do but it's just I don't know where. We have one organics place that you can go to within the city and drop them off and that's at the old public works site. Um as long as you go to the training or whatever with Henipe County but I don't know where that is go where that goes to be processed. I'm not sure since it's handled by Republic. >> And just when we're talking about organics, it's uh like food waste is >> food. >> Organics is not yard waste. I mean food waste. >> Yep. Food waste. >> Yes. >> Um okay. I guess >> when we did dive into I've got some suggestions on some other criteria here that we can maybe do. I do have concerns as to how and I understand you know what the the applicant you might as well come on out >> um I'm a little confused how they was that it was MTL that originated this thing >> how did they agree I mean one of the conditions on the cup was that no way nothing was stored overnight >> they had to know that they weren't going to that they were going to be storing stuff overnight >> I I I couldn't answer that. >> Yeah, I just I doubt you >> Mor I I was not here at the time as well. Um, I can say that since we began operating uh the transfer station, we've been open and honest with the city about the operations and use the microphones a little closer so we can hear. >> Sure. >> Couple of mic we can hear fine but the rest of it is just very very very >> weird >> quiet. >> Okay. >> You just forward that to me. >> Yes. >> Please back on. You could probably answer that question. >> Okay. >> Just so it's all record. >> Does anybody remember what I asked? >> You asked how they um hold that overnight. >> You hold the waist overnight. How would you know that? >> You're good. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, yeah, one of the C requirements was that stuff doesn't stay overnight. So, go ahead. >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. My name is Matt Herman. I'm chief operating officer of Curbside Waste. Um I can't speak to the conditions and conversations of 2022 and how that led to be. Uh when we began operating the facility earlier this year in April, uh we had conversations with the city at the time and have have done everything that we can to manage any nuisance conditions that could be there. Uh the nature of a transfer station is the route trucks that pick up your recycling and trash and yard waste throughout the day. uh when they can't environmentally or economically get to an end disposal facility, they have to drop that material off someplace so that it can be aggregated into a larger, more efficient truck and trailer and brought to a an NN disposal facility. The nature of that really just requires it to be done the next day. That as everybody's yard waste and trash recycling is getting picked up throughout the day, most of the disposal facilities are ending their days at 3 4 5:00 in the in the afternoon. So there is no time to run routes, aggregate and transfer to a processing facility in that same day. So we understood uh that condition um to mean that really we need to take every step possible to mitigate any nuisances. So every day that we have operated we have essent we have cleaned the tipping floor every night and we have everything loaded in trailers uh covered transported and ready to go. So, I guess at a minimum, regardless of what we do, we almost have to modify that CUP, right? >> That that is correct. >> Maybe you put a 24-hour layer, whatever we want to do, but clearly it sounds like it can't be met. >> Yeah. So, one thing I'm not clear on, mayor, members of council, is if that item was related to leaving it on the tipping floor for for overnight or if it was within the facility as in on the grounds at at one time. Um, I'd have to go back and rewatch the meeting to understand what that fully meant for no overnight. Um, I understood it to be nothing on site period. That's what I understood it to be. But, um, I don't know if that was intended to be something on the tipping floor like Matt had mentioned where it would be cleaned up, put in the truck, covered, and then ready to go right away tomorrow morning. So, I don't know that answer, but either way, we did a look at doing that CU adjustment. >> Had that been explained at the time, we would have been okay with it, but >> Yep. I I just don't know. Yeah, I don't think that's what they >> I think at the same time when we look at that we need to look at and again I don't remember it but it here it says that uh the doors should have the ent doorways should have doors on them or that was one of the criteria and currently they don't. Um we should look into that but that that's one thing that to me is a must that we have to have doors on there. >> Did the COP say that? I I thought >> that's just what one of the residents is saying. I don't remember it. >> Even even moving forward, I think we should require the door there doors on there. >> Can I ask a question in the same vein? >> Um, so I can't find exactly where it said in the response that you sent back. >> I'm talking about the doors and code and fire related things. Gary, have you been out to the site cuz you are a fire marshal. Have you been out there to look at that if we did put doors on or what they would need to do to be compliant? Councilman Henderson, members of council, um so we were just out there. Um Kevin was just out there. Um I will say, um I'll just bring this up now. Um we do have an issue out there um with no sprinkler system within that structure at the moment. >> Um that was missed by Metro West um when they did um for that portion of the of the structure. We're utilizing yard waste at this time. Um, so we're trying to we need to work with curbside to figure out a resolution to that um here in the near future. >> So irregardless of what they are collecting, there still are code things that need to be >> Yes, there is. The way it was described to myself and Zach from Metro West, it was a misrepresentation from the architect. I don't know if Zach understands that any better than I do. I don't necessarily understand what they exactly meant, but >> it's I guess basically what they they misrepresented I guess maybe what they're going to use the structure for in some capacity. That's the way I understood it, but I don't know. And this just recently came up in the last couple days. Do the doors have anything to do with the requirement for sprinklers or no sprinklers? Does that seem to be implied? I don't remember if that was a planning commission meeting >> um that they weren't required because there were no doors and that kind of threw me but >> u yeah council shot I mean from the door perspective I ideally um to capture obviously the water in the area for your sprinklers I would prefer that there are doors on there should be doors on there um but yeah we're we're trying to work with Metro West right now and again we have not had a chance to um speak with curbside in regards to this so I apologize for the surprise but um we need to bring it come out there and take a look at that um and try to come resolution to that. >> So is there some ambiguity in the code as to whether if there are no doors are sprinklers required? >> Well, there would be because from a a unless they had a completely dry system which isn't going to work in in in that facility based on the construction waste and um yard waste that they're looking at. Um, of course we're doing yards today, but we would need the doors obviously so the system wouldn't freeze ultimately. >> Yeah, irregardless of doors or no doors. Essentially, it has an S1 occupancy because of the combustible commodities that are within it. Um, yard waste is technically combustible because it does heat up as it sits there and then generates heat. So, just based on that alone, whether it has doors or no doors, it needs to have that. >> So, >> okay. So, can we assume then that implies it needs a sprinkler system? >> Yes. Yes. >> Are you aware of that? >> Yeah. If I may, I had um council mayor and council members to respond. We did meet with the fire department um I think about a month or two ago in looking through the city and and more recently looking through the the building. And at that time, we understood and I think in in my concept plan summary, we we said that as we move forward, it's a sprinkler system, a wet system, dry system. is likely to be required. I think we had we had offered a month or so ago to work with the fire department, figure out what that needs to look like depending on where we get. Um I had not heard um the interpretation that something was missed in the meantime. But again, our expectation was and there's a there's a large water man in the south northeast corner of it of the building that was clearly designed to be the start of that. So that was something that we've anticipated. it again. I think I I I put it in the write up. That was a path that we were anticipating going down. And we have gotten quotes for um nonwaterbased systems that are commonly used in the uh in the waste and recycling space that are more targeted, not deluge systems. They're they're different types of systems. So, we we would explore those as well. and and council member Henderson to answer your question more directly where we talked about the need for additional doors had had the building had all six openings right now had doors on them we the building would lack appropriate fire exits. >> Yes. >> So that's that's the condition that through the walkth through we also uh addressed with with with the fire department. And this gets back maybe uh council member Sonic to the to the earlier question of was it designed with doors? I don't believe so. I didn't see a final design that said this building will have doors. So I have I have not seen that. Again I can't speak to all the different discussions. Um but I will just for context add that most transfer stations for yardway specifically across the state are likely completely outdoors. >> They're they're the back 40. They're they're just >> I remember that too in that in the discussion but >> yeah so I mean so so when we look at a transfer station without doors and look at yard waste I think it's just important to understand the concept that in in other communities the yard waste transfer station is literally just a 10 acre pile that's 100 yards high and wide. So, I mean, we're we're designed s significantly more robust than that with or without doors, but certainly we understand next steps and compliance and and that's part of why we're here to have that discussion. >> So, just for my own I have to verbally process it. If this CP does not move forward, you would still be looking into putting fire suppression, whatever Gary deems that you need to be compliant, right? So, like whatever he says to make code, you're still going to do that no matter what. >> Yeah. Yes. Mayor Council, code is code and and we're and we're here to to be a community member and a partner and you know do what what what needs to be done to get it where >> you need to be. >> We need to be. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> And I don't think today we're not talking about amending the cup. >> This is a concept plan. we're giving feedback and I think probably everybody if they haven't already said it has some level of diff discomfort with the the lack of compliance with the existing CUP um the building um you know open with a different set of services than what was what was approved and I understand that you weren't around um when it was approved but it seems like that um I don't know those requirements aren't 15 years old they this was when the building was designed. And so that that concerns me that, you know, if we add new requirements, are those are any of those going to be followed either? And so that's my level of discomfort. Um, you're looking to spend a significant amount of money on the EAW and I I guessing you're here because you want some assurance that we would ultimately approve uh additional business lines um before you spend that money. Coun, council member, mayor, council. Um, all we really want today is for you to understand the process that we're looking at to get your feedback and for us to do an assessment of whether um it feels like there's objections and we can build systems around them to to meet the whatever those concerns might be. Um, I we're not looking for any any promise to pursue anything or to approve anything in the future. We honestly want the feedback. We want to continue the partnership. And to me, a next step after tonight is um it was talked about at commission and we've talked about it with neighbors is I'd like to organize a tour for elected officials and city staff and let's go see a couple other neighboring transfer stations and look at what they do and look at what they look like. And I I think my goal tonight isn't to to get you to say yes, I love it or no, I hate it. It's just to really hopefully let you know that we're we're serious about the partnership around this and want to spend time in the next weeks and months educating folks and working with folks on looking at what this can be. Um, and certainly working to uh continue to be as good a neighbor as we can and find ways to make compliance more clear. For me, it's uh whatever we can do to make the business uh succeed and expand. And I mean, that's part of business is you want to grow. Uh I get it. Uh one one area for me that's going to be a big deal. And it's not aimed at the transfer station or anything. Garbage garbage trucks are notorious for the trash just flying out of there constantly. an eighth of the load is probably along the highway before it gets back to wherever it's going. Um, and with the recycle stuff, um, a lot of that small plastic blows all over the place also. I didn't look. I mean, in the picture there's some of there there is some fence around some of it, but is the entire building fenced? >> The entire property anything blowing around, it'll help mitigate it. The other thing that I I would probably be strongly all four would be some kind of a deal where maybe once or twice a year you go around and clean up the trash about 500 ft from the property outside the property line or something because no matter how high the fence is, you're going to miss some. So, or something's going to get blown around and you're not liable for all the trash out there. I mean, it's everybody throwing it out the window, too. I get it. But that would help. >> It should be an issue. We would commit to that on a weekly basis. We have a a we have members of our team that do the fence line now for random things that blew in from other sites and and that >> again we would we would have a litter prevention and mitigation plan as I've talked with the neighbors if >> so it's something that we're >> we're we're very open to again building the processes around making sure that it's not a nuisance and being at the early stage that we're at in this process we have a lot of time to build exactly what those requirements would look like. Um, and certainly the through the environmental assessment worksheet uh and a permitting process, the state of Minnesota will assess and provide requirements and restrictions uh several different levels as well. >> And I personally wouldn't be for the organics at all. I mean to me the organics are no different than uh mus muskrat land or the aposum land on cell time in here day like today it gets ripe in early May I address organics quickly to the question that was asked earlier. >> So organics collection or organics meaning essentially residential food waste is happening across Henipin County. it's been required to happen. Uh, currently the vast majority of that residential food waste ends up at the Brooklyn Park transfer station and from the Brooklyn Brooklyn Park transfer station, Henipin County gets it to one of the two permitted facilities in the metro, either the Shaka Menowakad and Sue or SCT Empire Township Transfer U compost facility. So, one of those two facilities manages the vast majority of it. Right now, a lot of the flexibility that we're seeking in our operation is that we don't know what's going to happen in 1 2 5 and 10 years. And with the prospect of Herk shutting down and Brooklyn Park going away because there's no longer HERK, uh we rely on a lot of different people to move our material for our customers so we can get it to the environmentally responsible spot where it needs to be. And if we're going to continue to recycle uh to recycle yard waste, to recycle food waste, ultimately we need to have the flexibility to get that material environmentally and financially efficiently to where it needs to go. We cannot drive a collection truck that gets 3 miles a gallon uh to shakip from Dayton because it has organics or food waste on it. Uh we can get that transferred uh for in the in the case of yard waste, get that aggregated, transferred and hauled. Food waste is a significantly smaller volume of material than yard waste. So I read I put a little bit of the in the concept plan summary that if we were handling food waste and transferring, I think it would be on a very small scale. It would more likely be a truck into an 8yard and then that 8yard would go into a frontload truck that's taking off to go service restaurants and hospitals. So I don't I I don't ever envision where you would have so much food waste that you're filling up a trailer. You you have like one one large truck out of the 40 or something. >> Yeah. Right. >> For organics >> and we have front load routes that go out and service restaurants and and and the like and that's more likely what organics would look like. It's very small. >> So what happens to So we've reached the city Dayton has reached a point where we're going to start having to do something mandated with organics. >> What do you foresee that being? Does that mean somebody you you have another cart or how? >> So, Henipin County Ordinance 13 will require Dayton once you have once you've exceeded a population of 10,000. >> You'll have and and and they're going to move the benchmark of 10,000 to 5,000 sometime between now and 2030. You'll essentially have two compliance options. You'll either need to contract with a hauler to collect organics for every resident or amend your hauling ordinance to to require everybody who collects trash to also collect organics. and charge the customers for that service. So nearby and adjacent to you, you have different options that have been selected. Um Maple Grove has a they initially amended their license. Everybody who hauled trash had to haul organics. It hit everybody's bill. There was kind of an outrage and then Maple Grove came in and picked a single hauler for a contract. Uh Rogers has explored the similar options and Rogers now has a license ordinance requirement where if you collect trash in the city of Rogers, you also have to offer and charge residents for curbside organics collection. So it's on everybody's bill just like traditional recycling is and they don't have the option to not pay for it. They have the option to not participate. But Minnesota state law prevents the licensing author requires the licensing authority to prevent the hauler from not charging residents for that service. Uh so as you approach that 10,000 threshold or the threshold comes down to five, you would likely make one of those two choices across the metro right now. Cartbased collection has been the most commonly chosen strategy. Certainly all across Yeah. 35gallon cart is most common. Um, and that's another another truck. Um, we commonly use smaller trucks which are you call it an F350 with a small collection on the back to do organics because they do get a little more miles and again they're not carrying as large a capacity of material. So Rogers has the current haulers, garbage haulers also >> and and Mil Grove tried that and they got blowbacks and they went to a single. >> They went to a single hauler >> and that single. Does that mean every two weeks it's picked up or I can't imagine food waste sitting there for two weeks? >> No. Had county ordinance does require weekly collection? There's some other communities across the metro that have dabbled with every other week which is probably more attuned to winter months, shoulder months. Uh but Hadip Hadipin's ordinance does require weekly collection. So, this is part of the um chapter 13 that I've sent out to you guys and then the updates and we do we have been working on the ordinance amendment where it would require all haulers then to come here and get licensed um because that's one of the stipulations then and we then we would obviously require the organics as well um to not charge all the residents. The workaround right now is that we offer the drop off facility. Yeah. um that's offered through Republic um because they hold our recycling contract. Um but we are an open market for garbage. So uh it's my understanding that we're not able to pick a single hauler um unless we go through the consortium process. >> So it's stated differently than recycling. >> Correct. >> Lovely. >> So right now residents can choose any garbage hauler that they would like. The city does not dictate that. nor do we use the taxes to pay for it. It's just on residents themselves to choose >> where it's different than recycling is. >> Okay. >> So, yeah, some of some of the stuff coming down from the state to the county is going to affect us financially and significantly for some decision making. >> Yeah. Um, so what are the types of waste that you're looking to expand to besides organics? >> So, Mr. Mayor, council members, we we've asked for consideration for trash, MSW or garbage, which are all the same thing by different names. Uh, construction demolition debris, recycling, meaning bottles and cans, paper, mixed residential recycling, and also residential organics or food waste. Um, our facility, as you've seen pictures of it, and the staff has walked around it, is not large and it's it's not large enough to to have a full operation with all of those materials. Um, it's it's much more likely that um we would end up having, you know, a a trash operation, a seasonal yard waste operation in those eight months. And then maybe we we focus more on uh CN D when we don't have yard waste on the floor or we have a small amount of of of CN D. Um recycling, as we've talked with fire department, recycling we feel is the biggest source of of fire risk just with the misconception about lithium ion batteries and embedded battery items in their disposal. Uh so that's one that when we look at it, we would have probably double and triple protection from a fire standpoint. Um, or maybe that's one that we don't do right away. We currently have pretty ready access to state-of-the-art recycling systems at many of our partners. Again, that can change and if we wake up in two months and we don't have a place to go, we would need to adapt. And and again, it's that flexibility um that we're that we're looking at. But I I want to stress enough that as big as the facility looks in the pictures, um it it is it is not it is not big. It is not set up as a gigantic, you know, put 50 trucks in there and close the doors and let it sit for a day. It's a much smaller facility. The design of the facility is really based on throughput. We dump a truck or two, we get them in the trailer. And really, our our primary strategy in defense of odor, litter, and all nuisances as we move the material, and we don't have the space to do storage. So through good operational procedures, we're getting the material on the floor up and in a trailer. When the trailer is full, it's tarped and in the next morning it's on its way and and it's out of the facility. So I think that we have managed successfully through I I know it's only been a few months. Um we've managed through the stinky yard season. Wet July grass when it's hot is one of the smelliest substances on the planet. and we've managed it, I think, very successfully with good planning, good housekeeping, and good procedures and haven't had complaints related to it. So, I'm I'm confident that we can put those things in place and continue to do that. Uh, planning commission, we heard more about, you know, just concern about garbage garbage juice, so to speak, on the floor, and ultimately that concrete ends up smelling. Uh we're we're investigating um and and we'll ultimately find a a wet-based scrubber that we can use to scrub the floor periodically if that's you know a weekly as an as needed. Not likely to want to do it in February and turn the tipping floor into a skating rink. But >> what drives that? Is that the organics or is that also the grat yard waste? >> The um the odor >> the the seepage into the concrete. You know, to me, that was more of a forward-looking, anticipated thought from from plan commissioners as it related to handling trash. I don't think we have an issue now with yard waste. Uh we we we scrape and clean and we we have a Bobcat with a brush on it if needed, but we manage that floor right now very very well. um our my inclination to to to shop for and ultimately commit to purchase a scrubber is to address that concern from residents that if that's if that's the thing we think we just can't solve for, I think we can solve for it. So, as that's an example of how we want to be open and listen and understand what the concerns are and identify what steps we can take um to mitigate them. Anybody else have more questions for the applicant? Well, >> maybe just one and I think I understand this, but it's regardless of which waist stream we're talking about. You're talking about this as simply a transfer facility. You bring it in, you dump it out of one truck, you scoop it up and put it in another truck. >> Correct. >> And so, same with the recycling. You wouldn't be doing any sorting of the single sort or >> correct >> anything of that nature. just go from one >> vehicle to another to be more efficient. I'm not quite sure I understand the >> the organics piece if you're going to do all that and then just drive to Brooklyn Park, but it u I'm not in your business so I'm not going to pretend to know what's profitable and what's and what's not that way. Is that more in anticipation that that facility would go away? >> Yes, Mayor Council. I think a lot of what we're talking about is having the ability to manage an unknown future. So, I wouldn't anticipate bringing organics in tomorrow just to drive it to Brooklyn Park. We would let it we would let it get there the way it's working right now. Um, in the future if that condition changes, we could look at how to how to adjust. Again, it would be a smaller scale operation. Um, most likely small truck into an 8 container into a front end load truck that's then going to service hospitals and schools, etc. And then it makes its way on that route to its final facility. >> Sure. >> Any more questions? >> So Matt, when you say trash, you're just talking about whatever's in that green garbage can goes through your facility. >> Correct. Yes, sir. >> I want I don't know if I want to be there. >> It's different than the organics, but Mr. Mayor, if I could, what we're looking for in concept plan is a general, you know, individual. If you have support or I'm going to say strong support or strong opposition, um, if there's strong opposition, then there's really if it would save the applicant money through of not going through the EAW process. >> Makes sense. I some of the stuff I have no problem with, but I the stuff that causes problems, which my understanding is the organics is I and it sounds like it's only going to end up being 3% of your stuff in the end. So, I'd be inclined to hold off on that, but that's that's my thoughts. >> Yeah, that doesn't sound like the urgent need either. it's the flexibility going forward that you're looking for. Um, and maybe that's that one is better dealt with separately. I guess my I I don't honestly have a problem with, you know, the this being a transfer facility and and you wanting to do well, you're already doing several of the things that you're asking for. So that's that's my discomfort is that we should have been having this conversation sooner or you should have been waiting to offer some of those services until you had it in a cup. Um, you know, overall I don't I don't have a problem with what kind of waste it is. It's moving and we're going to expect you going forward to to honor that cup. I think that when it's ultimately rewritten, it's going to have to have some teeth in it that we don't have today. U so I would I would like to see that relationship get better between the city and you and also as a city and your neighbor or yourselves and the neighbors. Um and I don't mean you personally, I mean the the company, but um uh we we've got other opportunities to weigh in on this thing as the EAW moves forward. Uh I'm not quite sure how it how it lands with somebody else being the local government unit in the at the end of the day, but we do have uh control over the CUP. Um so I wouldn't I wouldn't discourage for myself I wouldn't discourage you from moving ahead with that process, but I think we're going to going to refine refine language as we go along. >> Is it my turn? Um, I mean this with the most respect, Mr. Herman. Um, but for me, I would like to see everything up to code before we move forward with anything else. It feels kind of like a snowball. And I do actually remember this from 2022. It was a highly debated topic in my house cuz my husband actually sat in the seat before me. Um and he voted no um because of that um concern about oh it's just yard waste and then it turns into oh it's just a little bit of trash. Oh it's just this and it's and I respect the hustle. I understand that garbage has got to go somewhere. I'm very familiar with herk. I work in the energy industry. So, like I understand that there has its purpose and its place and someone needs to collect it and it's got to be house transferred somewhere. Um, and this is maybe one of those not in my backyard kind of things. And I'm sorry for saying that cuz I I understand it's it's tough to find a spot to be able to transfer this stuff. Um, because again, nobody wants it in their backyard. But I'm not in favor of trash. I could possibly be convinced if there was some benefit to our citizens as far as the organics go, considering we're going to have to collect them anyway. Um, I don't have an issue with the recycling. I'm sure that our fire department will do a great job working with you on what all of that means and making sure everybody's safe, that your people are safe and our people are safe. Um, but I guess that was the large ramble to say up to code. We got to talk more about the cup and the language. I agree with you, David, with that, but I don't have much of an appetite for the actual municipal trash. >> Thank you for letting me speak. >> Anybody else for the applicant? >> No. >> Okay. See? Okay. So, we can open this up. Who wants Come on up. Name and address and go. >> Yes. My name is Beth Jacqu. I live at 11 1950 West French Lake Road, directly across from MTL. When you're saying not in your backyard, it's in mine. Um, I do have questions for the council. Um, how will the company be monitored to ensure the requirements of the Minnesota Ambient Air Quality uh standards are being consistently met? Um, and it is my understanding that the facility currently is collecting yard waste from about 11 8 to 11 trucks per day. This is only about 25% of the capacity of the facility. So when we're being told that the odor, the pests and vermin runoff, all of that is manageable, how is that going to be manageable as the volume grows? In addition for the potential for rats, raccoons, flies, I also have a concern with seagulls. Uh we did drive by the Maple Grove facility um earlier and there were a significant number of seagulls. um flying around the facility. Uh we did stop outside the gate of the transfer station, which is about twice as far away as our houses away from the curbside waste, and there was a significant odor um for the facility. Now, I will say that the trash was piled all the way up. Um again, I do have concerns that trash is not being removed from the facility on a daily basis at the end of the day. Uh so my question really is what is our course of action for if MTL or curbside wastes control measures don't meet muster because that is our backyard. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> This is garbage. My name is Fredim. I am at 11731 West French Lake Road. Uh just a little bit south of curbside. Uh three three points. Um mostly small points, but one is of course the added traffic as it ramps up. you know, it's already uh dangerous to walk across the street to get my mail and um it's just something you really have to, you know, look both ways a couple of times before you go venture out into the road. Um so, we know what's going to happen there. Uh number two, uh regarding the sprinkler system, uh if there's sprinklers, they're going to have to have a way of dealing with the water runoff. sprinkler system in a building that size generates a lot of water if it's tripped. And you know, we're literally feet from French Lake and we have to make sure that none of that runoff ever gets to French Lake. We all have our wells right within a couple hundred feet of curbside. And uh you know once our water is ruined, we'll never get it back. And the third one, which is a probably a tiny one, every time the truck goes by and picks up the garbage, there's splatters of fresh hydraulic oil on the road. And it seems they should have a maintenance system where they keep at least those hydraulic fittings from leaking. Uh, hydraulics is beautiful, but it has to be maintained so that it doesn't constantly drip oil onto the black top because that'll tear up that'll ruin a black top road. >> And really, those are those are my three concerns. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, sir. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? And then just a note on if we if and when we bring that ordinance amendment forward where um Garler bridge haulers would have to be permitted with the city. It is required for them to list each truck and there's certain inspections that they have to be done. I believe hydraulics is one of those. >> Good to know. >> Hi Marcia Grover 1132 from Brooklyn. First of all I want to mention the Maple Grove organics place over by Target. If the wind is right, we can smell it at our house and we're about a mile away. So, granted, that's a bigger facility and we're farther away, but this is a smaller facility. And those people are right across the street. Right across the street again. And again, they have wells, they have septic systems. You know how I feel about that. But mostly I'm just kind of a gasast that they don't have any fire suppression system in this building. Thank you Stephanie for saying that because I'm wondering now how many of those other commercial and industrial buildings don't have it either and if there's some way that you can follow up and check and see if these buildings are up to code. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else? Keith Grover 113th in Fernbrook. I I wasn't involved in the discussions with putting this facility there in the first place and shame on me for not paying more attention to what was going on at the time in our neighborhood. But uh what some of the things really bother me here. Um we gave them a conditional use permit to operate. They've only been in operation for 3 months. The conditional use permit said no overnight storage. Right? That's what it said. And I'm sure that's what the residents in the neighborhood were told at the time, too. Why would they be told something else? Because that's what was in the cup. Um, they all thought there were going to be doors on this facility. Here we are. It's up in operation. There's no doors on it to keep any uh smells from blowing out of the building or to keep any debris from blowing out of the building. Um, the fire suppression thing is kind of a concern to me too and as it is for the chief and and it should well be for you. I mean, how does that slip by? I mean, who on the city's side watches to make sure that a building that's being built that's supposed to have fire suppression actually gets that put in. Uh, this Metro West, I keep hearing that name coming up in >> multiple times. The inspection guys that come out and inspect, I I mean, I don't follow them around. I and I'm not a building inspector, although I've been trained in safety inspections for buildings and did that for 30 years. But um I don't understand how they missed that. I really don't. I mean, that should be one of the first things you look at. Fire suppression, electrical uh supply, plumbing and heating. I mean, what else are they going to look at? I mean, the structural stuff is all done by structural engineers. All they're going to have to do is read the blueprints for that stuff. And if this stuff was all in the plans originally, I don't know how in the heck we missed that. Um, my personal experience with them is that they just get their check and they leave. I mean, I built a barn, right, a decade ago or more 12 years, I forget. Long time ago. And I know what their inspections were in coming to the site to look at. They didn't spend five minutes in the two inspections that they that they were at. One of them, the guys that were building, the company that was building told me the electrical or that the electrical that the inspector was going to be there. I live over the hill. I get in a car and I drive over and he says, "Well, you missed them. They're already gone." He said, "What could they possibly have looked at? You just told me that they were they were they just got here." He told me when they walked in, they looked at the building. He didn't spend 30 seconds in the building to pay any attention to the structure. He didn't have any drawings with him to know what the structure was supposed to look like and they just did their rubber stamp of approval and they left. And I'm thinking that's probably what happened here too. And that really bothers me. So I mean if there's some way that we can, you know, put a microscope to what those guys are doing to make sure that they're doing what we want them to do, I think we really need to move forward there. The other issue that that kind of came up and basically my question it's not something that's forthcoming from the from the applicant is other people other companies will be able to dump their products here. I mean it's a transfer station, right? And that's happening now to some degree. I've seen other companies trucks going in there. I'm assuming they're dumping grass clippings because that's the only thing they're permitted to get right now. lawn lawntop. But it's not just their vehicles that are going in and out of there. If they have a vehic or if they have a building that you give them XYZ permission to use, they're in business to make money. They're going to run that thing right to the max. And I don't blame them at all. I mean, if I was them, I would do that. The question is, do we want to give them that blanket permission to do all that? I mean, to me, garbage is absolutely out of the question for that area. You have this whole facility that got put into a small rural housing project built along beautiful property, French Lake. I mean, their backyards must look great. Now, they have this in their front yard. I don't think anybody envisioned at the time, at least I don't think they were told at the time, what to look forward to in the future. And what's being put on the table here today and what was put in front of the planning commission. I don't think these folks had any clue two, three years ago when that was discussed that that was going to be on the table. Maybe some folks had some forethought and and read between the lines, but apparently not enough of us did that. You have these eight homes that are very close to this facility. All eight of those homes, I remember when they were built. What we also haven't talked about is we have the mobile home court that sits just to the west of this facility. There are 250 probably families that live in that facility. one time was over 300. I think they're probably down to maybe 200 250 now. But those folks are close to that facility also. I think the whole thing in the first place got put in the wrong place. It's right at the edge of the industrial park right next to a housing project along a beautiful rural lake. And now we're talking about adding tons of of other products into the mix. Um, the recycling part maybe from a smell standpoint that's not going to smell, right? Paper, plastic bottles, there's no smell to that. Not when you're talking about yard waste or talking about garbage. There's no comparison at all. When you're talking about industrial waste, how do you know what's coming in on that industrial waste truck? How do you know that that facility that that building got ripped apart didn't have asbestous in it? Who monitors that kind of stuff? That really bothers me, especially sitting next to these homes. The prevailing winds from the from these from this facility are going to blow right towards these folks. They live south, southwest, or southeast and east from this facility. 90% of the time, the wind is blowing right at them from this facility. I think we really need to take a long hard look about what we do to these folks that are living in that area and protect them as best we can. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Question there, Marty. When a a building is demoed, >> somebody knows there's asbestous in it or not. Correct. So, I mean, yeah. >> Generally, you have generally you have an abatement done before you demo a building. >> Anybody else want to come forward? Does the applicant want to come forward and address some of these questions? I think just in addressing some of the concerns that we've heard from residents that we we've had conversations with individual residents. We'll continue to have those um and continue to work on any and every issue that we can. I think traffic is a very important issue for some of the residents I've talked to, some that aren't here tonight. Um, I want to address that just a little bit and uh planning commission commissioner uh Grover on on the traffic related issue and what color trucks and whose trucks. So, we currently have um 8 to 11 yard waste trucks, orange trucks that go out in the world, collect yard waste and come back. Um, we have 20ish 25ish garbage trucks that go out in the world every day. yellow and white truck orange rather and white trucks and then they may dump they'll dump along the way and then they'll come back. So if we look at the addition of trash as an acceptable material, it doesn't necessarily mean that there's a whole bunch more trucks. The trucks that are entering and exiting the facility that go to bed there every day and wake up there every morning are still coming in. They're potentially just not dumping on their way in or dumping first thing in the morning. They're they're dumping at that site. Um, so I think that's that's an important thing to to keep in mind. Uh, if we had to if we were limited to yard waste and we decided, as Commissioner Grover had mentioned, to fill up the capacity, that would be 30ish other trucks from other companies with yard waste on them. That was the example that we wrote in the concept plan summary, just for reference. the the capacity of the facility is really the building size in in and of itself and our ability to get material through it. Um, and that doesn't change by having different material types. We can't all of a sudden dump more, load more, haul more. The building is what it is. So, in in some ways, we have this zero sum game of are they going to all be orange yards trucks or are they going to be different color other trucks? And again, the the as we're not proposing any expansion or size of the building, um, that kind of is what it is and we move those things around and we're so certainly open to having those discussions. Um again, our ask tonight was to get your feedback and to continue the conversation with residents and I appreciate that. Um, I very much look forward to uh having additional conversation and hopefully staff and and elected officials are receptive to going on a tour and looking at some other facilities and continuing to figure out uh what's the best path forward for us. So, thank you for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Matt, if you could and you you're experiencing this business much more than than any of us are. Um, this project is going to require a permit from the NPCA. What What's involved with um inspections from the NPCA? >> Well, the MPCA would be probably an annual or semianual inspection during operation, you know, with permit conditions and certainly there'll be reporting requirements and a pretty I mean a very detailed analysis of, you know, EAW sets the stage for the broader sort of environmental impact. the the this the solid waste permit re review process which again is a separate many monthlong process with its own public comment and review period that would focus solely on on the any conditions required to protect human health and the environment on the sawway side. So you know a very rigorous set of steps that this would go through. um we would be looking at, you know, getting requirements as it relates to odor and and and other things added by the MPCA. So certainly um I'd like to add them here and make sure we're addressing any and all concerns, but lots of layers in this step for uh uh for concerns to be raised and and addressed. And I want to go back to the doors if I can. I I have not seen the transfer station design drawing where that building had doors on it. So I I I I again we've been very open with the city about, you know, where the the 7 to 7 hours and and how is how is that facilitated and leaving things on material material loaded at night. I don't believe that there was a door requirement. I know that there wasn't a fire requirement that we were aware of. Um, so certainly those are things that we look to to continue to work through and address, but I just want to make sure they're not viewed as sort of flagrant non-compliance because there was a lot of things that I can't speak to during all the different iterations of of the MTL site and this site and what we hear a lot about traffic and that originally the traffic was all supposed to use Troy. Well, I do believe at one point in the conversation there was an alignment that had a light at Troy and it was going to push all the traffic between our site basically to Troy and Quick Trip. That light didn't come in and there might be others here who have more history than I do in that, but I believe the current transportation strategy that we're using kind of met that final design of flow and and the traffic study and where traffic was supposed to go. So, as we hear traffic concerns, we are open to working with residents on them. We've educated our drivers. Um, we've had specific employee vehicles that were problematic for horses that we've made sure go a different way. So, we are listening and we are responding and we'll continue to do that. Um, some of our residents have advocated for a three-way stop at French Lake Road out in front of our site. that doesn't in we would support them if that's what the answer to traffic is along those roads. Um so there's certainly a lot of traffic on those roads that aren't orange and white collection trucks and we're sympathetic to the neighbors. We continue to want to work with them on that and and I continue want to build our relationship with the city and our neighbors and happy to help in any way we can get a three-way there. We have not looked at a sub. It wouldn't be a warranted traffic volumes, but could be considered if it was a safety concern. >> One of the residents mentioned an ambient air quality standard and that's one I'm not familiar with. Is that under the jurisdiction of the MPCA? >> Yes, that would be one of the conditions if if there's ambient air quality requirements. part of the EAW will look at air impacts and then again if there's if there's a potential environmental health impact from air, we would expect the MPCA to create permit requirements for that as they go through the solid waste permit process. So even though it's a solid waste permit, it happens routinely at landfills and other sites where they do have air quality control measures and we would expect those to be brought in by the MPCA through the solid waste permit process if there was a requirement. Okay, >> thank you. I have no questions, but I do have some comments. Um, so I was not on council or planning commission when this was originally approved. I would have been with your husband and voting no. Um, not because I don't think it is appropriate for the city. It is the location. Um, I definitely think there could have been locations in the city where this would have worked really well. Right next to residential and parkland is not it. Um, we, you know, put that whole building um moratorum so that we could look at the area just east of here for the very reason that that is where industrial bumps up against residential and we acknowledge that where industrial bumps up against residential. we have to be extra careful about what that looks like and the fact that apparently no one cared um and put this right next to and it's not even yes there's current residential but it's that uh planned to be medium density residential. So it's not like it was eventually all going to be industrial. No, it wasn't. It's planned to stay residential and then be parkland. Um and nothing says park like a bunch of d you know garbage trucks which are needed not like they're necessary. they're a necessary part of of everything. Um, and I'm glad to have businesses in our city and we need it for organics like but this location is just a terrible location um for this and so for that reason I would be opposed to any expansion. Um, I do want to talk briefly about clearly the residents thought there were going to be doors. Clearly you didn't think there were going to be doors and I'm not going to get into your specific situation but I had a very recent per completely different thing experience that Zach and I talked out. Um, when I was on planning commission, my memory of what happened and what said was one way and reality is another way and Zach and I talked it out. Um, and it turned out like in the conversation things were said, but they never actually made it to paper. Um, and so I think that happens actually a lot that in conversation people are like, "Oh yeah, we'll consider doors. We'll consider doors. We'll consider doors. And what never gets in paper is doors. Um and sometimes intentionally and sometimes by accident like our up to $2 million. That was accidental, but had no one caught it. 3 years from now, Dean could come back and say, "Look, this says up to 2 million, not exactly 2 million." Right? So, it's not even necessarily an intentional miss. Sometimes it's just accidental because as you said, you talk about it and you have like what 7,000 meetings. So, from one meeting to the next meeting to the next meeting, it can get lost. But it's pretty obvious that the residents that are nearby expected doors and you did not. So somewhere there is that disconnect and that I think does need to be addressed no matter what happens. Um that's to be a good neighbor. Um but as far as expansion, like I guess I'm I just don't think this is the right location for this facility. I I really struggle with the fact that you are violating the cup as written already. Um and I appreciate that you personally weren't the person to write that cup. So, you know, aren't intentionally doing it, but it clearly says nothing overnight and you got things overnight. And I think this is one of those disingenuous things. Technically, in the part of the CUP P about the transfer station, it does not have hours listed, but it's everywhere else in the document. Everywhere else is 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Technically in the transfer station part, it doesn't. And again, whether that was intentional or not, um, but if I had been a resident, I would have walked out of those conversations assuming it was 7 to 7. Yeah, >> we are absolutely not operating the transfer station. >> Okay. >> Outside of those hours, >> yeah, that's it's there's very little activity. The transfer station again, it's the trucks go out for the day and then they come back. So, the vast majority of the transportation activity in the building is as those trucks return. Now, there's there's two semi-trailers that were staged from the evening before where a gentleman parks his Bronco, gets in a semi, and leaves. >> Okay? >> So, it's it's that halt that it's those two-stage trailers, and we're surrounded by facilities with thousands of stage trailers. So, right now, we have two stage trailers >> in the morning that leave. That would be the transfer station activity if there if there that routine activity that's happening outside before 7 a.m. is is that hall. >> Okay. >> So on the floor working material that's all that is not done in outside of that window. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. Um so yeah I like I said I'm not a huge fan of expansion particularly since there have already been issues. I would maybe I'm also I got to go back. I'm a little frustrated at this. There haven't been any complaints narrative when they've only been open three months and you're not even close to capacity, right? Like if you've been open for three years and at capacity and there were no complaints, that's a very that's like, oh, you're doing an amazing, you know, an amazing awesome job. You've been open for 3 months and are at what 25% capacity at this point. >> I think that's a fair estimation of the building size. >> Yeah. What you could do. So to be like, oh, we've had zero problems. Well, I would hope not. If you had problems at this point, we'd have a much bigger thing going on. Um, so that is a little disingenuous and I I would like to interrupt that narrative. Um, so yeah, I'm I'm not super on board, but it sounds like I'm the only one not super on board and you only need three. So I don't necessarily think you'd want to hold everything up for me. Um, but those are my concerns and I um, like I said, I just I hope if nothing else we learn from this and do a better job about looking when industrial bumps up against residential and being really intentional and thoughtful about that instead of just saying, "Yay, business. We want your taxes." Yes. >> I'm not on for the trash at all. I'm just not there. >> Okay. So, that's that's where I'm at. >> I definitely want to see doors and sprinklers. >> Okay. >> You know what? For some reason, it might I didn't You're right. You do twist things over time. >> I was almost thinking this is a three-sided building. >> Okay. >> I I was pretty sure it was open. Okay. >> But I don't know. I don't know. >> You know, if anybody else recollects that, but um >> Can you just repeat everything you said? I can't hear you. >> Oh, sorry. >> Talk closer to the mic and louder. >> What? What I said? I I think during the meeting during the meetings I was under the impression it was an open building but um because to me it was surprised I was surprised there'd be any roof given that Maple Grove just makes a heap. >> Yeah. It's in a pile. >> Yeah. Um so I thought it was kind of cool that it would actually have a roof. Uh so you know whether or not there are doors I obviously I think doors would be great for the for any transfer of air the smells but uh and I don't have problems with some of this stuff. The recycling I have no problem with. Uh construction waste I don't think I have any problem with. Um trash I can see where that might be problematic but it's really organics that spooked me first smells. Um, do I >> Mr. Herman, you offered a tour of your facility. Yep. >> I would love to come out and walk around with you and to have you show me what you're doing, what you want to do. >> I will leave a card with John for you and you can re reach out anytime. >> Thank you. Yeah, it would be nice to >> it would be nice to just go out there and to see cuz looking at these pictures, you're right, the building looks massive, but when you're actually standing there like what we >> For me personally, the space >> I'm a verbal processor. I'm a toucher. I got to see it. So, I would love to come out and take a tour and see what you have going on. >> I'm there every day. >> Well, all right. I'll give you a call. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else have any more comments? >> Thank you. Just a couple of quick questions. Okay. My name is Kathy Rosen. I live at 11731 West Trench Lake Room with Fredheim. >> And this is in the future. Okay. But so this organic thing and the trash thing and somehow it all goes through and now we have this huge smell and our wells are contaminated. What recourse are we going to have? Or are we just going to say, "Okay, it got voted in and you're going to accept it. >> What is the recourse?" >> City staff. >> I mean, I'd like to know how are they going to prevent the smell. You know, I moved out here five years ago and it was beautiful. I mean, landscape, trees, and now we're four houses surrounded by warehouses. I never expected that, but that, you know, I've grown to live with that. But I don't think I can live with a smell day after day after day. I want to know what the recources are going to be. What the recources will be if the wells get contaminated, what the recources are going to be if there's going to be so much traffic that we can't even take a walk along the road anymore cuz they did put in those sides for the bike trails and for people to walk on. I can address the yeah mayor members council and then also um resident um that I'm just going to let you know that the recourse for the smell is to let us know immediately so we can most certainly contact the company that we >> but what are you going to do about it? How can you prevent it? >> Um well we can prevent it based on the fact that the cup has that there has to be no order outside of the facility. We'd work directly with the facility to make sure that that's corrected. If they're not going to follow that process, then we would find them and go through our administrative fine process. that's kind of our next recourse without having to go towards legal action against that um company on your behalf. Um the wells contamination, I'm not sure what the next resource would be for us. We would look at that and see if we can test those wells, make sure and see what's what's in them and what you're seeing and then see how what we can do about those. We haven't had it happen yet, so I can't speak from experience as it's going to happen. But >> um if it does happen, we will most certainly work with you to make sure we can >> provide whatever resource we can um to help you out. And if it's going to be your well, it's going to be >> a lot more wells than just your own. So likely we'll have a larger case than than that. Hopefully it doesn't end up with like another that. Are you going to keep testing French Lake to make sure that >> we're not going to get pollution and all that kind of stuff in it? We've already got so much stuff going in there from all the other warehouses and it's supposed to be, you know, purified. >> Should be purified and taken care of. I'm going to refer to Jason on that one because I'm not a um wetland person or anything related to Indian engineering. So, I'm going to pass it on off to Jason Quizber engineer. He probably has somebody on his team that he's able to resource with. >> No, I'm specifically talking about the curbside waste runoff maybe from something. >> Yeah. All of their storm water is collected and goes through uh several layers of treatment prior to discharge to the lake. So that does manage all of the surface water. >> Is anybody actually checking the lakes to make sure that it's as fresh as it always used to be? >> Not on a routine basis, but we do >> actually that lake's cleaned up from what it was. >> We do do studies on it. Okay. >> Yeah, it's it's periodic. It's not a it's not a routine monitoring. >> Like I said, I've only been out here 5 years now. >> That'd be the Elm Creek wershed >> and I've never seen so many changes in one town. >> Diamond and grass used to be pretty loaded heavily with nitrates and >> Okay. >> Um and you know what Zach was kind of alluding to is eventually we can pull a permit. >> Yes, >> we are. >> I'm sorry. I'm having so much trouble hearing you. Can you talk into your mic? >> Um okay. we can pull the permit. So if if we find that shut down Yeah. So if they aren't following their cup requirements, they aren't following their guidelines, they aren't doing what we need them to do based on their cup or their approvals, we can um pull their permit essentially and revoke it, which means they have to cease operations immediately. >> Okay. For one question, so this smell comes. >> Yep. How hard are Fred and me or Fred and I going to have to come and fight and saying we want you to check this right now? I mean, >> not too hard. Just send an email or give us a call. We're happy to help in any way. Or stop up here and ask city hall and say, "Hey, we've had some smell when it's been." If you have a routine time that you smell it, that's typically good. If it's when it's hot out or when it's cold or when you're seeing a west wind or an east wind or something, we'll try to do our best to make sure they're out there at that time. Um, if it's affecting you, likely it's affecting more than just you, too. So, um, we want to make sure that all of our residents are taken care of. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Welcome to Living the Difference C. >> Well, live the difference. >> Yeah. Well, well, where I moved from to get the city council to do any, you know, and I'd go down, it would take weeks to get anything changed. >> Anybody else? >> I have one thing I forgot, Dennis. >> Okay. Uh, one of the concerns that um, you know, that the neighboring folks had was obviously the traffic and the truck traffic. You know, I'm looking at you know, the roads in and out of there. We rebuilt East French Lake Road from a little two-lane wide gravel road to a a major road capable of hauling trucks, right? I mean, that's part of the whole process of doing that. You mean French or East French Lake? No, West French Lake. Yeah, not >> I know what you meant, but yeah, >> you said East, >> did I? Oh, I'm sorry. >> It's okay. >> We know where you >> West side here. I'll just turn around this. Anyway, um, you know, and that road going through there is a, you know, it's a wonderful road. the uh the traffic leaving Curbside Waste has basically three directions to go. It goes out onto Troy Lane. It goes left or right, right? If you go west, it takes you out to to 81 and it's not a controlled intersection. And I don't know that I'd want to be trying to get out into that traffic with a big truck from that intersection. There's no stoplight there. If you go over to West French Lake Road and you take it north, it brings you around to a controlled intersection that we built that's massive on uh County Road, the old old 101. It brings you right out to the major highway that goes north south on the west side of Dayton. Kai Road 13, right? >> Brockton Brockton. >> Yeah. Brockton Brockton Lane. Yeah. why our cup wouldn't want them or have that in the stipulation that they go that way. It doesn't go in front of most of these folks homes anyway. It still goes by one of them, I guess, but at least it's not trapes and up and down in front of all of them. And it's a major road that we built just for that traffic. Maybe that's something we should consider when you because it looks like we're going to end up modifying this EUP because they're not in compliance with it now. So, just food for thought. Thanks. >> Thanks. >> Anybody else? Okay. Uh my name is Darren Peterson. Uh, I'm not a resident, but I do have a business at 113th Avenue at the Culdeac, and I didn't expect to come and speak, otherwise I wouldn't be looking like I came from the beach. >> It's a hot day. >> Uh, but just a couple of things. Like I said, my my business is here. I don't know uh curbside. I have not had any interaction with them, but you know, I'm I'm thankful for being in this chair three years ago and and getting my cup and I too have some work that I probably need to do uh in regards to making sure that I'm doing everything, but my my life savings is in this business and you know, I want to treat the ground, the water that's at this property like it's, you know, somewhere that I live. And, you know, I'm just, again, I'm I'm a completely different business. We do some recycling, uh, but there was some discussion about fire suppression, and I can tell you that my building wasn't brand new. It was something that I had to conform to fit my needs. And we went through some fire suppression uh challenges and worked with the fire department and and very helpful and and again I'm I just had the perception when I was listening in that, you know, I'm very happy to be here and look forward to continuing to make this a home for my business. I I spend more time here than I do at home. So, uh, I I just wanted to show my appreciation and also just convey that I I suspect that a lot of us small business owners are in the same boat. I again have not spoken to the gentleman, but uh, you know, we're happy to work with with the city and it took me a long time to find a location that was willing to work with us. So, happy to be here. Thank you. Thank you. >> Everybody speak their piece so far. >> I spoke my piece. >> Yes, sir. >> We've got what we need. If I can just remind the council that the next step with this is for the applicant to complete an EAW. That's about a 500page document that goes into a whole lot of technical detail that's difficult to understand, but it will address traffic and odors and uh groundwater pollution and all different types of pollution. >> All right. Well, let's see if we can make up that hour. >> Honda item L E Commissioners. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, EAW or EA EDA, I got to get my whatever. >> Uh, the Economic Development Authority consists of seven members. Uh, five of them are appointed by the council and plus two council members that serve as uh members. Uh there's a vacancy when uh EDA Commissioner Juan Peralta resigned in May. Um in that at that point we also discovered that commissioner Jack Bernan's term had expired at the end of 2024. So we do have two vacancies. Uh the this position was posted on the city's website as well as advertised on social media. Uh we had uh four applicants that applied for this. However, Luke Sens was appointed to the park commission at the last meeting. So um he has asked to be removed from this. So essentially we have three applicants for two openings. Okay. Um, how do we want to do this? We have two openings, three applicants. We could >> do something similar to what we did last time, except since there's two openings, maybe >> we need to know >> we need, sorry, mayor members, we need to know which one you'd like to appoint to. So, we have one current term that's going to end at the end of this year and then one term that will end in five years from now. So it's not a similar situation to what you normally would see is that we would just appoint two people and they'd be the same term. >> There is two technically separate transactions that need to happen. So I don't know if you want to do the first one or the second one or what your thoughts are. >> So let's make the first one the short term. >> So that would be the end of this year then as the first individual. >> That's Jack's spot is firing at the end of this year. Juan Peraltas is the one. Yeah. And I think we should be clear. It's not necessarily that we like >> we have to have one. It's not so like it's not I don't want to it's not about preference >> essentially. It's just the fact that one is only for sure till the end of the year and the one's for sure till 5 years and then they can most certainly reapply and yeah be reappointed. And if generally speaking if so this is actually a question that I had for when um parks came up but also from planning when I was on planning commission there two of the people's positions were coming up and they were just asked if they wanted to stay on and they just said yes and it never got posted. Is that routine? >> They're they're posted. >> Yeah, they're always posted them. Okay. Yes. So, and maybe just no one else applied. So, it was just two of them. >> That is what happened in that time. Nobody else applied to the position. So, that we had the two applicants that said that they would both be back on. >> Got it. And that's why it didn't go through anything because we only had two people in their only. >> Okay. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. >> Um, okay. Well, I guess does anybody want to start? If nobody wants to start, I can start. >> Go for it. Go for it. think I'd be okay putting Jack in the long term, >> the five-year term, >> the five-year one, just to refill his spot. Um, so whoever would fill the the the one year or not even one year, >> like six months spot. >> Y I'm thinking that so I I kind of like John Weber from RDO. Um, but maybe that gives him a taste of what he's in for. Uh, I don't know. That's that's my thoughts. I'll jump in. Um, having been on the EDA now a couple of years, um, I've enjoyed working with Jack and he is interested in continuing and I would support um, putting him back into the his, you know, I guess essentially re reappointing him to his position, which would be the five-year term. And I also um for the other spot, I guess I would my preference would be John Weber for that one. I had Jack for the five-year one, and I um didn't have a strong opinion between Matt and John. I think they both bring some really great qualities. I think they both do an excellent job. Um I I just I didn't feel super strongly one way or the other. And no matter what, they get to come back in January and try again. So, so regardless of who it is, they're going to have to come back >> very shortly if they want to. Or maybe in six months they peace out and then I'm okay with Jack in the five-year and I >> have no strong opinion on how they work. >> I like the shooting exercise. I'll be I'll be last. >> Oh. Um, I guess I will just echo that I also um would like to put Jack back in his I say his spot because that gakes a claim to it um for the longer five-year term. Um, and I I don't have a strong preference between um the other two, although I did um being a a data nerd, I did like that John um addressed that or at least, you know, stated in his application. And so I guess I would lean a little bit farther towards him >> towards what >> to towards John um Weber for >> But why? Um, well, because he I think it was just that the answers that he gave. I like >> I know you said something specific, but >> Yeah. No, I just like that he, you know, I don't know. Again, this is just my own preference, but I I liked the things that he said. I liked um that he talked about being in a good position to add different perspectives. I liked his decision based on facts, data, and multiple perspectives. Um, being eager to learn. I don't know. There's just some maybe they're buzzwords or keywords in there that maybe draw me a little bit more towards him. >> Okay. >> But either one is fine. >> Last to get shot. >> I didn't get shot. >> Well, I shouldn't say that. >> I did get shot in the first guy. I mean, he came up. He came up so fast. >> Point, Scott. That was the point. >> We all got shot. >> Anyway, I got a second run at him. I'm sorry. Uh, I'll go along with Jack even though he gets extremely longwinded in some of the meetings. Um, we can deal with it and learn learn to deal with it. And I also think that uh John is the uh the right person. So, >> okay, we'll give him a second. >> Motion second. >> So, uh I guess I would make a motion that Jack goes to the long term, John goes to the short term. Okay, I'll second it. >> Okay, and any more discussion on this? All those in favor say I. >> All those opposed say no. Motion carries. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay, on to item M. Oh, and this is totally minor, but on page 102, there's a typo. Um, in the whereas Dayton doesn't have a Y. It's D A T O N on page 102. Just FYI, >> in resolution 48 or 52, >> the one we just talked about. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, >> thank you. >> Denton. >> Denton. >> Denton. >> Yeah, the second whereas >> so totally irrelevant. >> Surprised spellch check doesn't catch that. >> Um, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, you're tonight you're asked to uh uh consider resolution 52-2025, approval of a site plan review at 17400 113th Avenue North in the uh Dayton Industrial Park. So, the applicant approached the city regarding uh um building expansion uh at that uh location. Um the applicant and property owner is looking to uh expand the facility uh with a 780 ft uh office space expansion on an existing warehouse and storage building uh kind of a maintenance shop quas um maintenance warehouse multi-purpose. Um the current property is 2 and a half acres and zoned I1 light industrial and guided business park. Uh which is consistent with the existing industrial use as the business park land use designation does allow for industrial uses. Um principal use of the property is a contractor's operation. I believe if I'm not mistaken there's two uh landscape uh companies that share the space uh with accessory outdoor storage. I'll just make the note that the outdoor storage has been uh legally non-conforming um and is not proposed to be expanded in connection to this site plan review and as it is considered legally non-conforming not relevant to the uh current request for the office expansion. Uh so I just wanted to make that note. Um the applicant is proposing paved and identified parking lot space uh on the site that has not have been delineated on the property in past. Um and then uh the longer term plans that I've been talking with the property owner about and I'll get into this. Uh the city is somewhat involved with that as well. Um that the three accessory buildings uh on the north side of the property are proposed to be removed. Um just running through the uh architectural design uh standards for uh the proposed facility. It is going to be a dry stack masonry exterior. Um, with it being that it is consistent with the I1 standards for building requirements. Um, I'll note as well that the applicant is proposing to add a a 4ft tall skirt of the same masonry on the existing building. Uh, actually making an improvement to the existing facility on site. Um, in the bold up here, I just wanted to note the this is the quote from the code section that triggers the need for this type of review. Um, the final site plan and building plan shall be approved by the city council prior to issuance of any permits for new development or building construction expansion in any non-residential zoning district. Um I'll just note that uh typically if you see a site plan review on the uh agenda, it is essentially typically accompanied by a conditional use perimeter or preliminary plat. So this is a little bit of a unique situation as this is only the site plan review. Um did not require a public hearing at the planning commission level. However, they are required by code to provide a recommendation. Now I'll get into just the note here. I think uh the majority of the city council is aware that uh city staff has been having discussions uh with the existing property owner on acquiring a portion of the uh eastern part of the property uh for future access and roadway um that the would become public street and that would essentially connect to the north where the uh existing empty leg of the roundabout on Dayton Parkway is right now. Um so and because it is still early in the process uh of this the owner is uh expected to utilize the entire property likely uh after the property purchase and platting is complete and would vacate the area at the time of the road con the road is constructed. Um so that'll probably uh just be dealt out through the uh preliminary plat phase and purchase agreement of the property related to him continuing use of that. So when it comes to understanding uh what does it take to uh find what are the findings of fact to approve a a site plan review it comes into four sections of the code that I've included up here. Um the proposed development is not in conflict with the comprehensive plan. The proposed development is not in conflict with zoning district provisions. Uh the proposed development is compatible with existing and anticipated future development and it also conforms to the exterior building material requirements of the zoning code. Um staff did draft a resolution for the planning commission to review and uh essentially um unan unanimously recommended approval of the resolution uh with the uh conditions proposed by city staff and those are um up on your screen for the review and as well as in your packet. I'm happy to answer questions and the property owner is also here. >> Any questions for staff? >> I got nothing. >> Just a comment. I um thank you for putting that code section in there explaining why because I I know at the EDA meeting I was a little confused why this wasn't just a b building permit application. So I appreciate >> sure that clarity. Just to follow on with that. So there is no preliminary plat or final plat or concept that goes with this. This is this is the approval here. >> That is correct. Uh we do anticipate uh depending on the completion of a purchase agreement for the property would be accompanied by a preliminary plat for the what would be the outlot that would be the roadway. Um and you would be you would anticipate that you'd see that in the near future. Um we probably go through that process. well before there was a timeline for the construction of the road just to have that taken care of. Um but uh yeah, eventually you will see a preliminary plat um for that property >> that's related to the road. >> Exactly. Yep. So this is already a platted property within the Dayton Industrial Park. Um so there was no no need or anything like that or lot lines changing for this with this site plan review. Any questions for the applicant or >> I just have two general comments. They're not really questions. Um, one, I really like the putting the brick along the existing building to tie them together. I think it's going to look really nice and I think that was a good touch. Um, other one which I know it's you kind of mentioned the parking in the code. This is more like for for like resale. Would it be worth having just one extra parking spot because it's easier to put in now than to come back later? If you're going to sell it, would that make it a more usable space for someone in the future? But if it's not that, I'm not going to say no because of that. But that was the only question. That was really the only thing that popped for me was like, would one more parking space right now when you're in the midst of it just make it more usable maybe in the future? But um overall, I have no issue or problem with this. I think you bring up a good point, Council Member Vanast, just to note that uh if the parking does become an issue because uh based on my review, it was compliant based on the square footage of the types of uses in the building. Um there is enough space to accommodate more parking on the site um that wouldn't uh affect the um other portions of the site. So, >> yeah, but that was it. That was nothing that caught my eye at all. Otherwise, I think it looks really good. >> All right. Uh there are no questions for staff. Any more questions or the applicant? We could use the motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Any more discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. All those oppos say no. Motion carries five to zero. >> Thank you. >> I was going to make a motion right away. Aiden. I thought you were >> should have bet. Speed it up a little. You >> were taking bets. >> I'll take those. Um, okay. Item N. Should I speed this one up? >> Sarah's going to have some comments. >> I don't have any comments on this. >> Really? We can have comments. >> I have no comments. >> Go ahead. You don't have We don't have to do a presentation if you don't. >> Well, it depends if anybody's got anything. >> We can have questions, but I'll make a motion. All right. That would be Scott. Second. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Questions? Where's the money coming from? >> Um yeah, so mayor members call to this one. So since the previous Millet overlay project was paid for by state aid dollars that came from municipal state aid, um this would come out of our payment management fund dollars. So that is why it is getting moved up one year is because we are utilizing some other dollars to pay for the other project that was planned for the paper management dollar for this year. We would just use next year's project this year and use the paper management dollars. >> Oh yeah. So, because it looked to me like there's I mean with what the South Diamond Lake Road project came in under. >> Yep. >> And then applying the balance of that money toward this one where we got about a 250k tilt there. So, that's what we're that's what we're >> So, we wouldn't be able to use >> from next year. >> Um so, we wouldn't be able to utilize the municipal state aid dollars right now for the project because we have to get those pre-approved in order for us to actually utilize those dollars. So, because we didn't bring this project into um the project earlier, we can't use municipal state a dollars to be able to utilize for this project in total. If we wanted to use those dollars, we could wait till next year to do it and we'll certainly can get that project approved. I'm pretty sure one of these two roads is municipal state as either one. >> Only a small portion kind of banked on using MSA next year >> um for other projects possibly. Yes. So, we have that bank still. We could still ask for again another aotment in in the future, but for now this project would be utilized with payment management dollars overall. So it's zero payment management dollars have to go into the project for South Diamond Lake Road. >> Um and between the grant for um safe routes to schools and then the MSA dollars for municipal state aid, we don't have any pavement management dollars going into that project at all. And then the street light, the other traffic light which is looked to be paid for as well as a project is paid for by municipal stad again along with a contribution from um Quick Drip and Semstone. So we don't actually have any payment management dollars of physical levy dollars and or franchise fee dollars being expended this year without this project. So hopefully that made sense in a small little term. Mhm. >> Did the pulling the 126th out, was that the what 200k difference or? >> Yes. >> Yes, that was essentially it. Yeah. >> Does that make sense to >> So, the reason we wanted to squeeze this in because we believe pavement is cheap right now. >> Yes. >> Um, does it make sense to because now that's going to be a kind of the standalone project. >> It it could be one of two ways. Yeah, it it could be a standalone. We think it possibly could even be done as an invitational quote, which would make it a lot easier. >> Um Okay. Otherwise, we would probably combine it with a larger project. For example, in upcoming years in the northeast area, we have some Milan overlay that also includes some of the batuminous curve that is >> kind of the reason that was taken out of the project. >> So, the projects don't necessarily have to be contiguous to save. >> No. Uh I mean, >> okay. >> Yeah. if they're adjacent to each other, but >> in that neighborhood. >> Yeah. >> Um they're not great. There's some settlement in there. Um but they're they're certainly passable. I don't think they're an access to wait a couple years. >> No. Okay. >> No, I anticipate that >> it is not one whatever that road was that was way up on I can't remember the road now that >> second. It is not that bad. So, >> okay. I have no other questions. Any other questions? All right. All those in favor say I. >> I. All right. All those opposed say no. That carries 5 to zero. And we're round to item O. >> I have questions. >> That's what I thought. >> Exterior lighting. >> All right. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, uh tonight you're asked to consider ordinance uh amendment 2025-17, approval of amending the zoning code for exterior lighting. Um, in February, just a little bit of history, the city council requested that staff look into a zoning ordinance amendment uh related to exterior lighting regulation within all districts within the city. Uh, the city has not historically had uh an exterior lighting ordinance and a lot of the times for new developments uh the lighting standards are just uh established by way of the conditional use permit or pre preliminary plaque conditions. Um essentially the uh to further promote the city's designation as a dark sky community in uh the comprehensive plan um adopting this ordinance would essentially focus on two aspects of lighting within the city. One would be trespassing light onto adjacent properties and that's broken down on another uh within the ordinance on what the regulations are for that. And the second part would be to require that all lights within the city be downcast um and not allow for uplighting um unless there are specific circumstances that the planning commission included in that public hearing um that they had earlier this month. Um staff has conducted some research regarding the single family residential properties as well as commercial and industrial. It is very common for every city to have commercial and industrial or civic and institutional requirements for lighting standards. Um, and the one that I found that was a little bit more rare was the uh specific standards for single family residential, but there are communities out there that do regulate that to a certain aspect. So, as I mentioned before, all lighting uh shall be downcasted with a cutoff not to exceed 90 degrees to ensure light is not projected upward. Um exceptions uh that were really common and uh I guess agreed upon by the planning commission was related to lighting uplighting the American flag. Um and then the other caveat was the holiday lighting. As you think of the traditional um holiday bulbs do not have shielding on there. Um, so that one was kind of hard to incorporate into that uh the regulation side of this. Um, and then there are also limitations on the amount of light that's allowed to be trespassed on it to adjacent properties. Um, and that's measured in what is called a foot candle and that's ex essentially a measurement that they use to understand uh how much light is actually being illuminated onto the property. Um, but I just want to make the clarification that just because you can see a light um does not mean that it is casting a shadow on you. Um, if you're on the east side of French Lake, it is very likely that you would see industrial lights uh across the way, but that doesn't mean that they're trespassing onto the property that you are standing on. Um, for single family, residential, and agriculture, the light at the property line should not exceed uh half.5 foot candles. Um and that's uh measured by a a luminere that uh can be est that can be utilized through the phone um as technology is kind of allowed for that. And John and I actually took a trip it was on the way back from um a meeting to a light store and that was the recommendation by them was that the the the lighting apps on your phones are sufficient enough to accurately re regulate this type of thing. Um, so it was good to get that confirmation before understanding how much a light meter was going to cost um at a store like that. But uh consistent with uh other um surrounding communities, the multifamily, commercial, industrial, civic, and institutional uses including parking lots, uh would have a limitation to not exceed 1 ft candle at the property line. Now the caveat to that one is that if it is adj adjacent to single family residential or egg uh being that it be the zoning district um light at the property line shall not exceed 0.1 ft candles and that's kind of following the understanding that because adjacent property is becoming commercial or industrial um there are concessions to potential nuisances that um the city would have to make regarding traffic or noise and and things of the like. Um, so this provides the city the opportunity to ensure that uh at least one of those potential nuis nuisance issues is addressed uh in this capacity. These are just some examples. Um right here this is what's called a phototric and this is what is uh reviewed um with new developments that uh are provided to understand where these are essentially the foot candle readings at that exact spot. Um so we'd be able to verify that with the proposed lighting plan that they would provide with the building permit or potentially even at the preliminary plat stage. Um this is information that could be included in the packets um if they do uh provide that. Um although it's not necessarily required, we always highly encourage that they bring this forward to us early so we have the opportunity to review it. Um this is essentially the example of uh the cut off angles that would be within the zoning ordinance itself for reference. Um and this was just pulled from the internet. I thought this was a good example to give people an understanding of what to expect. Now, we brought this to the planning commission uh for public hearing in May, and the planning commission had a couple of tweaks that they were looking for. Uh they weren't we weren't far off from what they were um expecting. Um but some specific things was they wanted more specific exemptions. Um upcasting for architectural lighting was requested to be removed. Um and then add the holiday lighting uh exemption for the uh shielding. However, the holiday lights are still not allowed to trespass onto adjacent properties beyond what is allowed by the code in the foot candle measurements. Um, stadium lighting is another one that uh was exempt from the height standards as uh stadium lights are typically 60 ft or taller. We do have stadium lights already in town and uh there is a there's a chance that there could be more that could come with uh other park systems or anything like that, school systems. Um, street lights are required to be downcast. Wall lighting on single family residential. This was kind of a um a large larger discussion point about uh this at the at the planning commission um to be able to provide the property owners the opportunity to have decorative or architectural lighting um to show off the design of their home to a certain extent. Uh that was something that the planning commission didn't want to essentially regulate fully. Um so I brought back an amendment that uh basically said that if they want to have upcasted lighting, it has to be guided or blocked by an eve of the building. Um to ensure that one, it's not upcasting beyond what the building eve is, but you still have some flexibility and lighting design that you want on your home. Um so that the planning commission felt that that was a good uh middle. Uh there was a lot of there was a little bit of discussion on minimum standards and uh our architect on the planning commission did reference that the building code is going to require the minimum standards. So there was a reference that would add was added to that. Really the only thing that was left outstanding from the planning commission side of the discussion uh earlier in July was the uh low-level uplighting for landscaping. it did just get brought up, but uh ultimately the planning commission agreed to not allow this um and just wanted to offer the opportunity if there was a preference um as obviously you're having the opportunity to look at all of the standards within this ordinance tonight. So, I wanted to include that too as part of the discussion. Um these are some examples of the the types of lighting that on the building walls that could be protected by eaves and still be allowed. I don't know about this one, but that was a part of this is one picture >> and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> First off, thank you um for this. This was one of the things that had come that I was that was important to me. So, I'm glad that it it made it to us. Um a couple of things just some questions. is the first and foremost um the American flag uplighting the American flag was explicitly like allowed but I didn't see that. Am I missing where it is explicitly allowed >> in the ordinance? Yeah, >> there is a section in there um up near the first page that uh >> details out exemptions. >> Okay. >> I just can't remember what section it is. >> Yeah. And I was just trying to reskim it and I didn't see it in my reskming but anyway. Okay. So, as long as you know it's there. Um so that's my first thing. Second thing, in some of the dark sky literature, they have specifically called out the the quality of lighting, as in blue, specifically blue light is even worse. Like all of it is terrible. Um, quite frankly, there's a reason why we don't see fireflies anymore. Um, because we're destroying our planet in every way, shape, and form. And this light pollution is one of them. But blue light in particular is even worse. So, some of the cities have a limit on like how like that it has to be I think 3,000 um Kelvin. No, what's the K is the unit, but Kelvin? Um I didn't see it in here. Was that discussed at all or did we just decide we didn't want to go that far down that path and just start here? >> I think that >> I would say that uh I did look into some of that stuff and they also do um so I I I look through the dark sky community standards and there are like low light or light zones that they would establish. Okay. >> Um, >> part of me drafting this ordinance was also related to understanding our capacity of enforcement. >> Yeah. And so that was that was also part of it. And uh I think the mayor had mentioned uh at the planning commission a couple times about avoiding this being like defense ordinance. Um but uh that uh that was it was something that uh was basically left out because of the concern about regulation. >> Okay. Which is fair. I was just curious cuz like I said, I was um looking through all that. Um the other thing um is whether or not we want to define holiday displays and decorations a little bit more or not. I'm not saying we have to. Um so my question is, so my friend loves the white Christmas lights, right? And so when she has the white Christmas lights on at Christmas, they are holiday decorations. but she is one of those people who leaves them on literally all year long. So in June, are those still holiday lights because it's June, are they like are they Father's Day lights? Like is there um do do we want to have you know it's just again a question I'm not saying I feel strongly one way or the other. There is language about um seasonal lighting being um lighting that's used is temporary and used in connection with holidays and traditions. So I wasn't sure if we wanted to just clarify a little bit on the holiday lighting that it is temporary and that it is used in connections with holidays and traditions so that it is not my friend who love her but like come on now turn them off. Um so but again in Christmas they're holiday lights but June they're just annoying to her neighbors. So, how do you define temporary though? Like temporary could be I have those really annoying clips on my roof, so they're not actually like permanently affixed to my roof, which means they're temporary, right? Like, how do you define that? So, I I don't know. I'm a big fan of holiday lights and I wish I had mine up in June, but my husband won't allow that. But, um >> I don't know. I guess that's just my opinion. Like what's the metrics of what is actually temporary and what is >> So if I was to put 100,000 lights on my evergreen trees going down the driveway, >> I would love it. >> White lights, that wouldn't be good. >> I I'm just >> I'd love it, too. Not white. I like color >> for all of our poor planet and all of the birds and and insects and everything else that we really need to stay here. Um and we are killing in every way, shape, or form. And one of them is through light pollution. Yes, I agree that they're pretty, but no. Come on, people. At a certain point, turn it off. Well, yeah, I care about the things that eat the mosquitoes, and they're the ones we're destroying. Um, the bats eat the mosquitoes. Please stop messing with my bats. I would like them to stay here and eat all these damn mosquitoes. Um, so anyway, um, again, I'm not opposed. I just when I saw holiday and there wasn't any definition on that, I wasn't sure if we wanted to define that a little bit to talk about their temporary, decorative, and used specifically for a specific holiday or tradition and not just all year long. Um because at that point, is that still a holiday light then? Because it's exempt, right? That's the whole point is holiday lights are exempt. So >> only from the shielding, they still can't trespass onto adjacent properties. And that was discussed at the planning commission meeting in May on whether they wanted to include the temporary or not. They decided not to. Um there's going >> the hard part about this is that there's going to have to be a little bit of flexibility with the holiday lightings because I would caution the city from dictating what is a holiday and what can have lights on it. >> Yes. Exactly. So that that was kind of the uh um >> I mean because my friend could argue in June they're Father's Day lights and now they are Fourth of July lights and really August is the only month I can come up with some holiday to be like no it's this holiday that's what this light is celebrating. So >> end of summer >> I mean >> then you get Labor Day and then you no they're they're Halloween lights. No, they're my Thanksgiving lights. No, they're my Valentine's Day lights. So like I I get that. It was just something I wanted to see where everyone else's temperature was at. Um, and yes, I'm a kromogen and I hate fun. Um, you can talk to my husband all day long about that >> and I don't disagree that uh that could pose a challenge. I mean, there are abusers of the code that we >> of every code we have. So, >> and uh yeah. >> Okay. Um, so then this other one is, what about if you have a situation where someone has a light that's technically not upcast, but is practically aimed into the neighbor's window. That's going to violate the foot candle. Correct. >> Yes. Upon investigation, we'd be able to verify whether that it meets that or not. What we would do is it essentially it would be have to be scheduled at night obviously and um just do an after hours uh investigation of going to the property line and uh just going through the process of taking that reading. Um you'd be surprised at uh the um foot candle readings that I've seen on some of these lights that I have tested and personally feel that they are bright, but they do meet the intent of the code. So, um, that's something this just more of an education side of things on in terms of the residents that might not be familiar with what these what these mean. So, >> okay. >> Can you can you go to the slide for city hall? >> You know, for example, here this is a we have two different um security lights in the back of the building. We did do a a foot candle test and um the light on the right is very bright, but it's not in violation of the code. >> But if I was your neighbor. I might be real annoyed if that was my bedroom window. >> Correct. But it's still not it's still >> compliant. So that's somewhere that I got a little bit I'm a little bit unclear. I guess you showed both the 90° cutoff and the 66 degree cutoff. And which would apply? >> The 90° is the uh minimum. I guess the maximum technically if you're thinking about it by degrees. >> Yeah. Because to me that's not I mean it is not shining it at the sky. However, it it does look like you know that corner light on the on the building there. And you know and I think that's what generates a lot of concerns is is that well it's not bright enough to light up your backyard. It's bright enough to to bother your eyes when you when you're looking at it. And why would we, you know, not have the the 66 degree as the standard versus the 90°? Uh, and I don't know what situation that that you need that light shining straight out. Uh, because it's just lost in my in my view if it's not directed at something. >> I have a feeling though that if you buy lights, I I think the 66 one's going to be hard to come by. >> They're more and more pro. I mean, people are starting to realize that we are like polluting our our skies and we're getting rid of the things that kill all the bugs we hate. So, it's actually quite easy to get lights that satisfy this. The 66 or further down. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Well, I guess that that would be my opinion that they should all be downcast to some extent >> um versus just not upcast. But the other thing I wanted to ask about because it not clear and how and maybe you said it already but the low-level landscape lighting would be prohibited in this ordinance and the planning commission discussed it but recommended it be left out. Left out meaning we're not going to address it or left out meaning it is going to be prohibited. >> Left out meaning it is going to be prohibited. And these are the stick them in the ground little solar lights that you put by your sidewalk and >> correct so on. >> Yep. This was this was in the uh >> I read that backwards, too. So, you're saying those would be prohibited. >> That was my understanding at the planning commission meeting was that they were comfortable with leaving that out from the exemptions in the ordinance. >> Those are the upcasting ones though, not like the ones. >> So, not not the ones that you see like that would be, you know, what do they call it? A kind of a overcast and then just looking down like not those ones. It's the ones that would be upcast towards a bush or something like that or some sort of >> a rock or something that they some sort of feature. >> The globe ones though would not be allowed cuz they have like the little their globes and the down. >> Correct. Correct. >> Yeah, cuz they're not downcast. They'd be up technically upcast. >> How much light is they cannot push off of? >> But that's what I'm saying. How much light can my tiny little globes that my little solar panel cardinal bird in my garden really put out? See, it's not if it was just you and you lived all by yourself, it wouldn't. It's the fact that every single house has these things and they with all of the little like all of the insect. >> I live next to Father Christmas and we got more lights going on over there than my tiny little >> This kind of stuff bothers me because like we are destroying our planet and it's like something so easy and so simple that we could do and people are just completely unwilling to do it. So, of course, we can't tackle like the actual big things. We can't even agree to be like, >> "But people are unwilling to do it, so let's force them to do it." Like, I don't know. I just >> We're not going to force any more than we force anything else. Why do we have speed limit signs? Right. >> This is written, it would seem to prohibit any landscape kills. >> Yes, except for any ones that would be downcast. If you have the ones, I don't know if they call them the hot ones or whatever, you can kind of see them and they're downcast or not. >> That isn't what it says, though. It just says >> It says any upcast. It says upcast landscape lighting. >> It should >> not in what I'm reading. I guess >> I didn't catch that whenever >> I would exclude landscape lighting. >> You know, I I don't just Everybody knows I hate going out for walks and having lights everywhere. Um especially when the government does it. But this is going to be just a nightmare to >> enforce I I mean halfway during the planning commission meet I just kind of went I don't know where to go with this. >> It probably took 45 minutes too. these these items that were um included within the ordinance are certainly open for discussion. And if you'd like us to look at um opportunities whether you set a certain wattage for landscape lighting to be upcasted, um I've seen that before. I've seen it with architectural lighting for industrial facilities. I believe that uh Graco has blue lights that are upcasted from the base of their building. Um, and so those are there are certain things that uh that can be looked at. Um, it's it's all open for discussion and I'm here to take notes and >> well, for me, I would I would leave the landscape lighting, the low-level landscape lighting out of the ordinance altogether. I think that's a can of worms that we're not going to be able to enforce for one thing. And I think it's a tiny part of the problem. >> It is a small part of the problem. >> I just want to clarify when you say out of you mean that it's okay. It's an exemption that is allowed to have happen. >> Just not even say it. Just not talk about it. >> Okay. Heaven is an exemption is >> I can do the triple reverse here. >> I'm not trying I'm just I'm not trying to make it more confusing. I'm just making when it says out, we want to make sure that we know what it means. It means that we're not going to >> enforce that. >> Yes. Council member Fashion, we could certainly establish a um certain level of lumens or a certain level of wattage that would be allowed so it's not um causing a nuisance or cat casting shadows or doing something like that. So I've seen that where there you establish a wattage. What that is right now I don't know. I've seen 100 watts before. I've seen 200 watts. >> Yeah. And it I don't know I I would just leave it out. Sure. Period. >> I don't think watts helps in this case because you know you can get a 5 watt LED that's brighter than a 60 watt. >> I was going to say watts becoming it's become kind of a meaningless measurement. >> So I mean the foot candles is really the the actual measurement. And you know, I I don't think any of these would ever reach that 0.1 threshold at the property line unless you've got them running along the property line and they're measuring right next to that. So I for me, I'd just leave it out. I think it just it would be just confusing and we wouldn't be able to enforce it anyway. >> I agree. any is it a motion or just a comment or >> Well, it's not in here anyway. So, so I'll make a motion that we approve this >> this as written >> this with the exception of the low-level landscape lighting >> would not be prohibited. >> I'm sorry. Do we need to call out that I read through this again and I believe Sarah is correct that the >> see the American flag >> the American flag is not in there as >> mayor members council currently the American flag item is not within the ordinance. I know that was recommended by planning commission to leave it in there. So if you want to amend your motion to make sure that that would be included if that's what you'd like. >> I thought there was some maybe it was in a narrative about >> it was in the staff in the narrative but it's not in the ordinance. It's not actually >> it's in the staff report. It is not in the resolution. Thank you Stephanie for double checking that >> the intent was there but the execution was not >> there effort >> add to my motion >> the go ahead >> I I'm sorry if we're going to allow low-level landscaping lighting that that would include lights for the American flag. >> So there you go. >> Yeah. >> All right. So it's not necessary to address that specifically. >> You already thought about it. >> Oh because it's not precluded because we didn't pull up the double negative. Yep. >> I would like just just >> for easierness. I think >> I would like to include that just for the calling out the specifics because sometimes flag poles people don't correlate that with landscaping. >> Yeah, sure. Well, >> sure. >> And isn't there a flag code that talks to this more specifically? Can't we just >> state statute? I believe >> state statute is not no time has to be downcast. That's why they make the top lighting on the landscape or whether the flag pole goes to the top of it. >> Yeah. And I So I don't know exactly how you would say that, but we would defer to this to the flag code. >> Yeah. For >> I believe it's if a flag is being flown, it has to be lit essentially at night. >> Is this for all flags or just American flags? >> Just American flag. >> Yeah. >> Pretty sure it's just the American one. >> I was wondering if it might include the state, but I >> I don't believe so. there at least a >> cuz I know there's a kuruffle in one of the HOAs where they wouldn't let them fly a P flag but they had to let them fly the American flag. So >> this might be a typo thing. I'm looking at page 174 part one part or 1B. Should that be ensure proper installation not insulation? No, it is installed. >> Installation. Okay. I know there is both for lighting. So, I just wanted to clarify that because then it goes on about being installed. So, that's why I wanted to clarify that. Thank you. >> So, we have a motion on the floor from Dave related to >> But that includes now we do have the American flag. >> American flag and the low-level lighting is allowed. >> I'll second. >> That's what I have. >> Yes, that's what I >> landscaping lowle lighting. >> Landscaping lowle lighting. Just there's a lot of uno going on. Reverse, flip, skip, >> draw four. >> All right. So, we got any more discussion? >> Oh, all those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> I. All those opposed say no. >> I'm abstaining. >> Oh, you're abstaining. Okay. >> Cuz I'm cranky. >> You're abstaining cuz I'm >> abstaining cuz I'm cranky about it. >> Sounds good. >> You can always abstain from my vote if you like to. Yes. Councor Van Aton can abstain. Yes. >> Uh item P. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. I did not prepare a presentation for this. I figured I probably exhausted the information. >> I'll make a motion. >> I I would like to just note one thing. I can't believe it would have any impact on it, but the version that was in your packet was altered slightly by MDOT and by being slightly they extended the completion date by three years. I think it's a >> only because it can be I'm sorry. >> It's a higher dollar amount as well. >> Oh, they did. That's true. Thank you. >> So, they gave us more money. >> They did they did adjust it because there was a shipping fee not included on the original purchase for the equipment. So, they added that into the agreement amount and then they also pushed it out to the 5-year period, which is the maximum allowable. I still think we're only going to need about one year, but they're going to put it at five anyway. So, >> so they gave us more money and they're giving us more time. >> Yes. >> No problem. I have no problem with that. >> I'll still make a motion. >> Need a second. >> Second. >> Okay. Any more discussion? >> All those in favor say I. I. >> All those post say no. >> Motion carries five to zero. On to item Q. >> Oh, can I ask one more question? >> Yeah. not going to change anything. But um in the in this in the breakdown of the costs, it it mentions um in a couple of places add CO equals 174,000 something. What is the CO? >> That's the change order. >> Change order. >> Yeah. So that's the actual construction of the improvements that was added to the city contract. So that was the change order amount. And then the forced account, the other one, that's the purchase of the equipment to be installed. the flashing light that was purchased outside of that contract. >> Okay. So, the Okay, that's that's the only >> still paid for through the grant. Everything's paid for through the grant. So, I just want to make sure that >> No, that all worked out. I just didn't know what CO was in this context. >> Okay. Yep. Change order. >> Okay. Uh yeah. Item Q, >> historic village sewer and water. Um so there has been kind of a repeated question if you will when there's discussions um regarding the historic village and I guess just so everybody's clear um when I'm referring to the historic village area I'm referring to the northwestern most part of the city that is sewer and watered so that has utility services in it so basically the developed area or the the city lots within that portion of the city. So u but there's been a question you know what development can be supported and added to that system or what can be redeveloped with a more intense use. Um so a couple things that we know um there's very limited water and that's primarily due to no storage um no meaningful storage. There's a 2,000galon um pneumatic tank that supplies pressure but no reservoirs for firefighting or other means. And then there's limited sewer as well. And that's mostly limited by lift stations throughout the village that collect and transfer the uh the flows and then uh send it to ATO for treatment ultimately. Um but both of those are limiting um as they were designed for the conditions in 2000 when they were constructed. So um there was a general investigation. Um, some on council might remember in 2020 when we kind of looked at it and we said, "Okay, how many more connections could we get on the system um came back very limited. I think we were somewhere around equivalent to maybe like a 100 homes or so um to the sanitary and you're already at your maximum for the water. So, anything now is just kind of putting extra strain on there. So, um, and again, that's due to the storage. >> Jason, when you say limited on the water, that's only fire suppression, right? >> Yeah. Yes. It's a storage. >> Other than that, we've got plenty of capacity. >> Yes. >> Yeah. We can produce it. We just can't. >> So, we can get storage. >> We just can't distribute it fast for very long at all. >> Right. >> So, yeah. >> So, anything that needs a fire suppression system is out. >> They would have to supply something similar to public works, big reservoirs on on the site >> or storage. >> So, like our multifamily commercial. I mean, so really we're limited to single family homes. I thought we >> the new the new triplexes. So mayor members council the new triplexes are sprinkled. >> Um >> will the sprinklers work? Yes. Will they work for a long time? No. >> Correct. >> So it is >> they could that's a lot less volume >> demand of a system than say a warehouse or hooked up to >> um Yeah. So that would be a much simpler system and that could be supported maybe even for the duration needed. But um it it could certainly not support anything commercial or large with a significant demand on the system. U so two in 2020 we looked at it but it was limited to we could add about this much and you might have to do some improvements but not a lot of detail or um specificity behind any of the improvements. So um it's come to our attention lately that there's a desire for a better answer if you will. What's actually needed in the area? what specific improvements can and should be accomplished to support development or redevelopment in the area. So, we did put together a a scope um just to develop this plan. So, it would essentially be to develop and I'll just call it a utility master plan. So, what system would be needed same as we've done for the entire city, but we would look at this one a little different because it was an existing place in place. So, it would be a little bit of you know what's needed for upgrades to this system. So um it would identify the ultimate system for it and then we would use the existing system as a basis and from there identify you know which pipes need to be enlarged which how much storage is needed um what has to happen to the lift stations is there other options for river crossings for the the waste water to be directed um things of that nature. And as a basis uh you may be familiar this is part of your adopted 2040 comp plan the historic village framework plan as shown on the screen. So that would be our basis unless there was a reason to do dip to do other but our thought was that was the intended land use for it. So we would just go with most likely the most conservative ranges within those areas and develop a system in which would be appropriate to service that in the future. I thought this didn't make it into the 2040 comp plan. >> It did not. You're talking about the new >> um the original one was in the 2030 one and it's referenced in the 2040 plan to go back and look at the 2030 plan. >> My apologies. I thought this was actually >> and then I thought we had actually decided not to use this to set any Not that I disagree because I I understand where you're going because right now our comp plan doesn't do this. So we had yeah we did redo mayor members of cult we redid the historic builder framework plan >> 2022 2023 something like that something like that >> um and yeah and recompleted it essentially relooked at it again and then >> but then we didn't adopt it >> um >> it may not >> you adopted it but you said just shove it >> we accept it >> we accepted it yes >> but it did not go in any >> I understand what you're doing on that >> you got something to estimate flows from so Um >> yeah, and that leads me to my point of confusion on on this because this shows a lot of medium or higher density. Um and that may be the the conservative way to plan for this, right? But in the scope of work, it talks about um parcels are assumed to be low density residential. Is that just referring to the two P numbers that are south of the village? I think that's all >> that is what's currently proposed just that those would be considered for development to be added on. So we look at those specifically. So yes, that is that is referencing and they'll just say the Burdens properties where they are contemplating something in alignment with the A3 district. >> Okay. >> So we were looking at other areas you're looking at potentially more density and and more water use. >> Yep. Exactly. It was limited to just those I guess. Yeah. I was confused why would we include those two properties? >> Just if the if council wanted to choose um to to service those um if or when they're constructed or to to plan for those being sewered with this instead of waiting until the sewer comes all the way from the south. Again, our thought on it was it doesn't have to actually become a reality, but it just provides additional capacity to leave the option open. >> So those would get sewered obviously by a seagull. How does the Met Council come in and play that? >> Um, looking at an option. Can we redirect any of these flows to the Met Council system or would we want to take advantage because it hasn't been an option previously with the new plant going in in Rogers? Looking at extending the service area into the northeast part of Dayton, sorry, northwest part of Dayton. And that would actually alleviate some of the capacity limitations that might occur to the east and to the south. This is a much bigger picture that will become part of your comp plan revision. But that's our thinking behind that is to start looking at optional. >> Yeah, >> this is all going to be a long time from now. Well, >> not not if we do something like that. But yes, I I I I guess I don't Yeah. I also wonder what our current agreement is with Seiggo as it relates to sewer. I mean, I guess it's as much as we can shove through the pipe, but >> it's the pipe I thought was the problem. >> The the pipe would be the limitation. Um, I don't know the numbers, but I'll I'm confident that we were only using a reasonably small portion of our available capacity. >> Yeah, Mayor Mayor remembers council. I did have a conversation with um the city administrator about Seagull last week and just met referenced this to make sure that we were all good and he referenced that we were at like 20% of our allowable usages for a sewer capacity within that plant. They just redid that plant recently and spent boohoo bucks to get that thing upgraded. So they said they have plenty of capacity for us and please send us more. >> Is that the limiting fac like I said >> it is all about the pipes. The pipes in the ground are the limiting factor. >> The pipes and the pumps station the DNR lift. We call it the DNR lift at the bolt landing. Yeah. >> That's the main one that pumps everything up. >> Pipes not so much, right? Well, I mean it could have with the new pipe installation, but a lot bigger of an undertaking because it's a pretty long >> because I know there's occasionally been talks on a couple properties about some sort of a, you know, I don't know if you'd call it a senior living area. >> Considering there's no bus service, that'd be hard. >> But I don't know. Um, >> even just a coffee shop, they can't put it in because they don't have fire suppression. Yes. Yep. At the time. Right now they do not. Correct. >> But I mean like so that really like I appreciate that the whole thing isn't going to change for years, but right now we have places and people I think who would be interested in doing things and can't. So >> yeah, but that's just water storage. I shouldn't say dust because it's still a couple million bucks. >> Million bucks, >> but it's not sewer. >> But I mean I think that's the point of the plan though, right? Is to know what is that price tag and could we >> and then we'll have the master plan. So if there is a specific project in a specific area, we could see okay, what of these improvements are needed to support that. So it could be a phased approach on the on that the farther away it is probably the more challenging because there's there's actually three lift stations of the more it has to pass through the more upgrades that are going to be needed. This uh this was brought up during our strategic plan discussion. Yeah. And this is hence why it's in front of you tonight is because one of our goals and strategic initiatives this year or one of the action items this year was to do the historic village utility plan. So that's why it's in front of you tonight as well. >> And is this good for 10 years? >> It's good until you want to change it. I mean it would be the framework if I mean if if if you came in and said no we want to put commercial everywhere or you know apartments everywhere it would change um again we'd have a probably a better system in place where the revisions would be simpler than >> I can understand that but I mean all of that you just said is >> is it's not going to happen in in any anywhere near future >> and a coffee shop or cafe could go in >> Yeah. Yeah. cultivable salonic the answer would be as long as the usage is at this level or less it would it would be applicable if you see something that's going to be more intense than this then we'd have to do some sort of reanalysis of it >> well and to me I think it was a it would be good to know because for example let's say you know the road gets improved the county because the county is working on um Dayton River Road right and is there talk of going as at some point >> not this far But no, I mean eventually. >> Eventually, right? I guess obviously not soon, but if we know in advance, hey, wait a minute, when they've ripped the road up, we need to put a bigger pipe in. So, like, let's be paying attention for when that comes. >> That's 30 years away. >> Um, but like I just I I would think it'd be worth having at least a plan in place. >> The county just did that road here a couple three years ago, >> did they? >> Well, they not that not that portion. It was 2,000 the last time that road's been redone. And that's when the sewer went. That's when the sewer went in the 2000. >> That's when they >> resurfaced here. >> It was resurfaced. >> Oh, that was stop that stopped at Brockton, though. >> That didn't go any further. So, >> no village. >> Old village had brand new Tara right down Main Street. >> It was just before we know that cuz it was just before Heritage Day >> and we were worried that it was >> And what year was that? >> Had been a number of years ago. Well, I know it couldn't have been more than 12. >> Sure. 12 years ago years. >> Um, >> are you opposed to doing this study? >> I'm I'm just wondering what new information we're going to get. Um, because we already have a ballpark of what it can support. This would be Yeah, this would be actual analysis. So, then the reason, like I said, the reason why this is being brought forward to you is because this is one of your items that you gave us as an action item. So, >> as city staff, we follow your action items and hence why it's in front of you tonight. >> If you don't do that, that's fine. But we should move it out of our strategic plan that we just passed four months ago, five months ago. >> Would a U here's here's a good way to answer this. If a 12 or 14 unit triplex came into play in the next 3 years, do we have enough water suppression for that? >> I don't know. You'd have to do a study. I mean, that's that's the purpose of I mean, that is the purpose of this is and we get that question. That was my first bullet. We get the question, what can be supported? And we don't really know. We know there's not enough things are needed. that the look you did a couple years ago did give us a ballpark >> like a 100 units. >> Yeah. >> Are we gonna worry? >> Yeah. >> 12 or 14. >> Well, I I mean, you Yeah, you could look at doing up to 100 and hope for the best. I mean, it's I mean, all of it comes with risk. I mean, you're >> it's a the system was designed for what existed in 2000. There was not >> next 10 years. >> There was not additional capacity provided. I I feel like we have to do it because we've got pretty I mean your best guess right at what's available, but if somebody's going to invest hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars into a development, I think they deserve a better answer. >> I think you'd want to give a better answer. I also, you know, I I think if we're talking about higher density buildings and we're talking about sprinklers and I'm hearing we don't have the capacity to supply them for any length of time. So, that's already a problem and I think we should identify that in a real way. Maybe it helps us with grants going forward. >> Yeah. As long as it's good for 10 years or so. I mean, >> I don't want to spend 40,000 now and then two years from now spend 50. The only thing that would >> require updates is if you had a significant change in land use. And again, those modifications are easier than >> uh once you have a design in place, those modifications are a lot easier to tackle. All right. Any motion? A second. >> I'll make the motion. >> I'll second. >> Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. I. >> All those post say no. Carries five to zero. And with that, we are onward. >> See you in two weeks. >> Three weeks. >> Three weeks. >> Yeah. >> Oh, three weeks. Three weeks. >> Actually, three weeks. >> Or better yet, come in two. >> Okay. >> You'll need to read that. Mayor, thank you very much. >> Pursuant TAM statute 13D.05 05 subdivision 3C3. A closed section shall be conducted. Developer consider offers or coner offers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property located at 15520 Lndale Lane North, Dayton, Minnesota 55327 P05-120-22-22-00003. You want to gabble out here? >> Oh, sure. new regular session. And we we concluded that we would hand over the uh the activity to uh DDA. Yes, everybody. Good to staff. >> Yep. >> Correct. Yep. >> Got it. That's it. >> All right. So, with that, if there are no That's it. If there are no objections, we're adjourned. And we're adjourned.