order the February 6th Planning Commission meeting I do that every day the first order of business is the Pledge of alleg pled of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all the uh next item is we have a swearing in of a new commissioner commissioner sergeant if you can come come on I Jeff Sergeant I Jeff Sergeant youly swear to affirm youly swear to affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States that I'll will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Minnesota and the constitution of the state of Minnesota and then I will discharge faithfully and I will discharge Faithfully the duties of the office of the of the city of Dayton the duties of the office for the city of Dayton as a Planning Commission as a planning commissioner in the counties of henpen and Wright as a planning commissioner in the counties of henpen and Wright the state of Minnesota the state of Minnesota according to law according to law and to the best of my judgment and ability and the best of my judgment and ability thank you very much congratulations welcome aboard you're welcome uh the next item item number three is just uh I'm going to read what the role of the Planning Commission is the Planning Commission consists of five residents appointed by the city council the commission administers the comprehensive plan zoning and subdivision regulations the commission conducts public hearings and provides recommendations to the city council it is a city council who may approve or deny land use applications moving on to item number four approval of the agenda any changes John no no we all good make a motion to approve second all those in favor I all those opposed do we need to do a roll call since Peter's he's not here he's not there yes we do we do thank do we no there we go perfect we have a quarum perfect all right moving on to item number five the consent agenda this is just routine or previously discussed items that are enacted with one motion uh in this case all we're dealing with is the Planning Commission minutes from February 9th 2025 I will entertain a motion to approve those minutes or if anyone has any changes no changes I'll make a motion to approve second all those in favor I I you are correct January it does say February but you are correct so just to be clear John we just approve the January 9th yes 2025 minutes thank you and to for the record I I will abstain on that since I was not here okay item number six is open Forum this is limited to public comments uh 3 minutes for non-agenda items uh is there any in a room to speak for any non-agenda items perfect you can please come forward state your name and address uh no action will be taken the items will be referred to staff and uh group commenters are asked to have one main speaker good evening my name is Craig fory I reside at 11821 Stone Road I'm here to discuss the proposed changes to the parking ordinance Mr chair yeah I'll just note that that is an item on the agenda and a public hearing um will be held at that when that item's discussed so you want me to come back or should I speak uh come back when the discussion starts for the item sorry about that uh is anyone else here to speak to any non-agenda items okay then we are moving on to item number seven console update okay we've got the 14th uh way to work session in the parkway neighborhood that was just to kind of go over some of the financing on that project and how to keep the city out from any Li abilities Financial liabilities um and uh Ellers was going to come come up with a uh kind of a plan uh for that and then we had the quilling concept review uh it's pretty much what you had seen previously um the variances weren't approved there was some confusion about the easement and I think there's going to be more information coming forward on how that easement is going to be handled um I think that was primary that was a primary question there there was a Planning Commission appointment which resulted in and then the Cannabis thing went through um pretty much what we had talked about earlier and then on the 28th um nothing significant there was uh uh Jason over how change orders and contract bidding works for for uh some of the new Council and then there was some uh storm water projects uh around um French Lake and Diamond Lake that were uh discussed and uh approved that's it any questions no all right then we are moving on to item number eight public hearings the first item on the public hearing is the conditional use permit at 17900 149th Avenue North all right good even evening acting chair members of the Planning Commission uh tonight you're asked to consider a conditional use permit uh related to exceeding the 10% impervious surface maximum coverage in the A1 District on a property uh regarding a proposed construction of a 52x 36 1872 Square ft uh accessory structure on the property um the need for the conditional use permit is to further exceed the 10% maximum in the A1 District um the site currently has 14 .8% impervious surface on the property um and with the addition of the accessory structure would expand that to 20% in total 20.1% give or take um just a little bit of context uh there was no conditional use permit previously approved for um the what my guess was in 2019 uh an addition to the home was uh constructed and approved by Planning and Zoning in 2019 um I don't have any information Beyond why a conditional use permit wasn't requested or required at that point other than it potentially being an oversight um so when the applicant came through asking um for some guidelines on the accessory structure that he's proposing today um I had relayed that information that a conditional use permit would still be required um even though he's still currently exceeding it um and for context the conforming lot size in the A1 uh is 40 acres uh where the 10% maximum still applies and this property is .2 acres in total um so considered a legal non-conforming lot um in a comparative District uh for this lot would be the R1 uh where the minimum lot size is 15,000 square ft um and 50% impervious surface Max is allowed in that District um which comes out to 7500 F feet in total um and then I just referenced the section here from the code no building permit shall be issued for the construction ruction of detached accessory buildings on an egg parcel exceeding the limits stated below and the underlying zoning District's impervious surface limit except by conditional use permit and for just some more context uh typically you see in residential districts there is a maximum allowed square footage for accessory structures set for the egg District it relies on the 10% maximum so here was the site plan that was also included in um the packet with the square footage um totals there uh an important part of this review for the conditional use permit like this one specifically is the ability that uh the applicant and the property can provide enough space on the lot with the proposed conditions to do uh the following uh meet setbacks on all lot lines as well as from the existing septic field which is 20 ft for structures and I believe the septic tanks it themselves have to be 10 ft um and uh as well as ensuring that lot is large enough to leave area for a secondary septic site given there are no sewer and water utilities um in this area currently within the city um the applicant has stated that this can be done um he provided the um existing septic information on the site plan um and as part of the conditions of approval for this um and when he applies for a building permit that uh proof that the secondary site won't be unburdened by the uh the proposed structure um that would be a requirement to submit with the building permit application itself uh through staff's review staff believes that the site is large enough to accommodate these features on the property uh that is not connected to City Utilities uh given and as well as given the rural surroundings of the property staff does not believe that the proposed structure would affect surrounding uh neighbors um and as such staff as recommending approval of this conditional use permit with the following conditions the applicant shall provide a site plan proving an alternative site for the septic system on the property will not be burdened by the construction of this accessory structure no other accessory structure shall be permitted on this property with the construction of the proposed structure um and any additional impervious surface addition shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit and with that I'm happy to answer any questions any questions to staff Mr acting chair if I could um just a couple things that I noticed in the in the staff report itself um obviously I'm a new new commissioner here and first time reading a staff report it would have been nice in the report to understand or have the report actually list what that minimum requirement was I understand that uh during that packet you you submit the uh the re requirements um afterwards in that packet but you know the actual report itself probably should say minimum requirements is 10% in this District uh for this property uh they're currently at 14.8% so on and so forth um I do think also that the resolution should also reflect what that amount is that the applicant is looking to exceed and and what that conditional use permit is covering um just for in five years someone can pick that up and say okay I see what the story is on this property now just just some for some clarification issues there uh the only other question I had and this gets into to semantics and what we consider the conditional use the actual conditional use for this application but the requirements of the conditional uses do require that they be screened and so a question I have is is this a use that we feel as a city needs to be screened per the requirements of the of the code and and how staff went about uh disseminating disseminating whether or not it should be screened or not sure uh to your first point that is well taken I think that that was just a portion of the um review that I had not included in the staff report it was my intention to make sure that would note and uh as well as a resolution um whether for approval or denial uh going to the city council will be will reflect that uh note um not only the 10% ex exceeding the 10% but as well as what is going to be proposed for impervious surface so I appreciate the the review there on that um to your second question I will pull up um just a couple of the pictures that I took on the site visit here if I could um when we did when I conducted a site visit um I did take pictures of the surrounding area as well as the proposed area and uh but through staff's purview given the rural character of this area um as well as the significant grade change from the street um down to this area where the applicant is proposing this structure to be located um staff didn't feel that additional screening would be necessary in this regard yeah I I tend to agree I just wanted to make sure that that it it was it was noted that that was the case sure then perhaps maybe that should also be reflected in the resolution so in the event that someone might complain about this structure itself and why isn't it screen because your code says it needs to be screened we can uh direct them to the resolution that says that per you know staffs review no no other screening would be necessary through this condition to permit approval so right yeah and I I don't have the resolution language off the top of my head but I do believe that a finding a fact did address that because going through the the cup review requirements is um just kind of that standard process for the resolutions here any other questions staff um is the applicant present and would they like to come forward and present or explain a little bit more about your project please carry current uh 17900 149 um we'd like to put up a full building just for personal use cold storage it will be not used for any business or rent or anything like that just for my personal I've got a motor home some boats trailers um our neighbors have been generous enough to let us Park my stuff on their field road and we just like to get it under a roof wife doesn't like it sitting in the driveway so so that's our reason for putting up a accessory building any questions to the applicant we might call you back up here if uh we're going to open a public hearing if some other things arise we might ask you to come back up if we got some questions but thank you all right thank you it is 6:46 and I will open the public hearing is there anyone here in the public that' like to speak to this matter anyone online check uh we do have a couple people online if you do uh wish to speak at this public hearing for this item uh feel free to use the hand your raise function or raise your hand function not see all right well it is 6:46 we are going to close the public hearing at this point we can open up discussion here amongst the Planning Commission members I can kick it off um generally I think it's it's fairly straightforward in the fact that this is a a very substandard lot in size which is resulting in the need for the variance for impervious surface you know with a with a really large lot in the egg 10% would provide sufficient impervious surf impervious surface but with a82 acre lot size 10 % just doesn't provide enough um so I think from my standpoint I can see the reasonableness and the request from that standpoint um it definitely support the comments um that that we had from commissioner Sergeant um I think those are great uh suggestions for a final resolution or final recommendation yeah I generally see no issue with this either for many of the same reasons that Nick just stated so I'm not going to repeat them uh the one thing I would just suggest to staff that maybe even releas on the council but at some point in time we have a lot of lots like this that are zone day1 is that they probably should be zon something else now realizing that it might be more restrictive because as R1 you won't be able to put the size of building you're requesting but yeah essentially uh we did take a look at potentially rezoning this property when he first came forward but uh the R1 is uh essentially the language in the uh zoning code relates to R1 properties have utilities ready and available to the site um so rezoning this property wasn't uh um something that could have been done the way that it's currently written um and actually there's language in the R1 district and actually the rest of the residential districts as well that if they wish to exceed the um square footage maximums they would have to come through the same process perfect yeah I think we've had a lot of conversations over time about size of accessory buildings and um we we try to put some common sense into it but there's always instances where it just doesn't quite fit but um I I don't see a concern with this one like you said the lot size is pretty constrictive for being an egg area and um location of the proposed building doesn't bother me so yeah I would concur as well I mean this is uh you know anytime that something like this comes up you have to ask if it's a reasonable use of the property uh given the constraints or anything else that that we we have to take into consideration in this case uh you know the applicant wants to put up a a storage uh shed or barn or whatever you might want to call it for to help with the visual uh characteristics of the property right he wants to screen and secure some of his his belongings so um given the size of the property too I I think that the the request is very reasonable to approve a condition these permit if there is no further discussion I will entertain a motion make a motion to approve based on the U have it in front of me now the um resolutions that the staff put forth second all those in favor I I all those opposed motion carries 4 z uh moving on to item number B in public hearings comprehensive plan Amendment zoning map Amendment planned unit development and preliminary plat of DCM Farms just a note on that last item U Commissioners the city council will see that at their February 25th meeting thank you Mr Vice chair uh to to kind of follow piggyback on that note the purpose or the intented tonight with the DCM Farms is for or I should say staff's request is for the Planning Commission to continue this uh public meeting at the March 9th believe it's March 9th March the March 6th Planning Commission meeting so the reason for that this is a large project um large enough that it requires an environmental assessment worksheet or eaw for short uh with an eaw there's a 30day uh public review period uh we're kind of in the middle of that now um statutorily the city cannot take action on anything else until the eaw is completed uh which will be February or the review period will end in Feb February 13th so again uh the intention is for this public hearing to be continued at the March plan commission meeting uh where we will address the eaw as well as the comprehensive plan Amendment the zoning map Amendment the Pud and the prelimary pl it's a mouthful so um I guess my my thought on this I I'm going to kind of summarize this quickly and then kind of go into a little bit more detail so uh this is DCM farms uh DCM is Dean's Country Manor as the acronym it's located off of Fernbrook and uh 113th or between 113th and 117th Avenue that's 91 Acres total on three Parcels uh the proposal includes 266 single family homes as well as about 10 acres of commercial retail uh I want to emphasize the commercial retail it is um I'm going to say draft form or hypothetical um with the eaw that the intent is that the most of intensive use is proposed so you kind of think of how intensive a use could this be and then you you plan for that it can always be scaled back so again in the preliminary plan and in the developer can correct me um this is all hypothetical as far as those uses are but the the 266 homes are kind of uh they are not hypothetical so uh what I'm looking for for the plan commission tonight is is there any um changes that you would like to make or anything that you you do not seeing on this okay uh so the first applications for the comprehensive plan amendment in our 2040 comprehensive future land use map it guides this the two of the three parols as low density residential at 2 to 5 units per acre um as mentioned this project includes a portion or about 10 acres of commercial uh commercial retail use that is not consistent with the comprehensive plan and therefore it requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan and that is what triggers the need for an eaw uh so again the amendment for the comprehensive plan is to change the this triangle piece uh from low density residential to Neighborhood commercial the second application is for zoning map Amendment currently the uh other than Dean Country Manor the two fields are zone A1 agricultural the request is to rezone those from A1 to R3 residential with the Pud overlay you know we get into what the Pud what's needed for the Pud um if this is reone to R3 with a PUD it would be the same as Sundance greens to the South with a PE so what a Planning Development is is it allows flexibility from the city code in exchange for uh some type of public benefit so an example there's a number of deviations that are being requested and I'll get to those in a little bit more detail uh for the public benefit of of what staff is suggesting uh the first one is this project will uh build a roundabout at 114th uh So currently 113th is located along this the South property line which then goes to sundance's golf course the proposal is to reroute this up to 114th this is better spacing between between 117th and Rush Creek uh Parkway to the South and then again this would be a roundabout which in addition to to controlling traffic a little bit more it also slows it down um other public benefits include uh contri contributing towards improvements to 117th um I think we've looked at what this could be and it could be could be roundabout it could be stop signs most likely turn Lan at this time turn Okay Sol uh when brayburn Trails was approved uh the developer agreed to contribute a portion I'll just say fa their Fair portion towards improvements to this intersection uh staff's expectation is that this developer would do this the same and we canot figure out what uh what that cost would be uh other public benefits are pedestrian amenities and this is being suggested by staff as far as we're asking the Planning Commission to to try to identify these uh such as benches or Landscaping um think I've got on here uh fountains and the storm water ponds observation decks um additionally is more landscaping or heavily landscaped along Fernbrook um so as if you're familiar with the firm Brook there is quite a bit of buffer along Sundance greens kind of the expectations to try to repeat that in this area there's not as much depth to it and so the thought is uh to do some bming along of the Northeast area I to try to make up for the lack of wdth there um other public benefits that staff is suggesting suggesting is to provide focal points within the commercial areas so uh typically trying to frame something to look at when you're looking between buildings or looking down the street um I know at a previous plan commission meeting uh suggested kind of have an open view shed uh between storm water ponds um that's included in this in some areas and in some areas it is not as far as uh deviations from cityco and is blocking a little bit um so there's three columns here uh we have the R3 single family District so what the required standards are uh an approved PUD or what's being proposed as a PUD for the 40 I'm going to say the four different lot was so 40 45 50 55 ft lots and then third column that's a little covered up is the lots that are at 6075 yeah 65 and 75t wide Lots uh so just in summary within the R3 District there's a limitation of no more than 30% of the lots that are less than 62 ft wide in this case the ask is to allow up to 78% of the lot to be less than 62 ft wide um there's also deviations in the lot size so the smallest lot is roughly about 4,000 square ft um the lots are narrow and setbacks are also narrower uh with the preliminary plat so some of the suggestions that staff has come up with and I'm just going to go north to south uh first being is to plan for a RightWay to be or a roundabout to be located on 17th and to dedicate additional rightaway to accommodate that um this would require reconfiguration of the pond here uh we we're suggesting that uh town homes or additional Town Homes be planned and to skirt around the North Loop here uh for this street to be what's currently being proposed as a private Street would be a public Street um to cont close off this intersection here and to connect this culdesac to the north south Road and then also to extend the median here to prevent uh left hand turns into the proposed gas station uh so essentially to enter the commercial area you'd come in off of 114th and enter uh down on the south end and then exit on the North End so it's more of a loop um Corridor uh what else um this isn't the developers issues as much as the city but we're believing uh I should say the developers uh donating 1/4 of the land that's needed for the park that we refer to as area 21 uh we're thinking that we may need more parking than what is what has been planned that's more of the city's issue okay critical issues uh just to name these off are traffic landscape buffering the deviations from the R3 zoning District uh identifying the public benefit of this project uh preliminary plant Corrections U issues related to the existing six homes along Fernbrook and then the commercial retail component okay with the track traffic and this is going to be in much more available in much more detail next month when we get into the ea uh so of the 266 homes are estimated to generate about just 10,900 trips per day so a trip is me leaving home is one trip coming home is trip number two um during the a morning peak hour uh this would add about 1100 trips uh so kind of what does this mean other than there's a lot of traffic is that it puts pressure on the Rush Creek Parkway and intersection So currently as it is uh the level of service is graded on an A through an f scale so a is good f is bad um I believe a I'm going lean on the engineers here A through e is a through D is determined acceptable and E and F is a problem so as it is uh you know just the street today uh leftand turning movements on Rush Creek Parkway intersection is graded as an f um and it it will only get worse after this project so it'll be bad both right and left turns so um it's hard to see on the screen we do have kind of a schematic for how roundabout could fit at this intersection and I believe we have it um kind of penciled in in our capap for 2027 Construction uh but we do not have funding identified on how we're going to pay for that so there is most of a plan but not a full plan um so again if say at 2027 we would have a Col a roundabout at Rush Creek Parkway as well as 114th and then plan for some type of improvement at7 okay for critical issue for l Cape buffering so this gets into and somewhere in our comprehensive plan there's a a goal of trying to preserve uh rural vistas of uh so that you can see that along fir Brook with around Sundance greens there's uh not sure what the width is of the buffer area but it's quite large um this will be fairly narrow I I want to say this is around 50 ft at at the minimum uh staff is recommending that in order to to try to buffer the view from the road to the town homes of having additional birming so that combination of birming and trees will provide more of a buffer and more not it's called a Vista but more of a a screening uh another critical issue is deviations from the R3 district and once again just summarizing this is related to the percentage of narrow Lots um whereas the R3 District allows up to 30% of lots that I'm just going to refer to as narrow lots and in this case the request was 78% so it is significant um as well as a reduction in lot size um from want I say it was 60 6,500 ft or 6,000 ft um5 6,500 ft to to uh about 4,000 ft at its smallest and then a reduction in sidey setbacks from 7 and 1/2 ft to 5 ft and this is specifically for the town home so with this project there's five different um housing types I believe u so that's one of the things that kind of makes this project unique is that there is Variety in houses housing okay with the public benefit and this is where I'm I'm leaning on the plan commission for some help on what you you guys see as the public benefits for this it includes construction of the roundabout at 114th Avenue uh contributions towards improvements at the 117th intersection um and then staff has a number of of recommendations as far as uh I'll just refer to that as public amenties whether it's a Street Furniture or um things that are going to make this project more attractive that are open to to public use uh with the preliminary plat again suggestions or recommendations by staff is to uh require additional right away to accommodate the potential of roundabout at 117th um adding Town Homes along the north loop uh the proposed private Street would be a public Street uh providing an Alleyway that would provide the option for these six home own homes homeowners uh to change the garage access to the rear instead of to the front and to kind of add to that a little bit uh when this roundabout is built there will be a center median that kind of goes in all four directions well three more of three of the directions the existing driveways for the furthest south southern lots are going to be blocked so that you can only go right in right out no left hand turns um if a drive an Alleyway is provided that leaves the option of um I'm just going to say better access into those homes uh staff is also suggesting that these two streets be connected uh which would then close this intersection that allows more free movement U along 14th here okay f comes uh I skipped over I was a little too fast here so again with the construction of the roundabout this median will extend up to about this point which would mean that there's not the the ability of making leftand turns into the two Southern Homes um as is uh essentially they'd have to go around a large block so it would be an inconvenience to do this seriously turn turn right you go 11 on 100 you have to have a round at 117 would solve it but we don't have one yet so if there were let's save let's save comments till let's save comments till staff has done with their update please so if there is round about 117 then that would be the direction of going up to 117 and coming back down uh commercial retail so again this is hypothetical as far as what the uses are um so what's just drawn in there is includes a gas station coffee shop a dayare a bank um and just some generic retail uh questions for the plank mission is what would you like to see or change on here okay where would you like me to start or continue that that's my presentation so I'd be happy to any answer any questions questions or clarifications for staff and the developer is here yeah one question I have to staff is the it kind of goes back to the concept plan too is the the closing of gable Lane and the whole traffic coming around for the commercial area I get why you guys are suggesting that but I would really think that should have came up in the concept plan too um because that's a pretty big change um it shifts the whole commercial character I mean I personally think this is a questionable commercial site and that probably Teeters it to even not feasible completely so something like that I get way you're coming with it but I wish that that would come up in the concept line um so just to kind of elaborate on that so the the spacing guideline between intersections is 660 ft and that's uh I don't know what the distance is between the proposed intersection but 660 is roughly a little farther than the mid block Point yeah I guessed I me about 275 and I might be mistaken but I think that was in staff's report at the concept plan for intersection spacing it wasn't I don't think they specifically called out the commercial area per se but I think it was handin hand with the intersection that's behind the existing hous we did talk about it at that at the concept plan I I've certainly got some questions for staff if it's my turn Mr chair um can can staff speak to the changes that they saw between the concept plan and what we saw now and and the reason I say that is we we gave quite a bit of feedback us and city council at concept plan and and you did list quite a few of those feedback points in the staff report um but you know specifically this body and counil feedback was that we don't like all of those 40 foot Lots that hasn't really decreased no I think we gave direction that we felt like the homes around that pond in the center would be better suited for larger width that has not changed um I think overall the thought was to get some larger Lots through here and and the 75 and 65 lot count hasn't changed I'm by missing something there there were a lot of I'm going to say conflicting comments um so there was not a clear direction that was provided to the the developer on what to do I I know there were a lot of comments of more wider Lots fewer narrower Lots I thought we were yeah I thought we were pretty consistent up here about the the Lots around the pond and I did uh watch the council meeting and and check Council minutes I thought they act accurately reflected specifically uh council member um Solin comments of would like to make them all cut 20 to 30 homes I think is exactly what he said and like to make them all bigger I thought that was generally consistent with some of the direction we gave up here so I'm just wondering and maybe that's a better question for the applicant but specifically to staff did you see any significant changes from the concept plan to what we have now I I'm going to have to lean on the developer right I think maybe just in the South southwest corner lot and we can get to that uh I think the applicant can maybe address that I've got a couple other questions for staff that are maybe a little bit more pointed um kind of specifically to the contributions to these Transportation improvements and you had mentioned at 117th that the BR bur Trails had agreed to contribute now really the decision point on that is going to be the future plat of braburn trails correct I mean it it would have to we have have we would have to have costs figured out at that point and contribution amounts figured out at that point more of a a comment just we we need to get moving on that but the roundabout that's supposed to be constru Ed with this one at 114th we don't have funding for that but we will have to work that into final approvals for this development how close are we to understanding what the scope of that is going to look like henip and County's participation or is it you know are are we setting forth a a plan for a development with no solution for this intersection sure for 114 yeah 114th correct 117th is will require braver plat which isn't a topic here but county is in full support of the roundabout and they have not offered any participation financially yeah so I mean I'm a little bit concerned and and that's what I figured um you know I'm not super surprised by that but when this uh development comes for its last final plot that would be our last opportunity to have a bite at the Apple um for you're talking well no for for DCM for DCM Farms the F the last final plat however plats many final plats this is going to be 5 six s the last one will be our last bite at the Apple to potentially get funding from this developer for construction of that roundabout um so I mean I I just think we need to move with some expediency on on that um I'm just I'm just afraid that this development would go in and we would not be able to fund a solution at 114th um commissioner if I could just uh note for the record that the Third Edition of BR bur trails East is contingent on that information getting figured out prior to final approval so that that language is in the that puts a lot of pressure on staff it because it's not the developer's responsibility to figure that out it does it's a city project okay good deal um and I think just my My overall comment is I think the the deviations in the R3 um lot width uh you know going from 30% of lots less than 62t wide to 78 that that is significant I think that requires a lot of thought by us and city council those are my comments uh initially i' Echo some concerns about the lot size decrease too I mean it's it's a lot of really tight homes um I do like the fact that we've got very distinct home types throughout the project um I think that adds to the character of the the development I was comparing back to the the plan that we re looked at in September and there's a few changes there's not a lot of drastic things um you know I think just the view sheds to the storm water ponds um add to the character um giving a little spots in the neighborhood that get provide breakes uh from the rows of houses uh it's important um I'll defer to my civil engineering um counterparts here that to talk more about the the roundabouts and distances to intersections and all that but um I'd support anything we can do to provide buffers um in that area too um along Fernbrook I guess no no major questions right now for staff one question for staff just because I have a feeling that this might come up to as the public talks is when you think about the roundabouts that could go on in Fernbrook it seems to me that the priority is Rush Creek Parkway 117 then 1114th are we approaching this project differently that 1114th is going to go first I it kind of refers back to the funding and obviously we don't have that figured out so that's why I'm kind of trying to understand this it it is certainly dependent on on funding the intent would be to do them Sim simultaneously or back to back at least the 114th realigned or realigned 113th 114th connection and Rush Creek Parkway those are definitely the top two priority uh 117th probably does sit down the down the list in priority in those however we would like to see that completed as well but again it's about finding funding ideally all three would be done but we are targeting the same same time frame for the southerly two I guess and and somewhat to piggyback on the roundabout it was brought up and those last two homes with with at least the design of having a median in there those last two homes on Fernbrook are going to lose access uh from the south to their homes without a roundabout at 117th and so I think in my in my thought process is you know it's it's we're putting a lot I I get it it's it's it's six homes but it's it's six homes that that we're putting a lot of of extra burdens in there and so I think we should figure out a way you know from our standpoint of you know can we can we construct this without a median on Fernbrook for an interm period until 117th gets put in um is there way is there something we can do for those Homes at least you know it's not a ton of traffic going across that median it's it's just a a handful on that yeah the the goal would be to certainly maintain full access to those driveways to have maybe a painted median or even eliminate the median um I'll just note the median has not been designed at all not even a conceptual um this is quite literally a schematic pasted in from another project um that was used just kind of as a placeholder and I get putting it in in the future when we have that 117th one when they can get the opportunity to turn around from the you know couple of you know half a mile North or whatever that is but uh I guess I could play the card of being the new guy for only so so long a time here so I I could throw out some questions here uh number one uh would that would any of those medians be considered if not for this development or future developments sorry roundabout not median would either would any of those roundabouts along firm Rook be considered if not for this development um yes there was actually EA was done with previous development at Rush Creek Parkway in Fernbrook to be honest at that time it was identified for a signal um but to become a controlled intersection in fact this is about the timing it was projected to be needed so it's it's right in alignment with that 117th hasn't had as much attention but it's always been on City's staff that that would be on on the radar that that would be controlled at some point in the future as well uh the concept about realigning 113th to match 114th um that was put out there just to eliminate you know two intersections to one to condense that and then as John mentioned improve the space in between those so that one as well has been looked at um just thinking that the opportunity would come when the development occurs that would support that so um right so the short answer is yes they would be so the development is occurring I think that kind of help answer some of the cost burden as far as while if this developer wasn't in front of us tonight perhaps this roundabout wouldn't be constructed as soon as it it's going to be correct so I think that would help answer some of those questions as far as um cost burden or sharing at least uh for the construction of that roundabout uh a couple other things in my opinion I think the uh Northwestern portion of the site plan is pretty condensed or excuse me uh pretty dense as far as density probably meets the requirements and didn't do of the math uh not on the northwest portion so the the density project wide is 3.16 units I think we came at 3 3.2 right around there so these are essentially proposed as individual Lots right so not well they're detached Town Homes there really isn't detached town homes with the common yards with common yards okay uh my experience with that type of development is that unless it's planned very very carefully it there's a lot of things that can go wrong as far as livability so snow removal is a huge issue um number two is guest parking right so these are very tight locks next to each other probably very short driveways uh I'm hosting a Super Bowl party where where my guests going right are they are they walk in four blocks or down the entire Street to get to my house when I'm when I'm holding a g together um those are issues that come up a lot with that type of density and that type of a spot okay so um does a alley help with that potentially maybe uh but I think some site planning needs to be looked at uh specifically to that area to help alleviate some of those future concerns that might not be as a parent right now looking at a site plan sure um and I I failed to mention earlier so this block uh there is an alley this this is not a street this is an Alleyway that would um so these homes that are interior would have uh garages attached garages in the back that would access the alleyway um and then the homes that are on the west side and the north side would have front loaded garages all right so no driveways um no the Interior homes would have no driveways onto the correct yeah so then that leads the question again where where does my guest Park sure and if I if everybody in the neighborhood's having the same Super Bowl party your Park working on Fernbrook and walking through right I mean that's just that's kind of how it's going to end up being so just a caution on that uh in that scenario um I think obviously uh in discussion of the the six current homes on Fernbrook I think there's a lot more discussion to' be had there uh potentially through the Pud process maybe there's more that the developer can do to protect those homes if you know if those Neighbors come up and say I really don't want to look at all that maybe a fence maybe more Landscaping uh could be provided by the developer to help buffer those six homes from from the other uh from the development um in their backyard uh I I get both sides of the story right we as a city want to do as much as we can to help um Prosper development to help introduce uh new new residents to the city I'm a relatively new Resident if it wasn't for my development I wouldn't be here today uh living here uh so I get that I also get that uh these six might be very long-term residents who aren't used to seeing all that development in their backyard right so I think a lot has to be done to help protect those six in particular they they are the most affected by this project uh not to say that the development shouldn't happen but they should be looked at pretty closely as far as how can we protect them I think the roundabout is a huge issue I would I would not want to not be able to take a left into my driveway if I'm going north on Fernbrook and have to go down an entire block or what equates to three blocks to then turn around and come back south so I think a lot of a lot of the traffic from this is going south anyway which means a lot of the traffic returning is coming north and if I had to do an entire you know quarter mile just to get back into my driveway I'd be driving over i' I'd find a pickup truck where I could jump a curb whatever it might be to get into my property right so I think we have to look at those properties also I know I get it it's concept stage we don't even know if there's medians or not it could be a you know surmountable curb or painted median or whatever it might be but I think more consideration has to be U made for those six Uh current uh residents there and then just for me not understanding the code exact or not understand but not knowing it uh 100% And I know it's a future commercial site and we don't know what's going in there as far as if any commercial or whatever it might be but does Dayton have a current uh ordinance regulating the light emissions and noise emissions uh yes it there's holes in it but you know in general uh so the the maximum we we measure light in foot candles uh so the maximum is uh 0.1 foot candle measured at the residential property line and then one foot candle measured at a comparable zone so like commercial to commercial is one commercial to residential is 0.1 yeah that's pretty I think that's pretty consistent so that's good um considerations obviously that need to be made are uh the gas station generally they could have I mean this might be in the future we don't know if the gas station's going in there but canopy lighting tends to be a lot brighter um and uh noise emissions obviously from uh speakers and things like that um you know which which gas station you start your pump and the commercial goes on in the pump right so things like that to consider that uh the proximity between residential and Commercial could be an issue if it's not planned accordingly so if there are holes in our noise ordinance and holes in the lighting ordinance we should look at filling those hes that meets a standard that I think is going to be acceptable to everybody 90 degree cut offs for lights things like that um you know not try to reduce amount of light pollution that goes to the sky things of that nature yeah and it's correct me if I'm wrong but it's fair to say this future commercial portion that's we're just setting aside the land today not the layout of it not the configuration correct I mean it's it's a question of what is it that the Planning Commission and Council are more comfortable with so you know if you'd like to see what the street configuration is you know you can require that but you can also just leave it as a blank slate and just say this is going to be future commercial um as an outlaw and we'll figure it out uh when it comes back for development cuz like the way it's laid out on here you know the the canopy kind of facing Gable Lane and you know the the the new homes that are going to be constructed plus the the existing ones are still are going to be able to see it if we were able to flip it you know 90° where that canopy is facing the other the internal other commercial more so you know it's it's one of those things that that you were pointing out it's less light pollution to the the residents in the area and more to the the businesses that are there it kind of protects and buffers a little bit a little bit more you know things like that that we can look at possibly doing there if we wanted to focus in on that but I mean the other thing to consider future homeowners are going to buy those homes understanding that that commercial area is there that existing house on firer Brook has no choice MH and neither does the one to the North or whoever might be affected by that commercial piece going in there so perhaps some other creative way to help buffer again those existing homes for from whatever that future commercial area might look like yeah as far as the commercial goes is the one thing I hope that we can figure out up here to provide feedback on is the access um like I mentioned earlier I think there's feasibility concerns and it's it's not just about seeing if the commercial comes because they're saying that this is going to add 8,000 car trips and this is going to also impact the timing roundabouts so it's more than just saying let's figure out if the market accepts it we might need something from the applicant to prove that this is this is the market will actually do this it's one thing for residents to want it or not want it but I think there's feasibility issues was there anything on the access you wanted to I think we can wait till the applicant talks in the public and because well there's going to be plenty of things that we need to figure out any other comments or questions if we can invite the applicant forward that just uh good evening so um probably I think the first thing would be to like to address is just the roundabout um and the commercial area so I think when we were here and we talked and and there was questions on on the commercial um I'm not necessar I mean I just think I'm looking at the city anywhere else there's really any commercial is in the 2040 2050 plan you know if it was to happen I see it somewhere across uh a Dayton Parkway Road which we haven't even identified the full route of it yet and there are homes coming in so I think that's just where I'm here I'm not saying it even needs to be commercial but as we went through our stages last time it said really the next thing to even see if commercial would work an EA study would need to be done so we went further with that um I think as we were talking about the commercial we just threw some things in there so I do understand the residents um on you know not wanting a gas station but I don't have a buyer for a gas station I haven't even marketed anything right I'm just trying to see here if if everybody thinks that hey is there a commercial spot here you know with the timing of you know I don't know where else some commercial would happen in the city um with all the residents there and there already is Deans there there is the golf course right so if you're to take a route and pick 114 Rush Creek Parkway pick 117th to me it just kind of seemed a little bit of a natural um I can understand maybe a longer median I don't know does that make it too long of a turnoff and a gas station doesn't even work I'm not sure what what I'm asking is to look at it and and say yeah we we're going to review it and and today is it just an out lot and maybe it comes back and and I have a feasibility study I have you know but I don't have anybody I didn't even try to Market cuz do I have anything to Market did everybody say no commercial doesn't work here it's residential um I will tell you that I've had uh a few people reach out to me on the area none of them have been a gas station one was a dome for baseball you know indoor baseball and the winter room practicing and I don't know if that fits in the neighborhood another one is a uh is a company that they're moving into Minnesota and they just do Transitional Care so not really fully assisted living but you have surgery you come out and you need that you know um and and so another one was a daycare so I'm just kind of looking and and as I've been going along thinking you know maybe some of these HOAs people could get sent to survey just to see what the interest is but then ultimately it's it's going to be you know I'm looking for some suggestions you know um I I do think there there could be a a a need for a commercial there I think maybe it'd be more feasible you know um than than what you think I you know maybe it's it's a banquet hall tied to the restaurant you know it could could be an area that that would grow um I think one commercial there couldn't happen period to Something's designed on the road the you know let's just say the roundabouts there I you know who's going to build anything commercial there before that roundabouts built and it has really even a good intersection into it so um I don't even see this is you know I would like to start the houses right away um if if they're saying 27 for the the roundabout it's it's not even anything really even happening building in that commercial area for a while um and uh and and so if that was um you know I understand there's a lot more design a lot more thought there that's why on the landscape plan um you know I don't really even have any Landscaping there CU you know I mean obviously that's going to be a part of that too so um I think you know my goal here is just just to say hey for as today let's just leave it as an outlot with the potential to keep you know reviewing it um as as the roundabout um we just first put the roundabout in then took some some other area like really kind of just copying what was over at Pine View you know for for meanss and everything we would definitely you know think that there is no median there until something you know figured out I guess I'm under under the understanding um that a large portion that intersection if you know if if not all of it is going to be burden on me as the developer you know so I uh that's would kind of lead just a little bit of the the house density why I didn't change um so I'm not expecting the city to pay for that up on Rush Creek um you know in just a backup you know the Count's going to make the ultimate decision so when we did The Rush Creek Parkway Fernbrook interchange we were you know we had proposed many things that aren't there um I ended up paying for that full Improvement and I don't know how many times the county had changed that um but you know first uh you know we had proposed um wider wider turn Lanes a median in the Middle where you know if somebody came across with a bike they could sit in the medium and go to the other lane have flashing lights that was after I proposed to build a tunnel under the slope of the hill of Fernbrook and and the county denied that too so um understanding that you know that intersection wasn't really us as or me as a developer had no saying it you know County said it's their Road here it is and at the end what the design was I paid for the improvements so my point to it is ultimately you know that's probably what's going to happen at the roundabout right the County's going to take their design standard and it's you know they're not going to look for me for any input I do know as as we looked at you know one of the times I thought hey maybe it'd be cool there's some monuments there that says City of Dayton because I didn't know they're putting around about up at the other one you know um for the neighborhood so as we get a little further I can talk about some of the Pud items but um you know I think mainly one would be the um you know it would be just that commercial is is you know if it would make sense to look at that then I'll pursue it a little bit further but first you know what if the eaw came back and had a lot of items on it says this this just isn't even work for commercial you know so so that's what I'm at you know one taking care of the commercial think of addressed the the roundabout um and that may change too you know um and maybe maybe at the ultimate end of it maybe the county decides maybe that moves even slightly South a little bit you know which would change any the layout that I'm even talking about on the commercial so I think you know the city staff and County will have a lot of discussions there but I do know back when we developed Sundance greens the intention from the um from the county was to connect 113th and 114th at that time that was our Direction because at first the city at you know just inquired and said maybe on 113th there should be turn lanes and if you look at that intersections it's pretty tight you know with the restaurant with the houses and the county came back and said look we want to eliminate accesses onto the road and it just made sense to connect the road to 114 so that was something that you know when we came with this design really we using off of what we you know were kind of directed back in 2018 and the last part of where we were really looking um to you know kind of took this to another step as commercial it wasn't based on me but if we were to take um you'd go down to the bottom where in the Sundance screens but yeah if you went uh to the left but it'd be right off of Glacier say just directly west of of the restaurant the council at that time asked us you know we had proposed Town Homes there they asked us to leave it open because they thought that would be a future commercial area so that's why if you look at there there's no no town homes built so it's kind of been things that off of future commissions Future councils I'm Just leading connecting the dots now if you came back and said it shouldn't be commercial there and it needs to be residential or some different commercial I mean I'm not it's not heartache for me right I'm I'm you know the one thing is you know I've been in Dayton my whole life I probably have just the same care as you guys do it's you know and and some of it's even looking Beyond me it's like what's it's going to look like for my grandkids and so some of that I think you know if it's 20 20 years for some other commercial area ultimately there'll be some other areas you know developing maybe that makes sense but that's just my opinion right that's why we're here and and so I think that that probably is a lot said on the commercial area I don't know if anybody has any question on the roundabout you know just to clarify Tom I don't think commercial is not bad there maybe what you proposing too much I'm concerned about the market accepting it to the extent that like how do we try to make sure we solve access so it can be successful if the market does accept it and that's a challenge and we don't know if the Market's going to accept it and and it could like rearrange the whole residential development if you start shifting stuff around too much too yeah yeah well and if I if I heard correctly this is a the roundabout is going to I mean the roundabout is going to affect the access to the commercial right correct because we're going to have we're going to maybe have a median running down or not we're going to maybe have the roundabout there or maybe it's going to be something else and we're not going to know that today we're not going to we're not going to be able to even decide that because the counties is going to be the ultimate Sayer of that yeah I think the big thing we need to decide is and I'm going to be looking to the civil engineers here up here is how far in does that curb cut really need to be does it need to be the 660 ft to get into the commercial is my point but what I'm where I'm going with this is if we leave it as an outlot like Tom suggesting for future we have that opportunity to make that curb cut into the commercial later correct and so the biggest thing that and it really depends too if we close the or connect the residential streets like staff's connected and close that one residential street but in my opinion if we don't close that and that one residential street still coming down is that that should line up with the intersection into the commercial it shouldn't be its own stagered and so I don't I mean there's a twofold question I'm kind of looking at you guys the civil engineers to provide more feedback because and where where our tolerance is if we got to be 660 ft really need to be that far away I don't know I mean I don't know Nick what you think but my my thought is this is a road that's 30 m hour people are not driving super fast on it we don't need you know the the 114 while it's going to see a lot of trips a day it's amm and p.m Peak and it's not not um you know it's not constantly someone zigging and zagging to get over to commercial is my thought on it so your thoughts is that 660 might not be you might not need to go that far yeah well those trips that you say don't factor in commercial though right that's just based on the residential usage I'd have to look at the E the way I read it and correct me if I'm wrong maybe you guys should look at it but of the 10,000 or 11,000 trips 8,000 was commercial m which that's where I'm struggling believing it and and understanding the timing of everything else because if it actually did if the market did accept it that's a big difference of when you got to construct those roundabouts was that number in the staff report or was it just in the presentation uh it was in the staff report and uh I believe it was in uh Tom's report wasn't that Fernbrook Lane though total not4 that's Fernbrook which B it if we don't build one more house in Dayton that Road's going to still keep you know probably have8 8,500 of it you know so yeah maybe I misinterpreted what it was but it was in the staff report it was right here and the way it was set up that's how it read it had residential residential office and delivery services and the next line it had it broken down which I assumed was matching 2500 trips were residential 6,700 were retail office and 1,700 were delivery services that's how I interpret it I could be wrong and it's going to show up the eaw I guess mhm yeah I think that's where we will see a lot of the more detailed traffic information but generally speaking from this Engineers perspective those intersection spacings are in there for a reason right um and I I I'm always gen I generally inclin to follow them I really I really am I mean it's not something that you can fix after it's been constructed right it's too late and and if it meant I mean I'm assuming 113th is vacated you know if that goes commercial and then there's a whole different Road right away and and so you know if that meeting needs to be that long it probably does direct different businesses that are in there um I I think for me is as you know my dad lives on the road I can you know just as long as all the residents been here and and uh I see the traffic you know so not even knowing at the time that you know Rush Creek was going to maybe you know get a roundabout it just seemed to make sense that hey we got a slow traffic down and what would slow it down would be roundabout so whether it's one three's got to be better than one right to slow it down I I do think you know like I said no houses or not traffic's going to keep you busy residents on the street still need to get their mail so um to me that roundabout there is is a positive and somehow we just need to work through the the driveway issues on the couple uh the you know the six homes there but I I do think then we we have had discussion you know I've I've met with all the six homeowners um I don't think any of them you know maybe they aren't they aren't excited about the development definitely I mean I think the gas station has got everybody concerned I'm like hey we could probably xit the gas station today but what we have done right we've agreed to um you know I've looked at I've seen those lots they're flat they're not graded well um you know we've worked to to say hey we're going to fry access for sewer to them because you know most of them don't have a second septic site right what happens if they're they septic fail so they got sewer and water but what we have done is the reason that there is the 65 ft wide Lots in the back of them is so they do have bigger houses you know better you know you know less dty maybe similar to what they have we've agreed to put a bike trail that went along the back of there so one of the things is you know if if one of those residents want to take a walk right they don't have to go out in Fernbrook they can walk to their backyard they can hit the trail and enjoy what everybody else is instead of having to walk in Fernbrook and come up um they're we're going to work on constructing a storm sewer in the back there you know um Lee has a problem with you know water in his basement you know somewhere with some storm sewer you know maybe it requires just like every new home construction the some pumps run into this storm sewer so it exits you know but I mean I don't know what's under the ground we have gone a little bit further with some studying of water table and and I think they believe it's a a perched water table but you know I'm not I'm not the expert I'm just knowing what what we've done um and uh and I sure don't you know uh I think anything we can do on the drainage and that back there that would help um you know I look I don't know if it's if it's an alley cuz we're already do you know we have I think agreed we do landscape it'd really be tough to burn it a lot if we're going to put a bike trail back there but I do know all those houses that we did look are 60 to 70 ft from their garage to the rear property line so if there had to even be an alley you know I mean the only thing I look is if I leave an alley but say nobody ever builds you know uh the the road in there there what's the use of it you know so maybe where the a you know sewer easement could be on the back of their lines if they ever decide to run sewer um and that then the road could go right on top of that so or an alley excuse me and I know there was some discussions maybe at first from some St you know staff that hey connect the alley through the other way you know we made clear that you know you'd want it as a private road um no thr or through right because then you know people will be driving through it and and we did on uh coming off 114th um have provided uh an easement so he could come off 114th and get to the property but I'm I'm by all means not asking I don't want to force the residents to do something right away that they don't want to do but I do understand that they're you know storm water the trail the buffering obviously we can do that right away anybody have any questions so then I would like to kind of break the the density down and and I think I think one of the things is all those homes aren't projected the the 45s so I'd say anything that's 50 and 55s which are some where he has the arrow in the street coming through and and then on the southwest corner those would be detached town home Villas you know just as what's similar into the Sundance screens but on the golf course and in out in the lenar section currently um and those would be all individual Lots no shared Lots really pretty much everything that we're proposing is no common Lots like in a town home so every house would have their own lot um and it would be HOA um but if we were to take around the pond um I I think the question is would really be number one the density could be split in a couple so is the city you know would would they be an agreement to 5 foot side yard setbacks you know if it's 7 and A2 and 7 and 1/2 then I'm going to tell you there isn't a 40ft lot or nor a 50ft lot in the Villas or the other ones I'd have come back you know that's why it would come back in March and everything would be 45s and 55s and and so that's a question that I really you know like to to get a a a more concrete answer on but in the center there we're proposing single family homes um just if you went uh South of Rush Creek Parkway some of those lots there probably about 40 homes in there are all 50ft wide single family lots that was the trade-off we did there to not cut the woods and the trees they gave me some additional density there and I think if you look through there those seem to blend in the neighborhood nice but those those would be everybody be responsible for shoveling their own snow mowing their own yards and around around the pond so that's what would be proposed there and then uh up in in the South or excuse me the northeast corner where we have the alley so some of the things you know we're about maybe more landscaping and buffer and I'm I I apologize I got to own this I didn't count the trees but I had the same person do the landscape design on Sundance screens is this one and I just said hey you know I know we put a few extra trees in and stuff can you match that she must have just went to the ordinance you know I I don't know and and it kind of went through my engineer But ultimately that's on me I thought that was greater landscape we hadn't proposed a burm and the reason that we had proposed alley load there is remember we're going to have all the front of houses you know I mean if you look on a big road and you see the back of town homes right and they all look the same and flat um it's even no matter what kind of buffer I put on there it's going to take a while for the trees to grow so I mean I I believe the homes you know I um I'm planning to have Mi homes build the front we do have some elevations that I mean I think those are some nice homes you know it adds a bunch of of of you know we don't have four homes that are the same color now you have different colors with a lot more architecture on them and and foresighted architecture so we just thought that would be a better view along the road and I'm sure happy to bur it and and uh and buffer it you know but but that is why we we proposed The Alley load there the alley is private so that will be on an HOA the Shel there there we propose everybody to have their own yard so it's not shed yard the only thing we would do is that there is is proposed um those homes actually are are currently sitting at 7 and2 7 and 1/2 um setback but if we went you know to a five anywhere on a five the easement is um you know your five foot easement you also get the five foot easement on your neighbor so if you had to try getting something you know 8 ft wide in your backyard you can legally go on your your neighbor's yard and not you know not have some conflict with them but um but I think uh you know that idea was a different product and and really just hopefully a a better um you know a static basically it's a Statics totally and and then parking you know those would have front doors you know um Sergeant I would propose you know cars are parking on the street and every you know the residents is in their driveway and then you don't have a bunch of driveways entering this you know only on one side of the road um and so you could have a lot more parking on the street than say a a normal where everything's front loaded to the street so looking at the plan Tom Gable Drive on the plan is wider than Gable alley and Gable Lane yeah and I'm assuming that's still accommodate on street parking Gable Lane probably want accommodate on street parking and I think could probably make it make it wider so but yes should accommodate it from the cuz you really got on the west side too do you know if it's wide enough to accommodate parking on both sides or is it going to be like a typical neighborhood if you park on both sides I believe it's only onesided you better plan carefully how you get through if you come head on with someone else y yep I I believe it's only one-sided so um I don't really have uh you know if we move the pond down on 100 17th on that section having extra Road right away and doing whatever you know um really doesn't uh you know I understand that makes makes sense um but I think which would that kind of is giv you the different products I think the reason is I did hear you guys loud and clear um on on the densities and but at the council really only had one remember and I was really I mean I talked to staff cuz I was really uncertain right so that's why although the EA isn't done I wanted you know wanted to come and uh and be in front of you here in February um and and I think some variables has changed I think when we first came through so remember I came through with many Concepts you know some staff just saying hey it makes sense for the city to have density in this South corner cuz it's the closest 610 right you know if you're off dat in Road and had this density you know where you know it's just harder that that road isn't established and isn't close to a large a large road but I think there was also you know so I had one of the concepts right had an apartment there I said I don't build Apartments I didn't even have Apartments but you know if it was it was just options for opinions um but I do uh um I think at the time there was talking about maybe they could Bank credits for the Met Council which doesn't appear the case now right but when we first came in I think you know St was hope hopefully you know it was two reasons for building that density here but uh and and one of the other reasons is you know there's a discussion at the council about affordability and really the way you know in inflation are right some of the home own is the biggest thing even on a single family house is insurance but the town homes are really getting you know are difficult to insure so if you look at the town homes that are in Sundance greens right now those residents pay $300 a month HOA Duce and a lot of you know yeah there's some snow shoveling and things but there's a you know you imagine here if you took in the center around the pond where they had their own yard right you know there's a master HOA do but they're not getting they're you know not paying to get their grass cut snow shoveled nor insurance I mean you have $300 more a a home you know homeowner can put towards a house payment than than uh a town home and and actually town homes with their other requirements are you know not as you know there are some economies but there are other expenses that aren't in a single family house so I do think those products we're doing that to to offer a real affordable affordable uh home which is still probably $450,000 you know but if you take a town home some of them running 380 to to 400 and then you got $300 of payments you know 300 a month on HOA dues you know 450 becomes affordable so that that's kind of what's proposed there around the the center just regarding the HOA non HOA as far as snow and Lawn around the pond there with the 45 foot Lots I believe it is or Y yeah I haven't seen a ton non HOA and I guess I don't know if there's a concern but have you had any feedback from ma m& or any other people you're talking to about the long-term what's it I just I'm a little concerned uh in the long term what it might look like with naturea when you have such small areas and like there'll be a lot of people that I mean I like my neighbors when they cut their lawn they like when I cut my lawn I could see a lot of people just not even own the lawnmower and then plus their garages are pretty small too so you got to think about stuff like that too what yep and I mean I guess if it came back and said the HOA for you know if we had to mole and sha I mean that sure could be looked at but uh but I I am still on the board I see the HOA and uh they had uh the insurance company that they had uh notified them they are no longer insuring town homes so it is is it is an issue so if anything I think you know a little bit you know talking staff too was like Hey this might be as the city grows and eventually somewhere where that Parkway is identified and somewhere you know I mean it's some City Center whatever and who knows how long that is it might identify hey these this product works well you know as an alternative but you know that's that's that's the reasoning behind why we're proposing this so and then I think just the last would be is you know some some of the um you know talking about the Pud and the amenities um you know we had PL land heavier Landscaping um you know I think we got a pretty good plan on constructing the trails definitely going to do some uh a monument but based on beside you know the monument would probably be coming in um you know the uh I forgot coming down on 115th whatever that you know the first not here coming in further to the neighborhood okay no well that road we're going to eliminate there that's where I had planned a monument to go but I'm also kind of just if there's a commercial area you know then then somewhere based on what would happen and if it is if it's some shops or something then then we probably need to have some community area there too where everybody could come in they can sit um but uh but and then that Monument coming into there would be you know drastically different uh but then we're all Al we're donating the 3.2 Acres of Park but still paying all the dues of our Park fees not asking for that to be credited architecture all the homes are LP siding you know that's just not front as a city code it's four-sided LP and and all the windows wrapped you know so that adds about $10,000 additional to well maybe at the front off smaller one's 7500 to 10,000 based on the on the house so um so we have we have done a few other things the decorative lighting I asked on Sundance greens last time and I think uh between part of its Excel part of it was Conexus you know they had their standard lights and I think at the time back there you know the city said well um I think maybe it was both both of them I can't remember if it was just Excel or Conexus said you know if we order these extra lights it's a greater maintenance down the on the road at the end of the day the city owns the lights and so we just kind of went off their choice but we sure could put you know I would not be against putting a decorative uh lighting but I think really you know it it really just comes down to what you think on the lot sizes you know at least even around you know really there's two different areas you know the the Pond area and then the alley loads column and uh and setbacks so before we get there I got a question you mentioned we're getting rid of the Gable Lane and connecting to 114th court or no um well we we the reason we did that initially is for the EO EO you know the emergency water flow you know over and and trying to make that grade work um we can probably make the grade work running the street through but we really you know if we have a twot contour in the backyards you know it's 20 feet in the backyard it's a couple hundred feet on the street you know to make that work so probably what would end up happening is that street coming up there would go slab on grade and then you know I'm not exactly sure what that's going to do to say maybe those first houses that back up to the existing homes we're now you know at those 65s there's definitely those are basement homes you know so what I was looking at here and just thinking about in my head with the the product on Gable and and up in the the the smaller ones up in the alley area um maybe consider the north side of the pond swapping product types if you know to have a larger product type around the pond on 115th with what's on4 court if we're going to connect the two so and where would I swap it with which Pond are you speaking of you talking the center Pond Center uh the center Pond yeah maybe some of the the north homes there the ones on 115th Avenue swapping for the ones on 114th Court that'd be my my thought so essentially the 114th court that are looks like they're 50 and 60 foot Lots as well as the stuff on Gable l when you first turn right if you close that road I believe what Peter's suggestion is have a consistent product of bringing those smaller Lots over there and moving those bigger Lots in that section to around the pond yeah but I think then that was the as we were working in trying to keep the existing neighborhoods on Fernbrook you know I'm not saying change the ones on on not the ones not not the ones on Gable just the ones around the 114th Court okay and maybe make it similar to what's on on Gable or yeah I think if that street comes through we're changing it right that has to be consistent all the way up you could either take these ones here on the north side of 115th or even the south side yeah and just kind of swap around to to make a more consistent product type uh through there yeah I think what we'd probably do is make that consistent up through there and then then I'd probably add some of those um you know maybe on the north side of the the pond that product could change a little bit on that side yeah you know to to go across closer to the street maybe some of the Villa product and that culd act could I mean those really aren't Villas I'll take that back those are single families but they'd be larger any other comments questions we might have some more I believe we're opening a public hearing so y I know a a a question came up regarding setbacks um I would strongly discourage anything less than seven 7 and A2 ft um 5 ft you're getting pretty darn close when you have to try to figure what can I do to accommodate trying to put something into my backyard with my neighbor right it's like I shouldn't have to have that concern or easements or anything like that between my neighbor and I which is literally U spitting a pumpkin seat across I mean you're 10 ft away right so um I I think 7 and 1/2 ft is is still a little close but 5 ft for sure for me is is way too uh close of a seven back so and and I think some of this here was just as as much as if that's you know and if that's the answer right that's but I mean if you look you know I think if you go to some of the communities right it was just kind of Eye Opener maybe for everybody you know and and the commission and Council if met council's pushing more four units to acre right you think of this density here and we're only 3.2 so for the sake of providing the feedback and consistent feedback to you and enough of it I concur 100% with what you said 5 foot is a noo for me so that's two up here and and just so we don't get caught in the same issue as when the concept plan came around I think maybe one person said it and we had a couple of head knobs I will for the record five is a noo for me agree too yep okay yeah AB I have a little more flexibility with a product type as long as there's not a ton of it MH um so I think that you need to bring that I mean like I don't want to see more than like probably 10% or 20% of the things like if maybe the 40 foot wide Lots if you had a small little niche neighborhood I think it would be okay but not the majority or anywhere near the yep and the 40 foot wide lots are the majority of this proposal yeah correct which another issue so so let let me ask you the question let's just say there's no 40 foot Lots coming off 113th but up in the alley load um area um those are all 40 if just that area was 40 with Aly I've got concerned with parking and maybe we could see an exhibit and and where we could potentially Park cars through there uh I the discussion on the width of gable it certainly is wider through there if staff the staff recommendation were to go forward that Gable Lane and Gable Drive became PR uh public and not private it' be wider automatically but um and and I think that's I think there's some parking needs over there I don't some parking Bays or something that can be added and I I feel like related to that is widening Gable Lane a little bit so you can actually park a car in one side of the street if that's possible I know things are getting tight yeah but I think I think you know oneway Loop these are these are Drive Gable Drive to the Gable Lane is oneway Loop and then you have the alleyway which is two two-way for in and out then you could Park one side of the street all the way around and have a drive line I think that gets Goofy with the 116th Avenue connection to BR bur Trails I I think though we can we can make sure we got parking on one side there so the other thing to consider too is these are I mean they're obviously all twocc car garages right correct but they are relatively small garages 20 by 20 relatively small that's a really small two-car garage you put a truck in there it's a one one stall garage with with your garbage cans in there right so uh the other thing to consider is that you know I mean I have two adult uh um kids who have a vehicle so there's four vehicles at times at my house and you'd be limiting obviously the or not um if you had you know half of those families had three cars instead of only two cars now it's not guest parking now it's permanent parking so where am I parking my vehicle for my residents and it's inevitably on the street somewhere so I mean that it it leads to density issues that leads to where where are you parking right I mean I I I appreciate that Gable Drive is widened for that specific purpose um but again when you create neighborhoods like this inevitably there's going to be people who are going to be moving in there that have three cars four cars whatever might be and now I'm parking in front of my neighbors or two down and now where do they Park and so it becomes an issue it it does street parking makes me nervous in general because well it snows here and we got to make that snow go away um so if we if we think that there's a chance that a resident of one of these units needs to park on the street I don't I don't know how you get it to move so you can plow the street that's inevitable you know I mean if they live there unless they're going to work or school that car is there you know and and and streets get plowed at 3: 4 in the morning all the time well I I would tell you that you'd be then similar to any anybody in a town home right town home has the the same issues these are looking as an alternative to town home you know and just to have some more architecture um you know and then the town you know they'll usually come and uh a private you know a private little drive and they're on each side and they're parking you know in the driveway and uh and on the street so I I don't I don't think it would be any different than a town home and if anything how this is looping with the front and not double loaded along Fernbrook probably could offer more parking than we normally would see yeah so I would I mean I understand point but I think I'll look and see if I could address that that parking on the road y so I think I'm not saying it you know it can not that's going to happen but none of these are four bedroom homes you know I don't think you know correct anything can happen so I'm not going to say no nobody with four cars or five cars are there but you know many might have one or two um I'd like to get at least some consensus up here before we open the public hearing on the future commercial um I'm in favor of it just being an outlaw today and with that I would like to refrain from hearing comment on any commercial going in uh just for limited time purposes that's my proposal I would like to see if that recogniz or resonates with uh with you guys I guess the only reason I struggle a little bit that we're not having any action tonight so it could easily be deferred to the next meeting but we are there is a proposed comp plan amendment to bring this to Commercial and uh and a zoning so I don't have a big issue with that but what you're suggesting Peter for tonight but it's a conversation that has to take place if we're going to regu it reson it can you leave it as an outlaw and rezone it at a different time that'd be my preference that's kind of where I was that's where I I was thinking it was going I mean yes part of the p and and I don't want to I don't want to just say to get through and think yeah we do need to come back but it's just even the question you know to me would be if you think there's something to look at down the road then let's leave it you know as an outlaw and and deal with it later or you're saying no it it needs to be residential I think the biggest thing we need to solve is your access because if you don't have good access you're cutting off all discretionary retail users that rely upon convenience yep um you're basically are going to be stuck with destination retail or dayc carees stuff like that nothing wrong with that but you you've already it's already going to be challenging to find people to come out here because there's not enough Rough Top yets um and when you limit that market it makes it even harder and and I think where I'm just you know and and I'm okay because I I don't even think I could Market it till the county gets their design done right we know what the roundabout is and then at the end of that that time it might be it doesn't make sense right like I said I have not marketed I don't have anybody uh because I just don't even think it's ready but I do think looking down the road thinking that the city isn't going to have any commercial like this possibly for a while you know I'm okay to leave it because we're not going to build all those houses today anyhow you know yeah my only concern here too is the fact that if you don't know if it's definitely going to be commercial in future if you don't know that and perhaps it does turn to residential the whole plan changes right I mean you're going to be changing a significant part of maybe poten entally where streets are going where houses are located I you want to fill in that area correct it's not commercial we yes you'd want to fill it in but I think that's more of a circle I mean the I would I would uh I guess I disagree on unchanging that cuz the 114th location's going to happen right the County's going to make us do that so everything north of 113th 114th you know so and and the other thing that you know we're not only missing them I'm building a about but you know I'm I'm reconstructing all of 113th too you know I mean I would think that you'd want that market analysis first to understand if you even are moving forward with the comp plan Amendment right it's not a small thing to amend the comp plan y it takes a lot of jur jurisdictional agreements and time and effort to be able to do that and the council has to say we're on board with guiding this area for that use in the future and if you don't know if that use is going to work then I don't see why that's even on the table at this point to move forward with that comp plan Amendment until some kind of Market study is done to say I know for sure I could get these types of uses in here then come back to the Planning Commission saying are these uses that are going to be amendable to what we want to see potentially to the council so with that um you know making this an outlaw is fine u i I don't see any reason to do a complain Amendment at this point for for that reason and then if you are developing all these other parcels and it looks like commercial will work it's a long process to come back to us to say I want to now plant this area for commercial use amend the comp plan so on and so forth so the risk is is is is yours obviously to have to go through all of that it sounds to me that it's a little premature to even know if we should move forward with any kind of compain amendment to guide this area for commercial yeah and I think I think just part of it was you know the first step to drive that was an eaw right and and so we did the first part of the testing I mean if you wanted to change the comp plan and said hey it's going to be commercial but you're going to have to come back in and and you know obviously we're going to get everything need to be approved but I'm okay either way I'm just trying to be upfront and have the discussion right with everybody so I understand what you're saying I'm okay coming back at a later dat I think the best direction we can give you and I think this is where Peter was going is let's talk about the access because that way you can take that to the market and other people because that's what's going to dictate whether these people come or not um and it's I don't do we have consensus that 114th court and Gable Lane are connecting u meaning staff's recommendation um because that's going to drive part of this decision mhm and and part of that decision also has to do with the alley behind those homes on Fernbrook to me I don't think the alley behind the home to those homes does anything it's us pretending like we're fixing it but who's going to pay to reconfigure their homes I don't I don't and it's an easement we've already have discussions on the easement up in the quilling parcel that it's I don't think we're solving anything so I don't think the alley is part of the question in my mind but if we can answer that question on Glacier Lane 14th court and if all whatever that commercial parcel gets developed with access has to come down the glacial Lane if that's the consensus that's what we need to give Tom um so he can you know vet it out that way or if we think we can allow a curb cut you know maybe halfway compromise um if we did put a curb cut halfway I would strong it would require turning Lanes in my opinion for commercial agree and and I think as we phase it really right we 113th is going to have to be open really you're probably only constructing that up to Glacier Lane and every you know it'd be foolish to construct the rest until the until the um you know roundabouts um built so realistically the homes back along the ones in Fernbrook probably aren't even going into 2027 anyhow you know okay so but you're talking a left turn in yeah yeah yeah not not going all the way around the right turn in from 114 they don't need a turn lane for that corre correct M well yeah like it's a 30 mph Road I'd say you don't but yeah it's it's the one coming off the roundabout in yeah yes yep yeah I'm supportive of the commercial pod there and and getting some more fuelers out to see what's reasonable what what what the market might be able to drive there um I think that is one thing Dayton is missing is these little PODS of commercial that can support residential I love the idea of a daycare um as much as I love sports stuff I don't know if a dome would be necessarily the right thing here but I mean it's I didn't say hey like those are the people right those are the people that ask said Hey where's where's the city park right put it next to that I I'm uh um but I think they wanted to have some other effects of you know uh you know kind of maybe like the Pint and paddle so there's there's beer and there's food and versus just maybe CDA you know destination places like restaurants they can handle different bet or Worse access but if you want discretionary retail and and actually I I do uh you know I got a cousin that owns some restaurants too she asked about a spot so um but I you know like I said I think we just need to get the rift tops in and the intersection needs to get built um and I think really just back to the alley is is just trying to get a better streetcape that that's the reason of the alley you know you see that along Fern br and I think I think that's where maybe everybody maybe is is not seeing what I am you know maybe but I think the streetscape along Fernbrook with the alley load and those fronts change change a lot right you're talking I think I was talking the Alle yeah Darren was talking the alley quarter behind the six existing homes and I think I think there's a difference there between what's being provided and what's reality cuz there's no Aly there's no alley being proposed and I don't think we need to well it was in staff's suggestion and I don't necessarily think that we need it because I don't think it's solving anything unless yeah I think it just I think it at least if we put the off of off of4 and least off of a property give them uh you know an easement there now whether they use it or not I mean it it what it all it does is like when we sat and discussed it's just flexibility right especially for utilities y it's flexibility for utilities and and and potentially future access yeah but if we're not going to allow a a curb cut here why would we I guess that's where I'm struggling with it I de the up on Gable up in the Northeast there I like the alley loading there um and because it provides that nice buffer off of Fernbrook you've got the primary buffer you've got a road and then more trees before the houses I don't know if the economics could support it but you know four or five of those could be more Bungalow style single story with a half second story or something just to break up the the volume vertically the roof lines a little bit I think could be nice um but the economics have to support that um you know I agree the alley behind the existing HS doesn't solve anything I would agree with combining 114th the Gable to to take that first turn um away to try to help just to flow into that roundabout a little bit like I said I'm supportive of continuing to to vet the commercial use there to see if it's possible um I would be supportive of a gas station convenience store in that area whether it's right in that corner or not you see neighborhood gas stations sprinkle all around the Twin Cities right in the middle of neighborhoods right I mean it's a thing I used to bike the one a couple blocks away from my house when I was growing up right by my baseball cards I mean it's a thing um you know reach out to Quick Drip or Casey or somebody and just see like you know is this a spot they would even consider right just to get some idea like is it even feasible um possible um you know it would serve this neighborhood I mean there's a lot of rooftops coming in this area and I mean every single one of those houses Bas or once a week like it's a lot of flow right so there's already ex a lot of houses out there too yeah so you're I mean that's why I I don't anticipate that there wouldn't be any kind of room for some kind of commercial I think there probably is you just have to do that analysis um there's certainly a lot of new homes out there that could certainly help with supporting family owned dentist office you know would go into a little mall like this right like I think there's a lot of uses that could benefit the community I I live in this neighborhood and we would the neighborhood would use a small commercial area like that without a doubt um but I you know to Jeff's point I think we're too too early on the the comp plan Amendment and outlawed it I think that makes a ton of sense but if you're looking for feedback on the commercial I would I would have loved to hear you say yeah I've got people just pounding the door down to get in here right I've got bills superat that wants to put in like a neighborhood gas station SL Supermarket if you've seen one of those right something like that well that's a little neighbor the neighborhood friendly too than not as chained out I mean they they have a few so I I I'd agree with you but the Market's got to be there and I don't think we can make that decision question for staff do we need to have the applicant withdraw that request um well it's I guess my recommendation is just continue it as it is and then addess everything in March so got it when we get to March if the applicant wants to withdraw that or if plan commission wants to recommend not approving that portion that's fine I just want to add the whole point of the eaw is because of the commercial component mhm so okay so we take the the street up and run long back um of of um oh I know was that Gable going up there behind the Fernbrook homes yep and say those are all 65s right cuz it's going to match going up there if we took around the ponds and had say a 50 foot wide lot with 7 and 1/2 7 and 1/2 and it's a single home just like the 50s that are on the south side of Rush Creek Parkway I would support that the additional 65s are a benefit um currently as it's drawn right now I think we've got a bunch of 45s and 40s around that Center pond so going to 50s over there that's a net benefit that selfishly fixes my initial concern here of there's way too many units way too many small Lots was it 78% off of deviation deviation from what we are yeah so the the R3 District guideline is no more than 30% of the Lots be less than 62 ft whereas with the proposal is 78 78 now2 but that and that was why PD P was there it was commercial it was really the roundabout right you know not many times you expected to pay for the whole roundabout right so those were some items but any other questions for me all right I think you uh before you step away Tom I think you should vet the future commercial area for senior housing too MH yeah you get you know just two or three story yep I I tell you I'm I'm looking right now um well I'll take so are you take thinking like assisted or see most of them that are well you have the smaller ones that just have assisted or Memory Care uh but a lot of the successful ones have all three because there's a transition Y and and maybe that's how it work I'm telling you I'm working with my dad in there right now we have transitional and it's it's um yeah trying to get into somewhere long term is it's a waiting list wherever you go um because on the Sundance scens the apartment site we have that's figured like a 55 plus and and we've struggled to find people there right now yeah yeah and the memory care and the Assisted Living they're going to do better to visibility of traffic because everybody that drives by it every day that has to you know look for a place for their parents the first place they start looking as the places that they see when they're driving by you could look to beehive right on Weaver Lake Road cross from Boston Scientific Maple Grove that'd be a a perfect size fit for something like this okay it's a nice example yeah I mean those suggestions like I said I'm not I don't have you know Zed plan and maybe maybe that's when it come back I could look at that as a you know marketing so thank you thank you thank you so I guess are we taking comment on the the before we open the public hearing are we taking comment on the commercial I guess maybe I mean we advertise for it right okay all right I guess I would I would encourage as I open the public hearing um at 8 8:30 I would encourage that we don't know the uses today and we don't know what they're going to be in the future so public hearing is open for those who'd like to come forward to welcome you to councel thank you and um I want to say it's a Planning Commission coun not quite yet and uh you're the only one I've ever heard talk about the concerns of the residents that are already there wa I'm sorry Marsha if you could okay so and I kind of object to the sorry Mara if you could state your name and Mar Grover 11320 from R Lane this is going in across the street from my house I've been here before you all know the Spiel and I do object to you guys sitting here talking about gas stations and then saying oh I don't I don't think you can talk about gas stations I don't think that's right if you're talking about it then I should be able to talk about it too so here I am again and I'm talking about the commercial district and I'm saying I don't think it's needed no matter what the de developer says we do not need a gas station there I want to remind you guys and maybe Jeff here that there are already five gas stations in the area south of South Diamond Lake Road and four gas stations south of 117th and they all sell groceries except kishes over on the industrial part and two more gas stations are being planned at The Interchange on the freeway so why do we need seven gas stations south of South Diamond Lake Road six gas stations south of 117th um they're all within a 2 to 5 mile radius and when you when you put in a commercial District not only are you inviting all people from all over the area but you're also going to have semis pulling in there you're going to have delivery trucks pulling in there you're going to have a lot of traffic trying to navigate that little culde act there then not to mention the noise and the traffic the car noise the car wash noise because every every gas station that gets built has a car wash now have you ever been to a car wash and gone through there and heard the noise can you imagine that in the neighborhood this is this is a Housing Development it's not a shopping center you're going to have kids you mentioned riding your bike to the store to spend money I did the same thing with my friends when I was a kid but I didn't do it on a two-lane road where there was traffic at 55 M an hour and now you're talking about having an additional 500 car cars after school during rush hour when those kids are going to be riding their bikes on for in Brook Lane so that's something to think about too if you're going to put in a convenience store gas station and as for a coffee shop you can get coffee anywhere you can get coffee at Dean Manor to go you can go down to the golf course and get coffee to go you can get it at any of the gas stations except kishes you can go over to Target which is only a couple miles away they've got a start stucks there and across the street from there is daily dose which is really a nice coffee shop I like that place a lot and so you know you're going to have all these cars rree Plaza over there has had tried to have a takeout pizza and delivery business Time After Time After Time After Time and they all fail rain tree Plaza is struggling right now and it has been for years and years and years what makes you think that this won't happen over here and a daycare there's one across the street from this location at the church and they're always advertising openings a daycare a few feet away from a gas station a coffee shop busy roads delivery trucks do you think that's really a good idea I don't think so and just last week this is not about that but just last week I found out there's going to be like a holding Pond kind of across the street from me also and there's going to be a pipe running under Fernbrook Lane and that pipe is supposedly to drain the water from our ditch well number one we don't have a ditch number two we we we don't have a ditch and in the 52 years that we have lived in this house 52 years we've never had water sitting in our front yard our front yard is sloped kind of to the north and to the South so rain water runs off to the north and rainwater runs off to the South we don't have a problem with water in our ditch because we don't have a ditch and we don't have a water problem so I don't understand that I don't want anybody messing around with my property when I haven't asked for it again if you allow this commercial District to go in you're setting a precedent and you're you're just kind of throwing the comp plan out the window and if you throw the comp plan out the window maybe I'd like to build a pole bar on my property and raise some horses or sheep or pigs or goats oh and chickens you know the price of eggs we could use some chickens or maybe I would build a store on my property and maybe your neighbors would like to do that on your property and next St to you if you do it for one you do it for all H will the possibilities be endless or will you keep to the comp plan thank you I thank you I'm Randy Bolson I'm at 11 1441 Fernbrook I'm one of the six I've heard a lot of good and some bad so let's just get to the bad first because it's like yeah going around the homes I got a truck I'll use it please when you do the roundabout just consider those six that'd be great I mean just let us go into our yards really the I like the idea of not having the the trail behind the house or the the road none of us are going to change our garages and drive back there not a one we got homes that are 50 years old everything's established there's no reason to put that road back there SLS the drive back there we're not going to do it so uh what Tom thought you know one of the things that was proposed if there absolutely has to be something on that commercial well then we don't want all the extra traffic but a home uh uh for the living maybe maybe it's compromised at least there's not a lot of people coming in more to our neighborhood because of that commercial area I've been talking to hanpen County Forever on your Planning Commission you talk I forget the guy's name and he says no I know you got a busy road but it still doesn't warant a four-way stop sign or anything like that so I'm very op optimistic about the roundabouts to slow the traffic down and just like please don't make me drive up and around my house just to get into my own room my own home that's all I'm saying thanks guys thank you I'm Kathy poers and I live at 11461 Fern Brook Lane one of the six homes there that you've been talking about and I do think there needs to be some more work done around that those six homes and you know what should be done from a planning perspective there not just okay somebody thought an alley would be good no that's not going to be a good idea because we're not going to change our our garages to go out that way but there needs to be some sensible thinking about those six homes that are there that have been there for 60 and 70 years so uh that's the other thing and the other thing is you know we always take the cart before the horse and we never really think about the traffic on Fernbrook Lane really thinking about the infrastructure of Dayton itself and you know what is the infrastructure of dat and I looked at some of the 20 240 plan and I don't see much for roads access any place else or anything like that and maybe there needs to be some consideration for infrastructure at Dayton um the other thing I think that John brought up was you know the 266 homes and what kind of traffic that's going to bring in and I won't go into that and Mara has brought up the fact about the commercial and my husband and I are totally against that commercial part and I've talked to Dean at Tom about it and I said I don't care what he says to me there is nobody that's going to change my mind about that especially there's a family that just moved in there I think about a year ago and that's Mike and Sue Hernandez and they are the first home on those six and that's where the roundabout you guys and I think you need to be looking at the roundabout there as well that home sits right there I mean what are you going to do with that I mean it's going to cause stress it's going to cause heartache for that home he wasn't told that there was going to be a roundabout he wasn't even told that there was going to be any building going on so shame on those people the realtor and even I don't know about Dayton so I can't answer that but the realtor should have surely brought that up to him and let's see what else do I have the other thing is I know that Zach had been working on some drainage is issues with Lee hallquist and that and so I'll just leave that aside but that's another issue that I have also I don't think really that there's a plan about the light pollution in Dayton and I think that should be taken care of I can tell you what on my home at Sundance golf course there's a light that shines right into my bedroom and thank goodness I have blinders on there you know so I can't see it but there's no business plan for light pollution and that should be taken up as well um let's see what else do I have here I I don't know how many of you have actually taken a walk or a drive out to the DCM Farm site and really understand what he's talking about and and even just walk the the place and look at where Mike and Sue Hernandez home is and where that roundabout is going to be because I I'm not sure that roundabout is the right place for it now I think roundabout should go up where Elm Creek Park is where the church and maybe you call that Rush Creek Rush Creek okay and I call it Elm Creek Parkway okay that's where a roundabout should go or a fourway stops something needs to happen there because we have people from Sundance walking their children in a stroller across that intersection and we have people from Sundance who don't think they should follow the traffic rules about stopping at the stop sign and the police we've asked them to come out but where do they sit on the north side of Dean's Country Manor well a lot of good they're going to see there so I think that there's you know some things that need to be really looked at from a Planning Commission where these roundabouts really should go working with I know you don't like working with henip and County but he has he has called us back and you know had us on a planning committee there and stuff and he's turned us down and stuff like that but we keep going back and keep going back and that's the only way you're going to get anything done with hanip and County so let's see what else do I have oh those those little green lines that are on the map for you Tom I don't know what those me well they're on that new that map that we just got which incidentally is not much different than the one this map oror map those appear to be can you see those little stor yeah appears to be storm sewer pipe there what storm sewer storm sewer oh well that's what Marsha was complaining about too so I won't go on anymore but I think the planning committee has a lot of work to do around this site so and I have this document if you would like it I add thank you right off the existing 113 oh thank you um I'm Dustin Veron Yak I live off of 114th Avenue uh 13725 down in the kisac down there and I just had a couple uh couple of things I'm glad you guys are addressing the uh roundabout issue on 114th my wife a couple years ago was rear ended on that with my kids in the car so that's been a top priority for us um I'm also wanting to make sure that we guys work on trying to get some walking paths or bike paths to access from you know 114th down I mean ideally down towards Eastman Nature Center because I know our kids want to be able to go and bike down there and Traverse that way I think this would be a great opportunity to uh somehow incorporate some sort of uh pedestrian access down there for the residents on there um uh what else did I have the third thing was I guess I'm not I am not opposed to having a limited commercial area there I think that would be quite convenient but I'd like to try and make sure that the city keeps it I would say like I don't know more of a uh safe commercial stuff something family friendly if you will um in that and the last point I want to make it would be very nice if the council would also work on when new developments come in near the area to somehow get some more infrastructure into some of the residents around uh specifically internet access out there and we're still on 2 megab dialup up there so and I know that the pet is right there in that so I don't know if there's anything that the council can do to kind of somehow work that in when you are doing work in an area somehow give some you know throw a bone to the existing residents here uh on some of that infrastructure that's all I had to say thank you forgot my name that thank you hi my name is Keith Grover most of you know me that Jeff I'm glad that you're here your breath of fresh air always a another opinion is always good when you're having discussion um I have some some real issues with uh well 11320 fer play by the way so for Jeff's right across the street from where the holding Pond is that they're talking about on 113th my wife and I have lived in that house since 1974 I grew up over on Elm Creek Road which is half a mile over the hill and so I've watched that whole area change it was all Farms when I was a kid and now it's not and I understand it's not going to stay Farms I mean I'm not not naive at all we we're talking about specifically the the commercial property that you that has been discussed about being right across the street from our house there are six houses down the street that you've talked you know quite a bit about there are those of us that live just across the street from this development that are going to be affected just as much as the houses that are right adjacent to this property it's in my front yard when I look out my front window this is what I'm going to see instead of corn fields and beans and in a family farm down the road a quarter of a mile I'm going to see this new development what I see on the left side of 113 or the South Side is a bunch of Condominiums to me that look like fancy barns I mean they're the ugliest thing I've ever seen I don't understand why we built those they they they just look ugly I watched them being built I'm a Carpenters kit I wouldn't live in one of them but that's another story the issue I'm dealing with in my mind is the commercial development and what it would do to our quality of life living in our homes we've lived there all our lives we've raised our kids there we have a my grandkids still live over on the farm on on El Creek Road um the traffic going in and out of there it's it's insane now and you guys are talking about adding uh or even thinking about adding some commercial development there without any infrastructure change is this going to be more insane I mean I play Frogger to try to get my mail across I would't even let my wife go out and get the mail anymore it's just too dangerous the noise that's going on they're not even building across the street from me they're still building over by Sundance the amount of trucks and traffic going in out of 113th is just crazy it's constant we us to have a couple of dely trucks that went to Dean Manor every couple of days or back to the beer truck that go back to sundance's golf course we're used to seeing that but the trucks that go in and out of there now there's so many I don't even know where they're all coming from and what they're delivering and what's going on it's just crazy the the commercial area there and what's been sent out to all of us you know we're not talking about a gas station right well that's what's drawn on every map that we've looked at there's a there there's a gas station on that corner and I don't know I don't think they pick that out of the a someone thinks that that's a good thing to have right in the middle of a housing project we have our housing project on the east side of 113 those of us that have lived there for years some of some of us had you know couple hundred 250t deep LS they're a little bigger some of us have you know three four 2 and a half acres on that side of the road but all of us are looking at that out there and we're looking and thinking gez am I going to be sitting there with lights 24/7 traffic 247 because right now the traffic is in the morning Rush Hour the Night Rush Hour during the day it lens up so it's not quite as bad it's almost tolerable but if you're talking about putting something in there this going to bring people in there all the time you're taking almost an almost intolerable thing part of the day and a totally intolerable thing 24/7 when I when I sit in my living room window do I look at the street lights from the gas station do I look at the street lights from the businesses that are that are talked about being put up there we're in the middle of a housing project we've been here for 50 60 years you're talking about making the streets or the the land across from us part of another housing project but then you're plugging this right in the middle of this whole project that's not where it belongs that's not what the comp plan says that's not what the council has talked about for years they they go through all these meetings like this and they talk to Residents they put these comp plans together they have hearings and people like me and all these good people that have come in here tonight discuss all these things the council with the wisdom that they have in running the city for years puts together that comp plan and then I come to these meetings and nobody pays any attention to it the first thing I hear from you folks is how do we make your project work for you you don't work for the developers you work for the citizens of Dayton I don't care how his project works I don't care if it ever works and I don't have anything against Tom the kid grew up across the street from me I love that family that's not the issue the issue is you work for the citizens of Dayton we live here we're going to be living here I plan on not leaving here for my for the rest of my life which hopefully will be a long time but you don't know I just don't see I don't see that us ignoring all those issues lets this whole project go forward with that even thought and I hear four of you up here for the second or third time now saying oh I think of a housing you know stores and all these things would be great there well I'd like somebody to deliver me popsicles every day every time I went out to my mailbox too but that's not the way it works I mean if you move to Dayton why'd you move to Dayton we're a rural city right there Dayton live the difference we're supposed to be fostering some kind of rural environment here I don't see any of that in the development that we're putting forward here it's not rural rural to me is larger Lots houses where people can the kids can go out and play in their backyard like my kids did or like I did I guess I went out and played the L Alpa field but that's a whole different story I don't see that happening here all of these issues that I see are these red flags that are thrown up to me are a hard stop on any kind of commercial development there now I'm not here to tell you that Tom shouldn't build houses there I'm not at all do I like it of course I don't I'm a I'm a country kid I grew up in the country I don't want to look at houses out my window but I resign myself to the fact that that's going to happen I understand that but it's up to you guys to put that whole thing together and make sure whether it's Thomas developer or or who is a developer follows the plan that we've set out for the city if we if we're not going to follow that comp plan why in the world would we put all those thousands of hours and get all those opinions from all those people in the city to put the thing together I that just confuses the living heck out of me I don't know I guess I mean it's a compassionate plea from those of us that have lived in the city some of us most of our Lives my family moved to the city in 1962 I wasn't very old then I don't think any of you were even born then you probably weren't even born when my wife and I got married and bought the house that we live in but it's been a great place to raise a family I don't want to see that ripped apart I the planning the planning was you know we need to have a comp plan so that we can figure out where we're going to have commercial where we're going to have um you know the factories or the buildings like that like we have over on the on the southwest side of the city by the freeway that made perfect sense and the the deal was that we didn't want all these little popcorn things popping up all over the city we wanted some control over it one of the popcorn things was rain tree Plaza that my wife talked about it's the the Marathon gas station for those of you that have lived here very long I me when it was originally built it was rain tree Plaza to all of us that that lived here they built that kind of out in the middle and then built houses around it so at least a lot of those people had the you know they had the plan of well do I want to live a block away from a gas station SL service station SL pizza place or whatever but that place is just floundered it has never in the life of that thing it's been what since back in the late 70s things never done well no matter how many people they've had in there so this idea that you're just going to plunk something in there and it's going to do well I I just don't I don't I don't believe that I just don't it's not what I've seen throughout the city there used to be a a gas station and a grocery store over at the trailer court at uh Brockton in in 81 well it was 152 then but now 81 is what you guys know it as that place never did that well either for maybe the first few years they put it in there it did well but neither one of them are there now now we got Quick Trip in there which by the way was built in a softball field that I used to play on when I was a kid so I'm really happy about that either I don't know where the kids from the tril court play ball now we took that away from them and didn't make them you know provide the the the tort provide any place for the rest of the kids to play I mean I I just think we missed the whole big picture of what we're trying to do at the city I just hope that you guys do the right thing thank you oh thank you sorry hello my name is Alyssa sisal I live at 1980 from Brooklyn I live next door to my parents who moved here in the 60s and also I was raised in Dayton um the thought of adding 260 more homes to this to to Fernbrook Lane is very overwhelming considering just a few short months ago I feel like it was probably a year ago but there was the fearmongering from Dayton that they were going to extend uh Fernbrook four lanes and we were thinking that our houses were going to be taken we we thought all these things we we didn't know if we needed to sell right now we were checking with Realtors we were fearful because Dayton said we're going to put a four-lane road in well then I contacted the County and the reason why the county doesn't want to do anything with our road is because it's not in their five or 10e plan so when when I think it was Marshall Grover said put your horse before the cart we're the city of Dayton going back to what the website the mission and the Strategic plan the city of Dayton's mission is to promote a thriving community and to provide residents with a safe and pleasant place to live while preserving our rural character um while creating connections to our natural resources and providing customer service that is e uh efficient physically responsible and responsive so these 260 homes are going to go onto this road that I can't even barely get the mail and we got it so our mailbox was on our side of the street finally I can't get the mail after dark because people drive like crazy somebody mentioned um the the road coming out of um the Sundance Woods I literally was almost in an accid AC this morning because people don't want to stop there and that's not my fault I should be able to live on this road and not have to worry about the 700 homes that were there without my I mean I get I know that there was a comment like Tommy Dean said something in the effect of if it was the right price you'd sell too but that's that that's it that's I don't have control of that and yeah of course it's going to be the right price when you can develop your own land so we years ago there was a 10y year AC or 10 acre plot if you were going to build a house house you had to have 10 acres so somebody put their hand in somebody's pocket and now look it we have houses everywhere and now there's another amendment to another comp plan when I bought my when I 20 years ago we moved in and my again my parents have lived there forever and I and I almost think the fearmongering of this of the road plan you know extension was for the Aging adults to move out and be like oh they want to extend our road or take our homes we'll just move and move into our retirement homes or whatever that might be I don't know if that is that's just my own I my assumption because that's what it appeared that's what it seemed like and now I am not even affected by this retail space or this I don't have to live across from the 260 homes but I do have to deal with the traffic and if you do put a commercial spot in there and everybody's talked about rry rain tree is nobody goes there and so you're going to put a commercial spot regardless again Assisted Living I'm absolutely all for there's not going to be as much traffic that type of thing but can we just kind of like Keith said go back and like look at these plans because every the people those six homes on Fernbrook the last time we had one of the meetings the lady's like we can just flip your garage around who is is he going to pay for that is he going to pay for that because it it doesn't seem and I I'm not very intelligent but it doesn't seem logical in my brain to oh I'm going to flip my house around so I can drive out this alley and still have to deal with all the traffic and then go down half a mile to come back to my house it doesn't seem logical so I just think that the city needs to focus back on the rule I'm not saying don't build houses but let's like you want you want 40 feet Lots like that is it doesn't that's not what Dayton that's not what why I live in Dayton that's not why I live next door to my parents my kids want to buy my house my nephews want to buy my parents house but not now I mean how if if we can't if can't come up with a plan before putting the horse before the cart then what's the point of even living here right and you want to build houses that are $300,000 that's not going to happen and he said you know they're not going to be four-bedroom houses there is going to be traffic issues there's or parking issues and and again because I care about my neighbors I care about those six houses I care about those people I went to school with those their kids and it is not and and Grovers too and having a commercial property just plop down there it it doesn't seem realistic and so I I I just really hope that there's a lot more planning put in especially after what happened to us with this for Road PL the four lane road that they again fearmonger into US thinking that we were going to lose our homes because it's not in the County's plan five or 10 year plan so that's all thanks thank you oh thank you Chris cin 10928 Harbor Lane North Dayton uh I'm not quite sure how I want to start this but you know you guys have a responsibility to the six people that live on Fernbrook and just a quick question the Rayburn development that's already started correct yes and how many homes in that development approx it's somewhere around there yeah 60 is that 160 and you're looking at 266 with this development how many in Sunday screens over 600 over 600 yeah I think there was over 600 okay so you got 600 160 that's 760 26 you got over a th000 units so it's just not about six units it's about a th000 units and Commercial you're going to need commercial nodes and you should have one and actually I think it's a good little area to do a node there commercially because the traffic you're talking about is all going to be on the west side of Fernbrook the Thousand units correct so most that traffic is going to be moving within the community on that side to get to those places you bring up Bill superet that's a perfect example it's in a there's one in Champlin it's in a residential area it's on West River Road which you got high block homes on the West Side you got the regular size homes and it fits the area it fits the community and the reason it's there is for the convenience because people use it not only to get gas they use the propane tank that's there because they want to use it to fill up their gas tanks to grill and then on top of that you've got people that got water softeners so to me and and I think part of what Tom talked about my first knowledge of this was back in at a HOA meeting in 2023 and most the 40 people that showed up for that budget meeting most were very supportive of a commercial area in that in that area because it it serves those units I mean there's talk about units or gas stations that are in the southwest Corridor and to be honest with you they basically serve Rogers really I mean you can go there and you got FedEx and you got Rogers traffic going uh West you got to go on East and the one that you got proposed off 94 is meant for the 94 traffic going to South Dakota or North Dakota wherever they're going to go and the other way as well and as a resident within the Sundance screens to me it doesn't make sense to go west when I want to go East if I want to go to a twin game so why do I got to go backwards to go forwards to me that doesn't make sense and that doesn't you know that's I I think a lot of the different people that are there have S more thought processes and want to see a little commercial not node and you should do it on the North side as well because you don't have it there either uh I do understand you've got the Maple Grove but Maple Grove is a zoo you know someone in the develop might want to get something they boom they go quick to there and they get it not only that you've got other uses that you can do and you can build your retail we all know small businesses either succeed or they fail and if they fail you want to have a building that's going to be marketable for the next business owner that's going to come in so so from that perspective you've got it as far as a commercial not part of your responsibility is the burm burm that area so residents on both sides are protected if you look at the lighting and some of the your communities like Champlin most these holiday bills supered are closed by 10:30 at night so you're not talking about a 247 operation and you guys are in charge of the when you go through the development you're going to be looking at the lighting on the development you have control of that you know when I come home when I used to live in Champa when I came home from uh night outter at the Twins game or whatever you generally don't even notice them because the lights are set up in such a way that you just don't see it so that's my two cents and I and uh you know uh former council member truss brought that up because he ran for mayor he door knocked and the general fing was supportive for commercial and you've got the mayor here he knocked on probably the same doors and probably got to send more feedback so I mean it's just not six but you need to protect the six don't get me wrong but I think what I see here the main issue is the traffic and irregardless whether it's commercial or what have you you got a th000 units and you got to deal with the county and you can we can all sit up here and say we're going to do this and we're going to do that at the end of the day the county is going to decide what the speed limit's going to be they're going to decide whether it's going to be two lanes or whether it's going to be four lanes and with that many units that's going to be part of their process when they look at it so I don't know but I I guess my question to staff would be are we talking to henen County do we do we have that feedback the county reviews plats right we don't have a formal response on this from mopan County right but I guess my point is is that you see problems are are going to be coming and I think it behooves the city of Dayton anyway to start working with the county because you may have one thought process and the County's going to have a completely different one you may want the roads at 40 and they determined but the traffic still is 55 just based on what the numbers are and I didn't know that um Rush Creek was a failed Street and I think you need to go to the county I I mean I don't see a roundabout there you're going to get somebody killed and the way it is right now you're going to get somebody killed because you got people trying to get over to the park reserve and they're crossing a a a bad intersection and I I I get the that's not on their five or their 10e plan but should be talking to them I mean I don't understand why they do the tunnel I get the part where it's the County's final say but I think you need to put pressure on and make that that work but I think I share the same concerns and I would say probably most of the people on the West Side share the same concerns too you got a big traffic problem and you got a th units I don't I don't know how it's you're going to handle the 760 that you you got going in you got another 266 going in so you you know it's a lot of different things a lot of different things and that that's that's all I've got to say other than uh I would suggest uh some of the things that you're looking at as it relates to the different units is to protect those units as being single family owner occupied properties and what I mean is uh I don't think you want units built that are going to turn into rentals and I don't think you want units built that are going to be halfway homes and I know that's a problem in Champlin right now so I just I I throw that out there is something that you might want to keep in the back of your head to to prevent in in dating but um you got a nice it's a very nice Community you got Rural and you've got development and you got to blend them together and that's that's the key thing and there's things that you can do within the development as far as birming and such I don't know what you're going to be able to do with the speed and how the roundabouts work but my last comment would be I think you should because you've got this development I think you should extend that uh distance where you send out uh that projects are going on you got more people in the community and you're not going to get enough feedback on it only reason I knew about it is I pay attention to some of the meetings and it got my attention so thank you thank you hello I don't like public speaking so just forgive me um my name is Kenisha my husband Lon and I live on Fern Brook Lane we are at 11330 Fern Brook Lan North we are the neighbors of Marsha and Keith Grover um first of all I want to say I don't fault the dean family for want to develop on their own land that's not why I'm coming up here um I'm curious if there's a plan to add Landscaping to the back back side of the commercial property we are one of the houses that would be facing the pond and like Keith said a lot of the plans do include a gas station granted that might just be hypothetical but that is on the plan and we would be one of the houses that directly faces the gas station and the pond and so I was thinking I don't know if there's a plan in place to communicate or even think about Landscaping that would somehow separate our properties from the commercial area one moment okay um my next question would be we have a lot of focus on the six houses on the north side of Fernbrook Lane but as one of the four that are directly across from 113th in between 112 and 114th um I have heard some conversations considering the four of our houses but it would be nice to hear more because it's not just the six that are going to be affected it will be us too um I'm one of like we're one of the couples that walks our dogs down 113th we can't do that anymore we would do 114th we can't really do that as much anymore the traffic is an issue we have had people land their cars in our front yard which has been fun um upside down upside down through our trees so I am concerned about the traffic and I know that that seems to be a Common Thread um but just speaking from a personal example I mean Mara has talked about almost being hit by a school bus my dogs and I have almost been hit like I said a car has landed upside down in our front yard so I don't know what the plans are regarding the road other than the roundabouts but I'm just asking if you wouldn't mind taking another breather and just really considering the traffic and how that's also affecting our houses um my last point and this might not be the best form to ask um my husband and I have not received any updates like the plans that you're looking at now I know some of our neighbors have said that received them we have not so I just want to know how we can get that information you don't have to answer right now I'll be here till the end um but that's it I just wanted to kindly state it would be nice if you had plans in place to consider our four houses as well as the traffic and that it's not just the six on the Northern side that's it thank you thank you absolutely and will'll address that that the request to get the plan so anything discussed here at the Planning Commission has always posted prior to the Planning Commission on the website okay on the city website and it's there for you to access awesome thank you before I forget that one else send her a link to where the packets are sure yeah unless you know what's in a pack and it might be kind of hard the 500 foot Street they should be than you but I don't know if they just got notice yeah I don't know hi guys while I'm Lee hulquist I live at 11471 Fernbrook Lane that's the northernmost House of the six uh I've got a few points here to make and going to try not to ramble too much uh we've talked about the drainage issues and I mean you you guys haven't solved any problems let's get realistic the traffic is is projected to double to over 11,000 cars a day on firm Brook and there doesn't seem to be a plan to do anything about it um noise um out of the this whole bench only one of you has ever stood in my backyard and that's Darren um to get an idea what the project looks like from where I live um to run a driveway out the backs side of my garage to the property line where you going to put this alley or talk about the alley is a 5 foot rise four and a half roughly five um one of you talked about putting mailboxes on the other side of the street which means you've never been on my street cuz my my mailbox is already in front of my house I I just don't think you guys are that in touch with what's going on here uh this project is going to run uh Tom has projected about six years I saw in one of his letters um six years from now I'll be in my 80s don't really feel like listening to diesels and all that stuff for the rest of my life and I can hear them all over this entire 95 Acres I can hear the project right now that's working 200 yards away on the other side of that Hill uh this essentially you guys have denied me my backyard if you go through with this for the rest of my life and I don't think that's reasonable I think that's uh like I say I just like I'm really trying hard not to use the big words um and and he's optimistically projecting six y six years but there's no end time to this project this this thing could go on for 20 years depending on market conditions um and and if we seem um passionate it's because you guys are looking at permits and money and income and the city council's talking about permits and and how much income this is going to generate and tax money I'm looking at defending my home and I think the other people are here also um and and to to leave this so open-ended is causing just a buttload of stress that I don't need I don't think anybody else needs it um it's starting to wear on me um as I look at the current project there are five houses projected to butt up against my property line or to to the buffer Tom said that the back end of these townhous is ugly I'm going to be looking at five of them and they're all going to be above me so they can look down on my property so so I don't know what kind of buffer is going to be there maybe we can find something um so I don't I don't know like I say the buffers I don't know what's going to be there um one thing that I that does come with this development I found out is when my house got broken into a few years ago the first thing that after the police officer told me to get a ring camera set up and some other things he said that the the U crime is following this development out there they're coming out to Steel tools steel copper and anybody's house is just a target of opportunity and mine was for about 60 Grand so which probably is why the city wants to save up and buy this armored urban assault vehicle that we're saving for in the budget but um Rush Creek coming out of Rush Creek is is we slow down for that stop sign to turn on to Fernbrook we don't even stop for it anymore I mean I I almost got rear ended by some a-hole this morning who had to honk for about half a mile because the road was slick and I didn't want to go 55 miles an hour this morning so these These are you know like I say the quality of life that we used to have here isn't here anymore um personal cost if if we do this there's going to be assessments against my house this the to run a sewer line onto my property is going to have to run through that nice septic mound that I had to build so I have to excavate all that uh I I figure I'm looking at 40,000 minimum out of my pocket to support somebody else's project and that doesn't seem right to me that we do that that I have to get permits and pay for a water shut off valve and stuff this this is just unreasonable um that includes like capping Wells and things that I already have um these houses yeah too close together as part of it um you know it's just too vague you guys don't have a plan and and for you know Tom Tom has been involved in Nature's Crossing and Nostalgia Woods which are both great developments I've actually made offers on houses in there uh till you read the covenants that go with the HOA do you know what Nature's Crossing you can only have a trailer on your lot for 4 8 hours per year that's why I didn't buy one there you know I just feel you well you got to look I don't want to look I don't want to know these things I I did before I put an offer or after I put you know WR down to putting an offer in that isn't going to work for me um like I say it's just too vague and and you know I you're going to deny me in my backyard for potentially the rest of my life here uh um undo amount of stress I'm defending my own oh yeah for other questions we have fiber optic cable in the ditch in front of my house we just don't get to use it they ran that cable several years ago for the new developments I think for BRB bur Hills yeah I mean it's it's like everything is for the new guys and nothing's for the people that live here and and like I say if I seem passionate about it this is part of the problem I haven't been able to work with the city to get the things I've wanted done because at one time they said we don't do variances and this is i' I've lived here 45 years and 30 years ago I wanted to expend my garage can't do that no no too close to property line can't come forward and I'm not going to remove my well so I can excuse me put something out there so anyway like I say i' I've seen Tom's other developments and he does great work when he when he wants to but in this one it looks like we're just jamming people in here for no apparent reason I think we need to do better and that's on you guys I mean that's your job as I understand so um I'm not in favor of the gas station either by the way um I think there's other choices there but we don't need to go there I think that's been beat to death or beat in so far I think that's where I'm going to leave it today I just I appreciate your time I hope you understand the passion like I said we are you guys are talking about making money building houses and and I'm talking about defending my home thank you Mr chair I will just note that we do have a couple people online yep with some hands raised let's go ahead and go to anyone else in the audience let's go to online I just have a quick question Keith if you come up yeah I'm just I'm curious we got the mailing from the city with the the new plot thing mailed out to us I think we got it U last Saturday or something telling us about this meeting in the open house and stuff what what are the the uh the parameters that the city uses to send those things out because I know a lot of my neighbors don't get the same thing that I get I mean I'm a spit and a throwball away from this project but there are people that are you know a few doors down or maybe around the corner that you could take a baseball and hit from my house into the yard and they don't get notified of this stuff what are the parameters that we use for doing that because whatever we're doing it it ain't working good I believe it's what 500t it it's 500 feet and in this case going to the east um there were I don't know I'm going to say two handfuls of homes that were outside that 500 ft and so we did send it to to them so essentially it's from Fernbrook to Elm Creek Park and then 500 feet around the north south and west so the houses that are 114th on 112th on 113th even the new houses on 113th that are across the street from this development all the new tow houses did those people all get notified uh I'm not going to say no not all of them but within 500 ft they're right across the street right so they would have been 500 ft they would have okay received it if you'd like we can send we could show you the buffer I can send an email to you the the number the number of thanks guys the number is what I was looking for I'm here to tell you that I don't think that that's anywhere near adequate for I've made that comment on several of these in the past because of because we've had we've had such large we have such people who have such large lots and it I've made that comment over the years as well yeah might I didn't get to the neighbor we need to get we need to increase this by quite a bit whatever whoever made that rule I think 500 ft is actually pretty common throughout the Twin Cities as far as no ation purposes not to say that any Council couldn't request for that notification distance to increase especially on on projects that they know might have some more interest than others especially a huge project like this that not only affects right so I'm confident that staff uh did what they were supposed to do per the per the ordinance but uh you know if if the question or Direction might be if if that area could be increased specifically for few future uh public hearings for this this case I'd be okay with that I I don't know what number that is is it actually an ordinance guys or just R 500 ft is an ordinance an the the state statute sets it at a minimum of 350 and the the Dayton zoning ordinance says 500 maybe you guys could recommend to the city council and maybe the city council could help us out so that more people would know about what's going on within the city it up a number of times and keep thinking that we suggested it and I yes it's it's actually on one of my goals appreciate that thank you move into online comments all right uh Stacy I'm gonna click the allow to talk button here um go ahead and start speaking let us know that we can hear you I wonder if I got to do it on I I got to do it on this one all right try that again Stacy this problem we are there we go I think we can hear you now oh you can hear me now yep okay good um hi um I I met a few of you at the last Planning Commission meeting that we talked about this in last fall um I live at 11431 for Brook Lan two houses in um the proposed gas station and pond and whatnot um I'll say that thank you for your time I would I'm mostly concerned with you know kind of echoing I guess what other people have said now that most of the other people have spoken um you know I'm I'm mostly concerned you know even just from hearing the proposal for the roundabout about having to you know this curve or something that's going to be in front of our house so that we can't even turn into our house from the road in which I you know bring the kids to to daycare and to school and to go to work and to go to Target and to you know that's just I don't know what I mean I I heard an option of like maybe a painted curb or something or if there's a way to move it or some happy medium so that our neighbors across the way um aren't also burdened by it or you know I don't know what you would propose for that but I just don't like that idea at all and I'm deeply concerned about that um again with the alley I know that that was a staff comment and not something that Tom and us other neighbors have discussed we are very much okay with a path so that we can connect I we are a young family my my children are two and six and so you know we we we moved in here about four years ago and you know we looked at the comprehensive plan and kind of knew that there was something going to be p in it is happening sooner than what we expected and we are okay with you know the development but you know just kind of like just trying to be considerable like you know the people that lived here forever but also the people that like moved in here to have this be a space where we could raise a family that in a quiet space in a and you know we moved out of the city to get away from the city like why would I want you know double the cars on this road that's already loud when we moved in there was a road construction on Fernbrook right just like north of 117 and and it was during the pandemic and so we had no idea what we were actually getting into in terms of like sound and you know like traffic wise and then you know with the robustness of like this project and how much you know sound pollution it's going to add and danger in terms of that like the path behind our house is like like my my lifeline here of like how I'm going to survive this if this is going to be part of my future for the next five six seven years and so like please do not you know any consideration of an alley just seems really not okay um anyway I you know I just I really think that Dayton is a wonderful community and we are at like this precipice of like something big like designing a community that has retains some of the characters that we you know sought out when we came to move here and that you know it's a farming community and if there is things that like in terms of like what's going to be happening in the future you know in terms of like that I know you said kind of we tabling the business thing that might be so far out but I'm not I'm I don't want a gas station and if if there is that's like the only option like there has to be something about like light noise like L like we know gasoline is a carcinogen um you know like people are starting to like hook up their electric vehicles and like I know Sarah you know a previous member of the committee has talked about like wanting to bring in businesses that are kind of more rural in character like you know like a Pizza Barn kind of place or like a farmers market right there or like things that kind of like still retain something or even a co-op you know like something that like you know local people could be you know and like something that's building Community not just like another strip mall you know something maybe that's a little more walkable kind of like Maple Grove has on that Main Street just like looking at those kind of things as opposed to just like the same old like ugly smelly traffic you know just things like that so um but yeah I really love that some of you guys are really talking about protecting you know us at houses because it does feel we feel very powerless and I don't like that feeling and I don't think anybody does and I think if you lived in my house or the you know the the new neighbors that are on the end would you want double the traffic would you want another Road right behind you would you want a gas station right next to your house like with cars beeping and you know teenagers scre screeching in and out and like you know just wanting to have like a fire in my backyard I'm going to have lights shine in my backyard you know if there's a gas station or if it's not designed in a way that is considerate of us so um and and I think I second um now it's like in that like this is like a quality of life issue and it's very stressful um and I just really appreciate your consideration on this so thank you thank you do we have anyone else online uh we do have a couple people online if anybody else online would like to speak during the public hearing portion please feel free to hit the raise your hand function otherwise I do have a written comment from online as well if you'd allow me to yeah go ahead all right um this comments from Eric seppelt 11534 Brer Trail um my only point is to clarify if a trail is intended to run down south from the neighborhood park along the power line easement um reason to raise that questions is to ensure there is good trail continuity from neighborhood the neighborhood park going sou toward let's see here it it appears there is yeah there is and um this is not there uh basically his comment is there seems to be a fair amount of dead end trails that only connect to Street and sidewalks otherwise in the DCM neighborhood and uh he just wants to ensure that uh there is clear easy um access to follow Trail continuity throughout the this entire Development Area okay apologize for butchering that thank thank you I think I get the gist of it um I guess with that we will close the public hearing at 9:35 um I guess I want to address two comments um was that supposed to stay open till March yep oh continue continue the public hearing until our March meeting yes thank you sorry but you hit the GFF I hit the g G on next un the G there um I I wanted to make two comments uh one on the traffic study um I believe it was Alyssa who left um we did a traffic study what um how many years ago was that three three four years ago uh as a whole looked at different options of of connecting firm Brook there was the X there was the there was um an option of connecting Dayton Parkway up to um 125th um and we looked at a lot of options and we we really looked at feasibility of what's what can the city afford and what can the city afford to do and what what is going to be supported by our partners at henen County um wanted to throw that out there as it it there there was a long history in a lot work that went into that um and it identified a few a few critical things and I do think that we do need to spend more time as as Marsha was saying of looking at our transportation Network throughout the city um and not just County roads but but what what are going to be M Dayton roads um the other comment I want to make because I made the comment on possibly holding on the uses for the commercial the commercial Fe um area was because we had talked about um having Mr Dean do a feasibility study on what could be there it's not about what you guys don't want it's we don't even know what's going to be there and so I'd like to understand what could be there before we start talking about it and wasting the energy and wasting the effort I I whole wholly understand I wholly understand what the what the resident's concerns were with that with that you guys have been very vocal and very I appreciate you guys and I'm sure my fellow Commissioners appreciate having a lively meeting because sometimes they're very boring and so I appreciate you coming and and and I just without knowing what's going to be there I didn't want to speculate and that was the only reason I I opted today I didn't want to speculate on what could be without a feasibility study which is something we had discussed of requiring him we we disc discussed a a feasibility study required and that's that was the reason I made that comment so I apologize if that came across with bad intentions it was not and I just wanted to to air that um I think other comments that that were made um Eric had talked asked about the trail connectivity and through the neighborhood um there's there's a fair amount of connectivity through here I think a few things um that I would like to to you know I would like to look at and make sure our Parks Commission because they're more in charge of the trails gets a look at this for trail connectivity um you know I've heard mixed opinions on the the the trail and the easement provided behind the six homes heard mixed opinions from the residents we heard one resident who wants the trail there I would like to see the easement there as a utility and drainage eement at a minimum and provide the flexibility so that if one day you guys sell and someone wants to build an alley access it's there and we don't have to go through procurement that's that's my only reason to put it in um and more from a flexibility of future standpoint not requiring you guys to do it just someone could do it those are my comments that I I wanted to share based on what I heard at the public hearing and uh I guess open it up for more discussion yeah Mr chair if I can um you know first of all I appreciate the The Compassion that that residents have here um a couple things to take into consideration uh this is a plan unit development and what what that means is that uh it's a give and take situation where the city will give uh the developer uh some flexibility and we can take from the developer or whoever it might be some other types of things to consider so in other words if let's say if a gas station were to go in there we can say no car wash we could say hours of operation are limited to this from this time to this time as part of that PUD approval so that does is on the table for the the city council to consider through the plan un development process so that is something I I just want to make sure that residents are aware of that um I am 100% four trying to protect the six to the north and and the the four uh to the east there uh I you know obviously we don't know what that commercial is going to look like uh if it even is going to be commercial maybe it's it's uh senior housing or memory care or whatever it might be uh site planning for that I think is critical so screen buffers if there are any if there's bming systems if it's land natural Landscaping fencing whatever it might be I'm 100% forward trying to do as much as we can to separate those uses in a way that makes sense right so I just want to make sure that people are aware of that PUD process does give us flexibility in in limiting uh things that we think might be a detriment to the community so uh I am still I'm still for some kind of commercial node there I I just want I want to know what it looks like and what type of of commercial Ventures could actually go in there so the other thing I want to kind of bring in up front here is the fact that a lot of I'm not a long-term resident here obviously I didn't grow up here I am kind of an outsider looking in at that and what what I see here uh as a city is we're we're kind of in that identity crisis area right so we have what we've always been as far as the city of Dayton trying to preserve that rural character I moved in here and I'm saying there's a lot of Redevelopment that's happening here obviously the council is trying to push this city in a different direction so there is kind of that goet between where has the city of Dayton been and where do we want to be the comprehensive plan does guide that um but as in any City trying to better themselves better is an subjective word I get that there is room for making those amendments to make the city better and one one of the individuals who spoke today said it's not just this the six or the 10 that you have to worry about it's the Thousand other households that just moved into this area or are going to be moving into this area so what's what's the betterment of every body in this area granted you cannot make 100% of the people 100% satisfied 100% of the time and we get that that's why we're here to make those hard decisions uh there are some tools in place for us to make those decisions a little easier to um you know digest once all the the dust is settled so again we don't know what's what's going to go on the commercial area you know I would like to see what what could happen there I do think there would benefit what it looks like that's for future meetings to decide so um the other thing I had is a couple questions actually for uh Jason um number one the last time we did the traffic analysis was what five five years ago six years ago traffic study typically how long are those good for as far as changing there's there's been a few they were a little U narrower scope than an overall look so the the last comprehensive Plan update was when the whole system was looked at okay um since then there's been actually two studies one of them is to look at the major roadways being Dayton Parkway whether that goes straight North connects to Zanzibar or if it goes to the east it connect to 129th so that was the two option and conversely to that Fernbrook either goes north to 125th that is exists today or it crosses over to fer Brook so I'll use my hands because I did it for years an H or it was an major road so there was a significant study to look at which of those would be done which would be the better scenario um it was essentially deemed a tie and chosen as the X and then later redone and that was the study I think is being referred to redone to say no we want the H that's the better solution um and then there was a smaller one done after that for the realignment of Fernbrook but that one didn't okay didn't uh didn't change things um I mean there there is they're good as long as there's not a better idea out there if you will so um I mean there might be different things like tra traffic projections to change like the number of lanes for example or um you know other connections to those roadways but generally speaking that framework is good until a better idea comes along okay the other question I have is um certainly we're aware of the reconfiguration south of the city of Dayton from firm Brook right as far as as transitioning on to Maple gr Parkway yes and that was taken into consideration okay that my next question stud right so the next question is obviously when that actually happens I think traffic patterns might change a little bit where people are saying I don't get the direct North or South shot right on to 81 I kind of have to meander through and maybe I'll find a different way to get there it is potential that that Meander onto map gr Parkway since is going to be going through a residential neighborhood will calm the traffic also it is interesting to see what other kind of traffic calming measures Could Happen out there I know it's kind of out out of our jurisdiction as far as it being the county roadway but certainly I think the and I don't want to put this the wrong way but the country street right where people are like hey I get to go I get to go and that's what they've always been used to and now we're introducing a thousand new households when it's all said and done and that street is still built on I'm a rural Highway almost what are some of those traffic measures that could be implemented to calm that down if it's something we have to work with the county on maybe in this area for you know whatever measures could happen is it landscaping that's closer to the street is it whatever it might be so just something to consider for everybody through this process that there could be other ways of solving the issues that people are bringing up as far as safety and so on and so forth that's all I had thanks yeah uh my only comments are I know that we're everyone was talking 266 homes I think the applicant was made aware that we don't support that I don't know what the num is going to end up being but it's going to be something less when the 40 foot Lots become 50 or 55 ft um secondly the Pud thing it's important to recognize that in the Pud what are we getting for a public benef benefit and we can't lose sight of that the biggest issue with all development Dayton is traffic and part of this PUD is going to provide funding to put round about it that's the plan now I've heard some concerns from fellow Commissioners that I don't know enough about of understanding the planning process and make sure it happens so my radar is up to make sure our staff stays on top of it now too and I'm appreciative of these Commissioners that know a lot more about that than me um the other thing I want to bring up so Mr Dean here is that is I think when you come back with a plan with the trail that's going behind those six houses I think you should have enough flexibility um cuz and I hate to put the pressure on those six homeowners because if one wants it and five don't ultimately it still comes back to us and Council making a decision but if there is a consensus with you six homeowners whether you want that trail or not we that could just be moved over to the RightWay in my opinion and then cut through to uh 114 um to get there versus running it right next to their backyards because I do get the concept of you're losing privacy with the trail on your backyard and and these people aren't used to people walking through their backyards so by their backyards so um the hard part is again if you guys have consensus that's easy if not you know then we have to make a decision and take your feedback when you say move it to the right away what do you move it to the right away so it would follow down down the road and then somewhere right in here it can cut through yeah down Gable down Gable okay come up yeah please come up if you got a comment so I think with the uh the residents uh six homeowners there and we have met individually at times and so I I I think the consensus is there I just want to share if if it isn't and I'll sure reach out to him after this and and adjust it you know we talked about you know not only having that there having the storm sewer to or you know to to correct some drainage issues and actually doing some buffering you know but the problem is with the storm sewer there I can't really burn the new homes right because it's got a we got a drainage issue if we didn't have a drainage issue we but is there some tree planting some different things you know um and uh and you know I I I verbally told them I would do that I stick by my word I'm not going to change it you know so um um you know I uh and so I'll reach out to them all and andmed I don't support the alley either but I thought at least just a you know for the sewer and everything off off the parkway you know there they have access so I'm done developing there's an HOA and they got to get everybody to vote on it or it's already there you know Now's the Time to put that in place so but uh yeah just you know I I think I mean we're we're in disagreement with commercial with some of the homeowners and and like I said I don't even know totally what that is yet you know but to work with them and and the homes behind it you know that's why we chose the the 65 foot wide Lots behind there so I mean it won't be a town home in that big block it'll be individual homes and and and you know yeah it isn't looking at field anymore but it is better than looking at a town home so I just want to make one comment we we've closed right now and I'm I'm due to the time I'm going to I'm going to say no I we we will open it back up thank you to Dean Tom Dean for meeting with us six people that's what I wanted to say appreciate it thank you anything else from any comments I just thinking recognition you know of everybody that came here tonight thank you and and obviously the big Topic's being commercial and the big topic is being traffic and I think commercial is something that um we we will be looking at at least one or many many more times after that and the traffic issue is a really really difficult issue hennipen county is in a difficult spot with a lot of needs throughout the entire County um and really Fernbrook Lane doesn't get improved if not for these developments right so at some point hopen county has to improve the roadway and and um you know th these intersections uh improvements that have been identified with the roundabouts um I think does go to show that the developer is thinking about it the developer um at the beginning of the presentation staff had mentioned that there are contributions that will be made uh financially from the developer to make those improvements um but ultimately it's there's a lot of stakeholders there that need to come together for that to happen um and and in time I'm I'm confident that they will and and I think staff has a good handle on on what that looks like when it comes when the time comes but without these developments those improvements don't happen um and it's and it is a chicken in the egg cart before the horse um but but hennipen County would have a hard time justifying it to all of you which are taxpayers to expand that roadway before any development occurs out there um so it I would hope that that process will play itself out sooner rather than later but it is kind of a wait and see approach there with um the multi-jurisdictional aspect to the traffic improvements on Fernbrook all right the one last comment I would mention to Mr Dean is the it appears the roundabouts already going to require a little bit of property on the east side of uh Fernbrook on the Boggle property um I think that if you could if you're already talking to that property owner to understand if that can happen um shifting 114 down a little bit just keeps alleviating the problem too for all the home the six homes and potentially roundabout median obviously it would require more of Mr bogles land and I'm not sure if he's a willing seller but if he is a willing seller that would help alleviate some of the problem pushing 114 down and I agree with you I think somewhere though we'll still need some type of meeting because then if you move at South right then all of a sudden we go to the people on the east side of the road so it's a it's a tough spot but I mean that I mean the thing I see is that right even on the road right now the traffic's crazy a roundabout will slow it down and that not only benefit the development will benefit everybody on fbook all right no action needed on this no we we'll be uh we I'll make a motion to continue DCM Farms table action sorry for all you that just want conclusion to it all table have a motion a second and a second all those in favor I all those opposed uh it is continued item 8 believe item8 D technically skipped C didn't we uh that's okay it's still item 8D though no one made Corrections no you did going through the motion no we didn't make a correction on that didn't see it all right uh thank you Mr chair members of the Planning Commission uh this next item is a proposed ordinance Amendment related to residential and agriculture parking surface requirements um this uh item was brought before the city council after a resident received a violation and uh city council directed staff to um look into the ordinance language and see how um we could lessen the requirements of that um the current language is as followed all surfacing for uh driveways in R1 R2 R3 re VM and hm districts uh Furnishing access to a dwelling unit or garage and all parking areas shall be surfaced with concrete or bituminous material so as to be dust free uh off street parking areas and driveways in A1 A2 and sa districts may be surfaced with a crushed rock material or other approved material um staff did discuss this item with the Planning Commission in January um and brought forth the following amendment to clarify some of that language and loosen the restri the restrictions so this is also in your packet in the terms of the ordinance Amendment as well but I put this language up here here as well um for r o R1 r1a and R3 Zone lots that are less than uh half acre uh which is the threshold that was discussed at the January meeting to uh in terms of setting a limitation on those smaller properties uh those newer development areas um Vehicles recreational vehicles and trailers shall be permitted in uh front and sidey yards on a driveway or parking pad constructed of concrete or bituminous material so that the language is similar um if side yard is adjacent to garage uh one recreational vehicle or trailer may be parked on an unimproved surface in that sidey yard provided it meets the setback requirements set forth in this section all parking areas currently in um the parking code requires them to be at least 5 ft from uh the sidey yard property line um so again it goes back into that discussion of uh the 7 and 1 12T setbacks um necessarily wouldn't permit on uh many properties in the R3 District R uh from doing so and then recreational vehicles and trailers shall be permitted in rear yards on an unimproved surface uh limited to no more than one um and then I also added the language here for the larger Lots uh the same districts uh for Lots larger than a half acre um really the the main change there is that there is not a limit on uh the amount of recreational vehicles and trailers um permitted to be parked in the rear yard on an unimproved surface and then here's the language for the A1 and A2 and sa Zone Lots which is the uh least strict of the zoning districts um the limitation is Vehicles recreational vehicles trailers may be parked in front yard in the front yard provided it is parked on an improved surface such as crushed rock gravel concrete or bituminous material and recreational vehicles and trailers may be parked on an unimproved surface inside and rear yards um and then I have a couple General uh standards for all districts uh all vehicles recreational vehicles and trailers shall be licensed and operable and for all zoning districts um recreational vehicles and trailers um shall be owned by the person residing on the property unless otherwise approved by the city council through an interim use permit for home extended business um specific to outdoor storage obviously um couple of the things that I didn't add on this uh slideshow though was uh we did not have a definition in our zoning ordinance for trailers and uh motor vehicles uh so working with the city attorney's office was just uh making that distinction so we have that language to provide when we uh propose amendments like this um adding that more detail gives people an understanding of where things what things can be parked where um so with that I guess uh this is a public hearing um the Planning Commission is asked to discuss these proposals languages based on the discussion you had at your January meeting um and staff will welcome any feedback um moving forward for any changes that you'd like to see can you go back a slide I just want to make sure I'm interpreting sure so if you're less than a half an acre you can have a vehicle on an unimproved surface on a sidey yard and in your rear yard so two yeah the side yard is adjacent to the garage on an unimproved surface provided at five uh fo set back yep and then you could have another one in your rear yard if correct recreational vehicle and or trailer okay just for clarification purposes do we Define um what a side yard or like a corner side yard so a corner lot uh obviously has two front edges um typically the front yard is the least width of the two right so what what do how do we Define that other Frontage is that a corner side yard or is it just a side yard it would be a corner side yard but as defined in the lot Dimensions or lot definitions uh in the in another section of the code uh I actually did not have any uh language related to Corner side yard Lots um I appreciate you bringing that up because I think that that should be um something that could be addressed here at the Planning Commission um my experience in terms of what limitations should be added to Corner side yard Lots I've seen setback requirements from the street or from the property line that it buts that side street uh up to 20 ft um so as a current ordinance is written you could have a a lot that's less than 0.5 Acres that has their Garage on that corner side yard area and you could you could store a recreational vehicle essentially in front of the garage which would be visible from the right of like it would be visible from that uh provided it uh is outside of the Clear View triangle area which is the 55 feet from the then the question is is that the intent of of the proposed ordinance that you would we would allow for people to store a recreational vehicle essentially adjacent to the garage on a corner lock correct the way that this is currently written um that would be accurate um but uh I would certainly entertain uh I would entertain that I think the whole intent is to try to hide those types of vehicles the best we can sure [Music] um so I I guess I would entertain an amendment to address and I don't know how many Lots there might be a handful of them right so but just to address that situation where we I don't know if we necessarily want a an a recreational vehicle parked in that manner sure would the um I guess I would pose a question to the Planning Commission would you uh by understanding would you be okay with added language to prohibit the side yard language adjacent to the garage on an unimproved surface for Corner Lots I guess yeah but I think you've got the same problem in a rear yard storage on a corner lot my yard in particular if I parked my boat in my backyard you would see from the road 24/7 very very clearly um so it's similar problem um and that's ultimately I brought that up when this was discussed last month yeah um was if I parked my boat in my backyard it would be an absolute isore for the community it would not match the intent of hey it's in the backyard or it's parked along the side of the garage and it is somewhat hidden from view mine absolutely would not be hidden now there would any of the Four Corners around me and I've kind of analyzed the neighborhood and everybody's the same way every corner lot there if they parked a boat in the backyard or a trailer or whatever it would be very visible get in fact there was one it is and it still look ugly in the backyard the the the people have since moved there was one right across from the street from the park in our neighborhood where they parked it on the side Lot in that situation I actually didn't mind it there where they had it but they had a nice buffer to the they had a sidewalk the sidewalk was there the it was behind the the site triangles I didn't mind it did I like it no just a suggest I mean again if we don't care so to speak then you know I the whole intent of this ordinance anyway is what the surfacing of the storage of that RV is not necessarily where yeah but it's the surfacing so if if the intent is to to focus on the surfacing I'm I'm fine with that I just wanted to bring that concern up if the planet commission wanted to address that other issue so well and I I think I my intent also to draft this ordinance was deciphering where things could be parked because the way that the original language is written or the current language is written um as if someone decided to pave or pour a concrete slab of half of their backyard and start storing things on that they could do so because it is on that um bituminous or concrete surface um so I think that that was kind of an add-on to well we are going to lessen the restrictions then we should at least Define where what and where could be parked I'm kind of on the fence with the corner side yard and part of it is I want it I know there's one gentleman here that would like to speak I want to hear his thoughts too but I think that some of these neighborhoods that don't already have HOAs that govern it like I get 48 Hours a year is what I was told tonight but anyway if you live in a place you chose that area to begin with so I don't want to make it too owners some or burdensome and there's places where people can choose to live if that that's what they they want is not having a bunch of trailers around right yeah just scrolling through some of the newer neighborhoods I mean there's a ton of properties that the rear lot is just as exposed as the side lots and just but I think a lot of these HOAs though would prohibit things you know yeah I guess it's you know if it's an issue that's doesn't make sense to try to govern because of the fact that it's just it's so apparent I guess the only concern I would have if if it's behind the house in the backyard it's a little bit different than the first thing you see from looking at you know what I mean so it's a placement of of that vehicle in relation to everything else but I get it corner corner lots are difficult for screening and storage and set packs and everything else so we don't buy them because we want privacy that's right any other comments before we open our questions before we open the public hearing open the public hearing at 10:07 sorry for the long wait way past my same similar Craig fory 11821 Stone Ridge Road um I live in our two districts two plus acres 990,000 Square ft on my side of the street people across the street are 5 Acres on the river um so I just want to discuss the proposed changes um which cover I guess more than R1 R2 R3 and r e Lots um in talking with the city planner Hayden uh that the proposed changes are the result of a complaint from one city resident who would like to have more storage on his lot um and for the purposes of my discussion when we say RVs I I'm going to interject toys everybody likes their toys um uh he would like more storage on his lot and not be required to storees toys or RVs on a paved surface um these changes that will Loos the requirements will affect I better cross out hundreds now because I heard thousands of homes in Dayton uh by this loosening of the uh ordinance uh it seems excessive almost Reckless to make changes based on one complaint that's going to affect a thousand residents I kind of liken the existing ordinance like an HOA for the city it sets standards for the neighborhood if you build a house in date and you're required to meet certain standards it has to be set back from the street The sidey Yards you can't have a five-story house that has to have roughing and sighting materials that are approved standards how the neighborhoods should look in Dayton um these are standards so neighborhoods look uniform and pleasing by loosening the standards you're encouraging homeowners um to turn their sidey yards and backyards into storage lots and many junkyards and maybe I'm speaking more on the R2 Lots versus the smaller less less uh acreage Lots uh I believe this will lower the value of my home and all of my neighbors homes in my neighborhood because it only takes one resident in the neighborhood to lower the value of everyone's home in that neighborhood I guess why are we changing the ordinance I'm guessing it's been on the books for 30 40 years um so to even consider a change because of one complaint I guess I don't quite understand that um I want you to examine the intent when the ordinance was made what were they trying to set a standard for I think one of them was to be dust free um subdivision 2 number 10 states parking shall be surfaced with concrete or ruinous material so as to be dust free parking RVs on grass is going to kill the grass then you get dirt then you get rain then you get mud and ruts that detracts from the neighborhood when the dirt dries and the wind blows you get dust that's not my biggest issue you're proposing unlimited RV or toy parking on R2 Lots off driveway I think this opens a can of worms it'll discourage residents from building accessory buildings to store their toys the city will lose permit money for the structure and the driveway to the to the structure he with the most toys wins is the philosophy of a lot of my neighbors uh a lot of Neighbors in on my street already have large accessory buildings they've filled them up and don't have enough room so now they're storing them on their side Lots I don't care how many RVs and toys you own uh I don't want to see them when I drive up and down the street I don't think my neighbors do either give them an inch and they'll take a mile you're limiting the small lots to just two what's why why did you limit it to two and why didn't you let them have an unlimited amount do you want me to respond I do uh that was basically from the uh discussion with the Planning Commission in January of maybe a certain size I mean is it possible that four to five RVs on a small lot would look junky and tacky just putting that out there at some point it becomes too many I guess is my point and what's that number okay now the biggest problem that I see with the parking ordinance is the enforcement there's little to no enforcement of the parking ordinance in the city of Dayton I brought parking code violations of several of my neighbors to the city council in September oh not not to the city council just to the city September 2022 I'm currently working with my fifth City staff member to try and get the parking or ordinance as it is written now enforced 2 and 1/2 years five staff members the city did send out letters to I think at least over a dozen if I looking back in my notes uh and that's the correct procedure they have 30 days to respond and a few did make corrections I appreciate the city taking that effort uh and then I think the next step is to send out a second letter 2 and A2 years five City staff members a lot of the same issues nothing has changed the majority of the people who got letters have not complied no one from the city just my understanding can go out onto private property and check to see if it's licensed if it's drivable Etc to investigate infractions it's all viewed from the road is my understanding if they get permission from the property in order they can go on the property hey Phil can I come on your property and see if your RV is licensed not interested okay let me just just switch a quick gear here um ordinance 13.05 Public nuisances subst Sub uh division 31 States accumulations or storage in the open not in a building of any of the following items or any parts or accessories there too and C any equipment or Motor Vehicles which is inoperable not currently licensed or generally is not being driven I've got RV in my neighborhood that haven't seen the street for 5 to 10 years D generally not used on the premises Boat and Motor used on the premises interesting H accumulations of any items that tend to cause an unsightly appearance of the premises and which may cause discomfort for any of the members of public who may be using their own or public property this ordinance was my initial complaint to the city and September of 22 because I saw all these RVs cars parked in the front yards so I looked up the ordinances hey this one looks good I'll try that one the current city administrator Zack Dow has deemed most of this ordinance unenforceable been on the books 30 40 years he's basically telling me I don't have a leg to stand on so then we looked at the parking ordinance you know what have other cities done with their parking ordinances and I think you've checked and you have some ideas on that um you know the the Planning Commission is tasked with making recommendations to the city that are for the greater good of all the residents not just a handful so loosening the restrictions in the parking ordinance has unintended consequences in my opinion you know I've heard restrictions like they need to be owned by the resident must be currently licensed must be operable the city can't prove any of these things without viewing the units on the resident lot no one for the city is looking for ordinance infractions the police are driving around patrolling they're not looking for ordinance infractions Public Works driving around doing their thing not on their radar the only way the city knows of a violation is from a citizen complaint trying to view these infractions from the city street doesn't work if a travel trailer has its license fate away from the street the city has no way of knowing who owns that if it's currently licensed it could even have a Wisconsin plate on it imagine that um an old motor home may not even have a an engine if the Hood's down City doesn't know so it's inoperable a resident might be renting out a travel trail trailer to A non-resident to live there City would never know our two lots two plus acres could easily have 6 to8 RVs stored on their side Lot rear lot uh the resident could have a side hustle of selling used RVs well sir do you own those well yes I do okay it's a small business the city would never know the current ordinance keeps neighborhoods from looking junky or tacky I call it the junk ification of Dayton uh it sets a standard on how neighborhoods should look protecting residents homes value and again and little to no enforcement of the parking ordinance the mechanisms for enforcement is broken in the city of Dayton loosening the requirements will cause more complaints to the city in my opinion to deal with and have fines ever been issued to Residents over ordinance infra parking ordinance and fractions so what are the options somebody who wants to store RV's toys on their property they want more storage number one build an accessory building to store the toys in they've spent tens of thousands of dollars on boats and campers personal opinion why wouldn't you want to store them out of the weather out of the sight of Thieves vandalism there's a new business storage business on on Territorial Road in Dayton someone from the city could contact the owner and get a reduced rate for Dayton residents support a local company win-win allow an ordinance exception to build onto an existing accessory building or add a new accessory building within certain square foot limits make privacy fencing mandatory for off driveway storage you mentioned the corner lot technically they can park it 10 ft from let's just use Pine View for an example if they live off of Pine View technically their backyard is the frontage to Pine View so that's basically the front yard to you so that's an issue that has to be dealt with fencing privacy fencing make it tall enough to block the view of all the toys out of sight out of mind you know this would also help with vandalism and theft all right item number five for those residents who want more storage follow the ordinance as written and pave an additional spot next to the existing driver your garage Destro your toys I understand that there's talk about loosening the requirement for a paved surface to include pavers well just for clarification for the planning commiss the way that the language is currently written um makes it it's very vague to decide whether adding pavers to a parking area is considered an improved surface such as concrete or asphalt um so well let's just say that it can be with the approval of the Public Works director that's in the language so technically let's say that you could put pavers on the side of your guard so for $2 to $300 you go to Menard's you make your 10x 20 you got a hard surface to park your RV on problem solve number six move all the RVs and toys to the existing driveway this meets the ordinance for parking and doesn't cost anything why do you need the backyard okay so I'm urging the Planning Commission to recommend to the city council to leave the current parking ordinance in place it's worked fine for 40 years I would say work on the enforcing two and a half years five staff members uh anybody have any comments or questions thank you thank you all right thank you anyone else here to speak on this I will just note that uh on the day there there was a uh comment written in from um a resident regarding this item as well right with that we will at 10:23 we will close the public hearing open it up for discussion I'll just say that looking around lots of dating whether it's the old code or the new code there's there's a lot of enforcement issues and personally I don't think the city should get too involved in it that's why there's certain neighborhoods that are what they are so I'm kind of you know the half acres in arbitrary cut off is the issue correct if anything that's where maybe Unlimited on a point6 acres is maybe not the right answer but now we're getting in the minutia of coming up with new arbitrary numbers too so that's kind of where I'm at is that it's you know even if we kept the old code we would be full-time busy enforcing and that is not the answer for our s we could be full-time busy enforcing a whole bunch of different items in our code right it's not uncommon for communities to be complaint basis communities um and it's not uncommon for communities to struggle with enforcement of those of those uh items you know I I think largely Society um needs to have an interest in abiding by the rules that are on the books otherwise our our city staffs are enormous um I'm I'm in the boat of not necessar boat no pun intended of not necessarily amending this ordinance I don't I don't think it improves much of anything in my opinion and and I brought it up based on the corner lots and um you know Jeff brought it up based on the this the parking next to the garage on a corner lot in the front yard I don't know that we really fix anything here um it it it allows them to to just park it on the grass sure that's the change um I don't think it's any better if it's parked on a concrete pad in the backyard too it's it's it's the presence of that recreational vehicle in the backyard that is an eyesore what it's parked on you probably can't even see from the road Berry all that easily anyways um I don't think you will fix this code in a way that makes everybody happy I would agree I don't think it's broken from that standpoint that's my opinion you know I I don't no code is perfect honestly you know if if there there's going to be loopholes abound if somebody wants to have a a untidy lot um there there's plenty of plenty of things um you have some untiy L plenty plenty and it's you know is is the community in the interest of harassing every resident and there's there's communities that have gone through a lot of code enforcement and they've they've got entire code enforcement department um is that good or bad I I think it probably depends on what side of that conversation you're on if if the code enforcer is knocking on your door giving you a pink slip and saying you violated this code you're probably not very happy about it but if if you keep your yard neat and tidy and then it really bothers you that somebody's camper is in the backyard you're probably pretty happy about it it's one of those divisive issues that I do not think you're going to make everybody happy and quite frankly you probably make half of them unhappy and the other half happy I is I don't know that it's worth touching the code for it that's my opinion I don't think we're going to fix it just sorry not to go on a big rant but just like the sign ordinance of of the temporary signs in the right of way right we had good intentions or I wasn't part of it really at that time this board had good intentions of cleaning up our right of way well guess what it's not very enforcable and it's not very practical and it's it's a challenge that every Community has and and I think we're back wrestling with ordinance because there's just no real good way to fix it I I don't see this as a what makes us different than some communities too is that we have a very mix of rural 2 acre lots one acre lots Urban of areas so it makes it even harder to have a standard for everyone and I think that's where staff drew the line on a half of an acre all the proposals we've seen in here there aren't any half acre lots anymore in these developments so I get where staff was coming from they were they were going based on the direction they received uh and I don't know I just I I was on the fence last month and and I think I'm just more in the boat of I I don't think this is fixable necessarily and and if we really if city council really wants to do code enforcement we got to staff up but I just that's that's not for this body to decide um at all so Hayden was this a did could you clarify this amendment had gone to the council and back to us for with a Rec Commendation of to look at it again could you explain how so the item was brought forward for discussion no action in January and uh based off that discussion staff had proposed this amendment and published for a public hearing got that would then be uh and and in that discussion in your opinion the city council was favorable with for this type of amendment yes to alleviate the blanket the entire blanket statement of no matter what property you're on there is no parking on on on improved surfaces um gotcha so that was that was the direction that we had received from the city council now I will say that there was only one person that did bring this to the city council um when I do reach out to people for um enforcement violation letters uh or just violation letters that is what I always tell them when they call me frustrated is that's your mechanism to see something changed is bring this request to the council and then they can direct staff to uh look into an amendment um and it that was the one resident that decided to do that so and can you change the slide one more time to the to the egg area not the residential sure um this is current language right this is all proposed both slides what is back this is the current language here in quotes yeah and we just saw an A1 parcel that was how big was that one yeah 98 yeah it's so that's it's it's just it's so difficult so but in a A1 they would be allowed to have Vis on Crush Rock yep they could park it on a crush Rock I mean I I don't want to talk out of both sides of my mouth here but I I feel like the residential is the part that you're not going to fix um egg the egg area that point 82 although it's residentially sized lot it's in the egg area if it was parked on Crush Rock I don't think it matters and it would meet the code so I don't know that the code's broken I think question would be does it need to be on Crush Rock even in the egg I guess that could definitely be up for discussion of you know oh the egg can it just be barked on the dirt but I think for residential I think this is where the hardier complaints are going to come from right the residents are going to be complaining in the residential areas well Dennis this reminds me of the the accessory structure one with the temporary carport type things Yep this reminds me 100% like that and I I'm drawing a blank on what we ended up doing there with that specific one the CP thing too we yeah what we we ended up a volum in the front yards but there were yeah there was it was setback requirements yeah if you had I think it was over 150 ft then you could come up half yeah it was along those lines I mean this this seems to somewhat fit into that I mean well I I just seen this as two issues one is um there are a boatload of residences in violation of the current ordinance and so is the answer to come in with you know your boots clicking and and tell everybody to straighten up or fix the code so it matches what the people want you know again you're probably going to end up pissing off half either way um I I can tell you that there's a lot of people that don't put you know uh pinus or or concrete under their trailer because next year they mean I want the trailer in that spot they may want it over here I so I mean that's my hang up with the with the what the impervious surface is um I mean I've got I I can tell you my lot right now if I get a complaint I'm going to be in violation I've got a horse trailer I've got a flat bed I've got a tractor and I move them around so they don't kill the grass I'm not going to put con food down you need a new accessory building probably can't no we did fix that yeah um yeah the hard thing is we have just such varying difference in types of properties right I mean the residential areas y yeah I mean you want to see a RV parked on the side of the garage on a pave surface probably I think this this I don't remember what the story was here but I I think a lot of people want they want to hide they do want to move the trailer in the back of the air to kind of hide it instead having it sit in their yard or in their driveway plus now it's in the way yeah you yeah you don't want it in your driveway all winter but if they put it in their backyard now they got to what put a pad down who's going do me it's not really about what it's sitting on yes it's like especially like the paper like papers can look terrible and Sh about doing away with Paving recomendation as long as they have privacy fening to hide it from the street you can't hide in RV though yeah yeah the fence can't be tall enough right you'd have an ordinance violation on fence side yeah what you want see the RV I guess where where I'm hung up on this is is you know the no we we have an ordinance restricting size location type for accessory buildings right we have we have setbacks for a shed we have sizes for a shed I can't build a two-story shed in my neighborhood because of the the way the ordinances are written I I'm what I'm struggling with is we should be able to figure out an ordinance that does work for the differ size lots that we have this one one just doesn't feel like it and the different types of uses we have you know um one of the I mean I I'll throw it out there in some of the our districts Maybe not maybe not the larger Lots but the smaller Lots should we be really allowing boats in the driveway in January right it it's a question they're not using it it's not getting moved a lot it's you know um same goes with snowmobiles in in summer in the driveway right should we be allowing that I get I get the fact that yes it's that we have HOAs that do enforce that but on the flip side we also you know want to build a community that is is uh you know desirable to live in and you don't want to see your neighbors trash all the time so I'm I'm really struggling with this because we I look at this as a lot of like very similar to what we have without out buildings in in regards to a lot of times some of them as as the gentleman pointed out a lot of times some of them get parked and not ever moved again guess I didn't track on some of that why didn't so let's say the snow bills in in the in the summer or what why wouldn't you want them then to be able to put it in their backyard I agree leaving stuff in the driveway it's in the way all the time I I never said I wouldn't allow it in the backyard I'm just saying why don't we restrict it like we do out buildings is kind of where I was going I mean in in my thought process is with this is like in some of the residential areas with the smaller Lots maybe we even throw in the seasonal restrictions to it but that's that's just my head it's at I I understand people may have different opinions and that's okay I mean it comes down to an enforcement issue it always does right so um you know if if Dayton does not have a robust code enforcement Personnel uh I I think that you have to look at how you can craft your ordinances in a way where you're trying to make the majority of the people in compliance right so what is that mean you know that this is a difficult situation I agree because of the fact that you're trying to there's no one siiz fits-all solution uh especially with the nature of the varying lot sizes so on and so forth uh zoning districts um it's it's a difficult one yeah I I agree yeah you know I think of it like the temporary sign how that backfired if we did do something I could see it backfiring really fast because of the number cap you know now someone gets wind of it and they turn someone in and all of a sudden we have a bunch of complaints that we have to look into and investigate because it just ripples through things because I'm just looking on the aerial views and there's a lot of lots that won't be in compliance with one in their backyard Y and it's not wrong or right obviously everyone seems to be getting wrong with it along with it but obviously it's also in violent or in violation of our current code too and so if we change the code we're kind of putting a bullet or Bullseye out there all right hey now I can turn people in and it might be more work than we really want and it's not going to solve anything quickly no there's there will still be violations out there even if this is changed I can see the argument because I made the argument myself of I don't think you can even see what surface it's parked on anyways I I personally don't care what surface it's parked on um you know I I can understand the idea of moving the thing around so it doesn't kill the grass and you know you might not always have it there and I to me it's just it feels like it it no matter what this is a massive Enforcement issue now you could change it to a un uh improved surface and have less compliance issues because you've seemingly taken some violations off the books um I'm not helping a lot there from that standpoint I don't think it's very easy to solve yeah even if we did do the less than a half acre with one I don't know the magic number for one acre it's like now it's really arbitrary and creates even a bigger Enforcement issue of what's right and wrong too yeah on is it all of R1 I don't know what is R1 is what four units an acre up to four units an acre for density right R R1 the minimum lot size is 15,000 square ft² where the R3 the minimum lot size is 65,000 or 6500 square fet I think that R3 District really is the focus of the D the that common density that we see with new developments now the other thing I agree with is the fact that generally ordinance changes are a result of numerous people with the same concern approaching staff or Council saying something needs to be done um you know in this instance if it was one individual um yes I I understand the direction was to ask the council and the council could ask staff to give some direction um again if it was 100 people knocking on the door saying you have to change I think I'd be looked looking a little differently uh with this this proposed change um it could be an instance that you know we had the same conversation with the case right before this with you're you're trying to get the best result for the the most people you're not going to satisfy 100% of the people 100% of the time so I think potentially the ordinance is fine as it is right now and we just wait until we get a lot more concern knocking on the door so I'm in that camp too I think you had one resident come forward but I mean we have a boatload of people not in compliance so you ignore that we have even more that are in compliance potentially I think with our proposed code there's well I suppose it's unlimited if you got more than a half acre so then it's and I'm not I don't really have a I don't have an issue with the surface that they're parked on either that's not the issue I think it's I think that's fairly trivial I mean yeah I I look at what I think that was just a way to make it harder yeah so so I'm I'm thinking about this a lot cuz and I I made the statement about the the sheds and accessory buildings cuz I think there's a way to to size it right the way we do that on acreage it's it's yeah it's a little more work and we got to figure that out and that's kind of our job um the other thing we do a lot right we talk about businesses and where they can park stuff and where they can where they can have their materials where they can have their screening and I don't see this as much different I I I really don't um with the exception I don't want to be on a Planning Commission or nor the council with continuous cups on whether it's screened appropriately for how many how many of these cases out there it's just not a good use of time with everything else we got to do well and I I I and I I see that and I you know I value that too because we don't need to be here till 11:00 every month like we are but um about that but I think there's a way I I do think there's a way we can we can work through this I just don't know if this is the right the one that's written is the right way to do it and I just don't know on on the on the same token of you know if it's not broke why why are we trying to do something um if the broken part is the enforcement we got to fix that first and even changing this language will not help with enforcement so can I ask who is the code enforcer of Dayton is it primarily it's the new guy on the commission they got crazy it's like being the assistant weed inspector right I mean same guy no I mean is it just CD department or is for for zoning violations it is primarily myself and then for city code issues it's uh uh the CSO theity Service Officer okay yeah I mean there's you know obviously as as Dayton's growing there there might be a need to get a staff person dedicated for that because inevitably you're going to get Sarge in calls of neighbors who are upset that the HOA isn't doing anything or whatever it might be and it it's I think it's inevitable so um something to consider uh if it's a huge Enforcement issue obviously you could try to change the code but um it's once people start asking the city's going to have to provide and how how are you going to do that with two people on staff right actually doing the work so it's difficult so we got three options except it as is keep it the same or put it back on staff to and I think the direction is we put it back on staff even what ped was getting to is we need a little bit more Matrix to feel comfortable about sizes maybe once you get above if we could give staff direction if that's what we want to do I don't know it's all arbitrary so I'm just throwing a number out there but once you get above three acres or something like that now it's just we don't care we got to focus on how you get up to that point if we want to do that it seems to me that that's our three options and again that three acres was 100% arbitrary that could be something else stuff is I mean yeah be willing to say anything over like half acre it doesn't matter what it's parked on get rid of the paving yeah requirement well that's kind of what this getting rid of the paving in the back not an issue but currently it says if you have more than a half it's unlimited yeah and is that a big deal I guess it's only a big deal if someone really abuses it I guess right yeah um I'll just in observation so whatever your however big your yard is I mean I think the tendency is you park a boat or an RV in the back corner of your property closest to your neighbor's house so you know whether it's a half acre three or or 10 acres um it's not in the middle right yeah yeah just looking at Dayton that areas that have a lot of stuff that's the more of the mature parts of Dayton and there's a lot of just trees and overgrowth and Shrubbery along property boundaries already so it's not crazy it's just and maybe that's part of it is is to have that screening written in there that the worst areas are the new developments like when you drive through Ramsey Town Center in their Northwest section it's looks like blight because there's no trees and there there's boats everywhere and if you if you add that into the language aband boats and they can't do anything about it if you add that some of that screening into the language it will already weed out maybe 75% of our yeah screening is subjective though that's part too I mean you're not going to unless it's a fence you're not going to screen it year round trees drop leaves I don't know I guess but back to our three points are we going to recommend staff to come up with something different I think Nick myself and you're on the same page of probably it isn't broken don't fix it um I do completely understand mayor Fischer's point though that there's a ton of people in violation if we did something it maybe bring some of them out of it y but it doesn't really change the situation at all the physical sit situation did not change and all we did is make them complain which is great I suppose right but it didn't do anything for the community I just seen it as silly having to put a padum back here at the store something yeah and that was my big deal with that um I just feel like we own the rest of this code now when we start to play with it we own it anyways it's on the books but this gets back to I think Nick where you were starting with is we had this temporary sign ordinance that we we went through and and it didn't fix anything and then we ended up throwing it away yep and so after spending a lot of sta hour where my head is at and I guess Darren where my head's at is I'm I'm going to say let's not do anything and if the council wants to push on doing something we've got a recommendation for staff to to do a little more matrixing style okay not to beat the horse I guess but are there any other advantages for hard surfacing rather than Aesthetics potentially I mean you're looking at from D maybe some environmental but it's going to get there eventually the the oil is going to get washed off of that hard surface no I don't think I honestly I think it was just a way to be like you want to park it back there it's going to be a little bit more effort I think the defined space is probably the biggest benefit okay do we need a emotion on on this yes MH I'll make a motion oh hold on here are we making a motion on the proposed ordinance correct unless you want to propose any changes right now no so I need to make a motion to I'll make a motion to deny the proposed ordinance at this point in time and leave the current ordinance on the books second we have a motion in a second to deny the ordinance all those in favor i i i i motion passes four five to zero all right next thank you I will just note that a resolution for denial will be brought to the city council in on February 25th your turn all right you want me to just keep this oh yeah going um so this next uh ordinance amendment is related to the sign code um and this first section that I'll speak on is specifically related to the discussion that came from the variance request from quick trip along uh Dayton 94 or I94 um and that they had proposed a variance for 80ft tall sign 225 square ft and that would be their second freestanding sign on the site um all of which were approved and a uh discussion with the applicants was a request to change the proposed 25ft tall sign um along Dayton Parkway in Hol Lane uh from the 25 fot code compliant pylon sign uh to a monument sign um and this discussion actually both occurred at the Planning Commission meeting and the city council uh and the response from the applicant was if the sign could be the monument sign could be taller than 8 ft that would be something that they would look into um I've since reached out or they have since reached out wondering if a proposed amendment to the height of Monument signs um has been approved yet and as such this is what uh is before you in this first part of the amendment is to change the max maimum height allowed for a monument sign from 8 ft to 10 ft in commercial and Industrial districts while at the same time leaving the square footage area the same from 64 squ ft to 64 Square ft um I think in internal discussions with staff uh we didn't find it necessary to add any of the square footage area as that is the code standard for pylon signs at 25 ft tall and if you limit that 8 by8 area say on a 8 or 16t tall Monument sign there is still room left for what is essentially an aesthetic base to that sign area um so that is the first one um basically the ordinances in front of you in your packets as well um changes the monument sign height from 8 ft to 16 ft and there was one more language change in there related to uh wall signage there's current language in there that says that all wall signage must be on the primary entrance wall of the building when we were looking through this at the staff level staff didn't really understand um the necessity for that given you have a certain size of signage that you are allowed based on your that wall um and if you can meet that standard it seemed unnecessary to require it to be limited to that one front entrance wall um any questions on this section I know that there's a just Clarity um originally said 8 ft to 10 ft and then I saw 16 ft up there and I think you said 8T to 16 ft what what are we proposing just did I say 10t right away yeah apologies um thank you for calling that out it is a an amendment to go from 8 ft to 16 ft and and I guess the only reason I point it out is more the 64 Square F feet is if you actually went the 16 ft that's uh what is that five small yeah it's not very it's going to look weird if you actually went that get very good proportion proportionality I think if you double the height of the oh he's I got it Peter's showing me a little bit I'm showing him the graphic oh actually I'm sorry that uh yeah yeah totally SPAC that I put that in there so that doesn't include the foundation got it the square footage area it's only the Sign Language sign area got it can I can I ask how we Define the sign area so every City's different some cities say the closest fit box around the actual text is how they Define the sign area correct is that how Dayton does it yes it would be that area that uh has a language and then wall signs is even more specific to um kind of the channel letters themselves gotcha okay okay any other questions on how tall do you want to go I mean 16 ft seems really tall for a monument sign to me yeah it'd have to be a pretty big property to justify 16 ft was a little a little property it would seem weird and and you know we had the example of Quick Trip right um and I would call that a big property in the sense of the whole landscaped area and it's kind of in a ditch and we're playing with grade there I think this is somewhat unique I'm more like for example at the DCM Farms commercial area that would look huge yep yes I completely take that point and uh I would just add that as well as being a PUD like uh commissioner Sergeant as well as you had mentioned um sign um area sign for the commercial area can be established as a condition of approval yep so those I'm more thinking for a general commercial we don't have really anything yet besides the rain tree area that of course you know there's a land for sale there but I don't know if you guys have had any applications on it but in that area too that little site that's for sale two and a half acres not saying that someone would even want to put that big a sign on it but oh that's a monument too front uh I'm more talking about the vacant land I understand that but it just doned me that that's that's sign out there is so we we had one variance in the last put a couple years on this yeah right and I will just say our current commercial zoning needs is going to need a lot of work when we actually have commercial development and places for it to go because we really don't right now and so that's why too I don't want to Overkill the sign thing because our whole commercial District's no different than how we had to work on our industrial and we had a bunch of Industrial Development did staff do any kind of surveying of surrounding cities and how what their minimum requ requirements or maximum requirements are for Monument signage yes I did uh and actually for Monument signs um especially in Maple Grove are really strict as I think the maximum is um 8 ft with uh actually I think it's trying to think of the last uh it was either six or8 feet for an individual sign and then there was obviously allowances for like uh comprehensive sign plans and things like that um and areas like Rogers especially along the freeway um the their code language doesn't differentiate between um actually the entire sign code doesn't differentiate between pylon signs and Monument signs um and that's what I've seen more common at least in um places that I've researched that they don't differentiate the height requirements between monuments and pylons so what was Roger's requirement was 30 ft and I believe 100 square F feet in total so there's kind of two extremes where mle Grove is very restrictive and Rogers is not where do we fit do we look at any other cities uh in the area um I could tell you that uh just from past Champlain do we look at Champlain I haven't looked at Champlain's uh sign ordinance yet Brook Park I haven't looked at Brooklyn Parks yet either as well you know it's just kind of similar in nature along 610 there through Bookman Park there's areas all through there that is similar to what were dealing with past 94 I will say it's not uncommon either for uh especially like Maple Grove and Rogers really differentiate based on where you are located right yeah I could see 16 ft being a little bit too tall um that's that's pretty tall 16t I think the other number that was discussed when this was originally brought forward was 12T what is Quick Trip proposing for their Monument whatever you guys would give them okay I just curious if they had specific requirement or a suggestion they did I will say that they did say that they could make a 12T sign work or a 16 foot tall Monument sign however at the Planning Commission level and the city council level there was no conditions of approval related to changing that code compliant pylon sign on Holly Lane and Dayton Parkway so if the amendment goes through and it is 12 feet and they say no we don't really like that then they will uh propose a C- compliant 25ft tall sign there because they did receive a variance for the second freestanding sign on the site so that's that was uh something that I had mentioned to um the group when we had the proposal was in front and it was not uh of interest to make that a requirement I mean I guess where I stand to try to move this long as 12T and 16 ft they're both subjective it really depends on what sort of development is it's a 40,000 ft retail Center 16 ft is just fine in fact 64 ft is probably too light you need more signage for everything going on but if it's a oneoff little retail store that seems excessive and the user probably wouldn't want to do that anyway because it's expensive um so and not I could go either way the 12 or 16 and I wouldn't anticipate every proposed sign plan for a business to come in and propose the maximum but uh I mean setting the maximum kind of gives them that threshold to work within yeah um and you're not going to be able to I mean it kind of get into the weeds here you'd be difficult to dictate based on other than things other than zoning districts I would say not to make you repeat yourself if we don't change this and it remains existing what is the Quick Trip on Holly Lane prepared to do uh they would uh are from my understanding and they haven't submitted a permit application or anything like that is that uh I believe that if the well regardless they could do a code compliant 25t tall pylon sign yeah and we're not talking about adjacent to the interstate we're talking about near Holly correct they were just saying because we gave them the tall one they' do one to do a shorter one if it was but wouldn't be that couldn't see over the overpass or driving I think I'm I guess I'm okay with 16 I think that it's just something that we have to keep on our radar as we watch how other commercial districts start developing and get proposed agree they don't have an interest in coming in to specifically request a 16t monument sign in L of the pylon and get a specific approv separate approval for it what what came to be the struggle there especially at the public hearing was what are the findings of fact to allow for a variance of such um from the 8 ft to 16 ft I think that was really what staff on on our end really had a difficult time understanding what is the Practical difficulty to not being able to meet the code standard well in this case the code standard being a 25 foot pylon sign we wouldn't want that anyways or the eight-footer yeah yeah the monument looks way better than the pil one correct yeah I could see 16 being fine as as proposed and you know the user themsel to your rep there and they're they're not going to propose say we got a small user that comes in they're not going to put up a a massive Monument sign know I guess they could some national like fast food chain might well but we're not to that point yet we don't want a 25 foot pile on there for Quick Trip either right yeah I'd rather see a 16 foot tall Monument sign with a nice base and Landscaping than a 25t tall P so I'd rather push everybody to go to the 16t monument over the pylon but they could make a 12T work so but we're not doing this for them we're doing this to to find what our who else would we do it I mean like who else would be bigger than that I know we don't know what else come down the pipe but you know think about where that land is situated yeah um and and the visual nature of it if 12 does it there it probably does it everywhere I would think yeah yeah 12 would work just fine there you the height of the Quick Trip sign their minman sign on 81 I think that's 16 and I believe I'm going off memory from several years ago I think it might be taller cuz I think we gave him a that um for combining their signage for their CU they own two commercial Lots adjacent to doesn't look out of place if it's 16 ft to me I mean I've never driven by and said holy cow it's a huge problem yeah that area is so heavy industrial and the first thing you see is the 45ft tall cubes building anyway so and I will say too especially like places like the old village um they monu or freestanding signs aren't allowed there because the encouragement for new um business long is it Robinson yep Street and down the main road um have build two lines um so really not making freestanding signs practical in that regard so so really we're thinking I mean just kind of thinking around town we've got we've got the the gas stations the rain tree Plaza area rain tree and Rain Tree Plaza so areas that make sense right gas stations we've got um what's what's the road on rain tree the Ballam aome which buses there some businesses there that but they're more destination businesses they're not going to justify I don't think a 16t tall sign would be appropriate appropriate for the size of businesses we got the golf courses golf courses maybe they destination too the more destination you get the less you're not trying to pull people in by spending lots of signs I mean they may want to put one up as a nice sign for entrance but they're probably not putting up a 16t tall Monument sign no um no I mean you're doing a taller sign like that because it's a major road right and you're trying to get more visibility so I'm just logically going through my head of like are we a retail strip center would want it especially if it's bigger for all the advertising of the tenants and that would look really nice at rain tree to pull some people in I mean it's currently rain tree but'll be in the future unfortunately I don't have the language in front of me but there are different um standards for comprehensive sign plans for multi-tenant buildings and such um I just don't have that language in front of me right now I'm just more thinking about like if you know realistically we're going to if we were to get a sign application in tomorrow you know where would it come from so that's the in my head right I think an 8 by 16 is a nice proportion I would suggest that maybe we should open public hearing and close it real quick so we have a public hearing so we will open that at 11:05 anyone here to speak on this all right you spend four and a half hours here you don't want to speak one more time are we thinking neon yes can we say no neon and we will close the public hearing at 11:06 so the only thing that we're really recommending is changing the ordinance to change the height from 8 to 16 ft and remove the requirement that wall signage be um only on the primary entrance to the building I'm fully support that y um um aside from the temporary signs language that uh John had put together next do we have something in there I you have it drawn with a brick on there do we have something on there of a something added in there what material requirements yeah material requirements I believe that there is um because we don't want just a or maybe we do just want a plane I don't know you're the architect I mean it's it can go so many different ways right I mean like block brick stone metal panel could be fine like you could do a pre-cast panel that looks really nice with acid etching and you know integral color like there's so many things it could be what would look bad what would look bad what do we not want to do just like bare concrete block an 8ot tall pylon yeah Decora decorative concrete wall yeah BL a lot of times codes will have it has to be built of compatible material of the principal structure maybe something along those lines in there might be she material what's that might be sheet metal could be could be you could do is so signs are hard to regulate like it's the hardest part of the the code so yeah so my my question I guess is do you have enough information to make a decision or you want to sit and wait up think about this more I don't think the height is an issue for me I I just don't think it is meaning and as we refine our commercial districts and where they're going to be like they you know what there might be different requirements for different commercial districts but I don't I don't think that there's that much going on that we need to worry about it right now we've got the rain tree Plaza that land if it's a gas station they want to put a 16t pile on up again I apologize that I don't have I'm trying to get all of the code in my head but uh in good time it will happen um there is language related to construction of uh the material um it shall be done with uh masonry materials Brickstone to keep keep maintenance and upkeep cost to a minimum um and the that's related to freestanding signs Monument signs Monument sign bases shall be constructed of similar material style and color as the principal building fair enough well done I've read this not not uncommon language in zone somebody has a code just like that I don't I can't think anything John that more that would change at this point in time I just don't think we have that many commercial Parcels to to think that we're hurting anything either that's good so is there consensus for 16 ft I'm fine with it y it's fine the sign area remains unchanged at 64 okay I'll make a motion to there's more of the code oh wait there's more but wait I thought we had just the wall the temporary temporary that's right God so just no balloons to to do that simplify this where would you like temporary science the dumpster we've tried that so can I ask something John my understanding was there was a change in belief that we were when we originally had all this stuff we were told that content couldn't be regulated hence the CF we ended up with is that changed uh no I mean this is all I can't think of it's a court case from I don't remember what year it was related to a church advertising and nonprofit and was treated differently than commercial advertisement Court said you can't do that okay do we know that because I've been told by multiple sources that that is not true some cities have it that you we was at a Maple Grove that allows one of them y doesn't allow commercial signage unless you're a realtor markeing homes then they allow that and that that is true in in this zoning ordinance as well but not in the right of way is the city council willing to have the City attorney researching for you trying to remember she did oh I think her opinion was she said you couldn't well that change that so that even the the real signs could only have one going nor North yeah we yeah we didn't change that though not yet check and here we are um so kind of where this is coming from and Dennis you'll have to correct me so we had uh resident that complained about the the Clutter of signs on the corners uh we realized that we did not have in our Coda any prohibition of signs in the RightWay uh adopted ordinance or prohibited in the RightWay and then we had complaints from residents that were taking their signs so in the code I mean the happy median is to say um the signs are allowed 10 ft away from the street so part of the issue is most people don't know where the edge of their property is um so the example that's on here uh and I don't know what the scale is it might be 10 ft it might be 20 ft um when we're out doing enforcement we can't tell either well then that assumes that the sign is owned by the property owner I mean we we even had the fire department had to go collect their signs because they were in the code yeah um yeah and the original intent was because of all the you know open house signs that was the original issue that that res didn't sort of complaining about but um it all you know revolves around content so if we can't regulate regulate it based on content I don't know I think I don't know how we get there from here so I mean this is certainly another Enforcement issue yep right so um in my opinion if you're going to allow the cluster of signs it's not going to matter matter if it's in the right away or 10 ft away y from that same spot it's not you're still going to have the concerns that it's a clutter of these types of signs in an area that I don't like them to be located uh the easiest way is just to say no signs in the right away or no temporary signs in the right away and then if that codes in place you can essentially enforce that by picking them up and putting them in the back of your truck or whatever it is and taking them to City Hall dumpster or whatever you want to do with them I don't know if that's the direction the city wants to go well that is the direction we went right so that's where you went yeah so if that's where you I mean that's that's certainly an option right um that way you're not regulating content you're saying you just can't put them here now if there's a guy on a corner lot who says yeah I i' go ahead and put him on my yard I don't care then you have to regulate well how many can that guy have and then that then then you might be getting into the idea of what is content control at that point so in other words you can't have a political sign in your yard for that's State Statute right for a certain amount of time before and after the elections but I could put up a an opinion sign in my yard all day long I could put 20 of them in my yard all day long if I wanted to so I think that's where you the city would have to make some justification if they want any sign in the right way I think that's the easiest yes or no I don't know that that's actually true right because is it not State Statute that you are not allowed to place signs in lias in RightWay period um well it's up to who who has the RightWay so like henip and County prohibits it in the right way mind out prohibits in the right way whatever our code is that's not going to change uh for County and state highways sure are a lot of signs in the right and fern Brook they don't enforce it right so I guess maybe where maybe this is a a higher level question if we permit a sign to be in the right away and there's an accident who's who's liable kids hideing behind in the sign and runs out into the road driver didn't see them I mean where I'm going with this is is that why the county they they don't allow it but they they don't have the means to enforce it yeah I don't know it's like any city-owned infrastructure in the r way right I slip on Ice run my car into a light pole right who's liable yeah I mean I just if we're if we allow them in the right away though that's we're allowing that obstruction to be there we don't allow we don't allow buildings or trees to be planted within a certain distance why are we allowing these that's that's where my logic is running into this we do it for Sight lines we do it for for maintenance we do it for other reasons than enforcement so we didn't allow them and we enforced it and we got a lot of public bash Slash from the non-commercial enforcement is that fair to say or no I think it's kind of equal I mean you know the two pictures on the right I mean the second one from the right was from today so these are the big realtor Flags the one on the right I mean they they have concrete footings in them I wouldn't consider concrete footings temporary signs do we require permits for temp signs we do it is a it is a permit what's the consequences besides us picking up the signs are there fines well the first thing that we would do is follow the violation process and then the fines would then ensue after the final notice which I believe is the fourth notice based on the uh enforcement policy adop opted in 2010 um and then at that point if we sent them a violation notice and they come in for a temporary sign after the fact it is double the fee Can you issue an administrative citation to somebody that is not a resident of your community I don't even know if there's language in our there might DR Horton they're not residents necessarily I suppose they own property but the company that would be that's our right but you would go against that property tax record and then it have to yeah when it's in the right way it's easier just take the sign yeah or you write an ordinance to say here's what the fee schedule or the fine schedule is for signs taken out of the right away and then you could say okay it's 300 bucks each sign each time I'm picking a sign DR Horton you want to pay it pay up that 1,200 bucks or do you want to not put signs in the right away right so there's You' have to like pick a property to attach that to which would be pretty hard for staff as well right if it's just a common like that that's a common parway model home if it wasn't if it was in the right of way we wouldn't be able to um obviously reach out to the property owner that prop owner or the county well it seems pretty clear that we should just not allow temporary signs in the right away but whether we enforce it or not is a different story that's what it is today whether we enforce it or not is a different story well we stopped enforcing it the problem is well there's a couple of problems one is it it will end up being complaint based and two is it can be used as a weapon these all these ordinances we have in the books that we don't know force can always be used as weapons and you know you you you don't want to point to anybody today that would do that because I don't I don't think there would be but we have in the past seen that weapons there ordinances that are laying around just waiting to be used can be I think the problem is that when you craft certain or ordinances it's still a weapon though no different than the last ordinance we discussed you know there's still going to be violations that aren't enforced could be do want to see what council woman Ben ason wants to say unfortunately I don't think that we would be able to in terms of uh open meeting law as we have two council members in attendance uh right now so adding her into the con conversation would essentially be three com council members in the same area the same conversation that's my I mean that's that would be my uh um not that we don't want to obviously hear from council member van Aston and her thoughts on this I'm just going to speculate that M van eston's going to talk about content again and I know that we had that conversation last time but I think it's worth exploring this if we think we can regulate content a little bit because it makes it way easier and uh what content would you regulate uh meaning business versus non- business or just like how map who you would say no to the businesses right well looking at thinking of Maple Groves ordinance I forget what it was last meeting but it was about they allowed certain stuff but then they didn't allow other stuff but we uh we have that section for realtor signs as well for when properties are for sale I think that they're allowed one per each Frontage right when they are for sale um my my interpretation of the commercial we can't um regulate commercial sign my interpretation was always that's the language itself yes not the not the non-commercial versus commercial a sign is a sign but the commercial language that someone puts on a sign that is something that we cannot dictate that's my interpretation and I would be happy to um double check that with the and I'm thinking the language is advertising but even but those are those are the problem signs right right so if you say we don't want those signs in our right of way we're in effectively no different situation than we are now that it didn't do anything whether we could regulate we or not right those are the ones you want to get out I mean we want to regulate the content so that advertising is not present within our right of voice well that's 99% % of the sign issues anyways you know your grandma's ruman s sign is not bothering anybody right and so the other point is then if we allow them in the right away allow which ones any signs we're not solving anything either so it's either you don't allow them or you allow them yeah agre I think the advantage is the advantage of not allowing them allows us to go pick them up and take them out if we choose if we choose mhm well what if you know what if we get a a pile like the the one pile there all on one corner it's you can just look at Pine View there every weekend's got 20 23 24 sign and I think I think a lot of this issue is that uh they kind of get familiar with the uh schedule of going around to picking them up and then they go out immediately after um so I think that that's what at least Public Work the inform the feedback we got from Public Works was that I don't think it's wise to draft an ordinance saying we allow them in the right way that's that's where I'm you don't have to draft an ordinance saying you allow you just be silent about it silent just don't have it don't have an not change physically what's happening so don't have an ordinance period add interpret any signs plenty of communities don't okay except we do we do that's problem yeah we do now as if M whenever that was we didn't previous to that correct and we're physically along our right ways in no different situation than we were a year ago except we wasted a lot of Staff time picking up sence and irritating residents y yeah I'd be fine with no arance I I think you need to have an ordinance regulating temporary signage because otherwise you're going to get a situation where you're going to get your commercial properties that are going to just abuse it and put up as many temporary signs as they want uh I did work for a community that did not have a temporary sign code at all and I installed one and I could actually then determine what the building was made out of at one point after enforcing it because they had so many signs on their building that you couldn't even tell what it was made out of and so you know at that point I think it is wise to have something in the books uh it is just a determination on where you put them yeah so temporary signs and the RightWay is say get them out of the right away we don't need an we need an ordinance saying don't put them in the right away is what you your opinion I think you I think you would um and then it's it's an enforcement is issue again uh but then if the Enforcement issue becomes a problem because it's too overbearing then potentially language needs to be added that gives teeth to that uh you know we are serious about this we'll pick up your signs uh we'll store them here you get them back at 25 bucks a pop or whatever it is L of them don't want them back want them back they don't care right so or we every sign we pick up we're calling this number and charging you 25 bucks or whatever I mean I'm just throwing some numbers out there but so there there is ways around that um the communities I've worked in don't allow any kind of signage in the right way and that is essentially the current language that is in place except we explicitly said we will no longer enforce it because Grandma's garage sale sign was being picked up that's the problem Joey's graduation sign was being picked up so then if you have an ordinance you have to enforce it I I 100% I'm a big fan that ordinances should be enforced and that's why I think we have to and if you're not going to you can have the problem with with having ordinance that doesn't or or is silent on it is that you're going to get an you could potentially get people who won't start picking up their signs anymore they'll just leave them out yeah mean we we've got that in the photo examples I think we already have that fall along yeah they put out the sign for gutter cleaning and they don't care if if it's there 5 years from now they don't even know advertis 30 ft up on the tel I love like we don't have bucket TRS or though we buy ugly houses or the hand handrawn ones that say call this I'll buy your house call this number I mean it it could be a visual a visual deterrent obviously and people are concerned about that that's that's kind of where I'm at is okay we say we don't enforce it but nothing says in our ordinance if we take it out of the ordinance we can't go pick them up is what you're saying right I'd say if if they're in the right way if they're in the right away you can go get them they your right of way is your right of way people can't put a sign in your right of way and keep it there you've got all the right in the world to go take those that sign out of the right of way so then so then what you're saying is we don't have to explicitly say that we're going to have this in that we're going to allow them or not allow them in the right away we can just go pick them up whenever we want why wouldn't you be able to it's your right just yeah in in regard to uh the yard sale signs and grab part signs it's really the off premise section or the off premise sign that would come with that um one I think the permit not required section does allow for people to uh have those types of signs on their property just not off premise just not on and it doesn't require permit and those are the people people go pick up their signs anyway when their event's over yep exactly but if they're tucked back into a culdesac and they want to be out on the to be clear with the temporary signs are we only discussing in the right away or are we also discussing not in the right away because I think there's two distinct things oh yeah that's a huge difference say that one more time I'm sorry we only are talking about signs in the RightWay with the temporary sign language we're keeping code temporary signs for outside of the RightWay there's two parts of this so one is do you want to allow temporary signs in the RightWay and then two do you want to allow off- premise signs on private property that's fine with the permission of the property owner I don't think sense just my opinion they I didn't catch that I don't think we have a say I think we have a say it's the whether we want to have a say is a different story I think that part gets a little difficult because if you have a new roof on your property from a hailstorm or something then you see those signs that are 2 by two that go and get placed in your yard from the company that put it there and they're like if you keep it in your yard for however long I mean that's the permission of the property owner and that's a commercial sign um those are the signs you can't regulate if they're in the proper if they're on some right and they're going to remove them anyway and yeah I don't short period think it's that so much as you have um like a company or someone that you know I'm going to rent your your yard essentially I'm going rent your corner of your yard for my big banner sign yeah and it's going to be up there all year and next year and if it's as long as it meets the square footage requirements of not requiring a permit or they obtain a temporary permit I believe that there's a certain if it's a month I think it might be 30 days within I can think of a few examples of that that have happened in Dayton with home building but other than that I can't think of any though that's a good thing can you am I yeah yeah we have SE I don't think I don't know if that's a problem I guess at least is what I'm trying to say or they have a better view I mean don't we have we have we already to allow the premise eastest on any yeah in the right away in the right away I don't think so I don't and like I think my argument would be I don't I don't know why you have to address it I don't know why you have to specifically allow it or disallow it in your right of way it's your right of way go take them if you don't want them in your right away I don't know that you need to have an ordinance that says sure put them in there or no don't put them in there does seem like they're they're already littering what's that they're already littering L yeah if we choose to go pick them up we just go pick them up on whatever day of the week we don't need an ordinance I think by specifically not allowing I don't I just that's and that's kind of where I was at is like are we allowed to go pick them up without sure it in our ordinance then then I'm fine not having it in the ordinance at all yeah I I mean somebody could call me on that but why in the world would we not be able to pick up a sign within our right of way I I think you're right I mean I think the the whole premise of the ordinance is saying where you can locate things and we already talk about off- premise signs right saying you can locate them with the owner's per permission and then if you're silent it means you you can't so if if there's no nothing in the ordinance that says you could locate a sign in the right way you can't locate it in the right you could be silent on that and then determine you don't need a ordinance specifically saying no signs on the RightWay I agree with that 100% if the intent is not to allow signs in the RightWay it's a lot easier to do enforcement when you have that though so if I have a sign on the Boulevard and we tried that though yeah but it's a lot harder if you have to pick up a thousand signs a week cuz it's in the books as an ordinance and then you got to fi the phone call be like I thought you guys weren't allowing these in the right of when well we're not but we only have so many people it's I in my opinion it's one of those I can't really be fixed perfectly but I think it's I think it's best not mentioned yeah yeah I I agree that there shouldn't be any specific language that says you can't have it in the right way because that's already implied it's already implied by where you could put all the other signs you know we you spe specifically say where you could put temporary signs that means you can't put them anywhere else so as it I think kind of the direction that we're going is keep the ordinance as it is for temporary signs that they're not allowed in the right away it's a question for no no strike all that the wording strike all that language that temporary signs have to be off Prem private property it Chang ordinance it's still not allowed well don't say not allow it's just not in the ordinance just don't stri enforc if we're going to do it or the ordinance should should say where those signs can be located and for temporary signs right say that sign all temporary signs should be on private property don't say they shouldn't be in the right away it's uh the current language is 10 ft from the property line for temporary signs on the private property from the property line it says no less than 10 ft from the prop great uh freestanding sign shall be set back no less than 10 ft from the property line so for example not not inrange utility that's fine yeah but that's also implying that it's on private property correct okay I like that one that language so draft ordinance our current ordinance says something different but the draft ordinance is saying this is that correct Hayden yes but I uh I can we can uh take notes and write this down this will stay 10 ft from the property line strike the new language that requires it to be separated from a city street 10 ft so that was the switch there on that line freestanding sign should be limited to a maximum height of 8 ft period right sure yep get rid of the if outside the right away and now we're getting into the prohibited signs and from my understanding from the Planning Commission number 14 should be just stricken entirely yes yeah yep straight line so my understanding on 13 was we do isn't one on L and on uh actually on your property that uh isn't there a sign there that some of the other businesses can you use or maybe that was what they wanted on yeah on your yeah the uh so it's it's advertising that's not on it's off PR sign so yeah there's a monument sign there that just says what businesses are in that building but just your building so like the dentist couldn't use it so why would we not allow the dentist to use it so that was going to be my question is that since temporary signs do since permit not required signs allow for residential districts to place uh one sign for 9 square fet up to 9 square feet I think is what the language is um without a permit should that number 13 have language added to it that says unless it meets the standards of the permit not required section or that I would just reference that section kind of getting into the weeds here but I wanted to ask that question I'm lost yeah on what I just your question yeah so I don't have the temporary yeah or the permit not required section up but it does allow for a certain amount of signage without a permit in residential districts and I believe that that is 9 Square ft um so there's signs 2 square feet or less in size one sign per property in residential districts not to exceed 9 Square ft so should at number 13 there and I can zoom in should there be an exemption for signs that meet that section of the code for permit not required kind of seems to that's like the off- premise sign code type of thing but this is but this subsection is referring to prohibited prohibited signs right so you're allowing 9 Square ft of signage without a permit in residential districts but then you go here if that sign has a roofing company on it or something like that that is essentially a prohibited sign for per this section I was wondering that last sentence in the section I guess what's the point help me understand the point of having it there Obsolete and off premise sign in residential districts no sign shall be permitted which advertises a business which is not being presently conducted on the premise of on which the sign is located unless it meets the provisions of that section that lists out the permit not required signs that makes sense because it's just referring back to a section of the ordinance that that shows what you can have can or can't have anyway so that makes sense it's just a referral back can you advertise the roofing company then yes got it if it meets the standards of the sign by two or the one by one or one sign not more than nine square fet okay that makes sense then to me too and if you feel more comfortable we'd be more than happy to bring this back to you with clean language or we've got our marching words we'll be back here in March exactly might be March already I'm about to be back here tomorrow it might be March that tomorrow in 20 minutes all right are we I think you get consensus on that we need a motion I know but okay we have our marching words to update the the things that we walk through here leaving the monument sign stuff as proposed and then adding that section that creates that exemption for permit not required signs under the off premise signs section I didn't read through the sign ordinance enough is there any other changes we want to make at this time I mean that's mind the sign ordance took like six months bu in between the different it didn't help that it was 80 pages long there was a lot of ambiguity that comes to these types of things I mean that that's my only question but probably stuff there's probably other stuff probably other stuff oh I think it seems like a no-brainer I'm going to make a I guess I'm a little unclear less clear about the last stuff on temporary signage in this motion I can surely send out a a revised ordinance for you I'm more clear about making the motion to prove the height and the the advertising the signage of the different sides of the buildings um and I trust that staff is going to make the changes that we talked about on temporary signage too so I guess I'm okay with that if other people are yeah but other people want to see it I don't okay all right I want to make a motion to approve the amending the city code for signs to increase the height on The Monuments to 16 ft allow signage on more than just the front side of the building as well as to address what we discussed with regarding the temporary signs which was striking a lot of language about being in the right way second we have a a motion and a second all those in favor I I I all those opposed motion passes 5 to zero I will send you a revised ordinance tomorrow to just to let you guys take a look at what we discussed and appreciate that um if it was out of whack feel free to give me a call thank you all right item uh 9 a n item 10 a oh come on ten staff updates okay so uh since this was a thinking this was going to be a short meeting um so I did not include a long discussion on the A3 District but I want to make sure I'm on the same page uh with the Planning Commission uh the intention is to come back in I'm going to say the next step would be to have a work session with the council to make sure plan commission and uh council is going in the same direction um and then have a public hearing for this so A3 District um you know again the plan commission discussed this in December and January maybe it was November um just generally speaking uh the density is one home per 10 acres uh minimum lot size is 1 and a half net Acres I can't remember if we had talked about two and a half or landed on one and a half um lotl 80 ft uh setbacks at 30 ft that that's consistent with the the other residential districts in perious surface area I threw in 30% so that's somewhat arbitrary um as far as the trigger of when these properties would be rezoned I I guess that's a question for the Planning Commission if this would if the city would preemptively rezone these from A1 to A3 or wait until the property owner wants to subdivide um probably doesn't make a big difference uh as far as like the permitted conditional interm uses the intent is that it's all going to be the same uh A1 and A3 um there may be other parts of the ordinances that are different based on property size um that wouldn't change uh questions that we ended up last month on do we require public roads versus private easements or private roads for development um as well as uh paved versus gravel and if we were going to require a PUD or not if we required a PUD or the previous two question marks basically wrapped into that does if we require PUD then everything is flexible okay if we require a PUD is it going to be harder to prove a public benefit for these things it could so in currently um you know the comp plan identifies Greenway corridors and if your land is in a Greenway Corridor you're required to do p a conservation PUD uh so for example we uh next month we'll have a SK we'll have a prey plat for um the property at north of Lake Laura that we looked at earlier here um that's in a Greenway Corridor uh so the intent there is to preserve something that's worth preserving whether it's a woodland or or Wetland buffer or yeah so those type of properties are way easier than a 40 acre it's easier to identify what it is what is the public benefit it's it's the greenway okay um so questions on what was your question on public roads versus private easements seems to me they have to be a public road unless maybe you have a shared driveway easement but then we got we should probably consider how many homes are appropriate on a that was it that's why I think P makes the most sense on it because every consider the totality of that particular situation so are we I guess are we having a work session on 25th uh that is my goal you won't make a one- siiz foots all on that there's no okay so we'll have more discussion there on this yep so on these three questions though is there any consensus or any opinions my opinion is require a PUD and then the other two questions get flushed out through the Pud process and and I don't do that just to Kick the Can but I just I don't we struggled the last meeting with trying to figure out well what if it does this and what if it does that what if it looks like this I don't I don't know there's an un Li depending on what the split is it could be a paved or Gravel Road is appropr yeah and and yeah what if the lot is shaped like this I don't know because until it's actually proposed that's where I think a PUD in these situations it's a very unique District um I think a PUD know it it it would be very important for us to be consistent don't get me wrong but I don't we know what that consistency looks like until we see some proposals out the hard part about PDS is there's no starting point so you know when you think of lot sizes and whatnot like we have nothing to there's no review I think the most important thing John is that when this is all said and done that staff really knows what the expectation is so you can work with the applicants on so when we see stuff we're you know you really have a good understanding of what council Planning Commission other people want to see and you can help guide them I know it's a lot of more burden but I don't know a different way to make it easier sure it's a new thing we got to see if there's much interest let's go through a few yeah you might get one or two see how it works and we can revise it if it's not working the way we want it to but there's there's so much variety out there and every lot is so unique that there's no way we can tell them that they need paved roads or gravel roads right now mhm okay so what I'd like to do is then to to have a work session on the 25th seeing head dos are you asking like are are we available that day or is that before okay is that prior to a council meeting then yes so there's a cap to how long it can go oh yeah it's yes more likely to commit it's not going to be more than an hour yeah I'm available right now I'm available yeah I like the idea A3 I think it's worth pursuing and trying to get get it going so it's available okay I'm very likely available it is a c meeting night for me but likely could anything on that agenda I could probably have covered for me um next month will'll be a lot harder with public hearings but sure okay so preview for March so if this was long march is going to be longer uh we have a concept plan for the the opan is the ddl property so they're coming in don't have a hard time with that um we have a concept plan for an industrial development uh DCM Farms will be back again uh Parkway neighborhood second edition will be you'll see that for the first time where's Parkway neighborhood uh on the Southwest so other side4 3 zoning district and then the shaning parcel is the lake Laura property this will be into the next day I'm not kidding we need to stret I mean I get it that especially if we anticipate a lot of public coming up we probably need to start splitting this up and having more than one meeting Tom monrow yeah can we though I don't I mean if they all come in and they all need to be dealt with can all need to be dealt with yeah yes this is what I will not I will likely not be able to attend the March 6 meeting me either now if if the if the hockey team keeps playing while it's her last District game and you know I hate to be a jerk but maybe we need to be a little bit more forceful with the three minute rule yeah is it three minute rule for every person that comes up yeah yeah and it stinks because it's better to let he hear them out and I don't want to make it a hard three minute but that was got that was kind of my my point to of the commercial of like we've heard that the last six meetings and on off topic things so I was so if if you'd like and I mean I've seen this in other cities is uh you know staff as the bad guy would just set a timer for three minutes and then it's up to the commission if you want to enforce it or not yeah I me we had 10 people talks I mean that's already 30 minutes yeah right like and if each one goes a little bit longer they were yeah I I think it's fair if it's in our in our ordinances that they get three minutes yeah I think you know just the suggestion to Peter who or if I'm in charge next meeting too is to reiterate it at the very beginning of the discussion so encourage them to prepare their thoughts even more and get their major points out yeah is it worth do we have the ability is that something we should look at if we even it's a public hearing right so I could see with the open Forum you you're limiting open Forum discussions do we even have the ability to limit speech at an open Forum or a public hearing it's a pretty valid question you do do you I was on the assumption that was our guidance read the bill me yeah they could filibuster right yeah I I I don't know I think as long as it's clear what the what the requirement is and it's reasonable just give somebody an idea quick question for you Dennis does council hear the same stuff on these topics too or this a crowd mainly coming to the Planning Commission it depends on the topic but yeah for this thing is we're going to get hit just as start and and I guess what what what I would tend to do is is if I know there's going to be a lot of things and I'll just make it clear that we we don't want to hear repeats we'll give you three minutes but if there's only one or two people yeah yeah okay I mean the consideration that I was making also is the fact that it's a public hearing for a reason once they get to the council it's not technically a public hearing so you would be able to limit then the amount of time that they have to regurgitate what they've already presented at a public hearing so again I don't want to be here until 4:00 a.m. either but we just I just want to make sure that we able we are a ble to limit that speech at a public hearing where else would you rather be right now probably bed yeah I can't even go half at Sundance went home yeah there you go can I make a motion to adjourn second we have a motion in a second all those in favor of adjournment I I I all those oppos meeting is adjourned at this point you guys don't e e e