It is 6:30. I am going to call the December 3rd, 2025 planning commission meeting to order. First order of business is the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Uh item number three on the agenda is just stating the role of the planning commission. 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. >> Uh item number four is the approval of the agenda. Throw your mic up. >> Thank you. Any changes to the agenda? >> No. >> Make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. Do we need to do any roll call votes with Peter not here or no? >> Uh no. We'll just note that uh Peter Deuth is absent tonight. Um the other four commissioners are present. >> Thank you. Item number five is the conent consent agenda. The only items on there are the planning commission minutes from November 6, 2025 as well as the 2026 meeting calendar that was in our packet. Uh, I'd move to approve uh item 5A of the planning commission meeting minutes of November 6, 2025. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I. And then John, do we need approval for the calendar? >> Um, you do. Um, >> we can just do it as another motion then. >> Yes. >> Does anyone have any known conflicts they want to be made aware at this point? >> It's the only reason why I didn't add it to consent agendas approved all at once. I just wanted to opportunity for if anybody had any conflicts with that. >> Yep. With the two circled dates for we're moving the July 2nd to July 9th, I'm assuming. >> Yes. >> Yep. I I mean I see no issues. >> I don't have any conflicts as far as I know. >> Entertain a motion to approve that. I'll make the motion to approve. >> Second. All those in favor? >> I I >> uh the next item is open forum. This is public comments limited to three minutes for non-aggenda items. Since your name and address, uh no commission action will be taken and items referred to the staff. Is anyone here for the open forum? Come forward. over here. All right. Tim Hutner, 13531 Balsam Lane. Tonight, I would like to speak to you about the Mr. Hutner. I'll just note that if it is an item on the agenda, there will be a public hearing where you'll be able to speak. This is for items that are not on the agenda tonight. It's on It's on the agenda. >> It is on the agenda. Okay. Yeah. So, there will be a public hearing um for any of those items on the on the agenda. So, this is just for the open forum is for items to be um discussed that are not currently on tonight's agenda. >> So, you will have an opportunity to come back up for the agenda item during that period. >> I'll be back. No problem. Uh >> is anyone else here um with any non-aggenda items? All right. Uh then we are moving on to the council update. Okay. So for the um November 13th the board of appeals we dissolved and turned it into I think they call it open book but it basically uh reverts back to the county. Um, we had found out last year that our rulings don't the county can overrule them. So, at that point, it just seems kind of meaningless. We uh had a uh presentation and the Heinen IUP. Um, so they came and explained what what they were doing. staff explained what had happened and we decided to uh let them continue cleaning it up and uh just let them know they would be on a short leash. Um Greyco concept world headquarters plan. The only thing we really discussed was um the screening on the top of the building. Uh and uh I think you guys are already aware the screening counts towards the building height. The utility equipment it screens is not which seems very odd but Dayton Fields final plat there was just a request to extend the deadline on that. There was the financial report which was uh uneventful which is good. And then we went over the long-term plan but the only changes we made. There was a lot of little adjustments. Um we did move to NYX the ladder truck. I don't know if that's happened yet, but um that's about the only significant change there. And then the parking on Maple Court, it's the same same uh discussion you guys had. It would be did approve no parking on that road. And then um for the 25th uh there was some discussion with Three Rivers on the properties that they think they absolutely have to have. Um so we decided to wait on those properties until they had a better plan in place. This was to um approve their purchase of these properties. Uh we approved a change in the firefighters pay scale. So um what that did was it'll add uh some steps to their pay scale and it'll jump it up by quite a bit. Uh I think the I want to say the average was somewhere around $28 now as opposed to what they're getting now which I think is 17 181 19. We approved the purchase of some extrication equipment and then um there was a closed meeting for uh union negotiations. That's it. Any questions for the mayor? >> No. >> All right. Thank you. Uh, now we are moving on to item A, commission business. First item is item A, a, public hearing for the amendment to an interim use permit for the home extended business at 15430 Brockton Lane North. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. I'll just provide a little bit of brief background because we have two new uh planning commissioners since this was recently approved in February of 2025. Um adopting resolution number 11 2025 allowed uh this uh property at 15430 Brockton Lane to have an interim use permit for home extended business. Uh the extent of the business is a staging area for an asphalt and concrete service company including equipment materials and limited number of uh commercial vehicles on site. Um the overall site is 10.93 acres and is A1 agricultural and the area for the permit is roughly 1 acre that surrounds that east eastern accessory structure on the property. Um the city council approved this with an added condition to remove this existing drive aisle on the north side of the accessory structure. Um limited to basically by the end of 2025 was that uh time frame that was required. Um this was not a condition of approval that was a part of the resolution that the planning commission saw um after uh deliberation at the city council level. This was a condition that was added um and then subsequently approved the resolution with that addition. Um so just uh for reference the uh drive aisle that is on the north side of this building was installed by the applicant in uh 2023 and uh staff to go out to verify that it is 10 ft off the adjacent property line. um meaning that the uh setback requirement is met in the egg district for drive aisles. So u upon uh going out and doing a site visit, there were photos within your agenda packet as well of the site. Um this is the delineated line. Um and then back would be the area that uh would were to be removed. Um this connection point here, rough estimate obviously would be the area that would have to be removed from the property by the end of the year. And uh additionally, this area was connected essentially from the existing end of the driveway by the home uh down to the property. So here in uh quotations is the uh condition number three that uh the applicant is requesting to be uh removed as part of this amendment to the interim use permit. Uh the applicant has stated uh as was uh noted in the packet that he believes that uh the 360 degree access around the accessory structure um will offset um noise concerns with the surrounding properties uh better than having a non- 360°ree access uh requiring more um turns and uh needing to back up and use the reverse. Uh that was kind of the intent of the condition of approval if I recall at the city council meeting was um looking for opportunities to mitigate any um nuisances related to noise on this property. So um that is the uh request and the reasoning for it and the applicant is here tonight. Um this is a public hearing for uh the planning commission to hold and we're asking you to provide a recommendation on this item. Again, it's a little bit weird as you weren't uh this wasn't a part of the original approval that the planning commission had seen the first time. The applicant also I should note that uh while he is coming back for a request for an amendment, he is also requesting that uh the three-year expiration be extended um to a term to be defined if uh if allowed. So, uh, just for reference, because the property owner purchased the property in 2022, applied for the interim use permit in 2025, the city council decided that they would only allow him to um have this interim use permit in this first round for 3 years. to have that two years of potential non-compliant um operation of the business on site and then uh um when that total of five years is up they would have to be be required to come back for reapproval. So that is the the one one of two requests. So um with that I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have. >> Any questions for staff? staff received any complaints on this whole operating business since we first saw it in last year. >> Staff has not uh received any complaints related to the operation of the business on the property since approval. Um and I will note that uh when I was out there on November 20th to take some site photos. I did find the property to be in compliance with the other conditions of approval that were um on that resolution. Uh if there's no more questions for staff uh before we open the public hearing, it'd be Would the applicant like to come forward and speak at all? >> Yes, please. >> Thank you. Maybe I can put some things into context. >> You need me to state my name, >> please? >> Okay. John Herbus with my daughter Justine. We live at 15430 Brockton Lane. Um why? And this is my opinion. I can't speak for someone else, but someone on the city council asked me. Well, first of all, you guys are scary. >> Okay. >> It's a good thing Peter's not here. >> Well, there was one other person on the planning commission last year that was very scary and then went to city council. That made it even more scary when I went in front of them. >> So, public speaking. >> Yeah, public speaking is not my behalf. But one of the people that was on the uh city council asked me, "What's the setback?" And I said, "5T." I went and looked at your your uh you know rules. He says, "Wrong. Agricultural. It's 10 feet." I'm going like, "Well, they don't put them next to each other." I didn't I'm sorry. I didn't look. So he asked me, "Are you 10 feet off?" And I said, "I I can't lie. I might be 9.5." And so that's why I believe the stipulation was put in there. Okay. But I can't speak for them, but that's how this whole thing got going because the distance noise was concern for me and for my neighbors. I've made sure that I put vibrators in the truck so it's quieter. I try to not do any dumping or anything like that to make things doing, you know, reducing of noise. I actually make less noise than the neighbor next to me that's got a skid that's just running his little business. But I care. And so the biggest thing is it comes to me for sound. If I try to go up the new steep piece they're asking, I'm hitting 8,000 RPMs, 6,000 RPMs, and that motor is just roaring. If I go up the other direction, I'm at 2,000 3,000 RPMs. Way quieter, way safer, too. Um, if you could have the location by the house. Oh, right there. The blue, that is right by our garage door. And that's where I'm coming up with a truck pulling a 30-foot trailer with about 22 ton on that trailer. I'm also looking at risk factors. Now, I've did what the city council asked of me, but the risk factors are really reduced if I come up the other direction with less noise and safety to the home. Um, and then coming up there, when I'm coming up, it's a big drop. On the other pictures that he has, um, you can see that it's actually about a 10-ft drop. You could say, well, why can't I make it longer? if I make it longer, it'll hold water back into the building and it just doesn't work very well that way. Um, so basically is uh I have you the why the noise is going to be reduced by having the lower motor. Um, there was concern by the one neighbor that trees next to that fence were impacted. Um, I actually brought in sand um from down below right next to the green building and put it up there and put asphalt down. If you're asking me to tear that up, it's going to cause way more problems with determining wrecking the soil and then worrying about them trees rits all again. And so looking at that is actually um the fence line was very distinguished where it is and allows us to see that it is 10 ft off. I was looking at when you're in a meeting like this and you're asked this question, I couldn't answer it black and white. So, I had to say I didn't know. So, I think that's why the stipulation and if we go back in front of the same council that that gentleman's still there, too. So, he'll be seeing us again and I have to reexplain it all again. So, what I'm asking from you is looking at lowering the noise. I will have less backing up if I can drive straight always versus trying to back up and turn around, back up and turn around. That's when them trucks do a lot of beeping and I can't dis disconnect that legally or I got federal problems then you guys aren't so big then it gets really scary. Um, you know, do you have any questions for or do you have anything to say? Um, I guess the only thing I would say is like if they could use that that side road then it's keeping it away more a little bit more from the the driveway like where the house is and stuff. So like if my girls are outside playing on bikes or anything in the driveway part which is usually just right in front of the garage door then we wouldn't have to worry about that um with them just kind of playing out there cuz where it comes up where the blue square is is like right in front of the driveway. We try and keep like our car, you know, there and we tell them not to pass and stuff like that, but she's two and next summer she'll be three and so you can only make them listen so long. So, um but yeah, we try and keep them in, you know, the gated area, front part of the garage, but if it's using that where the red line is, it's a little bit further um away from where we we play in the front yard. So, that's my only concern of why I asked that if we could use that side drive. You guys have any questions? >> Yeah, I actually have one. John, um, we're almost a year after initial approval of this. How come you're coming to us now and not a couple months after? >> I wanted to give the homeowner next that had a lot of concerns, a whole summer of hearing the way it is now >> and then bringing it up. I did go talk to the neighbor Daryl. Actually, she made him an apple pie. And well, I'm going to make >> The works that I might have worked with us, too. >> Oh, okay. I'll know that next time. >> I can't do that. I can't do that. That's called bribery. But I'm looking at Peter. >> Right. Anyways, um to answer your question is I went over there and asked him. He says much better. Things are good. I even let him know that I'm going to be asking that this road doesn't um that we can keep it. And he goes, "Oh, I didn't realize that at the time. Does it have to be removed?" So he didn't understand that aspect 100%. So I want to make sure that's >> asking again. >> Yeah. But I'm asking him. >> Yeah. >> He said that it it's much better. >> Yeah. >> And John may be here. I don't know who I've tried to meet him. He owns the property behind us >> to know if he thinks >> and you could ask him what he thinks. >> Yeah. >> I mean I'm just trying to be one thing. My problem is is I'm too open and sometimes >> Well, that's all right. >> It doesn't I don't have problems afterwards. >> Yeah. I I guess the other question I have is that you don't have a specific determined amount of time on your extension. What's the reason for that? And what what how >> extend it is I don't want to throw anybody under the bus, but some people said, "Well, you're already coming in front of them. You're already paying another $1,000. >> Why do this again two more years? Just ask for the five years." Sure. >> And get it. And that's what I'm asking for is how could >> nothing else I save myself a little bit of money on asking for five versus >> to keep it two and come back another thousand. Yeah, >> I'm trying to do to with for the $1,000 I had to put in to get here. Um, I'm trying to reduce stress on the machinery, on the people around, on the noise, make it safer for the kids, and then get three more years so I don't have to come back again. Okay. >> And when when I do come back, it'll be just like it was working with um a Kayen here. You can tell I'm stressed. I haven't had problems with him before. Um that you're not going to have any problems. Yeah, I'm pretty good at being compliant, >> you know, um, you know, as long as I'm kind of have have the floor here. Um, you know, your argument or whatever, uh, you are telling us as far as the reasons why this amendment should be made, I think are you make some good points. Um, they seem reasonable. Um, the concern I have is that it was not the planning commission that put this uh condition of approval onto the the resolution, right? So the the role of the planning commission really is to look what's in front of us, >> give a recommendation to the city council. The council could look at that recommendation and strike things or add things. Personally, I don't think it's our job to then take a decision that was made by the the city council and say that's not a good decision. Uh we recommend something else. That that's my personal opinion. Um, I think that you are certainly going to have your day in front of the council and make the same points and arguments to them as far as why this uh resolution should be amended to strike that condition. Um, me personally, I don't think it's the role of me as a planning commission member to make that recommendation since it came from the city council itself. Now, if if it was if the roles were opposite and and we had the ability to, you know, put on more conditions and the council said, "We don't like those conditions." Yeah, they could strike them. It's the opposite way here now, though, is that that they they're the ones that made the condition. I'd feel a little bit uh not right on saying that they made a wrong decision back a year ago. um and and let them have the opportunity to listen to your your argument and then make a decision whether or not to strike that that condition. >> I don't want to say they made the wrong decision either. It was just the decision at the time, too. >> And that's why >> it's still a decision. >> It's their decision. And I totally agree and I I don't disagree with what they made when they made it, but it's been a year now and I'm hoping that we can sit in front of them again and make a different >> and if you can bring those neighbors or have a you know letters written or whatever it is, you know, at that city council meeting, it's going to go a long way to show the council that there's no, you know, neighborhood opposition and you know, you've been doing this for a year and nothing's been said or done or we haven't got any complaints here at the city staff level. That's all going to help the argument. Um, but that's just my opinion and my position on this and I'll let the other planning commission members speak to >> and the only reason I am here is this the toll the direction I had to go. >> Y for you have to go to us first through a public hearing. I get that right. But your day really is going to be in front of the council to in my opinion to make make your uh points across. >> You know I think the the reason to have that removed I think was the uncertainty about the setbacks. Um, and I think, you know, if you guys don't see a problem with the road, that would that would help clarify some things to the council. But >> and with what he what he had to say is is the first time I went around the road was never a problem. So, I do meet all the requirements. Maybe I can ask of you is if I'm meeting all the requirements, it does meet what you guys request. I'm not asking to overturn anything just to verify it does meet the requirements. That would me go a long ways with me, Jeff, to help communicate with them. >> Yeah, for sure. I mean, yeah, if if you're meeting all the setback requirements and the neighbors don't care or you know, you're you feel like you're making less noise, I'm in 100% approval and support of that. Um, again, it's the fact that the the city council actually put that in where I would comfortable >> with telling them they should change their decision, but that's my opinion anyway. >> Yeah. And as we are discussion continues, uh, Commissioner Sergeant, keep in mind that we do have to take action on this. So, >> unfortunately, we still got to make a recommendation. Um, any other comments? >> I don't have any questions for the applicants. >> I'm I'm racking my brain for recognition of those meetings. I was not on the commission at the time, but I was. >> You were in the audience. You spoke. >> Yes, I was. You >> reviewed the minutes. I saw it. And the the recollection that I have is that um the council looked at this through a a magnifying glass because the applicant had been running the business on the property without the proper permission from the city to do that. And in trying to make it compliant and trying to appease the neighbors and the folks from the city that spoke at the hearing, they put these few stipulations in order to let him keep doing his running his business from this property. Um, I have a hard time recommending that we step back from anything or recommend stepping back from anything that the council put there in the first place simply because I don't think they put enough stipulations on it to start with. I don't like the way the whole thing came about. I don't like the whole the way the whole thing was presented to us. I spoke to that um when the applicant was here in the first place and my opinion about the whole process and the whole location of that business being run there has not changed since then. Um we're certainly we certainly care about the kids and the property but from my perspective it's your property. You decided to run that business on that property. there are your kids that are on that property. It's your responsibility to make sure that those kids are safe if you're running a business from that property >> and they will be. >> And I I don't know that that the city should be making >> I guess >> they're making exceptions based on a decision that you guys made and you guys put them in that position. So, the other part with the the uh the driveway that I remember was that part of the driveway was paved. And in the pictures, we can see part of it paved. And that was part that was done uh paved driveway with no permission from the city to do it in the first place. And I think that might have played a role. I can't put my myself in the minds of the of the city council members at the time, but that may have played a role in why they wanted it removed because it was never supposed to be there in the first place. You never had permission to put it in. >> Just >> now you're asking to keep that, right? >> Just a point of clarification, Commissioner Grover. I will note that the city has not issued driveway permits in previous years until 2025 and we included it in the fee schedule. So, there was no permit that was even uh able to be applied for in regards to driveway expansions or anything like that. So, I just wanted to point that out. Though, there are still standards in the code that are required to be um adhered to. I have came to the city each time before I bought the property. I looked at the came to the city and asked different questions. I've got sometimes some different answers. I'm looking at is when I came to the city the first time, my property was zoned multifamily. I come back to the city council the next year and it's been reszoned and we've never been told. >> Just a point of clarification, he's referring to the land use guidance in the 2040 comprehensive plan. In the 2030 comprehensive plan, this area was guided for multifamily residential and then in the 2040 had changed to single family residential. So, not related to zoning. >> Not okay. I apologize for my misunderstanding for the terminology. >> Fen, wasn't that >> I thought it was mixed use or was that what we called it then? Because my understanding was way back 15 years ago, the intent was to have a commercial area there. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> because there was going to be a a Crow River crossing blah blah blah, >> right? And I off the top of my head, I can't recollect whether that commercial or mixeduse area was to the north of this property specifically where this was multif family, but the fact of the matter is is that uh it was guided something different than single family residential or lowdensity residential before the last plan was adopted. And then uh sir as well is I did come to the city and I kind of got the the answer of if it doesn't cause problems with anybody, you don't have to worry about it. So I did come and ask good questions before I even bought the property. I made them aware that I was there. So I'm not trying to do anything ever secretly. Um you know, the gentleman next to me has been running a business for I don't know how many years and I'm not going to say nothing on it. But nobody's saying booed to that person. But you were right. I was underneath a microscope. It was >> I was sweating in this chair >> just cuz I was trying to do the right things. And when I found out and he asked me, "Are you 10 ft off the lot line?" I couldn't answer cuz I didn't measure cuz I thought it was five. I just extended it. Coming spring, I found out that I did it right. And so the why I did wait is I wanted to make sure that things are good with the neighbors. You can't just say it's going to be good. You have to prove it. and have proven it. >> I appreciate your time. Um, we might have some more questions for you. Um, we're going to open the public hearing now. >> Yes. >> And then go from there. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> It is 7:00 and we are going to open the public hearing. Is anyone here to speak on this matter? If so, please come forward. Anyone online, Hayden? Uh if there is anyone online, uh feel free to use the raise your hand function and we will uh unmute your microphones. >> Um and just to clarify, the neighbor that was here the first time, Daryl, you have you had any feedback from him regarding the operations? >> I have in terms of uh inquiries or him reaching out directly to myself, I have not received any uh correspondence from him. I will say in the reverse I have not directly reached out to ask questions to the uh adjacent property owner. Um so that yeah >> I just I would encourage the applicant uh like M commissioner Sergeant said um is getting a letter or him to come to the city council meeting I think would be a good idea. Um if no one's here to speak on this we're going to close the public hearing and open it up for discussion amongst the commissioner members. Um, I'm going to provide a little context because even though Keith wasn't on the commission and he was here, but I do recall Peter and I specifically talking about relocating like the council suggested, but Peter and I backed off the idea pretty fast when we looked at the topography and that's why I think that had a big role in the planning commission. Um, this is a tough one for me because in general I'm just not supportive of these type of businesses in Dayton. uh not not so in in a more of a residential neighborhood next to a house like if I live next to that house, maybe it'd be no big deal. Maybe it would be a big deal. And I just think we're opening a can of worms of if we allow too many of these, especially when they're that close to another residential house. Um and so it's a tough one for me from that perspective because I was against it to begin with. So, it's hard for me to weigh in on what should we do now when it's more of an amendment. >> And I do apologize. I didn't include any slope calculations for the area that the driveway addition was there, but in your packets, I think it's pretty explanatory that it is a it's steeper than what is existing out there. And I do understand the applicant's points about this will likely create less noise in particularly with no backing up and less RPMs going if you can go up a more gradual slope than a steeper slope. So I do understand the applicant points. Um, so from that perspective, it actually might be less harmful. And that's where, you know, I could see why we shouldn't I could see why to if it to make it less harmful, why to recommend it to the council that that requirement be stricken because I do see that point. Yeah, I think it's I think we have businesses similar to this around the city that don't have the proper applications or approvals to do what they're doing and doesn't mean what he did >> doesn't make them right or wrong. >> Doesn't Yeah, it doesn't make anybody right or wrong. Well, it makes people wrong, but you know, I the applicant's here trying to do things the right way. Uh whatever circumstances brought him to the table, he's here. Um he's been running his business for a year. Um it would be great to hear from the from the neighbor to understand um how they're feeling. There were some pretty um direct um direction with regards to hours of operation, number of trucks, the types of trucks, where the storage can be, all that. So if they're complying uh with all that without complaint, um I feel like they're they're doing what we've asked of them. Um I the photos I have not had a chance to watch the property but looking at the photos I mean this one it's a pretty drastic hill um that we're seeing here um going up towards that garage and I would agree that making continuous loops without backing up. I would prefer that as a neighbor to not hear backup beeps. Um, if the fence is compliant at 10 ft to the setback, um, I don't see the harm in having a a road adjacent to that fence, uh, since it's fully screened. Um, so I also do understand where you're coming from with regards to to overstepping the city council, but I I feel comfortable with hearing how things have been going. report from staff that I think this is a reasonable request. If I could just clarify a couple of things, I will say that uh since this was a public hearing, uh property owners within 500 ft of this property were noticed within or 10 days prior to today's date at least. Um and then I will also note that staff due to the nature of the request with this interim use permit and how these conditions came to be staff did not provide a recommendation of approval or denial and defers to the planning commission and city council on the decisions. >> This will be important to note too. I mean we've had a lot of turnover with city staff. I think we've we've settled down into a couple of very talented people that are here with us, but um I don't know the time frame of when the applicant bought his property, but there's a lot of turnover and I we've heard from other applicants of hearing wrong information or misinformation or conflicting information um from staff. So, I think it made it hard for a time period there for our citizens to get the right information. Anything more to add, Keith? Yes. One thing that that maybe if the applicant come back up for just a second, please that you've talked about having or leaving that driveway there and that enabling you to do less backing up, >> beeping back up. Nobody likes that, right? Correct. >> Probably not even not even the driver in the truck. The only person that likes it is the person you're almost going to run over and they hear you coming, >> which happened twice in this state this year. >> Yeah. Unfortunately. So, how do you see your vehicles moving on the property if the if the city removes that restriction from your from your permissions? >> Well, I want to have a conflict of everything coming up on a straight hill. >> The one that's next to the house. Can you pull that one up, J? >> The the one looking up the hill from bear with me here. >> There you just went one up. One up one. >> Oh, one up >> there. >> There. >> That's the hill you're talking about that's difficult to climb with the trucks. >> Yep. >> So, would you still use that part of the driveway? If the city council wants me to use it to enter with just vehicles, yes. If I go back to using it with a truck, it's going to be loud. If I don't have a choice, I don't have a choice. I do I'm proud of my 2-year-old granddaughter, though. She hears the truck, she's been trained to go into the garage. >> Well, no, you got to do something for safety. Um, but >> there is a road. So, um, that's been there. >> That's here that they can go down. This is just where they have would have to potentially go up because they can't use the one around the barn. >> Can you go back to the original the slide that we had up? And if you don't mind, can you like maybe walk up there and show like how the the current circulation works on the site and what it's going to work like if if you're allowed to use that driveway just so we all have a clear picture. Coming in this way would be the coming in. I can go this way or I can go this way with with the big machinery parking everything over here so that it's not next to the neighbor as has been asked as we can actually see in the pieces when I'm coming out. If I'm coming up this high ridge here and I actually have to have everything come through here. It's like I can't back up a 2200 ton trailer straight down a gravel, you know, semi-pave. That's another thing that got me in trouble. I apologize. I said it wasn't paved because it's patched with different asphalt and millings. Paved I look at as beautiful like a street. So I do apologize to the city council at that time you were at because I said it's not paved. It's patched with a whole bunch of different pieces of asphalt. So coming up this I have to um there is a piece that was already here as you can see that came in here. We can go out that way. But as I'm coming up, it's gradual. Okay, that's how I'd have to do it. Coming in this way, I'm screaming that motor. >> So everything can close. >> That's what I'm going >> all the way out each direction. I don't ever have to back up. >> So John, if you're allowed to keep that north drive >> if you're allowed to keep it, do you have to will you use that hill at all if you are able to keep it? >> What? If you're able to keep that red north drive, >> are will you have to use that hill at all for your trucks? >> You won't have to. >> Okay. >> But I if I'm told to keep it, I'll do what I'm told. >> Right. >> Y >> but it will reduce risk a lot. >> The hill is a problem going out and in. >> Correct. >> When I come out with the truck, I >> has got to be Yeah. Even harder. >> And it's just drops >> out. You just have to ramp up. And when it ramps up, I can't see when my truck's coming up here. I can't see from here to about here anything underneath that truck. And like you're right, it's my problem, my property. But I'm trying to do everything I from the beginning I've tried to do everything right. In fact, um I don't know, Hayden's right there. Um I keep some of my trucks in that still in Maple Grove at my old house. And Hayden called the city, is there a problem? Because I went to the city, asked them. They said, no problems. No problem. So when I came here, I got the same response from up front. I didn't get to talk to Hayden at all or anything like that, but now I find out I had to come here. So I came here right away willingly and then also had soon as they started getting the um papers sent out, that's when I had an angry neighbor. Until then, it was fine. >> Okay. >> Any more questions for the applicant? >> Nope. Just wanted to just wanted to understand the route that you're on. >> You should because it's you guys are deciding on this. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um there's no more discussion. I guess I'm going to entertain a motion. I can kind of sense that uh people are torn because of uh stepping on the city council, which I understand completely. Um, but we have to move on. >> You guys all the time? >> Yeah, exactly. But we need to move out here for what? >> So, >> you want me to >> Well, you're the one that have your mind read up. >> Yeah. I mean, I'll Well, should we talk about the terms of the the length of the IEP first, you know, >> before we make a motion or should we do that separate? >> No, I think we should. Yeah, good good call, Paul. Yeah, we should talk about the length of the IP. Does is there concerns about extending it from anyone up here, Mr. Sergeant? >> No, I mean I think that potentially we what we should do is have two separate uh motions tonight. One for the extension and one for the amendment, right? So, um you know, as far as the extension, I don't have any problems with extending it. Um it seems like it's a reasonable request. Um yeah, >> it makes sense to me. So I have no issues with that. >> I I would agree with that and say that the uh not with your context or your um obviously uh your thoughts on the decision, but uh more so the two separate motions only because uh the term was undefined. >> Yeah. And if we did extend it, same thing applies that if for whatever reason this property was in violation, it would get revoked anyway. So extended it's not not the end of the world. >> Yes. the uh property is subject to an annual um inspection to uh make sure that they they remain compliant. Um and that is an annual. It's not ongoing or anything like that. Um and the way that the IUP the interim use permit language in the zoning ordinance is written is that if we found that there were conditions of approval that were out of compliance on site, they would have 60 days to correct that. We would go out there and verify and then it would essentially kind of restart that process if they were compliant. All right. So, >> I have a question. Explain to me where lies the advantage to the city to extend this or is there none? >> I guess I wouldn't uh think >> or is is the advantage to the applicant? I mean, if there if there is, what would that be? >> The fee. Correct. really the what the uh applicant had stated when he was up here originally was that uh while he was back uh requesting the amendment to condition three uh he asked he might as well ask for an extension while he's already here because he'd have to go through this process for renewal in two years regardless. So that was kind of the the nature of while I'm here I will ask for an extension to this to this permit. I wouldn't uh say that there are there's an advantage obviously related to the fee and escrow for um the application. Um I guess I wouldn't consider it to be ad advantageous or disadvantageous for the city to um go one way or the other. Um if there's no more discussion, I think we need a motion. Um two different motions. So, let's start with one of them. >> Make a motion to um allow the North Drive to remain and remove that condition from the IUP. >> Is there a second? This is where it gets tough. Um, again, I'm I think it's better, but I'm just struggling because I'm just not a big fan of these uses and approving them. >> I I think the draw of these large properties is for this use, >> which is what scares me, which is why I don't want the all but large properties to become this. >> There already are too many that are in that category. Um, but regardless, the city council already approved it and they got to act on it. So, we need to make a recommendation and I think it's going to be clear to the city council with Mayor Fischer and staff stating how Commissioner Sergeant felt, how I felt, how everyone felt. So, um, I guess I'm looking at as the lesser of two evils now that it's approved that I think it I do actually think it's going to be better if you don't have to go up that hill from noise and >> for the neighbor. So from that perspective, I'll second it, >> which uh results in taking it to a vote. >> Um all those in favor? >> I >> I All those opposed? >> No. >> No. >> And again, I mean, I think the record's pretty clear on on my stance. I know council likes to hear or read potentially uh minutes. I I actually agree with all of the the conditions that would make this property better as far as noise and all that. Um I like the setback. I like the fact that you wouldn't have to rev the engines. I I like the fact you wouldn't have to back up. Uh like some safety considerations in there as well. Um my only hangup again is overstepping a decision that the council made. So with that, I I you know, it doesn't stop here. uh it does go move forward to the city council and I would uh be ready to make your arguments at the city council and uh bring in um neighbors or letters supporting your request and uh good luck with with uh addressing the council at that time. So >> So with a two vote, the motion fails. Yeah, I I think that's what the con I mean the council's going to understand it's a two two vote and they're going to understand the rationale behind it and the applicant can present this case to the council and they're going to have to ultimately decide anyway. >> Yeah. Uh with regards to the second item uh with the extension of the home business use, >> I would uh make a motion to approve the extension uh of the IUP at that uh at the property. Um obviously right now we don't have a date determined or the extended amount of time determined. I think that's something that should be clarified at the city council level, but I don't have any issues with uh a some kind of extension. So, I would make a motion to uh recommend an extension to that IUP. >> So, currently there's two years left on it. I think that it'd be good if the planning commission made a time frame, whether that's three more years, whatever it may be. Um I think that's kind of the norm as a fiveyear. >> Yeah. So the the the standard language in zoning ordinance is five years for an interim use permit. Um being that if the the planning commission were to recommend approval for a term uh to match that the existing term started in on February 11th, 2025, uh the uh I guess the uh status quo term would be February 11, 2030. So that would be the uh the time frame to be that fiveyear. I think it makes sense if we're going to grant an extension, we do another three years. So, he's getting the full five years. Um, but uh >> you made the motion. You go with that? >> Yep. I'm good with that. >> So, three years on top of the two essentially, so another five years >> from today. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Uh there's a motion on the table. I need a second. I'll second a five-year um term starting from um approval from council. >> This is tough because I'm kind of >> um all right. All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed? >> No. >> Nate. So 22 again. >> I just think we have a year's worth of operating. >> Yeah. It's not so much that I think that Yeah. Just the applicant knows it. I wish you the best in your business. It's just that I just don't want to see these popping up everywhere in Dayton. Um, that's that's the only reason I'm like not approving the extension. All right. I voted no. I do like the the driveway remaining because I think that's the it's better for everyone involved. >> Would you support starting the three-year clock again? I it's just it's hard from my perspective because I'm just not in favor of this use and uh next to a residential home and I understand there's different type of egg businesses out there but this is a heavy construction business and I just don't want to see them everywhere on the five and 10 acre parcels in Dayton or 20. So just add for clarity. So with looking at John so uh with the 22 vote there is no recommendation from the planning commission. Um so this will go to the city council >> on uh December 13th uh next Tuesday uh will be on the agenda and the uh discussion here will be noted and was anticipated at this meeting by staff. So >> good luck. Um, with that being said, we are moving on to item 8B, public hearing for an amendment to the event center interim use permit for signage at 17501 Dayton River Road. Just to clarify, that city council meeting next week will be December 9th, not December 13th. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. Uh again, this is another uh interim use permit that was approved in August of 2025 for an event center and future winery building uh on a parcel at the southwest intersection of Lndale Lane North and Dayton River Road. Um the applicants received unanimous approval to their site plan for the event center uh for a term of 50 years from the approval date. Uh construction has not begun uh yet, although anticipated in 2026. Um through this process, the interim use permits are also allowed to have specific signage approved for the project and uh subsequently this is the reason for the amendment to uh this interim use permit. There wasn't any signage approved uh and the uh egg district where this property is zoned has a restrictive standards related to wall signage. So when we were reviewing this request, uh staff had reviewed this in comparison to what an event center would be subject to in a commercial district. Um and obviously being that uh the sign plan or uh signage allowance would be allowed by the interim use permit. Uh when the interim use permit expires and laps and the applicant decides not to uh continue operation or doesn't get reapproval, the signage on the property also will uh go away as well. Um but uh specifically the uh main area of uh question or request is related to some painted signage on some existing silos that are on the corner of Lndale Lane North and Dayton River Road. Uh the silos are roughly 80 ft tall. Um the standard height of a of a of a concrete silo and uh the applicant had stated that the height of the painted signage on there at the top would be 50 ft. Um the square footage of each sign is 131.37 square ft. Um times that by two that's 262.74 square ft. Uh based on the primary wall facade of the event center uh building that was approved which is the only wall that is allowed for um usage in that calculation um is uh 3,328 square ft. And I will just go back to this uh table here. It was uh also in the packet as well. Um being that the wall area for square footage is between this first threshold here, the sign area maximum percentage allowed for commercial commercial districts and industrial districts is 10% of that wall area. So, um, a couple of things here related to this is that, uh, the proposed signage on the silos meet, uh, the, uh, commercial district code standard, um, that this is being compared to and as well as offers some uh, additional sign area for the applicant uh, to utilize on the building itself and uh, potentially the winery building as well. Uh the applicant is also proposing to light the silo signage with downcasted low-level lighting. Um and uh the commission has asked to provide feedback on this specific request. Um in terms of this being an interim use permit and uh that uh the signage is only limited to the extent of the permit itself. Um staff does recommend approval of the proposed signs on the silo area as they are consistent with the code standards uh except obviously this is an egg zoning district with a intermuse permit for a commercial operation on the property. Um so staff would uh essentially have a condition of approval related to this uh that would limit it to that 332.8 ft threshold. Um staff is uh requesting to have a discussion with the property owner and provide some feedback for us related to the lighting as proposed. Uh the only reason that staff is not providing a recommendation for this is that this area related to lighting of signs is has different impacts in this area versus a commercial district um due to the surrounding area being single family residential and agriculture um in nature. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions and also this is a public hearing. So the allowable area of the sign is based on the front of the building up on the hill disassociated with the silo. >> It is the primary wall of the principal building on the property. Yes. >> On commercial property. >> Yes. Yep. >> Which this is not. Is that specified in the code >> that it's of the primary >> wall or the wall of the primary building? Is that specified in the code or or is it as states in our packet that it's just says wall area? >> Uh are you looking at the table? >> Yeah. Um there is a uh note under that. Let me see if I can find that here. Seems like it should be based on the size of the >> walls being >> the signs being fixed too. Correct. >> You take the size of the sil and now we can't make up code on the fly obviously. >> No. No. Exactly. That's why I wanted a clarification on that. >> But the it seems to me that um that the signage being proposed is going to work be adequate for the applicant. I think that they're okay with one of the questions I I'll have a question for the the applicant is what happens when you run out of signage, right? So, they want to do more signage on the building, so on and so forth, and all of a sudden 70 ft doesn't cut it. So, but I just want a clarification on what the code says specific to the amount of wall signage you're allowed. So here uh the subsection A here above is the primary building facade shall be calculated using uh the width of the first story exterior wall. Um because there isn't a distinction between whether the it's the accessory structure or the principal. Um staff made the determination that the square footage area that we would utilize for this specific project would be the uh principal building. Um, I would just also note that uh if we were to utilize or go about it the other way, uh that obviously it would increase that uh allowance for signage on the property as a whole. And I will I will just uh to clarify, Commissioner Grover, related to your comment about commercial property. Um it's more of a question of the use in general on the property, which is the way that we are reviewing this rather than this being an agriculture uh property as a principal use. Um the principal use based on the interim use permit that was approved is a commercial commercial use. So that's that's why we would tie the commercial signage to the interim use permit term. Again, what confuses me and maybe just because I'm just new to this process, is why this stuff keeps coming to the city or to the to the planning commission and then effectively on to the council in these peace meal pieces. I mean, first you come with the with the discussion of the winery and and the you know, the the things that the council put into place in order to make that happen, the transportation in and out and such. And now we get three more steps down the road. Now we're talking about a billboard in an area where people live. I mean, how many other >> How many other event centers do we have in the city right now? >> Right now there's three in total to in operation. >> This would be the fourth. >> Four. I guess this would be the fourth. >> I count it. Fourth. So this would be the fourth, right? >> Yeah. So, are we to assume that everyone that's running an event center is going to want a billboard that's that you can see from four miles away, a lighted billboard in a in an area that may be an area that's not where people think is commercial properties are going to be? Is that is that what we're to assume? Because I just see this a real slippery slope. not necessarily an assumption of what the other uh businesses would want and their interim use permits, but also if they were to request any type of wall signage on the property, um they would have to go through this similar process as well. Um the uh applicant is here to speak as well about uh the reuse of the silos that uh are no longer being used for um what they were originally used for. So, um, yeah, it's not it's not necessarily creating an assumption and allowing other um businesses to do this, >> but this would be the process they would still have to go through that. >> It's a little hard for the city to say somebody else can't do it when you give one person permission to do it, right? >> And we're setting a precedence by doing this. >> We're looking at this as as a commercial operation and what would be allowed in a commercial district for signage, right? which it is not. So, and certainly isn't to the people that live around there. >> That's why you have the public hearing process, right? Get the input of the surrounding neighbors and you have notifications sent out and public hearing process to get their input, which why we're here tonight. So, um yeah. >> Are there more questions to staff before we bring the applicant forward? So is the signage ordinances in our code only specific to commercial properties or or >> just to businesses? >> It addresses all all zoning districts. Um the reason for the interim use permit amendment request is related to the language within that zoning ordinance that allows for the city to um adopt or allow for a specific sign plan for a property. um essentially offering some of that flexibility within that interim use permit allowance. >> Yeah. >> And then just to um clarify, the code doesn't specify or doesn't restrict the number of signs, just the amount of square footage of all the signs together. >> Correct. Yes. The number quantity is only specific to freestanding signs in general. in a freestanding sign is much shorter, right? At 20 feet or >> you guys remember like if the freest standing pylon sign >> I think that the in the egg district or are you just in general? >> Well, I guess egg district for this >> I believe if I'm not mistaken the egg district is limited to 8 ft in height. >> Yeah. Okay. >> At 32 square feet. >> Yeah. >> So 4 by8 sheet of plywood. >> Yep. >> Where the uh >> way bigger. I will note that there was a sign ordinance amendment that was recently uh adopted in early 2025 uh that increased commercial and industrial freestanding signage uh for monument specifically from 8 to 16 ft and the pylon sign is still limited to 25 ft in commercial and industrial districts. Is there anything preventing farmers from painting their silo and doing what they want on it in general >> other than uh >> well yeah there initials could be >> commissioners yes there is um I will say that uh again the separation between commercial signage and non-commercial signage um and then I will say additionally without that interim use permit uh approval for the event center that allows for a sign plan to be adopted or approved by the city council. Uh they are still subject subject to those egg district standards. >> Think as the commission has known it or is where it's difficult regulating signage of what is a commercial sign versus a non-commercial sign. So if I had a silo and I painted a a >> smiley face >> well smiley face is that a commercial? No. >> Or paint it with your initials JS commercial. So anyway, I guess I do have another question for uh staff. Is that um >> so the use of the silo the silo is no longer in commission. Correct. It's not being used as a silo. >> I would ask the applicant to clarify that but from my understanding it is not. >> So to and we could ask that with the understanding that is not being used as a silo anymore. Then what kind of building is it? Is it just an accessory building or does that building now become a base for a sign is what I'm saying is so if it's not being used as a silo anymore and you paint a sign on it, it's now a sign and could you be could staff look at it in that in that respect at all or consider that or are you considering this a a decommissioned building? Yeah, I guess from a zoning standpoint, I would uh take the the stance that it would still be considered an accessory structure whether in use or not. Um I'm sure that there are vacant other accessory structures in general. Um this being an egg based one, obviously there wasn't a permit pulled for it or anything like that. Um so >> I mean we you could be getting around the idea that you're putting up a sign 50 ft in the air where not even a commercial um situation could be of a sign 50 ft in the air. >> Yeah. I didn't uh take a picture of it, but the only uh thing that comes to mind in my head is the semstone signs on the tower that they have there on site. That is uh 70 plus uh building height. >> Okay. >> But yeah, the uh again I appreciate this uh this context and dialogue because um wall signs in terms of height is limited to the roof line. Uh that is it can't be uh essentially above what the the max height of the building is. I think we all >> the principal building which is also used for determining the amount of signage. >> Well, the principal Yeah. >> I mean, right. So, I I get it. I mean, it's you're applying signage to a structure that is not a principal structure that is now exceeding standards that is allowable anywhere else except for, you know, I guess a couple other places. But, >> but besides height, they're not exceeding any standards. >> No. Square footage and everything else is good. >> Correct. Okay. Yeah, obviously this is a unique situation. I think that it's going to be good to hear from the applicant and the public. Um and then we can continue some more discussion. >> Um with that being said, will the applicant like to come forward? >> Absolutely. >> Jack Vernon's um 17440 Thicket Lane, Dayton, Minnesota. I've been a resident for 30 some years. Um maybe I can address a few of the things. Uh obviously we just assume not come in peace meal either. Uh but when we well we were trying to do things as we have been for this whole thing the right way. And uh you know we look at and you can see them all over Dayton and other parts of rural Minnesota, but Harvester silos, the big blue silos, guess they got a big American flag with the harvester sign on them. Uh so that was really kind of our idea of it's, you know, having our logo just on there versus an American flag or the harvester logo. uh when we talked to the sign company uh they brought up the Simstone example that you said and uh we were like yeah no that's that you know we agree they didn't they weren't sure if we needed a permit so I contacted Hayden and he's like you know and I looked at all this it's not specifically addressed in the IUP uh ordinance I don't believe >> the IUP resolution >> resolution Yeah, not ours, but the general one for having event centers in Dayton. And so anyway, we went back and forth about, you know, well, we'd like to do this. How can, you know, how could it be possible? So that's why we're here. Our intent is and the feedback we've had from we painted the silos. The silos were used last year. Uh so they are they're usable. uh whether we put grain in them or not will just depend on whether uh there's a need for that. Um, but we so we paint the silos and the feedback we've gotten from that is boy, they look super cool. And so that's all we're trying to do is take that super cool and turn it into uh a positive for the future business is to say, you know, hey, this is the Thicket Hill Vineyard and Event Center in a very, in my opinion, in a very subtle way. Um, I I don't believe that it's going to be an eyes sore or anything like that for anyone. It's not a big gas station sign 80 ft in the air or whatever. Um, and I mean that's what we're all about. We're trying to put a business together that's like first class, people want to come see. and you know the the silos. Uh the reason we didn't tear them down and we took some other corn bins down was because they're iconic. Uh and that that's really where we want to go to. And as far as the lighting's concerned, uh, in discussions with Hayden, also in discussions with our electrician, they're like, "Well, what you want to do be the least disturbance to anybody around is, you know, basically take your power, go all the way up above the sign, and just have a very low lit uh down lit uh lighting so that people can see there's a logo on there, but it's not obnoxious. So, that's I mean, we're trying to do all the things is we obviously we want to be good neighbors, too, but more than anything, we just want we want people to be like, "Wow, that's really cool, you know, and that's what we're trying to do." And so, um yeah, I mean, I'm glad to answer any questions, but that that's kind of the spirit behind it. >> Yeah. I mean, uh I think it the logo is awesome. I really it it's elegant. I think it looks really good on on the on the structure there too. I think it's going to be something that uh you know Dayton's going to be proud of if if this event center takes off like you hope it does and I like we hope it does that >> uh you know we'll be a destination for people who want to come in and and enjoy that property. And having uh a reuse of some a building out there, the silo out there and then painting it this way I think is only going to add to that. So, I mean, I I'm in supportive of of the signage for sure. Uh the question that I I would have is that u given the amount of square footage on your on the main building, you're left over with 70 square ft of signage. >> Yeah. >> Um is that going to be adequate? Have you done have you done that research to say how much more signage are we actually going to need? >> And the only reason why I asked that is because you might need to adjust the size of the signs on the silo. Obviously, you want to keep proportions in in play, >> which your sign company, I think, uh, has a a good eye for as well, but it's something to consider because you're only limited then to that 70 square ft. >> Um, to to answer your question, I'd say, have we done the research to see I I don't know, but the signage on the building, so the building itself sits almost 2,000 ft from the road. You know, it's way up on the bluff. So, like nobody would even know what that was unless they drove up close to it. Uh, and so we've been, even though the the renderings have signage on them, we're up in the air whether we even would do it because a does it look tacky? B, um, is anyone going to, you know, like who cares once you're up the hill? Do you really need to say this is Thicket Hill, you know, winery? It's, you know, we we may do some littleer signs or whatever, but anything we do would be very lowkey. And so I I don't think it's an issue, but it's a very good point. And I can I actually have a meeting with some of the the architect and some of the the construction company tomorrow to ask them what they think. Uh like if we only have 70 square feet left, what you know, what do you think? Um, but it's a good good point. >> And then as far as the lighting, I mean, to me, if that's on, you know, something for consideration tonight, it's very difficult for me to approve of any kind of lighting if we don't see a specific example in front of us, like what's that lighting going to look like? What are I mean if we have to get as far as >> um you know what's what are the foot candles of you know photometrics of that and how much light is going to actually be spilled out um from that silo even if it's downcast. So the idea of lighting I think I could support but specific lighting I would have to see it to to say yeah this is something that I think would look fine out there. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I mean, >> we all have an idea that it's going to be very low and dim light, but then, you know, once it's built, it's built. >> Yeah. >> And if it's a super bright light and no one likes it, then >> Yeah. >> You know, that's going to be, you know, I and I think Hayden mentioned it, but I I thought there were some recommendations in terms of, you know, total amount of light emitted and all that kind of stuff. So, we were planning to follow that. Why we haven't actually put that into the plan yet is just we were looking for you know okay what kind of and I'm going to say you know like actual lumens or whatever it is that you can have um because that's all I mean that's all uh something we would do based on what makes the most sense. I mean, that's all we really want is to be able to see like you can see the logos lit a a little bit, you know? Um, that's the main thing. I mean, it doesn't have to be like I don't even want it to be like that because then I think it takes away from the um image that we're trying to put out there, which the image is kind of soft and you know that not not like uh you know we're quick trip blinking and whatever you know. >> That's all I have. Any questions down here, >> Jack? Um, just one sign on the silo and >> yeah, >> there's two silos and they're essentially back to back to each other. So, we put one logo on the side coming. I guess that would be >> east. Uh, and then one going west. >> Okay. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. >> Back deal. >> Yeah. >> If Yeah. I don't know if you can. That would be facing west and you can see that other silo. I think there was another picture that you had. >> Yeah, maybe that that way is how you see it coming east, I guess. >> Yeah. No, thanks for clarifying. >> Yeah, I don't have any questions for the >> applications either right now. >> Thank you. We might call you back up here. >> Sure. Um, this is a public hearing. It is 7:45 and I am going to open the public hearing. If anyone's here to speak on this matter, please come forward. Not like you would want to beat a dead horse on this sign ordinance, but we've played this game. Hutner 13531 Boston Lane North. We've had this discussion as an EDA and we've had this discussion as planning. I understand Jack is do setting this up and I get it, but you are always talking about a casting lighting down. I got a suggestion that might be a little different. How about if Jack cuts those out out of the silo, backlights it so it's back lit, and there is no external lighting for this and it's turned into a art instead of a sign. Then what do you do? Is it a sign then or is it a silo with the letters missing? But if you look at it, you look at the side and you'll see that it's literally non-casting at all. It's it's a glow. I don't know if you've ever thought about that. >> Um, >> not really. >> I don't know if we could cut the >> Yeah, I don't know structurally if you could. Maybe you can. I mean there are back lit signs. >> Well, you can keep your main structure in place. >> Yeah, you can do a a standoff sign with >> back lighting is going to be way more passive than any type of uplight, down light, sidelight, cast light. Again, in our site ordinance that we've dealt with, how many >> pages now is it 22, 28 pages when it was >> will never cover everything. >> We can't Well, he cuts them out and calls it art. Now what? >> And he can backlight it. >> Still a sign. >> Still a sign. >> Now he he wants to bring his business to our city as an EDA chair. I would uh highly recommend that he brings that income to our city. Uh the locals get to see it the and and someone was bringing up the point where do you want to see that the whole time as you come into a city? I mean is it a eyesore? It could be less of an isore if it was just like backlit. But my point being is he's wants to do this in our city and it creates a is that a commercial spot now is >> well I mean the the use of commercial but land is agricultural but >> so it's no longer I1 it's commercial and it's an event center just a couple of foods for thought I wanted to make sure that you know you can backlight it you just got to keep the structure in place and then you create a can behind it and light that if he runs in Anything in the red, which is the 630ish nanometer white light wave, you won't have any transient light going any place else. So, it literally glows. Just a heads up on that. But I think he's, you know, he's coming into our city. Let's >> help him out. >> Good feedback for the applicant. Ultimately, it's the applicant's job to come forward with the plan and us to approve it or not. But it's a good suggestion and he can definitely adapt uh as it goes to the city council if that's what he chooses to do. Okay, I promise I wasn't going to deviate on today. Here we are. >> Is anyone else here for this item? Anyone online? Aiden, >> again, if there's anyone online, please use the raise your hand function. Hello. Uh, my name is Philip Frederick. I live at 17881 Dayton River Road and which is just a stones throw from this area. Um, if I had a good arm, I could probably hit it. Um, I really like what is going on over there. I really like the uh idea of these silos being preserved like that and, you know, very subtly lit. They I do believe they have a good business plan and I would much rather have a winery in the backyard than two dozen houses that are on top of each other. And I as long as it's not flashing neon sign and um and getting in the way of being able to sleep at night with light coming in through the window, I think we're just fine. As far as noise that may happen out there, I'm all for it. I'll join the party. >> Even though I don't like wine, but not right. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. If there's anyone else on this matter, please come forward. All right. It is 7:50 and I am going to close the public hearing. Um, discussion on this item. Well, my my record stands and I'm pretty anti-sign usually. Um, but I mean this this complies with what the city ordinances allow for size. Um, I think it's a good use of the I do like the silos. I commend you for keeping them and the whole idea of maintaining the rural feel of Dayton. That's it, right? Like maintaining the silos right along the road. Um, I kind of went down a similar mental path as Commissioner Harden too about like the using the silo now as to make the sign taller and everything but I think that you know we don't if it is a still an accessory structure which I would agree with that um interpretation that we don't say where on the building you have to put the sign. We don't have a limit, right? I mean, our tall warehouses, they put the signs at the top. Some Sony put the sign at the top. Um, I think the proportion of it is good. Um, I think it is simple and classy, so I don't have an issue with it. Um, I the lighting I I 100% agree. Soft lighting from the top is the way to go. It's just Yeah, I think there's still reservations on what that really looks like. And it's hard to just say soft lighting because it's different for everybody, right? So, it's like you kind of need some hard proposal for what that really is. But, um, yeah, I definitely wouldn't want it glaring too much. I mean, that is a darker road driving and you don't all a sudden want something really bright distracting your eye, um, with the deer activity and other critter activity on this road. So, um, something subtle would be nice. >> Yeah. Uh, I echo a lot of what Mr. Crosslin just said. Uh I'm supportive of this. Um I think it's uh I want to see this business be successful for many reasons and I think signage is important for the success of the business. Um I don't have a problem with the lighting as long as it meets our code as far as the foot candles and lumens go. Um and I like the downcast. Um but I I'm supportive of it. Yeah, I'll just reiterate what I said before. Um you know the sign I think it's elegant. It's classy. I think it's in line with the type of business that you want to uh promote here. Uh which I'm in support of. Um again, I like I think the use of signage is is perfectly fine on that on the silos. Um and I'll reiterate what's been set up here as far as the lighting itself. Downcast lighting is obviously, you know, preferable. Meeting standards of of the city code as well. um and as dim as you can to get away with um actually um illuminating the sign is is what I would suggest or or hope for. But as long as it's meeting city code, I think that um lighting would be fine there too. Commissioners, if I could just offer a couple of thoughts on the the si the lighting for the signage is that uh as a part of a condition of approval um if uh the motion were to be made and adopted um could be requiring a phototric showing that the lighting from these proposed lights would not exceed.1 foot candle at the property line which is consistent with just standard building lighting um in commercial and industrial areas. So we could add that as a condition of approval just to verify that as well. I will also note that in the public nuisance code um there is a requirement that if glare was found to be um trespassing onto the road and causing potential safety hazards related to drivers um that would be addressed with the nuisance code and they would have to resolve that. Um, so those are a couple of um, for lack of a better term, safety nets for the city to um, confidently make a decision either way. And to clarify position, I'm just reading the recommendation of staff is I agree with your interpretation of the code and limiting the sign to the 10% of the primary entrance. >> Commissioner Grover, you have anything to add? more than I already have. Maybe a little bit. Um, I think the sign looks cool, but that's I don't know that that's what I'm here to judge is whether your artwork on the sign looks cool or not. The issue that I have is what I mentioned earlier is I'm concerned about the other event centers and the future event centers that we're going to have in the city. If everybody wants to have a 50- foot high sign in areas that are potentially or scheduled to be adjacent to where people live. I mean, that's what really bothers me. I think you're jumping on a hill with some greased up skids and everybody that has an event center is going to be asking for the same thing that this gentleman's asking for. I don't blame him. If I was him, I'd probably be asking for the same thing. Silos are cool. Like, we're abusing them, right? They're cool. You play in them as kids. You work at them. You fill them. You unload them. And it's cool that you're keeping them. I mean, there's so few of them left in the city anymore compared to when I was a child. But I just question on, you know, whether we're on that slippery slope going downhill. How do you tell anybody else? No. You know, if we Well, this is cool. It's a silo. And the guy said, well, I can make the sign look like a silo. Why can't I have one? So, I think you're going to end up with everybody that has an event center that wants to have more lighting, more signage. >> Right now, you can only take action on what's in front of you. >> I know. >> And correct me if I'm wrong. >> That's what's that's what I'm foring my opinion about, >> but maybe this will help alleviate some of your concerns, but if anyone wants to have a 50ft sign for an event center, number one, they have an accessory structure that's tall enough for it, >> right? They can't just put a 50ft sign up. They need to have an accessory structure. >> Maybe they put up a sidewalk. Maybe they do. >> I mean, I think we're looking at this in context to what was already out there, right? So, it's a reuse of a of a of of a piece of of of or of a building that we know has been there for a long time. You know, if a new event center were to come in and say, I'm going to build a silo just for the sake of putting a sign on it, I would consider that a sign and not a silo. That's that's a you know, that there is some semantics as far as how you differentiate that. Um, so I would look at that at that case on a case- by case basis to say this isn't consistent with what uh we want to see as far as signage and that's not a loophole that we we're going to allow to have happen. So that's my opinion on it. >> What permission does somebody >> Excuse me. >> What permission does somebody need to have from the city to put up a silo on egg property today? >> None. >> None. >> So I own property. It's egg property. The first thing I do is put up a silo. next year. I'm coming to you and I want to I want to change it to an event center. >> I mean, there's all kinds of ways to do in runs around this stuff and we're just leaving the doors wide open. That's what I'm saying. >> It's a little bit open. It's not wide open. >> This is a unique circumstance and I think we need to judge it like uh >> there's stated on the case that's in front of us. >> Um yeah, >> thankfully the signage ordinance doesn't allow freestanding signs this tall. So, I mean, he's the applicant has taken advantage of a situation in his property that allows him to put it up higher than what a freestanding sign would allow. So, it he's using the code to his benefit here. >> Yeah. Um, is someone willing to make a motion? I'll make a motion on item 8B um being an amendment to the event center uh interim use permit for signage at 17501 Dayton River Road uh with an amendment to that that says that uh the applicant should supply a phototric plan uh with the sign permit that indicates that any light will not exceed.1 ft candles at the property line. Is that a plan with the sign or is that after the sign's constructed that they tested? >> No. Uh the lighting and um measurements that they'd be able to do for the photometric could be accomplished prior to um just based on the uh calculations. >> You got it. So perfect. Just wanted to clarify. >> It would be subject to them submitting that uh as part of the signed permit plan. We wouldn't approve a signed permit for this without first seeing what the lighting would look like. Perfect. >> Thank you, Commissioner Sergeant. Do we have a second? I'll second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I. >> All those opposed? >> No. >> Motion carries 31. Um, this will go in front of the city council on December 9th. >> 9th. >> Um, good luck. Moving on to item 8 C, public hearing for a concept plan for sweet living. Thank you, Commissioner Browen, and members of the planning commission. Uh yes, tonight you're asked to uh do a high level review and uh have kind of an introduction point to a concept plan. Um, I'll just note that uh concept plans uh are not subject to any formal decision-m tonight or anything. This is informal feedback um that will be provided back to the applicants related to the overall uh concept site plan that uh was in the packet as well. Um so as uh Commissioner Brown had mentioned uh Sweet Living Assisted Living is uh uh proposing um a facility at the corner of Balsam Lane North and Dayton River Road. Um this property here that you can see where my cursor is. Um the property is 2.87 acres and is currently vacant. I believe that it is currently farm still. um zone GMU4 Balsam Lane mixeduse district and guided for mixed use in the 2040 comprehensive plan. Um the concept includes a 32-unit singlestory uh facility. Again, this is a um assisted living uh from what I understand in the applicant's narrative, they uh described as a immobile residence that would not uh otherwise leave the the facility for any reason or anything like that. So be full care um at that uh at that site. Just a note and this is kind of the reason for the uh discussion tonight and the concept plan review in general is that assisted living, memory care, nursing homes currently are not allowed as a permitted or conditional use uh in the GMU4 district. Um the applicants would be required to seek an ordinance amendment or reszoning of the property um to a commercial district like B1 or B3 uh that would allow assisted living as a conditional use in those commercial districts. Um so those would essentially be the two options for that. Um there was another thing that I was going to mention maybe it'll come back. Um the plans provided show the layout. Uh it's two different concept plans were provided to this one linear and one L-shaped facility. Um both oriented towards the northwest corner of the parcel. Um below in that uh table is uh kind of a review of what concept one uh is in comparison to the GMU4 district. Um site plan requirements such as setbacks, parking setbacks, building setbacks. Um there is a requirement for uh minimum 50% of building frontage at that maximum setback of 30 feet or at that minimum setback of 15 ft. Uh I will note that really the discrepancy between the two is that the linear U building concept one or concept A uh does not meet this requirement currently within the GMU4 district. Um there's also a note in there that uh related to residential uses that uh um requires that 50% of uh multif family or residential uh uses uh have underground parking up to 50% of underground parking. Um and through staff's determination of an assisted living or nursing home facility. Um this is more uh commercial in that regard. So we would uh we would leave it or uh require it to adhere to the assisted living parking standards in the code which is uh half a space per unit. Um which would require them 16 and they are showing 25 on both. Yeah. And this is just a current aerial of the site. So this is the linear design. Um concept A and concept B. And there's both of them side by side that I forgot I included. So a couple of considerations that we wanted to address tonight is uh the access. The excess is shown at the southernmost point of the parcel providing a maximum separation from access to this uh piece of property in the intersection at Dayton River Road. Um staff is supportive of the access location as well as the possible cut into the median on Balsam Lane for full access rather than it being a right in right out. Um but uh does not feel uh the left turn that is shown in that concept design is necessary for this specific use. Also note that there was an accessory structure in uh concept A shown. Um and just uh to note the GM any general mixeduse district or uh commercial district does not currently allow accessory buildings on the property. So that will also be something that the uh applicants would have to address and I already touched base on the parking. So tonight uh the planning commission is asked to hold a public hearing. Um you're more than welcome to provide feedback uh on the general layout and site design to the applicant. Uh the pressing question that uh the planning commission should really discuss initially um is uh whether an assisted living facility, memory care, nursing home type of use is something um that you feel comfortable with having within this general mixeduse district. Um, just a little bit of background. I didn't have the full video of the meeting when this was adopted and discussed from the planning commission and city council. Um, but the minutes were very extensive. It doesn't specifically address the lack of not including this uh type of use within this area when they were listing out the multif family uses. Um generally the uh the direction that city staff provided to the planning commission and city council was related to having multif family as apartments, condominiums, things like that would have could potentially have active um residents within this area to help promote more commercial development within this area whether that be retail in nature or what have you. Um so that uh from my research that is what I found on the reasoning. Um there wasn't any specific callouts to let's not have this here or anything like that. It just that was the direction that they went down when it came to multif family uses within the GMU4. >> Thank you. Is there any questions for staff on this one? Yeah, I guess I'll start. Um, Hayden or or John, if you could. Um, so the options in front of us obviously is not zoned correctly for the use uh that's being proposed. So the options are either to make an amendment to the current GMU for district or to reszone to a commercial district to allow for this type of use. Does staff have any input on what is preferable at a staff's level as far as whether or not an amendment is made or reszoning? The only reason why I asked that is because if you make an amendment to me, you're still uh introducing a what I know it's a commercial type of use, but it's essentially a residential subset use right into an already residential district. If you reszone to allow for this use in that area, you're you are reszoning to a commercial district where in 10 years, 15 years, a new commercial type of use can be uh put in this in this area that's not uh an assisted living or a senior care facility. So, does staff have any input one way or the other on a recommendation on either an amendment or a reszoning? I would steer towards an amendment. So the the Balsam district and I'm struggling to remember back in 2016 when this was created, but the intent was to create kind of like a district feeling that was walkable and and had a lot going on with it. Um, you know, so to reszone it to, you know, commercial or residential, it kind of defeats the purpose of creating that district uh vibe, if you will. >> Right. So, introducing this use into that GME district, is it going to blow up any kind of ideology of what that district really should be? Is it is what you're kind of saying? >> I I think we're we're thinking the intent of, you know, with mixed uses, you're having housing there and people that are there, you know, daytime, nighttime. I think the idea is that you're going to have residents that are going to support the redevelopment of the commercial area eventually. Um, you know, so maybe there'd be a restaurant, maybe there'd be something else. that hasn't occurred yet. Um, now with assisted living, it it's doubtful that those residents are going to be out utilizing those businesses. Um, but visitors would, >> right? I mean, the reason why I'm I'm a little bit more um focused on this is because our our next case is almost the same exact thing just right across the street, right, with the same with the same uh issues going on there. So, I just want to make sure that um you know staff has has reviewed this and is comfortable with with the amendment um rather than a reasonzoning. So, um we'll take that in consideration obviously. Um just another question. Has um engineering looked at this and have any issues with the the concept plan as presented? >> Um no, not as far as the site layout. The access will have to be coordinated to maximize >> where that should be, but Does does engineering view that the median and balsam lane someday eventually might even go away completely or be narrowed like for more turn lanes in particular you know if the site to the north becomes more intense because I know the rain process site's not fully developed even >> it it certainly could be looked at I mean that would be easier than widening the road and it is wide enough to provide a turn lane so um very possible I I wouldn't say we would plan on it but we certainly react with a a turn lane by accommodating it with the medium if a high use did go into one of those sites. >> Yeah. Um >> Jason, did the upgrades that Henipin County is planning on doing to Dayton Road, do they have any play in what we're looking at here? Um there the draft report is released for review um for involved agencies. It does not have any substantial upgrades to the intersection. So it's uh it's with it's proposed to have the turn lanes in the general configuration that exists today. So no roundabout, no signal system at least with this project. Just for clarification as well, in a standard circumstance when uh a proposed preliminary plat is uh at in front of the planning commission and the city council, it is a requirement that the jurisdiction that owns the road right of way has an opportunity to review any project like this. I will note that and this will come up as well again in the next one. Um both of these parcels that are in consideration are already platted. So it would be a just a standard site plan review um that you would see for this. And in um my point was Henipin County will not have the opportunity to review this project before if they intend to come back for formal decision. >> And part of that this project doesn't propose access on the the county road. Um, if there's no more questions for staff, we'll invite the applicant to come forward. >> Good evening. My name is Dan Brown with Hampton Companies. Um, we've built and operate 21 sweet Livings in the Twin Cities at this time. Um, we're a low impact um, business. Um, as said, our residents don't drive, but we do have on average six to eight employees at a time. Um, and then visitors come going. So, we do bring traffic through, but it's a low impact. And I'm help uh, happy to answer any questions you guys might have. Yeah. Is there any questions for the applicant? Um, part of it is that we're going to provide you feedback. I guess I'm going to ask commissioners to hold back on feedback for now unless you have the public hearing first and then provide the feedback. Um, but if you have any questions for the applicant, please please let them know. I myself I don't have many I don't have any questions. Okay. pretty familiar with your use or with this use I should say not yours specifically but >> we do have um currently a facility in Ramsey Anoka Spring Lake Park Brooklyn Park so we do have them and operate them in this area >> Dan what will be some of the dividing deciding factors between your two layouts and which one works best here are you looking for city input to help make that direction or is there other factors that you guys use internally to decide because I assume these are kind of standard plans for you that you're applying. >> That's correct. We only build it in these two ways. It's either the I format or the L format. So, if we look at a piece of property and those one of those does not fit on there, we move on. Um on this particular site, we're we're able to do either and we're happy to do either. Both operate the exact same way. So, we would look for staff or or um anybody from the city to give direction and we would be happy to follow, right? >> Yeah. I'm assuming we're going to have some good feedback for you, but since this is a public hearing, we're going to open the public hearing and see what the public has to say and then we'll probably invite you back up. >> It is 8:15 and I'm gonna open the public hearing on this item. >> If anyone is in the audience that would like to speak on this matter, please come forward. >> Want all my information again? >> Please. 13531 Balsson Lane, Tim Outner. As far as use, uh, I'm in that area. I think that this makes a lot of sense. I think that it's a very logical for what it is. But as stewards of the city, we should probably make sure that we're vetting the people properly. Now, if I get this correctly, can I address the >> Yeah, but don't expect him to respond back to you when he comes back up here. He can maybe answer some of your questions. >> I I see. Well, I want to make sure I got the correct company here. Andover, Anoka, Burnsville, Chaza, St. Paul, >> not St. Paul, but the other ones your your your gig. >> Yes. Can you I'm sorry. Can you repeat it just >> Yeah. And just to be clear, I mean, I just want to make sure that what you're asking him is referring to his business. >> That's why I wanted to verify. >> Yeah. No, but he's you're just reading stuff off a piece of paper. So, um, let's let's just be clear. Are I don't want to have a dialogue back and forth between you and the applicant here at in this setting. >> Okay. >> And we're going to hear your concerns. >> Yep. Yep. Um, I always do some digging in when someone's coming into the area. I want to make sure I want to see what they have to offer a as a company in our city that they're a good fit for the area. Again, I think the use is is a logical thing, but I'd like to know if he's a 144G or a 245D and and if he's registered with the state of Minnesota, which he has been registered. And it looks like they've got a couple of revocations. There's some reinstatements. There's some there's a lot of things going on with the SOS. And if if this is what this company is, then we need to take a break and pause and find out why there's so much things going on with the SOS. uh the 144G and the 245D. I'm going to actually ask the other guy here for the on the other on item D because that opens the door for group homes. And if they are a thing with that, then we we really need to take a big look at what what their business model is as a as a community. And again, if they're fueled by the the DHS or do we have any state organizations that are are funding this? Again, their licensing is a kind of a big thing. I wanted that to make sure it was pretty clear. We don't want to end up with things that could substantially ruin the area. And and that was my my question. So, however he wants to answer. >> Thank you. >> Is there anyone else here to speak on this matter? Anyone online? If anybody is online, feel free to use the raise your hand function. My name is Ashley Winters, 13440 Arowwood Lane North. Um, it's kind of talked about a little bit. My biggest concern with any business coming into that area is the roadway going on to River Road. uh the viewpoints especially coming from Balsam it's very hard to see right now anybody coming along that curve um so that's my biggest concern just the access and um the safety >> just for clarity the curve on Balsam or the curve on Dayton River Road >> River Road so that's noted Commissioner Brown, if I could just uh touch on a couple of those comments related to the site design and the corner of the property on Dayton River Road in Balsam Lane. Uh I will just note that uh there is a requirement for the building to be recessed back a certain distance from the corner of where those two streets meet. Um so that will also be a part of the review to verify that they are in compliance with that requirement. Um to avoid any of those issues that may arise from um sightseeing. And if I could as well I would just note that assisted living facilities, memory care, nursing homes all have distinct definitions within the zoning ordinance. Um, this would be a separate use considered in the zoning ordinance related to that in comparison to a group home. A group home has separate standards. If this were to ever change from an assisted living facility to a group home, that would trigger a change of in use and require a re-review of what is u the operation going on there. So, um there are there are some uh I guess some some channels to um address that if if it were ever to come in into question. And there again specific state licenses that are related to these facilities that also call out those uses as well. >> Y um if there's no one else to speak on this matter, I'm going to keep the public hearing open, but I'm going to have the applicant come back forward here. Um, we're going to provide some of our feedback and uh and give you an opportunity if you want to address any of those questions that were brought up uh by the public. >> Sure. >> Would you like me to go first? >> Yeah, please. >> Okay. Um, so yes, we are licensed by the state. Um, we have 21 in operations currently. Um, if a um a renewal on a business was missed or something, it possibly could have happened. That's administrative. It has nothing to do with the care. Um, you know, we we've done the the care uh team is a very accomplished care team. So, I don't I guess I don't know what he was referring to on the techn technical items. I don't know what those are. I'm assuming it was licensed or not license renewal, but maybe a business LLC renewal or something like that. I don't know. >> Yeah. With the Secretary of State, that was the SOS reference. Yes. That's generally >> um what's going on. I don't know. Um yeah, with the licensing whether I don't know what triggers a revocation and stuff like that too. Um do you are you aware of what maybe triggered any of them that he brought up? >> No, nothing has been revoked at the state level anyways for operations. So >> Okay. Um feedback on the use um and the design. I will just start by saying that I'm supportive of assisted living memory care um in the GMU4. Um I think it's a low impact use and this intersection is going to have challenges no matter what. And there's probably only one commercial site at this corner that can handle because because of the access and if that happens to be the Rain Tree Plaza, which it is. And um then I think that this use is even more supportive of handling traffic at that area and intersection. Um so from that perspective, I'm supportive of amending the GM4 to allow this. Um, with the building design myself, I'm kind of partial to the I'm not like really partial one way or the other, but I like the linear design from a standpoint that's creating more visibility and space for that eventual that access to your south the south. Yes. um especially if the Rain Tree Plaza site ever got redeveloped could handle could be subject to a lot more traffic and so keeping all the sight lines open versus having a a building blocking some of it I like that better I guess is my perspective um again you're not going to have a ton of traffic coming in and out of here but >> concept A >> concept A um so you know I think those are the two big items that you guys needed you want some feedback on? Um, was there anything else in the feedback? >> Just really those two and uh what your preference would be if there were interest in um introducing this uh type of use to this area. Um, and I'll just note for the record that uh based on the um compliance to the zoning ordinance standards, staff's recommendation or preference was for um concept B only related to compliance to the zoning ordinance, not uh not aesthetically or or anything like that. >> And I'm assuming concept A can be made in compliance that it just that was their initial layout, right? >> Well, yeah. The so essentially what would that need to be is uh the building width at this build two line in between these two small lines here would have to be at least 50% of the lot width at on Baltimore. That would be the requirement. So that is uh >> that's a weird I mean I'm not I'm not a big fan of having requirements like that. What was the purpose of it? You weren't here so >> yeah I was I was not here though. I do through my research I do have a little bit of context in terms of having those >> Yes. Exactly. Yep. Um so this was to be a walkable space with a close building. Um that was >> when you have such a narrow site though I think that when people come up with these requirements the 50% are so subjective that that's why I just have >> I mean if it was a rectangular or a square site be easy but this is a narrow rectangle >> and you'll see the complication with that standard in the uh in the subsequent application as well. So, um, those are that's good feedback to also have if there's if there's certain, uh, things related to the GMU4 district requirements that could be amended in relation to this. Um, >> I even view this site like if it were to become a retail strip center, the building's probably, do you recall what the width of that building is? >> Uh, approximately 80 ft. >> Yeah. So, the retail strip center is going to be near the same width. It's going to be the same issue. And so I I guess I'm I'm struggling with that's why I'm so supportive of the linear design from a viewpoint, but maybe other people have different perspectives and I changed my mind. Um with well the other item was uh just blank my mind. You had one other item on the feedback on um I so I guess one question is if there's a recommendation from the plan commission if this is allowed as a permitted use versus a conditional use. Um either way, a site plan would be required. So you would still um have some uh influence on uh making adjustments to the site to address any potential nuisance factors. Um it has the same result as if it were a conditional use permit. When it comes to some of the differences with senior housing, like parking, is a cup going to allow us more flexibility to make sure it's meeting what we need to, but also, you know, we can bend the code a little bit because we don't need the parking. >> Um, conditional use permit. Yes, I would say we do, and we didn't talk about this on the >> I'll just clarify, you will be able to go above and beyond what the minimum standard would be for parking requirements. Um but but for the conditional use permit, you'd not be able to go under that minimum standard for and that's one reason why I might favor conditional use permit because 16 stalls like I like that the applicants over doing it with 20 per our code because they know their business model. So I you know I'd prefer the cup to make sure that you know we can vet some things like because it is a unique use that isn't as defined as some other uses. >> Yeah. And um I'm just going to jump in. I just in for continuity of this district and this type of use. Um if that is the case related to if the half uh space per unit is maybe uh too low and we would consider requiring above and beyond with a conditional use permit. Um then maybe it would be time for staff to look into addressing that as an amendment to the parking standards in general. And yeah, I'll just say that senior housing is one of the harder ones to nail down what people need for parking. >> It's it is about staffing. >> Well, assisted living and memory care >> and that is one thing that is not included in the parking standards for assisted living is uh related to employee counts. >> Um the other thing in the application was the accessory structure. I know we had this whole discussion with the Quick Trip um but in general and we ended up not allowing Quick Trip to have the accessory structure. Correct. >> They were able to attach. >> Yeah, they attached. >> They were attached. >> So that's something to keep in mind is that we've kind of even set some precedents that we probably would prefer to see that accessory structure. What's going on there with storage of stone removal supplies, whatever you're doing in there, is that you figure out a way to maybe attach it to the side of the building. >> Okay. Okay. I think one of the challenges with this is it's diffic there's windows on every side, which is nice for a building. Um it's hard to attach a garage to it. >> And the purpose of the accessory building, can you explain that? >> Well, when you have 20 plus units, u every building has their own Christmas decorations. Every building has their own Halloween decorations. So, we have one in Spring Lake Park. We have one in Shakipi. Um they're they're nice for being able to the facilities be able to store their things there until the season comes and then they bring them out to their individual um buildings. >> Yeah, I think from that perspective they could figure out how to make it in the building. It's just extending the building a little bit longer. It's almost like a unit. But because we set that precedence, I think that uh my recommendation would be that we keep following it. >> Okay. >> Do you have other facilities that don't have an accessory building to store things in? >> Correct. Um so the majority of the buildings do not have accessory buildings. >> So where do they store their items that you just mentioned? >> Um we do have the home office and we do have a couple of other buildings that are used. >> This facility then could function without that accessory building. >> Absolutely. can never have enough storage though, right? >> Uh, a couple I mean just some uh input that I would have here. Um, yeah, I you know, again, I think the use is appropriate for the area. Um, I agree that an amendment to the GMU district is is better than a reszoning to a different district. um just to keep compatibility um intact there. Uh as far as it whether or not this use would be a permitted or conditional, generally conditional use permits or conditional uses are more intensive uses of the property that would give the planning commission and council the ability to put conditions on there to make sure that they're not exceeding that intensity, the desired intensity of the district. uh in this case I think that these types of uses are actually less intensive in some ways than multif family apartment buildings and so on and so forth. So I I would be okay with it being a permitted use. Um and then the uh the the design standards that are applicable to that as far as parking and all that would be taken care of through our normal course of of the the zoning code. Um, as as far in respect to the the Lshape or the I shape, uh, personally, I I think the aesthetic appeal is better for the Lshape. Um, I I see in the staff's uh in the in the um report here also that there's probably some advantage of having the the uh culde-sac or turnaround there as well. U potentially for pickup, drop off, um just ease of access, potentially emergency vehicle access, things of that nature. having that uh instead of uh having to turn around and do some uh backing maneuvers for those types of vehicles too. So, I would be more supportive of the Lshape also because of the fact that it meets code requirements for pushing that build two line close to the intersection uh having that frontage that that any kind of mixeduse uh development is looking for as far as uh filling out that massing. So, I'd be in supportive of the Lshape U I'll echo um some what you guys said regarding the the use. I think it's appropriate use for this space. Um I would probably lean towards the Lshape as well. I like the continuation of that line along Balsam. We've already kind of established that with the tall town homes into the two apartment buildings and then the continuation with this care center. Um I think that would make a nicer kind of experience along Balsam there. It also puts more units off of the river road which a little bit more privacy. Um any thoughts on do you have other properties? I mean this is only about half the property then if you went with Lshape like how would you guys maintain or what would you do with the rest of that property? just let it be brag grass or landscape it or >> um we would definitely have sod all the way around irrigation. Um but when we would get um closer to where the storm water basin is, we'd probably let that go with um some clo or uh prairie grass and not be maintaining that regularly. Yeah. I also like I mean the aesthetic of the corner um at the corner I think would be nice you know especially if you guys are able to kind of address the fact that you're on a major corner you're the image you show looks like the outside corner of the building uh in Grove Heights is just kind of facing some open land or nature or something but this will be facing the the corner of a major intersection. So um it could be an opportunity to maybe just do a little something different. I know you build the same buildings, but could you do something a little different with the aesthetic of that corner with your architect to just acknowledge the fact that you're on a busy corner? >> Um, and and I hear what you're saying, but um the reality is the residents like the activity. Yeah. >> The residents want to see the activity. Um if you know, our Little Canada project's a perfect example. It's got woods on one side, nature, wildlife, everything. On the other side had a strip mall and there was a liquor store there. and the the closest to the liquor store filled up fast. >> Um not that they can get out and walk there, but but the activity is really they want to feel like they're still part of the activity. >> Yeah. And I think that's great. And having a patio out there and seeing residents sitting out there on a nice summer day as cars are driving by. I think that's great. Uh I'm thinking kind of architecturally like the the example you give in Heights, the photo here, we're seeing air conditioning units, gas meters, rooftop units, all that stuff is are in that corner. that'll be the corner of our building if this were to go forward. Could that stuff be thoughtfully relocated or addressed so that that's not what you see from the corner of Balsam and the river road? >> Now understand the the comment. >> Yeah. So just acknowledge the fact architecturally and functionally like this is the prominent view of the building >> and be thoughtful on some of those mechanical things. >> Okay. No, we didn't look at that. And you know, maybe that peak is a nice spot for a sign. Uh yeah, I mean I think too Jason um our public work our facilities or um transit folks too. I mean like fire truck turnaround if it were that square. I mean to me a large fire truck would have a hard time in that space but hopefully that'll be looked at and scrutinized. >> Yeah. department goes through services goes through that and then we can always >> we have tools for evaluating that in the design process >> I I would tend to lean towards the concept B or the L-shaped design um I think it will look better for people driving by and it will definitely give people something to look at out of both sides of the building the uh the idea about the firetruck and that type of equipment um kind of is a concern for me too. But with your the concept B, excuse me, or the L-shaped design, the circle itself, looking at the property could be made bigger to accommodate whatever length engineering says you need to have in order to move that equipment around through there because I mean, you've got a lot of space there. you say you're going to plant clover or wild flowers or whatever out there, it would certainly allow you to move that whole lot, you know, farther. I guess it would be to the south or southeast to accommodate that, >> but I would tend to lean towards that design also. >> Okay. And today, um, with, um, CAD and different things, they're able to simulate, you know, large fire trucks and show the turning radiuses of all that. So we're able to look at all that >> large fire truck, ambulance, and two police cars. Make sure they all because they all show up, right? So yeah, but I mean this is your business. So anybody that's ever look for a place for a loved one to go to knows that the community certainly needs something like that and it's definitely an asset to the community. It's unfortunate that some of us have had to do that already, but uh they're hard to find spaces to be in. >> Um when I was looking 10, 12 years ago, um people had waiting lists out a year, a year and a half to put somebody in that needed to have someplace to go to like right now. >> So I'm sure that's why your your build model is the way it is. Commission suppose you have any problem filling these rooms. So >> yes, our vacancy rate is very low. >> So we do. >> Commissioner Grover and Commissioner Crosslin, do you have feedback for staff on the permitted versus conditional use permits? >> Paul provided those. >> He did. >> Yeah, I'm going to trust staff and your guys's opinion on that. C CP. Okay. Um, the public hearing is still open on this item. Uh, I think I'm going to close it at 8:38. Is there any other feedback to provide to the applicant? Uh, I'm good on my end. Do you have any more questions that you feel like you need more information from us on since this is a concept plan review? >> Not at this time. I think I understand. >> All right. Actually, just one more. I think uh Commissioner Krosen made a really really really good point um as far as with that L-shaped um design is that essentially you're you are going to have two fronts of this building and we want to make sure that it looks like two fronts and not back of house that is adjacent to our our roadways, right? So, there might be some need to shift some design as far as how you're going to hide the the HVAC equipment and uh air conditioning units and things of that nature. I think that's going to be um more important than perhaps what was initially brought up here as far as the overall design of of that building. So, just keep that in mind, please. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you very much. Um, moving on to item 8 D, concept plan for Dayton assisted living and uh, commissioners, just for my clarification, would you uh, reiterate? Um, I only got a couple of you related to the permitted versus conditional. Um, >> did you have one? Okay, never mind then. Thank you. >> Okay. Um, similar uh, situation here. This is a concept plan review for an assisted living facility just south of Rainree Plaza on Balsam Lane. Um the property is 1.57 acres uh and is currently vacant zone GMU4 Balsam Lane mixeduse district and guided for mixed use in our comprehensive plan. Um the concept includes a 58 unit threetory facility um that uh nets out to about or grosses out to about 36.94 units per acre. Um, and just uh for reference here, this in the green is the parcel in question adjacent to uh an R1 um district and uh across the street from um the parcel that was just previously talked about. Again, this is another situation where currently this type of use is not allowed within this district. Um just a same situation here. Uh just uh showing the analysis related to setback requirements for building parking uh maximum building height as well as uh some of those uh building frontage requirements. Um this property is uh quite um unique in certain in terms of lot layout. Uh this uh property has a proposed setback currently of 151 ft and that was essentially just to get the uh the ability to drive into the parcel with having some building um in the front yard in general. Um staff would find it very difficult for this proposed layout to meet these standards including the building setbacks as well as the uh building frontage that is currently exceeding the lot width at the at the property line on Balsam Lane. So the the building width is larger than the lot width in that area. Um the maximum height in the district is three stories. Um this is a proposed three-story facility. Anything over two stories in the GMU4 district does require a conditional use permit. And then uh in terms of off- streetet parking, um again, it's uh 0.5 per unit within this uh type of use. And the applicants are proposing uh 41 underground and uh 14 surface parking for a total of 55. And this is just a little layout here. As you can see, the lot width is roughly 59 ft um in general and the lot width of the building does exceed that. Um so the overall height of the structure is 38 1/2 ft. Um, again I mentioned the conditional use permit about uh anything exceeding two stories. Um, architectural standards have not been fully uh reviewed by staff at this point as the below elevation was the only one provided to this point. Um, but it is anticipated that uh a design and a use like this uh could comply with the architectural standards of this district. Um so a couple of things and shown in the concept here there uh was two accesses or potential opportunities for access to this parcel that was provided um as part of this plan. One was just an immediate uh right in right out on this as there is no current uh cut in the median. And then uh the other alternative was a uh shared parking agreement with the north property to utilize that single access there, not creating an additional access and having a full um access there with the cut in the median. I would say that uh from a staff's point of view would encourage the applicant uh if this were to proceed to work with the north the property owner to the north to see if they can accomplish an agreement to have that um sole access for both parcels. I already discussed the uh parking uh requirements overall um more than compliant with what is uh required for an assisted living facility per the zoning ordinance. Um I will also note that the concept plan and this was discussed by engineering as well that the concept plan did not include any area not are on uh the site for storm water management. Uh being that uh that would be something that is required for this site is there will have to be storm water management on site. Um potentially significantly altering the layout of the lot and uh unless there are obviously opportunities for underground storm water uh ponding and things like that. Um so that is one thing that it would still be out in the air that uh could potentially alter the the design. So again, this is the similar to the last request to hold a public hearing on this uh um item. Uh provide general uh layout and design feedback. Uh this is an informal review. Um no formal action will be taken with this. Uh and the same goes for when this would get reviewed by the city council next week. Uh it would be an informal discussion. Uh no formal decision-m will be at this time. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. The questions really uh remain the same for u this type of uh for this item as well as the last but only one design concept to review. Um can you in your report you said that there variance would be needed that's to the the build two line correct that they would not be able to achieve just because of of the of the layout of the property. >> Correct. Yeah. The way that this would be uh the way that this concept showed uh the parcel is that uh essentially the maximum setback to the front uh property line is 30 ft in this district. Um so that would be something that would require a variance in this regard as well. Um I believe that might have been it from what I had uh if what I remember. I think that'd be the only variance that would be required. >> Yeah. I mean I think regardless of the use any any use on this property would probably need that variance. um just because of the shape of the of the lot. So, uh an unfortunate need, but it is obviously needed and there really isn't a in my estimate a way of designing any kind of building that would meet those standards. So, um obviously it's not a one-sizefits-all. I I get that. So, um I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. The one thing that I did not bring up that I should also mention is that uh the uh fire department did also uh take a look at this and did recommend that uh at least uh access to the rear side of the building on the north side of the property um would be created with this allowing them to um get back to the back side of the facility. Um, from my understanding that would the recommendation was 20 a 20 foot wide um drive aisle that would be signed as emergency access only and likely have a breakaway gate or something like that for no um for >> that specific type of use. So >> yeah, the challenge is you can see there I mean this is a very tight space and there's only about 20 ft between the building and the north property line. Would it be a five foot setback from property line to that drive aisle plus the 20 foot? >> Five or 10? >> We got five on the south side available. >> But yeah, I mean there would be a setback but there's not space for it. >> Yeah. >> Now again, it's it's one thing and this hasn't been made clear to this point. Uh for me it's it's it's one thing when the fire code re requires um access based on the length of a building um or something like that that will be reviewed. Uh at this point from my understanding this is just a recommendation that's provided. Um I didn't uh recall a code section referenced or anything like that um related to that. So I I would always defer to the safe the error on the side of safety especially with this type of use as far as potential immobility of the residents who are in there whatever it might be. So um I would take the consideration of the fire department um pretty substantially as far as needing that access even if it was just a recommendation. I think it's important that we would ask the fire department if that recommendation would change too if the Rain Tree Plaza site was developed differently such that they could access the site from there. Not saying but you know this is a narrow site that no matter what you put there. Well, if you put a any multi-story building there, >> it's going to have issues as far as getting to the rear. >> Uh just to clarify on that setback requirement for the driveway. Uh from my understanding there isn't a specific call out for emergency access uh drive aisles within the code. Um unless I found something specifically like that. Uh we think that uh the 5 foot setback would be a requirement. However, I would say that if you sign this and uh and restrict it to emergency access only um that would be something that I would want to look into um to make it to try and make it a little bit more viable for a drive to be located in there. >> It seems to me a drive aisle is not possible. meaning that that kills the project. But I'd be curious to see what the applicant has to say. >> Yeah. Will that drive aisle have to connect around the northwest side or would they be pulling all the way in and then backing all the way out? >> I think there'd be no other choice but to back out. >> Yeah. >> Well, um just because there's just not much space to make the turn on the corner. >> Well, there is if you don't have a monster building sitting there. Maybe we're trying to put too big a building on a postage stamp lot. The I have a question on the you talked about the the access driving access to the building and that you would prefer that would actually go through the uh the parking lot for rain. What was the rationale behind that? >> Uh just to limit access those access points that are so close together on Balsam Lane. Um and then also the >> turning that close to each other >> to eliminate the need to remove the median that's currently um adjacent to where this drive aisle is proposed. Um there is always there is already a uh cut in that median to provide full access um in a very short distance from this property. And again that's up to the uh adjacent property owner to make that determination. And if it does not work, there is not a requirement for that to um occur. At this point, >> I think I would be a little reluctant to um to be directing more traffic out through the Rainree North exit. Being it's so close to the the Balsam exit onto onto Dayton Road. Well, so um so Rainree has two exit points on Balsson. >> So you're directing more traffic onto their north exit. >> Uh this is the south exit on Rain Tree. >> Yeah, this is actually south of even where the building is located. The uh the building is located somewhere up in this area where my cursor is. >> I know if we have a bigger slide. >> Yeah, different. So here's here's a maybe a better example that you can see that this is the parcel here in blue. This is where that access is currently. >> Okay. >> And then there's the second access for rainry. Any more other questions for staff? Um being that I'd like to invite the applicant forward. >> Hi there. I'm Chad Cass. I'm with PJ Boss Builders. We're the general contractor uh working for my client Frank Gerrito and his team at Triad Holdings. Um >> could you state your address for the record too, please? >> Yes. 769 Taff Loop South Cambridge, Minnesota. >> Yep. Frank. >> Yeah, ma'am. Franklin Angu address 11 1920 134th Avenue North. >> Thank you. >> Um owned by >> other tried to get rid of that one and move it here. >> So you just >> uh do you guys have anything you want to present about the project? And uh then we can um same thing with the other applicant. I'll probably just see if there's any public comments before we overly share some of our feedback. >> Yeah, sure. Um, no, just more or less that it it is a it's a unique lot, right? So, to try and get a project or use on there, um, you know, there's some challenges to that. And I know uh mentioned the uh emergency road 20 foot, you know, around the back in the past on on similar projects, our multifamily projects. We've uh you know maybe put a fire hydrant around in the back. This building would be three stories. It's non-combustible construction. It's fully sprinkled. Um two two stairwells on each end, two elevators. So there, you know, not saying that two elevators can't go down, but at least we have the, you know, two elevators there in case they do go down. So, you know, we feel like we've made some, you know, accommodations there to kind of maybe help mitigate some of that risk concern. Um, do you have an opinion in regarding that that fire lane like is it phys physically possible on the site with I mean obviously you can short make your design different smaller building all kind of stuff but I guess we're just trying to understand that if we're providing the feedback that yeah that's what the direction we need to go is is what does that do to the project? Yeah, it's going to be I mean if we have to it was unclear if we have to say that five feet off the lot line with that driveway too. I wasn't sure. Do we know that? >> That's context. I'm going to have to provide it at a a future time. I don't have that information in front of me. It's really comes down to uh specificity in the zoning ordinance related to drive aisles. So >> because that you know it's only it's already 20 ft of space. So it's already 20 then we're at 25 you know. So if that if that's what it is then yeah it just it creates some challenges you know and it it may reduce the size of the building which could potentially reduce the number of units and then then we got to go back and look at the feasibility you know and the perform on the project. >> Um the drive the south drive a violet I can't see I believe it's like 26 ft wide potentially. Um, but I mean it's wider than 20. So there's there's a I think an option of shrinking that down to 20 y >> and you know shifting the building south another 5t to get that set back. >> Right. >> And we're talking drive aisle on the north side of the building. >> Okay. >> It could be explored. Right. And if it's a >> I would assume it'd be a just a straight in behind the building and they're going to end up having to back out of that. >> I think so. >> Yeah. Just >> Yeah. >> With that tight corner down there in the, you know, northwest corner, it' be tough to get a radius in there. >> No. >> Any other questions for the applicant? you've hit on it a little bit, but um do you have other designs or have you looked at other designs that don't have quite as many units? And then you said you'd have to look at that if it came to it, right? Or different orientation of the building or design of the building to help fit it better. I mean, it to me it seems like this is maybe your standard approach and you're trying to make it fit on this property and it it might not fit as as greatly as as needed. This is about so to get the you know to to keep our unit count up there and achieve you know uh to maintain that. Um, I have looked at before kind of a L shape around the bottom, you know, the south west side there, >> but you lose efficiencies, you know, and when when you create that 90° corner, um, with being able to get use it, you almost like have some like dead space or unusable space, you know, for it. So we we we looked at that early on in a preliminary sketch, but as we engaged with uh our designer a little bit more, it just came into keeping it this linear one to to not waste so much space and kind of maximize the use of the building. >> Is the wasted space in the building design or in the site? the way the site is used just >> when when when you have a 90 degree corner, there's just unusable space there to create create units. >> Yeah. >> But there's other support spaces that can fill those. >> There's just there's not good access. There's no windows, you know. >> Um you can have like an entryway and then it creates challenges. Maybe maybe that makes sense on the first floor, but what do you do on the second floor, you know? So to get it to stack up, that's kind of ideally what you want to do in these type of units is be able to kind of rinse and repeat moving up, you know, with with the same units and buildings. And then just another comment, and I don't know if the product is used too much anymore, but I know that other fire lanes have used like essentially like permeable permeable grass like pavers. >> Yep. >> So that grass grows in between them and they're still supportive enough for a large vehicle. And if if we're concerned with aesthetics or anything like that as far as a backside and having a a paved 20 foot wide drive, there potentially are other options to meet those requirements and have it more aesthetically appealing. So >> yeah, so you would see grass growing through >> it still have to be maintained like any other >> plowed and that's all I have. >> Any other questions? Um, >> any questions? >> Thank you. We might call you back. Well, we will call you back up here, but I'm going to open the public hearing. Um, maybe no one's here, too. Actually, there is someone here who wants to talk. >> Thank you. >> Uh, it is 8:59. I'm going to open the public hearing on this matter. If anyone's here to speak on this matter, please come forward. >> Um, all right. Craig Lingren. I live at 13620 Evergreen Lane. So, my house is right next to that green line. So, what I have questions for is just how close to this port u property line is that building going to be. And then you mentioned it was going to be three stories high. Um I don't know if I want to see a threetory high building soon as I walk out my back door. Um, and when I look at the rest of the street there, they're all single story buildings. So, to me it would look kind of weird to have, you know, all these singlestory building and hope some 50 foot or, you know, 50s story buildings in there. Um, but my main concern would be um like this is an assisted living facility, so naturally older people. I'm going to get there eventually myself. I'm already there now. But um fire or emergency um vehicles, how often are we going to be hearing sirens and lights coming in and out? Um that's what I'm concerned with. And I could have brought that up with the other one, but I I thought the two were connected. Um that's basically what I'm concerned about. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Sorry. >> Yeah, I figured that. >> Um, if there's no one else here, it is 901 and I'm going to close the public hearing. No one's online. Hayden, >> uh, if there is anyone online, feel free to use the raise your hand function. All right, I'm going to close the public hearing at 9:01. Um, if the applicant can come forward again, we'll provide some feedback. Um, this is not an action item similar to the last one, so we're just providing feedback. My concern with this project is this is a tough site. Mhm. And I understand the resident that just came up and spoke about the concern about the building height a little bit. Um three stories is allowed. Um for the record, I believe it was 38.5 ft is the height I saw in the packet. So it's not crazy high. Um but and it's a flat roof. Um so they're trying to do some things to minimize that. But I do understand his point. And so I guess my bigger feedback is I'm supportive of use And this feedback is kind of the staff is I I'm not the fire expert, but it seems if it's not a guideline, it's a stretch. And we heard this exact same issue with the electric vehicle chargers and basement. And everybody does them and fireproofs them. I just want to make sure that we're not being overly burdensome if it's not a requirement. Now, again, I'm not the fire expert. I like the suggestion of a fire hydrant in the rear, stuff like that. But I would encourage people because it doesn't make sense to have just struggling with this site how tight it is already is that to me if we're going to require a fire lane we just probably should say this is not the right use for this site. Um so I would encourage the the feedback to the fire department is to look at that and ask you know will fire hydrant back their work and some other solutions too if this goes forward. >> And just you know I don't want to speak for the fire department but I will a little bit. it it's not so much the ability of of fighting fires. It's getting access around the building for extracting people out of windows. Now granted with an assisted living facility, I guess I would ask, you know, there's kind of a question of can are people able to get out of windows? Um, so is there another alternative? So I believe there's two stairs on every floor. >> Yeah, correct. There's a a stairwell on each end and then there's uh two elevators there. The elevators are centrally located by each other, but I guess the thought is that is if one goes down, we always have a backup. Now, can two go down? I'm sure it's happened before, but the odds are a little less. >> Is there an op is there another alternative? Maybe there's an exterior stair as like a fire ladder or something. >> Yeah. I just know on this site, it just seems even if you made the building smaller, it just is like it just it's not I don't know. It doesn't seem right. and we got to think about the safety of the residents. So that's maybe why this use isn't the right use if we can't come up with the solution that's safe. Um but yeah, and you know the building is sprinkler too. So I don't I mean obviously sprinkler buildings can catch fire, but you need to have something pretty explosive and flammable to really get it going if it's sprinklered. It is. I'd also comment that it's a non-combustible construction, meaning metal framing, drywall, um like a a multif family would be, you know, wood stud framing, you know, but this would be metal metal stud framing and and metal trusses and all that. So, >> okay. >> Yeah, I I would make sure that that gets taken into consideration hopefully before this goes to the council if that's still a comment so we can they can get feedback. Yeah, we can uh at least have a have a conversation initially with uh about some potential alternatives and you know if if the fire department is adamant about having a drive aisle in that back area just looking through the code uh fire access lanes are um provided as necessary and are not subject to the driveway standards that have that setback and really that setback is more limited to residential and agriculturally zoned properties. Um, so if they had an opportunity to put the drive aisle on the property line or right up to the property line, they would be able to do so. Another question that might be good for the fire department to understand or to know is uh depending on what the uh um I don't even know what you call them, the arms on the ladder trucks, what is the width of that with the arms out um in terms of is it actually 20 ft or is it maybe 14 ft or whatever it may be to be a little bit more practical about the the request that we would be making if a drive aisle were to be required. So, uh we'll certainly have have conversations with that moving forward. And my point of my context was a little more that we were all discussing it so much like we were making it a requirement. And I don't know if that's really the case, nor is it necessary. Um, I want safety and if it's too dense of a project, then it just it's not a right fit for the site and it is getting pretty dense. >> Mhm. >> Um, any other feedback? I kind of wish this project was swapped with the other one. Get the three-story building out on Dayton River Road and along with the other apartment buildings and then put the lowrise single, you know, one nestled into this little triangle lot. Um, >> same thing. >> So, it's a little too bad we can't swap them. Um, >> I am 100% on board with the neighbor that spoke about the three-story building right behind their house. I mean, this is less than 100 ft away from the back door of two houses, and it just doesn't feel right. Like, I I would not be happy with that. Like, it's a it's a big building, especially in the winter when the leaves are off. Like, that is what you see every morning, blocks of sunrise, all that stuff, right? Like, um it's a pretty big impact. And it's I know it's only a couple residents, but it's still existing residents that have um you know, those houses have been here for a long time. >> Um >> are there the apartments >> sale date 199 or sale date? So >> and that's the challenge with then Paul re Mr. Cross and the challenge is that he I agree that it doesn't feel right. The challenge is it's allowed by code. >> Yeah, I got it. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean that's that's that's a bottom line is that there's always going to be um conflict or a lot of times there's conflict obviously between two different land uses, right? So >> between single there has to be some kind of transition period between single family and your commercial districts or districts that allow for more intensive uses. Um, that's a challenge that every city is has to has to abide by. The fact that this property is allowed to have a three-story building meeting the 38 1/2 ft requirement, whatever it is, that's uh to me it's not a challenge. It's a it's a right that you as a property owner would be able to pursue to build to that height. Right. The the downside is yes, it's going to not be as appealing to a neighboring property, but that's that's what the city council has determined is okay for this district to be built as. I see. >> Right. It could feel bad to all of us and it could not feel right. >> Um so what we can do though is help mitigate some of that with >> um through the condition use permit help make sure that that building is aesthetically appealing enough where we're okay with its location. Sure. If you're meeting city code requirements, there's not much more we can do, but then also help um make this more aesthetically appealing or or whatever it might be to help appease some of those issues that might be in the surrounding area. >> Yep. >> Yeah. I mean, safety of residents would be very high priority for me. So, whatever the fire department is suggesting, I would, >> you know, the hard part with the fire department, I'm looking at the properties across the street. They don't have drive by a there's no way you can get to those. So that's why I'm just trying to I'm just trying to understand where this is coming from. >> Yeah. And I think too it depends on No, >> it depends on standards. It depends on the building. >> You don't if you have an opportunity to do the right thing as far as as helping the safety of those residents. I think right now is the best time, right? You're building brand new. Um, so I mean I I again I would I agree with Commissioner Kraen is I would defer to the the fire department to see what exactly is absolutely required, right? Maybe that drive aisle isn't required. Maybe it's just a a good recommendation because of meeting safety protocols or whatever it might be. Um, but if it's not in code, um, it's something that we can certainly consider through the conditions per process. >> Yeah. And I think that's where we're wrestling is we're talking about a requirement versus a recommendation. It's not required from what you're saying. >> At least to my knowledge, I haven't been informed of a code that was referenced for that request. >> It be the state fire code, which we're not versed on. >> Yeah. I mean, they're different uses, too. I mean, you got apartments with primarily ablebodied people with balconies that, you know, maybe have the ability to >> I can't imagine the code. >> No, >> not at that. >> No, it doesn't. But >> and you've got this would have people that wouldn't have as much of ability to exit the building on their own maybe. >> Yeah, I just I mean I agree like it the code allows for this building of this size and the setbacks, but I just don't feel like it's right for this property. It's I mean the the design is nice, but also feels like it's just a cookie cutter design that you're squeezing into this property and not designing it for this property. personal opinion. >> I think that the way we have it laid out out there is the best fit that we can get to work on that property for the building to function um as desired by our client. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think we understand that that you're putting your best foot forward here. We truly do. I just I I don't see it fitting on that property and functioning the way we all would expect it to do safety wise and aesthetically for the for your neighbors that live next door. I mean, I agree with the gentleman that that spoke on this. I mean, if that was my house, I wouldn't want a three-story monstrosity like that built in my backyard. >> But the code requires it. That's that's the issue. >> Not requires it. the code allows for it. So, if it's not this building, it could be a different building >> meeting code requirements. Um, personal opinion >> has to take a a backseat at some point. I could absolutely hate the color of my neighbor's house, but I can't do anything about it. Um, so that's that's what it's always the rubbing point between these competing land uses is the fact that there's going to be some issues that come up that just don't aren't appealing to every single person out there, right? So, we always have to fall back to what the minimum code allows to happen. And right now, the way that your building is is designed and and located um aside from potential fire code stuff, but right now it's meeting those code requirements. >> And the other thing that hasn't been mentioned yet up here is the storm water. A Hayden mentioned it, but um do you know, have you had done storm water plans? Are you planning to go underground or is there space on the site for >> um we we'll engage with the civil designer and yeah, we might have to go underground. Um, but we'll, you know, we just haven't got that far into the design yet. >> Okay. >> Yeah, it's a it's a challenge there for that too, right? And it may have to be underground detention of some sort. >> Question for engineering. Um, do we have or are we required? Maybe it's not engineering, it's going to be public works, whatever it might be. But do we have uh like um storm water management um maintenance agreements that are required through these? Okay. >> Yes. >> So, especially I would imagine if there's an underground system, we'd want one on that one as well. >> Yes. Perfect. Yep. And I know none of us have really talked about it, but I I would really encourage you to explore the access with the adjacent property. I think that makes a lot of sense. I get that creates some challenges, but I'd really encourage you to explore that. >> Yeah, it seems it it's there was some indications that maybe it was that was the intent of the design of kind of the the lot there, but maybe not. So, >> yeah. >> You mean the way the lot was platted originally? Yes. Yep. Yeah. The existing conditions. Yeah. >> No. >> So, but yeah, we have not approached anybody on that to date. But >> yeah, I I guess I have a real issue with with us just saying, "Oh, the code allows it." I mean, common sense has to make some some step into this someplace here. >> But whose common sense takes precedence over the other? >> Let me finish. The council is the one that's going to make the decision on this, not us, right? Whoever laid this property out clearly wasn't thinking about what was going to go behind it. Whoever zoned this in the first place, sure wasn't thinking with any common sense that they were going to put a three-story building behind residential homes. I think if the code allows it, then I think the city needs to go back and look at what code we have and why it allows putting a three-story building next to a residential neighborhood. I mean, that's the responsibility of the city to find some kind of a buffering zone between the two so we don't stick these monsters behind homes that people have lived in for 50 years. I mean, if we do that, then I think I think we're we're sherking our our responsibilities as leadership in this city. I don't care what the code says right now. If the code says that and we don't think it belongs there, then it's up to the council to figure out a way to make some kind of a buffer in between these two areas. >> You know, we have that with every zone change that we see. It's almost like you need a half zone change or a buffer of some sort >> because you see that all all over the place. You see that from industrial any residential. Yeah, I agree 100%. If we don't think that the code is right, that's when we make the changes to the code, but then it's it's going to be up to the the council of whether or not they agree that that code that code change needs to be made in the first place, right? So, we can make any recommendation we want. >> Perhaps a it's a recommendation from the city council to have staff look at it and pre present it to the uh planning commission. Right? So, um, you know, at hand right now, we have a, you know, an applicant who's interested in this property and short of imposing a moratorum on this this type of development, we're we're not going to we have to look at what what's being proposed in front of us tonight. And the property owner, just so you're aware too that the people in the audience, the property owner has rights too that if we just deny stuff because of we think it's wrong, we get sued as a city because they have the right to do that >> if it's already in code. >> Um, so in looking at this larger area, I mean, the intention of the mixeduse district is to push buildings towards the street and provide more of that activity along the street. This is just a unique property because of the shape of it. >> You know, I agree with what you're saying, John, but we also had an applicant on the street come forward and we didn't let make him comply to everything either. >> So, that's the problem we have as a city and it's showing its ugly face in the public right now is that we're not consistent and our code has issues in certain places. And I guess the feedback for the applicant is to move forward here is, you know, from my perspective, it's meeting code. I think it's a really tight design and you need to get things cleaned up with storm water to make sure it even works. I would encourage you to keep talking to staff before you go to council to find out if the recommendation turns into a requirement with the fire lane or what the true direction is from the fire department once they provide some more information about the combustible building, >> stuff like that. Um, and it's important to keep in mind to everyone that this is just a concept plan. >> This is not an approval phase yet. And so they need to get everything figured out and it'll come back forward for ultimate approval. >> Um, do you have any questions of us that you need more direction on to help you with what you might do differently? No, I don't I don't The biggest thing I guess would just be on the the fire road like is that a code requirement or or recommendation or or just some more input um from the fire department on that I think would be the biggest thing. >> Sure. >> Yeah, we'll certainly have that conversation and likely have a a meeting with city staff following these two meetings. Okay. um to kind of discuss next steps moving forward and and and so on and so forth. >> Um >> would that stay right in right out or would there have to be a cut out? No. >> There would have to be a cutout unless they're able to secure access through the range. >> Yeah, I would agree with that. >> I think that uh >> it couldn't be right. No, I I think my recommendation would be to just uh sever that median um and not have that little one in between the the two accesses and just have that open would be my preference if the um shared access wasn't allowed. >> I think the shared access is allowed. It's whether the applicant can secure it >> allowed by the the adjacent property owner is kind of what I was referring to. >> Yeah. Yeah. And it always thinks to come to an agreement after someone says you have to. >> Yep. >> I will say the one benefit to the orientation of the building is you're coming to that west lot line at a corner and the building is moving away >> from that lot line. If you were to have gone with that L-shaped building, you'd have a parallel wall to the property line. >> Yes. abuing the two neighbors and you would literally have a 200 foot line wall three stories tall behind them. So this is a better layout for the neighbors than the L-shape would have been. >> Mhm. >> And because this is a concept plan, you obviously haven't seen any of the detailed design, but there are landscaping requirements regarding buffering and screening from uh higher uh intense uses such as this one adjacent to single family residential. So that would be something that staff would look into and making sure that they comply with the screening and buffering requirements. Um and as well the city uh successfully adopted a lighting ordinance for commercial and industrial properties as well that this property would be subject to those higher standards than otherwise uh um needed because they are adjacent to single family residential. So those things will still apply to help uh offset some of those potential nuisance issues that single family residential um properties are concerned with. Um in the same breath, I will note that this building is proposed at 38 1/2 ft. Um the maximum height allowed in a single family residential district for a house is 35 ft at the median roof pitch. Um so likely uh with that standard, the peak of a single family house could be taller than what you would see here. Um, just for context, um, >> it just so happens to be the houses adjacent to it are ramblers. >> Yes. Yeah, that is correct. >> It would be ideal though if the two properties. >> Yeah, it would be >> because they would both be a good fit. >> Both have considered. >> Yeah. Maybe should we put that as a condition? You go talk to the other applicant and swap. >> I don't think your building fits in this lot though. >> Right. Right. >> One of them do. >> I Well, if there's no more feedback for the applicant, uh, good luck. Um, you're going to be in front of the council December >> December 9th. >> Tuesday. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Thank you. >> All right. Moving on to item number 8E, public hearing resolution amending the comp plan and ordinance amending city code related to the A3 zoning district. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um the this is the third time the the commission has reviewed this. So, I'm just going to kind of summarize it. So, um the uh the city council had had originally um approved the A3 agricultural zoning district this past spring. Uh we received notice from uh Met Council that it also requires a comprehensive plan amendment. um that was passed and I'm sorry I don't remember if that was July or August of this year. Um it was submitted to the Met Council for review. The Met Council uh gave us a a incomplete letter and had a couple of concerns with it. Um the first concern was re and I'll summarize this and then I'll go back and talk about the A3 district. uh first concern was to remove uh land that's guided for 2030 sewer out of the land eligible for A3 zoning and then the second was to reserve 75% of developable acres for future sewer development. Okay, so that's the brief summary. Um the A3 district is intended to allow um unsured uh residential developments in northwest Dayton. So unsured meaning uh being on a a septic system. Um all of Dayton is within the metropolitan urban service area. So in other words, undeveloped land in Dayton is intended to be serviced by municipal sewer at some point in the future. Um you know, and that's potentially many decades from now. Uh the council had has an intention of allowing residential development that looks different than the typical suburban development. Um as well as preserving uh rural character and then also allowing land owners to uh make a little bit of money off of development rather than having to wait for several decades until sewer is available. So the A3 district accomplishes much of this. Um what else? Okay. Uh addressing the Met Council's concerns. So the first concern regarding removing the 2030 sewer stage from land eligible for A3 zoning um as was passed by the council uh in July in July or August um is uh this map here. So generally speaking, this is Northwest Dayton. uh the map the parcels that are highlighted or parcels that are 20 acres or more. Um the intent is that it would allow uh subdivisions of land for density of two homes per 20 acres. So in other words, you have to have 20 minimum of 20 acres in order to subdivide. Um and then it goes in 10 acre increment. So if you have 30 acres to get three houses, 40 acres, four houses and so on. Um not every parcel within the northwest Dayton is uh sized for this and this is why uh we have the lots that are or parcels that are highlighted. Uh so again this is what was proposed or this is what was approved and this is what is proposed by taking the 2030 land out of it. So um roughly going off of memory once I think it was 179 acres that would be removed um out of this it's predominantly to uh property owners here that this would be removed um because it is within the 2030 staging plan. Okay. Second item, um the Met Council had comments about wanting to preserve or reserve um 75% of developable Medacres for future sewer development. So the issue here is how do you preserve that? And kind of what we're coming up with is a uh essentially is a covenant that states that this land is reserved for future sewer uh development. Doesn't mean that that's what's going to happen. It's that's a decision of the land owner once sewer becomes available. So, um again, this area is guided for sewer uh 2040 or later. Um in order for you, I'm just going to pick on something. So, we have Thicket Hill. If you're this parcel and in order to to redevelop it, you've got to provide sewer from one direction or another. Uh so essentially it's having the cooperation of every other property owner between your property and wherever the sewer is coming from. So there are challenges with that. Okay. Um so questions of what does this mean and how how is it implemented? So we've had uh since the ordinance was adopted in the spring, we've had two concept had one concept plan and preliminary plat under the A3 district. Uh, this is Legacy Woods. Um, when you take out the wetland, um, yeah, I shouldn't say that. When you take out the developed area, developed we're defining as right ofway uh, storm water ponds and other storm water infrastructure in a half acre for a building pad. Um, with legacy woods that only consists of about 14% of the property is developed. um whereas the ordinance allows up to 25%. So the question of having this restriction, is it too restrictive? Does it allow property owners to do what they want on the the property? And we we believe that there is or that you can um these are large at least with Legacy Woods. I I want to say that the property sizes range from around 4 acres to uh about 20 acres. So they are large parcels. Uh with the A3 district, the minimum lot size is one and a half net acres. So um it is possible to have projects that have smaller lots. The density would still remain the same. >> What's all included in the 14% developed? Again, the home pad site. What else? >> Um roads. So right away, uh storm water ponding and and any other storm water infrastructure. And then halfacre for the house, the house itself. So >> there's not too many houses that are half acre size. >> No, I'm more thinking. I'm more Yeah, I'm more thinking like are the yards going to be included in this in the sense that if you have accessory buildings, you can easily chew up a half acre. >> Not not the buildings, but with >> the space in between >> the yards. And >> so the the thought is you can redevelop the space that's in between. Um, so we've had I can think of Nature's Crossings as an example of of those were um acreage lots that I want to say were between five and 10 acres and were redeveloped. >> Um, the houses were kept, everything else was became something else. >> Yeah. And where I guess I'm going with this covenant is that accessory buildings I think you could argue could be tore down pretty easily, >> too, if you wanted to redevelop it. >> Yes. Gentlemen, will this get a little expedited since it's already seen the surrounding communities? We're just making tweaks to it or >> I'm always going to say yes and then it doesn't work to get expedited. So, >> but it seemed like that sucked up the bulk of the time is having other communities look at it as It does. So with comprehensive plans, um the Met Council has the same time frame that that we have as a city. So they have 60 days to review it. Y >> um what's the one of the challenges that we have with the comprehensive plan amendment? Um the neighboring communities I believe have six months for review, which is um slows down everything. So, I I think a lot of the the city planners have kind of an unwritten agreement that we're going to most part not provide comments and we're not going to we're going to say we're not going to provide comments uh within a few days. So, um we've gone through that process. We did not have any comments from adjacent uh communities. >> I guess what I'm asking though is is will they >> will this go faster? So, >> no. Will they have to re-review this? >> Um yes. Oh, >> so this the intention depending on if if the plan commission gives a recommendation tonight, this will go to the city council on Tuesday next week. Um there's still a few tweaks that we need to make to the the actual comp plan itself and then it would be submitted to the Met Council still in December. Um and then it's reviewed by staff and then goes is reviewed by the full Met Council. So I would imagine that would probably hoping would happen in January. Um, December is always a difficult month for reviews. Um, these two maps, and I know it's difficult to see from a distance, or it's just difficult for me at least. Um, the left map is the sewer staging plan. the properties in Northwest Dayton that are hatched in yellow are the ones that are eligible for A3 resoning. And then the map on the right is specific to Northwest Dayton that shows um the developable what we believe are the developable acres. So that's removing wetlands and steep slopes. And then it's also overlaid with the um sewer uh the general sewer plant. Any questions? And this is a public hearing. >> Any questions for staff? >> No questions. >> Um, it is 9:30 and I am going to open the public hearing. If anyone's in the audience' like to come forward to speak on this matter, please do. Uh, Zach Brown with BK Land Development, 13311 Arowwood Lane. I had a quick question about uh both the hatching marks on here that show what could be sewed in the future. I noticed the south half of Legacy Woods has the hatching marks. Did and the Met Council had agreed that the north section was nonsurable. Does that mean that the northern half of the project is removed from the 25% rule or is the whole project used for the calculation of that? >> Uh the way this is written is the the whole pro we're showing that the whole the hatching is that the whole the parcels that are shown as hatching means that it's more than 20 acres in size. Um so um on the map on the right we're we're removing u the undevelopable land so such as white lines and steep slopes. It is showing that the north half is is uh developable. You know I guess a question for you as the developer is providing reasoning of why it's not developable. >> I I'm just wondering if it's going to be used for the calculation of the 25%. >> Um >> those acreage those lots in particular will be subject to that. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then the other question I had was your other calculation that showed we were at like 14% roughly of developed area with our current proposal showing halfacre house pads. >> Is that saying they're restricted to halfacre or that's just an example because if they're not hitting the 25% if they go over a halfacre is that >> Oh yeah. So the idea is halfacre as a minimum. So the idea is is you're proving that each lot you can fit a a house of two septic systems and well on it. But if someone built more than a a half acre of hard surface, but they were below the 25% rule, they would still be allowed. Okay, that was just my question. >> Yeah. So the point of, you know, we're showing we're estimating that you have 14% developable land, you can have up to 25. So that that gives you a lot of wiggle room to go bigger on each lot or to to take that excess and push it all on one lot or however you want to do that. And just to be clear, are we just talking hard surface or are we talking finished square foot? I mean driveways, outuildings, pools, patios. >> So elsewhere in the code, um it has a maximum it allows a maximum impervious surface area of 25%. So that is going to be your buildings, your driveways, and your swimming swimming pools. >> But as far as the ghost platting and where everything's placed, it's just the house. Um, so that goes >> that goes back to the question that Commissioner Brown had as far as what that developable land entails, what is all included in that and it would include some green space. Correct. If it was >> it >> as far as yard the the yard of what you would call of the property. What I'm anticipating is you're just going to put a, you know, square rectangle or whatever that needs a a half acre and somewhere within that area you can fit a house and and the septic and the well, you're still going to have space probably for out buildings or whatnot. So, you know, that's a minimum of a half acre. If you want an acre, that'd be fine, too. Or bigger, >> but just as long as they stay below the 25% rule >> for the whole project, which is weird, but it's something you got to manage. Well, that there's plenty of space at 25%. I was just trying to figure out if they ought to fit on the half acre or what what we're >> and you know, you may have, you know, a large house on part of the project and smaller houses on other ones. So, there's some flexibility with it. >> I'm more thinking someone's out building might be tucked way deep on the lot outside of the halfacre area where the house is going. >> They're not constricted. That was my comment too to kind of direct it that way is you're not >> it's likely that that building would be torn down and red part of the redevelopment >> but but the people that build in Legacy Woods if it gets developed they're not restricted to only utilizing a halfacre they're just restricted by the 25% rule >> 25% >> if their out building is outside of their halfacre building pattern >> still within the 25% >> then they're fine. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Hello again. Uh Jack Bernins 14770 Thicket Lane. Um I think most of you know part of our total 120 acres is we're looking at the A3 on that. We had the concept plan approved, etc. So I just have some kind of some clarifying questions like like Zach had. um cuz we read through this and a couple three of us read it and it's like well you can interpret it this way or you can interpret it that way and so we just want to kind of be clear. So the first thing the 25 or the 75% undevelopment I take it that's can be either on a lot basis or on the total development. >> Correct. >> Okay. So like in our case we would look at the total development. Yep. >> And you know 75% would be farmland and 25% would be lots. >> Yeah. >> And then the 25% impervious is just on the lot itself. Right. Correct. So if you have a 3acre lot then >> 25% of that three acres >> three acres would be okay. Um, and then I guess the other thing I saw and I guess for us because you know 75% is still agricultural, it it looked like there was a subpoint D that said agricultural buildings are allowed on the I mean even though we're going to have a deed or or whatever covenant or something that says can't build on this 75% of the acres that are, you know, non-buildable, >> you can still put agricultural buildings on that land. >> Yeah. So, the intent of that language and I I had your project in mind is not to prohibit agricultural um use on within the A3 district. >> Okay. >> Um you know, you your use is is unique because you have an agricultural use and a commercial use and so that um the event center and the parking lot would be included within that 25% developable area. Um the agricultural buildings are excluded. >> Okay. But the 25% would apply to the 30 the proposed 35 acre parcel that we're putting the event center on. >> Um >> cuz it be by lot, right? >> Yeah. Cuz isn't the is the impervious you I thought you said was by lot. So, we'd have, you know, the lots in the development and then we'd have >> we'd have an outlot of 52 acres and uh and the event is 35 acres. So, I just I'm just trying to understand exactly if um cuz I didn't see these specific things in the Met Council letter back to you, but I assume they're more city things maybe. So, and so I'm just trying to figure out like is this going to cause us a huge problem or not? I don't think so, but >> Sure. >> I'm just trying to understand it. >> Y So, it's a pro valable context. So, um the comp plan was submitted to the Met Council this summer. The Met Council responded with the incomplete letter. Um we've had a few discussions with the Met Council. They've given us a draft response, >> right? Um >> which is the letter you included in the packet. >> No, that was the official response. So, the draft response I I did not include this. >> We just received that this uh this past week and >> Oh, okay. So, we haven't seen that. No. >> Okay. Okay. Um and then I guess the the halfacre it sounds like that's just a minimum. It's but it's not. >> It was an example. >> It was an example example. >> That's kind of all we saw. It was an example%. Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. Um, let's see. I think that I think that's all I had. Just kind of trying to clarify cuz it's really hard to try to figure out like all of a sudden you got everything kind of planned and then these rules somewhat change and then you're like, "Okay, well did that just completely shoot us in the foot or not?" I don't know. I don't think so. I guess my last question I can always go to staff or something on this is um there was a request to amend our concept plan and I assume that's maybe to get the 75% >> uh >> right or what we weren't 100% sure what the revised the concept plan meant >> with with uh when you went through the concept plan stage um review originally there was a lot of comments on the street layout. >> Yeah. and we changed that and then resent it back in. Is that >> it? >> It it is. So it would be advantageous I think for everyone if that formally were were reviewed by the plan commission and council. So that's only been seen by staff. >> So we can probably bring we could we send that for the commission or do we have to go back through the formal process the concept plan and then preliminary and then finally? It would just be a resubmittal of of the concept plan and then you know I I would wait >> not the fees and everything just resubmitting the revised concept plan. >> Yeah, I think so. >> Yeah, Jake, I think it might be more beneficial um >> take it offline. >> Well, if I just Yeah, if I if I just reach out to you to and remind myself of our most recent correspondence on that as it had been a couple months ago. We were just we read some of the comments and you know we only got them yesterday because like you said the holidays and you just got them and everything but uh it was you know you're frantically trying to go through all the comments and figure out >> uh >> what what everything meant >> it is and your project and in Legacy Woods are very unique from each other. So >> they are almost opposite. I mean he's he's got bigger lots and he can use it that way and we've got Yeah. I mean, and we've got a really big area of undeveloped land that will stay, corn and beans and grape vines. >> So, okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Is there anyone else in the audience that'd like to come forward and speak on this item? John John Herbus 15430 Brockton Lane. Um I'm right to the back of that property or his son's property but next to it. Um my neighbor asked me to ask this question is he has 11 acres. I have 10 point something. If we started an LLC, would we qualify for this piece? Are we in the proper zoning? um you're in the proper area. Uh so if you have if you have 10, your neighbor neighbor has 11, you have 21 together, but you have two existing homes. Um so you would not >> we wouldn't qualify. >> Correct. >> Just had to ask for Michael. >> Oh, yep. >> You have to tear down a two houses then you qualify >> to build two. >> And you wanted apple pie. >> Thank you for your >> not on the record. Is anyone online at all? >> Uh if there is anyone online still, uh please feel free to use the raise your hand function. Um and we will unmute your microphone. >> Um I I will add I did speak with oh had email communications with one red line owner and a phone call with another one. Um both of them were in favor of the A3 district. Uh one would develop, you know, as soon as possible with or without sewer. Um the other one lives outside the A3 district but sees this as a benefit. Um you know, three reasons. One is it does uh allow land owners, larger land owners to divide land and make some money well instead of wait having to wait until sewer is available as well as being able to uh split land off for their kids. Um and still maintains open space or it's the road character that I mentioned earlier. Um and then again I mentioned that first uh land owner would prefer to develop as soon as possible with or without sewer. Yeah, if there's no one else in the public that'd like to speak, it is 9:46 and we're going to close the public hearing. Um, and then is there any discussion up here with commissioner members before we entertain a motion? This has been pretty extensively discussed. I think if anyone's not clear on the changes, I think they're pretty pretty clear. Um, I don't really have much to add. >> I'm supportive of this. >> So am I. >> I agree. >> Make a motion to approve the amendments as written. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Motion carries 4 Z. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Moving on to item nine, notices and announcements. see the slides. So, every Tuesday is play place 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. at a activity center. Um, Dice and Dominoes on the second and fourth Wednesday, 1 to 3:00 p.m. at the at the also at the activity center. Uh, social worker dropin session. So, uh, we have a social worker that's embedded with the police department. Uh, they are available on the third Wednesdays of the month from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. This is for anyone within the community. Um, something I'm excited about, Thursday, December 18th is Elvate Hen Thriving Thursday, uh, between 11:00 a.m. and 1 p.m. Um, Jeff, I I believe New Hope had hosted this in November. So, I'm curious what your experience is. Um we will Henipin will provide um uh consultants for uh legal as well as uh something financial related but I can't remember the the exact expertise. Um but this is an opportunity for uh small business owners and startups to get free advice. I believe it's up to 25 hours of um advice from professional consultants paid by Henipin County. So, this is your tax dollars at work here. >> Yeah. I mean, if I could just uh Yeah, we we held ours on the 20th. Uh I think there was maybe three or four different companies that or different business owners that had kind of like pre-applied saying, "Okay, I understand this is going to happen and and we'll see on the 20th." Um I think we saw those I think we saw four or five different business owners come in. Um the amount of time that they take with each of these the consultants is is mindboggling. I mean it's it's really great benefit for those small business owners. They essentially get I mean they both got I think 45 minutes on each at each station so to speak. So they had like an hour and a half of free consultation. Um, so the amount of time that we had from 11 to 2 also or 11 to 1 um fit well with those four or five. It was a good good fit. So they could each have uh ample amount of time at at each each of the each of the consultants table. So uh we feel that it was a really good benefit for the city uh and for the surrounding area. And um you know we're we're glad that it it happened and and here it's going to be the same. I I think so. And this is open to anyone any business in Henipin County. It's not specific to if this date doesn't work for anyone in Dayton, >> you can go to the next one at a, you know, wherever city it's going to be in January. >> Uh, mayor for a day. Oh, yeah. We're before December 12th. So, for fourth, fifth, and sixth graders, uh, they can submit an essay for what would you do if you were mayor for a day? This would be submitted to the League of Minnesota Cities. Um, economic development vacancies. Uh, we have uh a vacancy with applications that were due a couple days ago. So, I'm a little late in in putting this on a a notice. >> Um, holiday. So, the reason why plan commission is meeting Wednesday instead of your normal Thursday is because uh tomorrow is the holiday festival. So, we have a light parade uh from 6:00 p p.m. to 8:00 p.m. as well as uh food vendors and Santa and the Grinch, the infamous Grinch. Um so, again, this is our third year doing this. Uh we've been surprised by and happy with the amount of turnout that we've had. >> Um hopefully the weather will cooperate a little bit. Um I know there's a few announcements that I'm missing. Uh we are sponsoring a coat drive and I think we have a uh letters to Santa drop off I believe at uh public works if I remember correctly. So I apologize that >> oh out right outside. >> Yeah. >> So I apologize I don't have slides for that. So otherwise, our next council meeting will be Thursday, January 8th at 6:30 p.m. >> Thank you, John. >> We are now on to item number 10. >> Jump on this one. >> Like to make a motion to adjourn. I'll second. >> All those in favor? I I >> before 10:00. There we go. Nice job. We did it. Hey, Hayden.