I will call over the normalist uh committee of day and city council for August 26. Stand for the pledge. I pledge 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. >> All right. I need a motion. Second for the agenda. >> Thank you for my motion to approve. >> Second. Any changes? >> Yes, mayor. Um, one um adjustment tonight, just an amendment for item J. We need to include the final acceptance of Dayton Parkway construction and commencing the one-year warranty period on the landscape, which is included in item J. nothing need to do um on the item itself. I just want to make sure it's memorialized in the minutes based on um the developer's request. So those two things need to be I'm going to say just memorializing the minutes which I'm doing today or right now. That's all I have. Thank you very much. Any other changes? All right. All those in all those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> All those opposed say no. Agenda is set five to zero and we are on to consent. I need a motion and a second. I'll make a motion. >> I'll second discussion. Um I have a question around um item G uh the award of the contract for Millan overlay on 125th and East French Lake Road. Um the timing for that is was stated as uh midepptember through October and isn't that pretty much the whole season at the dean's pumpkin? >> Yes. in place. Um, seems like seems kind of puny. >> Yes, it would have been nice to been able to delay that, but the more we shorten the window we expected, the more the price could potentially go up and then on top of it, we would get too late in the season and we might risk having a adequate product if we had any cold weather or other. Uh, the road will remain open 100% of the time. There will be some culvert work that might be disruptive, but that's all south of 117th. But during the work itself, it'll be a flight year at best. So there'll be some delays while they're actually working. But if it turns out similar to South Diamond, it's probably like two to three days of work. >> Yeah, that went pretty fast. >> Yeah, super fast. >> They were able to accomplish South Diamond in two long days. Yeah. >> Would um once it's awarded, would we be able to pin that schedule down or try to >> We'll get a schedule from the contractor at that time. I mean, we left the window. So, we have a substantial completion date identified. They'll have to comply with the terms of the contract, but we did not we did not I don't think we want to tighten that window any further than it already has been, if you will. But we'll get a schedule from them. If we want to request an adjustment, we can do so if there's reason to do that. >> I mean, to be fair though, Deans is mostly busy on the weekend. Not that it's not the whole week, but and they don't work on the weekend. and it was a non I mean it was right in front of my house and it was genuinely not an issue. So I I think I'm not concerned about it >> when we do um you know I assume a lot of this is is related that window is related on contractor's availability and when they can you know what else they've committed to. Um but if it really it's only if it's only a week worth of work or something we they should be able to tell us which week that >> Oh yes. Yeah. We'll require that at the time of if not before the pre-construction meeting. That'll be scheduled upon award. So, our step tomorrow will be to reach out to them to start coordinating those issu those items. >> Yeah. I just want to make sure that we're being cognitive of, you know, what what we're doing to something that is pretty popular. >> Right. Right. >> That's all I have. >> Anybody else have anything? All right. All those in favor say I. I. >> Those opposed say no. Consent is passed. Open forum. Anybody here for open forum? Anybody online for open forum? >> Uh if you wanted to speak in open forum, you can use the raise your hand function. >> Nada. Okay. staff consultant up there. >> Um yeah, good evening, mayor, members of council. Couple updates for you tonight. We've received 2.7 million of the $4 million of federal grant money for the Wilhead routin plant. Um and we've finally successfully completed the grant agreement which took about 7 months for the $850,000 worth of the federal grant money for LC Stevens canoe kayak launch. So that project is ready to be bid out and we can construct that likely next year just based on timing. And then I did send out an invite this week for everybody. Um if you can make it open house for states manufacturing is on September 18th if you can please RSVP. They've asked they would like to have an accurate headcount for any of their food type things that they're looking to do. This is hosted by the I94 Chamber of Commerce. So thank you very much. That's all I have. >> No updates. Ready? >> Mayor and council. Just a couple of quick updates. The wellhead treatment. Uh still more masonry work going on outside and they're continuing with the process piping on the inside of the building. Um electricians and plumbers will be on on site uh towards the end of this week. So it's just moving forward. Uh parks all the irrigation's in and running on three of the parks. Um LC Stevens, Iron Gardens, H four of parks, Hayden Hills, and Sundance. Um River Hills. We're just uh the electric company got the power there. We're just waiting for the electrician to get that drilled into the uh the well. Um I own gardens. The trees are going to be going in next week. I'm coordinating with Laurel Tree Farms on that. Um public works will be doing some fine grading in there and seeding. Um after Laurel have been in uh Sundown Screens and Hayden will be doing the same thing over the next couple of weeks. Area 21, we're working on trails and getting it irrigated and installed there. Uh the playground equipment has been ordered. Um LC Stevens master plan, there's a steering committee meeting this week or early next week. Um and the concepts uh will be shared with park commission at their meeting on the 2nd of September and I'm hoping to bring it to council on the 9th of September. uh then our boat landing uh we got it down to two concepts that is going to be shared with the park commission on the uh September 2nd and then again we'll bring it to the council the following meeting um LC Stevens canoe kayak launch we're still waiting at the MPC 401 permit um uh which is required um it's probably not going to get approved till the fall so expectation like Zach said is we'll be bidding this um for early construction production next year. So, LC Stevens and DNR are probably going to be constructed around the same time. Um, fire suppression tanks are have been replaced and uh the system is back up and running at the public workshop. Um, and just uh the seasonals uh the last of the three seasonals that we've had will be finished on Friday this week. So, uh mowing will be going back to regular crew. Does uh does it still look like um as far as the treatment facility, are they still now that they've had a chance to kind of spin everything back up whether they look like they're going to still hit early next year? >> Yeah, it's looking like the timeline is going to be January 2026 for startup on that thing. Um it could be sooner um depending on the amount of crew they can get in there. They've got a couple of other jobs closing down, so there might be a potential for speeding it up somewhat, but I don't want to, you know, promise anything that I can't deliver. >> Okay, Chief. Good evening, mayor, members of council, uh council member Henderson, you had asked uh before and I neglected to send it out, but you discussed it this evening as well, is that um care resources projected roughly about 79 lift assist calls it would reduce and 46 EMS calls. So a total reduction their belief is approximately 125 calls annually. And I'm happy to send that uh out to council um so you have that information how they calculated that. Thank you for that, Gary. >> Evening, mayor, members of the council. Just one um officers uh joined up with Madina Police Department and Rogers Police Department um for joint training. We're trying to do more joint training um with other agencies in the area. Um mainly Rogers, Clerkin, um and Madina just because Madina had the house available. Um they did building clearing so that way everybody's on the same page if we need assistance to do um things. >> John, >> uh thank you. This is mentioned in the weekly update. So Mass HVAC is leasing the west half of the Cubes building. Uh they are based out of Maple Grove. Um they have a similar ownership structure of the state's manufacturing. So once those two companies are fully on board, which will probably take about 3 years, um there will be between 500 and 700 employees working out of the cubes. >> Wow. >> Oh, thank you. >> No updates here. >> Good evening, mayor, members of the council. Um I will have one followup on an item that um we discussed last week or in the last meeting the two weeks ago. Um, Council Member Henderson asked me about uh an email that she had sent to me and I made uh some comments about it. We'd had a little bit of a vague conversation um in and then um a little bit more detail during the council meeting two weeks ago. Um, under the data practices act there, the the information that was part of of um the communication that I had from council member Henderson uh is public information, the fact that a charge um has been alleged and the status of that charge um or charges uh depending on how you want to look at it. Um, as of this point, the status is that I've done probably what you could call a preliminary um, investigation based on the fact that I'm not an investigator and um, and so based on the limits of what I can do as the city attorney. Um, I gathered the information that I could. Um, and then I provided to all of you as the council members um, a memo last week. Um, and at this point, what I'm looking to um have direction from all of you on is whether to place an item on the next agenda um for the council as a whole to give direction as to how to proceed um with uh bas with this the charges that have been alleged um and uh and the information that I provided to you that was admittedly vague and did not draw conclusions because again I'm not an investigator and I don't have all of the information and I don't um have the ability to draw any firm legal conclusions at this point. So I'm just looking for direction from from the five of you on how to proceed whether to put an item on the agenda for next time. >> What would that item look like? I I I would envision it being a discussion item um as to um whether to uh have a third-party investigator come and actually do a full investigation. Um that's beyond what I've been able to do so far. Um, and as I'm um have mentioned in the memo that I sent to you, um, there are investigators that I can recommend for you to choose from or there are other means of choosing an investigator um, if that's what if if that's what the council directs. >> So, we'd basically be discussing if we wanted to have an investigation or not. >> Right. >> This is kind of like the whole Duke thing. It's really hard to talk about it in an open meeting and you can't close the meeting. >> Correct. >> I see. >> Oh, >> I mean we can talk about it at the next meeting. We don't have time today to talk about it. >> No. >> Yeah, we can. >> And it hasn't been noticed on the agenda and all that. >> Yeah. >> I guess from my perspective, I think we Well, we should have that item on the agenda. I guess that's the that's the actual question. I think you know as as you stated that your review of the um topics that were brought up in that in that memo was pretty much comparing them to statute and >> correct >> you know where they um I don't know how to say it well. So say do they hold water or not and but no conclusions generally and I think that on some of those things we need to have some kind of conclusion. So conversation next week or in two weeks or three weeks. What is that? >> The next council meeting. >> I think it's two weeks. >> Whenever it's two weeks be September. >> Two weeks. >> I'm okay having a conversation about it in two weeks and making the decision. Are we going to run into a situation like we did with the Duke property where we could not say the things that need to be said >> because I think we definitely are going to run into a situation where we cannot give the details or say the things that need to be said >> because let's do it in four weeks. like anything. Um, and I guess for me being the one that originally brought up the issue, um, if the treading lightly, if the actions that were brought forward are allowable within the statutes, I think that if nothing else, it is informative to the council and to the citizens. that those actions that individuals who are not in elected positions have the authority to decide those things because as a resident, not as a council member, I if indeed they are allowable, I did not know and would never have guessed that they would have been. Does that make sense? Do I think that there's some transparency there that I think that the citizens should have and us as a council should have. >> So, we're going to talk about it at the next meeting, >> right? But I guess what I'm saying is is like can you be there, right? And you will stop us me at a point if I am not allowed to say. So like I guess I'm trying not to like put my myself in particular in a position where I clearly have details that were not in the memo were not in your response and I'm wondering at what level can I divulge those things if it's in an open meeting it's open and now it is out on the record for anyone and everyone and their brother to know. So, I'm just wondering like maybe it would be beneficial for me to know what exactly I cannot specifically say because again like there needs to be transparency, but I don't want to put the city or myself in a position where I'm not allowed to say specific information. >> All good questions and good sense. >> It does. A couple of things to keep in mind. Um, even if the council were to direct an investigation by a third independent party, um, there wouldn't necessarily be, um, 100% transparency to residents. Um, at the, you know, at the conclusion of of of an investigation, it's, you know, the the data that would be gathered would be would have to be classified to know what is what can be shared with the public and what can't be. That's just to kind of level set, you know, even even a a a full investigation may not produce the 100% transparency that that you might expect. Um, and two, it's it's it's a little bit of a contradiction in the law that you can't close a meeting under the open meeting law to discuss what is otherwise private data under the data practices act, but you can discuss private data at an open meeting. >> Okay. And so it but again there's that there are there are still some serious considerations that the council needs to keep in mind during those discussions about um about where like as you've alluded to, Council Member Henderson, about where that line is. Um and um the difficulty in in the ga in the information gathering that I did is that some of the information that I was able to to gather is contradictory. Um, and so it's it it would be um it would be perhaps better for a third party to determine or even you as a council to determine what is what is relevant to how you would like to proceed. I mean, if if if you feel that based on the information that you have um that that it's time to just move on, that's that's your that's a choice that you have. But you also would have a choice to to direct the investigation after you have a conversation amongst all of you since none of you have spoken to each other about it and you've all but you've all received you know legal advice from me about it and so that's that that's it's a difficult balance to strike. >> I think if you if you're thinking specific details or something it would probably be good idea for you two to connect and find out what's >> safe to talk about what's not safe to talk about or Yeah, I don't know how we It's the same again. It's the same situation. It's clunky. It's difficult. >> All right. >> So, I >> So, I I seems like Yeah, we got it. >> Thank you. Other than that, I have no report. >> Thank you. >> I have three things that are actually follow-ups on things. Um earlier in various roles I'd asked about um if the city's doing anything about limiting corporate rentals um in the city and or um and I don't remember if I asked about this on my planning commission role or in the city council role cuz um but um so this is where it's kind of coming from right um a couple of months or early on there was that bill that was coming through I think the house and the senate about basically taking city's control away from housing and We pushed back and we stopped. But it was pretty clear that this like the cities have to start doing something for that missing middle, right? Like actual starter homes cuz a starter home at $500,000 is not a starter home. Um and the response has been like the cities have to do something about that. And one of the issues that is that is affecting this is that corporations like giant corporations are buying up all of their starter homes and then turning them into rentals. they're also jacking up the prices um because their mortgage, you know, they're cash offers. Um and so I had asked in one of these forums about do we have are we interested in limiting the number of rentals? Um specifically not for like private people like I will like my parents had a rental house for a while. We were renting our town home. So I'm not saying no rentals at all. Obviously people want to rent but limiting corporate rentals and how we could do that. And I was wondering if that's something we can talk about or like should that come through planning commission. What is the best way to have that conversation? Cuz I do think we need to do some things to show that. >> Well, one way is to just limit the number of cuz we give rental licenses. Correct. >> Limit the number of licenses within a certain square mile. So like in you can't have more than x number of rental license in a 10, you know, in five square miles or whatever because they're coming in and buying up in some cases almost entire neighborhoods. Um and so that way we could still have rentals but it would be at least one way to offset particularly in and maybe we target the neighborhoods with more affordable housing and actually make like you you we have these have to be some owner occupied houses here. We can't have all rentals in our in our only affordable neighborhoods. What classifies a corporate rental? Like if it's an LLC or is it just like >> well and that's where we can't well we and that's where we can't get into that. So I don't think we can >> about limiting the number. >> But if we limit the number that is something we can do and we don't have to get into what counts as a corporation when is it like I don't know that we have >> rentals in general. >> Yes. Just limiting the overall percent. So, like in a neighborhood, you can't have more than 5% of these as rentals cuz we give out licenses. And so, when we hit that 5% in this neighborhood, that's it. No more rental license in this neighborhood. Um, >> why isn't that a takings? >> Um, mayor, members of the council, I mean, other other cities have done it. Um, a lot of it started in uh situations where it was like a college town um where they had so many houses that were bought up, you know, and and turned over to student housing and things like that. And so um there's been a lot of litigation about it. Uh and and it's um it's very nuanced, >> clunky again. >> It No, it nuanced is the word. I mean, it really depends on um on a lot of factors and and I mean, I'm happy if the if the council is going to have some conversation about it, I'm happy to give some additional information about that um in a more formal form. >> It just seems odd that we'll tell people that the quota for rentals is up in your area, you can't do it. >> That that's often how it works. Yes. >> Yeah. I just I'm open to other ways to again I'm not saying that we can't have rentals. Rentals are like and I'm not saying people can't be a landlord but there is a growing issue within our country of like like literally people in New York putting together these giant corporations and they go across the country buy up all the properties drive up housing prices and drive up rents because they now own all the rental properties in a community. Like that's happening. And we're also having our legislators come down on us and say, "You are doing nothing about first-time home buyers, and so we're going to do it for you." And so, we as a city have to do something, and this feels like a step we could take that's that I thought might be somewhat reasonable, and I've heard other communities have done it. So, >> so as far as the last point, the league has uh started putting fielders out to see if >> some of the cities, especially, you know, Corkran and um if if we're look if we could look at something that would kind of mitigate some of the push. >> Um it wouldn't have to be big things, but it might be things along the lines of stuff that we've talked about in the past, not allowing vinyl for example. Um there's stuff like that. They have talked about that. Uh I don't know if there have you heard anything about that. >> I've heard nothing mayor members council >> and again this isn't something we have to decide now. Is this a conversation we would be interested in in having? >> I think so. I think though well I think it can include as the potential path being on rentals. Um, I think the the bigger question is the one that we should be talking about is how do we >> how do we support firsttime home buyers? Um, and and what does that look like in our our community? Is it is it more targeting, you know, new development? Is it more support toward the existing housing base that falls into that more affordable category? I'd be happy to have that discussion. >> Yeah. Yeah. Not saying this is the answer. There was just a a solution that I had heard about. So So can we have a conversation about affordable housing? Maybe I should back up and make it broader. Is that a fair thing to say? Would other people be open to that conversation? >> Yes. Two yeses. We need one more. Yes. >> You're okay. So anyway, so we have three. Okay. >> Yep. >> So we can add that to an agenda item. Um, and then second, this one was something Stephanie had brought up earlier, um, about making sure all of our first responder vehicles are clearly marked. Um, >> receive an email. >> I did receive an email. Um, but it was brought up before and it's it's a good point. Like >> David brought it up first. >> Okay, I'll take you back, Don. Give me a minute. So we so it had been mentioned and I just wonder where we were at with that with with um requiring so some of the proposed actions that this particular individual brought up which I think seem reasonable to me um is requiring department logos and identifying text on the sides and rear vehicles. Um having unique and recognizable license plates um and then also just doing a regular audit of our vehicles to make sure that like everything is where we think it should be. Um, and so I was just wondering like I don't know if it's for the chiefs or if it is for city administrator. Like where where are we at? Like is that possible? Is that doable? Where are we at in that process? >> I think we were the answer that I got when I brought it up was that it was a a budget issue and we're in budget season so we can fix that. >> Well, and didn't we say especially with the theqi or the fire department, we're $104,000 below budget. Um, yeah, that's the annualized number projected. >> So, I guess I mean could we figure out what it would cost to put logos? I know that's the only one that I know is not marked. I don't obviously the police have the reason for not marking theirs. That's kind of a separate thing. But as far as our fire department goes, like we don't allow them to respond in their personal vehicles and so all of our fire department vehicles should be marked. So, >> should be marked >> like correct. So, can we get a coil? Do you have to go out for RFP? How does that work? >> Or work with the chief. We talked about it already, but we'll I'll touch base with the chief again to get anything. >> No, we should just be able to go out. We go to RPM graphics. That's where we go to just we go to local place. So, um I'll work with the chief again to get that figured out for I know that I already talked about him once, but I'll make sure to >> touch base again. >> Just wanted a sweet deal. >> Um and then lastly, another followback. Um we've talked a couple times about progressive finding. Um >> it's in the works. >> Okay. Just wanted to >> Yep. That was something that the council had brought up and we have a list of I think well this long of ordinances that we need to bring back and we're aware of them. Okay. >> Um I know John and Hayden have been trying to get through and close every time. So >> at some point can we just go over there with a chainsaw and take those signs out. >> Mhm. >> M certainly can. Okay. >> I want a video of you doing it. >> I want a video of that. >> I got one thing, Dennis. uh you grabbed the u the logos on the fire truck. >> Um one resident uh got a hold of me in reference to and I personally I think this is more of a parents issue than anything uh electric bikes on the trails. >> Oh yeah, that's coming. >> And no helmets on the kids. I mean if you're a teenager or a uh single age 10-year-old kid, nine-year-old kid, I would think that mom and dad would want you to have a helmet on. It's not a requirement, is it? >> Uh, state law. There's some state law around it. Um, but we do need to make an ordinance against um some of the actions to be able to enforce it. >> Both pieces or just the electric vehicles? >> Uh, both pieces. >> It's not just the I seen the traditional minibike on sidewalks. Motor >> five horse >> mini bike. Um, >> I don't ride mine on the the path. Sorry. >> Is that something the council like to do? >> And do we have examples? >> We can get examples. I know there's only I've heard five or six cities that have just recently started to put them in place because it's becoming an issue all over the place. >> You need to be the guinea pig. I don't want to do that. But >> we can copy paste. Mayor, members of the council, I can say that my that in my office, some of the other cities that we've that we work with have have been working on this. So, I mean, I think I feel like we have a little bit of a head start in house at my office. If that helps. >> Yeah. I don't Yeah, I'm my concern with it is where we go with it because we I mean, there's a lot of them out there now. And if we just outright say they need to be on the road, I >> Well, that's worse. Well, it almost seems worse, >> but >> but I would think that anybody under 10 or 12 should have a helmet on. >> Oh, I'm not >> Well, I think it was bikes. >> Yeah, I concerned. >> I think it's a parent thinging. I agree with you. Not that it's, you know, >> it's a parent thing to meet you, but >> my my concern is this 40 lb bike plowing into somebody. >> Oh, that too. >> Or whatever it is. >> Well, they're walking. This person was pushed off the trail because a couple kids come running down the electric bike. >> That's so nice. >> So that's a Yeah, >> we can start the process. >> I mean, it won't come back next month. So I mean, >> we're going to add something to do. >> I mean, every guest do it on the uh do it on the fourth weekend in or fourth Tuesday in September. Do you have any more? >> No. in. >> Okay. I have nothing. Nothing from me. >> Nothing for me. I just want to Well, I want to say Sarah, you are very good at circling back on things and I appreciate that. >> And then that's it. Just >> Okay, we'll start on item. >> Centerpoint energies committee save grant presentation. >> Good evening, mayor, members of council. um as grant opportun grant opportunities arise um we try to apply for uh the grants and this year um we had the opportunity to apply for centerpoint enters community safer grant um we requested um $2,500 to outfit the UTV with headsets as it is difficult to hear within the UTV as it is responding um to calls with uh not only sirens but just uh without the sirens in itself. So, um, Centerpoint is here to present the, uh, check in the, uh, award and just talk real briefly about their grant. >> Um, yeah. Uh, Center Point. I'm Austin Fleshacker with Center Point. >> Name and name and address and go ahead. >> Um, Austin Flehacker with uh, Centerpoint Energy. Um, supervisor uh, just over in Brooklyn Park. Um, we're pleased to prevent present the Dayton Fire Department with a community safety grant um in the amount of $2,500 to support the uh the purchase and install of the mobile radio for the UTV. Uh Tanderpoint Energy and its predecessor uh companies have been in business for more than 150 years um working to provide our customers and communities with a safe, reliable energy source to power their possibilities. Um since 2003, the community safety grant program has awarded approximately $3.5 million um funding for over um 1,700 safety related projects um across Centerpoint Energy's uh service area. So um several uh communities around the uh the greater Minnesota area. Um we're thrilled to uh to be able to invest in uh your vital support project uh to enhance quality of life for your community. So, um, in, you know, without further ado, uh, Mr. Hendendrickson got a check for you also. Um, a couple other, uh, some supporting documentation for you. So, >> thank you. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Okay. On item L. Thank you, mayor. Uh, this is consideration of a letter of support for the acquisition or through the Rivers Park District acquisition of 16560 Dayton River Road. Um, this is a I got to remember now. Uh, little more than one acre one to one and a half acre property. um on Dayton River Road. Uh it was previously discussed along with um a similar property back in May um whether or not the council was supportive of Three Rivers Park District acquiring this property as part of the uh West River Road Trail Corridor. Uh the council had mixed opinions, but generally a 32 uh verbal opinion in support of the acquisition. Um on here this is the mayor property that is uh the subject property and then this is uh a map provided by Three Rivers Park District of regional trails and then the properties that are highlighted in pink are the ones that have been acquired by Three Rivers Park District. Uh the mayor property is right here located right here. Uh previously the council did support acquisition for the Leander property which is right there. Um, we have staff from Three Rivers Park District as along with the family members from the mayor mayor family and I can try to answer any questions that the council may have >> if I recall correctly from our conversation in May. Um, because these two are already kind of in progress at that time. Yes. And so I my personal opinion was that I would be okay with these two because they were in progress, but no more after this until we have a final like plan >> trail like yeah an actual final and not not a 50-year this is our ideal perfect but like what's the next 5 to 10 years look like? Like let's get that trail figured out. Um so and I'm not so I said I would be okay with this but then I'm done until we get that final like 5 to 10 year plan figured out. Well, I think you know where what I'm going to say, but um I feel like we're in a in a slightly different place than we were when we had that conversation. Um, we have, you know, I'd say slowed down a bit on on what this looks like until we and the Three Rivers Parks have uh sort of aligned on what the what does that trail look like and which properties are needed. And I know some progress was made. the planning comm or the parks commission um spent some time at their meeting talking about it, but I don't feel like we're, you know, we're at that point where we have that plan and we know which properties are needed and and which aren't. And so I'm I'm still unknown. >> We're we're hoping to bring that forward next month. >> Yeah. So I'm not a forever know on this. If this is one of the properties that needs to be acquired to facilitate that trail, then you know, then I'll have a different answer. But we don't. It's for me it's plan implement and we're still at the plan point. So that's where I'm still at on >> I would believe that I was also in the same situation that I was on board with these two and after that we would see what the um trail plan was going to be. >> That's what I remember as well that I was sitting in the same spot. Okay, >> I'll stick by my words though. [Applause] >> I think I was having a hard time with it given that we didn't have a plan yet, but I didn't realize this is one of the two properties. >> Well, I wanted to come. It was one of the two cuz there were two. >> There were two. And then >> if it wasn't one of the two, I would be a solid no. But it was one of the two that we said we would >> cuz they were already >> in negotiations. in negotiations and we have we're changing our historic position and that didn't feel fair to me. >> I was in the same spot as you Sarah. >> Okay. So, I'll need a motion and a second. >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> I'll second. >> Any more discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All those opposed say no. >> No. >> Motion carries 4 to one. >> What was your vote, Dennis? >> Four to one. Okay. item here. >> Okay. Item M. >> Good evening, M council. I'm here to approve the payment of claims. Um, we typically have lots of questions on this one, so I expect questions and that's why it's been pulled off the consent agenda. What's that? >> Just like I told you last meeting. >> That's why it's here. >> All right. Stand question. >> David, Sarah, fire away. >> I have one. This is actually a followup to Stephanie's point. Um, at the last one there was the that that the light that was so much higher than all the others. Did we Was it just a cluster of lights when that was a giant cluster of lights? Um, I know that. >> Yep. >> There was 303 street lights on that one bill. So, they clustered it all together on there and they're all um under a maintenance contract. So, it comes out to about $7.88 per light. >> Okay. Yeah. Like I said, it just seemed odd, but that would make sense then if there's a whole bunch of lights. >> Thank you for clarifying that for me. I appreciate it. >> Can I go on a tangent really fast, Marty? Are they doing work on some of the street lights in town? Because they were out marking the one across the street from us today and my culdeac and the guy's like, "Oh, did this ever work?" And I'm like, "Yes." And he goes, "Well, it might not work after they do the maintenance." And then he walked away. So, I just I'm just sorry it's a tangent up, but are they doing street light? I haven't been told of anything along those lines. So, I can look into it for you doing something. But >> it was interesting. He's like, "Oh, yeah. It might not work now." And then he giggled and then lots and I was like, "Uh, okay." >> They don't generally do maintenance unless we call them in to do the maintenance. That's kind of >> Okay. >> What's your electric company? >> Uh, we're Center, right? >> Center either Kexus or No. I don't know which one you are. Yeah. >> Kexus. >> I'll get in touch with Kex. >> Two of those bills. I'll talk with MC. Is that doing anything? >> Okay. Yeah. I just It was just an odd thing. And you said street light and I meant to bring it up earlier, but I forgot. So, thank you for that, Marty. >> Back from the tangent. Apologies. >> Are you hoping it doesn't come back on? >> You know what? Like, >> you can have mine. >> No, actually, I love my street light. And I I understand that that's an unpopular opinion, but I don't have to put a nightlight in the bathroom. I just open the shade a little bit and like it lights up the whole entire thing for the kids. I might feel different when they're gone, but as of right now, saves me a nightlight. So, I do have a question on the current one. On page 65, >> um there are several Elk River utilities, all May 2025 for different amounts, but where I where what caught my eye was several of them have exactly the same number, and I just want to make sure we didn't accidentally get double or triple charged for like the same thing. Um so, of them, some of them have different numbers, but several of them, like I said, are identical. I just want to make sure cuz I've had I've had that happen to me where my some a company charges me more than once for the same thing. So, I want to make sure that >> it's Elk River Municipal. >> Um, Elery Utilities. It's on page 65 and it's all just it all just says Elk River utilities May 2025, but they're all different amounts, but some of them are like 1014191050 381, but a three of them are 6024940050381. And I just want to make sure we didn't accidentally get like a charge multiple times for the same thing. >> I also go over my own credit card statement with just as close of a fine tooth. >> That's good. >> So it's just what fund they're going into. So that's what that is. Separate >> well houses that are on the Elk River utilities. >> So it's all So it's most likely >> Elk River utilities is everything in the historic village area. So >> Okay. So, so probably the wellhouses and that's okay. Okay. >> Well, lift stations. Okay. >> Um, probably uh the ball field um for irrigation, that kind of thing. >> Okay. Just like I said, just clarifying cuz I always get worried on my own credit card statement when I have identical. >> I don't know why it says May 2025. My guess is that that's a clerical error with the description. >> I'm going guess the description didn't get updated cuz >> that's paid for on the card. So it's automatically paid for every single month. Yeah. >> So my guess is that when we got the utility bill, we just put it in and it didn't say it should say July and not me. That's my guess. So >> that's why I just, like I said, wanted to make sure we weren't accidentally getting charged for something. >> That's it for me on that one. >> I just had one on page 50. We've got several bills from eh Rener and Sons. Um some of them stating that they're final bills. So are those irrigation systems up and running? >> Yeah, that's for the irrigation system. The three wells that they put in um they are to set there as final bills, but we are holding some retainage on those. Um just for any last minute stuff that may or may not go wrong on those. So until they're fully tested out, I'll retain that money. But we're in good shape with those. And the whole project's running to budget, so we're in good shape with that. >> Thank you. Yeah, it'll say final bill, but that's the final basically final bill that they give us for actual work completed and then we hold on retainers to make sure that final all the stuff checks out and cleans up for next year and we'll probably release the actual paintage in spring of next year. Okay. >> All right. I need a motion and a second. >> I make a motion. >> Second. >> Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. I. >> I. Post say no. >> Carries five to zero. I didn't I wasn't I sorry I got distracted. >> Uh item in Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh this is approval for an interim use permit for an event center uh for Thicket Hill Winery. Um, on here I I'm stating that the address is 175XX State River Road. I I think on the staff report we have an address for uh a house that will be part of a separate project. Um, so this project is off of Date River Road in Longdale Lane. Uh, the property is on A1 Agricultural. Um, existing is 68 1/2 acres. The proposed will be platted as 35 acres as part of a um another project with I think the the owners are looking at developing the western side of this farm for residential and that's a separate project. Uh the event center itself is about 10,000 square ft. Um it has an occupancy of about 500 people. Um with the event center, it will eventually also include a a second building as a winery or we look at this as kind of a manufacturing facility. Um that would be accessory to the event center. Uh parking uh is required 249 stalls at one stall per two guests. Uh what is being proposed is 111 stalls plus 139 proof parking. So um and I'll kind of go this is the general uh description of the project and I'll go into a little bit more details. Uh the critical areas of this project are uh the access or the driveway access as well as the length of the interm use permit. The building itself uh this is a diagram of the first floor and then the second floor. Um again the event center itself is about uh 10,726 square feet in size. Uh the building will be about 35 ft tall and then the occupancy again is uh 498. Uh here elevation drawings uh from the west, northeast and south for parking. Uh again, just the orientation. This is kind of the existing farmstead. Uh the proposed driveway will come in about the same location. Uh kind of loop around the hill up to the event center here, uh with 111 parking stalls. This is the future winery that's located here. Um the proof of parking is down in the lower area of 139 stalls. Uh this would all be gravel. The intent is, I believe, is to kind of see if if 111st stalls is enough. Um, and then the 139 would serve as a kind of a backup with a shuttle service that goes from the lower area to the upper area. Um, the when this was discussed by the planning commission, I should say the planning commission did recommend approval of the project. They also included recommending that the uh driveway entrance be shifted to the south. now versus uh later. Um the diagram that's kind of shown here uh as the council's aware in I think it was in 2024 we did a a intersection study for the top 30 intersections that would need improvement and what those improvements might look like. uh for the intersection of Dayton River Road and Lndale. Um the suggestion was to shift the intersection to the east so that it was at a 90° angle. Um there's no date as far as when this would occur. So whether it's 5 years from now or 50 years from now, it's there's no date. Um this was discussed at the planning commission. commission again recommended um shifting the driveway south of the building with these two diagrams the applicant had provided um it's hard to see on the screen but these are cars and so this is intended to demonstrate how many vehicles could be stacked if the driveway stays where as is as it's proposed versus if it's shifted to the south. The intention here is to show that there's more stacking area on the proper private property if the driveway stays as it is versus if the driveway shifts to the south all that stacking is on um lndale. So, one of the questions that I'm looking for guidance from council is should the driveway be where it is today or should it shift to the south? um with the and items on the left is just the recommended conditions of approval. Um the other critical item or topic is the uh expiration of the IUP. So with the difference between conditional use permit and an interimm use permit, the CU runs with the land. It is permanent unless it's revoked by the council at a certain time. IEUPs have an expiration. It can expire at a certain event or a certain time. um something that is defined and in this case uh the applicants are requesting a 50-year IEP. Um just for similarities that Deans Pumpkins was also 50-year IEP. Uh Fiser Farms, I can't remember what it was. Initially, it was when there was a permanent building, they had to come back and amend the IEP, but that that's been done. Um staff had recommended a 25-year IEP in order to coincide with the 24th sewer staging plan. That plan commission did recommend 50 years. John, why um why wouldn't this be a cup? And and I think I' I've wondered this in the past too with the activity because it's to me it's it's a business >> and an IUP doesn't automatically let it pass to a new owner. >> They would have to get approval. >> Mhm. >> Um >> um I I couldn't really answer that. I mean this is how the ordinance was written um back in 2013. >> We were probably just throwing stuff. Um >> my guess is it it was to see how it works. >> Yeah. it. Yeah, I get that. I just It just seems odd to me that people put all kinds of money and energy into a business that they can't guarantee it to the next business owner that they can keep. >> It's a very good point. So, I mean, that's something that I've heard in many other uh interimm use permits is that it's diff difficult to get a mortgage um if the the lender doesn't know if the business is going to be around for 5 years or whatever the term is of the IP. >> I didn't think of that. >> Does an IUP uh expire or is withdrawn if the property is sold? That could be >> could I mean >> that could be a trigger is if the property is sold and the IEP expires >> historically mayor and council that's how an IUP would >> that is the point of the >> point of the IP is that essentially it's the if the property were to turn over to a new owner then the use on that property would then be >> but a cup would stay >> cup stays with the land forever whether you sell it or not. >> So if you approve a cup for an auto repair business that auto repair business will be there forever. Yeah. >> Um if you do it as an IUP or sorry it can be there forever. Um if you do an IUP then if they sell it then or move or want something differently then it can expire either a timeline or a change of ownership. >> Can I ask a morbid question? >> Sorry JT. If Jack passes away and it's left to JT, does he get to keep the IUP or does he have to come back and say >> so under this condition, it's good until August of >> But that would be a new ownership. >> The ownership, >> it's the same company. >> Is that what we're saying? Is that >> Yes. Yes. >> It's the use. So if the use changes and fits within these conditions, it continues until 2075. >> Well Well, right. But didn't we just didn't we just say that if it changes owners, the IUP would be up for >> I think that's the definition of an IUP, >> right? So I guess I'm just So I guess the question may not be something I'm >> Who's the Who is the applicant? I do not know this answer. Is it JT or is it Jack? >> Well, or is it a company >> or is it the company? >> Jack, >> just before we get into it, the condition on here is that it would expire in 2075. Period. >> Cool. But I'm just trying to make sure that and I don't correct me if I'm wrong. I'm guessing that you want that extended to 50 years because eventually it would probably come over. You know what I mean? >> There's Yeah. >> Do you want me to say to you to say our name and Okay. >> Jack Bernins 14770 Thicket Lane. >> John or JT Bernins 17921 Dayton River Road. And just to clarify on the one point on the address, you're correct. It's 17501 is the actual farm address and it was previously stated as 17921. So that was the confusion there. >> What was it again? >> It's 17501. That's the original address. >> Okay. >> For the farms uh where the farmstead's at. >> So I I mean there's a couple things. Obviously we prefer a cup uh for all the reasons you guys discussed. um it's almost impossible to get the kind of mortgage that we're talking about. We we wouldn't we won't be able to get it without a very long IUP. Um our understanding I mean I'm the sole owner of Thicket Hill right now but he will be a shareholder shortly after there's value. So I think in terms of transferring the IUP if I die which I will uh you know I don't think that's an issue. I mean we do have some more concern about and I think someone on the actually the planning commission because it's an LLC. I think if we transfer it the right way, like shares to a new owner, then it it may be doable actually to a new owner without having to revisit the IUP. But, you know, I mean, it it's certainly a concern and we would rather have a CUP, but since there's no ordinance for a CUP relative to event centers in Dayton, we obviously applied for the IUP. So to understand this right then a company can get an activity center permit on somebody else's property >> an event it'd be the so the permit is issued to the property owner >> well except John's the property owner not the hills winery >> so >> it it's so the IUP or CUP either one it's issued to the property >> when you say the property owner it's to the property property ID is >> either one it's a land use permit so it's issued to the land not necessarily the owner >> so right now who who is the applicant on this on this >> burn I am >> as you as an individual not as a business >> well yes and no I think we've got my name on there and the business on there as well I believe so we were not told that it had to be one versus the other >> No I'm Just I'm just wanting to know that. >> So, my name's on the application. >> Okay. >> As well as the business names on the application. I guess we weren't seeing it as separate, but >> yes, I am the owner of the land. >> So, the business doesn't >> I think I think to your point, mayor, I think if the I'm trying to I think I understand your question. I believe the owner if the owner is the owner of a business and it's a I believe you're you have an LLC is what you said. >> That's correct. So, if you're a if that's a business, I don't know if they can issue that or not. To your question, mayor, I think you can do it if you're a sole proprietor and you own a business and you're the only shareholder, right? You're the only sole proprietor, then you could do it. But I don't know if you could do it as an LLC. That's my only question. And I don't know the rules. I'm going to hope Amy can look them up quickly, let me know what the difference is. But that might be something we have to look at for the application. And when you do the approvals, if you do them, mayor, you might have to look at, okay, how do you actually approve them? Whether it's the person or the >> I guess my my point is is whether it's 25 years or 50 years the IEP >> is granted to John um that that >> not to get more of it but >> it doesn't protect him when he passes away and it becomes to a new owner >> because what you don't want is the council's completely different and let's say long life on. But you know when that when you do pass on Jack by the way or Jack, sorry JT, sorry, John JT Jack when you do pass on, you don't want to have to come back here. And JT's like, "Oh yeah, like we've been doing this for forever." And the council's like, "Yeah, nope. We don't want that." And then you know, >> you know, and I mean that's obviously a concern of ours and why we asked for the the length of time, not this other nuance that you're talking about. Obviously a cup would be preferred, but there's no methodology to get that. I mean, I guess >> we'd have to, >> you know, we'd be okay with an IUP to move forward with the project and then maybe maybe it's worth revisiting a CUP, you know, if that's possible within the city. I don't know. >> So, mayor council, in order for us to do a CUP, that process, we'd have to amend the event center ordinance to allow a CUP in the event center ordinance. then they could come back and get a cup for it. But that's why we can't do a cup is because it's an IUP. I don't even permitted to do >> correct. That's why >> I have another question. What? And not specific to this, but what are the repercussions of us amending? Do you see any ahead of time of us amending that ordinance and allowing the CUP? Like is there a reason why it wasn't >> allowed before? >> Easier to revoke an IUP than the CM. >> Okay. And the first one >> maybe the enforcement mechanism is that cities want that control. That's not a derogatory thing. They just want that control. >> No, I mean and then that that's a legitimate answer. I'm just wondering as someone who like doesn't do a lot of this. It's like >> and every time this comes up in any situation, I don't like IUPs. I never have. >> Yeah. Customer Henderson. The reason for that is like I said a CUP runs the land forever. So essentially it would be that landowner would have to say yeah we don't want to we don't want to do anything different from this land forever and that's what we want to have there for. So you can use Dean's Event Center as a as a option that the city would expect that property to develop eventually. Now they could develop eventually, but if you give them a cup, they're likely going to be there for a lot longer. Not saying that's good or bad. I'm not saying that either way. I'm just >> Can >> it's a control thing. It's a control thing. Y >> But we could deny Well, >> but after it's after it's already after it's >> And saying like again just trying to gain context. Um, >> but the the to me the the bigger situation is exactly what you were alluding to is you may have a different council in at that time and it may have nothing to do with what's going on. It may simply be they no longer like event centers >> and they want gone. Right. And again I was speculating that that 50 years was partly for that reason of as >> well our only mechanism considering the current >> correct >> process you know the ordinance I guess I mean obviously with the cup it would be different financing the size of what we are 25 years we basically just be getting out of the red you know what I mean just getting done with paying back your mortgage and now it's up whether you're going to have it or not. >> You got some >> I can if I could I could offer um perhaps a suggestion um for to address the issue kind of immediately. Um the resolution that's in your packet tonight, you know, if there were some minor tweaks made to that um to rather than refer to the applicant who is listed as Jack Barren and then thicket Hill Vineyard in parenthesis. Um there could be a another clause in the in the action items um at the end of you know in the now therefore be it resolved part of the resolution um to just simply address inheritability or um change of ownership within an existing LLC or whatever the circumstances might be. I mean there could be a way to amend the the approving resolution to address the issue tonight. um if the council would be interested in um adopting an ordinance um to allow event centers um to be a conditional use. Um obviously we could um address that and and at that point you can or address that in the future and then obviously you can also um take existing IUPs and convert them to CUPs at that time once you have the um ordinance in place assuming that you know an owner or business with an IUP would want to make that conversion. Um, and I would but I would sort of give you the the caveat that when you issue a cup, as we've talked about already, um, you are limited in in your ability to revoke it. It would have to be for a violation of the conditions that are imposed. So, it would just be really a matter of being quite careful about the conditions that you impose because you really lose a lot of your discretion to revoke. Um, and it's a it's a very high bar from a legal perspective to prove a violation of a CD. >> I have another lack of knowledge question. When you add in that inheritability, let's say clause or portion, is that something that is vague enough to where whoever um Jack wanted to leave that to or does it have to be to the LLC that's on the application or is it something he would state somewhere else and that it would fall back to? Like how does that work? Again, just making sure that there's not a ton of red tape, >> right? I think that in in this in this situation, um it would be unique to just this approval that you would be doing. Um I'd want to make sure um before we before the council takes action to adopt the the resolution that we that I understand what their what their plans are. I mean, I offer inheritability as just an example of of of something that you could put into the IUP. our our intent obviously like you say I could die >> 50 years is a long time I won't be here >> is to run the business together >> uh he'll probably be doing most of the work and I'll be doing maybe not as much >> become one sitting back >> until you drink you know probably until I'm gone and he you know >> for a long long time >> right >> and our idea here was to always have this be that so because we think it's going to be a a very large asset for the city and we believe that you know into perpetuity is what we would like to see. >> Mhm. Who knows what can happen? And you know, obviously when he's 80 years old, if he doesn't have a any, you know, and well, he has his daughters, whatever. If they don't, >> hey, don't don't discount that grands. >> If there's something like that that he wants to do, fine, you know, but, you know, it also I think this ability to potentially sell it to someone else is is important, >> right? I I'm just I would want to just make sure that I could make the language fit a lot of different situations, not just the pass it down to your >> extremely helpful. Why wouldn't you just put it on >> as the name? I mean, there if John inherits it and the new buyer wants to change the name, that's up to the new buyer. But for his lifetime, it'll be be Thicket Hills Vineyard all for his lifetime, right? For both of them. >> Yeah. I just it it's just a matter of getting the right words on the paper again. >> Okay. >> But it is doable is what I'm hearing you saying. >> That's Yes. >> It is doable. >> Doable because aren't you changing the definition of an IUP then? >> No. I mean it would still have it would still have the the >> clarifying who who receives that resolution or who receives the permit. Well, well, and it would also clarify kind of the the trigger point for a cancellation of it for, you know, that it wouldn't be just an automatic if you sell the property, it goes away. I mean, we would work within the language of the of the resolution um to sort of to to find the the the right words for you to approve um to to fit their business model and a bit and perhaps future changes of ownership. The other thing I would say is if >> if that's an interim solution, you know, and and it makes more sense >> in a month or a year or whatever to to change it to a cup. I mean, that would be wonderful, but I I think we would like the interim solution so we can continue to move forward on the project. So I mean I I would recommend that that this that this one be tabled at least for for this meeting so that we could figure out the right language for you all to approve to make it work >> to make it work within the the current code and to fit their needs. >> Is that something that we could do relatively quickly? Do you feel like we could like two week like are we thinking that it would take like next meeting >> do it during the meeting? Um, if you wanted to put it to later in this meeting, I mean, I guess we could come up with >> We got three hours yet. >> I guess we could come up with some words to to do that. I just, you know, >> we could also do the rest of it now and then just have that and put it on the consent agenda. Like if we got everything else hammered out now and it was just that little tiny tiny little word >> and we knew that the reason or what the intent behind that change was this, we could just say, "Yep." >> And then it could just could have then potentially just gone on the consent agenda agenda next week. So we don't have to have the whole conversation again and you guys know and you don't obviously it's critical path but it's not. >> I I'm also going to suggest if I don't think we're at I think we're going down the same path. If you just give us direction to to word Smith it we can do that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I just think if you add Thicket Hills Vineyard into it and >> and so >> leave it up to him and his trust or will do >> can get an IUP on a private property. >> I guess that's what we're talking about, right? >> Yes. I mean with the consent of the of the underlying owner and obviously here it's kind of the same thing. It's just kind of >> the legal structures are >> ask me >> are there that are different but >> Okay. >> Yeah. You can. >> So for the next two hours and 45 minutes, you work on that wording. >> I think if you guys want to approve it, we can always work on the wording. If you guys are good with the word smithing and just approve it in the resolution, I would think that >> I'll make a motion to approve it. >> There's also going to say there's another critical topic on >> there's several other topics on the condition. So I just wanted to help with that one. >> Subject matter. Is there objection to a 50-year IEP? >> No. >> No. No. >> Okay. >> So, if you could um I'm just going to go through these one by one and just uh summarize them. >> Uh so, the first one is that the applicant will provide emergency contact information. That's really not >> Why don't we just ask the council if they have any issues? >> Yeah. Can we just jump? >> Just do that. I don't want to go through all these. >> Yeah, we don't we can read. We can read and we have read. Um so, here are my things. Um, the parking I'm going to kind of hold to ours because some of the other parking ones you guys were comparing yourself for to churches and assemblies, but I think you're closer to restaurants. I mean, you you have a kitchen, you're serving food, and when I looked at the restaurant parking, it's still a little less than ours, but it's close like it's more in the middle. Um, so I'd be willing to go to like a compromised position. Maybe not the full 211 I believe was our requirement, but maybe something closer to 143, 173. Um, and for the actual for us as a city, I would also be willing to go down to one for three people instead of one per two, which is what we have right now. Um, but yeah, I think 111's still a little low, but we don't necessar. >> Yeah. So what we tried to do is they're kind of like two they're the same issue but they're two kind of separate issues if you will. So we tried to meet >> the parking requirements per the uh planning commission which we put in there. We got two 250 spots. The the other piece was just to provide the council with the information that we think that the parking ordinance might be a bit restrictive, you know, restrictive and that I don't know what the process is for that. That that might be a separate process. We're not asking for that change necessarily tonight. We're just saying we think you ought to consider maybe some different parking ordinance for these kind of facilities because they seem a bit restrictive >> or the 14th. >> Yeah. And we provided the information. So, >> and I think we're glad if you guys want us to bring that forward at another meeting, we'd be glad to do that. But >> we talked about it for like two years. We should probably at some point. >> So, just for clear. >> So, I don't know what it's high on the list. Well, it's it's it's somewhere. >> That'll be that'll be soon. >> Yes. >> Yeah. We're constantly being told parking is out of control. >> When you're saying one stall for three guests, so moving that 111 proposed stalls to the one per three guests or the total to one per three cuz one per three is 166 stalls. Yeah. I'm just saying that's I would be willing to like I think I I'm I'm saying I agree with them that a one per two seems a little high and so I was looking at some of the other ordinances and I think this is probably closer to like the restaurant private club that serve food and when I those calculations are all based on square footage of dining area and kitchen and when I calculated that out it came up to be about depending on which one cuz they're all a little different but it was around 143 173 and that actually falls closer to a one per three guests, which is easier to calculate. So, I was saying I'd be open to a one per three instead of our current one per two, but I'm happy with what you guys have here. Um, the other things that came up for me, um, the septic and water issue, like my niece had her wedding at a place, not kind of like a a place that also had a private septic, >> and halfway through the wedding, the system failed. Um, and nothing is more fun than when you have a bride in her dress trying to use a portaotty who also happened to have been over served and very inebriated at the same time. Like it was disastrous. So, I would really encourage you to like think about like when you're on a private septic system and you have all those guests and there's a lot of alcohol flowing and they use the bathrooms a lot more. Um, I would really encourage you to think that I know that was a comment that was made about the septic system. It might be a design thing, you know. I mean, obviously by the permits and that, we've got to go with the septic design and and um >> I was going to say that um we're following Yeah, we're following commercial guidance from Metro West as provided by the city for permitting. And so it will all be commercial properties and you know commercial septic and wild. >> It's actually one of the reasons we decided to go straight to the final event center versus going to some interimm thing before cuz we're like the the costs for septic and the size of the well that you need for fire suppression are >> very expensive. >> Yeah. But I had that >> Yeah. No. Yeah. Obviously, we want to make sure that our guests have the best experience possible, >> particularly if weddings are your thing. You're thinking brides, giant dresses. It was it was not a fun rest of the evening. Um, good to know. >> Um, and then the other thing that came up for me um was when we were talking about the parking or the driveway, right, and the stacking. >> To me, the issue isn't so much the stacking in that it's the line of sight. If you're going to go turn left, the amount of space because you have this weird angle and when the driveway is shifted down further, you're going to have a chance to see cars coming around the corner. My fear is that with the current driveway layout, a car coming around that corner, um the person pulling out this way will not have as much time where here there's a there's just physical distance. So, I'm not concerned about the stacking. I'm concerned about being able to see someone coming right down P. um down London. Um so I I am kind of I'm a fan of shifting the driveway personally, but it's not for the stacking reasons, it's for that line of sight for I want to make a left and someone can come whipping around that corner. Um and you're just and it's a weird it's already a weird angle. So I'm I'm I would personally encourage to think about moving that driveway. I um and then my last thing was you kind of mentioned already the well and the fire suppression and I don't know how this would line up. The city needs a well there. Like is there a way we can combine forces in some way, shape or form? >> We have a well. >> Okay. But I mean um yeah, so we've been working with the to figure out what the cost is for them. So that >> we we want to do the same thing that we did with the storage facility with Donut Territorial is that we work with them and said, "What's your cost for that? What's our cost to extend water?" Okay, there's no point in you putting a system in if it's cheaper for us to extend the um water main. And so we had them pay for us to extend the water man. We extended the water man for them. They gave us an escro dollars for that. We do the same thing for um Thail Winery here too is look at the same thing. What does it cost us to put this in? We need to put a water tower in anyways. >> Yeah. >> What's the cost to extend the pipe? Is it similar to the cost that they have into the well? Well, then it makes no sense for them to put a well in. Let's just put the water. >> Yeah. So that conversation is happening. >> So we Yeah. We are having active conversations with with the applicant. >> Um those were my spot for storage. What you guys need to have water would be really great. So that's really wonderful. >> Um those are my things. >> Okay. Um yeah, I have no problem with parking. Um I think you guys have probably going to be able to figure out your own parking. Um and like you said, our our parking requirements are are always have always been challenged. Um, the driveway I I can go either way. I I agree that more more distance is good, but I mean, as it is, you have 160 ft to the corner. Um, I don't know. That's that's a good amount. But >> is there an opposition to moving the driveway? Is it just >> It's just really for us. I mean, you can see the building there on that side of the 139 number. >> We can't go much beyond that building. So, it's it's kind of an awkward entrance cuz we're going to come in and take a hard right and then take a hard left. >> And once we started, we felt like the major issue or concern at least from the planning commission and maybe we misunderstood was the stacking of vehicles. So then we started thinking about that and we're like, "Well, heck, we're going to, you know, and where it's at, they're going to stack on our driveway. If we move it south, they're going to stack on Lndale, which actually makes the problem worse." And so that's why we put that information together. I mean, I think there are other things we could potentially do. We could, you know, hire the Dayton police guys to, you know, the moonlighters, whoever. I don't know if that works or not, but that come out and direct traffic at a certain time or we could have a flag person. There's just topographically not a lot of play unless you want us to come off a river road and we've got access off of River Road in a couple spots. I mean, actually, we own >> You can see that little blue spot up there off of River Road right there. That's We own that. But we've been told from the beginning that River Road was not an option, >> you know, like basic I guess we've been advised that that's not what we want you to do. We want you to come off of Lndale. >> And the issue becomes as you head south, something may just if I can stand up and show you guys. You probably know this is a creek right here that goes down and goes under the road to the river. As you go this way, it it's all downhill. >> Yeah. >> And the further we move it this way, the more issue we're going to have with wetland. Well, this is all vineyard anyway, but you know, we're going to have to come in here and take a hard right. We got, you know, I think we're going to find out this is going to be wet and go that way. So then we're saying, well, we can only come to maybe right here. And then that makes it weird unless we go around the building. We've got to go this way. I, you know, it's it's challenging, but we're more than willing to work with trying to make it as safe as we possibly can. And we just felt like once we really looked at it hard, where it's at actually probably safer than moving it, but >> that's our opinion. You know, >> I appreciate that. I just was asking and I don't think the driveway is a sticking point for me. I I also had the same thought that Sarah did about well I was thinking of people peeling out and you can't see anything. The other thing we talked about was, you know, we could do make people take a left, uh, >> right turn, >> right turn down lawn, but then I think the feedback from the planning commission was, well, we don't want people going down ln >> mean some people are going to probably want to go that way that way. But yeah, um I mean I don't want to, you know, it's kind of like I think there's a combination of things we could do to really make it work, but I'm not sure moving it south is the right solution. And I mean the other not knowing exactly where Lndale, if it ever does actually move, goes, does moving it make sense now or do you move it later to make it make more sense for the the new proposed route of Blondale or you know, I mean, we we've kind of explored every option. We think the stacking obviously creates more of an issue if you move it. >> We think that there's a possibility to send people down Lndale, but that was told that that wasn't the right way. River Road is a pretty busy road at all times of the day. And so, does that make sense to have an entrance or exit there? Probably not. And so, we've kind of spun our wheels on it a little bit. And we're not sure the extra 200 ft of moving the exit down does a whole lot to address really any of the problems that we've talked about, >> especially 140 it looks like. >> Yeah, exactly. And so we I think we're open to things. I think maybe what we would prefer is maybe readress it if we do have a problem or if you guys would rather have like a a safety, you know, having one of the police officers there. We pay them to be there to help with the exiting of traffic at that time. Maybe that makes more sense. And if it continues to be an issue, maybe we can readress it at some point, right? But um I'm just not sure the the trouble justifies, you know, the perceived issue that may be there. >> The juice isn't worth the squeeze. >> Yeah, exactly. >> I hear you. All right. >> From my perspective, I think you've addressed the the parking piece of it adequately. I do like everybody else think we need to take a look at our parking ordinance because this comes up with every proposal that we have that has any parking. >> And just to add on that, so just parking in general. um you know what what what we have in the ordinance doesn't work in every case. So for example single family homes we require a twocar garage and a two stall driveway. That works for some households. It doesn't work for others. Um you know in this case it's a 500 person venue. Um I'm going to guess on the average day you're not going to have 500 people there. You know nowhere, you know, it might be I mean there's times where it might be five or 10. >> Yeah. So my other comment is around the the intersection and you know this is I use this intersection multiple times a day I would say and I scratch my head sometimes about you know is this really the headache headache to get out of there that we make it out to be. It's an odd angle and I understand that that's not preferable in road design and and all that but the sight lines are not are not bad. I mean I again I use it all the time and I don't have any trouble making a right turn onto Dayton River Road from Lawndale. I don't have any you got long sight line going to the left. Um there and you know typically if these are you know afternoon or evening kind of events if you're not in the rush hour the traffic on that road is is really not >> not that strong. So, and if we don't know, you know, I almost feel like we're not designing a road tonight, but I almost feel like the alternative or the potential future intersection makes the sightelines for making a a left turn on to Dayton River Road because of the curve in the hill that >> that you're you now got less time to see. Um, so I I I feel like the parking or the the exiting work would will work just fine for you today. And if the road alignment changes where that is no longer the answer, I think that, you know, it should be looked at at that time. And we just don't know when that is because that's the county deal. All right. So is there are we are we to the point where we can >> can we approve and just say the with the language like with the understanding that the the staff will tweak the language appropriately so that for inheritability >> for inheritability >> for transfer >> for transfer >> for transferability probably a better way to describe it. So, can I make a motion to approve this with the understanding that staff will make small tweaks to language to ensure inheritability >> and then >> transferability? >> Transferability. Oh my gosh, there's so many words. >> And then with the 50, what >> 50? Yes. With 50 years and there was Yeah, >> 50 year IUP. >> No, we're not shifting XSL. That's what I heard. >> Yeah, correct. Correct. >> I'll second that. >> You got to be fast or second. I'm sorry. It's okay. >> I said enough. >> Okay. Any more discussion? >> Oh, come on. Kick. >> I would have approved in 15 minutes. >> I will. >> Hey. >> Okay. All those in favor say I. >> I. I. >> I. >> All those opposed say no. Carries. Five to zero. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> Okay. On to item O. even mayor and console. >> Oh, I got to see what we're talking about. >> Yeah. Where are we? Oh, >> we're actually ahead of schedule. We are, but >> I'm sorry I didn't fit. I'm sorry. Oh, I was assuming we were way behind. >> Motion open. >> I have a question. >> Sure you would. >> I always have a question, Scott. >> Uh, you have a question before the presentation? >> I mean, you can do the presentation. I just, but I do have a question. Okay. Um, >> you can do a speedrun to >> So, so I'll I'll try to move quickly, at least do the first part, I suspect I know where your question will come into play. Um, you'll probably remember this project. It involved initially the two intersections near the interchange as shown. One between the new interchange and County Road 81, the other between the interchange and County Road 101. So shown graphically at the two locations shown and then just uh highlighted on there is I'll say existing businesses recent developments along with currently proposed developments on the to the south and west. So just I'll I'll go through this quickly. The background of the project this was initially discussed in summer of 2024. Uh the direction was to utilize special special assessments for funding at least for the westerly intersection and then the easterly would have been a combination of uh new businesses potentially existing businesses and city funds. Uh the feasibility study for that effort was authorized in August of last year and then it was paused for development coordination on the again on the west side of the interstate and uh to further determine the the funding that would be utilized. At that time it was decided to no longer utilize special assessments for the project but instead use municipal state aid for the improvements and therefore the feasibility report was completed without a an assessment role. So just as a technical document justifying the project but not necessarily imposing uh special benefit assessments for the for the funding. So the findings again the project was justified using projected traffic for the analysis. The signal warrants were met using the projected traffic at both intersections assuming the development would occur as at that time was expected. the project costs were estimated or at least the budgetary estimates confirmed and then the funding sources identified uh primarily through uh developers agreements with development on the east side together with the state aid dollars as mentioned and then just to note it is anticipated that the installation of the signals will have essentially well I'll say minimal to no impact to existing traffic all of the work is done in the boulevards So probably lane closures periodically for certain parts of the project but otherwise uh the the road will definitely remain open. So some updates uh since authorization for plans and specifications which were authorized in May. Um just to confirm municipal state aid is available for the project confirmed available through an advancement that the city applied for. So, uh, your current balance is actually in the red still from a a previous or actually, no, there's a balance. No, it was red until this year's aotment. Um, however, that money will be used for South Diamond Lake Road together with some advancement there. And then this project would be funded using future aotments. In other words, you can spend the money now and then it just gets repaid with future aotments from the state um in subsequent years until that balance reaches zero. Uh the development on the this is probably where your question will come in. The development on the west side of the property uh timeline is a little bit more unknown and there has been changes to the final plat that was submitted by the applicant that no longer provides the rightway necessary to utilize this roadway. Um and therefore at this time at least there's not a known date at which the signal would be necessary for that. Uh for those reasons it was decided to remove that signal from the project and instead only include that um by the quick trip on the east side of the interstate. That one on the west would then be considered as a future project at a later date um with funding to be determined. Maybe state aid, again, maybe special assessments, maybe city funds, maybe um uh developer agreement, again direct contribution um but again to be developed or decided at a later date. So just graphically um the one to the west would be delayed and then this project is limited to that again outside of the new new quick trip um that's going in on the the Opus building which is occupied by the turbine company. So the anticipated costs, our budgetary numbers for this, we put 750,000 per intersection for the full project costs. Um originally at 1.5 for both one being eliminated um would have been at 750. Um our revised cost estimates is actually um quite a bit lower um or about 556,000 for that. Um, a lot of that is due that there is essentially no site improvements needed at this project, which is helpful. All the sidewalks, the ped ramps, everything is in place and we shouldn't have to disturb any of it. Um, I will note that the other intersection will actually be more expensive because there's some curbs that need to be modified and some um some other sidewalks and pedestrian facilities that would need to be constructed or improved. Uh and then to note the anticipated funding, um the Quick Trip developer developers agreement does obligate them to contribute $442,500 towards this project, leaving a balance of approximately $113,000 based on our estimates. And we expect that municipal state aid would be used to pay that balance. And then just to note, there was a $10,000 contribution made by Sm um for the benefit of this project or or for this project. intently. So, moving on to the the project schedule. Um, if plans are approved and bids authorized today, the the thought would be to open bids midseptember, award the contract late September and then start construction in October. However, the construction would be limited to the bases, the subsurface work. But we are hearing that the procurement of the equipment essentially the poles, the lumers, the light fixtures is about four months. So they would do everything they could prior to freeze up, get everything ready for it, but then the installation of that equipment would not be completed again until procured. We're estimating at this time that that might be in February. From that point, it would be 1 to two months of installation and then they would be fully operational. um with the estimated schedule that would put it in March of next year and then the final completion would be some short time after that. So the recommendations would be to approve plans and authorize bidding. Um these services are included in the previously approved uh engineering proposal. We're estimating the bidding process to cost about $3,500 um just for the coordination of that. So that's that's all. Yep. That's all I had. If there is >> So the question that um someone brought up to me was if we've got semis at the cubes trying to get to the highway and now they got one, two, three lights to get through. First off, is there enough space in between the lights that the semi are are are we going to be causing issues where they're backing up into other intersections? And how do we make sure that timing is such that it's traffic is flowing smoothly? the the signals are coordinated together. So they're they're intended and they are modified from time to time. In fact, we've had Henipin County looking at the the Dayton Parkway and 81. Okay. Several times even in the last 6 months just with the changes going on out there and they they have been adjusting things out there. This would be no different. Okay. >> So they do time them so the greens will sync up better if you will so we don't get exactly as you're suggesting just an increasing queue of vehicles as >> particular because when Smi takes up a lot of space. It does. It does. And they don't take off all that fast. >> No, they do not. >> Right. You're stuck behind one. >> Yeah. But that that is accomplished through just coordination of the systems. >> Okay. Um that was my and so that was my only question for that. I think the other question I've talked to Zach about, so I'm good. Thank you. >> All right. Any motion? Second. >> So moved. Second. >> Sarah and Scott. >> Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. >> I. All those opposed say no. carries five to zero. We are uh you know what? Can we take about a threem minute recess here? >> Yeah, I'm fine with that. >> I need a recess or unmute >> this thing. >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Go ahead and click on the >> I did. Okay. >> Yep. >> Pull back. Go back up. >> You got questions on this too. Like can you go >> I mean >> grab it for the first time. >> We have to make >> Nope. >> Um you can understand is we have adjustments. >> You did good job. >> If we want it to go through >> ready. >> Okay. >> Yep. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh mayor council. Uh this is item P consideration uh resolution to amend the comprehensive plan um as well as the E3 district. and get them. I'm going to try probably breeze through this and then stop me if I'm going too fast. Um, so again, just to summarize this, uh, there's three parts of this. The first is the amendment to the 2040 comprehensive plan. Uh, the second part is to amend the A3 zoning district to comply with Met Council uh, requirements. And the third is this is really a cleanup is in reviewing of the ordinance we found that there's some missing text related to uh the GMU3 and five district which has nothing to do with the A3. It's just we found a mistake and we're we're using this opportunity to to fix it. >> It's also still missing the R3. >> Oh, okay. I'll be back again. Okay. Um the whole point of the A3 district is to go back and uh the council has had numerous discussions um beginning with a couple years ago we had a workshop of what does rural feel like and and the answer that I got out of it was um less like the top picture more like the bottom picture. So the top picture is Cypress Cove which is a R3 district where uh much denser housing and the bottom is thick hills um which is 10acre lot. So the question is how do we get from how do we get more of the example on the bottom. Uh this led to a number of discussions with the Met Council and then led to which led to the adopting the A3 district in March. Um at that time uh the council did not adopt an amendment to the comprehensive plan and had the opinion or majority opinion that the comprehensive plan amendment was not necessary. Uh the Met Council disagreed with that and said that an amendment is required. Um so here's the amendment to the comp plan. Uh what it is showing is uh the image on the left is the future land use plan and we're uh identifying an area that would qualify to be reszoned as A3. And just to for clarity of anyone that's watching um property owners um will apply to reszone their land. It's not the city that's doing it. And the city does have the ability, but generally that's not something that we do. Um so again this is the future land use plan areas that would qualify for A3 zoning is in northwest Dayton. Um the second image is uh just a chart of and I I know this is impossible to read of um the acreage and the unit count that would uh is existing within this area. This is about 2800 acres. Although within the A3 district, the way it's written is that you have to have 20 acres in order to subdivide. Um, so, uh, the intent is that it's two homes per 20 acres. So, you you've got to start out with 20 acres, although it's 2,800 acres that are within the A3 designated area. Um, there's only, I believe, 29 parcels that would qualify for A3 zoning. So, it's not a huge change to to what we have. So if if two land owners if properties are combined this doesn't preclude that right if >> no um correct so it could be a bigger you know so like say for example if you have 29 acres you can only have two houses but if your neighbor also has 29 acres you can combine that and get that extra house. >> Okay. >> Um the third image is a description of the land use categories. And so with the amended comp plan, we're adding a category called unsoured rural residential interim. So just to to summarize again is the idea is that within this area, you it would allow unseured residential development at two units per 20 acres. Um as long as it doesn't preclude the the eventual uh resubdivision once sewer and water is available. That's a quick summary. Uh the map at the left is those properties that we believe would qualify for uh A3 zoning. Um so once again, although this area is 2,800 acres, not every parcel qualifies uh for to zone reszone to A3. Uh when this was reviewed by the planning commission in August, the commission did recommend to change the minimum lot width from 140 ft to 160 ft. The intention there is at 160 it's easier to get multiple lots out of there. So instead of um 140 getting 270s at 160 you're getting 280 80 uh foot wide lots. Um this is uh kind of an a regional map that show for the 2040 comprehensive plan that shows what cities are designated what use. Um again with the flexible residential development guidelines the idea with the A3 district is that um each project is going to comply with these six items. Um although I'm going to say in a future slide we were disagreeing with item six and I'll come back to that. So again uh the flexible design guidelines we have one through six. Uh this is the met council's language on the right and oops the A3 proposed A3 district language on the left. That'll go away. Um, we are choosing not to or not recommending item six, which is encourage the use of community wastewater treatment systems to serve temporary clusters. Uh, we've had three of these communities in the city. We currently have we're down to one. Um, we're the council has kind of previously expressed opposition to this. We we've reiterated that to the Met Council and they're fine with it. >> Plus, it says encourage that means nothing. true so far >> until they tell us otherwise. >> Um, in me having discussions with the Met Council of what their request was in our ordinances just to add more clarity of of what does each item mean? Um, and we're choosing to do that by giving um examples. So, uh, >> have they seen this by council? >> They've seen what went to the planning commission and which is very we've been had minor tweaks to what was present what's been presented tonight. >> And so far, they're okay with this. >> They're good with it. >> Yeah, >> they're good with it. >> Is that what the changes, Zach, that you and I had talked about? >> Probably not. I don't know what was all included in the planning commission packet. I unfortunately not able to review that before. >> Okay, I I'll go through these the five items. So, the first is to include the need to reserve land resources for efficient future urban development as part of the ordinance purpose. Um, I'll just say the A3 answer is that the intent of this district is to allow residential development with a gross density of two units per 20 acres with all of the following following guidelines. incidents a abcde e uh item two is identify land character charact characteristics required to support future urbanization uh the A3 answer is it's going to be case by case so using legacy woods as an example is there's so much change in topography that there's some areas of this project where it's not feasible to uh economically provide sewer and water if it were available. And so the idea here is for the development uh or the developer to identify which areas are practically s serviceable eventually and then ghost plan this and let's say the the southern half um for urbanized lots and and generally you know still you know as I'm sure the council's aware there's a lot of topography there's a lot of wetlands um what is buildable it's probably the the land that's tillable currently Y >> and this is every project is going to be different with this. >> So I know at the planning commission the developer for this particular project said that that line >> maybe wasn't in the right place. >> Does it matter because it's only you're only using it as an example? Yes. It's not tying them to anything. Correct. >> Corre correct. This is just uh for a just as an example as you mentioned. There's a lot more science that will go into it as far as defining where that cut off line is. >> Yeah. So, for example, on this development, we'd look at once it gets to a certain, you know, threshold of, you know, elevation changes or whatever, we'd say that that's not going to work for sewers. So, >> yeah, I just want to make sure that this is not >> defining anything for them. It's being used as an example. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh item three is to allow no more than 25% of the developable land in a project to be developed reserving larger future urbanization parcels. Uh the A3 example is it's case by case. Every project is going to be different. So um this example is probably similar to Legacy Woods. Um this project is similar to the uh the Burnins project. Um, you know, again, it it depends it depends on what the developer wants to do and what the council's vision is of that project. So, >> and the topography >> in the topography. >> Yeah. >> Um, so I don't think there's a clear there's not a one-sizefits-all answer for this. >> If you go through their examples too in the flexible guidelines, >> Mhm. >> Um, they're kind of all over the map. I mean, >> yeah, they really don't. >> Um, there was one where and I don't know do you uh we can get to it later. >> Okay, >> go ahead. >> Uh, item four is to protect future urbanization parcels with temporary development agreements, easements, or deed restrictions. Uh, the A3 answer is to ghost plan to demonstrate that an A3 lot can be subdivided into an R1 zone or, you know, R3 or or whatever you'd like. Um, and then to require that the A3 house be built on a ghost lot as opposed to across the line. Um, I'm we we've heard in previous meetings some opposition from developers of of requiring this. Um, I believe ghost planning can work. It's it's difficult though. So, you know, using uh Wildwood Springs as an example, this was ghost platted. Um, and it's hard to see on the screen, but you know, for example, th this was one lot that was ghostplated into two. The challenge with this is, I think it's telling a buyer that you can only build on a certain part of the lot. And that could be amended to be not just one ghost slot. Maybe it's two or three ghost slots just because of the size of the house might be larger because it may not fit on one future ghost slot. >> Could be two or three. Um there's an example of that on the south side of town and territorial trail development. If you were to go into that one, the first left, if you came up in territorial, take the first left there, the original homestead is on that property there and it takes up three current city lots. So that's an example of a ghost platting that would have worked. And all of these things, the satisfaction of them is up to us >> whether they're whether we believe they're satisfied or not. >> Yes. I mean, the idea is we're we're we're agreeing, you know, the Met Council kind of gives us guidelines and we're agreeing to follow them as much as we can. Are we is it going to be perfect every time? No. >> Right. Okay. >> But we're going in the right direction. Uh item five is to provide for the reszoning of the future urbanization parcels to a residential zoning classification at dens consistent with council policy at such time that urban services are available. Um this can only be answered when services are available in 20 to 30 years from now. Um but the idea is that the development that happens today isn't happening such that it prohibits services in the future. So, you're not going to build a house where you're saying sewer and water line should be going. >> I just have a a little math pet peeve. What why do we say four and 40, two and 20? Why don't we just say averaging 10? >> Um, that was a council's decision. >> So, I'll clarify, mayor and council, the reason why um council and that's true. It is the council decision. Um the reason why we can't use averaging of 10 is cuz it's not classified in our classification of community that we are today. So we aren't rural resid the the words emerging suburban edge we used to be rural residential rural residential is able to use the word averaging of tankers technically I know I agree with you >> but for council they say you can't do that cuz you're not rural residential you have to use a 2 per 20 acre definition based on the fact that you're emerging suburban edge community. >> Is it dumb? >> Yes. Does it work? Yes. So, we'll just move on. >> There you go. That's your That's your answer. >> Okay. Item six is encourage the use of community wastewater treatment systems. And our A3 answers that we're opposed to doing this again. >> And they've seen this. >> Yes. >> Okay. I'll move because it's encouraging. So, yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Uh questions. So, um, one of the things was to limit it to 25%. And so, on our table, so this is on page 158 of our packets. I'm not sure where it is in your stuff. Um, where we have maximum pvious surface coverage. Should we change that to 25% so that I mean, that's a very easy way to point that we're not building on more than 25%. So, therefore, 25% is the max we're using. you can um I I would just add it's not that simple. So impervious means you know house, driveway, barn and so on. Um not you know you think of the developable area of your property. It's also the area that you maintain as a yard >> you know which is impervious. So um the short answer it would be simpler if we reduced it from 30 to 25. So >> there's your Yeah. your customer van ask and the easiest way to say is take it from 30 to 25 and then you've you've met that goal and boom, you're done. >> Yeah. Y and that would help and I'm fine with that. 25% is still quite a bit when you're talking about lots this size. >> Um so absolutely >> I I think that we're not putting any undue restrictions on these properties and it helps check a box I think for my council. >> Are there any objections to 25? >> No. >> Okay. Um we had talked about this came up um actually I think in the Bernins property about how do we ensure that the rest of the land that's now an outlot doesn't come through 5 years later and break off into small you know break this chunk off and then comes back and breaks off into a smaller chunk and then comes back and breaks off into a smaller chunk little by little. Um and so we had talked about titled deed restrictions about that. Um, is that where would that go in this process? >> Look at Amy. I I guess the initial thought like Bernins's um the idea the the you've got the development that's their say their 12 lots and everything left over is going to be planted as an outlot. >> Yes. >> Which typically is not buildable and we would add the exception for the event center and buildings related to the event center. Yeah. >> But no uh residential dwellings. But that there that process is part of our system already that that outlaw is >> as an outlaw. >> Yes. So we don't have to do anything additional that has been covered. >> Not with this project. That would be done as part of the plan. >> Okay. Um do we have to I guess my point is to because for better or worse we have to jump through some of Met Council's hoops to move this forward. Would it be helpful if we had that spelled out somewhere that we would require any outlaw to have a deed restriction on it? Would that make them feel better about what we're doing? >> I don't think it would matter. >> Okay. >> One question I had, John, and with the mayor of the council is I know that we have the 2420 rule. So, I'm wondering if we have some sort of caveat to be if a lot an outlot is bigger than 20 acres that that would go on maybe and I don't know the answer for that. The reason why I asked that question is cuz I know on the Legacy Woods project there's one lot and I know that's bigger than 20 acres and I don't know if it's that big of a deal to put one more house on that lot. Is it really? I don't even know. I don't even know if it'll work to be honest with you, but um I know it was one comment from the Met Council is yeah, what do they do to stop us from just continuing to do the 220 rule? >> It's so it's no different than the 40 40 acre rule, right? So we track that. >> Mhm. >> So >> I right now we we've seen that. So I would assume it's the same mechanism, whatever that is. is until we have staff turnover and then that's the only thing we have an issue with is you know even the last five years we've got staff turnover and then somebody forgets about something and then oh now we approve that and oh we didn't know about that and so then it just gets missed in the shuffle of paperwork and >> somehow we we I would assume we keep you know draft >> do our best >> is my question >> I'd rather not >> you don't want to formalize that >> you can restrict I no I don't I think there's >> I don't know if we can I will look the attorney for them so I don't know if we can or not either So I >> I'm not sure of the question. It's kind of gone back and forth. What's the actual >> I guess the question is so let's say we've got a parcel. Can we and it goes through the planning process. Can we require a deed restriction that prohibits any further subdivisions >> until sewer and water comes through? >> I would think that would be um part of a development agreement that would go on title anyway. >> Okay. So I don't think it would be a deed restriction though. >> Okay. >> Just be in the title search. Is that what it would be at? >> Would it just be a covenant? >> Well, a deed restriction is and and a covenant function essentially the same way with the development agreement on title with that as a condition of approval of the of of the subdivision and the development. Then then it's covered. It's on title just like any other. >> Sure. I'm just thinking, you know, 20, 30 years from now when sewer is available, none of us are going to be here. >> Yeah. >> Some of us might >> maybe not 30, but 20. >> But if sewer is available, they're going to want to >> and then they then they can >> Yeah. Then they'll want to split it up anyways. Or they might want to split it up, but they're not going to want to break it in half. >> Yeah. Maybe it's a moot point. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I don't that >> I just I want to make sure this this goes through and that we don't >> Well, that's why I'm wanting to make sure that we've talked to them. I did talk to Judy, our rep, and had a long conversation with her about this and she is going to try to bird dog this thing as quick as possible. >> But it's also assumed that they've already seen it and they're okay with it. My concern is they come back, we do this, they come back and say, "Oh, you got to do this." said it just killed. >> Well, my thought is John's talked to him 20, 30 times already and he already said it was good on their side. >> Three or four. >> John and I and Amy had a nice conversation with the M council kind of got some information and it sounds like we have a path forward which is what we're >> trying to get the general concept of what council wants to want out of it. >> Can we revisit the minimum lot size? I was not happy with the 1.5 net. Are we can we up that to three? I >> it's up to the council. >> The three was when we didn't have an average. I I >> Yeah. >> So, I will give the mayor and council. I want to give what Matt Council told us, which I've never heard Matt Council say in my entire career. They said that they liked larger lots. >> Huh. Well, >> Mark went down and I have preferences. >> Tell you why, too. >> So, they suggested that they would like to see 3 to 5 acre. Now again, we can say no and don't have to, but they said they'd like to see 3 to 5 acres as their >> if we can remove the averaging. I'd do that in a heartbeat and that would still be compliant with their guidelines. >> I I don't know that answer. >> I can just say that they they suggested to have 3 to five acres as the minimum. >> The intention it's easier. The bigger the lot, the easier it is to subdivide. Yep. So, it's easier. You know, for example, this lot has I don't know if it's seven or eight ghost lots and this one has two. Yeah. I have no appetite to change it at this point. >> You're okay? >> Yep. >> Yeah. If we can get rid of the averaging, I do that in heartbeat. But >> I mean, if I'm the only one, I'm the only one. But I thought since we're revisiting it and it's already open, I wanted to put it out there. >> Do you think Met Council will say no if we leave it at 1.59? >> No. >> Okay. Okay. Anyone else interested in three? >> Am I the only one? You're in. >> Okay, fine. I'll let it go. I'll take my 25% and count that as a win. >> As a win, >> those are the only three things we had, right, John? >> Oh, >> counted what? Um, it was the 30% changing that from >> 25% 25, >> I believe. So, >> so you got my comment that we're missing the R3 in there. Yeah, we'll we'll combine it with >> it's got to be sitting somewhere. >> It should be on page 153 and then >> yeah, not in there. >> So, I mean there's nothing. >> That's a simple fix, right? >> We'll have to >> It's a simple fix. >> Yeah, >> um I'm wondering why on page 156 of our packet that we're talking about the adding language for GMU 4 and five. Are we just fixing something else here or is that really >> it's missing? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So we have one, two, and three but not four and five. >> Okay. So those are just missed on the original version of it. Okay. >> Are we okay with the 160 ft change that planning commission came through with? >> I am. >> Okay. I am too. >> Yeah. Mhm. >> Yeah. So, mayor and council, this essentially gets what everything what council was looking for in a comp plan. Hopefully, it you know, again, we've had conversations with the Met Council. They've given us kind of the >> shake agreement is Yep. That looks good. So, >> and we've gone through the at least the two pending developments and they should be able to come through. Um, Legacy Woods will need us resubmit a ghost plat. >> Yeah, one thing. They >> But they were they were short on that anyways, right? Or do >> it. They had one, but it wasn't very advanced. So, the problem is that if they put the houses they have all the houses lined up on the roadway. I'm going to presume that whoever buys those lots is going to want their house off the road. So, we just asked the developer to put together a more advanced ghost platting for that southside so that they can give their new home, the homeowners that want to buy those lots more abilities to put their houses on. >> So, we also, I believe, have a limitation of 200 ft set back. Oh, maybe not an egg. >> I don't think it's an egg three. >> It's our our two >> probably in our district. Yeah. >> Um, okay. >> So, that was one thing we asked the developer to do. And then with the other part we learned is that the north half they essentially sold this to the state's never going to be sewarded. >> Yeah. >> Which I have again never heard that designation before from my council. So it was something new. >> Take it. >> Yeah. Took it and said >> they used to call it that was the re that we created. Why? >> Yeah. They they basically said don't call it. >> Yeah. They surprisingly >> I took it and said okay sounds good. >> Um okay. The only uh I'll leave it alone. >> Okay. So, the only change that I'm hearing is to reduce the 30% impervious to 25%. >> And the change that the planning commission had >> as presented. This is just the one change. >> Then yes, I make a motion. >> I'll second. I will throw up in my mouth, but I will vote for this thing. >> Spend 25 30 minutes on 25%. >> All right. >> I tried to get three acres. >> Any more discussion? >> No. >> Okay. All those in favor say I. I. >> I. All those opposed say no. >> Carries by zero. >> Just an FYI for the council. Just so you know what's going to happen next. We'll submit it. We have submitted all the neighboring jurisdictions. Then go to Met Council. This is probably a 120day process or more. We'll let the developer know that this is the delay. He's aware of it. He's still on board. So just to let you know that we're still communicating with everybody and following through the process, but just want to give an update. So it's about a four month process. Just >> should hopefully it's last >> two to six months. city. It really I think it really depends on >> how quickly the neighboring communities respond because she thought she could get it. >> We'll push on him to figure we can get it done sooner. But again, the developer won't be able to do anything this year and he's and he's aware of that. So, okay, >> I let him know so he is still on board for doing the project. >> All right, we are on to item Q, moratorum. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh this is the moratorum of the um French Lake Road, East French Lake Road, 113th area. Uh let's see. So in March, uh we had a developer that proposed an industrial project. It it went through plan commission council with support. Uh but the plan commission had asked, well, what what happens next to this project or how does this affect what happens next? Um that led to uh the council approving a six-month moratorum on uh prohibiting subdivisions within this area with the intent of of doing a land use and a road corridor study. Um Stantech conducted the study. Uh there was a draft review that was uh drafted the plan that was reviewed by the planning commission in July and August. Uh the commission has made a recommendation and now we're here to the council with that recommendation um in an ordinance which would expire the moratorum. This is assuming that the council chooses uh one of the options here. Uh what was presented? How do I get rid of this? It goes over. >> Um these are the three items that were presented to the planning commission. So we have we're we're titling this as residential heavy figure on the left, industrial heavy in the middle and then 113th extension. And so the 113th extension is really um if you look at these east west routes um those are kind of the the main point that uh changed or locations that change. The plans commission's recommendation was to combine a couple of these and I apologize that these are a little hard to see. Um but essentially it was to have more industrial and to separate the residential from the non-residential traffic. Uh this is the commission's recommendation. So again um just for you know uh organization for clarity this is Interstate 94 uh Dayton Parkway County Road 81 and 117th. Uh the blue area is industrial. Uh the stenciling prop property although it's shown as industrial really it could be either industrial or residential. We just had to pick a color. Um the orang-ish areas are um you say the the deep orange would be single family residential and then this would be um I'll just say town homes. Um a couple of features with this um just kind of going north to south. Uh East French Lake Road would be uh reconfigured uh to go kind of north south. This provides a 90° intersection and a little bit more land available for industrial development. The assumption is that this would be single family. Um I know we've heard from one property owner that uh was opposed to this street and and just again um you know the city doesn't develop land. land owners develop land or so if if a land owner chooses not to develop um it's going to sit until they change their mind. So this is I think having that those potential layouts in there has been useful to kind of understand what >> oh yeah >> what could happen there but obviously it created some heartburn and >> does that always >> need to be on a final version of this and we don't typically lay out neighborhoods >> sure when we zone something >> it's up to the council but I'll just say when we started this project the council asked for a more detailed plan versus a less detailed plan. Uh and right we did and thank you um >> Stantech I guess but I think in the final version of it then it it doesn't need to be there anymore. We've talked about it. We understand what we're looking at looking at. >> Just my two cents there. >> Okay. Um so going back to the commission's recommendation of separating residential traffic from non-residential traffic. Uh you know the residential traffic corridors are East French Lake Road. uh kind of the interior streets of the neighborhood through here and the industrial traffic would be on this north south corridor and then 113th which dead ends um at the industrial project. Uh the assumption is that there would be a private um easement or roadway however it's called that would connect 117th to this culdeac but it would not be a public road. Um, >> so it would where your cursor's at just >> right a little bit down right there. That's going to be a culde-sac. >> It is a culde-sac. No. >> Okay. >> Well, doesn't exist right now. >> That doesn't exist right now. All right. You said 113, but that's not >> That's technically like 114th. >> Yeah. >> Something >> something 116th. I don't know. Pick a number. >> Somewhere between 13 and 17. Pick a number. So, that's going to be a culde-sac. And are we able to service that area? At least snow removal. Do you see a problem here? >> Second. Sorry. >> Do you see a problem with that culde-sac? I'm I'm assuming that's going to be a public road, right? So, >> I don't see a problem with that. >> And there's no access other than that stub on the north side to 117. >> Correct. >> Okay. And again, I want to emphasize, so we're putting a lot of boxes together, and these are just assumptions and and they're meant as a a display. So we we have no idea >> what landowners and developers are going to build, but these are these size of buildings are practical. >> Okay. But the ultimate idea here was to really keep a separation between our industrial traffic and our residential traffic. >> That was the commission made a big point of that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Um and then I'll add the I image on the right is what was uh provided by OPEDN as kind of a an example of um how the this prop or the DDL property could develop with two buildings. Uh although it is does have a different road configuration compared to what the plan commission recommended. So there is no uh east west road corridor through here. >> Well, effectively it landlocks the east side, doesn't it? >> Exactly. I mean, that's why this whole thing came up was that if we want that east side to be industrial, they need to be able to come from to it from the industrial side. >> And therefore, we need a road there. >> And when I looked back at our um which we'll get to in our road transportation, that road that that road is there. So, that was always planned for. So, it's not like they can come and be like, "Oh, you didn't tell us there would be a road at the south side of our property." It's always been on the plan to have a road there. So, I'm happy with the planning commission's recommendation. >> I am also with the my comment from earlier that we remove some of the >> okay >> what appears to be city planning for a development. I I guess if if the council wants to go that direction, you know, this is both a land use and a road plan. So, what you'll have to clarify what roads would you like to >> Well, the land use we're really just talking about really that chunk of property, right? I mean, we're not deciding um for example, the stuff on the east side of French Lake French Lake Road. >> Sure. >> For land use or roads or both? >> Both. And my understanding was this is really to focus on making sure that this piece is accessible. Um cuz clearly the the stuff on the east side there that's not going to happen for for for 20 plus years. So I'm not sure why we need to >> care about the the land use a little bit from what's in this mess. over here, >> right? But are we are we talking about um submitting a >> So, this will give us guidance as to what we want in this area, but are we talking about we're not talking about submitting amendments, are we? >> We are not. And and the reason for that is that this is likely to be developed faster than we can get a comp comprehensive plan amendment approved. Some some of this might be >> right. Um, >> well, at least basically the chunk to the north that's between the parkway and and East French Lake Road and then maybe you know the the the uh the property to the to the south, the triangle to the south there with the road up against 81. But as far as residential stuff in that area on the bottom right, I don't I just don't >> What's it guided today? >> Low density. >> Yeah. So it's >> Yeah. Th this property owner has indicated no desire for development. >> Yeah. Zero. >> Yeah. And I don't I don't I guess >> and again that the idea of this map is to provide guidance to developers and land owners of what we'd like to see. What gets built is not going to be what's shown on this plan. >> And for staff it'll be similar. >> Mr. Mayor, at some point could the Aiden team speak to the two diagrams? you. Yeah, you might as well know. >> Thank you. We'll we'll be brief. Uh I'm Mark Anderson, civil engineer with Samitech, working with Apaden development team here along with Jay Moore. Um I'd just like to offer a few comments to each of the exhibits. Uh Jay and I were here at the planning commission meeting and what we heard as a takeaway um for their recommendation was yes the industrial and the blue area um but also that they were going to leave it to private development to determine the internal connections to service that industrial park. So a little bit different than what's shown here. Um but a little bit more background on what um what has transpired over a few years here. So we actually designed the cube site and we worked with DDL on the EAW and along with that the Dayton Parkway alignment and the roundabout and the roundabout was really to service the Cubes project and as well create a alternate connection to 113th since that was going to be discontinued due to the close proximity to 81 of the current 113th intersection. So, uh, there was never a road planned east across DDL. They donated the rightway with the understanding that Dayton Parkway would give them access. The EAW didn't have any road to the east. It was not part of the site plan for the EAW that was approved by council and it was never part of the road plan at the time Dayton Parkway was proposed. And so they went ahead and donated the right right away with the expectation they've got access to 117th, they've got access to the roundabout. Um, and they can service their property. So now to have this road to the east um it reduces the footprint development footprint on the DDL property and as well it increase increases the cost for a public road that the project can't support. Um it's just not going to be financially viable for that industrial project and the industrial building on the north uh is also a little bit challenging. The only way we can get an industrial building on the north side of DDL property is to reshape the existing wetland area with wetland mitigation. So, what we drew up on the right is just that. Uh the 200,000 square foot building that Apadan wants to build. It's a it's a project that, you know, they're they're ready to go with it. and it would have access off of the roundabout as well as a right in to the truck court so that there's not a queue coming off the roundabout into their site. So very viable, good access as well. the building on the north. If DDL decides to develop that either with Apaden or somebody else, right now Apeden is just looking at the south building, they could have a right in access off of Dayton Parkway into their truck court and they could have access to 117th. So that in itself is is very viable. When we look to the east, if it goes industrial, great. Um or if it even was residential, either one could work. Um, so the points of access are 117th. We could pull a public culde-sac in from the north. Uh, we know that, uh, 117th is going to be a busy road. It comes all the way from the Graco development. Um, as well, it goes all the way to east to Fernbrook, so it's going to have to be widened to handle that traffic. And so, a point of access should work just fine there. Um, with respect to East French Lake Road, I understand the comments from the public and from the planning commission. They don't want trucks going through their residential development. Um, so I think that's part of the future planning process to make sure that doesn't happen. Um, but roads on 117th, East French Lake Road, all of these need to be rebuilt by development. I don't think the city's going to pay for them. So there's just not enough uh funding to have another road cutting across the DDL property. So those are our thoughts on the two layouts. Um you know that quote unquote industrial area in blue is really only going to have four maybe five buildings at the most. Two of them will have direct access from Dayton Parkway. They can have access from 117th. This is very reasonable. When you look at uh Maple Groves Industrial Development East of Arbor Lakes or you go to 169 and Brooklyn Park, they'll have 6 810 buildings with one point of access. So, this does not need an additional point of access uh what we've shown will work. And hello, my name is Jay Moore with Opentine Investment Company, 400 Water Street, Excelsier, Minnesota. You know, as as you may recall, we were up here on a concept plan basis uh in March and we had a lot of discussion about the building and the orientation and and so on. And I I think that this body was was close to adopting us or to move this project forward so we could submit our plan. And I think the following planning commission meeting, Commissioner Browen, uh, you know, raised his hand and said, "I think we should do a moratorum because we want an east west connection between Dayton Parkway and French Lake Road." And I think over the past few months, we've heard loud and clear from residents that they do not want that east west connection. So this the plan that's presented in front of you today is a private or is a public street with a dead end that only goes halfway. That street's very expensive. However, it cuts the industrial building that we were planning on in half, which means the land owner who's if this goes through is going to have to forfeit right away again for the second time and lose half of the value of his land, you know, we're I'm under contract at a very uh nice number for that that person that invested in land in in the city of Dayton. And if that rightway gets taken, the project gets diminished and we we can't pay him for that land. So that's a second time that he's going to have to dedicate land and no compensation. And we feel that we have a project that's ready to go that can be serviced as Mark said and we really don't know what's going to happen on the east. We we've contacted some of the land owners on the east. You know, this could sit for 20 years as as Mayor Fischer has said. We there is no timeline. We don't have an overall plan. And I think, you know, plan commissioner Browen when he originally looked at this thought that there was more land than there actually was. There's not that much extra land for industrial. We're we're we're diminishing one building and gaining another 100,000 square ft at a huge cost and and development just can't afford that the pay for roads like that. It's just it's too small of a a park. was not that much land. >> So, you're saying that you would provide access off 117th instead of parkway to that east side. >> It's tough to see in that model. I don't know, John, if you have a bigger version or >> No, I I can see where the stub is. It's just that the the the lower building doesn't need 117th at all. >> Right. But >> if everything gets gets developed to the north, then you could come down 117. I mean the east side of that. >> Yeah. The idea >> if the east if the east side becomes residential, most likely it comes off of French Lake Road. >> It keeps separation. >> Yeah. >> If it turns into industrial, we're providing an alternative with a street that comes down 117th with a dead end just similar to the one on the left here, but the dead end now comes down from the north. >> Right. >> And you can access anything on the east. >> Right. But they have to come at it. I mean, trucks would have to go up to the parkway over on 17th to get down back through there. >> Yep. >> So, I think the general idea is, you know, there would be a right in right out access, you know, anywhere on 17, I shouldn't say anywhere, but >> at a good location on 117th, >> right, right out on 117th, >> that's my thought. The issue is if if >> Well, now you got it. >> You would have to have full access. >> Yeah. >> Otherwise, you'd have trucks going east >> east on 117. We don't want that. a of having the south access here is that all this traffic can come out onto the roundabout. >> What's the logic to the right in right out only? >> Right. I'm sorry. >> What's the logic to the right in right out only? >> Is that coming from engineering or is that coming from John? >> Uh both. I mean recommended spacing. Um >> okay. >> The recommended spacing is not great for a full access longterm. As mentioned 117th will get busier and busier. Big parkway will get busier and busier. East French Lake to some extent will get busier. >> There's only about 1,800 feet between Dayton Parkway and I was going to say East Lake. So to have something at >> 8 900 ft a full access could be tricky in the future. >> It'll operate, but it'll get worse and worse over time and potentially have to be restricted in the future. >> I'm assuming that's going to have to be a three-way stop or something. the the Parkway and 117 connection. But >> yeah, I imagine 117th is a threelane or a four-lane road at some point. And because we're not going to have full access from the north side of DDL to Dayton Parkway, they have to have access on 117. Otherwise, they have no way out. >> Well, but to the south would be the option. >> But that's what's being discussed. to the south would be a full access. >> Okay. >> And that road has been on our it's in our 2040 comprehensive plan in the transportation plan. It's also listed again in the 2023 update to the transportation plan. Um these it's it's right there. It's always been there. >> It's not it shouldn't have been a surprise. I'm sorry if it was a surprise, but it wasn't there. And I believe it was 2017 when Dayton Parkway was aligned, EDL uh dedicated that right away to the project and they had no idea there would be another rightway taken under. >> It was in 2023. >> So it's 6 years after DDL dedicated right away >> and it was in the 2040 plan. >> Yeah. So it was in the 2040 plan. It would have been known in 2017 2018 by >> I mean I'm looking right at it. the the 2040 plan was established in 2020. >> Um no, so um it would have been established started working on it probably at about 2017 2018 time frame and it would have been adopted technically in 2022 after four revisions to met council back and forth. I don't know if it was on the 2030 comp plan. That's one thing I don't know. >> It wasn't Yeah, it was adopted about 5 years after DDL dedicated that right away. >> Okay. Anybody else have questions for the applicants? >> So, if the east side turns to residential, what what are you getting out of this public street? >> If if if the if the wetland cannot be altered, you get about a 60,000 ft building on the north and 113,000 ft. You got 180,000. That's it. >> Yeah. So I guess you know a big question from the council is do you want industrial or residential here? >> I I personally would rather see residential over there myself but >> and I don't I don't see the there's 180,000 foot industrial there which butts up against residential on the east side of east east French Lake Road. >> I just think we're losing we're running out of industrial space. I mean, >> my preference would be that that becomes industrial, but then to that end, keeping the traffic off of East French Lake Road is a priority. >> All right. >> Is there a consensus on the land use? >> Yeah. And I'll just note the Stensley property could be either industrial or residential. I can be almost anything, right? >> But yeah, I think the flexibility there is neatly because what if we've seen three different proposals for that? >> So why did planning commission prefer the industrial heavy to the residential heavy? What was their >> because we're running out of industrial >> it was all over the board. I think it was 23 or 32. at 11:30 at night. It was No one knew what to vote on. [Music] >> Okay. So, you're thinking residential. >> I'm I'm thinking that you're you're only gaining if the Stenley property is is industrial. If it if that's what happens and you uh put the north piece or the northeast piece into a residential, you're gaining what 50 60,000 maybe. Yeah. About 50,000 square feet of industry. I don't >> I personally think that there's enough, but whatever. >> It's whatever you can sell, I guess. >> Yeah. So J, just for clarification, J and I can't read this. Is this a 200,000 foot building? >> 193,000 >> 193. >> And then there's >> that little there's a little >> there's 60 on the other piece. >> Just short of >> 60,000. Yeah. >> But if that's industrial and or if that's residential and you go industrial and stensely, you're only gaining 50,000 60,000. Scott, just for clarification, I'm sorry I might just be getting tired, but can you say more about what your position is? >> I don't see the benefit of spending that kind of money on that roadway for 60 to 100,000 industrial. I mean, you're giving up. These guys are going to lose about 85,000. And if you add that into the equation, you're not gaining anything. And I don't know how much that roadway cost, but what is there to gain? Yeah, there just won't be a project to support that road. It just won't happen. And then 5 years later, we decide you don't need a road. within a different plan. East French Lake Road, we understand they don't want the truck traffic there. So, not why not put East French Lake Road in a culde-sac, separate the industrial from the residential and then line up East French Lake Road at the intersection spacing that you want and make that access to the industrial development. then you disconnect it entirely from East French Lake Road because the industrial development is not going to contribute toward East French Lake Road for an assessment uh when they can't use it, >> right? >> So, who's going to build that piece of in East French Lake Road that they can't use? >> Mark, you're saying Culac is French Lake Road south of 117th? >> Yeah. >> Somewhere. >> Yeah. the the issue I would think with that >> disconnected >> it it makes it difficult for uh uh public safety to to get into this neighborhood if this is the well this would be the only access is off of 81 >> other than you could extend 113th there's already a street headed that way there's a logical connection there >> right there >> that would connect the industrial and residential though >> y so >> which is what we don't Well, the industrial is not going to go four miles down territorial to Maple Grove Parkway through all those. It's literally four miles to get to 94 and it's a mile or less to take Dayton Parkway to 94. They're just not going to do it. So, if you need a connection for public safety, you can make it. The trucks are not going to roll four miles to get to 94. >> And you can make a sign that there is no truck traffic, too. opposed to a 5 ton. They won't you won't see a single truck on the 5 ton road. >> It's not true by my house. >> Well, if they are, they should be ticketed. >> Yeah. >> Self is major east west. They're constantly going to learn >> every day. >> There's a sign there. >> Yeah. Every day. Um, >> but other opinions on lang use. >> I'll let them go back. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah, you guys can >> can I return to your seats? Thank you. >> Thank you for your consideration. >> Um, okay. So, Scott, you you're >> I'm 100% against to me there's no benefit there. >> The road at all. >> The road at all. >> And Scott, you're talking about this road here. Correct. >> So, is it safe to say then you're leaning more towards like a different figure or if this is the one like I'm I'm trying to understand what your position is, Scott. And again, I'm really sorry. Maybe it's just getting late, but I'm just trying to understand what you're saying. There's that piece being residential. What is that? >> The piece to the east, we don't know what it's going to be, >> right? Number one, >> I I really It really can't. Yeah, >> if you're really coming off 117, you've just ruled out industrial, I think. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I'm perfectly fine with no more industrial myself, but that's me. I could see apartment buildings in there more than anything. >> So, you're leaning towards that residential heavy figure cuz there is that. Yep. That one. >> Yeah. Except without the road. >> Without the road. without the roading up the middle >> and without the commercial. >> No, I think he's saying that he's okay with the one parcel of commercial but not the other one, right? >> Not industrial >> or industrial. What am I talking about? >> Commercial there. I don't know that makes that purple. That's who knows if it's commercial or not. >> Yeah. >> Let's use directions. Was that west? So the west par parcel you're saying industrial the right. Yes, the one that you're circling, John. That one residential >> residential >> and then the road in the middle doesn't exist >> doesn't exist >> and it's just the one access onto Dayton Parkway through the little roundabout >> the roundabout. >> Yeah, that's already there. >> And then >> do we have So the connection where your cursor is now, that connection doesn't exist currently. >> No. >> Are we Do we want to add that? It's >> well, we don't even Can we even get another uh uh access on that'd be on the 81 right there, right? >> We don't even know we can have one >> restricted. >> I was like, can we do that? >> We're fairly confident of the restricted. We won't know till we get it. >> Okay. >> Right. That was one of the problems with that parcel is that going on to 81 was an issue. And so that would probably be industrial. >> Yeah. But that that's kind of an issue. But yeah, >> and then >> but we're deciding the road plan ultimately in the land using road plan. >> Well, I I don't think anybody's going to argue about that south going road. I think that one makes sense. >> I don't see any I don't hear any opposition to that. >> And it will know the Stenley. >> We've had three or >> Yeah. here the you're talking about off the one off 113th Avenue extending south to connect the 81 and that one would likely be a right in right out if anything at all from the county that that's Jason's Jason and I have worked with the county multiple times to see what we could get there we've argued about a three-way um getting a what was it a right right in >> left >> and left quarter access >> 3/4 access not a full access and they've said no to 3/4 access about six times they can ask a seventh and maybe they'll change their mind >> but I mean even just right would be what you get there. >> Even just adding the access to the north opens that that property up >> talking about the one that we're working on trying to get right now. >> Car stencil industrial. If if it's res if this develops residential, it's likely access would come off of territorial, >> right? >> If it's industrial, then it would come off of um this new >> trying to work it off 113. And again, that that doesn't give you that much. >> I mean, why would you just not go to the parkway and get onto the freeway right there? >> You're adding another piece of road for what? >> On the Parkway. How >> what which road are you talking about? >> Yeah, >> that this road right here coming across and going north and south right across through 113. >> Scott, can you point to >> Yeah, I can't see. >> I can see it. Which figure are you working? >> Yeah. Which one are you looking at? >> This road right here, >> right? >> Yeah. >> What's the >> Why not Why not just come out of all of this and go this way? >> I think that's where we parkway there for. >> No, that's not the the issue is the Stencley property. I think >> it's not I mean currently they they have no there's no plan to do anything. Well, when every plant is shot down because they only have access to territorial. >> I So I think if I could I I think there's an agreement on the this leg. >> I don't I mean I think you got four on that leg. We don't need 100. >> If you get something on the Stenley property, then go for it. >> Okay. >> Can I >> I mean that's share a little bit on the >> Please >> a couple of these things. Um just one on the Stenley property. So we have three axises showing they'll I'll say the one to territorial to the south which would be connected by a roundabout on territorial road. The one to 81 which is the short stub which would be a right in right out at best. >> And then the one to the north then I'll just call it 213th expecting to go further to the north. So three access points. Whatever ends up going in there we're going to want two for emergency services. Two connections. So which two those are is probably dependent on the land use. So if something goes in there with heavy truck traffic, we're not going to want to send them in a small roundabout at an intersection just off of 81 and territorial. So we'd want to utilize the 113th north as the primary and then the right and right out as a secondary. If it ends up being residential with a high passenger vehicle count and very few trucks, we probably don't want to send residents through a business park to go up through there. So we would utilize the territorial and have the right in right out on 81 and we'd probably forego the other one. I would recommend showing all three and then letting the land use determine it. It's going to be a whole lot easier to take one of the three out than it would be to add one in if we don't have it. So I'm >> that's how I would address that part. The other part I just want to mention just based on Cman Salonic's comment of the the stub road. What's the benefit? Because you referred to that area. I assume that between East French, Dayton Parkway and 117th should all use Dayton Parkway. I agree wholeheartedly, but without that road, they can't really get there because they have a right in right out between the roundabout and 117th is a right-in ride out only. That's what's out there today. And as I mentioned, as much as it seems great to have a full access to 117th between Dayton Parkway and East French Lake Road, long term, I don't think that spacing is going to work. If anything, there will never be a control on there because it's way too close to control at those other two intersections. So that will probably, if not immediately, will be restricted at some date in the future. So to answer your question, the the for that roadway that actually is the single service which was was mentioned previously that you can build all of these buildings with the single access. Well, that's basically it. I mean you have some right in write outs for alternatives or emergency but that's your primary access for that whole area. >> That is you're correct. If that's industrial >> that's right. It does change if it's residential, right? >> No, that you're absolutely right. One thing I and I'm out of my wheelhouse on it, but I'll just say it because I haven't heard it yet. Might be strange to put residential right up to industrial with any without any >> Well, my industrial for you guys to decide would be uh multi and I don't think you're going to have single families right next to all that industrial, but I wouldn't buy it, but somebody might. That would be your apartment or >> Yeah. high density residential. >> All right. That's where I am. >> So, it's not clear other than Scott's opinion. It's not clear. >> Um >> I think it's 4 to one, but whatever. I've lost before. So, >> Sure. So, the C council's opinion of should this be industrial versus residential? I guess I've already said I think it should be industrial. You guys got to pick. Come on. >> Whatever you decide today might change 5 years from now. But the roads what we decide kind of dictates the roads because if we decide residential then we don't need that >> the the road but if we decide industrial then we do need the road >> and that kills that project. So like we do need to decide and we do need to decide and it is important. Um, and I I guess I'm my my gut instinct is I also don't think we need more industrial, but I'm hearing a lot of people say we do. So, why do we need more industrial? Why? >> I think because we're we're basically in at least in this where we want industrial, we're running out of land. But >> but do we do we care? >> Well, if if we don't then we don't I mean if you like you know if you guys don't think we need more industrial that that's fine. I'm not stuck on this. I I could be swayed to put you know residential there. I just think >> so for me generally the I feel that we need a better balance between industrial commercial and residential in Dayton because it it gives us a a a stronger tax base that ultimately puts less pressure on the residential uh areas to support the city's needs. >> Okay. So you feel that we need more industrial for that reason? >> Okay. >> We could end up on the on north of 117 doing stuff up there too, but I think right now we have no clue what's going to happen. >> Well, that's also next to a lake and I feel like that makes more sense for residential than industrial. I mean, it's it's a lake. >> Plus, we all will be dead before that happens. >> What do you What are you thinking? >> Me? Yeah. >> I mean, sorry. My gut, >> I don't love seeing industrial everywhere. That's not what I like to see in my city. But, um, >> you're going to see apartments then. >> Well, I don't really mind apartments. People need a place to live. Um, so like, and we need apartments some We need high density somewhere in the city. And so, like I would be okay with it as high density. We do need high density somewhere. That's a logical place for it. Um, so I'd be okay with it as high density. Um, but from a tax base perspective, if we need to make sure we have enough to have a a a more diversified tax base, then yes, we are running out of and I do not want to see a bunch of industrial around a lake. Like that's not an appropriate place in my mind to put it. >> Can I ask another question? >> Um, >> you can always ask. >> I know. Sorry. It's just trying to be polite. >> Why? >> I don't know. I don't know. It's the real me. No, kidding. um >> business >> if we you're right it is the more industrial we have okay I got I got to say this out loud I'm thinking about fiscal disparities right like we end up paying a bunch of money in because we have more we have less residential than other communities and we have more industrial and all of that and so we're paying more money into the pot because of that and so in my mind isn't there again we need all of the tax for you know different kinds of like tax base, but like if we continue to shove more and more industrial, we're just going to end up paying more and more for fiscal disparities, right? Because we have less residential than other communities and it's like that whole I don't think >> um I don't know if it's a one ratio, but you are correct. But I mean, so if you look at two communities around us that I try to compare us to, Rogers and Champlain, Rogers has more industrial than they do residential, so they pay a ton of money into fiscal disparity. So they lose a bunch of tax capacity. Champlain is exact opposite. They don't have very much industrial or commercial comparative to their residential base. So they get a ton of money from fiscal disparities. So one question I don't know the answer to is if we make that industrial, what does that do to our fiscal disparities number versus if we make it residential. I don't know what that exact number is going to be, but to your point, Council Henderson, is that that's exactly what it's going to do is if you have residential there, it's going to give us more money back. You have industrial means we're going to pay more money in. is that but is it might not be a one ratio >> point but I'm just thinking that as we start to like >> but also industrial pays more taxes to begin with they pay 2% of taxes versus a residential pays 1% of taxes so >> which is why the differential is in the first place because the state is trying to level the playing field >> so that's why it's is it a one >> to residential there is that what kind of you're getting at >> I mean I don't know if >> you get residential there it's going to be apartment buildings >> correct and and I think there 's a need for that, right? Like there's a need to have all of like the diversity and housing types and prices and all of that kind of stuff. I don't it doesn't matter to me. I mean, I don't mean to be like it doesn't matter, but like I could be persuaded either way. Like I'm >> okay. >> I have another strong stance. >> If I could just provide an opinion. There's lots, you know, Dayton's a large city. There's a lot of land available for residential. The industrial really belongs closer to the 94. >> Correct. And clustered. I was also fine with the planning commission's recommendation personally. So, >> okay, I'm going back on industrial. It's by the highway. That's where it should be. >> It's right there. If it's It should be somewhere. It should be there. >> It should be there. It should be anywhere else. >> I was just putting in my Do we want more industrial? Just putting in my two cents. >> Yeah. So, are you saying that you're okay with the planning commission's recommendation or a variation of that? >> I mean, the only way we're getting industrial there is to the road is to have that I mean, that's it. So if if we want it industrial, then we have to have that road. I >> mean, you could pick either one of the two middle figures. That road goes all the way through and kind of revamps East Franch or if it just stops. I mean, either one of them is >> I think I'd like to keep them as separate as possible, >> you know? Yeah. >> Nope. Say what you're thinking. >> I I don't think trucks are going to take that route. I really don't. So, I I wouldn't necessarily have a problem connecting it. The problem is I don't know that that extra road >> gets you anywhere unless you're gonna break it and make that Y up French. >> And you're talking between figure, let's say, two and three. The middle I Yeah, that one right there. Right in there. I I don't think trucks would take that cuz it it's a long way around. Mhm. >> However, um I don't necessarily at that point see a use for that road either >> altogether. >> No, the at least the the east part of it, >> which is why the planning commission's dead at that round. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> I I I I I do see a problem running that stuff on the north side. I I don't >> I don't think that's a very good long-term solution answer. So >> again, this is a document used for staff and for developers and such. So we can give them and say this is what we'd like to see. Is it going to follow perfectly? >> Not necessarily. >> So this is just a general guidance document for us so that we have something to give to somebody who's asking us a question. >> Are we encouraging? >> Yes, we're encouraging this to happen. >> It's okay. >> So what does it mean? >> Also, if if there's, you know, if you want to see a different map or more information, you know, let us know. This can be brought back. This doesn't have to be decided tonight. >> But would we like to end the mortorium? Do we need to? >> Uh, no. >> When is it? >> October. >> October. >> Okay. >> So, we're getting close. >> But what other decision? What else? I need more information. What other information will we have that would change your opinion? You're >> keeping the industrial and keeping that >> stuff or that that >> the planning commission's recommendation. >> That's where you're at. That's where you're at. >> Okay. Well, there's your three. I >> I think I'm Yeah, I I Yeah. >> So, we're changing the So, but what we're actually talking about though is the land use. And for the roads, we're we're not necessarily agreeing to the roads that are in the residential areas. We're talking about the roads that are on the on the west side and the industrial areas. So if if what I've heard tonight is keep this step like realign um East French Lake Road to 117th and then remove this. >> Is that correct? >> Yeah. >> I I don't >> when that develops it'll do what it needs to do to get houses there, right? >> Yeah. As far as removing that stuff, I'd be fine with that. It's just that first part, no connection to 117 that I mean that does help straighten it out, but unless we have a plan for >> it. And it's hard to see on here. It's kind of like go strong. >> There's wetlands. Um, >> right. I don't know. Yeah. How much straighter we can make it anyway. So, I I mean, we could put it there. Again, it's just a line. I don't know that it's going to matter much. It's a guideline. >> Okay. >> Encourage that. >> We're encourage we're encouraging. >> We're encouraging. >> Um >> encourage. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, land use and then the the the road off of the little stub off of Dayton Parkway and the part coming south. >> Say it's the far left T or the west T. >> That's what we're like wanting to show to people. And to Dave's point, we're not necessarily going to show the roads through the residential areas yet because that will depend on how they get subdivided. And you know, >> it will Yeah, it will be different. But I mean, the idea is to show that the where the connections could be. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> The thing is, like Dave said is whenever we do something like this, >> we get people. >> And I mean, when we were looking at rerouting Fernbrook, that generated all kinds of fun. So yeah, >> that's >> it's just a guideline. >> It's part of plan that motion. >> And then you know the other stuff I don't know that we even >> So again for clarity what what the council suggestion you're you know keeping the coloring and then removing the streets through the residential. >> That's my suggestion. >> Yeah, I would suggest that because all the streets every every development does does their own thing. They may have different ideas of what needs to be done down there. >> But then keeping the road through the industrial area. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Cuz that's cuz realistically that's going to happen sooner anyway, right? Realistically. >> Would you want to Oh, sorry. Would you want to keep the um the little one >> on the bottom to allow Well, no, cuz that's going to be industrial, too, right? Oh, >> that's the re for the reconnection when we redo Territorial Road. >> Oh, yeah. So, that that will be there. Okay. Automatically just making sure we're not leaving off everything to the east like Okay, I'm good. >> All right. So, what what exactly do you need from us at this point? >> A motion. >> A mot I make a motion for what I just said. >> Beautiful. >> I need to say it again. >> Okay. >> What you're motioning is the adopting of the ordinance to expire the moratorum. Yes. >> Are you guys good with that? >> And yes, and then this is our new guideline. >> And then this is your new guideline. Yes, >> that's what I motion >> with the changes you guys make. Just the west te essentially. >> Need a second. Sorry. I'm not fast enough. >> Any more discussion? >> All those in favor say I. Huh? >> Well, my my only question around this is okay. So, we're guiding this this way and and you know, I'm not completely deaf in hearing your concerns about the cost of this road. >> Um, so are there things we can explore to to um >> mitigate the impact of of this? >> So, tax financing would be an option. >> It would be a small tip, right? I mean, it would >> so we could look at some some ways to reduce the impact to the the project. that's been on the table. >> I understand you're still losing the space, but I think that road's got to be there to make the property the east viable for industrial. So, >> I'd be open. >> We could look at some other options. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, I Yeah. Okay. I I think we should do that. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. >> Those post say no. >> No. Okay. Told you it was 4 to one minute ago. Four to one. Well, you know, we do have to >> You don't want to be here. You can >> click the button. You're clicking the button. >> All right. R. >> All right. We'll try to make this as quick as possible. I know this another um it's another item of lots of discussion. So this is the transportation discussion that I've mentioned I think to every one of you so far just to kind of have um wrap around the conversation is that in the 2030 comp plan and the initial 2040 comp plan there was a future roadway configuration with Fernbrook and 129th and D parkway and Zanzibar from the X pattern. I tried to go back and figure out where the heck this X pattern came from. It was on the 2030 comp plan. I think it came from some sort of study. Did you find it Jason? Uh, I don't know a lot of the detail, but it was a Henipin County le regional study that was done. >> Yep. >> A lot of years ago. I don't remember what it was. >> We tried to Yeah, we tried to get like I said, I tried to go back and appreciate the help, Jason, because I couldn't find it. I went back and forth and couldn't find anything. So, essentially, that's what I got to reg time. I think the county wanted more east west accesses. That's what I understood it to be more of a south and east motion and then a north and west motion for traffic to get down to the 494 694 loop. In 2023, the council approved a comprehensive plan amendment to change that future transportation plan and leave it for Brook alone and connect Zanzer to Dayton Parkway, which makes more of an H pattern. Hence shown on the paperwork and I think I showed this in the council packet as well. Um these are the same exact documents in alignment to figures that you saw in 2023 if you're on the council. I know um council van anderson you were not on the council but these were the figures that were shown. Not everything on there we understand is going to be perfect but again just a general aspect of things. I will come back to that if you need more maps to look at. Um what I need for the council is more direction needed and discussion to happen. So you mentioned the staff board. There was a Mississippi River crossing coalition that would like to start that's been and we are at the main focus of that coalition because we are where the crossing would happen. I don't want to use the other word that starts with the B that talked about. So it's going to be crossing from now on. It's a ferry. We're going to put a ferry. >> Great. This transition plan has been nailed down so I could have those conversations and start um due to all the traffic being routed through Dayton if there ever were a crossing. Um that traffic would run down Sansbar obviously, but then would connect to a through street or it needs to connect to a street. Currently, it's not. So, does it connect to Dayton Parkway? Does it connect to Fbrook? That's the answer. I also want to make sure that everyone hears this come out of my mouth is that we had a conversation with Mindot on the timing of this crossing if it were to happen for the conversation with Mandot is that the earliest will be 15 years from today if we were to start. So we are a minimum of 15 years away from having any sort of crossing period. So everyone can not worry too much about that. But um we're not pursuing it at this time. So that means we're more than 15 years old. Well, it's on I9 I9. It's on their docket. >> It's on the coalition's docket. That again, that's 15 years out. We're talking We haven't started anything. >> That's assuming that Mindot knows what they're talking about. >> I'm willing to bet if somebody waved a big $300 million. >> You have to be more than that. The last number I heard was it was closer to eight figures. >> Really? >> Yep. >> That's that one. Oh, okay. >> Eight figures or so. Um so a lot a lot >> not coming from our budget >> eight or nine figures or more. Yep. Um city staff specifically myself. I need direction on what alignment the council would like to pursue regionally. I know that the X pattern is what is being pushed for locally and they know what we want for the configuration. >> Push for by who? >> Um by communities around us. So I will say that other communities around us maybe specifically Maple Grove. Um I don't know if so much Ramsey but maybe. Um and then Champlain is looking for a crossing and an X pattern. So I will say specifically more Champlain and Maple Grove are looking more for that regional traffic because it takes traffic off of their Fernbrook 129th connection and pushes it towards Dayton Parkway. And then from Maple Grove's perspective is that it takes Sansar traffic down Fernbrook back down Maple Grove Parkway that they now redid >> and then into their shopping center. Why would Champlain care about extra safety? >> So, it takes away traffic levels from their 129th. So, it's a simpler way to get from Champlain to I94 than going down. If you're in Champlain and you want to go to 94, you have to go all the way across state and go to Rogers. >> Or you go, if you were to have the X pattern, you go down 129th or Hayden Lake Road, I think it's what it's called in Champlain. >> That's got four different names. Hayden Lake Road. and then it goes down Hidden Lake Road 129th Avenue and then you shoot down to 94. >> But I mean at the time our planning commission I think was unanimous to get rid of it >> because so this is the current alignment overlaid on our land use map. I know it's been discussed as well about how our land use map does not align with our current uh transportation plan. It currently aligns with more with our uh their configuration. I will go back to the two maps so you can discuss them if you'd like. What I need from tonight from the council, I need good direction that I can bring back to the coalition or I wouldn't say the coalition because it's not a coalition. The group of city administrators that I have been kind of dealing with to make sure I can give them here's what we're going forward with from the city council of Dayton. So, um this is kind of the solidified in the sand. We also have to know that the the X pattern is only going to be viable for so many more land uses and land sales. Right now, we are probably at the last bit of that currently. If the property >> even now, it has to move from what's shown. >> Yes, it has to move north from where it's shown currently. Have to go to 117th Avenue. It would be a sharper turn in the road. Could you make it another leg off of the roundabout that would be put on 117th? That's a possibility. Um if we were to not do that and continue with the current alignment which we did in 2023 and that property were to develop the ax pattern is gone >> is done done >> is done. It's not done completely but it's done mostly unless the council decides differently. So that's what I need direction from from the council. So I'm here to answer any questions and stand for any questions you may have. I think we >> what felt like a half a lifetime talking about the X already. >> We made the comp plan amendment to this. I don't feel like going back. >> Okay. >> As someone who wasn't part of the 20-year discussion, can you give me the cliffnotes version of why you dropped the X to go to the H? Um my my thoughts were because the the whole point of the H was what we were looking at 10 15 years ago. Um especially when the original interchange was supposed to be on Brockton or at least it was thought to be on Brockton because this gives a bridge an outlet and that's 94. Maple Grove's hangup is they don't want it on 94. >> Correct. >> They don't want it on 94. The axe also throws a monkey wrench into into development in the whole area. Um, you got whenever you have wonky roads, you have issues. So, I I this this this ax this axe was really made to satisfy people outside the >> Okay. >> Hence the comment I made regionally >> the X X pattern is being pushed for locally is what I want to know. So the W wasn't the X more impact to land owners as well because it cut through parcels and there something around there too certainly difficult. Yeah, implementation is always more difficult if you go this way versus cut through a bunch of different properties and really affected >> two of those legs diagonal there would be all >> Mhm. So the comment I had made to Zach when he and I discussed this was that if we're doing to me it's about who's paying for it. If the neighboring communities want the X so bad then the neighboring communities can pay for all these roads. >> Um which is fine but like that's what I'm saying. And so if we come to them and say this is what it is and they're like oh but we don't like it. Cry cry. Then we're like okay well here's your checkbook. Write us a check and then we'll revisit the X pattern. Um but they're not going to want to pay for it. So then who cares what they have to say? like if they're not going to chip in, then their opinion doesn't matter to me. So that's where I stand on that one. And if the H makes more sense for our community based on a lot of work that you all did previously, then do the one that makes more sense for our community. If we're the ones who have to pay the bills, >> you know, we'd be changing it again because the the H is what's in our >> I should note though, the website still calls it the proposed. >> Yeah, it needs to be updated. We haven't updated it. And the reason why we haven't updated in the last six months is because when we do a new website and so we're trying to update the new website. So that's right. >> Oh, just to get everything >> um Yeah, there's more than one thing on our current website that's incorrect and because we're working on the new website at the current moment. >> Okay. >> It should be live by end of September. >> Okay. >> Don't vote. >> I think also the I mean the goal ultimately was to get another north south route through through Dayton. If you look at the X, it's, you know, it's a more convoluted. You're putting another intersection in there that >> disrupts that >> that road. Now, having said that, my goal is not to create a fly over from Highway 10 to I 94 for everybody else to use and nobody in gets a benefit from it. That's my lot of other but that doesn't that is sort of the X is sort or not is sort of immaterial to that conversation what the Parkway ultimately >> does for us but I think the straighter route is is cleaner and I think it's it ultimately serves the needs for for us better. So then another question I have is in this plan it talked about Fernbrook going to a three or four lane road and that's what you guys had in that 2023. Um and we've had some developments along there. Have we done anything to get right ofway to make sure we can expand it to a three or four lane road as >> Fernbrook? >> Yeah. Go ahead. >> It's county but yes it's right away is being acquired as he's developed. >> Okay. >> For that exact reason. >> Yeah. So because it is the plan. >> Okay. >> I mean then stick with what we stick with what you guys did in 2023. No reason to redo all that work. >> I got a majority. Sounds like >> I think you have >> Well, I got two for sure and I haven't heard from you. The two on the end and lots of questions from Sarah. I appreciate >> this thing's been beat to death. >> Well, beat it again. Huh? It's going right past my house and I'm happy about it. >> X or age doesn't change that. >> If it's 15 years, I hope not. It's a little morbid talk tonight. >> I think you got fired for the age. >> Perfect. >> That's all you know. Thank you very much. >> It's going to happen some. >> So, wait a minute. That's it. So, what what >> what did you want with the bridge? >> Oh, sorry. >> Nothing for the bridge. No crossing. Thank you very much. That's a good word to >> use. So, the reason why I need the information and direction is cuz the rest of the city ministers are asking me what the council's saying. I said, "This is what I'm thinking. They're saying, "Can you They're like, can you confirm?" I said, "I can." I think that's what they're going to say, but again, this is why I'm bringing it back and showing >> me personally 15. It's still too early. But >> it's too early. That's like I said that's if everything was in place now they have to >> process as long as the I need a Ford group understands that that if somehow they do put the money together for 10 years. >> Nope. I mean >> there's no way it's even possible for 10 years cuz there's no connection point to get to the crossing. >> Well >> because you don't have a way for an outlet like Champlain understands that after I discussed >> I don't know that they did. Well, they did at the beginning and I said, "What are you going to do with the roadway then that's at Dayton River Road and 169 when all the traffic's there?" And they're like, "Well, that's not where it's going to go." I said, "Well, then where >> now?" That's exactly where it's going to go. >> No, I think I can't I don't think Savage had a clue, but >> Yeah. So, >> although he's got >> um but yeah, so like I said, that's the idea for or the idea for me is to get good direction from the council so that we know where we're at. I I assumed I knew where I was at, but again, >> okay, it's >> good to confirm everything last. >> 20 plus. >> It very well is 20 plus. >> 30. >> I'll take 30. >> I'll be 74 then. I won't care anymore. >> Sorry. I mean that one to death, but I need to be Thank you. >> All right. >> Oh, this is me. >> Yay. >> Just go see. >> When do I >> now? Okay. Good. >> It's a big deal tomorrow. I'm telling you, I got to score eight goals and I need to know whether I'm doing it or not. >> Can I speed run through this one? >> Um, if I had just So, uh, so item S is approval amending the city code regarding home occupations. Um, real briefly, the the the idea is to amend the code to allow home occupations to have retail sales whereas current retail sales of items are produced on the property whereas today they are prohibited as a home occupation. >> All right. So, um, this came up. I was talking to Hayden because when uh South Emake Road was going to be under construction, I'd asked about moving the location for egg sales and other sales, that prompted Hayden looking at this code and realizing that as the code is written, um you're not allowed to sell things that you make at your own house. Um I don't know if everyone's familiar with the Minnesota Cottage Food uh license that allows you to make foods at home, certain foods, and sell them. that license restricts greatly where you're allowed to sell those things items and you have basically your options are at a market or your own home. And so when the city then says you can't sell them from your own home that narrows you to one option which is at a market. Um and so I do want to cuz I've been on the other side of this saying um businesses should be in business districts not in residential districts. So I do still we're keeping the limits on like you can only have eight customers a day. Like if you're running a bakery, you should be in a commercial area. This is not about that. But if you're having the cottage food license and you'd like to be able to sell products like a wedding cake from your house and have someone come pick it up, you should be able to do that. Um, so that was why we put this request through because I am going to be immediately selling things for my property the moment this goes through. Um, Hayden and I and Zach decided that it would be better for me to recuse myself from the vote and to be the official applicant. So that is why I am recusing myself from the vote can be in the official >> approve. Please do. >> I'll second. >> Any discussion? >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All those opposed say no. >> I don't care. >> I sell cookies at your house. So be it. >> She makes good cookies. >> Passes four to zero with one abstension. Wonderful. >> Thank you. >> Cookies are officially a sale for my house now. My son ate a whole. >> Yes, he did. Okay. >> Okay. Item T. >> One item. >> Um, thanks for that. You're welcome. >> Um, so I messed up, but I do need to add approving a temporary liquor license to this. Um, so I didn't get that during the amendment of the agenda, but that is part of this request as well. >> I'll make a motion to approve. Second. Any discussion? >> All those in favor say I. I. >> All those opposed say no. And I will obtain. >> We got us back on schedule. Exactly. >> Four to zero. Close session. Um, are we all coherent to do this? >> We're even seven minutes early. I mean, >> what do you want to take a recess? Are you guys good or >> How long is this? I've never done this. >> Should be about five minutes. >> You're going to have to take a recess so we can >> Okay. So, I got to read the >> read the thing then make a motion or a second and we can >> Yeah, close session. >> All right. Motion to close the meeting pursuant to Minnesota statute 13D.03 for label ne labor negotiation strategy purposes. Need a second. >> Second. >> Who motion? >> Huh? >> Who motion? >> I guess I did since I said it >> and I second it. >> Okay. >> All those in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> All those oppos say no. >> We are in close session. I always forget we have to exit. We already exited both. >> You've adjourned the close meeting and now you're going to adjourn your main back from close session. >> So we're coming back from close session. >> Um if there are any objections we'll be adjourned for adjourned. All right. Where you