6:30 on February 5th and I am calling the planning commission meeting for first of business is the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Um, roll call. Um, everyone is here, but >> but Peter, >> Peter, do we need to take roll call besides that or are we good? >> We can we're good. >> We're good. Okay. >> Uh, role of planning commission. Just going to quickly read this. The planning commission consists of five residents appointed by the city council and the commission administers the comprehensive plan zoning and subdivision regulations. The commission conducts public hearings and provides recommendations to the city council. It is a city council who may approve or deny land use applications. Um moving on to item four, approval of the agenda. like the motion to approve the agenda. >> I'll second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> I. >> Motion carries 40. >> Um, next item is the consent agenda. The only item on this is the planning commission minutes from January 8th, 2025. >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Motion carries 40. Um, next item on the agenda is open forum. Um, is anyone here this evening in the room for open forum? So, these are for items that are not on the agenda. Is anyone online? Uh, if you want to speak during open forum, please use the raise your hand function. Not seeing anything. All right. Next, moving on then. Next item of business is the council update from January 13th and January 27th. >> Okay, 13 was pretty thin. Um, oh, we approved the promotion of Aiden to senior planner. >> Congratulations. >> Um, adopted city fees and escros. I don't think there was any changes that I can remember. Um and then we did the official designation and appointments to commissions and those are the same that they were last year. And then on the 27th, so we had a discussion about imminent domain on on a property on the Parkway and that was ultimately not approved to go forward. discussion about Stevens Park. Um we had a few meetings back we had uh we had asked staff to look at um uh some amenities, water park, um bathroom and a shelter for the band uh the stage area. and we had some of those numbers come in and we discussed that it um it was just sent back for some fine-tuning uh Desa site plan. Um there was little discussion on that. It was removed five to zero. The dimensional rounding business was kind of dealt with the same as what you guys had had said. It it would be just too too cumbersome to mess with. allowing assisted living facilities in the zoning on Balsam Lane that was approved home extended business. Uh there was a request to to maybe look to see if they needed to homestead the property that was not approved your site plan. Well, that was I think that was I think what we ended up doing was any changes greater than a thousand. Was that what it was? >> Yep. >> So, that was the that was the requirement. Um that was approved. It was a park facility needs study that was requested that was not approved. And we um approved tiring of Levander Gillan and Miller as our new city attorney. That was it. >> Any questions for the mayor? >> No questions. I'd just like to make a comment. Uh congratulations to Hayden on that promotion. Um, I've been on the planning commission now for a year. It's crazy. My first meeting was February of 2025. Um, obviously Hayden has done a great job in preparing the uh the packets and giving us great information and then uh given great presentations and being able to answer any kind of questions that we might have as a as a commission. Um, so very welld deserved on that promotion and congratulations. >> Thank you. >> I echo what Jeff said. I think the whole commission is >> third. >> Third. >> Yeah. Fourth way down the line. >> Thank you. >> Um all right then. Moving on to the first commission business. Item 8A, site plan review application for the assisted living memory care facility on lot 2, block one at Dayton River Commercial Park. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, as the mayor Fischer mentioned at their last council meeting, the city council adopted the recommended um ordinance amendment from the planning commission to allow for assisted living/ nursing homes uh to be a permitted use within that district. They also um approved or adopted the provision regarding the um conditional use permit requirement for any facility over one story in that specific district. So, anything that will whether it's a permitted use or not, if um any commercial, residential, or any other type of facility will be required to have a conditional use permit from here on out. Um I'll just note too that because of the timing of the submittal of the application and the kind of the lack of um understanding of how the planning commission and city council would have uh determined or proposed that recommendation uh for the ordinance amendment. Um staff did post for a public hearing notice for a conditional use permit just to get ahead of that. Um so uh as a formality because we did post and mail notice to the surrounding property um owners, we would recommend that the planning commission would hold a public hearing on this matter as a formality. Um so as you guys had uh seen in December um this is a uh application for a 32 unit um assisted living facility. there is a wing of assisted living and then the other wing on the um building is for memory care. Um the applicants have described their users as uh immobile. Um so they wouldn't have uh necessarily vehicles there to come and go um and have kind of uh in the narrative explained that it's more of an endof life uh facility for um patrons who will utilize that space. Um the site is uh on the souththeast corner of uh Dayton River Road in Balsam Lane North. Uh 2.87 87 acre property currently zoned and guided for mixed use. Um so there weren't any required changes related to that. Um and uh site plans are required to be reviewed by the planning commission and city council uh for all new expansion projects uh all new and expansion projects now over a thousand square feet uh within um commercial and industrial uh areas. Um, and essentially what the planning commission and city council is tasked with is um affirming staff's review and uh um that is essentially adopted by resolution that is consistent with the zoning ordinance, consistent with the comp plan and so forth. Um I'll note in that resolution in your draft in your uh packet, the last changes I made to the um conditions of approval that were still outstanding did not save before I submitted that to the packet. Um so disregard those conditions of approval in there. The ones that are in the staff report are the ones that will be reflected in a resolution provided to the city council um pending planning commission's recommendation. Let's see. Okay. So here is the overall layout of the site. Very similar to what you had seen uh prior. Uh the applicants uh proposing the L-shaped design that was preferred by both the planning commission and city council back in December. Um setbacks are met as detailed in the staff report. Um providing that uh minimum max uh separation between the uh adjacent rightofways. Um the parking count is uh 25 where 16 spaces are required. Staff also conducted a review of the nursing home requirement that is separate from an assisted living facility in the parking calculations where they would have uh been required um 13 spaces in total. So uh regardless of the uh proposed use they are over the uh required count um which is uh beneficial to uh the site overall as in the narrative the applicants have uh stated that at a max time for employees on site there would be seven. Um in total uh they anticipate 25 employees to operate at this site. Um the applicants are also proposing a cut into Balsam Lane median uh to allow full access at the south point of the property which engineering had uh conducted review on. Um essentially what they are also proposing is replacing the landscaping within that rightway that would be uh essentially lost with the um the cut in the median. Uh with that resolution for consideration, the city council would also um approve at the same time as part of that resolution them to place new landscaping within the Balsam Lane right ofway. So I just wanted to note that as well. Um architectural design reflects a residential style um uh I guess elements to the uh exterior finishes with LP horizontal and shake siding as well as stone accents. The applicants are also showing here a uh sitting area with a fenced in area um which uh from my understanding will not be an opaque fence. It will be a clear or a transparent fence whether that's iron rod or whatever it may be. Uh I also did a review to make sure that the separation from the uh clear view triangle as defined in the uh zoning ordinance is still being met with all the proposed improvements on this site. And uh I found that uh everything that is being proposed is not um hindering the clear view triangle uh which is essentially there to uh um provide a safety measure for um people on the on the roadways. >> Where is Dayton River Road? >> Uh if I guess yeah that's a good question. So Dayton River Road is actually to the top part of this map. Um and then as well as uh Balsam Lane here is to the left. Okay. So >> River Road is up. Okay. So here's just a um visual of the uh architectural design. Um being that is in L-shaped there is a lot of different sides on this and uh within the packet as well there is a better more viewable um version of this as well. So, a couple of things that were outstanding related to the review um that I wanted to note as well was mainly the landscaping uh as there is residential large residential lots across uh Dayton River Road to the north. Um in terms of enhancing uh some screening related to the separation and zoning districts uh along Dayton River Road, staff is recommending a little bit more of an enhanced um number of plantings. Uh essentially what we would look for is in this area specifically if it was up towards the um closer uh on the north side of the sidewalk that's being proposed, the private sidewalk, um that would be fine as well. Um just to note, there is a drainage and utility easement located in there. Uh the city does allow for landscaping and fencing to be placed within drainage and utility easements with the caveat that if they ever have to do work in there or anything like that, it will be removed at the owner's expense. Um but uh essentially to enhance that screening was uh something that we would require. And then in the same breath uh down along the south side here on the parking uh there is only a few trees here that are proposed. Staff would uh look for an enhanced uh screening mechanism whether that be um landscaping or fencing. whatever it is to satisfy that buffer separation uh between the two properties just to avoid uh traffic uh vehicle lights uh getting shined into uh the adjacent units in that apartment building. Um this is not a requirement for added landscaping to the property. They already meet the uh standards of the required counts. Um just more of a relocation of where the uh landscaping is being proposed. Um with that uh staff does recommend approval um of the uh site plan review um as uh the the packet states and then included in that staff report are those conditions of approval related to landscaping that would be hashed out prior to a building permit getting issued. Um I already mentioned about the public hearing. So staff would uh also encourage the U planning commission to hold the public hearing on this matter and consider providing a recommendation to the city council. I'm happy to answer any questions. The south edge of the parking does meet setbacks. >> Yes, it does. >> Yeah, >> the setback in this area is uh 10 ft. >> Yeah. I'll also note too that there wasn't any wall lighting that was uh shown or reflected on the building elevations. Um there's been a note as well in the uh packet related to lighting that if there is any exterior lighting um the expectation would be that they would meet the uh standards of the exterior lighting ordinance that the planning commission and city council adopted last year um which would require um a cut basically um I'm blanking on the the word >> um cut off >> a cut off angle um to avoid it from uh having a light trespass within the adjacent right of or adjacent property lines. Uh the photometric that was in the packet for review uh from my determination or my review was specific to the light um the light poles that they had in the parking lot which I believe were three in total. I had some communication with staff. I guess I just want to bring it to the attention of the other commissioners. I don't think I have a concern anymore, but um just and I maybe Jason could chime in a little bit and John had some comments too about um with the median being cut of why not necessarily requiring maybe a lefthand turn lane. I do understand this is a low impact use. So, the lefth hand turn lane isn't so much for this use. And in general, this area is a low impact use, but it's more for if the reintry plaza site were ever to be redeveloped and became a higher intensity use um then we might have to address it then. But if you guys could just state your comments for the other commissioner, I'd appreciate it. >> Yeah, for the exact reason you mentioned the intended use of the property now we expect would generate very few left turns. It would be, although it would be more expensive to do it twice, it could be added at a later date should it be something be done across the street that would have an intense use that we'd want to clear those vehicles out, if you will, to >> to improve. So, our our thought is to not do it at this time, but then address it if it should arise in the future. >> Thank you. Where does the entrance fall? Maybe it's in front of me here and I'm just missing it. But but the entrance into the proposed facility, where does it fall in relation to the the entrances across the street? >> Um area. >> Yeah, that's what I was going to pull up here. I got the uh I got the staff report up. >> It generally splits the two. It might favor a little bit to the south. If if that helps scenario will be clear. Anticipating that if and when Rainree Plaza is redeveloped, there will probably go to a single access. There will be some distance. It'll definitely be not be the close one that's there today. It'll be something whether it aligns with this one or continues in the the southerntherly location that it exists today. >> Yeah, there's one. will be reviewed with what's what's proposed there. >> One currently right here and then right here as well and then in proximity is right here to where the proposed access is. >> Is there any other questions for staff? Yeah, the the median in the center of Bolam, how far past this entrance does it go? Do we know >> how far past does the median go? It goes up. It goes uh I'll pull that back up. The median goes uh essentially all the way to that next um access for Rainree, >> right? It goes all the way to Dayton River Road, but I'm talking about going the other direction. Um, >> it ends at the where the part where the L shape in the If you go back to that view, Aiden, it ends where the L shape is in the apartment building. Right where Move the mouse down a little further south. A little further south. About right in there. It ends. >> Yeah, the opening is for the southerntherly access, existing southerntherly access into Rainree. So, that's the next cut to the south. Um, for reference, it's uh just about 70 feet from the property line. So, from the property line here to the end of it is about 70 ft. If that helps, just measuring it on GIS here. >> How much would be left after this access is carved through there? >> Um, probably about that 70 ft give or take. I don't know how I don't I don't have the measurements in front of me for how much wider that is than the the axis, but 70 ft from the property line, the axis is some distance north of that. So, I would say it's probably somewhere between 60 and 75 ft would be my guess of the total island length that will remain. >> Yeah. The only the only reason I bring that up is because of the issues we had with sightelines on medians in the center of the road. And if if we were going to take that out, this would probably be the perfect time to remove everything past that cut through they're talking through there just to take that completely out of the picture. >> Yeah, I don't think staff uh thought about uh beyond what they were originally proposing for a cut. Um, at the same time, I understand what where you're coming from with the uh sight lines and the medians and landscaping that's included there. Um, staff is going to um bring in also um Marty, our uh public works director, he'll be also in review of the types of landscaping that'll be put in there to um have a better understanding of what are the types of uh vegetation that can go in there that's not going to whether they're perennials and at full health, not going to disrupt that sight line. So that will definitely be coordinated with public works. >> The reason I bring that up is because we, in my opinion, we have not been real good at doing that on new developments. So if you're in the middle of working on this, that would be real good time to put a microscope to it. Make sure we don't screw that up, too. >> So just for clarity that the, you know, because the islands are already there, I mean that we we maintain that and that that'd be the city's responsibility for all the landscaping that's in there. So like typically with a new development, it would be the developer that installs the landscaping. >> Do you guys know how much of the land they're using? It's a 3acre lot, but it looks like a square development. >> Not to We're going to have a public hearing in a second for on this matter. >> I not Yeah, just it's it's easier because they're video recording and everything and so they have to come up state your name and address and make it formal. So we'll get you up here. Is there any more questions for staff? If not, I guess I would like to invite the applicant forward to see uh what they want to share and then after that we will open it up to the public. Mr. Chair, commission members, my name is Jeremy Larson. I'm here on behalf of Sweet Living Senior Care. Excuse me. I'm here to answer any questions you guys may have this evening. >> I don't have a actually I don't have any for you. I think I mean actually I do have one question. >> When you guys designed this building because there's some land that's not being utilized. Do you think or did you even take it into considerations how you might someday expand if demand permits it or is that not even in your thoughts? you know, we have talked about it internally and that is something we could do if the demand is there and it's successful. We could certainly expand. Um, I know initially we're maybe going to put, you know, propose a carriage house. It's mainly for storing decorations and whatnot and that's not going to work. So, we're passing on that. But for now, we're just going to keep it as is, have some more green space and, you know, keep it that way. >> Okay. We're not planning on subdividing anything and selling it off or >> Yeah, it'd be tough with the access. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Paul, anything? >> I don't I don't have any questions. No, I mean, we looked at it before and liked the project and I like that you're planting that kind of outlot, if you will. Um, so that'll be nice to get some landscaping back there, too, and not just kind of forgetting about it. But no, I think it'll be nice addition. We're really excited about the project if it does indeed um pass and excited to be part of the community of Dayton. Um, we have 20 other locations throughout the Twin Cities, um, family-owned and operated. Um, and uh, there's definitely a need. We've done market studies and I think this would be a good asset for the city. Yeah, this is a general question I have a lot of times of all applicants, but with the with staff recommendations, they're pretty general, but do you have any concerns with any of them? >> No. Nope. >> Perfect. Everything's reasonable. >> All right. Um well, if there's no more questions, um we might call you back up here if something arises, but uh thank you. >> Yeah, thank you. It is 6:54 and I am going to open the public hearing on this matter. If anyone is in the audience and would like to come forward and speak um and ask any questions, please come forward. >> Is there anyone online that might want to speak on this topic? >> Yeah, if there is anyone uh please feel free to use the raise your hand function and uh we will um make the changes to allow for the speak. >> Yeah. Um before I close the public hearing, I guess we can if if there's any discussion up here, maybe we should have some of it just in case uh people want to come forward, the one person in the audience. Um and then go from there. Um is there anything anyone wants to really add on this item? >> No, I'd just like to say that I think it's going to be a great fit for the area. Um, obviously with site plans, it's kind of easy for us as a planning commission because they're not asking for anything above and beyond what's what's dictated by the code. So, we do have some input and it's it's good that um the developer took some of those considerations in mind as far as landscaping and whatnot. So, um, no, I like the project and best of luck. >> Question. Hey, Hayden. The signage that's being proposed, I assume that's within our code. >> Yes. allowances and >> Yep, that's correct. Uh we do require for permanent signage a signed permit uh which which and then we'll be able to review the um proposed sign in regards to the maximum height and maximum for the monument sign the allowance of sign area as well as setbacks to the right of way. Well, if there's no more discussion, I think uh I am going to close the public hearing and entertain a motion on the matter. It's 656. Closing the public hearing. I guess with that I'd make a motion to uh recommend approval of the site plan review application for the assisted living member care facility which is lot 2 block one Dayton River commercial park for sweet living. >> I'll second. >> Any further discussion? All right. All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed. >> Motion carries 40. Thank you, sir. Good luck. Moving on. Item 8B, public hearing on the Z zoning ordinance amendment uh for section well for the landscaping and screening section. >> Right. It's much easier. >> Trying to read a number. >> Uh so this item was tabled by the plan commission at the January um I think is the January 8th, 2026 meeting. Um the commission had requested that uh there's uh we provide or staff provide an opinion from a landscape architect and then also add a more uh city code comparison. So um so the origin of the story so in 2025 we had an industrial project that uh came to the planning commission of the city council. uh the developer had kind of some concerns about the amount of landscaping that was required and and the council agreed and said directed staff to to look into the ordinance. Um the landscaping ordinance requires I should say landscaping plan is required for every non-s single family residential project. Um it requires uh the projects to provide landscaping of either a three out of the four ABCD. So we have a overstory trees, evergreen trees, ornamental trees, and then shrubs. Um, and then in addition to those four or three out of the four requirements, you also have to have landscaping within a parking lot islands as well as a five along a 5ft perimeter around buildings. So the question here is um do we is do we require too much landscaping? And uh I think kind of in researching different city codes and then as well as the landscape architect's uh opinion is um the tree requirement is is reasonable. Uh but we require a lot of shrubs. Uh what staff is proposing is to reduce the number of shrubs by 2/3. And so where it says uh you need one deciduous evergreen shrub for every 100 square ft of open area, we're suggesting one per 300 square ft. Um, in addition, we're als staff's also recommending that if a site is not able to meet the landscaping requirement for whatever reason, um, so different trying to think where we've had this, you know, may there's something unique about the property where you can't fit the number of trees. Uh, you can make up the difference by paying into a tree fund to the city. Um, and then the city would plant that those excess trees somewhere in the on public land within the city. That's the intent and then I can stand for any questions >> with the last paragraph or the last >> about the community tree fund. What's going to have happen if there's a site that comes in and we feel like kind of like now we're trying to change the code so we don't have this happen but we feel like it's still too burdensome. Are they going to out to pay into the fund if we either council or the planning commission recommends something less than what's required because like maybe it's an open spacer issue again. >> Yeah, that that is the intent and so I'm trying to think of an examp good good Yeah, I can't think of a good example where we've run into this. Um, >> I think a hypothetical situation that could happen in uh Dayton may be related to wetland complexes on properties that may uh restrict from plantings and um depending on the site plan and how that plays out. Um we would generally I guess maybe that wouldn't even be a problem because we wouldn't consider that wetland to be a part of the open space that would be in that. >> So strike that. >> Yeah. My only concern with that with that caveat is like if we find you know six months a year from now we're still too much >> we kind of put an an unnecessary burden on some property owners because we're going to be asking for the fee if that's what our quote says and so it puts more burden I guess even on us planning commission and the council if they're going to approve this is let's make sure you know we've got this dialed in pretty good Uh the only thing I would add there too is that I would be careful with the proposed language as it as it reads right now. Um as far as uh legally um essentially if I was a developer and I read this, I could take this as I had the option of not putting any landscaping in at all um and then just pay towards whatever I was going to need to plant towards the community tree fund. I don't think a developer would actually do that, but the language as it reads right now leaves that door open. The language is in the packet is the developer may plant fewer trees on site than required by this provision to prevent overcrowding. >> So, I don't know if we need to work on that, tweak that language a little bit to have it understood that they need to plant a minimum amount at least, but then can reduce that or I don't know exactly how to word it at that point. So just be careful with that language if we move forward with that. >> Sure. So I I'm just it's hard to word smith on the spot, but I think the intention is is that the the developer is putting making every effort to make to meet the ordinance and if there's >> some kind cons some kind some instance where they can't then you know I'm going to say plan B is they paid >> perhaps it's as easy as putting that language in there. the developer shall make it, you know, >> do as much as they can to meet the minimum requirements of ordinance dot dot dot type of thing. So again, as it reads right now, I could I could see developers saying, "I'm just going to pay and you guys could plant." >> Mhm. >> Yeah. It's not it's not an exception. It's it's a if you can't meet the code, then you can pay in instead of overcrowding. >> Yeah. >> But it's not a andor kind of thing, >> right? As it reads right now though, I don't think we're that intent is being >> Would Would you like us to work on that or would you like to provide the the >> tough to word Smith? >> It is sitting on the spot here. >> I understand what the >> Could use some massaging is what I could say. Maybe the city attorney could to could weigh in or whoever it might be to weigh in on on how that language should be written. >> Sure. Okay. Do you know if any cities in the in the area have drafted anything like this? Well, th this language is copied from Plymouth, I believe. >> Word for word. >> Uh I believe so. It's been a few weeks since I've written this, but yeah, I believe that's where I copied it from. >> Yeah, tree funds are pretty common. I know developers view them as a tax. So that's why I just want to make sure that, you know, whatever we're putting in there is reasonable because I don't, you know, >> are they on the edge too of being ruled problematic? That's true. >> They can be. Yep. >> But what do we currently do? I mean, the council gives them permission to plant less than what's currently demanded. I think John how do we get around the past but I believe it it's been I won't even call variances we've just like >> it is I'm trying to think of a good example so you know I don't know if it was telecom or or something else where you had steep slopes and it it was a question of is it practical to plant shrubs on a steep slope or you're not going to be able to maintain it and I think kind of the the you know this was a concept plan but I believe everyone was okay with um having reducing the the number of plantings. If >> I could just jump in. Uh we did take those steep slopes out just unsure if uh the trees or uh shrubs planted in those areas would be healthy after a year or not after they get planted. Um at the same time too uh the provision right above uh section A in that uh section of the landscaping code says you have to meet one of or three of the four of the following. So, um it may show on some landscape plans that uh the landscape architect will put together and say that this provision is not met. Um however, because they met three of the other ones, it's not required to be met. Um so, I think that might have been another um potential discrepancy when it came to reviewing landscaping plans and that language would still be proposed to stay the same. >> Yeah. You know, I'll just know, you know, we we looked at 10 different cities and about half of them have requirements and half are are pretty loose. And so, just kind of a question, you know, as you're observing different commercial districts or apartments, um, you know, is landscaping something you really notice a whole lot? Um, I mean, I guess I I think, you know, for myself, if I'm walking somewhere, I'm going to notice landscaping. If I'm driving, probably not as much. I notice it all the time because that's what I do for a living. >> Look at real estate. >> Yeah. >> But do I notice whether something has too much or too little? Not really. >> Mhm. >> So, >> what sets the cash fee amount? Is that >> um I don't know. Uh I mean the intent is that it covers our cost of buying a tree, but I I couldn't. It's going to depend on the type of tree and >> Yeah. So, do do we need to add language to average cost of the trees being provided for the project or something like that? >> We'll have to come up with something and and probably put it in the fee schedule. >> Yeah. >> The value of a tree. >> Do we think it's necessary? This is just a question all out. I don't even have a great answer myself. Do we think it's necessary to have this caveat in at this point or to maybe see what happens for a year, two years with more plans that come in um and see what works or you know whether the codes I guess whether the new code's working the feedback we get. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I would be more comfortable with just leaving it the way it is and not having this in there >> and the preund just the shrub. And the other option really I mean I know we looked at some other ordinances where it was a council's discretion is whether or not the full you know landscape requirements should be met or not. Actually some of them just said it's going to be the council's decision on approving a landscaping plan without even having minimum standards. Mhm. >> So perhaps instead of, you know, having the developer can plant fewer trees on site if, you know, if there's to prevent overcrowding, some language could be added that says instead of that saying that the count at the council discretion, they may um, you know, lessen the landscape requirements per plan and just put that in there. So there's some negotiating negotiating there. You still have to meet the the code requirements. If the developer thinks there's no way it makes sense for me to meet these code requirements, they could petition that at the council at the time or in front of the planning commission property conraints. >> Let them present their case. >> So that way it's not necessarily a variance. It's more of what looks the best on this property. We still have a minimum standard to make, but if we feel that that minimum standard is overbearing or it's on a large site and now all of a sudden there's 300 trees on there, we only need 50, then we can make that determination at the meeting. >> Yeah. And what Jeff just said is what I wanted to echo too is that I know the current language is about overcrowding, but there's the opposite side of it, too. If you have a site with large amount of open space, like the applicant that just came in front of us, >> um, is that it goes both ways. I guess it it's unique to each site. >> Yeah. >> And you know, even with the open space, I mean, if there's going to be a big degree of open space, to me, sometimes planting it in like native grasses is just as attractive as more trees, >> and it's probably better for the soil and better for everything, >> better for all the bugs, >> right? Bees. So that's where I think what Jeff suggested I kind of like because that's where you know at the discretion of the council and the planning commission we can throw things like that in there if it's appropriate on that site is say hey instead of we'll cut down your landscaping because you have all this open space but instead of that do this. >> Sure. So if I could suggest word smithing it is at the council's discretion the council may reduce the uh minimum minimum landscaping standards >> due to sight constraints. >> Yeah. >> What about what's what's the opposite of sight constraints? >> Sight constraints or a large degree of open space >> because everything's driven off open space and that's where it's really gotten to the >> exception to site conditions then. >> There you go. re reasons to be provided by the applicant. I like that >> that they can use to determine >> provided by the Yeah. >> Yeah. I like that applicant >> saying they have to make their case. >> But I think that even gives us some discretion, too. If we see a plan, we're like they're meeting minimum standards that's way over planted. >> Just won't maple tree every 5t. >> Yeah. Then we could say, "Hey, look, we have the ability to say >> let's thin this down a little bit, you know, or whatever it might be." So >> yeah, >> I think you run into problems when you're trying to figure out just exactly what a number is. You know, what's acceptable and what isn't acceptable. If we had language that says that if the applicant thinks that what the city is proposing him put on the her put on the site doesn't fit the site plan or doesn't fit their plan >> then they can come forward to the planning commission the city council and make their case. I think you just need to get give them that window to jump through. But we have to be there to be able to shut the window if we think that somebody's trying to come through with something we don't want. >> Sure. So >> you don't need I don't think we really need to narrow it down as to what you know what it actually is. >> So on the screen we have um Quick Trip in Oiggo and Quick Trip and Dayton. And you know I'm not sure the age of the Quick Trip and Oiggo but I I believe it's fairly recent. Um in the comparison OIGO does not have landscape standards. Um so you can see you know they they uh Quick Trip still planted trees. I mean, they they did what they felt they needed to do to make the site attractive just on their own. Um, as opposed to Dayton where they followed uh our standards >> and it looks nice. >> It does look nice. >> Mhm. >> I think I said this comment before, but it'd be interesting to see what the picture and it's quick trips. It'll probably still look nice, but what's the picture going to look like in 10 years? >> Well, the top ones are >> in particular with all the shrubs, >> right? The top ones doesn't look nice. >> When I notice all this, I see the shrubs. What doesn't look nice about the top part is the dead grass along the curve, but that's probably just winter kill and >> salt and all that kind of stuff. >> But yeah, I like that we have the requirements. I'm good with reducing the shrubbery requirements by 2/3. I think that's appropriate. >> And then I like the amendment to >> Yeah. Hard. Yeah. No, just what we were talking about the amendment to allow for site conditions to reduce trees if needed. >> But they also have like the three of the four, right? So there's some flexibility on to how you can make the site work. >> You can't make one requirement work because it's just too many. You could pick a different one. >> Stack could always go back to saying, "No, we think you still have to meet these minimum requirements even if you think developer they are too much." Yeah, >> you could always say no. We like the minimum standards as they as they read right now. >> Yes. >> So in >> you don't want to use the word allow >> in the date and quick trip. I don't remember if um you know so you have to meet three out of the four. I don't remember if Quick Trip chose shrubs or not. >> I do not believe they did. No. Um, you know, so the shrubs that they planted are >> in addition, >> some of them are are for parking lot islands, but otherwise it's they chose to put those in. >> Um, just, you know, noting uh when the landscape architect reviewed uh he also made the comment that shrubs have a tendency to to die faster than trees. Um, so over time, you know, let's say there's 100 shrubs, um, the survival rate might be fairly low. you're going to notice um you know sporadic shrubs that are missing >> and I'm assuming most of those trees we're seeing in the front there by the entrance are ornamental trees given their spacing. >> They're close probably they're close together >> but that's the same question I have is they don't tend to live as they don't live as long as over trees. Um, >> and even like when they get fuller in five, t years, what's that going to look? Is that good or bad? When they're when they're that tight? >> It's going to depend on the tree. >> I just Yeah, with commercial I don't I just think some it can be a lot. I mean, I like visibility to commercial properties myself. I don't like when you drive through areas and you see the landscaping does blocks all visibility once it's mature. I know some people might say that's screening. I don't think that's helping the commercial property be successful. Most commercial properties >> do think it's important for us to maintain the landscape requirements though because the trees do provide >> a little bit of that rural feel. Yes. >> Breaks up commercial developments. >> Yeah. I think I think I mean especially because development's just starting to occur in Dayton, I think it's important that we have a landscape requirement and keep adapting as it goes. >> Yeah. >> Because you can't have no requirement. It's I would rather have a requirement and adapt as necessary. >> And that might be even lowering the you know a combin some other combination eventually with ornamental trees, but the issue right now tends to be the shrubs. So let's see if that fixes it. >> Mhm. Are you as far as getting a motion in front of you, are you pretty solid on the language that we proposed for that paragraph? >> Yeah. So, number the the proposed text on item number two would be deleted and replaced with I still got our word smmith a little bit, but at the council's discretion, the council may reduce the number of plantings due to to site conditions. Something similar to that. with evidence provided by the applicant or something like that, right? To put it on them to provide reasons why >> doesn't that kind of tie the council's hands too. We just talk about site conditions or something else may come up that >> Yeah. >> Is that going to be a site condition? >> I think site conditions can be pretty broad. I mean, the site conditions are impacted by the building being built and wetlands, parking requirements and topography and >> visual sight lines, all that stuff. >> Yeah, I think that's a broad enough term. I don't know. Are you think >> I mean the reality is >> writer, right? >> Yeah. If anyone asks for an extension though, >> I don't think you need I don't think you need that in there. I just think if you give the council the ability to do that >> Oh, you're less. Got it. Okay. just do it. >> We think we need to narrow it down to what they need to look at in order to make that decision. The council can decide that when it comes to before or we can at some point. >> I think the most important thing either from staff's perspective and our perspective and in probably staff's perspective first is that they need to advise the applicant on what the planning commission or the council's thinking because applicants don't want to come forward with us and guessing either like everyone wants to be on the same page. So I think it is important that people have some direction and you know staff ask council members if it become if there's an applicant that comes forward here's a work session one if it's a big sticking issue to get people's because I do want to be development friendly I don't want people have to come in front of us all the time to figure it out like hopefully it's figured out by the time it gets in front of us I think the reason to have site conditions in there is important is because we don't want an applicant coming in that has the perfect site can easily fit all the landscaping but they're choosing they don't want do. And so then they're just going to say, "Hey, city council, we'd really rather not plant all these trees." You cool? >> No. >> You and they'll hopefully say no at that point, right? But at least if we say you need to have there needs to be site conditions that support your reason why you don't want to meet the requirement or can't meet the requirement, then at least kind of nods as to like there has to be an issue with the site in order to ask for less. But >> isn't that what happens now? if they don't if they think that these are unreasonable that they come to us. >> It could be for less because they don't want to spend the money. >> Well, it could be for that's probably 9/10en of the reason, right? They don't want to spend the reason. >> We all know that. Accept it. Yeah. >> But if if they come to us now and say that it's, you know, the requirements are unreasonable, the current requirements. >> Yeah. I would think what are we going to what are we going to say to them? Right. Well, if they come to the planning commission with that, we would say tough luck because that's what the code requires. Now, if they're working with the the staff and they're they're saying to the staff, look, my lot is odd shaped or there's a huge slope or whatever it is, there's no way I could fit 50 trees on this property. I could only fit 36. I think at that point that's a good time for staff to take that in consideration, see if it makes sense, understand where the developer is coming from. Then when it's brought to the planning commission, staff could outline this is what we were hearing from the developer. we agree that the conditions of the property didn't make it as such where they can meet the full obligations of of the landscaping code and then we can make a determination if that if we think that's accurate and then let the council make that ultimate decision on it. So it's like a variance but it's not really a variance. We still give the discretion for the council to make that decision. Um but that's that's where that's where I think that that added language would be beneficial. still have them need to meet the minimum standards and then work that out with staff ahead of time as to why they can't and then bring that back to the planning commission. >> Yeah. So, we thought if they can't, it's based on site conditions, not uh cost. >> And that's that's going to be the up to the staff's discretion to say yes or no. And if if staff says no and the developer still pushing for it, then it's a then I say it's a variance request >> at that point. Well, that that's when the council could >> or that's when the council could >> the way we're drafting the language. Yes. Unfortunately, which going back Keith to your question, well, what happened in the past? Unfortunately, we're just approving stuff, not calling on a variance, yet it's not meeting code because we kind of recognize it's a little burdensome. And so, I do like the language a lot. So, that we now we're getting aware of the variance completely. If the council approves it, it's approved. we still got to meet these standards, but for whatever reason they can't. Um, now it's up to the discretion of the council and they have to present the argument. The burden's on them to present the argument. >> And so now what have you got written down? >> Um, the at the council's discretion, the council may reduce the number of plantings due to site conditions with evidence provided by the applicant. Yeah, >> I'm good with it. >> There we go. >> Uh, this is a public hearing, right? >> Uh, yes. >> At 7:21, I am going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone online to talk about this? >> Yeah. If there is anyone online, please uh use the raise your hand function. All right. It is almost it is 7:22 and I am a closed public hearing. Um, is there any more discussion on this item? And if not, I will entertain a motion from the commissioners from commissioner make a motion to approve the zoning amendment um based on the language we just um discussed with staff. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed? >> Motion carries 4. >> We're close, John. Now it's all going to depend on this is like We did our half >> move moving on the motion 90. >> What side do we have today? >> Staff commission updates. >> Um I will just add that we've got two items that that are crossed off that we did not get to. I say we did not get to. We did not get to writing yet. So um item C is a public hearing for accessory buildings and structures which we're requesting be um continued uh to the next meeting. And then item D is a public hearing to amend a parking regulation. So the request is that these two items continue to be tabled. >> I will entertain that motion. >> I'll second. >> Make a motion to table items C and D. >> I'll second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Motion carries 40. and we'll make it out that that's a motion for both C and D. >> Yeah. Okay. Moving on to item N. Okay, this is the round robin of nothing but good stuff. Okay, Dayton has an official city app, so if you don't have it on your phone, you're missing out on all the great information that we provide. Um, so that can be downloaded. Again, it's I don't know what we're calling it, but just if you look up Dayton, Minnesota. See if I can going the right way. Nope, I'm not going the right way. The medallion hunt. So, this is a little bit old news. We had a our third annual medallion hunt. Uh, the medallion, I believe, was found not sure if it was yesterday or Wednesday. Yesterday. >> So, the hunt is over. It was found at I'm going to say the Frisbee Park, but I can't think of the uh the name of the park, but um >> in the Wildwood Springs Development in Northeast Dayton. >> There we go. Snow Plowing Street policy for uh anyone that's interested. It it is if there's a snow event that's 2 in or greater. um as well as if there's drifting problems, icy conditions, then depending on when the snow falls in relation to heavy traffic. So, is a little bit more of a art than is a science on this. Uh Central Park ice rink is open, so hurry up before it melts. the wellhead water treatment plant update. It there heard uh yesterday we do have a delay with this but it is uh we're kind of in a 4-w week or about to begin a four-week testing stage. Uh the well wellhead treatment plant is on the south side of LC Stevens for anyone that may not recognize the building. Dayton play place is every Tuesday at the uh community center 9:00 am to 11:00 a.m. Uh the deal Dyson dominoes the second and fourth Wednesday afternoon at the Dayton community center uh we have uh social worker dropin sessions at the police department third Wednesdays of the month 3 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Um we are still looking for a developer. So, the EDA had purchased land in the old village and kind of went through a process of u of uh creating a a conceptual redevelopment plan with a restaurant, a commercial and uh apartments above. Uh we've been actively marketing this site for sale for something similar to this project. Um we're hoping that just through word of mouth, someone's going to say, "I I know someone that would like to open up a restaurant or needs a commercial office space." So, um, we we've had a lot of interest, but we're we're counting on word of mouth. >> It help with development conditions improved. >> It always does. Yes. >> Yes. >> Uh, oops, going the wrong way here. Next meeting is going to be Thursday, March 3rd. We do have um it will be a full agenda. Uh we have two concept plans uh two preliminary plats and likely at least one of the two ordinances that were tabled tonight. >> Are the preliminary plats involving commercial development subdivisions? Um no uh >> one one is uh commercial um the it was a concept that you saw last uh in a industrial area along French Lake um and I would say uh Sundance Greens uh 12th this is active application they've already submitted the Sundance Greens 12th edition the final edition along the golf course area has requested a slight change to the layout of those lots. So that will be that will come back to the planning commission review because the preliminary plat has changed with this proposed final plat. >> Yeah. So I was forgot one of those. So yeah, it will be a solid 3 to four hour meeting. I would expect >> I'm good on Friday, too. So I could keep going. >> All right. >> Make a motion to adjourn. >> All those do we need a second? >> Second. >> 7:27. All's in favor. I >> meeting adjourned.