e e e e restart all right I will call the order the August 27th work session for the DAT C CC thank you Mr mer um so I'll just give a little background because it's been a while since we were all back here in the same room um so we all met previously uh well I'll start with on March 7th the Planning Commission met of this year um that was the meeting where they reviewed the draft master plan so that was the full document um that included all the different design standards and sections like that um and a lot of it was discussed including architecture housing density transportation land use Park um and then the character of the downtown area which is the pink on the um land use maps um the direction from Planning Commission at that time was to hold a joint session um with city council to review the land use for the master plan boundary area so that joint work session was held on May 2nd um so a couple months ago um at that work session we'd had a robust discussion on land use and transportation for the master plan area um and at that time there was strong input to reevaluate the U master plan trans ation area um specifically the roadway connections and networks so as a followup from that um I was not present at the June 11th meeting for city council but um Jason was um and gave us some background information on the current Dayton Parkway alignment um specifically giving some history on how it came about and why it is the way it is um so I don't know that I need to go through that again Planning Commission I don't believe was at the work session but that was all at that work session um or I guess I don't know if it was a work session or Council Council okay um so we won't go over really a lot of that tonight just because we're focusing on the land use specifically um to get that addressed so we can move the master plan forward and then um we're tentatively scheduled and this we're confirming but uh the next steps for this would be to hold an open house on September 17th is the DAT we've identified um we'll send notices out for that similar to what we did for the previous open house um same location it'll be at the um V Activity Center in the historic village um on that evening so that would be the next step and then following that we would take comments from this meeting would go into the document for that open house following the open house we would make any adjustments to the document based on input or feedback also incorporating all the comments we receive as part of the report that would then go before Planning Commission and city council for formal adoption so that would be the next comment period would be those two meetings and then we would then finalize based on the adopting um the the final document essentially that's the approved document um so the goal here tonight is essentially to take the land use and make decisions on what elements you like so the these are the three options we had before I didn't change them up too much because we were kind of we didn't come to a consensus on a lot of the land use decisions from the last meeting so I didn't want to make any assumptions on my part so I could leave these open-ended these three options in front of you are just three of the possibilities you can mix and match different aspects if you like certain aspects of one and certain aspects of another the whole point is to get your input so that we can um essentially come up with a plan for what we see this master plan area looking like like with a land use perspective um the only restrictions we have on it are we do have to hit our density this is all based on three units so I know Mech council's been discussing for the future 2050 of going up to four units an acre this does not take that into account as that plan's not adopted in uh the i' go into that but the public comment period is ongoing so a lot of us are commenting on some of those future plans so this only takes into account the existing three units in acre that we have to hit so there's a certain number of units within this master plan boundary area we have to hit So based on the existing land use that's 5,99 units all of these options are well above that um it just means we can't reduce the high density residential too much we can't reduce the medium density residential too much because we'll start getting below the number of units we have to get in this area to balance the whole city as 3 units an acre um cuz this is one of the more denser areas planned for Dayton um as it is seen as a town center with commercial and um higher density residential options what is the density for the high density units per acre again that we're running this 20 I think so each of the in the packet each of them had a table with it option one kept the so this option here kept the density at uh minimum density for high density of 15 option two and three up at 20 units an acre so these two here basic basally you get you can get more units on less acres of land when you up the density so we can have more low and medium in these options because the density is upped in those and the essentially what you'll have to do you know planning for the future when this gets you know as part of the comprehensive plan you just have to prove that that's a feasible density to hit for a project so you can't it's basically saying that when you do a high density project you can't just up the minimum density to 25 30 35 40 cuz you start getting out of the realm of possibility where the property can't be developed that way so as part of an effort you just have to prove that a property could develop at that minimum density at least hit what you've set so you don't make a property undevelopable by bringing that minimum up so high um and that's based on met Council determination that you've done that adequately 20 um going from 15 to 20 is one it's not a huge change in density um for highdensity residential and you know pulling data from recent projects I worked on in other communities and other people within my company have worked on in other communities 20 units an acre is a pretty easy threshold to hit for high density residential you could probably go to 25 um but any higher than that you'd start having to move in to a more urbanized area that would have the capacity for very very tight Lots in development um so if you went higher though I mean that's kind of what we're creating as a little Urban core here right so you could go higher specifically within probably the mixed use area and corre not the yes so the mixed use area right now is at 12 so we could go higher assuming in the mixed use all assumes that 60% of the mixed use is residential so mixed jues intend to be a flexible category that has commercial um residential maybe some office in there um when we do our calculations on mixed use it's assume that 60% of that is going to develop at residential um so it doesn't impact the same way high density does but you can up that density range if you want to as well um we didn't as part of this so each of the categories you'll see in the table we did um is 12 units an acre assumed for a minimum density um they can go well above that obviously before they hit the max um which is 60 so um we could tighten that category up if we want to show that we have a higher minimum density that would essentially get you a higher minimum unit that you'd have in there which would then allow you to either reduce some of the high density around it or throw some more low density in where medium density may be or things like that um so it's part of each of these categories I'll kind of point out the caveats from each of them you'll notice that option three is the option that where we heard um the desire for potentially some more business park not heavy industrial um more of a business park use that would be in this southwest corner of the of the master plan boundary so adjacent to 117th in East French Lake um so that's one highlight from this option um you'll notice in this option two which has higher density for the high density residential there is more buffering from this existing Community down here so there's a you'll see on both of these essentially you start with medium density right across the street this is the only option that brought in low density to kind of transition low to medium to then there's high in the middle here um so that's another piece of that where you that comes into play uh and then this option over here kept the high density residential at that same 15 units an acre for a minimum so none of the land uses really modified that much um that's kind of the base option if we don't adjust the den for that high density land use so that's the primary difference between one and two is buffering I see much else right and that's you know we get some leeway when you have when you up the density from 15 to 20 but it's not enough to really make significant changes to the whole area so looking at it uh this was just a option I put together we could do that somewhere else but I felt because this is an existing community and coming from a lot of low density residential all on this side maybe that was the most appropriate area to have a little more buff aame but we could put that up to medium and have it scale back over in this corner um there's plenty of options I think at some point you have you know you have to transition from low to medium so right no matter what it's got to go from yellow to Orange so I mean because all you're going to do then is a new development would come in there at lower residential and then you're going to have low right next to medium no matter what so you're always going to have that transition it's just the only difference being it's an existing neighborhood not a future and if 20 your 20 is is our minimum number which is it sounds like it's easy to hit I'm not sure why we would even mess with the setting to 15 I mean this gives us more Headroom M so to me option one is just to me the single most important thing about this whole square is is where's the roadways going to go no they're in there yeah speaking of which I know we don't you said you talked about the history but the last work session there was a discussion that kind of derailed it yep about redoing or looking at redoing it was that not off the table now I guess when history Yeah so basically that that was brought at a separate meeting after because it was at the June 11 city council um Jason provided the background the trans the transportation plan is the transportation plan the roadway is where it is um we're going to try and just focus on the land use today cuz the the way things have happened we have the connection points for the roadway and that that's where they are makes sense um be sure derail so I'm trying to focus this on land use so we can make some decisions on that and then when you see the whole plan as part of the public hearings and everything like that then we can certainly make comments on adjustments to architecture housing design standards Street scap all these other things that are components of it where Planning Commission has seen that once Council has not seen the full document um so seeing that as well the other question I have is is we can come up with all these plans this isn't going to happen for 15 or 20 years probably yeah I mean most there's going to be five or six different councils and planning this is going to change four or five times if you it'll probably change when it comes in for a proposal too right it's just a guide we have a concrete timeline on dayon parway and I think that's where the some of this focus should shift to is understanding what staff thinks that should be um if we're going to develop salt Dayton we can't just keep our current transportation system mhm so I don't know that answer but so the southern part of the master plan area is in the 2020 staging area that was the precipitous of us wanting to do the master plan right was that 2020 area and then it stages up and it's like 2030 once you hit about this parcel line and then the northern but are we going to are we saying we're going to pull the road through in little increments like that it's possible that that's the way it'll happen yeah to invest in infrastructuring first you know build they will come type idea there's yeah those are two different typically you acquire the right away through development unless you were to do a project that was city-led and so there' have to be a funding source for that um seems like if we're targeting density here this is a prime thing that right grants for but that's something that Council has to approve and do is I mean we're setting it up to write a good Grant to help us pay for a good chunk of Dayton parkway at least up to 12 125th mhm by this putting this density in that's what the state everyone wants to see yeah and that that could be a followup of this is that you use this document to say hey we've done a study we've now evaluated what we want to see in this area and the as part of this we're going to write this Grant application that's that'd be something that would I would John would have to kind of lead and then bring to council um but that could be a possibility I have not done research to know which grants you would apply for there's not many there there's plenty of funding sources out there the problem is they're highly competitive and they're a long process they're not often there to put a road in before the growth is actually there they're a lot of times they're there to address a problem that exists yeah my Council might have some money because you're helping to push this in the direction that they want us to go too but there's there's not a ton of money there for it's important we understand this timeline because it's going to dictate our how we go go view value at staging whether that's 200 homes a year 300 100 if you can't don't have a road you can't justify higher numbers mhm yeah I I just I definitely think it's unrealistic to think that there'll be a lot of grant money out there to put in Dayton Parkway maybe to put a trail on Dayton Parkway you know through um some multimodal funding or something like that but you know it's growth-based a lot of those funding sources don't have a ton of sympathy on hey we're growing and we want to put in this road it's you know we're busting at the seams we've got a history of accidents we got a history of this and and then you score really well but why on on these plads and I came up a little bit last time but why are we clumping so typically these big Z fairs you'll see commercial kind of wrap thank you the Mand drag MH I agree with you Dennis and then you'll see you know residential behind it or it just seems very odd to me to put residential on a main drag and I don't know how we got got to this point mean off the manger they Clump together like that well I mean maybe a service road but it I don't understand I mean if you look at 169 you look at 101 yep it's all that was going to be my question too think about is access and intersections um meaning that if you have everything going parallel to the road there's a lot of uses that get further far even though they got good visibility they get far away from access and so not saying that we shouldn't stretch it more like that but that's one thing you're trying to manage is like if you have a node then when you get to that signalized intersection or roundabout that's where people Branch off and go to all the commercial uses cuz it is more destination once you're going it's going to be neighborhood commercial it's not going to be mean to to get those commercial facility those commercial entities seeing yeah they might be on the road the biggest thing is they need traffic and not they get their signage even at the things like you drive by uh look what's happened at 610 and uh Zan is a good example none of those really have that great a visibility in fact the way it's orientated it's but it's about access yeah yep and I guess I don't get why they did that if you yeah if you're going to have more like you're saying then you should be thinking more Highway orientated businesses too along the stretch if that's what we want so on the public opinion survey what What the residents wanted was a town square rather than like a okay that's right I again I think that one's so I can explain the reasoning behind why some of that is done the way it is so because this is not directly off the highway it's not Highway commercial so it's something that people have to access off of 94 essentially they'd be coming north through Dayton so the idea is to find a major intersection that we use to then highlight and that becomes the corridor that you have so this intersection here and I've always been calling it tentatively 121st just because it's halfway between 117th and 125th with Dayton Parkway will be essentially your major Corridor intersection that would then lead into the mixed use area so that's kind of as Darren said that's kind of your area when you have that major intersection to then Branch traffic off into the mixed use and then a commercial area and give them good visibility this easily could be shifted and shift this way North and we could do Residential on this side and we could shift the commercial up along the roadway here I just felt it was a better option to show the commercial given where it's shown in the existing land use plan which I think was up on the screen um the existing land use plan had commercial mostly on the South Side here we wanted to bring it up to TI into the mixed use area for the Town Center to have it transition to the town center area we could certainly do that along Dayton Parkway here but Dayton Parkway is a different type of corridor planned for the street itself it's going to be a Parkway which doesn't lend itself to commercial access as well um just because of the medians and the the RightWay and things like that where you might not be able to take a left-hand turn it might only be a right in right out access so businesses tend to prefer being on areas with full access so given that there's full access you can get get here that you could then turn onto Dayton Parkway and it's immediately onto a major thorough fair so that was just some of the thought process behind why that commercial shifted to where it is currently and why um you know leading into the Park area then leading out into the greater Dayton area for the community because this is intended to be a town center and a commercial area for the community first and then if it draws from larger areas that's great so yeah okay um but that's kind of the reasoning for why that's shown the way it is so we we do some land uses here with the existing parcels and I think maybe part of your concern potentially could be addressed by almost splitting some land use along there I think your argument being you're not going to have uh residential immediately in the middle you're not going to have Dayton Parkway go through the middle of the residential I don't think so I don't know if there's a way to maybe just from a way of representing this of understanding close to that roadway Corridor you might see business part commercial or mixed use um and off of that a little bit kind of to your point is off of that that's where you start to to see your residential so I don't know if we can split kind of like we do down there this at the last work session if you recall Kevin right I wasn't there so where my AP we even talked about no not not no no I'm glad you brought it up because we one of this is uh East French Lake Road is that alignment needs to be figured out because then that industrial use should butd up to it not not like right now we're we're drawing The Old Road and is that if that's how it's going to stay that's how it's going to stay I I guess but I don't think a lot of us think that that makes sense so to to your point if this you know like East French Lake we're envisioning essentially gets realign to here this land use and I just didn't change this portion but this triangle should likely if we go with this business park office gets extended to that point and then maybe this corner up here changes because this is now a business park so that's some of the direction I'm looking to see I know one of the goals initially too was trying to not have split land uses on Parcels because of some of the complic it presents um just you know like there was not a lot of love initially for this type of split um so I tried to not split so you'll notice there's very few Parcels that actually have a mixed land use on them that have two separating land uses and it's pretty much right in this Corridor and they're intended to line up for where Dayton Parkway is and to be clear this is a fat line so if Dayton Parkway shifts over 50 ft because of the topography when it actually gets designed or 100 ft the land uses Will Follow That essentially it's envisioned the east side is commercial the west side is mixed use so if this shifts over here to miss some significant natural resource those land uses will essentially move with them and I remember the last meeting we talked about exactly what we were talking about about that corner that's medium density residential between East French Lake Road and uh we just need we need to do a split land use on it no North here one more Corner over just a little bit over no other way towards me the lake other way over here no right maybe you were actually there right here right here that's what we're trying to that's why point in yeah I thought you were pointing the other area but that it it needs to be we just got to put split land use on the map otherwise it makes no sense to anybody MH or memorialize the intent a little bit here because I think that's what split land use does is it I don't like it I actually you know wouldn't necessarily advocate for it but I think it helps illustrate intent But ultimately what is going to happen is a developer will come in and and have a project that could succeed or not and if it's you know cons relatively consistent with this it'd be considered and then through the necessary approvals we just need to be able to hit our calculations right we need to make the right assumptions to make sure we can hit and and preserve low density residential in other partions of the community so essentially I guess what I'm saying is like it's not this isn't fact you know we we're we're going to try to jockey pieces around as best as we can but if if the whole group can come to a sort of consensus on what it would look like in one form or the other I think other variants of that as they would be proposed it'd be easy for the body to determine whether or not it's consistent although not exact but consistent yeah so some of the direction I'm looking is like do you like the business part you want to to pursue like cuz I know there's been a lot of Industrial Development specifically in this direction um is there appetite for more if it's the right kind within park or is it too much do you want to see more residential these are all things to I don't mind business part like in champ up broken park I think up 169 they're on the border they put those they look like warehouse but they're not there's like a Twin City twisters in there and like you know that kind of thing I think that to me is what business park is and so like I think having a space for that makes sense there's definitely a draw for the new Twin Cities twister or the old one uh the old one Park in terms of people not the brand new one south of 109 that would be Brooklyn Old South of9 it's on the east side 169 yeah that's that's borderline like what Inland is built commcial it's office warehouse that attracted or ret and normally they won't take those users if they if they that's like their last resort because they just don't have as good credit as the industrial users but um that's more office warehouse yeah I'm just thinking something like you know where F could go or just an example not say to be F but something like that where there's space for those kind of activities to happen too I don't know if that's the right space when you think a business park think smaller users so call it 10 to 40,000 foot users yeah um that's usually what I think of business part is a preference to have a maximum building size what does that mean mean like you're not you know say you're not yeah you're not going to have building that's right not but I mean what how would we set a number on that and then not later on say whoops let's well it's like anything else it's arbitrary but I mean I think I'm setting a number but I just think it might be a waste of time I I guess I think that's a good spot for yeah this is part is it too big how many acres is it AC 10 15 and I would say the what's West what's west of Dayton Parkway is not very usable and yeah so that that CH this chunk here is that's 54 Acres so with this corner you'd probably be at about 60 and then west of Dayton Parkway is not very usable this spy spot kind here yeah the elevation change and how much this comes out actually and yeah there is a you know French Lake is a Shoreland lake so coming out to about roughly here is a Shoreland boundary um which impacts business you know commercial Industrial Development more so because it has that 25% Shoreland impervious surface calculation um and you can go above that with cups and stuff like that but it's just harder on businesses that might try to hit like a 70% impervious calculation which is pretty typical for commercial Industrial Development to be restricted to 50 which is the cap for commercial industrial development in Shoreland so so when you put the estimates together for like density someone like looked at this land and said hey're assuming that every acre is treated equal when in reality every acre is not equal in this area cuz there's some of it that you won't put a single building on because it's currently Wetlands or Marsh or just two that should be shown on these Maps Kevin it makes it easier for us to yeah there was so I tried to print out contour maps to show all is your calculation is what I'm trying to figure out did you already figure that into your calculation for density or not yes okay so you buildable area you take into account unbuildable area and took that out of the calculation so we're seeing what would to a degree I mean there's because we're doing I'm doing all the calculations on this on Gross density which is before you net out all those you know like Transportation networks how much roadway are you going to have right away things like that wetlands are you going to have you know open bodies of water things like that don't come out until after you do the net density calculation so I estimated you know they're not accurate calculations when it's on an area of this size but roughly I said okay how many how many acres of wetland do we have when I do the national Wetland inventory and how many areas do we have that you would not otherwise develop which means you know like if this is not the case here but if parcel lines included French Lake you would obviously take out the areas of Open Water cuz you're not going to develop on a lake um things like that so I did do the computations on that to show that that and that's part of just running density anyways is just evaluating some of those things those factors to know you know and there's some parcels on here that will be or are less favorable for development compared to others that's just the case with anywhere is that you have sites that have Wetland and you have sites that are farm field and open and great for development and you have some that are may come in and they have terrible soils they might be all clay um but we won't know that until they come in so when I think of the business park land use I support it but I want to manage what's going on to the east of it but I believe it's called dubet Lake and what if anything the city envisions around dubet Lake so we don't hurt ourselves on if we're going to do something with that I don't know when I say something it's like maybe it's just Parkland or whatever or Trail or whatever but you want it to flow um 50 acres is about 700 to 750,000 Square ft of industrial buildings just to put that in perspective how far east is that from what's on the map Dubay Lake you have a good one right here on it cuz it's right here it's just got Schmid's property and it's like right here yeah believe the Wetland area right here so yeah d bay roughly about there because it the center of Dubay is pretty much right on this property corner right here thought there was another smaller one powers or I there too I don't even know if it's still called that whenever I thought there was another one in here mean for Lakes no poers l Creek you're definitely kind of parking Trail only that late for sure but you know I know we're trying to focus on this area Kevin mhm but I feel like this conversation's we still got to talk about Sala 117 if we're going to have that business park is that the idea to blend in business park with Sala 117 that's a that's part of just considering whether we want business park in that area CU you know this is I think we need to redo that existing business park this would be future Business Park well I'm more concerned about the dark purple and red to the Sala 117th what that's going to become and how that flows into what we're talking about which part this this that part everything east of par where since it got shifted right here up yeah and that's part I mean we don't know what that'll ultimately be because it hasn't developed yet but well we what we need to do is fix our comp plan of what we want to be because it's probably not going to be those two things I mean that would come in as an individual compl Amendment at this point you know right now someone could develop under this and it would be you know 30% mixed I hear what you're saying but I want to be proactive if that's not what the city thinks that is the right land use yeah to be fair the master plan that we're doing now is not actually changing the land use as part of the 2040 comp plan I get that but this is part of 2020 our current so the7 remember when we started this process that was one of our big gripes is why did we draw this box and ignore that and I just don't I don't want to side ra derail this conversation but we're talking about land uses AB budding to it so I think it's pertinent that we you know discuss it a little bit and make sure that we're on board with what we want it to be is that to to kind of help consistency on the North and correct 17 yes and the flow and traffic and everything I think this is definitely part of the conversation of what what this becomes because this is how it is I don't think because of the way I mean I was working under the direction that we decided the boundary and so we're working within this boundary it's at this point it's too late to change that boundary I mean that's we're then changing the plan we're changing the scope we're changing the outline of everything that was decided upon so I'm just going to State this but when we had this conversation day one I voice concern to Zach and yourself that for first of all we can't master plan this bigger area we're not that good we can master plan a smaller chunk like the city center like this conversation should be focused on what we're talking about land uses and transportation Corridor we don't need to master plan how many acres is this 600 yeah we don't need to master plan 640 acres we need to change land uses M we need to figure out roads but we don't need to master plant 640 acres so that did come up a couple times and I think a few of us had the same concerns I don't know how we how we resolved that I don't remember but I know I had a concern definite concern about 600 acres I do the direction from the council was the square area so I was at that same meeting and I had multiple conversations with Zach on this I'm not trying to throw anyone under the bus but you know I I give our our whole entity staff Planning Commission Council a f on this because we we have to have better communication we shouldn't be Master planning 640 acres and we need to stop it because even to the public input we're going to we're going to look bad we can't M no one's done it the last big master plan was the Ramsey town center and look what that happened to that and that was only 180 Acres so I'll just I mean I think the reasoning and I say I'm not saying it's long to study the area I'm just saying you can't call the whole thing a master plan I mean we can change the title if you want if it's just a future land use plan evaluation use that's fine if you just don't want to have the master plan I think it's better but I've done this same type of study on areas anywhere between 200 and 1,000 Acres studying it's different calling it a m to me a master plan means you're really figuring out a lot of details okay I Town Town Center it's just the land use all we're doing is talking land use all we're doing is transportation and land use on the industrial I mean is there a consensus to have the business park on the was it Southwest cor makes sense I'm going to I'm going to mildly rehash Dar and said does it make sense to put that Business Park South of that line and then put some of the commercial north of the line to kind of maybe offset the two so it flows better somewhere well this this P this pink should be along in here yeah that's that's exactly I'm saying the same thing that's where your retail wants to be as long a main drag yeah that's what I'm saying too that's where it will be right I mean yeah we should sh south of the boundary and move some of the commercial north of the boundary this is ddl right now and that that's that's going to happen here real soon it is but we're we're focused within the I understand that I like the the the the new Commercial Business Park where it is my only question is it's right next to what's supposed to be Park mhm and that seems so there's there are zoning centers that would make you buffer from the two so you'd have like a significant 50 or 100 foot buffer and there is already grade problems there there's Wetlands there I think we'll end up GR buffering it anyways oh yeah but I'm just saying then who's going to use that park right like you're you're like you're making a park and then you're surrounding it with businesses then who's actually going to like go to use the park or is the park simply a chance to have green space that's not going to be heavily utilized it could it could be a trail head too I know there's Trails going around there solid swamp back there I I boarded at French Lake you could say that yeah I don't know if that's yeah yes that is but I don't know if we could if that's well known or not I mean it's it's not our plan if they if Three Rivers bought that yeah they're going to have to figure out what to use it for yeah but they my understand is they talking about using as a trail head because they have a big Regional Trail that's going to go right through this area so I yeah yes I wonder with the with this business Park area that larger um rectangle at the top if that isn't less desirable and sorry oh more like just it touches the lake there's going be a lot l so the West that's right yeah so just cut it in half basically right where your finger is yeah basically west of where we're drying Dayton Parkway coming through M turn that into whatever well were you talking about the big rectangle on the top here well that piece because it the corner of it touches the lake but I think that this the same applies to all of it on the west side of the future essentially trim the land use so that the business park lines up with here and then these Parcels either become part of the medium density or yeah I would think medium medium density and likewise they won't mind being next to the trail head and the natural resources are that you make this whole area if this is the east french like Ral line discussion you make this whole area consistent with this right I agree then I would swap the red below it with the purple we had consult because then you putting all the the business part together there's a little bit of commercial up north that that's what I would do I think that makes most sense personally I think that solves the ultimate issue of like talking about these weird divided Lots out that we can yeah I agree with the swap map I don't understand why we don't do something something to our comp plan Sal the 117 so essentially taking comes out of money it's expensive to get the comp plan review it really is well if you get a use there you don't want because it's zoned and guided commercial and current zoning what's worse it's zoned and guided commercial you could whatever is allowed in our code could go there and it's not set up for that nor is it designed for that long term with the road shifting so with the with the commercial the red here let's say you know not the same shape cuz I don't think it would flip-flop to the same shape up top but if this commercial here became I don't know part of like these three Parcels or even all the way up to the top and then that industrial or the office Park Business Park then swaps with it right that's what you're saying is just flip-flop the two so then this becomes all of this like we'll call it light purple would you do the same for this medium density residential with the commercial corner here and take the commercial corner there's gone it's not going to be a commercial but I mean do you want to try and get the commercial corner here up top and then have be medium because East French Lake Road no okay I think you keep it to Dayton Parkway 117 if anything you shift the commercial up at this node of Dayton Parkway and where East French L Ro is yeah yeah so you're saying just bring this red down here not yeah sorry I'm taking notes you're do we have any other thoughts on any of the other areas you know you know the some of this has changed from the existing as well so there's I none of this really matters now I would think that with the mixed use area we can do a higher density and what I would to meet the density requirement I would probably make the mixed use higher and decrease some of the high density land area cuz how many acres of high density do we have right now so you think you could go north of 60% residential in the next year yeah well let's just say it's a four story building only that's going to be commercial is first floor so option three there is might be a little strong but I get what you're saying yeah there's 195 Acres throughout yeah so of high density yeah and it's a lot of high density but it's just let's just use 175 usable just for but that at 20 units an anre that's 3,500 units that just seems like a lot of high density it's it's really it's because this area and a couple other areas of Dayton we're used to focus to preserve as much low density in the comp possible so you have to I'm not saying I'm just saying that it's agree yeah it is and you could probably if you're going to do that I'd like to see it go more vertical andless horizontal right okay is what I'm trying to say great I would meaning higher density so you're talking because the 60% assumption for residential is just a generic assumption on mixed use based on what you find for ratios of commercial to residential but you're talking about upping the 12 minimum units an acre to 16 20 that's a hard gu that's a complete guess I guess I'm trying I don't have a good way of that a way to update to uper than 12 yeah cuz you wouldn't the Assumption for 60% residential is not really going to change that's more driven just by the market that we've seen is that every mix building I guess I'm trying to think of why so like if you have like ground floor retail or you have like a residential building next to one is like Rogers has the new Broadways going in over there with the Asgard high density residential Apartments that's a mixed use site it's pretty much 35% commercial I think and 65% residential 3 story building that's why it's 30 it's 3 yeah we're talking talk land areas but it could be fed use on the parcel like you could have one entire residential building and then a and a commercial building bu it it doesn't have to be usually floor commercial and then residential even those are usually more dominant residential right they I think and that's what you're saying right 65% 35 I wouldn't go super high but I think you could maybe go 65% with it maybe um well I think what maybe would help is how much commercial Acres we got so how many commercial square feet do we actually going to have here so this this section is 6 60 Acres 60 Acres mhm and that's almost all usable for right M the majority yeah I me there's some smaller natural environment stuff but so with a six land to building ratio that's 400 425 to 450,000 ft of commercial it's a lot that's a lot and so that's why i' I kind of feel like if we're actually going to have this mixed use area that it's going to be more residential than mixed use right and put going to be the destination commercial uses I think what is a Walmart like a 50 60k they they they vary that's about right somewhere they can get up in the 80 if they've got a grocery store comp but helps put into perspective I mean that's a lot of square footage yeah and if you I mean not saying we want big boxes but I would struggle to see more than one big box come here I don't see a hardware store like a Home Depot Minard's coming up here I just don't right but like I say it would take to fill up all that commercial it would take a Walmart a Home Depot that's exactly it would take a lot of big box to do that and you're and to your point you might get one you might not get any right you might not want any is that their total foot is it's building size that's building size so that doesn't you already took of for p out when I use a land of building ratio of six I'm basically saying for every acre divide it by six that's of building you'll have helps I feel I feel a little more confident of upping that mixed use I guess is where this conversation's going yeah yeah I think 16 to 20 yeah the density up I mean the reality is we're going to depending on when this happens there could be different building standards designs everything's going be different so I I would go a little higher we can I'd be a little afraid of going too heavy on the high density residential thinking it'll go vertical cuz there's we're not going to I I doubt we'll get a six-story apartment building here right you most to four three over one underground parment going be your most common you can see a fourth but as soon as you go to four stories then you have different building structural requirements uh and that's cost prohibitive unless you have the that's why you don't see them so I I want to keep that in mind too A lot of the inner ring suburbs all have four or five stories now it's kind of like if you can support the rents and that's the question is what you design around this thing is can you support the rents isn't that that one towards AIO looks like it's a c first floor and then they did the wood four above it so yeah the B line in Champlain I mean mhm yeah yeah how tall is that that's four and five four and five sure so I think that's about as tall as you get I mean yeah if you went six the whole issue is you need two levels of underground parking and that just kills the feasibility but I think when you think of this town center though you have to think about making it attractive so you can attract renters that want to live here that can afford to pay these high rents because it's not going to be cheap new construction I think from that perspective I I think positive comments are encouraged as well I do like what you did along 121st if as you think about connecting the commercial to the mix use to the park I can Envision coming in from east to west and seeing how that would transition and get you to the park as the park park and lake is your destination and I I like that you kept that consistent on all three because I I I like we got on the surve I think that makes a ton of sense tying the Town Center to the park so that you have essentially your focal open Green Space area that ties into and I think as you go down that Corridor right you're going to be marching towards the lake um I I think I think it I like the way that's set up any other positive comments well okay so I curios you what what would it attract you to spend $2,500 a month on rent in Dayton I think I think some walkability down I walkability walkability I think retail users I mean you need that's why people like high density cores they want to be able to walk to get their food their car say the ability to take Myer go back without using the car you know kind of those kind of things or ho it to the park and look at the lake a little bit with your dog and you know come back and and grab a sandwich at a at a little cafe mhm right and when you think of Master planning this is the area like in this current diagram you target the commercial because you're now you're Master planning storm water to yep and and then you can really pack the density in here is what you what you want to create that environment and that's the area we do have and I know Planning Commission is the only one that's seen this so Council wouldn't have seen it but this this specific area and even more so this specific area with the mixed use in the park is where a lot of the text in the master plan and we can call it a future land use study or whatever going call it um shows higher architectural standards build two lines things like that to kind of create that pedestrian environment specifically on Dayton Parkway um I know there's some conversation of what Dayton Parkway looks through or not Dayton Parkway 121st looks like through here um so that's a lot of what that text gets at um to focus in because we don't talk about um in there specifically Master planning what the developments will look like in the high density residential which that's why I feel like we should unwind that to myself because it's confusing to the public it was confusing when you presented it to us okay cuz it was all wound in there I just unwind it I think what you're saying is very pertinent but it's pertinent to this little specific area okay well then I'll make a note to make sure that when we present this back to commissions council's open house um I'll include a note like that or background on that to help right I mean is it wrong to even draw a dash line someone that said this is the master plan area subject to what you're those things you're talking about we could I can clote a blown up diagram this this area when we talk about it in the actual document does Define saying we're talking specifically about this area to off of this diagram so it does reference back and forth between it um I think that's some of the feedback I'd be looking for more on the actual document itself and less so on when we're talking about the line uses on the map right now um but I do want that feedback so that I know what's not clear you know because this should be the document should be as readable as if I were to go home and hand it to my mom that she could read it um having no background in Dayton or planning at all or anything like that to be able to understand what we're getting at so that hopefully that means every resident within Dayton can understand it as well so land use is so we've kind of talked about that this would become Business Park and we talked about shifting some commercial down to here I think that this this is high density I think that this should flow like almost like imagine another service road coming down here and so when you think about land uses you should be thinking about there's a another road here and so you could have more commercial uses like Dennis was saying or you can always pivot at that time if maybe more small business or Highway commercial is that so it's more you're just saying pull back some of the commercial from here and instead transition and phase it this way a little bit Yeah whether it's commercial or Business Park I mean I think I guess we got to pick something now but when the time comes we'll know more but yeah but again and I don't know how we do this but that's what I really want to see in this plan is the roads that we can't forget about mhm and so to me the service road maybe that's obvious but to me that's what you want to understand is like all right you know here's your intersection here's your intersection here's your intersection but traffic can free flow as much as it wants behind it with all the curb Cuts yeah there will be very limited on Dayton Parker right and that's what I mean by this by a service Ro there yeah there will be secondary streets this is only showing those high level future arterial you know major collectors not showing the local roads and the minor collectors that are going to be interspersing all the traffic to these major corridors so to me if the topograph I mean that's the whole issue I don't know the topography if it's it if it's not that level then I get why we're doing high density but if it's fairly level I could see this even becoming Business Park I mean you can always pivot in the future if it's not that but none of the great in here is prohibitive for development I'll say when when I looked at it just to look at you know like are we going to run into Bluffs are we going to run into like major top topography that's going to impact development there is some grade change the high points essentially like right here like 978 um but all the grade as it changes I mean your two foot Contours are well well apart where the grade change you know at most is you have some 10% slopes maybe 12% at best and those are for short runs where you could balance that out over a site um so none of it would be prohibitive for the development to go in so that was a factor in evaluating just to see you know is this line usable I mean because this this is you know this doesn't have the natural resources overlay cuz then the colors get a little bit much but you know this is not shown as a lake even though it's it's an unnamed Lake on all the maps but um that would be the only area where it's a significant portions on developable um one suggestion I might have to is flip that to high density and flip this to medium density that's buing the low keep the medium here next to the leg but flip that to high and then shift this to medium with the transitions so then we'd be fine having high next to all this is the a preserve Parcels which are it's going to be something different eventually okay yeah that that seems to make sense to me as well is that I know Darren's been draw drawing jotting is that consensus around yeah okay and it would be nice to see some some other quarter down where there almost go to Parkway there yep some so like you said yeah so like scrap yeah cuz 60 Acres of the max you'd want to see for commercial having evaluated like other commercial areas in the Northwest Metro and West Metro I'd be shocked 60 Acres is on the high end it's you know it's shown as a bubble you like this is how much it we think maximum could support and it may scale back as development actually comes in when this develops in the staging plan you know in 10 years 20 years maybe um so we'd want to you know gaining commercial here we'd want to lose some here so I think trimming back you know probably trying to tie with Parcels as best we can so maybe it's here maybe it's here I'd have I'll do that math based on you know how much area would we gain by adding it here to lose here and then maybe if you feel 60 is a little high we could go back like 45 to 50 is fine too but I think preserving the land for commercial gives you the option to then trim it back later when and that helps because if if it's not commercial it's likely mixed use or becomes high density on the back end all of which helps the calculations with respect to density um yeah rather see commercial along thare okay and you know what might happen with the commercial along the thoroughfare is businesses are adapting to so much with internet sales that you might have drive-thru Business Park buildings where you have a drive up door instead of waiting two days for your product you will get it MH and realistically and I don't think big box is something that would even happen at this site if you think about struggled to go down by Target in Maple Grove that that lost for sale they didn't have the rooftops they needed to do it um you know see a high VR Target here but it has to be like late in the cycle late late in the CC real late yeah we need way more rooftops You' also have to have a connection over the Mississippi you think so I think so I don't think you'll get the ADT I don't think you'll get the ADT on I to get the pass by traffic that they would want yeah it's about rooftops you know raw radiuses cuz serving communities they're not serving traffic with Rogers not far away I mean there's a like nothing close your eyes and turn and you can get toar b to three targets probably so if you draw them out on Maps they're all about three to four miles apart and if you put one right there in Dayton it's 3 to four miles from all the targets so all it works but you got to have the rooftops first right uh what's our medium density uh lowend six okay I that's pretty standard for medium and this is all assuming you know we this is keeping the two units in ACR as a minimum density for low which was the carrying over from that comp plan do we have any consensus on if we want to get a little more aggressive with the high density from 20 to 25 I think we should but I mean don't I don't want to hurt ourselves either that uh 10 years down the road you know we're we can only approve super D but I think it's the reality I really do what does the building look like that supports that so back in the like think of Maple Grove there's a lot of Apartments built in the 90s um they're beautiful right by Bass Lake Road too Bass Lake trails but they're about 15 units an acre but it's because they have massive green spaces and what the market has kind of found out is it's just something to look at it's like yeah and why not take that green space and preserve it for the public better and you know let them go more vertical that's the way I view density is not not create a bunch of green space on every property that's maintenance that they fertilize and do all this other stuff too it's like so 25 units an acre like b line is almost 40 units an acre but there's no that's all Hardscape for the most part that's the one in Champlain right at the river that's all hardcap mhm so that's why I think the happy medium is somewhere between 25 30 uh the one down in the newer one down in Maple Grove right on 81 in territorial the newest one those are right around 30 the newest two I should say 81r what are you talking about uh Fernbrook Fernbrook yeah Fernbrook and yeah yeah yeah I'd be okay with 25 25 I think it just it makes it look more it's be Case by case I mean someone might come in and say I want to do 30 or 40 because I can see across the or if they think they can get the rents people are going to do as many units as they can which if you keep your foot from the small I'm all for it in areas that it's appropriate once you've gone that direction might as well yep go that direction yep yeah I'll look at so it's more about setting the minimum not the not the maximum right the only sometimes people get worried about the maximum is building Heights but usually feasibility takes care of you just can't have parking like that's at the end of the day you can't park that many so Minneapolis did is they said fine we don't need to have parking requirements we're in the suburbs we need to have parking requirements and what they found out is the projects that have good parking get way better rents than the ones that don't because people still have cars especially when you're paying still becomes winter here yeah we still have every year yeah only other comment that I had um and we touched on it early on so I'm not sure how solid I am on it anymore but that area uh across from across 117th from rver and trails I kind of like the idea of having that low density and a to make a little better transition from that low density to the medium density so stealing ESS this transition from rver up yes so that' be around in your option too yeah yeah okay that'd be around like Dubay yeah you'd have you know like this Northern portion of this part like this is all kind of basically part of Dubay all that so it's basically you just be wrapping the Southside a little bit around so is that yeah I I don't mind it like I said you you have to transition from low to medium at some point and I think you just got ask yourself whether or not you want to do that in an existing neighborhood or a future neighborhood to be determined right you know and you can say while your neighborhood when they came in there they knew that they were going to be a budding medium I I'd say you know greyburn doesn't necessarily have that argument know they were getting a substance that's exist yeah well cuz that was concern C to high density kind of knew what they were developers did maybe the consumer probably didn't but somebody else knew yeah yeah the yeah the developers certainly did yeah we have already cut an air for that so couple times no matter what it's going to be not in my backyard right I mean the transition has to happen somewhere but yeah I don't I don't necessarily disagree and I think I think Lake might provide a little bit of opportunity to be low density around it too I can see that area that we just labeled coming to park someday we on Lake two Bay on the south side of it where there's Highland because it's going to be tough I me when you think about it it's going to be T to develop it's be tough to throw roads in there and uh but that's is there a big Park in Breer I haven't been in there will be will be okay there's an 11 acre one plan Four Corners yeah there's the these ones okay all right it seems like we're better shape yeah any other comments are there anything any other aspects of like option one we didn't even really look at do you remind us what the difference is on option one make sure there's not something over there that we kind of like to yeah option one kept more high density residential cuz that is the one where I didn't up the density calculation so you have more Acres of high density residential which every so far through all the conversations want up the density get less so when we up at the 25 are we envisioning taking some medium density out or what are we just going to say we're just going to go with higher density for now in general in the area and figure it out later we'll have to see I guess so when we're at 15 units an acre on option one we had 256 Acres of high density when we go to 20 we're at 175 so you lose 70 something Acres of high density residential that was essentially then adjusted to either medium or low depend like in certain areas is how I adjusted it so if going to 25 is what we can do and still you know like not have people not develop high density residential um say we go from 175 down to 125 or something like that to get to the right amount of units um we would essentially have 50 acres to play with to say we don't have to have this high density what do we sh shape it as um I would suggest if you're were going to suck in more low density keep it coming in this area and maybe up this area typically been doing that from the boundaries of the you know assuming this transition here you know high density versus or next to low density is not terrible but if you can transition from low to medium to high ideally you like to do that so this is like this is a boundary that's high to low high to low mhm High to mag preserve we switch the one right the upper the upper corner didn't we swap the talk this going going yeah we swwa Northwest Northeast oh my gosh this is running out of me so this is high to then get something in this corner to medium yeah it seems like we're we're looking at adjusting it within that square why would we not Bank some of that high density for outside the square agreed we could okay I I that we should put the high density where we think it goes the medium density where we this is where you can get away with high density y we have the road y so essentially like saying saying you you get 50 acres that you don't need but you put it here anyways it means you could then adjust things outside of this if you get more units say we go from you know okay the existing land use plan you had to have 5,23 units based on density and all the acreages that were in there that's what you have to end with to make sure it balance is Citywide but if all of a sudden we do this and you're at we'll just say you get an extra th000 units and here you're at 6,000 unit you can then reduce surrounding areas the city to go down but we should we should do that with a comp plan update cuz I think mat Cil will hold that against you if you know what I mean you want to ride that line when when you would subm the comp that's my concern all of a sudden we say look we can get all SE Den here they're going to be like great four units in should get five units in not they're just going to constantly be pushing us to make up else it's not specific to Dayton it's I know it's not but we're the developer of land so we are going to be the one that's the brunt of that over the next kind of a shining star but none of this is going to come out until we redo our comp plan I understand that so I think denn is saying if there's people in consensus is when we shift the TW the high density of 25 units an acre don't shift more low density for now MH but when we do the comp plan update we'll either going to have to maybe adjust this or I know there's a bunch of medium density on the east side of we' have to I would say we have to adjust it it worked out cuz once you give that to my Council they're not going to let you take back at well that's my conc we give it to met Council and then all a oh in I'll just explain for some clarity here so like this what we're showing here is being used as part of that 2050 comp plant update so none of this will actually change on the land use plan when this goes forward this is a essentially a guidance document for that that you could then use as part of that greater 2050 update to maybe you know reduce the medium density by frame work as you mentioned or things like that this would all go in at once to counc that way you wouldn't be like bumping it up to 3.4 in the city and then trying to drag it back down to 3.1 it would all be going in as one essentially to say we're still going to you know stay at 3.03 to 3.04 there's probably going to be some minor fluctuation but here's the way we're balancing all and then if when we get to that point they they do Force every community in the metro to go to four units an acre every Community is going to have to band together figure out how to I don't know yeah we're not going to talk about that [Music] now Rogers although Rogers depends on the I will say I did like seeing all of the elected officials from all of those cities on the meeting that I was on listening to Y because you guys can ask questions I can't being having to work with my counil to the question I asked I kind of got the same answer we had them here the Met console they oh that they appreciate they you're on there no no they just some of the stuff they're just making up they smoke so very irrita um so when you were saying we want to kind of keep these numbers you're just saying so we don't get stung later on by having to play catch up elsewhere right yeah I get that well that's everything think I we can give you guys a break between minut Council yeah I'm good there more butter who said that I think what you really want to avoid is the last Community fighting my Council they will take you you're the last Community fighting that c they will take got to be like Medina e