call the August 7th planning commission meeting to order. It is uh 6:32. First item of business, pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. Uh, roll call. I believe we have everyone present. Do we need to state names? Forget. >> No. >> All right. We're You got your audio fixed? >> I not yet. Okay, >> I'm working on it. >> All right. >> All right. >> Next item of business is the role of the planning commission. >> Turn your audio down. >> Okay, >> there we go. Okay. >> Uh role of the planning commission uh is stated on the agenda. Um and uh it's it's there. Next item of business is approval of agenda. Any changes or corrections to the agenda? >> There is not. >> Okay? >> I'll catch up. >> I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> We have a a motion from Brown and a second from Crossland. All those in favor? I I. >> All those opposed? Motion passes. 5-0. Uh, next item of business is the consent agenda. The only item on the consent agenda is meeting minutes from July 10th. Any corrections or noted changes? >> Yeah. when we were discussing the uh the issue with the uh with curbside >> we're talking about here at list that they we generally supported the handling of construction and demolition debris uh but express reservations about municipal solid waste and organics. Um, we completely left out recycling. That was part of their request. >> Mhm. >> For handling recycling. The current lee for lawn clippings handling is what they're supposed to be doing currently, right? >> Yes. >> And they wanted to request all these other items. The recycle was part that I was comfortable with, but none of the rest of it. So, it kind of leads it kind of leads us in in the wrong direction with the the way we structured the sentence there. >> What would you like to change? >> Well, we'd have to add in the recycling part cuz I >> I I guess I recall talking about recycling. I know I was in favor of construction debris, but uh not municipal. Um >> I would concur with Peter. That was my opinion as well. Were you I was not present. >> They were not preser. So that was >> I was not against construction debris. So >> I was not in favor of excuse me construction debris. >> Okay. So >> is there anything you would like to change in the minutes? >> Excuse me. We're having a hard time hearing you. >> We'll speak up. >> Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Yeah. Keep the microphone. >> Is there anything you'd like to change in the minutes? I think just maybe add in about the the recycling just as noted. >> Okay. >> And there was mixed maybe maybe better to say mixed opinion on construction debris. >> That'd be more accurate. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> In support on recycling. >> Okay. I'll find a place for it. >> Okay. >> Any other changes or noted corrections? >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes with the amended changes. >> I'll second it. >> We have a motion in a second. All those in favor? >> I. >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes. 5-0. All right. Uh, next item of business is open form. Open form is public comments limited to three minutes for non-aggenda items. Is there anyone here for open form? Marsha, come on up. [Music] Oops. I just have a couple things. I was I think it was at the city council meeting a couple weeks ago and it was revealed that one of the buildings I think it um industrial building that was built within the last year or two was built without any fire suppression inside of it. And I I really am shocked there's no sprinklers, there's no smoke detectors, none of that stuff in a brand new building. So, I'm thinking I would like to see you guys press these people that come before you and ask to build a building. Put them on the spot and say, "Do your plans include fire suppression?" Because this this building that they were talking about is right across the street from houses, residential buildings, farms, horses, animals. So, please do that. And then I'm going to use my other minute and a half to talk about the traffic on 113th in Fernbrook. Yesterday I went out and sat on my front porch faces 113th in Fernber and I counted just for 10 minutes just the side dumpers. Not not the great big dump trucks, not the moving vans, nothing except the side dumper trucks. And in 10 minutes there was 13 of them. That means 78 an hour, 936 in the 12 hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 6,552 in a week's time in 7 days. And none of those trucks have any covers on it. That dirt is blowing in our yard down our our asphalt driveway is not black, it's brown. And when it rains, which it's done frequently, we have mud all over in our driveway. We have mud all over on our sidewalk. Why aren't these trucks required to be covered? And why do they have to have so much dirt in that project that they're building? 6,552 trucks in one week. Something needs to be done about that, too. Thank you. Anyone else here for open form? All right. Moving on. Item seven, council update. Okay. So, for the ETH, July 8th, we had two openings on parks. We had two applicants so that was easy. Uh DCM farm final plat was approved 3 to2. Uh [Music] legacy woods final plat was tabled until the the the business with the met council is cleaned up. And then the there was a uh a discussion about the city purchasing a house that's currently on a Three Rivers property that was handed over to the uh HEDA to handle in. I believe they subsequently made a made an offer on it. July 22nd curbside waste concept plan that pretty much mimicked I think what the planning commission was looking at. Um the municipal waste was problematic with most of the members. Uh and then um trying to figure out how uh to bring them in compliance with the current cup. Uh there was a lot of little things associated with it but uh ADA appointments there were two openings and three applicants. Um so those two were there were two appointed there. The Spanear expansion uh there wasn't I don't think the council brought up much with that. That was pretty seemed pretty straightforward. Uh there was a uh approval to go out um for plans and specs and bids for the Milan overlay on 125th and and uh East French Lake. The exterior lighting discussion uh went on for a while. Um I think we generally took what you guys had um proposed. I don't think there was any differences. There was >> landscaping light lighting is allowed. >> That's right. Yep. Uh there was a safe route grant that was going to that's going to help that was uh so we approved on that. that was to um pay for the uh the uh improved pedestrian crossing at the school. There was an approval to have um engineering do some work to figure out what the historic village sewer and water plan capacities are just so we know them. And then there was a close session for that house purchase um which was subsequently uh given to the H. That's it. Any questions? >> Questions or clarifications? I think just if you could just give like a one minute summary on DCM farms 3 to2 what the what the general thought was and I think the concern with the so I was one of the votes against it um were the the fact that I wanted that it was a beauty I wanted the city benefit to be uh clearer than I thought it was um I think uh Salonic, Council Member Slanic was the other no vote. He had just simply had concerns about the 40ft lots. Okay. And yeah, I think that's okay. That I think that's helpful for us as we we look at applications and >> Yeah. I don't think I have any other ones. All right. Item eight, public hearing uh for amendment to city code um 100.13 home occupation. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so this is a requested ordinance amendment to our home occupation or uh standards and I'm just going to kind of summarize this a little bit. Um so right now we have a home occupation administrative home occupation. So for someone that's running a business out of their home um and then if if it's more intensive then we require an interim use permit. And this is very generalizing kind of what the requirements are. Um the amendment what we're asking is is to amend the code uh to allow an administrative home occupation to sell items out of their prop out of their house that they produce at their house. Um, so, uh, the state has, um, I'm going to call it a permit registration for cottage, uh, things cottage industries. There's like, you know, if you're making jam out of your home and you're selling it, um, the state has a requirement that you have to have an in produce an income of $78,000 or under that u in order to be able to sell it out of your home. But it's very it's intended to be kind of a I I'm going to say more of a hobby than it is a a business. Um I could be wrong on that, but again the way our ordinance is written is that you cannot sell anything out of your property um as a administrative home occupation. The proposed amendment would allow homeowners to do that. That's a really quick summary. Um, I'll keep going if you'd like. So, uh, and I'm gonna apologize. Hayden wrote the staff report, so I'm kind of learning it as I go. Uh, staff did research a number of cities and how they regulate similar uses and and it it's it varies quite a bit from not requiring permits at all to having an administrative permit like uh, Dayton does uh, versus you, for example, Rogers requires an interimm use permit. Uh so again the change here is that uh retails where it says no direct currently what it said it says no direct sale of goods to the consumer are allowed to occur at the home occupation site that would be amended to uh retail sales of goods and merchandise are limited to those items produced on the property and stand for any questions. Mr. Chair, if I could just wondering um what the impetus was or what the rationale as far as why this is brought up now. Is this based on complaints that have come in? Is it based on just general observation or >> we had an application to amend the permit or to amend the code? >> Okay. So, does the city of Dayton see an issue with like a prevailing issue of people doing this without the interim the the permit occupation permit? >> Um, I would say no. I mean, we have, you know, if you drive around town, there's many people that are selling stuff, the house that aren't don't have a permit to do so. Um, it's not been a problem. So, >> and and is that like if I mean if staff is driving around and and seeing that happening, they're not stopping and asking where their permit is though, right? I mean, this is kind of a >> if it's a complaint or someone has an issue with at a neighbor, that's when you investigate to make sure that they're properly conducting business on their property. >> Correct. So, all of our code enforcement is complaint basis. as the applicant, can I get some clarity to this? >> Yeah, why why don't you come forward as the applicant and might help help with some some of the clarifications or why why you're amending the code. >> Sarah Vanastston, 16100 South Diamond Lake Road. Um, so what started this was I I sell eggs for my property, which I'm allowed to do by code. Um, but I recently got my cottage food license from the state. So I um sell cookies in kombucha. Um, and I was talking to Hayden because when the Milan overlay gets to my road, it's gonna gonna be harder for people to come to my house. And I had asked like if I have like a stand in the corner that's technically on Zanzibar, like is that allowable? Like what what do those rules look like? And so that triggered Hayden looking at this code. And Hayden's the one who noticed this like seeming conflict because earlier in the code it explicitly says that you can have customers or clients. And if you can have a customer or a client, but then later in the code it says you can't sell anything, it's like well then what is a customer because a client would be someone like if you're a hairdresser or whatever. So like it seemed like a conflict within the code. Um and so Hay and I talked about the best approach for doing this because obviously I'm on councel but I'm doing this directly so that I can sell something. So we felt like the appropriate way to do it would be as any resident who saw a code that they wanted to have fixed. So I'm going through the process as a resident, not as a city council member. Um, so Hayd and I, like we said, it just felt like a conflict within the code. And as John pointed out, lots of people already do this. And I'm going be perfectly honest, if I wasn't on council, I would just be doing it. But I am on council, so I have to follow the rules. Well, maybe a little closer than other people do. So I would like to sell cookies and kombucha from my home along with my eggs. And it also seems silly that someone can come to my house and buy eggs, perfectly fine, but I can't also sell them cookies at the same time in that same transaction. that is apparently not allowed and that just seems dumb to be perfectly honest. Um so triggered the whole request to make this change. Um so does that clarify% I I do. Yeah. I mean a lot of I mean first of all shock that there's contradictions in the city code. Right. So um yeah um yeah obviously these are issues that come up which help cities make sure that their codes are consistent with how they want to operate and within other areas of the code itself. So, I appreciate the explanation. So, thank you very much. >> Yes. And just to clarify, if you're not familiar with the cottage food baking license um that the state of Minnesota and um runs, you are very limited on how and where you can sell and from your home is one of the few places. You either have to sell at a farmers market um or some other market of that kind or from your home. And that's pretty much it. Those are your two options. >> Are there any other licenses we need county or state licenses for that? No, just the cottage. the yeah the min and that again there there's rules there's a whole bunch of limitations on what you can sell it's a very limited license um but when I was like okay so the license says I only have these two options and then the city says no you only get one it's like okay I'm already super limited can you please open up this second one that would make this a little bit more doable um but as John did say there are limits within that license once you hit a certain threshold you do have to then then you're obviously at a much bigger scale and you've got to move on from that >> thank you >> any other questions for me. >> I have a question for John. As a as a city, do we even have a right to limit what the state statute allows people to do? >> Um, we can only regulate what the state allows us to regulate >> and the state does there is a caveat in the rule that your city may limit this. So, >> so that the state does give the city the right to say. >> So, we do need to change this. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh, this is a public hearing, so I will open the public hearing at 6:52. Anyone here on this item? Any discussion? Seems pretty straightforward. >> Very straightforward. >> Yeah, I agree. Makes sense to me. Any concerns or? >> Nope. >> All right. Well, I will close the public hearing at 652. Uh, can make a motion to approve the amendment to the um zoning code. >> I will second it. >> We have a motion from Crossland, a second from Grover. All those in favor? I. >> All those opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Next item, interim use permit for event center at 17921 Dayton River Road. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh so this is um Thicket Hill Winery. They're requesting an interim use permit for in an event center. Uh as you mentioned, the property is located on the southwest corner of Lawndale and Dayton River Road. um is 68 acres and they are proposing to build a an event center that's uh 14,000 square feet and in the future would also build a wine production facility. Uh these are uh architectural well architectural plans for what the building would look like from the exterior and then a site plan. Uh so here's Dayton River Road in Lndale. Uh the entrance is off of Lawndale and there's a long gravel driveway that comes up to a gravel parking lot and then the proposed event center on top of the hill and um the future uh uh wine manufacturing facility. Um the building is designed to have maximum occupancy of 498 persons uh with a required parking. The city code requires one stall per two uh guests or a maximum occupancy of two guests. So that's roughly I'm just going to round it up to 250 or 249 parking stalls. Um what the proposed parking is is less than that, but there is proof of parking that's being provided. Um staff is fairly comfortable with it being that this is a large park property and and it could accommodate additional parking if needed. Uh so again the planned uh event center is on top of the hill uh with gravel parking next to it and then there's overflow parking towards the bottom and the applicant is proposing to or I should say if when this is a need would provide a shovel shuttle service between uh the overflow parking and uh the event center. Um couple of questions to consider. So within our city code, uh event centers must be on a a minimum site of 30 acres. Um it does require a setback of oh I'm think it's uh 200 believe it's 200 feet for portable bathrooms and 400 feet for per 400t for portable bathrooms. 200 feet for permanent bathrooms. Um there's a question on with the interimm use permit that the the expectation is that it as interimm it's temporary it's going to expire at some point. Uh staff is recommending that it has an expiration date of 25 years to match the u 2050 sewer staging plan. Uh the applicant is requesting 50 years. And just a kind of where this is if you're on Lndale, it's on top of the hill. Uh by this little tree is where the event center would be. It's two different perspectives. So questions questions or >> Yeah, if I can. Again, I understand you weren't the uh the author of this uh report, so I just need a little bit of clarification on parking. Um staff report says 249 parking stalls. I think one of the the figures in the packet actually show that 74 will be provided. That was on one of the plans. uh is that the case or are they going to be meeting the the full 250 or 249 requirement and then and then where is that located? >> So the the city code requires 249 and what's being proposed if if my my math is correct is 177. Um so that's a deficit of 70 72 stalls that they're short on. Um, so again, the 110 stalls is up by the event center and then the overflow 67 stalls is down uh by the road entrance. Um, I guess it would be a question for the applicant where additional parking could be located. >> So, generally the proof of parking would be where the additional parking would be located. if it was found out that the provided on-site parking is not sufficient, >> it it'd be a better answer from the applicant. So, I guess the thought is there there's plenty of farmland that additional parking could be expanded into, >> right? I mean, I would I would encourage that if this were approved that we would have that on a plan showing exactly where that proof of parking would be located. >> Sure. >> And how many stalls so on and so forth. Um second question I had uh regard it was also regarding the traffic and one of the considerations that um the city engineer made as far as a proximity of of the um entrance into this facility to Dayton River Road. Uh, and the fact that it says while it is unknown at this time whether this problem will occur as far as the stacking issues that are potential out this, the applicant should work with the city staff to shift the axis south of its existing location and then said in the event that this is something that is not accomplished before the use is operational, staff is including a condition of approval that reserves the city the right to require a change in the access location if congestion occurs. Um I understand where staff's coming from with that. I would encourage in that loca in that respect also that that shift happens regardless. Um if this gets approved before operations happen that that shift occurs. Very very difficult to switch up operations. Tell them that they have to you know force them now to shift that when they're full-blown in operations. So, I would I would highly encourage that if this gets approved that that that uh shift of that opening has to occur, not maybe it will occur. >> Yeah. And I don't have a slide of this, but kind of and Jason, you can correct me. What we're looking at is realigning uh Lawn Dale um roughly I'm going to say kind of along this property line. Not quite um but more towards the east. And so I think what we're talking about then is providing more distance between this intersection and the driveway by probably putting the driveway on the other side of uh these buildings. There's some topog topographical challenges with that. So, so >> the shift is going to have to occur anyway when if Lawndale gets shifted, their driveway is going to have to shift, which I think all is more the point to try to get it right now because otherwise the city might be on the hook for paying for their driveway. >> Sure. So, if if the commission would like that as a condition, then make that as a note when the motion is made. I guess I'm just trying to understand what rights we have in as a city in doing that right now knowing we've got a shift coming. If this property weren't if this if this event center weren't going through and the farm were just staying, we'd be likely asking the property owner to relocate their driveway and have to >> for the event for the event center. I think what Jeff was saying I generally agree with is that we'd be asking if See Londale wasn't shifting, we'd be asking them to relocate the driveway anyway because it's too close to the intersection for stacking. >> Understood. Understood. Do we have a timeline at all on when Londo may be moved? >> No. Uh, most likely it would be unless the funding became available, it would be part of whenever that segment of River Road is improved with the county and as of now it's at least 10 years out because it's not on their projected projects. Did you have a diagram of what that realignment looks like? I thought I saw it at some point, but >> in the engine packet. >> Oh, okay. Thank you. Thought I saw it. >> While we're discussing this, John, and obviously the applicant, are they intending to keep all the existing improvements there? >> Uh, you mean for like the driveway and >> No, like all the out buildings and the buildings >> as far as I know of. Yes. Is the new building going to be sprinkled? >> Um, as required by city code. Yes. >> State code. >> State code. >> Any other questions from staff? >> Not at this time. >> All right. Would the applicant like to come forward? >> Yeah. >> Jack Burns. Uh um 14770 Thicket Lane, Dayton, Minnesota. I'm a resident for 30ome years. Um couple comments. Uh, first the the address is not 17921, it's 17501. That's my son's actual address. Um, so that should just be clarified. Second thing, um, my request for 50 years versus 25, we are investing a tremendous amount of money that will benefit the city of Dayton tremendously. And it it will be the premier vineyard wedding event center in the state, I believe. And if that's what we want in the city of Dayton, I need more than 20. Hell, the the loan won't even be paid off in 25 years. Uh, the other thing that I have with an IEP, which I've talked to others about, is, you know, if something were to happen, we have no intention of selling it outside the family, but if something were to happen, I die, my son dies, we both get hit in a car accident, we have no ability to sell this under the IUP. So, I'd like that to be taken into consideration plus the term because it's very hard to invest this kind of money and not have some asurances that you know we can operate a fantastic business uh for the city of Dayton into the future. Um the other comment is on the moving the access. I mean we are the farmers that the farmer hasn't left. We have a vineyard there. We're farming it. Uh we have all the agricultural buildings. We store our equipment in those etc etc. Um, topographically, it would be very difficult to move that access very far south. I mean, literally, I'd have to either tear down my machine shed or I'd have to try to go on the south side of it, but that's only moving at about 150 ft, which I'm willing to do, but I think the cost is pretty excessive when we pay a based on the review of the traffic studies, there's no uh information that suggests there will be congestion. We would gladly put a plan in place to limit any stacking or congestion as an example. Right turn only out of the uh event center. So you'd go down Lawndale versus River Road. There are things like that that we can do. Uh and I would strongly ask you to consider that because I think that um you know I don't have a problem if it becomes a problem we can't mitigate it that down the road we have to move it but with the potential for lndale to be moved and these and you know these other unknowns it just doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a lot of money to try to force that right at this point in time. So, I'd ask that consideration. I don't know if there are any other questions for me. Um, but those were the two two things uh I wanted to address. >> Any questions of the applicant? >> I got a couple questions just that while we're talking about shifting the driveway. Um, if we were to sh if that's the decision that people make to have it be shifted, I guess I wouldn't want it to be something that you have to tear down buildings to shift it, but I would envision it shifting it far enough south of that building and then it's not going to be I guess I don't know how many feet it's going to be, but unfortunately it's going to run right through your proof of parking. Um, and so maybe the challenge is you just got to find a new place for the proof of parking. It it also is going to run if it goes more than 50 ft south of the existing building, it's going to run right through the middle of our vineyard. >> Right. So, and as you know, topographically that land runs downhill toward Creek down there right about at my property line and then, you know, goes under under Lndale and Port River. So the further you get south, the more challenging it gets from a water perspective, you know, from a low lower line land perspective and pro probably like the driveway was put where it was originally. Um, >> yeah, the logic for wanting to move it, just so you understand that too from my perspective is is it will be hard to move it in the future. And I hope that you have a very viable business here for more than 50 years. And that's the challenge of trying to get it right now, I guess, because it's >> well, >> the same problem's going to exist if you're still there in 50 years, but now your vineyard's going to be even more mature and more >> Yeah. Well, I think that the issue is is that, you know, if there's some plan to move Lawndale, which I just learned about, then how does that fit into moving this? And and honestly, in this picture here where you've got the red arrow, that's a I mean, literally, I can move it maybe 100 ft to the south to the south of that building. And to me, if if Lawndale is going to get moved, it would make more sense to either wait till then or wait till we actually have a problem that, you know, we can address. And I don't have a problem if you if we put in the approval of the IUP that if this becomes a problem, we need to address it. But I do think there are some common sense ways to limit the congestion which you know i.e. One idea is as you come out of that driveway, we put a sign right turn only, which means they go towards. >> Yeah. >> Well, I mean, we can also have I mean I it's cheaper for me to hire someone during an event to flag them that way than it is to spend, you know, $100,000 plus dollars on moving the access. Uh my next question kind of helps with this whole shifting the driveway too is talk about the operations, the MAC occupancy. Do you have experience running an event center, a winery? Um stuff like that just so we can all put it in context of um how many people and events how big what's the biggest events going to be? >> Okay, so the yes on the winery, no on the event center. Um the maximum capacity of the ballroom is 320. Our average um you know wedding that we've researched is pro probably in the 250 range or less. So, one of the reasons we're building it that big is again back to the goal of being the premier event center in the state of Minnesota because a we're close to the city, b we got the rule setting, c we got lots of access to hotels in Maple Grove, ago, Rogers. So, we think we can pull that off. Um, and that's why we've built or we're building for this, you know, these larger weddings that can happen. And they're people have a hard time finding places that can accommodate that much. The tasting room, I believe, is around 80 people, um, which is separate on the other, you know, it's on the other side of the building. And, uh, yeah, and that's But those are the two >> those are the two drivers of the next >> two drivers. Yeah. >> Okay. >> I mean we're we're planning to have you know other events beside weddings, private events. Uh also have you know like I wine yoga you know where women come and do yoga on the lawn and go have a glass of wine afterwards or >> what I'm welcome. >> Casem what's that? >> Are men welcome? Yeah, you know, might be just wine yoga, you know, whoever wants to come. I was just an example, but you know, obviously trying to come up with lots of fun ideas that um will keep the place busy and, you know, provide a lot of taxes to the city and the state and the county. Um, so yeah, >> either the hours of operation for the tasting, what are they generally going to be? >> They would be less than the hours the operation for the IUP, which I think is 11:00 at night. So, um, we don't foresee being open, you know, very I I can't say for absolute sure, but, you know, maybe it's like 9 10:00 on a Friday night, Saturday night, week night. So, you we might not even be open on a week night. >> Okay. >> Um, so we got we got to fine-tune all that >> generally. Yeah. >> Okay. Um, so the only other it's more of a comment just for to think about. Um, but the one thing I did notice is that your parking lot butts right up to Outlaw A. And I just think that you should make sure there's enough space there to provide some landscaping and buffering either on outlaw A or whatever. But yeah, if you're here forever, Outlot A is going to eventually become something else that we have to be thinking about that too. >> Yeah, we can reconfigure outlaw A. I'm not concerned about that at all. That's kind of what I was wondering if >> the only reason we put it the way it is was it's >> 30 acres for the IUP, right? I mean, we can go to 40 acres. We could go to whatever we need or want, but it was al also part of this other project >> that we had to they wanted us the city wanted us to lot and block the event center piece. So, that's why the drawing was that way. But more than open to looking at, you know, the 30 acres could look different than it is or we can go 35 or 40 or whatever. It's not not a big deal. >> Yeah. The site plan stays the way it is. I just would request a little bit more of a buffer between the parking lot and >> where all lot A starts. That way in the future it's set. >> Yeah. Our intention is to have volumes on that side of the parking lot. >> This is my son. >> Yeah. Sorry, JT Bernins 17921 Dayton River Road. Um, so I can just fill in a little bit because a lot of the planning has been um a little some of my vision as well. Um, so the idea would be to the I guess you'd call it north of the drive coming in there would be vines along that drive and then on the west side I guess of the parking lot there would also be more grape vines kind of I guess closing in the event center into the more full vineyard. But you know you got to kind of start out with 10 acres of vines and work your way up. You got to scale it, right? And so that that's the future intent. I think there's probably a lot more to the future idea that would that we could share with you that would help to um answer some of those questions you've had. And then around the an uh the hours just to give you an idea. I mean our expectation is we'd be open probably Wednesday to Sunday noon to 8 for tasting rooms. That's pretty common around the state um for that. Um, and then the other piece around some of the parking, uh, the proposed total of the 110 and some of that is just more in accordance with some of, uh, neighboring cities. We've done some research. The Dayton code on parking spaces is um, probably a little excessive in uh, you know, when you think about these types of events. So, we looked at other wedding spaces and some of that and uh other cities and they tend to shade more to the three to four um persons per vehicle is the expectation. So, just to kind of fill in some of the stuff that we've been talking about. >> And just so we're clear for everyone looking at the photo, but the the where the event center is going to be is lot one, block one, >> but that property line runs I think that's north and south. Yep. Right along the parking lot right now. Not the not the shaded area. >> Yeah. He's just asking You're just asking like instead of the 30 acres, go along that way. They come >> I just want Yeah. Make sure that whatever you're screening the parking lot so headlamps headlights coming in and out if it Yeah, >> it's not a big deal. >> It's just changing the lot on the I mean that was just the >> placeholder kind of 30 acre placeholder. >> Yeah. So it's right now it's this parcel is 68 acres and and it can't go below 30. >> Mhm. So there's space there's a little bit of space to shift the parking lot configuration or you can change the property line to be more than 30 acres if you'd like. >> Yeah. Yeah. I >> I don't think we have a problem making the lot and block 35 acres or just reconfiguring it to address your >> Yeah. And I I guess the last comment is when when you guys come forward to build the winery, you know, at that point in time too, that's what might actually even shift further south to create more parking too if need be. >> I mean, obviously it's just a concept now. So >> yeah, I mean our they did ask us about that. Our concept right now is that, you know, probably been some tours in the winery, but it won't be open for the public to be outside, you know, just be more of a tour thing. you're in the tasting room and we'd have set tours where you take them through when it's not operational because we gota you gota worry about food a food part of it and all that kind of stuff. You can't have people walking around while you're making wine. >> But we'd be glad to make those adjustments. And I I guess you kind of think of this as kind of phase one of an ongoing project in time, right? That we kind of build out into the winery into a larger vineyard and things like that. So >> yeah, I mean our intent is to keep roughly 100 acres. I think it's like 98 or something will be just farmland. It's either going to be grapes or it's going to be corn or soy >> or hay or hay >> or whatever. >> But but that's the intent. So um I mean the whole concept with this and our other plans are the you know keep and uh the mission kind of rule feeling you know that that whole thing. So had lots of conversation with >> people in the city and the city council etc. I think there's a lot of projects going on in Dayton right now that support kind of that agro tourism that I think will help to support keeping Dayton the Dayton that we all grew up in or some of us grew up in. >> Any other questions? >> I guess you I mean we we touched a little bit about on parking here. Um the code is the code. Unfortunately 249 stalls is what's required. uh unless there's some um way that we can be look at the code in a different aspect to help with uh the lack of parking that's currently on the on the site plan here. Uh but even with this these two uh areas outlined here, you're still short, correct? For the number of parking, >> I think it's 80 or something. >> Yeah, short. We're still slightly >> not 180 short of 100 because we be >> whatever that is 60 or something. >> 70 short. You know what we'd like to do is I mean if you if you'd like to see it I mean I realize the ordinances or the code is the code codes aren't always >> that's a matter of opinion and it's a matter of of staff to look at that a little bit more in detail to determine whether or not the code is sufficient for any need that's coming forward. >> And we'd be glad to provide the research that we got from other cities and kind of why we proposed. Hey, we don't think we're going to need more than this parking. We've got proof of parking for overflow here. And um you know, if we do need additional parking, we can do that. But it's kind it's kind of one of those things where uh if you're going to uh a certain thing like, you know, church or or events or whatever, there's always more occupants per car typically. And that's where we did a lot of the research on, you know, churches, event centers, those kind of >> I mean, I I wonder if if does the code allow for that flexibility as far as um not or uses uses that aren't aren't competing, you know, so as the wedding's happening, is there going to be wine tasting at the same time? >> Is there going to, you know, so if one use is happening and the other is not, >> shared parking? >> Is there shared type of parking arrangement? I don't know if that's dictated by code though. And so my concern is that if if it's not dictated by code that allows you to do it even through an IUP, you have to maintain the strict adherence to the code of that 249 stalls and you could potentially do that through uh proof of parking if the code allows for that also. Right? I'm not familiar enough with Dayton zoning code to know if there's specific allowances for, you know, spelling out here's exactly where my proof of parking is. And if need be, at one point, we will construct the necessary parking to accommodate our needs. >> And I think we have to do it. >> I think that's the great solution he's suggesting though is just expand your proof of parking to show that it can meet code. So, one of my suggestions on this is just >> looking at it, looking at your site, looking at at the roadway coming in. That's pretty long, wide roadway. >> Yeah, >> I would I would suggest looking at some parallel parking there. >> Yep. >> Along the roadway, you can get a lot of stalls in there if you widen it out a few feet. >> Except you might be making a wider road that never gets parked on. >> True. >> It could be a proof of parking thing though or gravel. Yeah, they could in the future. Yeah, >> I think that's the key is providing proof of parking for the 249. And I think we're open to all ideas and I do understand that you know max occupancy is max occupancy but I to your point and what you brought up Jeff I think that maybe there's something there we could explore around if we had a max occupancy ballroom wedding shutting down the tasting room for that evening to alleviate 110 of you know the extra occupancy that maybe in that situation don't doesn't make sense if you're going to have that large of a wedding maybe you shut down the tasting room to allow for more room for the event itself. We just have to make sure it's allowable under the code to to make those. >> Yeah. So, the I guess my suggestion is that the applicant provide proof of parking for the the 72 spots and wherever it fits best for them. So, uh the only concern I would have >> parking lot >> um the road I believe is prop or no it's already built uh at 24 ft wide I believe. >> Yeah, that's the plan. Yeah. Um, so I think for our fire code it's 20 ft to in order to have a passing vehicle. So if you have parking on the road, uh, it needs to be off the road. So I I don't know if you have consult with the fire chief about, you know, like how wide the road have to be, that kind of stuff. We also have where there's proof of parking down there. I mean, I think we can expand that there and we can expand proof of parking on the parking lot up by the event center, which is maybe to your point good is just push the line, you know, the lot and block line that way so there's room for additional parking. So, we can do that. >> Any other questions for the applicant? Well, I have a question on on the uh >> the information that you provided to us that talked about 498 people max occupancy and he was talking about 320 people. Why is the difference? >> The ballroom and missing room are two separate spaces. >> Okay. So, that's added together. >> Exactly. So, there's there's uh several separate spaces inside of the building that total to the 498 number. Um >> yeah, I think they got to do like bathroom. I I don't know how you do ocular but the architect you know >> tasting room patio there is an upstairs space in the tasting room as well with uh another smaller room that could accommodate small events like you know a 25 person birthday or something like that. Um so that's the discrepancy between the ballroom and the other spaces throughout you. One of your concerns you brought up was with the transfer. Um, I would encourage you to talk to some legal people, but generally you can sell an LLC and it might not qualify as a transfer in the IUP world. >> Okay. >> Because you never you just sold your shares in the LLC. You didn't share. So, the ownership never changed. Technically, the people that owned it changed. >> Yeah. >> But that's why there's a little bit of a loophole there. But I would talk to people because how you set up your LLC >> to get the tax advantage. two, the biggest concern is ter, you know, like we'd like more years because we're kind of >> we'd like to be >> barely be paying the loan off by the time that it expires. >> Uh the second thing, you know, on the on the U the LLC will look into that. That would be good. I mean, our intent is family and for the next 50 years, whatever, plus. But nobody knows what the future holds. And so it would be, you know, quite devastating to have quite an asset that couldn't be somehow transferred to somebody. So, okay, any other questions? I think as you look at your your parking counts too, you should double check your accessible parking because your accessible parking ratios need to account for all parking stalls, not just the ones that are in your upper lot here. Um I think it's usually 5% but um don't quote me on that. >> You're talking the 88 that part is paved. Um yeah, I guess we'll talk to the >> Yeah. to just make sure that there's the right ratio. >> You might be short on that. Um, I would concur to the proof of parking for what the code says. I know sometimes code is requiring more than necessary, but we do need to just see that you can meet that even if it doesn't get built. Um, with regards to the occupancies, um, assembly spaces have to have posted occupancies. So, you'll you'll come up with, you know, 308 or whatever it is for that ballroom, right? And you'll work with the fire chief to make sure it matchs building code and all that. And then you can work with the fire marshall on that too to if one if the ballroom is being used, the tasting room's not or whatever, like to help kind of >> assuming that all of that type of thing, the sprinklers, that's all part of, >> you know, as we move to permitting and go through all that. >> But yes, I mean, absolutely. And I think >> we've been engaged. >> I think if you talk to people, the fire chief and others in the city that we've been very uh proactive in talking to people and making sure that we're meeting all the things we need to meet. Um and so I we've had >> rest assure we'll we'll be doing those things as the permits and stuff require us to do that. Yeah. >> Um question maybe a little bit more for John. Um with this setup and creating outlot A, is outlot A developable at all or is that have to maintain as >> it's just >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah, that's what I was mentioning when I said roughly about 100 acres will be >> farm so to speak with out and then lot and block. >> Yeah. whatever we decide on that. If that lot blocks 30 acres or 35 acres, whatever. But there's roughly 68 and then 30 like 98 acres. >> Yeah, it's good. >> Roughly that won't be developed. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Uh any more? Yes. Any more questions for staff before we open up for public hearing? All right. 7:28 we will open this item for public hearing. Please come forward. >> I have a couple questions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but >> name name 1320 from MLAN. Thank you. Um, is this the same guy that wanted to build 10 houses on his property using the A3? >> Yes. >> Yes. So, is that plan out the window then? >> No, >> he still wants to build the 10 houses. >> So, this whole there's three parcels and was it 117 acres? >> 120 >> 120 acres. So, this the interimm use permit is a separate project from the proposed housing. So if he uses up this acreage, he can't use it again >> for building the houses. >> So for at 120 acres, that's uh 12 houses and then the rest of the land is not developable for residential use. You >> But it is for commercial then? >> Uh for this? Yes. >> Why just this? >> Um >> for any commercial business? I'm saying. Can you put up a warehouse on the remaining acreage? Well, that's not what's being asked for. >> I know, but I'm just saying um what are the rules for the A3? I just don't understand that >> it it's not residential use. >> Okay. And also, um I want to remind you that um weddings aren't the only people who use event centers. Um if you have a wedding for 500 people, you might need 250 parking spots. But if Boston Scientific comes over here and wants to have a grand reveal of their a new medical product, you're going to have to need 500 parking spots. If General Mills comes, they've got a new cereal out that they want to introduce and they've got 500 staff that they want to want to show that to, you're going to need 500 parking spots. So, please remember that 170 parking spots is really not even close. Thank you. Anyone else like to come forward and speak on this one? >> My name is Terry McNeel. I'm at 15601 Brockton Lane. And uh I think your instincts are right about questioning on the parking and the traffic. Those were two two of my items that I had listed here. And if we are fortunate enough to have the premier uh venue in the state in the metro, certainly I think um you know looking at the packet there's language like well it's unknown at this time whether this problem will will occur. the applicant should work with city staff. You guys have a tough job. You all have a tough job. But I think that if when applicants come up and they talk about their potential success, everyone's going to strive to meet that success. They're not telling you something that they're not striving for. And so, you know, I I think that the hard part is going back, you know, and saying, uh, now we've had a complaint, you know, and and now we have to look at moving this. What do we do? Well, right now there's already a barrier. It sounds like there's maybe vineyards or or product that's growing there. Well, that's just before this has gotten off the ground. when this becomes a full-fledged viable um destination venue, I think you're going to have a lot more obstacles in the way to try to move to make this safe. And so I just would encourage you to consider that. How do you do it in the future? And um be very clear or be very clear about what your strength is to go back and revisit this or you know the alternative is do nothing you know don't don't put silly conditions where you may or let's work with the city that's undefinable and it's so it's I would just encourage you when I when I look at this isn't even why I showed up today really but as I look at what your results are going to be whether you people go with um assuming that the applicant is going to achieve what they want to achieve and um you're going to make it really squishy and and give this a pass or if you're going to uh you know do something about this and look at the long-term future and assume success. So that was one thing. The other thing of of course was was parking. I mean, I noticed that as well. And um you know, it's not about you know, I I don't know if this one's a safety issue, but it's about again what I would say is common sense. You know, um can what is a city's ability should parking become problematic or a challenge? What is your ability to go back and force these changes once this business is established? So again, it's a really tough decision. you know, I I would be really clear and I would assume success on this. The last thing I'll I'll mention is or a question. It says here that um the recommended interim use permit ex expire after 25 years. That's kind of the recommendation. The property is currently located. Okay. Um it's requesting 50 years. Now, when sewer does come, um, is this property required to hook up to the sewer? >> No. >> Not required to develop. Whether it wants to hook up to like the improvements could hook up to the sewer, but if you're talking, are they required to develop? No. >> Okay. Not required to develop. Okay. So, if if sewer comes out that direction, Met Council 2050 has sewer sewer lines in here. Does this this business right now as it stands has the option to hook up and is not required to hook up to the sewer? >> That's correct. So, >> okay. So, and Okay, that's correct. I mean, sorry. >> Advantageous like if their systems towards the end of its life, they want to hook up. If it's they just put one in 10 years before the pipe gets there, they they probably want to keep using. I think in Dayton there's been situations where developments have have come up where they've had their own septic septic goes bad and then they they ask Dayton, hey, can we hook up? Well, if there's development going on and people the developer is being assessed per lot for sewer, you know, if we start subtracting and this is going to go into the A3, you know, uh redesation as well. If we start subtracting those who are hooking up to sewer, doesn't the cost per house increase because we have less hookups? And so I I would want you to research that and and figure out, hey, is because we all have to pay our share, right? When these developments come, we all are getting a benefit. So, I'd really like you guys to do your research and figure out, you know, is the right, you know, do you want to put any teeth into it that they they will, not that they may hook up or they can hook up or they can come back when it's, you know, most convenient for them and not the development. So, I would have those considerations all thought out before I just bypass bypass that issue. That's all I had. Thank you. I'm Bernie Camp. I live at 15281 Brockton Lane. Um I was wondering where their housing is going that they are wanting to develop on their property. I don't think I have a picture of that on the screen. >> I mean, is it going along Brockton or? >> Uh, yes. >> Okay. Are they going to come out on Brockton? The traffic. >> Uh, there's proposed to be an entrance off of Brockton and another one off of Shady Shady View. So, Shady View to uh Dayton River Road. >> Okay. The traffic from North Diamond Lake Road to the river road is like a raceway out there. I mean, if I'm home, I mean, these cars are flying down that road like there's no tomorrow. The motorcycles especially, >> so that's adding some more people to the road currently on that. So, I don't know what can be done. I know Brockton is a county road. Um, so I'm sure there's nothing you could do. I would really like to see that part of the road go down to 45 miles an hour and then maybe people would go 55 instead of 80. But so they're they're homes that they're going to build that are along that piece that's next to Daryl. >> Yes. But this project is specific to the winery. >> So not not the houses. >> Well, it's part of that. So Okay. All right. Thank you. I'm Liz Tot and I live at 14494 Empire North Dayton. Um I have a question listening to this. Actually think it's great they're looking at doing this. Um, Fischer Farms, what is their parking space? They have a huge event center. There's no parking other than a small section and they're for weddings. And I talked to the gal. She said, you know, hundreds of people can rent the space out. I don't see any parking design needed for them. Magnus down the road which we had looked at for my children to get married there outside up to 500 people. There is not 279 designated parking spaces for a venue and they've had weddings there. So proposing this on them I guess I'm kind of confused. >> And and John I think I think it's >> Are you grandfathered? No, if I could. So, Fisher and I couldn't speak specific to the number of parking stalls. So, Fiser Farms has a gravel lot and then they have overflow that's more >> it's in the field. >> In the field. >> Is that considered parking spaces? >> Uh, it's overflow. Yes. >> Okay. >> Um, similar with with Magnus is they have a large um I'll say grassy farm field that they use for overflow parking during their much larger events. >> And how much do you allow for overflow in fields? >> Um, as much as what's needed. And and so is that similar to what's shown on here as like the proof of parking down by the buildings? >> Is that open land for them to car? >> Currently it's open. >> So why is you know he they're fulfilling I would think they're part >> correct me if I'm wrong but Magnus was grandfathered in because this event center code is relatively new to Dayton and they were approved before the event center. >> Okay. But Fisher Farms we were up there. >> They went through the code. It's not very big parking space in the gravel and then they were having an event and then >> is their building open. Their new event center is not open yet. So I don't like what they originally built wasn't for that event center. It was just for having the events and tents and stuff like that >> and I do recall that they had to expand that as part of them building their building >> but I don't know where they're at in that process. >> Okay. The parking codes are specifically relegated to like buildings and occupancy of buildings not >> events that are outside. Yeah. That's a huge event center they put up there. >> Yes. >> Went up and looked at it. It's set up for an event center. >> Sure. So, the building the building that's there now is not sprinkled. It cannot be used for weddings or or occupied otherwise. >> Oh, okay. >> It's just a storage building currently >> cuz that's not what they gave me a card to advertise for. So, just questioning, but I wouldn't think they would have a problem. And as far as traffic, um, the roads, I mean, I used to live off of Pine View Lane and just with I moved 10 years ago. Now I'm back down into the Dr. Horton, but the traffic uh, Dayton River Road should be expanded if you're looking at anything right now. It's got a lot of traffic on it. And the same with North Diamond Lake Road. You got a two-laneer. You know, you're getting all this traffic. You got Fisher Farms and you've got Magnus and now you got another one. Are you guys looking at future expansion of Dayton River Road or North Diamond Lake Road? >> Correct me if I'm wrong. Those are county roads. >> Yeah. >> Are those roads? >> Oh, yeah. >> Okay. So, as far as traffic, does that affect anything? Um >> uh I'm going to look to Jason to >> for River Road. Uh the county would monitor that and expand when necessary. Um just an FYI, they're actually underway of a study right now on River Road. Um granted, it's not in this segment. It's only from Vixsburg all the way through Champlain, but they are looking at different options including expansion additional lanes for that segment. >> Okay. All right. Well, I I don't know, but I think they can find a way to get around the parking and being able to do it. I think it's a great thing for the city of Dayton. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Anyone else like to come forward on this one? >> All right. With that, I'm going to close the public hearing at 7:43. Um, if I could just mention that there was a letter that was provided by the the planning commission prior to the meeting with comments or opposition to the project. >> Uh, question for you, John. Um, so we're considering the IUP tonight. Are they coming back in front of us for a site plan and plat? This is all everything >> um for a Yes, for a plat, not for a site plan. So th this would kind of be serve the purpose of a site plan. >> Okay. >> So um and just to add on that so if if there's concern with the amount of parking I would suggest uh putting a requirement that you know whether you require proof of parking to or however you want to phrase that. Um you know this interimuse permit would also allow the addition of the um the winery or the winery production building. So that is not something you would see. >> Yeah. I I don't know if everyone is going to agree with me, but I feel like this should come back in front of us for a site plan when they have the plat figured out because the past event center, let's just say that it wasn't drawn. These guys did a phenomenal job as far as presenting plans compared to the last one. But when we don't have good plans and we just let everything happen, that's when we sometimes end up with something that everyone points at each other instead of saying >> if they just would have presented the site plan, we'd have our answer. >> And I get it, we have a site plan now, so maybe we can approve the site plan. But if it's going to change, I guess that's what I'm sure. >> Okay. >> It's almost like this is a concept plan. It's the first time we saw it. But again, the IUP is very important because that's what dictates how much more they keep going forward, right? They got to get the IUP first. >> So, if if that's the the wish of the commission, I guess what I would suggest is probably tableabling it until uh and then reviewing the plat and the IEP at the same time. Why why can't we approve the IUP so the I shouldn't say recommend approval to the council so the applicant actually knows that it's worth their time and money to keep investing in plans and getting it figured out because if for whatever reason the IEP gets denied they want to just pull the plug. >> Mhm. Um so with the IEP there would be some kind of a um a trigger of of when the IEP would expire or have to be renewed, you know. So if the >> right so if they did nothing for the next two years you're saying then that >> it stays as it is but u maybe there's another review when the plant comes in. >> I' I'd have to think about a little bit more but I I guess you know the question I would have is what is the concern of what you would what are the issues that you would want to mitigate or the questions that you'd have that we don't have answers to today. I think resolution to because some pressure is going to get put back on the applicant by some of us to maybe change their access and you know hopefully if they go back and figure out something that's what would show up in the site plan. I mean I view this as a concept plan right now to be honest because it's the first time we saw it. We're giving them feedback. >> Um but with the same being said the IUP approval is important so it makes sense to go forward. Well, let's let's let's think about that and then we can let's have our discussion and then maybe we revisit that before we make a recommendation. Um, as far as how it goes forward, I don't disagree with you on I I feel like we need to see this again, but especially with the proof of parking. I mean, obviously there's a lot of land here, but there's topography, too, that makes it more difficult in the existing vineyard and all that kind of stuff. It's just good to have it in the plans when we're approving. >> I mean, in my opinion, it's an incomplete site plan if we're approving it tonight. We don't have all the information on the plan that we would that I would like to see in order to be comfortable with saying, "Yes, this is great. Let's move it forward." Um, I think a review of that would be beneficial for everybody to know exactly where their parking is. They are going to meet the parking requirements if it's proof of parking or otherwise we have the uh the access point figured out. City engineers okay with the current access point for a certain amount of time or whatever it might be. So, I'd be on board um more with Darren saying that either this is incomplete and we we if that's case then I would recommend denial or we could recommend the IUP and then have them come back with the site plan review. Yeah, because Yeah, I'm on even the plaque that's in our packet is not right. Meaning the subdivision up in the corner, that's the old version, not the new version. So, >> it just, you know, for the public to know that what we're doing, our job, too, is making sure everything's complete when we do site plan approvals would be a good idea. Um, with that being said, I agree with Peter is that we should probably have a discussion on the IUP and see where everyone stands. Um, I'm in favor of it. Um, as far as the conditions go, I'm generally uh in agreement with staff. I think that the conditions should be that we need to show proof of parking for 249 stalls to meet code. Um, I think that uh I would prefer to get the access figured out versus a condition because I do think that they can be wishy-washy in the future and that's what ends up in the courtroom legal battles too when one side says you need need it because of complaint and the other side says they don't need it and then you hire experts with different opinions that differ too. So, um I personally would rather get it figured out and so hopefully the applicant can keep working and see if they can wind up with something that's amanable that provides more flexibility. Um, I I'm in favor of the 50-year IUP. I think it makes sense if we're going to ask people to invest in these guys obviously with their plans that they're presenting, it's a significant investment. Um, I would say that too that I mentioned this to the applicant, but if outlaw a I guess that parking, I just want to be thinking of how someday that's going to be screened like we require other people to screen parking when maybe there's homes next to it. They don't have to necessarily screen it today, but they need to have the space there to provide the screening as a condition and then screen it when development happens if the vines might be already doing that too. >> So So I thought I heard earlier that Lot A is undevelopable. >> Correct. >> Until water sewer gets there. >> Until water sewer gets there. Okay, that's that's a clarification. And I just wanted to make sure we we all understand that because there's some differences being said about water and sewer. >> So within the sewer staging plan, it's guided for 2050 or late or after. >> Okay. >> Jeff, any Yeah, I mean I'm for the IUP. I'm I I like this project. I think it's it's going to be beneficial for Dayton and I I really hope that it is does become the premier event center in the in the area here too. Um, you know, obviously anytime you put Dayton on the map, it's not a bad thing. Um, again, I think the 50 years is good, too. I mean, I understand the uh the extreme amount of of um time, money, and all the investment that goes into a project like this, and then you you don't pay it off in 10 years, right? So um completely agree with the applicant that you know a longer time period would be beneficial for everybody in that regard. I do agree with that. Uh going back to the parking and and the alignment um between those two I would I would say that I would want the city engineer to be okay with the alignment for the the access point uh before anything gets too far down the line. Proof of parking. fine with them saying here's here's where the parking is if I need it in the future. My guess is that if this is going to be a premier event center, they're going to want to put in the parking because if I'm a big corporation, I'm looking for a spot and I see there's only 150 parking stalls, I'm going to pass up on that spot because I know that it won't accommodate my needs. If there's 300 stalls in there, maybe I I do take a look at this event center. So, I think I think what is actually out there, I mean, the same goes for weddings, too. I mean, I hope people scope out their their site that they're having all their uh guests go to and if they see that there's not going to be enough parking, they're going to pass up on it. So, it's beneficial for the applicant to put in that parking to as they ramp up their their um business here to be able to attract the people that I think they want to attract to the site. So, I'm more okay with the proof of parking. I think it's going to be installed sooner than later just based on their needs, but the alignment um I think is something that needs to be nailed down beforehand and then um making sure it's an engineer is okay with where that alignment actually winds up. >> Okay. >> Keith, do you have anything? >> Yeah, I'm I'm uncomfortable with the 50 years. Um I'm more comfortable with the 25. Um the entry to me definitely needs to be moved away from Dayton Road. I think that's just an accident waiting to happen if you're talking about bringing that much traffic and I hope they're successful in their business which means more traffic. Um I drive around the city and I just see these little snafoos like that of things that we've done and that have created horrific traffic jams or traffic issues and things that we could have done ahead of time and fix them. and here's the time to actually make sure that the entrance into and out of this facility is safe for people to go in and out. I think that needs that needs to be addressed. You know, whether it's on the south side of their buildings or if they can move it farther away, you know, I mean, that would be even the farther away from Dayton Road the better. But I understand from your perspective where you're coming from because that creates a hardship on you guys. But um I think the safety of the people, >> you know, that we represent here is the utmost concern to me personally. Um and the parking is another issue. I think that needs to be ironed out. I think we need to know ahead of time exactly what that's going to be and what it's going to look like. And I don't I don't know looking at what we have here in front of us today does that. Paul, >> I'd agree if this is supposed to be kind of a concept plan level like I don't or um site plan level review. I feel like we're a little shy on what we would typically see, especially with regards to landscaping and buffer zones. Agree Darren that if Outlaw A in the future does have the ability to be developed once the the pipe gets here, uh we should make sure there's enough room for buffering um of that development. um which you know it may or may not ever happen but uh if you can just adjust that property line to allow for that I think that'd be good. Uh like you said before proof of parking is super important um for these event centers. Um I did look back at Fisher Farms they did have the proper amount of parking based on the size of the building for the one one stall for every two people. Um so that's why that wasn't a concern at the time. Um I would agree. I mean, with the road shifting, um, I think there's traffic control measures you could probably do if it stays in this location because of hardship, whether it's, um, hiring a a traffic control person that's there on Saturday evenings when the weddings are getting out or some other physical barriers or something to to force people to turn right or something like that. But um you know I would take you know Jason's uh you know thoughts on that and trust his his um engineering judgments on on what what is best for that. Um, I would I would support the 50 years um just because of the investment they're making in the city and and recognizing the fact that this could be a very um important important property, important business for our city in the future. So, uh I think it would preserve that rural feel seeing I mean you're already seeing all the your your vineyard already developing on the hillside and imagine this building. It's a very nice looking building. Uh I commend you for that. Um, looks like you're using good durable materials that are going to last long. Um, a nice entry canopy which will serve well for this event center. Um, using stone at your entry and around the base of the building looks nice. And I think that'll look nice up on the hill there. Um, so I've got a couple couple comments, maybe a couple questions for both staff and the commission. Um, first off, uh, a question based on like the the concept, the proof of parking and and what we have going here. Um if we can go back to the site plan um proof of parking and the question I have is and you know something to think about at least I mean I'm assuming when these events are going on when you need the extra capacity that the they're not going to be running their farm operations at that time. So there may be an opportunity to use some of that drive turnaround space as well and just to s maybe save some headache and cost on the applicant. And if that is that something that would fall in that category if we're talking matching materials of of some when you say in the turnaround you mean >> there there appears to be a farm turnaround right in there somewhere and just on the closeup aerial that I'm looking at it it it seems like that could be graded out and made into a parking spot and maybe save some space some green space that is otherwise being used for agricultural purposes today that the applicant could use, you know, during a wedding event when they're probably or a corporate event when they're not probably, you know, pulling the combine out, right, or the tractor around. So, just some thoughts to be creative with the site and with the the areas you already have that are hard surfaced. Um because that then in turn, you know, if we put more gravel and more parking in, that's less less impervious surface that we have on a site. And so it's kind of balancing those two options that we're talking, you know, a not a significant number of stalls for the area that's available. Um, question for staff on the lndale shift and and maybe Jason, you could you could best answer this or John, you know, if we shift Ldale to to the alignment that was shown in the packet, what becomes of the old Lndale? I would anticipate the rightway would be evaluated what's in there and potentially vacated. >> Okay. And then the space the space in between this property and that property technically they'd each get half of it. >> So so this owner would >> half of the rightway >> this owner would get half of the rightway of the old London. And so what where my head's at, and this is kind of a question for the commission here, is I think the IUP should have I'm thinking about traffic operations here. You know, you got people coming into the event off Dayton River Road, and I get it. Dayton River Road is a busy road. We can't we that's going to be a hard one to do anything to with people making a left-hand or right-hand turn there. Um it's going to happen whether or not the entrance is right here. to get people into the site off of Lndale is going to be important and and all of them are going to be making from Dayton River Road. They're all going to be making a right. That's your quickest movement that you can make. And then to keep it as straight as possible or or less impactful as possible for as long as possible. That's kind of going to be the the way to think about this the safest. So, my recommendation would be to have a flagger upon exiting. I would have them I wouldn't actually have them go right down Lndale. there's other other homes and residents there. I'd get them out back out on the county road right away, but have your flagger, you know, hold them at your driveway so that you're not stacking and preventing people from going south on Lndale. And that's kind of where my head was at with that one. Um, and that maybe is a a condition we can put in there in the IUP until such time that Londell gets shifted. When >> or they shift the driveway or something. >> Well, or they shift the driveway. And my thought is when Londell gets shifted, you leave the access the way it's shown, but then you bring them down their their new half vacated rightway to some other point that that they can connect to Lndale in the future further south. I think this is I think we're overthinking something that yes, it is a it is going to be a problem. Can we solve people with this? Can we solve people making a left on Dane River Road where it's the dangerous? No. Can we solve people getting out of the property with a flagger? I think yes. And then I think if we if we put that condition in there um that you know once once the property is vacated we can we can bring them on to the new lndale alignment but it's got to run down their property line to the south and on the east it'd be on the east side of their property and then bring them down to some point that's much gives much more stacking for them to get out on Dayton River Road. So, just some of the thoughts I was having as I was looking at this. >> To recap that, Peter, is there a condition that you're suggesting we put on the IUP? I >> I think for that that's the hard part that I'm I'm having with this is the um I think the the driveway realignment. I think once maybe it is maybe it is once the the drive the Londale's realigned they have to go a certain distance back on Lndale to connect but I'm giving what I'm giving the applicant here though is is you may be able to use that vacated right away and just and Jason you can probably come up with a distance that's that would be appropriate but it would get them far enough south that it wouldn't would make sense. >> Sure. I mean, generally speaking, the farther the better, right? But, uh, eighth mile is kind of what we shoot for. So, 660 ft, you know, up to a 16th mile, which is about 350, 330, um, is kind of the ideal, which is what you'd achieve if you're about south of that building. So, even that would be a a pretty good step. And you could do a right turn lane if you wanted to help ensure that the lane is clearing for additional vehicles turning south off of River Road. Um just some general info. Um current counts, granted these were collected in January of last year, which is not a typical time. So they're probably on the low end, but total count on Londale was 350 vehicles. So it's not a high traffic road uh by any means. And the peak hour was even significantly less of that. Um including to your southbound off of River Road, it was 11 for the peak hour. So that's about a vehicle a minute during the busiest time. So >> I would encourage I would read one thing that Peter said that that's a little contrary to the applicant, but I would I would not want encourage the applicant to send cars right on Lawndale exiting just because it is a low volume road with homes and traffic. They got to figure out how to get on Dayton Murder Road. I think we're we're we're looking at this to me the wrong way. Having lived in Dayton my mostly my whole life and we're talking about reignment of Lawndale. I mean, that might not be in my lifetime. I mean, no one knows. I mean, it's not in the plans to do it. There's no monies to do it. And for us to, you know, to incorporate that may happen into what we're discussing here in fairness to the, you know, to the applicant, I don't think that makes any sense because I would bet you my bottom dollar that that won't happen in any of our lifetimes or at least in the next 10, 15 years. I mean, the county just had a a public hearing here a couple of weeks ago and talked about and Jason was there and and talked about the improvements that they're trying to make on Dayton Road, they don't even have any plans of coming out this far to make improvements on Dayton Road, you know, so the the fact that they don't have any plans and we don't have any money and we don't have any any vision other than a some lines on a map that we might realign lawn Londale. I think that's not what we should be basing our decision on. I don't I don't see it happening in the near future at all. >> I don't think the alignment of Lndale is really a big factor in the decision I'm thinking about cuz I'd prefer the access to be south of the machine shop anyway. >> Oh, yeah. >> The alignment of Lndale just impacts how they're going to access their site. And I think what Peter is saying is that they can just use that vacated road to come up to wherever they put their existing access. Where I'm going with this is is a compromise like what Darren's saying is is I've heard from the applicant they have some topographical challenges as far back as we would ideally like their their access but south of the machine shop provides much better than what is shown. >> Mhm. >> And and then in the future if Lndale does we can push them further south in the future is where my head's. So they just come up the vacated lndale to where the existing driveway then is. So you push the access further south, but they just got to go up to the machine shop now down the vacated road. You would have to write language that says that that has to happen. If A, B, and C happen, C has to happen that they have to realign their >> I think the biggest currently it needs to it needs the very minimum needs to go on the south side of their buildings, right? I think we all agree on that, right? I think that my next question is that's I think where we need to decide is do we all agree that it needs to be on the south side of the building and make that a condition >> or that's >> yeah I can go I mean I I can see the the the reason to put it on the south side of the building. I can get along with that. I would I would prefer to make it a condition and then when it goes to the council, hopefully the applicant has a chance to look at their plan and and they can make their pitch to the council about it's too much of a hardship and see what council has to say if it if it is too much of a hardship. Maybe their plan will work and the council accepted. I mean, we're trying to follow best practices, right? So, we want to make sure that, you know, people visitors to this event center are are safe entering and exiting the property uh whenever if an event is leaving or if they're done with wine tasting, whatever it might be. Um, so that's the recommendation, right? And and I think that with any significant investment, uh, as this property owner is doing, there are going to be some hidden pitfalls along the way that aren't realized upfront. And this might be one of them where they might have to make the extra expense that they didn't realize they needed three days ago because of of a realization of safety or whatever it might be. So I agree that it's it's not cost effective to expand their driveway and shift it way south, but that might be the price of doing business. It seems like there's consensus on that condition when we make our motion. Is that fair to say shifting the access to the south food machine shop? Um, how about the consensus on the term? I know there's a couple of us that said we're okay with 50. Keith would prefer 25. Um, Keith, you got any pitch for why 25? >> 50 years is a lifetime. Keep in mind with 50 years they can always they can do it they could change in 20 if they wanted but it's more that they have the option before they have to come back to council for approval still their property um is there seem to be a majority of at 50 and 50 >> I'm okay with 50 I so where my head's at is I I'm okay with 50. I think especially if we're going to ask them to shift the driveway further south, make some more investments in the property, we should we should also invest in them and give them a little bit more time. Um is is my thoughts. So, I mean, unless people have more discussion, I'm willing to make a motion and entertain some thoughts if it needs to be amended before there's a second because there's a couple moving parts here. Um, I'll make a motion to approve the IUP. Um, and the condition is that they're coming back in front of us for site plan and plat approval. Um, a condition is that we're going to modify the condition from a 25-year term to a 50-year term. Another condition is that we're going to move the access to the south of the machine shop. And we haven't really talked about this, but I believe everyone's in agreement. But the other condition is just to show when they come back with their site plan that they need to show proof of parking for to meet CO. I think I hit them all. Did I miss anything? Uh I would second that motion with the amended terms to the conditions as stated. >> Do we have any discussion on this motion as amended? I guess my question is, you know, so if if you want to look at this as a site plan, um kind of trying to figure out what is the trigger for when they would come back with the site plan review. Um and the plat I mean the plaid is very clear the site plan this is kind of it. So if if there's more information that you want and my interpretation is you want to know more about parking, not necessarily the building or parking, landscaping and buffering and and the driveway. >> Yeah. Which would could it potentially include expanding >> the lot to get that buffering by the parking, but that's more of a site plan issue. >> Sure. Is is that something that you'd like to see again or would you like to have the applicant show it to figure it out before going to the council? I personally think that I would rather get in the habit of what we recommend the council approve is closer to the final plan than what we have in front of us. >> Okay. >> Because we've been I know in my relatively short period in the big picture is we've been burned by things changing. >> Sure. >> That we don't necessarily get a chance to express our thoughts on and maybe it would change things, maybe it won't. >> Okay. So if the council approves the IEP as it is, um they really can't make use of it and they'd have to come back to the end for the site plan. >> Yeah, they would have to. >> So it's so are we, and this is a question, are we in the best interest to table this and ask the applicant to come back with a site plan with parking? If I'm the applicant, I want to get I mean like I'm just speaking for the applicant, so maybe they need to speak up here, but I would want to know that the IUP is approved before I keep investing money. >> That's just my take. >> So part of the challenge I think is >> Why don't you come forward because this I know it impacts you a little bit. >> Yeah, a lot. Um >> and and please only please only address at this time the the IUP site plan and >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I'm planning on doing. >> Yeah. Thank you. Um, so I need to state my name again. >> No. >> Okay. >> So, we we would prefer that the IUP be approved and that we can bring the site plan and we can modify the site plan before the council meeting. You know, we we're on a timeline. We'd like to submit our permit, which a lot more details are going to come with the permit stuff, of course, uh, by the 1 of September. So, um, and I we can't move forward with the bank without an approved IEP. So, I would ask that consideration. Um, we do understand what you're asking for and like some of it's relatively simple. Uh, so meaning like the proof of parking obviously the moving the things south. I don't think we're in disagreement with that. is just >> how, when, and where and all that and particularly with the potential realignment of Lndale, you know, it it impacts all that. >> So, with with Fiser Farm, so initially they were approved for tented events and then they had to come back again once they had proposed a permanent building and which which they did. Um, I'm just trying to think if if if the council approves an IUP, um, but isn't comfortable with what they approved, there's no point in it what they did. So, I guess >> we would, well, the IUP is not giving them any rights to build anything yet because they still need site plan and plat approval. The IUP is just giving them the right to do this, but they need to get those other approvals first. Like, they need to come before us for a plat approval anyway. >> Yes, >> it's pretty common that you do plaid and site plan at the same time. Yeah, >> it it is. >> So, we can do site the site plan when we do the plat. That was kind of >> Yeah. >> going to be my question. >> Okay. So, the IEP is for an event center for this building still >> for the use of it. I would view the use of the property, not for the building. >> Okay. >> I'd view it that way more. >> Um, so my thought is to go back to a tented facility. And granted, you know, timeline, you know, this is going to go to, you know, the commission is going to make a recommendation. It will go to the the city council on August 26th. Your plan is to submit building plans shortly thereafter, >> which would have more information for the site plan. This would be back to the commission. Well, we we could commit to have, you know, like if the site plan is critical before the approval of the council, we can look at modifying the site plan before that. Yeah. >> Uh I mean, I don't know where you're going with the tented events, but I mean, we don't >> really plan on having I mean, this thing's not going to be open until June of 26. We're talking a long build time. >> I guess I'd be comfortable. You know, obviously staff are the expert subject matter experts on this, right? So staff understands what it takes to have a viable and usable site plan. We understand the direction of the planning commission, what we want to see. So um we we aren't looking at a plat or a site plan approval tonight. It's just the IUP. So, I would be comfortable actually if you did amend the the site plan before it got to the council and had staff review it to make sure it met the code requirements and what we want as a planning commission without us seeing it again. I know that sometimes things slip through the cracks, but if it's meeting code and you're comfortable, a staff level comfortable with proof of parking, uh, alignments, so on and so forth, then I don't see why we can't just take it to the council at that point. Maybe we could review it again when they come back for the plat. Maybe there's some changes between then and and when the plat is approved. Maybe we could see it at that point, too. Thrown out there as an option. Yeah, I I'm just going to repeat that. I'm I'm to the point where I want to see site plans and that's when we're doing this and this is the first time we saw it and it's they got to come back for plat approval and I I would encourage you to have that site plan when you go to council for the IUP because it'll just flush out more things that if things any comments but I would just prefer to approve what we talked about when we approved the >> so just timeline wise they're coming they would come back if if we were to approve the IEP tonight they would come back to council on August >> 26th >> 26th with and and theoretically like like Darren is saying you could have your site plan ready. We meet again on September 4th and so the next week. >> Yeah. I I think to try, you know, so to me it's clear that the plan commission wants to look at this again, but you also want to send this forward to the council and you get a >> for the for the use. So, the the IUP is tied to the use of the site and it's it's tied to, if I'm if I'm understanding it correctly, it's tied to the you the the site and the use of a building on the site that is not yet and the the layout of the site is not yet fully flushed out. >> Yeah. >> So, we can't go down the path of a tented facility because that's not going to work for these gentlemen to go to the bank and get a a loan to to get this >> constructed. I guess kind of what I'm saying if the council approves this project, it this is the project. So either the plan commissioner or the council would need to table it until there's more information to >> going forward. It seems like you should encourage applicants to bring their concept plans to us, not just the IEP approval in when the first time to see it, just like all other applicants. >> Sure. I'm in the I'm in the the I think I'm in the in the I guess from the applicant side. I don't think we have anything more for you guys, right? Um but I'm in I'm with Jeff on this. I I think in my mind the site is the layout of the site is is pretty well flushed out. the parking stalls. It's easy to see where there's lots of space to add more proof of parking. Um, and then the roadway alignment is visually for me. I can see it. It it seems like it would if those three requirements are met, I'm as on a staff review, I'm okay with it. >> I would agree. There's three of you. I just again I just we've been with Darren. >> We've been burned. So, I'd rather >> I'd rather have It just hasn't worked out. >> So, if I could right now, you have a motion and a second for approval. >> Yes. >> I need help with what those conditions >> and the conditions that were made were >> modify the 25-year term to a 50 term. Uh shift the access to the salt of the machine shop. uh provide proof of parking to meet the parking requirement of 249 stalls. That's were the three that I had mentioned. If we're going to be doing site plan approval right now, I think that you know the condition of buffering and cuz right now we don't they have either they have to shift something because the parking lot appears to abut the parking lot or the property line and it's easy to shift. We just don't see what they're going to do. Um, and then shifting the driveway at at will would the trigger be when the intersection is realigned or >> I think we're suggesting you figure it out now. >> Shifting shifting it to south of the machine shop now. >> Okay. >> And I'll look to to Jason to provide a recommendation somewhere in there. Any other conditions or clarifications? All right, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? >> I >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes. 5-0. Thank you. >> All right. Next item, comprehensive plan amendment and city code amendment related to the A3 agricultural district. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so to explain kind of how we got here. So, in uh March of 2025, the council adopted the A3 zoning district. Uh the A3 district allows uh the development of of unseured residential um lots with a net density of one home per I'm going to say two homes per 20 acres um and a minimum lot size of 1 and a half net acres. So once again in just general terms it's one home per 10 or four two per 20 four per 40. Um the city did not adopt or did not amend the comprehensive plan at that time. Uh since March, we received a notice from the Met Council that the A3 district is not compliant with the 2040 comprehensive plan uh because we don't have a land use category that allows unsoured uh residential development. Uh the proposed amendment is kind of two parts. So the first is to amend the governance land use plan uh to create a new land use category for unsoured residential development as an interim use. Uh and it when we talk about it this as an interimm use, it's not the same context as an interim use permit. Interimm meaning that it's temporary until sewer and water's available and then those landowners have the ability to to subdivide again for sewer lots. Um so that's the first part. Uh the second part is to amend the A3 zoning district. Um within uh the Met Council, there's uh what they refer to as flexible design guidelines that are are required to have um this type of density. Uh when the A3 district was adopted in March, uh the council required had the requirement of being one of the six guidelines, not all of the six guidelines. And so that was one of the points that the Met Council made in their letter is that we need to meet all six of the design guidelines, flexible design guidelines. Um, that's a quick summary. Um, so we're kind of going through this again. So the comprehensive plan, uh, there's no change to the future land use map that's here. So the intent here is that the area outlined in red would be eligible for A3 zoning. uh no one's zoning is going to change now. They would have to apply to change their zoning from whatever it is currently to A3. Uh there's no change in I'm calling this table five which is a uh just a calculation of how many acres are designated for what future land use and what is the potential for the number of homes I could fit in each of the land use. There's no change in that. Uh what there is a change is creating a new category called unsoured rural residential interim um that would allow uh the reasonzoning from whatever it is currently to A3 district following um the flexible design guidelines. That's just the quick summary of it. Okay. The second part is the zoning code. Uh so again the intended area is northwest Dayton and it's roughly 2800 acres although not every property within that area northwest Dayton qualifies to be reszoned to A3. So with A3 the intent is it's two home per two homes per 20 acres. So you have to have 20 acres in order to subdivide. Um and then again the minimum lot size is one and a half net acres. uh we have minimum lot width and setbacks and so on. Um so of that 2,800 acres I believe there's 29 parcels that would qualify um this equals to about 108 homes potentially. So I just want to be clear when we're talk although we're talking about a large area of 2,800 acres it's only 108 homes. um when we get into the flexible design guidelines and just go forward a little bit. So there's six items and I'll go through these one by one of of what they are and what do they mean. So the first one is to include the need to reserve land resources for efficient urban development as part of the ordinance purpose. So, um, kind of the answer that we have proposing is that the intent of the A3 district is to allow residential development with a gross density of two homes, two units per 20 acres with all of the following guidelines and then it lists those six. Um, I'm anticipating that Met Council will probably come back and say we we've got to um tweak that a little bit. Um, the map and it's difficult to see. This is our f our ultimate sewer map of that shows where we think uh sewer lines or sewer districts would be. Okay. Item two is to identify the land characteristics required to support future urbanization. Uh the plan that's up here is uh the preliminary plan for legacy woods or the um using this as an example. Um, and again, it's a little difficult to see. There's a whole lot of topography challenges on Legacy Woods. The intent here is to kind of draw a line where there's a a large change in topography and say um the area north of this line is going to be permanently unsured um based on site conditions. Whereas the area south of here, it's practical to provide services through here um you know for reason XYZ. So in this case, uh much of this area is farmland. So the assumption is if if it's good enough to farm, you probably get services through there. Uh whereas it's not so much on the north side. Um so again, on every case is a little bit differently, but when we go through, as the commission knows, on every project that's approved, there's findings of fact to support either approval or denial. we need to be more deliberate of you know what how does this project meet the uh the six guidelines item three is to allow no more than 25% of developable land in a project to be developed reserving larger future urbaniza urbanization parcels um our answer for the A3 district again it's case by case uh so the the example this is kind of a generic example here is you have acorage development on the top portion and more clustering of lots on the southern. So, this is an example of clustering so that you're uh allowing development on 25% of the project and reserving the 75% of the project as a future urban development. On the flip side, so I I don't know what the acreage is, but let's say these lots are I I guess the question is is how small or large should the uh A3 district lots be that would not prohibit future development? So, uh for example, our our minimum lot size is 1 and a half acres. Um how many lots can you fit on one and a half acres? Maybe it's two, maybe it's three. Is that enough of an incentive for future development? You know, when sewer water becomes available, maybe, maybe not. Um, if they're larger than an acre and a half, then maybe it is. So, generally, the bigger the lot, the more incentive there is to to sell it or to develop it at a future point. >> I would encourage staff to look at lot width and not size. >> So, if we got 130 foot lot minimum, it's easy to say that that could become two lots all day long just by dividing that in half. In today's standards, you might even be able to get three. Uh item four is to protect future urbanization parcels with temporary development agreements, easements or deed restrictions. So what does that mean? um with the A3 I'm calling the A3 answer is through ghost platty uh by uh demonstrating how the acreage lot could be subdivided once sewer and and water is available um and potentially requiring that the house that's built on the A3 lot be built on one of the ghost plats. So if if you can fit two or three or five ghost lots on a lot, pick one of those and build a house on that ghost lot. >> I got a question, but I think it's going to be a global question, so I'm going to wait. >> Okay. Item five is to provide for the reszoning for of the future urbanization parcels to a residential zoning classification at densities consistent with council policy is met council policy at such time that urban services are available. Uh so the A3 answer to this is that is to demonstrate in the comprehensive plan. So, um, this is the 2040 future land use plan that shows most of this area as being guided for low density residential. Um, it it it doesn't change. Okay. Item six is to encourage the use of community wastewater treatment systems to serve the temporary cluster. Uh, the A3 answer is that the city is opposed to wa clustered wastewater systems. Um the origin of the six flexible residential development guidelines is from 2008. Uh you know from 2008 and I'll say like the 1990s clusters wastewater systems were more popular than than they were now. Uh we've had three of them in Dayton. I think we've got one that's uh still working and two that have been converted over to sewer system. So I guess our perspective is even though it's required, we we really would not like this in Dayton. Okay. Uh global questions. So just carefully item number six in our packet said ghost platting for future sewer development. >> Yes. And I and then this said something different. >> It does. So um and that's going to be my area in interpretation. when you ghost require ghost planning, it answers a lot of questions. Um, but in after I sent out the packet and then looking through the met counts as flexible design guidelines, um, it's different. So item six is for wastewater. >> Okay. >> It's different than a ghost platting. >> Got it. >> Okay. So that is my >> so understood on the a little bit on on this this last item item six with the why the city would oppose a cluster preceptic system thinking about a couple things with this just in in concept here you know if someone wants to put in A3 with larger lots and we're requiring them to put in reserve land that that cluster septic can be on one of those reserve sites that someone maybe could develop on in the future. Um and it could also be owned and operated by an HOA that the city would have nothing till it fails. >> Well, they walk away. >> Yeah. So, just just trying to understand why why we're opposing that one. Um, >> traditionally when they fail the residents can not all the residents can afford what it cost and that's when they come to the city. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So I know there's and maybe Dennis or Jason or I know you guys are going to be more aware of this than I do. So I mean this this is a current well it was put in as a cluster septic system in early 2000s I think. >> Yeah. And then there so this is a good case study. Um it was installed with the development in the early 2000s. uh maintenance was not performed. Um they went in and had to rehab it and they couldn't afford it. So they turned it over to the city. So um the city did require that the pumps were replaced. I mean the the rails were frozen because there was no maintenance on it whatsoever. Um but had them bring it up to standards which was cheaper than replacement I guess and and they couldn't afford the ongoing maintenance. So the city did have to take >> okay >> take ownership of it. Luckily we had sewer nearby that we could connect to at that time. We've had issues with this in the past as well. So, okay, just a clarification on that. >> And you know, single sight septics are rock solid. >> Yep. >> Is there a way that you suggest we go about this discussing the six points? Discuss. >> Uh, if you want to go one by one, that'd probably be the easiest. >> Yeah, I guess what the first one for legacy woods. Well, wait. Yeah, go ahead. >> Before we open this for disc or before we open our discussion, any more questions on this for staff >> at at the time? This is a public hearing. So, I'm going to open the public hearing at 8:34. There's anyone here to discuss this one? >> Yeah. >> I was really interested what your discussion was going to be. >> I was wondering if that was going to be Maybe he'll take care of it for us. >> No, I doubt it. Um hopefully. Uh again, Terry McNeel, 15601 Brockton Lane, Dayton. Um I find this interesting. Uh again, uh my residence in my 30 acres is across from the proposed residential development, and that's really the trigger for this A3. I I find it interesting uh as I look at the packet, Dayton city staff presented a proposal to submit a comprehensive plan as part of the action considering the zoning ordinance and the city of Dayton. The city council voted to deny submitt of the associated comprehensive plan amendment while proceeding with adoption of the zoning ordinance. I just find that really odd >> that council would do that. >> I can address that. Um the reason that we did that is because some of us still maintain this is not necessary. The med council has we have asked the med council to point out where in our comp plan the a district violates what it violates and they have yet to do so other than a generic it doesn't meet the comp plan. This in fact if you look this interim this is to amend the interim use plan section. We don't have that section. We weren't required to have that section. So really what this is is a discovery so to speak as to what really is required. Um we have been in talks with med counsel. We continue to be in talks with med counsel. Um, and I m I personally maintain that if if this amendment gets us to where we need to go, then then I think it's a good idea. Um, I'm not so sure. I I I still maintain we don't need it. Met council has a big hammer, though. >> Yeah. So Met Council is probably the least popular body, governing body in in politics. It's not even a a political body. It's not elected. We have no choice on on who represents that and what they do to our community. So I I can appreciate, mayor, you know, your thoughts on it, but I also reading in the packet, I see that my council says, "Hey, everything's on the table, including legal action if you guys are out of compliance." So, I understand why we're here today. Um, it concerns me and may it's really confusing stuff. That's why I was hoping you guys were going to talk about this stuff before you got public comment because I may want to come back after after I hear more explanation from staff. Um, but my notes as I read that packet, it says, "As indicated in the October 20 uh, 2024 memo to the city and in the flexible development guidelines, if the city creates a new ordinance following the flexible development guidelines, which is why we're here today, an amendment to the city's 2040 plan and the city's new ordinance need to be submitted to the med council for review and approval. The flexible development guidelines provide planning tools that work together rather than independently of one another to ensure the future development of the land at residential densities of at least three units per net developable acre which will be 3.5 units per acre under imagine 2050. So am I right or do I understand this correctly? Not am I right. Do I understand this correctly that I mean this is still going to require when when sewer comes out a density of three units per net developable acre >> today. Um under the 2050 plan it'll be with three and a half. >> Yeah. Three and a half. I don't interpret it that way. I interpret it is that the citywide density needs to be three and a half units per acre. not a specific site. So, if we choose to have a site that's operating at two, so be it. We just got to make it up somewhere else. >> Okay. Do we know which John I think you said three and a half units per acre? Um Darren, >> it's three and a half is going to be the new requirement. >> Yeah. >> So, I'm just kind of Yeah. >> Currently, it's three. >> Yeah. The yellow area on the map is is guided for 3 to five units per acre. So, I come at this at the view of being a property that's going to be affected by that future development in what I believe is an adverse way. Um, I I look at this and and I'm wondering that development, you know, once we clear the way with reszoning this and that development, we start developing these properties one, they're not sewered, right? And do I understand that? >> Septics. >> Septics, right? And they're permanently not going to be sewered, like they're never going to hook up or they >> they're still guided. >> Okay. They're still guided. So when sewer comes in, will these homes be forced to hook up? >> No. >> Okay. So then every one of these houses that is not sewered and is not forced to hook up in my mind that increases the cost per unit of those that you are going to require to be sewed. >> It's a two-sided formula because the Met Council is losing more money than we are. Uh I I guess I'm not even looking I'm I'm just looking at city, you know, cities typically make money or support development by hookups. And if we are taking not just the parcels across from my property, but all of this northwest area and 29 parcels that qualify for this and say you don't have to hook up. I mean to me that is significant revenue loss. So that's one thing. The other thing that I don't that I'm not comfortable with or I would caution I I think you should think about is this is going to stagger a lot of development. So if we're having one house develop on three lots, okay, sewer comes out and now you know whether the homeowner knows it at the time, I can guarantee the first if they don't know it, the first house to get divorced is going to figure this out. There's a house with two other lots as assets. So they're going to be subdivided. So now, are we going to have houses that were built in 2025 adjacent to two houses that were built in uh 2055? And those people are going to have invested in what they think is space and comfort and country to find out that no, my neighbors are doing it. Now I have now I have two houses next to me and oh they're going to go to a different builder over there in that one. You're going to have this all over day northwest of Dayton. I don't understand how it's a good thing and I don't understand how revenue loss from not requiring hookup is a good thing and increasing costs on those that want to develop is a good thing. So there's a lot of I think losers in this. Um I think it complicates development. This is this is kind of a push to get something in the ground to with the idea of holding back development. This is going to come. You guys are going to have a choice. Are are we going to have a good reputation or a poor reputation? Can we be a Maple Grove and Plymouth or are we going to be something else? And if you do development like this, we're going to have the reputation of something else. Now, I'll say this as well. I've heard money tossed around here a lot. I've heard money in consideration of people are investing a lot and so maybe there's special considerations that should be taken into account. I just bought my parents 30 acre farm. I looked at the plan. Okay. I looked at the 2050 staging and now I'm there two years and I have houses going in across from me. You know what about the people who are here? My house has been there since 1917. I can't move my house. I can't change the position at which I look. And that when you change this and that development goes in, that road comes out basically across from my driveway or real close. Okay? And it was said earlier, you know, traffic has to be a consideration of this. I have an easement that goes the county already took the easement on my property. So, as you guys approve this and there's easements on that side, you know, the easement is already here on me. So, I'm nervous about when you guys change this and development comes in, what's going to happen? Is that road is that pass lane going to get right on my front doorstep? I can't move. So, this is accelerating development. And anyone who campaigned on holding development back, this is not that. This is accelerating development in the worst kind of way. I also noticed, you know, if you want a nice walkable community, sidewalks aren't required. That's what I saw in the packet. You may say, well, we can walk on roads, walkable communities if that's what we want in this area. There's trails. I would think that we'd want curve and sidewalk. Um, you know, I looked at the March 25th there was a work session and uh, Mayor Fischer, you you mentioned that, hey, you want the parks commission looking for uh, available 40 to 80 acre parcels. I assume that's for parks. >> Okay. Well, >> does it does this eliminate any possible 40 to 80 80 acre parcels? I would think it does. Now, lastly, um you know, I I'm requesting, you know, because this is connected to development. We've mentioned topography. I've had Jason out at my property. He's walked my property. I have very unique circumstances on my property. The water from that side of the road goes into the ground, goes under the road, and it drains into my property on its way to the Crow River. I have at least two springs that run 24/7, 365. If it's 30 below, it's creating a glacier. I have video of last year's coldest day. I think it was 20 below. I have water flowing on my property and it just freezes on itself. That happens two places. Before they run to surface water, they meet in a holding pond. It's a natural holding pond. And any of you are welcome to come out to the property and look at it. My concern is you change this zoning, you put in basement, you develop roads, surface water, I think everyone has good control over, they have good knowhow, but I haven't seen an environmental impact study that talks about groundwater and where that's flowing. Come over to my property. You can clearly see it's flowing onto my property. Now, if this increases my flowage, I've heard people talk about, well, I want to pass something on to my family. You know what? This property has been in our family since 1917 at least. So, I was hoping to pass. I bought this as part of my heritage. Now, if I see that this is damaging my resale resale value, um, you know, I have to look for recourse. And these are the type of meetings and the council meeting is where you know I start establishing recourse. So I'm asking for an environmental impact study be done. You can evaluate my groundwater. You can evaluate the flowage. Okay. Potential impacts. Um I've contacted the Met Council surface water contact. Her name is Judy. And I've also contacted the DNR because I want them to come out and take a look. I've contacted the DNR and the DNR watershed assessment team, the watershed health assessment team. So that's those are my concerns with change doing a you know really a kind of a we'll be in compliance so that we can go ahead with our development. That's what I see this as. And I'll have more when that development comes up to the council. That's across the road from me. But they'll be similar. And uh I think you guys really have to do your due diligence. And the future of Dayton, things like this, it's going to determine our reputation 20 years from now. And I want that event center to be in a great neighborhood where we're attracting a lot of people and it's premier. And I I think that doing peace meal residential development is not a good combination with having the premier entertainment center. Thank you. Anyone else like to come forward? Name and address, please. Uh, Zach Brown with BK Land Development, 13311 Arowwood Lane North, Dayton, Minnesota. Um, I would like to say there's one thing with Mr. McNeel I agree with. People buying acreage are looking for privacy and they pay a premium for it. I do agree that in the future, if things around them were to change in a sudden manner, that would go against what they spent all that money for. However, I don't think anything around there triggers an EIS that he's talking about. I don't think that growth in the area is going to be impeded by people's ability to enjoy acreage. That whole area is pretty hard to develop. Whether it's the piece I'm doing at Legacy Woods or the surrounding pieces, you're you're surrounded by crazy topography, wetlands, difficulties with utilities. I don't see it being anything else. I think that um you know, the stuff he's brought up just just now doesn't really apply as far as anything else moving forward with the A3. I think that that area that you guys have kind of cornered off as as the suggested area, it it's the part of Dayton that's the hardest to develop. Um that that that's just my opinion. It's not my opinion. That's fact based on engineering. Um and as far as the Legacy Woods project goes, John, I don't know if you can bring that slide back up you had earlier. That one there. How did we come up with this line of what's sewerable and what's not? >> Uh, just based I'm going to say generically, but essentially that's where there's the valley that cuts through the project. >> That's that's where the tip of Lake Laura drains into a wetland. That's that's probably the lowest spot. There's about a 65 ft elevation change coming up past that to the south. I would say if you wanted to look at the line for what's like realistic, you're probably 600 feet north of where you should be. >> And it it could be so >> could I mean it's I can show it to you with engineering. >> So and that's the intent is you know when going through the planning process of defining what is the area that could be serviced for sewer and water and what can't be for whatever reason and defining what those reasons are. >> So this line was just made off of drainage ditch. Um, I need to put the line somewhere and that looked like a good place to put it. >> Sounds good. >> Okay. >> It's It's not quite right, but I'll go with that. >> Um, if that were to be moved, um, I think that'd be more suitable for the argument of getting this project approved. >> That's all I got. >> Thank you. Uh Jack Bernan's 14770 Thicket Lane in Dayton. Been here 30 plus years. Um I just want to comment that I mean it's been implied that this A3 district was created for the potential development that I'm putting in across from Mr. McNeel. And that definitely wasn't the case. there are other applicants that uh legacy woods etc were before me. Uh we saw it as a opportunity once the A3 district was put in place and I think a lot of the comments are personal uh because he lives across the street from said future development. Um so I support the A3 district. I think it fits with the vision of Dayton. Keep trying to keep things rural and um you know at some point Storm Water will cover the whole uh Henipin County and there's nothing we can probably do about it. But in the interim I think people can enjoy larger lots and and they have and there's a lot of people that would like to including Mr. McNeel who has 30 acres that he enjoys. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? >> Um, I'll mention there's two persons online. If you'd like to make any comments on this one, if you could just raise your hand. >> No. >> All right. With that, I'm going to close the public hearing at 8:54. um and open it up for some discussion here. >> Where to start? >> Yeah. Well, part of me wants to understand how to apply these six flexible design rules because I see a lot of subjectivity when you go to apply them. And to me, I think if if we talk about it, maybe that's going to help staff apply them >> with the Met Council. And um so to me, that seems like where I'd like to start, but I'm open to suggestions. >> So I guess I in in my mind I I hear some of the comments from some of the residents here and you know, what do we what do we want just holistically thinking what do we want to be as a city? Um, I brought it up when we were discussing a the A3 district. I brought it up with I believe both uh Jack's project and and Legacy Woods. Uh, there's a neighborhood in Maple Grove, Appalooa Woods, just north of of the Rush Creek Golf Course. It was developed very similar to what we are talking about in some of in in concept, right? they were developed wider, shallower lots. Uh folks in that neighborhood are starting to sell off their their houses were kind of offset or center lots, so you got a lot on either side and they're starting to sell them off. Um they went from five like three acre lots down to some of them are down to 3/4 of an acre. Some of the homes are being built are are um you know, some of the homes in the neighborhood are are 1970s split level homes that are selling for I'm not joking, they're selling for $750,000 and some some of the lots are selling and building $2 million homes on them. So, when we think about what and and this is maybe to address Mr. McNeil's comment. What you know what this provides is it provides an option for someone to enjoy that larger lot in the in the immediate a future uh subdivision. We've get different housing products right in the same neighborhood is actually kind of a unique feature. Um I live in a LAR neighborhood. I have a cookie cutter house. I hate driving through my neighborhood because threearters of my neighbors have my house. I love my neighbors. I I love, you know, but I I I think this gives us a unique area and a unique option for the future. The other area I wanted to bring up in the west metro that is that this also rings a bell. Um I spend a lot of time uh on Lake Minnotonka. So I drive through Mound. I drive through these areas that have these larger estate type lots that are it's obviously an attractive area to be with the with the lake right there and and the the community and you're starting to see not only the large estates but you're starting to see small little popup nice custom homes down there. Um we have some unique landscape features. we have potentially a successful business opportunities that are coming in. We have, you know, we have the rivers right there that this could be something like that as well. And as you put in the these homes now, if we were to put in some of these homes like the Legacy Woods or Jack's project, um you start to get the mature trees, the mature landscaping. So when the new house comes in 30, 40 years from now or 50 years from now, it's not a LAR neighborhood where it's a clearcut and it's a eyesore that that house went in. Likelihood is no one will ever know that house went in. And so that's that's the thing I I really like about this concept um as a as a whole. And that's just me speaking on on some things that I think about when I think about these. So Darren, to your point, the lot width is very important to me as we think about these and the ghost planning. Yeah. And just a little bit about the history. So I've been on the planning commission for 5 years. This has been a initiative by council for every single year I've been on the planning commission. And so this idea has been around for a while and you know it was never easy to execute. In fact, I think council got more push back than they wanted for a while. Um but this is how we ended up in the northwest area because this area is going to be difficult to develop. And so we said, "All right, if we're going to do it, this is the area to do it. Now let's come up with the rules to make it feasible for everyone to, you know, get along." And there's going to be some peace milling and that's what we're trying to avoid. And there was a lengthy discussion in particular on uh the Baron's property of how it ties into the properties to the north and a lot of good things came out of it and it changed the site plan. So you know there are some there are some pitfalls of every kind of development. So it kind of is what it is. I continue to support the A3. I mean, I I think that is the one unique thing that we can do right now for Dayton is to provide people with the ability to have larger lots and neighborhoods that are a little bit more spread out that don't want the LAR neighborhoods. Um, I live in an area where I bought part of my neighbor's lot and built a newer home next to older homes and provides character. I don't know. I mean, I guess everybody thinks of it totally different. Um, So, I can't really judge that concept because I'm the one that did it in our neighborhood. Um, but yeah, I mean, I think what I've heard my whole time on the planning commission is rural field, rural field, rural field, and we put in Bley Farms and it's garage doors and we put in LAR developments and its garage doors and like this is our chance to preserve this corner. And yes, some houses are going to sell part of their properties over time. Um, there could be whole neighborhoods that never do it and it's just beautiful large lots for the next 50, 60 years. Um, I think it's a chance for us to preserve that real feel um and continue to support it. You know, we talk through the items here, but they do it. Yeah, I still would like to talk to you some items just to help staff and well obviously it'll help put some perspective on things. >> Yeah, >> I think that makes sense for us to go through in detail like you said there. Um I am in favor of larger lots too. Um growing up in Dayton as a kid, that's what I envision Dayton looking like. not what you know, not the neighborhoods that we see being built the last 10, 15, 20 years. I honestly am shocked that that's what Dayton turned into. But I think this is an opportunity for us to at least have part of the city keep its rural flavor. And I think that's what we should do. >> Do you have any initial comments? >> You guys said it really well. Uh great points. I I agree with with all of them. I think this is a good opportunity um to preserve and and keep larger lots and then let let the economy uh do what the economy will do in 15, 20, 30 years as far as um changing up neighborhoods uh at a time where maybe it is suitable for newer homes to be built next to older homes. Uh I like that feel also. So I I agree that the A3 district is good >> and we should probably go through the these points here. just go through the right >> I think it might even be useful to go through the six points in the con in the context of the two applications that we've had to >> if I could start with there's two parts of this one is the comprehensive plan amendment then second is the A3 zoning amendment for the comprehensive plan is there any changes and I'm anticipating that there's going to be minor wherever the commission says there's going to be minor changes between now and when this goes to council um I you know, the Met Council is reviewing the staff report for this and I'm assuming they'll provide some comments that we'll have to to meet, but I don't think they'll be meeting. Um, so again, with the comprehensive plan, the intent is to identify the area that would be eligible for A3 zoning. And we've had this conversation numerous times in the past. I just want to provide the opportunity again to confirm that this is still the area that we're looking at. >> Yeah. Yes. I agree. >> Agreed. >> Are there other areas in the city that may fall into that same parameter? >> It grew. Um, so when we started out as a much it was still in Northwest Dayton, but it was a much smaller area. Um, through, you know, conversations with the council and the commission, it it grew into a larger area. So, generally speaking, you know, I'll say that the south boundary is North Diamond Lake Road. Um the east boundary is the future uh Dayton Parkway extension and then we have um Dayton River Road to the north and Brockton or the city boundary to the to the west. So there's a funny jock on the along the east boundary and that's just to follow uh parcel lines. Um but the intent is that the eastern boundary would be the eventual Dayton Parkway. >> And just to to clarify what you said, the the west boundary is the city limit line. Yes. >> Okay. You said Brockton, but >> Oh, yeah. >> I just wanted to clarify that one. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um, go back into the the six. Okay. So, the first one include the need the include the need to reserve land resources for efficient future urban development as part of the ordinance purpose. So, we just need to add a line in the purpose. Like, for example, on Legacy Woods. >> Yeah. >> I know you had checked that they didn't do a ghost plat, but I thought they did. >> Well, >> my point being is that I I'm going to repeating myself. I don't care if they meet three units an acre. I just care that we're showing what density they'll eventually meet by taking that whatever their lot lists are and making lots that are maybe more typical, either 60, 70 feet, something like that. And you have to do it within the individual lot. >> Yep. Um I that is probably more appropriate for one of these other numbers when we get into the purpose and and to kind of reiterate or summarize what some of your discussion is is having the rural character that we have in Dayton um in allowing future urban urbanization that may have more character versus just the straight cookie cutter development if that were the only thing that would happen 50 years from now. There's a better way to to word smith that, but that's kind of how I'm trying to characterize the the comments that I've heard tonight. Is that fair or or am I missing anything? >> I think the M council's focused on the word efficient. And I think I think one one possibility to to maybe to your point of lot width, if we provide a certain lot width, we can show that yeah, it it's more efficient to subdivide those lots in the future. >> Right. If anything, that's where I guess I'm going with this, too. If anything, if our code has to be slightly tweaked, it's maybe with the minimum lot width. if we're having trouble meeting some of the requirements by the Met Council. >> Um, okay. So, from after 8 A3, let's say the the with sewer and water, um, we'd have R1 zoning, which is 80 ft. Um, you know, so you'd have 160 foot width at a minimum. I mean, is that adequate or do you want to go bigger or something else? >> What's the current code that we 130? >> I think it was 140. Yeah. I mean, I don't know if 80 is the the threshold when when public water and sewer gets there. I think 80 would be useful if you want to maintain the same character of a neighborhood. So, meaning that these homes are likely going to have wider widths in the front. So, making making a bigger lot next to them is going to maintain that character of bigger homes if you have 160 of both 8080s. >> Mhm. And I guess part of it's going to go down to if we're requiring um deed restrictions on like if it's one lot that's 160 and the 80 is buildable and the other 80 has to be reserved. That's literally what we have to go down that path. >> Then I think we need to change from 130 up. I think it's going to be more difficult to execute that at 130 >> especially because people are going to want to build bigger homes. >> Yeah, sure. >> Um so right now the the lot minimum lot width is 140. So, would you like to increase that? >> I think that should be on the table when we think about how to meet these goals. >> Okay. So, I guess what what I'm asking for is if you'd like to change it to like do that now. >> He's putting it on the table now. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And I'm saying it'd be better decision after we go through all six of them, see how they interact together versus just saying >> we'll come back to this one. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Go number two. So identify the land characteristics that uh required to support future urbanization. So it as similar to what Zach Brown had mentioned is prove that this land is a capable of being sewarded or not sewered >> and in the Baron's property say it was proven to be sewable. Is that going to change how we do something? It it's all it'll be case by case, >> but don't we have to define what we're going to do if it's one or the other? >> What are you are you saying in a case like the Baron's property, we might go wider lots and >> to allow for future urbanization, we need to met the council. >> Yep. And in in the case of this the Legacy Woods project, it's it's maybe narrower lots that are longer and >> it could be it's that's more up to the develop it's more up to the applicant in the sense that if you can't sewer it, why is it it doesn't matter as much. >> Yep. >> I know it's complicating things, but that's the the gist of the question from the Met Council. >> And if you can't sew it, it's because of topography issues most likely. And then you're going to have odd lots anyway, which are going to be challenged to split that to maintain 80 foot frontage. >> Yeah. And so it's pretty easy to identify it, but I think we're getting right back to the lot width question even with this question. >> Okay. >> Okay. Keep going. >> Yep. >> Okay. Item three is allow no more no more than 25% of the developable land in a project to be developed, reserving larger future urbanization parcels. and the Baron's property is meeting that >> uh Lakewoods is not because of its non sewer. >> So in the Burnins project and I'm generalizing so let's say it's 25% that's going to be developed and 75% that's going to be left as agriculture and the event center. Um in Legacy Woods it's you have large lots and they vary in size. So I think what the Met Council was getting there was so for example the Bernon's property would be clustering. >> Yeah. >> Um legacy woods would fall under this buildup plan ghost platting. Um right so they would just want the legacy woods property ghost platted. And again we don't need to meet three three and a half units an acre. I think that whenever the Met Council says that, we need to push back and say that's a city goal, not a project goal. >> Sure. Um, so then I've got the yellow bubble there. Is how large is large enough? And that probably goes back to the lot with >> Yes, it does. >> Yeah. >> But again, if we if the city makes a choice to sacrifice some revenue with hookup fees and stuff to get this, that's the choice the elected choice. >> Yep. Okay. Anything more on this? I think we can go to the next one. Protect future urbanization part parcels with temporary development agreements, easements, or deed restrictions. Um, there's a lot of ways to go with this. So, um, you know, with the Burnins project, it it's you're clustering lots. And so, the the restriction there is you have the 75% of the project that has a restriction. You can't use this for residential until sewer and water is available. Um legacy woods it's more difficult. So is it you require ghost pl you know you can only build on a ghost lot or you have some other deed restriction. So again it's kind of every project's going to be a little different. >> And we didn't do any of this on either of the projects really because >> no but neither of the projects have final plat approval yet. So they're they're still in progress. >> I think the plan was the ghost platting would >> you would answer work it out and then you would basically require them to build on a portion of the lot and not the other portion. >> But we would and I think just our clarity with our code that we have and I think we should allow accessory buildings on the other buildable lots that someday might be tore down >> but so be it. thinking me raised easy >> and I think the so the ghost planning who would record that? Would the city record that? >> Um it would um I'm trying to think of how we would well it would just be part of um the final PL the resolution for the final plat or part of the development agreement would include the the ghost plat. >> Yeah. And I I think when I I don't remember if it was Zach I talked to or who was I talked to, but I mean there could be a case where you have a house, you know, a massive house that's going to fit on two >> two lots. >> Two lots and there's not a problem with that. >> And to to me there's not >> Yeah. I don't I >> mean the idea of you know if you it's not >> sometimes the two big houses are the first ones built down because no one can wants them and the land becomes more valuable. Sure. So it goes both ways. Yeah. Okay. Anything more on this? So, number five. Five is provide for the reasonzoning of the future urbanization parcels to a residential zoning classification at densities consistent with uh the met council policy at such time as urban services are available. Uh my interpretation of this is it's through the comprehensive plan of showing that the area within you know the plan A3 district is planned to be sewarded at whatever the density is that's applicable at the time. So right now it's three yellow is three units an acre. Um every comprehensive plan cycle it's going to >> yellow have a range actually three to five but >> I thought it was two to three to three to five. Yeah, you're >> maybe it's two to five. >> It's two to something I think. Yeah. And even then there's an exception to have sewer lots even below that as I recall. But we have to designate those uniquely. Yeah. Whatever. That's still I I just took this to mean we got a guide to use for >> low density. >> Right. Right. Yeah. That's that's the way I read it. Do we do you interpret it that the Met Council is asking us so say our lowest density in the yellow's two are they going to push back and say that well you need to meet a minimum density of two in your ghost bud? >> Um I don't believe so. We've got to make that up somewhere else in the city. That's an album. So yeah, >> their example does show I'm trying to figure out what this would work out to. Six on a 2 and a half acre lot, I think, is a minimum. But yeah, I it seems to me that >> I mean right now we can do in a sewer development two. It hurts us elsewhere, but we can do that. So it seems like it should be seems like we should probably get away with that here. >> Yeah. two, but what happens if it's one and a half with the ghost plotting is my question with the M council. >> Oh yeah, they probably not likes that. But see, I don't know that they're going to see the ghost. That's what I'm asking for this ghost. >> If the M council is going to see the ghost planet, nobody cares. Um but if it's got to get, you know, periodically I don't understand how they see some of this stuff. >> They would not see a ghost plant. Um unlikely. So I mean similar to I don't know if it's on the next slide. So like wild rose wild springs um you know so that was ghost platted and I don't know if it was the 1990s or whatever it was. It's helpful for us as staff cuz we kind of have a better understanding what the city was thinking when they approved it. Um it gives us a little bit of guidance if and when sewer and water becomes available at some point. Um, but whatever happens there is going to be totally different than what was thought of in the 1990s. Okay. Anything else on five? >> Okay. And then six, this gets into the cluster septic systems, which again the city would like to avoid doing this. So whether it's amending the lot width or not, I know that we put a lot of thought into it and it's kind of going to be a little bit of a trial in the air, but >> I don't know if it's absolutely necessary at this point, but I think that if you wanted to show more density and get more density, it'd be easier if you required larger widths. Is there is there a is there a way to amend that such that we've got 4 A3 where I'm going with this is if they provide the ghost plat um so I'm thinking >> if they can sue if if if at some point we can sew it If if at some point we can we can sewer it, it needs to be the larger W, but if we can't, it's it's maybe okay being a little bit smaller. That's kind of where my head's at. You see where I'm going? Is there a way to write it that way in the code? >> I feel like that's going to be a little subjective with the sewering part of it, but I know there's engineerings, but >> anything can be engineered. It just costs more money. >> Well, yeah. I mean, you can you can have a bump a lip a lift station in your house if you really want, >> right? >> Um, but >> are you asking do we really need to go to flat areas that very likely can't be seed? Is that what you're getting at or >> No, I'm saying areas that can be sewered, do we need to increase the width? >> And I guess that becomes the question is like how are we going to apply the deed restriction? And so if we've got a 140 ft lot, >> Mhm. >> are we going to split it in half 7070? Are we going to give the one first home 90 ft and the next home 50? I mean, that's where I think it's important to bring up, >> you know, Terry's point of not peacemealing is I think it's important to keep the character relatively similar. And so that hope becomes a question is if you only got 140 ft and you're going to divide it 70 by 70, I think a lot of people are going to want a larger lot than 70 ft when they build their home on these lots right now. At least I'm hoping. >> Okay. Um we still need a minimum lot width. >> Yeah. So yeah, >> I think 160 is a little better to give some flexibility because then you got either a 8080 or a you know even a 9070 is not that big a deal, right? >> Yeah. I can think of Nature's Crossings where you have >> most of them 80s >> uh nine existing homes that were incorporated into a development with a you know that's now 100 homes or so. Um the lot lists are all different. You know, I don't know. I not sure what the standard is if it's 80, but you get in some that are more than 100. I just I think that if we're going to if we want to keep a little bit of the consistent nature in within the development the potential of it I think increasing the 160 and that way you again you can do 9070s and cuz that's you're not going to show it that but if you do a if it's only a 140 and you do an 8060 it starts showing up because the 60 foot wide lots are more garage doors than >> Mhm. >> than the other houses. >> So I'm I'm hearing head nods. Yes, I'd support 160. >> Yeah. So I >> Yep. >> Okay. So 160 in areas that can be sewered. >> Okay. Um the one one and a half net acres. Is the commission still okay with that? Yeah, I am. >> Any other changes? If not, I will make a motion to amend the zoning code to 160 ft minimum lot width. Uh amend the comprehensive land use plan to incorporate the new land use chain land use and to amend the A3 code as presented with the modification to the lot. I'll second. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> Um, you know, if I could just add, I am anticipating that there will be some minor changes. I don't know what they will be. Um, I don't think they'll affect anything of what you're recommending tonight. minor changes based on uh >> probably more so defining what the purpose is of the uh comp plan uh land use description as well as the A3 district but not not when you get into lot widths and sizes and ghost planning and all that. Okay, >> that's where you get real creative. >> Yep. >> All right, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor. All those opposed? Motion passes 5 to zero. All right. Item 8 D, East French Lake Road moratorum. I'm just going to stay seated. Uh, okay. So, in April, the city count Well, now I got to go back before April. Um, in March, uh, the plan commission, the city council reviewed a concept plan by OpEdin for a 200,000 square foot, um, warehouse industrial building. Uh, the commission later kind of questioned, okay, if if this gets built, what happens next to it? How do we where's the road going to go? What what's the land use going to be? Um, there are more questions than answers. So um the council adopted a six-month moratorum in April. Uh Stantech has prepared it uh three different concept plans or the commissioner reviewed it last month. Um had kind of a preference on uh I believe um there was a a majority of the three commissioners that were here had a preference on the road corridor or the road layout. uh there was not a preference on land use. So that's kind of the quick summary. Here are the three options uh that were presented. Uh so we have option one is residential heavy, option two is industrial heavy and then option three is 113th extension figure. And I'll just say Oppedin has also provided a fourth alternative and I'll get into that after this. But um Jason, if you could uh maybe go over each of the three for those that that weren't here last month. I will say that the only thing that's changed from last month to this month is that the plan commission did recommend u moving the or shifting the uh intersection of East French Lake Road in 117th. Um that's shown on the middle example of the industrial heavy figure. >> Um sure. Hopefully the council or the commissioners that were unable to attend the last meeting were were able to watch. I don't know if that's the case or not. So I'll I'll just go through them very quickly. Um as John mentioned, we we did kind of two scenarios if you will to start with. One was I'll say a more residential heavy which is shown on the far left. um which shows kind of a ring road, if you will, to the area that was identified as a non-residential of a a commercial industrial area with residential continuing out to East French Lake Road and up to 117 and then the southerntherly portion of the study area um which is actually pretty consistent through the three options um staying as a the lower medium density residential. uh moving into the industrial heavy figure that was to concentrate more uh industrial or or non-residential um again continuing that use out to East French Lake Road again in a sense just extending that ring road if you will to encompass the area that's to to be industrial uh with again the large low to medium density residential uh continuing with the south uh and then the the figure on the right being 113th Avenue extension just an alternative connection um to service the area. So, it would require uh the connection from the roundabout users going to the south down to the existing 113th and then continuing uh to the east uh to get to that portion of the industrial area. So, that's the main main between the three. Um just to note and I think John mentioned this that the the figures have remained unchanged with the exception of in the industrial heavy figure there was some talk of the 117th getting rid of that skewed alignment. We had previously not shown that simply because the 117th was the cutoff for the study area. So we didn't want to show anything that would would uh introduce a change outside of that study area. However, um point well taken and it it it does seem like an appropriate measure. So, we did show it realigning and how that might look again on the north side of 117th to accommodate. Um the only last thing I'll point out is the um what's known the Stenley property as the owners uh on the southerntherly portion along 81 with the the green versus the blue. We did look at this on a couple scenarios. the the far left again that being um that was actually a proposal that was submitted on that property for a high density so some apartment buildings and showing how those axises could could be accommodated uh in a residential situation and then on the I'll say the the center and the right ones um if it were an industrial use that you know higher truck traffic probably we're bringing that up through the existing business park rather than putting them out on a predominantly passenger vehicle territorial roads. So, so bringing that in a different configuration. Um, and then I'll just mention also on that that between the the two, they're they're pretty independent. In other words, the the top could be looked at as one and the the top being the the area with what I've been referring to as the ring road and then the southerntherly one being the that along 81 and how those configurations um might happen. So these can certainly be mixed and matched is what I'm getting at for the north and the south. That was going to be my first question is what's the significance of of uh the realignment at 117th on French Lake Road just being on the industrial heavy figure. You're telling us that really is no significance that it could be on either of the three. >> Um the East Branch Lake Road you could realign it in any of the situ scenarios. Um, >> but if it needed realignment, would not you wouldn't you want to do that? >> It it could be done on any of them. Correct. >> Yes. I would it would probably be more critical if it was an industrial use over there. It just might be a more substantial section or or larger road if you will. But but yes, um none of these is the single right answer necessarily. It may be a combination of pieces from all three of them for that matter. So it's just to give different concepts of how those areas could look. >> Um you know for those that are in the audience. So Jason that the for the changes there's two parts of this. One is the transportation the second is the land use. So on the land use the light green is uh I'll say apartments or multifamily. The orang-ish is uh single family. Um the I don't know if I'm going to call it either yellowish or grayish is more town homes. Uh the brown that's in the corner would be commercial and then the light blue is industrial. Um on these they're building footprints and we've borrowed these from different projects. So just to demonstrate of what could fit in here. So again, the two problems that we're trying to solve tonight is both land use and uh road corridors. And some of these are have flexibility and some that don't. So for example, the east west corridor is something that is kind of the intention of trying to solve tonight. >> And correct me if I'm wrong, Jason, in either Well, in in I think in all in most of these scenarios, the 113th and Dayton Parkway intersection would be changed. >> The the 113th in Dayton. >> Yeah. >> Oh, >> yes. Sorry. Yes. That that's not showing up here. >> You're right. It is currently connected. So we're talking the east easterly end of 113th if you will the connection to Dane Parkway. Yes. As it exists today that is a full access intersection. >> We are ex expecting or planning for that to be severed at a later date. Um that date being when Dayton Parkway and 81 intersection is expanded. A median will be extended through. Uh making that a right in right out at best. But with traffic levels continuing to increase, we expect that it'll have to be closed completely with an alternate access being being utilized. So you're right, that is not shown on here, but long-term on any of these scenarios, we do anticipate that to be severed from Dayton Parkway. >> And the reason for severing that would be the intersection is too close to 81. Um, a couple as mentioned when the intersection is expanded on 81, the leg of Dayton Parkway will be lanes will be added and there will be a concrete median extended through there which would prevent ingress onto 113 as well as left turns out. And then again, so it would become a right and right out at that point. But then again, because of its proximity to 81, just with the amount of vehicles coming in, um we at some point we expect it to be an unsafe intersection and have to be uh disconnected and and a safer route provided. And and then just one more clarification for I guess people who may not be paying as much of attention. Um the north south it's probably best shown in the the residential heavy figure from 113th to to the north that is uh what what's the right that's already kind of planned or or >> it it preliminary design is done. We're in negotiations with the property owner right now for the rightway. >> Yep. So that that road that's north south on the industrial area that's already developed the north of 113th is already planned. >> Yes. >> So >> yep, >> just wanted to point that out as a clarification point for for folks who may be seeing this for the first time. >> Jason, if you could just point to which road that is. >> Oh, sure. >> I don't know. probably not showing most people, but um yeah, be between 113th and to the north on all of those. Again, there is a draft plat has not been recorded. We have an active purchase agreement with the property owner at this time that we're waiting for uh execution. And will all three of these options I realize the one on the right kind of skews all three of these options work with what we have drafted currently >> with what you have drafted as far as >> you said you have a draft purchase agreement. Oh yes, that road alignment. Um yes, actually it it is um the difference between these being on the 113th extension, there's actually a curve in the road that is accommodated in the plat and the purchase agreement. So >> if we're one of the others were to be utilized, it would simply just go straight and there would be a small triangle of unused right away, if you will. >> Okay. Any other questions for staff? I don't have no questions. This is a public hearing. Uh I will open the public hearing at 9 9:34. My name, excuse me, my name is Tom Adabo. I live at 16750 112th Avenue North and um I uh live in Territorial Trail, which is an HOA um development. I am on the uh the board of directors for that HOA. And uh you have a few questions. Uh so I guess one of the questions and maybe you alluded to it a little bit here but have all the land owners affected by these are they to your knowledge willing to sell at this point? >> No, we'd be speculating. So okay, >> you better off Yeah. >> Okay. So So this is this is a conceptual plan and it's based on obviously you'd have to acquire those properties. >> So not us. some of those people that own these properties are going to be speaking and so when they're here maybe it'll shed some more light. >> Okay. All right. Um and then uh so what we've got shown here between the low density residential and medium density um again these are conceptions thoughts but they're by no means a developer has come and said this is what I want to do here. >> Yeah. So this is a part this is a compre it's like going to be incorporated into the comprehensive plan which is saying this is the long range vision that the city wants to see for this area. >> Okay. >> So once a proposal's come in if a proposal comes in what a city has to do is take that proposal see if that proposal is consistent with the underlying zoning and then see if that cons if it's consistent with the underlying comprehensive plan guidance for that area. So both those have to be met. So what the plan in front of you is saying is well in the future potentially Dayton wants to see the residential heavy um um plan up there or maybe we want we want to see the industrial heavy. So it it's it's the plan that says in the future here's what we want to see here's where alignments could happen to accommodate these types of uses in these areas. So, by no means does this say, you know, it gets approved and tomorrow people are knocking on on people's doors saying it says right here that I get to use this land for industrial. That's not how it works. >> Right. Right. Okay. >> Okay. Um Yeah. Cuz I guess some of the concern was, you know, the choices of medium density housing, you know, versus low density. Um again, that was just conceptual throwing some of these things in here to give some idea, some direction. Yes. No, but eventually something's going to get approved that says this area will be guided for low density versus high density versus medium density residential. So, um the guidance will be there. It's just what the development will happen to accommodate that guidance. And >> well, I was going to say generally speaking, I mean this I'm looking at the the zoning map and >> this is the guide the comprehensive plan map. So I don't know this but the land immediately adjacent to your development is already guided for low density with another parcel guided for medium density. And so the question becomes is is this making any changes to that and and maybe it is some little tweaks to it because I think there's some medium density composed that might butt up to your where you live in your development, >> right? But there's also low density and that's that's what we're trying to decide or give guidance to the city to decide what they want to do here. >> Right. And that's why I'm just curious, you know, just to the north of our um HOA property, uh it's medium density and I'm just curious as to why and that's consistent in all three of the plans why that area was chosen as medium density versus not sticking with kind of what we alluded to earlier is, you know, low density or when we were talking about the A3 and keeping that rural feel. Uh why that area is being chosen in every plan as as medium density. So, so from a just from a a standpoint of of why is this shown as medium density and understanding this is in current right current staging. So a developer can come in with a project that meets our low density requirements and might >> up to five units an acre >> up to five units of an acre which may feel like high or medium density, right? Um we're also just you know kitty corner or pretty close kitty corner to to your neighborhood. We have that that small industrial park that's there. um trying to figure out what the best use is for next to an industrial park to uh uh in between the industrial area and and the >> low density >> low density. Do we buffer it with medium density? Do we buffer it with >> uh you know how best to how best to do that right when you scale it? So it's it's definitely a challenge and a struggle. >> Right. Right. And it's, you know, that's what I look at even the residential heavy figure. Um, you know, that puts a a large apartment complex there and to the north side there too, which really increases the traffic. It's already, as you know, very tough to get out onto 81 there and things are being redirected. But, um, you know, that's going to really increase that traffic there, getting in and out of 81. I know we're looking at some other alternate ways of getting in and out of there, but um that would be a big concern if with those two apartment buildings went in there, which is the the residential heavy >> and and currently that triangle that that is highlighted in green and one in blue in the other two. That's currently a mixeduse development or a mixeduse zone. So, there's multiple different uses that can go in there, including some of the stuff that's shown up here. Um, and the concept on the the far left is is an apartment building that was actually brought forward to us at one point in the last >> two years. >> Two years ago. >> Um, I do want to point out before we get too far in some of these comments, Jason, I forgot to to talk about the territorial to 81 connection that's shown up here. Just >> do you want to >> Sure. I'm going to I'm going to stop you just to help with that one >> for knowledge of everyone. >> So I mean referring to so the as folks that are familiar with the intersection are aware territorial comes into 81 at the pretty big skew if you will. So there's not much there um for an approach. the when that those town homes went in uh territorial commons, there was rightway preserved as part of that development to realign that intersection to get a more direct approach, if you will, to to 81. So, at some point, Territoria will be realigned to that new alignment and it'll have a little bit longer tangent for vehicles coming. So, it's not such a skewed angle. Tying on to that, if this is a residential use and it's mostly passenger vehicles, the current thought is that access would actually come back to territorial and most likely connected with a roundabout. There's a preliminary design that's been accomp completed for this come through a roundabout and then after use of that roundabout, you'd come out to 81 um at which point would be signalized in the future. >> That would be the next question. So it would be a signal there. >> We're we're anticipating. And so we've worked with Henipin County. It's uh it is not meet warrants at this time. So they are not considering a signalization project nor allowing one to be completed. Okay. Um one one question I had too just in regards to the legend uh that's down there. So can I approach the screen to point? >> Nope. >> Okay, it's easier. Um, so when we're when we're showing these right here, are those row houses? Is that what you were showing there? Those long rectangular. >> Those are uh multi. Yes, they're they're town homes. Um, oh, those actually might be forlexes and that are shown in there or a combination. Keep in keep in mind anything shown on here that's highlighted is is as John stated earlier, these are are concepts of what could fit on the property. We don't have anything active on those properties. >> Yeah. A developer likely is going to come by with something completely different with the road layout, home layout, but it really what we're tasked with is deciding what is it going to be medium density, low density, something else. They're going to come up with their own plan once we get the land use set. And I I think the big the big thought for for us, and correct me if I'm wrong, the big thought for us tonight is there's a a spur coming off of uh the the roundabout on Dayton Parkway, and we have to figure out where that spur goes. Does it does it loop back up to to Yeah. Does it loop back up to 117th? Does it head over to French uh East French Lake or does it go down to go down to uh 113th? So, that's kind of our big our big task with the the transportation network. The other lines on there are all conceptual in nature of of what could fit to make the best use of the land in the future. >> Right. Okay. So, >> um, and I guess, you know, the only other thing I would point out, and like I said, it's it's this is all conceptual at this point, but we do have on the west side of our, uh, property there, um, two holding ponds that would be impacted by a development that would go just to the west of that. And so, that would be a concern uh because we, uh, have to treat those ponds um, as the HOA. And so with the development, whatever goes over there is going to impact runoff storm water and uh that might be considered and how that would be handled. Uh if that development becomes part of our HOA um which we are there's a development going to the east of us southeast that's going to become part of our HOA but that could as well. Um but it just wants one want to make sure it's considered in future development is that that would be impacted by whatever gets developed there. >> Um >> yeah, they would need their own uh storm water uh ponds. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So they would not connect to that. >> Uh generally no. I mean, I think you you're going to have runoff on streets that are going to go in the sewer system and you know that it just goes downhill. Um, but I mean, generally speaking, it you know, the the water is intended to stay on the same project area. >> Jason can give a better answer than >> Yeah, they would be responsible to meet their storm water needs, which could be their own ponds. They may approach to expand the ponds. It might be a a beneficial pro uh project for both sides, but that would be part of the specific development. That's nothing we can speak to at this point, but I mean just the starting point is they're responsible for their own property. So very well could be completely separate >> and that's what we're doing now with the new development to the southeast of us. They are expanding our ponds to bring storm water in, but they're also becoming part of our HOA. So um we've worked that out, but it would just have to be in consideration with whatever happened there. Okay. Okay. Um, yeah, I mean with with that said, I mean I'm definitely and I'm not speaking at this point for the HOAs for myself, but I would favor you know a low density residential um option um which would be I'm you know leaning towards the 113th extension figure um for myself personally but um um that's for me not not on the behalf of the HOA. Thank you. And that's all I had. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Four pounds. >> Yeah. >> Good evening. >> Hi. >> My name is Jim Tillersonson. I live at 11110 Territorial Toronto. Just a quick question. With all of these concepts, you know, we're looking at uh what are we going to do for fire down there? Is there any is there any plans on building a fire station down there or are we responsible for Maple Grove? The closest fire station is a long ways away. >> Yeah. So, the the current two stations do service all of Dayton. We've done a a study that shows >> one's here and one's in the old town. >> Yep. So, we've done a study that shows ideally where uh fire stations would be located. So, generally it's going to be one on North Dayton, one in South Dayton, kind of along I'm going to call it the Xans of our Dayton Parkway corridor. >> Okay. So, we are talking about a fire station down south on the south end. >> All right. That's important because you know you're putting a lot more people up here. >> Mhm. And even with the industrial, it's we got to have a fire station. All right. Thank you. [Music] >> Mark Anderson, civil engineer with Samitech, working with Apaden on the U industrial proposal just on the east side of the Dayton Parkway DDL property. And John, I was going to see if you could u put our concept up here. Mark, I'll just show you what I've got. So, your concept is on the left and then we have industrial heavy on the right and then also have it overlaid on top. >> All right. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> So, um we were here um early on um in prior meetings and talked a little bit about the three options. What I'd like to talk about a little bit this evening is what what's different from when we were here previously. And I'll start with the roundabout um that exists today next to the cubes project. And Jason Quizberg, your city engineer, had mentioned he had concerns for left turns into the Abedan project. Uh the Abedan project is the first industrial building about 200,000 square ft just east of the roundabout. And that that's a legitimate concern. as there more traffic builds in the area and trucks need to get in and out of that site, there could be a queue length between the building and the roundabout. And so we looked at that a little bit more and how could we resolve that and uh a little hard to see at this scale, but what can be done is have a round a right turn lane into the truck court of the industrial site just north of the roundabout. um that that would give direct truck access to that u location without making a left turn in from the southerntherly side. So we think that's a very viable solution. In fact, the cubes building much much bigger at a million square ft. It's five times the size has a similar access to their truck court even without a right turn lane u coming in off that roundabout. So, we think that would alleviate the left turn concern. Uh, once we've addressed that issue, then we looked a little further to the east and what could be done and what what's really needed here for roads. And so, um, I think John and uh, Jason had a layout on the right um, that that shows a potential road headed east and industrial north of that, which is which is fine. But what what our version does is it increases the yield north of this road. And so this road can be a good separator between residential to the south and industrial to the north. But we really don't need two roads doing that and and double frontage in these residential homes. What we'd like to see is a continuation of 113th here. Um, so that development to the south and development to the north benefit from that road and can be paid for that road. This road headed east is about $2 million expense. Um, and we can't really afford to have two of those roads. And so if this access pulls down to 113, it's a shared asset and you actually increase the industrial base by 300,000 square ft, which you know with tax revenue, it's close to a million dollars a year, more tax revenue to the county, the city, and the school district. Plus, you've got the shared road expense splitting that $2 million cost between those to the south and to the north. So, um, we'd really like to see option three move forward with this industrial development create creating more tax base for the city and then having one road instead of two roads headed east. That will provide access to all four sides of that industrial area. And the trucks will all go out through the roundabout closest point to Interstate 94. Jim, did you want to add a few thoughts or uh Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. My name is Jim Yaros. I'm attorney with Seagull Brill in Minneapolis, and I'm here on behalf of uh the property owner DDL Holdings, the property that Mark was just speaking about where the Oppetent uh development is uh being planned. Um just want to raise uh an issue so we don't this point should not get lost just a little bit about the history. So, you know, you had the guide playing here. Dayton Parkway was getting built would when it was originally shown, it was going to go right between the halfway on the DDL property and then half on the cubes project. And that project, it couldn't handle the cubes. And so, they asked it, you know, to have an easement which cut across to where it's located right now. And so the property owner, my client, granted, you know, a larger easement, you know, we had discussions. We didn't demand that it be taken and condemned. I mean, so they rely on the plan. And so what becomes uh and it was like 2.31 acres as I recall. But if you look at the other options and in addition to the practical points that Mark just talked about about separating and and also the cost of building this extra road. Well, the way these other plans show it, it all goes back on the DDL property. And so like the idea here, we're planning these are public benefits that everyone uses the roads and like the fifth amendment discusses the point of the fifth amendment and the takings clause is that you shouldn't unfairly burden one property for the public benefit. And so, you know, there was already this, hey, we'll give you this easement to make the cubes project work for Dayton Parkway. Now, if the other options are selected to go forward, it it cuts the building opportunity by a half. And you know, you and if this is your industrial pocket, wouldn't you want to maximize the ability in your industrial area? Plus, you push the entire road and then the entire cost maybe make it infeasible for years unless there's a public subsidy. How are you going to get it developed with this tremendous cost borne by one party, not everyone else? And so I think it's worth noting just this historical point about what was already done to have this area go and then the burden that would be suffered by one property owner for this benefit, which I don't know how much of a benefit the road is in light of what was just discussed, what Mark pointed out. So, um I would just urge then the commission to um if you're making a recommendation this evening to urge that you to have the 113th extension uh figure u be the one that's recommended to the council for primarily the practical reasons and then but also a recognition of what has already occurred out here. So, thank you for your time tonight. Bill Ramsey, 217 Avenue East. Champlain. Uh, it's interesting, you know, that you shift that roadway off of your property and split it down my property at a cost of $2 million, whereas the original comp plan shows that you have a roadway shown in the industrial heavy figure right where it goes. So if you shift that down to 113, split my property for an extra 300,000 ft of industrial and the other balance of it for medium density at a cost with a road that I'm bearing on my by myself, I don't think that's a fair fair way to do it. The other part that we talked about originally was that you wouldn't take heavy truck traffic and bring it down 113 to French Lake Road uh to a residential area. And um I don't see benefit from their design from what we what the industrial heavy one chose. Now thank you. I'm uh I'm Curt 11480 East French Lake Road. Um I hope everybody keeps in mind that when you put these type of buildings, you can't put nice residential homes next to them. you end up with future slums. I'm going to put it that way. Um, so if you're going to put the gateway to Dayton with a whole bunch of industrial buildings followed by multi-dwelling, heavy density, you're creating a a look for Dayton that looks like just a big industrial park. Um, right now I think some of the things that should be addressed are the traffic that we have on 117th right now is horrendous. And I can imagine if we didn't do something with either 117th or some more accesses out of there, you're going to end up with I mean Furbrook isn't much of a road either. And now you're dumping all that maple or the Dayton Parkway traffic onto 117th and it's all heading east and there's no pl and people are using that road to cut through all the time and like I said I live on French Lake Road right now and we got semis going down there and all the developers in the last 10 years have destroyed French Lake Road. And the other thing I would suggest is that should talk to the police and the fire departments to make sure that these concepts are user friendly for them. I mean, it's important for us to have people that live in that area have be able to get access to emergency services. Um, the way some of these roads are laid out, Illinois's good for his semis and industrial traffic to me, it just doesn't I mean, we got to sit and look at how we want Dayton to be portrayed to the rest of the world. We don't want it to when we drive into Dayton, we don't want to see industrial buildings miles on each side. I mean, if you're really going to do the heavy industrial, you should get rid of all the all the multi-dwelling and go right up to the swamp. Just let it all be industrial. If you're going to paint that picture because all you're going to have alongside French Lake Road there, the way that's laid out is you you're just going to have row houses. I mean, it it to me it doesn't look like very good plan. I understand that industrial brings in a lot of money, but we also have to remember what kind of picture we want to put out for everybody else. I think the traffic on if you go out and you sit on the corner of Fence Lake Road and 117th right now, you have a hard time being able to cross that intersection. And it was a four-way set and the cars are less than 100 yards apart from 3:00 till 7 o'clock at night. And I can't imagine when you start doing all this what it's going to be like in another 3 years. I mean, French Lake Road looks worse than territorial ever did right now. And we paid for that road 20ome years ago and we didn't have anything to do with destroying it. But the contractors that built all the way up and down and on 117th have destroyed that road. And I really don't look forward to paying for it again because of some industrial park that right there is going to be able to run all those semis right through. And I know they say what they're not going to do it, but I can guarantee you one thing. When you got a semi-d driver and he picks up his GPS and he says, "I can be out of here in 20 minutes rather than an hour and 20 minutes." If he just takes and goes up to 117, cuts over to Fernbrook and ends up in a no, he's got to do it. He's on the clock. Um, I think some of these studies for traffic and place and fire need to be looked at a lot more than when you start giving the rubber stamp to all this big industrial stuff. I know it's a lot of money involved, but you're also painting a picture for the city of Dayton that you care more about industrial than you do about residential. Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of planning commission. Uh my name is Jay Moore with OpEdin 400 Water Street, Excelsier, Minnesota. Uh we've been here in the past, obviously um to kind of present our concept plan. You know, it seems like there are some residents here that potentially uh don't like industrial on the east side of this particular plan. And I think that was uh something that was considered but not decided upon in a previous meeting. And I'm here to say that I'm not here to plan an industrial park. We came in here with one building that's adjacent to Dayton Parkway. With the current roundabout situation, the plan works. We could care less what happens to the right side or the east side and the north. I know you guys have a a a you know responsibility to plan throughout the city, but what I hear today that French Lake, they don't want any semis. They don't want industrial traffic over there. They want to keep it residential, you know. is the building and the concept plan that we presented. One building 200,000 square ft that can be accessed and fully function. You know, we put that piece into industrial and let our project proceed with with the road and the smaller industrial building and just gaining another 157,000 square ft. It's not economically feasible. We could plan for it, but I don't think a developer is going to be able to pull it off and build that roadway system and have a successful project. So, it could be on the plan. It could be on a comprehensive plan, but I don't think in the reality that it would be acted upon. So, I have a plan. We have a plan that's ready to be acted on. I appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Mr. Chair, while we're pause, I do have someone online as well. >> Uh my name is Landon Zemp and I live at 11180 Black Oaks Court North. Uh we back up directly to this uh proposed plan. And um I don't have a lot to say because so many people have eloquently said many of the things that are on my mind. Um I am I am quite concerned about the industrial nature of the development in Dayton. It's um it's it's been I love living in Dayton. It's been we've been here 5 years. Um it's been it's been disappointing to me to see large industrial buildings go up around um the lakes and the beautiful areas we have. I think it it really really needs to stop and that's an opinion I think that is widely held and it really needs to slow down because these these large buildings are viewable for miles in essence. And so a building going in has a profound effect on not just the adjacent properties but just the feel of the overall city. And so, um, frankly, these are the type of things that make me want to potentially leave Dayton. Um, and, um, not saying tomorrow, but if I look down the road and and say, "Hey, there's a bunch of industrial properties going in." Um, yeah, I'm probably out of here. And, um, I don't imagine I'm alone in that. And I also think that it's going to have um it's going to have a long-term effect on property value um when it comes to personal residence. And um man, I'd love to just see the city develop in a different direction. >> Thank you. >> Like to go to the one online, John? Yep. Uh Anna, if I can organize this well. Um there we go. Hold on a sec. I need volume here. Anna, can you hear me? I can't hear you yet. Okay, I'm going to keep trying to get this to pop up. Um, I'll also add there were a couple of written statements that were provided to the commission prior to the meeting. Anna, can you >> can you say something? Can >> can you hear me now? >> Yes. >> Not Anna. >> Sorry about that. Uh so, uh if you didn't hear, uh I'm Andrew Babcock. I'm on my wife's computer. Um I live at 16124 116th Avenue in Dayton. Um, some of my questions were already answered by um uh other uh questionnaers, but um has any of this land actually been reszoneed yet or is that is it all just uh still in the planning um uh in the still tenative plans? >> Sure. I No, I've got an echo on here. Um it has not been res. >> Okay. And then um another comment was you know looking at these plans um we were sort of thinking that some of you know by the cubes that area is sort of already somewhat industrial. So uh our thinking is sort of that you know if more industrial goes uh in that area and other areas remain lower density that would be beneficial that more um beneficial to our thinking than um you know spreading out industrial areas or having um high density or medium density areas. um uh encroach on um >> on single family homes. So, >> thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else for the >> I just Marshia Grober 1132 Firm Brooklyn. Um, it seems to me like that area was originally designated as commercial, meaning shopping. And it makes sense to me that it should be commercial there because it's kind of in the heart of the city. You know, our city runs all the way from 94 up to the Mississippi River. And that is kind of in the central part of our city. So, I think it should be shopping. I don't think it should be industrial. my two cents. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else would like to come forward? All right. With that, I will close the public hearing at 10:10 and open it up for discussion. Well, we have single family homes to the east of French Lake Road and we have industrial to the west of it and they have to blend. So, it's just a matter of how do they blend and do you soften it with high density residential or medium density. Um, one thing I would like to see is not connect uh the new spur to East French Lake Road. It's a primary residential road. It turns south and goes to territorial. It's all residential and like one of the gentlemen said, if you give them a route, the truck drivers will take it. Um so if we give them a connection to East French, it's just going to bring truck traffic onto that primarily residential road, which will be residential in all of these different options. um except for maybe at the corner of 117th. Um so I don't know if that means it's the far left residential heavy figure or if it's just a spur that comes off the roundabout by the cubes and just terminates in a development and then you exit out the same way you came in and you don't have that connection to the uh French Lake Road. Um, I I think transitioning to medium density prior to getting to the industrial is a good way to kind of mitigate some of that single family housing to it. Um, commercial would be a great um, use here. U, we were talking about commercial uh, kind of town center core more just north on Dayton Parkway. So it might not make sense here uh depending on what types of commercial uses but um obviously in each of the diagrams we do have commercial at that corner but so I would propose not connecting that road directly to East French. >> Yeah, I would I would agree with that too. I think that's a big mistake. You connect that road, it's going to get used and it's not going to get used for what we think is going to get used. >> If you just follow trucks around the city now, you'll find that out. They're all over the place where we don't think they're going to be. So, I mean, that's a big mistake. Um, but French Lake Road, East French Lake Road, um, really isn't the dividing line between residential and industrial or commercial. We have a lot of residential areas that are west of French Lake Road and along French Lake Road all the way up through 117th. It's there's a lot of homes along in there that have been there a lot of years. And then there's some new development that's just off territorial that's in that area. I think it makes sense for us to have some kind of a buffer there between the two. I'm not sure whether low density or medium density is the right number. I guess I don't really have a hangup on either one of those, but I think um we need to do our best to keep people's backyards out of an industrial park. How we do that, I'm not sure. But I think that makes those homes that are going to be built along in there in the future a lot nicer places to live in. I know we built industrial behind homes along West French Lake Road and that's basically destroyed all the quality of living that those folks had on that road. They've got these huge buildings. They the cubes to the south. They have uh the other industrial to the to the west of them. They had beautiful country homes out there. I remember when they were built and we pretty much destroyed any country living that those folks had. And I just I don't want to see that happen to to folks in the future. So >> yeah, I don't want truck traffic on East French Lake Road going south of whether it's the industrial heavy figure, the 113th extension figure. So I'm hoping that people can design it though to deter truck traffic because I do think that the residents are going to want the ability to go north someday without having to go all the way around. stuff. Um they don't want truck traffic. So hopefully we can design it so truck traffic is doesn't want to take the tight corner. I think Peter mentioned that at the last meeting. >> Um >> the big question is how do you do that though? >> I'm going to rely on the engineer with that. I don't Yeah, >> come to 113th in Furbrook. There's no way they have to make that corner. 10 axle trucks. >> I think what's different though when you look at Google Maps, if you're a truck driver and you see what's to the right heading south on East French Lake Road, it's a natural deterrent. Meaning that you got to figure out how to get on to 81. And you know, so if we can do something, I just think that those residents are going to want the ability to go north someday. Not today because there's nothing north, right? But someday they're going to want it. Um I think the really road pattern I guess I would prefer that we decide on land uses north of of uh where we're currently showing industrial heavy figure how that road goes across. I think we need to decide what we want for land uses because that's what dictates the road pattern. If people are the majority wants medium density then it's a different road pattern requirement than if people want industrial. Um so I kind of think that's the decision point first and then picking the road pattern. Yeah, I'm I'm I guess I I'll chime in where where my head's at. And you know, I I'm leaning towards Darren. I'm kind of in the opposite camp of thinking about the road pattern and what what we've um you know had in the comprehensive plan, what what we know is in front of us and to your point, what is best for our residents in that are out there. Um and and also best for best for the community as a whole. Um, we've we've had we've had more conversations up here over the last couple years on the roadway network in Dayton and and we need to figure it out and get it right. Um, and so that's kind of where where my head's at is we got to figure out the road pattern and what what's the best road pattern street network that we want to live with in the long run and then dictate the uses based on that. So, I'm actually the opposite of you. my fault what you're saying >> because we and and just hear me out on this and and we we heard from two gentlemen earlier about the the Dayton Parkway and the Cubes and the and and the Oppedin two different sides of that story and I get it and we can talk we can talk about that all day long of did Dayton Parkway land in the right spot and I don't want to I don't want to be sitting up here in the future talking about well did we get the north south connection right just east of there, just west of there. So, that's kind of where we're stuck as a as a city is we've got to change. We've got to get the road patterns and and what we want as a system kind of figured out and then we can >> as you think of what's north of 117th, I agree with you completely. Meaning that >> different roads help different types of development north of 117th. >> Yep. And that's where I generally lean towards the industrial heavy road figure. But on the same token, if we're not going to approve more industrial because that's the consensus, you know, we can you can just come off 117th and just Dayton East French Road can just straighten out eventually and we there's not a much of an issue, I guess, is my point. Um, if we want more in, which is what our comp plan says, we want more intense uses north of 117th, whether that's commercial, industrial, medium density, I think there's a huge benefit of making sure that that road that comes off the roundabout is a ve very viable option to head north to support more development, more access routes. Um, but if again if we eliminated industrial and that all became medium density residential, we can probably figure out north of 117 without that road that we have there in the middle industrial figure. And you know, I'm in favor of more industrial. I know we've heard some residents, I understand where they're coming from, and Keith, I understand where you're coming from, too. If people have lived there forever, the last thing they want is industrial, but this is a long-term plan. You know, we don't live forever. Um, and things transition and this is a very transitioning area. And I'm supportive of more industrial. I think it's good for our tax base. It creates revenue without services, you know, but if that's not the direction we want to go, I get it. Yeah, I mean I obviously listening to all the commissioners and everybody spoke. Um, you know, thank you for doing that. It's not the easiest thing in the world to get up in front of a commission like this to to speak your mind. Um, I I see both sides. Um, but as Paul was saying, we have to come up with the right buffer uh between what we want to see happen along Dayton Parkway and what's already there as far as those single family residential neighborhoods and and how do you best buffer what we think we might want to see happen along Dayton uh Parkway with what's already there. uh not knowing how long those older homes will be there for on French Lake East each east east French Lake Road. Um those are larger properties, higher value properties, um farmland. Uh they might stay there for 50 years. We don't know. This again is a guidance towards what we want to see happen in the future. But I think it is critical to put in some kind of buffer. I don't know if the the 100% industrial heavy design does that. Uh it might be a hybrid between the industrial heavy and the residential. Um to help alleviate some of those concerns that that residents might have. Um I'm I'm live I live in that area too. And when I purchased my house, uh I looked at the comp plan. I looked at the area plan. I wanted to know what was going to be able to be potentially built around me. Um, so I knew what I was getting into when I bought my house. Um, and I think that's any anything in the future here. Any new homeowner or builder is going to understand what's in the area, what's guided for in the future, what could potentially happen. And and that's part of the due diligence of buying a house or building a house or whatever it might be. So, I I'll echo a couple commissioners responses here. I don't want to see the truck traffic south going south on East French Lake Road. Um, they don't have any real awesome way to get out of that neighborhood anyway without getting on a territorial and then trying to get on to 81 from there, depending on what that configuration looks like too in the future. Um, I also understand uh OpEd's concern with the kind of the uh which one is it? The industrial heavy figure that has kind of those backtoback streets. >> I guess it's fair to note though, Jeeoff, that that south street may or may not happen. >> No, I get it. But >> meaning that that's just a concept. >> It's just a concept plan, but I mean it was it was drawn in there for a reason probably to best optimize that area for that potential type of use. So, it's there. Uh, it's shown on a plan. So, it could happen, it couldn't happen, but the potential is certainly there. So, I I think these these plans have a little bit more work ahead of them before I would be comfortable with saying I want this one over that one. Um, but I don't know what it looks like either, right? So maybe it's some direction from the council that's saying here's what we want to see happen in this area. Right? We are the planning commission. We give a recommendation to the council. That's the council's final word >> from a land use perspective. >> From a land use perspective, but perhaps the council saying, you know, we think the best direction as the elected officials is for the city to get going into this direction right now. And and then we could respond to that to to best massage that the way that we we think is beneficial for the city also. But uh I guess those are my two cents. >> I want to echo one thing Jeff said cuz I get Oppet's point about the feasibility and I do hope that the city would be receptive to TIFF if we have to build the road like we're doing because we're from my perspective we're suggesting building this road to benefit north of 117th as much as anything else. And so I would hope that the city leaders are very receptive to that to help get that road built. Um, and Jeff, I mean, I understand what you're saying with council, but I think that we should make a recommendation for land use to council, and then they they either say they agree or disagree. >> But I I agree with you because it's difficult. I mean, we we're all struggling and and you know, everyone keeps talking about transitioning uses. This is a really tight area. Um, unless we stick and I'm Offin's original plan probably did have the best transition, but again, my my my desire is more industrial in the city. And if we don't do something like this, the industrial is pretty much done because you just keep getting further and further away from the interchange. And everywhere you put industrial, you're going to have these conflicts with existing homes. Um, and I get it. I'm not trying to say it's right. Um, but if we want future industrial to set the city up a little bit better for a more diverse tax base, I feel like we kind of have to do the the heavy industrial route. And again, I hope the city would be very receptive to TIFF. >> Yeah. I mean, we're completely landlocked in our industrial area. >> Yeah. >> With the freeway tucked in the corner with French Lake developments coming up next to it. I mean, we're not going to put industrial in the middle of our city. So, >> right, >> this is kind of the corner once it's developed with our tax base, >> right, >> for industrial >> and I'm hoping that we can maybe put a some more industrial north of 117th. Obviously, you're not going to go much more north of 117th and I'm completely adjacent to it. But, and then after that, that's where your city center and commercial uses start picking up. And and the beauty about the commercial the city center is it's kind of in the middle of city. It's about a 3m distance from all the points, north, south, east, that it's going to have the the best ability to draw, you know, it's just going to be neighborhood community shopping, but it'll be the best draw area. So, I mean, just to keep this moving along, I generally favor the industrial heavy favor. um you know how we do south of the road that comes across whether that's medium density combination medium low density um I think that the with the right development like transitioning from territorial trails with medium density to industrial that's what communities do now would territorial trails people love to see another low density then medium density I'm sure they would but at some point you need to transfer from low to medium media. >> I guess I guess the other the other comment that I I'll make and I I think most of us can agree to it because it's a hard property that Stenley property um should stay mixed use and from a or except the mis mixed use doesn't allow industrial. So if you mean >> Okay. If you mean they keep it open, >> we should we should keep it a flexible use. >> We we don't have that yet, but >> I hate I hate to put a property owner in a situation, but if they could find a multif family developer, they'd probably be better off, but they've tried and it hasn't worked out. >> And I I think when we look at these options for for that that you know, we you'd have to connect it to the north to make it viable. Um, and either option provides pretty pretty much the same connection point. Um, >> that's killed in those previous projects. Simply this north access would have I think opened that up quick. >> Yeah, >> I think I think even in a residential I think even in a multif family residential you have to provide that north south access to 113th. >> Yeah. >> Um, I I don't think there's a way around it. And if we did allow industrial there, there would be a little bit of a natural buffer because of the wetland between the single what could become single family um and the industrial. >> Yep. >> So keep the north south corridor on the industrial heavy and the 113 through the Stensley property. And I think you can add it to the residential heavy figure from that standpoint. But >> we got to make a recommendation between these two figures. >> No, I understand. But if we go that route, if we go that route, I want to see it in all three. >> Yeah. >> Um I guess from a roadway network perspective, cuz that's where my head's at. >> Um >> the I I live down in Sundance Woods. I go to Dean's pumpkin patch in the fall here coming up, right? We take East French Lake Road. So, just driving from my neighborhood up French Lake Road, you're going to get up up to that that Yshaped thing up there, and you're going to take a right and keep heading north in the in the interim condition until the further network is built out in in either the industrial heavy figure or the 113th extension. Um, I don't mind that. Uh, what I don't like is that I got to in the 113th extension is if I want to get out to Dayton Parkway, I got to take a right onto from French Lake onto French Lake and then I got to take a a left onto to 117th and then a left back onto Dayton Parkway. I I actually like the industrial heavy figure from the standpoint of I've got the option when when you get to the you you can take a right or a left at at that Y that Y intersection and and then get on to Dayton Parkway um without having to go make that left out of territorial trail that is act that is been talked about of how bad it is. I actually think I the more I'm thinking about that middle one, it may be one of the best options for people who are trying to go north on 81 or get to Dayton Parkway to connect to 94 for for our residents. That middle option might be one of the best ones. Um, and it may solve a lot of the issues that we're seeing and and counter, you know, it may may go negative on a a signal needed at Territorial 81, which is probably a good thing, right? If if we can get traffic up to Dayton Parkway from the neighborhoods in in Southwest A. I feel like I'm advocating for the developer, but you just made a good case for TIF, too. So >> meaning the benefit is there for a lot of people how to get to the freeway. >> Yep. From from the territorial trail road. >> Territori Well, from territorial road. >> Yeah. Territorial road. >> Yeah. So I I'm I'm I'm leaning I'm I'm I'm I'm leaning into that industrial heavy figure uh quite a bit. I also like the fact that it it separates it. It allows for almost a grid pattern to start forming. Um, you know, not that we need a a true grid, but it it it you start to see it take shape. >> I'm a little confused as to why someone coming out of that neighborhood would want to go to that intersection that should that it's horrible to make a left turn on on 81. I mean, I avoid that unless I'm going west on 81. I don't go that way because it's just too dang dangerous to get out there. Which intersection you talking about? >> Territorial in 81. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's >> which most of those folks in your neighborhood, you know, that's the closest route to get out of there, right? It's fairly safe to make a right turn to go west to go up to get onto the freeway to go up the Dayton Parkway. It's not safe to make a left turn to go east or south, whichever way you want anyone to go to go that direction. But with the improvements that they've done on Maple Grove Parkway, why would anybody go that way anymore? Why wouldn't you just go east on Territorial through the roundabout and get on? Because it's it's it's >> to get so so from where where >> you know where I live in Sundance Woods there, right? >> To get to my house from coming from the east, it's actually quicker to go to territorial in 81 than it is to go through Maple Grove Parkway. Now, >> coming home or leaving home? Now, I mean, it's all under construction still. >> It's all open now. >> No, it's a shorter distance. >> Yeah. What I'm saying is that there 81's still shut down in multiple lanes right now. So, once it all once it's all open, then you'll get the natural flow of what's actually >> it still has me take a left at the roundabout and go down territorial to come back up Rush Creek >> because they push that intersection so far to the west. Yep. >> Anyway, >> I'm still going to stand by not connecting >> the new road to East French Lake Road. >> Yep. >> I think you can take the roundabout cubes, run it to the east, terminate it into the development. It could be industrial just like the heavy industrial figure shows, but it just terminates in the development. You got to you just go back out the same way you came right out to Dayton Parkway where we want our trucks. Don't even give them the option to connect into East French, but the residents have East French Lake Road to connect into Dayton Parkway and to the future community center >> um separate from >> So my point that is why is so when you come if that road that connects and turns up to 117th my point is there's going to be a lot of it depends on land use is another discussion that we never but if it's going to be dense up there which is what the plan currently calls for tons of medium density and high density and is that I want that road heading north to have another access route for the whole area in general because there's going to be a lot of density and if you cut it off we just have Dayton Parkway. Not the end of the world but I just think of a lot of successful developments they usually have alternative routes that are pretty good too. Yeah. I just don't see you not not having truck traffic on that road. I just don't >> I don't think they they're going to want to go there. I think you're wrong. So, that's where we're at, I guess. >> So, m Mr. Chair, just my voting. Um I have Darren and Peter for the industrial heavy. This is specific to the road corridor. Yes. >> Not land use. And then Paul and Keith for the heavy for residential heavy >> and we're talking the roadway figures right now. >> Yes. Not land use. >> And I don't think that in the residential heavy if we choose that route. I don't I mean obviously a road's going to head up to 117th but >> it really depends again on the uses whether you even I mean it makes sense you'd have a road up on 117th an access road. Yeah. Period. So >> um Jeff I don't know which way you're leaning. >> Yeah. I don't know if I know which way I'm leaning right now. >> I think I think when I initially spoke I said I'm I'm for a hybrid approach. 46 right in the middle. >> I'm ready. >> Um, no. I mean, again, I I see I I see both sides of it, but I'm I'm conflicted again with with the heavy industrial being just that heavy industrial and how that impacts surrounding u residential area or heavy Yeah. impacting surrounding residential areas. Um the east west connection from 113th onto um east French Lake Road. could see the concerns that commissioners have regarding um potential traffic on there. I I think I'm one of those with traffic heading south on uh on uh East French Lake Road there. Again, I it's not the best way to get back on to 81. So, I think after a couple times just for efficiency reasons, they probably would avoid that. Uh not to say that it wouldn't be used at all. So, I don't know. I I think that that that corner piece on the southeast side there makes sense to be industrial. Um, it's like you said, it's buffered pretty nicely. Um, obviously they tried higher density residential and it didn't work there. They just didn't have any takers. >> I think the market kind of shifted to >> with the interest rates. >> And then, you know, across 81, it's all industrial up and down 81 there, too. So, I I think industrial works there as well. Um I don't know. I'm just I'm again I'm not 100% sold with that connection of 113th on the on the East or East French Road. >> Um question for Darren and Peter in relation to Opidins's uh layout. if you have any preference between opins versus the industrial heavy. >> You know, the hardest thing I have with the opin layout is I understand that it's going to yield more industrial and that's what I want. Um, but I guess I'm I'm also thinking of the property that they shifted the road through that, you know, at least with the current the industrial heavy that road thinning across like the boundaries of properties where we can maybe even get that road shifted enough that everyone's given a little bit for right away or we're have to buy it whatever with TIFF. Um, I guess my concern is that is what's the repercussions on the one property with the road goes right through the middle of it. That's my biggest concern. I mean, I don't like all the jockeying around to get to where you got to go, but um, it is a relatively confined area. So for me the the difference between the two figures here um as far as there's really no point to the figure on the left the oppet one is actually in in my opinion is no different than our 113th extension figure. It is no different. Um, it changes a little bit of configuration here and there, but it it it basically it actually appears to allow industrial traffic to head south on French Lake, uh, which is what we did, one of the things we talked about not wanting to do. Um, it also doesn't really provide a north south connection for residents in Dayton. And that's that was one of my one of the things we've talked about a lot with the transportation plan and a lot with the um just that how how we are going to connect north south and that's where the industrial highway figure starts to set that up. Um, East French Lake Road, whether we like it or not, north of here and how it extends is going to be not near not nearly as busy as Dayton Parkway, but it is going to be it's parallel route when in when f when Dayton Parkway is backed up, people are going to jump over to East French Lake. And so I think thinking about traffic patterns and how people use roads is is why I'm leaning towards the industrial heavy figure. >> Mhm. >> Just for the roads >> for the roads for what's north of 117th and setting that up when >> when there's actually a lot of traffic and more more development. >> So right now we we have a split on the road layout. Um, can I >> should I assume can I throw monkey at you in here too? >> Yeah. >> Darren, you'd mentioned TIFF. Um, I think TIFF on the residential heavy that quick loop is going to be a harder cell. Um, because it's not benefiting much of the city. Um, I think it's going to be a much easier cell on the industrial heavy because it it it does kind of make that road fit into um a little better framework. I I mean that's my opinion is I I think having that that road just wrap around the property is it's going to be a harder cell for TIF. Tiff's already kind of a dirty word. We have to kind of >> you know when it fits >> it helps when it fits. >> When it fits and but it's still a hard cell. Yeah, >> but if it's a good use, >> if you put a sign up, I'm going to look at Jason since he hasn't chimed in yet. When you put a sign up that says no truck traffic, I'm a big believer that people don't follow the rules all the time. So, I'm not trying to say everyone's going to follow the rules, but is that an effective deterrent for most in a lot of or what's your opinion? I guess >> probably a better question for PD, but >> it's a BB gun target. Um >> because I've seen those signs. >> Yeah. I mean, you can put the signage up. I don't know what the compliance rate is on it. It's certainly not 100% compliance. I mean, there are other actions you could take. You could have tighter radiuses, narrower roads, other things to help deter the truck traffic. Of course, that might just mean more banged up signs on those corners, too, if they try to make the the corner anyway. Um, but there are there are some measures you could put in place to >> even if there's a sign, it's a sign that >> like they might double check of why am I going this way again? >> Sure. >> Because usually you see those signs once you get in those places, you see why they said no truck traffic, >> right? >> But, >> um, we've not talked about land use yet and it's late. >> Yeah. So, we're I mean, >> what would you like to see? So, um, I'm going to make an assumption you'd like to talk about this again next month. >> I think we should make a recommendation to the council because nothing's going to change in between most of our opinions. >> Okay, >> that's my opinion is that we whatever the vote is, the recommendation goes to the council and they decide what's next. and you know land uses I think I mean in the industrial heavy I'm assuming that uh if that's the approved is that it's kind of following the land use that you showed on your map >> with the Stenley parcel having a little bit more flexibility but I think industrial is pretty good there yourself >> and where if if you went the the route um Paul and Keith are leaning towards is it seems it could still be and I think they're open to industrial. They just don't want the road hooked to the to the south. >> Sure. >> Yeah. I stay off the East French. I I think the I agree backup routes are good, but all you're doing if you're trying to avoid Dayton Parkway because it's heavy traffic, you come down and it dog legs you to the west and you connect to Dayton Parkway again. So, it's not really getting you around. You're going to take 117th over to Fernbrook down to make parkway and onto the freeway there if it's backed up up here. So Paul, on the residential heavy figured if the green were switched to industrial, it'd still be difficult to take East French Lake Road. >> Yeah, I think as long as you all access to that industrial park to Parkway where we want our trucks, >> right? >> Because they're going to the freeway and then they have no reason to go into the neighborhoods because they have freeway access. I'm convinced that if they have access, they will use it. >> Notely, but I agree. I'm sure Elm Creek Road goes through Elm Creek Park. It's a park access road, right? No semis could go down that road for years until Elm Creek or three rivers, built a bridge down there that's four lanes wide that you can move a house across. Well, ever since then, semis go down that road. You know, it's a park access road. People bike on the road. They hike on the road. They skateboard on the road, all those things. Now you have semis going by there. When they had Fernbrook closed for 3 weeks, it was like a freeway down through there with truck traffic. They're not supposed to go through cutting through there, though. Like, I don't see the purpose of like, it's way quicker to get to the every road you want to go to. It's way quicker not going the way that you guys don't want them to go for truckers. I mean, they're better off going to 117th and over to Fernbrook than they are going down East French Reike Road, the territorial, than like not saying they won't, but um >> but don't connect the road and let it be for residents. >> Yeah, I'm more I'm more concerned about the future of Dayton and the traffic pattern. >> The connection is still there for residential traffic. >> You're not hurting the the future the residents. >> Yeah, they can still go up >> French Lake Road to the north. They can drive up and connect to the parkway if that's where they want to go. Or if they want to go across the parkway, assuming it's still there, French Lake Road on the north side of the parkway, they can continue on up that way. And someday in the future, Territorial will connect to 81 in the proper safe fashion and that's where everybody will go to get out of there with a stop. >> Just chime in on one note on here. We actually did start with a road that did not connect to East French Lake Road for this exact thought. Um, both of emergency services, police and fire were against that idea. We even talked about a oneway that you can't get trucks out, but they could come in if they somehow found themselves on East French Lake Road, and they didn't think the enforcement of that would be practical, and they actually thought it would be more concerning to have a restricted one-way and violation on it. So, they were actually in favor of a two-way connection to East French Lake. That was our preliminary discussions with them at least. >> So, John, you're looking for a motion from us to approve a figure or a figure with tweaks as well as land uses. >> Yes. >> All right. Do we Yeah, Jeff, you got to make up your mind on the road, buddy. Yeah. Well, so Jason, you're saying that they're not supportive of the the police and fire is supportive of all three of these options. Is that what you're saying? >> Well, at least specifically, this was early conversations when we had the road coming off the right right away, sorry, roundabout and going straight east. we were actually stopping it short of East French Lake Road to not intermingle um residential and heavy traffic. Um and then we talked about one-way connections and other ways to to minimize it and their their opinion at least at that time and maybe it has changed since but um was that a two-way connection is the way to go both for their their ability to access and also the enforcement of violators if you will. We have re reviewed all of these and they seem to be agreeable to these situations. Um at least I don't recall any other um concerns noted. So, I had a thought. I guess my my thought that I was I was looking at is put optimum to the side. We have the other the other um half of that area south of 117th. And I'm what I'm where I'm going with this is is the truck traffic in and out of that of that half. Um, and how how all that's gonna work and and get in there as well. Um, you know, Jason's does have a little stub out for driveways in in those. So I think I think if we were if if we were to recommend the residential heavy that that area that is slated for medium density or high density has to be residential >> for >> the >> for the Stenley or the Northeast >> the northeast property. >> Okay. I think just from a truck access truck standpoint, we're not providing an I don't think with that option we provide enough access to that that half of the parcel or that half of that area for truck traffic. >> Off the roundabout is enough to >> directly serve a building over here. No. >> Residential heavy, >> right? >> What Paul and Keith are suggesting, I would suggest that the whole area becomes industrial here. >> Get rid of the commercial because then it can just be one centralized truck cord, um, private road system with access points and they figure it all out. >> Yeah. Internal circulation >> and because that commercial is gonna it's it's quite a weight. I mean, the corner is a nice corner, but it's a good, you know, I think I forget what it was, but it's it's not right at the corner of how you're going to access it. And there's still plenty of land in this area to to have commercial north of it. And I know we need commercial in Dayton, but commercial is not going to happen here for quite a while because there's not enough rooftops. And we've also got land closer to the freeway, guided commercial, that can benefit from freeway traffic, and it's not much of further distance for residents. And so the commercial is more likely to happen there anyway. But to me, if you're going to um not connect at the East French Lake Road or I'd make it all industrial and and then they can come up with a plan with internal private roads to make it work >> to go in and out on the Parkway. >> Uh the parkway would be coming off the roundabout. Maybe we give them a ride in like uh Opadin suggested for trucks cuz I think there's some benefit to that. But they could also have an access point on 117th and so you know they'd have an access point on 117th as well off as well as off the roundabout. >> Yeah, I would support that. >> I still like the industrial heavier road patter there. >> So you need Jeff? >> No, I mean I think I mean I think I could support that as well. Um, >> are you leaning towards the he residential heavy road patternish or the industrial heavy figure? >> Road pattern would be residential >> heavy. >> Yep. >> I would suggest uh if you guys are all comfortable with industrial there, I'd suggest one of you three to uh make a motion. I'll make a motion to recommend to city council the general road pattern of the residential heavy figure um in revising the zoning to be all industrial on the north half um of that property or on the >> the upper >> upper part what what is that spur road >> is is there a name for that thing yet? No, right here. No. >> Yeah. >> Uh Paul Paul Avenue. So >> yeah. So that that would all be industrial along with the business. Uh commercial would be industrial and as Darren noted to allow for internal circulation to resolve its uh traffic flow within the property. Do we want to make a recommendation on the stencil parcel? Part of me says I wish the or the property owner because I know they've had applications that somehow we just communicate to them that we're open to resoning and industrial. >> They're the triangle >> all of that >> versus us just saying let's reu it industrial and then all of a sudden they come back with a multifamily development and we have to do this all over. So part of me says that we should reach out to them assuming people are in favor of multif family or industrial and letting them know that that we're open to reguiding it if that's the direction they want. >> It's being marketed for both. >> Yeah. So then to me I would I would hold off and just have that communication versus us amending it and then it ends up they end up doing multif family for some reason. Is that a clear enough motion? >> Clear enough. I I need a second though. >> I'll second that. >> Any discussion on the motion? I guess I'll chime in because I didn't I didn't uh say this earlier today, but I did last time when we were chatting about the So, the medium density or the high density that's showing up there. And this is something to keep in mind if if we didn't discuss it tonight. Um, this is the last if we were to move any of this any of the green out of residential. We're moving stuff out of it's it is in the 279 school district. I don't think for a a high density that that's going to be a big deal. But that's where I like to see the low density in here is low density selling quick in 279 and it's some of the last we have. And Paul, with your motion, I'm assuming that the low density to the west of territorial trails is staying. Um, >> yes. >> How about when you get north of territory trails? I don't know if it in my mind I don't know if it really matters if we have a little pocket of low density like we show showed here or if it's all medium. >> Yeah, I I think it go either way. I transitional residential there and the nice buffer to the industrial probably, right? >> And I and I I I say that too because I think the way it's drawn on that map with low density, it's crossing multiple property owners too. So it just makes it more difficult. I'd say that you're better off being consistent with your land use across the board. But >> yeah, I guess I'd guide it towards medium density in general. >> So what which area? >> The middle zone properties. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. >> Do you you get that, John? So >> Yep. >> Yep. Territory trails to the west of it still low. Mhm. >> And whether >> can we can we propose can we swap the low density from east to west on French Lake >> or west to east? >> Get back up. >> Make talk. >> So So we have that pocket of low density on the east or on the west side right there. Can we swap that with the low density with the medium density that's shaded on the It's drawn as low density, but it's shaded as medium on the >> label as low/medium density. >> Yeah. So, make make the west side of French Lake. >> So, this is low density. >> That's confusing. >> Keep that No, change that one. Change that one to medium. >> Okay. Keep make all that low. >> This is low. >> This is medium. >> Yeah, it's drawn as low. >> It's drawn as low, but it's it's shaded. It's shaded as medium >> east of >> there. There was a mix in there. >> Admittedly, um not as much thought put into that side of it. Um there's a lot of wetland over there. >> Currently, it's guided medium just to keep in mind, too. >> I don't know that right or wrong, but I think executing that road is going to be difficult. So that's why I don't disagree with the load. It's probably going to stay access onto East French Lake Road. And if we decrease traffic on East French Lake Road, we can probably allow curb cuts. But the way it's drawn is they don't want curb cuts on East French Lake Road. >> Yeah. And I think that's going to be really tough to execute with the wetlands. >> Gets it gets pretty rough real quick that direction. >> Those houses might not ever sell. Well, ever read the business. They're nice and wide right now. Yeah. And they have >> I'm completely good with that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. I think we need to just clarify our land use motion before we I just feel like there's a lot motion. >> So, the north half would be all industrial. Remove the commercial. >> The the green changes to industrial >> changes to industrial. commercial changes to industrial. The Stend triangle property in the south stays flexible. We're open to either open industrial or high density >> um low density off of territory trails to continue that neighborhood to the west right in the middle there. And then I would suggest everything in between is medium density with um low density to the east side of West French Lakeland Road. Okay. That's my motion. >> And there Jeff second amend amended motion. >> All right. We have a >> Well, just so we're all we all understand what we're voting for here now. We're voting for the road on the residential heavy figure with the amendments that you just made with the land use. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> All right. >> So, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion or clarification? Not anymore. >> All right. All those in favor? >> I >> I. >> All those opposed? >> I. >> And just for the record, John, I will say that I do support the land uses that everyone voted for, but I am more in favor of the the heavy industrial road pattern. >> Okay. >> I I echo that statement. So motion passes 3 to two. >> Thank you. >> Can we ask one question of clarity? >> Is that yellow road on the residential figure private? >> We want to point to the road just to make sure there's no confusion. >> Yeah, the >> I think I think we I think we heard that that road private. >> I think that road would kind of just go away. Correct. That's always meaning that that would be a public truck court where you guys internal access easement. >> That's the that's the question because you recommend that going forward that would like plan that give an area of public and that would >> I think they're the idea with Jimmy John that he takes out that yellow road when it goes to council. >> Okay. >> Yep. And then he's also going to show a road heading directly south all the way to 81 through >> Y. So that so that is a a condition on the motion that just passed. >> Correct. Go away. All right. >> So kind of the the thought is this is going to go to the council. The council is going to say this is their preference. Um our next comp plan is probably 2 to 3 years from being adopted. And my guess is the development is going to happen before that. So this is going to be a plan that's probably just stays on paper and provided to land owners and developers as a guideline. I don't think it'll go into our comp plan >> until there's an application. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> And you know, this is just we just recommended this to council. This is a 3-2 vote. So, I'd be curious to see council could >> could shift it a little bit. So, >> this would be the the yellow east of that that three-way. We go away. >> This the one bisecting those two properties. Yeah, that would probably still have to go a little ways, but because for their central access, >> but something like that, >> it's going to be left up to the developers to figure out how to deal with the internal access. >> Okay. >> So, yeah, >> we're not forcing you to build a road through the middle. You can have the full property now to develop it how you need to. >> Okay, that assuming council agrees. >> That's right. >> Official clear. >> Yeah. All right. >> Welcome to the planning commission. >> No, me. I'm talking 11:00 here. >> All right. Item item number nine. >> Notice announcements. I'll try to breeze through this quick. Um this is a little more than a halfy year update on permits or building permits or so we are below um I'm just going to say below average. So uh we'll probably hit around I'm going to guess you know 150 160 homes this year. Um it is a decrease over the previous years. um I don't know how the other communities are if they're also well >> they're doing well. >> Okay. >> Like let's say St. Michael for example is doing well. I think of them at Seagull. >> Mhm. >> I mean is it just where we're at with the developments that are building right now? Is it just kind of like like we just got the expansion the or DCM farm like it's just starting to move dirt right like and so like I do >> some places just filling up a little bit and there's not enough >> I do think it's related to options but it also the the thing I keep hearing constantly is school district and that >> so can't we can't change that >> can only make it better >> elementary school classroom is now should attract people >> building out all the classrooms instead of just being open. >> There you go. >> And I think that that we had a ton of public feedback with just coaching youth and stuff. But >> last year when the school started it was a disaster, meaning they had to re they had to redistrict after school started because Dayton Elementary was like they didn't have it. And so yeah, >> I think that rumor or that word spread too and it just makes people nervous. of >> sure >> where our schools are at with capacity and Jackson Middle School is just busting at the seams on top of it. >> Um let's see. So projects that we're working on for ordinance amendments and there's quite a few and so I I'm going to breeze through this quickly. Um, two projects that we're trying to to finish up is one is a study on I'm referring this as right away permitting as it relates to utility boxes. Uh, the second is fee schedules. So, as the commission is known is aware, we've had a number of developers that have complained about our development fees are being are high. Uh, so we're comparing doing a comparison with the surrounding communities. We we hope to bring that to council soon. Uh third item is uh administrative enforcement of city code. So this is specific to fines that we have the ability of of charging to violators. Um currently it it's $500 on after 30 days, $100 a day after that. Um there's some opinions that that that is not enough or it's not working. Uh >> it's it's clearly not working. >> Whether it's enough or not is another story. >> Uh the fourth one, uh this is several items, there's several portions in the code that relate to exterior material, but what what it relates to is we do not allow shipping containers in Dayton, and there are many residential and commercial properties that do have shipping containers. Um, I don't know if there's a consensus or strong opinion either way of for or against it, but >> like for storage of them or use of them >> for storage. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Do you want our opinions? Um, >> or is it too late? >> No, it's too late. >> Email them to John. >> Well, if you if it's short, you can tell me right now. This this is something that needs >> We're in Dayton, John. Every answer is it depends >> on the situation. >> Yes. >> So I'll just leave it at that. >> Okay. [Music] >> Uh let's see. Final final site plan and building plan regulations. Everything requires a site plan. And this came up with the um uh span uh project last month of should there be a minimum threshold where you guys don't need to see a site plan review >> the span plan that was the garage rebuild. >> No, this was the industrial off of 113. So I don't remember it was like >> the office edition office edition. >> Yeah, it was it wasn't much. I think it was less than 1,000 square ft addition. >> I mean, the good news is that wasn't besides the road extension that that's simple approval. So, I guess it's more. >> I I've seen thresholds with like percentage of building addition type of thing, but then you get Well, yeah, it's not cost effective to keep putting on a 25% addition or whatever it is, but I've seen that in ordinances. Yep. >> Um, >> but I guess it's going to be determined on what we want to see as a commission. uh plant diversity. We've had a couple of projects that have um either objected or had concerns about the number of plant materials whether it was the one case it was shrubs another case it was ornamental trees. Um either way it's how do we calculate how much landscaping is required. Uh let's see the next one is keeping of animals other than dogs and cats. So, we have a kind of a formula. Uh there's a question of if that is the correct formula that we're using or not. Um I'll say this stemmed from about two years ago we had a IEP for ducks to exceed the number of ducks you can have on a property. Um so we have depending on your property size, you're allowed a certain number of animal heads. Um, different animals weigh different amounts and so there's a calculator that you go through. In this case, he came up with an odd number of ducks and and the homeowner said you can't have a odd number. You have to have pairs. Um, definition. So, uh, the question on rounding of numbers. So, >> whole conversation about that. >> In this case, um, what is two and a half? Does it equal two or do you round it up to three? That depends. >> It's two and a half. >> So, this this is really came up more recently in the terms of the A3 district. So, when you're looking at two two homes per 20 acres and you have 19 1.5 acres, do you round it up to 20 or is it just 19 and a half and you're stuck with one house? I think I think with that one we're tiptoeing if we if we tried around 19 and a half up to 20. >> I we could get in trouble. >> That's where I'm going with that. I think we have to go with that one. >> Yeah. >> But that's where that property owner maybe has to work hard to buy a half acre from their neighbor. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Parking. Uh this came up earlier at I don't remember what the >> event center >> the winery. Mhm. Um, so we've heard this many times that we're we are we're overparked and in some cases we might be underpart. So the idea of of looking into this more uh rental licensing, this is something um I think we have briefly talked about it occasionally but not in any detail. Uh we have 138 rental licenses in Dayton. uh according to the census we should have tw at least twice that many. So um the question of does the is the ordinance working as intended and as well as the question of enforcement um our rental numbers are not high comparatively to other communities you know even at 5%. uh failing septic systems. So this was a project that was taken up you know close to five years ago now. Uh the thought is that based on the age of septic systems and the lack of um inspection records and we believe that half of them are failing. Um so uh the question of would the city be interested in requiring a point of sale inspection? Point of sale mean that it requiring an inspection when a home is is uh sold. >> Does the state require anything? >> Yes, but they don't enforce it. >> I thought cuz I thought it was required that when you sell a home >> Oh, no. >> You have to do something. No, >> they will always >> It might be required by the bank >> for a loan might be. >> Yeah. >> And then you negotiate >> updated electric updated >> Yeah. The only the only issue I had with some of these inspections is that the inspectors are also septic installers. It's like asking your ruffer if you need a new roof. >> Sure. >> The other item uh so we have 38 uh conditional use permits and interimm use permits. Our intent is to be able to do an an annual inspection to see if they're still compliant with their uh conditions. We've not had time to do that. We do know that know that some of them are not. That's like >> I feel like we approved half of them. I was going to say >> since I've been on the commission. >> So overall, I mean there there the point that I want to make there's a lot more work than we have time to do it. And so the emphasis I want to put on the commission is that we want to focus on projects that are going to make a difference and the quality of life for our residents and not u just do projects for the sake of doing projects. So, I I'm going to go back to um probably driveway aprons and garage sizes and where where can you put garbage cans and it matters a lot to some people, but probably doesn't change the quality of life to the majority. Uh what else? Okay, there wait there's more. Um the LC Stevens Park master plan. So I want to thank Paul for being the the uh lays on from the planning commission to serve on this special mark or master plan committee. Um these two plans uh concept one and two will be presented at uh Riverfest tomorrow and we'll the consultant will try to get input from uh visitors to Riverfest. Um and then these will be presented to back to the committee and the park commission and city council. Keep going. Adopt a park. So, if you guys aren't doing anything after this meeting, feel free to um go to any one of these parks that are not crossed out to do to pick up litter. So, um this is the intent here is for anyone that's adopting a park is that they would pick up litter once a month. Very similar to the adopt a highway, but um adopt a highway you do uh twice a year. cards and cribage. Um, this is at the community center on the fourth second and fourth Thursday of the month. Uh, giving garden. So, there's a few items that are out here. If you are gardeners and have excess produce, feel free to to drop it off at this uh booth and it's free for anyone to pick up. Concert series. The last one in our four concert series is Wednesday, August 13th. Uh, the Jason Pollson Band. So, this is at uh Elsie Stevens Dayton Car Show. Uh we've got three uh dates left. Uh the next one will be tomorrow night. This is also at Elsie Stevens Park and Riverfest is tomorrow uh with the car show. So, August 8th uh from was it 5 to 10:30? >> I believe >> this specifically is they start playing at 7. >> Okay. and they start playing at 7:00, but car show starts at 5. >> Yeah. >> Um, and the we'll have two consultants talking about the LC Stevens parkm plan that will be on site between 4:30 and 6:30. So, for anyone that would like to provide opinions on that. Um, and then the next plan commission meeting is uh Thursday, September 4th at 6:30. Um, right now we've got one application on the agenda and then we'll may have a couple of uh ordinance amendments or start whittle whittleing that down. >> There's your sign. >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll second the motion. >> We got a motion in two seconds. >> Two seconds. >> All those in favor? >> I I. All those opposed meeting 11