here. We have no Zoom tonight. >> No Zoom tonight. All right. Sweet. >> All right. It is uh 6:32. I will call the uh July 10th planning commission meeting to order. First order of business is the pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. Uh new slide new slide. Uh well we got roll call in there. Uh present is uh Peter Demute, >> Darren Brown, Keith Grover. >> All right. And then uh role of planning commission uh number three, it's up on the up on the slide for all to read. Um and uh uh essentially for those who are new here, it's uh um it's there on the agenda or up on the slide. So, uh, item four, oath of office. >> Keith, if you read that. >> Well, yeah. Try to make this comfortable. >> Okay. You raise your right hand behind you. I am Keith Grover do solemnly swear that I support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and I will discharge faithfully the duties of the office of the city as planning commission right state of Minnesota according to lawy >> congratulations and welcome >> usually we don't have a slide for So, this makes it a lot easier to read. >> It It makes it better, too. >> Um, all right. Uh, item five, approval of agenda. Are there any corrections or changes? I see one item stried out. >> Um, yes. And I'll mention that when we get there, but just I I've not I would prefer it not be stricken from the agenda, but I'm asking that it be tabled. Okay. So, it's still on the agenda. >> Still on the agenda. >> Okay. Good clarification. I was I read it and I was wondering about that. >> Um, any other corrections or changes? >> Uh, no. >> Uh, make a motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion from Darren, a second from Keith. All those in favor? >> I. >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes 300. Um, next up is election of chairperson, vice chairperson, and secretary. Um, so terms it it's a to me it's a little awkward that terms run mid year. So, uh, July 1st through June 30th. Um so with that every year the intention is to elect new officers. Uh the current officers Peter is chair and Darren is vice chair and we do not have a secretary >> silence. Um >> do we want to wait until we have a full >> Did anyone that's not here express any interest to you about positions? >> Okay. that that was kind of I was in line with that same question. Do we want to wait till they're here? >> It's up to the >> Are you the remaining chair? Because I would uh vote for you. >> I'll stay. >> Oh, that's fine with me. I was going to make that motion. So, >> all right. >> Done. I'm not opposed to being vice chair, but really I don't do anything unless Peter's not here. So, Keith, your secretary. >> Make make the new guy do it. >> I don't even know what the secretary's responsibility. >> City staff gen city staff generally is the secretary for commission. >> Um >> yeah, >> we didn't have anybody before, so I can fill that role perfectly. >> I think we got our slate. >> Okay. Do you need a motion in a second? I'll make the motion that we reaffirm both positions that are currently held. >> Okay. And then is Keith as secretary? >> No. >> Or you are >> or or staff. I mean either way. Like >> can we say staff as secretary? >> You can call us. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Makes sense. >> We have a motion. >> I'll second it. >> All right. A motion and a second. All those in favor? I I >> I All those opposed? >> Motion passes 30. Consent agenda. Uh only item on consent agenda is planning commission minutes from June 5th. >> I didn't have any notice anything. So I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. >> I guess I'll second the motion. >> All right. We have a motion uh from Darren and a second from Keith. All those in favor? >> I >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes 300. Open form. Open form is open to three minutes for non-aggenda items. Name, address, and uh no comment. No action will be taken tonight. Uh but items will be referred to staff for uh further discussions. Anyone here for open forum? Um, I have something about regarding the uh public hearing B for curbside waste. Would I speak now or is would that be later? >> It would be during the the public hearing. >> During that public hearing. Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. All right. Moving on. Council update. So for the 10th, uh, we had our work session. Um just just so you know the capacity number came in at about 8 point I think 8.1 the staff ask was about 19 so we're working on that continuing to work that uh there was approval for replacement of the fire suppression tanks at public works. Apparently, both tanks have flaws and uh um the repair works about 70k. Approved the updates to the personnel policy with regards to a couple items. The the one that kind of stuck out was the THC measurement that so that policy got tabled for the next meeting. Um it was subsequently approved with a couple modifications. Uh there was an approval to hire a firm to do some HR work for the city. Uh next being there was um the uh telecom concept plan. Um I think deal I think it it kind of um paralleled your discussion. Uh there was a little bit of talk about correcting gravel use ordinance. Uh and then we had a planning commission appointment. Then the building variance um for the property on um East French Lake was approved and there was discussion about fixing the egg requirement on the outbuildings. Um Scanel preliminary plot was approved. Um the tip was not. Then there was uh I want approval to go out for plans and specs on the East Fenture Lake Road Mill and Overlay. And then there was another budget discussion. That was it. Actually, I think we ended up skipping that budget discussion because it it was dipping towards 10:30 or something like that. So, >> we're not the only ones. >> Oh, no. Yeah. Any questions? >> Any questions on council updates? >> All right, moving on. Uh item 10, uh a site plan review for 17400 113th Avenue. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. Uh tonight you're asked to review a site plan application for 17400 113th Avenue. Uh the site is a 2 and a half acre parcel that is currently zoned I1 light industrial and uh guided business park in the 24 comprehensive plan that ultimately also accommodates industrial uses within that land use designation. Uh the principal use of the property is a contractor's operation for a landscaping company with accessory outdoor storage. Uh the outdoor storage is uh historically been legally non-conforming uh and is not proposed to be expanded or uh actually in reverse. It's proposed to be reduced uh to a certain extent uh in connection with the site plan review. Um this site plan review is a little bit different than the other site plan reviews that you have seen mainly because uh site plan reviews are typically accompanied by a conditional use permit or something like that uh which would uh trigger the public hearing requirement. uh straight site plan review application does not require a public hearing. Um even though it is listed as under the public hearing titles, this was not posted for that. Um the applicant is uh proposing paved parking uh 780 square foot building expansion. Um and then uh longer term, the three accessory buildings on the north side of the property are proposed to be removed. Um and that's kind of in connection with a a separate city project that I'll get into a little bit too within this So, as I said, the uh um proposed building addition is the office space here to the existing building that uh is located behind that. Um you see this is the south elevation of what you would see when you access the site. Um the proposed uh material is dry stack masonry with metal shake uh roofing material which is consistent with the I1 uh district requirements. Um the applicants also proposing five parking stalls to be actually delineated on the property. There has not been identified parking on this uh site uh as of recently and then probably as of uh less recently as well. Um and uh the applicants are also proposing to add what would be considered a skirt to the building of a new dry stack masonry that would be matching of the new office space as well. So, um the applicants have proposed an improvement to the existing uh warehouse or shop that is on site. Um up here in the bold, you'll see that this is the uh code language that requires uh all um nonresidential building construction and expansion um related to new development or just expansions in general require uh uh review by the planning commission and city council. Um verifying consistency with a couple of findings that are on a subsequent slide here. As I mentioned prior, um city staff has been working with the property owner regarding purchase of a portion of uh the the site um be the eastern portion of the site and is anticipated that the property would be split um by way of either an administrative subdivision or platting. I think that uh staff is uh planning to bring this for a preliminary plat um in the future. Um because it is still early in the process, the owner would utilize the entire property until that purchase occurred. Um and then uh the platting is complete and then the city upon future uh review following the platting and sale of the property uh the city could review a potential um limited use agreement or something like that for the property owner to continue using that property until the roadway is built. And that's long not uh being discussed tonight, but just something to look forward in the future. Um this is kind of in connection to a future project. Uh here is uh basically the findings that uh would be in included in the resolution for approval or denial related to uh consistency with these. Um the proposed development is not in in conflict with the comprehensive plan. The proposed development is not in conflict with the zoning district provisions and the proposed development is compatible with the existing and anticipated future development. Um and as well as it conforms to the exterior building material requirements of the zoning ordinance. Um staff has drafted a recommend uh resolution recommending approval of this site plan review um based on uh findings that are detailed within that resolution um that was in the packet and uh subject to uh some of the conditions of approval that uh I have included for the planning commission and city council to consider on the next slide. Um and that is as follows. Uh no outdoor storage is uh allowed to be in the front yard of the property. Uh the park install dimensions shall be revised to meet the code standard of 10 by 20. Um most of the uh the of the five I think that there was a couple of them that measured 9 ft in width which would be considered inconsistent with the uh the park installed dimension requirements. Um the applicant shall submit a phototric verifying compliance with the city's lighting requirements. Uh all lighting shall be downcast and not exceed 1.1 ft candle at the property line. Um and any new polemounted lights shall not exceed a height of 30 feet. Um any trash enclosures on the site uh shall be completely screened from the public right ofway. Any new ground mechanical equipment um in connection with the building addition shall be completely screened from the right ofway. Uh the industrial building code does require a 5-ft strip from the of the new building edge to be treated with a decorative ground cover. um such as uh foundation plantings like shrubs. Um any previously impervious surface that changes uh to um pvious surface shall be seated with grass. Um the proposed parking area shall be curbed as per the plans and subject to the approval of the city engineer. And uh the approval of this site plan review would be contingent on compliance with the city engineers review letter that was included in your packet as well. Um, and with that, I'll I'm happy to answer any questions, and the applicants are here as well to elaborate on uh anything or any questions you may have. Uh, one question I have is can you put any time frame around the when the city might actually acquire that property or when the for the future roadway and when that roadway it doesn't have to be exact. I'm not holding anyone to it. I'm just trying to put it in perspective as we consider this. Are we talking six months, a year, two years? Yeah. Go ahead, Jason. >> So, we do have a purchase agreement drafted and a purchase price offered in to the applicant. He's reviewing the agreement as we speak. >> Okay. >> So, >> so it could be sooner than later as far as the acquisition goes. >> Yeah. The the plat is in place. The encroachment agreement to allowed continued use is in place. So, everything is drafted upon execution of the purchase agreement. We would move forward with the purchase. As far as the construction of the road, we don't have a timeline. It would be largely based on when the intersection becomes I'll say too busy the connection of Dayton Parkway at which time we would look at doing it unless it was coordinated with another project or the funding was available. It might be sooner but >> do utilities need to come through this area? >> Uh we're doing a study now. It hasn't been um we're in process of one evaluating different alignments for a sewer extension. Um one of them does utilize this corridor. The other is east of here. Um, as of now, our preliminary findings are the alignment to the east are shown to be beneficial. So, we do expect that alignment to be utilized and therefore we do not need to extend sewer along here. >> And when when would these properties potentially be able to hook up to sewer? >> Uh, when when it's extended along 113th and and to date, we've attempted that project twice and have not had consistent support from the property owners. >> That helps. Thank you. And and I guess with that with the clo with the potential of closure of 113, we still could use that as our utility corridor. >> The water is stubbed from the west side already. So it it's a it's partially into 113. >> Yeah. >> The sewer is actually on the east side. Okay. >> So the the sewer flows to the east. So, um that the connection if you will um will continue to be a corridor for the utilities, the water man for sure. >> Yeah. >> I have a question on the outdoor storage. >> Sure. >> What falls under that purview? I mean, do uh tractor trailers fall under that or containers fall under that because both of them are currently there in front of the building. Yeah, that's correct. And I have uh uh discussed with the applicant as well about uh some of the the future improvements for that outdoor storage. And uh he has informed me that as you can see in this overlay, um this is where the parking area is going to go. Um so if they utilize uh partial um storage for these items um on the site, they would be able to do so, just not within the front of the property. Um, I have been informed by the applicant or the property owner that they are planning to be removed from the site. Any other questions for staff? Invite the applicant forward. Do you have anything more to say on the project or Any questions for the applicant that we may have? >> I wouldn't say it's a question. I'd just say it's a suggestion. Um, I don't have the right answer because it really depends on when the sewer is available and if they want to hook up. But there's obviously some valuable real estate where the septic drain field is that um I just have no problems with what they're proposing at all. I would just encourage them to think of the bigger picture of, you know, of how they're going to utilize that someday. and not so much like if if what they're putting on their addition. Um, you know, I just want to make sure that uh in the long run you don't regret that because you you you know the the septic field's gone and you'd want to do something else. >> All right. With with that u we will open the public hearing at uh 652. Just to clarify, technically this isn't a public hearing, but uh if you if you wish to open it up, you certainly can. >> Just I just did. >> I just did. It was under public hearing. So >> So let's let's make sure to get that corrected on agendas if not. >> So if there's anyone here to speak on this one, uh the floor is open. >> What's this pertaining to? >> 10A. This is the site plan review for uh property on 113th Avenue. Okay. All right. Any other further discussion? No. While we're waiting. >> All right. With that, I will close the public hearing at 653. Um, we have conditions with no outdoor storage in the front yard. Some parking dimensions, city lighting, pretty standard. Trash enclosure. Yeah, it seemed to be pretty straightforward to me. The one thing that I was when I looked at the site plan, I was wondering about what would be better is if the parking is all orientated along the septic drainfield area, but I realize it's more asphalt and it's only five stalls and it's I'm completely fine with the way they're they're doing it. >> And I think you bring up a good point, uh, Commissioner Brown. Um the one thing that was discussed when looking at the design of this site was to how to uh try to meet those setbacks uh for the parking area in the anticipation that that future roadway is going to be created. Um so that was kind of part of why the why it's tucked to the west of that. >> I mean I can leave it open for more discussion but uh Yeah, I've got I've got just a few and and just some things to consider. So, currently the property has one ax one fronted road. Um this this proposal to to extend um the future access road for for the city. Um, if we go back to the the conditions that were up there, uh, condition four trash enclosure just just so we understand what that that means, you know, is this a condition to today's environment or after the road if the roadway gets purchased and that's a right away now and just some clarifying. >> Yeah, clearly I didn't uh make it specific enough. The way that this is uh would be uh I guess addressed by a conditional use permit in the long term would be that uh eventually that road would become public street or right of way. Um so the the screening from that side street would be a requirement. >> So we've got the time the road is built. >> So we've got the trash enclosure. We've got the ground mounted H I'm assuming it's HVAC equipment. Um, and then the outdoor storage is is kind of an interesting one because if this if this roadway does become a connection through here, you know, what's what side's the front of the building, >> right? >> I'm going to say the south side's still the front in my brain, but uh >> I can certainly clarify that condition to say uh behind the south uh building, >> north side of the building. Yeah. Yeah. >> And I just I don't want to set ourselves up for both, you know, I want to set us ourselves up so that us and the applicant are under a general understanding with these conditions. >> Certainly. >> So I I mean I have no problem with with what's written. Um if we if we can all agree that it's today's condition and if you know we address it when the road comes through or or you know, do we want some screening on the on the equipment from the other sides because essentially they could be on three frontages. >> It would be I mean this is the time to to change any of the conditions that are written up there. I mean once the road is built this is now a you know whatever happens let's say this is becomes a non-conforming use it's still there it's allowed to continue >> right? So there's currently no CUP in place for open storage. It's just non-conforming grandfathered in. >> Correct. Because if this, >> you know, if the plan if if the the real plan is to to put this road, I mean, in my mind, if the plan is to put this road through and close 113, you know, does the south facing where they're proposing the extension actually become the backyard and that's where we want the storage. Just the way I'm what I'm thinking about is >> yeah I would say the front yard is where the main entrance of the building and the address of the building which is still going to be 113th even when it closes if that makes sense. >> I follow what you're saying. just there's >> I could see the other one being the front yard too, but >> I mean I think it's more declaring what we think the front yard is. So like Peter said is everyone's on the same page. >> Yep. >> Because that's the most important thing for the applicant and staff when it comes to the future. >> But just for my benefit here being the new guy on the block, >> when when and if the new road goes by on the east side, we buy the property and put a road in there. The existing 113th on the south side of the building is going to go away. >> The um is it going to stay there? >> The uh intersection with Dayton Parkway would go away. So that would be >> But the road is still going to be there. >> The road's still going to stay. >> So then they would be I guess that's what why the discussion then they would be exposed on two sides. >> Three sides >> or three sides. Yeah. Potentially from the back. Yeah. >> Yeah. The north, the east, and the south. >> Yeah. which is, you know, and that's where my my head's at is, >> yeah, it's a tough site to screen in the sense that it's narrow to begin with. You start overly screening, there's no outdoor stories left, >> you know, given that this is a legal non-conforming accessory use on the property. Um and the city would be buying future roadway for a road on this property. There is the capability, not that uh the city would uh would promise anything or anything like that, but there is the consideration that can be made by the city to um utilize their own screening, whether it be fence or something, landscaping along the the right of way or something like that. >> Is there enough room to do that? Let me see. >> Uh fencing on the property line. I mean there there's trees are tight. I mean it's the you think of a a you know say a pine tree that's uh 20 feet in diameter. >> That's the size of a car. >> That won't fit there along the road >> outside of the fence. >> It won't look good. That's for sure. >> No. um >> shorter shrubs might, you know, six, eight feet tall. >> It doesn't. >> The difficult part here too is we have an applicant doing an addition and we're all speculating whether the city seems like everyone's working together and it might happen, but it's not conclusive yet. >> Correct. >> How do we draw the line between these two events for this action tonight? I would say what what is the concern that the commission has that? Yeah. Essentially, what is the problem that we're trying to solve? And I guess my interpretation is we we have outdoor storage. We don't know what the outdoor storage will be. Um and without that, we don't know what the appropriate screening method is. Commissioner Browen, if I could, uh, my interpretation of this site plan review would be specific to the redesigned parking area and the building addition. Um, my understanding is that the applicant would have brought this forward regardless if that roadway was going to go in or not. And um if I'm thinking about this from the city standpoint, if the city is going to create a potential visual nuisance by installing a roadway in that area, there could be means for the city to mitigate that nuisance on its own property rather than um addressing the outdoor storage area that's currently not a part of the specific site plan review, though it is on the site. So that's that's kind of my my thoughts on that. Um, question for the applicant. So, you might have to come forward, but what's your timing for this? Because I guess where I'm going with this, too, is if you have a say in the next month, you're going to make a decision on the city's purchase agreement. One way or the other, we'd hate to approve something and then you're stuck with trying to figure out the city and all of a sudden the outdoor storage is an issue. People change their minds, whatever it might be. And so my point being is if we don't have to take action on this time, maybe it's not a bad thing to table it and see let the purchase agreement play itself out and then come up with it. >> Yeah, we'd like to move forward by September, you know, to get this thing in closed before winter. I don't want to do a winter project. And as far as the screening, I we talked to the city a little bit about the screening and the city uh I I don't know if we agreed that the city would take care of a lot of the screening. >> Makes sense. >> So as as an applicant, we don't have to look at the traffic that you know that's the city's kind of creating it, >> right? You want your stuff protected too, meaning because now it's got a lot of natural barriers and >> Yep. And as a landscaper, I can uh work on some landscaping in the front and get some deciduous conifers in there, do a little screening as I would like to, you know, just to spruce it up a little bit. >> Yeah. >> Do you have a preference on whether we wait on action on this tonight? >> I would prefer to move forward with it. We put a lot of work into it already. I think we covered a lot of ground on this. >> Okay. and and the site will be changing. You know, I'm 69 or going to be 69 soon. So, I'm selling off some equipment and and I'm more or less retiring. So, uh the site will be continuously changing. Okay. And we're going to we're going to get rid of those semi-trailers. And there's like five sweepers there are all going to be sold. Okay. >> So, the the site will will change. >> Okay. >> But I guess we're back to the screening and and I don't know what we decided on that. >> No, there was no decision or official understanding made between the applicant and city staff. We were just offering potential options in terms of uh what to what to look towards when that road does get installed. So, um we didn't come to an understanding, but we do know what the options are. Yeah, I guess we're looking at the the city is the one that's coming into play that they should take care of the screening. >> And that's I mean that's kind of where I was lean leaning with this from a other other properties that that have come forward. We've made other properties have come forward. we've requested additional screening when they're adjacent to two roads or or when and so when we put in a roadway, we we should be consistent to what we hold our >> developers to. Um from from this applicant standpoint, I I mean I have no no problem with the initial with the project as proposed. It's the okay, the city's got some other plans with this land and how do we how do we marry the two together? Right. >> Yeah. Right. Yeah. So I I it would make sense that you know what's causing the problem is when the road is put in. It's not you don't need screening right now. >> Um it's really a problem that the city is creating when when we put the road in. >> Um it's make more sense to solve the problem at that time uh versus today. But today is when you've got uh you know this matter that's up now. We we can figure it out later. >> Yeah. I'd like to move forward with it, but I think this is a small detail about the screening. >> Does it matter if it's a conditional use permit versus an interim use permit? And can we tie that interim use to until the roadway goes in? I'm just thinking about a a different avenue because once that roadway goes in, assuming you may not be part of that business anymore, >> right? Yeah. >> They may they may have a change of use and want to park on the north side. you know what I'm saying? Or something along those lines. >> We'll have to solve that at that time. So, right now, it's just the site plan that's under consideration. >> I think what Peter was getting at was >> instead of a can we tie an interim to an interim use permit with the roadway versus the conditional use permit that is there forever. >> So, there is no conditional use permit request tonight for this application. And because it's an existing legal non-conformity, we cannot force the interim use or conditional use to move forward, >> you know. So let let's say the whole site gets, you know, Tom retires and doesn't find a buyer right away. The whole site is cleaned up and >> for a year um then the the uh outdoor storage is gone. It's no longer grandfathered in. Someone else comes in, wants to store stuff there, they will need their own permit for outdoor storage. >> Okay? and it starts the process over. >> I was I was >> through the process. I was >> I think that's where you're going. >> Yep. Yep. Okay. >> My suggestion earlier too is that because it's like a 50x60 building, 3,000 square ft, is that when the and I'm assuming it's a little older building, but it can last a long time. But when you hooked up for public water and sewer, that building could potentially obviously have to be demolished and moved to the front of the lot where the septic system is, and it would create even more potential for other uses. Um, but right now, the building's in the middle, so you're going to be stuck with an empty front yard someday when that sewer gets connected. But, >> right, >> you can solve that problem in the future, too. >> Yep. >> Okay. Yeah. So tonight we are kind of ignoring the city project is my understanding. I mean >> yeah. >> Yeah. I guess the only suggestion on on uh the conditions if you want to define you I got to open it up but uh no outdoor storage is allowed in the front yard. If you want to define what the front yard is >> south of the building wall >> south of the building wall to 113th. >> Sure. >> I mean that's how the site is today. So, we kind of got to base it on how it is today. >> Yeah. I guess I got a question on the site plan that was included in the packet. There's there's a retaining pond shown in there potentially where the roadway is. >> Is that an issue? Is that >> That's temporary. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, so ultimately when this road's built, we expect probably the northerly half to even 2/3 of the water can be collected and brought further to the north up by Dayton Parkway. At that time, that pond would go away, go with the rest of the water and then be treated with the public water. >> Okay. So, it's Yeah, >> that works. Thank you. Um, you got any more questions? Because >> No, I'm good. >> You know, based upon the plan presented and ignoring the city project, I will make a motion to approve the site plan as presented for the building addition. >> I'll second the motion. >> All right, we have a a motion and a second. All those in favor? I >> I all those opposed. Motion passes three to zero. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, John. >> This this will go to final approval at the next city council meeting on July 22nd. >> All right. Item 10B, site plan for 181 0 118th Avenue, curbside waste. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I should clarify, this is actually a concept plan, not a site plan. So, um everywhere I have it written as a site plan. Uh so, curbside received, um a conditional use permit for uh a transfer station for yard waste in 2022. Uh the building was completed this past April and started operations. Uh since that time they the curbside is requesting to add additional waste uh which includes construction and demolition debris municipal solid waste in single stream recycling. So I believe that's food waste >> waste. >> Food waste. Yes. Um they are not proposing to make any physical changes to the site. So, uh, currently it there's a I'm going to refer to an administrative building and maintenance shop. And then this is the transfer station. Um, there we go. So, what is a transfer station? This this was not every community has this, so it's a little bit news. Uh, so again, this is how the transfer station or what it looks like on site. uh the smaller dump trucks will come in, drop their loads on the floor, and then at the end of the day, it's scooped up into a larger truck and hauled off site the next morning. Uh in this case, this is a one load of yard waste from a a one ton dump truck. Um it the building is able to or handle much more than that. uh if there are additional waste that are allowed to be on site, the said that they will build bins against this push wall. Um and they can add clarity to this is then dump the uh specific weights into a bin and then into the waiting truck. Um with this process, it's fairly complex. So the first part is the concept plan. with the concept plan. It doesn't have the level of detail that you would have with a condition initial use permit or or subdivision. It's intended to solicit comments from the commission and council if you have any recommendations or oppositions to anything specific or really anything that would make the permit application a better application. After concept plan, uh this project is required to go through an EAW process. So, it's environmental envir environmental assessment worksheet. This is required by uh the leg uh Minnesota statute. Um that process is about a 12 to 14month process. Um it goes through the uh environmental quality board that serves as a local government unit that takes action on the EAW. So, is in this case it's a bigger project. It's not the city um that reviews the EAW. uh we would participate in it more as um similar to like a a public entity. Um depending on what the EQB ruling out is on the EAW, um this project would still need to amend the city code to allow other types of transfer stations in Dayton and then obtain a conditional use permit for uh the transfer station in I1 district. So currently the city code only allows yard waste as the only type of uh waste transfer station in the city. Um with a conditional use permit and with any conditional use permit the these are permitted with conditions and so the conditions are intended to mitigate um any potential nuisance factor. So in this case I'm using the example of uh the nuisances as visual noise, odor, litter and traffic. So uh with the visual nuisance there is no change to the building. It it would look the same today as it would um years from now with different types of waste. Uh with the noise um minor seeing from the application is that uh there would be if they're operating at capacity whether it's the capacity in yard waste or capacity of other types of waste um there's still the same number of trucks. Uh with odor, there's different types of waste that are going to produce a different odor. Uh with litter, it's kind of the same thing of uh you know, yard waste, generally speaking, isn't going to um be caught by the wind and fly unless you have bags or such that's in there. Uh if you have other types of waste, you may have they may be more prone to uh wind, wind and litter. Um and mentioned litter and then traffic. Again, if the site is operating at capacity, there should not be additional traffic depending on with additional weights. The applicant is here to answer any questions that the commission may have. That's my view. >> All right. And this one is a public hearing. >> This um it's been advertised as a public hearing. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Understood. >> Not required by code, but >> Okay. Uh, any questions initially from the commission for staff? >> No questions for staff. >> Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? >> I can come forward before or after the public hearing, whichever. If we'd like to get some comments, I can address those now or later. >> You have questions for the applicant? >> I don't have any specific questions yet at this point. No. >> Okay. Why don't we have you come forward after then? Thank you. Uh, so this is a public hearing. We will open it at 7:15. If you'd like to come forward and speak on this, uh, please come forward, state your name, address, and you'll be given about 3 minutes, give or take. >> Sounds good. My name is Shane Jacqu who takes us. I'm at 950 West French Lake Road, which is directly across from the transfer station. Um, I just have a few notes here that I want to cover. Um, I have been speaking with Matt and uh, we've gone over quite a bit of information and actually done a tour of the facility. Uh, some of the things that I want to be addressed is, uh, and I have spoken with Matt about this, cleaning up the yard if trash escapes the property. So, my personal yard, if things happen that it ends up in my yard, which is likely where it would go. Um, keeping the fence line clean is another thing that I would uh I would care to see. I I'm requesting all this. Um, doors to be closed at the end of the day. I was told that there'll be doors installed on the building and that they and that we could have them closed at the end of the day. um taking care of rodents and pests, flies on the property if needed. Um there's going to be an environment change around there. So, I just trying to foresee the things that are coming. Um, and then the other thing was was no garbage laying for more than 24 hours was one of the other things that was talked about and um to do what it takes to stop the the odor such as scrubbing uh scrubbing the floor or just maintenance periodically to take care of that because there will be slime that that builds up on the floor. There will be issues like that that are going to create odor. So, I'd like to have those addressed also. That's what I have. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> My name is Elena Steelman. I'm at 11781 West French Lake Road. Uh we are across from the curbside facility on the corner of uh Troy Lane and French Lake Road. I did write a testimony and I have copies I can pass out. But I'll just maybe go over some of the more important points so I don't take too much of your time. Um, my husband uh was not able to make it tonight, but I do we have a couple of our neighbors here and I am speaking on behalf of most households within the close close proximity of the facility. Um, we a few of us are in united and opposition to this proposal to increase the waste processing operations. Um, some of us actually reviewed the a council meeting from 2022 where an original proposal was made and there were a number of written and verbal commitments that were made that have not been upheld by curbside. Um, some of these include the truck parking being restricted to 30 trucks parked in a designated area. Um, it's kind of like a behind the building, but we've noticed more than that and they've been parking more along Troy Lane, which is visible from our property. Um, we also noticed there was a plan and a map for trucks to follow a specific entry and exit routes um going one way when they leave and another way when they come back um through Troy Lane or West French Lake Road. Um that has not been followed. They do all use West French Lake Road which passes by most of our properties. Um, and then the operating hours, um, one of the commitments was made that operating hours would be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 700 pm, which we've noticed has not been followed. Um, and then I think my other neighbor mentioned some, uh, talks about privacy fencing and building doors being installed. That has not been implemented as well. U, my husband and I moved in more recently, but our neighbors recall these promises pretty clearly. So the pattern of non-compliance does make it a little difficult for us to trust that further expansion on operations will respect the community or the original agreements. Uh makes us hesitant to support some change like this. Um some of our real everyday concerns has been regarding the traffic. Traffic has become more dangerous since they've started their operations. Um we do have many trucks speeding and stopping unpredictably in front of our home. um when they go to turn onto that Troy Lane. So, that's been a big concern of ours. And then the and you've mentioned some of these um potential changes in the odor, the waste blowing into our yards. So, I do share that concern with my other neighbor of um who would be responsible for cleaning up that waste. We in our property specifically, the wind blows directly from curbside and we get very big gusts of wind a lot. So, we've have some concerns about um you know, m municipal waste being blown into our yard and the odor drifting into our property um as we don't experience that now with the yard waste. And then um we are a little concerned about the impact on the local wildlife since we have the ponds and the marshes nearby and how that may impact that if we increase that the type of operations that they're they're doing there. So, um, considering these concerns and the history of broken commitments, we respectfully ask the council to deny curbside's proposed changes. And I want to thank you for your time and for considering the well-being of our families and our small neighborhood. And I have copies. If anyone would like, I can give you one. Just give you a few here. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else like to come forward? >> Asha Grover 11320 Fern Brook Lane. Um, I don't live by it, but I drive by it quite often when I'm going to Rogers because my road is blocked off now from Brook Lane. Um, I don't know what the city council and the planning commission were thinking when they okayed this in the first place. Why do you put a transfer station in a neighborhood where people again have wells and septic systems? It just seems crazy for me. But now that it's done, you all have an obligation to these homeowners to protect them from whatever may come in the future because of those decisions. >> Thank you. >> Uh, anyone else would like to come forward? >> Yeah. 11870 West Lake Road. I also live right across the street from the uh the uh transfer station and I just support Miss Steelman's statement. Just wanted that to be on the record. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thanks. All right, with that I'm going to close the public hearing at uh 7:23 and invite the applicant to come forward. Good evening, chair and members. Uh my name is Matt Herman, chief operating officer of Curbside Waste. Um grew up in Dayton. um what once served on the planning commission here actually in the early 2000s. Uh so Dayton has been my hometown uh for my entire life. Uh my father still lives here. My wife and I live in Rogers. Uh the owner of our company raised his family in Dayton. So we have pretty strong ties to the community here as well. Um I'm excited to move forward with public hearing tonight. I've had an opportunity to engage with several of our neighbors, not all of them. Um, we've worked ahead of time to understand what these concerns are and and what we can do to mitigate them. I think I understand the concerns about uh what operations would look like and I could spend some time talking a little bit more about that if if you all are interested. I would say that I was not involved in this project in 2022 when when we had when this was developed. Um, if there were requirements not being met, John and I can discuss those. Um, if there were promises made, I I I just simply can't speak to that. Uh, past practice, our intent is to be a good neighbor. Um, we've sought out conversations with our neighbors leading up to this to try to figure out um what we can do, how we can get on board uh with addressing concerns. So, as as we look at the building now, um it does not currently have doors on it. Um if we move forward with different material types, we would put doors on it. Um and I think that's from a visual perspective. Um that's an important aspect also an important aspect of odor and potential litter control. Um, as we look at the site, we've looked at best practices we can use on really windy days from the north versus really really windy days from the south. We can have different operating plans with doors certain doors open and certain doors closed to manage litter. So, we think we can continue operating with different material types with no change in in litter or odor concerns. Um, we've been successfully managing yard waste without odor concerns. And a lot of that is we clean the tipping floor every day. So, we get everything loaded on a trailer and it's set for the next morning and it's hauled out at 5:00 a.m. And the site as as it relates to other transfer stations, the site is very small, not designed for huge amounts of storage. It literally needs to have a throughput operation. So with with with the proper uh planning and operations procedures, I don't expect there to be any issues with with odor litter uh and and pests and rodents as well. Um we do have a team that's on site when we we have in our industry there are times that we have things that fall out of trucks and we pick them up and we clean our site regularly. We clean the fence line regularly. um if we in in the event down the road we do have litter issues, we would address them. But again, I think our our intent would be to properly plan for and and reduce any of those issues. Um just maybe a little bit more detail on what different material types we would look at. So, we've we've said we're interested in demolition debris, uh, MSW, recycling, and potentially organics and food waste. Um, organics and food waste is a growing environmental concern in Henipa County, and and all of this flexibility we're seeking is so we continue to have the ability to take materials and get them to the appropriate place. I don't know exactly what our operations would look like on day one if it would focus on trash recycling. Um we're we live in a in a very changing time as it relates to whether Herk will be there or not, whether we'll have outlets for trash. Um so we don't know exactly what that looks like. Um it's in all likelihood what you can see in the building is is the the tip wall that's in there. That's probably a bunker or two and you have a couple material types that we take and maybe one of them is yard waste in the offseason and maybe it's demolition debris in the winter. But that operational flexibility is important to us being able to continue to operate our business and and meet the recycling goals of the state of Minnesota and Henipin County. So changing what is inside the four walls of that building I hope would have very little impact on the neighbors. Uh, I understand the neighbors concerns and and as we have with the ones we've been able to connect with, we'll connect with additional neighbors that are here tonight and try to build better lines of communication and and make sure we can address issues. So, in talking with a couple of the neighbors that were here tonight, we did address our team today about uh and last week about some speed issues and noise issues related to trucks. Um, we will we'll continue to to post reminders and do the best that we can. Um, we're not all the traffic on the road, but we will control what we can control, which is which is our fleet. So, we took another step towards that today. Uh, with that, I I I appreciate the time and having this discussion and and as John mentioned, this would be this this is the very first of of a long road of discussions as we would look at an EAW. uh more further city changes as well as the MPCA's permitting process. So if if we're talking about what exactly are litter requirements or litter conditions, we have an awful lot of time and and other agencies that will give us permit requirements related to litter and odor. But certainly want to say that you know our commitment and we can put it in writing if there's fear that we'll get you know that that something will be lost in translation later but that is our commitment to manage odor and litter and pests and and and the other primary concerns. >> So so help me understand the process for those who aren't as familiar. Um you're here tonight seeking the concept plan. This then goes to council. >> Yes. So, normally a concept plan is because there's some type of construction that's proposed. In this case, there is no construction. It It's I'll say it's a change in use. >> It's a change in use. But then this goes to council >> as well. And then from council, >> the applicant then goes for the EAW, >> correct? which is is a environmental document that or assessment worksheet that you have to fill out that is is there a response period there as well with the AE W for >> yes comments 30-day public comment >> so so so from from the neighbors who are here tonight he's asking for a a large amount of conditions so he can for for an operation then we can go to the EAW or fills out the EW and there's another chance to to have comments there. And then what's the next steps after that? >> Then it's an ordinance amendment to allow a transfer station of the different types of wastist in Dayton. >> And with the ordinance amendment, we would have another public hearing. >> Correct. >> And then we could refine what at with that ordinance amendment, we could refine what is allowed at transfer stations in Dayton. >> Correct. So, let's say, you know, curbside's going to ask for, I think, three different types of use uh waste or the addition of three different types of use waste. >> If the council decides that one of those is not appropriate, um then we we just don't allow that in the city. >> Yep. >> That that type of waste. >> And then after the ordinance amendment >> and then they would be eligible to apply for a conditional use permit for the transfer station for those other types of ways. And with that conditional use permit, >> there' be conditions of approval. So, for example, if if there's a condition where they have to scrub the floor, scrub and clean the floors every night, >> that would be a condition of approval. >> And with a conditional use permit, just there is there's another public hearing there. >> Yes. So, so we're talking about from from tonight to conditional use permit when he's appro curbside waste is approved, we have potentially three more opportunities. >> Um, probably two with the city and >> two with the city and one with the state. >> There would be another with the state through the permitting process as well. So, >> so there' be a minimum of four more >> and and right now you you don't and just you you have an understanding of what your guys' need is as a company, but you don't have an understanding of what it is need is of this facility is why you're coming with such a broad ask. Well, we want operational flexibility to throughout seasons and throughout years and throughout a changing business environment to potentially pursue different >> business strategies, whether that may be recycling. We we have a number of recycling facilities in the metro area that work really well right now. That may change. We have ample MSW disposal in Henipin County through Herk and others that may change. Um, so it it it gives our business the ability to adapt to changing uh to changing customer needs and to continue to meet the environmental goals of the of the state and the county. >> And I'm I'm assuming you've talked to to some of the those in the room and they understand what the herk is. Um but uh and and I understand I understand the challenges of it because I I'm working on a project right there. But um you want to explain what the challenges with her? >> Sure. So Henipin County Energy Recovery Center is a a regional waste incinerator that processes somewhere around 400,000 tons of MSW a year. It's in downtown Minneapolis. um a a lot of waste from Henipin County, specifically the center of Henipin County gets directed to herk um and it's it's a subsidized disposal option and it has been the subject of great public debate and I believe the county is is still holding a plan with a potential closure date and uh we don't know what that crystal ball is going to yield if that facility goes away. It leaves Henipin County uh with a problem about where does waste go and it leaves our business with a problem about where does waste go. And so this is this is our attempt to again have that operational flexibility to continue to serve our customers, serve our communities and meet the needs of of a changing sort of wasted as it as it were. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Yeah. And I think just m just so the public's aware too is one of the reasons he's here for a concept plan is to get feedback from us on would we support the ordinance amendment would we support the use because otherwise why go spend all the money and the EAW and all the stuff today maybe at a different time in the future and the council is obviously even a bigger step in that process because they're the ones ultimately that control approval we make recommendations to the council um you know with that being said how I view this use Actually, I'm going to go to John quick before I come back to you. >> But if we pass an ordinance allowing these different types of waste in the city, that also opens the door that there could be more transfer stations in the city. >> Yes. >> Okay. That's what I figured. Um, my biggest concern is just what the neighbors reiterated and Matt, you know, when they came forward with this proposal the first time, I was one of the few that did not think this was a very compatible use cuz I've toured enough transfer stations and know that it's just tough to get rid of the odor. It just is what it is. I mean, everyone you went through, you kind of have the gag smell when you walk through. And so, talk to me how you guys might be able to do something different. When you said scrubbing, are you scrubbing the floor in the facility? What are you doing to really manage odor? >> I would say the the biggest thing that is different with our building and our operation right now and how it project yard wastist is the size and the throughput. >> So, if you're familiar with Maple Grove Transfer Station and others >> there today. >> So, they're generally great big >> uh threewalled buildings with an entire face that's open. Um and they essentially operate like an open air garbage dough. And uh we have a four walls, six doors, enclosed building uh with less fewer corners, less storage. So right now as we do yard waste, we are maybe have room for a load or two and then it's in a truck and it's in a trailer. So our facility is based on throughput where and really lining up operations to get it on the floor maybe pushed up for for get a few more trucks and then get it away. We don't have the capacity and the size for storage and we're currently not allowed to store anything overnight. So we've I've talked about flexib when we want to we're never going to be a storage facility. We're not large enough. Um, but for materials where we're concerned about odor, um, we need a little bit of flexibility, 24 hours is is a suggested time. Um, and then it's out of there. And, and the more that we can do that, getting it up and getting it out is primary. Uh, and and then we have, if we have messy situations, we have a bobcat sweeper. We have um we have like a a street sweeper that we can utilize. So we clean the site weekly, daily um and and would look to have that same level of care there. Um we also again have doors that we can we can utilize which I I think is is different from many of the other transfer stations. >> When it comes to like solid waste and organics, are they coming in and getting dumped on the floor and then loaded into bins or how how is how is solid waste going to be processed in this facility if you did it there? Are you thinking about source separated organics like food waste? Is that the reference? >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, both the municipal the applicate are the what's construction materials, solid waste and uh what was the other one or the organics, right? >> So, yeah, organics or food waste or source separated organic material as it's defined. Um likely never going to be a huge volume, but it is a growing interest across the county. Uh right now most of the most of the source separated organic material in the county ends up at the Brooklyn Park transfer station and then makes its way down to SCT and Empire or the Shakapi Menowakaden Sue community and and now there's there's a a compost facility opening up in Becker near the Bonco 2 site. Uh and and we would look at having the flexibility to get material to one of those sites with Henipin County with the future of Herk up in the air. So is the future of the Brooklyn Park Transfer Station which right now hauls almost every bit of organic food waste uh let's collected in Henipin County to one of those sites. U again as long as that operation is there, we're not seeking to supplant it. Uh but again we want the operational flexibility. So uh commissioner to put it most plainly when we start we could have an eightyard that we allow residents to dump organics in and then we put that in a frontload truck. Let's go into restaurants. It's so I mean it could be that simple because it's just not a large volume of material. Um and so so I I I think that starts very small and maybe stays very small. >> How about the municipal solid waste? How would that get processed in the building? >> So in the same manner that yard waste is now we would we would we have a right we have the tip we would create bunkers and we would be dumping trucks putting them in. So when and load them up and get them out. So when our trash trucks leave and I think today we had 24 trash trucks. um when when they leave our site, they are uh you know, they may be going to Big Lake and they may work their way up, dump at Elk River, work their way back and then would be that final day, that final dump of the day, dump it, load it, get it ready for a truck. Um so we have if Herk is there, we're working our way down. We're dumping there and then maybe working the way back and doing that second dump at home. So from a traffic perspective, what I think is important to delineate there is it's the same trucks, right? That that truck was was leaving and coming back um regardless of whether it went to the transfer station and and dumped a load. And and right now, as John as John alluded to, if we stick with just yard waste and we want to utilize all the capacity now, we would seek, you know, waste management and other vendors to come bring their yard waste in. So now to to get those extra 30 trucks of yard waste might actually have an impact on traffic where if we're continuing to manage the existing orange and white fleet that's parked there and spends the night there, uh that's where we don't anticipate any impact on traffic. >> Yeah. And I think my my concern about the solid waste is the odor. And obviously when you're dumping solid waste, that's when the fluids get on the floor. I mean, I get it why you got to dump it, but I'm not sure. Yep. >> Right. you're dumping on the floor, you're scooping up, but that's what builds up over time, and that's the slime. Uh, one resident spoke about that build up in the floor. That's what causes the odor. What What is part of your processes that you can do to alleviate that part of it? >> Uh, again, we can we can sweep, we can use floor dry, you can garbage is a great way to suck up other garbage juice. Uh but keeping keeping a clean floor again, the throughput, getting it up and getting it off the ground and getting it loaded and getting trailer staged and getting it out. Um and and then and then cleaning. Um and again, those are requirements that I mean yard wa yard waste is a different material throughout the season, right? When we start in April, it's last year's leaves and sticks and it's it's really dry. Then we get into July when it's wet and green grass that's sat in a bucket for six days doesn't smell good. It's it's bad. And and we've been managing very wet, very green, very stinky, hot yard waste for months and haven't had odor complaints. And and there's a lot of times that I would rather sit down next to a pile of of garbage than a pile of yard waste and have a sandwich. So, and and we're we are man managing that successfully again through housekeeping operations and planning and getting it loaded and getting it out. So, again, things will happen and messes will made you have to clean them up. But again, through careful planning, I I think we minimize the vast majority of these issues from ever occurring. And >> staff had mentioned, I believe, that the doors are being put on the building soon or will be. >> We have we have that planned. We've we've gone through a couple plans. We have a couple we have two of the six doors in fabrication now. Um and and we have them in in meeting with the Dayton Fire Department. If we enclose those doors, we have to cut out other access doors in the walls. So, we're not likely to completely enclose the building unless we know we need to. So, that's sort of part of the chicken and the egg of this process. It concerns me that if the organic or excuse me, the yard waste smells worse than the solid waste that you don't close the building. It concerns me. >> It just doesn't h we again we've been able to manage it. It can be very stinky and we we haven't had the issues. We've been very on top of it. >> So, I'm one of the few that has actually toured her, >> right? >> And uh I'll just say it doesn't smell good, >> right? >> And when they open their doors, you don't want to be downwind, >> right? Well, I mean, and again, I I invite I invite all the neighbors and some have taken us up on it, and I invite all of you to come on out for a tour. >> And I I truly want you guys to be successful. My concern is the compatibility of the use and I want you guys to be successful, but that's where my concern is is with the odor and stuff like odor and litter. More odor than anything, >> right? And and doors >> litter can be picked up. >> Doors are our huge deterrent to litter as well. I mean, so I think the the the biggest value of doors in a storage situation would be uh you know, for any situation is just preventing that wind from coming through. Our building is situated with two south doors and two north doors. And we've defined operational procedures if we get when we have doors. If we have the scream and south wind, we'll shut the south doors and enter and exit from the north and vice versa in the winter when we have the northwest wind. So again, I think we have operational strategies to employ that I think will So, I'll let the other commissioners speak here, but just in general, you know, at this point, I'm I'm not very I'm not ruling it out, but I'm not as supportive of the solid waste or the organic recycling. I could get behind the construction material. >> Is the public hearing closed? >> Yep. Keith, do you have any thoughts, questions for >> I have a couple questions, but I agree with I agree with Darren. Um, had I been sitting here when this was first proposed to be in the city in the first place, I would not have been comfortable with it being there to start with, just to be honest. Um, I'm concerned with the smell. I have been in facilities that you know that process have worked and represented people that work in facilities like that that process this stuff and I'm I don't know how you keep smell from leaving a facility. I just don't um the other thing that concerns me and I'm sure it's a concern for the for the eight residents that live closely to this place is the truck traffic on the road. Um, I don't know, um, I don't know what the discussion was around truck traffic and where that truck traffic was going to go into and out of your facility when it was first put in there, but I know that it goes uh, south. I have seen them go south from that facility um, many times. So, and I'm sure that the residents could attest to that too, that they go by their house. They just said that they do. So clearly they're not going they're not going north and uh and west to get out of there. Um that concerns me if I live there. I wouldn't like that. Um it also concerns me the increase in traffic on that road, specifically truck traffic. And if you talk about what 10 trucks per day we're talking about now on on average, I mean that's five days a week probably not right. Do you guys operate six days a week depending on when the holidays fall, right? So you run on Saturdays >> occasionally. Yeah. >> Yeah. So they're looking at that kind of traffic five or six days a week depending on where the holidays fall during the week. >> If if I may clarify that the the traffic is already existing. Our our our trucks are starting their day at our Dayton shop and going out into the world and coming back. So that truck is not that traffic is not impacted in any way by what's taken or not taken at the transfer station. That that traffic exists. It's there. I think we we are of the mind that the traffic is significantly safer for the community to stay off of an uncontrolled intersection on Troy Lane. And so the roundabout and the control traffic of Dayton Parkway is I believe a safer option than trying to have either semis or garden or or garbage trucks or recycling trucks trying to navigate Connor Road 81 at rush hour at an uncontrolled intersection at Troy. So that leaves your trucks going by all the neighbors houses and >> and again I neither you or I were here in 2022 when that when that was made um and again there's we will continue to try to do outreach and build relationships with the neighbors and to the extent that we can slow trucks down and quiet trucks down we will. >> There needs to be a stop sign on Parkway and >> point of order. Point of order >> stop that that solves it. the the public hearing has been closed. Um I I understand the concerns. We just we have to stick with where we're at. Um I I'm I'm just concerned that if you're if you if you add all these other products that you're going to be running in and out of that facility, are you telling us that there won't be increased truck traffic to handle all of that? >> Correct. The the trucks are already there. So, we already have our garbage trucks, our CND trucks, our We already have our fleet. And right now, if we're running our our fleet, if it has 11 yard waste trucks today, there's our whole fleet is still leaving and coming back, just 11 of them are dumping at the transfer station. So, our garbage trucks are still are still leaving the site and still the the trucks still wake up and go to bed at the site every day. So they still drive out and do their route. Whether they stop at the Herk or the Brooklyn Park transfer station or the Maple Grove transfer station to empty, they still drive back, refuel, and get maintained and get ready for the next day. So our fleet is in and out of the site regardless of what or where they don't. >> How many times do the trucks leave and come back each day? >> Generally, generally one. There may be there may be some trucks that go out and come back for but the vast majority and if you watch our site the vast majority of the fleet is out um by 7 in the morning around 7 in the morning and back by 3 or 4 with some exceptions but in general. any other questions >> at this time? >> I I don't I think um I think the only one I I would echo that um may alleviate some of the concerns of the neighbors and the traffic is is just take a look at the the pattern in the route. I get I get your standpoint of of going through Dayton Parkway with the um with the trucks in the roundabout, but um if there's an opportunity to to go the other way up one up French Lake um or have some trucks come in and off Troy Lane if they're making a right in right out type situation. So it might alleviate some of them um from that standpoint. I think with that I think we >> Yeah, I guess the question to make sure the applicant has is um just just obviously you go on and fill out how comfortable everyone is so you can make wise decisions. Make sure that you I think you understand where Keith and I stand. Um I think I think you know I'll let Peter speak for himself but I know that Paul Crossland is not a commissioner. He I don't know what he didn't have any comments on this. >> He did not. So, I thought, yeah, that's >> I was I was going to share those, but you didn't. I um I was going to talk a little bit about the the use and and as we looked at as I recall looking at this back in uh 2021 2022 when it came forward um we we had a lot of discussion about the yard waste and we said what's you know what's the difference between the yard waste here and the the site over off of um Maple Grove Parkway and and 610 and this is enclosed it's a little bit more maintainable There's definitely odors that come from Maple Grove, but um I I wasn't as big of a concern because there was a nearby similar use if if that makes sense. Um from a a standpoint, um construction building debris, I can get behind that. I I can see that one. Um, I'm a little skeptical on on some of the other uses. Um, as far as organics, I think there's ways to do organics that that similar to what you were saying that where you have an enclosed bin or something where it's it's an enclosed unit that houses it. Um, I personally have not been to the facility. I understand what the bunkers look like. Just out of curiosity, is there a way to put a garage inside a garage and to help enclose that that smell that, you know, keep it smaller in inside the space? >> You know, when you talk bunkers, >> so when we're talking bunkers, you if you see the middle picture with the push wall, >> it would be stacking, you know, the the two or 3,000 lb concrete Legos. >> Yeah. I'm thinking like similar to like a land the landscape bunkers. >> Yep. And creating those bunkers. But um a standard design would not have would not have any any enclosure other than the four walls of the building, you know, and and and the doors to leave that inside. >> And maybe that's something to consider, you know, a not standard one. Um I don't know. I don't know what it look like. I'm just >> trying to help both your process and and alleviate concerns of the neighbors. So, >> and and I think I would I I would again go go back to to pointing out that we're operating with >> we're operating with materials now that I don't think are are causing that issue. And before we build a building in a building and do all these other things, it's really the operational procedures like get the material moving, like get it on the highway. That's the only way to eliminate odor, right? And that is our commitment is we're not going to store. Um we're going to move the material through and get it out. And you know, I really it with doors and and even now if we dumped a load of garbage on the floor every day and loaded it and hauled it away, nobody would know. We don't do it, but it wouldn't be a distinctly different experience from the street as, you know, especially with doors. So there's the nearly nothing about the operation changes depending on what's in the bucket that the loader is picking up and loading on a trailer that drives away. >> Yeah. I think the biggest my biggest concern is the odor that's going to naturally accumulate when you dump solid waste on the floor. It's just going to be concrete's porous. which is difficult and it's it smells. Um I would suggest that uh you get doors no matter what. Um I think that when I know when it came through planning commission it was presented with doors and all that kind of stuff. I think you need doors no matter what. Uh I went and looked at this site on Sunday and understand what the the one neighbor said about the truck parking. I mean it it was it was pretty full. Um and so you know there's striped stalls there for a reason and that that kind of predicts a little bit of capacity but there were trucks everywhere like I got right and so I think just getting that cleaned up especially if you decide to move forward by the time you come forward you know it would help that that stuff was in order >> right and we and we are in the process of uh opening another location and and moving trucks off site and we're exchanging trucks we're we're heavy on trucks right now as we're cycling through some and >> because you have a transfer station in Brooklyn Park too right now. Correct. >> Uh no, we don't transfer waste in Brooklyn Park at the moment. >> Okay. >> But we have a a site in Brooklyn Park and and other sites across the metro where where we operate vehicles from. Okay. >> Since this is a concept plan, there's no action needed. >> There's no action. >> All right. If I could just summarize, so this will go to the council on July 22nd for kind of going through the same exercise again. Um, and I'm just generalizing is that there's opposition to um solid waste and organics. There's support for construction and debris. Um, and I'm going to say mixed support for organics depending if how it can how the odors can be uh mitigated. And I think it would have to be volume based too if you say something because it's one thing to say it's small but then all of a sudden >> the world changes and it's huge and we just want to make sure we're mitigating the odor by instead of just giving you a blanket organics >> and and John the one thing we didn't maybe touch on or have in that note there was the idea of recycling of of >> Yeah, we haven't talked about that at all. >> Single sort recycling which does pose odor issues. Matt, can you just for clarity explain what are the the different types of waste in more detail? >> So, municipal solid waste is your kitchen garbage can and uh single sort recycling is your recycle bin. Construction demolition debris is is essentially when you tear down the doghouse uh or the rip or you rip off the deck. Um a and source separate organics or food waste is that component of your of your essentially trash that is soil paper, food scraps and it's it's you know 30ish% of your garbage can something like that. Um and you know we're seeing curbside organics collection now throughout the county throughout Hene County and other programs across across the metro area. Um it's become it has been a major focus of solid waste policy over the last four or five years and and I think will continue to. Um in your garbage can at home you probably average a ton a year about 2,000 pounds a year for an average family. Um organics you're probably six pounds a week 300 pounds a year. U and that's on the high side. So organics are a smaller volume and when you separate all the things that smell from the garbage, it it does have odor. And again, our or organics is not a core a core function of our future business model. Um it's something that is is important and it's changing and we don't really know what it'll be. Um but if we're having the conversation, we want to have the conversation about that. And transferring organics might mean that we have a small two two small trucks a day like kick out, we put it in a rolloff and we haul it down to the casino. So it it it just doesn't have the scale of any of the other materials. I mean recycling is every other week collection usually in a 65 or 95gallon container. So half the volume of garbage, you know, in rough numbers. Um but and then obviously yard waste is seasonal but and demolition demolition debris you know varies greatly whether it's independent jobs um homes construction sites etc. that's generally coming in rolloff containers. >> So the single sort recycling same thing you have a designated area you dump it and load it and you're not sorting it. That's why it's called single sort >> correct. Yep. That's your other can >> that wherever it goes next to that's where they may or may not sort it. >> Yeah. So I mean the idea of a transfer station is to is to you the the garbage trucks and the recycling trucks that collect material probably get a handful 3 four miles a gallon. So if we're going to collect recycling or trash in Dayton and then drive it to Shakipi that's challenging. Um, when you can aggregate the material, get it onto a semi-trail, get 20 tons in one load and have a more efficient vehicle, you know, you're you're reducing fuel use and reducing environmental impact and again having the flexibility to get that material to where it needs to go to be managed appropriately. >> What cities around us are doing the organics now? I mean, I know we're we're at that threshold. Uh, so right now I believe city of Dayton does an organics drop site. Is that correct? Correct. >> So you're under the 10,000 home threshold or or well >> 99999. Well, the 10,000 threshold is also moving to 5,000. It's coming down. That's right. >> So MPCA and Henipin County have made that decision. So I believe it's by 2030. Cities with a population of 5,000 have to offer curbside organics collection. >> Yeah. Um and but I don't believe Henipin County has stated a date on that. So assuming someday you go to 10,000 be residents before that happens. You would have two obligations under Hannah two two options under Henipin County Ordinance 13. You could contract with a hauler to collect organics or require through your hauling ordinance that all trash haulers offer and charge residents for organic service. So, do you service like Rogers must already be doing this? >> Correct. Yep. >> And you service Rogers? >> We do. >> Um, and do you have the same issue as far as collating as as far as trying to collect that in one spot to to bring it? >> Right now, we have the Brooklyn Park Transfer Station, which is only operated by Henipin County. But really they're taking the vast majority of all source separated organics or food waste in Henipin County and they're getting it to either Epire Township or the Shakapawaka ensue. So, I would imagine you have a similar issue with the recycling because my guess is there's more recycling than than organics at this point with some of these cities. >> And the vast majority of the recycling right now um in the metro area would go to a couple of downtown Minneapolis MURFs >> uh or some South Metro MURFs. Murf being a material recycling processing facility. Um and again, none of they're private entities. None of us have a guarantee that they will continue to take our material. And >> that's again the flexibility to continue to operate if facilities close, facilities change. What if we need to get what if we need to get recycling from center of Henipin County to a far away facility? We can't drive a collection truck there. We need to have that flexibility to move materials where they need to go to be managed effectively. So, I really appreciate your time. Sorry. >> Is it only your trucks that are bringing materials into this facility or are there other folks subcontractors or that pay you to let them dumped? >> Uh, right. Right now, I think we've we've maybe taken a dozen or so yard waste loads from another hauler. Um, the vast majority everything else we've taken is our fleet. But that's a business you have open arms to to let other folks dump there. >> Yes. And and again the limiting factor for the site is its size. You know if if if we want to bring in you as John mentioned we we we can take about 30 40 trucks a day. Again, depending on how many different material types those could be ours, those that's that's about it, right? And so we can't we can't do much to make it bigger and we're not proposing to just move different things through it as the business need arises. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Moving on item uh 10 C uh comprehensive plan amendment ordinance amendment related to the A3 district. >> Thank thank you Mr. Chair. So again as mentioned earlier is staff is requesting that this be tabled. Um the shortest explanation I can give is that I had a plan and the plan changed. Uh, so we'd like to bring this back to the planning commission in August. >> Motion to table. >> Second. All right, we have we have a motion to table and a second. All those in favor? >> I >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes 30. It is tabled till August >> 7th. >> 7th. All right. Item 10 D, uh, discussion on 113th and East French Lake Road moratorum. >> All right. Uh, let's see. So, in March of 2025, we had a an application by Oppeden who proposed a concept plan for a 200,000 foot industrial building. Uh, went through the plan commission and the city council. Um the plan commission kind of asked the question so to speak is what happens around here around the site related to land use as well as a transportation corridor. It was a big question mark. Uh the commission had recommended a moratorum. Uh the city council adopted a morator six-month moratorum in April uh for this area that's outlined on the city map. Um, Stantech was contracted to do a essentially a concept a larger scale concept plan uh for different types of land use and different types of transit cor transportation corridors. This is where I'm going to hand it over to to Jason to um kind of summarize each of the three concepts. Now, I'll just note um after we go through this, we do have um a couple interested members in the audience uh that are looking at this area and have comments as well. >> Um as John mentioned, we were asked to look at the specific area identified as the moratorum. Um primary lens that it was looked at was through transportation lens. where should roads fall to service the area? Knowing those are largely dependent on the land use on there, we did come up with a couple scenarios, if you will, just to uh demonstrate how the roads might change to uh accommodate the difference in land use. So, figure one, the one on the far left up on the screen, we just considered a residential heavy, if you will. So if the area closer to 117th, so between 113th and 117th were to be uh residential and non-residential mix. Um the a road could be extended east and then north um to bisect those and and differentiate those areas. Um, actually, one thing I'll mention before going farther, the the north and south areas of these are uh they could be, in our opinion, looked at independently, if you will. Um, the properties down to the south are uh largely unaffected by what's happening to the north. There are some um potential overlaps or implications that do transfer across um as you'll see in the other drawings, but for the most part whether there's a heavy commercial, industrial, residential, um those can be treated s completely independent for those purposes. Um so back to the the residential heavy um just the layout um in that one. The next one we looked at was the industrial heavy. So, if there was more industrial use, the roads would maybe look a little different because we probably don't need a larger public road bisecting um all industrial area um in something of this size. And then the 113th extension figure on the far right, um that is closer mimicking what's been proposed and discussed to date um specific to a response of the optedin uh concept plan submitted. And the main difference there is instead of the connection from the roundabout on Dayton Parkway extending primarily or the the primary route being due east if you will uh it is instead uh directed to the south and to make that connection to the east uh 113th is extended rather than having the separate road to the north. So that's the the bigger difference uh between the two. So, and these weren't necessarily our final figures, but being there was not a lot of input on uh the parameters or the considerations other than tell us where the road should be, um we thought this might be a great point um just to solicit feedback and and see, you know, what works, what doesn't work, what do you like, what don't you like. we can consolidate these two two figures, maybe even a single figure if there's um consensus on on what direction we want to go. Um there are, you know, there these are largely similar. Um there's not any real significant changes between them. Um, another item I'll point out is all of the developments on here or or nearly all of them um came from actual proposals at some points. Um, whether they were u some of them were formerly submitted as applications. Some of them were um just shared with us voluntarily that we could use for some of the residential layouts. Um the DDL site had a concept plan that went along with OpEdin that was used in here. Um and then some of the other ones um you may recognize from others. Uh the invent building is one of them. Scanel's building is one of them. Um I forget the other the apartment buildings were taken from the uh Parkway neighborhood just to give some reference. We thought it might having somewhat familiar sites even though many of those have not yet been constructed. uh familiar sites just for scale purposes or or better visualization if you will. Um so I I can certainly go through any questions or or uh otherwise we'd be happy to to hear what what's good, what's bad, what what should change. And just for clarity, the the lines drawn up here for roadways, these are generally roadway corridors, fat lines on a paper, not >> not they're thin lines on a on paper. >> For us non-engineers, why don't you what do you mean? I get what you mean by flat lines, but there's some people in here lines that are easily changed. They're they're they're defined corridors, but we haven't worked through the details how wide they're going to be or or what the traffic control is going to look like. Um the the thing that gives me pause on the the two to the right is we've got this kind of Yshape East French Lake Road where you if you're going north on there, you have to turn over to to um Dayton Parkway somehow, whether it's through 113th or the the uh extension off the roundabout. um gives me a little pause just knowing that we've got a heavy residential corridor area both south of here and east of here. And if we're we're planning one day to have as we have been um the downtown up kind of just north of here um we're forcing residents right through a commercial or an industrial area uh to access it just with the way the lines are drawn. >> You mean the the residents that are I'm going to say south of 117 have to go through an industrial area to get north of 117. So that's giving me a little pause just, you know, the the one on the the one on the left where it keeps French Lake intact with the heavy and I mean that's more what I would envision opening up into the the uh you know whatever land use is to the north. But the the ones where you have to turn off a French lake and kind of weave your way through the industrial >> the far right one you're saying. >> The far right one and the and the >> the middle one. Yeah, I think the middle one has a lot of potential because it's separating the neighborhood to the south. >> But with the turn, >> you're still you're still for the way it's drawn, you're still forcing them over >> over to where? >> Over to to Dayton Parkway. >> And we're rooting root the way I see it, we're rooting traffic from from the industrial area onto East French Lake Road, which I think is something we should not do at all. I mean, there's so many residences along that road. I don't think any traffic from industrial should be rooted that direction and both the middle and the right one do that. >> I think why I like the middle one is for the reason that you don't like it because I want the traffic to go that way in the sense that when the to the north of 117th gets developed, we need that flexibility to have more road patterns. Um, and this is why I don't like operating in vacuums is north of one. This is why we when we did the master plan, this is should have been the focus of the area because it's current staging and next. And but what's going on north of 117th is why I'm a bigger because I think East French Lake Road needs to be straightened out at 117th. And I Jason, maybe you can chime in a little bit, but at some point in time diagonal roads don't work very good for safe intersections. I mean, maybe we put a roundabout there to solve it. I don't know. But and we've al also talked about straightening East French Lake Road out because it just makes when stuff changes to the north, whether it's 10 years, 20 years, it's really creating inefficient land masses because of the way the pinch points are created with the road. And so to me, I think East French Lake Road's going to straighten out no matter what at some point in time, which is why I favor the middle one is because it's kind of blending in and making that happen. And then all the residents to the south of that line are protected from the truck traffic because no one's going to want to go south because you can't get anywhere. You you end up on territorial, more residential neighbors, tough place, tough access to 81. Um to me, that's the more favorable one, but And you know, I think no one's really Peter when you mentioned the one in the to the left that you like, you didn't really specifically talk about land uses. I don't think this is a good multif family land place. We've got the Parkway neighborhood and we eventually are going to have a downtown area that it's we're not like going to have a tons of multif family apartments everywhere in the city. And so to think that they're going to go here are probably there's better places for them than putting them in an industrial park. >> Well, and land. So, so the the interesting thing about that first one, um, that is something that we we haven't talked about a whole lot when we look at at residential neighborhoods, but this is that this is one of our last un undeveloped areas in the uh 279 school district um that we don't have a concept plan in for or um anything around that that realm. And I look at I look at my neighborhood which is split between I believe it's between 11 and 279. And the homes on the 11 side are sure they're selling and people are moving into them. Um but the ones in the 279 are selling way quicker. Um there's a a bigger demand there and I I don't know if if high density is the right thing here. I don't know if it's medium density. I don't know if it's low density. But what I do know is is there's a demand for neighborhoods in 279 with newer homes. And Maple Grove is almost full. >> I don't disagree with that. >> And and so when I when I look at this and I look at the adjacent land uses and and I look at what's, you know, certainly that that east of French Lake Road, you know, in all three of these concepts is shown as low to medium. I think we all agree that makes sense. The topography there is is beautiful for for the estate homes that are there today. But we'll make, you know, if it ever does redevelop to a concept like here, we'll make some very nice neighborhood. Um I think the stuff connecting to um the PY neighborhood, territorial trails um generally are the same in all three concepts. That makes sense. Um the the other the other two the bright green areas that are not, you know, the high density. I'm not I'm not sold on the high density. Um, but I'm I'm just not uh and Darren, we I know you have concerns of of French Lake and 117th, but if that is if we put commercial there, if we put industrial up there, we're increasing that traffic that is crossing that skewed road that is not in the area and not in the neighborhood. If we put residents there, we're putting in Yes. We're putting in higher volumes of traffic, but we're putting in people who live there, people who are watching for their neighbors crossing the street. >> And to be clear, I think everything I'm talking about is East French Lake Road needs to be straightened out, meaning it needs to be a a traditional intersection, not a skewed intersection. Um, I'm a big fan of industrial because we're out of pretty much out of industrial land in the city and if there's a use that contributes to our tax base without requiring any city services hardly at all, it's industrial. We put more homes in and we need to start planning more city services. So, in terms of taxes for Dayton residents, industrial is by far the favorable use for that. Um, I am I'm torn on the commercial. I understand why they're saying it, but I just fear that this property owner is going to be waiting a long time for commercial uses to come. Um because until Dayton Parkway blows to the north, um this is not a commercial area. We've got commercial land by the freeway that is the tax forfeit land that if you're going to have commercial, put it there so it can at least benefit from the Interstate 94 traffic a little bit. this. No, no one's going to It's just my opinion and as a real estate appraiser, but people aren't going to build commercial here until there's way more rooftops and Dayton Parkways blowing through. So, I'm I guess that's my logic on why I like the middle one is it allows for more efficient use of the land for industrial and I understand people's concerns about traffic, but any area in current staging it and it's no different than the curbside waste traffic discussion. any area in current staging is going to experience increasing traffic and it's just it's the reality of development. I guess >> I guess my idea comes down on the positive on the left one I'm not comfortable I mean if all these folks that moved out to beautiful out the outside of the city you know with these beautiful lots that are that are built along you know territorial road nice quiet neighborhood and we want to stick industrial in their backyard I know what I would think if that was me. I'm not I'm just not in favor of that at all. >> I would encourage everyone before they say that is the drive by the Turbine Pros building um the the uh Capital Partners building that's just sell. That's the type of industrial we're talking here. It's not uh it's employment centers. It's manufacturing companies that move into these buildings that are drawn here. Um, you could have some distribution users, but it's not a distribution user like the cubes and the cubes is then going to end up being all manufacturing on top of it. So, it's more employment centers than it is when people think industrial. I just want to make sure that people's impression of industrial is correct. Commissioner Brown, to your point, almost uh to the extent that maybe the land use in that area would be guided potentially for business park rather than industrial that allows industrial in a certain capacity, but does orientate the uses towards that employment campus style um facility >> a little bit, but just keep in mind our business park and our light industrial zoning are nearly identical. So >> I don't disagree with that. Yeah. So I think it's we're talking I mean people have different ideas but the way our code and comp plan written they're pretty much the same thing. >> Apples and apples. >> Peter of these three do you have a a preference >> from a a roadway network standpoint? I guess are we are we talking roadway network or land use? >> Uh both. because because I see them >> I think it's easier to do one or the other. >> Let's make it easy and say land use. >> So So land use land use I think I could go either way with industrial or um high density in the triangle um in the southern property. Um, the only way I see industrial working there is if we can punch the road through. I I do not see industrial working in that capacity. Residential I could see working um there's opportunity to not only we've looked at several opportunities to connect to territorial um and then there's opportunity to connect residential to what's shown in the the low density. >> Um and punch through the neighborhood there. Just knowing that it's you're you're driving that traffic through. >> Sure. So, any of these figures would work. >> Any any of these would work. >> But what did the county say about that? That >> is that right in right out thing or what? What? >> Restricted at best. >> Yeah. Right in, right out. >> Yeah. I'm I'm thinking, you know, if if we were to go with the option on the left, depending on on phasing and when things were to come through, any uh there's not street names on there, but the the streets coming from the residential, you could you could easily drop a lot and run a road, an access point through the neighborhood. to the figure on the far left. Is it a concern how you have East French Lake Road sandwiching another road? >> Meaning you're going to put a building, whether it's apartment, whatever, there's going to be roads on both side of the building. >> You're talking >> Yeah. either you're figured to >> how the road splices up and you're still going to have East French Lake Road right there on to the right >> to these buildings. >> No, sir. >> Yeah. Whatever you put here, you're going to have major traffic roads on both sides of it. >> Yeah. >> To me, it seems like why don't you just extend that road over and connect it up like figure two does and just have one road and then how you have the interior court for be it trucks, apartments, whatever you want. >> Yeah. From a roadway network, I I like I like cutting across, but I'm I'm I'm not liking the Y on that's connecting to East East French Lake Road. I don't like the fact that if you're going north on French Lake, you have to turn over to get to Dayton Parkway to then work your way back. >> Yeah. >> And the the intention and is for that is to deter commercial traffic from continuing east on East French Lake Road. South on East French Lake Road. >> The intent of that was to separate the land use and actually further deter traffic from coming into the >> I think it makes sense. If you're a resident, I think you'd prefer it because it's a simp if you're going north in Dayton and you get to the Y, it's a simple right-hand turn and >> I mean, would the French Lake connection still so >> still be skewed? >> No, no, no, no. >> Well, it is where those where those Y's where those Y's are in in either the middle or the right, would you be able to continue north on French Lake if you started down at Territorial? >> Well, you'd take a right and continue on. So, it would be teed in. Yeah, it >> yeah, >> it would be teed in and you would take a right and then it would it would just it would make the the passenger vehicles, if you will, turn to continue and the trucks would have to actually turn off of the road. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> It would just be easier to control or limit trucks from not behind it. >> I'm seeing it now. >> But are are you not sending trucks south on French Lake Road? >> We would correct do everything we could to deter it. >> How are you going to do that? If you build a road, they're going to drive on it. Have the ability to drive on it. Part of it is they won't want to drive on it because you get to territorial, then you got to turn and it's really hard to get on 81. >> I mean, people that know it aren't going to want to do it. Like there's easier ways to get to 94. >> Well, you're saying they're they're all going to go west. >> Yeah. >> I mean, they're not going to want to hit. >> Yeah. They're going to want to go Yeah. >> Sorry, wrong troubled road. >> Yeah. It's going to be a nicer road. Everything. They're not going to want to turn. They're going to want to keep going straight around the curve into the roundabout and off to 94. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. In in that instance, after thinking about the I mean, I'm I'm leaning towards the middle one from a a roadway network standpoint. It allows Darren, it allows the flexibility, too, for if we were to straighten out French Lake at >> still can do it. >> Yeah. I mean, obviously a property would have to be acquired, but we can still do it if when that day comes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I'll I'll just comment on we had a lot of discussions on we agree completely with the the skewed intersection to straighten that out. Um, ideally we would see even if we could uh pushing East French Lake further east, if you will, just to increase that spacing from D Parkway. >> U, the reason we didn't show it is simply because the 117th was the boundary we were giving and that would produce a skewed intersection. I hate these boundaries I operate under. >> We we could we could certainly show it and then just note on the other side, you know, realignment to be considered in the future as well if that's preferred. >> Just thinking logically here, if we push if we push French Lake further to the east, that means we're require we're acquiring more property north of 117th. If we push French Lake to the west at this T, it it doesn't require as much property to the north. >> I think there's only one property. Either way, you have to do it. So, >> no, north of 117th. Yeah, >> because the roads already skewing west. >> Yeah, there's only one property. Yeah, right. Got it. So, you're saying you'd have to purchase the property both south and north of you'd have to purchase both these two if you straightened it out here. >> Yeah. where it's just one property here. >> I think you >> and then and then you >> I think you >> but like you point to the screen so the rest of us can find >> Yeah. Sorry. So So my my thought is this is a bad skew. We we can agree to that. If we straighten out and run right along this building line and bring French Lake East French Lake down here, I I get it. The curve isn't exactly it's this would need to be refined, but if we push this to the east, we're going to be all this property to get that back in alignment. >> I think that the East French Lake Road alignment, Peter, is going to be completely gone when development starts happening because there's people that aren't going to want to be there. And that's that's where if we go here, if this if that doesn't happen, Darren, we're still setting up for a much better intersection here in today's configuration. If if we were to push this to the west, this is better than it is today. If we wait or push it to the then we have to wait for this parcel, that part. >> You got to wait for everything to happen at once. >> And everything to happen at once. And how often does that happen? Well, I hate to say it, it almost has to happen that way in this area because of the way the properties are, but and who knows when that's going to happen. >> Or or we could set it up to work better now and then continue to work better as we move north. >> So, you're saying move it east, but not not to the point, sorry, move it west, but not to the point where it's hitting that stub that >> not as far west as the one on your left. >> I think basically not this far west. might even be saying, you know, do south from the existing intersection if you will. >> Oh, yeah. Go do south from the intersection >> somewhere in there. >> Yep. >> Another thing I if I sorry, just to point out, um, east or west, not that this is going to dictate it, but something to think about, there's a significant wetland complex that spans 117th, not that far to the east. So, another thing to consider is moving it east. You might as well move it all the way to the wetland, if you will. Or you could move it west as you're saying and try to open up enough land to do something meaningful there as well. So that >> I understand exactly if you're going to move because obviously there's two homes in the way. Um but it makes sense if you're going to move it east, move it as far as you can to better utilize land >> because you're going to run out of usable space quick and and you might actually want to shift it even further west if you want to do something even more meaningful. So just something to think about. >> Those two homes on the east side both abut that wetland. Yep. >> So, you're not going to get very far. I remember when they built that house, they filled it in there. That's what you couldn't do today. >> Yeah. It's just right the water is right behind the building there. >> Jason, when this was being designed and you guys put a lot of thought into it, would was there just >> did does it make sense to either move it east or west and not where it is? >> We we didn't get into a lot of the detail. Um >> I mean, we could look at it further. I mean, we we thought probably sacrificing left less by moving east just because if we were to move it west, you'd have to go potentially quite a bit west to get any real meaningful space between that and the wetland. So, our our thought is just use all that space up, open up more of the industrial to the west. >> Otherwise, if we're moving west, we're going to biseect the the other properties, and then you need both sides of East French Lake to go at the same time, which is difficult as well. But I tend to support more moving east. Um especially given this Peter what goes to your brain because that's an engineer. >> So basically you guess >> hill goes up it's more of this right here. >> Yes. So if we move this to the west straight >> they'd cut that >> they cut that so we don't have to worry about >> that's perfect. I mean that's we're talking 10 feet from from here to there. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Because right now D Parkway he's got it going through this guy's house and then this the yard and so this connected it'd be somewhere in here. >> Well I was thinking about if this came through here and skirted this bottom of the hill that might be better. >> Commissioners the live feed is back up. So you feel free to come out of recess whatever. All right, I'm going to plug in. >> We'll get going. All right, after a short technical recess, we are back in session. >> Jason, just one clarifying point. The storm water ponds drawn on here, is there any rhyme or reason? >> There's really not to be honest. Yeah. Yeah, we just kind of pasted in. I mean there's probably some thought behind some of them because they were shown by developers but no um nothing is designed by any >> means public. >> Yeah. Um >> are you thinking of that? >> So before we do that correct? >> Yeah. >> Um just just wanted clarification. You guys are looking for just discussion on this. No no action needed. >> The intention is for the commission to provide feedback of what you would like to see change. Yep. >> We'll be back again in August for a formal uh public hearing. >> Okay. So, we we have a we have a formal public hearing in August. There's no action needed tonight. Um we do have five people in the room who aren't >> Could I could I speak? Yeah. Um just because I know there's a lot of interest in this. The the road alignment is a has been a significant talk topic. Um, basically the connection from the roundabout should that be um, if you will do east or to the south. So basically should it look like and it sounds like everybody's kind of gravitating towards the they'll say the the right figure if you will at least between the >> which the middle right or left? >> I'm sorry. The middle the right of the two options that we put together. Um, that's a terrible way. Yeah, middle. Thank you. Um so the the the middle alignment versus the 113th alignment that has significant impact on the opinion property or proposal itself. Um but then that is also of great interest to I suspect um folks in the audience and watching. So any feedback or discussion on that would be helpful. Um if there is strong preference from either I can share a little bit of our thoughts as we put these together. Um, I'll I'll just say right out of the gate, we think both of them will function. I think there are pros and cons to both of them. Um, from a strictly engineering standpoint, we do prefer and so I'll just say the middle versus the right in my comparisons. We do prefer the middle um for the alignment. And the reason being, and I'm going to point and I apologize to the audience, I'll probably be blocking somebody here. The main reason for that is just because of the potential truck stacking and impacts to flow on Dayton Parkway with the alignment here. This is the free flow traffic if you will. So the trucks can clear and with this one the trucks come in and they have to wait to turn closer to the intersection and they can risk backing up and then impacting this. The good part is now this is a four lane so there is room even if this does back up it doesn't necessarily block the intersection so that is good. However to keep the whole intersection clear would be our goal. And our thought is the farther we get this building connection to the east the more space that gives for vehicles to clear out of that. So we think this functions there's lower risk I'll say with this functioning than we feel there is with this. However, we don't know any of the users either. So that's that's hard. If we get a lot of truck traffic and significant, you know, full-size rigs out there, a lot bigger risk of it if we get a manufacturing or a lot fewer trips, you know, probably not that big of a deal. Um, I'll just note we did look after a discussion yesterday with with uh OpEd, we did look at can we squeeze a turn lane in here to at least get trucks out of the way a little bit. We can probably get a turn lane in to maybe get one at best two trucks out of the way, which is better than nothing. So, we can get some space. It almost acts more like a bypass lane, if you will, but to help clear that out. I guess it'd be more in the case of this one um to make this one more feasible, but just wanted to note that. So, um, it would be helpful if there's a strong preference for either this versus this. In other words, is one greatly preferred or definitely don't want to see it. I guess those would be the um the main feedback. Um, the other part just a little bit on the south. Um, we might have folks that are interested in the Stenley property as well um that are watching. So, I'll just touch on this as well. So, I'm going to go to these two because this one we feel is more dependent on land use. U, so the way we've proposed this is with a residential, we wouldn't necessarily want to bring traffic up into the industrial park and up to the roundabout. It's not necessarily a bad connection, but again, just kind of mixing the uses didn't make as much sense. So our thought was if this is residential, we do the primary connection down to territorial with the roundabout and then a future intersection signalization on 81 with the secondary connection being the right and right out. If it were going to an industrial instead of having the semi-tra using territorial, we would bring the primary access straight up through the corridor and to the roundabout. And that could happen with either of these as noted. And then the second area again would be the right in right out and we would eliminate or forego the connection to territorial. So I just wanted to point those out and if there's feedback or questions on either of those it probably would be of interest to folks watching. >> And just maybe maybe everyone's aware of this but just so everyone's aware of this that orange connection that territorial that you were pointing out that is city land city. >> Yes. we when we developed the the >> uh >> that property >> territorial commons. >> Yes. >> Yeah. This right away was preserved. So the the future of territorial will be just being the skewed angle will be realigned with a a better if you will approach to 81. And then the expectation is that would be signalized once warranted and the county allows. over here. >> And if if if that triangle if it were more of a medium density or or or there's a possibility it could connect through that neighborhood depending on what types of uses and all that stuff when it develops. It's just you're showing the primary connections from what we've seen and >> Yeah. Yeah. The the thought being not knowing what development looks like, >> right? Yeah. >> I think that the the Stenley parcel residentials >> it's been attempted. >> It's been attempted. It's not going to probably change. And one thing besides I mean when people keep saying industrial too I think we can maybe put some parameters if we call it its own special zoning like we cannot have a truck code. You know we can have industrial where everything's just in a building. It's more of an employment center. The other thing to be thinking about is highway commercial because it's always a destination use and it I mean yeah a lot most people are probably going to prefer a 94 but it's a destination use so they're not going to care about the right in right out right they're going to be perfect people come and get in if they happen to be coming the wrong direction I guess that could be a little bit of an issue um >> yeah I'll just sorry to interrupt um if this did become a commercial um this might actually be the right connection >> and I highway commercial. I'm talking like a dealership or something. That's I'm not talking like retail. >> Yeah. I'm talking or something. >> Not constant semis. >> Correct. Exactly. >> Right. Yeah. Yeah. The reason of you know this one versus this one is the anticipated use. >> Yeah. >> More than the land use the the traffic use or the traffic demand. And if you choose the middle figure, we still have flexibility if we work with the Stenley parcels. Hey, I mean, obviously the city's and people got to give them some direction that we would probably approve a comp plan amendment and stuff like that. Um, but we would have to explore how to connect that route then, too. And >> we're still looking at utilities up through that. Yeah. Just you're talking through here. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, right now, just kind of a side note with the what the what the mayor's alluding to is right now the trunk sewer sits right here. We need that's what services DDL. So, we're looking at two alignments. One is the due north and one we were looking at going west and then along this corridor here. As of today, um it looks favorable to go >> generally due north. So, we >> would land uses change that at all? No. Okay. >> I I don't expect so. Um I we're we're in the works of negotiating or we're getting appraisals at least for um easement through here. >> Yeah. >> As a precaution for that utility. But even if the sewer goes this way um potentially acquiring for the roadway as well or at least having that in place should it be needed. Well, I think uh in interest of time, let's open it up for the public hearing for uh at we'll open it at 8:48. Um if you would like to come forward and talk talk about your guys' preferences or thoughts on any of these um 3 minutes, no action will be taken. Um I think limit to your guys's comments and feedback. I think we'll hold let's hold discussion until they're done. So >> my name is Madu Ken. >> Thank you gentlemen. >> So I address please. >> Huh? >> Address. address where I live >> or DDL the land part. >> So me and Dave Packard we both own that. >> Okay. >> So basically when Dayton Parkway was built um we gave like two and a half acres of land and with this the other southern road requires more land from us again and someone needs to pay we already I'm a single land owner so it's like probably in the future the 170 meta has more land. So our biggest question is who pays for the if you add a road there the building size becomes smaller I'm I'm guessing and also who pays for the land and I'm assuming developer for the smaller building size is it financially viable to build the road for for the developer especially right so that's my main concern basically is it financially viable >> skinnel was here last month >> and they are building a narrow I don't know how it compares to the building that Jason drew here but they are building it a a building with less width than oppodent soel's bigger than opponent so the good news is they think a smaller width building will work but your other question about the road and the land is a fair question >> okay >> very fair question >> if I get to add on to that. So Medusa's engineer had sent us kind of comments on each of these plans and I'll just pass these out. >> Could not be here in person and Zoom is not working tonight. So >> just for note, the commercial showing on the Stenley property is the Scanel site. That that's just cut and pasted. So again, wanted to use it as reference. So the dimension is 180 by 700. How does the building width on the DDL site compare to the Scanel buildings? Are they >> I think well and that that's one that's varied a little bit. Um what was originally proposed maybe Muno knows this was it 215t wide. Does that >> I think it was close to three it was 330 or >> the width. >> Yeah the width. >> Oh it was over Oh okay. >> It was a bigger bill. I mean yeah >> building yeah definitely >> even if you see the picture it goes all the way to the end of the >> yeah what's shown is 210 by 950 I don't >> I believe >> I think that's what was proposed actually >> that's exactly what Scanel proposed >> uh that's what was proposed on DDL's >> scanel was 180 by 700 >> this is the DDL building >> and I believe this is the scanel >> um sorry No, the the one to the Which one did you start with? >> Is this DDL? No, >> that one is invent. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> So, that's that one is 310 by >> Let me verify it's invent. Yeah, that is invent. That one's 310 by 800. Yeah, >> the bottom one. Yeah, that one. >> Yeah. And that we have at 210 210 by 950. And >> the 210 width is what we're say. I mean, again, it's a different tenant mix, different stuff going on, but that's what Scanel is proposing to the south of 81 on another site. >> So, >> they're 180 question with your land. >> Yeah. >> Um, you know, since you're up here, what kind of feedback have you gotten from commercial uses in terms of something happening sooner than later? Are you getting feedback that there's actually demand for commercial >> in the on the No, we we didn't list anything on the uh on the northern side. We want to keep we want to hold little longer but we are only interest to sell the southern side but feature I don't know right but we had some interest of some apartment construction too but but we didn't like their proposal basically. Okay, thank you. >> Um, what DDL's engineer would would say or their preference would be the um to extend 113. So, it' be the the map on the right. Um the reason being is the the left side of the middle side takes land from the DDL property makes it much more difficult to build the uh the project that's being proposed because of the the wider building dimensions. Um the engineer has also said that um at least with the left side in to a certain extent the middle side is that it would require additional rightway and then it takes much more land out of that project. Understood. Um, so one of the things that we'd like to get from the commission is if there's a preference on uh the east west corridor of should it be 11 the extension of 113th or should it be the new road north of there. >> Let's see what Mr. Ramsey has to say and then we'll get back to that. >> Well, I found his comments interesting. Bill Ramsey, 11481 French Lake Road. Um, I think all the comments have been very good for myself as a residential developer. Number the I'll say the left side is one that caught my attention the most. It's there's two parts to it. We've all talked about it. Your road alignments and your land use. And road alignments a lot of times drive what happens with your land use. So, the middle one and the left one, I'm still trying to get my arms around the the right one in the sense that I think it's driving truck traffic down to French Lake. Uh, when I listen to the I become more open-minded when I listen to how you're going to realign it, how you're going to keep the traffic, I try to stay open-minded to it. I think the left one gives a lot of flexibility for your land use going south. If it's going to be medium density, residential, uh it's independent from each other. Uh you can come around and you can buffer your industrial or whatever land you used to do on the green area. Um but I'm open to the the middle one just to see how that would actually play out. But I do think that the the road alignment is critical because you don't change that. And your road alignments and your land use should be cohesive that your residential and let's say in the middle one is uh the term was brought up the fat lines for the road. What width is that road? Is it cohesive with medium density or residential? Uh Mr. Muse, you brought up a good point. 279 is a very revered school district. We have none left other than this area. Uh Darren brings up a good part about the industrial. Uh we're out of it. I think why don't you expand it to the north side of 117th? I know that's not part of what this discussion was all about, but you have the opportunities now to take your road alignments and your land uses and make them cohesive together. So, uh, I appreciate the work that Jason's done on it and we're willing to work with you and come up with something that works for everybody. >> Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Hello everyone. Alex Baron, uh, not a resident of Dayton, but working both with MEDU and Oppen on the the current development project that we're working through. Um, obviously MEDU's gone through the concept plan already and had that 200,000 foot building. I think our thought process is, you know, with the land purchase already in process to the south and Dayton Parkway, you know, already been construction and that I think that was in the tune of$2 million plus dollars for that extension. Why go through that process to try to reign that road? Um, again to the question of a smaller building, could a smaller building be built? uh you know not at this time with the proposed economics that we have in front of the project, right? That that project would die if that road goes east. Um and we would not be able to to move forward with with that project. Um you know, I think if if it is does go forward to the east, uh you know, the problem faces is less land to sell to redevelopment, right? less building square footage. And then I'll also to Medus's point, who pays for that road, right? I mean, that's an expensive road for a small site to really bear the the cost of. Um, so I think it's definitely our opinion to the path of of least resistance and that's kind of already in motion is the far right plan. And I I you know to comment on you know truck traffic. I kind of completely agree with you Darren. Everything wants to go west right that truck traffic does not want to go to East French Lake Road in any of these scenarios. It wants to go to Dayton Parkway. That's what it was built for was to handle that that massive traffic. I think that's all I got for you guys unless you have any general questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Is there anything you'd like to see differently when we come back a month from now? >> Hold on. Would anyone else like to speak or I'm going to close the public hearing? >> All right. At 8:59, I will close the public hearing. >> Yeah, I think we should just go down the line here and give you guys our feedback and then you can ask us if you're confused by our feedback. >> Okay. >> Cuz otherwise we'll probably keep talking in circles. >> Um, anyone want to go first? Feel free. >> I I'll I'll I'll jump in. Um, I understand I understand we've got developers in the room and developers looking at these prop properties for projects that may or may not be economically feasible. Um, we also only have one chance to get our roadway networks right and we have to balance that as well. So, if if a decision from the city doesn't align with a project, it's we got to do what's best for everyone and and just hope hope you guys understand that. Um, with that being said, I am leaning towards the the roadway network that's being proposed in the north of the and by north north of 113th in the uh industrial heavy figure. Um, I'm not sold on the land uses uh per se. Um, I'm open if if it if there's a need to to change them to something else, but on north of the the extension, but I'm I really like the roadway network through there. I like how it it kind of gives a way for it gives a way for truck traffic to force them north or or or west. um forcing them north, potentially getting back onto Dayton Parkway as they kind of loop around what may become a bigger site or or a complex if you will. Um there um you know, I think I think we should look at does it make sense to to resw the south side of French Lake at 117th with this um with this concept as well. Um but and then south of south of the the 113th um I think it just depends what works for that property and that development. I I'm not either one is multitude. Um I think there's a lot of challenges with the one on the right. Um it it doesn't feel like it it allows the truck traffic to access the the uh industrial park or the the north and the east side very easily without using fresh lake. Um, so I guess I'm in favor of the industrial heavy figure to the roadway alignment. Um, I understand the DDL property owner's concern completely. Um, if we did choose the figure to the right, which they prefer, we just shifted their concern to someone else. So, like Peter is saying, we're just trying to make the best decision for the city. We're not trying to think about, you know, who's losing land to a road because someone's going to lose land to the road. Um, I like the industrial heavy figure because of the road layouts and the ability to the flexibility of what's going to happen with each French Lake Road as it heads north. Um, I'm not sold on the land use to the south like Peter mentioned like industrial, highway, commercial, like a RDO type of use. If someone can execute medium or high density, I'm not against it either. It's a tough site with access. Um I think that when like you know sometimes when you're looking at these figures, it's too easy to get fixated on the buildings that Jason drawn and I understand why he drew them there, but you know even that big industrial building that could be two buildings flipped in the opposite direction. So when you're coming down 113th, that's the front of the buildings. all the traffic's driving by, right? And the truck courts in the rear and then there ends up being another industrial building on the north facing 117th. So now the truck court's sandwiched between 117th and the road coming out Dayton Parkway. And so there's ways to make industrial feel like especially if we you know come up with a district of I don't want to call business park whatever but something that says you know what this isn't going to be the industrial where we say you can have outdoor storage or you can have these massive truck courts you know this you know maybe as we go north of 117th we can but not in this area just because it's a budding residential to the south and um but I'm big fan of the middle figure the the My least favorite is the right figure. The left figure, I just feel like we're we're sandwiching development between two roads and I don't know if we need to do that. We can keep that open for, you know, cross access easements between the properties to make developments flow. I'm concerned about the commercial in the north corner. It's a tough It's a tough site to access and it's a tough site because of the pond, too. So, I'm open to commercial, but I think that to give the property owner more flexibility so he doesn't have to sit on his land for a long time, I'd be fine with industrial there, too. I think again, we haven't we going to have commercial by that freeway and we're going to have commercial as it moves north. So, I don't think we're like hurting oursel in the sense that we're taking all our commercial land away. Um, so yeah, that's that's where I'm at. Well, I'm more partial to the plan on the left because of the land use and that the the proximity to the homes that are already built in there, the people that have already moved into our city. Um it seems like there is a demand and if there's a demand we're more likely going to see something go in there quicker than if there isn't a demand for home especially in the AIO school district. I'm not convinced that the U-shaped road on that plan is the right thing to do. I would prefer the middle for the road layout, assuming we can figure out a way that trucks don't go down East French Lake Road. I think that would be horrible to route those trucks down through that residential area. I'm not sure how you do that. I'm no expert on that. So, I don't know. I mean, you put do you put signage up? No truck traffic, period. I mean, we've had that in some places in the city at different times. >> Someone went down it, they would learn that that's not the preferred route. That doesn't mean someone won't go down it. >> But these truck drivers are going to be driving with GPS and they're all not going to be familiar and they're all not going to be in and out of there. >> Most of them are using Google maps just or whatever map they use, the map's not going to send them through there because less. >> So, so you like the roads and in the middle one, you just you'd go with a residential land use. >> Yes. Yes. on the >> I was just going to clarify on you're talking the residential land use on the north corner north >> northeast >> east corner of this project >> both green or residential on that map >> okay >> that's what I'm referring to >> okay not one or the other both >> and the uh I think Keith on the the middle one on that on this I'm pointing on my map here but that Y that's connecting to French Lake that curb radius can be made pretty tight to to discourage truck drivers from coming here to turn down, >> right? We can set up a YouTube camera there. >> Yep. Yep. It'll it'll only take one time for them to get stuck and and then they'll get yelled at. >> But no, it's it's one of those where there's some traffic minification things that can be done with that. Took me a while to to digest that on these fat lines and I'm an engineer. So, >> so changes for next month. I mean, we we've talked about shifting the uh intersection with East French Lake at 117th. >> I think Jason and his team of student councils authorizing it should look at that and understand because there's even some topography. There's the wetland and there's also some topography as you head north of 117 of just understanding how is that road going to skirt in and tie into Dayton Parkway. If is there a better way to put some clarity around should it move west east to help us? In in my opinion, if you flip that that pond that's shown there in the middle property and the roadway, it's it's enough to shift it shift it east >> just a little bit >> without without impacting too much of development, assuming that pond is sized for that. >> One thing I was thinking about, >> right? >> Yeah. Too with that pond is does it even have to go there? Like if you flipped that building in your concept plan, how would that line up again to have a center truck court so both buildings are facing 117th and the the road coming across So it sounds like I mean Paul said basically the same thing. So everybody's kind of agreement that the industrial heavy roadway is kind of the route to go. It's just a matter of the minutia on the north side or how it how it connects into 117th or or even gets anywhere near there. Yeah. And you know, I think I know several of us are living through it right now, but you know, thinking about like what Maple Grove is doing with Maple Grove Parkway and Fernbrook and that connection. I mean, that's that's the bigger picture that we have to be thinking about. How's this going to look as it develops north? >> Yeah. The middle the middle figure gives us the most flexibility. >> Yeah. >> Jason, do you >> Yeah, I think so. Um, yeah, it sounds pretty consistent on the East West Road. Maybe some changes or tweaks in land use or look at some options there. Um, I already have some ideas for the realignment at East French Lake that we can try to get sketched out for some reaction. So yeah, I think so. And then sounds like to the south sounds like there's probably consensus that it depends on what ex ends up being built there, which is what we expected as well. That's why I was thinking let's just treat them separately and we'll just figure out what connections are appropriate depending on the actually proposed land use or traffic generation. So >> all right, we good. We're good. >> All right. Item 10, uh, 10E, ordinance amended for exterior lighting. >> All right. Thank you, commissioners. Uh, tonight you're asked to revisit the ordinance amendment for exterior lighting that uh was uh discussed at length in May and ultimately tabled by the planning commission for some tweaks and some clarifications to be provided by city staff. Uh, which is why you're reviewing this tonight. Um so just to for uh Keith's benefit as he's new to the planning commission um the further promote the city's designation as a dark sky community um the city council had requested the staff to look into adopting an exterior lighting ordinance that establishes regulations that um would kind of address and hinder u potential nuisances related to uh exterior lighting on specific sites. and I'll get into the detail on how that uh changes between commercial industrial mixed use uh versus single family residential. Um so the draft ordinance focuses on two main items when it comes to exterior lighting. Uh one uh to promote the dark sky community um designation in the city's comp plan is that all lighting be downcasted uh with a cutoff not to exceed 90 degrees to ensure light is not projected upward. Um and there's a figure on the next slide that will explain that. Um exceptions include lighting of the American flag um on flag poles and then as well as the holiday lighting and essentially the traditional holiday lighting that I was kind of looking at avoiding uh enforcing this is related to the the lights the bulbs that don't aren't able to be shielded essentially. Um, so that was kind of that uh uh explanation for that potential exemption. Um, though it's not exempt from the uh trespassing onto adjacent properties. So they would still have to be uh um on enclosed on the ent on the property itself. Um so then that gets into the second part about trespassing uh on adjacent properties. It's measured in foot candles and uh foot candle readings for new developments are reviewed through a phototric plan uh which there's also a figure on the next slide that uh shows you what that looks like. Um foot candle readings for existing lighting uh can be found by way of a light meter uh reading at a given property line. Um generally those types of uh investigations for nuisance problems to lighting is done at night. Um for single family residential and agriculture light at the property line shall not exceed 0.5 foot candles. Um just note that the planning commission was generally in consensus with um the details that are laid out within that proposed ordinance for um the allowable maximum foot candles at the property lines. um the multif family, commercial, industrial, civic and institutional uses as well as uh delineated parking lots not specific to single family residential um shall not exceed one foot candle. However, when they are adjacent to single family residential and egg uh light at the property line shall not exceed one ft candle. So we we offer that extra protection for single family residential that's adjacent to non-s single family residential um because it's understood that there would be concessions to other potential nuisance issues for those industrial and commercial properties such as traffic and noise. Um so allowing that protection kind of helps hinder any um additional nuisance problems that may occur. So, here's an example of a foot candle, uh, a photometric that, uh, shows what foot candles would look like at a given, um, property line based on locations of light poles. Here's the example that would be adopted within that ordinance that uh, demonstrates what the 90 degree cutoff and that 90deree cutoff is established as a maximum in the ordinance. So they wouldn't have to there wouldn't be any any cut off that would exceed 90 degrees. And then this would be something as an example that would not be allowed. John took a good picture earlier this week of two different two good examples on city hall property that uh one's a wallpack light and the other one's just a security light. So, where did we leave this last time? Um, I would say that the the planning commission thought that the ordinance wasn't far off from what they were intending um in reviewing. Um the planning commission was looking for more specific exemp exemptions such as uh there was a request that upcasting for architectural lighting that was previously allowed as an exemption uh did not need to be included in there because there are other means for um architectural lighting that uh is not upcasted essentially. Um and then the same with the holiday light exemption for the upcasting uh that would be allowed to be exempt from that. However, they would not be allowed to trespass light onto adjacent properties. Um, the stadium lighting was more specific in this uh amended ordinance um that uh the exemption for stadium lights is specifically related to the height standards. So, within that ordinance, all lights, whether they're outdoor storage lighting, building lighting, um the maximum height would be 30 feet. So for stadium lights, the typical stadium light at minimum is roughly 60 feet for an athletic field. Um and then there are provisions kind of guiding how long those uh lights can be illuminated for following the end of an event. Um street lights are now required to be downcasted. Um and obviously this would be uh relayed to developers moving forward. And um to me personally, I don't see I'm not familiar with any street lights that are currently upcasted or that don't have uh a dome over it. Um if you guys have examples, I would certainly go look at them to see that. But I don't see that around town, I guess. Um >> I think those pretty much went away when they switched to LED lighting. >> Sure, that could very well be the case. Um there was some concern related to uh prohibiting upcasted lighting on single family residential because of the architectural design or decoration style um that uh wanted to allow flexibility for residents. Um this is kind of the one that uh I went out on a limb and thought about how we could best address this. Uh what I had uh drafted in that ordinance was that uh they're required to be downcasted uh unless a portion of the building um such as a porch or an eve uh shields that light from being upcasted. Um and that be upcasted beyond that part of the building. Um, so as I said, you know, the the decorative sconces and things like that would uh people would have the flexibility to >> and and I think that meets the intent of what we were where I was going with that one was I didn't want us to write an ordinance that some neighbor is going to then complain about and someone else's upcasted light that only projects, you know, halfway up their wall in their house. But and in in terms of uh issues related to lighting with single family residential, you don't get concerns about upcasting in the lights, but it's more so the trespassing of my neighbors lights are too bright. And so that's really that stuff is still in place. Um this just allows that flexibility while still at the same time, in my opinion, meeting the intent of us being a dark sky community. >> Um >> so when Chevy Chase moves in next door, we're covered. >> Yes, exactly. >> Those are hallway lights. They're exact. >> Yeah, they can't trespass those. Good point. Uh and then the the provision about minimum standards was a a question too that was brought up. Uh so there was an added provision that essentially says for minimum lighting standards uh see the Minnesota building code. And here are just some of those examples that I pulled. This is a terrible example, but it was this is one picture. So, this is not a good example, but these are kind of the the lights that were referenced in my end. So, with that, uh, I'm happy to answer any questions. Uh, the planning commission already held a public hearing uh, for this item. However, it is listed as a public hearing. So, if you wanted to open up for comment, you certainly can do that. Mr. Chair, >> can you provide answers to Mr. across two questions. >> Yes. And I actually did email him back and I can share this with you as well, but um as I mentioned earlier, the permanent uh decorative lightings are still required to meet the foot candle limitations at the property line as uh Mr. Crosslin had asked. Um and then uh lighting landscaping lighting of landscaping such as trees uh for uplighting is not allowed um as this ordinance is currently written. Um so those were the those were the answers that I provided to Paul earlier this morning and he was uh not able to vote here tonight but he did uh express his support for the ordinance as drafted. If someone has uplighting of trees already in place today, are they going to be grandfathered in exempt if someone complains >> that? I don't know if we really got an answer from uh the planning commission on last time whether this is a moving forward. The hard part is understanding when it comes to enforcing the lighting. We don't have permits when uh light is installed. So unfortunately I would say that if there was a uplight for landscaping or something we would we would have to address that. >> Sure. >> I think it would have to be grandfather, wouldn't it? I mean >> we we can't prove >> I mean so part when we enforcement it's it's >> on us to prove that of the violation. We would have to have some kind of proof of when the lighting went in and don't we have aren't they required to pull an electrical permit? No, no, >> not from us. >> We could certainly check on that. >> They might if it's depending on, but it it'd be like Dennis said, it would be they have to pull that with the state, not with us. >> Not with us. >> And most of the lighting, I mean, it's go to Home Depot and get >> and it's low, so you don't need a permit. >> Oh, solar light. >> I understand. >> But but part of the thought also on the bigger does the trees serve as shielding? I don't know. I'm just thinking of some of the bigger homes on estates. That's the ones that you drive by. Whether you see some uplighting every now and then on landscaping whether that's right, wrong. >> Yeah, >> that's what I'm curious about. >> And lighting a flag. That's >> lighting. That's >> I think that Well, go ahead. I was going to say I think the one thing that this picture demonstrates really well that just pointed out when we talk about the foot candles it's the light the inverse of the light shadow. So you may still be able to see the light from your property and see the light of whatever building but it's the light shadow that you can see in these pictures. That was something that was in my head when we talk about foot candles. So >> yeah, like uh Commissioner Brown had made a good point uh last time about standing at French Lake and looking across the way at the Cubes building and you can see the lights. Just because you can see the lights doesn't mean that the light is being trespass on that property. Oh, sure. And uh >> to what you had mentioned about the 30 feet in uh height for some of those buildings in the industrial park. Um, I did drive by the cubes building and how they're not lights, but they're like a mirrored reflector up on the corners of the buildings that kind of spin with the wind. Oh. >> And I don't know if you've >> seen those. So those those lights that are on the building are at 30 ft. Uh, but there's whatever they are, reflectors or something like that on the top of the buildings that could be at a glance look like lighting. I'm generally in favor of the changes. I think there's there's going to be some uh there's going to be some issues in particular on the residential side. Like I'm full on in favor of all the commercial stuff. >> Makes sense. >> Yeah. I mean, I think we you addressed a lot of them. So, I think the uplighting of landscaping and trees that could be a pretty sticky point for some people. The one that stood out in my mind as we were reviewing this tonight that didn't it didn't happen last time but the event centers certain do we cover I mean >> oh you mean like the advertising lights no or >> the spinning >> or >> the farm light pole >> the old H hallogen ball >> No but but we have an event center ordinance that we've recently passed and we have event centers that were allowed Is there any specific lighting as we're looking at a lighting ordinance? Is there any specific lighting requirements that may be required for an event center? I mean, I was thinking the stadium lighting kind of maybe covers it, but but maybe not. >> There is specific lighting standards in the event center ordinance. Uh and it it really comes down to because it's more of an egg oriented use from my understanding with the event center. It's for large lot residential 30 acres or larger. Um there is the foot candle requirement because the assumption is you're around other residential is that it can't exceed 0.1 foot candle at the property line. Um, and if it doesn't address the height of parking lights or anything like that, this would apply to that essentially even though it is a it's a commercial interim use within a egg or residential district is essentially how it's seen in the ordinance. >> Yeah, that was the one that I was kind of I was thinking about. Are we going to run into any issues there or do we need to put some restrictions on? It doesn't sound like it, but >> I think the commercial ones are going to be easier to address than the residential particular if we get a bunch of complaints. >> Well, the event center would would fall kind of in that line, too. Be easy to address. >> Yeah. >> And this would be information, you know, with the residential side of things. We would relay this ordinance to builders in town to just keep them aware of when they are um looking at flood lights or security lights on homes that they're building in town or something to be aware of what these requirements are. Um but again, yeah, as you'd mentioned, it might be challenging at first to uh navigate the existing um lighting and uh this is not something that the that city staff would have the means to go out and um actively enforce. It would be uh it would follow our our standard nuisance process. >> How would uh I didn't catch this, but do do you exempt if somebody puts lights Christmas lights on the on tree out front? This exempt that somehow or >> just just the uplighting um would be exempt mainly because of the style of of lights. Um but it wouldn't be allowed to trespass onto adjacent properties. >> Okay. So that would be where the management comes in. >> Correct. And that's not going to be a problem. Okay. >> So up lighting is allowed of trees and landscaping. It just can't trespass. >> No. Um not the landscape lighting, the decorative or the the holiday lighting was what I was getting at. >> Yeah. Got it. So I think that's our biggest spot where we might have >> violators which not that it's right or wrong but they it's >> yeah where people make them complaints about things that are hard to >> and if it is a common occurrence related to landscape lighting and complaints um we can certainly re reook at that specific portion. Um, it just kind of comes down to uh how how is the community going to react to a ordinance like this and if it is in a negative way, how can we fix that to change that? >> Do you want to keep it in or keep it out? >> Right now, the landscaping is out. Um, >> I don't mind. I just think that's the biggest spot where you're going to the complaints. >> I think if if we were to put it in, I would be a little more prescriptive. It's low voltage. It's not it's not on there's there's got to be a way to like yeah it we don't want to go out and enforce it but there's a way to write it so that it is like you were saying it's it's at the tree >> I can think of one >> maintained >> it's got lots of them >> but I'm fine with leaving it Daytona propert. >> Do you have >> Oh, he's got a lot of >> Any thoughts on the lighting? >> Okay. >> I'm comfortable with what he's lit up >> the ordinance the way it's written. >> Yeah. >> So, the consensus is to prohibit >> that >> landscape up lighting, >> but my neighbors got some, too. >> Yes. >> Okay. If we get tons of complaints about it and need to address it, we'll figure it out then. >> Thanks. Right. >> Sure. >> All right. So, you need a motion. >> I'll make the motion to approve the exterior lighting ordinance amendment. >> I'll second the motion. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? I >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes three to zero. All right. The next one is actually uh related to um a concept plan that you saw last month related to the outdoor storage. So, uh, essentially what the ordinance proposes is that, uh, the city council and planning commission may review a a portion of the, um, proposed outdoor storage area of a given project, um, to allow for a paving other or a surface other than paved material like asphalt or concrete. Um, now we didn't uh the way that I had drafted this ordinance was not to include an entire uh area of the um outdoor storage area, though under the conditional use permit review if that is warranted uh by the planning commission and city council, you certainly could do that. Um, but the way that it is currently written is that it would be a portion uh reviewed on a case-byase basis. Uh, I did include a comparison in the staff report for surrounding communities. Um, the one that I didn't really have uh, information back on was Champlain and uh, within the time of the ordinance or the agenda getting posted, I did get a response back and they are very strict about um, outdoor storage and do not encourage it. However, when someone brings it forward, it's reviewed very strictly under a conditional use permit generally not allowing uh, gravel. The almost exact uh language would be the um Corkranss is it must be asphalt or concrete unless specifically allowed by the planning commission and city council. So after the discussion with the city council that uh saw this concept plan that kind of uh brought this question up, the city council was generally in support of allowing it and reviewing it under the conditional use permit. I think you did a really good job, Hayden, with your language, how you incorporated that in there. Um, I'm fine with the the crushed aggregate recycled asphalt and again it's based upon consideration maybe given for board and then we can deal with it that way. >> And this is a public hearing was posted published in the paper. >> All right. So, we will open the public hearing at 9:32. [Music] >> I got nothing. >> Do you have any comments? >> No. >> On this one. >> Close the public hearing. >> I got to wait till it's >> just making sure she doesn't change your mind or >> No. All right. Now it's 9:33. Close the public hearing. Give it a full minute. Someone might run in. You see the light still on. Um yeah, I I like the idea of keeping it a >> squishy. >> Yeah. But yeah, not flat out allowing it, but >> having some >> having some Yeah. They have to have a reasonable like the other applicant did. >> Yep. And the conditional use permit also gives you the opportunity to kind of clarify what type of material would be uh sufficient for the specific use. Um I think the way that I written it, it's kind of understood that class 5 is considered a dust dusty material and would probably be discouraged in that regard, but the class 2 material that was provided from the concept plan would be consistent with this ordinance. >> Is this purely aesthetics as to why communities require pavement tano? Well, actually it's a pavement, but well pavement or cement mean to me class two is I don't have a problem when I see it. my experience it's two things is one is what you just said and the other thing is to discourage outdoor storage people some cities try to make it as expensive as possible meaning pave it curve it >> okay >> light it fence it a lot of users want to fence it regardless for security but >> the the other thing that generally not a problem with storage but it's the tracking tracking stuff off and on property >> yeah I get now, >> right? If you have an imperous surface too, you don't have to worry about grass or weeds or controls in that respect. That I'm not sure how you would handle that because weeds and grass will grow in crushed concrete and recycled asphalt. Certainly. >> So, >> I mean, what would you We don't want it to look like a weed patch when they say, "Well, we it's crushed concrete." >> Yeah. >> How would you deal with that? >> At the end of the day, that would come down to the nuisance uh ordinance for um grass and weeds and uh if you could see it from the right ofway and it is a visual nuisance, it would be addressed through the community service officer. If it's an active site, a lot of times just the movement of vehicles and skidsters on that is going to move their rocks around and not allow weeds to really take off. If it's a different story if it's not an active site, >> right? You're talking to somebody that just today mowed crushed concrete at the barn. So get out there. I keep it mowed, but if you don't if you leave it for two weeks, it's >> Do you guys happen to know it's RDO all cement or do they just not move their stuff around? >> I don't know. RDO is a combination. >> Yeah, their back their back is >> back here. >> Most dealerships that are just parking stuff are going to want because it's easier. >> It looks better. >> It looks better. >> Yeah, I get that. Yeah, I suppose our deal is Yeah, they're not moving equipment in and out. They're selling. Yeah. Um I'll make a motion to approve the ordinance amending the outdoor storage uh with the language to that uh Hayden suggested to allow crushed aggregate and recycled asphalt. a portion of it. I'll >> second that. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? >> I I All those opposed? Motion passes 30. All right. Next item. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. This item is an ordinance amendment uh requested related to accessory buildings within agriculture districts. Um this was uh in connection to a variance request that you had seen last month as well. Um staff noticed uh noted a discrepancy within the ordinance that actually put uh stricter regulations on egg district accessory buildings and residential district accessory buildings where um the accessory buildings in egg districts were limited to the height of the principal building. And there was no opportunity to request for uh um a building height taller than the principal home. Whereas in the residential districts, they were allowed to apply for a conditional use permit to exceed that height up to 35 feet. Um, whichever is essentially, so this was the other question that Paul had asked that I can clarify right now too is that uh when someone comes in with an accessory building permit, um, the general rule is without a conditional use permit, they cannot exceed the height of the building of the principal dwelling on the site. Um, and then by way of a conditional use permit, they can request to exceed the height of the home up to 35 feet. And generally that height limit is established through the conditions of approval of that conditional use permit. So it doesn't end up being open-ended of, well, I don't know if I want to build a 25 foot tall building or a 35 foot tall building. That's hashed out through the conditional use permit process. This one seems very straightforward to me. Is there any discussion? >> What's driving this is the replacement of that building that burnt down. >> Well, it brought it to our attention. I think that it was something that probably needed to be clarified regardless of that uh application coming through, but that application was the one that essentially brought light to the situation. And this is a public hearing. >> All right. I will open the public hearing at 9:39. I think the one I know we've talked about building heights in the past. And I think I'll just So we we're saying 35 ft. 35 ft is or is the max >> the height of the building >> the lesser of the height of the property or 35 ft is the max. >> Yeah. >> What said building height shall be limited to the height of the principal building on the property by whichever is less >> whichever is less. So, >> wait, that's not >> So, if your house is on >> That's That's backwards, right? [Music] >> I think that's backwards. I don't think that fixes the issue that brought it to light. >> Yeah, I don't >> That is backwards. >> Yeah. >> Whichever is less. So, if my house is 14t or 12 feet >> without a conditional use permit, that's the limit that you would have. >> Without a conditional use, >> with a conditional use permit, it would be the 35 ft. >> All right. >> Okay. And I I think where where I'm still stuck at, and I brought this one up in the past, and I know there's not an easy way, there's not a simple way to to evaluate this, but if if your your house is here and your backyard or your sideyard or wherever you're building that structures down here, do we really care if that's more than 35 ft if you're depressed 20 ft? You know, >> like if you have a walk out basement. >> Depends on the neighbor. >> That's >> I think it's more of a topography like up here, but your building's down here. >> So, you really the height's not as >> I don't think we care. Although the other way around, we might care. >> Understood >> for this. >> Understood. That's where >> that's where >> do we >> seems like that's a good example of why someone might unfortunately have to come for a CVP >> in and essentially >> and likely get approval >> right and essentially the uh >> in my opinion when discussing elevations it can get kind of case by case specific whereas when you just use the building walls of the single family home >> that's that just kind of is the set and if you choose a location where it ends up being taller or you know it's Yeah. I >> And we've we've also had and just I've been here long enough that I think we've we this one's come up a couple times, but we've also had the uh um where do you measure on the house? I've I've had uh a couple conversations recently about this uh with some residents and it ultimately is the lowest point of the exposed building wall >> to the median roof pitch of the >> of the house. So if I've got a singlestory house, but it's got a basement walk out on the back side, I'm taking that measurement from the tallest point where would be the the basement side >> or the the rear side of the house. >> So just and is that clear in our ordinance? Yes, I would say that it is based on the definition of building height in the zoning ordinance >> and there is a figure in there as well that kind of um shows that >> public hearing is open. >> Our house is probably an example of that. Our lot slopes from the road down >> and we have a walk out basement. So from the back, our house looks really big, but it's really just a small rambler, you know, with dirt on three sides, but the backside is wide open with the walk out. >> So how would you measure something like that with the slope of the lot and the house? >> I would measure the back the back building wall. >> Okay. So that's >> you would you would include the basement in that. >> Correct. Yes. and and their their lot is is almost identical to kind of the scenario I'm talking about where from the roadway the there or from the public rightway it doesn't appear to be this huge massive barn but if they were to be on a flat lot it's a different story right so >> yeah there are cases in uh in in town right now that uh if you're standing at the front of the house, the accessory structure is going to look taller than the house, but if you go to the back, that's where the measurement was taken. Um, >> so yeah, I don't disagree that that is a challenging way to navigate. And I don't know >> if I want to make this like defense ordinance where it's >> well I don't know if I've uh I've come across an ordinance related to this that uh each city is like this is the specific way that works the best you know >> and we don't want to go out there taking elevations of people's gutters to >> right it seems if anything if people really got concerned you'd bump the 35 ft down and unfortunately it'd be more cups then in circumstances where you're concerned. >> Yeah, this is a and the conditional use permits like I've mentioned before are generally permitted as long as they can meet those provisions of the conditional use permit section. It's not like a variance where there has to be an issue with it. >> All right. So, the height of the garage, so we're clear since we're talking about measuring, how is the height of the garage measured again to refresh our >> the same way as the uh the house would be to the median roof pitch. It's a tall garage. >> Yeah. For the we we don't measure in terms of the the pitched roofs. We don't measure to the peak. Okay. >> Um but it goes from basically where that uh where that eve is and then halfway up to the peak. >> What about a gamrell barn? Gamrell accessory building. >> Oh, I can't remember what that figure is in there. The top story. Yes, I think it is. um the top one, but it actually that figure that uh I should have it was in the old slides from a couple months ago, but uh that figure has a few examples of what um the height measurement would be based on the roof pitch or the type of roof. >> How about a geodome? >> We've got a few of those. Yeah, I've seen that. >> The eve is on the ground, right? >> Yeah. Right. There's always >> the dog is too tall. Yeah. All right, >> it's late. >> 9:45 we will close the public hearing. >> You can't just second everything. >> No, I'm I'll make a motion that we approve uh the ordinance as amended. >> I will second it. >> We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? >> I >> I All those opposed? Motion passes 30. Notices and announcements. >> Luckily, I only got a couple, >> but how long are they? >> Oh, how how about how fast I can talk? So, uh, first it because we just talked about this an hour ago. It's uh it's familiar to everyone. So we do have a currently have a moratorum on the approval of subdivisions in a certain area of Dayton. Uh this project has two tasks. Task one is halfway through uh which is to complete two concept plans for a layout to bring those to the plan commission and the city council. We talked about that tonight at the commission. It'll go to the council on July 22nd and then come back for a public hearing at the planning commission in August. Let's go to the next one. There's quite a few. So I I and I don't remember what they all are. Um the EDA has been tasked with a redevelopment of the old village. Um in January, the EDA purchased a property um on Robinson Street and went through this concept plan exercise of what is the highest and best use of this property. Uh so we started out with a concept one, two and three. Um those were all kind of had mixed reviews and so then the direction was let's get a concept number four and that is what was chosen. So in this case um it is on the left we have a restaurant and then on the right it is a commercial retail um on the first floor with apartments above. Uh so the apartments I think this was designed to accommodate four units. Um, kind of the next step is for staff to reach out to developers and and as well as restaurant owners and and think of have conversations of is this practical, you know, based on the size and the location and all that. And then >> where are we at on I don't know where we're at. >> The Robinson Street is Main Street essentially. >> Right. >> Um, and then the left edge is uh the Crow River. So this is right before the bridge into Oxville. >> Okay. Okay. >> Um development at this intensity will require a fire sprinkler system and and I don't know if the commission is aware or not. We don't have the water pressure to service uh fire sprinklers in the village. So, this is um going to have to sit vacant until we have water storage um which I believe we have in the CI >> CIP for 2026 >> 20 probably operational in 2027 >> hopefully. >> So, >> what's the building height on the mixed use building to how many stories? >> Two. >> And that's all that code will allow? Um, I might be three, but I mean for this size of building, I mean, I don't know if you could do three. >> Yeah, I think if you're going to get developer interest, you have to have a little bit more density. So, I think you should consider when you talk to market participants, are they okay with units being above the restaurant, too, and just have an L-shaped building? Um, it puts a little more burden on the restaurant because of ventilation and the fumes, but they just got to duck them up another story. It's only two stories, so >> but people are going to want density. >> And there's there's a few there's been quite a few of those. Forest Lake has one, >> right? We have restaurants and apartments. >> Yep. Yeah. >> And by a few, not like >> downtown Minneapolis. I mean, Forest Lake put one in. I would just approach it open-minded with the developers and see what they say. >> Okay, >> where we do we have next public survey. So for anyone that's still watching this, uh feel free to take a picture of the the uh what is it? QR code. >> QR code. >> QR code. Okay. You tell >> we'll be watching it tomorrow because Zoom's down. >> Zoom is down. Yes. >> Is that on our website? City's website. >> Yes. Yes. Um, so we are doing a public survey for the LC Stevens master park plan. Uh, it it's short, so the survey really shouldn't take more than a couple minutes. And what we're looking for is feedback of what is missing from the park that should be uh considered. >> Uh, question about that. How how are we getting that out to folks watching us? the survey >> are not watching this. So, we we have Facebook. Um if someone's not on Facebook, then it either they're going to be dependent on their neighbors telling them about this or be looking at our website. >> Was it in the communicator? >> Um I No. >> What about the app? The city app? >> Yes, >> it's on there. >> Yeah. So, one of the challenges with the communicator is that this is something that's written, you know, weeks if not months ahead of time before it actually gets mailed out. So everything that goes in there um tends to be outdated >> and it's quarterly. >> Yeah. Um >> and it's on it is on the website. >> Great. Good. >> Detour for Fernbrook. So it is uh many people know that travel Fern regularly uh there's a section that is closed in Maple Grove while it is being rerouted to Maple Grove Parkway. um is closed for three weeks and I believe we're in week three. >> This is should be yeah >> should be operational by >> it would be opened up >> Monday I believe. >> Play place plays at the park. So uh Rivers Ben Park which is um I'm going to say kind of in the northeast corner of of the city uh has I'm going to call play date. So this is a June 24th and July 29th. So the June 24th had already taken place and that is where the sidewalk chalk came from. Adopt a park. Um if you'd like to clean up after the sidewalk chalk, uh we are offering adopt a park for any of the city parks. The the uh whoever volunteers for this is asked to clean the park on a regular basis. um whether that be once a month or after um significant holidays where we're we're assuming that the park would have more use than uh on an average day. But this is a new program for us. Cards, cribage, and coffee. So this is at the um uh the activity center the fourth Thursday of the month. >> Second and fourth Thursday. second and fourth Thursday. Okay. Giving garden. So, as you walked into city hall today, you probably noticed the um uh the little cart that's outside of city hall. If you are growing an excess amount of vegetables and feel free to bag them up and drop them off at the cart. So, we've had a few donations that have come and gone. Um, I've not heard it from anyone of how they're doing or or how successful this has been, but it it's a good idea. >> My neighbors going to be mad at you if I do that. >> Yeah. >> I got a lot of excess over here. >> There you go. Okay. Concert. >> He gets them though. >> Good. Uh, 2025 concert series. So, we have four concerts that are planned throughout the summer. Uh, we've had we're halfway through. So, the next one it will be Wednesday, July 23rd, uh, for the Shane Martin band. And then Wednesday, August 13th, at Jason Pollson, and this is at Elsie Stevens. The Dayton Car Show keeps going. Um, also four times a year and this is held at a new location, LC Stevens. Uh, next show is July 11th. Six shows, not four. Uh, next show is July 11th. >> If it's not raining, I'll be there. >> There we go. We'll see a Jeep. And then Riverfest. Um, this is also, was it August 8th, I believe? >> Yep. >> Um, and this is also going to be held at LC Stevens. Is that correct, Dennis? >> Yep. >> So, new lo Yeah, this is a new location. Yeah, it'll just follow >> for the concert >> EDA. If if the planning commission is as exciting as it sounds right now, uh we have an opening on the EDA. Uh the EDA consists of five members plus two council members. Uh they are appointed or at least the five members are appointed to six-year terms. Uh we have a deadline application deadline of this Monday July 14th. >> They meet once a month. >> They meet once a month. Um third Tuesday at 7:30 a.m. >> This is Tuesday. >> This is an earlier meeting for the next plan commission meeting. August 7th. I'm trying to think of what we have. We'll have um a public hearing for the A3 discussion or comprehensive plan amendment and ordinance amendment. Uh we have an ordinance amendment on home extended businesses. Not home extended business occupations. >> Uh we may have um a plat or a revised plat. We've got to review it still. >> And is that just the three items? We did receive a um an interim use permit application for an event center. So you expect that in August as well >> and then we'll have more discussion on the uh moratorum area. So it will be not a short meeting. >> All right. >> Anything else? >> I will make a motion to end the meeting. What's What's the public term? This is Paul Crossland's job. >> Ajourn right there. >> What if it dies for lack of a second? Can't we go with it? >> I heard a second. >> I just can't. >> I heard a second there. >> All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed