is uh 6:30. I will call the uh the date finding commission meeting to order. First order of business is pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. Uh next up is roll call. Um the chair shall verbalize who is in attendance and who is absent. So, uh, Sergeant Brown and Demouth. All right. There we go. There we go. And absent is, uh, uh, Crosslin and Presler. So, I believe Crosslin plans on attending, but he will be late. Can Can I make a request with the the new AI? Can I get a list of the names? Sure. Just right here. Yep. Just to help help the memory. Yep. Help the memory. Sometimes I forget when we're reading through so many things. All right. Uh number three, role of planning commission. Um we'll we'll just it's it's on the agenda and it's there. Number four, uh approval of agenda. Anything to add or change? Um sure. So, I mentioned in an email I I'm going to make an addition on to 10B um as a discussion of a Scanel [Applause] project. Is the applicant going to be online for that or do you don't? So, it doesn't matter if we make it 10 A or B. Okay. Nope. Um, I'll make a motion to approve the agenda as amended, adding item 10B. We have a second. We have a motion by Brown and a second by Sergeant. All those in favor? I All those opposed? Motion passes 30. Uh, item five, consent agenda, minutes from February 6th. I was not asking that. Oh, I was at that one. No, I was not at that one. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Guess I have to second it. Motion by Brown, second by Sergeant. All those in favor? I I motion passes. 30. All right. Uh item number six, open form. Um, public comments are limited to three minutes for non-aggenda items. Come on, come on forward. I just I wanted to talk Oh, Marcia Grover 11320 for Brook Lane and Dayton. I just wanted to talk about the intersection of 113th and County Road 121. I don't know if you guys are ever familiar with that, but you have two very narrow roads with no so shoulders intersecting. It's a very small intersection. You have two two-lane roads. And just last month, the garbage truck northbound waiting for traffic to clear so he could make a left turn on 113th was stopped on 121. The car behind him with a woman driving with two small kids in the back seat stopped, but the car behind her did not, resulting in a rear-end collision. Both cars were towed away and appeared to be totaled. Also, our mailbox is at that intersection, and there's a street sign there. The traffic, which includes big semis with long trailers carrying huge earthmoving equipment, have a hard time navigating that corner, especially if there's a car sitting on 113th trying to get on 121. Due to Sundance and all the new houses back there, there are cars sitting there most of the time waiting to get on to 121. Now, imagine this scenario. a car sitting there in the eastbound lane of 113th and a semi with a long trailer and heavy equipment on it trying to turn onto it coming from the north. The semi on 121 has to come to a full stop and wait for the car on 113th to leave. The car can't go because the semi is blocking his view. You may think, well, the driver should go because the semi is also blocking the traffic. Not true. People behind the semi pull out and pass in a no passing zone because they think they're special and they don't have to stop and wait. So now all lanes on 121 have traffic going in the same direction. If one of those cars pulls off of 113th, there's sure certainly going to be an accident. And we've seen several close calls. The same is true if there's a semi on 113th waiting to get on to 121. The rig needs both lanes to get on. So, he must wait until there is a big break in the traffic in both lanes of 121 before he goes. Just last week, we saw a car pull out from behind a semi, pull up alongside the semi in the wrong lane, and then turn right onto 121, crossing in front of the semi. and it's sitting there waiting for the traffic to clear. Also, about two weeks ago, there must have been something going on at Sundance because we counted 79 cars coming off of 113th onto 121 on a Monday at 1:30 in the afternoon. The line stretched as far to the west as your eyes could see. It took him 10 minutes to get all the way through the intersection. There must have been something going on. I don't know. Imagine if you had a semi coming from the north waiting for 79 cars to pull out onto 121. We've seen the street sign get knocked down. We've seen our mailbox get knocked down. Right now, that street sign looks like the leaning tower of Pisa. And it if if it gets hit one more time, it's going to come down again. This this intersection is not suitable for these big rigs with earthmoving equipment to be coming around that corner. And I you have to think of an alternate route for those big rigs entering before DCM starts his project. Maybe the the rigs need to go up to Rush Creek. It's a wider intersection, much wider. Maybe 117th. that's wider, too. Or maybe they should start with 114th and put in like a dirt road there so that the machinery can get in there. At any rate, 113th intersection is not able to handle the traffic that Dean's buildout will cause. I'm trying to think of alternatives for an obviously bad intersection. I'm trying to help you do your job. Your job, may I remind you, is not to help the developer make as much money as possible. They know the property and they know what the rules and the codes are. Your job is to enforce the rules and the codes of this city. Your job is to protect the citizens that are already living in this area. Oh, and by the way, have you approved the DCM plan? No. No. Okay. Um, you need to consider resolution of the lot sizes, which most of them are really small. You need to consider, he says he's not going to build the commercial, but he says how long, a month, six months, a year, five years. And the traffic problem is really something you need to consider. the roundabout and the garages for those people on Fernbrook Lane are, you know, you're going to build the alley, but that's all fine, but how are they going to move their garage and their driveway? Hey, this is a big cost for them, not to mention the sewer and the water. Please reassess all these things before you approve that project. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else here for open form? All right, moving on to item uh item seven, council update. Um so for March 11th, we that was a pretty thin agenda. Oh, uh, South Diamond Lake Roads getting a full mill and overlay this summer. That was to approve, um, plans and specs for it and to go out for bids. Uh, and then we did, uh, work more on the goal setting. Um, yeah, that was it for the 25th or the 11th. 25th, we had a uh a work session with the park commission over most of it was over um you know their accomplishments, but there was some discussion on a community park, what it meant and how we should be um setting ourselves up. We we basically said that uh staff would at least keep an eye open for land in the 40 to 80 acre range. Um, and if it was reasonable, we would jump on it. But, uh, there didn't seem to be very much urgency from anybody, any of the any of the the commissioner or the council. Uh, up in that concept plan, the bulk of that discussion was um on what we were doing with the property on the east side, how we were going to get access to it. And uh that was that was that was most of that discussion. Um Parkway Neighborhood final plat that was to resolve some of the financing details. Uh like I said that was a final plat so that went through. We did change the public notification requirements for public hearings. Um there was there's a a threshold if it hits that it will go out to was it 1,200 ft? Uh well quarter mile so 13 13 something. Okay. Um yeah those small things it would stay at the 500t level. Yes. And then we had the egg three zone pretty much got approved as to what you guys had seen. I believe. Yeah, that's pretty much what you guys had approved is what we had approved. Then we uh just had a vote to accept the strategic plan that we've been working on. So, and that was it. All right. Any questions or clarification? All right. Item eight, public hearing, Parkway neighborhood phase two. Um, there's a couple people, but Michael is online. Okay, great. So, uh, I believe the developer is online on Zoom. So, Michael, when when you got something, if you want to raise your hand, um, the architect, I believe, will be joining us shortly. Uh, sure, if you want. Yeah, he's I know he's multitasking. Uh so this is not a new project obviously. You saw this a month ago. Um so the Parkway neighborhood is located at the intersection of uh Interstate 94 and Dayton Parkway. Um it is a three-phase project. So phase one is 180 unit apartment building. Phase two is 273 units of apartments and town homes. And phase three is to be determined. So generally speaking, uh when we went through the concept plan, the phase three was going to be similar to phase one of roughly 100 I'm going to say 150 to 200 units. Um so tonight we're focused on phase two. So this is a preliminary plan approval uh for phase 2 as well as site plan approval. Uh phase 2 is 14 acres and as I mentioned before it's 273 apartments and town homes. These are all uh rentals. Uh critical issues for this uh the property is zoned GMU5 or general mixed use 5 uh and also as a planning unit development with the PUD. there's uh allowed flexibility from the city code or we refer to these as deviations from code requirements in return for some type of a public public benefit and public benefit is really defined by the council. Um in this case the deviations include a reduction in garage parking and surface parking as well as a decrease in setbacks. Um, specifically, it it varies depending on what part of the project is there a deficiency in garage space or parking um or setbacks. The public benefit in in staff's interpretation is that there's a larger area of open green space. So, as you may recall, um the road alignment uh does go through some wet line and flood plane which requires some mitigation for that. that mitigation is concentrated in um outlaw or this open area. So in this case the benefit is um a larger open complex of green space. Um one of the critical issues with this is emergency access and and staff just wants to make sure that the commission and the council is aware of this. Um this is a long deadend road. Um, it conceivably would be expanded into Maple Grove, but it will still be a dead end. Uh, right now there's only one access point. It is intended that when uh Dayton Creek addition develops to the uh the west of this project. There would be an emergency access uh to Brockton at that time. Uh, additionally, there's a an existing farm road that can serve as emergency access, although the culvert, the existing culvert is not sized appropriately to support fire trucks. Um, another option is the future of Three Rivers Park District regional trail that could be driven on, but once again, that would not likely support fire trucks. So, this is just something that staff wants to make sure that the council and the commission is aware of this. Um so this is a project blown up and as you may or may not see I cannot. Uh this plan kind of uh shows the the number of units in each building and I I'm not going to repeat it but it this is also included in the packet. Um this is the preliminary plant. So the preliminary plant shows three lots. Uh you have lot one uh block one lot one and two of block two. Um and then outlot A which is the open space. Uh this is a grading and drainage plan. The intention here of showing this is just to show what the grade differences are. Um the buildings are going to be fairly level, but then it it's kind of it then it drops off into kind of a wet line that goes along Interstate 94 as well as wetland and flood plane that go into outlot A. Now, what does not show on this plan is the regional trail that will go on the back side of uh the town homes here and then up along the uh street. Here is the landscaping plan. Um and this is also it's this is difficult to see just because of the scale of the project but uh generally there are numerous existing trees that cover this area that would be removed. There are a few trees that will be preserved kind of on the the outer edge of the the project area. Then a rendering of both phase one and phase two. So here we have phase one which is the approved um 180 unit apartment building and then the phase two project uh renderings of the building. So again what this project is or what we're talking about tonight is both a preliminary plant and the site plan review. Uh the site plan review is a review of uh the actual building design or the architecture as well as landscaping and general lot layout. This is a clubhouse. Um and just for orientation wise, the clubhouse is at this location here. And then another rendering of the winter scene of outlot A. Um, so I'm giving more of a brief introduction because I I believe that this is still fairly familiar to the the commission. Um, and again, the developer is online. We have the architect here to answer any questions. All right. Uh, one question for staff. The road coming in from Dayton Parkway is going to be a public street, correct? Yes. U just understand the financial of it all that developers constructing that all. Um no so the the city has agreed to construct uh essentially from Dayton Parkway to uh the the property line of the development um at the point for which the developer uh applies for phase one and two development or um e either one. So, uh, just back up a little bit. There there's been some discussion with the developer of are they going to start with phase one or phase two? And I I believe it's phase two, but it it's the option is for the developer. Um, the city would build the section of road that goes from Dayton Parkway across the city's property to the the beginning of the project at the time which the developer um takes out applies for building permits for 150 units. So whether that be the the apartment building which is 180 units or 150 units worth of the um the apartments and town homes on the south side, right? Yeah. Just some risks for the council to consider is you know markets can change and once you put that road in, you're committed to this plan. Any other questions or initial comments? I guess I do have a question uh for staff. Um you're you're saying that there is a uh overall for parking uh my question is related to parking. Overall the parking exceeds the required number of stalls. Obviously short in a couple areas. Uh for lot two uh they're short 32 garage stalls and for lot one they're short 54 surface stalls. Has staff had a conversation with the developer on if they see that this might be an issue? Um if there's other develop developments uh in the area that they have done that are not meeting the minimum requirements of parking. Uh if there's a study as far as the actual number of parking stalls that are used in a development of this size. uh just want to get away from parking issues being persistent in the future even if the overall development is fully parked. It's might it might be a convenience factor where there might be parking issues in the future. So wondering if if you've had those conversations not not in-depth conversations and and a couple of points. What one is I believe in the staff report I do have an air on the parking calculation. I haven't figured out where that is yet. Um I know the short one of the shortage is on block one. This this is more the town home projects. Uh the city code requires that for town homes you have a twocar garage as well as two parking stalls and a half stall for guests. Where the lot one is short is that there's not that half parking spot for guests. So, um, if we're short, you know, there's I guess I mean the the fall back is on street parking as well as, uh, parking at the the, um, clubhouse. Yeah. Um, are these roads wide enough for on street parking? I don't think they are. I believe these are on these. I believe these are standard street street widths. Yeah. One question that just to alleviate Jeff's concern a little bit is our our multifamily parking ordinance has been is overly burdensome and has been that way since I've been on the commission. Um to put it in perspective, there's 482 bedrooms. The parking stall per bedroom is 1.8 stalls per bedroom. I think we're going to have enough parking. Um, and even uh in the flats, the the most the concern that John brought up about the area that's least deficient, it's still 1.2 stalls per bedroom. So, the parking doesn't really concern me too much when I looked at it that way. Yeah. And if I may, um, and Ben, if you could, uh, introduce yourself or name and address. Yeah, absolutely. I'm Ben Delwitch with Cos Wilson Architects, 1301 American Boulevard, East Bloomington, Minnesota. Um, commissioners, mayor, uh, thanks for having us here tonight for the second phase. Um, just real quick to address the parking concern. This is a real big sort of design driver for us. And you'll actually notice here the civil engineering plan is a little bit different than the current architectural site plan. And a big diff or a big reason for that is the parking itself. So the development on the south that we're calling the flats has one stall for every apartment unit. The one that we're calling the cove, that's the middle one, that has one stall for every single bedroom. So a two-bedroom gets two covered parking stalls. And then the town homes, each town home gets two covered garage stalls and two surface stalls. We do recognize that with the parking layout and these tuck under garages, they're they're some of the exterior spaces can only go to that particular resident who has that particular garage stall. So, we've tried to position guest parking stalls throughout the developments to account for guest situations. Um, I really do feel like we have enough in our current plan, the clubhouse, which we were very concerned about the parking there. We've uh increased the amount of parking on the clubhouse quite significantly. I think we're up closer to I think we're at 48 or 49. As well as we're hoping to uh propose some parallel parking right across the street from the clubhouse. we would keep within the existing pre-platted right of way, but we would just extend the width of that road to provide additional parallel parking outside of that clubhouse if there's a bigger event there or if there's just any spillover. So, we've been very mindful of the parking. Um, I agree. I think we have enough, but we've been trying to very strategically position it because for us, uh, we have to work the developer has to live with it after and they need to make sure they have enough stalls. So, um, just one more quick note on parking. Um, all of our parking stalls that are in front of a garage are the required 20 foot depth. The ones that do overhang a curb, much like phase one, we limited those to 18 ft. But the standard parking stall where a garage is in front of that, those are all the the 24. So, is it 20 ft from the garage door to the curb? Uh, 24 ft from the garage door to the drive aisle. 24 feet from the or uh sorry, 20 I apologize. 20 feet from the garage door to the um Yeah. And and you'd have a little bit, you know, the garage doors on the inside of the wall, so you get 6 in give or take. That was kind of one of my questions. That's probably my biggest concern about the parking when you start parking vehicles because these town homes are going to have garbage cans. I'm assuming that roll off and all that kind of stuff, too. Um 20 fts can fit cars and small SUVs, but it doesn't fit bigger vehicles without something hanging out into the street or hanging out into the the driveway. Well, and I would say a standard parking stall for kind of the most of the cities around is 18 ft. And so I think the 20 ft does account for it. I don't I don't disagree with you and I think we have a solution to accommodate that if we if we need. How wide is the drive? 24 ft. So it's Yeah. 20 24 and then 20. We've since this plan went out gained a few more feet in depth. We were really fighting from the north south direction, especially to get some land between the uh cove neighborhood in the middle there and then where that drive lane comes in. And we've been able to pinch our buildings down four feet each. So, long story short, we got about 10 extra feet of wiggle room in depth to increase those if we needed to. And the town homes as well are really constraining north to south. How wide are the typical driveways? Uh typical driveways would be 20 or sorry, uh 20 ft wide. Okay. for a twocar and then every uh it's 11 ft designated for a onecar garage going into any of the other buildings that is in a town home. So the parking stalls there are actually in fact 11 ft wide just cuz you got garage doors and space on the sides of them. But yeah, if if we felt like parking was a little too constrained at the 20 ft, um ultimately we have some room to pinch everything to the south. We're thinking a little bit more land between what you're seeing there now, the Cove neighborhood on the sort of the northeast there and then the buildings on the south. But if a few feet more go to parking and some goes to green space, I'd see no issue with that. I think the wider the more depth you can get in those driveways, the better. I mean, obviously you're trying to get as much as you can now, but that would just be my concern is yeah, most most vehicles would fit, but the the vehicles that don't fit are going to be then making that drive a narrower too if they're sticking out a little bit. Peter, Jeff, do you have a feeling or on that? I'm I'm good to do. I just want to make sure that that's kind of what Yeah, I I mean I tend to agree with with Darren's comment of of a little bit wider would be better, you know, um in particular on the long long drive aisles. Yeah. On the south end. Yeah. I've I've driven through a few of these neighborhoods with my smaller pickup truck and it's it it's tight if you're not used to doing it. Yeah. Um, and they are essentially driveways in this condition versus what a standard parking stall is. It's kind of the the gray area we're playing with there. So, again, um, we did find the extra room for it. So, um, I think we could accommodate that update. Yeah, I'm I'm just kind of studying the the probably not the right plan, but it seems like some of the spots where there is and I think I made this comment in one of the previous phases, but some of the spots where there is some green space, maybe consider increasing the length of a few stalls for truck parking there as well, just as an option as especially as you get further in. Um, you know, out towards out out towards 94. There's a couple couple of the the ones around the triangle. Maybe make, you know, the first two smaller and then that last one deeper or last two deeper. Um just to help alleviate some of those concerns cuz you know if I'm driving a truck every day, I don't want to hang out in the the drive island, but if that's a truck I got to drive, I might choose to park it over there and walk to where I live. Sure. The other thing is if that's a truck you drive every day and you know you're driving that every day, you might not choose to live in this area, right? But you might not have a choice. If you're a contractor and they give you a truck, that's that's true as well. So, and thinking about the type of people who might be renting an apartment like this, it might be a foreman or something where they have to drive a work truck. That's very true. People have trucks. Yep. Um, do we have any more questions on parking or before we I I think on the the parallel parking, I think it's a great idea to to to figure out a way to put it in there and show it on even on the on the roadway. Yeah. And so to be clear, it is actually in our updated architectural site plan um with the the parking numbers. So you should at least be able to access what that'll look like. Um kind of based on these comments, we'll get like the additional drive um driveway depth in there. Well, the civil engineer will take all those comments plus some of the engineering ones from Jason um get those updates in there and get their stuff matching up. But the the architectural plans do show that parallel parking as well. And I think it was 20 I believe it was 20 additional street parallel parking stalls. Okay. We did also just for again kind of that main drive especially between the two rows of buildings on the south really felt like a lot of parking with a lot without much breaking it up. We've since then be able been able to put two units in the well we've been able to put units in there to put green space out in front so we have more breaking up of the long masses of parking in the updated plans as well. also just a little bit more kind of favorable from a neighborhood standpoint, at least in my opinion. [Music] Uh, with regards the clubhouse, the clubhouse is serving these 27 one or three units. Correct. It is. I think there's some ability for the fourstory apartment building to use it. They'll have a lot of the same features. They'll also pool. They have everything. But if there was a bigger event, it would uh be for use of that building as well. You know, I don't want to necessarily redo your whole plan here, but was there some thought of why we put the clubhouse in the far northwest corner versus making it a little more centrally located or even on the south west corner? Yeah, I I think so. Yes, there there was a lot of thought there. Um it was at one point up where that where that L-shaped building is on the norththeast there. It was there for a while. So yes, we've had a lot of thought obviously kind of centrally located for phase 2 made sense, but we did really think about it as the clubhouse for all 650 units including that building way on the north. So we do feel its current position is actually centrally located. Um what's going to be in the clubhouse? Um, so standard clubhouse amenities, uh, club room, game room, um, you know, just various party rooms, the it's But each of the other phases are going to have their own amenities, too, though. That's where I'm I'm just it would I mean, I guess as a resident, it'd be better if it was centrally located, but you know, I don't know if it all works with your plan. I mean, it's a really nice looking clubhouse in Vegas, so I was wondering. Yeah, I Yeah, I don't. We've been around that one a lot. So I I can I definitely see the arguments for some for the other positions. But yeah, I and not to I mean if if this is part of the overall plan of the neighborhood and the other residents in the apartments are using this, I'm fine with where it's located. I think as a side conversation, we should we should have a conversation as a planning commission at some point of when there's a clubhouse or a neighborhood pool or something that we do want it centrally located um just for future something for future. Yeah. When when they came in for concept plan the first time around, that's the challenge with these really big projects. You got three phases. Our entire intention was on FA I shouldn't say tire, but 80% of the discussion was on phase one. Yeah. And yeah. Yeah. And this one itself is perfect. And I think that this clubhouse ultimately is just going to serve this area, I'm assuming, too, because each of these properties could be sold off separately, too. And they're not going to be, you know, they're likely won't be intertwined forever unless there's some easements put in place or some agreements put in place. Yeah. Um Yeah. I mean, at least the current plan is to have a one shared ownership entity at least. But you're right. Things change. Maybe it all sells in one big bundle, too. Yeah, it is. Yeah, it's a valid point. I think um where it is right now, it allows for a little bit of because just the approach to this development, it would be the first thing that you see. So, we wanted it to be a little bit of a statement piece in entering the neighborh. There are some good positives worth looking at too. It has great views of the the open green space. So, it's a it's a really actually a tremendous point. Maybe the first and foremost the current location of that is up kind of perched on a hill. Everything really drops off there. We're thinking about an infinity edge pool. So the positioning of it currently right there on the site offers some pretty extensive um views and too. And part of this this site like part of why I don't mind where it is is that open space behind it. you know, if we were putting a residential neighborhood behind it of even a similar product, but they can't use it. That's that's where I have the hangup with it. So, Mr. Chair, we we do you have someone that would like to speak? We have an open public hearing. It's the applicant. It's the applicant. Yeah. Michael, would you like to join us? Yes. Wonderful. Hi guys. Happy day. Hello. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Um I just I wanted to respond. You guys are speaking about the uh the location and I think I just wanted to echo um what Ben said that we went through a great deal of se several sessions looking at the location and how to position it. And as you guys remember even two years ago when we were talking about a concept that beautiful area that unfortunately is not buildable is not developable in in terms of quote habitable square footage but becomes this multi-purpose functional area just to the west of of this um and I think it's it is set up in such a way that it can operate and become a central neighborhood destination for all 600 and so uh residences. is and and frankly, you know, offering food and beverage and and you know, some amenities that uh that come with the, you know, scale of our neighborhood, right? It if we were doing this and designing that building for 200 units, what you're seeing, you couldn't really even afford it divided into the 200 and some. But when you start doing 600 uh and and so we've really made a special destination that's very visual, it's beautiful, and as you come down into the neighborhood heading south, uh it's very focal. So you you you really have a instant sense of space and place and and and sort of arrival and then you have all of these, you know, slightly different uh rental product that wrap in and around it. and uh and and so we we really anyway we're excited about its its location and then its proximity you'll notice immediately to the west uh uh you know we've worked hard with three rivers as has you know uh bringing in this regional trail and that runs right along the back side so I think a lot of energy went into to really making that become that central very iconic and very noticeable sense of place that sets you into the Parkway neighborhood. And then whether you're in the four-story product, the twotory town homes, everybody will have an opportunity to utilize the the amenities of uh of the facility. What can you guys uh tell us about the phasing here of the the is it once you break ground, is it the idea that you're going to be just going the whole time through all the phases? Are you going to move from phase flats to town homes or No. Yeah, great question. And I think you know similarly as we've spoke in the past um you know one of the the fundamentals of of our building because we do have 600 and some is it's a multi-year multi-phase project as has always been the plan and we're tying our con the delivery of construction on an annual basis to be very much tied to the existing demand matrix of you know how many people are in the area what is the demand for these kinds of rental products and and So in short, the answer is if we're if we're keeping pace at about 120 to 150 units annual, right? Then we're kind of in that in in a nice pace. And so what we think is happening right now in the what does this mean square one? Um Ben and and the team are going to work towards building construction documents um for the area. what is phase two, right? Um and and we think that those will uh be able to close and and start construction in September. And then what we show as phase one because of the just the simple duration of how long it takes then to produce construction documents, we wouldn't be able to build the fa what you see as phase one until call it November. And and it just doesn't line with when we can deliver it. Phase one, which is lot one, block one, is very likely to be a 26 coming out of the ground. And what you see under phase two, we're very very deeply involved in bringing those to construction documents such that uh that we can come in and and be getting building permits throughout the month of August with the idea of breaking ground and actually physically on site in September. So, you're building the town homes first? No. Of of phase two. Yeah. We've got the three different components. The fa the the town homes on the left to the west of the road and then to the right it would be the lower section. Um and and would very likely would be starting with the 25 unit buildings that run along our southern border. And there's four of them. And then we would do the 38 unit the 38 plexus and then up into the cove and then likely the uh town homes on the west uh will be perhaps the the last of those three portions making up phase two. Okay. So the clubhouse the way it currently stands will be constructed with the town homes in that phase. Yep. Correct. Yes. Yeah. That's right. Okay. Any other comments or questions? I I should also just suggest don't uh take that as in stone as though we have to have all 267 to bring that building online. We're going to we're going to do that um you know kind of as soon as as you know we have to finish the underwriting on it. And because we're building a structure that's going to sit there for a long time and it's based on, you know, 600 and some units of traffic flow, you know, we want to be able to do it when it's when it's most practical. But it may occur sooner uh than than the completion of the town homes, right? But regardless, it'll it should well, I guess from my perspective, it should occur at least in conjunction with the town homes, meaning versus you building the town homes and then waiting until, you know, more units come on line off the site, right? No, we're not doing No, we're we're our first bite is going to, you know, remember we have a a trigger of 150 that we need to have in place and moving towards vertical construction in order for both of us to trigger the construction of the road. Okay. So, we're we're and and so we've evaluated and and gone, you know, a little bit into the market. Remember, we just got through entitlement only last week, but what the market, you know, uh it it would be very likely for me to say that we're having very good uh feedback on the flats, right, which is 176 units. And we like that both because you know number one we like interest uh in the you know from the financing markets for the product that we've developed for the last two years but but also the fact that by us securing those units uh in the near term it also meets that immediate threshold of of moving towards 176 units which is well above our 150 minimum threshold and therefore further reducing the risk for everybody that the roads are you know that all of those investments are very sound uh on the public side uh because of the units that we're bringing underway. So summary is the flats are the most likely product. Ben is working on getting construction documents that would allow ultimately for a submission for building permits in August and and coming out vertically or at least horizontal improvements starting uh perhaps in September. And that would be in area 8A is an apple that we refer to as the flats. 76 units. All right. Um, any other questions, comments? I think at this time, uh, Michael, we'll we're going to open the public hearing. We may call back on you guys, uh, in a little bit. So, good. So, at, uh, 7 7:15, we're going to open the public hearing. If there's anyone here for comments on on this, please come forward. Uh, hi, it's me again. I I just Can you state your name again? Marsha Grover 1132 from Brooklyn and Dayton. Um, I just want to say I'm as as an observer only, I'm a little concerned about the lack of parking. Also, um remember we have winter 6 months out of the year at least and you get big snow banks along the roads. Um if you're a young couple living in the apartment, you got a two-bedroom apartment. It's Thanksgiving or Christmas and you've just moved from out of town, out of state, and your parents are coming to visit and you're really happy to see them because you haven't seen them for a while and they pull in with their suitcases and of course they always bring extra goodies for you guys. And uh there there's no place to park. Everybody else is having a little Christmas or Thanksgiving shindig, too. And uh you got snow banks on both sides of the road. So that little road there is going to be narrower. And here's your mom and dad with all their stuff and they're hauling their suitcases and everything along the road and trying to get to your place. Snow all over. Um or maybe you're having a Super Bowl party and you've invited four couples up to join you. But guess what? the there's a lot of parties going on that day and there's no place to park and your friends have to park in the road and somebody else is blocked in now and they're calling the cops and your car is getting towed and it's just a fiasco. I think they need more parking spaces just because those people are going to have guests. Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone online for this one? Yeah, if anybody's online that wants to speak, use the raise your hand function and we will unmute. Not seeing any hand raise, Mr. Chair. All right. Uh with that at 7:18 we will close the public hearing. Um any more questions or comments for the applicants at this point? All right. Any further discussion on this? Uh the only I mean I think uh Miss Grover brought up a a little bit of a point that we always or I always make sure that developments are uh addressing is snow removal. So this is a there is a lot of hard surface out here. Uh we do get uh snowy winters. Uh do we does the city of Dayton have a required like snow removal plan or designate on site plans where snow removal should be located? Um just questioning if if that's ever addressed or if it should be addressed. Um it should be addressed and it has not. So this will be our third apartment building that we've seen uh constructed and we've just not had a lot of experience with that. But you bring up a very good point. It's not uncommon that snow removals trucks trucked away too, right? Uh well, so you know, some some cities will have requirements for showing on site plans a certain percentage of the plan being used specifically for snow removal. And then we'll also have um some standards in there allowing for some parking to be able to use that for snow removal if there's ample parking on the remainder for meeting minimum requirements. And then if uh that can't be achieved, then it should be hauled off site. So, it's pretty expensive to haul it off site. Um, most people will do everything they can not to do that. So, they'll push it wherever they can. Uh, you also want to make sure it's not being pushed in in sensitive areas for, you know, wetland protection and things of that nature as well. So, maybe something that, uh, staff should look into is snow removal plans, especially if we're going to be looking at more denser developments coming up in the future. Sure. Yep. Um, I'll just kind of echo here some of Paul Crossland's comments too that uh this project uh a lot of compliments to the developer. It's a very attractive project with lots of glass. Uh it's pretty unique looking compared to most um flattown apartment developments. This is kind of a unique how it's a mix of product types. Um, you know, one thing that note too that, you know, it kind of crossed my brain when I was looking at this, but it ultimately became not a concern is that, you know, this code was written mainly for three-story buildings. But I guess it's important to note that 77% of these units are three stories in this phase. And obviously the other phases are all threetory plus. So that kind of alleviated my concern. And part of the reason there's two story here, those town homes are in an area with a there's a high water table and it's just difficult to go below grade. Um parking I think well with snow removal that's not in this particular site. I agree with what Jeff saying it's good to have some code to it but with this particular site it's not much of a concern to me. There's so much place to put snow. Um we there's a huge flood plan area that it could be put into and um so I'm not too concerned about snow removal. I'm not concerned about parking. I'll just reiterate. There's Well, I'll take that back. As long as we feel comfortable, the stalls in front of the garage doors can fit vehicles. So, the better you can get closer to 22 feet, even better. Um, there's not there's plenty of parking. There's 1.8 stalls per bedroom. I mean, that's that's a lot of stalls. That's way more than typical what I've seen in other rental developments. So, that's not a concern of mine. Um, I think it it's a great attractive looking project. I I guess um to echo on the the parking, I mean, I I just took some some measurements on the roadway there. That's a almost a 36 foot wide curb to curb roadway based on what I was seeing in the plans. And um even even with wind rows of of snow on both sides without adding parallel parking, that's still a really wide road for what this is. Now, sure, if people are parked parallel and they're trying to get delivery trucks in there for moving move in day and whatnot um during a snowstorm, that may be a concern, right? But couple all that together and if they add in the the parallel parking spots like they said they would, that helps alleviate a lot of that. Um the two the the two things that I was going to bring up and and more so um cognizant of our neighbors to the south, there was some some comments that weren't addressed just from Maple Grove in here and just tying into Maple Grove. um wanted to bring that up as more so for the residents that we did reach out and to to the neighboring cities and and asked for some input and um and got some feedback and and working with with those and I don't think those comments are outrageous um or or uh would change much that that we have here. um they expressed a lot of similar concerns that we that our staff has been bringing up in the past regarding access to the site. Uh which there's not much to you know can't change much on that. Um, you know, I'm I'm also guessing, you know, based on the type of units and the type of types these these are with in regards to parking and and other things, you know, the the length of the driveway. I think Darren, you threw out 22 feet. I feel really comfortable with 22 feet as as kind of this the standard. Um, you know, would I like to see more? Sure. But I feel com really comfortable at 22. Um, I think that's that's all I really had. I mean, had to add, did we close the public hearing? Yes, we did. Well, with that being said, then um I'll make a motion to approve the preliminary plat for the Parkway neighborhood and the site plan. I'll second that motion. We have a motion from Darren and a second from Jeff. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Uh 30. All right. Uh, next item, old business, Legacy Wood zoning map amendment. Excuse me, we're ahead of schedule here. Okay, so Legacy Woods, uh, previously known as the Shaney North, uh, project. It's located on North Diamond Lake Road um north of Laura Lake and right uh up against the boundary between Dayton and Rogers. The project altogether consists of about 104 acres. Uh the proposal is for 10 uh lots uh roughly between five and I think it's 20 acres in size. Uh currently the property is on A1 agricultural. The proposal is to reszone it to A3 agricultural. As the commission may recall, the council recently adopted an A3 district and the A3 district is intended to have a density of two units per 20 acres or roughly uh one home per 10 acres with a minimum lot size of 1 and a half acre net acres. So one and a half acres of high ground. Uh this project meets all the criteria of the A3 district. And just to kind of explain the story a little bit. Uh so on the left here we have the zoning map. Um the council has kind of adopted a a boundary of of the properties that would qualify to be reszoned as A3 that is shown on the map to the right. Uh the parcels that are outlined or colored in are those parcels that are 20 acres or more. So that again the idea is if you have 20 acres you could divide that for two home sites. Uh the project area is highlighted in kind of a reddish color. Uh here for the preliminary plan again uh the A3 district requirements is a minimum lot size of 1 and a half net acres. So net being high ground so excluding any wetlands or or low ground. Uh the one and a half acres should be large enough to accommodate both a house as well as a septic system and an accessory building. Uh the minimum lot width is 140 ft. Uh in the case of Legacy Woods, the uh smallest lot is 3.1 net acres. So it's uh twice the size of twice the minimum size of what the A3 district requires. And then 264 ft in lot width. So again, uh close not quite twice as wide as what the ordinance requires. Um and again, this is 10 acres with a density of two homes per 20 acres with the A3 district. Uh there is I'm going refer to it as a menu of items that the developer is required to choose um that would assure that at some point in the future this development could be reubdivided to to uh provide sewer urban sewer and water. Um this project as it is will be on well and septic. uh the project and I won't repeat this but of the five items the developer is choosing to go splat the property as well as to identify land characteristics that would require uh or that would support future urbanization. Uh it's a little difficult to see, but the map at the left is uh the proposed 10 lots that are of acreage size and then the ghost plat is shown uh to comply with the R1 district. Uh what's a little difficult to see there's some shading here that shows the steep slope. So, um, good and bad with this project, it has topography and it it really makes this this property a very unique and beautiful property to work with, also very complicated to develop. So, um, although this is 104 acres of land, it it's much of it is wetland and there's a lot of topography that would say uh where it's impractical to develop it for sewer services. This is a map that where we have our uh our sewer plan that's overlaid on this or sewer plan from the comprehensive plan. What this is indicating is our thought or the city's thought on how sewer would be extended through the project. Um now this is from our 2040 comprehensive plan. It's fairly generic as far as the route that the sewer would go and but what this is showing is that it's practical that sewer uh would be located likely along the streets or alongside property lines. Um this is something that uh you know really wouldn't be uh uh described in depth until water or sewer becomes available. Um this project is within I believe it's the 2050 uh sewer plant. Um referring back to the ghost plant, uh the 2040 comprehensive plan also includes areas that are uh shown as greenway overlay district. uh within those any area that touches a greenway overlay district is required to be developed as a conservation uh plane unit development with the conservation PUD the intent is to preserve corridors of green space so uh that's on a different slide but um also what is shown here is the shoreline district regulations or the shoreline district boundary for Laura Lake um although So, our zoning ordinance has requirements for densities and lot sizes and lot areas, all that. The shoreline district, which is based on DNR regulations, supersede what the city has. So, u it's difficult to see, but what you'll see here in the ghost plat is you have um you roughly 15,000 square foot lots and then 20,000 square foot lots that are within the shoreline district with the ghost plan. And this is something that that we're going to to look to have it updated. Um the road that would go through here is an extension of Thicket Lane. uh which is currently in dead ends at this point and then continues uh to the north. Uh this does not meet the spacing criteria for Henipin County. Uh the comments from Henipin County is that when this area redevelops uh with sewer um this intersection would have to be eliminated and moved to realign with uh Zanthis Lane. Um so our thought is is that the uh street you know right right now we do have rightaway that goes through here although there's topography that makes it impractical to build a road here. Um our thought is that the intersection with zanths or the street with zanths would hook around this existing wetland and then onto thicket lane. Okay. And then here's the conservation PED that I was thinking of. So, uh, the green hatching is the greenway overlay district that's shown in the 2040 comprehensive plan. And again, the intention is that any property that touches the greenway is required to be developed as a conservation PUD. Uh, with the PUD, the intention is to preserve um sensitive areas. In this case, there is a large wetland complex along the south property and and along the north property. What staff is recommending is that there be a conser a conservation easement that's dedicated uh to include the wetlands as well as the wet line buffers and then a connection point between the two. Um this line here generally follows the topography line. I'm going to say it's somewhat arbitrary. So I would be looking for comments from the planning commission of if this can be improved or changed or just left as it is. Um, with the conservation easement, again, staff is recommending that this be a city conservation easement. The reason for that is if it's city controlled, um, that is something that we can exclude from our net density requirements for a met council uh, calculation. So when we start working on the 2050 comprehensive plan um the intention is that everything I shouldn't say everything but much land that is developable um has to accommodate a density of or net density of 3 and a half units per acre. Um, you can exclude land that is included as wetland or land that is city controlled such as city easements. So, if it were a private easement, uh, that would not count. Uh, questions. What is the net acreage to the site today if you take out the steep slopes and wetlands? Oh, that that I do not know. I was looking in the packet and don't seeing it. I don't think it's there. Um, a question maybe more for Jason. Um, looking at, you know, potential for future sewer. Did you Did we ever look at potentially looking down the backside or or or the backside running sewer down the backside of these like for the rear yards? Um, we haven't looked closely at how it would get through the site. The site it going north from North Diamond Lake Road. There's actually a large incline and then a decline and then another incline through there. So, it may be practical to get sewer up to I'll just say the northernmost portion of Laura Lake. U beyond there probably going to be a a lift station and force main to service it. Otherwise, your gravity is going to be so deep through there. So, um, could be under the roadway, could be through the backyards. We do have plenty of space to work with. So, I think there's some flexibility there. And, and I guess that the reason I bring that up is based on where that conservation easement is compared to like the ghost platting. Um, and what that, you know, making sure we leave enough room there if if it needs to be a DNU along outside the conservation easement, I guess. Sure. Something to consider. If we put this conservation easement in place, what is that decrease the net area to? Uh that hasn't been calculated. So the the line on here, you know, I I'm going to say it it there's a rhyme and reason to it, but it is somewhat arbitrary. So generally speaking, it follows topog a topography line, right? And that's guess what in my brain I was I don't think we're going to gain much if we make it smaller or bigger. And so that's but that's why I was curious if it was calculated and how much play we had and if it actually meant something there. Yeah, there was a lot of play. Yeah. Uh, Commissioner Brown, I think just to answer your question or to elaborate a little bit on, I think the intent of the expansion of the conservation easement area uh to that area that's not included within the wetland was to uh attempt to satisfy some of those requirements of the conservation PUD, which includes uh kind of a contiguous corridor of wetland or conservation area. Um, and that area was essentially kind of just a recommendation of if you include this boundary, it would essentially make that area contiguous as one. So, right. Yeah, I'm I'm game for making it contiguous. That makes sense. The question is, do you push that line a little bit west or east? And I don't think we're going to gain much from a density perspective, but it probably doesn't matter. But, okay. I don't have any more questions for staff. Do you guys should add the conditions also recommend a trail along North Diamond Lake Road. ement for a future. Yeah. So, right now there's nothing to connect the trail to. So, this would be eventually built, but it it's difficult to predict when I guess in I should word it correctly. Um, you know, similar to other developments that that go on, we make them contribute to a part the park fund if they're not putting one in. Is that the case here? Yes. So, they would pay full uh park and trail dedication fees. Okay. Just making sure. I mean, the easement's one thing, but to fund a piece of Yes. a piece of it as well. Perfect. Um I I should add so the the previous Well, I should say the the 2040 and and the 2030 comprehensive plan did show a a neighborhood park on the north side of Laura Lake as well as internal trail system. Um, this was reviewed during the concept plan by the commission and the council and the neither the commission or the council were supportive of that. The park commission did recommend a neighborhood park. If I recall correctly, we we the planning commission weren't necessarily supportive because it was going to be difficult to access. It's difficult to get to. Yes. Um, so this project will have 10 homes. Uh, Thicket Lane, I believe, has 10 homes. It It's not a This is not going to be a welltraveled uh street. Let's see what what's the average lot size on Thicket Lane just roughly 9 to 10 acres. So So from from a parks perspective, I mean, these people live on their own park. It's a bingo. So, um, any other questions, comments? I have a question, but I think it's kind of going to be related to staff and the applicant, so I guess and when the applicant comes up, but has some has the city conservation easement is there there's some language to it yet and and any concerns? I know the applicant brought up some questions before, well, what can you do in this area if we make it bigger like mowing? Has some thought been put into that of how we can craft it and still meet the purpose of it of excluding it from density? Sure. So, we have not drafted an easement at all. I think uh we've worked with a few others that are indeed. Yeah. Not for not specifically for this uh development has one been drafted, but typically conservation easements is required by the uh ordinance. Um they're required to be placed over all wetlands within developments. And the conservation easements typically just mimic the allowable things that you can do in a wetland. And there are opportunities for um personal I think uh unimproved 4 foot wide trails that can be um uh kind of pathed out through that. So there are some opportunities for um improvements if they'd like to do that. But uh really the intent of these easements are to maintain the natural state. Yeah, that's kind of was I was curious is know what communications have when the applicant comes up here. Um, and I'm mainly concerned about the upland areas that are in the conservation easement, not not the wetlands because I'm assuming you're not going to alter them anyway. Is the applicant here? Yes. Would the applicant like to come forward? Um, Zach Brown with BK Land Development, 13311 Arowwood Lane North, Dayton. Um, I do have a few comments on the wetland sketch you guys have. Um, if I could go over the map and just kind of point out what I'm thinking, it might be easier for uh the one. Yeah, that one right there. Okay. Uh, so a lot of these homeowners are they're paying premium to have these private lots and some of them may want to utilize like this 21 acre lot right here. There's already trails carved in from the the current people who've been hunting the land uh under the approval of the current land owner. There's trails all over. These people might want to do the same. If you look real closely, the wetlands really are quite a bit inside your buffer that you've already put put out. We've done a wetland delineation. We've got it all marked out. Obviously, putting a conservation easement on the wetlands is one thing. Bringing it into the high ground and limiting what these people can do is really going to limit the uh, you know, the desiraability because the whole point of purchasing and paying a premium for acreage is usability. So, obviously, no one can do something where there's cattails, but high ground like this where there's, you know, nothing going on, I think that could be a big deterrence. And that's kind of going against what we're trying to achieve. Any other questions for the applicant? Not for the applicant, I guess. Uh John, if you could um you said there's a lot of play in what could be the city conservation easement. Do we look at potentially just delineating the wetlands and saying that is going to be the city conservation easement? You could. The general intent is to connect wetland corridor or to to create a corridor. So in this case, what's really missing is to connect this uh wetland complex and this one. What do you recall what elevation you chose for that contour to fall? Um, no. It and it fairly varies. So, essentially what what I was looking at is the toe. I'm going to call it the toe of the bluff and then just following that around. So, I guess on maybe maybe something to look into if you haven't already, but Maple Grove does have a bluff ordinance uh as part of their um code uh and or and where how that how it's drafted there. I don't know what the language looks like. I don't recall, but I do recall when the neighborhood went in behind me along Rush Creek, they had some sort of setback buff bluff buffer sure thing. So, there may be something there that we can mimic. I could have swore we did something like that about 20 years ago. Maybe it was parcel or one development specific or I don't remember what it was for. This is in their ordinance of of easements. So they effectively put a Kaiser patient easement over a bluff. Correct. And and it had it had something to do it had something to do with how and where the neighborhood could develop and and who it I don't remember if it was tied how it was tied with the land owner or not. But that that was a little bit different of an area too because Three Rivers was taking that conservation easement than what we're trying to do here. Sure. I I think the idea here is is we're trying to preserve the land from a density calculation, not from this is going to be a park like what they were doing. Yeah, we we have similar regulations along the Mississippi River for the the top of the bluff with setbacks, but not necessarily the bottom. Can you go back to the wet the conservation map that you propose? Thank you. [Music] So, it looks like the wetland kind of follows the 890 elevation line. And I'm guessing, John, that you're following pretty close to the 900 foot elevation line. And so, the big area we're missing out that I would agree with Zach that we probably doesn't need to be in a conservation easement is that jut out up in the corner. And we're not I don't think we're really gaining that much from a density perspective when it actually matters 30 years from now that I'm not too concerned about it. You mean this corner? Yeah. Further a little bit further north. Yeah. I mean it'd be it'd be different if we were like could quantify the math and it's like oh we're this is perfect. But I don't think we're going to gain much that I just don't think it matters that much. I mean I think that I you know we need to have a conservation easement in the purpose of moving this forward we kind of got to come up with some guidance here and that's where it's like you know the 890 elevation line looks reasonable to me and you know I'm sure Zach is wondering what's that look like. I'm just looking at a top map. Um, but basically it's, you know, it's running pretty much right up next to the wetland is what it's doing. Well, and you know, if I can say one more thing to just coming in on the south entrance off North Diamond. Um, you know, our intention our intention right here is to buffer North Diamond. I mean, the county's making us do an expanded shoulder. They're not making us do a turn lane, thank goodness. But there is going to be because of the amount of traffic here, we would like to buffer this area, burming it up, planting trees, things like that. We're going to have the easement for the walking trail. But, uh, we would like to use some, and this is high ground, too, right near where the road is. This is all high ground in here. We would like to use that to try and buffer uh try try to buffer some of the traffic um and keep this as private as it you know the designed feel should be. Um so if we could literally just stick to what's delineated as a wetland I think that would be optimal. Obviously that's not my call but I think the one thing that would be nice is the one area where the upland is severed by the wetlands. So that northwest corner at least have some connectivity. You know, maybe it's only 10 20 feet type of thing. Not nothing crazy, but at least it's connected then, so no one can do anything in there. Yep. No physical structures or anything of that sort. Yep. Question for staff. How are these conservation easements physically delineated? I'm out on this property. Is it physically delineated where I know I'm now stepping into a conservation easement? Sure. So, the the intention is that we would have it signed. Um, we've not done that consistently over the years. Um, would it really be necessary to sign it? I mean, if it's at the wetland, I don't want I bought up to the Elm Creek Park and I don't mind looking at the sign because I'm looking at a park, but it'd be better not to have a sign there. We all know where the line is. They're little I've got my back here. They're not very big signs, but no. Are they like posts? This like no mo lines or no mo posts or whatever. The idea is delineate the the buffer the white line buffer. What kind of intervals are we looking at? We typically do it at lot lines and then any angle points. Okay. Um no specific distance though, but usually every lot line course these are much farther apart than the typical Yeah. Yeah. I I agree that I mean I I don't see a need to constrict this land as much as was proposed by staff. I think that um connecting those two wetlands would be ideal um to a point that makes sense um you know to the developer as well. I mean I I know what the connectivity is is a good good thing to have just to preserve that area. Um but I agree that you know this is pristine land for a reason. Um you know what you can do on the property and what is actually going to happen on the property might be two different things. Uh but I think that it is could be a deterrent if the you know a vast portion of developable and usable land is not actually usable because of an easement running through it. So that I think that is something to consider. This is going to be a great development. I think this is exactly what um people feel like Dayton should how Dayton should be developed, keeping the the rural characteristic intact. Uh I think this is this is hitting it on the head in that in that nature. And I think that you know limiting some of these properties would be a bit of a deterrent for people uh purchasing pristine property. Any other questions or comments? Thank you. Thank you guys. further discussion. I guess I just echo again what Jeff said and it kind of I already said and I think that's the is that kind of the main open item staff is looking for direction on yeah if I could. So if the intention is to limit um the easement as or narrow the easement in this open area as much as possible. I guess I would suggest 25 ft that matches what our wetland uh buffer area is. So that'd be 25 ft uh essentially connecting this white line along the western property line to this point. Makes sense. Uh I'll just say for next time one of these comes up it would be useful to see the numbers on the density like on a net basis. Yep. Just so you know if things like this matter you know I don't think it's going to matter on this one so it doesn't matter but it'd be you know you see the math it's easier to sometimes make decisions. Okay. Um, well, I can uh keep it open for discussion, but I will make a approval or I will make a motion to approve the preliminary plat, the conservation PUB, and reszone the property to A3. Uh I will second that with the idea that we that staff's still going to work and tweak what that conservation easement actually is going to look like. Uh so it's not uh it's not contingent on what's being presented tonight. It's contingent on sure on a future approval. You guys have enough direction and clarity on that? Yes. Okay. We have a motion and that there's also the condition in there of the trail easement. Uh yes, there's part of the packet. Yep. Yep. Perfect. Um we have a we have a motion from motion from Darren and a second from Jeff. Yep. All those in favor? I. All those opposed? I'll sustain. All right. Motion passes 30. Uh item number uh 10A 10A. Okay. Uh thank you. This is uh East French Lake Road small area plan. So this is a followup to a discussion item uh that I believe Commissioner Brown brought up at the last meeting. Uh so in at the March meeting we had a concept plan for OPED. So, this was an industrial project off of Dayton Parkway and uh south of 117th. Uh the commission had directed staff to look at what happens east of this project. So, essentially south of 117th in between Dayton Parkway, East French Lake Road. Uh we we Jason and I put together a quick bubble sketch on the left of um kind of a land use plan showing industri commercial along 117th industrial expanding from the current industrial park to the east extending 113th to East French Lake Road and then having uh the 113th as the buffer area to residential And maybe Jason, you you can probably summarize this better than I can. No, I think it's that straightforward. Yeah. Brandon 113th across and expanded the bubbles just as a a potential instead of transitioning to residential to the east. Just keeping that that moving across. But yeah, I guess as John had started um using the existing wetland, which is the green shaded area or at least the general limits as the buffer to the west, if you will, between the land uses and then using the roadway to finish off that that buffering between the residential and non-residential to the north. The diagram on the right is the same thing, but we have overlaid this is the concept plan for OPED as well as a sketch for a uh uh town home project. Um so again the idea is you what is the highest best use of land? Um you know just comparing the two uh the drawing on the left shows 11 113th as being the dividing line between industrial and residential. Um the diagram on the right cuts off 113th where it is. Um and this would be the existing wetland would become the buffer area between residential and then industrial to the north of there. So, and again, I what we're looking for is just a general discussion from the planning commission and as well as direction if where we should go from here. Um, I do have some questions for the commission as far as uh the bubble diagrams if this is what the commission had in mind of when we were asked to come up with some ideas. Um, also what is the highest and best use of the stencil property? Uh this is the uh the properties that are along countying road 81. As the commission may recall, we've had three or four concept plans for this property uh for both industrial and apartments and town homes. Um each one has not moved forward for various reasons and this is something that we've really struggled with of what is the future of this. Um, so in looking at these diagrams, I guess the question is if there's any uh preference for multifamily versus [Music] industrial. Um, maybe I'll just start out with one question at a time. So overall, I mean, is is this what you were thinking of? I think there's some question on, you know, obviously that road is just a fat line right now that extends off of 113th. Um, I could even see it being flattened out more. Um, instead of splitting one property into two different uses, at least let that line dictate a little bit more of trying to make it easier for development to occur versus making property owners have to work together. Um I'm a little concerned about the access if that all becomes industrial like it's drawn there on the left because it's 70 acres and um so 70 acres is east going all the way down to the existing single family development. So that's a lot. Um but if that a big chunk of that became industrial we're talking like 800,000 square feet of industrial and it's just I don't know if that's the right kind of access to have the semi-truckss come down make that corner and go back. Um they can do it. I guess our our intention is that all the traffic into the industrial park would be coming from Dayton Parkway. Yeah. So they go to the roundabout and then they have to come down and go back up and just saying if you have it seem I get it that we're kind of working on the assumption that the opponent development is dictating this road pattern. I'm assuming assume. Yes. So I I failed being not at the last one. Um and just some of the discussions around that. I guess I've got a couple just general comments on on this area that I think we should we should recognize. And um right now Dayton Parkway ends at 117th and we know that um it's going to take a lot of it's going to take a lot of parcels to the north to to adequately extend Dayton Parkway to where we want it to be and line up with French Lake and or line up with French Lake and then up up to Zanzibar. One of the things I see with this industrial site that I I see in as as a concept is is actually running the road coming off that roundabout and running straight to the east. And whether it turns at French Lake or or runs up Yep. runs up the the parcel line between there and where the homes are today. um may allow us to keep that larger lot size residential in date in southern Dayton like we just approved in North Dayton. Um, but allows us to better align what could be the the main north south through here and still using the roundabout, still using the access and and really not hindering a whole lot of what's going to what's proposed up there. Um, you know, is it is it an awkward movement to to kind of go right and then left and then right and left as you go? Sure. But Maple Grove Parkway does it and it works just fine. And it runs right through large commercial areas off of 94 and and Maple Grove Parkway through the Targets and the the Sam's Club and and whatever else right there. It works great. Large semis do it all the time. um making deliveries and so if we're having you know somewhat of a industrial space here I I don't see any issue with that. Um it also provides you know it provides that that Darren to your point of not forcing the land owners to split. Yeah, you're right. But it also gives us the option to then say French Lake's going to go away and provides a larger area where we could do a more large medium density residential on with those properties on the other side of French on the east side of French Lake. Um I think the roadway network is important to figure out here because it's going to drive the land use. It's going to drive the land use and it's going to, you know, and if we could if we can figure out how to get Dayton Parkway north of of 117th easily. Um because right now it doesn't seem like it's that feasible. um if but with with the options I'm throwing out give us another option that we could pivot to as a north south route and then maybe the one that's there today just becomes a little smaller a little narrower and it's just a connection 117th so just some things that I was thinking about looking at this and reviewing it yeah obviously the other thing to consider is that um like you were with the roadways themselves is that um the design of the roadways also would have to help protect the current residential properties there as well. So if I am in a semi and my path of of lease resistance is let's say going south on uh French Lake to territorial to try to get on to 81 somehow. um you know that's I think you're deviating deviating traffic in an area that we don't want to see it as far as is semi- traffic or commercial or industrial traffic. So I agree that the roadways are going to be um critical to help deviate the traffic the way we want to see it but then also make the site usable as well. um if you know that much industrial is going to be proposed for this for this uh site or earmarked for the site. So Jeeoff, are you suggesting that then whatever street that that there be no connection between the industrial development and East French Lake Road? I think that if there is I mean there should be if if French Lake Road is going to be utilized then it should make the most sense for any traffic to go on the 113th to get to 81. Um arguably be a straight shot across versus going down could could be arguably not right. So I mean obviously you're going to have people who are lost and all that and go through residential neighborhoods. I think that, you know, French Lake right now says you can't drive a truck on it anyway. I mean, I see trucks on there all the time, right? So, um, that's just, I mean, that's a concern I would have, but, um, obviously to separate industrial from your low density residential is is critical. Um, I mean, personally, I would like to see this area become as much, you know, we talked about the Dayton master plan area. I think there was general consensus of more industrial. Yes. If there's going to be a place that's more industrial, this is it. It's already industrial park. It's already next to it. And so, the big question we have is how do we solve the access problem? Because if we can't solve the access problem, then it should become medium density residential. And so to me, it's solving the access. And you know, unfortunately with the Oppodent project is kind of driving it right now. And and I get that if we run a road straight across that that type of industrial building is no longer going to even physically fit there. Um other projects would fit there and that those bigger industrial buildings would just shift to the east. I think I think that's a better development quite honestly for the long term. It doesn't make it easy for Apin and the the smaller industrial properties to the south are going to have a little bit more of a convoluted access now, but there are a lot less square footage than if the rest of it becomes industrial. I'd rather have the smaller properties have more convoluted just because it's less square footage. Mhm. You know, part of it is that we haven't talked a ton about either, but in the long term, this roundabout's probably not going to work there. If we have all this industrial truck traffic, it's just it's it's a it's a lot of truck traffic when you got 3 million square feet because we got the cubes at a million and next door and all the stuff coming down from the Graco area. It's going to be coming through this roundabout. And I don't I've said it before, but semi-truckss and roundabouts don't go good together. I mean, this one's wider, so it'll help, but so part of it is if you if we replace that intersection with a like a stoplight, how would that reconfiguration even work given that it's kind of a roundabout with, you know, different spurs heading straight to the southeast? Would that even work? Like if someday we decided obviously it's not going to be a problem for a while, but then someday when there's a lot of residential traffic and truck traffic going up here and it's determined that that needs to be a signalized intersection, how's that going to work? I I would assume it would be be done. To be honest, that was originally a signal. It was switched to a roundabout for other reasons. It'll probably be fine for 15 20 years. Yeah. I mean, I I think it could be accommodated. they'd have to look at stacking another backups on there with the levels at that time. But, um, I'll just say that the commercial on the north end, I'm struggling with it because you just don't have great access. And it's a it's a I think it's about 10 acres across all the way is what I calculated how you have it set up. And where's the like the way it's drawn right now, it it doesn't have good access. has a right in right out on the Dayton Parkway and then it'll have a full access on 117th and that's a lot of lot of land for commercial meaning it's going to generate a lot of traffic. Mhm. And so you need better access than just one egress point because the only egress point would be on 117th because we only have room for one curb cut between those two roads. That'd be the only egress point. Uh the commercial like on the east side of French Lake Road, I personally think call it medium density residential all the way up to the 117th. That little carve out of the commercial corner. Same thing. How you going to access it? Um that lot I I think I've measured 150 ft only. So you can't even technically we can't even get a curb cut there. So I I would just keep that land use consistent all the way on that side. Actually, it's 300 feet. 300 feet is the width, but on 117th, the wetland is where it's a lot narrower. You don't have much at all, and you know, you're into the wet land. So, what one of the questions I' I've got on the staff report is the specific to the east side of East French Lake Road. Is this an option for an industrial park for small businesses? So probably as the commission is aware, we we have a problem with uh homebased businesses that have outgrown their home and can't afford to go anywhere else in Dayton. We we're expanding in industrial. Nothing is affordable. Um the businesses that are along on 113 at some point in the future are going to get pushed out. Um if we have an option for um I think those businesses will be there forever. You think so? They're already buildings. You're talking about the stuff on the right. Why there's all these small homebased businesses is it's too expensive. No one's building small industrial stuff. It's too expensive. That's why they're coming and moving in running out of, you know, wherever they can operate. Sure. So, my my question is, is this an appropriate place for that type of use rather than residential? I I don't think so. Yeah. I think medium density could work with the narrow lot with because you can't it'll be able to figure out how to develop it easier when it happens. Yeah. I I think the the the homes on the east, I mean, I'm I'm fine leaving them or putting them as medium density residential. Um I think I have a I have a stronger opinion. Um, as you drive up and down, I drive up and down French Lake a lot and you can look AC, you look across the the the wetlands there and you can see the the single family homes way back in the distance that are brand new to the area. And um I just I feel like, you know, we're doing a we're trying to jam a lot of things in here that don't seem to make sense um without really taking into all the considerations elsewhere. And I think the biggest one in my mind is is the roadway through here. And we have through here we have a lot more I'm going to say this I'm going to say this because we have a lot more control with the roadway here because this is a Dayton road and not a Henipin County road yet unlike Fernbrook. So we have a lot more control with how we can how we can do things around here because it's not yet a county road and I think we need to take that into consideration as we look to do the improvements around here. So yeah, a lot of this comes down to the alignment of Dayton Parkway, which we haven't figured out yet. I think we need to I mean it it's a road that we want to be a nice continuous thoroughfare from the freeway up to the river road at some point, right? So I think we have to be mindful of that and not jog it around too much more than we have to. um it just can become an pleasant road to to navigate if we're going right turns and everything, right? We have to find a nice easy way to curve it around or get it from point A to point B. And unfortunately, we have an offset right now between where it ends now and where Enzibar is. And that becomes a challenge having the commercial here. I think we really need to figure out where that commercial pod wants to be. You know, we've talked about it being up farther. Um I can't remember which road up the next one, but um 125th 125th. We've talked about it being there. So to me, like this probably wants to stay industrial in the clouded area just above where industrial is now. Um so we're kind of keeping that together and really looking at moving that commercial up to a central spot where we can gather things and and make it hopefully more successful. Um I like 113th coming across. you know, it just gives a little bit more access and and surrounds this area so you can get to um East French to 113th up to Dayton Parkway and just I think gives a little bit more flexibility. It also provides that separation between industrial and medium density. I think the medium and low density there is it's good and fitting. We've got the the mix or the um um wetlands there that provides a buffer and then if we can 113th if that can be you know a wider road with the buffer on the south side or something now you've got a break between the residential and um the industrial too. So I think that would work well. Um, but yeah, I mean it's that the alignment of Dayton Parkway is everything. And I does it does it stay this way or does it move like you're playing around with or right and that's that's the big thing that I want to do with this is or think about this is sure we've got Dayton Parkway plan A but plan A is a lot of there's a lot of parcels that need to be acquired to get there and plan B which is what I've got drawn up kind of clipping the back of the larger homes not the the homes themselves but the basically it's the shadow line of the overlay They have the is it the the Dominion opium opium? Yeah, the north south one there John the I have a on the other side right where it's aerial to the white right there. If we could get a north south road there and then tie that into that roundabout, that gives us a whole another option for a north south road that is sure it's it's three parcels here or four parcels here that certainly are four parcels and we have how many other parcels to to get the other alignment to work, right? So just holding our options open is more what I the way I'm thinking about this. Um because if we were to go the route that I've kind of got sketched up here, we can keep French Lake as long as French Lake wants to stay the way it is from here to 125th and it doesn't impact it's not tied to any of that where the other route is. Yes. I mean, we've got this development that's being proposed which completely changes if we do it this way, right? So, it's like we got to find a way to figure it out sooner than later and decide if it's going to blow this development. If we run the road across, it's going to blow it up. That's that is what it is. Yeah. I mean, is it going to blow it up if we take half from that property and half from the property to the south? You know, and and just kind of as a placeholder, it'll blow it up because like they're putting this building right here. They need that whole width. So the road width will blow it up which I mean to me the bigger picture for the long term of Dayton is you know whether whether the road you're talking about Peter becomes I don't think it needs to even come to the future Dayton Parkway but we've already talked about the area north of 117th becoming something dense too right. I mean unfortunately with Dayton Parkway I kind of these small lots are going to be succumb to future development. I don't think we can save them and I don't know if they even want to be saved with everything that's going on in this area to be honest, Peter. I' I'd rather, you know, try to save some other lots like on the east side of Fernbrook for example. Make sure that those are protected better. Um I think this area is just going to over times just going to get blown up and developed. And and I'm more thinking about like we got to think about the roadway network and what it looks like and if you expand that out how do how does that look because does French Lake always run at an angle and how does that look with lot lines and everything else and whether or not this is the main thoroughfare for of Dayton Parkway. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying we need to think about the roadway network through here. And I don't I I while I I I agree with you on some extent of the businesses on 113th, I think, you know, I think the businesses on 113th are actually probably ones we do want to develop and we want more businesses like them and there's already buildings there. That's why I say it's not like they're going to it's it's going to be really hard to assemble those businesses. They're all very valuable functioning businesses. Yeah. I just, you know, as we put up larger, more industrial space. I mean, I don't know. It on one end it seems like we're we're moving we're moving too fast at the development through here um with some of them sitting vacant for so long. You know, it's different with residential where they're selling and the the products moving. And that's that's the hard part that I have especially with trying while we're still trying to figure out the roadway network through here. Yeah. The demand for industrial is real right now. So it's going to if you had land it's going to go and whether you want that tax base or not or you that's how you pay for these roads. and the demand can change, but you know, it's pretty real right now with all the anticipation of more manufacturing coming back over o over from offshore. And it's uh it's very popular and uh we have land on a freeway on a pretty popular corridor. So, if we want industrial, I think we really need to figure out this road. And yeah, we might have to sacrifice a little bit of the opetin project, but it's the bigger picture that we need to think about is how like we're saying how these roads are going to go through here to create the most efficient land use. And that's the one thing I I do support the opin creates a very efficient use other than the fact that we have to reroute traffic down and then back up for, you know, what could be 800,000 square feet of industrial. That's where I'm struggling. I think industrial could if we were ready and got our stuff together and planned it out and I'm not saying everyone wants to sell. So this might be dead. I'm not trying to force someone to sell, but it just keep going north another, you know, same area this another 100 acres north of here. And and I know some people question how much more industrial do we want, but to me it's the it creates tax base to pay for all these problems we have on Fernbrook, all these intersections you can upgrade and it requires very little city services unlike homes. You just do like that. That's kind of what I thought originally. That's what I'd prefer. But I get it. It's going to blow up the opadin project. So, we need to be conscious of that. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think if that's just 113th though and not Dayton Parkway, it's not as big of a land grab, but yes, it'll it'll really hit. And that's kind of that was kind of my thought is is that's kind of your current day. What we do, you know, could do today and then in the future it gives you that north south connection somewhere along those properties. I'm not saying it has to go right at the back of the homes, but it could go at anywhere in that that vicinity. Yeah. It opens that up. Yeah. And if we blew 113th straight across essentially, you know, I think it makes complete sense to put industrial and you know that the area north of the pond is always going to be tough because of the pond, but uh I think one of the council members mentioned it. Um seems like a pretty good fire station spot. I think one of the other things just to um just to throw out there from a a planning perspective um that I don't I don't think we take enough in in in uh when we look at residential areas um take into enough account this area all along French Lake from 117th South is um district 279. Um it's the last undeveloped uh potential residential land in 279. Where's the border? Uh so the the border is is the Dean Homes 117th and then it's the the four properties on the the left. So where John Dean is and his his four or three parcels and the one north of him all the way down to um to the territorial uh trail neighborhood. And so thinking about thinking about just kind of high demand school districts in the area, 279 is is is has been growing a lot in the last couple years. And so thinking about it from that perspective, the more residential we can stick in here in my mind, the better. Because industrial there's a lot a lot of other spots we can stick industrial at. We have a lot of land in in in 11 and we have a lot of land in 278 with the exception that uh the industrial wants to be close to the freeway. I I don't disagree with you on that, but when I think this was more of the comment of on the east side of of French Lake and south of 113th. I think those should stay residential at some at some level. Yeah. And even if 113th did go straight across, John, I'm okay with industrial going south of 113th. Now, I think it's very very important we buffer the territorial um subdivision. What's it? Territorial trail subdivision. And you know, that buffer obviously could be a burm, but it it's also going to, you know, it's one of the lower spots in this area. When you look at the topography, it could be a big storm water pond, too, that functions as the buffer in the down in that corner. So, you know, either way, it needs to have a buffer and whether that happens to be medium density residential or burning and storm water ponds, you know, it needs to have some sort of buffer. Once you're done with comments, I'll try to summarize what what I remember. And you know, with Peter's comment on the stencil property remaining medium density residential, I I guess I'm I'm impartial. I mean, I think it's a tough site no matter what it becomes. Oh, and uh so I I think it's okay being town homes. You know, it's a tough site though, no matter what. If anything, I think our zoning on that property is asking for too much density. That's one of the obstacles it's facing. You're talking I was talking these properties up on French. Yeah, you mentioned those, but you I think you offer Oh, I said I meant the south of 113th and east of east of the green buffer. So, yeah, I could I could south of 113 and east of the buffer. I could go either way with industrial or multifant or medium density as long as there's a good buffer between territorial referrals. Okay. This the Stenley property I'm I agree. I I think mixed use is the right use. I think our our density requirements might be too much too high. Too high for what we can provide. This is a public hearing. Some people want to talk. No, it's not. It's up to the chair. There's some land owners over there that own these parcels. So, I understand it's not a public hearing. We are not going to open it. I'm going to make that call. If I could summarize um where there's a consensus and where there's not. So, sounds like there is a consensus to extend a road along the this property line from um this new street all the way to East French Lake Road with industrial to the north. Um mixed opinions if there'd be industrial uh to the south of that road. But generally speaking, that the consensus is that there needs to be a strong buffer between industrial and residential. Um there is a consensus for medium density residential on the south side of of this road uh along with low or potential industrial my opinion but again with the strong buffer sure with the strong buffer of either industrial or m or uh town homes. Um this the stencil property could be mixed use whether it be uh just about anything. Um, so we have I think the way our mixed use is written in that area, it's residential pretty much. I don't understand our mixed use concept in that area. We we don't have good examples to point to. Yeah. Um, the question of uh the east side of East French Lake Road, what should that be? The answer, the consensus is medium density residential. Uh, no commercial along 117. Um, is that accurate for everything? So, my question for the commission is where do we go from here? Uh, it it sounds like you'd like this plan to be refined a little bit more. I mean, seems like a big question that needs to go to council is where are they at with 113 because we have an applicant with an with a development. Sure. So, you're referring to Oppedin. So when OPED's concept plan was reviewed by the council, the council was acceptable to it as it was proposed. Yeah. Do the council understand planning commission's potential concern with 113th and where that should be aligned? Are you referring to the to the proposed the the one due east out of the out of the roundabout? Correct. Yeah. Yeah. it come up. Um, and so the council's opinion is that it should not be a straight shot over to French Lake Road if they were supportive of the AED. I don't think I watched the meeting. I didn't that one's how I would say I think that there was how to say it. I guess the question is did they were supportive of the plan if that if that road was going to come down which I'm supportive the idea is that road's going to come down I'm supportive of it but I think that if that road comes down like it is we need to pivot to the land to the east which way do you uh the way staff had proposed that road coming down you're right to there if that happens I think we need to pivot to the land to the east because it doesn't make sense to put you know 800,000 square foot of industrial and have them have to loop down with all the truck traffic and back up. It just doesn't to me it I mean it can be it can be done but it sure makes a lot more sense to go straight across and hopefully a you know a good development could happen in that area. It's a lot of acreage. Mr. chair, members of the commission, I think from my recollection based on that discussion on the opedin project, the city council was um supportive of the project with the understanding that not only that last leg of the roundabout would go south into 113th Avenue, but also that there was the there was a discussion about the extension of 113th Avenue to East French Lake Road was a possibility to make that connection. So, it was kind of those two things that were handinand if Yeah. If if the decision was to go that residential, I believe that was the discussion and problem is industrial is still possible if it comes down and go. It's just not it is it's just there's a lot more there's a lot going to be a lot of traffic going through that road. And that that discussion should have already kind of been happening. Yes, that this whole area should already have been. Yes. And and I guess just my point on that is and I think Dennis, you you may have agreed with me in the past, but I think this is kind of our last chance to maybe try to fix something that fix what are you talking about the Parkway? Yeah. Oh jeez. I think that's thing. No, I I understand that that part of it, but I think it's what it is. It's a tragic ending. Worse what it is. I Well, I where I'm disagreeing with that is I think we have a chance to allow us to through here to to to look at our roadway network as we come out of Dayton Parkway and what that's going to look like. And we need to really sharpen our pencils. Yeah. And I think we need to embrace that north of 117th is going to be commercial or industrial. And that's why this even 113th coming across like Peter's suggesting and how it hits each line comes up. You have just way better access when you have two access routes serving an area that's you know industrial and commercial. Mhm. So direction we I don't know the status of opedin if they're working on a preliminary plant. I would assume that they are. I assume they are. Um the direction that they've been given thus far is to come in approving what uh I shouldn't say approving applying for what they submitted for the concept plan. And this what we're our discussion has been very different than what um any discussion we've had pre prior to tonight. So if the commission would like to pursue this in more detail, I guess my recommendation would be to to look at a moratorum. One of the questions I have is what power does the city have with APA and and forget OPA any applicant on the site to dictate that this road becomes like this? How does that work? You know, essentially it starts with a comprehensive plan. So you have an adopted roadway corridor that if a development comes in where that corridor is shown on the the property, the intention is to build that corridor or build that road. This our comp plan doesn't show anything here. No, it doesn't show any of the minor roads really. No. So I think part of that discussion I think just in my brain is that the council would be good to know is what are our options? I mean a moratorium I mean even you know we can change our plans but how are what can we do to make that road happen? I mean hopefully oped in or whoever comes in can just work with other property owners and get it figured out but ifin is fixed on this building footprint like their their sites yeah they're going to have to redo a different building. Yeah. But that doesn't mean they can't do a different building. And it's just, you know, there's going to be two or three buildings now, especially because there's more land. Could it um you actually do have a small area plan that does identify the east west road along the south side of the DDL property optin? Oh, we do. Yeah, I have it up. It has essentially what council member cross had sketched. I saw when you turned your computer. So, looks just like that. And why weren't we following it? Um because the land availability to the south came forth and the direction seemed to be as long as that connection to 113th can be made then it was less important to be able to go east. I remember when we talked about that availability. I know I was adamant that we needed to be talking about this already and that was about a year ago. This road. Yeah. Yeah. Or are the 113th and the land uses in particular. So we understand the roads because the roads are going to dictate the land uses. So Jason, you're saying that the the road running from the roundabout due east is on it's Yeah. Okay. Figure Okay. Yep. Figure 16. So sub area two that identifies it. So would a moratorum be necessary or more a reach out to APA and saying that like tomorrow that well I shouldn't even say tomorrow because we're just the planning commission and the council obviously needs to be on board but or is the recommendation a moratorum with given that information? Did you say was that a small area plan or is that part of the comp plan? I small area plan I mean it appears to be part of the comp plan. Okay. I mean, I'm getting it right off your website, so supposed to be true. It's on the website. I would support trying to give us some time to make sure that that alignment is correct and that we feel good about it yet. Fortunately, Optimum's far long, right? So, it is going to completely upheavee everything they've been planning, but uh it's still easier to do that now than it is to slam another building in and all a sudden we've shot ourselves in the foot a second time in this area. Yes. Um you know, clean, easy roadways help a city function, right? So, we can get this road to go straight east, connect with the East French, it provides multiple access points for this pot of industrial um provides a nice separation and then it does not disrupt those businesses on 113th because we can tie in from the east on that and those businesses get to maintain operation. So your question was moratorum or not? Yes. What kind of formal applications has opedin made? Just for a concept plan. I think the most important thing is they need to understand that there's some risk because we have a small area plan that we're changing directions. Were they planning commission? Were they aware of that small area plan? I mean, I don't think so. We weren't even aware of it until 10 minutes ago. I Well, I was aware of it. I remember having conversations about it. Well, I Yeah, I I remember seeing it. I just thought it had been taken off the plan at some point because I thought we weren't Yes, I think it was taken off consideration. I mean, that that is where we started when we started talking with DDL is we have to run a road through here, preserve rightway. Yeah. But then the opportunity came upon us that there might be the ability to acquire rightaway to the south to accomplish the connection to 113. And at that time the idea was we have an alternate route that we could utilize. Well, that's for utilities, right? That wasn't just Oh, it's for the roadway, too. So, but that all kind of fell coincidentally because the property owner came in for some site improvements. So, it was cor that way. Utilities could also look through there. What's staff recommendation? Is it moratorum or the other route of reaching out to the applicant and talking about the small area plan? Oh, I kind of put you on the spot because we got put on the spot. Yep. Oh, that's fair. Flip it around. Well, and we got the three staff that are here. My personal opinion would be just to confirm once that this is an approved piece of the comprehensive plan. So that this is something that we have identified as a future plan. Um like Jason said, there was a chance that it uh may have gotten removed from uh from approval or consensus at some point where the alternative route was kind of seen as a preferred option. Um, and if that is the case, then we can relay this information. Um, and just note that any non-dedicated rightway to any proposed operin project in the future would essentially be inconsistent with this plan. So, um, I think reaching out to them first and letting them know about this would be the first option. And if it if if we find out that this is an an approved appendix of the comprehensive plan um then we can proceed with looking at a moratorum for a certain period of time or at least until the study of this area is complete. Those are my thoughts. Yeah. And I agree with Paul that we need to look at this to make sure this is the right plan and that's what I want. Yep. Because I know Peter had some nice drawings with Peter even like if you had a little hook here like where this went up and was tied in because that would help with Jeff's concern that all the traffic is getting routed north and you know this is more of a side trail now in the territorial. I mean mine mine is more drastic, but that's what fat lines do, right? They just they help you think about things and and make sure we're doing this right. And I know that there's a chance that you guys don't have this plan pulled up on your computers. We can certainly send this out to you after this meeting wraps up so you can get a visualization of what we're seeing that uh we found on the website. So I don't if you have any thoughts. I mean, no. I mean, in in my mind, this gives you grounds to take the approach that a road is needed here. Um, we do have an alternate access. I don't know if that has bearing on it or not. Yes. I mean, I thought if if it's in the comp plan, we can rely on that as a a reason for denying the project. Correct. Yeah. I mean, that gives you the Trump credit card essentially to tell it's a tough conversation with API, but that's your comprehensive plan is going to supersede anything else. uh and if that's giving us the the direction that we want to go in as far as these these street configurations certainly something that we to take into consideration and and study a little bit more. So if it's uh opeden not pursuing any applications from this point forward or if it's us needing to impose a moratorium to study it six-month period then I think I think that's what we need to do. Either way, I do think that uh staff should reach out to HA and make them aware that there's some discussion. Now, it it is I mean, it's still a question of, you know, it's clear of what the commission's consensus is. I I don't know what the consensus is of the council. So, the only thing I can fall back on is the concept plan for the OPED, which was in favor of what OPED wants to do. Well, I I like I said, I think the council is kind of the of the understanding that we would get the same answer from the 113th extension. But if that's not the case, um I think the connectivity to as we keep moving north of 117 is the most important thing like if as an alternative route for commercial users because the current path is is not not as conducive. Well, I'm not sure when I mean see you guys if you're not going to if you're going to look at this. I'm just wondering if we should should be doing a moratorum. What's the downside to doing moratorum? Um I I don't think there is one. And so, you know, generally speaking, a moratorum starts at 6 months. It can be extended uh to a year. Um I'm thinking it's probably not going to take us six months. U so it would I'm sure take a month or two to to study and come up with some alternative site plan, but I think we could figure this out in less than six months. The one potential downside of a moratorum is if for some reason Oppedin or someone else can work with the property owners and come up with a plan and solve it. You know, obviously we have our input, but they draw on paper what we're thinking and done. Well, then we can pull them. You can pull them more. Okay. I thought he said it's six months. Yeah. It's up to my up to and then we can stand it. Got it. I I just don't I we went through salons before and I don't I I think at the time there were there's no downside to doing a moratorum. You don't want to be spinning them every but if there's questions about the layout here I mean if they come to us with a preliminary you stop unless unless it's clearly in the comp plan. Yeah. Is there a certain point in which a proposal reaches where it doesn't get impacted by moratorium? Right. Well, we we have a small subdivision plan that we're working on that city initiated um that's south of the uh the roundabout these two parcels. Um so I guess if we were looking at a moratorum I I would suggest that it be east of this line of this property line. I mean, you could define what that moratorum is pretty specifically to include or exclude whatever areas that you want to study. So, um, as long as there's a proper grounds to impose that moratorum, I think that's probably the right way to go. Would you include the property that we currently show the roundabout connecting to 113th on? I mean, that's kind of in the cards for the planning, right? So yeah, seems like you'd at least include that based on this current discussion there and how the study is going to go and how the results might come from that that connection that might not even be necessary at that point. So yeah, I mean the the hope is that I think we can get it east, but right now we're showing it coming down and so if the study proves that yeah, we want to come down, we don't want somebody to come in and say we want to redevelop these parcels while we got a moratorum on everything around it and then we decide we want the road there. I in my opinion there may still be value in that connection. I was going to say we may still want Sure. In fact, that is the preferred connection to the resident or the property owners along 113th. We've had several meetings with them and yeah, they're actually very vocal about not wanting it farther to the east as the comp plan suggests, which I understand that which is the exact same reason I want the rest of the 70 acres not to have the inconvenience because it's more square footage. At some point we do have to close 113, right? pop through the the stay in park. That's the reason for the alternate access. Correct. Yep. That's what makes it critical to get something between those. And so John, I think if if we're talking it seems like there's consensus, we should maybe look at a at a moratorum, we could get that on the agenda for Tuesday. Yeah. As long as the delineation makes sense. Sure. So the delineation generally is including the the DDL property. Uh you start from 117th coming down through here over to this property line. Um and then either including this along this property line or just drawing a straight line down. I think it should go all the way to the southern border of territory trails and over unless we feel the need to put the stencil property in it. know why, but anywhere we think the road might want to go. I think the only reason you'd want to put the stencil property in it is is something comes out in case something comes out of access to their their property in their benefit. I mean, I think getting another access to that property is pretty important function of it because getting off the territorial is just a disaster. So having a back access even for fire and and emergency services, it'll be good to have that back access to that area. So basically you're going down the county road 81 and then the western and northern boundaries of the territory trails development. Um I'm thinking also to 117th. Yep. So all the way up to 117 through here and down to East French Lake Road. Yeah. and territory um include nondeveloped residential, not uh residential property. So, this is off the map. So, we do have a a plan right now for residential that's uh territorial growth. This would be excluded. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. I think I think what Darren was talking about is the northern boundary of territorial and the western boundary of territorial trails. Sure. So the Oh, this is a better one. Yeah, that this area. Yep. Okay. And it since it's in current staging, it probably makes sense to grab the properties on the east side of French Lake Road just in case. I I don't think we've heard anything that matters, but there is one property for sale there currently. So yeah. So it may it may be included in the moratorum. One head nod. Two head nods. There's three. There we go. Sure. We're going to do it. We should just be safe. Yeah. Everything on this page except for territory. Yeah. Basically, um, so I would like a motion for that. We'll make a motion to close a area that we just discussed. Recommendation to the council. A second. We have a motion from Paul, a second from Darren. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed? Motion passes. 4 Uh these do require public hearing. So I'm not sure when this will go to council. The moratorum report. How much notice is for that? Generally it's 3 weeks. Well three week time to advertise to the paper and then for the paper to publish. Okay. We'll see it. We'll see it as a public hearing in in May. I'm assuming staff is going to start studying this a little bit too then and talk it up. Yes. The one thing uh staff Jason too just when you think about that road coming off if it goes straight across think about how that roundabout not proposing to get rid of roundabout just yet but if that became a signalized intersection to make sure that that's going to work. my opinion based on where that is located, it's going to need a lot of work either way. Yeah, if it became signalized. All right, item 10B. Thank you. Uh let's see. So, this was a late addition to the the agenda. Uh, Scanel had proposed uh 125,000 square foot uh spec industrial building in um well it was approved in 2022. I'm not sure when the approval actually started but um and that is this drawing to the left. Um at that time the market conditions did not support construction and so the project just sat as Canel would the market has improved. Canel is looking at building it again. uh they would like to reconfigure the building and flip it so that uh the trailer storage is along 81 instead of along territorial. My question for the commission is is there consensus for either way to either uh configuration from the uh the 2022 version versus the 2025? Obviously, it wasn't here in 2022. Was there discussion on the rationale for the configuration of the building at the time? Generally speaking, the the consensus at the time was to avoid having trailers that were highly visible and so that we looked at um King Solution as an example of what not to do along 94. So visible from from what right away from 81. So so essentially the idea is to protect the viewshed from 81 rather than the viewshed from territory. Territory. Yeah. Territorial is a dead end road, right? So, I think if that's what was proposed and it makes sense in 2022, I'd be hardressed to see why 3 years later, it would be all right to flip it to the way that the consensus was that they did not want to see it back in 2022. Sure. So, what what has changed since then is the Opus building that's next to it, which does have trailer storage along 81. And so what Scanell is asking to do is the same thing that was approved for Opus. Now Opus is a little different because the con the confinement that Opus has is an existing cell phone tower. And so the city's or now the commission's uh consideration at that time was that it was reasonable to have trailer storage on either side of the cell phone tower versus pushing the building up against a cell phone tower and having trailer storage uh on the south side. I mean, I I could be wrong here because it was a while ago that Skinnel presented it, but I believe Scanel presented it flipped in the first place. So, there wasn't much discussion on it. I That's what my memory is recalling. I don't think there was any discussion of flipping because it was already Yeah. You know, there's a buffer between 81 and a railway and you know, I was just driving out the other day. Obviously, there's no leaves on the tree. You can see everything. But I I I personally am a bigger fan of buildings. Now, the freeway building, different story. That should have been flipped. But I'm a bigger fan of having the employee parking on the main access road to the building. I don't think it hurts or creates a huge eyesore with uh trucks and looking at dock doors when you're going down 81. Um especially because there's there's quite a bit of separation. Like Turbine Pros, it's going to be more glaring because there's not much separation. There's a lot more separation with this property from the intersection. When you come down to that intersection, you see the Turbine Pros lot right now. Granted, in 20 years, it'll look very different when the trees get mature, but so I'm I'm under the I'm okay with it being flipped, I guess, is what I'm saying. Okay. John, can you go back to the site? Uh, not these ones. The these ones. I think from a building usability standpoint, safety of the pedestrian vehicles pulling in, there's less um crossing, right? Because otherwise you're in the current plan where the trucks are against the the the entry road. Now you're pulling in as your personal vehicle into the truck turning loading dock area to get around to the other side of the building. prefer to not have bunch of trucks along 81, but I think we're also in an industrial area. Um it doesn't give a ton of heartburn to to flip it. Um it it unfortunately there's not more buffering on this property that can be done because it is tight to those lines as it can be. Um but even so, tree buffering only does so much when you're trying to screen loading docks. Does the city have any buffering requirements or screening requirements between industrial and abing rights of way? Uh so generally it's a 35- ft landscape buffer. Um and that that applies for any arterial street whether it's a residential development or or industrial or commercial. Are they are they able to get that in the pinch point on this the Well, what's difficult with this is is the railroad a buffer? H um I'd say no because you can't plant it. Well, the one thing that I thought as a compromise, especially if there's people that are adamant, which I understand if you don't want the trucks facing 81, is they do have trailer parking there, is they could take away their trailer parking and they'd have a lot more landscaping and even a little burning. And I don't How many stalls is that? I mean, it's probably not going to be a killer because it's not a ton of stalls. 15. And especially because we allowed then the park trailers by the building too, right? Yep. So my opinion is I would prefer the trailer parking on 81. um the way that I get the way that the operations are drawn between the two. That's why I wanted to look at this and it's probably easier for them to operate with the trailers on 81. Um I I drive by the cubes almost daily. I drive by the other property with the cell phone tower and I'm regretting some of those decisions that we made. Um, just having looked at having had to look at them whether they're sitting empty or with stuff in it doesn't matter to me. It the doctors are still ugly and ugly to look at. We've got Territorial Trail which has Sunstone right across the street. Sunstone's not going away anytime soon. It is an industrial park. Usually industrial parks have that trailer parking towards the internal areas, not the external. Um, most buildings don't front on two roads. So, that's the hard part. This This does not uh either. It's got a railroad on the one side. That's a good point. So, just to be clear, Peter, I think you started saying that you are okay with the trucks facing 81, but I wasn't No, I'm not. I I do not like I do not like the trucks facing 81. I get what I do get is the the routing and why it may be easier for them to face 81, but I'm I I don't like it. I I I it's just another eyesore of of a building that, you know, we we made we talked about earlier mistakes made in the past. We've we talked about King Solutions and then I you know I brought up cubes has been sitting there for a while and it's the first thing you see when you come to that intersection and I think we can do better and it might be small but it's it's it's a way we can do better on things we don't like about other projects. I tend to agree with Peter on that. uh you know it's just because one building got away with it doesn't mean the next one gets to get away with it too. So um I could point at other buildings all day long and say they've done it. How come I can't? Mhm. And I think rationale has to take some position here to say that for whatever reason we we feel that it's more uh visually pleasing or has better aesthetics or however you want to frame it that we don't want to see that parking along anyone. Okay. And then Paul, what was what was your answer again? Um, my answer is my my preference would be for the truck parking to be against the side row, not 81. Although I said I don't have a ton of heartburn if it did flip, but I I would agree with the consensus that I would rather see 81 have nicer fronting. So, the consensus is to flip the building to have trailers parking along territorial, not 81. Does the code specify where loading docks have to be located? Uh, not visible. We're talking about screening. Not visible from where the public right away. Well, more so from residential, but uh, you know, it's hard to define. So resident, you know, we were talking about the Stensley property earlier, which is on the other side of 81. That could go either way. Right now, it's just a farm. I think it's important that the applicant talk to people and explain what this building's going to look like. Like the building on I94, it's it's an eyesore because it's like it's unmissable. Like when you drive by Turbine Pros, you're not going to see a ton of trucks there. It's just not This is 120,000t building. You're going to see dock doors. You're not going to see trucks when you drive by cubes. Well, maybe not necessarily now because we have a manufacturer, but what was approved is you're going to see trailer trailer trailer everywhere because that it was just be loaded full of trailers. So, I I I really I mean I guess part of it is is maybe the architect here on the board, but how do you like even I think of the one the doors are white on I94 too. It doesn't help. Like if they just would have made the doors the same color as the building, it wouldn't have been as ugly. Yeah. No, I mean we've said before too like doing integral color pre-cast and you know just some nice simple touches to the building makes a big difference from paint to pre-cast and you know loading dock doors aren't the most attractive but you got a lot of building above like what do you do with it to make it more attractive the lighting and spacing of it and so there are definitely things that can be done to dress that up and make sure that they understand that okay if we do allow them to flip it so truck parking is against 81. What are they going to do to make sure their building looks good from two sides? You'll still see the trucks, trailers parking on that side of the building. You will. Fences and trees are not going to cover that. No. And it's just it's too tight to the railroad. They can't even get any kind of legitimate buffer as it turns the corner in the east there, right? You know, get into that truck storage area. you know, and Darren suggested that, you know, you could put some more buffering there. That's fine, but uh that's only a small portion of the building. Just to your point, Commissioner Sergeant, about the screening requirements adjacent to rightways, it does require that trailer parking be adequately screened from the adjacent ride ofways. And that means that at time of full maturity for the landscaping, it is not visible. However, words matter and uh when it comes to adjacent rightway, most of these corridors for rail are platted lots or lots of record in general. So, um right. Yeah, it's not adjacent right away, but if it was flipped and the trailer parking was along territorial, that is adjacent right away. Correct. So, they would need full screening on that that meets code definition. I do remember talking a lot about that when we saw it the first time. Okay. Well, I'll we'll have the same questions for the council. Uh, Scanel would if this is supportive like Scanel would like to build this year. Did they say why they wanted to flip it? Um, it works better for them. It's just it's a better layout for the building. You know, it's a rectangular building versus um I did notice that with the jog in the building. That's Yeah, that was I mean I that's where my heartburn isn't too bad cuz I think the property does function better with it flipped. Yes. So then it's a question of function over aesthetic. The building square footage change at all? Went up? No, it's about the same. Yeah, went up like 3,000 ft. So nothing to CEO's office. Yeah. Yeah. So, I guess you know if I mean there's a clear consensus from the planning commission, but you know, I think there's a fairly good chance that Skinnel is going to come back and propose this plan. I want to call completely clear. I mean, Paul's a little on the fence on one way, too, or the other way. And the council's got their feedback. they can figure it out. Sure. Yeah. Maybe if they want to propose it, then come in with their reasons, right? That's I mean, that's just it is we we approved part of this and and and I I think Paul touched on it with the operations and it works better. If if it truly works better, I'd like to have a conversation with them about what can we do to make it work better for us as well. Yeah, sure. That's I mean that just proposing a flip on the building and and it that's that's like approving a honestly it's like approving one style of residential um and moving from a single family to a town home. Yeah, it's the same density, maybe same number of garages and bedrooms, but it's a whole different product or a whole different style that we're seeing. Whole different site in this case, which is what a lot of what we look at. Well, an argument is could be made that they're more in compliant with the ordinance with the flip the way that they want to see it flipped right now because of the screening and of the loading docks. I I guess my interpretation of your comments if they if they can keep this plan and maximize as much screening that would likely be accepted. That and what can they do to like again like when you drive it along 94, what makes the dock door so ugly? is they're white against the tan building just stick out. So, what can they do to make the dock doors? Obviously, there'll be trucks parked there every now and then, but this isn't a type of building where there's going to be trucks parked there all the time. Okay. And and I guess I was this was brought forward. It wasn't on the agenda, so I no misplaced what what it was. Uh 11B. No, but uh as far as uh what I'm asking for the plan what you've already given. So you I don't need a formal motion. If you'd like to make one, you can. But this is a concept plan at this point or essentially it it takes the place of it. So I I guess in staff's discussion, we didn't feel that it justified a concept plan because it's already been reviewed before. Um, this is a significant change, but the the main question is really should the building be flipped or not. And I think and and I guess where I'm going with this is in in rationale, this is a big enough change that this needs a new concept plan. That's that's my recommendation. I I mean the buildings change configuration, change size, change, flipped orientation, different landscaping. Different landscaping. They've added parking. They've added storage to the north side. It's a new It's a new plan. This is a new plan. We we can we can do that. Yeah. And whether they have to come forward with a concept plan or straight to the site plan. Yeah. That's up to them. Yeah. I mean, obviously, they run some risk if they come straight for a site plan approval, but Yeah. Yeah. I I agree with you on that. Okay. So, it's not as simple as flipping the building is what I'm getting at. Yeah. It needs to come back. Okay. Um but not necessarily as a concept plan. You'd be fine if they just submitted for preliminary plat and site plan review. I think they should get council's feedback to make sure the council feels comfortable. That would be a go a long way if we want to. Yeah, I think there's enough uh uncertainty amongst the four of us not knowing how Nick would vote um that it could be a risk to come back as plary plot. True. Okay. All right. 11A staff updates. Staff updates. So, I don't have a I don't think I have a slide on this. I do not um in the packet. So, the last uh council meeting, the the council did approve a strategic plan. The copy is in the staff report. I do not have a side of it. I guess my intention is to include this in every planning commission packet. The whole idea of this the strategic plan is these are the goals and policies that we're working towards in every project that we do. So every staff report is going to you know as it does currently is it refers to um the goals and policies of how does this application apply to the five um goal sets of goals that the council has adopted. And they don't always apply, but most of them should. Um, what else? City open house is in May. I was trying to think of that and then I forgot to look up the date. Pull the date up here. We'll we'll send out a reminder. So, the um, annually this the city throws together an open house at the public works building. All the departments have uh tables or display tables and a lot of the community organizations also do. It's fairly well attended or what better than what I was expecting from from uh the first year that I've attended. Um and it's fun. So, uh planning commission will have a table once we find out what the be May 14th. Wednesday. May 14th. Send out calendar invite. Yeah, absolutely. Um, that is all I have. I should mention the cover photo for this meeting. I can get up there is a Riverview. Yeah, I recognize that Riverview Villas in the old village. So, this was uh reviewed by the commission. I can't remember if it was last summer or if it was before that. Um, but this is uh two sets of three town home units that was taken yesterday. Uh, yeah. couple years ago or a couple couple days ago. Yeah, there you go. This week. Yeah, you can see the building winter. The other buildings a little farther along. I'm glad they added those balconies. The balconies are really nice. Have river views up there. Nice. Yeah. Um so each month we'll try to uh throw on a a current construction project as the cover photo. still perform our windows on a corner lot, but you know, never going to get that. All right. Any other any commissioner updates? I wasn't here for the whole meeting. I feel a little uh guilty taking the German thing, but I'll do it. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. I'll second. We have a motion from Darren and a second from Paul. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Meeting adjourned at 9:11.