e right I will call to order the Tuesday June 25th regular meeting state and city council stand for the pledge pledge aliance 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 I need a motion in a second for the agenda a motion second okay any discussion any changes all right all those in favor say I I all those opposed say no motion carries four to zero on the consent I need a motion a second a motion second I need to uh amend something out of a okay go ahead uh a on item back down here P I believe it was we were talking about the Fernbrook and or Territorial and um Dayton Parkway intersection it's noted in there that I had brought up a question about Dayton Parkway in territorial and that should read uh Brockton Lane and ter torial was the question I brought up we were already talking about Dayton Park Way in territory I just wanted to make that clerical fix under item p in the meing minutes very last Brockton and Dayton is that you said a Territorial and and it says Territorial and Dayton Parkway it should say Territorial and uh Brockton gotcha yeah that's all I had anybody else all right I got motion second all those in favor say I I all those opposed say no consent passes four to zero we are on open Forum limited to three minutes for non-agenda items come on up um state your name and address no council action will be taken and items be referred back to staff Charles Wagner 17611 North Diamond Lake Road um just got a couple items here I just want to thank uh the council and Mr Mayor for your contribution to the lake treatment this year on behalf of the Diamond Lake Improvement Association we greatly appreciate that second item I have is uh we had a meeting with the Diamond Lake members last Tuesday and it was brought up about the new boat landing that it's not accessible for anything other than small kayaks canoes or duckboats and we're wondering if you could help us uh with some horsepower with the DNR we've contacted the DNR from our group and they came out and measured it and did all that and they said it was built to their spec and they won't uh they won't do anything other than that so we're asking for maybe a little bit of horsepower from the city to help us maybe get that set up for a Marty that's that's the horsepower anyway we're asking for some help with that with with the city or three rivers or so it's not as deep as the old one was need be Dr or something yeah well they built it for kayaks canoes and duckboats so um there's a lot the issue is the depth the depth yes it is it is shallower on that W on that East Side yeah it is now I did see about a 20 foot pontoon come out of there today well you know the lake is up 2 feet what it is from last year so right now there's not an issue okay but when the lake is at normal level you can't get a big boat in and out of there or it's ve you can but it's very difficult okay um so if if we could put that on as an agenda item at some point and uh maybe get some help it probably took about six seven years to get what you got well it took more than that probably but anyway it's a beautiful landing and lots of nice parking it's off South Diamond Lake Road it's but it's got to be usable too so that's third thing I have is is in regards to that blue stone development and it it it's something other than what's on the agenda oh okay last Saturday there was a huge party there with live band and um loud music nness no blue stone okay um Paul has a report because a report was made and uh the officer was told by the people that were there that they rented the property for the for an event now my question is are they licensed to do that or is that property set up to do do that um so that's a concern and the Bo and the members on the lake they all it sounded I thought it was coming from Rogers but it was way too close for that okay um but that's my concern or my what I want to bring up is if that's if that property is licensed to to rent it out for events or whatever so those are the three things I had and I appreciate your help all right forward thank you anybody else Anthony Albright uh 14101 Berkshire Lane North um I wanted to bring up to the council uh my uh hope that you would uh consider adopting the new Minesota state flag uh to display in the council meet uh Council Halls uh the imagery on the old flag contains a reference to a formal policy of us expansion into native lands to make room for Settlers of European descent to farm and that image makes me feel unwelcome in my community uh as I am a descendant of natives um and uh specifically descendant of natives that were displaced from their land in Mississippi to make room for European settlers uh I have no political interest I've heard this is a political football but uh I I just would like to see the new state flag adopted for its uh advantage of not containing those images all right thank you thank you anybody else anybody online so if we have anyone that wanted to speak in open Forum please use the raise your hand [Music] function I'm not seeing any all right we will move on staff consultant Council updates Zach uh yes mayor and Council um I'm here to ask uh July 5th is a Friday and a day after a holiday um this is typically a plan a to be open but we have limited staff being able to be back here to um run City Hall I'm wondering if the council would be willing to say we're closed that day and everyone had to take 4H hour worth of vacation um to cover that day since they're not going to be here but um I think it's appropriate request we only open for 4 hours and my guess is the amount of traffic we're going to have in here is probably minimal for 4 hours it's Friday July 5th is a Friday that's right so um I'm requesting her that we closeall don't bother me I don't have as long as we yeah we we will post it and make sure everyone it's aware but um like I said a lot of businesses are or at least government entities are closed on the 5th but yeah why don't come in formally ask so thank you very much and anything else no that's all I got thank you um absentee voting starts on Friday so any um Dayton resident that would like to come in vote early they are welcome to do so starting on Friday excluding the two days that we will be closed the 4th and the fifth absent to that voting voting for what for the primary election Prim yes okay and that will start Friday goes all the way up until the day before um the primary election and then on Election Day you would go to your polling location for the primary again mhm yeah is that it that's it all right uh mayor and Council um unusually I have nothing to add to tonight's proceeding are you feeling okay good evening mayor and members of council uh just an update at hiring um we've uh Advanced Four uh candidates to the uh psychological exam so we'll kind of see what happens with that that's all I have thank you evening mayor members of the council officers are attending active shooter training tonight and Thursday night um it's being hosted at Rogers High School um they're coordinating with Elk River Corran us and Rogers um in case of any active Shooters in the area um rivers are high it's been an active weekend so anybody navigating the rivers please use caution and always where your safety best we had a new planner that started yesterday so Hayden Sten rud you'll see him at a future council meeting um I'm happy nothing here Scot I got nothing doing my part to keep it short I got nothing no I don't have anything all right smoking ah ity mayor and Council we um are at that time of year come July 1st we're looking to appoint the new planning Commissioners and park Commissioners we have two that are up in planning and two that are up in um parks and so we did have three applicants for the Planning Commission and one applicant for the park commission okay and we have discovered since that we have to do this openly right we can't do we do yes we cannot do a secret ballot um okay so I don't know how you guys want to do this well first off park park is probably the easy one just to it's pretty simple didn't reapply no no he didn't no yeah and so I did send out an email to all four um the same email and he's the only one I didn't hear back from and Dave reapplied so we can we can knock that one out M perfect um so I don't know hold for that need yeah um I don't need to buy a motion I just need who you're selecting yep okay oh okay okay um I guess yeah I I planning Commissioners I did look at the new applicant um I'm pretty happy with the current ones uh I don't know how anybody else feels about that no I I agree I'm I'm content with two that have reapplied a pretty good mix at this point and I don't see a need to make that change two okay okay there we go current and then what would you like to do with the open park position so if you know someone you can appoint them if they're obviously willing um otherwise we can try to advertise it again some more and see if we get any applicants um it just does put a little bit pressure on our current Park commission if we're running one sh we do have what the month of what um August July they don't have a meeting but they do in a July they already had their meeting yester rearrange is that what yesterday's was okay so they have a whole month if you can find somebody somebody wants to appoint them or apply yeah okay so I'll read advertise that and then the current um will get reappointed okay um all right okay uh item F Dayton riverroad Trail extension mayor and Council um this is a project you've seen before just here for an update and a request for some guidance on how to move forward with the project um just quickly this is a trail extension to be completed as shown on the map I see my labels are pointing into space but the red line represents where the trail would be extended from the existing in clo Overlook Park down to 142nd which is the same intersection of North Diamond Lake Road uh at Dayton River Road and again just showing on a larger map with the existing yellow bean sidewalks and solid uh cyan or purple being existing trails with the dashed being the future Trails or planned Trails it's the section highlighted in red that we're referring to so Council was presented with some initial information um back in February um with a preliminary cost estimate uh identification that we think there's sufficient RightWay to existing to build the trail um identified a funding source that we could build it this year um Three Rivers said they were on board because it matched with their plans based on that information council did authorize the design in February shortly after that time hennipen County alerted us to a project they were planning to reconstruct River Road the entire length of this project um through the entire Corridor and including the intersection of 142nd and North Diamond Lake Road they did mention that with the how extensive that project is they would expect that any improvements completed at this time would be wiped out or at least at a minimum impacted or damaged um as part of the project and further mentioned that this Trail could be constructed as part of their project as well which would likely lead to some cost savings for the overall cost just because of economy of scale in a larger project but also if it is included with that that project the 50 the the county would be in for 50% of the improvements just based on their cost shuring policy is that consistent with the numbers we were given for the River Road okay I I I don't mean the numbers we were given for this I'm talking about the full drill okay I because I didn't realize they kicked in 50% that's correct yep yeah they do have a policy and I to be honest I wasn't familiar with it I looked it up and it was that makes that last month's decision a little different maybe it it may yeah yeah and that's that was the the reason for coming before you tonight so okay again the the options were proceed as planned which is to construct the trail now expecting it would have to be reconstructed with the project um we did look at reducing the scope to see is there something cheaper we could do in there so we relaxed a little bit of the design guidelines We Shrunk up the trail and left it an aggregate surface we did uh look into that a little bit and then we further minimized we didn't put a design to it but we figured if we kind of ignore drainage and we just had it maybe it's only available for interim use and it's it won't beet ada8 compliance um at least in in some situations um basically just what's the least we can do and get a physical connection between the two points we evaluated that and then of course the the do nothing is the postpone up the project option four here so this is the same information that was in your packet but it's basically just the this information uh tabulated just for for an easier comparison if you will so the four options listed on the left um and then across the top on the table on the right so the scope between the two projects again would we do as planned would be the 10- foot pave Trail in accordance with Three Rivers standards um or the the Lesser 6ot aggregate Trail or the minimum um for a connection or to do nothing options and then the 2029 scope with the county project would be the same in any of those cases it would be the 10-ft trail constructed um so just using our cost estimates available to us and the cost sharing expected um those are tabulated here so the 2024 cost with the different options options is shown uh one thing I do want to mention on here is Three Rivers uh does not have money identified for the project at this time so they were not committed to this an this amount I shared this as what seems reasonable just generally speaking um and if you look in other situations um they they would spend less money with this than paying half of the trail cost in 2029 so it's seems like it seems reasonable they would consider it but I I don't intend to speak for them nor have they committed to it so that is an estimated number just just wanted to point that out but the 2024 costs and then the 2029 costs are the same across the board again it's a 5050 split um between the county and Three Rivers Park District district um for the 10 foot foot pave trail with that project um short of um to point out um I guess I skipped over the option one on this if it is an existing 10-ft Trail the city is responsible to replace what was there so it would be entirely their cost so there is that the Count's c um the one I didn't understand was in column three under the 2029 cost the city's participation on that one is is zero also but we're not you we're doing minimum for 600,000 but that gets us off the out of the allocation for the the whole project because we did something there the any of the 2024 improvements are expected to be wiped out essentially so the that part the pieces if we do if we do nothing we still have a obligation I think I can yeah cul uh fashion the the reason why in 2029 it's a zero across the board for the city no matter what is because thers Park District has agreed to pay whatever 50% is that the county does not chip in so our 50% will be covered by thers Park District to redo the trail uh to do the trail portion so if there's one there so the the trail portion will be put in no matter what in 2029 it's there or not it's just who's going to pay for it in 2029 when the when the project goes through and through Park District has agreed to pay our entire portion of the 50/50 split um which I mentioned in a weekly update I don't even know maybe a month or two ago maybe but that's why there is a cost in there for the park district and none for us in 29 but we have a cost of 24 because if we put anything in there right now it's going to be gone in 2029 but we would not chip in at all in 2029 because thers Park District has agreed to cover our 50% what we dostu 2029 we we don't we don't have to pay not anything why is it how did that 6 foot aggregate how'd that turn into 900 grand um we took off so the the project cost at the 10 foot pave Trail we had at about 1.1 million U we took off the material cost to narrow the trail six feet and then we approximated the the gradi benefit of that a lot of savings though yeah that seems very it's not seems like a lot of it's not cuz there's significant BMS there's quite a few large trees there's a lot of grading there's a Culver Crossing that trail requires retain everything involv kind of cost yeah so the the Culvert Crossing for example essentially stays the same um maybe it could be a foot lower or less High um if you will but I I'll be completely honest I was surprised and I kept pushing our team for it I wanted to show the minimum is a 500 and um I got a lot of push back they said they don't think they can build anything for that so okay um yeah the savings are largely in just clearing the path if you will tostu the trail the standard become 10 ft for Three Rivers Three Rivers part for three they have standards Beyond every two years they bump it up two feet or what I mean they've always had 10 have they Three Rivers is always 10 and they have an extra inch of payment if I remember right so they T and they they follow different standards for C zones and and safety it seems like 10 ft is a lot of pavement but so I I think I went it looked like to me if we put it in we're we're putting out like four 400 or 500 putting out the whole 1.1 yeah so I mean just that's true cuz three Riv is going to cover yeah makes sense to me to wait till 29th I mean it's hard to say no yeah it's a trail there would be wondrous yeah it would the utility for the Trails but there's over a million dollars of throwaway here I mean whether it's our money or the it's somebody's money got tax for it yeah I I yeah seems like do you need a uh no we just wanted to conf I guess I did recommendations there you go go ahead you're good you're good question our recommendation to do is what you just decided um we just wanted to confirm that we should no long work on the project so we will just postpone it and stop efforts on it so there's no more money I already told a couple people it was going to be there next to me sometimes you got to eat them you got you know it thanks item G Riv Hils East Trails East thank you Mr Man okay so this is resolution 33224 for rer Trails East Second Edition for the final flat um the preliminary was approved in 2022 so the whole project consists of 139 Lots uh so before you tonight is approval of the second edition which is 62 lot so this is generally along 117th Avenue uh west of fern Brook and within the packet we have uh it's both the final plant as well as a development agreement right we got down a final PL I I guess I have a couple of questions um in uh number five of the I think it's the development agreement it talks about um Authority for City staff to adjust fees and uh here I'll get on it here the resolution provides City staff the ability to modify the letter of credit amounts construction escrow and fees based on construction bids and applicable credits from trunk imp improvements constructed by a developer as determined by City staff or city consultant um I always get a little bit concerned about what we're getting giving for credits and so I'm I'm just wondering what the you know what the the limit is on around this kind of decision by staff uh it is I I'm going to look at Jason credit against the trunk fees is for the construction of any infrastructure that is above and beyond what's required to support the development so for example if the sewer is to be extended farther beyond the site and therefore needs to be maybe a larger diameter and or deeper in the ground there's additional cost associated with that um those are what's credited back because again they could build their site cheaper than that we're doing that as a regional benefit um to be honest on this site their credits are very low um if I remember right there's no sanitary sewer um that's being oversized they're connecting in the entire site to the brayburn trails will um to the West um there may be some oversizing a water main um I would have to confirm that so there might be some cost associated with that and then similarly there was a little bit of storm sewer that was to benefit the 117 Avenue right away um so there was some some dollars with that it basically comes down to a a cost estimating exercise for us to determine what an appropriate cost might be and then we don't know those costs at this point is that why we have a good handle on it and then we do confirm with the contractor bids so we we identify the work involved with uh those improvements and then we work with the contractor bids to identify a specific number on it okay um I'm not sure that made my concern go away but I understand uh there's also a fair amount of of blank spots in the in the agreement uh both of them and is that because we don't have those numbers yet correct correct not thrilled about signing blank pieces of paper just just a thing neither are we I I um C passion I I agree with your points I understand that I think we're at um hopefully you have enough trust in staff that we're fighting the the right information back to you we will obviously provide the full um completed da it's not again trying to hide things it's just more or less um trying to keep business moving if something substantially changes as in it's above the threshold that I feel is even appropriate for us to be approving it will come back to counil as a as an approval item because if I'll use an example if we're going to give $150,000 worth of credits on something the council needs to be way in on that thing if it's 25 Grand I'll probably just say okay we're going to wave 25 Grand because of XYZ items but that's even kind of covered by our correct I mean our overall spending policy yeah correct yeah so like I said it's not like we're trying to we're trying to keep the process moving forward as fast you know as best we can with developments but if it's something that's not reasonable for me to be able to approve as in City staff it will come back to council for reapprovals you any more Assurance to what you're asking because I I understand where you're um point is at so I'm kind of okay with that but in the future would it would just speed up the developer to get his ducks in a row yeah we tried y well we don't care if personally I don't care if it takes him two years I me if he's if he doesn't want to get it going let him sit sure well yeah that I guess in the sense like what's the worst thing that could happen if that were the situation like you made the developer sit I mean we do have a 60-day rule yeah take so we need to take action within 60 days right um so if no action is taken it just gets approved okay H so that's a built-in plan to stall it off well they don't if they don't provide us with information we could always deny it based on that as long as we had something yeah you can deny it right yeah as long as we had okay all right um I if you want to have some threshold that you want to use as a caveat that's whatever you want to do start with a threshold whenever you're authorized yeah 25,000 is all I'm authorized to that's it everything else come that's reasonable there you know I understand the the numbers are a little fuzzy until you have bids and so there needs to be some room for adjustment in there um you know to the extent we can going forward I'd like to see as few Blanks on these things as possible some of them are just dates um is an estimate of when you know something around the final wear course of on the pavement um and then there's no date that it needs to be done by you know so that to me I think could have been in there pick one sure it's wrong you can renegotiate or something but before as an amendment right then could be done if what said if it goes like that and they have to come back for us it just as an amendment if they put like some wrong information on the um yeah so if it's substantially the same as what it is now we would not bring it back to council if it substantially changes and the substantials work gets kind of you know hairy but um the idea is that if it like if they ask for 2029 we're not going to say yeah it sounds great um we'll bring it back to council and say we recommend not having that approved so or roke that approval of that da if that's what they come back with yeah okay any else no you good okay any a motion in a second I'll make the motion to approve it second I'll second any more discussion all those in favor say I I all those oppos say no resolution passes 4 to zero item H H is approval of Brave oh this you got it oh started it might as well keep going you got it approval of braburn trails eased encroachment agreement oh my name's even on it uh so this is for the same project um when this was uh approved um or when the preim plant was approved um the project dedicated I believe is 5T extra of RightWay um that kind of shifted everything into in where portions of the project were encroaching within the RightWay and what I mean portions I'm really talking more about uh landscape improvements um so we have uh a legal agreement that would allow and I believe it's just Landscaping that would encroach within the RightWay um so we're just asking for approval for this agreement in mayor Cil in that agreement it would say that if the road needs to be expanded that way to use that 5T of RightWay they would be required to move the Landscaping whether it's with them or with the ho what is this Landscaping is so we're talking trees bushes a mount of you mulch nothing permanent in nature I mean I guess you can call it tree irrigation Iration wall nothing of permanent nature so no retaining walls no stone nothing like that I'll make a motion I'll second any more discussion all those in favor say I I I all those opposed saying no motion carries uh 4 to zero item I this is approval of resolution 342 24 for Sundance greens 11th Edition for the final plat and the development agreement uh so Sundance greens the preliminary PL was approved in 2018 this is 663 units um of that 6 663 100 units were for um I believe it was a senior intended to be a senior apartment building uh for before you tonight is the 11th Edition which includes 31 Lots so this is more I'm going to a more on the western end sundan screens overall is a very large project uh so again this is of 31 Lots all single family homes right any questions a final plat I have some of the same concerns I expressed on the other one but one that that should be fixed here on page 148 I think we've got the wrong developer name oh few spelling things um says Twin City land Dev oh I see okay yep I apologize for that right good catch need a motion second no motion a second I'll motion with the changes da can have give it to make him feel like he's earning his any uh any more comments all those in favor say I I I all those opposed say no motion carries four to zero that was item I item J item J is approval of resolution 32 2024 so this is an interm use permit for uh to exceed one animal unit of ducts uh located at 1 13145 brainstrom Circle uh so the applicant is applying for originally applied for an IEP to allow for nine poultry so ptry in our code uh three poultry equals one animal head so depending on the type of there's kind of a little bit of math involved so one horse would be an animal unit three poultry would be an animal unit so on smaller lains uh so again the code allows for three poultry the applicant had asked for nine uh plan commission had recommended six which the applicant had Express that they're okay with six the critical issues for this is screening um this came from a recommendation from the Planning Commission that they had a recommended screening along the fence line um screening typically with an n city code is either a 6 foot tall um privacy fence or six foot tall trees uh so the applicant has planted trees they're they're fairly small they're uh fast growing so one of the questions for the council assuming if you're okay with an intern use permit is are the existing trees that are acceptable as screening knowing that they're going to grow my answer is yes I say they've invested a lot of time and energy into that yeah yeah I'm I'm fine with it okay I need motion um question though are we going to go with the nine or the six the only reason I'm saying this and this is coming from a guy that's Got U animals 18 El 18 deer 100 peasants uh we've got a neighbor that would prefer it to stay at 6 yeah the applicant's okay with s so I would make the motion accept personally six or nine to me is yeah I agree but neighbor that M I hear you Scott yeah yeah hi stepanie hi good evening hi um I would prefer nine but um the Planning Commission uh recommended six um I I don't want to upset my neighbors but at the same time it would be really nice to just have some wiggle room because you know if our chicken dies then you know it's going come down and get one yeah I'll get one from you right but yeah we we planted those trees they grow 3 feet per per year and so by two years they'll be 6 foot tall can I ask what kind of trees they are they're American uh pillar Arbor V they're really really nice they're beautiful trees yeah I also want to say that I really appreciate you guys allowing us um you know six that's that's gracious nine um nine has to do with the uh ability the flexibility to manage uh uh more if we find it truly manageable and um and that also then has to do with more so just The Upfront investment we've put into it um you know the the the Run Coupe we've added to this you know we've even added to this since some of these pictures sure and um you know so we we've put quite a bit of effort and money into it and so if we can get nine great if it's six we respect it fully and we also appreciate that yeah I feel like we have all our ducks in a row literally no waai all day to say fine okay we got a motion what was the motion sorry what was the motion for made a motion for six motion for six okay and that was grandom Circle um a second I'll second it um any more discussion that was preferred nine you would have preferred nine yeah I don't see the need for that limit for what well six limit 69 I know I tend to agree I mean can you you can you um walk through the 9 versus 6 given I mean you could just reapply yeah if this goes well part of the issue of reapplication is there are fees involved with that we've already put a ton of money into these Arbor the Landscaping the the more than generous run which is you know considerable in scope and so you know it it it has to do with that now I will say that our plan as far as taking on py in our yard we we only want two for right now and two ducks yeah two just two ducks we have two ducks and a chicken right now I would recommend Ducks but that's yeah well we're picking them that that are particularly quiet we've done research on the manageability of what's what are more oriented Ducks yeah I just they're pigs sure sure and and so you know yeah it really just so how does the nine help you over six because I I more eggs uh you know we eat our own eggs we you know there was some concern with noise with the neighbors however when you actually I I invite any of you guys to our house you don't really hear them uh the dogs are more noisy in our neighborhood than our ducks um and then also you know there was some concern with manure management um the thing is though we we need the manure for our garden you know so we use it all on our apple trees we have uh espalier trees if you look at that picture right there it's that little one that tree looks very strange right that's a that's a honey crisp uh zester Apple sweet 16 hatrick tree uh we use all of our manure for um fertilizing our our fruits and vegetables I have no problem with the N I want to assure you guys we plan on taking them two at a time we don't want more work or nonsense than what is necessary so we have we we have children you know we we we want to start and just go two at a time okay let's see two more is like oh we like this it's very manageable okay now we might proceed we're not really we're not going to go full nine that's for sure if we find that two more is too much we're done I mean I don't want to be cleaning all day long either so we're receptive and respectful to to the concerns of the community as well and we want to make sure that we do it two at a time in order to you know make sure that this is manageable for all folks as I'll tell you where I'll tell you where and I'm the wrong guy to ask cuz if one is good 10 is [Laughter] better uh let's do it with we'll go with the nine with the caveat that if you get a neighbor complaint we go back down to six mhm absolutely we'll have to eat some of them then huh whatever o so they'll drop off I'll make you some roast duck sooner or later with livestock ex well we can amend the motion we can amend the motion amend the motion nine yeah okay but if there's a complaint then you'll handle the complaint I'm sure or or Amy will okay somebody's gon to call somebody so you had you had mayor you had a you had a motion and a second on the floor do you want to take a vote on that so you can if he's his motion okay I think we're good okay I just want to make sure I'm clear what the going I was asking the same same question yeah I guess I'll second the amendment the amended motion so that would mean we're talking about three units or nine three units nine animals and just so and also for item for with a 6ot screen I guess my suggestion is just remove that out um being that the trees are already planted and oh sure you're fine with having less than six foot tall trees yeah just rip them out after we do L years say might just yeah striking that requirement we can strike the and just for clarity enforcing the three versus two um the only way I can enforce the IEP is to bring it back to you to to change or amend the orn it so yep um I we would have to pull the iup yes correct y I get that yep I can't tell them to get rid of three Ducks right right okay so we got a motion for nine or three units and a second any more discussion all those in favor say I I all those opposed say no no motion carries 4 to zero thank you thank you thank you good Lu keep in mind I don't want any Ducks thank you all no doubts we'll take yeah there you go thank you okay uh on item K our applicant for item K is not here I I guess I would request that we we push that off and we are an hour ahead of schedule to be fair he was here earlier and asked me all the timing I said I'm usually pretty accurate I didn't expect to be this far okay well um then I guess we can move I don't know I don't think the applicant is the applicant for the sheny parcel here no no how about uh dcms why don't we all right let's let's anybody else with you does anybody got a problem with that moving K and L after M no I don't okay yeah let's say let's say we'll move K&L till when the applicants are here because I don't know if we'll go have to go through M and then yeah you're right then we' be screwing around again yep yep okay item M here before 10 o' okay uh item m is concept plan for DCM farms for for anyone that's curious DCM is Dean's Country maner I had to ask that so I I figured that out yeah uh the afcan is Sundance Woods LLC uh uh approvals that this project will need is either an environmental statement or environmental assessment or cheet depending on the number of lots in the preliminary plant um a comprehensive plan Amendment a zoning map Amendment plan unit development and then prelimin final PL so and I skipped over kind of where where is this project so uh the project consists of I believe it's 90 acres and it's generally at the I'm going to call it the intersection of f Brook 117th on the North side and then 113th on the south side then as anyone can tell that this is Sundance Golf Course uh critical issues for this is uh firm Brook Lane as regards to traffic uh Environmental Studies the mix of housing types um a mix of commercial and Retail and as well as creating a sense of place for the neighborhood um the map that's shown at the left is uh potential improvements to firm Brook that staff has identified so this is we're showing as three potential roundabouts at uh Rush Creek Parkway 114th and then 117th does come from John the roundabouts roundabouts yes I mean are you just kind of tossing up there were they are they we're tossing it out there so um previous pre uh previous projects we the council has discussed a roundabout at at Rush Creek Parkway and Elm Creek Road um with this project there is roundabout that's proposed at 114th um it's proposed at 113th would be uh reconfigured to meet with 114 so this is roughly halfway between the the two major intersections and then 117th we're we're still kind of discussing um the potential of of a roundabout there so one of the topics that came up during public meetings is the discussion that people are driving fast long firm broke so it's not just the number of um cars it's how fast those cars are going it's how fast they're going so roundabouts would slow that traffic down yeah um Planning Commission comments so with the concept plan there is no formal approval or denial uh the council members are asked to provide individual comments you can have one council member that says one thing another council member that says the total opposite uh so the summary of comments that came from the Planning Commission were was to address Fernbrook so both the the traffic the number of lanes uh to buffer the existing homes there's six existing homes along Fernbrook it's a little hard to see right here um um as well as uh the commission liked the mixture of housing types so what's being proposed is a combination of single family homes uh detached town homes and attached town homes so detached Town Homes as being Villas attached town home similar to what's in the picture so kind of a combination of four plexes six plexes and eight plexes um the developer dsit I'm going to call it three or three different options with a couple of different options in certain parts of the cul of thumb so the very North Corner uh one of those options did include a a apartment building so overall um the number of total units varies between and just C generally staying between 200 and 400 units depending on the uh product type uh for Park commission comments uh the commission had recommended that there be a a continuous Trail along the utility Corridor so that's along the western border of the property um for both both a pedestrian Trail as well as a snowmobile trail and then comments of making sure that there's a connection between this is the area 21 Park uh and that connecting somehow to Elm Creek Park uh down here okay these next slides are are the different options and so and Tom can probably describe this better than what I can as far as the differences between option one two and three um I'll add that on the Das the council members do have paper copies of every each one how's everybody so um option one um option one and two deal with this it's called the southern 70 Acres or everything that's adjacent to 113th Avenue currently MH um and so they're really all the same except well they the base is the same except on the easterly side right here these are single family um 65 ft wide lots and then option two just showed Town Homes yep um and if I think um some of council members were at the Planning Commission um since that we did have a meeting with the neighbors to uh on the west side of Fernbrook or east of our project there those six homeowners yeah and you know I've known fair amount of them for a long time and so I think you know uh I think we had a really good discussion uh John and Zach were there you know and I think the idea of you know I'm like look we're we're going to make sure engineering is there we're not going to have drainage issues you know we're going to probably solve your drainage issues you know um back when I farmed with my dad and that I mean the field everything's higher than those lots right it's just how pre pre uh even my my dad and my uncle buying the farm it was like that was developed so I think we went through and assured them that we take care of the development the one thing that um I would really like to do is just now consider option one the homeowners did ask to say hey we prefer single family houses that back up to ours you know not a town home and and so you know we agreed to that um is one the only one that does that one is the only one that does that two and have Town Homes but that that that was the difference and and I think there's some other you know uh there was some mention of of notes from trails and and all that I want I want to be clear this is kind of a basic concept right instead of coming in with one we'd have Trails you know I'm good with the along the already had plan on the uh Power Line you know there's probably a trail that needs to run on that Far Eastern Edge and then somewhere get to the park right um so I think the owners you know we're worried about drainage the ability to you know have sewer down the road you know I don't think any of them right for failing now but to know they'd have some of that ability availability availability yep and uh and I think it'd be shortsighted if we didn't figure that you know um and then the one request was is that there was a trail that would run on the rear of our easterly project between their Westerly side they'd like to be able to get quick access to a trail oh so they wouldn't have you know currently they'd have to get on Fernbrook or on a road and sure you know there needs to be a on the perimeter so um I'm I'm okay with including that in in a future Trail plan so but I think you know just kind of from unique just getting getting uh some some discussion I would say although we agreed to there there are a couple other items right one um being in in the center right here which would be on option one or two these Lots here in that area um are I'm proposing of 45 foot and I think you know in John's presentation it had some narrower Lots I mean it's zoned currently for town homes and we could come back and put Town Homes like that are across the street you talking about like Villas or uh no I'm talking single family some TW story single y now you had a picture in the packet of of Rouses similar to what's on him back in Maple Grove yes I don't have that in the PowerPoint but yes that'd be the example so I think that was so where I would tell you an example is if you just went into the Sundance greens off The Rush Creek Parkway um and when we had that South um West Corner instead of going through the woods I came and I and I had asked the the councel and said hey if I could keep the same density I would leave the woods we wouldn't go in but we have some 50 foot wide Lots so if you look there's there's quads right along the road but if you went in to the south of the parkway there those are all single family lots um most of them are twostory I don't know it could be they may all be twostory but you know they're all painted they're a different color roof a different you know different color siding assum they say that it'll be matching rof but um but you know so just to give to to to break it up a little but I do think it is to a point of of having something that's more affordable you know and it's either a Town Home Project or product or it would be um you know with the city look and I could I could bring architecture in from some other cities do that but I thought before we even waste a lot of time in discussion is it is that topic even of any interest to discuss yeah um so this is I think you mentioned this the Planning Commission this is kind of a concept concept concept come forward with another concept I I will be back with another concept yeah and I know there's a and we have the commercial aspect you know the roundabout I put in there I haven't talked to the county um if I went up to rush Greek Parkway I think the county changed it two probably five times by the time we were done because you needed Park District opinion and and basically what the park CHR said the county just said okay we'll do it and we got really no say um but I do think you know his ability to slow some traffic down you know there um and hopefully it you they have the one on Pine View put the other one down in Maple Grove it'd be acceptable but you know so I think I think out of this it's it's kind of a standard project it's made up of some 55 Villas you know detach which not necessarily all retirement home but they probably more patio homes um and then single families uh but it's at 45s in the middle and then you know just the commercial so when we uh developed sundan on screens the first time go back there yeah yeah um keep going yeah this one here so if you look this part here is part of the Sundance greens development and we had first proposed uh I think that would have been phase one um Town Homes there and the city asked that time you know could there ever be a need for commercial and so we've just not built it put anything on that side yeah um and so I think with that and curving the road um you know I I I think you know I've lived in City everybody and a lot of people are looking for something maybe different than rang and there's the neighbors are so I think it's just a discussion you know to to I want to get get you know your opinions the staff's opinions and I think you know staff and Planning Commission has had a few things but those would be what I would see of of you know maybe the 45s in the commercial is is something that that hasn't maybe been to the city you know in a residential development before well we have we had had some discussions least going and when we had um some property land use discussions though I have in various commercial little little Blobs of commercial in various spots yeah just because you know like you say a rain tree you know is sitting there but um it' be nice to scatter some around some other areas and and I gu one other note seeing the picture at the barn at the top I had some discussions at the beginning thinking could we leave you know that Barn is it looks way better in it it is it's rotted out so that that's no good but we have a couple of the large pole buildings could have those been converted you know have a wedding hall or something but by the time you look and you got to meet code sprinkler I mean yeah they're 40y old pole buildings right it's just you're tearing it down starting from scratch you know why I put it in a in a in the center but I think if you looked back the commercial piece you know I don't know is there um you know a banquet room that would add on to the restaurant is it uh you know I had clothes we just kind of threw some items there so you know but it seemed like you know a gas station and and you know something that has more of a um a uh you grocery aspect too you know you need to pick up some quick groceries um and then is is it another little restaurant is it strip is it a daycare and so I think somewhere in the notes it's set about um it set I believe 13 acres I think we're really looking more about 109 you know if you take a golf court or a golf golf cart where did that come take you could access everything with a golf cart to the neighborhood here so um you know if you look at the bottom piece you know maybe maybe the fronts of the roads are to the outside and all the parking and everything is in the middle I don't expect a lot of buildings cuz if you just took the space say a a gas station is 2 Acres you know I've looked at some a daycare an acre and a half add you know probably two acres of pond that uses half of it up right there you know and then definitely it would be uh some expansion for the restaurant that sits on on a small spot you know so I mean would expand you think um I think even the current parking lot once if it stayed there some of it would have to they're short of parking yeah we'd have to move some of that to includ I think that spot was I don't hold me to an acre acre and a half and was from like 1958 when I did um so I think um you know a gas station I thought good idea inconvenience I thought a daycare was um you know is it I think uh now hearing from lot of the staff is is is it a more you know it's not a McDonald's going in there it's a little mall with local buildings and and you know like a McDonald's wasn't on my plan you know but I'm just saying something and the PO yeah more home you know what I mean it would support the nail shop you know I don't know somebody has a salon whatever so I think about the only thing I'd have to say about that is I I like the idea of a commercial there I I want to somehow make sure that um you know we weren't somehow setting up parking lots so that they were flashing lights across the yep and I could see I know I know the Grovers were here the last time and spoke and and even the new homes right probably anyone and and like I said if if it's something that you know you don't think I'm way out there on it then I'd come back and I would do some some really better design I mean we really just instead of wasting a lot of time and and coming in and saying hey this plan I want to go I just thought hey it's we have time let's have some discussion what kind of homes does the getting back to the 45 with Section the middle what are those um town homish or what what do they no they would be they would be Pro you know owned not you know part of the HOA but you know that's like the master but how those other homes work they're responsible for shoveling their snow taking care of their grass you know but what kind of a home fits in there I guess so and that's what say if you look they're about a 2,000 squ ft twostory you know is this is that the are those the ones that are similar to like on hamlock in Maple and some um um I'm not sure of those I'll take a look I can I could take a look quick and see I know we went there's a picture but if we went South of the parkway so if um you know where where Rush Creek Parkway comes in that um I don't know if the whole big map shows it would be something like that you would see on so right where he has the point not there those are larger but if you move over to your right with the pointer and and and that whole Center Center SWAT there those are all 50ft wide lots and and they're on the seven and A2 7 and a half setback a question pertaining to uh would this be R1 R2 or R3 well I would say R3 proposing but I don't know what the r R3 with the Pud so you you be I think the commercial would require PUD and and you know maybe um I'm not sure who brought it up I don't know about internally but you know maybe along the parkway you know I don't know I'd have to look maybe or not the parkway 114th coming in maybe those are some fronts of the houses and the garages are in the back I I don't know but I I still do think when it's that that single family that some of those yards get deep there we have room it be nice for if they had you know I'm assuming some of these will have young young families CU they're just more affordable you know um I want to make sure the council knows so the question that council member fashion had mentioned about what the Hemlock Lane picture was in the packet those are 28 foot wide Lots so the picture that you saw in Hemlock Lane in the packet they're really they're taller they're right basically on Zachary or Hemlock Lane essentially in Maple Grove um that are taller two story or three story those are 28t wide Lots but the setback is like this zero right uh essentially about a foot and a half maybe I think I think and I'm not exactly sure I do know some of the builders instead of the town homes are coming in and they're asking for a 28t White House with 5ot in between it's all it's not even grass it's just all landscaped and that's essentially what that is that is thing I personally am not a fan of the 45t lot I just I mean this whole development average is out at 57 ft for the frontage so it does make that to me I I thought we had a caveat that didn't need to be 62 on R 62 on R1 R3 62 this is a this is a 62 on an R3 yeah this would be PL you development be a p so yeah I think that's I just I I personally won't go yeah I so I I guess I've talked to enough people in the build homes that I don't know I my stance is I'd like to see us get a big mix but that includes a big mix but um people that move in vills love them yep um they're filling it and and and uh and so we do have that Villa mix um you know in in Sundance scens currently well I bring that up because the setbacks are um in those Villas in in uh River Hills River Hills are I got to believe they are five feet they're they're five yep and if you were to look in what um lenar has in the center those Villas those are seven and a half each I mean 5 ft I'm uh you know I think on a villa when it you know you know somebody's maintaining the yard nobody's even there I I would be in favor of that but I I thought maybe you know stick in at at the 7 and a half I think where I was just going on the 45s it would give an option to instead of having both sides of the road and town homes you know but the Villas um I think I brought uh Mi homes in now they're doing the phase of the golf course and the uh the 11th Edition here a portion of those lot so the rear lots are big multi-million dollar houses but getting to their they have the Villas and they're they're you know that pretty nice Villa project you know I think um and so I do agree with you it'd be Villa single family and then I think just to have a little bit other product mix would be that's where I'm I'm guess I'm getting input you know and if we had them don't want to do it then you know that's so what Dennis was saying I'm I would like to see Variety in there and I think if you looked at like on the other side of Sundance screens I you know I'd be happy to tour anybody and look at the 50 foot wide ones anyhow that are there I bet you if you drove through if I didn't tell you you would have maybe knew I mean you can see they're smaller don't get me wrong but um I think when and I would keep all the lp architecture foursided you know we're able to get a better color mix um and and things like that all four sides have four sides yeah so if Sunday on screens and even the even the town homes yeah yeah no it's it's it's a lot more but um I think at the end of the day um you know I it's kind of one of the things for me as developing and as much as I said buil houses with vinyl I lived in a house with just a front or you know but yeah just trying to do a little something you know nicer to it and then um but I I think that's the the uh the question from from affordability versus you know if you filled the other side up just with the romes right they would maybe maybe that would look too much driving in between on each side of the road you know so um anybody questions I have a bunch but and then and that's on this side I guess you know there's some if we go up to option 3 4 five you know um so three all I'm doing is really this one I'm not proposing really I just want to show it I'm just asking for you guys up here as the city grows and looks in the future there is probably a spot somewhere in the city that would Apartments is it out in the Middle where everything's not developed I don't know but asking just on on your planning um I do know the residents on Fernbrook were definitely you know not happy about that and and I don't even have I said at the Planning Commission I don't have anyone interested in it but I thought hey these are different different options I I would probably propose um you know a uh either a version of a town home or or being we running up that street with 65 ft wide uh homes i' probably I think it's option five uh guess option four the middle one all right well what neither of them are coming up but there's another uh try the next one I think you have the wrong one in there John yeah anyhow it it there was one in there that had 65 foot wide Lots all through that oh okay this one here Tom might be number five yeah I think that's number I believe it's number five option five that's y so I mean could there be a version if if you talked about the hemlock and you wanted a variety I mean certainly could be open for discussion um but on the commercial can a guy restrict and who you allow in there yeah the owner could we can and some of them aren't allowed by cor right but yeah yeah yeah yeah um in order for you to which was mentioned at the planning you probably make architectural standards for that area so that at least if it is something that you may not like in a commercial District at least it looks correct in the area and it doesn't stick out I'll use McDonald's as an example if McDonald's goes in it wouldn't be you know golden arches and and a Red Roof it's going to be something that looks something like a barn or something whatever you guys that would fit into the neighborhood and not be something that's you know way and left field that looks crazy that would be your architectural standard gas station wasn't a fan of everybody on on the on but yeah and I think that's a little bit worried about maybe traffic and there's a couple smaller guys that I haven't really talked to I wouldn't want to say cuz they might you know but I'd like to reach out to you know that isn't definitely not a holiday and I know you know I just used quick trip because it's a big big company but I mean I personally I think we all walk into a Quick Drip versus an sa they have a lot more to offer right you know so I wouldn't I wouldn't propose it and if we could get maybe one of the smaller little you know Niche guys would be nicer yet more yeah more convenience store what you're talking yep yeah I think for the the commercial part I think that's the right track I'm a little bit nervous about the gas station because of the light and the sort of the 24-hour a day kind of operation but what this one you know I guess the theme for me would be that these are businesses that you know sort of serve those neighborhoods that are in that vicinity I mean you know you got Target and Home Depot 10 minutes away or less so can't be that kind of stuff eventually a market there is going to happen long before the city center ever does and a market here would take away from the city center at some point but I don't believe that City Center is going to be here in 20 years well I think if you look somebody mentioned go down 129th well you don't have the sewer the you you know right you got to have the pipe to drive that right but I think um I think if you go in Maple Grove there are different other smaller I'm just going to pick them neighborhoods even Champlain and and uh and so that's where I would you know it's not massive and really after this you're not going to be able to add on to it you know I I don't know what the city's vision of City Center is you know but I'm assuming it's something more like uh downtown Maple Grove downtown yeah so yeah we won't be here by then okay um I'm a fan of staying closer to the 62t uh lot yeah and I guess I guess I'm thinking about it a little bit differently I'm not a fan of departments at all no and I would have already done getting on board with that also but the the idea of I I drive that that road on on Hemlock I don't know you know once in a while when I go to Costco I guess but um where those roow houses are I think that makes kind of a a neat sort of a a neighborhood feel to it more of a walking kind of a neighborhood and I could I could see that kind of thing um you know where you're showing the smaller smaller spaces and the higher higher density as long as there's some offset to it with with bigger Lots meaning half or better that um so there is there is some variety there more variety I guess than what we typically and I think if you look at currently Sundance you know what we have on the South Side there and Sundance greens I mean really run even currently now today you know 370,000 homes to some of those back in the golf course now are you know a million and a half um and and it will roll this road will end up connecting through to what would really be our last phase of Sundance screens on the uh northeast corner so and it would be the other things that this would have is you know um it would get those other two sections for the city park getting built there so and my other comment is around it's I feel good that you've reached out to the neighbors um that live on Fernbrook there those those six houses you know we have a many examples of where we sort of orphaned existing homes with the new neighborhood and the and then those houses look like they don't belong there and so I think it's really important that we we try to um incorporate what we can make this look like this is a cohesive area it's one neighborhood and I like your idea about the trail on the back back side there and whatever else we can do to make it look like it does you know that it just doesn't stand out like a sore thumb and and I I did think one other item just said hey I would throw uh easement off the parkway that if down the road it meant for them to have an alley in the back I mean all their garages do they sit off to the side of the house right so it's not like a garage in front of the house I I know there's a cost and things like that but if they're sewer they don't have a septic in the way and I'm I'm like I'm not forcing anybody to do anything but we'll leave you these options and you know if the county were to take their house that's a different story but say if it doesn't now they're not you know hamstring into they would they could be able to enter it' only be those six houses and they won't have to be on burbrook so well and if the county does come in they may take it up right away where they don't take the house but yep yeah you got nothing can't park a car in your driveway right yeah so um I know they're very you know I don't have a lot of experience at the county but they were very difficult on the uh on the uh you know when we worked on that turn or intersection up on the top so um I mean I propos like you know first the tunnel for the bike trail that was nothing then like hey can we have flashing lights for a bike and it's just like no yeah so okay um at this stage we don't even know about the roundabout I mean so yeah I want that's probably clear I'm proposing it you know I don't know if the county um but it seems like that's more common now that right it would be um so that would be uh I guess a a discussion if they did you know so well I think ultimately that's our best weapon for slowing down the the traffic on that road y if yeah if we can talk them into it and do you have all of all whatever RightWay you need for that or um so it might have uh not not necessarily owner I got I got to talk to the owners on the east side although they were here one of them at the the first meeting and and uh you know they they didn't get up I I think talking to one of the neighbors thought down the on the west side there must have been talking there but I I will reach out to him before you know we come back to next concept meeting um okay I guess most of my questions got answered yeah I have questions about our R3 seems like a lot of those categories overlap and it's a discussion for this item but I think we should look at R3 again and sure figure out what we're doing um going off of memory the purpose of the R3 District was to replace puds you know so when when you get into R3 District there's a number of choices of you know pick one of five items or three of 10 items for amities and character and all yeah but I mean we can yeah and also it seemed like it was inconsistent as far as density too it R3 required two to four but yet our low density requirement is three to five and it's not a big deal but uh I like I said it just seemed like we need to look at our three again and maybe and I can when I come back like on a next concept right off I'll do you know invest more into it we'll be you know one it'll be colored easier to pick the spots I'll get you some Street Scapes for it too you know that that would help and and like i' say if if anyone wanted to meet on even just the 50 foot wide ones I know 45 smaller but I could you know or if you're just driving down right take a first right and right right to the left the first single family homes and all those when it comes to the park on the west corner what's everybody's thought there like the is that that that taxs in t t tags into the uh other Park from BR right there what about Area 51 or 21 they call that area 21 park that's correct we need oh or can that that's a big hunk park in that 13 acres with that three um then we got a that's five acres correct in the corner or is that three that's supposed yeah I think we had three in the corner and another two and a half on the golf course P so if you took it it's another I mean if you're not going to put a piece in here then I guess you're not going to probably would to do the other piece in the corre of the golf course you you'd probably like talking five and a half acres maybe even six okay what would that put back I mean I don't know if it's [Applause] possible 30,000 30,000 m no maybe a little more be 90 grand that back 90 grand because it's three units in Anchor so as far as Park dedication dollars so 90 grand as opposed to the three acres or the six the the both sides just that's just just the three acres that's correct for me it's all the tax Rec that you get the homes to and yeah that's true you don't have tax that's much bigger money so the the concept plan for area 21 I believe showed a ball field on this corner yep yeah I know everything that's projected to go there oh this I just don't I just don't agree that we need a 1 okay now I remember yeah me personally this was the one that we were going to design this year y but we had delayed it because of outside circumstances but we weren't going to design the bottom end anyways right correct just the top CU it seem like but we had discussions and showed overall concept plan for the entire does it is there does it add any report to the six houses if that Park is over there or that screw up your whole plan no I mean I I we sure just change you know I would probably Envision that cross street maybe just going up a little bit higher you know I if we could re we could realign it to make it work I personally don't care if the Park's not there personally I guess rather as described and not make it smaller yeah I'd rather it stay it's me there's amenities that come with a lot of this I think there's a lot of discussion we need to have about what goes in there and who's paying what but I think the this is our one and only chance to have that space so I think we should take it anybody have anything else think I'm I do have one last asked question so um just say we had that area and was you know back to the commercial yeah I like if if there ever was like an indoor baseball facility indoor yeah you know we're just practicing in that batting cages yeah those are very popular so the only reason I say is I had a resident reach out and their grandchildren play baseball at CDA and they're young and realize it's tough for us to get practice you know we're at 10:00 somewhere and and it sounds like you know she'd maybe even be willing to do that but there was also maybe just some donating funds and then they had some other personal stuff I think going on I I don't think it could potentially happen but would you rather see something like that if if she wanted to build something there could also be an option that that you know if it's a city facility she's just a donator you know so I mean I'm not against it okay yeah I thought you were referring to the ones who you go rent an hour and yeah it would be and I I think no it's more for like these youth associations too but but it's interesting you say that at so at the golf course is we've been doing a little work man we got a lot of requests now why don't you have pickle ball why don't you have cages why don't you know they are they have interest the neighborhood start to ask for right so every everybody will want anything if you give it to them right right yeah I just set the price at the rate yeah but um but all right that might be something that you know um I'd have that would be a thrown out a concept but I like I said I really don't have a lot of anything else okay um you know haven't tried to Market anything because I don't know if it's even viable you know what I mean if you guys so did you get enough from us I got enough from you guys okay thank you thanks Tom okay the applicate for item L is here mayor yeah I see that that sounds good we we go on to item L then um who's got that John yep there okay item l so this is a concept plan for the sheney parcel so the sheney parcel is located off of North Diamond Lake Road north of Laura lake so this would be the Western border of uh of Dayton here uh the whole property size is about 104 Acres uh the applicant is proposing 13 lots that vary in size between about 3 and 1 12 acres and 24 Acres so when I say 24 acres is the reason why there's such a difference between the lot sizes some of them include a significant amount of wetland and uh wood and topography where it's not necessarily buildable land so applications that would be uh needed with this project is a comprehensive plan Amendment a zoning map Amendment and preliminary and final plat uh critical issues with this would be uh amending the comprehensive plan or the staging plan from post 2050 to unsur uh with these the proposed 13 Lots this would be on well and septic not on uh sewer and water um as well as an amendment from uh low the guided low density residential to rural estate uh additionally um and I thought this was going to be after blue stone so I'm a little ahead of myself um another project that we have tonight is blue stone which is uh in the same same area uh for parks and trails uh the parks plan does identify um a desire to have a trail along both sides sides of North Diamond Lake Road as well as a trail around Laura lake and a neighborhood park that's on the North Shore of Laura Lake um within the 2040 comprehensive plan it it references the 2030 comprehensive plan as far as Greenway corridors um this project does have Greenway Corridor along the Wetland complex along the west property line as well as along um Blake Laura so the intention is that this would be developed as a conservation planning unit development where those natural features would be preserved somehow um and then also with streets um the project does have access to right away that lines up with zanthus although because I'll get there but um the area that we have as right of way does have a lot of change in topography and it may not be practical to build on a road within that right away uh so the project does proposed to shift the uh the road alignment to the west and I've got a much better drawing of that um within the comprehensive plan and this is kind of going at 30,000 square ft down to uh a little lower so with the the Met council's comprehensive plan the Met Council designates all communities to a certain type of community and so Dayton is is classified as an emerging Suburban Edge community which is intended to develop all with sewer and water at a minimum density of three units an acre uh the Met Council would support I believe an unsur development where the minimum lot size is 10 acres uh which would allow eventual sub further subdivision to three units an acre once sewer is available um so again just to to provide context so this project is um unsur uh development at the minimum lot size would be three three uh acres in size and they're saying so what they're saying with that is you can set them down to 10 acres but they still have to be guided three per acre correct yep for sewer and water so um Dayton's zoning code is a bit more restrictive So within our A1 agricultural District the minimum lot size is 40 acres so as the S it is currently zone A1 um so the 104 Acres right now can be subdivided into two lots as is uh different options and and I'm generalizing this quite a bit um assuming the council is supportive of un development so option one is to amend the zoning code to allow 10 acre lots and to require ghost pling for future sewer re development so this is similar to was it I believe it was Wildwood Springs Wildwood Wild Rose Wildwood Springs Wildwood Springs which I believe was platted in the early 90s in the the northeast corner of Dayton as I'm going to say generally speaking 2 and2 acre lots or larger intending to be subdivided further once SE in water it becomes available um option two is to approve the project as it is with lots that are less than 10 acres assuming that that the Met Council would authorize the 2040 or assuming the Met Council would not authorize the comprehensive plan amendments um the city city would have the choice of trying to appeal it through uh courts um I I don't think we'd have a lot of luck with that but that's an option for the council option three is to petition for the Metropolitan Council to remove this property or maybe a larger area from the Metropolitan Urban Services area um so essentially stating that we have no intention of this area being serviced with sewer and water um it's likely that that would have to be incorp operated with a 2050 comprehensive plan as opposed to the current comprehensive plan um the stage I should say the staging the timing of the 2050 comprehensive plan generally it starts in 2026 or the work on it starts in 2026 with the expectation that it would be adopted in 2028 uh so that's still four years from now and then option four would be to wait until the 2050 comprehensive plan um which uh the Met council is looking at allowing flexible density um but in this is very in a draft form where uh the Met council's intent is to you whereas right now we're supposed to have a a average density of three units an acre 2050 comp planine will likely be four units an acre Citywide and so the idea with the flexible density is you're going to have some areas of town that have higher density you know so Apartments as an example in other areas that have lower density so whether it's 3 acres or or 24 Acres but it averages out to four units ler so John these are different options than we've seen in the Comm in that well I'm looking at in the staff report so yeah so the the Met Council came out with kind of some draft policies this past Friday um after the the staff report was written because we sent them a letter asking questions correct oh you take all the credit yeah absolutely so okay well these are different options than what what we looked at so all right okay does option five work and and I got to look at what option five was so option five option five is just plot the whole thing for sare now why can't that be done plat the whole thing for sewer now for PL it for three units per acre now oh you're talking about ghost plating ghost plotting yeah yeah ghost platted okay what happened to the egg three zoning oh so another option would be um to add a a third agricultural District so A3 where the minimum lot size is 10 acres um so that would I'm going to say it's probably the easiest one because it would be accepted by the Met council is that um is that on the next page or uh nope that's uh in the staff report but not on here oh well it's the top one no we we do have option number one so amend the zoning code to allow 10 acre lots okay so but that kills the project well the 10 does where's the 10 come from I really would like an answer yeah cuz we've never again for 10 acres yep um so it's from the Met Council I I'm going to where is it written down that so we can do 10 and and keep it guided three per acre sure yep why is that 10 a 10 and not a five or a four where's that 10 come from I cannot nobody can tell me I I'm going to say the 10 acres is more practical it's more easier to subdivide don't want to hear I want to know what the rules are okay I I can look it up but I well I've asked for that a number of times okay I will tell you that the 10 acres is coming directly from that Council as their arbitrary number that they're using as a minimum yes and since we don't give them our developments you know what my story is I'm I'm confused about where we so we don't give them our developments over they do do plat monitoring and they will I mean and either be you either be upfront with them or you can be not up front with them what does it so they've already told us they will not approve anything under 10 correct they've told us that well they will not approve any Rees so these options aren't viable they're not so here we are and I still don't understand where this 10 come from why can't we guide it for or not guide it set in eg3 of four per acre or sry four acres minimum yeah and guide it free perer and be done this area is going to have a hard time with sewer anyways that's where I get lost too is why is it better I just don't know where the 10 comes saying 10 guided to ghost platted and guided to three why why is that better than guiding it to five and or four and and ghost platting it to three I the one is the future plan right and that may or may not come to be right um but where the starting point I'm not sure I understand how it makes any difference what that is okay um so I'm going to ask what is the end what's the goal like what do you want to see I want to see this development happen at 3 to 24 acre yeah 3 to 24 acre as you see it and and and I'm not seeing a path for us to do that I keep we keep hearing that that console doesn't like this well that's very special tell us what the rules are sure because if the Met Council you know I understand they want to keep it at 10 um I want to know what their labor is to force us to keep it to 10 so in the the packet there's a letter from met Council that kind of describes that said they would not support it yes that's very special again I I I want to know what find it um so with there's a state statute that says that it requires you the Met Council creates their own comprehensive plan for the whole region and then every Community has to create their own comprehensive plan that's consistent with the Met Council MH so the Met Council has the regional sewer system yep in which we all contribute towards and has to be compliant with that that's that's the key yep is that whatever Investments the Met Council makes in their Regional sewer system the communities have to support y or their development has to support that's and compant do that that's how we get to the three units per acre yep yep but you're looking for 10 why is it 10 acres I'm looking for why it is that right now we have 40 yeah and everybody thinks we can go to 10 and I want to know why can't we go to four inste of 10 yeah well what yeah what verbage prevent because if we're still guiding three per acre why does it matter and that's my hang up that's why I've asked this a thousand times over the past couple years and and and everybody just says well you can't do it why okay I'm right there with you I'll figure it out right I'm right there with you I I guess for me too I would I would like to see see us find a path to make this development happen CU it's not just this one right I mean there's other areas that I think would would lend themselves to large lots and I just don't get why especially in an area where we think it's going to be hard to to sewer sewer yeah put Utilities in just makes no sense to me um yeah and I I think for me too you know it's not clear what's what's law and what's we don't like it yeah because there is a distinction there for me sure okay so of these four options what you're leaning towards is option two no no no option five well see I don't know what option two there is it kind of combines things cuz I don't understand what would we have to change in the comp plan what would we have to uh what would we have to um amend amend yeah to get this to happen so the comprehensive plan is guided for sewer development which we're saying it it's still going to stay stay guided um and then also at three to five units an acre which we're saying okay fouracre Lots well no it would be guided three to five okay it's no different than a 10 or a 40 yeah except it's four and that's why I'm I'm I'm and I'm a little elevated about this thing because we keep asking the same question and never get an answer other than they don't like it well I know they don't like it they would like us to all live in communes I understand that but I I just don't understand where the 10 comes from I'll work on a response okay so I guess it would be partially one I mean uh well it would be a morning except not 10 except not 10 yeah we'd be creating an an egg3 with whatever we needed to do um and I don't know how we say where that eg3 is allowed if it's north of you know some latitude or maybe it's an area like harman's Homer little property I I don't know but it just seems like we need to that all that land is 2050 plus it just seems wrong that we lock it up so is the intention to have and I'll just say minimum 4 acre lots within the areas that are guided post 2050 um I'd have to look at the map cuz maps and mess me our I would not recommend changing everything to post 2050 to that I think there's certain areas that vote well to it but I don't believe we would want to change everything because it's going to I think we need to look at it I open up a great big I think you open too much can we need to look at that from because we got it seems like we have a hly pig I would agree the whole idea is just to leave it as three units per acre just it may or may not happen um yeah and maybe we get Amy involved I I don't know and just simply tell us what are the rules CU we obviously don't know them we keep being told you can't do this except nobody says why you can't do this so and it gets into the whole idea is is met council is going to want you to cram as many as you can get in there because they get more money then well it's just easier for them to plan a lot of times what you don't know don't hurt you well I they'll know I'm not concerned about hiding something from them I just want to know what the rules are and I and we don't but if you set it up as the rules that it's ploted like I say it may or may not happen you're still following the rule we don't know if in 20 2070 it gets ploted if it gets s or not I I just feel like then we're kind of just we're kind of messing with the developer then at that point playing kind of a pawn in our game then I just I I like Dennis's idea of like I I'd like to understand where that number came from and how we make some of this stuff viable for you know develop in future state so sure you know when we're talking about the number we're talking about 10 acres yes yeah I from mayor ccil I did tell you where the number came from it's an arbitrary number from me Council there's no from my knowledge of of everything me council is it's there's no science behind the number I'm not worried about science and I an arbitrary number that they've used to say this is what works for development to happen at a pace that is allowed or should say a pace that would allow them to have development happen yes without having to be required to use a different partiel to get that development to happen so I I agree they like the number 10 corre correct that's and they use the number 10 because that's you can develop something on 10 acres and not rely on having your neighbors or two or three parcel combined to get to something developed y that is why they use 10 yep not 5 four eight six or two I'm absolutely fine with that but I want to know if we pick four can they legally say no now you're in trouble that's my question sure yes yes what yes they can they they'll fight us on what grounds um for the statute because statute well it's in the staff report I'll find it in a second or it's in the package right it is 20 220 232 to 237 t m so it's a Minnesota statute 473.15 subdivision 1 yeah so the council the Met Council may require local government units to modify their comprehensive plan or part thereof that does not conform with the Metropolitan systems plan y if the council or the Met Metropolitan Council concludes that the local plan is more likely than not to contain a substantial departure from the council's adopted policy plans in capital budgets for the Metropolitan Wastewater surface yep that's that's with regards to the plan this affects nothing in the plan right we do not have that 10 in the plan we do not have our current zoning go in the plan we have guided use in the plan we have what the land use is going to be in the plan we do not have um our zoning code in the plan so yeah I I they approved the plan I I I we know that that's old news we do know they approved the plan or or not I mean it's up to them to approve the plan we have to provide a plan but nowhere in that plan does it say um what are minimum the 40 acres is not in there so this is what I'm getting at what it does say is that you know this area is guided for 3 to five units per acre so it's a 40 acre lot yes yep it's guided for three acre three per acre okay so again the council's intent just to summarize is 4 acre lots for a minimum lot size yeah dous and then guided for sewer and water at whatever density is needed I low density three it was three per AC three to five per acre so okay I don't think it will go through the Met Council but that's the direction for the council for the city council well I I guess here's the deal we're not the experts and I want to I I want to make sure that we're not doing something we're going to get spank for okay and I don't see how we're going to get a spank for it but I'd like to know that we're not going to get a spank so I don't know if we get like I said we got to get any involved or how do we know what the rules are so it's in the packet I can I can I can reach out to Amy okay cuz that's that's the whole thing behind this this development if we absolutely cannot do that if here's statute blah blah blah says you cannot do this this is toast this this yeah this whole project is this whole project toast so otherwise I think it's a perfectly fine use of the land land that it sounds like we were going to have a hard time sewering in 30 years so I agree I agree I agree with you I agree so I didn't know what that what does that do for here to hang out me I yeah I don't know I don't we haven't talked about the concept plan at all so yep the plan itself kind of what I'm hearing is is you're you're fine with no changes I don't think I had any listed um I was I'm cool with if we're if we're going to do something with the trail I don't think we should necessarily pave it going around there but around uh low Lake um yeah there's not going to be enough density to PVE that trail at least not now proper and it it I don't know as far as there was some concern about maybe going to Brockton instead of uh yeah so this this was a comment from henpen County as far as suggestion so not an official comment of instead of having an access on North Diamond Lake Road yeah of having an access out to but yeah I I that's not part of this property there properties somebody else at that point it it seemed like it maybe it could be tweaked to provision for that in the future y but I don't know is Brockton any less busy than right I it just seemed to me you're going from one County Road to another quarter mile of the road hit yeah so I think that was my only two comments about this thing uh and again it lets us turn Thicket Lane into a you know a complete road now that's all I had I it's pretty pretty basic uh so just for clarity So within the comprehensive plan that specific to parks and Trail so there's uh the comp plan proposes a trail along the north side of Diamond Lake Road North Diamond Lake Road both north and south side side as well as a trail along laa Lake and then a neighborhood park in the north section uh so kind of where I'm hearing is I don't think the council's really discussed the trail along North Diamond Lake Road um it sounds like there support for a trail not necessarily A pav Trail around the lake and then we haven't discussed a park yeah I don't have a I think the park could come if 2050 happens and they get this three per acre I don't know and I would I'd be fine but just taking right away for the trail along the north side there of Diamond Lake but low lake or the road saying yeah yeah sorry yeah the road okay um there's a spot there on where you're going to have a hard time getting the trail on the side it is and that's why if if you got right away it's probably never going to be used but I don't know I don't know what we need for right away but I don't think you even have 10 ft so do you mean a trail along the road or a trail along well you're saying our our our Trail plan has a need on the road uh oh along North Diamond Lake Road yeah yes and I think you know like Scott said you're you got a problem east of there I don't think you have 35 ft from the you don't have 30 ft from the road to the the lake lake what it is regardless of that 20 ft from the road there's water so if you can put a trail in in the ditch I suppose but that's that's Cy right away yeah but having some rightaway on this development just on the north side of the road I I don't I don't have a problem with that I just don't think it'll ever get used and then um as far as on top of on the naret r Lake I I don't know it the trail would just stop wouldn't it it would just stop and all these people have large Lots people in large Lots don't they don't they got nature right there so I don't know theying their yards I would even worry about it's the one big lot that they're proposing on that North Edge there too I mean right so I mean it's really one person I don't know I don't I I think that could be negotiated later if a development goes in there I think dedication incorporate a trail in that neighborhood the park piece of it you know I know it's identified by area is uh neighborhood part ultimately I don't know that this is the right neighborhood for it to me that it wouldn't be like this this won't be the last development that'll come up in that in that Target Zone M and I think the park could come later or off of another parcel okay anybody have any questions for developer questions for us you have questions for us yeah come on up if you if you have something thank you Mr Mayor members of council U Zach and John everyone for being here um I appreciate you guys entertaining this even though it's a little bit non-conforming for what Dayton's got going on um I've looked all over Dayton for my own personal use and I'll tell you what there's two spots in Dayton where you can have something similar to this and that's on Thicket Lane and that's on birkshire and there's not a single person willing to sell Y and it's just not going to happen um those plats that were done before 2002 2003 when the mech Council kind of got all their power they're not really duplicatable it's very hard this parcel was selected specifically because it's not suitable for sewer and water we did the Pine View Meadows development a few years back and there was people up in arms about all the density as a developer I like Surin water it's great it's it's you know there's a demand for it in Dayton people love it I looked at this piece and I can't sewer and water it I mean the depth of the sewer it's nothing crazy compared to stuff you guys have seen I know you guys have stuff you know 60 70t deep incredibly difficult but it's not just the depth of the utilities it's the it's the soil type it's the topography with the Rolling Hills it's the trees um I would have to basically flatten out all the s sites and there's like basically a small mountain range going through here it the the amount of earth work that would be needed is it's just not going to happen no one's ever going to do it it's just it doesn't feasibly make sense ac across there is a Greenway overlay which is a tree preservation status or whatever it is and it's there's just too many hurdles there's too many things it's it's going to stay a soybean field the way it is or it's going to be 13 houses like we're proposing it's kind of just what it is um you know I think this is the least impactful thing to the area uh but to touch on the parks and the trails and all the stuff we just heard about this product is not going to be something that people want with public amenities the reason they're buying these acreage Lots is they want the Privacy they'll put up their own jungle gym for their kids or their own pool that if they wanted a public swimming pool they would have bought in Riverwalk and they would have played pickle ball and you know this or that it's a different buyer it's a different type of thing I I personally and a trail to wear I mean it's not connecting to anything if there was something to connect to it make more yeah it it there's a trail to Nowhere um I I I think the plat that we've got proposed is probably the most likely thing that would be feasible or or even just logical um but I I don't see a whole lot of things that could change on it it's it's a there's a a ridge that goes through this property and that's kind of how the roadway was designed there's not a lot of ways to cut this thing up unless you flatten it all out and again that goes back to the unfeasibility aspect of it um you know I get the the difficulties with the Met Council and how to package it and best deliver it to them for approval I understand that's a challenge um this is something people in Dayton want I've lived in Dayton my whole life I've grown up in Dayton I love Dayton I want to stay in Dayton uh I get calls all the time for people that have heard we're working on this and they're wondering when they can put a lot on hold and I say oh you can't it's not approved yet but uh the basic gist of it is there's a high demand for this and I think people think of Dayton as a suburb but still Rural and this is what they want mhm and there's not a lot of pieces you know I understand if this was a flat corn field with sewer and water buted right up to it not going to happen that's why this piece was chosen it just doesn't make sense for anything else and then just for record can you say your name and address yes sorry I'm Zack Brown 13311 Arrowwood Lane Dayton I think generally we want to we're supportive of the development and we're fishing around here to try to find a path forward on how to do it uh you know however you can help us with this I think everybody's open to that because we're we're certainly bouncing around trying to see look for something we can pinpoint to to say yes this is what what we want to do and this is how we can do it um from a code or met Council wishes or whatever standpoint and if there's something I can give you to help you with that let me know I'm happy to do it whether it's a survey on the property you know whether it's a profile view of the sewer and water what whatever it is we're happy to work with you guys to try and make that happen I think if the Met Council looked at it from an objective standpoint it's it's not suitable to be high density the amount of Earth that have to be moved the volume cubic yards it's just not feasible and it seemed like you know Common Sense doesn't come into the equation very often but it's seems like there ought to be some uh path with the Met counil to say that the sewer is not feasible in this area and so we want to exempt it sure and I think the Met council is working in that direction it's just not under the current comprehensive plan so that'd be waiting for the 2050 plan would be uh for flexible density flexible zoning flexible density zoning it's one of the terms in the uh seven or eight pages from met all right so uh as far as if it did come down to 4 acre lot that how many lots are three I didn't look at it one or two I'll point to them real quick here yeah they could go to four if they had to couldn't they yeah so I think this one and this one no I'm sorry this one is the only one that's three and a half this one's five But it includes this long finger okay and the city has indicated that they wanted some RightWay through here so I don't know if that would count against that for future development um but this is a 5 acre this one's three and a half the rest of them I believe are all over four yeah the one thing that the applicant had made sorry May mayor and councel the one thing the applicant had made note of during the Planning Commission meeting is that not sure on septic sites if we were to say get as many in there you know 4 Acres or basically make them smaller so you can get more Lots on here or whatever the number we decide on um if it's not this exact design the the comes into question of sewer sites septic septic sites sorry not SE septic sites done yeah I had eptic out they found uh primary and secondary sites on each of the 13 proposed Lots okay um did they have to really they look hard or no they're out there for about one day they did the whole site they said I can give you the whole report but it to generate it is not cheap and I said well let's just hold tight until we see if it's even needed okay but um realistically to go to 4 acre minimums we would need a variance on one lot that would be it one out of the 13 proposed or we would have to move some lot lines around playing with that one with that long finger that comes down but so Zach what you say variance for what oh one of the Lots being less than 4 acres oh I see unless we played around with the lot lines yeah okay and and we looked at the 13 acre one on the lake lake Laura the big one in the right corner M the only way to make that a smaller lot other than a shared driveway which is going to kill the appetite for this type of product yeah we would have to get a variance to because we need 200 feet per city code at the street to make it a legal lot so we would need to have a variance to shrink that to let us have two sidebyside driveways because I can't do a shared driveway with this product it won't work this would be a new zoning District so we would create new sets so that what your only District you're talking about Zack I think is the uh R2 District I believe and that has a 200 foot width minimum yeah so if we can work around that we might be able to if you create a new District an A3 district for example and made it smaller Lots then you could adjust those widths at the at the street yep and then you would need a VAR if we yeah if we were okay to go forward with this I think it' probably be a lot of little adjustments we could okay so what let's say you know just forget about the zoning rues so if this is a plan unit development there's no you we're talking minimum lot size of 4 Acres you know forget about that um lot width you know what is the minimum lot width that you would like to see for this well they they've all got to be over 70 ft I would think they're all at least 200 in this drve I was going to say yeah there's no concern there I are you asking us what we would said it if you yeah if you would have set it to something what would you pick it depends on that last lot that you were talking about maybe a 100 FKS I just don't want to share driveway CU nobody want why would I not run by Planning Commission or something like that oh well where I'm going with this you know this is drawn at 13 Lots at 200 I know he's going with it to get four unit 4 acre lots why 13 and why not 20 or you know whatever the math comes out to be that's say and if we could be at five acres minimum or four it would make my life way easier because 13 acres spread out it it it makes things more expensive if we could drop the price and get a higher density that'd be great but like Zach pointed out my concern then is because I'm going to quote eptic out here it's peanut butter for soil that's what they said it's it's that's the trick we'd have to see what we could do M they would all pre I prefer the 13 instead of going to 20 yeah I I agree with that I think that the you know this is in my mind an extension of the thicket Hills neighborhood and it should resemble that to the the extent that it can and that's what we were shooting for birkshire and Thicket we were just trying to bring on more of that I feel like there's a lot of demand for that is a demand for that yep yep okay so I don't know what the lot with is at Berkshire and Thicket but if if we use that as a guideline to make this look as much like those two projects as possible I believe they're 10 acre minimum but I mean as far as the lot width yeah I don't know what if they're 200t or 300 ft or whatever even if they're above I don't know you see our R2 is 200 fet I believe our I believe our R2 district is 200 ft that's correct if we had to go under that to make things work I I would not have a problem that so I I guess yeah there's at some point where it's not going to work I mean make it too skinny on the Frontage then it doesn't get your 4 Acres minimum so then it doesn't work so I mean there's there's you know only so many things that work so if you take 200 to make it 100 then you don't then you don't get enough for that 13 one right for the large one on the top right yep like said I'm just looking I'm looking in general you can only make it so small like it it's a obviously it's a minimum number you can make it make it bigger but I get that but I don't yeah if you have to run two driveways through that area I don't I wouldn't have a heartburn with that either and then you get two lots it I know um but it seems like I mean we have a bigger question than that is you know so conceptually it sounds like we're all yeah do with it it's just the big question is to if we can allow it how do we package it to the Met Council and well I don't I'm not the professional we'll figure thank you than guys thanks y okay so we can go back to item K it looks like con of planed blue stone properties Direction all right I don't know who put so many slides on okay K uh item K concept plan for blue stone property so this is located on 40 acres on the south side of North Diamond Lake Road the north side of Diamond Lake uh what's being proposed I believe is 45 Lots uh that would be sewered and water uh sewer and water would come from Rogers um needed applications for this is a comprehensive plan Amendment a zoning map Amendment a conditional use use permit for Shoreland a plan development a cup for a boat ramp and preliminary and final plant uh the critical issues uh so amending the comprehensive plan for um the sewer staging plan so this is guided as post 2050 that would need to be amended from post 2050 to current and then SE an agreement between Rogers and Dayton to extend sewer and water from Rogers into Dayton to service this project um other critical issues include the uh layout of the project and connectivity for both streets and trails to adjacent Properties or future developments um and then Trail con connectivity along the lake shore um in North Diamond Lake Road for the comprehensive plan Amendment again this would be an amending it from Post 2050 to current stage um in between the current stage and the 2050 is about 11,000 homes that are planned so the intent is that within the super staging PL that we're growing from South to north and east to west this is more in the Northwest area of of uh Dayton uh let's see that said within the comp plan it says that uh the decision to amend or to extend Urban Services is at the discretion of the city council so whatever the comprehensive plan says city council can do something different um but also that there's uh adequate supply of vacant land prior to moving to the the next sewer stage area and I won't read through all this but uh the map at the last is the the uh plan for where the sewer system will extend to throughout the city and then this is where the project is located uh the map at the left is the project superimposed upon the uh comprehensive plans parks and trail system comments from the plan commission is they're generally opposed to amending the staging plan is that uh the development is premature uh there are mixed opinions if it were change to large Lots with well and septic versus waiting for sewer and water to become available um post 2050 so I didn't understand that discussion because we can't do that anyways do do what well we just had a discussion about septics on four acres this would be septics on a I don't know where this even came from the Lots would need to be bigger so instead of 45 you might have 20 Lots or you know quarter acre lots and so this the number of lots would decrease significantly to have sewer water sewer water particular might be 25 Lots you mean septic Well yeah if you had a septic let's see I'll try to word that well it's for you even if you did four acres you'd have 10 Lots it's 40 acres yeah so I I don't know why this one even got discussed I I was just confused by it but okay okay uh the plan commission mentioned that there were no amenities shown no public amenities shown on the project uh Park commission comments was to uh they like the trail along the lake shore as well as Trail along North diving Lake Road and a park at the lake so the project does uh propose private access to the lake that would Ser as um the homeowners you so again this would be private and maintained by an HOA uh the par commission so this would be a great place for some whether it's uh public access to the lake or just some type of a a public area um one thing that's unique about this project um it does include kind of a a homestead that's it's off right in the middle of the the property uh it does include three um accessory buildings there's a a stage an outdoor kitchen and outdoor bar area um the thought here is that those could be preserved for uh public use as a part of the park so comments we're going to run into the same problem here as as the the previous one well this is SE potentially could potentially yeah well I'm not saying that's the right type of sewer though M yeah you me and again it's in 2015 yeah which opens up another can of worms I mean it's a huge can of worms if we open it up for one you open it up for everybody so I've got got a quite a few comments that you you wan to you want to go first or you got itead well I I'll just say that I I'm not at all a fan of changing the staging plan for for this particular development um you know it to me there's there's nothing particularly unique about it um and it's it's at the far end of our staging plan there needs to be something really compelling for me to to have any interest in it because I feel like we we know our staging plan isn't perfect but U you know it it it is our plan and I think that we need to have a compelling reason to change it like what was in the plan didn't doesn't make sense anymore that this doesn't make it over any hurdle for me as far as changing the staging plan to allow to allow this it's another sort of island of development in an area that's not not ready to be developed for 30 years U so you know I I don't have a lot to say about the details of the plan because it stops right there for me I'm not interested in changing the staging plan I'm right there with you I mean to I'm not interested in changing the plan at all uh the one thing that really puzzles me about this whole thing is there was a comment made in the Planning Commission meeting that U that individually we've all talked about and approved the Halfacre lot yeah yeah no I never said such a thing no is a Halfacre a lot better than a third of an acre yeah it is but I didn't approve the four those words never came out of my m so um so for that reason I just don't know what I'm getting and I don't want to go there at all yeah no I'm just not nothing intrigues me about this to make the changes that would be necessary the the Long Haul for it so I'm just it's not the product type that I would want in this area I mean an option an option there for this particular thing is is the same thing one in 10 and put four Lots on this for now and in 2050 come back and and rehash it out possibility but that's not what's in front of us right now no I know that I mean but that's the option that's the only place i' go with it um yeah I guess I had a few issues with the the layout um it doesn't account for the neighboring properties um it kind of locks them in to some extent but um just because it's going on a County Road which we know they're going limit access um and I had some I mean the Planning Commission had a lot of comments as far as that goes um the developer want to come forward and yeah I don't I we put a lot of work into the staging plan and it's I don't think it's a trivial thing um now pulling it in by one decade is one thing but pulling it in by three decades seems like a big a leap um what I don't know um and I missed the previous one but uh so we have 40 acres here and if I I guess if this would have happened the way that I'm normally is the sort of this give and take that we're maybe having right now which have been really good before we we put the concept plan in be that as it may if we went to like bigger Lots uh and I and I'm assuming and I said this at the Planning Commission that you know septic and well which I'm I'm not really for but if you guys are for you know I'm willing to work with you guys and then we would go down to I sent it to to Zach but I think it's 25 26 27 Lots but but let me step back and say if we went to bigger Lots um we've got Charles cut as the as the Builder and now I would have to go back to Charles cut and say look Dayton wants four five six acre lots whatever whatever you guys decide would you still be interested and then the co I know what the cost is to get water and sewer from from Rogers I know that number that number is is not going to change and but then my issue becomes you know then are we talking what are we talking for Lots home sales here what's what's the number got to be because now I got to divide that that that water and sewer among you know so if there were if there are 4 acre lots which which doesn't work out really well cuz you'd have to have we'd have to cut out some for the the road and a holding pond so I don't know how many we wouldn't get 10 Lots we would get let's say nine rate somewhere in there so now if we have eight Lots can I get can would would cud agree to buy them from me at at price that allows me to pay for water and sewer to Rogers I don't know that answer but I'm willing to like look at that if that you know that's what you guys think is is should happen but then then I think you you'd have to say then these homes are going to become you know four5 million homes oh CU I I just think that the number is get water and sewer well it's only half a mile from from Rogers to to here so it's not long but it's expensive and you know is it you know I again I'm willing to I'm willing to look at all of those options I mean there's a lot of ways to slice it up and I'm I'm not set at one in in fact um I've heard people say you know the county won't ow two accesses in and I would be like that's fine we'll use the current access and then we'll have I don't know maybe a circle and then in the in the circle we'll have the holding Pond some you know something some there there's a lot of ways to do this and again I'm not set on anything I just know that the cost to get the water and sewer has to be covered by by the the amount that that cud will pay me for the the lot now I'm going shut so it's kind of up to you guys what do you guys want well I I think I think we we would probably agree you would need the density I think the problem is you're you're the staging that's really what it is um this area is not staged and it's not as simple as just making an amendment to our plan there's a lot of stuff that went into that plan um a lot of stuff that would need to go into that plan we haven't even looked generally the 2050 areas are areas we haven't even looked at they're justop they're put into 2050 if we don't look at them um and and that's been the headlin that you're going to have with this is it's it's three decades out or two probably three maybe four yeah the can of worms is if if we approve yours there's a whole bunch of other properties that are going to say I want mine now today not 2050 Scott um you're the you're right but the economics make you I'm not I'm not on the dream path of the $4 or5 million home I'm not there okay so you're going so that's what you're not you're against no no I'm not I didn't say I'm against it I don't know if you can sell 10 or 15 four or five million owns you're trying to glorify this as as the100 million project I don't look at that no no I'm not I'm trying I'm I'm my initial goal is I've got a 75-year-old guy that wants to retire in dayon okay so he can retire he just can't do it by selling his property his issue he should have never bought it with the intention that he's going to take 2050 land and develop it in 2024 do you know that the the realtor and the previous mayor that just has nothing I Scott I understand that I'm just I'm I'm you're ask you're saying a statement I'm trying okay I'm trying my best to give you the information possible and I said I said you shouldn't have done that but hindsight you know is always 2020 okay so now he's got this land you know i' I've talked with met counsel they're fine with it I've talked with Rogers they're fine with it every everyone is is I I I've solved a lot of your your problems but I just don't know what other problems you have that I can solve the the reason that the med Council and anybody else is fine with us updating the compl plan is they aren't doing the updating we are the ones that will do the updating and we have not even looked at this area and I think you know the bottom line is is um you're not it sounds like you're not going to get support to move this out of 2050 that's the problem and it's not just that you know we I mean it's not a trivial thing to just readjust some of these pieces of property you make it sound like we just send an email off in my Council it doesn't work that way it is I understand what needs to take place I I agree and I I agree that that people will say hey I you know I'm going to develop and it's like fine you can develop but does it make economic sense and I would say to you that the value of the homes that you need to put on the land if you're going to do water and sewer yeah it's they've got to be a lot yep I agree with that and like I said I agree that you have to get the density if you're going to do this I absolutely agree with that now I I plan me work but that's a different issue the problem is you want us to pull it in three decades yeah I guess the the you know Dennis I think that the the idea that I I see here is that is that Diamond Lake is is not used very much now and I don't know why I don't know why it's not I mean it's obviously not Lake minano but it's still a better Lake than Medicine Lake and Medicine Lake is packed with homes sure and I I don't know why this hasn't you know the city of Dayton you know would I would say to you that that areas that you should like as as as you know amenities I would say the lake would be would be high in that list so I'm kind of I'm kind of giving it to you as as in in those terms well except we'd have to pull it in yeah I don't I don't you're not giving us anything you're asking us to bring it in three decades early so if your argument is that our comp plan should have looked at this area as in earlier um development that that may be but it didn't and it doesn't and it's and I think there's not an appetite to pull it in that's the bottom line all right then I think we're done right right I don't have anything else am I don't have any other man all right item an getting close Okay item end this is a concept plan for East French Lake Road in territorial uh so generally speaking uh territorial is this East West Route or Street and then East French like road goes north and south um the applicant is py uh needed applications for this includes a zoning map Amendment and then the prelimary and final plant and I'm thinking this was not a p no so this is just R3 zoning uh 47 Lots 42 42 Lots okay um the So currently it's three separate properties there's been a number of concept plans that have been before uh the council in the past um the development to the to the West is territorial Trail this is somewhat kind of EXT intended to be an extension of territorial Trail somewhat um critical issues here is access to East French Lake Road uh proposed Tot Lot and then Street widths uh comments from the Planning Commission is to is for the architecture to be consistent with territorial Trails uh to change the Tot Lot to something for older kids so the Tot Lot that's been proposed is a HOA maintained Tot Lot and then to allow uh access to East French Lake Road at the gas line easement which is uh this is the gasoline eement through here can roads run across that East I I'm going to let the probably Jason or the the developer answer that Road sorry across the gas yeah yeah um we have Crossings in several areas in fact we have one that's not all that far from parallel to it through it which was I would not recommend that was not a fun process but um they do allow Crossings of utilities androos okay and comments from the park commission uh was that to consider a public park versus an HOA Park and something different from the neighboring top lot such as a sport court whether that be basketball or pickle ball or or something else and then to have a trail along East French Lake Road connecting to Three Rivers Trail so what I failed to mention Three Rivers is playing on the Regional Trail along three uh Territorial Road which would eventually connect to Elm Creek Park and then uh this is shown as a sort of um it's not shown here but the suggestion is to have a uh City trail that would go along East French Lake Road or somehow connect uh this trail system to Territorial Road so and then we have a number of slides from the developer that I'll let them some summarize these if if the council would like um is there um a reason why we we wouldn't connect um I somewhere in the Planning Commission uh meeting that um I don't know if he Jason or who it was but somebody mentioned that that access to East French Lake Road is not a good spot is that simply because it's so close to the other one but I mean just generally speaking we want to limit accesses to our major collectors sure um that will become a increasingly used collector street so our from an engineering perspective the preference would be to not have a connection um if one were considered for emergency services or other connectivity reasons um we may want to slide it South some yeah um we'd have to look closer on it and go maybe review better sight lines and and uh we'd want to maintain distance from territorial um as well that would be the critical spacing if you will but we also like separation from territorial as well so um I guess if this was done as an entire development wouldn't would we have another access somewhere down in there for East French Lake Road independ if the development to the West didn't exist if you yeah if if the development to the West had done this part also oh would they have just simply not connected this part um to either Road and just let it connect to the old development interconnection yeah so um yeah so mayor ccil the original concept plan for territorial Trail and they put this together had this portion here and it did not have another connection i' seen to East French Lake Road or Territorial and I'm just oh and that was a concept plan from back then right yeah so the concept plan was presented um we had them ghost plat out the other Lots next to them when they did territorial Trail during the preliminary platting process so and that ghost plating did not have any other connections I know there was some concerns about the residents about the additional traffic uh that was on was that on territorial or trail that was on territorial Trail yep Trail yeah but although it does let the developer do more houses I I don't know um this one seems kind of not fitting well with the old one but just cuz the roads are so you know they're all straight M the old so crial any here yeah I can I can see the the need I think for an additional access to East French Lake Road I don't know that it has to be right where it is and I follow what you're saying Jason that you'd like them farther apart um but not too close to Territorial Road seems like that that could be done to me you those three lots there between the access just south that you put it right there right on the southedge right over the gas line and the gas L right over the gas line we we'd need to space it some with the gas line just because of the angles with it so probably immediately north of the gas right and is the appetite to realign East French Lake gone at this point I don't know I think so it was just kill it right I I suspect so I mean that was just a thought to to potentially better utilize the land to the east of East French Road just because it's not deep enough to get an access road out there so if you're really developing on there you're you're probably requiring to put a bunch of driveways onto the collector road again shifting it over would have allowed um to remove that but that also takes significant coordination with land owners that's okay that ship then is to some extent already sailed okay oh yeah um I guess and yeah from my standpoint I agree with the the Planning Commission that um and it sound like we had some residents say they wanted more a more not necessarily A Todd lot wanted a basketball court yeah with you'll build right that's anybody got anything else no no I think that the same comments around the you know the the need for something different than a todot because of the The Nearness of the other one and the distance to an actual city park is I think been problematic for some of these things in the this whole area that there that there isn't one so I think you know something that that you know 10 year olds can play with 12y olds can you know would be would gravitate toward um versus the Tot Lot kind of fixtures makes more sense to me would you want to be a city maintained lot still or HOA wasn't that one of the suggestions that they wanted was the parks wanted it to be a public City card I don't have a strong preference on that I don't hello can you state your name and address please yes certainly uh Mr Mayor members of the council I'm Dean Lauder that's l o t t r spelled like Lottery minus the Y uh I'm the division director of land planning for py homes here in Minnesota I also have Haley Dy with me she also works in land planning with us as well that is her real name Haley daily um I just wanted to respond to a couple of uh comments and thank you again for your time I very much appreciate it do you need an address by the that would be great yeah 1650 West 82nd Street Bloomington Minnesota 55431 um maybe a couple of things uh that I could just elaborate on we'll we'll definitely I apologize for the Tot Lot logo on there um we saw that and realized we probably should have changed that right from the start just given the proximity to the one that already exists we definitely would do like a sport court or or or something like that to to uh satisfy the council please the council um with regards to the access to East French Lake Road um I'm pleased to work with City staff on evaluating some different options there um the greatest concern I would have is if we moved it um to the north side of the gas easement because of the diang uh trajectory of that easement through there um that causes a great deal of disruption to the design and the layout of the neighborhood um going south of the easement might potentially be an option uh to consider and also we're open to not having an access at all we've um actually contemplated that scenario uh when we originally met with City staff um that that question was raised and so we have looked at that as well and we're happy to talk with staff about all those options and bring back something that we think is um going to be most pleasing to the council and and hopefully the neighborhood as well uh the homes that we're proposing are um so there's actually two kinds of homes that are in the existing territorial neighborhood uh some of those are larger move up single family homes some of those are Villa design which are meant for kind of empty nesters um what we're proposing in this particular location is um the same kind of move up single family home these would probably be uh Middle High 500s to the Middle High $600,000 single family homes uh you have pictures there that show double stall garages we would actually be building these with uh three stall garages so we' comply with your code requirement for minimum square footage on the garage as well and as John stated this is uh an R3 proposal we are able to meet your conditions of your R3 zoning code and we did that deliberately to try to avoid going the Pud Road any questions so this is this is concept and and so we I guess we don't shouldn't expect everything to be you know completely filled out but on as it relates to the R3 stuff there's some optional requirements in there that you know pick one pick three that kind of thing and some of those are not not complete on the the documentation that we have today um where it's asking you to pick two and one was selected um those things would be filled out as the design progresses correct yeah that would be our intent Mr Mayor members of the council yeah I think we sorry go yeah just quickly we talked about engineering and Public Safety have a little bit of a different perspective um but from a public safety perspective we would like to see an additional um ESS to the properties you know another entrance as you described um wherever um otherwise we get into many different situations we have a fire active shooter whatever it may be we cut off people from getting to their homes and so forth it's kind of the same thing what we have across the street here is we're we have limited access points are you saying an addition to the east French Lake yes I mean not it would be off East French somewhere to the South someplace we just need one more at least yeah mayor cult he's he's suggesting the the three that add one additional one that's already on there it's already on there it's already on there just down yeah keep that one you're saying and keep keep additional and add that another one you're saying no no move that one down just move move it we just need to move it down you just you want to keep it you just want to move it I don't think you care if it's down or up you just want to want one there got it right we I just confirmed from a public safet got it I figured that okay um is this kind of your final I mean um do you have any plans on making it maybe look a little bit like the other development as far as the roading as far as the roads go or just kind of it uh Mr Mayor uh we we can look at that uh the the uh previous layout was actually done by uh a gentleman named Rick Harrison that design and he has a very unique design if you look at how the trails are laid out and how the roads are kind of curval linear uh it's a very traditional or kind of unique Rick Harrison design we can uh I we've talked briefly with our engineer about that we could probably put more uh curvation to the the roads um I don't know that we can make that look exactly like territorial Trail just because of be honest if it stayed like this I I'd be okay with it it just seems like I think there could be some flexibility though to try to meet that I don't okay well maybe if you move the road down gives you the opportunity to bend the road a little bit I don't I don't have a strong feeling about it either any other comments it's done this way cuz it's cheaper do it this way well we'll take into consideration what the so so I mean I don't I don't have anything else well think you got what you hear from us yeah I appreciate your time thank you you y thank you item o beat this guy up somewh okay item o approval of ordinance 20249 amending city code 1 1.14 regarding driveway ail so um that looks good well thank you can stay there uh so this has been discussed previously by the city council if if there's a desire to amend the code regarding driveway aprons as well as the minimum garage size and the direction keep garages the same and uh look at driveway April uh the plan commission has discusses extensively their recommendation was to amend the code to require a 4ft depth of concrete apron connecting the driveway and the garage so I say it was a mixed boat so it was there was a healthy discussion and you had a switch right at the end there so what and what the solution here is why would you not just fill it with sand or gravel because they don't because that doesn't move oh it doesn't oh you're talking about compaction compaction yeah but I mean no matter what we do with compaction even if we change materials and say sand cuz yeah sand isn't pack um you still got to prove I mean some you still got to be there to inspected and that's the problem right yeah so the just to for anyone that might be watching this so the issue is is that when the foundation for the home is dug out it's a bigger hole that's dug out than what the actual Foundation is um the problem is is that you know now that's not natural soil um so the The Fill that's brought in compacts over time and then so the driveways cave in it's a little bit fluffy when they go to throw it against the block or foundation and it settled over time yeah so the the correct fix to this would be to compact that fill appropriately but we have no way of of enforcing that or being on site when that uh compaction happens MH so my big thing with this is and and it sound like we might have had this answer last time but this is not a 100% fix this isn't a solution though but to me this is a 70% fix and tar is a 0% fix that's my hanging up with it and if the cost is the same I just don't I'm I'm hung up on why we wouldn't do this give me a reason we wouldn't do this is it just allowing people to run pavement right to fixing the problem that's the reason it is 70% of the time it'll go away and I threw that number out there just based on I just feel like the replacing concrete's costlier than you're add cost for sure right no I don't know that you are and that's that's my point what I heard is you're not adding cost to it because you still got labor out there for either one yeah you sure do and the concrete if the concrete is you know what are you talking about here how many yards compared to the pavement I I don't know that everything I've heard is this is a wash cost wise we just had I can't believe it you should ask Tom not here well I talked to a builder about this today yeah and the solution is to compact the soil okay yeah we don't and that's what they're supposed to that's a that's that's not a solution Marty you got another job so so I've owned several houses every one of them had the asphalt run right up to the the G Doge slab every one of them sunk and I ended up having to put in a concrete apron and then it never happened again I've got a concrete apron and it's Hollow because they fixed the compaction issue when they did the concrete that well that could be but you know I I don't really believe that the Builder the difference in material cost here if they're they're pouring concrete for the garage they pour it out the other four feet or whatever we're requiring here then the difference really is the the cost of the material and I don't believe it's enough that the Builder is really going to say oh yeah and your $550,000 house now cost 552 th000 because we had it's not happening they they sell to the market they're not you know there's a relationship between their cost and what they get but it's and it's not this I mean if it adds 5,000 to the cost of house it's really immaterial in a $550,000 yeah and it's not you know I think there's maybe there's a a couple hundred doll difference in the material cost or a little bit more because they have to form it up and and do a little more hand workk than they do with the with the asphalt but I I I'm with Dennis I don't think it you know I don't think it fix fixes it 100% but it's a better solution than what we require today and I I know that's how I'm going to vote you're replace you're replace well I I don't care how we go on it I mean it the extra cost isn't really it's not it's immaterial really in my opinion what's what your issue then just that it doesn't fix the problem well it doesn't but it mostly fixes it I can tell you it saved me a lot of money I've had it butt right up to the garage and it hasn't moved in 37 years so I mean that's my place but yeah and they build quite quite a bit quicker now they don't care you slap it in and get get her closed so mine was built by the owner Builders yeah just get it and get it done like thinking like 20 years ago when say for instance Tom was building his homes like is that still an issue that they had when they butted right up I mean it's the quality of the work but we can't dictate it and I just have a problem saying like yeah it's a 70% solution just make it happen but at the end of the day it's like we didn't do anything to fix it just bought ourselves more time until they have to fix it again again so I will I will I will make I just want to make one comment so to fix concrete if if the apron um fails and it does dip you can mud jacket which is significantly cheaper than putting in a new concrete apron um and if you're going to do an asphalt change like I say it sinks and you're going to have to put asphalt over it you're going to have to take the whole asphalt up and reput the asphalt down so it's still cheaper than that to mudjack the the apron in front of it I just I look at it as no there's no bad that comes out of this that's why I'm confused by yeah it doesn't fix little 10-year-old kid is going to like that piece of con concrete there that's for sure yeah well I made a motion that you approve the a I'll second it I make get out of here soon but but it doesn't fix the problem thank you have to go my out a beer I guess who seconded it any discussion what's all right so uh all if you ever say I I I I'll oppose say no no all right three to one and if there are no other objections K adjourned I guarantee him it wouldn't be until 11: those first Hallelujah four it great night everybody you guys were smoking through I loved it I'm going to start putting these things e e