Right. We're called to order the Tuesday, June 24th regular meeting of the city date city council. Stand for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I need a motion and a second for the agenda. Need a second. I'll second. Okay. Changes. Yep. One item, Mr. Mayor. Um, we need to add Oh, there's another quite yet. There is one item. We'd like to add the personnel policy back from the last council meeting that we had tabled. It got missed when we were making the agenda. Um, it needs to be added as item K. Please and thank you. Personal policy update which was on the last council meeting. No changes are being presented at this time. We do have legal counsel here. So, we'd like to have discussions on those if we have any questions on those from last council meeting which I do have some of them written down. And then move that budget discussion item to item L. Okay. Oh, okay. Sorry. Sorry if I missed timelines and vacations and discussions. You went L instead of K. Um, so personal policy will be before the continued budget discussion. Okay. So that personal policy will be item K and then item L will be the continued budget discussion. Also a note for the general public if you did not receive the updated agenda. Item C was swapped out on this agenda. It's just a note. Um, previously was the approval of the final plan for DCM farms. That is now a pay application for um well plant to magne construction. DCM farms requested to be removed off the agenda. Want to make sure that was noted. That's it. Thank you. They'll be on the next agenda. Yes. Will it be on consent? Why was that on consent? All of our final plats have been on consent. Okay. Any changes? Any other needed discussion? All right. All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed say no. Five to zero. Consent. I need a motion and a second. Motion. Need a second. And I was just checking my notes. Okay. discussion. I have a question, but I can start. Is that all right? All right. Um, it's for our chief, um, Gary. The extrication training. You've got a couple of different, um, items on here. There's the extrication training saw blades, which came out of the fire department's budget um, on page 42. Should that also come out of that contingency fund instead of being can we we that should not come out of the 42260 it should come out of the 4999. Yes, I noticed that tonight that uh that does need to go to the other fund because that's been offset by um tuition of other students. Right. So then it's not charged directly to the department. Correct. Okay. So we need to make that adjustment. We will make that adjustment. Thank you. You're good. Yeah, that's all I got. Um I had two questions, I guess. On page 26, we had um two purchases for PD uniforms for new employees from Aspen Mills. And both were exactly the same amount. Were these two different guys or is that a duplicate charge somehow? Nope. Two different people. Two different people. Correct. Got exactly the same stuff. Correct. Amazing. All right. Cool. We we have uniform um standards that we have at Aspen Mills. So they go in, they get all the same equipment that um we have put on the list there. Yeah. Good. I I just it just stood out to me because it was an identical amount. Yep. Usually doesn't work out that way. Um and then on page 36, I do not know whose charge this was, but maybe I can figure it out. Um, it was for the Oh, this was a credit card. That's why I can't tell. Um, Digium Mayones for $711. I just curious what that is. It's just our uh telephone. So, it's just Digim is the company that we use. So, it is a monthly charge. Essentially, we lease our telephones that are our desk phones from the cuz they're voiceover. They're voiceover IP phones. We essentially lease them. Okay. And that's a monthly charge. It might be a bon. I'll have to look at that one. But okay, it's up. I just didn't remember seeing it before, but that doesn't mean I it wasn't there. So, okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Anybody else? Okay. Uh we got a motion and second. All those in favor say I. I. Those oppos say no. Consent carries 5 to zero. Open forum. Is anybody here for open forum? Open forum limited to three months. Three months. Three minutes for non-aggenda items. State your name and address. No council action will be taken. Items will be referred back to staff. Okay. Marcia Grover 11320 from Brook Lane, Dayton, Minnesota. Um, I do have a question. DCM has started moving all their stuff around and we have semis coming in with equipment at like 6:30 in the morning, squealing their brakes as they stop to make the corner onto 113th and we have to listen to that at 6:30 in the morning. So, I'm wondering what the rules and regulations are for them. Also um regarding the Opadam Aadan company building couple weeks ago in the Star Tribune there was a big article about them and they are primarily a data center and they use tremendous amounts of of utilities water and electricity primarily and um I guess if they they have many facilities around the state according to this article and also I would really be against our city financing any of the utilities for any of these companies that come in, these data centers, telephone companies, whatever you have that use tremendous amounts of energy. I would really really be against financing any kind of utilities for them. Thank you. Thank you. So, what do you think about the timing for the construction? Is there a time they can start and a time they can stop? They have to stop 7:00 7 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Doesn't mean that the trucks can't roll in, but they just can't physically start. Can we do something about them using their air brakes and making that squealing noise at 6:30 in the morning? I'm going to look to the police chief. No, because you don't live on the corner of 113. It's then coming from either direction on turn book. Weird. It's such a small It's such a small intersection that they really have to slow down and practically stop. Go ahead. And so they don't know they don't realize it until they get there and they think, "Oh my god, I got to stop and feel the air." Mr. Mayor, members of the council, as far as the roads are concerned, they're they're able to travel the roads. As far as the air brakes, um we would have to have a certified noise um detection system um there to determine if they're over the legal limit or not. Anybody else are open for them? Anybody online? Oh, yeah. I'd like to sit here and for my half an hour. Uh Obviously, nobody goes down 121 in your neighborhood, but you can't go any place where we live anymore. Um, Lee Hawquist, by the way, 11471 from Brook Lane Plane. Uh, and I got a whole bunch of complaints, but it's not going to do any good. So, um, biggest one I think Thursday at 7:20 in the morning, my house is shaking. My coffee's jiggling in the cup. My dishes, every dish in my shelves and cupboards is shaken because they're the tractors are there and they're not even as close as they're going to be to my house. And I know it doesn't bother you if you don't live in the neighborhood, but it's getting to be annoying. It's for the most part, they've been good. Dean's Tom has been great about routing stuff where it was, but sometimes that noise is going to be unbearable, and it's it's a sensitive issue to me. Um, what else do I want to complain about? Drainage. You haven't fixed that, of course. Um, you know, I I just, you know, I remember when they built Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, when there was nothing north of 69th but potato fields and and I feel like you guys are doing the same thing. You know, I didn't realize drove around today trying to find some new routes home cuz you can't come out Fernbrook anymore and there's like no way. It's it's like a went down to French Lake today. It's it's over half an hour to get down to French Lake, you know, fish lake rather. It's just incredible. I mean, and all kinds of signs up there saying we can't and you know, I know I'm taking your time and I know it's not going to have an effect, but it's just really irritating. Um, you know, I just you guys make a ton of money off it and it's going to cost us money and I'm upset about that. So, anyway, that's all I got before I get really angry. So, you all have a good day. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? Thank you. Keith Grover 113th in Fernbrook. Um I explain the the issue with the the brakes I think a little more clearly um that Marsha was talking about. It's not so much the brakes on the trucks. The big trucks are noisy. We know that, right? But um we don't have an ordinance that deals with Jake brakes. And those things are like 10 times louder than a vehicle going by in the road because they're using the exhaust system and the the compression of the diesel engine to actually slow the truck down rather than using the air brakes on their on their truck. I I understand why they do that because it saves on brakes. I understand trucks and how they work, but it literally rattles the windows in the house just from the Jake break on the trucks. I know there are some communities around that have ordinances against no Jakebreak usage. And I think with as much truck traffic as we're having in the city, we may be at that point where we consider doing something like that because it's just incredibly loud. It sounds like somebody's shooting off M80s as they're trying to slow those big trucks down. Um, the other issue, and I I hate to keep beating up the intersections there, but you know, I'm out of the loop, so I don't know everything that you guys know, but um, no one has said anything to those of us that live in the area about a change on 113th, other than the DCM plans to run it across the field and potentially put a roundabout at 114th, but Most people that I talk to don't seem to think that that's going to help the situation with the traffic in front of us, but um the the intersection with Elm Creek Road and Rush Creek Parkway um I know there's been some discussion there um at the county level and again I don't know how far uh the whole discussion goes of maybe putting at least on a temporary basis putting stop signs at that intersection with the plan at some future date to uh to fund some way of putting a roundabout at Rush Creek Parkway to slow the traffic down and at least make that intersection safe to use. Um it's just dangerous as heck to go in and out of there and it gets worse every day. Although this week they've blocked the traffic off going south. So now we get the traffic all on Rush Creek Parkway and M Creek Road. I mean they're coming flying through there from both directions. I I was out in the front yard this afternoon later in the afternoon when the rush hour starts picking up and going, "What the heck are all these cars coming from?" Because I know they have front Brook Lane closed. So I went out and stood in the road and I watched these steady stream of cars coming across through the neighborhood uh you know the Rush Creek you know and the in the development over there and also coming from the east down Elm Creek Road which both have signs on that says local traffic only but that those are being used as cutoff and they're and they're going to get worse because when people figure it out they tell two friends and they tell two friends and oh yeah you can go around it by going this way. So, we're going to have heavy traffic on the parkway going right by the kids playground in the new development back there and coming through the park where we have bike trails and horse trails and kids riding their bikes on the road on Elm Creek Road and rollerblading on Elm Creek Road. I'm not sure what the solution is to all of that, but um it just comes back to the the intersections. you know, Brush Creek Parkway probably would be well very well suited for a roundabout at the Elm Creek Road and Fernbrook uh situation and 117th would be too. But then halfway between those two, you've got the dilemma of what do you do with, you know, with the potential road coming out 114th and 113th meeting up with a and stuffing a roundabout in an area there there that there really isn't room for either. So I don't know. My whole thought is, and this is what I brought up before, maybe 113th should just be closed and the traffic should get routed and put a roundabout at 117th and a roundabout at Rush Creek Parkway and route the traffic to those improved intersections rather than try to find money to put three of them in a, you know, quarter of a mile or a half a mile stretch. It just seem I don't think you're going to get the county to do that. And I don't think anybody here's got a bunny tree in their backyard. So I wish, you know, exactly. So I think I mean, you know, shooting for two of those might be doable. Three of them is probably pie in the sky. And even having three of there, I don't think it it solves our problem. You still have the the heavy traffic on 117th, that's going to continue to get worse because they're building more down there all the time. If we do commercial down there, you know, people are going to be cutting across there to get to that commercial over by French Lake. So that's just a thought process. on this kind of what's going on in my mind. So, thanks for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Any more? Anybody online? If you wanted to speak in open forum, if you can use the raise your hand function. I'm not seeing. All right. We will be on to staff consult and council update. Good evening, Mayor Council. I have two updates for you tonight. First one is related to our housing first case that we haven't heard about in a little while. We did get an email this week um that maybe Amy can expand on more because it's again more legal language that I have want to understand half of it, but essentially um the judge that was hearing our case um gave us a motion for summary judgement in our favor and denied Housing First summary judgement. Um so Housing First now has a 60-day timeline to appeal or the case will be completed. Um I am knocking on wood that the case is completed because it's been going on for four years. So I am hopeful that it is done. What is their what are they thinking about for 60 days? Um they are looking for and I'll look at Amy because again I don't know all the legal jargon declaratory and injunctive relief is from what I understand but I don't know what that all means in in legal language. So uh good evening mayor members of the council. um that is what they were um asking for. So the way that this went through and obviously I'm not the litigation council so um I don't have a lot of expertise on the the ins and outs of all the details but the after the first round up to the court of appeals and then to the Minnesota Supreme Court. the basically every the only thing that was left after all of those decisions were made was they still had this claim that they wanted um injunctive relief like a like a restraining order. Um but the the the ruling that the city got yesterday um that was favorable to the city um basically said that housing first because everything else was gone has already been disposed of. there's nothing left to you have to have an underlying claim to get the injunctive relief on top of it basically. So, um without that underlying claim because all of those were already resolved, the case just fails at that point. Yeah. But they'll sit on it for 60 days and Right. time anyway. Well, what they can do is because right now it's we're waiting for the judgment to be uh docketed. As of yesterday, that hadn't happened yet. So, that 60-day clock isn't, as Mont D. Mills said, isn't ticking yet. Um but from the from that day when the 60 days starts, um the housing first will have that time to make a decision about whether they want to appeal this decision too, um back to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. So that's what we're waiting for, what we would be waiting for at this point. Thank you. So that's good news. Um second good news and I want to get an update to everybody um that's either watching this later on or now in the U council chambers is that they are installing stop signs at Fernbrook and Rush Creek Parkway. We have confirmation from that from the county. I got an email today. Um that will be done. We have pushed to have it done at the same time Fernbrook is being closed and they have confirmed that they will be doing that. So, a message board will be added this Thursday um for electronic messaging on that to let them know that there will be a change in that um stop signs being added as in a traffic change at that intersection. Those are going to be installed by July 10th. So, we have a confirmed date from the county. July 10th will be the date that stop signs will be added to Fernbrook and Rush Creek Parkway. Those are my updates for you tonight. Thank you. Amy, um I just wanted to update legislation change for uh your remote attendance. So, you no longer have to be in a public space. Um we would still post that you would be remote and um an approximate location, but you don't have to be publicly accessible. And um there's no longer a limit on how many remote meetings you can do within the year. So, if I was sick, I could still call in from home. You could. Yes. Yep. Um, and I might have to look at that. I think we still have to post it within the 3 days. That's right. Okay. Um, so we would have to know ahead of time. So I have to know I was going to be sick or plan to just do the meeting remote kind of thing, but yeah. Um, so no, not a last minute change, but um, for a known cause then Okay. So like if you had surgery or something and Yep. that would be okay. Yep. But food poisoning, no, right? Um, you can always join. You just won't be able to vote that if that was the case. Okay. Um, and then just uh oversight uh the park commission appointment will actually be on the next agenda. Um, I was late with um getting applications for those. So, we're just giving them additional time to get more applications and then the same process will be on the next agenda for that. So, it's not that we didn't have any, it's just they weren't ready at the same time. And that's all I have for updates. Um, I only have one update tonight. Um, Elizabeth had an event today. Uh, first time she's done it, a play place in the park at Riversbend Park. Um, she's partnered with Henipin County Library. Um, they brought their truck out there. Um, she had 65 people participate today, so it was a good turnout. Chief, no. cheat. No, Jason. Amy. Well, Zach and Amy took mine, so I got nothing. Um, I have a question about the lighting ordinance that was uh it hasn't come to council yet. It was at planning commission got tabled. Is that on when's that where is that in the process? Uh basically we'll have a summary of the conversation that we had for the planning commission meeting in May in July. Uh touching up on some of the comments that they had. Um hopefully we can get a motion for recommendation at that meeting and then you'll see that um at your second meeting in July. Okay, cool. Thank you. I was just curious where that was in the process. Anything else? That's it. Um, I wanted to thank the chief, police chief and the police department for their uh diligence during the uh investigation of the Hoffman shootings. Appreciate that. Um, where are we at with the rightway on Southd Parkway? Is that still up in the air? Oh, um, we did get an update today from um I'm going to say Elafon, who's the other developer on the other property. he is working on our behalf and seems to have gotten through to um Mr. Streer that to move forward with it. So it sounds like it's all positive from our understanding is that we um used our resources to try to push a little more. So it sounds like that has gone well and we are working with them. We just met with him today at 3:30 4:00 something like that. So we just got that update as of as in it's it's in positive as in he looks like he's going to be able to give us the rightway as part of the plat. Okay, we should be back at square one and not negative negative negative square. So that's all I got. Thank you. Um I had a resident contact me and this is in something else. Go ahead. No, but um this is in in light of the of the shooting situation that occurred you know a week ago and uh and I thought it was a interesting point that u because of the way that uh crime transpired. His question was why why on in Dayton are our um public safety vehicles police and fire not uniformly marked? And I said, "Well, we have some different vintages of vehicles, but we have also have unmarked vehicles and then some vehicles that are, you know, marked from the time that they were purchased or painted that way and and uh not uniform." And you know, I guess the I think the point is valid in that, you know, somebody comes to your house or somebody pulls you over, you want to be u have some level of comfort that yes, this is the Dayton police or this is the Dayton Fire Department that just pulled up to my place and how the vehicle is having uniform marking on the vehicle, I think, is, you know, is the right answer to that. And so I guess my question is, have we standardized on the new vehicles we're purchasing? And uh you know if not shouldn't we be? Mr. Mayor, members of the council, we for the most part have standardized our um outfitted vehicles to um the same graphics. We do have ghost graphics on some vehicles. Um for both traffic reasons and visibility reasons. Um, so like at night you might see ghost graphics just because you're going into business areas looking for thieves or um suspects and anything else. So a lot of our night vehicles are do have the ghost graphics. Um, and as it was put in the news, if you ever feel unsafe and you don't feel safe that it's not a police officer, call 911, talk to the dispatch. They'll be able to confirm um whether it's a police officer or not. So, but our most vehicles that we are going with are going to be a standardized um outlook. Okay. And the do we have cars that are completely unmarked or do we have just the ghost graphics? Uh most our admin vehicles are completely unmarked and our investigator units are unmarked completely unmarked cars. Okay. And is there a reason why admin vehicles are not marked? Uh admin vehicles for the most part are traveling mostly to meetings. um not responding to calls for service. Um mostly you're going to have a um marked unit show up at your house unless the marked units are tied up and the admin vehicles have to take the calls for them. Yeah. And I think that was his part of his point was that you know if they're not uniformly marked then raises a question and some concern. Obviously people are kind of anxious about how this whole thing came together. Yep. Completely understandable. But, uh, number one thing to do is if you don't feel safe, um, that you're being pulled over is to call 911 and confirm through, um, the dispatchers that the police officer is, the true police officer. All right. Thank you. That's what happened. I did have a resident um apparently Maple Grove water stopped at some point and she was very livid that she couldn't get a hold of anybody for 2 and 1/2 hours. Um okay, go ahead. So this was uh Friday uh after hours. Um well it was Friday at like 2. It was uh the water was shut off at 12:30. Um it was back on by around about 2:30. Um so uh what happened uh developer had run over a curb stop. Um we had to get it fixed immediately. Um so we got the uh the contractor was there. He went out and started making a repair to get it done as quickly as possible. Normally in these situations it's very difficult to get people out. I can send them around to do the door knocking because it taken them longer than to make the repair. Yeah. Um I did answer a number of calls myself. Um and I did get a hold of Maple Grove to tell you they were getting calls as well and I told them what was going on. I spoke with uh Paul the police chief and let him know what it was going on and give him a timeline of what might be happening. Um I did speak with uh residents in the neighborhood. Um, and I did talk with one of the the residents who was running the Facebook page and she put a blast out on that Facebook page. Um, there's not too much more that I can do with that. Um, even if we put something out on the website, you know, you can't guarantee that everybody's going to see that. So, it's just one of those unfortunate emergency situations. The water was down for, you know, maximum of 3 hours. Yeah, that's Do you know where this was? Was it in Brain Trails? Say again. Was it in Braburn Trails or where was that? It was Territorial Trails and Territorial Commons. Okay. Wonder if that's a Is that a loop system there, Jason? There's two feeds from Maple Grove. One west of I 94 and the other one in the middle of Sundance Woods development. That would have been fed from both sides with that section isolated. That's why I'm confused. Okay. Yeah. I don't think it the issue was the water being down. I think her issue was she couldn't get a hold of anybody. Yeah. So, I mean I a number of people did get a hold of me. So, okay. And I did hear from people who had sent in a contact form. If they'd gone down one, scrolled down one more, they could have got my contact number directly there. All right. Can we circle back really quick? Sorry. To what David had said about the markings on the vehicles. Yeah. Um, our fire department, we only have one vehicle, correct, chief, that's not marked. Correct. That is correct. Have we looked at getting graphics on that vehicle since it does respond to calls? We've uh not graphicked it for budgetary reasons. Okay. Is this something we could maybe look into again, even if it's simple graphics? I I think that, you know, in light of everything that's happened, those should be marked. Correct. And that's what I'm saying is like we don't allow our firefighters to respond right from their homes for that reason. So that way you do indeed know that someone's getting off of a rig that's clearly marked. And so I would think that that would be one of those instances where it would make sense for us to have some sort of Dayton fire graphic on that vehicle. So that way if it's the first to respond to a call, we know for sure that that is Dayton and Fire showing up at your door cuz you know you could be wearing the clothes we have on like you're not always in your uniform that you're wearing now. You might be, but I'm just saying the vehicle itself. So yeah, we just something we can look at to see came in as we could budgetary issues that we had to cut some things and that was the first thing that was cut is the easiest one is do we need graphics? No, we don't need graphics. Okay, sounds good. Just curious, how much are graphics for a vehicle? I have no idea what that number is. It depends. 5,000. Yeah. Okay. Something like that. Yeah. It doesn't have to be anything huge, but even something just on the door. Like it doesn't have to say like I think Chief 2's vehicle says date and chief. It could just say date and fire or have the emblem on the hood. Just something to identify it. Sure. Yeah, we could look at something. That's fine. I was just curious. I didn't know the number. I I would be willing to talk about like I said pretty even just basic graphics is like $5,000. If you get more advanced ones now you're talking 10 to 12 to 13 grand pretty quickly. So yeah, if we could just look into it, it would be nice to have a number to look at because again it responds directly to Yeah. incidents. So I'd like to know who's coming to my house personally. Anything else? Oh, I did have a a resident reach out to me. I think it's my turn. Did I jump you? No. No. Okay. A resident reached out about the was it wellhouse 5? Is that what we call it? The And asking if there was going to be any additional screening of the um backup generator cuz it's a little bit of an eyes sore when you're driving down the beautiful boulevard and there's always beautiful trees. And then here's that big old I think there is some landscaping that's going around there. Okay. I'd have to double check that. I'm not sure if it's been installed yet. I think it probably has, but it's very young at the moment, so it's got to fill out. So, I did drive by and I was like, it looks like some trees were planted along the edge. I was just wondering if it was complete. Um, yeah, I think that's where it's at. I think it those u u shrubs or whatever, ornamental trees, whatever they are there, we'll fill out and and mask it somewhere. Okay. Because it was in a residential area, we did put some effort into, you know, making it look like it's something, not just a brick building stuck in the middle of nowhere. A big gray box. Exactly. I appreciate that, Marty. Thank you. You good? Yeah, I'm good. Thank you. All right. On to item E. [Applause] Mr. Mayor, members of the council, uh tonight you're asked to consider a concept plan for an industrial development proposed at the corner of West French Lake Road and 121st Avenue. Um the site was proposed for a the principal use would be considered a contractor's operation as in the zoning ordinance. Um the overall site here is 8.43 acres and is currently an outlaw of Dayton Field 4th edition. Uh if you recall maybe last year or the year before, there was an approved project for this site um in connection with the adjacent parcel there. Um currently this site's been left as an outlot and was never final platted for um development and uh as such now a new um proposal is coming to you for review. Uh the propertyy's guided industrial and currently zoned I1 light industrial. It's in the current staging area um in the comp plan. Um here's a general overview. I'll have a bigger um picture of this on the next slide. Um but the overall development is uh construction of a 26,000 ft uh building split between 18,000 ft² of warehouse shop area um and then the remainder being office space. Um the single access proposed on 121st Avenue aligns with the invent building that is directly across or I believe it's been often referred to as the capital partner site. Um employee parking and customer parking is proposed to be in front of the building outside of the fenced in area that you saw in your packet which was outlined in this red here. Um essentially the uh applicants are proposing um from the back corner here on this side of the building all the way around up to the front as a uh screening fence for outdoor storage as well as security fence for some of the um equipment and vehicles that will be stored on site uh for the business itself. Uh associated with this would be the uh accessory use outdoor storage area. the total area, and this is a conceptual design, so you're not going to see the identified um drive aisles within this area, which would otherwise be netted out of that understood outdoor storage area, is proposed to be over 45,000 square ft. Um all of which except for roughly 10,000 square ft is currently proposed as asphalt. Um the remaining area is proposed in this back corner um as class 2 gravel. The applicant uh has stated that uh the majority reason for the proposed gravel is related to large track equipment that could uh potentially cause continuous damage to any asphalt or um potentially concrete um within that area. And here's just a larger photo of the site. The wetlands currently uh are bounded by this parking area. Um, as noted in the plan review letter, there are some uh touch-ups that will be required as part of the square footage that is included in the buffer area of the wetland. Um, and then there is, I believe, maybe an existing I can't remember if this is an existing storm water pond um on the site as well. Through our review of the zoning ordinance for the I1 industrial, uh, architectural designs are generally consistent with the standards in the zoning district. No concerns there. Um there was a little discussion related to um accenting. Um I don't think there was any clear direction from the planning commission related to what needs to be changed. I think overall uh the planning commission were in consensus that this was aligned with the I1 district standards. Here be the backside of those buildings as well. Um kind of aside directly north of that gravel area proposed is the uh what we would consider a staging area or a loading area for these um docks. Here's a view of the site generally looking south through the review of the um I1 standard requirements and uh the proposed site layout. Uh everything is in compliance with the setbacks uh related to the building as well as parking. Um no concerns there. One of the things that was undefined that I couldn't provide was uh the uh overall height of the building was not um was not clear in the plans that were provided. That would be uh something that they would have to um submit with their architectural elevations um just so we can verify that the setbacks meet the height standards. Uh in regards to maximum impervious surface building footprint coverage, there's no concerns there. Um as I mentioned about the height, it is undefined. Um anything above 50 ft requires a cup. Just from the general look of the building itself, I don't see that being a concern. Um my guess is that uh typical building that we've seen like this would have a clear view height of maybe 32 feet. uh regarding some considerations that were uh identified uh during this review. Um is uh a lot of it is related to the outdoor storage. Um just general standards for the outdoor storage. A conditional use permit is required. So that would be something that would be reviewed as part of the preliminary plat package. Um just kind of as a um one application package in total. There is landscaping requirements on top of what would be required for the building design that would be uh reviewed as well um to help with that additional screening as part of the the fence plan that they have provided. Um the planning commission's majority discussion focused on the uh overall layout of the outdoor storage area uh and that there is roughly 9 to 10,000 square ft currently that uh is proposed to be gravel. Um just a note in the I1 district outdoor storage is limited to uh paved surface such as buminous asphalt or uh concrete. Um the applicants have uh stated that they do propose to use class 2 which um is from my understanding it's uh easier to mitigate dust control or easier to deal with dust control on class 2 than class 5. Um I will just note too the the code doesn't offer flexibility to the standard unless through a PUD or a variance. Uh so that was the kind of the conversation that we had at the planning commission meeting. Overall the planning commission was in general they had they were okay with the uh proposed area or at least a portion of the area being um gravel. I didn't get any guidance on how we wanted to address that um specifically uh whether that be a code amendment to offer flexibility uh aside from allowing a variance in a new development or uh going through the planned unit development and identifying a a public benefit for a development like this. Um I think the overall consensus was to have staff work with the the developer to try and minimize that as much as possible. Um, so that would be something that we would do throughout the preliminary plat or that information has been passed on to the developer to consider. I'm surprised we haven't run into this before given, you know, because I know a lot of this equipment will rip up that payment. I mean, we've got, you know, quite a few manufacturers or at least, you know, companies that have this equipment on their property that does seem odd that it hasn't come up. I have no problem with it. Um, I think we should allow where they feel it's necessary. We should allow especially like a class two. But what do we need to update the code then? If that's something that the council wants to, I guess, entertain for new development proposals. My recommendation would be to address it in the code rather than trying to justify a variance in this regard. Um, especially with the new development. Um, so that would that would be my recommendation if that were the case. Uh, I will say that that language was I believe was adopted in the middle of 2022. There was a lot of industrial district uh updates that occurred and that was one of those things that was included in there. Um, and then that discussion also wound up being the 20% maximum area for the outdoor storage area or 2 acres whichever is uh less type of thing. I think the overall intent of that was to if a 30 acre property was looking to have outdoor storage, there wasn't going to be six acres of outdoor storage out there. Um, so that would that would be my recommendation and we can certainly look into that. Would it be possible to get that done in time for this project? Yes, I would say that uh at the very least we would run that concurrently and probably uh review that section prior to a preliminary plat if it's the same meeting. Okay. Um that would be the I guess the last resort. Any advantages over uh crush the tumas? That was discussed I think a little bit at the planning commission meeting too. I don't know if there's any specifics. My I I don't really I was looking through the minutes of the discussions on why the requirement for paved material was necessary in all I1 properties. I don't know if there was a reason beyond aesthetics. It's industrial. I'm guessing that's what it was. And there was a there was some of you that were on the city council at that time and I'm not going to rely on you to recollect that by any means, but not that. Well, I would I would rather see us deal with it in the ordinance than Yeah. try to justify a variance. It seems like it's supposed to be a high bar and I don't know how how you get there with with this on a variance, but I I do think there's, you know, legitimate um need for this kind of thing. You don't want to require pavement knowing that it's not going to hold up anyway. But I think having it in the or ordinance at least that way we've got opportunity to beat it up a little more and and talk about, you know, is it class 2, is it class 5, is it trust granted, is it, you know, what sure what does make sense to us and and and to the users. Of course, it needs to ultimately be usable by the the property owner. So I would rather see us do it that way. Sure. And I think the one benefit that the way that the code is currently written too is that there might be a little bit of language that would be needed. But I think uh addressing the surfacing materials would probably be something we would pick up as part of the conditional use permit resolution um being a condition of approval, maybe limiting or identifying specific areas based on a site plan. So there are ways that can be that they can um at least try and work with the city and mitigate uh any types of potential nuisances that would come from gravel outdoor storage. Um so that will be that will be something that we'll look into and uh likely bring that back yet this summer to the planning commission so we can be ahead of the a potential preliminary plat application for this. Um the other thing is still uh the other consideration that I wanted to note is still related to the outdoor storage area. The code does not allow outdoor storage when uh the property or when it abuts a property that is guided for residential. Um I will say that we did reach out while we were reviewing this application. So I'll go back to the site plan here for a second. This property here uh further to the west is directly adjacent to the mobile home park or the manufactured home park. Um and in the 2040 comp plan is actually guided for an expansion of that manufactured home park. Um since that comp plan has been uh adopted, the previous owners of the manufactured home park sold that park to a new group and retained this property. and uh Zach, John, and I actually met with the property owner of the adjacent parcel to this site uh and they said while they had they had original intentions to expand, there is no plan moving forward for an expansion of the manufactured home park um based on that conversation and Zach and John can clarify, but uh it seems like they would be open to other alternatives if someone was willing to develop the site in a different manner. So that's just something to consider I guess related to this to this project. So it's guided currently as manufactured home park. It is okay. Yeah, we saw that some versions of that expansion. Yeah, we did. I didn't realize we had changed that. Yeah. Okay. But there is being what that as it may it's guided for that mobile mobile home park usage today. And I think that's the lens we need to use in reviewing this. But having said that, I think there is good opportunity for buffering. And so the way that this site is is laid out that that shouldn't be that big of a concern. It's not to me anyway. And we were thinking about that too at a staff level and there is a large wetland that is on the south west side of this property that takes up a lot of that existing or that um vacant mobile home property. Um and this site is significantly elevated compared to that uh that adjacent parcel as well. Um so just the natural just the natural layout of the two properties already uh work well as a buffer and there are again as I mentioned before there is uh screening requirements that are required for the outdoor storage areas. So um certainly there are ways to mitigate that. Um, and things might change with that property as we look into the the updated comp plan review. Uh, just to summarize here the cons other considerations is related to the parking. Office spaces do require one space per 200 square feet. Uh, of floor split floor space, excuse me. uh requiring a minimum 40 for this site and the shop does require one space per 2,000 uh square ft. The stall dimensions do not currently meet the code standard of uh 10x 20. Um though the spaces that are on the outside uh curb um can be are allowed to be 18 ft as there is sufficient room for an overhang. So uh just a minor detail there. Uh through my review I believe that the parking calculations are uh satisfactory for the use that is going to be here. 77 parking spaces is a a significant number that they are um having outside of that fenced in area. We didn't receive a a landscape plan or anything like that uh as this is a concept. So it wouldn't be something that would be anticipated but the expectation is that uh the landscaping will be uh compliant with the zoning ordinance section that guides it as well as the added uh landscape for the outdoor storage area. Um and then I also did note earlier the wetland buffer needs to be uh addressed a little bit as the average width does not meet that 25 minimum. Uh related to this, these would be the uh anticipated future uh applications that you would see with a plan like this. Uh all of these listed uh above can be applied for concurrently and reviewed by the city council concurrently. Um, and likely the way that uh this conversation is done so far, you'll likely see that ordinance amendment occur prior to making a decision on a preliminary plat for this property. That's really all I have. Uh, feel free to ask any questions or uh um and review and the applicants are here tonight to uh uh discuss and clarify any questions that you may have. Uh, all comments are advisory and we are not looking for any action tonight. I don't have anything. Anybody else? I don't have anything. I have a couple of minor things. Um, so well, you already mentioned the wetland buffering has to get expanded and I also understand that this is preliminary, but I didn't love that the fuel tanks are closest to the narrowest wetland buffer. I feel like if anything, the fuel tank should be by the largest buffer. Um, but again, it's preliminary, so maybe those could just get shifted somewhere. just um that's what I would want most buffered from a wetland would be my fuel. Um so, but again, I recognize this is preliminary, so those could change. Um and then you've already mentioned it, but I just want to second like I don't mind outdoor storage by residential as long as it's adequately screened. Um and like the fencing in my mind is going to serve two purposes. there's a security aspect to the fencing for the for the company themselves, but then there's also like the aesthetics. Um, and so I think particularly with the potential that you might have residential neighbors, that puts the onus on making it look pretty basically. Um, and if if they can whether that's with landscaping, you know, shrubs or or the fencing material itself. Um, but as long as we can have some sort of I don't know if guarantee is the right word, but basically some sort of guarantee that it would not be a giant eyesore to their neighbor living next to it. Um, I'm fine with it. So, those are my two minor things. Yeah, we can we can certainly work with the applicant when he's when they're putting together the preliminary plat package to maybe provide some samples of what type of materials they would anticipate to use. The outdoor storage area is expected to be 100% opaque fence. No transparency. You can't see through that. Um I will say that the doesn't mean it's pretty. Correct. Yes, that's true. Um I will say too that the planning commission did discuss the front uh part of the fence as well uh related to that's not necessarily being the outdoor storage area for screening, but because it would be so close to the front of the property. Um I it from my understanding the planning commission would uh like to consider maybe more you could see through it or it's a more decorative style fencing in general. So um I totally get the need for opaque you don't want people to see through but I live near some opaque fencing that is not pretty. So so um there's two parts to that. Um those would be my only comments. Um, and then this maybe topography, but my initial thought was could you just shift everything a little bit and that would automatically give you some additional room next to where the potential neighbors are. Like if the whole thing could get shifted just a tiny bit um to the east, right? Um, but I don't know. I haven't been out there to look at the topography. That might just not be that might be a non-starter. But that was kind of my initial like just shift everything. it automatically gives you a bigger buffer to the neighbors, potential neighbors to the wetland, all those things. So, sure, I can't speak to that personally, but I'm sure that the uh the applicants have their uh reasoning for the way that that it's currently laid out. Um, and the one thing that I will just note about the fuel tanks too in proximity to the wetland that uh asphalt area and uh potentially I'll have to look at the code to see if it is a requirement or not, but uh my understanding is that at least the asphalt area would be curbed. Okay. So, there would be Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Well, I don't I may be the only one here, but I uh um I'm a little bit fuzzy on on what the nature of the business is. I understand it's construction related to e-commerce, uh telecom, fiber, something. So, I wouldn't mind if the applicant would explain a little bit more or describe a little bit more what what kind of business they're in and how they anticipate using this site because I understand also it's a satellite to their primary office. Certainly the applicant can come up name and address. I'm Tim McShane, McShane Development Development Consultant on behalf of Telecom 6975, Fox Box Club Circle, Excelsier, Minnesota, and I have the developer owner of the property here with me as well. We do have the owner and civil engineer in attendance. So, we're going to address some of the things you've brought up. Then we got a couple things we would like to discuss as well. So, first of all, if I may, just thank you for entertaining our proposal this evening. Telkom is very excited about expanding into the Twin Cities and spec specifically into Dayton as their satellite office to serve the Twin Cities area. They're based in um uh Clearwater. That's their initial base. They've got other offices around the Midwest. And in a few minutes, I will have the owner explain to you specifically what it is um that they do. Um, I'd like to just um make a few comments before we uh get into some other details. Uh, time is of the essence. We'd love to start this fall. So, as it relates to um changing the ordinance, if we could do that concurrently, so as we come through in August, assuming we do that, that that could all be done at the at the same time, that would be awesome. Uh, you're asking about clear height. It's 24t clear, so well within uh your guidelines. Just to be clear on that, the class 2 is actually crushed granite rather than uh crushed concrete which even reduces the dust further. So that's why we use that. Um the uh the runoff, I don't know if I heard a comment about that, but the runoff goes to the ponds, not to the wetland. Just want to clarify that as well. Uh the fencing I can assure you will be attractive. We'll work with staff on that. So thank you. We understand. Um and uh Mark has used that in his other businesses as well. So um we'll definitely take care of that as we go through the process. Fencing will be attractive. As far as shifting to the east, our civil engineer, we did give him direction to push this as far to the east as humanly possible. And so with the topography, that is as far as as we can go. So hopefully Yeah, I kind of figured, but I thought I'd throw it out there. Yeah, that that addresses that. Um the the one thing we would like to talk about is uh the city fees this evening and the level of those fees. We've discussed this with staff ahead of time, so this is not a surprise to staff. I don't know if you all are aware of our concern there. We'll talk about that at the end. Um prior to doing that, I'm going to ask Mark, the owner, to come up and tell you a little bit about his business per your request. Thank you, mayor and councel. Appreciate the opportunity here. Thank you. Um, our business is servicing uh communications companies um within your um like a Lumen, a Windstream, and then your independent telos. And then you have this um overbuild companies that are now coming into the metropolitan area. We also service. So we we project manage. We build those systems. Um we also have our own workforce that works there. Um we also use some subcontractors um in the communities or surrounding communities. Um, you know, from a from a small end, um, the equipment that we're using seems to always be a thing people want to know the most. Um, we don't use any large track equipment. Um, you know, like if you guys build your roundabouts you were talking about earlier and we have to come out and for and replace the cables around there for the communications, move them out of the way. A lot of times we'll dig those with a backhoe and then we'll use a smaller dozer to push those shut or we use a what we call a quad um plow track plow. It's it's uh it's just a quad. It's it's not like a big dozer. So, you know, if you if you want to look at it this way, the the largest equipment we have that would be in these facilities um or this facility would be something that you fit like on a backho trailer behind a a larger dump truck. Um it's not going to be, you know, these big um when you look at RDO there, um you got their large equipment. Look at the small equipment in the yard. That's typically what we use. Um we use the directional drills. If you look at RDO, there's, you know, with Vermeier, we use a lot of Vermeier products, so it kind of helps with our business too to we already have a working relationship with them nationally. Um, so it kind of fits hand inand there too. And you know, as you know, they unload their equipment there. If you know, their parking areas does have some class 2 or gravel areas um for unloading, loading, those sort of things. Um the uh we you know some of the machines we're using is just placing a drop you know a foot deep 6 in deep you know from the uh pedestal across the private property to the home for services. And the others are is just plowing the cable you know in the road right away. That's a lot of what we do. Then we also do the fiber optic splicing. Um we have teams that do that in the metro. Um and then we have restoration crews. um that we put out to do the restoration, you know, for the homeowner property businesses. Um we don't intend to at this time. I mean, well, or intend we don't keep a lot of uh disposals of those. They go to a dump from the job site. Um a there is a fair amount of the equipment that never really comes back to the facility, maybe in the winter. Um, and a lot of the stuff that's there is, you know, in a one-tonon truck, F350. We'll have F150s, 350s, and then probably some 550s. Um, and they'll have trailers behind them that smaller equipment sitting on. Uh, the will will we have a lowboy come through occasionally um or one in the working the area? Yeah. But it doesn't mean it's there every day. Um, we're not running semis in and out consistently. Um, it's more, you know, stuff that requires a lesser license, le lesser weight. There's no road noise from these. There's no braking systems that's creating noise for, you know, the surrounding area. Um, so those are the things we kind of we do do. Um, as far as um storage, the building is large um in in our standard. Um, so there'll be a fair amount of indoor storage. Um we do have a couple bays there that we'd be fixing on the equipment. Um but uh primarily the outdoor storage, you know, we're looking at 8ft fence. We plan on doing the appropriate uh working with your teams um aesthetics, you know, planting trees, different things. Uh the fence we we are going to go with an 8ft fence. Um I commonly do that both for the safety. It's a little harder to climb over. The other side is is if that's a screened, not just a chain length open fence. Um it will match the building. Um typically like this one here, kind of the offset would be like maybe a blue or something there that you know with working with your teams, you know, see is appropriate. So you would not have visibility and and a lot of our storage is two pallets high, which is 8 ft. Um, so there's not going to be that visibility behind that fence like you know it's not stacked like inside a warehouse where you're four pallets high. So that that won't exist out there. There are some trucks they asked on the last time um that uh we got like 2 and 1/2 tons of trucks. They're like a smaller single axle dump truck version that uh or it's got a van body on it, but it's it's a single some of them are twin screw, but it's just water tanks um pulling a directional drill on it. So, but if there's any other questions on that, I'd be happy to answer. It's primarily the like cable and fiber that's being put communications. Yeah. That you're doing. Yeah. This is self- serving, but do you do you ever get hired to go around and fix all the knocked over junction boxes? Yeah, we do. Yeah, we do. We straighten them out, right? Um we we uh Yeah, we do a lot of uh maintenance. Um I think last year on maintenance just for Lumen, we did over 40,000 work orders in the metropolitan area. So, we do have some other um yards within the metro um so that we're not running around the whole metro all the time. So, um but this would be for the metro kind of the home base where you know we might do some engineering out of this location as well. Um and then just management and have some teams in there that um are working inside the office that are doing project management from this location um and things like that. So that's that'd be the primary function. So most of your workforce is out in the field doing the actual work. Yeah, I hope. Yeah. What do you anticipate as you know the number of people in the office at this location? Uh you know to start with um we're just finishing off the one the lower level of the um there's going to be in the front part the 200 ft by I think it's 40 ft. That'll be, you know, we'll have a training room in there cuz we do a lot of training, safety training. Um, we we're adamant about, you know, giving a skill set, too. So, we do a lot of training for that also. Um, and we do more of that out at our Clearwater location, you know, in the field up there. Um, training people for a career, right? Cuz we're we're a career-based company. So, we try and, you know, provide that for planning for careers for people. you know, it's it's uh not just a job, it's a career. So, you know, if you're going to do that, you you have to have a facility like this to, you know, bring them in and and teach them about the, you know, how to um be pro, you know, how to operate the equipment and or be safe out there. And safety is a big part of ours. So, we do a lot of safety training, but um did that answer your Yeah, I'm just trying to get my head, you know, sort of the the the all the time staff maybe you're like a dozen people or Oh, um you know, it right now I see 30 40 um in the office that 30-ish range probably right around that 30. Um and uh you know the field people it's it could be uh you know maybe it's 70 people working in the field that you know um but a lot of those people won't report to the office anyways. Are these all new jobs? Yeah. Yeah. Mainly new jobs in the the community. That's why I like Dayton. I I mean I've been working Cork and Dayton, you know, since 1985 doing this and uh you know it's a nice community and and we hope we can be a part of it. So thank you. Y anybody questions? No comments? One more thing we just wanted to address. Um so we would like to talk about u u the fees involved with this project given its size and um relatively speaking they are they're high and we're we'd like you to consider some forbearance here uh to help make this project viable. Um, and I've got the John Rous. He'll introduce himself here, but he's got the history and information to give you some relativity here as to why we even ask you to consider this. Um, hopefully you'll think it's a reasonable request. But, uh, let me turn it over to to John. Well, thank you guys. We're not asking for any gifts or anything out of the normal. We just want to, um, bring a another good client here to Dayton. We bought this land about six, seven years ago. It was 77 acres at the time and I think we're maybe approaching about $50 million in development with Env um the Steel Company, Quick Trip Cayman, um JA Glass. I also want to let you guys know that we we did sell and if you're willing to put up that wetland delineation we sold the 16 acres to a guy named Brian Feder who used to own that mobile home park at the time. John, I can make some copies here for you on here. Otherwise, I can pull up the GIS information if that works just or or just pass it around if you'd like. Whatever um works best. I'm sorry. I thought we had one of those. I still got a fax machine. I'll pull this up. Yeah. Sorry. But what I I guess what I wanted to share is when we sold that land to Brian Fitterer, it was guided for industrial at the time. So this might have been 6 years ago. He was thinking about expanding the mobile home park, but due to the wetland delineation, Chellog Environmental went out and did a proper wetland delineation. Um, and I've walked the site several times. There's a lot of ditches in there and there's BMS and slopes and and things like that. Um and you'll you'll see the wetland delineation that was done when they come back with copies that will not be a concern to future residents um based because you can't build in a wetland. So we'll we'll see that here in a second. So sorry I didn't come prepared. I didn't I didn't realize that might be an an objection. Um but just to put that to bed. Maybe maybe what we could do is just come back to that if that's okay with you guys. We're He's close. You got it. Oh, there you go. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So, this is this is GIS data done from a satellite. This wasn't the field verified stuff that went to your LGU. Okay. The local governing units over the wetlands. So, you'll be able to see that um from what they're passing around. No. Yeah. And I'm glad that Stephanie was it was a stack I got zoned in. I'm sorry. So you can't build in a wetland. You have to have setbacks from a wetland. You guys can see there from the wetland delineation that was accepted by again the watershed city in the past that um there's wetlands in the area that that this isn't this isn't accurate. the field verified one that you're looking at is which was accepted by your wershed. Okay. So maybe yeah, just for the record there, but I'm glad to speak to that if anybody's concerned about setback issues for any future residential there. Okay. Um the site John, can I just ask you one question? Um this was an assumption on my part, but the uh concept plan delineated the wetlands. Was that based on this information? Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, you can't just use this GI satellite imagery that it's a first start. It's not that's a good start. Yes. Yes. That's the final that you guys base your decisions on and all the the DNR, federal government, everybody else, Army Corps. Jason Gibbs, anything to add to that? It's a long list of people that look at them to verify and they have been verified. That's very technical answer. Um so if we could if anybody had any questions I'd be glad to speak to that but other otherwise maybe we could jump into the um did you guys get those uh exhibits that I sent to you earlier and are you able to put them up by chance? What I was hoping you could do is you could start with um this one that shows 7.164 acres of of area. I don't know how you We We can't put it up. We just had paper. Yeah. Okay. I got paper. Brought copies of this. Okay. Pass this out. All right. Let me just keep You want to eat your share? We share. We can share. Yeah. Thank you. So, what what we'd like to talk about is how your fees are calculated in the city of Dayton. And the way that they're being calculated right now is based upon 7.164, let's call it acres of of land. I'm not going to call it upland because there's ponds, there's federal drainage ways in there. Army Corps of Engineers will not let us get in those uh drainage ways because it goes into French Lake. And you have several steep slopes, approximately 2.5 acres of steep slopes and drainageways that that are not going to be able to be utilized by tomorrow. Um the way that a lot of cities and I could get you a list of them at some point if anybody would choose Lakefield's one of them by the way considers Oh you guys have this already. Yeah small version of that one. Do you want a big version? I have a big um a lot of cities will consider the steep slopes and retainage and storm water retention ponds and the drainage ways which go into French Lake and these are the areas I I think improve the water quality but I guess um the engineers are the ones that make them do it make us do this so they'll speak to exactly how much clearer that makes it. Um there is a very nice and I welcome you if anybody's interested to go out there. You have permission right now if city council does anyway and the staff to to go out and walk around the uh storm water retention ponds. It was built for sure otherwise Lord made a very flat nice walking path around this this storm water retention area which ultimately goes into French Lake. And I believe there's even a structure over there to keep, you know, people from falling in or whatever. Um, that takes away approximately, like I said, you know, 2 uh 5 acres off the total acreage of the parcel. The impact that that has is significant within at least our world of development. And did anybody pass these out yet? the the comparison that we have done. Okay. Oh, you did, John. John, did you pass? Well, if I could. So, it John brings up a very good point. If um especially with this parcel, if you net out the developer developable acres, you save about 30% off the trunk fees. Um, so our fee schedule has different units of measurement. So, for trunk fees, it's based on gross acres. And I think what the developers are saying is that's not necessarily fair if you can't develop on all the land. If you net out the wetlands and the steep slopes, why don't we do it the same way we do with other development? Um it try and get as much money as you can. It's a little bit different. The free schedule does net out wet land and flood plane. Correct. but it does not net out other water bodies or features that make it impractical to develop on or steep slopes for example. So the Can you give me some scotch tape to put it up on the wall? The definition of buildable area is different um for the fees than it is for the platting process itself. So we we had another uh another business that was interested in being here about a year and a half ago. Quilling roofing. He got substantially further than where Mark is at right now. And by the way, I'm I'm not working for Mark. I'm the land owner trying to sell the land to Mark. So we we tried selling this particular parcel that got I believe final plat about two years ago to Jason Quilling Quilling Roofing out of Brooklyn Park. He was going to move up here, start his business, and it was great. He came to me at the end and he said, "John, these fees are I I can't afford it. I'm not going to do the deal. I'm not moving this thing forward. Mark hasn't said that. He told me the fees were extremely high and I asked how high. So, we had somebody way smarter than me do an analysis here. Dayton is uh $529,000 in fees. The same building if it was to be built in uh Blaine would be $95,000. You given my my notes. uh which is 5 1/2 times less in Rogers. If they went over to Rogers, and we hope they don't, that'd be 2.75 times less. Um I don't know what else he's looking at. If he is still looking, I hope he's not. I hope he just ends up coming here and paying all the fees to the city of Dayton. And and by the way, we lowered the land price from uh the other properties we've sold, but that's an economic decision. And Mark's clearly a good businessman. He's going to hire 30 people. I hope hope he comes here. But all we're asking, we're not asking you to change your ordinance. We're asking you to kind of align the formula along with other what other cities would do. Go ahead. Um, one other um data point I'd like to add, the Env uh is 248,000 square ft. City fees on that project were around the 900,000 mark. I was actually involved with that with capital partners along with our civil engineers here in attendance. I think that's pretty close to being accurate. So that building is 10 times larger and the fees are only they're not even twice as much. So the fees on this are 540,000 versus 900,000 on a 248,000 square foot building which is in line. So, I I don't know why it kind of happened this way, but the the hardship on a smaller building like this um given what John said, plus even the example within the community is is quite a hardship. And I'm working with Mark, the owner, to put together the full proform on this. And we're trying to we're trying to make this work. We want to make this work. But for whatever reason, it and it's a little bit of an anomaly because of the odd shape of this property and whatnot. So, we're we're just asking for some some forbearance, some help here to get us back in line with something that's really more reasonable. And what it is, y'all, it's not necessarily the building. It's the site. It's these areas here that are in in the pink that other cities would not count that and If he goes up to Rogers, I'm not sure if they'll count him or not. If he goes to Seiggo, if he goes to Blaine, if he goes to other places, it's going to be the total cost of occupancy. The building costs the same for him to build here as it does in other places. So, we're not asking you to change the fee schedule. If you did, that would be great, but we're not asking that. We just want you to we're asking if you would align your formula with what um a lot of other municipalities would do. steep slopes and ponds and federal drainage ways that go into the lake to keep it clean are what's at topic here and we've got engineers I know I've talked to Jason a little bit Joe Ratic Carlson McCain probably have over 50 years of engineering experience and um I said guys if we're asking for something unreasonable that every other city would say no to tell me and then I'm not going to come up and I didn't get that answer. So, this is our last piece that we would like to sell and it is inefficient because of these little these areas. That's why we haven't been able to sell it yet and that's why our other guy left. So, we're hoping to hoping to welcome him at the ribbon cutting. Not asking you to do anything right now, but if you had any questions to the extent I could ask answer, I'm not sure what I think we understand the request. Yeah. Thank you for listening here. Could we just ask um if you all think it's a reasonable request? We do if we go through um site plan approval preliminary plat in August, which means we have to submit in the 1st of July. Um there's a substantial economic outlay for Mark to get us to even come to that and we'd like to have some feeling if if if you're open to to working with us on this because we do have a Mark's got to make a a big economic decision here on architectural drawings, civil engineering drawings, applications very quickly. And is that fair, Mark? Very very just like to know what your initial thoughts are at least. I totally get that. I'm this is well I I can't speak for Stephanie but what we're in month six. So this is the first time I've seen these kinds of numbers. So I have I'm going to have to sit on this and I'm going to have a whole list of questions that I'll be sending to our city staff so that I can understand it better. So, I I don't feel comfortable at this point saying anything, but I totally get that you want an answer as soon as possible because you guys have a timeline and yes, it's a huge chunk of money and you don't want to commit to it, but I need time to to think on this, put my questions together and get them to our engineer. Is that going to be a common? Yeah, fair enough. We need to talk what's going on. The timing is exactly today, but the way we set the contract up was they wanted to get started this year. Mhm. Of course, in Minnesota, December, January, February, nobody does anything. And hopefully people Well, you can, but it costs way more, right? Yeah. So, you did not mischaracterize what I was also thinking. May I ask you? No. And I appreciate all of the visuals and everything. It's honestly really helpful the different steps there of, you know, this one to this one. Um, but yeah, I personally I have a lot of questions. I think I need to understand more of before I can come with a Is it Is it fair to say? So, I guess I have two thoughts. Is it fair to say it's not a no? Is that fair to say? I think I think it's fair to say it's not an immediate no. I'm definitely not a no. I mean, my biggest concern is why are we so out of whack? Yeah. I mean, I think that's where I we're not considered unreasonable here. We appreciate that. I think Mark appreciates that. I just I want to understand these numbers better. Yeah. This So my second question then this is on behalf of Mark. Um obviously July 1st is bearing down on us and if we delayed a month Mark I know we haven't talked about this you and I but if we did delay a month because he's got to decide quickly to spend chunk you know a big chunk of money. If we delayed a month, we could not have to make that decision quite yet, but maybe that'll give us some time to get some feedback from you all. Is that enough time to get some feedback? Because July 1st is next week. That's a John uh mayor and council staff is this is not the first project that has asked for a fee reduction. So staff is doing a comparison of our fees with other cities. Yeah, I I think these individual things are a bad idea, but if we are out of whack, then we should be looking at that. I think yeah, we are different than every you know, every city wrote us and every city's different. So, it's how do we develop? How do we go about the process? What was first? It would be nice to get on top of a we're on top of getting John's kind of taking the lead on getting other cities comparison so we know where we're at. Okay. It's regional. Oh, we I will provide it or John and Hayden will provide some feedback as soon as we get something. Very good. Thank you very much. Um, may I just like to say for John? Oh, appreciate any thought. John, your 5.9 number that's on the whole thing. Yes, I can clarify. Well, the numbers that I provided in the email was based on the the gross acreage or the net acreage of the concept plan that was provided. So, that number that I provided does eliminate the uh wetland area. But to Mr. Mayor's point about why the city doesn't treat developable area in terms of trunk charges to maybe what the mech council sees in terms of what is net density. Um, that's something that we had talked about internally and things like the steep slopes that are 18% or greater, the wetland buffer area, those areas that are designated already in the zoning ordinance to not be developable. To me, that seems like they could be considered to be netted out as well. Um, it feels it feels reasonable. Right. The storm water ponds and now this is my professional opinion. The storm water ponds are a little bit more tricky because those ponds wouldn't be there but for the development itself. Correct. Yeah. Well, except for the regional one that is, you know, collecting all this one here. You mean the shared one between the two sites? What's that? The shared one that's on the other side, too. Yeah. Well, it goes Yeah, it goes, you know, throughout the entire thing. that was there way before we got here and it was it's collecting regional I'm going to call it regional maybe the the wrong terminology well it's a construct a pre-existing I think what Hayden's alluding to is anything that's constructed to support the development so any new proposed ponds right okay agreed and we can sell like I wouldn't be disputing that if it's a storm water pond as part of his development if you took a 10 acre field of all upland you're going to have to create a pond there we're not disputing that at all that he should pay for that we should pay fees on that. That's fine. If it's taking water from other places and it was there before we got here, that's what we're asking you to consider. And just also just the overall relativity of the difference in these fees just in general is pretty substantial. And however you come to that is, you know, your daily wick, not ours. But but relatively speaking, it's it's substantial. It's it's our job. And in this situation, the fees are approaching the sales price. So we got to make a decision as to if this doesn't work, what person. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Stephanie. Did you have something? I can talk to him offline. Anybody else have any need some? Did you get what you need? Yes, sir. All right, let's move on to Okay. Yeah. Come on. Sure. Uh Keith Grover again, 13th in Fernbrook. Um, being the old guy in the room and having grown up in this neighborhood and actually camped as a kid in the woods that used to be be where these projects are all going, the the pond that you have marked as existing pond is not a naturally occurring pond. It's an oxidation pond from the original sewage treatment plant or lack of treatment that the trailer court had. So, I'm I'm just wanted to make sure that everybody understood that. And if you were, you know, if the project was planning on running storm water into that, I would ask our engineers to really look carefully at because I don't think they ever took that out. The high the high dam, let me let me point it out to you quick here. This line of trees right here is actually the dam that was built when I was like 11 or 12 years old to create the this the sediment pond for the uh treatment plant at the trailer court. Yeah. Um I think that's the only piece of property that or piece of land that's left there that actually has any kind of a steep bank to it. And it's steep because it's a man-made dam, an earthn dam. Um okay. the the center of the property has all been leveled off because that was a hill we used to slide on with the Vogans. Again, it's all flat now. So, I just wanted to make sure that everybody understood it that and if that's something that we need to look at that at least you were aware of it. So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. On F. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh my ending is pretty short for how long to to walk up here. Uh so this is uh the intention here is to appoint a plan commission member for the term that ends uh June 30th, 2028. Um we did have six applicants that applied for it. uh the advertisement or I should say the vacancy was posted um on the city's app on the web page and on Facebook we did receive six applications. Okay. So we'll have at it council. It's up to you who uh we'll stand for any questions about it. I have my tattoo. I you want to go ahead. Okay. Uh my tattoo are Suzanne and Keith. Um I think they bring in particularly they both bring some historical knowledge that I think is uh lacking I guess to our room planning commission. Um I think they both bring some unique perspectives. Um Suzanne in particular, I really like having had um experience on city council and also as city staff like and being on Met Council, the transportation plan I believe it was. Now I will admit I was looking at this when I was dying of heat um over the weekend. So but it was a Met Council. I thought it was our transportation plan for a few years. Um yes. So, um I just think they both, like I said, I I I think they both bring a historical perspective that is sorely needed. Um I think they would be disruptors, uh which I also think are are sorely needed and um bring some unique experience. Those are my top two. I'll uh I had two also. Um I had looked at uh Keith for similar reasons. He clearly shows an interest um and Daniel because we had looked at him last time and he I think he came in kind of close to to the top but uh he does have a lot of experience. So those were mine too. I clarified it was the for Suzanne the transportation advisory board for me council which you served on that for three years. So that would be a very interesting and perspective particularly coming into our um 2050 comprehensive plan. Anybody else want to know? Well, I'm in about the same place uh with Sarah. Um uh certainly Keith has shown an ongoing interest in our activities here. Um, they're not applying as a couple that you just just keep, right? Marshall might find out it's not all peaches and green. Sorry, that's the risk. um and and Suzanne as well um because of her her local experience and also have some uh experience with other other kind of activities around the metro area. Uh so those are those will be my two as well and for some similar reasons I think that although the the vacancy is created by somebody who is is in the business right our our planning commission and I think rightfully so is dominated by people that are in the business. We need people with technical expertise. Oh, absolutely. To uh be able to guide our decisions here ultimately. But I do think it's it's been good um to have somebody from the community more from the neighbor perspective uh on on the committee and you know then doesn't bring the technical uh expertise to the committee the same way some of the other folks can but uh you know sort of the the real world uh perspective on things I think has helped us come to some better decisions over over the last few years that that I've around this. And so that's that's where I'm coming to with those two. Okay. Who's next? Well, it's gone. Uh, see, just spew it. Uh, I'm kind of stuck on Daniel. only my biggest thing that I see is is I didn't this is no slam on nobody. I I just think we lack experience. Now history one would either take Keith or Suzanne. Um because nobody's going to top Keith for sure. Um, I'm stuck on annual just because of the the background and it's the professional technical items that uh David was talking about. That's where I'm That's where I'm at. I guess if I had to pick one. What if you had to pick two? Do I get to go? Go ahead. I also um was impressed by Daniel's um I say resume, but I application. Thank you. I mean, I appreciated the little kind of cover letter overview and then again, um I agree with Scott that some of that long-term planning um expertise and experience I think is important. Um so yeah, he was my top pick. My counter is kind of with Dave is the technical experience is already present on the council with the other with the commission with the other four people. what what's lacking is the long-term community experience. There is a lot of technical expertise already in that group. I mean, I I hear you and this is not a stab at Keith at all cuz I think you have a lot of really wonderful insight and there is something to be said for someone who's been in the community and can say, "Oh, yeah. I like you said, I remember when I was a little young boy. My husband has a lot of those stories, too." So, I can appreciate that viewpoint. Um, all right. But I guess maybe I'm a little more forward and thinking I I don't know how to say what I'm trying to say. I I appreciate your viewpoint and I do think that there is a place for that, but I don't know. I just I still think that Daniel's my choice. Sorry. So, it looks like uh you guys can double check me. Looks like three pick. Looks like there's Keith's got three votes and Daniel's got three. You got it. So, a swing. Got your coin. The mayor. Yeah. Yeah. The mayor is a swing. You got to do it all on your own. It's got to be Don't you just want that spot? It's a good spot. It is a good spot. Not not always. Okay. So So you that had had just one name picked out. Um do do you have any Well, I'm not sure how to do this. I really hate that you guys are doing this. It's up to you, Mr. R. Well, mine were kind of 50/50, but uh again, I I'll go with Keith. So, I know he's applied for this position a couple times. Be gentle with the group. If I can make a suggestion, we we need a motion and a second. Yeah. I I make a motion to appoint Keith. More discussion. All right. All those in favor say I. I. All those against say no. I don't know that I say no. Yeah. I was struggling with that. I'm not a no. Well, you got to pick one. Yes. You can be no or abstain. You can obtain. You kind of have to have a reason to abstain. But just saying there's technically a third choice cuz my reason is it was my it'd be my second or third choice. There you go. I agree cuz I don't want to choice. I'm going to stay up. You could be a nay or a either way passes. I don't Doesn't matter. Sure. We'll say matter. Well, yes. It's fine. He said nay. He said nay. He said no. He said no. Yep. You can say no. I could say no. I'll say no. Sorry, Keith. But it's 3 to2 passes. Um, I'm not going to cry over it or nothing. So, it's 3 to two. You might get sick of it in a week. Those meetings are about five, six hours, by the way. This meeting's going to be five or six hours. [Music] G. Okay. Congratulations. Yeah, congratulations. All right, Mr. Mayor, members of the city council, uh tonight you're asked to consider resolution 41-2025 uh variance at uh 11250 East French Lake Road. Um if you recall this uh property at all uh the last month's meeting uh there was a might have been two meetings two months meetings ago um this property was subject to a fire where an accessory structure was lost in total um and subsequently the applicant is requesting a variance to rebuild the structure to its um previous um height and footprint. Um essentially the variance request is related to the need to exceed the um height of the principal building. Um when we went out there on site as staff, we found that uh there was no portions of the building that would have allowed to otherwise um build what was proposed. Um so this was the route that the applicant uh has gone um for your consideration. Um, so the the total height in excess of the the single family home is up roughly 1 and 1/2 ft. I think in the resolution it's more I think it's left at 2 ft uh for a little bit of uh rough estimates. Um but uh just a note back to the zoning ordinance requirements because this property or this accessory structure was an existing nonconformity lost to a fire that lost over 50% of its value. Uh the property owner did have 180 days to apply for a building permit to build back existing. Uh and uh at the at the point that he had reached out to the city uh staff about what he needed to do uh that 180 days had lapsed. Here's a picture of the site from April. And that 180 days, that's from state statue. Is that right? Correct. Yes. And I did reach out to the League of Minnesota Cities to see if there was any flexibility to that and they said that there was not. Here's just a general view. Um, this is a 2019 street view that shows you what you would be expect to see from the street or very similar build. Um, essentially the applicant has stated that uh the reasoning for the excess height or the the need for that height uh is related to um storage of a private or personal camper um that could not meet uh or get through the garage doors with a 14t sidewall. Uh so the proposed uh structure has 16T sidewalls allowing for I believe a 14t tall garage door. Just for reference, um some questions have been come up have come up on how the city code um defines building height and you can see here by this diagram. It is basically the lowest elevation point of the building wall um to the median height of the roof. Um so it' be the average from where the essentially the uh end is to the peak. Um so that's how that is measured for those types of roof structures. And this kind of this was discussed at the planning commission meeting as well, but it actually opened up a little bit of a um a dialogue related to um how the residential districts offer more flexibility in this regard than the egg districts. Uh as the residential districts are offered to apply for a conditional use permit to exceed the height of their principal structures. Um at this point, the egg districts does not offer that same latitude. So um that was the where the variance uh route came from. And here's just reference. The setbacks would all be met with the um property. There's no um concerns related to uh the curb cut on the property or the material that is used for a driveway entrance as this is this is a property that is zoned egg. The apron is asphalt and uh I believe the remainder of the area is gravel that leads up to the um doors. Uh just through our review, this was in the staff report as well, but through our review, we do uh go through a three-step process uh guided by state statute to justify variances. Um in this regard, uh the planning commission had a discussion about this. There's uh staff doesn't believe that there is any uh conflicts or uh in any issues related to consistency with the comp plan um or altering the essential character of the locality. we had a neighbor representative of the area show up to the public hearing and state that this is not uh something that is out of the ordinary and would not otherwise be against it. Um but uh ultimately the planning commission unanimously approved that the the plight of the property uh was related to the lapse of the 180day window. Um, I don't know if that was necessarily, this didn't really get addressed, but I wanted to just note that, uh, I don't know if it was specifically related to the lack of knowledge of the 180day clause in the zoning ordinance or if it was connected to um, the property owner, and this was not something that was addressed, but the potentially the property owner purchased this property with this existing structure on it, not knowing that it was a non-conforming structure um, as part of the zoning ordinance. Um though those that information typically is um called out if a zoning letter is ever requested when properties are purchased or for sale. I basically already summarized the planning commission's um decision. Um, and if the city council finds that there's sufficient evidence to recommend app approval, um, staff really does recommend that the city council direct staff to address that discrepancy or potential discrepancy if you find it to be um, in the code. Um, there are a couple options that were laid out for you in the in the staff report. um just because of the very large dynamic between conforming egg properties and non-conforming egg properties related to size. Um staff would recommend that we would mimic the residential district requirements, allow them to build a structure no taller than their house. Um but if they chose to do so, they could apply for a conditional use permit not to exceed 35 ft. So that would be my recommendation moving forward if if the council sees fit. And with that, I'll answer any questions. I don't remember what the planning commission discussion was, but I I'm kind of an opinion if it's an egg. We should just say 35 ft. Yeah. And not worry about the primary structure because a lot of these places are ramblers or I it just doesn't make sense to me. And it shouldn't matter like if a twotory house, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all, which is what's so ridiculous. Um, I think I either a mirror what is in residential because it should not be less restrictive for building and out building and residential than it is in egg. That's ridiculous. Or just let it be 35 ft regardless of the the size of the house in egg. Um, I would be okay with either of those options. If if if I could just clarify, I think that one of the main reasons that the conditional use permit is there um is mainly in opportunity for the planning commission, the city council to consider if there are any nuisance problems that could be created for a structure that is taller than the principal dwelling given the the setbacks of accessory structures are much less than the principal dwellings on the property. um whether that is related to casting a shadow on a building wall that's adjacent to that property or uh or whatever it may be. Um it gives the city council and the planning commission just a little bit of an opportunity to say how is this going to affect the surrounding area. Um that's now if if uh this really does get into the weeds again, but if there is a an accessory structure that is approved for um egg use, um I wanted to clarify with the the mayor about the at the planning commission meeting. Um I did go back and look uh through some information. Um and while the building code is exempt for egg buildings, the zoning ordinance is not. No. And a lot of the times I've seen that communities will not require a building permit, but at least uh have a form for them to fill out that uh basically allows us to certify that that building is in compliance with the zoning ordinance. We don't have that in place right now. Um but that would be something that uh could be considered just to to call that out and make sure. Um, with that being said, where I was going with that original uh point was that if there is a egg building that is dedicated for egg use only, um, consideration may be given to the height difference, but at the same time, the egg use is egg use at its time and there's no, you can't guarantee it. you can't guarantee that the property or the egg building is going to continue to be in egg use uh throughout its time being there on the property. So that those are a couple of the things that I just wanted to note and thinking on also how many of our our we have a lot of land currently zoned egg that is non-conforming and are actually pretty small lots. So actually I take it back. I want to go with the same as residential. That that was going to be my one comment the mayor council is that we have a lot of properties that are just generically classified as egg and I don't want to call them out like the growers because they're sitting in the audience here they have a very small property there's still egg that's considered egg so if they want to put up a 35t building based on that quote that seems a little excessive that's okay but doesn't mean that they don't want to I just same rules so I'm going back same rules as residential and just to note as well on the conditional use permit process uh conditional use permit different different or differentiate from variance requests as you have to identify a practical difficulty on the site. Now I will just say that the conditional uses if you can meet those guidelines identified for the conditional use permit essentially the conditional use is presumed allowed. Um but it just gives that offers that a little bit of a um just a little check. They're not as complicated to uh to review what I'm getting at. And you brought up a good point about like I would be real annoyed if my neighbor built a giant building right up as close to the property line as possible and kept my house in shade all day long practically. Like that would not be cool. So, and some of those egg properties are virtually residential size lots. So, okay. Anybody else have any comments? But as far as this one is, I'm fine with saying the variance I mean yes. The goal is to find a way to allow this. Yes. and you know but rather than do it as a variance again I would rather see us change the the code the code to allow that was in I hadn't thought about it as you know just setting a height and I think that that makes a lot of sense for for the egg properties that we have that are still egg properties nobody's going to build well nobody builds a conventional barn anymore but I can't imagine that any of those weren't taller than the houses they were next to they always were and so that seems like were, you know, denying history in that in that context, but we do have a lot of property. I mean, my house was egg zoned egg up until a year or two ago. Yeah. And you know, so there's there's a lot of that in in Dayton in some kind of transition. Um, so I I would be more comfortable, I guess, with the the cup uh process. Make the language the same as as res residential. That seems to work. Are you talking about this property or are you talking about fixing fixing? Yeah. Adding adding the language that we've got in the residential to allow a C for this kind of variance anymore, but this kind of use. Yeah. So, yeah, that's that would be my preferred Scott. I support that. Okay. Got what you need? I do. Do we need to make a motion though? Yes. Yep. On the variance we do. I make a motion to approve the variance. Second. What did we miss something? Just try and catch up. Nope. I I Hi, Mayor Council. I guess I have a question. What is the reason for the variance allowance? Well, you change the ordinance before this shed goes up. I'm I'm just trying to make sure I understand why we're approving the variance. Not because I don't disagree with that. I want to make sure we know reason why yeah we are proving the variance. I am because I agree with the reasons. Um I think the 180day thing would hit 99% of the population. Working with insurance is a nightmare. I don't know if we want to use that as a I'm going to look at the city attorney now because I don't know if we want to use that as a reason to approve a variance only because it goes against the statute and previous I think the statutes I don't I'm not saying that I don't disagree with what's an acceptable reason like what if that's not a that's what I mean I don't know okay without changing the code which again I don't disagree is the basis of the problem um I don't know if there is a reason. That's what I'm saying. And we have to have a reason. We can't just say, "Yeah." Okay. I'm I'm a legitimate question. That's it's you're supposed to have a reason for why and the reason for that is so we have some basis for why the variance is being because otherwise it could be Oh, the next person that we gave this one. Okay. I I hear you now. Okay. Well, this person didn't meet the 180 days. So now it's the presumption of knowing the law, which is the basis of the legal that I have. Do we? Again, I'm not trying to disagree and throw a wrench thing. I just want to make sure we're doing things that's your job is to make sure we're doing our job properly. So I appreciate that. Does not if our intent is to change the the language in the zoning does not approving the variance then cause some hardship in this case. I'm going to look for city attorney. Um well it depends on what you mean by hardship. Do you mean just inconvenience as to timing for the applicant or do you mean the the legal concept of hardship under the statute? No. How do we get in the building shed? Right. Um, mayor, members of the council, I think Zach is is reflecting some thoughts that I gave to staff earlier when I was re reviewing the the the packet and just, you know, ask some questions and raise some concerns about the the the three-part test for the findings for a variance. Um, I think if the council is inclined to change the ordinance and that can happen, you know, in a in a reasonable amount of time and doesn't unduly delay the project for the applicant, then I think a code amendment would be a better way to proceed rather than approve this variance as applied because you know the the the fact that the 180 days requirement is there, it is in your code right now and you can't pretend that it's not. And so I mean the whether it was because the applicant didn't know about the the the 100 day requirement or because he was unaware that his building was a nonconformity. Those are the the the legal test in the statute is about the property, not about process. So I mean it's kind of splitting hairs. It's kind of being hyper technical, but under the under the the the requirements of the statute, it's really hard to say from a legal perspective that that he meets that test for a variance. So, the code needs to be changed and this needs to be approved as a CUP. If that's what the council is inclined to do to amend the code to allow for this building to go forward as planned, then that's probably from a legal perspective the better way to go. Yes. My problem is, and I'm trying to get back to where you had what page did you have these the the three tests in the report on the packet? Well, what version of the packet? Here's my problem. The hardship is is an ordinance. We have this 180day thing, right? It's also in the state statute. It's also in the state statute, but it is one that we ourselves have. We ourselves have and we have no control over that statute because it sounds like or our ordinance. It sounds like why do we even have that ordinance if state statute already trumps it? Well, it it doesn't necessarily trump it. It's just that because of the the way that the the way that the ordinance is written. Yep. the way it's currently written, it has it it imposes that same statutory deadline, but if you for a variance, but if you had a different tool that could get an applicant to where they wanted to go, like the cup and you changed the requirements, then then you're still complying with the statute because you're not talking about a variance anymore. My problem is is I think our ordinance is unreasonable. And and that's and that's that's why I'm suggesting that an amendment to the ordinance is the better route to go. Okay. I'm not the 180 days is unreasonable. We have that mandated to us. So we can't change that or we could remove it, right? For for variances. Yes. I mean if you are requiring a variance in any situation Yeah. or in any zoning code or z any zoning district. Let me let me start over. Sorry. You're wondering why for the redundancy in the ordinance if it's in state statute. Yes. Why do we also have So there's two things. One is we have it in there. It's redundant with state statute. Right. If we didn't have that in there, would this be an issue? If we did not have the 180day limit in there, would this be an issue? You would. You would still have to comply with the statute for granting a variance. We would have to make sure it complies with the state statute. Yes. Since when? I I don't know of a situation where where you can because because I could we could take a deep dive into the concept of preemption. I mean the stat the basically the state statute occupies the field of regulation in this situation. So unless there's a specific provision in the statute that says cities can be less restrictive then then you can't be less restrictive in your regulation. And so and if you or if there's been you know cases or you know court decisions where it's been interpreted that you know it was kind of implied that the legislature meant to allow for cities to to or local government units to be you know less restrictive than the state statute but that doesn't exist here. So the state statute sets the the the legal test for a variance. And so the reason why there's a why the v as I understand it the reason why the variance was applied for here is because he wants the higher height but it's the timing that that makes the the legal test difficult to reach. Right. Had he met met that 180day it would have just been issued. Correct. Correct. Correct. Right. because of the nonconformity. So, and and that's that's what that's the fact that's different here than when you're granting a variance in a different context. It's the fact that this was a non-conforming structure. Yes. Prior to the fire and I but to me it gets back to the 180day window. He couldn't meet that for one reason or another. He could have Yeah, if I mean even while you're dealing with insurance, I mean it is I understand. I'm just saying I think it's an unreasonable requirement that 180day and and it's driven from the state, right? So amend your ordinance to to be what you think is reasonable in this context. But we can't exceed the 180 days. See, that's what we've been told. That that's why I want to right. That's why you have to rewrite it. So it's a cup and then you can grab that, right? So you so so if you amend the code it then you're not then you wouldn't be cons then then the application wouldn't be for a variance any longer. So that state statute doesn't apply or 180 days whether it's the ordinance or the statute wouldn't apply anymore because he's not asking for a variance any longer. I think to the mayor's point I'll try to clarify for you. I think he I think you're more saying well then we don't want 180 days. We want it to be 365 or however many days it can be, whatever. Or remove the window totally and just say whatever it is. And well, if the state already covers it, then we should be able to remove it from the because it doesn't matter. We should be able to remove it from our code. However, the 188 still stands because it's coming down from the state, right? But we don't need to say it in our code because then when the state does change it, now we're not correct in our code. Yeah. I mean, we always So, you couldn't adopt an ordinance that said 120 days. But if you if you had an ordinance that didn't say anything, then you would just be operating under the under the requirements of the state statute. Yes. Or reference the state statute. The reason it's in our zoning ordinance is because we are the local authority that has to enforce it just like a variance request to that. This the three-part test is included in state statute as well, but we also have it adopted in our zoning ordinance because we are the local authority that authorizes or enforces those sections, even if it's redundant. That's it's very standard and and I'm sure there are lots of other examples of where your code mirrors state statute and all kinds of other ways. So, I'm going to make a note. I'm going to make a motion that we amend the code, have this gentleman apply for it through a C cup so that he can build his program. Would that be okay? Legally. Yep. Then I'll second that. Just depends on how fast staff turned around though. That's the question. You can turn around for the second meeting in plan commission and council in the second meeting in July. Um, I would say like you still need to make action uh take action on the variance application. Yes. So, you'd have to deny the variance application, direct staff to do the CUP process for the code. It would essentiate to delay the applicant because I know he's on a timeline too, but it would essentially be a 30-day delay essentially because we pass the code and a CP for the applicant on July 22nd. You don't have a public hearing cuz you have to have a public hearing cuz it's correct. Y So he can't start he can move move dirt or whatever he's got to do and get started, right? You just can't go in vertical. Yep. I don't know if that helps, but we got a whole development going in that isn't approved. So I just it just seems like every variance we've ever approved is is subjective. So yeah, I like I said, I just want to make sure that it is, Mr. Mayor. Every every variance is unique and because you have to look at the specific circumstances and apply it and apply the three-part test to the specific circumstances. So, every single one of them is different and and because of the discretion that the council has with variances, it is a little bit more subjective than a cup. But I just ask an attorney and then you just still don't have an answer. What we can do both of these things, correct? approve the variance and yes, but the question what's the reasoning for approving the variance? Like what's your expediency on getting the this problem solved which could be causing more problems? I I'm not necessarily in favor of it. I'm just saying that I'm just asking the question, can we do both? Yes, the couple can technically do anything about to do. It's just that's why technically I motioned and Scott second second it and it hasn't been pulled off the table. It is not. So yes, you could vote to approve the variance on the the the findings that the that the planning commission made and recommended. Um is it does it meet the test the legal test perfectly? I would say no. Um is it going to be legally is someone going to challenge it? Probably not. So I mean it's it's a it's a decision that is within your discretion to make um on the variance and then do the code amendment or you can um do the code amendment run it concurrent with an amended amended application from a variance to a to a continued to a conditional use. This is to go through planning and are they having a meeting next month? July July 10th. Okay. Well, Sarah says we have a motion and a second. You have two motions and two seconds. Yeah. Which one am I talking about? Technically, could technically can there be Oh, we did. Yeah. No, you can't do You can't make a second motion when there's an open motion on the front. That second one from Scott was that is no. So, it never should have happened. Okay, let's pretend it happened. So, which motion was on the table? The one I the first one I made, which was to approve the variance. Um, and then Scott seconded and then Zach made a haunt noise which made me pause to say, "Why are you unhappy?" Um, which led to this whole conversation. So, so we're not amending the code or we are. Well, that wasn't we are so we don't need to make a motion later. Okay. So right now the motion is to approve the variance. Yes. Yes. And as my legal counsel and staff have pointed out, we don't have we we in the motion I did not give any reasons for approving the variance. Well, if if Mr. Mayor, if I may, I would I would ask that the that the motion be amended to the point that the you do need to make findings. Yeah. Um and so that if the a motion could be amended to approve the variance um based on the findings proposed and approved by the planning commission based on the findings in said resolution that I mean do you have do you have a resolution there? It's in the packet. Yeah. So there is a resolution. Yes. And it's numbered. Then you would vote to approve the resolution. Sorry I I was I only printed part of the packet. Sorry. So, you still you had the initial motion? Yes, I did. You still okay with that? I'm still okay with it as long as we all know the consequences of it. They're just just providing information. So, I want to make sure the council and Scott had a second. Yes, I'm delaying until Scott returns. Yes. Do we have more discussion? So this is so it would be a motion to approve resolution 41-2025 for variance at 11250 East French Lake Road based on the findings enumerated in the resolution. Yes. Go ahead. That would be your motion. So yes, that's my motion. Okay. Thank you for summarizing my motion. I still think we need to do the second thing next. Um you know and I I'll just say don't love variances. Yeah. But in this case, I will get past my hesitancy because the end of the day, this guy is just asking to build back what he already had. And this is not some new groundbreaking something or other that we've never looked at before. He had a pole barn and he wants to build another pole barn that hopefully will look a little nicer than the color scheme on the last one, but since I don't pick colors, that's not an official comment. Um, and if he were in a residential district, it would have been this much of a house. There's another path. So, there's a bunch of If you had a twostory building house, which is a reasonable size house, this wouldn't be an issue. Does Scott have a second? Sorry. Did you guys waiting for you? You weren't here. You just The motion has been I'm good to go. A motion to approve resolution 41-2025 for a variance at 11250 East French Lake Road based on the findings of the planning commission enumerated in the resolution. That's you seconded. You seconded that. That was the first one. That was the first one. All right. Any more discussion? We need to wait for your second official. Okay. All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed say no. It's approved. All right. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I've got the direction I need for What? You sorry. What was that? I got the direction that I need to bring an amendment to the planning commission. Yeah, please. Thank you. Thank you. Item H. Uh, mayor and council, this is a application for preliminary plan and site plan review for Scanel. Uh, it's located I'm going to say the nearest intersection would be a territorial and uh I think it's Holly Lane. Um, this project previously was was applied for in believe it was 2022 and approved. um because of change in the market uh the project was not built and the applications expired um and has since been applied again. Um the primary difference between the current application and the 2022 plan is that the building has been flipped around. Uh so what's being applied for or being requested is um a spec office warehouse building with limited outdoor storage um behind the building facing uh the railroad tracks and county road 81. Um when this was discussed at the planning commission I'll I'll note that in the uh staff report in the packet uh there outdoor storage is not allowed along arterial streets which includes caring road 81. uh the plan commission felt that it was acceptable in this case. Uh for one it in between 81 and the property. It is a railroad tracks not necessarily road rightway. Um also it is a smaller area and the plan commission did recommend not officially but verbally recommended that the uh trailer storage area be shifted as far west as possible or far west as practical. Um I'm trying to summarize this quickly. Uh so again the intent here is uh a spec industrial building. It's a preliminary plant and site plan review. Um the plan commission did have some comments on the color scheme of the rear doors that they be more similar to the building colors that they don't stick out so much. But um the applicant is here and otherwise I'm going to answer any questions that the council may have. Any questions? I got nothing. Um I second the comment about if we can get the doors to fade into the building a little bit more that would help. Um and any as much screening as physically possible I would I would be appreciated. But I was looking at the plan. I don't see how they're going to move those trailer spaces uh based on the topography. I don't see how that is physically possible, but I'm not an engineer, so that's my only comments. Anybody else? The tree inventory, is that trees that are on the property or is that what we're planting? Oh, thank you. I did have one other thing. Tree. So, there there is required to be a tree inventory of trees that are on the property. Uh, this predominantly this is farmland. Oh, I get that. I'm just looking at this tree list and why would you want to plant Moxelda trees? or apple trees because they're cheap. No, I don't. Um, and then my only other question is is uh we are asking them to put 1362 shrubs on this thing. That was Yeah. At some point, can we fix that? like the parking thing. It seems like we should look at this again because then just seems like requiring that many shrubs is asinine. Yeah, they're going to die or or maybe you can't put that many shrubs in the amount of space. They're literally on top of each other. Plants need to grow. You can but just seems like a lot of trees for sure. It just seems like we we should maybe kill examine that again at some point. I mean I we're putting no ornamental trees where we're required to put 40 or 92 but we're okay with putting none. Why not a couple of flowering crabs or something that in May it looks nicer whatever just there's no rhyme or reason for that. So we we do have ordinance requirements for the number of plantings that are required. So trees different types of trees and shrubs and ornamental trees. If you'd like we can revisit that section in the ordinance. Yes. specifically the shrubs because this is not the first time the ridiculously high amount of shrubs has come up and it is ridiculous. And if you'd like ornamental trees instead, the council needs to make that noted for the applicant. The I thought they were required. They're required. The landscaping plan does it is compliant with the number of shrubs. No. Yeah, but the ornamental trees. Yeah, that is what it's missing. Yeah. We're looking for the council to give that. I'm not saying we need 92 of them, but five or six would be okay. That's Yep. That's great. Give up a thousand bushes or shrubs for five or six ornamental trees. I'm not saying to get rid of all the shrubs. A thousand just seems like overkill. So is 1362. Okay. Work with those numbers. That's crazy. Would the counc like to see a thousand shrubs removed and 92 ornamental trees added? Trying to find reduction council. I'm looking for my numbers. That's fine. It's just there. There they are. It's 14 acres, right? Yes. Yes. Put 20 ornamental trees and 500 shrubs. I'm good with that. Pick a number and just go with it. I mean, even if he did 600, how many people would This is This is how he mixed this in. That's exclusive. Um, I would like to see some ornamental trees. I'm not saying there need to be 92. So, let's say I'm throwing this is I'm going to say h about half. So, 45 ornamental trees. And let's cut the shrub down. Right now, what's required is 1,362. Let's cut that down to 700, which I still think is too high. If I could recommendation make none of us are landscape architects. No, we're not. Um, if we can have the reason right there applicants landscape architect probably work out a plan. My my interpretation from the council is you're supportive of more than zero ornamental trees and less than,300 shrubs. Yes. And I think we need to revisit our own ordinance that came up with,300 shrubs as the reasonable number of shrubs cuz that's insane. You just said what I want anything done to say John is that I'm not comfortable looking at the two dimensional drawing and saying here's the right number of shrubs or trees for for this site. There are people that do this professionally and and I think that our numbers probably are not reasonable, but I don't want to give up on the idea that we want nicel looking properties. Oh yeah, absolutely. Right. But I can't pick a number to to make that real by looking at this. So, I think that what I would say for me anyway is that I'm open, we're open, you know, to a a plan that does not meet our ordinance, but has um complied with the spirit of what we're trying to achieve and that's nice looking properties and to screen it as much as possible from 81. Yeah, that's that's part of it. 1300 shrubs or something. That would How many shrubs don't The problem shrubs only get this tall grow. And with that many, half of them will die. Okay. Um, but my other question around this, and I know we we talked about it a little bit at the EDA meeting, but if I'm remembering this right, this property had some tiff applied to it. next uh item. Next item. Okay, then never mind. Okay. So, I will need um motion in a second. I'll motion that to do what we just talked about with the what he said. I'll second. Okay. with the understanding that a tree shrub will be agreed upon. All word smith it. Thank you. Um okay. Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. All those opposed say no. Motion carries 5 to zero. And item I may with council. This is the tiff related to the previous uh preliminary plat and site plan review you just did on the Dayton interchange building. We have Jason Arswalt here from Ellers who's going to run for the um to the PowerPoint and I'll stand for any questions. Take it away Jason. All right. Uh good evening mayor, members of the council. Uh we are here to talk about a potential tiff for this uh last project that you discussed. Uh just a couple of items here that we'll review. Uh I won't go into too much detail here about the project because we just got done talking about it. You're all familiar with where it is and what it is. Uh but a little bit of background. Uh I think as was already mentioned, I think it was uh 2001 that uh the city the then city council actually approved a 9-year tiff agreement and new tiff district for this pretty much exact same project. that was about $887,000 uh at the time that was being driven by uh a large outstanding special assessment uh that was on the property uh and uh the fees were discussed as well as part of that has been mentioned already tonight at one at one point uh uh that was all done, the approvals were there, the agreement was done, everything was put in place, but uh after that was done uh Scanel determined the project couldn't move forward just because of market conditions at that time and basically put it on the shelf and uh so What was indicated at that point to them was that if that ever came back and there was another tax increment request, they would need to start over that whole process. And uh uh that's effectively where we are today. They they've came back and said they think that they can make the project work, but they still have some of the same economic challenges and wanted to make the same request that they had in place from the last time around, which was for 9 years of tax increment, which today when we um uh project that out, it's about $823,000 of present value. And so that's uh that's that's where we're at. Uh there there isn't a district here uh today because the it was never actually certified. So because the project didn't move forward even though the council approved it and everything had been done procedurally. Uh it never went to the formal step of actually which is an administrative step of actually sending it to the county and letting them know letting the office of state auditor know and the state know that a district has been created because the project didn't move forward. So there there isn't a district there today for that reason. And so that's the reason why they would need to come back and do this all over again. Uh just very briefly that so they were asked to reapply just as they had in the in the past which requires them to submit all their information to the staff indicating why they uh need the assistance for this particular project. And as you may recall from when we discussed the uh Parkway neighborhood apartments, what then happens is that goes through an analysis we we call a proforma analysis. So, we're looking at the numbers that they submit, trying to determine one, are they what they're representing uh consistent with what the um market it would be representing at this point. Uh are all the costs, the price of land acquisition, that the fees they're charging, their financing assumptions, and their return on investment all consistent with what market expectations would be. And then ultimately, we're looking at all the revenues and expenditures and what their debt service looks like relative to their return on investment and do they need assistance. And just so very briefly uh when we looked at that everything is you know very similar to what it had been previously you know costs of course are a little different. Uh so uh what they're representing today is consistent with what we think we would see uh in the industry for those from that perspective. They're proposed rents. I mean this is a this is a um spec property. So we're needing to use rent levels that are you know unknown at this time but consistent with what the market is currently showing. uh we actually uh looked at what higher rents might mean for the project, you know, if they were able to achieve those. And even when we do that, uh we concluded that the project uh does require assistance or meets that test for um you know, justifying assistance for the project, but concluded that 8 years at 740,000 was more reasonable uh to get them to a return on investment that's market rate. And so what that analysis showed is just really one simple thing is that if you choose to uh look at providing assistance for this project, does it meet that statutory but for test which just means you know this project wouldn't happen but for the tiff assistance and that's all that analysis is saying. It isn't a recommendation of course that to do the funding and it still does require a policy decision from you all about whether you actually want to do that and that is completely obviously within your discretion. But the information in that analysis is really just intended to give you that comfort level that you're meeting what is required of you statutoily to be able to provide that kind of assistance. Make sense to everyone before I move on from that? Okay. So what uh for this evening what we tend to try to do here is uh you know not knowing the level of support here is that uh what's in front of you is a term sheet. And what all that is is a is a non-binding agreement which outlines the terms of a potential formal final TIFF agreement. Uh and the idea is that it would gauge support from you all about whether you want to ultimately uh create a new district and uh enter into an agreement to provide tax uh increment financing for this project. And uh that's really kind of what it's there for. So uh it is non-binding but what it does do is it you know you've all have voted on your position on uh providing tax increment for the project and it allows us then to move forward with the next steps which mean creating a tax increment district and drafting a tiff agreement. So there are some uh costs to do that uh and both uh you know for the tiff district itself and then legal costs to draft that agreement. So uh we're trying to make sure there's support before incurring those costs. developer ultimately will will cover those costs, but um but we're just trying to make sure that before we go down that road that there's support or not. So, uh and then if there isn't uh if there's a no vote on the term sheet, then then tip simply will no longer be pursued and that'll be the end of the conversation with then minimal investment uh in into this process. So, just just a little bit of what the term sheet says uh is is that's in there is that the developer will construct the project as approved by December 31st of 2026. So there's a there's a timeline in there as there was previously. All of this is pretty much uh verbatim except for the timing and the amounts from the old agreement. Uh the city would create that new tax increment district and provide up to 740,000 which current estimate shows about 8 years. Again this is on a pay as you go basis. So if you recall what that means is that the city's not obligated to put any money up front. Uh and if there's not enough money to repay from the district itself, the city doesn't make up any of the difference. So, and then with that, then you would retain also 10% of the increment and pay 90% out ultimately on the note that gets issued. Uh, I mentioned this already, but the developer will pay for its cost for the creation of the district, the agreement, and any other thirdparty costs that you might incur. So, that that part of the term sheet actually is binding. Uh, and they would need to do that. Uh, and then there are some other provisions in here that are these were in the old agreement. uh and partially there because of the fact that this parcel, one of the parcels here, uh had been in the green acres tax deferral program. So, uh what that is is it's a program that uh egg properties can apply to that will um defer their tax burden when they are in areas being pressured by development. And so, there are several properties in Dayton that meet that criteria, including this one. And there is a rule with tax increment that if a property had been in one of those situations within the last 5 years, you need to follow a certain set of rules. And uh really what that means is that it can only then tiff can only be used for uh a property that's solely for manufacturing and warehouse distribution purposes. and that the tenants, all of them that ultimately um lease in this property have to pay uh 90% or more of their employees at a rate equal or greater to than 160% of the federal minimum wage for everybody over the age of 20. So that's just straight out of the statute. So we have to follow that rule because of the fact that this was in Green Acres. uh and so the term sheet reflects that and talks about the fact that they need to also create those jobs at those wage levels and provide documentation to that effect for uh the time that this thing is is being paid out in in the district. So um it's one of the last provisions there and then just in terms of next steps. So, if you decide to approve the term sheet, what we would then do uh is work with staff and legal counsel to do uh one create a new tax increment district and to draft a tiff agreement which would govern how the tiff is is um uh delivered to the developer from that tiff district. Uh those are some there are some processes associated with that. Uh that starts by notifying uh the other jurisdictions that a district is being considered but ultimately will end up back here where you will be asked to hold a public hearing uh and consider approval of that tax increment district and then uh also then asked to uh consider approval of a tiff agreement and all of that can generally happen within 60 to 90 days depending on um how fast uh we need to move. So uh with that I'll stop but certainly happy to answer any questions if you have. I have two questions. Sure. One, the special assessments is that the uh So I am in Green Acres. I know very well how the program works. Um if I were to sell and the people who bought it did not reapply to Greenacres, they'd have to pay back the last two years of taxes. That's right. That the deferred taxes. Is that the special assessment that they are talking about? It is not. There was What is the special assessment that they're talking about? it uh well, mayor, members of the council, and I it was about a $988,000 special assessment that was placed uh years ago, and I don't exactly remember what it was for. Yeah. Mayor Mayor, council, was related to the Wicked Industrial um area for water and sewer services at that time. It was about a $460 something,000 assessment at that time. The owner put it into deferral immediately. Um putting in deferral does not mean you don't pay it. It just means that you don't have to pay it right away, but interest is earned on that every single year when you don't pay it. Um, so it accumulated roughly $500,000 of interest over the next next number of years was in about 15 to 20 uh 2007 or seven 2006 or 7 to 20. So about 14 years of interest on top of $465,000 roughly. And that's where the assessment came from. And they knew this when they bought the property. They did. Yep. When Scanel purchased the property, they were aware of that. Aware that this was this bill was sitting there. Yes, that was the their original tiff request. They could have also chosen to pay it off right then and there and not acrew any more interest, but they also chose to let it sit there and acrew interest. Scanel paid the assessment when they purchased the property. Okay. So, that's already been paid. So, that has not ongoing. Okay. It is not ongoing. They just would like to make up that money that someone else didn't do. That is what the TIFF request was back in 2021. 22 21. Yeah. And that the uh just uh the number that that assessment number is in the costs that the developer submitted for the analysis that I mentioned. So, but it's not um inflated beyond the the amount that they paid back in 2021. So, we So, I mean, arguably, you know, we could have even allowed for some, you know, holding cost associated, but we didn't. That's not included. So, just FYI. Okay. And then my second question had to do with the 160% of federal minimum wage. Zach and I had a conversation about what does that mean? Because as a math teacher, 160% of federal minimum wage, which is $9. No, federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. 160% of that is $1.60. Zach's interpretation was that it was 160% on top of the $7.25, 25 which then puts it up to $18.85. And so what what does 160% of federal minimum wage mean? Well, mayor call I think I think it means uh the $11. Yeah. Yeah. So $160 which is barely above our own minimum wage in this state. But it's not a high bar. Uh no, it's a very low bar. So um I'm not inclined even the other way is not any workers. No. Um I'm not inclined to offer TIFF for this. I don't see I don't see the benefit to the city personally for taking for doing this but I'm down there also there's no benefit. Yeah. A bunch of minimum wage jobs. Well, a bunch 20 20 minimum wage jobs. Not even I mean Darl you'll die first. Jason the yield on cost what? Oh and yeah and they're still making money. It's just that they're not making as much money as they'd like. What sets that? Because back then the yield on cost goal was 6% and now it's seven. So is that simply what the market is doing with these properties or what what drives that? Yeah, mayor members call that's exactly what it is. The market is just demanding a higher return uh today than it did then and that's true across all kind of asset classes. We went through this with the housing. Same same thing there. we were in the sixes and even sometimes below. Today that's that's entirely different at 7 and a half. Seven is what the investors are demanding. I mean, I would like my investments to pay me that. I don't get to go to the government and ask for some tax abatement because my retirement investment isn't panning out where I'd like it to be. What were you going to say? I thought you were just going to say something. No, similar to that, but I don't my company doesn't get tip either. Either you make it on your own or you I guess where I'm a little bit confused in in the thing is that I was here in 2021 and we I think the discussion was built around the the logic for the tip was around that that original assessment was probably unreasonable. Yes. And exactly put a burden on the original owner. Now, that's not the same person anymore, right? Scanel is closed on the property somewhere along the line. And so, they're they're the owner. They I'm sure assumed that this um tiff would exist, you know, in the in the purchase. Now, did they pay the the owner a market rate and not, you know, and sort of absolve him from that? And now that you know now they sort of overpaid because they paid that um that assessment plus all the interest that that was accured on it. You who I'm a little bit lost on who we're making whole now because it's not the original guy. He got his money. Yep. And so now it's Canel trying to recover what they um paid in good faith because we did approve the TIF back then um based based on that that they they're they were expecting that they would recover those extra funds, but the community doesn't get much out of this. We were I think ultimately just acknowledging that that probably wasn't a reasonable special assessment in the first place. I'm not getting myself anywhere on on this one because I I don't I don't know what the right answer is. You know, it it seems like in general when when we do tiff, we this we the city get something for this. This is more of a forgiveness of something that we believe we didn't do right. And you know, is I don't know. I don't know where where I'm going to land on this one. It's that's my conundrum anyway is that is that we the city doesn't really benefit from this but we are kind of pulling the rug out on them because we approved it before we did but um I mean that was that was then also technically this is at 6.4% 4% which would not have met your bar before. It would have been too high. And that was where I was going with it is is it it would have met that bar. Um yeah, that that was my hangup. One of my one of my hang-ups. I think that the original assessment it's what you said is exactly what it was is we were almost trying to fix a previous wrong. Um, but I don't know that that's still still the case. Um, obviously it would be more lucrative if but it would it would end up costing the city probably about 300 or so 300k over the eight years give or take. I mean the city's portion of the taxes that kind of Yeah, I think it's about 34% of the total something like that. Yeah. So maybe a little less than that. Is this project contributing anything toward the um the stop light at that intersection? They are not. Sorry, mayor. Muzzle. They don't they don't want to or there's a reason why we're not asking for that. I don't think he's asked. I don't believe we asked. So, this does tie right to that same intersection. It does. Yes. So, you could argue that's how we've made up for it. That by not asking for them to chip in on that improvement to the intersection, that is kind of making whole the fact that they overpaid for the previous assessment, right? Or Yeah. I believe the reason why staff didn't ask, at least in my perspective, was that they were already requesting tiff. So, oh, if we would ask them for more money, would they just ask us for more tiff back? Yeah. Again, not saying that that was the only reason, but you know, I I guess I I was under the impression that assessment was still hanging out over this thing and it had acrewed even since then, but No, it's unpaid. It was paid back then. Stephanie, I just don't see a benefit to the city. So, yeah, I Well, there's there's room for one, but I mean, we're talking about a stoplight for that intersection. I mean, that can the tiff be contingent on a contribution toward that improvement? I don't know if that would meet the but for test. Well, uh, Mayor M, the council, I would say that the project already meets that test. If you were to layer more costs on to it, that's only going to make that more easily justifiable. So, it just depends on what the corresponding amount of increment would be that goes along with it. If it's no more increment and you're adding project cost, then that makes that return metric worse. That would right. Yeah. You just solid. Solid no. No. Solid no. I I I think I'm a no. I'm a no. All right. You don't want to stand out. Well, I'm fine. I'm fine with saying no. I you know I think the original problem isn't there anymore and I should have built when they had the approval, but um I'm not seeing the city benefit and that's that's a problem. Do we need to make a formal motion? Nope. Okay. Just falls on the ground. Yep. Am I going to have the opportunity to speak? Come on up, Jason. Thank you. [Music] Mr. Mayor, council members, staff, thanks for your time. Scott Mole 9857 to Cer Road Bloomington. Um uh lots of benefit to the city. First of all, we're going to pay over a million dollars in fees. As you heard from previous applicants, um your fees are about three to four times higher than anywhere else we deal in the cities. Were the largest developer in the Twin Cities. We have uh parks all over the in every quadrant of the Twin Cities. We're pretty familiar with it. But you're going to garner over a million dollars in fees from us starting there. Plus, we're going to build a building that's going to attract businesses to your community. Without somewhere to house them, they have nowhere to go cuz not everybody could just go build their own building. So, we're going to attract um you know, multiple businesses to your community that are going to pay taxes and we're going to pay real estate taxes. So, I I I mean it respectfully. I think you're being very shortsighted on that issue. Secondly, um we went ahead in good faith and bought that property and paid that really unreasonable assessment that you guys are already hinting on um with the understanding we're going to get tiff which we got unanimously approved by the previous council and mayor and support from uh Tina before she left. So, um, we went ahead on good faith on that issue because it was, uh, by everybody's understanding pretty heavy-handed and, uh, and we went ahead with it. So, I would ask you guys to consider honoring that, uh, agreement that was done before. And secondly, again, understand there's a tremendous benefit to the community. It's going to pay a lot of real estate taxes. The companies that come there going to pay taxes. You're going to get generate jobs. we're going to pay over a million dollars in fees. Um, so and and you the reason you hire somebody like Mr. Aers, Mr. Arswwell with Aaylor is to make sure that you're getting a good fair market assessment on it. And the fact of the matter is we're not going to build this building without TIFF. That's that simple. So it'll sit there and not generate job opportunities for your community, tax base, a million dollars in fees or whatever. It just he's that's why you hire him is to assess do do we actually need it? Why do we need it? Because of that very heavy-handed assessment. Pretty simple. So I'd ask you to consider honoring the previous agreement and also understand there's tremendous benefit to the community. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I mean, you're still getting a 6.4% rate of return. That's without it without it. It's either 71 with or Yeah. in 6.4. Well, you you're not in the business to make that decision on what's reasonable return. That's why you hired him to assess it and he's his professional opinion is it's it doesn't meet market standards. So, you know, I I want to I mean, respectfully, um it's not up to you to decide what we're supposed to make or not. there's a reasonable spread that the market generates for the risk we're taking, which on a speculative development is significant risk. We could sit empty in that building for years. So then the city would be making the money that you just said we'll be making. Well, we'll pay you the fees and you'll eventually get your taxes, etc., etc. So, I mean, there's a risk involved with it. We're in a high risk, high reward business. And right now, the reward is very skinny. the spread between what our return on cost as a deal is very narrow. Um, nobody's going to feel sorry for us. We don't expect you to, but you hired a professional to assess does it make sense to have tiff and he very firmly told you yes. So I I would ask you to rely on that. That's why you did it and not bring your personal opinions into what you think returns ought to be for professional developers. I don't think that's fair. All right. Thank you. Anything else? No. No questions. Thank you. Any change? No. Nope. Nope. Nope. Okay. All right. on to J. Mayor and council. A little background on the project we're talking about, which is the Mill and Overlay of 125th and East French Lake Road. The city's pavement management plan identifies uh several uh pavement or surface improvement projects uh on roads throughout the city for 2026. Um, as you're all aware, the South Diamond Lake Road project that was recently bid, the bids came in very low, um, about 36% under what we anticipated them to come in at. So, due to that, the consideration is being made to move some of the improvements from the 2026 time frame up to 2025. So, the ones we're looking at doing, as mentioned, is East French Lake Road and 125th all the way from Territorial Road all the way out to Fernbrook Lane. Uh, city staff has also uh made the decision to add Stoneharth Ridge neighborhood which is on 125th near nearer to uh Fernbrook Lane um just due to the pavement condition on there and then the convenience of proximity of the work. Is that the the ad that that's going to cause is that pretty linear? Uh yeah, it's it's it's very small area wise. Yep. Um I don't have that number separated out, but there's no way to make the project more efficient than doing it with this project just because it's such a small neighborhood that if you added it to another project, the mobilization cost alone would be more than what the project would cost if you add it to this. Um I haven't driven that road. Is that road in pretty tough shape? It It's similar to 125th. It wasn't on our list, right? It was not on the list. Um it's a pretty short segment. There's there's some u settlements around some catch basins on there and there's some distresses on there. It could use some attention. Um certainly. Um and then just to note, there is some culvert work. We did go out and look at the culverts. There's a couple that should be replaced with this project before we put new pavement down. And then again some some of the storm sewer and manholes uh within that development. Um needs some attention. It's pretty minor work but um a little bit more than just the mill and overlay portion. Um and then just to note this is as could be expected coming out of the city's payment management fund. So just a graphic of it and again the you can see just in length of road the Stonehart ridge is you know very small in comparison to the overall project. So estimated project cost for this we're thinking around 9 970,000 for construction and then uh another 70 or so for uh engineering and other indirect costs that would be associated with it for right around a million dollars um for the costs. And then just for comparison and note, I just added the South Diamond Lake Road estimate on what we started at with the 1.3 and the bids came in at just over 800. Um, so a significant reduction to what we anticipated for that one originally. Um, schedule on this. Ideally, we do get it bid and constructed this year. So, we would like to come back um the second meeting in July with plans um and move forward as indicated here with the uh bid opening early August, award late August and then start construction in September. Um that is aggressive and there is more field work to be done with this in preparation. Um so we did identify a fallback date. um we are of the belief that if the fall back date is what it becomes that we can still construct it this year. So just to to note that um and then additionally I think council is aware of this that if either we don't meet the schedule or we do move forward with bids and for some reason they're excessively high um compared to what we're expecting we can just rebid it in the spring. We can reject all bids and rebid in the spring. So it wouldn't be lost cost if you will for the preparation of plans and specifications this year. So our recommendation is to approve the engineering proposal included in your packet and that would be authorization to prepare the plans and specifications. I like it. I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. Any more discussion? All those in favor say I. There's a question. Isn't there a housing development going up off of East French Lake Road just north of Territorial? Yes. So would you do the roads after they were done with the housing development? This would be before because you'll have a lot of heavy equipment. Yeah. Yeah. That's actually the newest section of the road too because that was redone with territorial trail in there. But timing of the projects, they wouldn't be done through there for uh probably a full year. All right. All those in favor say I. I. I. Those opposed say no. Carries five to zero. And we are on to revised item K. Apologize about this council. Yeah. So I revised item K at the beginning of the agenda. We um essentially added in the personal policy which they didn't have time to update the PowerPoint obviously to get more information. We just realized that this was not added. It was tabled waiting for a legal opinion. Um and we have legal opinion tonight. It was not added to our agenda. So um we at the last council meeting we discussed at length with the personal policy and conversations questions related to some of the new terminology related to um the additions related to the personal policy. Um with Amy being our legal counsel she's the one who drafted most of this and worked with staff. Overall, I do have one change that we had mentioned last time already that we wanted to remove the random testing portion of that, which is um most certainly fine. And then we had a clarification or question on what the return to work testing meant. Do you want to clarify what that actually meant, which was what council member Van Asen had mentioned, which is only if you are on leave for a certain instance related to um a violation related to whether that's alcohol or drugs, then you would be tested when you came back. If you just return to work after a leave of absence or a vacation, then you would not be subject to that return to work testing. So that's how it was how it is written and how it should be intended to be um implied. So if you were on leave because of alcohol or Yeah. So if you were put on a leave of absence based on due to those due to those things because you need to find rehab help or you need to do something else, then you would be essentially required to subject to return to work testing. If you take a leave of absence to take care of your sick grandma, that's not going to count for return to work testing or just go on vacation or just vacation or whatever that may be or your own FMLA or your own anything. Yep. To work on your mental health, whatever that may be, then you are not subject to return to work testing. Um and then clarification on why the public safety employees was required to be that was the last question we had was why are public safety employees um essentially a no ever. um and that it's based on boards and how they're federal guidelines. So with police it's postboard for firefighters it is the oh gosh EMSRB or is it the OEMS or um based on that board with being an EMR EMT EMS professional you need to follow those federal guidelines which are run by the state boards. So that is why those individuals are requested or required to be following federal guidelines for depositions and those federal guidelines mandate no correct because it's follow it follows the federal allowance of cannabis. Now, if the federal allowance of cannabis happens at some point in the whatever future, then we would have to revisit our personal policy because then it would be change in the um statute or whatever you want to call because the federal law doesn't recognize cannabis as a legal it's so categorized as a as a drug. That's correct. As an illegal substance. That is correct. So, that is why those public safety employees are required to be essentially nothing ever. No, I'm not sure. But again, I'm here for questions and responses. I know that was at the last council meeting, so I'm trying to do it so we have some sort of recollection of what was discussed. I know that council fashion wasn't here either for the conversation and may have more questions based on it, too. Yeah, I did watch the meeting um after I got back, so I feel like I'm more or less up to speed. It doesn't solve it for me. I mean, it seems like there's a conundrum there. particularly with the THC with the amount of time it stays in your system and particularly with the firefighters where it's they're essentially on call all the time. Um, so it's it seems like seems to overreach, but I don't know how you I don't know how you solve that exactly until there's some point in time where there's, you know, a a potizer or something where, you know, you blow past a certain level and it means something. You know, now I I don't know that it it can mean anything. Does it mean that you used or drank something yesterday or you know 29 days ago? And if it's 29 days ago, how is that relevant to something that happened to you happened yesterday? So that's that's where I get stuck with it is I don't know how you There's one state that I found that did set a level. I don't remember what the state was, but it set it to like seven nanogs of blah blah blah. I'm going to look at the city's terms. So, I have no idea. I'm just saying because they're the first ones. I mean, they were one of the first ones to legalize it. So, I'm guessing their cities have gone through this. Yeah. Already. So, what have they done? Yeah. I I really don't like the fact that it it can reach back so far. I just do not like that. But it's it's just a product of the fact that the state law and the federal law don't don't align. Think my two cents is I'm going to take those two's recommend recommendation. Otherwise, we're going to beat this to death for 45 minutes and still not find a solution. Well, and one thing to keep in mind is that you're you're not intend it's not the council's intention, as I understand it, to do random testing. No, not at all. So, you know, the only time that that the personnel policy would be triggered in effect is if somebody is is on the job impaired by it and test positive. What does impairment look like? You had too many snacks, you giggled too much in the truck. I that's where I have a problem is impairment doesn't It's not like alcohol where you're slurring your words and you're stumbling around. like I just I just don't well that's where you have you know law enforcement who are have some training and drug recognition you know I mean so you have some expertise in house you know as far as that goes so it's you know I mean the way I would envision it happening is that you know a supervisor sees somebody behaving in a certain way kind of is is suspicious that maybe they're impaired by something you call a police officer from your staff they come and they do you know their assessment and then you kind of go from there you I mean, so getting to the point where you're testing your employees for cannabis is is, you know, is pretty far down the down the process down the the the steps of the process. Um, so it's just the the policy as it's written is, you know, is pretty consistent with what other Minnesota cities are doing to, you know, who all are also struggling with the same, you know, discrepancy between the state law and the federal law. And you know, I mean, it it really comes down to the fact that since you're not going to just be randomly saying, "I'm going to test you today." You know, it's it really comes down to whether there's an impairment that's visible that makes makes them unsafe on the job. I can remember years ago I probably would have fallen off the truck. Thanks, Scott. Years ago. We're talking along a little bit statute of limitation. I mean with the clarification okay with taking out the random testing which I absolutely want to take out random testing and with the clarification that the testing after leave is only if it is a leave directly related to an issue. I I I am kind of with we have a federal law, state law that are not matching and we're not there yet and I think we have to go with what the federal law is basically. I mean I think that's where we're at and I don't where you're at. I think that's where I I think that's where I have to land. I think it's there's a disconnect there that doesn't make sense to me but it's it's above us again and and testing hasn't and right it it has not because you even without the random piece so I'll use fire somebody is involved in an incident in in fire and maybe um Gary you can you can help with this but so something goes bad right somebody sues the city that's that's our concern is that we've got liability with impaired um personnel on on these events. So, something goes bad and the city gets sued and they want does that does that drive this testing or or is it more um you know, somebody who was on the crew said, you know, this character clearly was not fit to be to be here and the lawyers get wind of that. They ask for the testing. I mean where how does this kind of play out in a real way? I think uh Councilman Fashan from my perspective that you have a couple things. Um one being if somebody was hurt, let's say they get hurt on the job, I think that would constitute testing just that capacity. Um if they hurt somebody else inadvertently, um then liability. I guess the question that I have that I talked to Zach a little bit about today is that with this we don't know if somebody's using THC I to your point is it two days ago 30 days ago what does that liability look like I I I don't know I'd have to ask Amy you know in that capacity what that looks like but my assumption is an attorney is going to get involved. They if we do have an accident, we should be drug testing anyways, you know, from that perspective. Say somebody gets into a car accident or fire truck runs into something, that would constitute testing um at a minimum, I would from that perspective. But I think reality is is that if we had somebody today uh cuz we're not doing randoms, which is fine, having THC in their system, another attorney is going to get involved and we're going to get into some sort of conundrum with the other attorney because they want to basically prove liability back to us having deeper pockets at the end of the day. So I think the best thing to do from my perspective is Scott is looking for some opinion I guess is that we mirror basically what other cities do. We're covering our butts in that capacity of you know same or similar until some others type of testing comes out. Thank thank you. Yeah I I don't think we can fix this. I think we have to live with what it is until there is a better a better answer. Were those the only outstanding issues? Those are the only ones that I noted at the last council meeting. If anybody else can remember any, please let me know. But those are the ones I remember having big hang-ups on up. We don't know what this means. Yeah, we don't know what that means. Why do we have this for public safety employees? And so there's not automatic testing. Let's say let's say a an accident occurs. It's not automatic testing there. It's got to be a suspicion of impairment. Um it would be on an on an accident would be automatic. Yes. Oh. So that's what like we had um the incident happened. Say we had a public works employee hit uh something y another public works employees car. That never happens, right? Um we would then that would be then considered a accident on the scene and they would have to go get tested which would be new, right? That would be new. Yes. because we don't do that now because we don't have a policy. We do not have a policy. You can't test someone unless you have a policy. Yeah. No, I'm I'm just asking. It was just a clarification. So, essentially, it's just a and that doesn't necessarily mean that that means a punishment for the employee. That might mean that that that employee might need help and that it honestly leaves us with an ability to help that employee more than just saying, "Oh, yeah, that's just sucks and that's too bad because that employee might need help with something else." Yeah, I get that. It's just not my experience that they helped. No, I'm not trying to trying to say anything about what's happened in the past. I'm trying to say that this is what my version of what I'm Okay. Well, let's uh So, where were we at with this? We needed a We need a motion, right? A motion to a motion to approve it as it's written. No, minus random testing. We have to take out the random testing. We already They already did that. But that's not as written, is it? Um tech well technically I put it in there as the same as last time. So it needs to be you need to motion to remove random testing if that's what we know. I noted that. I noted that in the comments that we wanted to have random test the changes that you were going to make. Yes. That's what I'm saying. Yes. So not as written but with the changes identified. Changes identified which is the only one I have right now is removing random testing. That's what I have. Did Stephanie and mayor did you want to remove the testing after an accident? No. I'm going to vote no matter what. So don't ask me. I'm not sure I like that. Yeah. But do you care? Does that cause us legal issues if we take that out? I don't think it does because let's say somebody screwed up, they get in an accident, whether we test them or not, we're liable. True. Um I mean it's it's simply it's it's just a protection that allows the city to take action from an employment perspective separate from the separate from any you know other external legal liability. just I mean this is this is this is primarily an inwardlooking policy. It's about how you deal with your employees, not always about how they're interacting with the public, if that makes sense. Yep. So what you're asking I think what you're getting at is if a guy backs a truck into into a parking lot, he backs a truck into another vehicle right now. If you leave it the way it is, you can randomly test him or you could you could test him before that. No. No. Well, if yes, sorry. If you adopt the policy with the changes, then they Yes. But as we sit today without this new policy update, we can't do anything. So, I would say because it was pouring rain Thursday or so ago when they backed into the dumpster at Northern Hydraulics. If it happens one time, I just wasn't paying attention. That's just the way it was. I would not want the opportunity. It doesn't mean that we have to test them. It means that we have the ability to. But we would. But you would because you have a policy that says you're going to. The only reason you would is that you want to get rid of that guy, which to me it would have to be a common occurrence or or it have to have to happen three times or something, not on a a single deal. So, I mean, to me, if you're going to have that in there, you got to have There's got to be multiple issues. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, we currently in the police department have a drug policy in place. Um, and it requires on any personal injury accident that we do testing or any critical incident that we test. Um, property damage accidents. Um if we show up and we have reasonable suspicion that the officer is under the influence um we would definitely test um then also um but a lot of it is your personal injury accidents where an injury is caused um because of the civil lawsuits that come from those those accidents. So, I would request that you keep um at least personal injury accidents in the policy for mandatory testing. I could see that. I could live with that. Does that post accident testing is related to a three things? The accident involves a fatality. The driver receives a citation for a moving violation from an accident and an injury is treated away from the accident scene for for either party or the driver receives a citation and the vehicle has to be towed from the accident scene. That's what I read in the post accident testing area. What page is that? I'm sorry. Oh, this was currently page 39. It may not be that after we make adjustments. It just that way I can look at it and I I would recommend to go with what is in the policy. Would that happen, Paul? Either way, just for a police officer, no matter what or you probably You're already covered as in the police side of it. You're already covered. That's already done, right? You already My my policy is already completed. I've had that policy in place for years. Yeah. Are there for people CDL? Are there good people that have a CDL? There are more requirements for people who have CDL than there are for just a general person. Don't some of the public works. Yes. Employees have to have a CDL to drive the plow trucks and all of them. And so it's not it. So rereading the policy, the testing after an accident isn't just a I backed in to a dumpster. It is because someone died or because there was a an injury that had to be treated. Not just I went home and was like, "Oh, my back is sore." Like, but like you went to the hospital or your vehicle was towed from the scene, which has to be a pretty pretty bad accident to get towed away typically. So, I'm actually okay because there there are those. It's not just I backed into the garbage canyon. Yeah, I was using that as an example, but bad example. That change right there. Okay. It's not a change. change. That's what it was. That's what it was. So, we're back to taking out random testing. Just taking out random testing and we have clarified what return from leave is. Got a motion from Scott. I will second it. Any more discussion? All right. All those in favor say I. I. All those opposed say no. No. No. Passes three to two. All right. Okay. Um, I do, but I didn't have a break. I have to use the restroom for So, I can just I'll ask just a quick quick question. Do we want to have a budget discussion tonight? We do not have to. I did not have to prepare anything for this. Well, then boom. It's up to the council if you want to have a discussion tonight. Skip this. I'm sending a text on where I'm at. Oh, yeah. If you want to send me something after this, that's great. I'm good with not having any convers depending on what the council wants. We will have further conversation. I'm ready to have it if you want to, but I don't know if anybody's prepared. I mean, you want to How about this? Can you please send me your thoughts on it within the week? So, from everybody, you need a response of percentages, dollars, whatever you want to say something to me. Tax rate, whatever. It would be great. Something something to me like something about the levy or something. Anything about the levy. Okay. So, that's a direction. If there are no uh questions, we'll be adjourned. We're thank you. Thank you.