e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e most recently in March and before that Council unless the open house in November hasn't really seen since then so just to give you some updates from where we started and where we're at and I'm sorry I'm being super picky but can the mayor actually call the meeting to order oh yep sorry all right I'll call the meor May second work second thanks Amy um so initially we started this workout it was approved on June 27th of last year um kind of really kicked off at the September 7th work session that Planning Commission held um to kind of run over land use transportation and the design standards um with that had some recommendations that came out of that that we then used to move to the public feedback side so we then uh moved into the October 23rd is when we held a 3-week long online survey they got a couple hundred uh responses along with an open house that we held at the Dayton Community Center um up in the historic village on November 29th that was pretty heavily attended to with about 80 to 100 depending on number of people there um so that's kind of how what we've done so far in March we came back with a draft of the Planning Commission um and the recommendation from the Planning Commission was to get Council and Planning Commission together to hold this work session to go over specifically land use um So within the master plan boundary area today's discussion is going to be framed around land use specifically um I won't really talk about or touch on the other components as land use will kind of Drive some of those factors afterwards um and we'll make the necessary updates to the plan after this um work session um so I will talk specifically about land use only within the master plan boundary area as we're not looking at the the land uses outside of that this is kind of a special study area for within that um and some of the goal this was one of the primary goals was to kind of look at that land use that was directed um back in June so I think it's kind of important to go through this so as we're on the screen I I sent out with the staff report and some maps um essentially four land use maps there's the existing land use map it's good for context to know where we're coming from and this is the adopted land future land use so this is the one that will be utilized until we update the comprehensive plan um and then three options um and I'll kind of I should probably scroll through run through so you can see them as I'm talking about them um option one was essentially the futur land juuse map for the master plan plan that was presented to the Planning Commission at their March 7th uh meeting so this is what they reviewed and felt that it need some further discussion um so that's option one um option one keeps the so we're going to talk kind of about density as well um for the specifically for the high density so high density in this case stays at the same density range we currently have it in the future in the comprehensive plan for the future land use which has a minimum of 15 units an acre um option two and three which which I'll show here uh bump that up to 20 units an acre um for the density and why that matters is essentially because you have more density within the land use you don't need as many acres to hit your number of units that you need to get to meet the me council's three units an acre across the city wide um so when I'm talking about units and things like that um the existing the tables that were in the the materials that we sent out there's this total unit capacity of 5,2 within the master plan boundary area that's the number we kind of work or that I was working off of because we have to hit or exceed that number within the master plan boundary no matter how we configure the land uses and the density we have to make sure we're at above 5,000 otherwise we run into we're potentially going below three units in acres Citywide so because there's 5,000 units in there to start today on the existing land use plan we have to hit that with whatever changes we make going forward um so option one that we brought to Planning Commission was at 5,211 so just slightly above that 5,000 so we're still good there all of these are good for the density but I just want you to know where and why we're trying to keep a lot more high density in this area is because we're required to do so based on the low density that's elsewhere within the city um option two um and I'll perhaps just by saying a Planning Commission did ask to have some more where the density ranges were increased in high density residential to allow for maybe a little more medium density and low density res residential and then an option that also increased the high density residential to allow for potentially a business park or office type use so this this option two is the one that allows for more medium and low density residential so a couple areas that have changed on here um as you look from the southeast corner of the master plan boundary coming in there's a lot more transition from low density with some more low density in the master plan boundary area more medium density and then still some high density adjacent to the town center mixed use and the commercial there's also some more medium density on the northeast and Northwest Corners in this version as well um and then that still hits at 5237 so over the required threshold we need to hit and then the third option introduces a little more medium density residential and some business park um which is kind of the the nonheavy industrial but still Business Industrial land use um that's in the southwest corner as that's the the most applicable area transition um to have some more industrial and then you'll notice on the Southeast corner there is more medium density residential and on the northwest corner there is more um medium density residential transition into the Town Center commercial area so those based on the direction that Planning Commission gave us uh gave staff uh were put together uh and then I'd be looking for input on what you like or don't like or which way you'd want to pursue these I mean they're all viable options to go with option one two or three um and there based on your feedback I can look at other options as well the really the only thing we need to hit is we need to make sure we have over that 5,23 unit capacity there might be a little wiggle room in there but I'd rather just air on the safe side and stay above that um I think 20 units an acre from a from a development perspective is probably the highest we can go on the low end for high density residential um otherwise you could start excluding some projects that may not be able to hit a higher density um so if you bumped it to 25 there are projects that come in and I did do calculations on about six or seven of the recent multif family projects I worked on on where they fell in the density range to make sure that when we bump if we bump it from 15 to 20 units an acre that's still viable from a development perspective because the last thing we want to do is get a good project in that we can't approve because our density range is too high and all of them were close or did meet it mean there there were only two that were under 20 and they were at about 19.6 so they were very very close to hitting that 20 so I don't think we're excluding too many projects if we did bump that up to 25 I think there were four four that would not be able to meet that so I think we're safe bumping it to 20 but I wouldn't go any higher on that low end density range which means we're probably um stuck with a certain number of high density residential acreage within that Master Plan boundary area so what does 20 units an acre look like in a building I had pictures I forgot um so in a building uh for example most buildings are going to be four stories they're going to be one grade below three grade 20 units an acre it's almost always three story y it's going to be it's still going be get closer to 30 units an acre now it's a four story Y and the importance of a four story is if you want one parking stall per unit below grade they can do that if you get more than four stories you just there's too many units to meet that demand MH you can get in a little bit of trouble still if you say it was all small one bedrooms you still might be in trouble trying to get one stall put per parking per unit I should say which is our code but usually it's not going to be all one bedrooms Dayton it's not going to be all one bedrooms and usually just market conditions and the building code restrictions on multi family you're going to only pretty much see three stories over one story of structured parking in Dayton because once you go to four stories above ground then you start getting into building code requirements for different construction of materials and it becomes much more expensive to construct so they has to be the market and the rents to support that to get that yeah because we require the one grade of underground parking most you most developments are going to Target four stories that's what they do in rers St above ground no four stories above ground that's what they did in Rogers that's what the the presentation was uh the one on uh on the other side of the freeway four stories too yeah they'll start four stories above ground four stories of units so when we think of above ground you should be thinking of where the units are m so those those would be similar to the one the apartment buildings you already have so ball some point um that's three but I'm saying that that type of development can still hit 20 it's an acre the 20 is three yeah and that's the other thing when you think about the units per acre in this area maybe it's a little different because it's you know going to be more compact but how much open space do you really want with multif family in certain areas it's more appropriate because your isolated you want green areas but if you're tring to create a little bit more urban center I'm a bigger fan of not have the open space on the project itself but have it as park space because park space doesn't even go towards our density calculations and so have more park space that surrounds it than the itself so if you did that you'd actually could easily do more than 20 but that's what part of the discussion is what do you really want it to look like yep yeah because there are this is all based on net density so gross density is essentially the size you have 4 divid by the number of units you can put that amount of Acres that's gross density net takes out everything that wouldn't that's basically considered unbuildable or undevelopable so park is undevelopable because it's a park um Open Water Wetlands steep slopes um arterial roadways those are all taken out of the calculation that's where you get to that final net density and that's typically what you see when you get a final plat application in for an apartment building that's the density you'd see when you get Concepts in and you're reviewing Concepts in that stage you're probably going to see mostly gross density because we don't potentially know all those final acreages for how big the wetlands are what kind what size Park will be with the development that kind of thing so these are all based or that final number would be like the net density so it building off of what you just said so if the park we've got a park in this area is the park in the right place I guess number one and if it is then does the density because we've got several kinds of zoning around that Park is that is that correct with that sort of I guess the question is what what do you want in the park you know so long French Lake I there there's a lot of Lon land that follows along the lake and then you've got kind of a ridge so I mean there's a nice Natural Area along the lake but if you want more you know active Recreation however you want to Define that that's going to be up on top so so the existing comprehensive plan had a park search area essentially about there right on the center so if I use the cursor basically right in here well and there's that little strip of DNR land Landing from a staff perspective in terms of just like acquiring the park there's already the DNR strip there so we felt placing the park adjacent to that made sense from a just a planning perspective along with the fact that the the preferred styles of town center and things like that led to an open space it's part of the survey results on both the open house and the online survey so the the the land you flow of this plan at least all and all three do keep that same flow in terms of the mixed use commercial and the park um basically keeping the commercial on the corridor leading it into the mixed use which is um identified as the Town Center mixed use so it's supposed to be Dayton's Town Center that's utilized by its residents um leading into a park was kind of the most apt fit it'll then allow the the mixed use to transition into a park space however kind of purple is the mixed use mixed use y okay yep so think for floor commercial with maybe likely Apartments maybe office but likely apartments above it but it allows quite a vast array of uses so it'll kind of depending on how and when it gets developed it's more the built form of it and less the uses that in the one thing that I mean we're obviously just looking at a flat two-dimensional map but when you look at topography map I think that's one thing we probably got to do a better job of trying to incorporate in here because west of the existing East French Lake Road it's flat for a little bit but then halfway through that oranged Medium density area there's a big slope that goes down to the lake and whenever you have big slopes you know it it's going to play with things with what you can put on it MH and you know you can put anything anywhere at a cost I guess but i' I'd like to see some of those things retained if possible and not not too altered and that's a heavily wooded area yeah so there there it's not on the the future Maps but the existing one there's essentially so you can see the green hash is the greenway overlay right Corridor so that's essentially where we're looking at natural resources that would the intention is to preserve some of them as development occurs and on the very I'll call it West edge of this corner right here there is a topographical change in that there's a null right there a pretty significant null which is why none of the corridors we have on the future land use go through that area because of the grading that would have to take place to do any um major roadways through that area yeah you should make a note that when we whatever plan we adopt for the master plan we got to get the green lights over like for example like where you added the low density I think in option two yep that's all I shouldn't say all but a lot a lot of that's not very developable that's the green way that's this fact that open body of water there and stuff like that we should get that on there so it's just yeah I took it off so you can see the luse yeah but you can't yeah cuz the land use can't really go there if you can't physically put it there so I mean with a Greenway overlay typically low density would be the most apt I guess what I'm trying to say too is that won't even factor into the density calculations because that I mean it's not huge but there's an open body of water there and wet lands but no matter which residential category you put on there it would still be factored out of already or if the some people decide to Target that as another Park area yeah that could be it's not identified for park right now so we didn't I didn't even think of that as a factor just cuz I don't want to overload our we know have a budget based on how many parks you edifi now so we could certainly look if that's a viable option to move the park um but I'd be looking you guys for feedback on kind of at least for now what which of the three options you like the best or which pieces of those three options you like the best what changes because the goal for this is essentially that I can go back with and with John and we can put together essentially a final version that would come through Planning Commission and city council for approval um that's our next step really is to go to bring it back that we're kind of at that point now um along with before we brought it back to that we'd have the open house that we have on the schedule it's been delayed since what we initially thought but to have that final open house so that everybody that came to the November 29th one we see what kind of draft we have we can still make changes then but I'd like to have something where we feel good about the land use to bring forward to the open house and then to Future meetings so that's kind of the goal of tonight is to get to the point where um you've given us enough direction we can put together a future land use plan just a point of clarification what's what's is this egg preserve egg preserve so why is I guess my question is why is that one egg preserve because it would take the outside of our future land use so when you are in the egg preserve to come out of the egg preserve you have to give so it's in it today that's why it's correct and it has no expiration date identified which means they haven't even applied to pull it out and there's an 8year time frame before you can pull it out of the ier so at minimum if they submitted tomorrow instead want to come out of the a preserve they're not going to be out of it for eight more years um okay so we typically don't show anything on there until they at least initiated expiration now most of this well not most but a good chunk of this is owned by the Deans who just came through last week or last month to get a um Event Center thing and like that's a 30 year 30 years 30 years yeah um three Z and that's a good chunk of this so can be 30 years I yes but my point is they clearly intend to be here like they have every intention of being here that was their request right isn't that 2050 land on the staging plan so yeah I didn't include the staging plan as part of the packet but it is part of the conversation I guess the bottom and this might just help to your comment so to your point Sarah that's out there with with their buildings I guess most of this is 2030 this area it's 2030 on the bottom portion I'm just going to paraphrase 2040 and then 2050 or post 2050 so but that's not the event center part of it oh that's true the earliest we'd expect anything in the master plan to develop is 2030 and then it would just move from south to North according or like with our current staging plan it would move south to North with the north part being post 2050 so a lot of this isn't going to get developed for 30 years for 30 years I noticed in the uh in the master plan that it's not Apples to Apples that's why I'm bringing this question up but you said that the staff says that 20 in 20 203 by 2035 was the Dayton Parkway extension which was originally was the extension going kitty corner across the city before the Dayton Parkway shifted yep is the intention that staff still thinks that this Dayton Parkway is going to get extended by 2035 is that is that why that was in there like that cuz I think that was the reference being made in which map not in the map in the narrative in The Narrative of the plan draft plan I think yeah based on the state that we expect things to happen on between the categories the South Side being 2030 the middle kind of being 2040 then post 2050 we do expect the at least to start moving North yep around that time yeah that's the expectation that's kind of what we're yeah I'm anticipating dude that's going to be a question at the next open house that's why I just it'll ultimately be driven by development but that's how we're anticipating it based on and the reality is none of this none of this besides the low density to the east couldn't even happen until Dayton Park was I can't I can't imagine how it's going to happen until day park extend I mean we're realist realistically we're 20 30 years out on all of it well unless Parkway gets extended well right the first thing that's going to happen is a road whenever that is whether that's 10 years or quicker or later whatever it is um that's what's first my real question is is this alignment of the road roadway do we have to have that Esther first off this whole change on how the parkway came through is it still boggles me if that ever happened it's in my opinion this thing should have came way over this way and and lined up this way instead of coming right through all this property that it's going to be 203 years before we get it or they die one of the two can we not put a roundabout here and a roundabout here and make a straight line to here instead of going through all these properties not with the amount of traffic that's going to be coming through yeah so we basically we have the two Landing points in major cities A and B essentially which is where it's constructed here and then we have to land here and based on orientation of existing roadways um land use um changes in the area along with topographical conditions this is really the only viable route to get I mean like you can this is a fat line so it will not look exactly like this it it might jog a little further north and then go to the east but generally this S curve makes the most sense cuz there are I mean this area here we want to avoid based on the topographical conditions in there and then so basically having it here and then trying to line up here would go right through that area so this from an engineering and constructibility standpoint along with land use and the the corridors and the goal of moving traffic with also being able to direct it to the Townson area made the most sense and that was the alignment that was adopted as part of the transportation update that was done back in8 18 or something like that well that one and then the realignment that happened is in October of last year or whenever that happened yeah I just think we are amring ourselves with this elment I'm with Scott and Dennis but unless someone's going to change it I guess I don't know what else to do I think we either got to drop the conversation or commit the change in it I mean I I'm on the same page with you guys and I brought this up before that it just seems like even though it yeah that was Sho because somebody wanted it that way even though it's built even though it's built and we have utilities there and I get I I totally understand all of that we can still we still have an opportunity this is a small change compared to what that is yeah that's my question why can't we just if that's stupid move that that's not that much and and just so that I'm clear you're talking about the section that's already built y South of7 Y and when this land use got brought up that was my my recommendation was to bring this or this master plan was to bring this down almost all the way down to territorial because that's the major component we know where Zanzibar is on the North side we don't know how we're getting there right yep yeah I think what it is is at least for me is for years I've said we got to fix this alignment and it just seems like it gets ignored and it it sounds like more people are in agreement and here we are we're we're years passed and we're still we're still we're going to try to fix we're going to make them another mistake on top of a mistake unfortunately we're have to we have to choose if which mistake is worse now because if we change it there's a obviously it's it's a lot of money so the the S curve that's um that you you want to change I mean what is the reasoning for changing that um because I don't see it getting past 117 for a decade or because the opposition of the property owners so so if you look at the the observation of the properties along French Lake here these are all single family yep residential high dollar high dollar acreage lot homes that and also speaking in into what is unique and characteristic about Dayton that's it right there it's this that's what people want Sarah you move you move here for a similar size type of lot as some of these bigger ones yeah that is what we want to preserve this is farmfield yeah there's a few homes there's a few homes on these Parcels but these are large acre Parcels that can be a lot more manipulated divided up easier easier to cut through and bisect seems like once this starts developing I mean there's what we've got 52 5300 homes so that's going to be I'm going to say 12 to 15,000 people you know the people that are living in the square mile are they still going to want to live here once this starts developing there's there's it is a fair question there there is fair question if it is but if you look at Maple Grove you look at Plymouth you look at at Madina the big acreage lots are still high dollar high value lots and they're multi-million dollars no not 750 it's because the land value is driving the value understood but people are clearly still going to yeah and and they're choosing to the buyers are choosing to maintain the use in some circumstances versus redevelop it andan that's really if you want to preserve something is a reason for the buyers to the buyer to preserve it not the not the city or anyone else the buyer I think there's another liability here but and I mean where the red was we assessed heavily those properties and now we're out the door yep no that's out the door and we it's open the door because the road shifted not because well that may be but the assessments were based on future land value I'm I'm telling you if I'm one of those red in the red there I'm makinging a phone call have you guys told staff to look into what it costs so you can make a decision on whether it's really worth to redo it I mean I think that's the next step staff does again this I mean because if you guys want it redone over and over again and it just seems to be blown off yeah and if if we can hear reasons that you we here's why we can't do this and I haven't heard those yet and now we have this vertical Road there what what is that between yeah on the purple there's a vertical Road why is that there oh in the in the yeah that guy where'd that come from that was plan straight e West French Lake Road West French Lake Road so this is still sh is here because it is right away currently but it's being realigned to make a straight north south connection for a safer intersection here yeah that probably makes sense just seems odd because you know that's not too far from where the other road was but does that 121st go all the way to uh Fernbrook I can't tell the do this right it does not so the map's not zoomed out big enough but there is a wetland complex about right here which makes it really hard to get through so this is intended to be from here and then as it goes past here it jogs I think conceptually we had it south of the Wetland but that that is entirely up to which way is more the most logical route these roads are going to take because of topography and you can see the whole cck that's the low area is that this road is going to bend down this way and this Road's going to bend up that way it's the most logical and we talked about it but that's outside the master plan area so we just left it but that's the most logical the road's going to bend down Bend up and that North South Road on the right there is there topography problems with shifting that over more towards the so I'll just say like this all of this we didn't really study because it was outside the master plan boundary so that'll come up with a comprehensive plan so there is a north south connection shown based on the fact that there's a creek here and we probably don't want to cross it stuck it here in between property lines that is just conceptually what it was um but we should probably take that off for the Public Presentation because we don't need to make commitments like we were going to it just drop the line at the end of the master plan and call today yeah stupid question so obviously it got moved the Dayton Parkway where was it supposed to be see the purple and red it curved it was supposed to follow that natural curve okay and so it just basically made a nice sweeping up to zanar yeah and and my I I mean I mean even looking at the aial here and the the property on the other side of the the uh the pond there has a road almost going right straight into the roundabout on the south side of the that the intersection of 170 right here right I mean you can you could you can see a nice Invision right on this sou side that so I guess don't disag before we get too far in the conversation so this is we so I'll just kind of back up this was the landing point I didn't ever consider an alternative because we have the existing infrastructure there and I don't that's not my expertise to do a fin a feasibility so that would be Jason and his team to be able to analyze what it would take to move to wherever it would land east of where it is now in terms of financial um RightWay G Gathering the necessary RightWay whether it's through whatever means do to whether it's development or another means to get the right away it didn't even occur to shift anything with that because we don't have any of the data to show if that's even possible from a financial standpoint for the city or from a feasibility standpoint in terms of working with all the various Property Owners to gather the right away needed for that so I think if that's if that's truly the way you want to go it has more implications outside of just the master plan and and basically that would have to be studied before we want to finalize the master plan I guess is what I'm getting at because if that were to shift that would obviously change quite a few of the conversations with the master plan boundary area well this plan change three four times before anything happens anyway I want over SC I I think the road alignment is that's the most important thing that we need to get right the land uses absolutely they'll be changing until they get developed so I'm hearing from at least two council members that you want us to look at Shifting the road I think you can say three three I you got to fix the problem I want to be just clear I understand one thing on on this or this process so as far as I can tell we can draw anything we want on this plan because we're not amending the the comp plan with this the intent is to use this as a guide until the next iteration of the comp plan and then it would be incorporated uh into that into that next comp plan so we're not going to the Met Council we're not doing any of that with this because we know this is planning for future yep correct so we can draw that road on there anywhere we want at this point I mean we get we need to get to a point that makes sense to everybody right otherwise you can't do the you can't do the zoning and so why don't why don't we do that I don't I don't have the history or know individually these land owners so you know I don't know what makes sense or what's possible there either but why don't we draw the ideal on there and and see where that takes us I think you I mean in my opinion you always start with the ideal and worry about the property owners later because they might move they might get hit by a bus whatever you we don't know start with the ideal and then deal with later and what I would suggest if you do that and you guys should weigh in but I would suggest that when you give them some numbers to redo it maybe give them the number to extend it to 125th because the idea is we're not going to if you if we Reign it we're not going to reconstruct it until 125th is extended probably unless the ddl property becomes a major issue right say that again so the ddl property is the main property it's going to go through yep but we there's no need to redo it unless we're extending it to 125th or maybe ddl is hot the Trot that they want to develop their property and so my point being of understanding the cost to extend it rough estimates versus the cost to just move it is what if the cost to move it's only 5% of the total project it might be easier to swallow than than if it's you know 20 or 30% well is the uh this is my consensus on is the proper alignment to come off of here and get over this way you follow the original right up through here like follow in the original well and there may be a modification that that you do maybe right as you get up to 117 to against the roundabout and then there's another yeah there AIG there's a round right there at 117 the other thing not to the other thing not to get lost in this but we've got aund million property the cubes that going to impact their access so don't forget about that I don't think it's going to impact it bad it's just going to make their driveway longer which might be a good thing it's going but it's going to impact it because right now Dayton Parkway goes right up to the driveway if you shift Dayton Parkway they just driveway needs to not necessarily I mean you could leave you could leave parway the infrastructure that's there today it might be cheaper and you might actually want to narrow it a little bit as far as like what's out there but you could leave that there today if you sweep way around to the other side those two connection points on 117th are pretty fairly far apart so the sweep would kind of start at the existing roundabout it would start at the roundabout exist Y at least the way I would inion this the existing Road would become East French l Road really and then Dayton Parkway keeps moving to theast so this R just yeah so oh I see like that which is these guys here intersection already has a four away with you pick that yeah it just seems stupid to compound a dumb decision with more dumb decisions when now is the time to correct and like you said leave you know don't take out what's there but just put what was you could narrow it up a little that that existing dayon Parkway from from the roundabout up to 117th you could you know so it's less maintenance yeah you don't do it right away but when that day comes you can do it yep I think the biggest just my appraise her mind and damages but I think the biggest issue is going to be dealing with ddl property because that's where the road's going to go through now and they're already talking to St I don't know what they've been talking to staff about but they've had ideas to staff they been I thought they weren't talking well so there's an eaw and there's nothing beyond that but essentially for ddl like as soon as they have a buyer they're going to develop they they want to go this year yeah their intention is to start this year if they find a buyer well buyer is not going to start this year if they haven't haven't put a contract not already not if they don't have they run contract for a while to start yet this year well what about I can't get my map up here quick enough but um not necessarily taking the old path but looking at round about right at 117 and then following 117 East East past the junction and then another roundabout up um I I just suggested but Jason said you can't do it too much traffic so think someone else at some point yeah you can blame Jason though for what I say that's fine I can blame Jason so I mean at some point in time like there's going to be a river crossing and maybe it'll be in our lifetime or maybe not even if there's not a river crossing I think that some point in time that design that Dennis Scott mentioned won't be ideal that's some point time won't be this is going to be busiest Road in dayon it won't be ideal at some point in time well I mean right now with those curves isn't it isn't it kind of make it a 40 mph Road it's a pretty maybe long distance 35 no I think that's still a 55 the road in place is a 45 M hour Design This one what's been built today yeah what's buil what's beyond that I would expect is at least that but again this is this isn't designed this is shown that's just a keep in mind this is probably pretty close to what's out there and this is designed at a 45 M hour just that big or bigger as long as there's not steep hills or other obstacles it would be at least 45 well you could definitely plan for it I also I I also think that the 117th Junction there with Parkway 117th is going to be periodically a mess um with traffic at some point and I don't know if it becomes a four-way or or what but because you can have all kinds of people coming from the East making a left in the morning and vice versa and truck traffic truck traffic from the other side so I expect I was talking about round about is leaving predominantly for that matter I mean another thing to think just so we don't get too hung up on when this could go I mean certainly another option exactly what you're describing roundabout here intersection maybe it's a roundabout here and you plan on extending this North this can get filled in later you just stub it North you stub this West you fill in the cap when it's oh I see so the round about so you're basically creating your just buy byass and then you're you're dozing through when your traffic levels build and you want the traffic to flow and maybe that's the timing we still have to fish around about in there though right but yeah you don't have to but it would I mean that might be a good intersection control there where's the prober it's the three so this one these three okay those three vertical ones okay so that that would be affected by the roundabout that's there now it it would but I thought there was a in there anyways or re is that well no I'm that's what I'm getting at is if you if you if you continued the Parkway off of that roundabout that's already built just like yeah if you contined off the roundabout you'd end up that far over we'd actually have to peel it back there the goals to get further there's a wetland kind of between those first two on the left so it's oh yeah so the roundabout would be on the west side of it on the West side which I'm not sure they can use that anyway yeah the roundabout would have to shift East and or north to fit in there just because of the infrastructure with the Cubes but but you get fits on I mean there there's Lam on there the north is imp the roadway is the most important piece of this whole Master PL that's got to be in place before before you talk about anything else Dayton Parkway as well as we can't forget about those other roads that are slicing through there that we have the dash lines on those are so important too for feeder roads that are not part of our current Transportation plan that should be but we can figure those out later the key is D Parkway so if for now buying Time by to buy time a couple of roundabouts fix fix the issue we're talking about for now I mean the rest of it won't change for 25 30 years I mean it's not g that being said you don't even need the roundabouts for that matter you know Scott you keep saying that but one thing to keep in mind and I'm not advocating like we fill up Dayton but we've talked about a little bit Sal Daton might be easier to develop than North Dayton MH the challenge in South Dayton is no roads so we got to get the road otherwise you know we got each each section has its own challenge I guess is what I'm trying to say so you can't say that that Road's not those roads got to happen before that or we can't have we shouldn't have development if the roads don't go in Period so just just kind of piggy backing on what this roundabout and extended dat Parkway just just a thought that I was running through to keep ddl much happier is running along the South property line run your extension along the South property line and then come up so go through then we have the three or four residential lots there on I'm on the back side of them okay so you're backside and then this lot they've been cleaning that house up yeah imagine more people are ready to sell Than People realize and and what that what that would allow us to do though there's there's a few things that that we're not taking into consideration we're talking about it up here but that would allow us to then connect down here to to the the business districts we already have and potentially run a connection down to this property here that we're having a hard time developing from the north and so there's a lot of lot of little benefits in the real immediate future if we were to bring that roundabout straight to the East and today it you know today it doesn't have to be dat in Parkway but in the future could be you come through the roundabout and then you kind of snake your way up like yeah to me the way you impact the least amount of properties is the that's the right alignment and the alignment that's on that map right now impacts G there every one of them in the whole square mile with the major roadway though Scott I mean I I agree with you least amount but with a major roadway no matter how you draw it there's going to be people oh you're going to get some I guarantee you even Farmers involved are going to hate it at first because it bisex their Fe I hate it because they still got to farm until everything's right for development they're going to hate it [Applause] yeah okay did we go backward far enough oh yeah we're let's you know we could keep talking about this Transportation because I think it's important but the one thing that's not going to change is the concept of the town center and densities and the question is where's the blob and how's the road get there still needs to be figured out M the rest of it concepts are similar yeah the Town Center might 15 years from now it might move right and so one concept I wanted to throw out to you guys is I'm with Kevin that you can't go too high on density units per acre but immediately next to mixed use actually let me ask this question if we had a centralized storm water Pond somewhere MH because we might need it if we pack stuff in there is that part of met the Met console's density calculations to our knowledge not if it's a regional storm water Pond there go so all these little things start adding up so I'm a big fan of you know what right next to the mixed use area I'm okay going 30 units an acre now we can't do 30 units an acre everywhere in Dayton but right next to it by the time it develops it might even be 40 units 40 units per AC by then yep so I'm okay really getting that really higher right next to the mixed use area so having an entire new land use category that would be higher something higher than hi end residential well and that was part of my issue with actually making a master plan this big it's hard to master plan 600 acres yep like Master planning the mixed use area the red area and the high density around it makes a lot more sense than everything now obviously you need to talk about everything as part of the concept but but that's what I'd advocate for is higher units are closer to the commercial and mixed use area like 30 units mhm and it doesn't mean we can't still have some other high density at 20 units an acre closer to the major intersection so it looks like there's going to be three major intersection East French Lake Road whatever the new road is in 125th to me that's where you want to have the concentrations closer to those intersections because it's easier then for residents to get in and out without least impact on the roads right yeah you'd want to have the highest density on them and maybe even another small commercial blob at one one or two of those Corners M and that that can be always tackled when development is occurring because you just got to adapt but the main thing is getting the density right now I want to get the density as high as possible here so when you deal with the rest of the city for the next comp plan we don't have to scramble and say oh my God we just got to throw something here like they did last time to hit the density requirement no I agree the four the four-story building makes a lot sense for by the time it gets developed if it's 10 years from now it might be five or six stories yeah is the standard it's not going to go down I can tell you that so I I think we're getting hung up on this map and property lines and what they look like today I'm thinking you know the big picture of you know what is it going to look like in 20 30 years from now for the types of densities and the layouts and all that you know I'm think if we came up with a few different scenarios of what does you know Apartments here and Commercial there and in more detailed and versus bubble diagram um yeah I would I mean put the property lines on there like John said but we can't have like when you look at this when you see where the obvious wherever the roads are they might shift we get it but make the land uses make sense with our new road patterns mhm don't have half high density divided by a road like that's my other suggestion is depending on what happens with Dayton Parkway is I would be completely okay with this all becoming industrial or Business Park between these two roads here as well as this like if nothing changed we didn't move the road this whole area becoming industrial we're ddl is um and then as well as the area north of it because they're all sandwiched in by roads and that's where you separate stuff why uh so one of the things I was surprised by is how little commercial there is in this example and I would think you'd want commercial up and down the parkway at least on the east side and that's what Dennis that's what I was saying is that each of these major intersections we should have some more commercial as well as high density concentrated so when we started this we're looking at one square mile and I think the number we're getting to is about 20 and 30 Acres of commercial this one uh right now it's at 60 60 60 Acres commercial is a lot it's aot it's a lot so how we do the math is you take 60 Acres times it by the square footage so that's 2.6 million square feet and then we divide it by six because that's usually the land to building ratio that's 435,000 ft of commercial space which would be five to six big boxes and the reality is you you'll be lucky to get a big box here you'll get a grocery store big box but not a big big box who want big boxes I'm not saying you want them but certain people do they can go to Maple Gro champ I don't think a big box is come here I don't think a big box is going to come here today anywhere unless it's a target with a grocery store or something like that just point of reference Target on Maple Grove Parkway and 610 is about 14 acres yep yeah just yeah that's a lot of commercial we have and you know if that commercial doesn't pan out it just becomes probably high density and so you'd work from the road to the East and then you'd pivot at some point the Mark I just looked at some of the major roads around here and I guess Parkway wouldn't necessarily be considered major but it's major for us um and it's commercial up and down there I would call it major Dennis when it's actually when we're fully built up not yeah they'll be major and and not that I yeah I I get it that that there's probably a lot of a lot of um people wouldn't necessarily want commercial it just seems odd that you don't have an area like this strip where if somebody wants to go somewhere they they can go there but sure well it depends on what kind of commercial right like yeah it does I I would be all for a you know locally owned Coffee Shop bakery nice little place to stop you know like yeah I mean not that we're going to be it but I was just in North Branch for conference and like that strip is just such a it's a nice strip mhm um that commercial I can get behind all day long I don't need another tet I'll tell you sir the real the reality of how it works and it could be different is that the small non Nationals oh yeah generally can't afford the rents associated with new construction cost it's that simple it's not it's not the land value it's the new construction cost they just it's too much so there's so the qu so I guess my point is that there's different kinds of commercial and some are far more desirable particularly for like is a different kind of community I'd like to stand and like a smaller so then the question is how can we find ways to encourage those kind of small businesses and if new development is not the most feasible way for them for many reasons maybe we put our energy in other places like how can we encourage rry Plaza to you know can we can is there any way we can encourage them to expand or improve or whatever how do we focus on the historic village because there are people in the historic village who are obviously like they just came through right with their with their um new project the town homes and we had no guidance for them for the historic village it's like I feel like we're putting all of our energy here for something that's like 50 years from now when there's actually places that are today coming through and wanting guidance this is not 50 years from now for my opinion this is less than 10 years from now if we had a road build but it's it's not going to be built in 10 years so he do you want to be mindful on times we've got 20 minutes to provide some type of Direction yeah so did you get you got your direction right no a little bit not even a little bit F the problem that's there it's good discussion but there's no there was no Direction not no can I mean like there's a lot of good ideas and there's overlapping between all the ideas and the some of the direction but it's easiest for staff both John and myself to have really clear Direction afterwards to know what path we're taking to move forward because some of these questions have implications outside the master plan um and so knowing if we're pursuing or if staff's looking at a separate work effort to look at other things before we pursue with the master plan changes if we're moving with the master plan changes now as as we previously had um I presented earlier things like that are outstanding questions I don't think I have not heard Direction on some of those also I've heard ideas thrown out about some of the land use so like 60 Acres of commercial is a little high but it was kept on there given the fact that our existing had like 160 Acres of commercial pivot um so just understanding how you want to see those changes happen so right now the commercial and don't forget the mixed use does have a commercial component to it it's mostly it's 60% residential 40% commercial so there is more commercial in that area and there is the two Parcels on the North Boundary of the master plan um right here these are neighborhood commercial right up here so there are some Landing points for additional commercial but I just want to understand what specific changes you would like to see because the more defined you can get the better Direction I can have and then I can make all the numbers work to make sure that we're above our density goals and if we go above you know we're at 5,000 units say we're at 5600 then when the comp plan comes around you have 600 units to figure out elsewhere is in the city that you could drop some densities because I think that is one of the goals that I've heard is to have that wiggle room later on for when you look at the next comp plan what was the business uh just the the bottom left there yeah what what drove that oh that was a recommendation from the Planning Commission from the recommendation for one of the options is to show an option with potentially more yeah yeah so this is to give you an idea it doesn't have to be exactly here and it could extend completely between the two proposed roadways so this sure purple could go all the way over to this intersection here to give you an idea of acreage that what I show right here is 54 acres and even if that we somehow do get that road to move that's probably still viable right so is there a consensus to have more industrial cuz that was an question we didn't know and Planning Commission wasn't sure does the council do do you want more industrial because we have we had a lot of it coming in you want more if you want if you want more industrial what kind because you can dictate the type of industrial by zoning code like if you don't want more 880,000 foot warehouses that's that's the feedback because then that means it needs to be zoned something differently that doesn't allow that but it still allows industrial like for example more smaller users like uh the two applications I came through I understand one fell apart um where they were putting up a 30 000 foot building with the small oldo storage yeah yeah but so if you want more what what do you want it to look like too well I ideally Dayton's going to need some sort of uh small how do I how do I work like a plumers building uh yes there's tons of tons of contractors landscapers plumbers you name they have none of that right and they don't have a place to go they seems like we have enough landscapers oh and the same thing challenges if you have put Industrial Park a lot of people it's just going to all price them with their business model to go into something new just new construction is expensive so am I hearing yes more industrial I don't personally I don't think don't change your thing leave it the way it is I can't answer that all right I'm okay with it too okay Dennis what was your I I can't answer that I I don't know okay so we have one in one and one no so don't know yes for the Planning Commission I mean to me none of that's really important that the roadway is the most important thing to fix let's just say the roadway sh do we want more industrial someplace and and so what kind yeah because there's you I'm in favor of yes I would not be in I'd be more in favor of smaller industrial users or heavy employment industrial users okay so manufacturing or small businesses small business more than anything and I think especially as you get further north you don't want to drive a bunch of distributions up there cuz you're just pushing the truck traffic further north too so manufacturing and more small like service contractors you know that's what I'd be with or without outdoor storage well if you're going to do contractors you have to have outdoor storage they need it they need it you know whether it's pretty or not they need it well they're going to have it whether they're allowed to or not so we might as well you got trust that we're going to get the allowed part figured out okay a while but but I mean I'd rather put restrictions on to like I'd rather put restrictions to make allowable like make it allowed in the first place and then restrictions around it so that it doesn't become an eyes sore Y and it's already allowed in i1 today it just that it's capped at 20% of right but just keep in mind we're still talking about 12 to 15,000 people that are living next to where whatever it is that we the way this sets up is if you put it between those roads there's not going to be again if you look at the topography to the west of the current alignment I don't know what you're going to put there it just drops down to French Lake Road or French Lake steep yeah and if you go to the east there's already the natural Road buffer and then you hit the whole dubet Park area so you have another pinch Point that's why I mean if you look at this and you can just pass it around it's it's a natural pinch point between these green areas and Blake areas that it seems like we should try to protect and you just it's hard to put stuff there and that's what I would like to I mean if I did this I would have a park system kind of connects the park so the people that are living in eventually a highdensity area have trails in a park system that loops around but and most of what I'm saying it's Parks not developable but anyway it's all okay I mean it's just just an idea with bubbles asking for direction things that would help me make informed decisions seeing the topography right that would be helpful seeing where the wetlands are that would be helpful because right now a lot of I'm going back and forth I'm looking at your map I'm going back to the topography so like if we could have it all in one that would just be to make informed decisions it sounds like more than anything else if we're going to fix that roadway or maybe not fix it but add a different option that needs to be decided like I feel like that needs to come first before everything else yeah if if the consensus is you want to really explore that we should pause everything until that answer goes my opinion if that but I think like that commercial is not going to move much um the the business part that's not going to that's probably I mean pause pause going forward like presenting to the public oh certainly that stuff not necessarily PA with the IDE I think the direction is if that's an option you'd like to pursue then I won't look for possible open house dates and try to start scheduling public hearing notices just from a going this is just my opinion but quite frankly if there's division we shouldn't be going presenting to the public we need to have our stuff figured out before we so the the schedule is first a Planning Commission then to the open house then to council so there is meeting where Planning Commission gets to review and say yeah this looks good we're on board there's some minor tweaks but in general everything looks good that's the version that would then go to the open house for the public there is another opportunity to make sure that what comes out of today and what comes out of the future would then have another chance to be reviewed but if we want if the goal is to explore some more roadway options and how the connections happen and that needs to happen before we can make consensus on some of the land use decisions and things like that in the master plan then if that's the direction then that's the way we should go and I'll I'll pause some of those meeting dates that are coming up for the master plan piece and then I think it would be probably to Jason and John and Zach to bring something to Council in terms of what that effort would look like for the roadway options yeah and then that would happen before the master plan we kind of do a pause while that would happen I think that makes sense because we don't want to bring something to the public that we're halfway through changing no and that doesn't that doesn't help anything and the other thing for for me I mean looking at this in two Dimensions you know I can align that roadway now but I think we really need to know more about what's possible in terms of the topography you know um what Wetland do you know does the the line that you'd like to draw on there what does that actually go through right and so if it you know if it doesn't work well then what do we got to do to it to make it work so I don't know I think that's got to happen first that's why I drew the map I drew is I was like I got to see that's on a topple map and with the aerial I like I can't make I can't visually make sense of it until I put it on a map that has that stuff and turn the layers on and off in 10 minutes so I've got direction that you know for me we're we're going to look at Road realignment in a few different options so let's say we figure that out um as far as the different types of land use I'm this is kind of try I'm trying to recap this um yes to having more industrial but it it's small industrial not big distribution centers not in another cubes sure it's more we'll we'll figure it out smaller smaller industrial doesn't really fit indust manufa we can figure it out yep uh I'm hearing more in density closer to closer to the mixed use it doesn't have to extend everywhere but closer to the mixed use area sure um having more I'm going to call it more of a downtown at historic traditional downtown versus a Suburban downtown in that would be my preference I don't know the difference yeah I don't know the difference I'm going to say walkable Community versus a drivable yes walkable walkable 100% okay currently the master plan has that in there so the that was the survey strongly on the resident survey component was having the walkable downtown so the way you typically do that is built form so you bring the buildings forward you put parking in the back you make landscape and additional enhancements on the street you make lots of walkability areas in terms of sidewalks bike pet everything like that safety that's currently the way it's drafted so that is in there current hey we're happy with something I just wanted to check one thing off the list of about seven others so okay so right now we're looking at big bubble diagrams do you want something that's a lot more detail no I don't need more detail but I'd prefer that your colors match up with the roads and your change of land I get it it's going to split land uses on Parcels but to visually conceptualize what's going on here we shouldn't use the existing parcel lines to visualize land uses okay and if that means that might even dictate why you shift a road a little bit one way or another to get on the property line I don't know but when when the roads are bisecting property lines I think we have to think about the uses in between the roads yep okay um now I would cut the road off that heads East out of the that show I won't show anything out there okay and I would you know I would also consider East French Lake Road are we really just going to stop it right when it hits his Road are we going to continue it North seems to me you should continue at North on the outskirts of the mixed use area up to 125th but I don't know that's but it's part of the master plan area so if we're going to do that we should show the whole Road does that make sense what I said yeah we'll have different scenarios I think yeah so instead of just stopping here they would snake along wherever this Edge is up to 120 yeah I mean East French Lake Road needs to be reconfigured somehow yeah if we going to show yeah and I would show going all the way up to where we think we want it to go wherever that is right now it just shows like it's the ending that that doesn't make sense sure okay yeah I didn't show anything that would be considered more of a local less traffic road so it's and the idea is that it's not that it stops is that development will probably dictate where that falls I think it's got to go all the way up to 125th if we're going to sandwich this area with high density it will yeah I completely agree I just we weren't showing the local connections cuz there's a lot of as you can see there's a lot of Lo missing Connections in here because it's just arterial I'm thinking that this won't be a local this will be one of the main roads as a alternative Road versus Dayton Parkway once you get there I just wanted to clarify just okay Parks so we we have two natural big natural features so one French Lake in the area that the lower ground along French Lake and then we have Dubay Lake that's enough okay I think we need to identify dubet Lake in here if that's what people want I mean obviously it's not developed the lake itself is not developable but the area around it if you want to protect it you should identify it okay in the master plan in the public opinion survey there's a desire for like a Town Square or some something I'm going to call it something different than what you typically well what anything that was like an open space Plaza Town Center yeah yeah courthouse in the middle and yep around the edges hen County Courthouse what where would you like that or do would do you want to see a couple different scenarios of one closer to French Lake and another one closer to to to Bay Lake so so what what I'm envisioning in my head and this kind of gets so what you were talking earlier with the downtown Main Street I'm thinking Main Street Maple Grove where where you've got the the small little restaurants you got a couple big box behind them and then you have that Lake the the pond there for that each side with all the trails yep with all the trails that's that's kind of what I'm envisioning for our downtown not much bigger than that that's probably it actually fits within the 60 Acres um would that be R to Bay Lake or what no that' be budding up to the park on French Lake so should be okay now is the all the pink is mixed use and that's your town center um built for close walkable um everything like that leads into and because this was what the resident said this is it doesn't show on here because we're just showing Park as the future land use but in the descriptions for what that area is utilized as it's an open space Plaza Park so think like sure um kind of like not not the we're not anticipating a courthouse but something like that where it's like more open space that leads into then being able to utilize the open space referentially and the existing comp plan has trails along French Lake so incorporating all those and maybe we'd show the trails on here additionally so that that comes out as part of the master plan um I really just took off everything but land use on this image is that basically this part gets developed as part of that like Town Center Plaza space that leads into an open space park with trails that could then lead and snake around French Lake and potentially come back so that people could the idea is be in the Town Center area visit the open space Plaza Park do a little walk come back go back to their car wh is over here and that's what they use their day for from a practicality standpoint in Walking the dub Lake what's the name of the other Lake yeah that one's smaller and I mean the average person's not walking around Diamond like that's just that L too big yeaha I think literally a trail down to Dubay Lake and back which is one of the points I wanted to make is we probably should have the park commission involved and have a separate Park plan because this is 600 acres this is really what our master plan is going to be it's Big M and so we just want to make sure it's in line with whatever is going on with your thoughts too um would you cross the parkway what's that it would be on the other side of the park de Bay would correct so and I'm assuming our Park plan I looked at it it's kind of high level but there's ideas of trails connecting all the way to Elm Creek Park so making sure that that trail goes down to Dubay Lake and maybe it could even come back up the other way so you can kind of loop do a loop trail back to the town center if you wanted that would be a much nicer Trail than than on on frch lch L when you're going through all the cuz we we go to do that little walk around their little Lake it's beautiful nice well and you could you could put in connections to the the the braver and Trails neighborhood that would eventually lead you into Elm Creek you know that's what when I sent that ear that's what that green line was and again I looked at the Park Trail looks like that's workable but we should have that incorporated into our master plan is the park plan to make sure that the ideas are there okay all I got a mail I'm sorry okay so just real quick in three minutes or less uh we'll do some scenario planning for moving Dayton Parkway um and some kind of a route for East French Lake Road um so you know first priority that's going to totally pause the master plan for months yeah um which is fine I'm assuming though you can have rough figures because we we already know what Dayton Parkway costs so I wouldn't Overkill it I mean we know what it cost per foot to build Dayton Parkway we just built so so that would Overkill it don't say months it's the numbers are there um okay uh as far as the land use goes uh more Manufacturing in small industrial businesses more Den density for apartments and we haven't talked much about single family at all there's not much in here though I don't think no there's not the only chunk was actually where Lake was or is yeah that was where it was okay more Park planning and connecting French Lake and dubet lake and potentially how it connects to the even El Creek Park okay it's 618 I I think we've we're good on Direction we'll let you know what this is going to cost so but okay cool all right and then I think we need a an official adjournment of theop right if there are no objections we'll be adjourned and we're adjourned e