Yeah. 6:30 we will call the November 6th uh planning commission meeting to order. First order of business. Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. Uh yes, we got roll call. Everyone's present. Uh next item is roll of the planning commission. It is on the agenda. Uh we got approval of agenda. Any changes or corrections? >> No. >> All right. Consent agenda. Uh only item on the consent agenda tonight is meeting minutes from October 2nd. >> Any corrections or or additions needed for that? >> Yes. >> Say that again. >> Oh, yeah. You missed the >> Oh, vote for motion to approve the agenda. >> All right, >> I'll second it. >> We have a motion uh and a from Keith and a second from Darren. All those in favor? I >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes. Uh 5-0. Consent agenda. Planning Commission meeting minutes from uh October 2nd. >> I'll make a motion to approve since I was there. >> Second. >> We have a motion from uh Paul and a second from Jeff. All those in favor? >> I. >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes. 5. Uh item six, open form. Anyone here for open form? >> We go. >> Marcia, come on up. >> Marcia Grover 1132 from Brook Lane, Dayton, Minnesota. Um I just have a couple of things I want to mention. I'm holding up here a picture of a data center. This was on uh the front page of the business section on Monday's paper Star Tribune. This is a data center. Data centers provide computer power for AI. This was one was built in Carile, Indiana. New Carile, Indiana by Amazon. Amazon alone is planning 30 more of these data centers across the United States as is Google, Meta, and Microsoft. They're also planning these data centers and they always start out with ND NDAs, that is non-disclosure agreements. This means they're secret. Why do they have to keep these plans secret? Part of the answer that I can figure out, I don't know for sure, is because they require massive amounts of infrastructure, water, electricity, um, to keep the com the electronics cool, roads, lots and lots of roads and parking lots. This means enormous amounts of infrastructure to be built. Hermantown, Minnesota is going through this process right now. NDAs are used in the business world, but the city of Dayton is not a business. The city of Dayton is supposed to support the residents, not support developers and contractors. I feel the citizens of Dayton would not want to see a data center be built in our city. Nor would they like to the management of this city to sign NDAs to keep secrets from the residents who by the way pay plenty of taxes to this city. I'm urging you to take a vow that you would not sign NDAs. The planning commission, the city council, and city employees should not be keeping secrets from the citizens of this city. And the second thing I wanted to mention was um you may remember that there's a house in Maple Grove just across the border from Dayton on Fern Brook Lane and it's all by itself now. Well, I recently heard from the owner of that house about what is happening to them. They have no access to their home. They have to park their cars on a side street out of view from them. They have a driveway, yes, but they can't access it. They cannot put their cars in their garage. The developer has done the landscaping so that the property that the homeowner's property is higher than all the areas around them. They have no address. They have they're not getting any mail delivered. They have to go to the po post office and pick it up every day. Maple Grove has proposed an easement for their driveway, but it'll be over a,000 ft long. The city will own that property, but the homeowners will be responsible for maintaining it and having it plowed in the winter and mowed in the summer. They only have a shovel and a snowblower. 1,000 ft is really quite a distance. And they were originally told that Fernbrook Lane would close in September and did not find out that it was moved up till two months until the Friday afternoon before the closure on Monday. The city is proposing that their garbage and mail be tied to an adjacent neighborhood that has an HOA. Yet, this family will not be able to join the HOA and will have no vote in the voice in what the HOA says or does to them. This is a prime example of what happens when you have a planning commission and a city council that is reactive instead of proactive. It's what happens when you let the de developers decide where the roads go. It's what happens when you say screw the residents already living there. I'm urging this planning commission to be pro-active, not reactive. Plan before the development happens. Consider the residents who live in the area. Don't let the developers make all the decisions. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> All right. Moving on. Item seven, council updates. Okay. for the 14th. Um, we had our unpaid utilities, which is the water bill being moved to, uh, property taxes. Um, full-time, we uh, Marty combined two part-time openings and, uh, so he got a full-time slot. Went over the sewer and water budgets. Those are in good shape. There was a storm water project. Um it involves French grass and Diamond Lake. They uh they're going to do some study to see if they can improve the water quality. U study, but 130 is covered by a grant. And then we discussed the Stevens Park master plan. um MSA came back with a plan that added up to a lot of dollars and uh so we had a long discussion about that. Um some of the things we'd like to see done differently and guess we did talk about it more at the next meeting which I'll cover. Um and then there was two uh closed meetings dealing with the union contracts. 28th um was our longest meeting I've ever been to. So I think it finished like 12:30 or something like that. Was not pretty and we were pretty punchy by the end of it. Um so there was a uh presentation by somebody who's been in other fire departments. Um he just discussed the whole the fire service in general. We had a presentation from Republic Services uh mostly regarding recycling and a little bit of organics. Uh the fire department had a five-year plan that they presented which um we sent back for more work, but we did discuss the first year of that plan. Um there was a full-time firefighter um proposed. We nixed that. We did talk about hiring part-time firefighters for during the day when we're thin on volunteers and that was approved. Talked about medical call response teams that we had had in the past, but they were they were terminated and then we brought we're going to be bringing them back. Therefore, um they're more like a uh normal call shift you'd see at any other company where people basically sign up for being on call. Then we had the Stevens Park discussion. So we kind of narrowed that down to some sort of restroom facilities that are somewhere between, you know, sewer facilities and the portaotties, an expansion of the stage area and some sort of roof for it. Um, a water park on the west side and expanded parking on the west side. Uh we had asked staff to look into the prices for these things. Then there was a discussion about the budget because um uh our um fiscal disparities numbers came back and they were significant. So we had to find another $159,000 to cut the budget. And it looks like that's that's we're going to make that. Um we have to have a little bit more discussion about it though. There was two there's been two tax forfeited properties that we are dealing with. There's one down in Robinson just to the right as you go down the hill. So it's basically below the church. and then the 9 acre parcel up by the interchange and uh we discussed so those are going to go to the EDA to deal with and then we will probably have to loan the EDA about 300k to get to buy the interchange one or I shouldn't say buy it's to release it from county uh we talked about well We we we're going to have staff talk to the state um to see if they will fund a level one EIS study just to it's basically to talk to to look at that river crossing to see if you know it's even feasible and where it's planned if it's even feasible. Um, and most of us are very adamant that, you know, if that thing comes in any sooner than 30 years, it's too early. Uh, 113 sewer plans. So, those plans were approved and it should be going out for bids. And then there was a discussion on another property that Three Rivers wants to buy. And the basically the discussion was on the process that they're using. Um and uh so we tabled that decision as to let them purchase it. That was it. >> Okay. Any uh questions for council, >> mayor, who who currently owns that piece of property by the intersection on the Parkway that we were looking Uh, I never got a straight understanding of that. It's under county control. >> This is the tax for Yeah. You're talking about like who owns it currently? >> Yeah. >> Uh, the city has ownership for a public use, but if it's not going to be a public use, then it's Henipin County. So, we're we're buying it from Henipin County so that we can sell it for a private use. Is there still some thought of a uh a a new fire house on the southern end of town? >> Not there. >> Not there. >> We've hammered that out quite a bit. Yeah. Yeah. Not there. It's right on the interchange. It's and we we had purchased another property at least we we kind of purchased it under under kind of the guise of here's where a station could go. I don't think anybody's overly happy about that space that spot. So, we'll just have to keep um I won't say looking because we kind of have a spot, but I don't like I said, most most I think most of the people on the council right now don't like that spot. So, we'll probably keep our eyes open. >> From what I hear, most people that live around that area don't like that spot either. >> Well, they don't like it at all. >> Most people won't like us. >> Most people won't like it. >> Understandable. >> Yeah. I still contend it's a good thing >> to have a fire station near you. >> Depends on how much you want to pay for it, but Yep. >> Yeah. All right. Any other discussion? All right. Item moving on to item uh 8A public hearing concept plan and PUD for new construction of office building code. >> Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. Uh the application before you tonight is a uh concept plan review for commercial office building uh in the uh Greyco uh campus that is on the east west end of town, excuse me. Um currently just uh historically they've got two uh facilities, one for manufacturing and one for warehouse and distribution uh within that area and there is a vacant uh parcel um roughly 27 acres um that is uh right in between those two facilities. Um so tonight is just to introduce the project to you, go over some of the high level uh understanding related to the zoning ordinance and next steps moving forward and uh initial reactions and looking to uh provide any uh feedback to uh the applicants who are uh here tonight as well as one online. Um, so as I mentioned, this property is currently guided industrial and is zoned I1 light industrial and was included in that planned unit development that was established uh once in 2015 and then amended in 2022 when those facilities were constructed. Um, so that uh is already uh the zoning and the um the uh guidance of the property is already in place for this. Um this property is also within the current staging plan uh of the Musa area as well. So looking at the uh concept uh site plan here there is a basically the east section of this property is the one that would be the initial phase. Uh the applicants do show a future phase to the west uh likely another uh warehousing and distribution facility that is on the same current parcel. Uh that would likely be outlotted as part of this uh platting process for the office space. Uh the footprint of the building is roughly 33 uh,500 square ft. Um a total of three stories. Uh maximum height would be 59 ft if there were going to be screening walls on above the rooftop. uh if not the maximum or the height of the building that would be proposed is 50 ft. Um access would be shared with the north and the south accesses that are currently there on West French Lake Road for the two other facilities on the site. Um there are comments already included in engineering and planning uh letters that were submitted as well to the applicant from city staff related to having both of those accesses established at the time of construction of this uh initial office uh building. Uh the parking count on the concept plan is currently 277 spaces which is uh short given the uh rough estimates of the floor area of this building uh to meet the zoning code standard of one space per 200 square ft uh for office. Uh the applicants did provide a uh calculation uh as part of the packet that uh referenced the section of the code that offers flexibility and that is uh ultimately related to the amount of uh employees that they anticipate at the maximum um on this site which if I'm not mistaken is 291 which was listed. Um likely this would be a PUD uh flexibility request. Staff does recommend that uh if um staff ultimately recommends that if the planning commission feels that uh that is sufficient uh parking for this area to move forward with um staff would at least recommend that they meet that number that they provided for an employee count of 291 rather than having the 277. Um so that would be uh staff's initial reaction on that and more detail would come uh with the following applications or the subsequent applications. Um setbacks and other elements of the site design are undefined currently as known in the report. Um the information has been provided to the applicants related to setback requirements. Um and unless identified as a request for a flexibility for the uh PUD, the I1 standards uh would apply in this regard. So, here's just a site um a view of the site looking east u French Lake Road here. Uh the facility has existing storm water ponding um on the property currently. Uh with the preliminary plat application, uh engineering would review this in regard to whether this uh storage is enough or adequate for uh the proposed improvements on the site. And here's a reverse photo that they the applicants had provided. Um high level detail on the architectural um the uh information that was provided with the concept plan submittal. Um staff is confident that uh this design would meet the I1 standards of this district. Here's a view of the internal side of the of the site. >> What do you mean by internal? >> Internal meaning uh the other the other side here. This side would be adjacent to West French Lake Road and French Lake. >> That's looking west. >> This we are looking west right now on this. Essentially, we technically it's probably more southwest than anything. >> It's looking from >> and then this is that internal site looking towards the east. >> So, a couple of considerations that I already mentioned uh the 277 stalls uh the total count for the requirement on the rough estimate of the floor area is about 428 spaces. Um the applicants have noted that uh they don't anticipate uh that is beyond the amount of uh employees that they would anticipate at this site. It' be I think the rough estimate was just shy of 300 employees that would be uh working within this office facility. Um so that would be something that we would uh work with the applicants um to address as part of the PUD. Um the other thing that I want to note as well and uh there aren't a whole lot of uh additional considerations related to this uh but just kind of more onceover reviews to make sure that they're compliant. This uh a portion of this property is within the shoreland zoning district uh which is uh determined by the thousand feet,000 foot boundary from French lakes ordinary high water line elevation. Um so the uh things that are included in that for the zoning ordinance um specifically is the maximum height of a building within the shoreland district cannot exceed 35 ft. Uh I did reach out to the DNR just to verify that that was not a part of what they require as a minimum standard for shoreland districts and that is the case where the DNR only sets that limitation of 35 ft for residential properties. However, the way that it is written within this uh the zoning district that we have established in our code for shoreland limits all buildings uh at that height of 35 feet. Um and in conversation with the DNR, this would be an identified PUB flexibility that uh the DNR does not have a problem with. Um I will say that obviously with the preliminary plat application within the shoreland district, the DNR will have an opportunity to review this and provide any comments and recommendations for that. Um the other thing that I wanted to mention is that uh impervious surface maximums within the shoreland district um is limited to 25% impervious surface. Uh that is a standard that is established by the DNR. Um and the applicants the staff encourages the applicants to um adhere to this to the extent possible um to avoid any considerations regarding variances. Um from the DNR's perspective because this is a um regulation that they have established for their model ordinance for cities to adopt. This is not eligible for a PUD flexibility, but would otherwise require a variance um if they if if it was not met. So the role of the planning commission for concept plan submitt is to discuss an ask any questions that you may have for city staff or uh the applicants. As I mentioned, they are here tonight. Uh staff also requests that you hold a public hearing. um notice was sent to the surrounding properties within a quarter mile um as well as uh published within the press uh a couple of weeks ago. So um all comments are advisory only and non-binding um and no action is uh being requested at this time. >> Any questions for staff or comments? When you guys were looking at the parking, did you only look at our code um in the context? I think our code is a little outdated here too. Most office I looked at I took a peek is uh four stalls per thousand. So one per 250, not one per 200. >> Did you look at that at all? >> Uh other than the initial uh parking calculations uh that I did for um commercial office space, not for this specific one. Um now absolutely that there are uh considerations that we can look into regarding that. Um from the 200 to 250 ft I don't know if the request of 277 would meet that standard as at this point >> be about 20 to 25%. So it's that just taking your 428 that take it in a range of 320 to 340 call it. So, >> yep. >> Closer to their number um >> compared to our number which again I just looked at a bunch of office projects that I worked on and that was the not only the city code but what they usually build. >> Sure. And obviously uh with the floor plans that they would submit with the site plan review uh we'd be able to net out those areas of stairwells those those areas that are utilized not for office space generally where employees would be. So um that would be a consideration that we would include too. Um the the number that I had provided was a very broad generalization of an estimate based on the footprint. I think the only the only comment I got and if you didn't find it in your packet the page eight um shows the shoreline offset related to the building kind of relate just future helpful to have up on the screen. So >> sure >> just it's there in the packet but you know helpful to helpful to see up there too. Any other questions? >> Just technically, um, I see that 124th, is that a rightaway? Has that been vacated through this property? >> That is vacated. It's >> It's already vacated. >> Yeah. And, uh, my guess is through the title work, we'll be able to verify that on this property. Um, I think that that was a placeholder previously from a, um, past design that did not move forward. And then obviously um you know the the considerations here are obviously the parking which we're kind of getting ballpark figures and I I understand that you'll be able to drill that down a lot deeper once uh we get real numbers to look at. Um I'm I'm okay with the flexibility. I mean you know the one thing you hate seeing is the safe parking where you know a quarter of it's actually being used. Um I think standards today are a little bit different than they were four years ago, five years ago. um where you didn't have, you know, work from home situations and things like that. Um which an uh anti antiquated ordinance would reflect, you know, needs of of businesses four, five, 6, 10 years ago instead of what it is today. With that though, I would still be cautious with how much flexibility we're going to give um just because of the fact that we don't know what the future use of this building is going to be, right? So they can anticipate a need for this building based on today's standards and in 10 years they might need 10 15% more employees um at this facility and now we you know we might come up up with a parking problem at that point. So obviously a discussion between staff and and the developers for you know what they you know vision the future needs for this this site to be uh especially with a future building there too whatever that building might be utilized for. Um just some considerations to be made on that uh in that aspect. Uh the other thing with the shoreline district I mean I agree that you know the shoreline district's there for a reason. It's to pro protect that waterway. I think the height requirements is more for the aesthetic appeal than the actual um you know making sure that the the the water is being protected. Um obviously in this area I don't have any concerns with going to 50 ft or 59 ft or whatever it might be in the shoreline district but I I do I would caution uh variances. Um obviously there's no PUD flexibility for imperous surface. Um but I would cautious uh caution any kind of variance request that would come forward for impervious surface um um restrictions or you know to be alleviated from the from the code requirements um for that purpose. So once you start giving, you know, variances in in the shoreline district, you're opening that that can, right? And so um there there'd need to be a valid reason why they wouldn't be able to build outside or have not as much impervious surface in that shoreline district. Um you know, given hard surface coverage, there might be some ways of getting around that. You know, if it's the building footprint itself, though, you might have to adjust where that building's actually located. Yeah, if you'll indulge me, I'll just uh I'll just pull that uh reference up here. We're discussing. So, this is currently the rough estimate of the thousand foot boundary on this property. Um, and this is the uh subject parcel. And then if I'll go up to the staff report, >> there isn't an official shoreline delineation, is there? >> Uh no at property right now or there probably should be. >> We we just have the elevation high water level. >> Yep. That and that's that's a recommendation that was provided in the planning letter uh related to them um doing a delineation of that shoreline boundary so we can have a verification of that. >> Um otherwise, >> can you pull that back up again? Yes, that that one right there is the one I was referring to in our packet. >> My my question is where did we get where did we get the information for that line that shows the thousand foot offset from the shoreline? >> The DNR establishes the ordinary high water line uh based on an elevation and that elevation for French Lake is 904 and a half. So that is the number that uh we utilize provided by the DNR. >> So the the line as drawn is approximate. >> So if you go to the go to the other image with the 904 that you were previously at. So, if I understand this correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but you've outlined where the 904 is on on uh French Lake and then we take 1,000 ft from that and go to the that's that's what establishes that thousand foot boundary. >> It looks like they're measuring it from the shoreline, from the edge of the water. That's not the shore of that lake. That's why I'm asking. >> But that >> I mean there's got to be 400 feet of floating bog on that lake. >> You ask me how I know that because I almost fell through it a couple of times when I was a kid. We were duck hunting. >> Yeah, >> I grew up in that whole area. That the water line on that is nowhere's near where the or what's shown on this map is nowhere's near where the actual water line is in that lake. >> Are you saying it's recessed in? >> I'm Yes, it's closer to the road. I've seen I have seen the water of that lake clear up to the base of the shoulder of that road in a lot of those areas along there. There's a couple areas that have been filled in um from the previous owner doing their sewage and doing >> stuff that brought that whole level up, but that's nowhere near where the actual water line is. That's why I'm asking where those, you know, where that information came from. >> Yeah. So with the plat there would be a a survey that def defines where 904 and a half ft is and then thousand ft from that distance. So this is the ordinary high water level. So it's not the flood plane >> and the ordinary high water level is determined by the DNR. So they they do um you know they'll they'll take a a look at the lake as a whole and say here's where the ordinary and however they define that whatever algorithm they want to use or whatever it might be they come up with that ordinary high water mark or line there establish that at a specific elevation and then it's easy and then if that's where it is today great if it's not you know that's where it's been established. So, um I don't know if the question would be when the last time that ordinary high water mark was delineated. I don't know if that's our need to know or our jurisdiction or if we if we want to get into the those >> information for the applicant to be aware of because whatever they come up with if it's different than what you show on the map, it could impact their plans. >> Right. Whatever they come up with, that's what everyone's going to be working on. >> Correct. And if the DNR says, "Yep, it's 90 it's it's at this 904 and a half," then that's what the developer works with. a thousand feet away from that. >> And that's what it is. The the DNR has a database on their website that shows what the ordinary high water line is for each lake within Minnesota. And then it shows you the date the last time that it was reviewed and verified. Um so that to the to the newest information that the DNR has provided to us, that is the number that is on there. Um, and then just to your point about the ordinary high water line, um, that does not, uh, this is not the same line as a 100red-year flood plane line or 500 year where those un where those un unordinary uh, situations occur. Um, like you had mentioned where the water has gone up to the edge of the roadway. >> One other question I have for you, Hayden. Um, and the applicant can answer this too when they come forward, but is it your understanding they intend to subdivide this property such that the office building's on one parcel and then what they build to the west is another parcel? >> Uh, that would be my understanding and that would actually be a staff recommendation as part of that uh preliminary plat is that they would show as part of the preliminary plat both of those lots. um where if this was a future development, we would have them outlaw the remainder portion of the area. And again, um just to distinguish this regarding the shoreline or the shoreland uh district, just because a portion of this property is within the shoreline boundary does not mean that the entire property is subject to the shoreline boundary. It is only those areas that are within that area. So, um, sometimes it can get a little bit, uh, indistinguishable, um, especially when it comes to the Mississippi River critical corridor area. Those are different circumstances. So, so if property falls within that shoreline boundary and even with the uh what's delineated on the map up here, which I you clearly understand I don't agree with. Um if any of that building falls within that area, I mean that building shouldn't be built there, right? >> Well, really the limitation as I mentioned before was the 25% imperous surface uh totals. Um if a if it is only a section of the building that is within that and the overall footprint of that building and the area that's within the district is less than 25% that building a portion of it could go within that area. But within that district there are higher um expectations for development of sites. Any other questions for staff at this point? >> No questions for staff. But Mr. Chair, I do want to um point out that I do work for the firm that's doing the design and engineering of this project and so I'm going to recuse myself for the conversation in any future votes. >> Thank you. I appreciate that honesty and transparency. >> Yeah. Well, um with that, it is a public hearing, so I will open that at 7:06 and I'm assuming applicant invite you guys forward first. name and address. >> Good evening, chair, members of the commission. Nate Pearson with the Tegra Group. I'm the owner's rep to Graco. Hi. >> Hi, Martin Secott. I'm the design architect on the project with HGA. We're the design and engineering firm for the project. I think online we have Kirstston Musman who is our client with Graco. She's the head of facilities with Graco. >> Thank you. Any uh any opening comments from you guys before we start? >> No, just thanks for letting us be here again. Um I was part of both B1 and B2 and then Martin and his firm were part of B1, so we're happy to be back in front of you. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, we're excited for the opportunity to uh be here. And um a few of the items I thought would be helpful to provide some feedback on um that you all were discussing specifically um related to the parking counts um the way uh we are still currently working through the overall size of the building based on the program needs. So that is in flux and I think that was a new packet. Um so that will be driving a lot of the parking requirement ultimately. But um the way that the calculations are being done is that we're actually planning for the future full capacity of the building. So there is already growth planned into the building um for a 10-year plan essentially. So the the parking that's being planned day one is for that future full buildout of the building and not the day one. >> Can on the parking note, do you have the the overview site plan? >> Yes. up there. Just I wanted to point something out just from it might solve both my >> some of our concerns. >> Well, that that one right there. Um, so just my rough math on on this and from a constructibility standpoint of um just phasing of of your site and phasing of things. Um that last see how there's that empty empty slot uh to the left of the lowest parking that's designated right right there right above Hayden's cursor that area yep >> that's hatched out if if you guys were to extend that parking to the west there seems like it's about 26 more stalls might fit the fit the current counts of what the building could be and it also might be a more beneficial for you guys to pave that and put that in right away if that makes sense. >> Yep. I appreciate that feedback. We are working through the actual layout of this um >> in uh working through how the site will be divided as you guys were talking about that the >> uh this will be split through the platting process for the two sites. Um there is kind of a natural benefit to the parking day one being more rectal linear, not jogging all that way. So that's one thing that we'll be doing is kind of straightening the parking out a little bit more. >> Um and then also looking at efficiencies of where we can having, you know, double loaded aisles rather than single loaded aisles and and those kind of things. So, >> but you know that those layouts will definitely be working through and um looking for any efficiencies or cleanliness orderness. >> You know, when you come with the plan forward too, it I think it'd be helpful to see like the proof of parking area like even if you don't intend to build it right away. Um in particular, you know, the feedback is and hopefully you get some more direct feedback from all of us here today on what we expect for our parking ratio. um is that you know if you still want to stick to something less than I'm just going to say the one per 200 is what I'm going to advocate for cuz that's what I see elsewhere. So you're 320 to 340. So that I would just like to see proof of parking and your how you overall plat the property so you know you can meet um kind of a ratio like that and I'm that's just my number. So hopefully other people up here can give you some feedback too. Um, including staff because obviously it's a it's not as straightforward as the calculation I just did. So it's not like that straightforward, but I do think our parking at one per two 200 is uh excessive. I think it should be closer to one per 250. >> Okay. >> I've seen one >> for 300. So >> yeah, I've seen I've seen more. There's plenty of flexibility on on the city side of things if we wanted to take a look at that. I think >> office buildings really vary significantly. Uh office private office to work station ratios really um shift the uh square footage per person ratio. So um GICO does tend to be a an organization that has a lot of offices. So you're going to have um less people per square foot. Um, so I think that kind of leans into a higher ratio for the parking also. >> Yeah. And that's kind of why I want to see proof of parking is more from my perspective is that I've also seen a lot of office buildings get gutted and changed with how they use the building. Um, whether that goes up or down, it goes both ways. >> Sure. >> And obviously that's not going to happen in the first 10 to 20 years, but hopefully it's here longer. >> Okay. Any comments on parking while we're there? I'll just note for the for the group that uh Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission, the the code does uh recognize that uh things are ever changing when it comes to parking requirements and such for developments and allows for certain flexibilities based on specific um reasoning provided by applicants as determined by staff and the planning commission and the city council. um to the point where the flexibility that would be requested um generally may not even need to be a PUD flexibility or a variance request, but because this is already a PUD and we would be amending the planned unit development, essentially just solidifying that as part of the resolution that this was identified. So rather than thinking about it as a a variance from the strict one per 200, um the code does offer that flexibility language to be provided and determined uh by the uh officials. Um, so just wanted just for context >> and I guess I want to challenge staff a little bit. No different than apartments is that, you know, we don't want people I don't know how many more office buildings we're going to see coming forward, but I don't want to be constantly getting challenged by people like we're too low, too high. And so I would encourage staff to look at what you guys think the appropriate range is so we can give them better feedback on our expectations. I think 200's too low. That's like closer to retail. I think we need to pay a lot of attention to parking. And this is just judging from my experience in looking at other facilities that have uh somewhat recently been built in Dayton and finding that those businesses are not having adequate parking and at times parking on the street around their facility, which I don't think is what we want in the long run or even in the short run for that matter. So, I think I would be a little reluctant to back off too much from what we're requesting. >> Yeah, just for the record, I'm good between 250 and 300. I just want everyone to come to some sort of agreement because the applicant needs direction for proof of parking. >> And if they choose to build less, I'm probably okay with that as long as they can show proof of parking. >> And you're talking one stall per square footage of two. >> Yeah. And there's bigger It's more to the calculation that I'm I'm simplifying. >> Yeah. But Yep. in the the application we share also we'll have floor plans that show you know the actual counts that are there and we can also identify the day one anticipated versus the future so that's really clear for you all >> um but the building really h will have a a maximum capacity that um our counts will also be including visitor stalls um so we don't anticipate that there would be a large overflow that would occur because the building will have a maximum capacity that can it can handle. So >> yeah, and at the one per 250 or one per three, the one per 250, we're getting close. At the one for 300, we're already going to be really close to your 277. >> And correct me if I'm wrong, uh, Hayden, but we will see a site plan for the future development um, in in the outlot or the back lot. Correct. uh us as a city, maybe not us as a planning commission, but >> yeah, I I don't uh expect or anticipate that uh the site design for that future would be a part of the subsequent application that would come with this specific site plan review, but you would see that as part of a recommendation or approval for development. And where where I'm going with that is is if we feel if if staff feels that adequate parking is not available in this site as they build it out and develop it, it can be tacked on to that is >> to be clear though, you guys do intend to subdivide this parcel. >> Correct. Yeah. So, that's kind of what's driving this theater is when they subdivide it, they want to make sure they have enough for their parking and maybe >> if the planning commission and staff feel they need more proof of parking, they got to factor that in now when you subdivide. >> And that's where I'm trying to figure out this future parking in my mind. I'm trying to figure out the future parking versus what's being subdivided. So >> certainly and there are other alternatives as well, especially with a campus development like this regarding shared uh cross parking easements that are provided uh on both properties and and such. So >> I think Graco will be fine. I'm just more going to trying to future proof it by making it clean. So assuming nothing ever happens at Graco will be fine. All right. Anything else on parking? I know there were a couple other major issues next. Any >> Mr. Chair, it is an open form right now. It looks like we have someone in the >> We do, but we have the applicant up. So, we will we will call we will call the next people up after the applicants up. >> So, thank you for that clarification. Um, one of the other comments. So, with the 50 to 59 foot height, um, I guess you guys are just listening. I guess we're kind of talking now because if you guys have feedback, it's a good time to give us your feedback. But I'm okay with the height from a perspective. It's kind of breaking up all the industrial buildings, too, as you look across French Lake Road. You know, if this was a big industrial building that was 50 59 ft across, I'd have a different answer. Um, but it's not. It's a small office building. Um, the one thing I would encourage you guys to be careful with with the height is how you choose to light this building. Um, maybe 20 years from now it won't be as big a deal, but when you look across French Lake now, it's already lit up pretty good. And, you know, we are a dark sky community. Um, try to be. And so, I would just encourage Graco and the lighting plan to, you know, not light it up as much at night. There'll be a point in time in the future where it probably can be when there's more development and people, you know, want to look across the lake and they think it's cool, but I don't we're not there as a community today. >> Okay, understood. >> Staff did a great job explaining the project. Is there anything else you'd like us to explain a little bit more of or you feeling like you have a good picture of the project? >> I'm excited that an office building's coming to David and >> Yeah. And again, I think that uh the challenge here for you guys potentially will be just managing the shoreline district, right? for number one, making sure you know exactly where that ordinary high water mark is, where that thousand ft lies in relation to your property, and then where where the buildings and all the other improvements are going to actually land in that shoreline district because 25% isn't that much. It's not. >> And if you get a good portion of that building in that in that shoreline district, it might be exceeding that requirement. And I would be hardressed to think that the planning commission in my estimate would would grant a variance for that. So it's just something that you'd want to look at pretty closely. >> And as I mentioned before, Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission with the engineering review, they're going to be able to verify whether the existing ponds on site are necessary or adequate for this development. And in the event that they're not, we expect that the uh expansion of those storm water ponds would happen within that shoreland district. Uh essentially maybe uh setting that further back the building back from that uh the shoreland boundary >> or parking. Yeah, >> we'll have additional information about that, but the the ponds are uh were designed during the B2 or the the uh >> planning development >> in the in the master planning development. they were set up for this site. Um, so they our engineering team, we are confident that they have the capacity for it, but certainly that information will be shared with you to kind of prove it out. >> I I forget were they set up for >> this portion or the entire >> it's actually for the entire entire site, not just not just this building, but be for the future one also. >> The future one also. Okay. Um, I guess back to the height. Um, the height, uh, you know, we we've got 50 ft. I've heard 50 ft. I've heard 59 ft. Um, I know we've got other buildings in the shoreline district here. I'm I'm one who's against the the higher buildings on that on that frontage just from from visibility and and what you see across not not the heights in general. So lower the better is my opinion. Um but obviously aesthetics and things like that play into it. Um what was proposed in here is much better than maybe the warehouse two doors down. Um, in that regard, um, I I'm also concerned about elevation from the roadway to the building, not just the height of the building. Um, you know, it's one thing to have height from your ground level, but it's it's elevation from the I'll call it the road or the lake and a fixed elevation above that is more my concern than than it is the actual height of the building because you can cut cut some grade and still get that height. um or build upgrade and get that height. That's what I'm concerned about. So, um maybe it's not super clear what I'm getting at, but >> yeah, >> I agree with you 100%. The >> this lake is one of a finite number of lakes that we have in the city. We're not going to have any more lakes. They're there and that's all we have left. This lake has been like a game refuge for most of my life. I mean, you can't you can't run a boat on that lake with a motor on it. So, you're out there rowing around. Um, and it's just been like a game refuge. So, the fact that, you know, the folks that live on the east side of the lake would look across the lake and see a you know, a huge structure like that and obviously lighting is a big issue. Um, I think we need to really pay attention what we're doing around this lake. I mean, we've we've taken the whole western side of this lake and turned it into an industrial park. I mean, that's there. That's a fact. I mean, that's not going to change. You know, thankfully, you guys moved in there and you brought jobs and and, you know, some more structure into our into our city. But I think we still have to keep in mind why that lake is there and why it is like it is and try to pay attention and not do something that you know that we put this close to the lake you know with what we're looking at here today it actually encroaches on that shoreline. I mean, from what I'm looking at and and what I was given, it looks like at least a third of the building falls, you know, within that shoreline. Now, I don't know how accurate this is. >> Within the shoreline district. >> Yeah, within the shoreline district, right? Just like I don't know how accurate the actual shoreline is that we're looking on the map up there. I'm just looking, you know, from my perspective, from living here since I was a little kid, playing on that lake, sliding on that lake, snowmoiling on that lake, hunting on that lake. Um, the shoreline doesn't look right to me. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I've never been a You've never on the on the west side and very rarely on the east side been able to get anywhere near the water on that lake before. you were walking on a a sponge floating bog. In fact, there were times when when it was really windy out and you had a little bit higher water, those islands were all over the lake. It looked like you could hopcotch all across that lake and be on dry land, but it couldn't be farther from the cage. You can't even find the bottom of that lake, you know, with a with a deep pole or with an anchor. It's just it's goofy type bottom. I just think we have to keep all those things in mind. I mean, the height bothers me. The location, you know, from the lake bothers me. We'll certainly validate that the lines that we're using are correct. And then, uh, you know, much of the area on the site that falls within the boundary and the images we're looking at are actually the storm water ponds, which are impervious or are pvious. They are not impervious. Um, so, you know, we'll definitely work through and make sure that we're below that 25% threshold, but um I I feel like the the site there's flexibility with the placement of the building that I think we'll be able to make that 25% work. Yeah, this isn't necessarily for you guys, but if you need more specific feedback, please ask because we're kind of you got to kind of get some mixed feedback on the height. Um, again, I'm okay with the higher height and my perspective is that would I rather see a 35 ft industrial building butt up to the Shorland Overlay district or this office building and parking lot? I'd rather see a parking lot and office building butt up to it. I think it's going to be more aesthetically pleasing both on the curb and from the from across the lake. Um, and so, you know, if we were voting on this for a higher height, I mean, granted there's limits, but 50 to 59 ft, I can live with that. I that wouldn't be my hangup. I'd vote for it. >> Yeah. I mean, I agree. So in other words, if that shoreline district line, if the boundary line essentially all you had to do to get completely out of that boundary line would to be to shift that building back 50 ft, you're not going to tell the difference between a 59. You know, there's not going to be much of a an visual impact with a building at 59 ft being shifted back 50 ft or up 50 ft. You know what I'm saying? So, especially if a viewshed across the lake, you wouldn't it wouldn't look a lot shorter if it was pushed back 50 ft than if it was where you guys are currently located. That's why I don't have an issue with the height either. But, uh again, I'll reiterate the fact that the the impervious surface uh area would be um critical to make sure that you're not exceeding that and then that would that would obviously drive where that building's going to be located ultimately anyway. So, understood. regarding the the view of the the building from the lake or that kind of view. I I from our perspective, you know, a lot of the interior experience of the building is set up for allowing occupants of the building to enjoy the view of the lake. So I think it's an amenity that we understand or and appreciate in and Graco is uh respects and they they are you know trying to construct the building in the way to to enjoy that natural amenity. But I think also the experience from the lake the way the parking is set up is um it actually puts I think the more aesthetically pleasing part of the project close to the lake and the parking is kind of hidden. Um, so all the lighting that's associated with the parking will be hidden. Um, and the building is kind of more of the foreground. So, um, I think that site organization helps with the relationship to the lake. >> Yeah. And I I don't disagree with any of that that what you're saying. I guess where I was going with this is we had a similar con conversation as a commission uh on the application two doors to the south and there's a 20ft retaining wall and then a and then then a 50ft building on top of that. So it's like it's a it's a different it's a different when you got to make that grade work. um in your in your guys's applications or at least in what's presented to us with the renderings, there's not that that 20 foot retaining wall, which you know, in my mind accounts for building height um as I'm looking at it right here. There's there's not that, but I just want to be cognizant of of making sure we're we're using as much natural natural burning natural features to make that grade work. Um, if we can go a little shorter, you know, with a shorter little bit shorter on the parapits or whatever on top, you know, to Keith's point of making it as as, you know, visually appealing, the better. If it's not serving a true purpose, if it's serving a purpose to make a a third story like you're proposing, so be it. >> In my mind, um, >> just a question for clarity. So, on this drawing, the parapit I'm assuming is is the line that's on the back of the building. Um, so in this in this drawing the the skinny Can I go point? Is that okay? >> Yeah. >> So this is the there's actually a roof screen. So that's the element that is uh the 59T >> mechanical units and we're still working the exact >> sure >> um exact size of that. Um, a lot of those units with the placement will actually not really even be visible from the road. Um, so we're still evaluating that. But this is the footprint of the uh 50ft parapit right there. >> Perfect. >> There's a few little legs that stick out that you're seeing here that are shorter. Um, but that's the the taller person. >> Do you know the height of the front part? Like if you're looking it's not 59 there. >> It's not. Yes, it's 50 from finish floor. So we can share. >> So it's 9 ft. The tall part is we what we did, we did a study to push the units back as far as we can road. >> And so Martin and his team have done some uh perspectives uh renderings >> and like he just said from the road hopefully you won't see that. You won't see the high rooftops. >> You could see you could see where that parapit is on the renderings that are in the the in the attachments for the the report here. that one. >> So you can't see the screen wall at all. So that the high part that's at the 59 is not visible from the road. >> And as you know with Graco off to the right of this picture, they've done that big great grass kind of >> area where they hold their company picnic and they wanted to make sure that it was green along the road. It wasn't just road and then building. So I mean we like what we what HDA has done with this landscape design as well. to your point, it's like I don't want to see this big slope and keep going with the parapits. >> And when you screen those mechanicals too, I think it's good to take the perspective from the other side of French Lake too. >> So that's what we asked them to do because in the buildings over at B1, you will actually see the mechanical units and so it's like, well, we need to screen. >> Yeah. >> Where you can see >> and even like like I said, when you go all the way to the other side, the east side of of the actual French Lake because >> Oh. Oh. Oh, >> it's a pretty big opening like when you're >> I don't know if you know this, but a lot of kids watch the sunset. Well, right over the Graco building. >> Oh, okay. >> That's their hangout spot. >> We can certainly look at that. The PUD actually does provide flexibility on roof screening. So, um the PUD actually doesn't require it has language in there that um rooftop mechanical units can be just painted to match the building. So, um, you know, we are looking at screening from an aesthetic standpoint, but, um, it's not it's not something we are 100% committed to at this point. >> Yeah. My opinion would I'd ask you to commit to that from across the lake. Well, I the PUD >> I think through the PUD also if if there is going to be any allowance of uh that building being greater than 35 ft in the Shoreline district and then then we as staff or excuse me we as a commission or the council would require that it it is actually screened instead of Right. >> Yeah. The majority >> we could actually we could actually say it's a requirement. >> Yeah. It's part of the flexibility. Yeah. >> And I would ask you to screen it from across the lake. which shouldn't be too difficult and it'll look small as you get further away from it. So, any other questions, comments for the applicant? Oh, I'm looking forward to it. would hope to see the project go forward. Like an office use in this area would be phenomenal to help even potentially drive commercial that people would love to see. Um that's one thing we lack is enough daytime employment to drive commercial and it's not the most convenient place, meaning Rogers might benefit more than us, but it's a start. >> Thank you. We may call you back up after this. >> Sure. Understood. Thank you for the uh open part for the public hearing. >> Marsha, >> just for clarity quick, Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission, uh the within the Shorland district, it is a requirement that commercial uses obtain a conditional use permit. So that is where those conditions of approval can be addressed at that point um even if it wasn't to be a planned unit development um or anything like that. So there are mechanisms to have those attached to the resolutions of approval. >> Thank you. So on the parking I am very definitely against giving in giving an inch on what is required as the minimum and that should be it. Um, last week my husband and I were driving over to Brockton Lane from our home on Fernbrook and we decided to take 117th and we fell in as we turned on 117th. fell in behind a curbside garbage truck and he was turning off of Fernbrook going down 117th and we followed him and we took 121st where which runs on the south side of curbside and curbside had employees I guess they were employees parking on the road on both sides of the road and the garbage truck just barely squeezed through these cars and we we we made it okay, but there was not enough room for two cars to meet and pass each other. So, you need adequate parking for these businesses. And the other thing I wanted to mention is that French Lake is part of the Mississippi flyway. You have migratory birds coming through there all the time. And um these birds will be slamming into this building. I mean, there'll be dead birds all over the place. We have a little rambler and we have birds hitting our picture window all the time. So, you have to start thinking about the Mississippi flyway, too, and these migratory birds. And so, whatever the DNR says should be what you follow. you should not be giving variances because um this is this is what they say and there's a reason why they say it. >> Marcia, could could you please state your name and address? >> Oh, Marcia Grover 11320 from Brook Lane, Dayton, Minnesota. >> Thank you. >> I thought we had them know. >> So, our our minutes are taken by AI. So, it's Yeah, >> I'm just teasing. >> Well, I appreciate the input. Is there anyone online? There is a member of the applicant group online. If you'd like to speak, you're more than welcome to at this point. I don't know if we can hear. Let's see here. I am not sure why we cannot All right. >> Yeah. Well, you >> with that any further discussion up here? Any reason to call the applicant back forward? >> No, I just want to uh reflect some other comments that are being made that this is, you know, a great thing for for Dayton. Um, I like again the um the office component coming in here and helping offset some of the other uses in the area. So, um, building looks great. Um, could be why one of our plan commission members is on helping with the design of the building potentially, right? So, um, but no, I I think it's it's going to be a great addition. um this is a good first step in understanding what's going to be um required or considered for the the rest of the um proposal here. So um I'm looking forward to seeing it come back. >> I echo a lot of what Jeff said. Um, and the other thing I just want to leave staff that when they come back, I think it would be very useful for staff to have some feedback about what other communities do or what other office projects are doing for parking because I agree that the public needs to be protected with parking, but I also think our code is way too burdensome and not even close to what the market's doing. And uh you know if we have a parking issue at curbside um I think some well I myself that's one of the reasons I did did not approve that when I was the one person that didn't vote for it because it was going to be an issue with the way they do their business and all the drivers coming in and the trucks there. And every time I look at it there's park trucks parked every inch on the ground. Same problem they had in Brooklyn Park. Same problem here. Not saying it's a code violation, but that's why there's a parking issue. Any other comments or feedback? >> Said it better myself. >> All right. I I have no additional comments or feedback. Uh with that, I'm going to close the public hearing at 7:39. Um and we don't we do not take a vote on this one, >> right? So, we'll move on item 8. >> Thank you guys. Thank you. >> Good luck. Hit the home button on the There we go. We'll make it. >> No, you can talk again. >> I can talk again, man. I'm back. >> Was it hard? >> It is hard. I mean, I don't say a lot to start with, but you know, still want to say things. >> You can just tomorrow at the office. >> Yeah, >> you got your chance. So, uh, this next item. So, we we have uh this uh I refer to as a laundry list of potential uh uh city code amendments um that we're trying to bring forward to the planning commission as time allows. So, um this tonight we have two to talk about. The first one is rounding. So, when should a fraction be rounded to a whole number? Um this uh discussion originally started out during a concept plan review for the Bernins property um in relation to the A3 district. So specifically density. So in that situation uh there's a project that had um had to be two units per 20 density. It was less than a 20 acre I should say. It's 1178 and a half acres. Um trying the question was should it be rounded up to 120. Um we've had a similar discussion at least at the council level on animal units although that's a little bit different than uh zoning. So question still should remains is at what point should numbers be rounded to a whole number? I guess I'll start off the the I think you you guys I mean I think it's pretty um evident right here as far as um whether or not rounding gives an alle. In other words, are you are you allowing for what would otherwise be a variance if you're rounding up uh to the next unit. So, in other words, I'm doing a parking calculation and I come back with I need 120.8 parking stalls. Well, to meet code, that's 129. Cuz if you went down to 128, you're under you're technically under the required number of parking stalls for that use. Um, in looking at density, well, if the code says you need 120, you know, acres, let's say, and you're only at 117, well, my estimate would be, well, you're short then. You need that 120 to make that hole that the code is looking for as far as those minimum requirements. And so I think the only time you would round up in my estimate is when um you're not it wouldn't be otherwise taken care of through a variance, right? So or it's a code requirement to round up. And I would think you know most definitions are at the 0.5 mark, right? So anything above then it's like well what's what's the what's the you know are you talking about tens you know hundreds whatever it is and I think that it it it depends on the situation um but with acres I think it's per acre one acre you know and running up and down go ahead >> I was going to say I mean I think the I think the example above that right there written up there you know We're rounding to 0.14 3.14. Like we have to round at some point, right? >> Of course. >> Um a half an acre is a still a pretty large property or a residential property is is where I'm getting to. Yep. >> Maybe half a duck >> when we count animal heads is doesn't make sense. So I think there's some logic that needs to be applied here as well. >> Well, that's what I was getting at. So if if you're saying it's 1.5 ducks, well, you have to go to two, right? So, you know, or or if it's 1.5 parking stalls that you that you need on your property, if if you only provide one, well, you're under co you're not meeting code requirements. So, you have to go to two half >> to right to meet those code requirements. So, it it's the depending on the situation in my estimate is when you when you use rounding to round up to the next unit of measurement. But I agree. I mean rounding 117 12 acres to 120 that's 2 and 12 acres that's a lot of land >> now if we said >> what if it was 119.6 six >> and that's that's where you're that's where I think example >> I I think at that point your code could relay when that occurrence is being if when that occurrence happens per code you would round up to the nearest you know unit of measurement I think at that point you're focused on the acres but I think considering that this is a 10 acre granularity really what you're talking about is is 11.75 lots equal 12, >> right? >> And that's I think the question I mean to me that's that's more along the lines. >> I think each instance I mean I've been a part of a city that have has um issued variances for a matter of inches, right? So it's like because you're too close by 6 in. Well, you're you're not meeting the code because you're too you're 6 in too close. So you know what what level do you say? Well, we're close enough. Right. >> Right. And I think that's going to be the determination of the council um per whatever they're they're looking at at that time, >> the variance or the uh potentially introducing fractions being rounded to whole numbers, >> right? And I've seen codes where they actually will reference what happens when there's a fraction, do you round up or do you round down? That that's actually some co there's actually code in city codes that would address that. >> Well, and where you know I I'm I'll I'll say it this way. I'm I've been thinking about building a shed for a number of years. Right. We require a permit over a certain square footage. >> Mhm. >> I don't want to pull I don't want to pull a permit for the shed. >> Make sure it's 199 ft. >> Right. Right. But I don't want to get in that situation either of Okay, now someone built a shed at 199 ft. Are they 200 f feet? You know what I'm saying? >> 199 ft. >> Well, right. >> I don't need a permit. So what help me help me a little bit with what's actually driving you to ask us this question? Is there a specific example? >> Yes. In the case of the project um where you know it's an issue of do they have 11 houses or 12 houses and and that's a difference of tens of thousands of dollars >> for them >> the applicant. Yes. >> Yeah. >> But then you have to relay that back to the code and what does a code require? And and again, I think if rounding gives them an allevance to the code, that's not in my opinion where rounding should occur. I think I think at that point they ask for that variance to hey, I'm 2 and 1/2 acres short. Can we make it a a formal approval that that 2 and a half acres is okay in my situation through a variance procedure? So in thinking of okay so if they have uh just to keep it simple so let's say there's a requirement that you have one acre and applicant comes in with you know 0.99 they still need a variance if it's 0.99 or 98 that's maybe close enough if >> I agree with Jeff that it's a variance process because it's just all subjectivity you know, what's the >> where you >> what's the right degree around you, >> right? >> Unless unless the code >> I'd rather make the variance the subjectivity instead of trying to write a code and they're like, "Oh, that hurt us." >> Yeah. >> I mean, there's a reason you get you get um surveys done of a property. Right. And like I said, we've I've processed variances because they were a half a foot too short on a lot width type of situation. >> Yeah. There's just so many different types of measurements and calculations that are done throughout the code that like you can't just have one sizefits-all rounding, right? It has to be kind of a specific kind of thing. But then um you know I think to mayor's point like instead of looking at the acres, you know, they're allowed 11.75 properties on the division. Well, they're allowed more than 11. So does that give them 12? >> Right. So I mean >> and I think >> it's kind you're allowed 1.5 docs. So does that >> but then the question is can you have a.75 >> could you have a 3/4 of a property? No >> I think when it comes to density that you're I mean you get in the density calculations too a minimum density with our zoning code of you know x number of units per acre. >> Yeah. >> And then there's a maximum density. It's the same issue you're going on here. That's why I still think it's a variance because >> you know you could take 300 lots and divide it by >> you know 600 acres and it's two lots and you know you the numbers could be really big if we wanted. >> Yep. >> I mean we have some land owners that are that could master plan on area and have big numbers. >> Yeah. >> And now it's like well you know and you know at the end of the day if they have really big numbers and they get one or two extra lots is that going to make a difference to anybody? Probably not. >> Yeah. Right. And and then you know the other thing is that the city can't control how much land someone owns as far as saying I'm coming to the city because I own this amount of land but I'm just short. Well, that's not the city's fault that you're just short 2 and a half acres. It's it's a consideration that you have as a developer because you're not going to get your 10 or $20,000 more for that one lot. But that shouldn't be the city's burden. It should be their burden to understand go through that process and then ask for the variance for that and maybe the city complies and says it makes sense. >> Sure. >> Yep. >> And that's a lot of discussion on density but on animal units I could see the rounding up completely. >> Yeah. So kind of my my interpretation where the fraction is you know a impractical unit you know so using the duck for example you're not going to have half a duck >> in in practical units. dock, parking stalls. >> Um, I'm trying to think what else. >> Why wouldn't it be lots though? >> I'm missing. >> I mean, cuz using the same logic, >> they would have to come for a variance on the lot. >> I understand that, but getting to the one and a half ducks, you can have one duck. You can't have half a duck. But the answer here is you don't get the other half of the duck. So that I mean I look at it from the standpoint of you know it's 11.75 lots and we're saying the city is would be effectively saying we're going to take the 75. >> We're not going to let you have it. >> In theory he get more money because his lots are slightly larger too. So he might about the same. And I'm not saying we can't do a variance. I just think putting a code around it is going to be >> problematic. I understand what you're saying. Um would the variance be based on then a financial hardship because it's a >> it's a tough thing. >> They'd have to come up the reason. >> Not not alone. There's got to be >> I I'll just stand on the fact that you you using rounding can't can't help whoever's asking for that rounding to occur uh to get some kind of advantage to the code of the code. So, in your in in the mayor's um example of one and a half ducks, well, if the code says you could only have one because of the calculations being made and the calculations come out as, well, it says I could have one and a half. Well, you're only allowed one because giving you two would be above and beyond what the code requires. >> I think it's tied to where the code requires minimum standards and maximum standards is where the rounding comes from. And additionally related to the Burdens project because it was already brought up, the consideration was related to this whole idea of the A3 district and allowing a density of two per 20 and uh setting those standards and getting the blessing from the metropolitan council to move forward with this type of development that Dayton wants to see within the city. However, if you allow 12 lots on 117 and a half acres, you're not meeting those guidelines that are established u by the metropolitan council who's kind of assisting us with how can we how can we do this without getting ourselves in into an issue with the Met Council in the future. Um, so that that was another consideration that was related. I know that some might seem arbitrary, but uh but it is still it's still there. So, >> no, I was just sparking because they put a monkey wrench into it, which whatever. That was expected. >> Well, and I'm I'm afraid if we if we start saying fractions could be rounded to whole numbers, we'll see a we'll see a development where they come in at, you know, fractions of just shy of our setbacks, right? And >> right >> and well, >> code says you can round it up. It's just going to be a hard thing to manage. I I I see the point. It's just I don't know how you manage it >> because what do you round up? Do you round up the acreage or do you round up the lots or the duck? I I >> It might be. Have you consulted with a city attorney on this? >> No. That might be the first place to start if you're really considering this. And I think there might be some potential case law out there that says you can't round up in these situations cuz then like like what um Cherry Demouth was saying. I mean people will find a a way around and that loophole to come in and say well your code says I'm able to get these fractions because of it now they're exceeding the expectations of what the code is really trying to get at. >> Sure. Well, and to that point, so Minnesota statute has limitations on how you round up land divisions or land measurements. So that's to the tenth of a foot. >> Y so you have 1.00 or 1.01 or sample you're not going to have pi. So you know 3.1459 is 3.14. >> Mhm. So it's the direction then that no rounding is to be had and if there's a need they can do a variance and they have to prove hardship beyond a financial desire >> and that sounds good to me but I mean I think >> say it but I personally don't want to be up here deciding all these fractional and variances because >> that's it's a I don't know the rock in a hard place because you you feel for both sides of the situation. Yeah. >> So, I kind of think you just stick with the code and >> no change. >> I think if you're getting to that point, there's a reasonable use or reasonable explanation for the requirement of that variance. And I think we can as a planning commission and then as a city council help approve a a variance if it's reasonable and you're within a certain, you know, couple square feet or whatever it might be, well, you're close enough type of thing, right? So, I think through variances, those cases will iron themselves out. >> And I know a lot of cities approve a lot of things that don't with variances that don't necessarily prove everything that it's not as difficult as people think. Or at least the approval. >> I mean, Minneapolis does it nonstop. >> Well, there's got to be a complaint. >> Yeah. Who's going to Yeah, >> I'd be okay rounding up half a do. >> Give them two. >> We heard the argument. >> Then you just change it to two then. >> Yeah, exactly. >> That's true. >> That's what you're doing. >> Yeah, >> it's how the state >> I want to see the half a duck. That's what I >> It's how the state counts animal heads if I remember correctly. >> You get half and I get half keys. >> Yeah, we can each take it home. Do you have enough direction? >> Yep. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Are you sure? You're looking at us like you don't. >> No, I'm just waiting for the next project. >> Oh, >> item 8. See? >> Yep. >> He's following rules. >> Okay. Uh this is in regards to um site plan. So, what is the threshold where a site plan review should be required by the plan commission, city council? Uh, the origin of this um topic was from the Spaniard site plan. So, this is a a project a few months ago. Can't remember what month it was, but not too long ago off of 113th Avenue. Um, this was a I want to say 2600 foot building with a proposed 700 foot addition. And the question kind of became a is this addition so small that we don't even need to see it? Um you know if it meets all the the requirements of the city code does it need to have a a separate by the financial city council. Um in looking at a few cities it it kind of goes different ways. Um in our code it does uh any project or any new development development not or uh construction other than single family or uh two family homes has to be reviewed by the plan commission city council. Um the only exception is if you approve a project and I'll use Greyco as an example because it's fresh. Let's say if you approve a site plan for Greyco and they come back within five years to do the building addition and they and it using the same building materials and meets all the codes that can be approved administratively. Um >> regardless of the size of that addition >> uh no that is uh I think it's >> 10%. >> Yeah. Um if it's six years it it starts the process over it has to be reviewed. So looking at the Spaniard project, it was only a 700 ft² addition, but that was 30% of the building. So even though that was a small addition, it would have to be reviewed by the plank commission city council. I guess my question is really is there a minimum size where it doesn't have to be, you know, like say if it's um a,000 ft or or thousand square feet or smaller? That's one example. Yeah, I think the question is just based on preference and discretion of what what the planning commission wants and ultimately what the city council wants. Right. So, um you guys have done your homework. You know that other communities have different varying varying degrees of scrutiny that they that the council wants to see or have the city have over these projects. Um 10% is I don't know if that's average but um >> you got a 300,000 foot Graco building. It's not small, >> right? Um you know, New Hope has a 25%, right? So there's varying degrees of what size of an addition triggers the need for it. Uh I think some of the other things to consider is if you have design standards for areas in the city that uh buildings fall in and they want to change the facade or the look of their building that you know currently has a design standards or met design standards before. Well, you're certainly going to want a site plan review for that, right? To make sure that they're they're consistent with with those types of standards. So, um I I'm okay with the way that the code is currently written. I could see it going up to 25%. I mean, it's really determinant on what kind of overview we as as a planning commission really want. Um, and ultimately what the city council wants, you know, how much discretion the city council wants the planning commission to have. >> This code is regulating all building types. >> Single family, commercial, >> not single family. Not single family. >> We're just talking commercial here. >> No, >> commercial, industrial, >> apartments. Yeah, I call that larger. That's more of the commercial world. Okay. >> I, you know, I I think from the standpoint of where we're at as a city, >> um, I think leaving it as is is the right thing to do. We've got, you know, I'll give the example of Hutner came in a few years ago with their addition. >> Um, you know, an older building, 20 some years old at that point, I believe. you know, a chance to review it, a chance to freshen it up, freshen up that area with with the site plan, right? Or or anything coming in, right? We're we're we're not seeing I don't feel like we're seeing an excessive amount where we need to increase the number. Um >> I I agree, especially with Dayton being a developing city, right? I mean, there there is a need for for oversight. >> Yeah. And even with the Spaniard property, I think it was good that we saw that one because there's so much going on in that area. >> Sure. Yep. >> Plus, it spurs other discussions that we might not know we needed to have because of potential issues that that that property might have come into that, you know, now we're considering other aspects of the code or whatever it might be. So, I I think the discretion is good to have. >> So, no change. Would it make any sense to have a total even if it's like five or 10,000 square feet like anything over that? Because I mean a lot of these bigger buildings are kind of landlocked already. They've kind of maxed out their property. But like what if the cubes came in and they wanted 9% increase and that's you know 90,000 foot addition or something, right? Like and then we don't get to see it because it was within 5 years and they're adding 90,000 square feet, right? Like I don't think we've got too many instances where this could happen. But maybe you would say anything more than 10,000 square feet. It also has to be reviewed even if it's within 5 years. Just put a cap on it that's pretty high that it's still not going to a lot of things will fall under it. But if there is that oneoff thing that >> I think what Paul just said makes a lot of sense. >> Do you do you flip it? Instead of 10% of the total area, do you say 1,000 square feet? I mean, >> I think the 10%'s good because there's also a lot of like the spananiel property, there's a lot of small industrial properties and >> and then now Paul's just putting in is all right, we've got these newer industrial properties um particular ones in PUDS and stuff like that too that if they were to want to change them in an exceeded amount like site access and circulation, all that kind of stuff could factor. Does the Dayton code take into consideration site plan review for additions that take up required parking? >> Uh well that wouldn't meet uh code. So that like that would >> what I'm saying is if if uh buildings already overparked >> right >> property is already overparked but there's a change in the need. So, I know that some codes take the parking into consideration also as far as if there's a change in the amount of parking and it triggers a site plan review as well just to make sure everything else is meet standard. So, in other words, an addition could take up parking, it could take up landscaping, it could take up enough aspects of that property where it should come back to the planning commission just to make sure. But again, it's based on percentage, right? So, I do want to give staff credit because I think you guys know what you're doing and that you could look at a plan and say, "Yes, it meets X, Y, and Z of all of our codes and we're good." >> Um, so what is the need for us as a planning commission to look at it if it's, you know, meets those threshold requirements, but again, something over 10,000 square feet might be big enough where we do want to see it. So, and probably not a bad idea to cap it. >> So, if Yeah. Well, yeah. So we have to define a threshold. So if it's going to be a um you know a certain square footage of of whether it's a site addition or or building you know site improvement or building addition what is that number? >> Most of what we do is pretty arbitrary but I'd say like 10,000 square feet just a little bit of 10% >> or 10,000 square feet. >> Okay. What would that do to the project you talked about on 113th if they said if they wanted to put 9,999 square feet? >> So Spaniard was a 30% addition >> for building additional triggers >> because of that. >> Yeah. I feel like 10,000 is really high, but >> and if it wasn't if it wasn't do >> if it didn't trigger that, if their building was bigger, it didn't trigger that. >> A big building for 100,000 square feet is a huge >> like 20,000 >> a huge addition, right? Or less. >> Yeah. And that's where >> I'm not comfortable with that at all. >> That's where >> Can you repeat what you're not comfortable with? Well, I don't I don't think we should give so much leeway to somebody making an expansion without us having look at it because of all of these things that we've been talking about. That makes me real uncomfortable because I think something's going to pop up and blow up on our face and we're going to go, "How the heck did that happen?" Well, because we gave them permission to do that because we changed the code. I think we need to pay attention to what's going on in the city. I think we need to look at those things. So the question you have to ask though is what is what is the reason or rationale for a site plan review right so if there was no other uh requirement there is no variance requirement there is no condition use permit PUD anything of that nature is simply a site plan review it's for the planning commission to make sure that it meets all the minimum code requirements and potentially for a public hearing or some get notice out to whoever might need notice for whatever is being built or you know in addition on to. So the bottom line is that the site plan review really is just an oversight to make sure that it does meet all code requirements which staff could certainly do on their own. I mean that's you look at the code, you look at the plan and you make sure that that everything is is you know lining up the way it's supposed to be. So that's where the that percentage comes in. and it says, "Okay, at what point is it too much of an addition where we want to make sure that there's at least a public hear, not maybe not a public hearing, but a public meeting to discuss this so other people could understand what's going on, right? So, in other words, if they are putting on a huge addition, but they're still meeting all the code requirements, doesn't need a variance or conditioning use permit, there there has to be at some point where the planning commission doesn't need to get involved with that, >> right? you but if you make that aspect so huge so they could make that big of a change to that structure then that happens without any input from the city at all. >> No, you're going to have you're going to have input from the city >> from the staff >> and that's where that's where the rubber hits the road is the staff. We're just a discretionary panel, >> right? But they're asking for guidelines though on how to >> they have their guidelines through the zoning code. If Spaniard wanted to add on like a a garage stall of, you know, 500 ft²,000 square feet or something, is that something that the plan commission knows about? >> No, it's a garage stall. >> So, so um Cle, just Keith, just to clarify on your too much, are you saying that you want the 10% lower or the 10,000 square feet lower? Because we kind of need to have some numbers in there. I mean, we don't have to have We don't want to see everything, do we? >> No, I think I'm comfortable with a 10%. >> Okay. >> But the other number we were throwing around here was way higher than that. >> No, no, it was it was it was 10% or a certain square footage. >> Whichever is less. Whichever is less less. Whichever is less. >> So, in the case of Greyco, where Paul was going is Greyco could put on a 9,000 foot addition. >> Uhhuh. >> And still be under that 10%. So, what's that? What's that whatever is left number? >> Yeah, >> I'm leaning towards somewhere around 5,000 square feet. Um, >> yeah, the first the first grade building is like 400,000 ft. So, they could do under this 40,000t addition without it coming through to us, >> not the way it's currently written. >> So, this is only if you go through the site plan review process and give approval. So within five years of that site plan review approval, they would be able to expand up to 10%. But if that lapses like the Graco site has at that point, they would have to come back for a site plan review >> regardless of the size of the >> correct. Yep. So it it's basically within that f first five years of the site plan review where they'd have the ability to go 10% above and beyond what was previously approved. >> Um >> Okay. The second great co- building that's within 5 years. Yeah, that could get expanded. Yeah, that's fine. >> Yeah. >> So, yeah, just trying to add just one more catch to make sure these big buildings can't ex add big without us seeing it. That's where like the 5,000 10,000 >> number comes in because 5,000 ft on a 300,000t building is small. Pretty small, >> right? So, it's trying to find the ratio there. But >> so, right. Right now, I'm hearing 10% or 5,000 square feet, whichever is less. And >> that still be within that first five years. >> Yeah. Anything over five years it comes to us. >> Is there any discussion on if it is over the five years how much of an addition we we really need to see? In other words, do we really need to see that one extra garage stall on a building? I >> I think we crossed that bridge when we get there. >> Yeah. >> Well, it has to be in the code. >> Yeah. >> Oh, that bridge outside 5 years. It has to come in front of us regardless. And I I think it I think that's where the logic makes sense. You know what I was saying earlier is we're a developing city and uses are changing >> not only with buildings but how we envision different areas in the city. >> And not to mention our code is >> still evolving. But the other thing is that you're going to put a developer through all go have them jump through all those hoops and spend the time, money, drawing up plans, waiting on getting bids, all that stuff just to get to a a once a month meeting on a thousand square foot addition that they want to put on their building. That's not going to have any impact to any of any of the city requirements. >> It might have I think on the quick trip as an example, let's just say we didn't approve their attached. Did we approve their attached garage eventually? >> Yeah. Let's just say we didn't approve their attached garage. >> They put their building up and everything about the garage meets the setback as requirements and we approve it and they come back and just add it on because they can because of our code. >> I mean that's an example too where you know they people could do that. >> Well, it's it the the use would still have to meet the code standards too. >> Yeah. >> Yes. But that would be a site plan review for the >> Right. Then it would be a site plan review if they came back in. Yep. I mean that's why I mean I know that there are communities that just have that whatever the percentage is it it doesn't matter when >> I just know someone said there's no time >> there's no time frame >> so there so maybe 10% is too I mean maybe you say 5% addition you don't need at any point whatever it might be so I'm just saying there could be some blowback to the city saying you you're going to tell me you have to sit through I have to wait another month before I even get to the planning commission to see if I could do something that needs >> request. That may be something maybe it's something to as you if you're if we're going to refine this maybe it's something we take to the EDA and have them take a look at. I mean they're the ones who are dealing with this the most >> as business owners and you know >> you could I mean I think they're I'm pretty confident their answer is going to be like increase it. So go >> I I understand but it'd be good to have that feedback of like how realistic is this too? >> I mean >> how much of a burden is it? >> That that was the comment by the EDA when we uh we inform them with development applications every month that they have just to let them know what's coming down the line. And we did briefly discuss the Spaniard project and the uh consensus at the DEIS was we don't understand why this is going to the planning commission or city council for they essentially uh summed it up as a red tape situation. So that that was their that was their comments >> and if you call on that property there's a lot of discussion on what the front yard was going to be. I mean that's a classic example that that's kind of stuff we need to talk about. >> Well that's >> especially if we need to refine our code. >> Yeah. if there's design standards and things like that that you know in addition no matter what size is going to vastly impact the look or the curb appeal or whatever it is. I mean, I think there's some discretion at that point, too. But, I mean, the other thing to consider is that, you know, we as a city don't want to be looked at as a hard place to do business with, right? if we're trying to attract uh new business or attract new commercial and they they know that they have to I mean the new ones are going to have to come to us anyway but you know the current current users here if they need to go through these steps every single time they want to you know make an improvement >> but business users sometimes only look out for their interest >> very often >> hence why I suggested maybe the PDA draft this >> and not saying that that's wrong because they should be >> no of course motivated for their interest and that's why sometimes you need to make sure it meets the city's interest. >> No, I I agree but I think there's also a threshold where the the city council could rely on staff who is the ones who are trained and employed to do this thing to make that that you know do their analysis and say yes this is meeting everything that we're intending the city is intending it to meet >> which we would heavily rely on anyways. >> Is there a consensus So I think what we could do is draft an ordinance amendment and you know based on kind of what staff whatever staff's recommendation is going to be and just let the commission react to it. >> How do you envision that reading? Um, I guess my recommendation would be to get rid of the 5-year period. Um, and then probably the 10% or a,000 square feet, whatever's less, so that you're you're not going to review a onecar garage. I >> know we keep talking about one car garage, but we're talking commercial buildings. I don't I don't ever think that's a realistic example. I look at I look at um I we talked about curbside, right? Curbside adding another transfer bay, right? That's a realistic thing they could do. How much is that square footage? Is that something we'd want to see? Right. That's something that has come in. So, that's that's where I'm at with this. Um Marsha, when this comes through as an ordinance, we'll have a public hearing on it. Sorry. Sorry. I don't want to waste you. >> I just wanted to comment. Remember that you got warehouses built practically on top of the presidential houses. >> Understood. >> And and that is that is where I'm struggling with this too is like we've had we have very much you know we come in, we see a size of a building, we see a square footage, we approve it for what it's there, what's next to it, how it's interacting with the neighborhood around it. Um, I'd like to see additions come through is my my opinion, but >> I would too. And my opinion is largely driven because we keep identifying holes in our code that need updating and that's what you guys are basing your approvals on is our code and we keep identifying them like the office parking. I mean, that's just it's like a retail ratio. >> Um, but maybe that would be to our advantage and hurt the I shouldn't say to our advantage. It would hurt the applicant. Um, but there could be some things in our code that are complete opposite that like, oh my god, we didn't know that was in our code. >> Sure. >> And and I understand the concern of the EDA or or business owners trying to do something and I would I would advocate that I I think there's ways to expedite this. you know, if there's there's a a business in the the area that would like to do an addition or something like we've >> The other thing to consider is if if if there was a a development that was approved under a PUD or a conditional use permit and they want to expand, I think they need to come back regardless of the size of that expansion. >> It would absolutely be require was just what I was going to bring up is that the transfer station was approved under a conditional use permit. Any expansion of that use would require an amendment to that conditional use permit triggering the need to come to planning commission and city. >> If it's a permitted use and it's all it was built as a permitted use and only come through the council as a as a as a site plan review, >> then I think this this would be a little bit more appropriate putting that 10% or whatever that percentage is without the the years on. And maybe maybe where I'm going with this and Dennis maybe something to consider with this ordinance is, you know, we're right now we're an advisory committee. Maybe this is the chance to to give us a little more power in some of these aspects. So from a developer aspect, we don't have to go through council, but it can just come through here. >> Oh, I see. >> First site plan reviews. >> First site plan reviews. >> Is is that the authority right now? I know there's other communities that site plans just get approved through the planning commission goes to the council. >> Yeah. >> So that may be something to consider as >> generally site plans are attached to condition use per just adding a little bit. So you'd have this administrative approval. You'd have this planning commission approval and then you'd have the full council approval. This kind of what you're getting at. >> No. No. Get rid of the council approval. Just have them come through us >> on all of them. >> Just just on additions. >> On additions. that that meet this just to get rid of some of that red tape that >> I'd probably be fine with that >> that maybe the EDA is concerned about, >> you know, >> I don't disagree with the EDA. There are sometimes where So, we'll yeah, just that step pushes that out a month, but I don't know what what mechanism we'd have to how we do that, but I'd be I personally Yeah, something to consider as we look at this. So would we be advising the staff then at that point to then allow them to do the final approval? >> We're approving. >> Staff would essentially approving recommendation or >> doing a once over of yep everything meets the code and we're comfortable moving forward with staff's uh review of the plans. I've seen it in communities that I've worked in previously where uh even for variances the planning commission is the approval and denial and if they deny the city council is the board of appeals at that point. >> I kind of like that. But yeah, no, I can see I can see. Like I said, I personally think that's a good idea for this. >> But that's a that's a different issue than you're looking for. >> Yeah. >> Advice from us here tonight, right? >> Well, that's a whole other >> It snowball a little bit. >> I think snowball a little bit. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, back to site plan review. Is there any consensus >> on the uh you know, we're seems to me that there's an agreement on 10%. Is there an in agreement on putting in a minimum size where you don't want to see it? >> I'd say 10% 5,000 square feet and no sunset. >> You said no sunset. >> Yeah. >> Get rid of the fiveyear. >> Yeah. I'm not comfortable with that at all. >> I prefer 10% fiveyear with 10% 5,000 with the fiveyear sunset. So that just to clarify that would mean that the original approval for a site plan would still come to the planning commission and city council with that language. The sunset is the sunset after the original site plan approval. So if anything changes beyond that, but what I'm essentially the Spaniard project would still fall under this threshold. They have to come >> correct because it >> and is the five-year thing just in case standards. I just I'm more on what Peter's comments that we're a growing evolving city with understanding our code that you know what maybe 3 years from now 5 years from now we can completely make sense to remove the sunset but I just feel like everything's evolving and changing that I'd prefer to have a sunset I don't know Keith what are you comfortable with >> yes what you just said >> I can't support that >> I'm not comfortable >> I just I think I think the sunset personally doesn't make sense to me um you know Again, if you're a permitted use and you come in and you're still meeting you're under that 10% and you're meeting all the requirements of the code, um, and you it's not a condition use permit, it's not a variance, it's not a PUD, I think at that point the staff could do a pretty good job of making sure that it it's it's meeting code requirements and issuing permits and things of that nature. uh especially because then at that point it's any size of an addition would need that that site plan review. I just don't think that that's I just don't think that's beneficial for anybody involved as far as us essentially saying staff you did a good job. Yep. It meets all our code requirements. It's a permitted use. Good job. Right. Unless there's other determining factors like making sure that there's um you know design guidelines or anything like that associated with it. I I just think that it's too much red tape essentially. >> I do understand 100% where you're coming from. I guess my hang-up is that little things just keep popping up in the code and you know if staff were to do that I guess just understanding what you approved >> so we understand you know what were the code issues and identify like oh you know from our experience is that makes sense not make sense >> um that's why I guess I still prefer the sunset but >> we have at least a three vote majority. So, we'll we'll have a small amendment for this. >> Thank you. >> All right. Got all you need on that one? >> Yes. >> All right. Item 9A, notices and announcements. >> Announcements. Okay. Uh, ladies night out is this Saturday, November 8th, 4 to 6:00 p.m. at the activity center. And I'll try to go through these kind of quick. Uh, date and play place again is every Tuesday at 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. at the the activity center. Uh, we have deal dice and dominoes on the second and fourth Wednesday afternoon between 1 and 3 p.m. Also at the activity center, uh, the third Wednesdays of the month, we have a social worker that's available for consulting anyone in the public. So again, this is th Wednesdays of the month, 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Uh we have a social worker that's embedded with the police department, but is also available to to talk to anyone. Uh Elevate Henipin. So Elevate Henipin is a uh program that's trying to promote um small businesses in Henipin County. They we will be the city will be hosting Thriving Thursdays. Thriving Thursday on November 18th, 11:00 am to 1 pm at city hall. Uh so this is where small businesses can come here and talk to um consultants uh about any number of um certain topics. So this is a a good resource that we have a small handful of businesses that have used, but it really needs more more publicity. Could I put in a shameful plug that shameless plug I guess that uh the city of New Hope is actually also hosting an event on the 20th of November from 1 to 2 or 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. So it is a Henipin uh Elevate Henipin. So it's Henipin County. So I mean if uh Dayton business does not is not able to attend that one then obviously city New Hope is also hosting a thriving Thursday event. >> Sure. and and these these occur all you know every month throughout the counties and it's not just open to you know a business that's in Dayton >> must not be the 18th of Hen >> okay mayor for a day so Dennis if you'd like to give that up for a day uh this is open for fourth grade and fourth fifth and sixth grade uh graders who can write an essay for what would you do if you were mayor for the day uh this is being respons or sponsored by the League of Minnesota Cities. >> John, would you be able to just clarify what Jeff had mentioned that Thursday, November 20th or Tuesday, November 18th? >> Yeah. Did I get those mixed up? >> They're it's Thursday, November 18th, but November 18th. >> Well, it's it's a thriving Thursday. So, is that supposed to be the 13th? >> 20th, I'm guessing. November. >> Or is it November 20? Maybe there's some clarification that needs to be I know that New Hope is is hosting those on the 20th, which is a Thursday. The 18th is a Tuesday. So you it's probably either the 13th or the 20th >> that Dayton's also hosting. >> Yeah. Um I'll confirm it. Okay. I know we we do have that on our uh social media feed. So >> Okay. >> I'll correct it. Okay. Um, but again, mayor for the day, December 12th is the deadline for anyone that would like to uh submit a a uh what would you do question. Um, you can also register for the Dayton Holiday Lights Tour. Uh, so the uh you can register online at at this uh I don't Yeah, I don't have a link for this, but you can email the activity center at daytonm.gov. Um the lights would would be the commitment is that the lights are turned on between December 1st and December 31st and the registration deadline is November 24th. Um you know I've tried to look at through tried to find this on the website. I wasn't able to but I could find it on Google. So because I I don't know who owns this light show but they're sitting >> probably get you a better picture. Okay. >> Uh go >> news from the EDA. Uh the in January the EDA had bought property in the old village. Uh this will be marketed for sale in the near future. Um that's the picture here, but that's not the message here. The EDA does have vacancies. Uh, anyone can apply who is either a Dayton resident or a Dayton business that has experience with um, business uh, topics. The deadline for this is Monday, December 1st, and the EDA meets on the third Tuesdays at 7:30 a.m. So, I want to be clear, it's AM, not PM. Uh, Hall of Dayton will be Thursday, December 4th, 600 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at city hall. Uh so as the commission may remember is we've uh we are moving our meeting from December 4 Thursday December 4th to Wednesday December 3rd uh to accommodate holiday. So um this has been this will be our third year. It's been a huge success. You know far more uh people have attended than than I think anyone has thought no matter what the temperature is. And then again, our next meeting to be clear is Wednesday, December 3rd at 6:30. >> Anything else? >> Yes, just I did clarify on the Elevate Henipin's website that uh thriving Thursday here in Dayton will be 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on December 18th. Thursday, December 18th. That makes sense for us. Thank you. >> Was there any consensus on the January meeting? What's going to happen yet? >> Um, I guess my thought would be at the December 3rd meeting of of looking at the calendar for 2026. Um, we have >> so it's not going to be January 1st. >> We have conflicts in both January and July. >> Okay. Well, no uh uh schedule of the uh planning commission meeting in January by that December meeting in terms of applications submitted or anything like that. Um the benefit is is I believe that there is five Thursdays within January. So it doesn't set back our timelines for review and things like that if it were to be pushed to January 8th. So just initial reaction. >> I will not be here the December 3rd meeting. So, it's good for me. Make a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> We have a motion to adjurnn and a second. All those in favor? >> I >> Nobody said Nobody said they can be here on the eth. Oh, >> I'm good. >> Not yet. Meeting is