All right, it's uh 6:30. I'd like to call to order the uh Planet Commission meeting for the city of Dayton for Thursday, October 2nd, 2025. Stand for the pledge of allegiance. >> I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Right. The third item on the agenda is the role of the planning commission and it's in the on the agenda itself. Uh essentially we're a discretionary panel that gives recommendation that goes moves forward to the city council. City council actions are final. Uh again we're a discretionary panel that gives a recommendation. Uh, looks like there's item four, approval of the agenda. Are there any additions or deletions? Seeing no additions or deletions of the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda? >> I'll make the motion. >> I'll second. >> All right. Motion made and seconded. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All opposed? Same. Carries three to zero. Fifth item on the agenda is a consent agenda. This is uh consent agenda items are routinely uh discussed and approved all at once. The only item uh tonight is approval of the planning commission minutes minutes of September 4th, 2025. Any discussion on those minutes, corrections or otherwise? >> None for me. >> I'll make a motion to approve. Motion. Motion's made to approve and second the planning commission meeting minute minutes of September 4th, 2025. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All opposed. Motion carries three to zero. Next item in the agenda, we're flying by. I should be chair every day. >> Although we are a minute late bas. >> Uh next item on the agenda is our open forum. Um this is uh open to the public for any anybody who wants to comment on any item that is not on the agenda. Um comments are limited to three minutes. Uh it doesn't look like there's anybody in the audience. Is there anybody online that would like to participate in the open forum? >> Mr. Chair, there's nobody online. >> All right. Seeing that there's no one online, I don't think I have to open the open forum, but we can open and close it for all in favor of moving forward. Say I. >> I. >> Pose the same. 30. >> Item seven is a council update. We have the mayor here. If you want to give the update. >> Okay. September 9th, uh we had a presentation uh by Metro West on some of the improvements they've made to uh try to mitigate some of those misses that they had. Discussion on the DNR landing in the old village. Um there was a layout um that we were presented and there was just there was a lot of discussion but uh nothing significant was changed. It looks pretty good. um discussion on utility boxes. There's apparently the EDA has been has wanted uh the city to deal with uh dilapidated utility boxes and we had some discussion on how we can deal with those. Um I think it ended up being back to you know whatever the same system we use for other things is complaint driven. If there's a problem with the utility box, uh the resident and or business can call the utility and or um call city hall and see if they can resolve it, but wasn't much it wasn't much. It looked sound like it wasn't much we could do. Um, Bait Street vacation. Uh, the easement. You guys had seen this I think a month ago or a month and a half, two months ago. It was initially rejected and then we uh there was some information that the the one of the properties that's being improved may need a variance if we did that or if we didn't remove the easement and that switched some votes. So in the end we ended up removing the vacating the easement four to zero. Uh then we amended passed an amendment to the franchise fee to reduce certain egg meters from from the let's see how did we do that? They're normally they get the large meters because they have the grain dryers running and so they're running buku gas through that meter and uh 10 months out of the year the meter's not running. Normally the uh utility shuts those off but they no longer shut them off. And so this was a way to reduce that fee that they would end up paying that the uh eggot would end up paying. Uh we passed the preliminary levy at 9% above last year. That is the high water mark. So in December it can only go down. Um discussed the old village uh water tower plans. So, um, we did approve that engineering will to go through and see what it's going to take to get a tower down there, see what it's going to take money-wise. and we approved a uh study on Fernbrook traffic to kind of help nudge the uh county into looking at um roundabouts at as some of the intersections. that was approved and then we had a closed meeting. Um, yeah, I better leave that at that. Uh and then for the 22nd we uh we had a recap of those closed sessions. So if you want to know what happened during those, it was a lot of legal verbiage. So you might want to listen on to that. The the bottom line is is that we will probably be making some changes to our personnel policies regarding part-time staff. Um vacation easement vacation for Dayton Fields. You had seen that plat. We also did the plat for Dayton Fields. I believe that was preliminary and final. Um and you guys had already seen that. and it was pretty much approved as you approved it. There was an update to the public data request policy. We also um approved uh audit services. So, we have a requirement anytime I think the city spends I think it's 750k worth of federal money on something it has to be audited. Is that was that does that ring a bell? I think that's what it was. Um so we went above that for the intersection or the interchange and so those monies has that the expenditures have to be audited and the final item was um the parkway street light. So, we did approve the low bid on that on that North Street light. That's it. Great. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh, next item on the agenda is our uh commission business. Uh, the first item is item 8A, which is a public hearing. This is consideration of a variance request to a sideyard setback requirements in the R1 single family residential district. This is for a property located at 16070 Fair Oaks Lane and it's Jeff Anderson who's the petitioner. Uh Hayden, if you could walk us through the proposal. >> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. Uh as the chair mentioned, uh the located address here. Let me see if I can There it goes. Uh the subject property is 16070 Fair Meadows Lane. Uh that is within the Rush Creek Landing uh development. um believe that this uh property is right on Fair Meadows Lane and uh I think it's Rush Creek uh Parkway and uh the applicants have submitted a a variance request to the uh sideyard setback uh requirements in the R1 district. Uh currently the uh R1 district standard is a 10-ft sideyard setback. Um, and I'll get into a little bit more detail here, but the home was built in 2016, and at that time under the R1 district standards, uh, the, uh, setback requirement was a 15 ft total between the two adjacent properties where if one property was built at 10 ft at a 10-ft setback, the next uh, the next house over could be set at a 5-ft setback totaling 15 feet. Um that subsequently has changed after Rush Creek Landing was developed. Um and uh this property was uh approved at a at a setback of 8 ft uh compliant with the uh zoning ordinance at the time and has since changed from uh that 15 combination to just a 10-ft flat from the property line. Essentially requiring a 20- foot setback between the homes that are adjacent to each other. Here's just a brief uh overview of kind of the timeline of the development approval and the uh those existing um uh ordinance amendments that are now in place. Uh the building permit was issued in June of 2016. Um, and going back in 2018, there was an ordinance amendment that removed that 10- foot 5- foot um, setback requirement to just be a flatout 7 1/2 ft setback for all properties in the R1 district. Uh, 3 years later, the city adopted another ordinance repealing and replacing completely uh, the residential district standards. And uh, as such, the R1 properties at that time were required to meet a 10-ft minimum setback. I'll just note for the commission uh that uh when the Rush Creek Landing development was proposed, it was approved as a planned unit development, one of the requests that was a part of that approval was the sideyard setbacks be set at minimum 5 ft for that development. Uh the planning commission and city council um respectively uh rejected that uh flexibility. So the the flexibilities that were offered by the planned unit development was a reduction in the reforestation requirements as well as uh the minimum lot size and minimum lot widths within that. So those were the only two flexibilities that were approved at that time. Now just uh for the knowledge of the planning commission if that flexibility was approved by way of the PUD that flexibility carries through with the development because it is zoned as such. Um but since it was not that this is a essentially the requirement for the variance request. Now as I've mentioned previously in uh terms of variance review uh by uh state statute variances are required to meet a three-part test. Um this is a little bit uh interesting of a situation given the request. Um the property owner are are not requesting to further exceed that 8 foot setback but just naturally extend that third um that existing setback line by 39 linear feet towards the back side of the house. Um and I'll have pictures that show this as well. Um I noted as well within that there is a section within the nonconformity clause about um specific exemptions to the yard setback or the yard the lot size the yards and the building height um that actually does exempt existing properties from those requirements being met. So essentially the extension of this would be allowed if it were to include something like um language that included setbacks within that that uh provision of the code and that non-conformity section of the code is in the packet as well. Um after discussions with the city attorney uh although it does say yard and uh in my opinion the yard is established by the building line and the property line um the attorney has advised that it does not specifically call out setbacks. uh whereas it would not otherwise be exempt with the existing language. So that's another reason why we are here with the variance request today. Um so going through this uh we had uh we found that there was uh findings of fact for both sides of this variance request um given the unique circumstance not only to the property itself but to the neighborhood of Rush Creek Landing in general. uh without doing a thorough review of the asbuilt surveys uh within that development, uh staff can still confidently confirm that there are legally non-conforming structures that have been subject to this uh R1 uh ordinance change. Um so going through this, the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, not permitted by the zoning ordinance. Uh it's pretty self-explanatory, the building addition. Um and uh not altering the character of the locality. This is actually where it would get into these setbacks were established with this development at that time. Um even with the expansion of the home within this area, it would not alter the character of the local. Um but really the sticking point is the plight of the land owner is due to the circumstances unique to the property not created by the property owner. So, this is a little bit of a two-part scenario here where the property was the plight of the property was not created by the property owners. However, this is not necessarily unique to the property itself. Uh given that uh there are other uh properties within this neighborhood that are subject to this issue as well. Um now being that this is our first request with this type of variance as uh setback rules change over time uh staff felt that this was a good opportunity to get some guidance from the planning commission and city council on what you would expect to see moving forward with c similar things like this. Um, I'll just note, uh, for the record as well, uh, in review of, uh, situations like this, if the property owners proposed that the setback of the expansion area were to be 5t or 6 feet from the property line, essentially that would be in conflict with the variance ordinance in staff's opinion. However, given that this is just an extension of the existing property line, not further encroaching within that yard, um staff wanted to have a little bit of a dialogue to to walk through this with the planning commission. Um so, uh here's just a couple of pictures of the site. You could see here, this is the uh side of the home, basically the existing setback location, and on the back side of this, this is the extension of it. So, it is proposed to be flush with the existing uh parcel or with the existing building um and not further encroach within any of the setback areas that were originally approved. Um for the matters of the public hearing, I do want to note for the record that we did get two uh comments from uh people surrounding the area that uh were in full support of this request. uh one being the adjacent property owner who would be otherwise the more more affected property within this situation. Um and uh both of those uh comments had uh had reflected uh positive support for the request. >> Hayden, can I ask a question? >> Yes, absolutely. Um, pertaining to this picture here, do do we have the plans to understand is it continuing the roof line of the garage there or how's how does that roof line of the proposed addition tie into the existing house? >> From my understanding, the pitch is going to be the same as the um what is existing there. So, the roof line is going to extend um as as the uh existing garage area is currently. >> So, it's just going to take these surfaces and just bring it back 39 linear feet. >> Um >> Okay. >> And this is it's a walk out basement or is it a >> lookout? >> Lookout. So you're I mean you're extending the basement also. >> If it's okay to speak. >> Yeah. Please uh please approach the >> the microphone. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. And if you could just Well, we could do it later, but but if you could just state your name and your address for the record, please. >> Not a problem. >> My name is Jeff Anderson. Our address is 16070 Fair Meadows Lane in Dayton. So to answer the question, what we're doing is adding a main floor bedroom and full like primary suite bathroom. So the roof line will be as close to that as possible with the understanding that it can encroach on the window on the top corner, otherwise you'd have drainage problems. >> Uh and then the building for the most part is going to be built on stilts with uh a shed underneath potentially. Yeah. >> Uh that is still in decision mode, but the it's the width going out to the edge of the garage that >> So continuation just main level, not second level, and then it would wrap around and uh kind of square off our deck. >> Gotcha. >> And this is rep Anderson. And just maybe one more comment too, the elevation of the roof will actually match our existing sun porch that we have on on the end as well. >> Perfect. um which was a recommendation by the builder >> who can't be here because he has co >> Oh, nice. >> So, could join online. >> Hopefully gets better soon. >> Great. >> Well, thank you for that uh that explanation. If you want to continue, you guys could stay there. I'm sure we're going to have more questions. >> Sounds good. >> Sure. Um so, just to just to wrap things up, the role of the planning commission is to conduct a public hearing for the variance request and consider providing a recommendation to the city council on this request. Uh I've already mentioned the emails that were received by uh neighbors within the community. Um just a little note on staff's recommendation. Again, uh while the findings of fact can be uh provided for both approval or denial of this request, um staff is comfortable given the request that uh if the planning commission feels that uh these types of requests in these situations with the setbacks changing after a neighborhood is already built out. Um that these are unique, I guess, unique specific to the property. Um this would warrant a variance if uh if that is the route that we are willing to go. So, um, with that, I'm happy to answer any further questions. >> Okay. >> Can you put the picture back up? >> Yeah, absolutely. >> So, the existing level of the siding on the garage, >> that's going to be the approximate level of the the floor on the addition. >> Mhm. Okay. What what were the plans for um for the exterior >> the same >> the same siding? >> The same sighting it'll be identical. So if you're going to use storage area under it can be it would be a sided area that matches to the best of the ability with the understanding that as you guys know depending on when the house was built can you match the siding exactly but to the best of their ability they will match it and then keep consistency so that it doesn't look like an addition but rather part of the original build. And I'll just note as well uh Commissioner Grover that uh if the planning commission were to recommend approval that would be a suggested recommendation of or condition of approval for the variance. So that would be just included in the resolution to verify that that gets carried out. Any other comments from the commissioners? Questions for planner? >> I have some. I'm just curious about a few things. So, this is a PUD and at the time the requirement was just 15 ft between houses. >> Correct. >> Um I wonder how they thought that was going to work out later on. >> Yeah. And essentially that that meant that uh say that one property was decided to build at 5T. >> No, the other guy >> the other side was required to be a minimum 10T. Um, >> so at the time the PUD was approved, it was 15. Um, given that that was part of the PUD, how how does our adjustment of those ordinances, it seems odd that it affects that PUD because to me that that kind of violates the point of the PUD. >> So the the PUD only offers flexibility. that's called out specifically in the resolution for those. Um because this was straight R1 zoning with the exception of the lot width and the lot size. >> The remaining areas that aren't subject to that language within the resolution. Uh these properties being that they're zoned R1 are subject to any R1 standards that come after the fact. Um, so it would have had to have just been called out that this area regardless of amendments or something like that would be able to retain that uh zoning requirement, >> right? Yeah. It just seems odd because the I mean even though it's not spe specified in the PD, it's assumed at the time and and so when you change that after the later on, it just seems odd to me. Um I I guess when I look at the Henipin County map versus what you have, it almost looks like um the line's a lot more to the north than indicated. But >> yeah, I don't uh disagree with that and that's why I actually I reached out to our public works director and got the grading asbuilts of those two properties to verify. Um the line does appear to be off a little bit on GIS. Um you can never uh take the GIS lines as exact. Um but it the uh this property was set back from the sideyard at 8 ft and that adjacent property is 10 ft based on the grading as build. >> Okay. >> And just for clarification uh this the setbacks are to the building itself regardless of the use of the building. So we're not differentiating between principal and accessory structures. Correct. >> That is correct. Now, there have been provisions within specific zoning ordinances that say if it's a garage side, it could be 5T or if it is a dwelling side, it has to be 10 ft. In this case, that is not the situation. Thank you. >> Any other questions for the planner before I open up the public hearing? >> I think I have any questions? Maybe just um requests for future ones to just make sure we have a site plan that clearly shows the addition. I mean, you got great drawings and everything, but then we're like missing the site plan that shows exactly how this thing is sitting on the on the property. Um, we've I mean, you got the site plan of the existing house and then there's one that shows just a blue line, but it doesn't represent it because it sticks out behind the house, too. So, just if we can watch out for that to make sure, especially if we're looking at variances for side yard setback, let's like let's see it in context. >> Certainly. >> So, but I mean, I can piece it together. That's true. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. No questions. >> Well, it's uh 6:55. I'll open the public hearing. >> Is there anybody online that would like to discuss questions or comments? >> There's nobody online. >> Online. Um I I have a couple comments to make and um again I appreciate you guys coming uh here tonight and and requesting uh what you're requesting out there uh for your property. Um you know when when reviewing this application and and hearing uh what the planner has to say tonight um to me it seems like this is a something that I think the city needs to work on rather than um what the proposal is really um you know what kind of angst the proposal is actually going to cause. I don't think it's going to cause much problems. Sounds like you've already talked with or there is support of of the most affected property, which is a property to the north. Looking at this picture, if I was a property to the north and I had concerns with you, I would say move your your um >> the trampoline. >> Trampoline. The trampoline's just as close as in a closed structure. And by reading the application, it sounds like you're you're helping with an aging um parent who you want to want to help uh care for. And that's the whole reason for that. I I don't know why we would want to deny an application for, you know, with that kind of reason behind why we need to put an addition onto our house. Uh the one question I do have of you is obviously you guys live in an HOA. Have you It's not HOA. >> Cap Capstone does not have an HOA. So, we're part of the Capstone neighborhood. And for clarification, this was the model home. >> We didn't choose to build it. We were on our way to go meet with a builder and I said, "Let's take a look." And then we fell in love with it and they actually had put it on the market the day before we took a look at it. >> Awesome. >> So, >> well, you don't need to check with your HOA then to >> No, there is no HOA. HOA is our neighbor. Appreciate But we did share it with our on our community Facebook page and just made sure people were aware. They also got the notification so we just like opened it up to questions and um >> obviously they're all here to >> bad. And another point of clarification too is that uh our daughter plays hockey with Peter's daughter and he lives up the street. >> So it's >> gotcha. Well, so I mean just to keep going with with what I was going to uh present here tonight is that um you know looking at the three-prong approach that we have to look at as far as approving the variance. I fully understand that this is a reasonable use of the property. You're not asking for anything else than expanding a single family home and you're not encroaching any closer to a property line than you're already are at. Right? So really the question tonight is a function of h when the zoning code changed, how it affected this property and it's an affecting in a way that you can't use the property in a way you normally would have been able to use it had that code not been changed. Right? So, uh, to me that means that the second prong of that approach or of of approving a variance, this isn't, uh, something that you as a homeowner um, it it was not something you created. The hardship is not something that you created. It is something that the city created in further defining their rules and regulations. And now it's put you in a spot where you can't expand on a home that makes sense to expand on. And the the third prong there, the essential character of the neighborhood's not going to change. I don't think it's going to change with this type of addition. The next thing to look at is, okay, well, can you build what you want to build and be within the confines of the code? And I think the extra 2 feet makes a difference. Number one, it's not going to give you if you were only expanding it four feet out and not the six feet out, you're not going to get the room that you're looking for. uh probably floor plans will be messed up and it's going to make the side of the building look kind of funky, right? With all these undulations looking down that property, could be some building concerns with that as well. Uh so it makes sense for you to expand out all the way to in my opinion all the way out to where that garage sits and to square off kind of that corner there. Um the other thing and and this is something that um Hayden alluded to also and the Dayton's code is close. It's just not close enough as far as addressing these types of non-conforming uh uses. Right. So there are many other communities out there. Um, I work for the city of of New Hope and we have specific language on our ordinance that addresses exactly what Hayden was saying, but more specifically, I guess, than what Dayton does, and it it would allow for this type of encroachment through an administrative permit. Now, you don't even have to get a variance as long as you're not expanding that non-conforming use. And in this case, it would be as long as you're not getting closer than whatever that established setback is. And I think our language in New Hope actually says setbacks and that's the differentiating factor here. But all the other communities that I've worked for have that specific language that say, "Hey, look, we understand that there's going to be non-conforming structures that are created due to ordinance changes, whether it's something that the city anticipated or not. But the fact that you can continue that line of nonconformity if it's height or if it's it's closeness to a property line, we're okay with that as long as you're not getting any closer. And so given that other communities understand that and recognize that this is a situation that's prevalent um and have some consideration for that and the fact that Dayton's close, just not close enough for you guys not to have to be here tonight. Um I'm in full support of the variance. So with that, I'd open it up to any other commissioner who has comments. >> You know, regarding what you just said, do we have, and I was wondering that too, do we have a a mechanism, and it sounds like maybe there is one. The intent of the 10-foot setback was really new developments. It was not intended to impact already in place developments. And in fact, it it it wasn't intended to do this to to cause this um this problem. And so, if we've got a way to fix that, it would be nice to start looking at that way. >> Yeah. I I think just tweaking that that ordinance that you checked with your your city attorney on and the fact that it didn't put the word separ maybe including that to be more specific would help alleviate these types of concerns. And then the next question as well, do we want to take care of this administratively or do we still want to bring people to um you know whatever kind of whatever process it might be if it's just a permit or if it's a uh I know some communities use the term um administrative variance even they even call it a variance because they understand that you're you're not building within code but you're within reasonable confines that are defined in the code that's that allow you to do that. But I would suggest some language to be to be looked at. >> Yeah, it is very close. We had a long conversation with the attorney about this. Uh and uh although I my uh personal opinion was that a yard um could be uh addressed similar to what a setback is because you have to have a setback established to establish the yard area. um including that section within the non-conformity clause uh will clean up this and um if it was uh my suggestion I would recommend establishing with situations like this an administrative variance. The only reason that I say that is because then we can at least document the reason for allowing something that is otherwise if you look at the code on face value why the administrative variance was allowed and that can be incorporated into any building permit approvals and get uh filed with that in the software. So um those would be some things that uh I will uh likely be looking um to bring back in the near future to the planning commission and city council. But those things take time >> certainly >> to develop. That doesn't help them on their timeline. So I'm in favor of of granting the variance now too. And then you guys look back and fix the language so that 14 other people don't have to line up that may be in similar situations to go through this. >> Certainly. >> Yeah. I agree with your assessment, too. Um I just have to can't help myself, but just square off that corner. >> I know, right? It's just going to make the room more functional. There's your roof line has to go out anyway. >> So, there's no reason to angle that. That's just the architect in me. Um, I'm supportive of it, too. I don't have any questions. I like that you just you're maintaining the the line of the garage. Your roof line will be close enough to match whether it has to change to hit that window or not. But, um, you won't notice this from the front of the property. And if your neighbor next door is good with it, then it's a nice improvement for your property and for your family. So, >> thank you. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I would think that uh with what you want to do to the home is going to make it look better from the neighbors or from the street. So, >> yeah. >> Yeah. You're actually adding some windows over there, too. >> It's what they should have done when they sold you the house in the first place, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Other I mean, you're also promoting aging in place, right? And you're adding value to a home, right? And so those are obviously things that any city would would be benefited from being able to provide that type of housing for all cycles of life >> and to improve a home in a way where you're adding value and back to the tax base and so on and so forth. So >> uh with that, do we have any other anybody out back online that has any concerns? All right, I'll close the public hearing 705 and take it back to the planning commission. Any other last words of concerns or comments, plan commission? >> No. >> If not, I would entertain a motion. >> Make a motion to approve the setback variance. >> I'll second the motion. >> The motion is made and seconded. All in favor say I. >> I. >> All opposed. The motion is carried three to zero. This will be presented to the council on the October is it 21st or the 7th or maybe it's not 14th? >> 14th. >> Yeah. Uh with the added uh Tuesday in September, we should be able to get this to the city council by the October 14th meeting. >> October 14th meeting. Sounds good. >> Well, good luck with that. For sure. >> We greatly appreciate all of your time. >> You're welcome. Not a problem. Have a great night. Hope the project goes well. >> Yeah, we're looking forward to it. >> All right, moving on. >> Item 8B is a discussion regarding multifamily and event center parking regulations. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. I just want to note before we get into this conversation what uh staff's intention is to just introduce the uh discussion um and to have further discussion in the future followed by any potential action that is directed by the planning commission. Um before we get started on the rest of the meeting, we have three of the five commission members here right now. It is a quorum. However, would staff feel more comfortable with this conversation with a full commission or are you okay with presenting it to the three of us? Well, um we would be fine either way. I will say that I did get feedback from the both planning commissioners that are not available um that have already provided feedback. Um >> and actually uh now that I'm thinking about it, it probably would have been beneficial to print that out for um the commission to have as part of the discussion. Um but with that, we'll certainly >> let's move forward then. >> Okay. >> Yep. For sure. So just to and and these don't uh have to go too elaborate of conversations as these are just introductory but uh staff has kind of been taking note of a couple of the comments that have been provided by planning commission and city council uh related to potential ordinance updates. Um some of them uh from uh staff's opinion could warrant uh an update to the ordinance language. Um in other areas it might be just a matter of uh explanation and uh describing the detail of what the ordinance's intention is. Um so to start we just wanted to make note of the multif family um parking to uh we've noticed uh from both planning commission and city council that uh there have been comments made that uh multif family parking within the city in terms of the requirements is overparked. Um so we just wanted to dive into that a little bit. I didn't provide a slide on it but it is in your packet. Uh there was a comparison um that showed uh the all the surrounding communities to Dayton and what their requirements would be. Um, I believe the only one that was uh substantially different was Ramsey. Um, as uh they have a new code with their um I believe after I talked to the planner that code revision came along with some public uh transportation efforts that had happened within Ramsey as well. Um so that is a factor to that. Um but it does compare what uh the Parkway neighborhood as a recent approval um was uh for a multif family apartment building. Um, so the current code is two spaces per dwelling unit. Uh, one of which is enclosed, whether that is, uh, I believe it's either just covered parking underground. Um, I don't believe that, uh, the city code currently allows accessory buildings such as garages on multif family developments. Um, so just a comparison in terms of the Parkway neighborhood's approval was 345 spaces. Um, essentially a reduction of 33 spaces as part of the PUD requirements. uh the covered parking ratio uh was still met at 1 one. Um so just to just to touch there are mechanisms within the code already that allow for flexibility from the the straight language of the parking standard. um they have a couple of options actually and one is providing a proof of parking uh that is allowed to bank up to 25% of the requirement as long as you can show that there is ample space to add parking to the site if need be. Um, typically if a proof of parking plan was provided by the applicant to the city, um, the city as a part of a condition of approval, um, could reserve the right to require them to install parking if we hear traffic concerns start to arise after the development is in and, uh, the, uh, apartments are full. Um, so that's one mechanism that allows for, uh, some flexibility there. Um and the other one is uh they could provide sufficient evidence of a of a parking study um that is done by a professional that is presented to the city council for the city council to make that determination that a reduction in parking is warranted based on that study where no proof of parking would be necessary. Um so those are a couple of ways. Um, I do just want to note that there are uh cities there's no one uh onesizefits-all for uh apartment parking or any parking really for that matter. Um, but uh there are some alternatives that uh could be reviewed or further uh researched. And that is uh switching the unit count from a unit counter, a perunit basis to a per bedroom basis. um essentially having those studios and onebedrooms be offset for parking by those three-bedroom apartments that may be uh utilized by a family that only has two parking spaces. Um but three bedrooms would require three spaces. Um and the other one would be the city would have the opportunity obviously to just uh reduce the required numbers on a perunit basis uh to decrease that requirement. Um so those are a couple of things that I just wanted to note for the coun or for the planning commission. Um and given these flexibilities that are currently existing within this code, um does the planning commission feel that uh there is room for uh improvement here within this um or otherwise? And I will just note as well, we have two existing uh apartment buildings on Balsam Lane. Um just through the review of after those apartment buildings were built. Um we have never received a complaint in that area regarding parking concerns or lack thereof. So, um, with that, I'm happy to answer any questions on this one. >> So, is the current proposal to change it to be per bedroom or you're just throwing that out as >> just throwing it out there as this is one of an alternative that could be researched? Um that is actually a recommendation that was provided by uh Commissioner Browen in his email was that going to a per bedroom basis and uh reducing the requirements for parking um could uh potentially make uh properties more feasible for development of of apartments or whatever it may be. Um I will say that uh if that was something that was considered and uh the obviously the comparable is the Parkway neighborhood. Um, if we took that and changed it to a perbedroom basis, there would be a significant reduction. Not sign, I guess it's not significant. It's it's right around 90 bedrooms or 90 uh parking spaces less than what is provided. >> That's significant. >> And uh in my opinion, if we were to um move towards something like that, these flexibilities and reductions would probably be limited even more so than what there currently are. um maybe less the uh parking study because that is a it's a it's a finite document that uh kind of provides a specific reasoning. And >> could I ask why this came about? Was it just you're looking at other cities and saying, you know, I would think we're overparked or is has there been concerns or complaints about why you guys building a sea of asphalt and I only ever see the parking lot half full? It's I would say that it's not necessarily uh it's not necessarily that it's more so we've heard or at least uh planning commissioners and city council members have heard uh that uh the parking requirements for multif family is strenuous. Um so that was one of the things that we wanted to just look into as this brought up. >> Yes. And uh >> you know why? >> Yes, absolutely I do. Um, and that and I think that that comes down to the the educational side of things and uh kind of putting things into perspective. We've had uh developers come in and say that uh our our fees for development are too expensive and make projects not feasible and then you do an applesto apples comparison of surrounding communities and it really turns out that they're not that far off and uh certainly not uh the highest in the area. So, um I think uh part of it is just uh providing that uh that opportunity for staff to kind of um state their case as to why that uh why the developers do request certain things. Um and that uh it's it's >> it's good to be cautious when things like that are brought up in the middle of a meeting. So, >> yeah. I mean, my recommendation or the the way I look at this is that um you're 100% correct in the fact that parking needs differ from city to city, uh community to community, and even within the city, it's they're drastically different. Now, Dayton is is not a first suburb. um you know the the mass transit system isn't as robust as you know a first ring suburb or you know Minneapolis St. all area. Uh they obviously could get away with I think we saw a proposal that was 6 stalls per unit I think it was. I forget what what city that was, but um that's because, you know, everybody who lives in the area that walks walks or goes to, you know, gets on the bus or or the light rail rail or whatever it might be, um you know, in the city of New Hope, we had a developer come in pretty recently, I'd say five or six years ago with an apartment building. Um sold us, it was a it was a tight property. they sold us on a reduced number of parking um because they compared it to other developments that they had and that those other developments were also overparked. Um and so they said, "Well, we can get away with this amount in in this uh proposal and we're having problems with with not enough parking on that on that property." Is that because we went along with what the developer was suggest was suggesting? Maybe. Was it because of the mix of the of the tenants in that building and the fact that that one person has three cars? Maybe. Right. So, yeah, I think there's there's a give and take there. So, I think the long uh the short answer to my my long um ramblings on here is the fact that I I think you should address it when you when you feel that it's becoming an issue and that you should always error on having too many parking than too little parking. So, you never want a situation where people have to park on the street because there's no other place to park. And that's where I live. I have to I have to park here, right? So, just just my two cents, I guess, on that. >> Yeah. And I appreciate you bringing up the parking on the street as well because uh in a lot of communities, people have the opportunity to park on streets. Here in Dayton, we are not uh we do not allow parking overnight on any uh streets within the city. Um so that's another factor that comes into some of the justification of why um there are this language is the way it is. So >> yeah, I really like the idea of if a developer comes in and says I can't do two, I could do 1.6. Well, have them do that traffic study. Have them commission that traffic study and say here's here's the traffic analysis. Here's the the personnel that's going to be, you know, residing here. Here's where they're going. Here's where they work. Uh yet we feel that they only need 1.6 six per unit or bedroom or whatever you might come up with at that point. But I I like that idea of getting that study done in those situations. >> Yeah. Make make them do the leg work, not us. Correct. Right. On those particular cases, >> if the impetus here is from developers and that's where we're hearing that from and not folks that live in the city, I'm inclined to not put any weight on that. Just to be blunt. Um, I don't think we should change what we currently have. I think if you if you make a mistake, you can't put more land. I mean, correct. >> If if they a developer is going to come in here, and I don't blame them for this. This is just the way it works. They're going to come in and they're going to want to put as big of a building on a postage size lot that they can and put as little parking as they can get away with. They don't care about the future because they're there or they're gone and they got their money and and they're gone and you're stuck with where do all these people park and then you start getting complaints from people. You know, my car got towed, you know, was on the street overnight. There was no place in the parking lot to park. I think we air on the other side like Jeff said and I think we make sure that there's enough parking for people and for for people visiting them to park there. I think the the way we currently have it written is is just fine. Hayden, this was also we're also getting this from businesses. So, I mean, how does how does that work in here? You're not touching that with this, right? So, >> not not with this. I guess that was a >> event center though. >> What's that? >> You talked about event center parking though. >> Yeah, event centers is is one thing that I did bring up, but if it's related to commercial or industrial parking, I have not done any analysis on that. >> We haven't heard from any specific businesses. H >> we've not heard from any specific b businesses. So >> um I think we have I'd have to go back and and figure out which ones, but we are continually told our parking is over. So regarding the sands, we haven't got any complaints, but were they compliant with our with our current ordinance? So that would >> there only 50 there's only 50 units in each of those buildings, right? uh which would warrant uh based on this uh if I'm not mistaken I think that it would have required 112 spaces or so for each development. >> What do they have? >> Um I have not uh dug up the resolution yet for that uh for that one to see if they'd met it. Um I so at best if they met it then that wouldn't really tell us anything if we haven't gotten any complaints other than it's >> it's it's enough >> essentially. Yes, that's correct. >> Yeah. For for the sands we've had complaints about oversized the parking of oversized vehicles which you don't plan for for an apartment. >> Right. In general, I would always air on let's not force more parking than needed because I'd rather see green space than parking lot. But at the same time, we do need to protect the residents and not the developers when we're looking at these ordinances. Um, I think as long as there's a way for a developer to come in, whether it's PUD or something and and come in and make that proof of parking, whether it's through the study or um, ghost platting, proof of parking, you know, we're going to start with this, but we've got 50 more stalls that we could add, you know, in the future, and they prove how they're going to do it and everything like, and let them do that leg work um to show us that they can have less. Um, I'd be I'm open to that, but because again, I'd rather have less parking in most cases than more, right? We don't want the Walmart parking lot concept going on here. >> Well, but if if I could just add to that, I think a part of it too is just education for the designers of these sites and getting them to realize that there is more to the parking regulations or the parking code than just that one line item about this is what uh we require. um because the sections that I referenced in there regarding the proof of parking or the parking study are not right one after another showing those areas. So I think it just also comes down with a conversation educating these developers with some of the opportunities that they have or the alternative opportunities that they have uh related to parking. Um so I think that that's part of it too. But again, this was something that was brought up um and uh just kind of wanted to get the story out there, try and uh summarize the situation and uh bring it to the planning commission and see if we can uh come to an understanding of whether there is a problem that we need to solve or not. Um so I appreciate the dialogue. >> Do you happen to have a synopsis of what Commissioner Brown or Commissioner Damuth had to say? >> Yeah. Um the synopsis was Peter was supportive of leaving it as is with the flexibilities that were allowed. Um Darren had a little bit more um uh context related to what he has seen in the professional world related to um parking requirements and that uh there is opportunity. I believe this is a terrible summary and we could certainly I can check with Darren to um and share those thoughts with you guys if you'd like. Yeah, that'd be great because if we have additional thoughts then maybe we can send along to you too before we go to council. >> His focus was really addressing the uh change from uh going from a per unit base to a per bedroom base to try and uh u make it more accurate of a requirement and uh but maintaining that 1:1 undercover ratio so every unit has an opportunity to have a covered parking space. >> Um >> I agree with that. So, >> have have you looked at how that applies to what we've done with units that we've built here? Now, if you did the bedroom count versus the unit count. >> Yes. So, I did >> compare apples and apples. >> I did a I did a comparison of one bedroom requiring one space, two bedrooms requiring two, and three requiring three for the Parkway neighborhood. And that was where I got that 85 to 90 space reduction um for account if you were you utilizing that. Now that also doesn't include the half a parking space for five dwelling units uh for per visitors. I think that it gets up to more uh closer to 80 or 75 space reduction in that development. And is that development would that development be able to um take advantage of those 75 st in other words do they need those 75 stalls that would have otherwise been reduced going to a per bedroom basis. So if I drive by on tonight when you expect all the parking stall to be utilized or close to it are there 75 free parking stalls right now? >> Right. uh based on what they provided and um this is uh more of a matter of what the intent was for their proposed parking because they did propose 345 spaces. Now whether that was trying to one meet the intent of the code do as much as possible or the 345 was the identified number that they felt feasible for that 180 units. Um, but that'd be certainly a good question that we could uh ask the architect about >> or even call up the Is there a manager or something? Call somebody. >> It hasn't been constructed. >> Okay, I got you. I got you. >> So, the parkway we also had a lot of reduction in um parking lot width. >> That's right. >> You know, from 10 ft to 9 ft. And so, if we had reduced I don't know 80 stalls, maybe they >> we just want to make it bigger. Yeah, I think visitor parking is important too in here, especially in those lots. I feel like some of the stuff we've been seeing, they don't have enough visitor parking or it's very limited and um I don't know how we work that in or if that's just per development and we trying to make comments at the time, but >> yeah, I agree with that. It's always been frustrating for me to go visit somebody that lives in one of these places and you're driving around like you're at the Vikings stadium trying to find a parking spot because they don't have enough visitor spots. But >> and there's a lot of a lot of uh um reging related to that. Like this one up here is the on top of the two spaces per unit. Um, so if there was 180 spaces within that, you'd have 360, if I my math is right, 360 spaces. And then on top of that, every five units, you'd have to add five add have to add a half a space um for visitor parking. So those are on top of what is normally required on a per unit basis. So what are you looking to get from us tonight other than this? >> Just this discussion uh what what my intention is to do is to provide a summary of our conversation that we had and I want to include um Commissioner Brown and Commissioner Demute's uh comments and uh send that out or maybe have that as a whether it's a old business part of the the commission agenda just to revisit it and say this is where we landed. Is there any further discussion as uh you know I I anticipate that there might may be additional uh discussion with a full panel. So >> we have a whole list of ornate potential ordinance amendments that are more based on complaints that we've heard whether it's from developers or residents or business owners that were when we have months that are slow or fewer items to the commission and say okay here's a problem here are possible solutions. Do you want us to prepare an ordinance? So, similar several months ago, we talked about uh where do you put garbage cans and driveway aprons and should garages be bigger? Um, a lot of work went into those ordinances, but not all those ordinances were approved. >> And did you want to touch on event center property? >> Yeah, that's what I was just going to get to briefly. Um, so this was a a conversation recently had with the Thicket Hills uh Vineyard Event Center. Um, the there's again a little bit of a discretion um a discrepancy in my opinion in the zoning ordinance related to event centers uh because there are parking standards in the event centers for an interim use permit within the egg districts. That was what was approved for the Thicket Hills Vineyard, excuse me. And uh there is separate language related to community centers, assembly halls, what I would almost consider an event center within that language um that only requires one space per three people rather than one space per two at max occupancy. So, um given the the leg work that the applicant actually did at the time, he provided some comparisons of uh surrounding communities to um bring to the city council before they uh uh recommended approval or they approved the project. Um the majority of those were one space per three or four. Um so that was just a discrepancy that we wanted to clarify. Um if it staff's my preference at least for the uh for the planning commission to consider is ma matching those um and uh my recommendation would essentially be to stick to that one space per three persons at max capacity. Um and that max capacity does include uh any employees that would be on the site because that counts in towards the occupancy load that is uh reviewed for the plans. Um >> yeah, I agree. I think that they those that language should be this the same one per in one per uh for every three is I think is probably a universal standard for this type of use anyway. Um so I agreed that that's probably the way that the ordinance should be amended. Um and the fact I I like what we did with the vineyard uh situation too was that you know we understood that uh this could be a phase type of pro uh project and the fact that they uh s um gave us the proof of parking was was good enough for us to say hey look they don't need to get all the parking right away but if there is ever that that need for it we know where it's going to be located. So >> yeah, I'd support the one to three as well. Um I think that seems fair to match those. Um and just to clarify too, the occ the max occupancy is based on building code. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Uh whereas the uh >> as opposed to like the developer or owner saying this is like making up a number, right? Like it's building code. >> Exactly. >> Yep. So that was in the uh site plans and the the architecturals. uh that were provided for that building at 498 at max occupancy. Um so that is the number that is utilized to verify that count. >> Yep. Sounds good. >> Well, those numbers aren't set by the developer, right? >> They're set by the building code. So they have dictates by square foot. >> Yes. >> Yeah. And a lot of times, especially in an event place like you know a wedding venue, it's based on overall square foot and then you throw tables and chairs in there and everything and you end you end up with more people per the occupant load than what you probably can fit >> in there. So it's a pretty conservative way to to manage the number of stalls then. >> Yeah. And that was the other thing that was brought up too. Do we ever anticipate that building to have 498 people in there at one given time? Um, the answer is probably not, but it's not a positive no. >> So, uh, in terms of airing on the side of caution with parking, that's, uh, would be consistent. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Uh, I guess we can move on here. Uh, item 8 C is discussion, more discussion on home extended businesses. So this is a would be otherwise a simple uh amendment to the uh home extended business uh for interim use permit uh provision under the home occupation code. Uh one of the requirements is that the property owner um needs to reside on the property. Uh in practice, it has been found a little bit difficult to verify where these people or where these uh um business owners do live. Uh and uh concerns have been had over that. And there are a couple businesses that are on um nonhomesteaded properties within town that are approved under an interim use permit. um being that it's hard for city staff to verify on our own that uh the that is the primary residence of the the person who wants to run the business on that property um as a part of the homesteading requirements at the state of Minnesota, they have to provide verification that that is their primary place of residence. Um, so if they are already going through that process, um, staff wanted to bring up a question to the the planning commission, um, whether they would be comfortable with requiring that for people requesting home extended businesses on their property. So what do we usually require currently if somebody comes in and makes that application for a home business? Well, one will verify that uh the uh property is in the applicant's name uh that is applying for the interim use permit. Um, however, in recent approvals, there have been uh times where uh the property owner is the um the property owner does not live there, but the applicant is the renter that lives on the property. Now, verifying that beyond a utility bill or something like that is very difficult. Um, and I don't know if I would consider a utility bill in someone's name as proof of residency, primary residency on that property. So, this would be just an added um step for verification that okay, he's got a homesteaded property here. His name is on the property ownership. Um, we can confirm that this is where he lives. Um, so that that would essentially be what it was for. Have Have we ever considered asking for a copy of their ID, their state ID or their driver's license? >> We certainly >> that's got to be where they live then, right? >> We certainly could do that. Uh we have not in the past. However, I would say that those aren't always accurate as as well. Um there have been times and I've recently in discussions with some people at city hall that their ID does not match where they live and it's been like that for two or three years. Um so those although it is a better mechanism it's not as it doesn't provide that assurance. Um, I think at some point though, I mean, you're going to find different situations all the time, right? So, I think at some point the city has to say, we did our due diligence. Uh, we did, you know, we went through the process to verify that, you know, that the name matched up with the address that this person wants to conduct the business out of. And if it happens to be a different situation, if it's a complaint or anything that comes in, uh, at least the city has that backing to say, you know, at the time of application, they were living there or they provided enough proof that they were living there. So, you know, obviously, you know, the easy fix here would be or one of the easy fixes would be um to require the property to be homesteaded. Um, you know, the county records show um ownership and then they show the address of the owner. So, a lot of times, you know, if if it's a rental situation, if the owner uh information on the county records shows a different address than what the the subject property is. So, um also rental situations or where the owner might not live on the premises. Um you can find that through utility billing. Sometimes there's duplicate bills that people want, right? So, I want one sent to that residence, but also to the one I'm living in primarily also. So, I mean, I think it's just up to the city as far as what you how you want to ma better manage it. I don't see it being a prevailing issue right now. Um, but if you know, certainly requiring that homestead u would be another way of controlling um that requirement for sure. >> But in order for them to live there and conduct a business there, there's no requirement that the property be homesteaded. >> Not right now. >> No. >> No, there isn't. It they don't have to do it, right? They can live there and not homestead the property. You don't have to homestead your house. I mean, I don't know why you wouldn't, but there's no requirement by the state that you have to do that. >> For tax reasons, you might. >> For tax reasons, you might not want to homestead it, >> right? >> Even though you live there. >> Yep. >> So, I'm I'm not quite sure how that accomplishes you. We want to make sure that the person that's that's following through with this actually lives on the property and is conducting his business while they're living on the property. But does that accomplish our goal? Well, yeah, I I completely agree with the conversation and uh this is more of a brainstorming idea of what what could come from um at at a certain level without uh I mean they could provide certain documentation and things of the like um at at a certain time staff just is looking for a certain comfortable comfortability level to say we trust the information that was provided. We feel that is okay for this property to proceed. Um, not saying that this is a this is an immediate issue or anything like that, but just something that had been top of mind as of recent events. >> Yeah. Ob obviously what the city wants to to get away from is someone purchasing a house and using it for their business, saying this is a perfect spot. You know, it's a single family residential home. I'm just going to use it for my business. You know, I'm going to do all the production or whatever it is in the basement. I'm going to do all the packaging in the first, you know, whatever it is. And out everything goes. And I don't see that as being a huge issue in Dayton. Um but obviously you want to try to to you know get away from that situation and I understand why. Um you have those concerns. I just think it's going to be a pre a preference of city staff and and how you want to approach that to say we've done our due diligence. We're satisfied that this person lives here and we'll issue that permit. And then if complaints come in, again what I was saying before, or then you could do a further investigation and say, "Look, you it's obvious you don't live here and you have to. We're going to revoke that license." >> Sure. >> Yeah. I think the only reason that this really came up uh to bring up for discussion today was uh it's been noted by residents and people from uh other communities that Dayton does have very flexible inter occupation standards. And um obviously that can be seen in two different lights. You know, the benefits of the property owners and uh the uh non-benefits to adjacent property owners of people that maybe they don't want them doing certain things on that property. So um I I guess uh if if I were if I were to provide any feedback, this was more of just a suggestion on how do we proceed and feel more comfortable allowing certain things to happen within the community. Do I think that it is going to um change anything in terms of an operational standpoint? I would say no. >> Do we um >> one way to look at it so that the intent of a home business is the the primary use of the property is the home and the the accessory use is the business. That hasn't always been implemented. Um if we required a property to be homesteaded, it's a little easier to do that. So, as an applicant, you're not looking at a property as this is both my business income generating business and a rental income generating business. Got >> um as our code is written right now, it allows you to do that, but it's f it's up to interpretation of the commission council also. >> So, right now, a renter can't can't do this. right now they would have the opportunity to do so. >> Yeah. But homesteading then they wouldn't be able to. >> No. What I'm saying um do our requirements require them to >> We don't require them to own the home. >> Right. >> No. Correct. >> The owner. How do we put it? The >> the renter would be the applicant. The owner would be an employee. >> Right. And this would this would not allow renter. This >> this would not allowed allow rental properties to uh get a home extended business permit. >> Correct. >> Is that what you want? Is that what the city wants? >> Do you have a you have a rental license program? Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, I mean, what percentage of the housing stock is is rental? 30 >> two. That high or not? >> 25% maybe? >> 5%. >> Uh I think it's like 2%. 2% of single family rental >> that that are licensed. >> Gotcha. >> Okay. That's that's way that's way low, >> right? That's that is way low. >> That is way low. I mean, you're going to see a 3070 split mostly. um depending on the community also. But um I guess once you get closer to that 30% if Dayton never gets there is then you're kind of telling 30% of your single family housing population that they can't afford the same, you know, luxuries that an a homeowner can. >> They can't sell big goods out of their house, >> right? And and so this is what I do. I'm just happen to be renting instead of buy owning the property. I think what we're trying to get away from is that owner >> not >> running his business or her business from the house and then renting the back room to somebody else to get that dual income type of thing. >> True. >> Yeah. >> I would think that if it's the renter applying and it's their business, I don't see why that would be an issue >> unless you guys have seen otherwise. >> No, I I I can't uh disagree with that. And uh I will note too that this is separate from a home occupation permit. Um, this is specifically for the interim use permit for home extended business that's only allowed on properties greater than two acres. So then it takes out another section of that. Um, again, I appreciate the feedback and I uh I would say that uh again, this will be summarized and brought back for just a once over uh review. Um, but I I certainly have direction to move forward and I'm not uh in disagreement with the discussion here. I think it's important that you that you follow the path that you're you're you're doing here because I don't see that problem and some people call it a problem right in the in a neighborhood. I don't see that getting better. I see it getting worse. It's like, you know, it's like the commissioner said, it's the more people move into the Dayton into Dayton, the more you see that. I've seen that in the last 1015 years. I mean there I know there are a lot of places in town that are conducting business, you know, out of off their whether they live there or whether they they're homesteaded or whether somebody else rents there and runs their business out of their backyard. I have no idea. But you can see that in the use in the property. All you have to do is drive around the city. You could you could drive around today and in 20 minutes you could find five or six places that fall into that category. And in discussions that I've had with you guys, I don't think that those places fall into, you know, following the proper channels that you would want them to do. So that at least you can have a handle and know what's going on within the city until you figure out a way to wrap your your hands around how much of it is going on. And the only way you do that is by making them prove to you through certain criteria, whether it's the homesteading or or a state issued ID or or what or a and I guess you know your light bill or something like that. That's easy to change. I mean, I get light bills from three places. So, and I don't live in all three places. Some of them aren't even in the county. So, that's easy to get. I don't I don't think that helps you. But to me, a state issued ID would would be a perfect thing. I mean, how are you going to get a stateisssued ID if you don't live at that address? If you do that, then then you're in self area yourself are breaking the law by getting a stateisssued ID at your not your permanent residence. You can't do that. >> It's getting an ID and then moving be you know >> Well, yeah, but you're required in 30 days to fix the ID, right? They can't three years later say, "Oh, I moved three years ago." >> John, you're getting at is people aren't doing that, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Well, welcome to the system. And and we have a lot of rentals that aren't licensed. We have and some of this is, you know, part of the home extend business is the impact to neighbors, right? So whether or not I it's always struck me as odd that we were even though I understand the intent that we require somebody to live there because we already say you can't overly impact your neighbor whether you live there or not. Um I know you know there's probably a lot of uh farms right that they don't live there but they farm that area. I I don't have a big hang up with the with the living there. >> Sure. But I understand what the concern is. The concern is that somebody's going to move a business in a residential area. Well, if you're not impacting your neighbors, do you care? >> The main intent is that the residential property maintains that principal use of residential. >> I understand that. >> No, no. Yep. I'm agreeing with you. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Yeah, no problem. Uh, next item is 8D, which is discussion on commercial and industrial landscaping standards. So, this is just a a brief uh recap of uh how the code determines what the requirements are for landscaping in commercial and industrial districts. Uh we've heard from uh from a couple of conversations with city council member members and uh planning commissioners that uh are they've heard things that our landscaping requirements are uh too much for uh developers to take on in terms of uh getting through the process. Uh so what I wanted to just this is the the this is the major point of what the requirements are within the city and there are other details there related to um building outline uh the building edge and fence lines for screening being softened by landscaping. Uh but the goal here is to address at least three of the following uh required items. uh the majority of the time that we see within uh these development proposals that they meet the tree ordinance and the tree requirements for A, B, and C. Uh the one that becomes more difficult to address is the shrubs at uh 100 square feet of open area. One shrub per 100 square feet. Um I this was established I believe uh 10 years ago or more. Um, so there's not a whole lot of good uh uh documentation for uh understanding why there were specific um the 100 square feet was a requirement. My best guess would be that that would be otherwise considered maybe a penalty to not meet the tree standards um or not necessarily a a penalty, but uh for one example would be the Telkom uh property. the Telkom site that we saw last month. Um you remove the steep slopes and the wetland areas and just calculate the total open space on that property. Uh it would have required almost a thousand shrubs on that property. Um so just to put it into perspective of are we is the intent you overlandscape with shrubs so the majority of them live and concede that some of them die uh or whatever it may be. Uh but there are other mechanisms that uh require shrubs on the property uh such as those building walls and then the uh the fence detail. The parking islands have to have shrubs. >> The question is who counts? Who counts those shrubs? >> The development is done >> and now you're out there counting 998 999,000. we would take the the landscape plan that was approved and go out there and uh it would be broken down a little bit more so in terms of variety, but uh yeah, essentially through the landscape inspections, those are those counts are a big component to that. Um, so I my my uh my thoughts here are that there are mechanisms for them to otherwise meet the intent of the code and still have shrubs provided on the property. Um, staff is certainly open to exploring whether that threshold needs to be increased from 100 square feet. Um but then also that uh might beg the question of whether uh if you say you do one shrub per 500 square f feet or something beyond that um then does that provide at least three of the following go away? Those would be those types of questions that uh we would explore if the planning commission would be interested in that. Um I will say that uh staff has not personally heard um complaints from developers regarding the landscape requirements. These are >> not significant. These are things that we've heard from uh other uh commissioners and uh city council members. So um again, this is just a wanted to provide the explanation, understand the story and how we got here and beg it begs the question of is there a problem that we're trying to solve right now. Um >> well subsection D is what you're referring to, right? That's the one that would require >> tons of plantings, but if they meet the first three, they don't have to worry about subsection. >> Yep. Yep. Yeah, I think that that might have also been a misunderstanding uh through review with uh uh going through the process is um there have been times where people say that that is we're requiring too much landscaping because they can't meet this. Well, no, they don't have to meet this because they've met the other three. So, it's just really more so providing an explanation as to uh how do they meet this and why? Um so, yeah, that that's essentially the the extent of the the reasoning. Yeah, >> I mean in my experience I think that um you know landscape architects are they have a passion for it, right? So they want to beautify a new development. It's kind of their their stamp on um you know part of their legacy of being a landscape architect, right? They could always point to that property and say I was the one that designed that. They're not going to skimp on that then, right? and and they'll work with the developer or or the business owner to uh put in landscaping that they think is appropriate but also that looks good. So I'm I'm not as concerned with all shrubs going away if we say you don't need to worry about shrubs. they're going to still be incorporated, you know, the building envelopes, the, you know, around signs or whatever it might be. They're going to be shrubs anyway. But I think the natural inclination of landscape architects that we're going to include them because they look cool and and they're they're nice, they're appealing, they're the the visual um um you know, adding to the you know, the visual pleasure of of walking into a business like that. So, I'm not opposed to if staff is concerned about um um you know, increasing the amount of square footage for one, you know, shrub to be play, you know, if it's one for every 500 square feet, that's fine. I mean, I'm fine with that, too. Um but again, you know, the developer understanding that it's three of the four, I think that will help ease some of those concerns that they're they have, too. >> Yeah. And um I'll just don't do that being that this hasn't been a recent issue or anything like that. Um if a problem does arise, we at least understand how we got here in the first place. Um and if action needs to be taken in the future related to a specific development or something, we can certainly address it at that time. So, um, >> yeah, I I don't have any concern at all with the way it's currently written, but I do have some concerns about landscape plantings, but number one, um, to me is who monitors the survival of what we require them to put in? I mean, are they still there a year later or two years later? >> We do. >> Do we >> for for one year? For one year escrow, don't you? >> They give you escrow money for one year of credit or something. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, they have to guarant the developer has to guarantee survival of at least one year. So the essentially what uh the goal is is once the landscaping is installed, we go out there into account, make sure that everything is there and placed in the right spot or in the vicinity um and make sure that that matches the plan. And then following that year of the growing season, we would go out there and ensure that things survived. Then if not, we would mark those trees or shrubs and send that along to the developer and they would have to replace that at their cost. So, >> right. So, if a developer is putting in a street, well, just just I'll just use Rush Creek Parkway because it's there and we can look at it. The the plantings they're in the median between the two lanes that was part of the plan that they got approved for the development. Is that correct? >> Yeah. Yeah. So in project larger projects like that, it's typically there's a planning and a development and that goes above and beyond the the requirements that we're talking about tonight. Um so that's usually not a requirement for zoning code. It it would be as part of the PVD though. >> And then Dayton has like a tree replacement policy, right? So commercial and industrial, if a, you know, bunch of trees died off, you could say, well, you need to replace them because they're per the plan that was approved >> um in redevelopment. So not like after the fact, you know, so if a business has, you know, 20 trees that die 10 years after the project was built, they're just dead trees >> or five years after this, if they don't like the trees, where we're going to remove them all. >> They they can do that. And that uh has happened in residential districts too where >> yeah I mean you know I think residential is you know you own your property and you can say I I don't like these trees. I we we see it too where it's like this development you got two trees but we don't like them. They were torn out like a week later after they they got their CO right. So, um, but I think in in in, uh, commercial and industrial, we should look at, uh, potentially requiring the replacement, even if it's a 50-y old tree that dies off, say, "Hey, look, you have to replace that as part of the plan that was approved initially, and we want to, you know, ensure the integrity of of that approved plan through whatever process it was, if it was PUD or site plan or whatever it might be, something to consider. >> Yeah, I would agree. I would agree with that. I think if they're required to put them in in the first place. >> Yeah. New Hope certainly does that. We we use caliper in >> some people use you know percentage of or just one for one replacement of similar like style trees. And obviously if you have emerald ashbor or Dutch elm or whatever it is maybe take some consideration on those. Um but uh yeah, I would I would encourage some kind of tree replacement plan for commercial industrial. >> Would it be possible to run our current planting requirements past one of the landscape architects that the city works with like you think it's MSA that's doing the Eleanor Stevens Parkway and just get their feedback on kind of what these requirements are from because you know they're not the developers, right? you like. So, but they would have a nice kind of understanding what other communities do and what a reasonable requirement is for, you know, square foot per tree type or something. >> Yeah, >> we can make an inquiry. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> The the other thing that that concerns me about this subject is the trees along the roads that we're building like the parkway. Mhm. >> Um, and I brought this up a few times at the at council meetings, but I mean, I hate to keep picking a Rush Creek Parkway because it's right in front of me. I drive through there all the time. The intersections and the plantings along that median in the center of the road. To me, there shouldn't be anything within 75 ft of each of those intersections. We have crosswalks. We have the the trail that crosses north and south on Rush Creek Parkway. You can stand a fourth or fifth grader on their bike in the middle of that road in the summertime with the shrubbery and the flowers that we have in that road and you drive by there, you wouldn't see that kid until they're right in front of your car. I mean, why on earth would we not have some kind of rules with which, you know, they have to keep those areas clear. >> Sure. So th those are all reviewed by the plan commission and the council. Um >> planning commission I can speak for for my neighborhood, you know, I remember I wasn't here when that was built, but reading the the minutes for that. >> Um so the entrance to my neighborhood has an island. >> Um the island is pushed back from the street quite a bit. You know, I remember reading in the minutes was because someone made the comment that people take the curve too fast and therefore the median should be shorter so you can go around the curve faster. >> Makes sense. >> Yeah. But it also there's a lot more visibility. >> So, and yes, you can make the curve faster, too. >> Yeah. I I just worry about some little kid getting hit there. You know, the the park is right along that particular road. The park is there. I mean, some of the homeowners along there have skating rinks in their backyard and you see kids going, you know, across there. The park trail goes or the trail that's theoretically going to go to the park >> at some point maybe um crosses. >> Some of the residents there complain about it, too. I've talked to Marty about like I think it's mostly I think they're called Indian grasses. They're really tall. >> You can't see anything through those. Yeah. No, they there was they we had some purple things planted there this year that are beautiful to look at. But you're right. I mean, the median itself is raised the bed, you know, with nothing on it but grass is raised, you know, a foot 14 in above the road surface to start with and then when you put another foot or two feet of plantings on top of that, it completely obscures. At some points, you can't even see if there's a car coming across. >> So, it's just dangerous. I I I think that we should make sure that we whatever we do in the future, you know, fix that obviously, but future roads, we should have some type of language that prohibits us having that type of planning anywhere near an intersection. That's line of sight is critical. >> I think we should update our standards for the crosswalk signs to be the ones that are here where you push the button and they flash, you know, especially on any road that's, you know, Yeah. So what? >> Yeah. 40, you know, 40 plus mile an hour road should have crosswalk signs that flash lights, you know, >> and judging by the one next to my house, they fail quite often. >> I don't know if that's true, but that one does. >> It doesn't work or it doesn't. >> It just gets stuck and then you hear it >> and it just keeps going. >> Well, there's a there's a beep in it. There's a uh >> the one by the school you're talking about. >> No, the one right by my house. Right by me. >> Oh, okay. >> Um I've talked to Jason and he's had them come out. It's just uh yeah, I don't know what their survival rate is, but >> I take that road coming in and uh this morning there was someone that used the crosswalk but did not use the flashers. >> Well, that's and that's at least it's there. I mean I >> even if there's one car coming, I hit it over here crosses. I'm not I don't trust drivers. >> Yeah, I like them. >> No, you're right. >> It's just that Yeah, >> they're they're pricey and >> Yeah. Although it's relative, right? It's relative. >> So, we want a safe community. >> All right. Well, moving on. I think that the next slide on the presentation is indicating that Hayden's ready to talk about the the next item here. Uh item 8E is a discussion regarding storage containers. Hayden or if it's John. >> Yeah, this has been the Hayden show all night, so I guess >> keep it rolling, man. >> I got to get my uh five minutes in. Um so our city code does not require or does not allow um permanent uh storage containers. Um we do have them in the city. I I guess the question is does the commission have an opinion of should they be allowed or not allowed. So >> they're not allowed on any size >> not for permanent use. And then question well what's the difference between permanent and temporary? Um I don't believe our code has a definition for that. I'm interpreting as if it's more than six months out of the year it's permanent. Um so the two examples we have one is of Fisher Farms. This is a storage container that's used as a concession stand. Um the example on the right is a interimmuse permit for a home business um that has a storage container that was used as storage. this um you know in both cases these are are uh structures that are not allowed by code. Um we are not enforcing this. I >> mean it's definitely more popular now to use storage containers for things >> people making homes out of them. >> Yeah, >> that's true. >> I mean >> absolutely. Yeah. And actually that the one at Fisher Farms looked pretty good. >> Yeah. I mean that doesn't offend me at all. >> I I think the issue here is what the storage container is being used for. And what I'm saying it's we call it a storage container because we call it a corrugated metal box. Right. What is that box being used? Is it being used as a concession concession stand? In which case it's no longer in my opinion a storage container. It's a concession stand that happens to be built out of the same materials as a storage container. Or is it a I'm using this as storage needed to run and operate my business. Um, I would what I would say is that you know the at Fisher Farms it looks like does probably it's probably founded correctly, right? It's there's probably it looks like it's a concrete slab. It's probably adhered to that slab. It's not going to go anywhere. It's the use is a more of a permanent type of use. Um, and it's kind of like that kind of niche type of architecture of saying, >> you know, this is the corrugated style that we're we're trying to go for. I I think that looks awesome. I I want to um, you know, encourage that type of use. Um, the picture on the right to me is like, well, we have no other place to put this, but we really need storage. And that's not what I would say is a great use of the property for that type of temporary um solution to storage that could otherwise be done in a different manner um for even a you know for commercial or industrial um setting. So um the question might be are we going to allow these types of building materials to be used for the uses that are being proposed? Um that's a that's a different scenario with the concession stand. Um other than are we going to allow these corrugated metal storage containers to be used on a more of a permanent type basis. My stance is that yeah I I think that we you we should not allow the the storage containers um on a permanent basis. I think that the code is good in that respect. Um, and I think we should look at allowing these types of materials potentially for these kind of one-off projects, right? Um, because, you know, there's examples out there that that look good, but you're going to find someone that's going to take advantage of that ordinance and it's going to be an example that really doesn't look good. So, it's hard for commissions and councils to regulate what good looks like. >> Yep. Well, it's really hard to have any kind of idea what good looks like when there's no ordinance telling you >> correct >> what's appropriate and what isn't appropriate. If that if that building was painted the same color as the building behind it, you probably wouldn't even see it sitting there. >> You know, the fact that these containers there, they're in re red, orange, green, they're all these different colors. If somebody gets one and puts them on acorage, which is where I think they probably should be allowed, not on small lots. I mean, there really isn't any I don't think there's a good way to fit that into a a small neighborhood. But if you have acorage like a lot of the folks do in Dayton, I don't have an issue at all with them having containers. But I think that we should have some kind of rules on what they need to look like. If you bring them in and the thing is fire engine orange, you know, and it sticks out, you know, from outer space, I mean, I don't think that's right. I think it needs to blend in and whatever building you build needs to it needs to look like it belongs there. I mean, it needs to look like it's the color of your barn or the color of your house or whatever it might be. And I also think it needs to be set back from the road. You don't want that out on the road. And if people can see it, maybe screening, natural vegetation screening. So that they can't see it. I mean, I'm guessing from the road, you can't see that. As as ugly as that is, >> you you can't see either one of these from the road. >> Yeah, that's my point. >> Yeah. So, you said a 10 acre minimum or something like that and then have at it after that or >> maybe >> this is going to be a function between the the rural versus urban type of development that Dayton's seeing, right? So, you're not going to see these in my neighborhood. Number one, I have an HOA. They're not going to allow them anyway. Uh the applicant in front of us, the very similar neighborhood that he lives in, and they don't have an HOA, so they could potentially put this in their backyard, a storage container like this. Would we get complaints? You absolutely sure that you'd get a complaint about a corrugated metal storage container sitting in someone's backyard, >> especially if it was orange >> in in these dense residential areas or dense approved >> no one would no one would approve. I mean, that's a 40ft container there. >> That's as big as they get, right? But that's that's on a farmland that's probably no one sees or care, you know, they drive by and it's well, it's just part of the farm equipment and apparatus and everything that that farm is using. And who cares because it's they're trying to make run a business and earn a living. >> If if my neighbor if my neighbor on a small lot had one of those that's 8 by 8 or 10 by 10 and they painted it the same color as their house, >> which we require them to have, >> it would just look like another shed. I wouldn't care at all. >> We have canvas garages all over the place. And do you ever get complaints about canvas garages? >> No, but we don't allow them. >> I know we don't. But they're all and nobody cares. >> Every every farm has one of those. >> You know, >> you store hay in them or they store the tractor in them or >> you want a shelter. I mean, I would, assuming there's stuff in there, I would assume I would rather have that there than the stuff >> stuff exposed. >> Yeah. Or >> the alternative is having them built it build a permanent storage structure rather than renting a corrugated metal box or maybe >> nobody's renting those. >> Well, what I'm saying is that it's a it's a cheap alternative to what is going to be required. >> Yeah. But then like they've already got a building there and now they got a storage container. Like is that two accessory buildings? >> There you go. I would say yes. >> If it's permanent, right? >> Mhm. >> Yeah. And then I'm sure we have rules and regulations as far as your accessory buildings need to be architecturally compatible with the principal structure >> only on properties under an acre. >> Under an acre. >> Yep. um that council for farmland and things like that. >> Um I don't want to again kind of speaking on Commissioner Brown's behalf, but in the in the email that he did provide to uh myself and John, uh he did mention that uh if these were to be allowed in any capacity, uh there should be an emphasis on an acreage limitation because there are egg properties that are that are one acre. Um there are exone properties that are one or two acres in size that uh would uh otherwise look similar to a newer development uh property. So >> not to say that he was encouraged to uh allow these but >> I'm just just barely over an acre myself and I wouldn't want to put one of these in my yard and I don't want my neighbors to have one in their yard, you know. So maybe it's a 10acre kind of thing or I'm not opposed to it. Um, you know, I think it's inevitable when you got large acreage sites that you said mayor that I'd rather see that than the stuff loose in the yard. And I know, >> but I'd rather not see like five of these lined up either, you know, like I know at least a couple of the canvas garages are there because they can't by our our our ordinances put a real garage in >> where they want that canvas garage. So, they put the canvas garage up >> and there we are. >> So, I mean, we're sometimes, >> you know, the cause of our own problem. So yeah, >> we you know it's and and staff is aware of this, but we had those things at the old public works building four years in the middle of everybody could see them. They were stacked wonky. Uh it was as ugly as it gets. >> The building was wonky, they >> still is. >> They firefighting like >> huh like training thing or something or No, they were just a >> stuff. Yeah. >> I I don't know if Bry kept stuff in there or do you remember at the public the old public >> I think we did use it for fire training. I mean there's windows that were cut into them. >> Yeah. >> Hard to remember. >> I don't think so. But >> maybe that was a story going around to justify them. >> They were they weren't even orderly. >> No. >> I mean every time this come up I'd point to that. I it's one of those things where, you know, cities like to put rules in place and then follow those rules. And that was one of those things. I I I don't have a problem with these, especially I I would have a problem with them, you know, in your development. But I personally, if I think once you got above one or two acres, I'd have no problem with that. >> Um because again, people are putting their it there for a reason. That's because they want to store something in there. Now, you could, you know, if they're there for any length of time, you could say, "Look, that's now an accessory structure. It has to comply with our our count and our square footage." You know, maybe you do that. Um, but >> yeah, maybe it's a 5 acre minimum and if it's there in place unmoved for a year, then it has to comply with accessory buildings or something. >> Okay. So of the four discussed, so we had for parking really it's no change. >> Yeah, not at this point. And uh other than the event center um parking language. >> Um >> okay. Um for home extended business there was no changes. Uh landscaping was consider reduction and then do a little bit more re research and storage containers would would be a to prepare an ordinance amendment that would allow these under uh on larger lots and where they're not visible. >> That's Yeah, >> I think that's that wraps it up. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And the reason people are buying these things is because they're so much more economical to use. I mean, they're one time used containers. And what do they do with them if people don't buy them and use them as a shed? They get crushed up and like an old car and >> thrown away. You throw too much stuff away. And those things are way stronger than any shed that you're going to buy and build out of sticks. Let me tell you, I'd rather have one of those sitting next door to me and fastened down than some, >> you know, Bernard's or Home Depot stick building that a good strong wind takes it and drives it through the side of your house. I mean, those things are not going to move if you got to pass them down. >> They're heavy. >> They are heavy. Yeah, they're very strong. You could set a car on top of those things. I wouldn't try that with a plastic shed you got from Menard's >> or Home Depot or Lowe's or >> any box any box store I should say right >> absolutely not just ask my wife >> 11% rebate >> all right >> uh let's move on here uh item nine notices and announcements >> okay uh let's see so a couple weeks ago we had an open house for states manufacturing um it large event. So, there's uh the council I believe was on there that went on a tour um should know, you know, as you drive down there, you can see kind of the the they're refer to it as a airplane hanger door um for the larger um units that they build. So, states manufacturing, if you recall, they're based out of Champlain. They build um >> electrical containers. It's yeah, that's a good way to put it. It's containers, electrical equipment containers. So, utility boxes, not small ones, but great big ones. So, um these are I don't remember what the size of this. They have an order to build 86 of these, for example. Um so, uh that is why they have a half million square foot building. Coming up, uh next week on Wednesday, October 8th, is the ribbon cutting for a quick trip. uh that opened this morning at 5:00 a.m. or a little before 5:00 a.m. I'm told that they had a line of of um customers lined up in front of the store waiting for them to open. So, uh LC Stevens Park master plan, uh each of the the council and the commissions had appointed one person to uh represent them to kind of as a steering committee. Paul was our the plan commission's representative. Um the draft for this will be presented to the park commission next week and then the council on uh October 14th I believe. So more uh more to come on that. So just look at that today or the consultant finish that today. It'll be an exciting very exciting and a little expensive but we'll preference the excitement part. um construction or reconstruction of 125th and East French Lake Road mill and overlay project. Um that will take place in October. Um and Dennis, you maybe you can correct me. I believe that is all of 125th. Um from Fernbrook to East French and then down East French Lake Road to Territorial. >> Getting a lot of our roads update the last couple years. >> Yeah. >> Nice. So did we get any feedback from um certain land owners to do this project during that time period? >> Yes. >> Right. During harvest time. >> No. >> All the pumpkin patch. Well, that's harvesting pumpkins. >> Yeah. I I think you talked to Jason and I think they were good. So I I believe you know they allow traffic during this time. It's just >> it's his busiest week. So, I >> mean, they did sell time and like rode in a day each way. I mean, unbelievable how fast that went. >> Yeah, it is. It's amazing. It's >> Yeah, >> it's amazing to watch. It's kind of cool. Um >> Yeah, I I don't know if they how they work something out, but I know just I would I drove through there. They must have a run or something out there. It's sort of a I don't know, but there were people all over the place. So doing a pretty good job in the middle of that might not be too cool, but not much that can be done about it other than try to coordinate ladies night out uh Saturday, November 8th, 4 to 6:00 p.m. um at the Dayton Activity Center. So tell you're all interested in this. um name that park. So we've referred to this as area 21 park. Um so this is between Sundance and uh Brayburn. Uh we already have a Sundance Park um off of Rush Creek Parkway. Uh so it's kind of a name that uh that park contest uh and names are due by October 15th. This is the park that's partly on Sundance and partly on Brabber. Yes. >> Yes. So the intent going back before de all this was developed is to essentially gain about two and a half acres from four different development projects uh to create a neighborhood park. And it's taken, you know, I don't know, I'm going to say 10 plus years to obtain that. We're we're about threequarters of the way now. But we still need a better name than area 21. >> Yeah, that might be all right. >> Sounds like a UFO thing. >> Every time we hear that, >> we just need a spaceship there for the kids to climb. >> It's the playground to be a space theme. >> And the reason for area 21. So in our comprehensive plan, we have a a essentially neighborhood park plan across the city and in you where we geographic geographically where we would see a park and they're just numbered off. So this is 21 >> to be 21. >> Uh Jackalander pumpkin trail. So this we did this last year. It was uh turned out well so we're doing it again. So um you can donate a carved pumpkin. It will be placed on along the retaining wall along LC Stevens Park and becomes this uh lit uh pumpkin trail. Um there's a coupon here for 50% off uh purchasing a pumpkin at Dean's country man's country man Dean's pumpkins. You can register your home to be part of the city of Dayton holiday lights tour. So, if you register by November 24th, um you can get your property on a map and the uh obligation is that your yard or your house will be lit between December 1st and December 31st. >> Those are good looking lights. >> Those are good-look lights. >> They're exempt from the lighting ordinance for that time frame, right? >> Yeah, holiday lights are exempt. >> Yeah. >> Um there's much more to the picture than what I could fit on here. >> Yeah. Cards and cribage um continues on the second and fourth Thursday of the month, 9:00 am to 11:00 a.m. at the activity center. Uh the giving garden is still being used or we still have donors. Um so once again, this is right outside of city hall. And then the next planning commission meeting is Thursday, November 6th. Um, I will add that uh last month we talked about uh moving the uh December 4th meeting and I think the consensus is to move it from Thursday December 4th to Wednesday December 3rd. So one day earlier >> got it works. >> W Thursday December 4th is our holiday parade. >> Great. Well, being that that's the end of the agenda, I'd entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> Make a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll second the motion. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All oppose? None. journ the October 2nd, 2025 Dayton Planning Commission meeting at 8:21