is uh 6 6:30 and we we'll call the uh January 5th or not January March 5th planning commission meeting to order. First item of business to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. Uh, I'm going to skip roll call. Everyone's here. Uh, we will move into roll of planning commission. It's listed on the agenda. Uh, approval of agenda item four. >> Any changes or corrections to the agenda? Uh, >> there there are none. I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. >> Second. >> Did you want to make >> I did? Yeah. >> I' I'd like like us to move the issue that all these folks are here for tonight to be first on the agenda so they don't have to sit through all these other things. >> Are we sure which side everybody is here for? >> The dean. Sundance. >> Okay. I believe >> is that a fair assessment? Most people are here for the Sundance. >> Yeah. >> I I think I think making making sense or it makes sense to to move that first. Um and then we'll >> Sundance. >> Yeah. >> And then probably it's kind of like a >> um Yep. Uh we'll we'll get to we'll move Sundance up and then uh I think we'll go from there. >> We'll leave the rest >> the other developers who are here for the other items too and that won't have to sit through things too. So >> yeah, we're we're expecting uh that maybe this isn't true, but we're expecting uh residents here for every item. >> Yeah, correct. >> So, >> but knowing that Yeah, >> I'm okay with that motion. >> Okay. So we're we're moving, just so I'm clear, we're moving Sundance >> Greens up to the first item, correct? And Dubet stays the same where it is. >> I think the concept plan should stay at the end. >> Okay. >> As far as my motion goes, >> I agree. All right. So we have a um you you agree with Keith though >> of moving up. Yep. Yep. And assuming Paul's in agreement. Second. >> Good. >> So we have a motion and a second to move the Sundance Greens up up on the agenda and then leaving the rest the same. All those in favor? I >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Uh consent agenda. Only item on the consent agenda is minutes from Janu or from February 5th. One correction. They forgot how to spell my name. Number four. >> Ai. >> Page four. >> No, number four on the >> number four on the minutes. >> Oh, I'm missing something. Okay, >> that's all I had. motion to make that correction >> and and approve and approve the agenda. >> And approve the agenda. There you go. >> We have a >> I'll sec I'll second that. >> We have a motion from Keith, a second from Jeff. All those in favor? >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes. 5 Z. Open form. Open form is limited to is public comments limited to three a minutes for non-aggenda items. Anyone here for open form? >> All right. Anyone online? I'm assuming there is anyone online. Feel free to use the raise your hand function to speak at open forum for non-aggenda items. >> All right. Uh moving on, council update. >> Okay, so for February 10th, um we had a discussion on city branding. Um there was a uh decision not to go forward with with any modifications to that. There was one other item. Um roads uh plans and specs for there's it's a a scattering of roads. Holly Lane, Vinewood. Um the north uh actually the middle portion of Pine View between uh North and South Diamond, Pine View Courts, Balsam Lane, and then uh kind of some of the development roads are on Hemlock, Balsam, 134th in there. That was approved five to zero. That was that was 10th. February 24th. Um we had a discussion about uh plans and specs for some of the uh updates were planned for Stevens Park. I think that was sent back to staff to get um kind of a second opinion on the costs as I recall. Um I think so. the assisted living concept or the the uh site plan review was approved. There wasn't much discussion on that. Um water trails bid came in um and that was awarded. Uh we had some discussion about the activities coordinator getting some uh consultant help that was sent back to staff to get a little more definition. I believe the South Diamond Lake um road covert. That project to um put a liner in that cover was approved after some discussion about costs. And there was a uh back in May, we had a discussion about the parkway neighborhood infrastructure that that that road access um getting plans and specs for that. We tabled it um until we had a little better idea what was going on over there. That was pulled from the table and approved to go forward. And then there was a discussion about authorizing um steps towards imminent domain on that little portion of roadway for that same uh development. And that was approved. And that was it. All right. Any uh questions for the mayor? >> All right. Moving on, uh, we'll move to item, I guess it'd be 8 C, preliminary plat amendment for Sundance Greens, 12th edition. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. Uh tonight you're currently asked to review and consider um a request by the Sundance Greens uh planned unit development and preliminary plat. Uh request is for an amendment to the 12th edition which would be the last phase um with the exception of uh roughly seven additional lots in the southeast portion that was previously um approved. Still uh an active or still a well and septic property on that site. So upon sale of that, that will be an also an addition that will final out that development area. Um I'll just note for uh the audience and the planning commission as well after the uh um after the packet was published on uh last Friday, um the uh applicant has uh reached out to city staff and has requested that this item um be tabled to the following meeting in April uh for a decision to be made or recommendation to be made at that point. Um, but I still want to still put together the staff report for this in the presentation. So, I want to just run through this and give you an understanding of kind of what uh what is being requested with this moving forward. >> Hayden, if I can, was there a rational as to why they wanted it tabled? >> Uh, it from my understanding and the applicant is also here to provide detail on that, but uh the applicant wants to provide a little bit more uh detail related to the specifics of that um proposed maintenance building on the north side of the property. Um nothing is uh proposed to be changed related to the um the new proposed preliminary plat for the 12th edition that is oriented on the north side of the Sundance Golf Course and rounding out that uh Dayton Farms Park uh with additional park dedication to be provided with this plat. Um so in summary, the request is for a reduction in the 12th edition lot count from 58 to 48 lots. uh the net acreage is still above the original approval uh due to the previous amendment increasing the density. Um so a little bit of uh background and history that was provided in the staff report. In 2018, Sundance Greens planned unit development was approved uh by the city council. Um, in uh February of 2020, uh the applicant had uh requested a change in the northeast area of this development where originally approved were twin home uh duplexes on the north side and that is uh that had since changed and was approved to have uh those four unit uh row homes that you see along 117th Avenue or 113th Avenue, excuse me. Um so that was the most recent uh change that was uh provided and then today is the second round of the uh amendment here uh specific to Sundance Greens 12th. Um so also included in that as part of the PUD amendment, the applicant is also requesting for a uh proposed relocation of an existing uh maintenance shed. Um not necessarily a relocation of the building itself, but a relocation of the specific area where the maintenance would occur for the golf course on site. uh the property or the applicant's proposing a 7200 square foot maintenance building uh that will replace that one that is currently off of 113th Avenue North. Uh the applicant has stated uh through the review and the applicant's narrative that uh the building would be residential would look residential in nature with uh cement board siding um and uh a single roof pitch that would be provided kind of like you would see on a storage uh shed. Um, so again, just to provide a little bit of background, um, staff does recommend that the planning commission open the public hearing tonight for anybody who is interested in still speaking to this and then, uh, continue action on the item and continue the public hearing to April uh, in order to make a provide a recommendation to the city council for the April cycle of the um, applications. So, here is just an overview of what the uh, new line would be. Essentially the main change related to the uh plat amendment itself uh for the lots one is the reduction in the the lot count from by 10 um as well as originally there was a uh through street that would have connected to Niagara Lane um intersection of 113th and Niagara Lane that would have uh single family homes down um north going north to south. The change ultimately would uh eliminate that access um to that 113th Avenue currently and have Polaris Lane be extended from the Brayburn Trails development and then uh have the additional connection to 115th Avenue North that uh connects into the DCM farms development. So that's the main change for the plat itself. And this was the overall preliminary plat that was approved. And this is the area specifically where my cursor is that you can see where the change occurred um in 2020 related to the proposed duplexes that were going to be in this area that was changed to four unit row homes. Um that increased the density overall for the preliminary plat by 13. Um so with the two requests of the amendments uh being this one tonight and then the one previously in 2020, the net acreage or the net um units on this property is still in u plus three of what uh was originally approved in the development overall. Add just a little bit more. Um staff also included uh information in the packet related to what was identified in the original plan unit development as benefits to the PUD. Um as well as identified flexibilities that were mainly limited to setback and lot width requirements related to the standard R3 uh zoning requirements. Um but some of the benefits to the PUB that were identified as part of the review of this original preliminary plat were a v variety of lot sizes and pricing um updated 9-hole course that is expected to remain to the public but stay privately owned. Um golf cart friendly streets um community pool facility improved access for residents to the three rivers trail system including reference to uh the connection of the underpass. um 30 plus acres of green space, 20 plus acres of wetlands and wood area that would maintain uh preservation uh upon um development of this site. Um retaining the clubhouse, restaurant, and bowling alley for the public. Um and then a trail constructed the entire length of 113th Avenue North connecting into Fern Brook Lane. Um that was identified uh due to the reconstruction of 113th that's anticipated with uh um the DCM Farms project. That trail will be constructed at that time. Um this was the original um rendering that was provided to the uh planning commission and the city council upon uh original review of this preliminary plat. Um so it shows the duplexes here um the connection of Niagara Lane um at this point and then as well as the connection to Polaris Lane. Um not provided much detail if this goes away here. Um there was um just a a rough rendering detail of not uh anything detailed related to that being a maintenance building, but it did show um somewhat of a building there um with the development of this property. And this is uh to orient yourself. Um this is on the north side of the golf course area. This is essentially the trail that is on the edge of the Brayburn Trails development. um went down there to take a picture and that's kind of just a rough estimate of where the uh proposed location of that would be. Um the applicant has proposed that uh this I didn't provide a very good picture of this here. Um a setback from the property line of 50 ft for the building which is consistent with the public recreational district. Um and uh also a proposed access here off of the newly constructed Polaris Lane um abuing the uh Brayburn Trails development. Um the building itself and the setbacks are all guided by the public recreation district um standards. However, uh there is a a code section related to driveway access for all properties within Dayton. Um that uh all properties are limited to one access uh per parcel. Um whether that was uh intended specifically for residential developments or new residential developments, that is not currently defined within that language of the ordinance. Um, hence the reason for this uh requiring a request for the PUD amendment with this um the PUD amendment kind of takes a blanket uh review of uh practical code flexibilities along with plan unit development amendments. Um whereas uh on a standard straight zoning of a property, a variance would be required for something like this. Um in this case, it is guided by the planned unit development amendment request. So that is why you're not seeing this as a variance request tonight. So again, um just to just to recap, staff does recommend that you open the public hearing um and then motion to continue the public hearing and table action on this item until uh the April 2nd meeting. Um and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Any questions for staff >> or clarifications? >> Nothing for staff. Nothing for me. All right. Would the applicant like to come forward? >> Um, >> yeah. I >> Tom, if you get Tom, >> can you hear me? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Do I need to get my address and all that? >> Yeah. Hi, Tom Dean 111261 from Brook Lane, Maple Grove 55369. So, um, I had full intentions of bringing this tonight. Um, I don't mean to be disrespectful anybody holding it, but I feel like it should be some better information. I didn't think that the maintenance building would be um, a hot topic as much as it is. Um, I will disagree with Hayden. None of you guys were here. I think when I went through in 2018 on the plat and I was very clear at that time um that I intended that to be a maintenance building and a lot of the discussion was when we were back then golf was going away right until co didn't come back um and it was really me and one other developer the you know Ben Schmidt who developed Brayburn his proposal was to take the entire course down and and develop it Um I uh had discussions, you know, we we ended up making it a 9, but there was a lot of discussions with planning commission, with council at that time and and if you read in the HOA documents of Sundance Greens, it was like if the golf course was to go away, that would need to be remain an open spot and it would be park for the for the Sundance Greens development and and part of the HOA. that building was then like, hey, if it was a cross, you know, a, you know, if it was a maintenance building and maybe it could be used for some park shelter if that happened, you know. Now, good things to say. Golf has changed, right? CO was good for golf. It's back. We've we've been making a lot of investments trying to improve it. Um, but what I really wanted, you know, to do is just to come back with some renderings to show that, you know, it's just not a pole building, right? If you look at our existing, they were moved in on the previous owner, so I don't know how old they are. They're uh they're, you know, they're they're ready to come down, right? Um so I think uh I think there was a time to propose some renderings. Um um you know, I I think uh that that concept plan has been here for eight years. I think it's probably still hanging out in the vestible of the the uh the city hall here. Um you know, I' I've tried to be neighborly, too. Um and I will, you know, I think I talked to Hayden if there's some more green space between the building and the property line. I'm not I'm not looking to be adversarial, but I I think I was here, you know, long long time plan. I think I'm going off the plan. I actually part of our neighborhood. I granted access for the sewer pipe to go across that course. That has become quite problemsome for us redeveloping uh to serve that neighborhood. It wasn't a requirement. Um a lot of the residents are upset about balls getting hit against their house. You know, my partner there is really frustrated cuz he's like, "We're there first." But I get it, right? It doesn't make sense. So, we've shortened that hole um why we've been playing the last few years. So, um I I just I think it'd be polite for me to actually just show what we're building. You know, I'll make sure the doors are, you know, the house is to the north, all the access the doors would be to the south, right? You know, so that side would be um you know, I don't want, you know, I'm sure they want doors open on their side, right? We'll try to to do the right thing, right? And so that's why I thought if I could come back with a plan, it would it maybe you know pictures worth a thousand words. Um I didn't know about the one entrance per um parcel number, but I would say city city hall has four parcels. Go to every commercial area, right? There's quite a few. And actually if you look at the parcel when when our main entrance comes in on 113th, it's split amongst two parcels. So, if I had to move it to the south 30 ft and we come into that parcel, I mean, it seems a little silly, but if that's what you guys want me to do, we we'll do it, you know. But that that's the reason I I pulled it tonight. Just figuring to have renderings. I don't know if anybody's got any questions for me. Any questions for the applicant? Oh, >> appreciate the background. >> Yeah, appreciate that. Um, I will not >> because we are planning on tableing this, I will not call you back up tonight, right? Um, but hopefully hopefully what what you have to hear from the public, we can talk about next month. >> Yep. >> Yeah. The only thing I would add to is just some consideration. Obviously, you're going to hear some public testimony here tonight as far as, you know, um, improvements that could potentially be made for that uh, maintenance building. And I think it was a good idea to table it so we could get renderings to see exactly what it's going to look like. Um potentially, you know, next month you should maybe come with an idea of how often that maintenance building is going to be used on a daily basis. If it's going to be after hours, weekends, whatever it might be. What What's the kind of traffic that you anticipate that maintenance building? What is it? Are they pickup trucks? Are they >> four-wheelers? what what type of vehicles are moving back and forth to get get things, you know, from that uh maintenance building and then also consideration potentially for some natural screening, right? So, >> uh spruce trees or evergreens or whatever it might be or arborite, something like that to help buffer that maintenance building to the properties to the north. >> And I agree with you. So, one of the things besides the renderings, I'm open to do a landscape design. So, the one thing it is on a knob that we probably really, you know, a minimum of four, but I think we can cut it down six feet. I'm planning 12T sidewalls with a low pitch monotone roof, you know. Um, and so you put a retaining wall with arbavitas that say 10 ft on the top, you're not even going to see the building. So, I I I do understand. I you know, I don't want it to be an eyesore. We definitely um aren't going to throw a bunch of stuff in the you know uh and I could see where if you looked at our existing building right that's it's um it's yeah it we're not going to recreate that you know so I want to be clear. So um but it's just taken us a while to get that side of the development. So, understand. >> I guess I I have one question, Tom, that just popped into my mind, and I think it's a question that's been asked of me this week, especially since >> we were dealing with this. >> Um, why is that building set all the way off to the northern edge of that development against Brabber? Why is it there and not on some of the other 100 acres that you have there? How does it have why does it have to be so far north from where it currently is? I guess is my question. Because if you don't do that, then you don't have to worry about two entrances and exits because it can still go in and out the same place the folks for the golf course and the in the bowling I would go to. That's a question I can't answer. >> Yeah. Well, it's it's real simple. I mean, um what do I do with that space? It's just a wasted space. Otherwise, I bring and I go in there and I put I can't put a golf hole, you I mean, I could put a hole, but then I'm still dealing with the problem of balls getting hit at the people's houses, you know, so it's just about you using the space. Um, you know, I'm not sure. Um, at the time, you know, discussions we had back, I was like, the road went through, uh, the clubhouse, you know, is isn't going to stay. If it's a park, then the thing's getting torn down. Um and and now I I feel like if I move it somewhere else, you know, we may have some more houses. I may come back on another phase where that street was through. I mean, we kind of turn the street cuz now it makes a nice quiet street. I don't have any through traffic. And I and I'll be honest, I don't know exactly what's going to happen with the the golf course. We you know, we're busy. We're needing parking, right? So I can't park on the street. If I need more parking, we're already running down to 113th. You know, I it's, you know, every every space is valuable there, right? You think there's space, but we, you know, you go to some of the nights, the parking lot is over, you know, it's filled to capacity. Any other questions? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Uh it is now 6:57. Uh we will open the public hearing. Um keep in mind we are going to table this item tonight. So uh more if anyone would like to come forward and discuss at this point. Um we will be tableabling the public hearing as well so that uh in a month when you see the renderings you you get a chance to discuss then. But if you want to give some input now would be the opportunity. The only other thing I would suggest also is that um if you even if you have a great point and it's already been made from by the person ahead of you, just take that in consideration and the 3 minutes of of time that you each have. So please feel free. Good evening, commission members. Um, I filled this out. I'll leave it. I also have some uh additional like written letters from residents or neighbors of mine that if I can just leave them with you. >> Yeah, Eric, if you could state your name and address, please. >> Yep. My name is Eric Seapult. Uh, my address is 11534 Brayurn Trail. U, my family lives just 40 ft from this proposed site. Um, I will speak on this more here and I look forward to speaking again at the next public hearing, but um, I was hopeful that Tom was going to or Mr. Deanwood was going to mention that he would maybe be reconsidering. Sounds pretty evident that he just plans to present plans. Um, from a height perspective, my house is taller than 10 ft. I will see this out my windows. I will see this off my deck. I will see this from my yard. Let me first say I am glad that it has been t chosen to be tabled. I'm hopeful along with the city they can work together to determine a different and more suitable location not requiring this access point. My wife and I purchased our lot to build what we would consider our forever home in 2020. It was marketed to us as a premium lot that came with a premium price markup. I'm not one that makes quick expensive decisions. Before deciding to purchase my home, I reached out to then Alec Henderson and Tina Goodroad previously with the city of Dayton, inquiring about all and any plans pertaining to the future course changes or development of the Sundance property. ALEC responded to my questions with site plans based on the approved preliminary plot. None nothing indicated uh what is being question or being proposed at this time. The rendering of the Sundance Golf Course website added February 2025 presented in the packet today shown on the screen earlier and referenced by Mr. Dee showing a square outline and no driveway does not match the preliminary plot that was approved. Further investigation in the city meeting archives reveals that this is an older concept plan depiction. Rather than updated Sungrants de Sunrant Sundance Greens design that was approved is on display in city hall in the in the entry and sent to me when requesting plans from the city. To be honest, the turnover of city staff and partial or misleading information has not been helpful to the situation. Even the current zoning map dated June 2025 incorrectly labels the golf course only as PR public recreation district without the PUB overlay. I reached out to see on more than one occasion seeking clarification and prompting corrections to zoning maps over the years since moving into my home. A map dated March 21st, 2019 arguably indicates the area adjacent to my home is R3 with a PUD overlay. And in June 22, the entire golf course is R3 with a PUD overlay. On June 2nd, I was told by Mr. Zach Dow and I quote, "Based on the drawings, your home will not directly be affected by homes in the future additions of Sundance and future editions of Sundance Greens and your home will be by the golf course even after the complete remodel." Point is, all of this makes it very challenging to have an understanding of what to expect and certainly none of this information would warrant concern for what has been deemed by staff in the packet as a building that is very much more comparable to a commercial building. I would not have built here, nor would I have added expensive outdoor enjoyment spaces if there was even the slightest indication of a maintenance building would be built next to my home. Based on the information provided to me in a review of relevant city code, this area appeared to be well protected from future building plans. The applicant references parking demand for his request due to the success of Sundance Entertainment Business from the surrounding development that's been added. I've been one of those neighbors supporting the business by golfing, dining in, and ordering takeout through co. I've really been nothing but a good neighbor the past six years. I'm sorry, but proposing this location is not being a good neighbor in return. My ask is that Mr. Dean not punish his neighbors and instead take this opportunity to be a good neighbor in return by working with staff to determine an alternative location and access. With the proposed redesign to the residential plot, I would recommend placing it basically in the same location that it is now where extra parking is indicated. This should accommodate both needs while preserving the integrity of our established residential neighborhood. The city is not obligated to grant this amendment request and therefore has the authority to make right out of a solution a situation that has not helped not helped should the request not be retracted. I'm also requesting the next public hearing notice for this matter be sent out including more detail than the original. Most neighbors I talked to had no idea what this public hearing was pertaining to. I don't blame them. How would they? It was a graphic of the golf course. Um, I ex ask that that be presented in the mail or for the next public hearing. I thank you for your time and have a good evening. >> Thank you. Good evening. My name is Gary Felhaggy and I live at 11637 Niagara Lane North in Dayton. In anticipation uh for tonight's meeting, I submitted a formal uh letter and proposal or photographs for the record. I didn't take these photographs to be difficult. I took them as a visual forecast. The applicant will claim the new building will be clean and discreet, but these photos show the developer actual track record at their current Sundance facility. We shouldn't be asked to trust a promise when we can already see the practice. Most telling is that their existing building sits at the main entrance to Sundance. It is the first thing their own patrons see when they arrive. If the developer isn't concerned about an eyesore with its bulk fuel tanks, heavy machinery, and scrap piles serving serving as the front door to their business. Imagine how much less they will care about the building tucked away in the back near our homes. This isn't just a storage shed. It's an industrial hub. My photos show heavy earth moving machines, the fuel tanks sitting out in the open. This is the operational reality of maintenance. It inevitably spills outside. If they allow this disarray at their front entrance, what is to stop a hidden location at the back of their property from becoming a graveyard of dumpsters? old equipment, hazardous fuels right next to our backyards. The applicant will likely offer enhanced screening, but as these photos prove, screening is a myth. You cannot hide a fuel tank or piles of scrap from the community's eyes. Fences weather, trees lose their leaves. Screening is a temporary bandage for a permanent eyesore. If the land use is wrong for a residential area, no amount of landscaping will make it right. I stand with Eric and many other members of our community in opposition to this proposal. We have seen how the Sundance site has drifted from its original intent and we cannot support a duplicate of a failure in our backyard. Please look at these photos and ask yourself, if this is how they treat their own front entrance, how will they treat our neighborhood? If the answer is not well enough, then the only responsible choice is to deny the proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Uh, my name is Sher Kuner. I live at 15304 116th Avenue North. Um my husband and I purchased after our son and daughter-in-law and they back um between the two ponds. Their house sits at the bottom of the of the hill. So their deck as well as many other homes that's in their that is in their view. Um compared to when they moved in we went through the deforestation. It looked like Mordor um from The Hobbit and lost a lot of aesthetic. But at least not this maintenance building. I do not have uh I have not had the time nor have I totally figured out I wasn't mailed the site because we are across the street. So we didn't get the all the information for the open hearing. So, I am not really clear on where that road runs and the building sits that the traffic going to that building will go. But we have a park and a playground right there that was built as part of our uh development that was new newly built just in the last summer. And I'm just a little bit concerned and lacking information there, but I am concerned about how much traffic we're going to see with the children in the area and um you know where our walking paths go along there. It's I have also heard some concerns about and I don't understand this and if an environmental study was done or if it was even needed related to our um flooding and the um ponds. We have enough problems right now with our ponds and irrigation. So, I just have more questions than anything that I put out to you. And I think for the April meeting, it would be nice to have a little more clarity um in addition to the things that have already been discussed about where that road actually runs adjacent to properties um that are in the Braver Trails area and also a consideration of how many homes you're actually affecting because there are the homes that back onto the golf course this way and then Rayurn trails the road curves and goes toward the my directions are you know a little bit uh goes toward the north. Okay. But those houses along there also are going to be affected because the road turns and all of their backyards and decks may also be affected in terms of aesthetics. So I I mostly am posing questions and concerns. I will tell you, we are frequent flyers both of the golf course and the entertainment center and the bowling alley. We love that they're there and and we also want to support that business. Um and we're delighted that there is a road going through now without going out onto Fernbrook. So, there's a lot of good here with having that wonderful entertainment facility there. And I I know all of our neighbors, we you know, it's kind of like the the neighborhood gathering away from home. So, um I I leave you with that compliment to the owners and we're really pleased to have them as neighbors, but real big concerns about this. Thank you. >> I'm going to keep this because it's got my notes and I'll put it back. >> Thank you. Hello, I am Natalie Miller. I live at 11529 Polaris Lane North. Um, I am adjacent uh across the ponds from Eric. So, I see his house and I see his deck and I can see that from my deck. And so when we are talking about this maintenance shed not being visible, it will be very visible to me and my three neighbors that live at the end of uh Polaris Lane there. So I am the third house in I have two neighbors, Katie and Jim. And I also have um my neighbors uh Colette and Bruce. And Colette and Bruce have the house on the very end. And right now, you know, we had a lot of golf balls. Um Bruce had to put up nets to protect his home. And when it came down to us from a neighbor perspective, we also care about the wetlands. We care about them a lot. We have signs that have been put up in our backyards prohibiting us to be in that space, but yet I don't feel like there's any protection for the wetlands right now and for the water. Additionally, I have a walk out basement that has a sump pump that runs year round. So, the water table and the water issues that have been back there are significant for me from a homeowner perspective. Um, I had to have the builder put in drain tile on one side of my home and I'm trying to get the builder to put in drain tile on the other side because I have standing water in my yard even today. So, to add a maintenance shed that I will see to add a road for which my animals, we all have dogs. We have five dogs back there that play freely between three yards and we're all family. And so to have that is going to be a danger to our not only to our pets, but the noise and the things for having vehicles going back and forth is going to be very disruptive. Um, I do work 100% remote and our homes are very close and tight, so I can hear neighbors that have music on at times. So, let alone to have maintenance vehicles running back and forth. Um, the noise outside will make being out on my deck that I spent a lot of money on, as well as all my neighbors will make it very unenjoyable in the summer to have vehicles going back and forth. Also, we will not be protected from the view. Those three houses on the end are going to be facing a driveway and they're also going to be facing part of the maintenance shed that will not be, I guess, whatever walls or arborvay are going to be put up. We won't have any protection from that view. I have, like I said, a walkout house. I sit the highest of my uh neighbors over there of the three of us on the end. I will see it. And then, of course, like I said, it will be encroaching on the wetlands over there, and those are DNR protected wetlands as well. And I have concerns about the water and the safety of that with having animals in the area. So, I I definitely do not um want this in my backyard. I didn't have this when I brought my bought my home. I knew that the road was going to go through. I was okay with that. But nobody ever talked about a maintenance shed being in my backyard. So, thank you for your time. >> Good evening, gentlemen and uh members. Uh my name is Tim Johnson. I live at 11532 Rayburn Trail. Uh Eric is my next door neighbor and uh like him, I have uh a lot of interest in what happens here. Uh I've got a prepared statement, but I also have just a quick comment that I have nothing against uh anyone at the golf course. U I I think I've had very good interactions with them over the past. I interact with them because I am the guy that has gotten all the hits to the house. um at the par five par six hole I think it was some that where it was a par par five hole everyone wanted to get as big of a hit as they could and those balls came whipping through our yard and it was dangerous um but before we even moved in we were out there and someone nearly hit us with a ball um having said that I understand that's what you get when you are next to a golf course um and uh grateful that there's going to be a change with that hole that it's not going to be the same anymore. Hopefully, uh, a lot safer for everyone. Um, but I do have a prepared statement. Um, and I'm just going to read that here. My wife and I put this together. We live adjacent to Sundance Golf Course on the north side where the proposed building is planned. When my wife and I moved to the neighborhood in 2020, there was a beautiful view of not only the course, but also a heavily wooded area and a partial view of the wetland. This view was part of our decision to move here. People visiting our home commented on how lucky we were to have that view that we had. Because we value the outdoor space on our property, we invested tens of thousands of dollars in trees and landscaping, decking, and a patio space. We really like being out in the yard. Uh, living next to the course has been wonderful, but not all wonderful. Uh, errant golf balls have caused thousands of dollars of damage to our house. Thousands of dollars. Uh, we've had uh uh aluminum screening get broken or or bit dented. We've had uh many different siding breaks. Um and uh fortunately no windows, but we have uh definitely suffered roof hits as well. Um let's see, where did I leave off here? I will add here that uh none of the golfers that hit our privacy screens, those were the expensive ones. Uh no, none of them were willing to pay the cost of those repairs. And that is the assumption is that you know if you cause damage to someone's property that you will take responsibility for it. However, um with the phrase that we hear the most is the golf course was here first. Well, the golf course um being owned by the person that also developed our land. Um you you can't have it both ways. We have we have houses there now. So we're here first now. and that shed. It was not there when we planned the house. Um, another phrase that we've heard is, "You should know what you're getting into when you move next to a golf course." Now, these comments, while hurtful and disrespectful, I might add, are ultimately a way of avoiding responsibility. And this is what I want to have not happen again, to have to rely on someone else being responsible and doing the right thing. The proposed storage facility threatens to upend everything that my wife and I have tried to create for ourselves at our home. Despite the fact that we have planted numerous trees in our backyard, there is no way that the screening we installed will mitigate the eyesore of the facility that is being planned. The wooded area is gone and likely decreased our property value and now we are faced with the prospect of losing further property value due to this proposed building. And I'm just speculating here, but it does not seem like a stretch to a guess that that would be a $100,000 drop in my property value. >> We are requesting that the city of Dayton deny the request to allow this project to go forward. That is for another day. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I appreciate your time. >> Tim, could I ask you one question before you move? >> The couple of folks have mentioned now the wooded area or deforestation of the area. Could you explain to us a little more exactly what you're talking about there? >> Uh, sure. Tom could probably elaborate on that as well, but um, it was an area that you, some would say it was just overgrown. U, but it was, you know, just heavily wooded and brushed and, you know, there was a lot of greenery. I I can show you in my screen saver. I have it there because I loved it so much. Um, well, anyways, but no one's going to be able to see it. Sorry, but it was beautiful. A beautiful sunny day and the green, but um I I totally get that they have that right to remove whatever they need to to make the course work for them. Um but it is, you know, we're we're picking winners and losers here. And I am the biggest loser that I can see so far based on what I've had to spend on the repairs. And I've been planning for some training and I've like I said, I put a ton of landscaping in already. it's not going to be enough. >> So, the screening that you're referring to was on the golf course side of the property. >> So, we put screening on our property, um, it's basically some evergreens, a lot of, uh, uh, deciduous trees as well. >> But what you're talking about was removed. >> Oh, the stuff that was removed was >> I'm just trying to picture >> into the wetland. I don't know, Keith. The the wetland in the center here was overgrown with volunteer trees for the from the last 20, 30, 40 years. >> Yeah. So yeah, there's I mean again that's that's not my beef. Um but it's just letting you know that things have changed dramatically since we moved in. I'm still grateful for where we are. It this is this keeps moving in the wrong direction for me. >> Thank you. This pocket here. >> Oh, I think I took all that out. Good evening. Uh, I'm Ronald Swinson. I live at 11270 Niagara Lane North. And to figure out where that's on on that map, it's as you come in on 113th and you take an immediate left right at the model and that's Niagara Lane North. Um, so I'm really here to ask questions or or look for clarification. Um, I know that I'm interested in and I think several of my neighbors here tonight are interested in what is going to be the actual access to the parking lot, you know, in the final configuration. I heard Mr. Dean say tonight that uh something about splitting two lots and if he had to move the entrance to the parking lot 30 ft south if I understood that correctly. Um and if that is correct then that would bring traffic in on 113th. They turn on Niagara Lane, turn south, go 30 feet, and then go into the parking lot. So, I'm just asking, is that the correct understanding of what could happen there? >> I I think that was uh maybe the the word would be facicious comment of of it wouldn't be realistic to ask Mr. Dean to move his entrance to Sundance. Um it it spans a parcel lot line today the main entrance does and according to city code and what we were talking about is my understanding right only one entrance per parcel >> correct >> and so so that this you can see the yellow line running right through the building there that's that's what we talk we're talking about as a parcel line so I I don't believe we would require that one to be moved that entrance >> okay the main entrance. >> The main entrance. >> No, it would stay as it is. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> I don't I don't believe there'd be any appetite to have that moved to the south. >> Well, I think speaking for myself, maybe not my neighbors, I don't know. But if that were to happen, that that would not be very uh uh uh necessary in our our opinion because that'd be putting headlights up against our house because uh they do a great business there. Uh I don't know if you ever been there at night, but the place is packed and there's probably 50 to 100 cars coming out of there. So, uh I know that uh myself and my neighbors wouldn't be too appreciative of having a lot of headlight uh coming across our our uh front of our houses. I mean, right now, uh, the houses that are closest to that model, uh, are enjoying the, uh, the huge lights out at night for the parking lot. They're shining right at our house. So, uh, to accommodate that, we've I've personally just put like a opaque screen on the front door of my house because the light was burning right in. But that's not my complaint tonight. It's what if the the traffic pattern changes and if that were to happen with the parking lot, I'm sure uh we'd be pretty uh pretty upset about that. Uh and then lastly, I'm wondering from what I understood, if you go back to that one, uh the init Yeah, that one right there. Uh that's really one of the first times I've seen that. And what I understand is again coming into Sundance on 113th, there's no longer going to be a turn to the right or to the north. Uh and uh Niagara is not going to extend to the north. Is that what I'm understanding? >> That is correct. >> That's what the proposal is is. >> Okay. Okay. Great. Thanks. That's all I had. Thanks. >> Thank you. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. if I could just provide a little bit of clarity just uh because I did receive a couple of phone calls from uh residents along Niagara Lane. Um there were some concerns about the traffic getting rerouted to be Niagara Lane uh as the main route to access Sundance Entertainment um due to 113th Avenue being removed. Um that is not being proposed. 113th Avenue all the way out to Fernbrook is still proposed to remain as as the current main access point for the entertainment center. If I if I can add a question there is is 113th going to remain as is I mean a straight shot or is that >> it will get uh so further to the east along with the DCM farms uh project that will get rerouted to the north but it is still going to connect to Fernbrook Lane. >> Okay. So so and and that was going to be my my point is it'll it'll connect at 114th. Correct. >> Yep. 114th >> and and then it'll swoop down to 113th roughly about where the old farm was >> or before there >> actually the due to the plat for DCM farms you can see the the proposed re uh realignment of the road to connect with the 114th intersection. >> Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Anyone else like to talk on this topic tonight? >> I'll make a motion to table this to the next meeting. I just want to if there is anybody online that is um interested in speaking at this point during the public hearing, please feel free to use the raise your hand function >> and we will permit you to uh speak by unmuting the microphone. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I will repeat that. I'll make a motion to table this item to the next meeting >> and continue the public hearing. and continue the public hearing. >> A second. >> We have a motion and a second uh to table this item and continue the public hearing at the April 2nd meeting. All those in favor? >> I I >> I. >> All those opposed. Um item is tabled. Um moving on to 8A. uh preliminary plat and site plan review for Graco. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Get my bearings here on the PowerPoint. Um so, tonight you're asked to uh um consider a preliminary plat application and plan unit development amendment for uh the new location for Greyco's office headquarters, their global headquarters for their uh uh company. Um currently, uh the proposal is to be situated in between the two existing buildings along West French Lake Road. Uh that is, uh that are already existing. Um I'll note, uh what was I going to say here? I had something else. You uh previously saw this at the November uh planning commission meeting in 2025 as a concept. Um I'll just uh provide a brief uh statement about uh the plan is substantially similar to uh what you had seen in November uh with the level of detail that is required for the plan unit development amendment and preliminary plat. So again the uh uh location um is uh between Brockton Lane North and West French Lake Road. Uh it's currently a vacant parcel owned by Greyco um in between two existing facilities. The overall site is 27.61 acres. currently an outlot of the French Lake Industrial uh center 5 plat. Um the office building will be a lot uh and block of 9.72 acres in total. Uh the property is currently guided industrial and uh currently zoned I1 with a uh light I1 light industrial uh with a planned unit development overlay that was previously approved in 2015 when the original overall development proposal was provided to the city. Um and in keeping consistency with that, the plan unit development approvals that part of that original re resolution um also included uh commercial office space as a permitted use within that planned unit development. Um a portion of this property is located within the French Lake uh shoreland boundary. Um I did reach out and uh provide uh the plan set to the uh DNR uh to do some review related to any comments or concerns related to that shoreland. um and they uh re responded that uh they have no comments on this project and appreciated the time for the review. Um it is in the current uh Musa staging area um in the comprehensive plan. Um and uh the two facilities were built uh subsequently in 2015 and 2022. So here's an overall layout of the uh lot one and block one that will be uh platted with this proposal. uh roughly a 31,684 square ft building uh three stories in total uh totaling 95,000 ft of floor area. Um access would be shared off of the existing accesses to the Greyco sites currently u which would be uh guided by um a cross or a shared access agreement to um establish that uh use of a a combination across property lines for access. Um the uh parking count on the plan is uh increased from the original concept plan to 292 spaces in total. Uh the applicants have uh provided a calculation that was in the staff report and packet uh and uh provided reasonable justification per the code allowance uh for a reduction. Um a lot of that uh reduction request was uh heightened with the maximum employee count on this uh site anticipated to be not more than roughly 250 employees. Uh and then they also uh proposed an additional 20 spaces for uh visitor parking in the future. Um so essentially the 277 was that at capacity of what we would anticipate for parking at this site uh at uh full employment and then as well as those additional visitor spaces. the applicants have provided uh roughly 15 more spaces than previous. Um setbacks and other elements of the design are defined uh within that staff report and deemed compliant through the review uh for this specific building as well. Um some identified flexibility requests as part of the the planned unit development amendment include that reduction uh or in not necessarily the reduction in parking is that uh is latitude that the city council has the ability to wave if they feel free to do so. Um but the reduction in parking stall width from 10 feet to 9 feet. The standard uh parking stall um dimensions currently within the code are 20 feet by 10 feet. Uh they're requesting to do uh 20 ft by 9 ft and then 18 ft by 9 ft where uh overhangs are permitted based on the uh layout of the parking lot which uh the 18 ft uh based for overhang is a a standard that is allowable by uh city ordinance. Um and uh also I'll have a slide that shows a couple of these as well. Um uh but uh one additional monument sign that is interior to the site that is essentially going to be a rock monument that uh is 3 ft in height uh with the name of the the the building itself at the base of the flag poles that they are proposing again interior to the site. You would see that here uh where my cursor is on the screen. So here's some uh renderings that were provided by the applicant. Um the some of the some of the additional plan unit development benefits that uh staff had identified regarding the the flexibility requests. a part of the PUD as a whole is the heightened architecture of the building uh is above and beyond what the minimum standards are required for the industrial uh design um in the zoning ordinance as well as that consolidation of accesses along West French Lake Road um is seen as a as a uh as a positive as well. So the overall height of the building is proposed to be at 59 ft. Um, if you remove the proposed screening wall that uh the applicants have uh chose to to show on here, uh the uh height of the building is a uh compliant 50 ft. Anything above and beyond that uh 50 ft would require a conditional use permit within the I1. Again, um because this is a plan unit development, that request is kind of worked into the plan unit development request as a whole. Um negating the the need for a a separate conditional use permit for that. Um here are the two monument signs that are being proposed. So this is the one that I was referring to that was interior to the site. Um be 3 ft in height at the base of the flag pole uh area that they have out in front of the building. Um this area here, this monument sign is proposed on the south entrance of the property to show for directional related to um as you see on there parking and shipping and receiving and such. So overall uh staff did a review of the landscaping requirements. Um this was uh provided uh pre this was provided uh and uh developed prior to the recent amendment that was adopted by the city council related to shrub counts. Um regardless of the uh of the change in the ordinance amendment, this property is uh being proposed to be sub landscape substantially over above and beyond what the minimum requirements are. Um and that was identified in the applicant's narrative as a priority for the overall site development as well. Um you can see that there are pedestrian access points that uh connect the property to uh both the north and the south um not necessarily the south uh property line but to the north property line as well um for um just that standard access for uh pedestrian walkability. So tonight, the planning commission is asked to uh um review the development proposal and consider providing a recommendation to the city council on this matter. Um also hold a public hearing for the plan. Notice was sent to surrounding property owners within a quarter mile of this property. Um staff overall recommends uh approval of this item with the conditions referenced therein in the staff report. And I'm happy to answer any questions. >> All right. With that, any uh any questions for staff? >> Mr. Chair and staff, I would like to um just recuse myself from this conversation and vote due to conflict of interest. >> Thank you, Paul. >> All right. Uh >> I have a question of staff. >> Yeah, go ahead. >> The part of the building is in the short end shoreline conservation district, correct? And that the city ordinance for height is 35 ft. Correct. Those areas, correct? So, we would be waving that, letting them build a building that's 50 or 59 ft depending on whether you count the the screening on the the roof of the building. Right. >> That is correct. That would be included in the identified flexibility for the planned unit development amendment. Um, I would say that uh in terms of consistency with the surrounding area, the uh adjacent buildings are above and beyond that 35 ft capacity as well that is in the Shorland district. Um, I'll just note as well that the 35 ft standard for shoreland uh requirements in commercial and industrial areas is not a requirement of the DNR. That was an above and beyond um standard that was provided by the city um that the DNR provides latitude to go above and beyond what the minimum standards are that the DNR provides. Um so the DNR again they said they had no concerns with the proposed development um specific to that as well. What other buildings do we have in Dayton that fall within that district that we've given >> permission to build higher 35 ft? >> I would say that the two properties to the north and south are within that boundary as well. Even if it's uh just a portion, um it might be a small portion just like you'd see on this property. Um I believe that the Invent property as well is uh in that shoreland area too. Um, I'd have to look at the actual exhibit of the of the French Lake um boundary. >> I think you're mistaken, but I think that building is much farther away from from that boundary than this one is. >> Okay. >> And this one is just barely within, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. So, for clarity, the the inbent building is in it part of it. I remember that from when we approved the >> This is the rough. This is this line here uh delineates the um shoreland boundary of French Lake. >> And and is that boundary set on elevation of the land? >> Ordinary high water line of the lake itself. >> So someone someone a property owner could come through and regrade all of that and push it off their property. Theoretically, >> not necessarily because it's not based on the elevation of the property in question. It's based off the ordinary high water line um in proximity to that. So, it's within 1,00 ft of that ordinary high water line of the lake itself,00 >> and the DNR sets that high water line, >> I believe. So, yeah. Um, I think the exhibit that we use from 2005 is still relevant per the DNR for this >> elevation and then we did verify with them that the exhibit was appropriate. >> So, it's a thousand foot setback from where the high water would be then. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. The reason I ask is it's a substantial increase to go to what they want us to go to. It's like 67% over 35 ft, right? I mean, that's a huge difference. That gives me some concern. >> Do we have verification of the height of the adjacent buildings in relation to what this one would be? >> Uh, not off the top of my head though, but I can certainly provide that to the planning commission. I think in both those two buildings were 32 foot clear, which means they're probably 38 to 40 foot. >> Yeah. I mean, I I personally I really don't have much of an issue with the height of of the building uh given the flexibility of that. I mean, it's a tremendously nice looking building. Um as proposed, uh the campus itself is very well kept up. I I think that if this is their headquarters, they're going to make sure that this building is like pristine in in all aspects as far as design and upkeep and everything else. I I think it would be a great addition to the area. Uh the question I have uh is more specific to the parking um and whether or not uh I know that we are giving kind of a a larger um flexibility to the parking uh over a 100 stalls that from what is uh supposed to go in there uh required by code and what is being proposed tonight. Um obviously the concept plan was even less than what was proposed tonight which is good. Um just an just a couple clarification questions on that. Number one, uh is staff uh comfortable with the fact that this building might be repurposed in the future 10, 15, 20 years and the office space is needed and parking uh and you know 250 employees is now 300 employees and then what happens at that point? Obviously, you know, when you plan you kind of have to plan for that worst case scenario. um who knows in 10 or 15 years if there's going to be office buildings anymore, right? So, and I get that and I understand some kind sometimes the archa archaic natures of uh parking uh designs anyway. Uh potentially Dayton could have been overparked anyway for what the practical need of of that parking is. Um so just if you can uh touch on that a little bit as far as again what the justification was at the staff's level. it was it just the employee or the employee counter? Was there are there things taken in consideration and is there any available space for any kind of proof of parking if that's a consideration or a concern of the planning commission or the city council on this? Um I do understand that there's going to be another phase to this design overall which might provide for more parking and have an opportunity for cross parking arrangements between the two sites. But if you could just expand on on the parking issue a little bit. Yeah. So really the employee count and the visitor parking stalls were the justification that was provided by the applicant. Um I will just speak on in terms of uh if this area or if this property and that's a a great point related to if this was ever to turn over to a different company in the future and they were going to utilize this space for more employees than what was anticipated with the Graco site. Um that could be considered an addition or a condition of approval to increase the parking upon something like that with this plat. um proposal. Um in the reverse is is that if a a different company came in and purchased this property in the future and decided to not use it for office space or something otherwise, they would be required to uh submit a change in use application with the city of uh Dayton. And uh that at that point those types of uh verifications would be required to be met um if they were deemed uh incompatible with the proposed new use. Perfect. Was any proof of parking discussed in the application? I know it wasn't in the packet, but >> No, I don't believe so. No. >> All right. Where they put it? >> I think there's room. Um, one other question I have just for clarification on parking, but because this has came up several times, but the 9 to 10 foot width, did you guys look at what's standard in in the marketplace at all? >> Yeah. Um, in terms of more up-to-date codes, I have seen I've seen them changing to 9 ft as a standard. Um, not necessarily 10. >> Yep. Okay. >> Again, these are things that uh staff is tracking related to um the uh inevitable comprehensive plan amendment that will be coming down the line in the future. Um generally the way that uh things work in terms of zoning code updates uh massive or large zoning code updates if deemed necessary are generally done following that uh comprehensive plan update. Um so whether it's uh going to be an individual ordinance amendment or a larger ordinance amendment related to those changes to the comprehensive plan that is something that is also noted for future consideration. >> Any other questions for staff at this point? Sure. >> Um I was able to locate the figure just an FYI. So the Invent building and the Greyco distribution building to the south are both also touch the the shoreline district as well as Spears to the north further north. Uh the man Graco manufacturing does not encroach. I don't have the building heights though. >> Thank you. Uh would the applicant like to come forward on this one? first name and address. >> Good evening. Uh Kirstston Musman, 1180 Fern Brook Lane North. >> Martin Cott, 1320 Oakland Drive, Golden Valley. Thank you all for having us here today and the time for reviewing this. Um Hayden, you did a great job presenting and uh talking about the project. I wanted to add just a little bit of additional background on the the design. Um Hayden, would you mind driving for me as I go through this? >> Um and maybe let's start on on the plan. >> So um you know, this this building sits on the larger Graco campus with uh French Lake building one on the north and the Graco distribution center on the south. So this building is really stitching together this campus. Um, we've put efforts in to make this really walkable and really make this building be kind of the heart of this new campus. Um, setting the stage for potential future buildings. Also, uh, the building is really oriented to the lake. So, really taking advantage of the lake as an amenity and hoping to be a great neighbor to the lake in turn. So, um, most of the occupied people spaces within the building are oriented to the east towards the lake. Um and in doing so um a lot of the more kind of back of house spaces are on the west. Uh we've also pushed all the parking to the west. So uh views from west French road from across the lake will be of a building rather than of a parking lot. So we think that's you know a benefit to the neighbors. Um putting those people spaces foregrounded uh foregrounding the landscape and some of the exterior amenity spaces that that are around the building. If you can maybe go to the renderings, Hayden. Uh, so the the architecture is uh thought of as a kind of dark brick and glass base that grounds the building. Um, and that floor uh features a lot of the larger amenity spaces and gathering spaces for the building. And then uh the upper two floors are, you know, a white box that's kind of sitting on that dark base. And there's these various frames that are articulated on around the building that are um changing in size and opening up for different uh portions of the interior and what's going on for the site. So the top left image is the view from West French Lake Road. Um so the building is kind of art articulated with this large frame really oriented towards the lake. The top right image is uh after people would enter onto the site and they're about to turn into the parking lot. Um so kind of regular rhythm of the building with these smaller frames for the general office spaces and then larger areas of glass to bring daylight into uh some of the more um larger communal spaces. And then the two bottom images are kind of interior to the site. Uh the bottom left is uh the main entry and the bottom right is from the kind of southwest corner of the parking lot. Um fairly paired down material pallet uh using uh pops of Graco blue at special areas like the main entry and to highlight the east facade and then also bring in some warmth with uh the woodlook material here at the main entry. Wanted to touch on the parking a little bit. There were some questions about that. So, um, the parking that's being provided, there's kind of multiple steps to that. So, the building is planned for future growth. So, day one, it will be occupied at a lower level. So, um, that parking count that's being provided is for the full buildout, you know, 10 15 years down the road when the building is fully occupied. So, it will be much less occupied at the beginning of the building. Um and then we're also providing the additional uh visitor stalls and and some stalls on top of that. So um I think uh when we came here for the concept plan in November, we were kind of on the fence about screening the equipment on the roof and I think there were some feelings from commissioners that uh that would be of benefit. So we have added that in. Um, and uh, we did increase the parking based on some of the conversations from last time. So, it's kind of a big picture overview of the project. Um, any questions? Happy to answer anything or comments. >> Hayden, can you go back to the site plan real quick? Um, first I I appreciate the screen wall. I think that's a nice added benefit, especially for those who will be looking across like at you. Um, just on the parking, just I realize you probably didn't study the proof of parking, but I figured you guys can better answer this question, but if you had to add more parking on the south half of the parking lot, it looks like you could add stalls and either both going south as well as to the west and I rough estimated it. So, that's why I'm pretty comfortable with the parking, but I think you could easily add another 50 if need be, and it would still not impact the impervious surface coverage of I think with my math. But so I'm comfortable with the parking from that perspective. But if you guys looked at that and can shed more light on it, I guess that I appreciate that. >> We didn't look at it. >> We have not looked at it. >> Got it. >> That's all the questions I have. I think it's a good project and I'm looking forward to you guys breaking ground. >> Any other questions for the applicant? All right. Thank Thank you. We may or may not call you back up. >> Thank you. Um, with that, we will open the public hearing at uh 7:50. If there's anyone here to talk on this one, um, I guess if if there's no one here, um, I'll kind of echo Darren's. I was doing a quick in my head count. Um, easily along that western edge, I I think 20 stalls is easy there to add in, plus more in that green space. Um, there's other things they could look at with parking, too. maybe even going narrower on some stalls to to make more in the future or or do diagonal and open up free open up one lane, you know, in and out um traffic patterns to to make future parking work within the same footprint. So, the parking for for this site, it does not have me concerned. Also, knowing that it's a campus, not a standalone building, um, has me less concerned about the parking count itself. >> Yeah, I mean, I I'd like to the only reason why I asked to begin with is just the fact that I wanted to understand the staff's rationale as to as the justification for the reduction. Um, I'm not a huge proponent of overparking anything, right? I'd rather see green than than asphalt. um and and especially right adjacent to the lake too. I think that it's um you know the the applicant here has done their due diligence to put in the parking that's needed and required and I think we could all rationalize that if it comes to a point where they are in need of parking extra parking could put in there's some there's some room to accommodate that. So I am also comfortable with the amount of parking proposed. I think the other the other thing I've I've heard from commissioners is the the setback of the the high water um high water level. Um you you know in looking at the site, understanding the parking and and where the parking's oriented, how the site's being used, it doesn't it doesn't have any concern for me. I'd rather have all the parking on the backside as it's shown. um from that standpoint. Um so I I have no issue with that, but I don't know if there's anything else to talk about. I mean, I guess the only I mean I I understand the height issue, meaning it's above everything, but I have no issue with it either from the standpoint it's such a small compact building on the site. Um I think it actually adds some good variation to the other tall buildings around there. Um, you know, if it was a 500 ft span at 58 ft, different story. Anyone online for this one? If there is anyone online, feel free to use the raise your hand function for the public hearing. All right, with with that we will close the public hearing at 7:53. Um, any further discussion? >> We had what are we here? We had some recommendations from the the council. Conditions of approval identified item A conditions of approval identified within resolution referenced are still applicable. Uh adherence to the zoning ordinance to be continued. Uh and then uh the agreement uh with the property to north and south and the uh Henipin County comment letter and engineering comment letter. >> Yeah. The uh main atypical uh condition of approval for this site specifically is that uh requirement as part of the the plat process to um enter into a shared access agreement for those properties to ensure um that uh all three properties are still uh able to use those accesses in the event that uh anything may change with with the campus itself. Um, I don't really think it's necessary, but I know it's been discussed about adding a condition to expand parking if needed, but I don't think it's necessary. I think that uh a user like this, if they need it, they're going to expand it. And likewise, the city, I mean, I I guess at the end, I just don't want if they ever got over if it was underparked, I just don't want a bunch of parking on the street because it's not the street's not designed for that. Yeah, >> with that. Yeah, with I guess with that, I'll make a a motion to recommend approval of the preliminary plaid and PUD amendment for the office building in the I1 light industrial district. uh being the applicant being Greyco Minnesota Incorporated with the five stated conditions as outlined in the staff uh report uh to be moved forward to the city council for consideration. >> I will second that. We have a motion of approval and a second. All those in favor? >> I I >> I. All those opposed? Motion passes four to zero with one abstain. Um item moving on to item 8 C preliminary plat amend or no 8B zoning map amendment for variance and preliminary final plat of preserve at Vineard Meadow. >> Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. So this is another project that you saw in a concept form in 2025. Um uh the applicants have stated essentially that uh and uh by required required by the city to uh hold off on any preliminary plat uh submittals for this specific request until the metropolitan council um provided a decision related to the A3 zoning district and uh the interim uh large lots uh well and septic uh sites that are uh provided now within that interim basis uh for uh development. And um was that February 25th? February 25th, I believe the uh Met Council um unanimously approved on their consent agenda this uh comprehensive plan amendment related to this type of proposed development. Um so that was essentially what we were waiting for until uh this point in time. Uh so the site itself uh consists of roughly 117 12 acres currently split between three parcels um east of Brockton Lane North and south of Dayton River Road, west of Lawndale Lane North. Um so if you see where my cursor is here, this is where the lots are going to go um be proposed oriented on the west side of this overall property boundary. Um and then over on this side, if you may remember from last year, a uh re previously approved um interim use permit for an event center uh that is expected to expire in 2075. So the properties are currently zoned A2 and A1. Um does require require uh reszoning to A3, which is also a consideration tonight as part of the preliminary plan. Uh the entire site is guided lowdensity residential and currently within the post 2050 staging area. One of the changes that you had seen previously uh due to met council requirements um was the city's original proposal included uh properties that were in 2030 staging area to be included within this A3 eligibility. uh that main change was uh their request to limit it to only 2040 and post2050 property. So here are your uh requests to consider tonight. Uh first is a variance to allow 12 residential buildable lots um 11 new and one existing. Um essentially this uh is a variance to go above and beyond the density allowance for the 1 per 10 acre as approved by the plan or by the metropolitan council. Um and then uh as well as a variance to allow for the creation of a lot without street frontage and that is that existing 12th lot down uh on the south portion of the plat area. Uh roughly a 4 acre site in total. Um preliminary plat of the reserve at Vineyard Meadows and then that resoning from A1 and A2 to A3. Uh just to orient ourselves here, this is a south view of the property itself. As you can see here, Brockton Lane or CASA 13 um is on the right side of your picture. And then this is the area that is proposed for the 11 lot subdivision and then the existing residential home that is currently on site. Here's a general layout. Um probably easier to see within your packets than the PowerPoint, but uh the uh access uh to this site would be off the existing Shady View Lane North. Uh the applicants are proposing a connection into that street that eventually goes north further to Dayton River Road as well as a connection down to Brockton Lane. So there will be two accesses um to this overall development as proposed with this plat. So just to get into some of the specifics related to uh the A3 district standards um and my next slide is going to show you a revised uh layout that uh calculates um properly the uh net acreage on the properties. Um after conversations with the engineer uh it does say that you know the minimum lot size proposal is 1.08 acres of uh developable land as uh defined in the code uh for this district. Um there were uh six lot or five lots roughly that did not meet that net acreage requirement and additionally there was uh three lots that did not meet um the uh minimum lot frontage along the new Shady View Lane North. Um I will say that through conversation with the applicant and through my own calculations of the plat area um there is enough developable area within this uh to readjust the lot lines to make all of these uh lots compliant. Uh my calculation showed that with 11 lots um as proposed with the consideration of the variance um the uh average developable acreage based on that is 1.6 acres per uh property. So um again this is the revised layout. Um all the properties are proposed to be compliant. Now this will be updated as part of the preliminary plat moving forward and incorporated into this um to show these revised acreages. So, a couple of notes. Um, and the applicant again is already working on some of these items. Um, the wetland buffers were not originally provided as part of the civil plans. Um, and not shown. Uh, so as part of the the changes and the conditions of approval related to this would be to delineate that 25- ft average wetland buffer allowing for a minimum at of 10 ft uh where necessary. Um there is one additional there is one lot currently that has a wetland uh within the front yard of that uh which uh would currently which would be covered by a drainage and utility easement. So essentially that area less than 0.1 acres would be netted out of that as well. Um the comprehensive plan does show um future roadside trails along Brockton Lane North and Dayton River Road. And I provided some context at the concept meeting related to this. Um because this area is being platted with uh as proposed. Um staff is recommending that a trail easement of 20 ft in width be provided along Brockton Lane and Dayton River Road. the extent of the plat um in the event that Henipin County does not provide a requirement for additional rightway that would uh um cover or support a roadside trail along Brockton Lane North and Dayton River Road. What I'll say to that too is that I have been in preliminary conversations with Henipin County. I have not received a uh an official letter at this point yet. Um but we are anticipating that within the near future. Um through conversations with Henipin County, they are going to require additional right ofway along Brockton Lane North to support a trail. Um there wasn't any additional right of way that was being requested off of Dayton River Road to this point. Um so upon that review of the requirements for the um um additional right ofway, the roadside trail or the 20oot easement that staff had originally proposed may not be necessary along Brockton Lane. Um, so that's still uh kind of in flux, but I just wanted to point that out for the record as well. Um, landscape buffer is provided along uh Brockton Lane, the extent of the lot and block uh lots. Um, the uh current count for the buffer includes an existing patch of trees on the south end of the plat which is uh if if sustained and remained um that would be counted towards that uh landscape buffer requirement. However, given the linear footage along um Brockton Lane with this development, it uh through my review, it appeared that the tree requirements were still 12 uh short in total. So, that was another additional uh condition of approval that staff has provided for consideration. I already mentioned the the streets. Um this is not going to be uh street lights. The one intersection proposed at Shady View Lane and Brockton Lane will be lit as part of this. Um and I will note that uh as of right now the Henipin County is not requiring turn lanes along um Brockton Lane North. Uh at current it is of interest for Henipin County. Uh as they said they would like to see that. However, they have not uh officially made that a requirement. Um through discussions with the applicant, it's been uh clear that uh if turn lanes are required along Brockton Lane North, that might require an adjustment to the preliminary plat. Um so again that's another item that may be still in flux as well with this project. So on to the variances now that we uh uh kind of summarized the preliminary plat request. Overall um the concept proposes 12 uh total single family lots which would require 120 acres for the total plat boundary. Um currently the plat boundary consists of 117 and a half acres. Um, if you include the previous easement areas, as the applicants have in their narrative, uh, Dayton River to Dayton River Road and Brockton Lane North, the property increases to 119 12 acres. Um, I'll just note that, uh, historically this has not been a consideration related to uh, Plat requests um, to include previously dedicated um, easement area um, for adjacent roadways. And uh the applicant's also noting that two well sites adjacent to the property were previously a part of a larger parcel. Again, this is a case for any subdivision that occurs uh within the city of Dayton as one time as at one time a property was larger than what it is currently. um offering that latitude is a it's a slippery slope related to that um related especially when it comes to these smaller um acreage properties uh that are in these R3 developments um that uh deem considerations related to being close enough on terms of what size accessory building can I be can I be allowed to have I'm only 0.1 acres off but that line is there for a reason. Um, I'll just note too that last month, if I'm not mistaken, the city council denied um an ordinance amendment allowing for dimensional rounding. Um, so I would say that the city has stated uh their stance on these types of requests with that review of the ordinance amendment in February. Um, so ultimately staff does recommend denial of this variance. Um and uh there's just due to the lack of justification for a variance with a brand new zoning district that was provided and reviewed to meet ME council standards to allow us to have this uh latitude to do so. Um the existing home on the single or the existing single family home is another variance request that was discussed previously at the concept meeting. Um the existing home on the site is expected to remain long-term and the concept plan shows this lot being a landlocked 4acre parcel. Uh landlock meaning no u public street frontage. Um typically with new subdivisions as part of the subdivision code, all lots are required to have lot frontage. Um through discussions with both the planning commission and city council, um there was a little bit of an appetite during the concept meeting to allow for um something like this to occur with this specific development. and uh staff would concur with the planning commission and the city council related to that. Um we see that there could be justification for both um uh decisions related to that specific variance mainly because there is uh the common ownership of the adjacent parcels provides a lot of latitude for the city to require um any additional um items that may protect that uh property to have street frontage in the future. Um so again staff ultimately recommends denial of the variance for the 2 per20 standard. Um but uh does concur that there can be justification made for the landlock parcel uh due to the variability of the uh common ownership and uh the capacity that the city may be able to require some um standard cross access agreements. What limitations do we establish for the existing outlot that's going to surround this upon future development when sewer and water become available? Um because this is post 20 stage 20 post 2050 staging um this area is not anticipated to be developed within the near future um and will not be allowed for further subdivision of well and septic sites until that sewer and water is available. They're utilizing these large outlots to justify the 1 and a half acre sites to the east or to the west of this area. ultimately through the review um due to the due to the unknown uh determinations on the requested variances. Additionally, with the Henipin County's review of potentially requiring um turn lanes that could substantially change uh the preliminary plat layout in general, um staff is requesting that the planning commission provide a recommendation tonight on the variances first and then decide whether you feel comfortable moving forward with the preliminary plat request as is. Um I would say that uh based on staff's recommendations of denying the first variances for the 12th lot um if you the if planning commission concurs with that recommendation staff's ultimately requesting that the planning commission also table action on this subdivision request um due to that affecting substantially uh the preliminary plat as designed. Um again staff does uh does concur with planning commission and city council related to the second variance and can uh justify findings related to that. Um so that's uh those are essentially your first two considerations tonight and then following that will determine uh how you would like to proceed with the preliminary plat itself. There is one other thing that I just want to note for the record is that the 35 acre parcel to the east where the event center is being proposed has to be platted as a lot and block because if it is platted as an outlot, it is deemed unbuildable for the code standard. Now, this gets a little bit tricky with the words with the wording of the ordinance and the the comprehensive plan amendment. The interim use permit for the event center was approved for a 50-year term. So that is expected to expire in 2075. Upon that time, if the event center is ever deemed to go away, that property would also be eligible for sewer and water development. But at this point, the a condition of approval related to this preliminary plat is there is no single family homes permitted on this site and is guided by the interim use permit for an event center. That's why I've been considering this as a 12 lot subdivision rather than a 13 lot subdivision for residential. Um they're they're kind of they're similar and they're compatible in nature. Uh but I just wanted to um provide that distinction for the record as well. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> Questions for staff? Uh just to clarify and I think I know the answer to this but I just want to get the answer anyway. Um the applicant is well aware of the staff's recommendation to deny that variance request. >> Correct? Yes. And then still decided to move forward on their own and and get the understanding of the planning commission before making any decisions on their own. So after the review of the uh the preliminary plat um prior to the um staff report being published uh on the website and sent out to the planning commission on Friday um I did make the call to the applicant to explain staff's rationale with this and uh explain the level of variability that is current with this preliminary plat um and uh noted to them that uh this would be staff's recommendation to likely table that if in the event you guys as the planning commission denies one or two of the variances. >> So, if the planning commission I guess where I'm a little confused here is since we're a recommending body. If the planning commission denies one of the variances, why does that necessarily mean it should be tabled if the council can potentially trump that? >> It would give you the opport I guess that is a that is a good point. if you could uh you could recommend denial of this preliminary plat as is and then bring that to the PL the city council at a later date to have them make a determination on all three of these requests four of these requests. >> I don't know how staff feels about that. How the member that's on the council, the mayor's here bills about that, but that just came to my mind is if for example we agree with staff um and council doesn't, we're kind of trumping council. I would say that just uh for clarity in terms of uh if you recommend denial of the variances and table action um the tableabling of the action would limit the city council to make a decision that same night for the variances um which in then would give you a uh secondary look at this project um in April. That's really the the only difference in whether you decide to table action on the plat or uh motion for denial. I think we could get some clarification from the applicant because essentially they can take you if they had their day in court so to speak with the council and take the chance that even if with the recommendation of denial from the planning commission that the council might look at it differently and actually recommend approve or actually approve that variance request. So get the applicant in front of the council with a plan as is the way that they want to see it pushed forward. Uh but I think through future discussions here I think that the applicant might have a different understanding of the um if that would actually happen at the city council level. So um yeah I guess we can keep keep going with with discussion on that. We'll get to that. >> And then the only other question I have for staff is we talk about the agreement related to access to the one home. you were envisioning what the applicant's envisioning and is an easement be recorded that favors the house that's landlocked but also gives the property owner that the easement's going over the right to extinguish that easement and I would say at any point in time once public water and sewer is available to site and they provide a connection to the site for access. Is that what you're envisioning? >> Yes. Um I'd have to talk to the city attorney related to that specific language being included within that easement agreement. Um however it would also be a condition of approval related to the plat itself that upon replatting those expectations would be clarified with any future developer but yeah I that is exactly what uh staff was envisioning with that >> that is a private >> yeah how would we have any say how >> you put the power and the so on the map it's outlot B for example you put the power and the control of the owner of outlot to extinguish that easement. Um, and they can't extinguish it until they provide access to lot three, which would obviously was going to be when they redeveloped the site. So, we don't have to extinguish it. It's just the powers and the boat lot owner to do it when subdivision is potential. >> I understand how we legally do that. >> I think to elaborate on that, those types of easement uh agreements that the city may require that are considered private easement agreements um that would be tied to the condition of approval for the preliminary plat. So that is the city's uh the city's ability. Correct. Yes. >> All right. Any further questions? >> Applica. Would the applicant like to come forward? >> Sure. >> I'm kind of the I'm the property owner. So >> yeah. Uh so Jack Burton's uh 14770 Thicket Lane and Dayton 30-year resident. Um first I'm going to I want to talk about the variances and then Chris can talk about you know obviously when we submitted the preliminary plan we kind of missed a few things. It wasn't intentional. It was accidental I think by >> and he can explain that. Um, first of all, I think the and maybe take the easiest first. Um, well, maybe let me back up one second. One of the reasons we're trying to push forward is we've been sitting on our hands for a long time for because of the A3 thing and that finally came through. Um, part of what's going on with this development allows my son to refinance his house, which allows us to move forward on the event center. We don't get that done in a timely manner, then we're going to be one more year delayed on the event center. And so that's part of the urgency and and why I decided not to table it because we lose another month and then you know before we know it it's summertime and then we're getting into fall we can't break. We're not going to build this event center in the winter. It's just too expensive and there's lots of you guys know construction lots of reasons it ought to. So on the first variance which is my son's driveway essentially I mean we personally don't need I mean we don't need to submit a variance for that. If you want us to have him own 160 ft wide all the way out the Dayton River Road, so be it. But I think you guys brought up the last time that that made absolutely no sense. We agree with you. So per staff's direction, we submitted the variance for that really to to satisfy what you guys were asking for makes I mean 20 years down the road if my son owns 160 ft I think it is or whatever all the way down that driveway it's going to be and I'm dead it might be problematic you know u so I think what you guys are suggesting is is better but either way works works for us. On the second variance, which we were also told we have to do this as a variance, although when we went back and listened to the city council meeting on the concept plan, there was an alternative that I'd like to put out there. Uh we were we were told that uh the number lots is based on gross acres. And the gross acres is what Hayden put up there at 1195. Our survey, which I'm glad to share with you when I purchased the land, actually shows 119.62. Not that that matters cuz you guys aren't going to do rounding. But when you add in the two well spaces that are on the land that were previously part of the land, it's like 12.35 or something like that. during the city council meeting some months back. I think now we're all the way back to like last spring, I believe, like April or May. That's how long this has been going on. But, um, Hayden actually suggested that there was another route which was make the two wells a part of the plat and that's all the city has to do is sign off on the plat. So if we made the two well spots part of the plat we're 120.35 you guys sign off on it we don't need a variance and so there's no justifications because I know the variances they meet these three justifications and all that. So I would propose that that makes a lot of sense. The other thing was we spent a fair amount more of our money slashland by if you recall when we talked about the first concept plan we were going to connect to Maria and you guys suggested we connect over to Shady View and when we were talking about this whole 11 lot 12 lot thing I think it was you Darren uh when I listened to it it was Hey, we could see maybe doing the 12 lot thing if you guys are willing to go over to Shady View and add some extra acreage, which we did. We probably added two to three acres at least. Uh, and Chris could probably speak to that specifically, but we were we were trying to do what you guys were suggesting to do. Uh, I realize that variances can set precedents and things that the staff doesn't want, but there seems to be an alternative method, at least that was discussed in the city council meeting. Um, I think it was in April last year. So, I would I would ask that you consider that. And um on the first variance, like I said, if you guys don't want to do that, we'll we'll redraw it and put 160 ft all the way out to River Road. Um I think with that, and I do have a copy of our original survey if shows 119.62 if you guys would like to see it, I leave it there. Um, I'll let Chris talk about some of the things that, you know, are are more detailed in the actual plat the buildable acreage, the 1.5 and that type of thing. So, Chris is from now Windsth I think is how you say it. >> Witsth >> Yeah. was Bogart Peterson. So, >> um, so we updated our lot lines and then added the, uh, wetland buffer in there and that is we now have I have handouts if you guys want them. >> Yeah, I see them up there. >> But we now have 1 and a2 acres for that net area um, on each lot. So, I think that there was a when we added the 60 ft rightway in between lots six and seven, things got moved around um and just kind of averaged between the lots to try and make it work instead of going back over the actual acres for each lot. So, I think that's why we didn't have the correct acreage on there and but now we got it everything shifted around and it's in there. So, So, and you know, as far as like the the other things that were brought up by staff like the 12 trees and I mean that's not any big deal or anything like that. Um, and yeah, I mean, I guess the only thing for us is that, you know, we heard back, I think Jason heard back from Henipin County and they said, you know, uh, I think it was open total access or whatever the verbiage was. We take that as no turn lanes. I mean, it's possible they could come back otherwise, but, you know, this isn't a PUD. We don't have 60 houses in here. And if we have to put a half a million dollars into turn lanes, it all sudden becomes probably not very interesting at all. And so if that happens, we would have to come back with an adjusted plan. But uh you know, it's probably going to be a culac. And I know you guys don't like caught sac. So, uh, so I I would ask that you would consider the things that I've said and and approve the preliminary plat uh with the conditions and then on to, you know, on to city council. Just from a timing timing perspective, we're really crunched. We've already pushed our event center back one year. Now, if we have to push it back another year, you know, it just it gets difficult. So, anyway, Chris, do you have other things to say? Anything else or >> uh No, just going through the comments, every the engineers comments, everything seems like we can work through those. It's just getting clarification on how many lots is needed before we do anything. >> Any other any questions for the applicant? I don't have anything at this point. Just >> uh All right. Um with that, thank you. Um may call you back up. >> Okay. >> Hang on. Public hearing. Uh with that, I will open the public hearing at 8:25. There's anyone here to talk about this this item. >> I do have one hand raised online as well. >> Yeah. Uh let's start there. >> Okay. >> All right. Go ahead and unmute yourself and hopefully we can hear you. something here. >> Can you hear her, Chris? >> Okay. >> That's what I'm doing. >> Okay. Let's see. T standby. We'll see if we can. Let's see here. Okay. Let's see. Do we want to have any discussion while you guys let's let's tackle the easy one. Easy variance first. The driveway I think is an easy variance to >> I think it meets the practical difficulty. I have no issue with it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm good with it, too. >> Yeah. I mean, I think it's a a good way of resolving concerns that we have and um yeah, I think it's it's something we could justify to approve or recommend approval of. >> That was the easy one. >> Pretty easy. >> All right. Lot of comments. >> Does it make a difference? No. Lot of comments. Can I hear? >> Well, on my counts, I guess I'll uh go first. Um, you know, I'm a little on the fence and torn because I don't see the big deal with 12 lots versus 11. Other than the fact the one thing that we're given a variance on is density that is related to them at council. I mean, I don't like would we notice a difference in the future if it was 11 versus 12 lots? No. 12 lots actually is more efficient, better probably for city like there's more revenue coming into the city. There's more homes for plowing roads, all that kind of stuff. So, I completely get I don't have an issue with that. And that's where I guess I'm I'm kind of waiting to hear some more you guys. I can see the strong argument of why you deny the variance, which is also why I brought up earlier is maybe we I don't know if I want to table this. I'd rather it see to go to the council. all of us express our opinions because maybe this is meeting the objectives of council um that they're willing to grant the variance. I I don't want to make that decision by tableabling it, you know, so they can't make that decision. >> I guess I' I'd echo that. Um obviously we had some discussion as a a planning commission and the council made a pretty firm decision on our whole rounding discussion, right? And uh my argument is that 117 1/2 acres is not 120 acres. There's a pretty good disparity as far as square footage when you're talking about that. Now, in the grand scheme of things, if I'm looking at an 11 lot uh development or a 12 lot development, I I'm not going to see a huge difference between those two. Um the unfortunate part is that the A3 district is a very newly created district that has backings of of the mech council as far as those density requirements on it. And then the first uh you know the first action we're going to take in this newly created district is to look at a variance one way or the other on that exact district that we just got done forming. Um it is precedent setting. Um it it's going to be telling the public that we don't care about the densities that 117 12 acres really is 120 acres. Um that's the side to support recommending denial of the variance. the side that in my estimate would be to allow for the variance. Again, I think is echoing a lot of what Darren is saying is that there's some benefit to the city to allowing that that 12 uh that 12th parcel. Um there's timing considerations uh for the whole development as a whole. If the if the city has uh concerns about when this whole development is going to be completed, uh there's some of those considerations. The letter of the law unfortunately again is saying that there shouldn't be the reason for the hard the reason for the variance shouldn't solely be an economic hardship or deterrent from the the land owner or or the developer right and in this case I don't think there could be an argument made that this is something other than an an economic reason why the 12th lot is needed rather than the 11th lot. Um, so again, I'm on the fence too on on the variance. Um, you know, if I'm taking a very technical approach to this, I would be recommending denial of the variance and taking staff's approach on this. I understand why they're saying it, but I could see the rationale to to uh push this thing through potentially to the council and let them make that decision. One comment before the rest of you guys speak about precedence because I thought about that too, but you know, I'm I'm more concerned about precedence not on in A3 because there's just not going to be much of this A3 stuff bes be beyond the next two. I'm more if the precedence comes back and haunts us on other stuff. And I don't know if it really could then when you think about it cuz usually there, you know, it's there's enough density allowed. Um I also think the A3 is kind of intended to be unique, right? It's not supposed to be just a traditional development, but uh is the suggestion by the applicant to include the well lots as part of the total square footage of plot and plat is that a legitimate thing? it if if it was the city would have to be party to the the development. So the city would be part of the developer. >> So it >> so what's the answer then? No. >> Um preferably not. It it complicates it quite a bit and lengthens the process. >> Yeah. >> Related to that though, which I don't think it's worth, is most people don't allow right away to be part of your net land area. >> Yeah. >> At some point in time, presumably they got paid for it. Um, and now you're letting them, you know, not that I really care that much, but usually that's it's excluded. >> Yeah. I was just curious if there's an out of the box kind of way to make sure that we're still Yeah. >> Um, Keith Keith, do you have anything on the >> Nothing further than what you just talked about. I agree with everything Jeff said. It made perfect sense. So, so I am um I'm looking at this and I'm just looking at the the that exact sample there. Let's just say lot one down in the lower left corner was an outlot. This could go forward, right? And so we are now struggling with um now we'd have a vacant lot sitting there. um until 2050. Um likewise, lot 7 or or any other lot could go through. The developer could have the exact same. That would just be an outlot. Correct. >> I'd be curious to hear staff's impression of Could we do that? >> Could you repeat that? >> So, one of let's just say lot seven or lot one that just be an >> undevelopable out lot until sewer and water came through. And it would be it would meet the intent >> or it's combined with an adjacent lot >> if yeah I'd prefer to meet the metal's future density requirements and >> you'd pl it as an old lot. Well, and and this is where I'm going with this because the way the way I understand this, we we could see this this property in a whole different manner of the 120 acres broken up into much larger lots that would be potentially harder to redevelop. We have a a landowner that has come forward who's made a small pocket on their property and was able to fit in one extra lot that is in kind of a unique area um allowing a much larger part of the property to be developed in the future. And so I'm I'm actually in favor of it because of those circumstances with what else is going on on the overall parcel. You know, if if this were 11 lots coming in on the total of 120, I'd have a different story here. Um because it's all shoved to one corner. And the practicality of leaving one of these lots off doesn't really make sense in my mind. If I could just note as well, the applicants did submit a ghost plat for this specific area as uh the there wasn't a necessity to have a ghost plat for the entire proposed uh boundary of this plat. Um and the total acreage uh the total density that was proposed with the ghost plat was 1.42 acres in this specific area. um staff did include in the staff report um that there wasn't um concern or anything like that of being able to meet what the comprehensive plan calls for in the overall area for this um our or low uh low density residential subdivision that requires a minimum of 2 acres per unit. So, um given the the the nature of this, um orienting all of it to the west, um staff doesn't have a concern related to meeting that eventual density requirement that the Met Council will require for sewer and water properties. the history of the well sites still on this. Um the city come and essentially request the land and like was it a do we know the history of that or was it offered up? Was it >> like is that a hardship the fact that the city owns >> took part of their property? >> It appears they were purchased in the year 2000500 >> and the the other the rest of the parcel was purchased in 2022. That could be a finance date, too. But >> yeah, >> we're talking 20 25 26 years ago. I you know, if it were two years ago, it might be a different story. >> Yeah. >> I I don't I don't think we should include the well sites in the count. Um but I'm looking at the I'm looking at what the applicant's gone and done in this corner. You know, this is a very practical sense of connecting Shady View to to Brockton. um you know he could have he could have done a culde-sac in 20 lots that didn't work for the future and that's that's where I'm looking at this is this works really well in the future >> can you >> I follow what you're saying Peter and I guess I'm trying to because staff asked us if we're going to approve a variance to provide the justification and so far you're the one that had a little bit of justification so >> I'm going Well, I >> I'm going to go maybe Jeff. >> Well, I think before we go further, I mean, the whole the rationale for staff to deny the application or deny the variance request is the fact that the plight of the property owner uh to approve a variance must be or the plight of the property owner must be due to noneconomic circumstances that are unique to the lot or parcel and not created by the property owner. So in in this case uh you know I think what staff is trying to argue is the fact that this could have been an 11 lot proposal meeting the uh minimum standards of the code not requiring a variance. However, by putting in that 12th lot and requiring the variance, the applicant is looking for an economic advantage to that by having more lots available for sale. And so what we're doing is undoing or we are we are unduly giving them that economic piece of that 12th lot as far as saying we we're going to approve a variance and let you build that 12th lot. I'm on board with everything you're saying as far as what makes sense practically. But when you're approving a variance, you have to justify the terms of the code and ultimately state statute that those those conditions for approval are met in our eyes or in the city council's eyes. Um, so that's where I'm kind of having the difficulty. Practically, I think 12 12 lots makes 100% sense for for all the reasons that have been stated here. It's just I don't know how we get about the fact that a variance is needed and the really only reason why is cuz it makes uh it more economically viable for the property. >> Is the person on the public hearing now available to speak? um not through the main speakers, but uh what I will do is I will hold my laptop up to this microphone so it can be stated for the record. All right, go ahead. Whenever Hello. >> See if this will work. >> I don't think it's going to work. >> Go ahead. >> Hello. >> I don't think it's >> I don't know if it's it's going to work. Um but in the I guess in the alternative if uh the person online wishes to type in in the chat um their comments and concerns related to this item uh please feel free to do so. We are having technical difficulties. So we will yeah so we won't be able to hear you on uh online here through the microphone. So if you want wish to um still provide a public statement for this hearing um please feel free to type into the chat and we will um reiterate uh for the record through the microphones. So I apologize for the inconvenience. >> Yeah. Otherwise you know any comments that uh you have Marca we can provide it to the city council when this goes to the the council meeting. >> That too. Yes. Who's still open? I know that. I'm trying to make figure out what's going to make it anyway. >> Um I guess with that, uh I will close the public hearing at >> Is she typing a comment? >> Um let me see. Believe so. >> Did they say who it was? If it's one of my neighbors, they can just call me and I hold my phone up the microphone. >> Yeah. Um, >> Mara, >> it is Marsha Grover uh down on Fern Brook Lane. >> Right. I'll hear about this when I get home. >> You're in trouble. >> Call of address for her to call you. >> Great system we have. Mr. Chair, if I could ask if there's more discussion. >> Yeah. Is there is there more discussion? I'm going to close the public hearing at 8 8:43. So, just to clarify, if this were 11 lots, the variance would not be required. >> Correct. Correct. >> Um, we made some assumptions up here and I would I'd like the applicant to come back up. I got to make sure that we're not making some wrong assumptions here. So my first question related to the assumption is I mean it's obvious that it's probably more financially feasible with an extra lot but is it not financially feasible if you take away the lot? Well, I think the part of the answer to that question is is that we originally were going to Marie and it would the road would be a lot shorter and we could probably do the 11 lots, but I think the perspective was obviously we had a neighbor that wasn't excited about that. That was one thing. And then the second thing was I think a number of you just felt it would be better to go over to Shady View, which we did, but we added at least two to maybe three acres out of, you know, so there's Yeah. And then So, you get what I'm saying. It's like, okay, well, if we got to go to 11, are you guys >> mentioned the road cost? >> Yeah. No, I I said the road cost is it's a lot longer. I mean, do we go We're trying to make this work. I mean, the A3 thing is uh you're not a PUB, right? So you you don't have 60 houses to spread the cost. And so um that's part of the we were trying to meet what was suggested and so we did that. And so that made sense with 12 lots. I I don't know if the design we have right now makes sense with 11 lots or if we got to go back to the other design. That would be that would be I I can't answer for sure. We gota we'd have to look at the numbers or >> well well and if I recall from our discussion at that time I mean that that is where my head is at too is this is a and this is why I've stated this a couple times this roadway network laid out compared to and I'm looking at the old one on on Paul's screen here but this compared to that this makes much more sense for the city in the future and to me doesn't come across as an e economic hardship but but really plants the seed that that outlot C is going to be a future road connection into the rest of the the land for a a development there. >> Yeah. So, essentially, it's not an it's it's it's not unduly enriching the applicant. It's it's responding to um what future development could look like and what makes the most sense for the city, right? So, the city is going to would benefit from this design over the original design that might have worked more economically for >> with 11 lots for the developer. So, I mean, I could potent I could see that being justification for um for approving that variance as far as the economic hardship of that. >> Yeah. I mean, essentially in in the in this other ren rendering, there was a much more future developable land that it it everything from Shady View to the the east was was there. So if you drew a straight line down, that's that's almost a full extra lot we added in. Lot seven being the one we added in. >> Right. >> So it's a more efficient use of land. Yes. The way the current one is shown, >> especially with the the pond or wetland kind of nestled behind it to the east. And I think the grade drops off pretty quickly behind six and seven here going to the east right towards the river road. >> Yeah. As you go down, it's a low spot at the back of seven and six. >> Yeah. >> So Jeff and Peter, you're saying that there is a practical difficulty to maybe justify a variance here. >> I mean, I think there there it could be argued that there is. Now, I mean, looking at that by that stance, um, the developer isn't doing this solely to benefit economically. He's not asking for the variance solely to benefit economically is what I'm getting at. He's doing it in response to neighborhood concern to um, discretion that he got from at previous meetings, redesigning work that they originally put together. And it just happens that this is what he came up with. You know, the alternate is saying, well, just take away lot one. Well, what's the difference of a house is there or not? Right? I would think the city of Dayton would prosper better if there was a house there. And so, I think economically it's not it's not driven solely economically as for the rationale for the variance. Of course, that's my opinion, but well, and and that's kind of where I was standing. I mean, I look at lot one and two as, you know, if if Jack were to down in the lower left. If he were to drop one, it would be one of those two. They're the smallest footprint of the lot. Um, and they're going to be the hardest ones to redevelop in the future. >> Or you combine them, put one house on them, >> or he completely redesigns everything. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Go ahead. Well, I mean, maybe maybe this is the the economic piece that I'm not benefiting economically is that when you take the additional cost of the road to go over to Shady View plus the additional acreage, >> I'd probably be I haven't crunched the numbers exactly, but I'd probably better off going to Marie and having a lot of lotion. >> So, I I don't think I'm benefiting economically by adding a lot. that that would and I if you want the numbers we can run them and I can show you because it's >> I can't remember but the road itself is >> you know four or five >> I recall you having those concerns with our one of our previous meetings saying I could do that but it's going to add another 200 ft of street which has >> this much more cost to the overall development. So, >> well, and if you remember, I I the old design was pretty much it's in and straight and this is more wavy and >> pleasing. The lots are actually bigger, which that was kind of the whole purpose of the A3 is to have some bigger >> to make a bigger lot. >> I mean, I think we'd like them even bigger, but we get it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, I get it. >> Um, I can get behind Peter and Jeff's justification. Yeah, I agree. >> Look at me. I'm not there. I'm with the staff. >> That's all right. That's all right. I'm looking for a motion if we're if we're deciding m Mr. Chair, this is really difficult and and to try to simplify it a little bit. So in order to prove a variance there's essentially four questions. If I can just ask each of these questions and you can give comments of whether you agree or disagree. I got to see first. Okay. So uh the first statement is a variance may only be permitted when the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Meaning a the property owner proposes to use the lot or parcel in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code. And so my question is, is the 12th lot a practical use? >> It's being used in a reasonable manner. >> A reasonable manner, I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. B. Uh, the plight of the property owner must be due to non-economic circumstances that are unique to the lot or parcel and not created by the property owner. The city requested during the the uh concept plan to connect to Shady View uh which is not what the property owner originally recommended. They recommended Maria. >> See had not. >> Yes. >> No. Okay. >> I concur. >> C uh the variance must not alter the central character of the locality. So would the 12th lot alter the locality of otherwise of an 11 lot subdivision? So >> I don't think it would change, right? Yeah. >> And then D, this is just by statute is the practical difficulties include but not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. >> Y >> that's very specific. >> Okay. Does that that meet your requirements? >> All right. >> Yeah. So, we we'll have to >> unless the the motioner gives a def you know a true definition, we'll go back to the tape and and summarize with the comments that were said for the findings. But just to summarize the say the city caused the practical difficulty by requiring the connection to sunny >> shady >> shady view rather than Maria. But Shady View does allow solar. >> I would I would caution in the wording of that that we didn't require that. We made a suggestion to the developer to consider that option certainly which they did. So it wasn't a requirement by the city to do that >> and the consideration was due to well making platting the rest of the property someday more efficient and easier with the connection. Okay. So, if the planning commission is comfortable moving forward with all four of these as uh recommendations for approval to the city council to consider, um we would uh just look for essentially one motion related to the two variances, the preliminary plat and the reasonzoning subject to those conditions of approval. I'll make the motion to put it on the table. Um, if there's more discussion, that's fine. But I would recommend uh approval of the pre preliminary PL reszoning to A3 and the variance request to one ex exceed the maximum density in the A3 district and two allow a single family home on a parcel with no road frontage. And was there any uh conditions of approval on that? the only condition of approval related to the variances was that uh access easement um to be reviewed by the city attorney to uh essentially just kind of get the city's blessing related to what is that specific language. >> So and then yeah with any other uh u items for consideration or recommend or for items for cons for approval on any of those as recommended by the city staff. So that's my motion. I'll second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> All those in favor? >> I. >> All those opposed? >> No. >> Motion passes forward to one. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh moving on to item 8 D. Thank you, commissioners. There >> I don't know what the heck happened. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a concept plan for Dubet Dubet Lake Preserve. Uh just generally, this project is located on the north side of 117 uh northwest of Fernbrook. So, this is kind of the general description of the property. Uh, it's about 257 acres in size. Uh, does include several property owners. Uh, two of them are part of this project. Um, but it also ghost plats. Um, two other properties that are not part of the the project. Um, the applicant has provided two concept plans. Uh, concept one is with 453 lots and concept two is with 478. And this is a combination of both single family uh detached homes as well as attached town homes. The intent is that this project would be uh reszoned from A1 agricultural to R3 residential. Uh there's generally four critical topics on this. Uh just 117th Avenue, north south street connections, uh potentially a community park, and potentially a neighborhood parks park and trail system. Um just we we kind of lucked out in this is that we do did have um an aerial photo of the general area. Um so the the area that's highlighted in uh yellow is the approximate area. So I don't you anyone that may live in Brayburn neighborhood can kind of see what what the proximity is. Okay. Um, it looks like the same about the same slide I had before. Okay. Uh, let's see. Get rid of that. Um, just sideby-side comparisons. We have concept one and concept two. The primary difference between the two is in concept one there's a an angled road that connects 117th to a future 121st. um concept two that is not there. Um there is a difference in the town home layout between concept one and concept two. Otherwise the single family homes are the same that they're on the western portion of the project. Um first comment. So, um, in the, uh, 2040 comprehensive plan, there was an idea of having a an X corridor, what was commonly referred to as as the X, um, that was removed by the council in, I believe it was 2023, um, as it related to, uh, at the time that Braburn Trails was platted. Um, one question that was brought up um just among staff is is there any interest in having a north call an angled connection that would connect Fernbrook to uh eventually to uh Zanzibar or the Dayton Parkway corridor and I'm just looking for a general reaction. >> I think my reaction is how the line's drawn is not not exactly that from Fernbrook. Um, but I I would like to see it some connectivity to this area to where the future Zanzibar is, which appears to not be correct on this map on top of it. Um, it's too far east, I think. Could be wrong. Um, it's down on the northwest corner. I feel like it's >> or the southwest corner. I mean, I feel like it's it's I don't know. Can't really tell at this angle, but um anyway, where the future I'm going to call it the city center. It's not exactly a city center, but where that is, I'd like to see things connecting to it. Whether you're So, if you're residents and want to go there eventually in 15, 20 years, are you have to go all the way down the 117th and then back up and over or is there a better central connection to that area? Sure. That's kind of where my gist of it is. And I'm not looking for a a major collector street, but it is like a collector street with limited curb cuts. >> Okay. Um I want to back up a little bit. So the idea of a concept plan, just for anyone watching it, this is a very high level review. Um there's no formal approval with this. It's um the plan commission, the council members are going to give their opinions on um what they like or what they don't like or any recommendations. The intent is that the developer can then take those comments um and make edits or changes to the plan or to the project before proposing a preliminary plan. Um all the comments that are made are non-binding. So you know the commissioners can say one thing and then say the opposite later on. It's really for the benefit of the developer and you're going to hear potentially uh conflicting comments and that's all fine. So the whole idea is to kind of talk out ideas and um come into create a better project from these conversations. Okay. So other other and just to back up a little bit. So in these dash lines are all just assumptions and I'm going to use the terminology fat lines on paper. Um the reasoning for where the lines are drawn is this is the existing Zanzibar. Uh so this is essentially an extension straight south and then following a kind of to the natural topography to connect to where um approximately the intersection of east uh east French Lake Road and 117th. There's there's actually a house here. So it's kind of off the screen here. Um in this line, it's difficult to see on the screen. Uh there's a large wetland complex here. And so this line roughly follows the wetland uh the edge of the wetland and then just makes a straight line up to Zanzibar. It there's no reason why it's straight or you know couldn't curve or or whatever. It's just it's a fat line. >> This is just leading us halfway back to where we were at the X that everybody didn't like that the city council threw out. >> Yes. >> Because we weren't going to develop here in three years. >> Yeah. That's not that's the not the reason. I don't think that's the reason at all. >> No, >> but we just didn't think that was the right design for streets in the city. They were looking more for north, south, and east, west routes. This is just this is the diagonal >> cut across to the middle of the city. Again, they thought we were looking more at a possible extension of 121 to go straight west. I know we can't go anywhere the park is. So that doesn't leave us a whole lot of area when they own 14% of the city. But if you took 121 and went straight west with us, you don't go through the park. >> So 121 uh essentially going straight west. So th this 121 would be um I think that would become 120 the equivalent of 125th. >> And then connect to Zanzibar. I'll just to clarify my comments, John, is where the Braybel trail intersection is, the Brayburn trail intersection, >> which is the further west, I believe, further right there. >> That's where I was thinking. And there's already a road kind of there, but that's the road that it's like it's the midpoint between Dayton Parkway and Fernbrook. >> Okay. >> Is more of a collector street heading north to get to what's going to be the denser development in the city. >> Sure. for res. >> I've got a question on that in a future slide. But >> so I guess the general question for this and it can be a quick yes or no is do you have is there any interest in a diagonal connection between Fernbrook and Zanzibar? >> No. No for me. >> Okay. Um so critical topics. So uh trying to tackle two items on here. Uh the first being 117th Avenue and the second being North and South Streets. Um 117th Avenue is outlined in red here. Uh the intent here, excuse me. Uh the intent staff's recommendation is that this street would be uh widened so that it would allow two full lanes um plus 6t shoulders. And it would have there's an existing trail on the south and there would be an an additional trail on the north side of the road. How does that align with what we approved for the substation? Do we have enough width? >> I I think it'd be similar to the substation. >> I believe I believe we did allow for additional widen talking about that. >> The substation is set quite a ways back off from 117. Yes, but I think we're uh uh Peter's talking about the rightway the amount of rightway that the city required when that was plotted. >> Right. And then when uh I forget the name of the development in the north east corner of of Sundance that just got platted. >> We got extra rightway there too. Correct. >> Um we >> Yes, it looks like we did. >> Braver Trails East. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yep. There was an additional 10 ft beyond what was done in Braburn Trails. Yeah, to me that makes complete sense to widen that road over time and get either two lanes in each direction or turning lanes, one or the other. Um, so keeping on with with the 117th corridor, uh, right currently the city's in the process of doing a quarter study for Fernbrook. Um, I think one of the improvements that we're looking at is a roundabout at 117th and Fernbrook. Uh the expectation is that the developer would contribute uh proportionally to that cost of the roundabout. Um and just adding a little bit. So this project is large enough that it's going to require an environmental assessment worksheet or EA. Uh the EAW I'm going to say is more of an environmental study that includes a traffic study. Um and so throughout through this EAW, it should predict the amount of additional traffic that this project will um generate and and through that we figure out what the proportional cost share would be towards the roundabout. Okay, that's the red line. Um orange line, these are the north south corridor. So you know again there's two concepts, concept one and concept two. Uh concept two proposes two north south streets. Um in this case uh the eastern north south road um I'm going to say roughly about 2/3 of it either goes through wet land or has no internal street connection. Um staff has had kind of some mixed opinions about it but overall it is is suggesting that this role probably isn't um uh needed. uh for the project or the project doesn't necessarily benefit from this. Um the purple roads uh again this is an assumption here um the possible 121st street again there is a very large white line complex here there's a small I say a small connection where the road could connect through and then kind of meander over to Zanzibar. Um, so I guess the question for the commission is, is that easterly north south road uh necessary? >> I don't think it is. Well, if you if you're planning on trying to figure out a way to get people north and south in the city and you're adding this many homes and this many cars in here, you have to have some black top someplace for those cars to go. So without this connection, um, you know, I think the majority of the traffic is either going to come this road down 117th or this road to 117th and then come out on Fernbrook. Um, if this road if this connection is there, what that does is it it I'm not going to call it a shortcut, but it relieves traffic numbers between 117th and 121st. I don't see many people going north to be quite honest. >> No. Could Could I ask what the predominant um traffic pattern anticipated traffic pattern? Is it to go to Fernbrook? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, it wouldn't be to go to Dayton Park like let's say people need to get on the highway. Is it is the predominant traffic going to be going to Furbrook or would it go to >> go to Dayton Parkway or half half dozen one and six? It'll be both, but predominantly the general traffic does move, you know, northwest to southwest. Okay. >> So, going in towards the city or towards the metro, but it it will be both in this case with Dayton Parkway being an option. I mean, as far as that the eastern north south, I mean, I think that I mean, I think traffic studies will make a better determination on whether or not that should connect all the way through or not or if it's just part of the development. Um, you know, I have those concerns also with, you know, the number of >> trips per day or actual cars that are going to be added >> with this development, not to mention um, you know, the folks who live south of 117th. >> Um, having to to figure out all that traffic as well. So, well, so in my mind, we need to think about what these two roads need to look like, too, right? >> The the one on the east, it depends, right? It depends. What do the homeowners and the property owners uh east of that road want and need? I mean, do they need access to develop parts of their land? And and are we giving it to them so they don't we don't have to have development off of Firm Brook? And so, in my mind, I think it is needed with those questions. >> Wetlands already. >> Well, I think the issue is the whole southeast corner. We're already cutting it off by this. I mean, that's a different issue with the concept plan. Yeah. >> But you can't even get there. >> Like this road is you're this wetland complex about midway up. You're once you you're not going to be able to get there anyway to Fernbrook. And so really it's just that corner down here in the southeast corner of 117th in Fernbrook that I'd like to see some access to as far as developability. Now, now the now the west road, and I know John, you haven't really gotten there yet, but we need to think about what that road needs to look like before we determine if the east one >> you're talking about the Zanzibar corridor. >> Uh, no, that one. Yeah. Okay. >> I mean, we need to know what that one's going to look like to know what the smaller one's going to look like. We can all agree that's going to be the smaller one if it's on the east. >> Okay. So, in either cases and and you know, uh, when the developer comes up, he can correct me. So these are you essentially streets that are going to have homes and driveways that are >> right >> access accessing them. So um boulevards >> if possible. I prefer the other way >> because we're putting like the east straight is the one with no b no no homes on it right now but Fernbrook's right there. >> It's like I'd rather get it more more in the center between Dayton Parkway and Fernbrook to have that road that there is no home curb cuts on it. Okay. Um >> you're thinking like a Rush Creek Parkway. >> Not necessarily that w Yeah. But yeah, >> but where there's no homes, it's backyard. >> Yeah. Just like they have here on the East Road. On East Road, there's no driveways on it. >> Yep. >> But to me, Fernbrook's right there. >> Mhm. Yeah. I don't see the need to connect the East one up to 121st. I think going through that kind of tree wetlands, it's not developable in that area. So, I don't know why we would extend a road through there. We're so close to Fernbrook. But then I agree the one that would be more west or centered would be nice to have a more improved drive whether it's um residential street with parking on the sides or something, right? So you're not parking. >> Are you Pioneer Parkway like up in the on the north side of town? Um >> something more intentional parkway design versus or just >> I'm going to say a street that doesn't have driveways >> mainly. >> I I I think a parkway design would be pretty appropriate through here. >> Appropriate. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Especially if it's going to connect between 117th and and uh 121st, >> right? And what's ever going to happen west of 121st is going to be pretty dense. That's why it seems like we want to be able to connect these neighborhoods to have more alternative routes to get to it. >> Other comments on the north south corridors. >> The the only thing that I would say is that um what I remember on the discussions with with Dayton Parkway is that it's going from the freeway. It's going to the heart of Dayton where we're going to theoretically build somewhat of a downtown >> area. That's the thought process. And if we're running streets and funneling them off from all the new developments onto different roads away from Dayton Parkway and then they still have to turn left or right and go on these smaller feeder streets to get there, I think we're creating ourselves a a problem in the future. I think we need to keep in mind that whatever streets we bake should be feeding Dayton Parkway because I mean you can't feed 121 because it's just too busy already. >> And if we're looking to feed something, it should be Dayton Parkway. Theoretically, that's going to hold and be able to to handle a whole lot more traffic in a safe manner than 121 can in any shape or form. And Head County is clearly not going to spend any money on 121. They've already told us that. >> Sure. >> So to echo Keith's comment is that westerly orange line goes north >> eventually after it gets off of this property. That's where I would agree with Keith. It needs to start bending to the west to connect to Dayton Parkway. And that's there could even be like a three-way roundabout where it bends back to the east to get up to 125th. Cuz I'm not sure putting 121st all the way east through those wetlands is even worth it. You could have like a like a a roundabout there and send traffic in two different ways. One to Dayton Parkway and one back to Fernbrook. >> Sure. So if if Well, I can't. If I could move this line essentially have a stronger connection through here. So you know this doesn't connect to Fernbrook, but it it connects 117th and then moves towards uh I'm going to say the Zanzibar. >> Yeah. Whether it's and it could be because with the roundabout it could be almost a right-hand turn. I don't you know what I mean? >> Sure. >> Where does Dayton Parkway come into this picture? Is it even there? >> The future plan of it. >> No, there is Dayton Parkway. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Except for in the southwest corner. It's too far east. >> The date further west. >> There's about a quarter mile corridor where Dayton Parkway can go, >> right? >> It lines up with Zanzibar though, right? Some point. >> Yeah. Once you get north of Dubet Lake, you pretty much it's it's >> straight shot. It's a straight shot. So, you know, it's right there. It's where they it gets the other way. It's a bigger swooping curve going to the west >> cuz right now they got it connected to East French Lake Road. Um, so just in summary again, this connection would not not take place. This is a little bit questionable if if this uh connects to Fernbrook. Uh the main travel north south travel uh corridor would be from 117 through here and then over to the Zanzibar uh Dayton Parkway corridor. And then this the preference was that this would be more of a a parkway corridor rather than having houses that are fronting it. And there's some major topography. I shouldn't say major, but there's some topography in that area to work with too that it makes it'll make more sense where to put that that intersection. >> Okay. Um, next question. So, this is more related to parks and trails. Um, this area in Dayton is identified in the comprehensive plan for a community park. Um, it, you know, again, you know, fatlined on a map. um not necessarily in on this project, but in this general area. Um the questions of what is the most appropriate place for a community park and and trying to define what a community park is. Um you I'm going to use a uh you know, if we're any of you are familiar with Andrews Park in Champlain, um that's roughly 47 acres. Um this would be bigger than that. So the idea is, you know, trying to define a community park, whether it's a sports complex or a sports complex with other amenities, but the idea is it serves the larger community. Um, in thinking of, you know, big picture-wise, when you look at a map of the city, um, where would a community park go that's accessible to to everyone? And generally speaking, it would be if there's two community parks, you'd have one in North Dayton, one in South Dayton that would align along the Zansbar Dayton Parkway corridor. Um, this would be probably the south end of that. So, you know, again, this is very high level concepts of just drawing how things might fit. Um if if there is an interest in exploring a community park on the south end of the Zanzibar corridor um the thought is of of also requiring a small portion of this project to be dedicated as parkland. The reason why this area is that there are some um common topography areas that where this matches with this area. You know again to Darren's note this is a fairly hilly area. Um but again it the idea of if um we don't look at these bigger questions uh you know I'm not going to say we're going to run out of land but houses are going to be built where we someday a park should have been or a road or anything else for that matter. Um back up a little bit. Uh 2024 the city did purchase 9 acres here um potentially for fire station potentially for parkland. So it's that's why there's a question mark here. Um for trail corridors, uh there's this is the overhead power line. Uh the intent here is that a trail would be continued along the power line corridor. Um that is also shown on both concept plans. Uh we staff is recommending a trail along the north side of 117. Um and then potentially a trail that follows this wetland complex and goes around this wetland. Um if there if the city council determines that there's this is not an appropriate area for a community park. Um the question is is it an appropriate area for neighborhood park? So this is uh area 21 or now Dayton Farms Park, you know, going up the corridor. Uh the intent here is that there'd be another neighborhood park that somehow connected along the same corridor. Um, as it relates to this project, you know, again, this is a a nice large wetland area. Um, it might be practical to put a neighborhood park here, but not necessarily on this location. Again, kind of the point that I'm trying to make is that we do need to be a little bit more proactive in planning. Um, and >> yeah, I mean, I like the idea of a a bike path and pedestrian connection, weaving through the city there off the main roads, you know, something a little safer for kids and families and kind of weaving together the parks. I know when my kids were little, we'd bike ride between parks and kind of make it a morning, you know, and this would, you know, allow something like that to happen and connect connect these communities that are being built. I don't know enough about the topography on where you've got the the one there if that's the appropriate place for it or not, but >> besides the topography west of Dubet Lake once you pass the woods would have been a good park area like community park area, but there's a pretty big hill there. >> Yep. >> Which seems you'd want to if you if you're really looking for land, then it'd have to go north of Dubet Lake. That's where it's all flatter >> because the community park, what's the size again? Like 20 plus acres? >> Uh, no, like I think it's 40 to 100 acres. >> Probably closer to 40. Yeah. >> Yeah. I think you're right. We need to look ahead to find out where that's going to be or there's going to be something there like there is already. I mean there to me having grown up in this city there are some beautiful places in this city there that we could have had city parks but a lot of them are gone now because we've always built around them. I think I think Dubet Lake would be a perfect place for a park but I mean if nobody has plans of doing that I mean the north and the west side of that lake I think would be fairly suited for a city park. I also think that u the south end of Grass Lake, if you know where that's at on the western border with Rogers, that property back in there that's not developed yet. It's all woods. That's a beautiful place for a park if you've ever been back there. It's absolutely gorgeous. And uh where else? Well, we already destroyed the west side of French Lake. We've already built industrial there. So, that's not that would have been a perfect place for a park, too. Fairly flat land, buildable for a park. So, that's gone. Um, and the other one that comes to mind is the east end of Diamond Lake. I mean, it's fairly low land. I think at one point it was probably Lake Bottom from Diamond Lake. It's right across the street from the city garage. >> Yep. In the police department. I think that would be a perfect place for a park, too. It's centrally located in the city, and we haven't built it out yet. Honestly, don't see them building a whole lot of houses in there cuz the water table's got to be really high in there. Mhm. >> It's so close to lake level, the land itself. >> Those those four just come to mind. >> But if you don't figure out where they are and try to get your hands around them, pretty soon they're all gone, >> you know. And I guess as it relates to this development, I think we just need to be very conscious of what's going on in the northwest corner. If uh north side of Dub Bay Lake is chosen. And again, the intent here, these are very high level questions of of just to get the commission thinking about um I'm going to say the larger community. So um any other comments specific to parks and trails? Um I've got here a question that uh this can't remember how this came up. This came up at a recent council meeting of the idea of snowmobile trails and trying to protect those within the date and also that's also a much larger question or a topic that um we don't need to tackle tonight but >> I was going to say that is a combination probably of a lot of private agreements and a lot going on there. Well, and I think I think having you know Keith Keith said uh very eloquently 14% of our land in Elm Creek >> with them having trails it it seems to make sense to have some connection corridors to get to the park. >> Mhm not on roads. >> Any other comments related to parks and trails? I think some of our other kind of larger developments have seen trails throughout the community too, like you know, in between backyards or kind of cutting through some of the neighborhoods. We got a couple really long blocks of housing um right in the middle. There's that kind of looping right there. I mean, that's like 25 houses backed up to each other on each side, like you know, some pass through that. So, I mean, that's maybe a little nitty-gritty, but um you know, just thinking of kind of connectivity within the the neighborhoods, just providing more opportunities for that and just opening it up a little bit, providing some connection and doesn't have to be parks, but just trail are >> trail. So, if whatever trails are part of this project, they're connected to each other. >> Yeah. Yeah. thinking of like trying to get kids from the far culde-sacs over to this north south bike rail, you know, bike path like without having them like navigate three or four roads. Like is there a nice easy bike path that can kind of cross through the neighborhood? >> Okay. >> And I don't know if we've looked at our trail plan since the X was removed. I'm assuming we haven't. >> No. >> But that's the other thing is making sure that we are connecting um I'm not getting referred to as the city center. I don't know what else to call it. Um, >> but connecting that to the Elm Creek Park and that might have to come through the edge of this or or maybe it goes where 121st is kind of shown in there. But something it's got to be thought in and I think the the parks commission should be thinking about that if we choose to go ahead and open this up to current staging. >> When you're talking about connecting with Three Rivers too, I think we have to have some some conversation with them or where they will allow that to happen. I mean, Tom wanted to connect under 121 and was willing to put a tunnel under it and they wouldn't let him do it. >> Well, that that was water table was the problem with that >> on the top of the hill. So, they're going to put the tunnel on the bottom of the hill. >> No, they were just they were just >> they just didn't want to do it. >> They didn't want it didn't work for their plan >> and you got to go up, you know, a block up and block down. That's, you know, how many miles do you bike? But, you know, they they didn't want the trail team. So, yeah. of the connect future connection into uh Elm Creek Parkway would or Elm Creek Park would come off of 121st. So off of this currently I believe this is a gravel road. >> Is there an actual trail in the park at that location? Uh there used to be a road and now it's I don't know if it's a horse trail or you can see the reminiscent of of where the road was and >> you know 40 50 years ago. >> You're talking about the road that goes down and turns a square corner and turns into Pine View >> at the top of the hill. That road is that where you're at? I'm confused where you're at. >> Okay. So here here is Fernbrook. This is 121st that um goes straight west and then dead ends. >> Um before the park was there, this was a a through road. I don't know what it connected to. >> It went in and made a square corner and went straight north to Pine View. >> It's it's still cut that way. >> Yeah, that was the road. I grew up driving that, you know, that was the road. >> Uy farm was down there. Wayne Blesy that >> developed and built across the street here. the uh >> his farm was down there. >> I guess the trail connections, I mean, that's something we need to work through with Three Rivers. That's not something they're going to have a comp plan of what they want to do. And >> Yep. And >> we just got to get them there from our city, though. >> But we just don't want to build a trail to nowhere. They won't let us into the park. >> What Three Rivers had said is that the a future connection would be at 121st rather than um 117th or 125th. >> Okay. Okay. That's interesting. Um, so other questions or comments related to parks and trails. Okay. Uh staff's recommendations and this is more specific to um streets and roads. So if going with concept one uh this is showing the roundabout here um having getting rid of this con the uh easterly lead north south connection and then uh I'm going to say curving this road so that it's more of a linear shouldn't say linear but an easier smoother curve to uh to connect up to 121st. Um same thing with this road. Um, and then this is showing right turn lanes and left turn lanes. I guess one question for the plan commission, left turn lanes would be an off-site improvement. Um, this we did not require this with Braburn. >> Uh, the the left turn lanes will be accomplished with the widening. The right turn lanes would be offsite. >> Right turn lanes from eastbound 117th into Braayurn. Um, you know, from the commission's perspective, are they needed or not? I think they're 100% needed. I don't know if they are needed right now today, but we need to 100% plan for them. >> I would I you know, you know, Tom hasn't gone up here and speak about this, but I'm assuming this isn't happening tomorrow. So, we need to not we need to put that in this context. It might happen sooner than later, but it's going to be a phase development. And so, at some point in time in that phasing, you put more houses up, you need those turning lanes, no different than you need the roundabout at 117. and and you need to finish 117th to the west to connect the Dayton Parkway to make it a better road. >> With concept two, very similar um you roundabout stays. This connection would be moved uh farther to the west so that it connects and I can't think what the street say Minnesota but I could be wrong. >> Lanewood Lane. >> Minnesota lane. Minnesota Lane. Um, so that there's a >> sign >> a connective uh north south from uh Dubet into Brayburn and then this road would kind of curve over and then the same issue with the right and left turn lanes. >> I'd say the one thing about whether you I understand why staff wants to move it to connect the Minnesota lane. That makes complete sense. But part of it also if it stays where it's at, I feel like we're not looking at those properties to the east of this development that the Fernbrook, we don't want, if they ever got redeveloped, we don't want them to have access from Fernbrook. And so depending on what use goes there, like maybe that's a high density corner. >> Mhm. >> You might want that road further east and not even line up with the intersection. I mean, I understand why people want intersections to line up, but if we're putting turn lanes in, does it really matter a lot? Matt, I'm kind of looking at Jason there. >> Well, if we the road will be wide enough to do a continuous left turn lane, so it'll be easy to accomplish if they are offset. >> Yeah. >> Or we would just do individually at the access points themselves and then go to shoulders for the rest. >> Right. So the question then is more of what's going to be the maybe it just I don't I think it's single family but is that west side of Fernbrook that butts up to this development what is that land use going to eventually be and how you going to access it? >> I think the access would come off of 117th as far west as p practical so which would be at at the edge of the wetland. Um if that's going to be a hike whether it's town homes or apartments um you know or it could be sing you know whatever the use is it it it would work or could work. >> Yeah it seems with density on that road would be better. Good question for for Jason. On 117th, if you if you line the roads up north and south so that they're across from each other, is that a safer and a better designed intersection than if you have multiple staggered roads that just go one way or the other? >> Generally speaking, you want to limit your access points and align them the best you can. Yes. >> Yep. You know, so an example on DCM farms where we're realigning 113 to meet up with 114th with the roundabout at 117th. Jason, how far spacing would they want before you had a curb cut? >> I probably say 660 ft would be your minimum target before having an access. >> Right. And we're already by the two properties now. >> And what? Sorry. >> We're already on to this development and went over the two properties >> cuz it's about 600 ft. >> Oh, sure. >> To that wetland. >> Yeah. And that's and I agree with what Jason's saying and Keith is saying, but >> but and I'm I'm not saying it has to be that way, but we also don't want too many curb cuts heading north. And so if you have to choose to make a curb cut, I think that we have to hear the justification of if we don't um if we do stagger them, what's the logic to it? And part of that's going to be the land use. >> Other comments? >> Well, and to that point, that's why when we were talking like north south roads, the one the one further to the west We're connecting across the street to a bigger a bigger roadway. The one to the east is, you know, that's that's basically a driveway for that >> Yeah. >> pocket of homes, right? >> Yeah. >> Um, you know, I I envision people people not nec, you know, if someone's going to visit a friend across the way, there's not going to be very many I I wouldn't envision a whole lot of traffic going straight across through this neighborhood. Um, they're going to go out on the 117th and turn. >> It's not a shortcut to get to Fernbrook. So, you're go you're going to go from one person's house to another person's house. >> Right. Right. Um, the other thing I I have a concern with that as I'm looking at this, just to bring it up and and make a point to say it is we have we talked trails a little bit ago and we have that trail crossing right by the substation um at a non signal or a non-insection. Um, >> yep. >> And that's that's going to be a concern of mine. um just what that looks like and what what it's going to be. I I think it'd be similar. I'm thinking of the um the raised median that we have by Dayton Elementary School where you know throughout 117th it's just two lanes and shoulders and where we'd have a pedestrian crossing. You'd have I think of it you know some people refer to it as the neutral zone. Uh but it's kind of a landing area that you can stop and and you're not going to have cars that are running you know 2 feet from you. It's not a big area. Well, and and just thinking about I mean I'm I'm thinking about how I've used the trails around here. I've got a bike and a burly or or now I'm on a tandem bike with my my daughter and I'm long. Those medians do not work for me. >> They're not safe and they're not safe for the kids in these neighborhoods. So, we got to think about that. an inter crossing at an intersection sight lines tend to be better than just there's some different ways to treat it right. So thinking about sight lines through there, all that stuff. There's some false safety in those raised medians, John, in my opinion. >> You think they're not wide enough? Is that your thought? >> Yeah. >> Yep. Okay. Other comments related to parks and trails? Well, I'm sorry. We're just talking about 117. Um, that's the last slide I have. So, the developer is here to I don't know if there's any clarity you'd like or questions you have for the commission. >> I have quite a bit. I think I could share. >> Yeah, come on. Um, so first just uh talk about the transportation. So I a lot of your notes I I did where we drew a couple different concepts, right? So um could you go back to the other one I grow I mean this but gap isn't as high as you think right? So the only reason I know there was a question through you know the neighborhoods or connecting from from north to south. So we do have this going here. I'd be strictly against this one over here. That one you had the two lines on on the board. I mean this is just a lot smoother spot through. Um we got you know closer to the lake. All these lots are larger lots. Um, I I just I think this goes smoother. The only reason I did this and it was just for thought, right? I tell you what, if you want to build I won't even want to build that road through the wetland. But I'm just wondering from a city's perspective, if you were in Maple Grove, southern Maple Grove and you went to Nottingham Parkway, you went to Maple, right? You're not going to have a house on the street. Is there just somewhere that, hey, you want a cool feel for a street for the city to connect back and forth, right? It's not even having a parkway, but now you're not even looking at the back of somebody's yard. Now you're just looking at trees and wooded area going through. Is that an amenity that would be good to to the city, right? I I you know, you could say half a dozen one, six of another. I'm not really It was just food for thought. That's the only reason that that we laid laid that one out. The other option, I guess, while I'm up here, would be I really think the street needs to be connected here not have the entrance but it just left you know a transportation question. Does it even go here and connect and go along the power line? Right. If we have have a parkway, if you know somewhere, right, you I can understand why the city would like to have a road going north to south. Is that just a better connection going there? This wetland isn't that big there. Is it, you know, I I don't know really what what the plan plan would be, but those were those were thoughts. I didn't draw it on the power line right away because I just wanted to keep a couple out. I mean, way back before any of this developed way back when I was a kid, Maple Grove, right? Fern Brook was going to go up the Parkway, but Maple Grove said no. You know, that would eliminate a lot of the Fernbrook issues and the different things that, you know, we're dealing with now. But that didn't happen. So, I would either propose a road here and on your trail, you know, trail comes to here, turns go to this intersection, trail runs along along here, and then I did not, you know, get into later. I didn't really deal much with trails right now. We would have them interconnected. Right here is a community area with a pool, right? I'm going to want at least this part of the neighborhood to get to it. But as like I'm looking at this part here's current guided. This is 2030, right? So that's that's my bigger question, right? If uh and we're really doing a standard development legally, do I even need to pay for the roundabout? because I'm not asking for, you know, it's not like DCM where I ask for a PUB. This is just a standard development, but does that move up and there's there's, you know, um some some cost sharing there, you know, I don't know. But I think just back to the transportation, you know, could you take this road here and run it through? But, you know, if there's a apartment or there's something here, you know, I don't know what's design designed for there. So that's where I thought just to keep this as a neighborhood flow. Um we do have a connection here um to go north whether whether that be a park. Um but maybe I'll just you know I'll stick on the transportation before we get get to the park. So that those those were the thoughts you know just I know you think and and it's easterly I get it. I guess I would just just explaining my rationale behind it, you know, and then does it come you can kind of see this parkway here, you know, does the road take and now kind of flow up flow up there, you know, ideally, right? I'm sure it's perfect to be right in the center. But so I don't even need an answer. Maybe the next time just >> I got a couple questions though, Tom, just to make sure I got some clarity here. Um, so on the Westerly road in John's diagram where you have your road, >> Mhm. >> what you're saying, and I understand what you're saying that cuz that's kind of the premium lots is that you don't want that to be a parkway from a standpoint that that's where you feel like the bigger lots are are going to be. And >> I figure it's the bigger lots. I figure I got a community building. I don't want a parkway going right in the middle of my pool. >> Yep. And so if I could get it somewhere to the power line and a little bit over, it allow me to at least take everything from the power line west and put it in that community area. That's actually a real steep slope there. You know, we could have a little sliding hill and everything, make it a, you know, a community park. Is there a way if you left your easterly access in where it's at proposed, is there a way for that road to kind of curve back more to the northwest and be like a main artery like a collector for the whole neighborhood if they wanted to go north? >> Um, >> you follow what I'm saying? >> I do. And so we have the road there running right now, right? >> But there's all driveways on it. That's the So the question does it does it move either we run it right along the wetland >> which I kind of feel like I'd like to see some houses button that >> yeah houses trail along along the back right and so um I think I think you'd probably move it in you know some more maybe it curves right behind you know as we look here and design I really didn't think this the time I probably should had another plan but maybe it comes through here just like this. You know what I mean? Something through there. >> And I think that was kind of my bigger point is just to have some sort of collector street that's feeding everyone to the north. >> Um because there's going to be eventually a lot going on there. >> Yeah. And you're you're going to take the you know whether Dayton Park, Wayfernbrook, those are just going to be run heavy regular traffic, right? I get there's there's homes to move in and out of the neighborhood, you know. >> Yep. So somewhere um it is uh but and then I would say if that happened and and you don't want to go through like a noddingham look and and that's fine that little knob out of there that would be a park for everything east to the power line >> and this this knob here. >> Uh no, right down this knob right here. >> Okay. >> Right. And so, you know, um looking at this too, the one thing I think that we need to factor in and I don't we obviously need to figure out the city's land use. That's your biggest issue to figure out what >> because it's off your property. But on that east boundary on on Fernbrook, there's about 15 to 20 acres south of the wetland. Okay. that they're all accessed from Fernbrook. >> Um, you know, whether that becomes all medium density, so it blends into maybe what you're proposing, but I do think we need to provide some sort of access route to that is consistent with kind of your use. I shouldn't say consistent, but like for example, we don't want to put high density there and have all the traffic come through your town home development. >> That's not the, you know, not the right answer. >> Yeah. >> So Darren, are you suggesting us stubbing a road that could cross the wetland? I think it's we have to plan for that. I think yeah because you know someday those people are going to sell their homes and want to sell and it'll it'll probably become something different and we I'd prefer not to have any access on Fernbrook >> and so then I think personally I would say you take that road parallel only in 117th right and now that's where now do you take the easterly exit that entrance that doesn't line you know so you're not driving a whole bunch of people through the street or maybe it doesn't matter maybe you still come in up uh Minnesota or what uh whatever the arrow that's there and that road and then feeds over to that neighborhood >> and I to the extent that it becomes a completely different use and that's where the city needs to provide feedback you know that's drives on how important that road is need to be standalone but like for example it's all town homes it could just be an extension of the road and it's it's not that big a deal >> and and maybe there's just an e right there's a rightaway there now and what happens right it's and it's a green base into the HOA. So, and and I'll back up the one thing there wasn't talked about was density, right? There was a lot of question at DCM farms and I just I feel that's further south closer to 81. This is more into the heart. And so, you see we're not asking for density, but if you factor in the wetlands, we're 2.1. If you take the wet ones out, we're about 2.5, you know, and so that's where I put some town homes in it. To be honest with you, I'd rather just villa the whole thing. But, you know, it I don't know. That's a question then I have also what do you want to do for for density? Cuz otherwise if you go, you know, along the lake because there's there's um the DNR ordinance, those lots are all like a half acre. >> Then across those are all 75 and 80s. And then you get everything else is 65s until you get to the easterly red line. There's some villas in there and then we put some town homes. Just thinking density. It's along 117th. But I don't, you know, that would be a question I'd have is how does everybody feel about the density? >> I like the degree of 65 ft lots. So, and then uh as you put the town homes into the east, I think it makes complete sense to have some variety of product. I do think that the city, John, I think that should be assuming that we're going to entertain opening the 2030 staging up a little bit. Actually, Tom, before I get there, what's your timing in the ideal world on this? >> Well, the ideal world is, you know, so you take the Westerly, right, cuz my cousins and and Bob's here, he could speak. I mean, he farmed tons, you know, thousands of acres of Maple Grove. They're not there anymore. His his farming days are done, right? they're moving out west. It's just not economical to farm here anymore. Um, and so I think, you know, at least the part that's guided for for uh >> 2020, right, to do something. Uh, but I think, you know, within a few years, you know, it's not moving dirt this fall, but it sure be nice to have a plan for for next year to start. >> Yeah. Now you get east of the power lines. That's the Robert E. Lee property. That's a trust to his nephews and nieces that are in their 70s and 80s and now they're dealing with kids. They sold everything, you know, on the the south side. They, you know, they get a lot of developers from California come. They think it's developable right now. You know, I had to explain to their attorney that it's not currently, you know, ready. But are they anxious? They're very anxious, you you know, and I'm assuming that you have the land under control that thus we're entertaining this stuff. That's part of my question on your timing. So, >> yeah. >> So, >> as we moved east in this development and I guess part of it is is >> I think that John, we haven't had this conversation and I don't know was part of your packet, but the 2030 staging. >> Yes. So, um there many this is a bit large project so I apologize for anything they skipped over but one of them is the staging plan. So again, this project is large enough it's going to require EAW. Um it also requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan specific to the 2040 staging plan. So um and I'm generalizing quite a bit. So um the western I'm going to say the twothirds of the project is within the 2020 stage and then the eastern third is in the 2030 stage. And so the intent here would be to amend the comprehensive plan to bring all of that in the 2020 stage. >> Yeah. From my perspective, I'm not hung up on whether we moved stuff up. I think it makes complete sense when you have two parcels that are adjacent with the natural wetland buffers and everything going on that I I'm thankful someone's coming and trying to come up with a plan at once versus this one and then figuring out how to deal with the next one later. So to me, from that perspective, I'm not too concerned about it at all. So >> the staging changing staging. >> Yeah, changing the staging. >> And I think if I could just share, right, we sure could have came in just with what's in the 40, right? But it just seems like you have that piece that would lay out. Um, you know, if you look at Sundance Greens, right? I was here in 2018, you know, it's 2026, we're still not done with it, right? So it doesn't you know it is a big project it will will take time but >> yeah and that's why I think that even like the some of the people that maybe have concerns about development I think that it's important that if we bring it into the current staging the city lays out some very detailed plans on executing on the 117th roundabout stuff like that. Um, so I just want the public to know that, you know, just because maybe it seems like he's getting positive feedback, it's going to happen is there's things that got to happen for we just add more homes like and I mean I say that the roundabout doesn't need to even be in when if he were to start moving dirt, but we have to have the plan in place and the funding occurred. So it's we know the certainty of it >> and and I think some on the guy that you know if it moves up to me like I said I'm not really asking for an ink but is that a tradeoff and there's some per lot that goes to it right I mean to help right I think that's what the study is to see what it's going to cost and help the city fund it I mean >> with regards to density the met council density is 3 point >> uh for the 2050 plan it will be 3 and 12 units per acre, you know, citywide. >> Yeah. So, with a development of this scale, do we have to be concerned if we're at 2.1 or 2.5? >> Um, I'm going to say it depends on when this project gets >> but I mean it just kind of pushes the problem to the next development that needs to be more dense then, right? So, I mean I'm I'm all for >> go backwards and kind of >> it's not totality of the city. >> Yeah. I mean it moves forward. So um with the uh the next comprehensive plan the intent is three and a half units per acre within each 10year staging plan. So you know let's say the next staging plan is 2030 of of averaging three and a half units per acre within all the land that's guided for 2030. >> So how are we doing in our current time frame? >> That's a good question. >> Something considered. >> We're we're okay. Um, so the current we're >> we're required to have or Yeah. really to three units per acre. I think we're slightly over that. >> Okay. >> Not much, but we're we're okay. >> All right. >> Yeah. And assuming we approve a 2030 staging plan amendment eventually. Um I think when we do that we need to figure out the land use to directly to the east cities here and >> and it becomes part of the plan as far as access and so everything makes sense. Y uh current with the current comprehensive plan that corner here is guided for a low density residential >> which then it would make sense to have an access through to that >> even I mean it might become medium density though if you like if you think that that which I agree that seems like a good place for town homes is you know it's going to end up probably being medium density but again when we approve the staging plan we might as well >> consider having the open houses and all that stuff to change the zoning because if we're going to change it, we got to make it consistent now. >> Okay. >> I all this stuff waiting for a development to come in, John, it just seems like it burns us. It burned us south of Zanzibar and we didn't weren't ready. It's like if we're going to change stuff, let's just have it make sense. >> Sure. Y the only comment I would say, you know, the 2050 comprehensive plan is due in two and a half years. Um, so just assuming, you know, Tom, if I'm just making an assumption your timeline would come in before the end of 2026 for preliminary plan approval. I'm assuming >> ideally if it came in at the end of 2026, beginning in 2027 after >> and you'd move west to east >> um >> with development or how would you move? I would I would plan on moving west to east at first, but if we're going to if the density is something that >> it's its own product, it might >> maybe maybe we work from both ends and work inward. >> Yeah. Again, I just think that we need to have these conversations. Neighbors need to know what's going on with their land if we're going to do this stuff. >> Sure. >> And and I'd kind of just come back, right? I wasn't coming in It's just discussion, right? I was like, "Hey, yeah, let's go ahead and it's good, right?" Just that was why I'm here. >> I We're going to run out of lots. I've been tracking it. We're going to run out of lots before 2030 anyway. So, it makes complete sense to open up more >> or say we're going to like my you always want a year and a half of lots in your pipeline. Otherwise, you're kind of in trouble. That's been the market standard and then you're all of a sudden scrambling. And that's why I'd rather us plan and be ahead of it and understand the infrastructure needs we need support development. >> Um Tom, did you get what you're did you get what you need from the plan commission? >> I I did. So So it' be as as um density you're okay with. That's y >> um probably want that noddingham parkway, that type of thing is not any interest >> to the east of the road. >> I have a hard time being interested not knowing what it's really connecting to. >> Well, whatever develops something any any of any of those roads are going to end, right? >> Yeah. >> You know, and so it's going to have to go. >> I think where my interest fades is I'm not sure where 121st if it's going to really be there. Yeah. So that's my it's like I wish we knew that for >> and that's kind of where I'm on the >> I'm on the opposite of of you on that. Like if it's not there, we may want that, right? >> To connect to a uh some sort of development up there. >> If 121st is not there, >> correct? >> Yeah. So 21st road, >> you know, is there is there able to do a small development up there? >> Yeah. I just when you look at these wetlands, I just feel like this traffic come out. >> It's it's pretty intensive. I just thought, hey, there's just an idea of it going through peninsula. Not saying it was right or wrong. You know, obviously once it gets to that >> Yeah. I don't know. >> Northerly property line, it's going to have to cut back to the west, right? You're not going to keep going through the west, >> right? Parkway and and I have not >> like that's that's the hardest part is knowing if 121st is going to be there and maybe Paul's comment of what's beyond it. That's the hardest part of saying yeah let's do it. So that is a question for staff and us is to figure out our transportation plan. >> Yep. It's always what comes first the lane to use for the transportation. um without this connection that there is quite a bit of a gap between 117th and 125th that does push a lot of pressure on these two intersections but I do believe as I mean I just see it driving now right I go down I go to 117th I go to the freeway if I'm going to you know besides instead of driving all if you're going to 81 610 it's one story but otherwise trying to get all the way to Maple Grove I do I think that Dayton Parkway is just going to be getting busier and busier. My opinion. Yeah, it's about a mile between those intersections. >> But I had, you know, questions with density, what's comp plan? So, I think he answered those. One thing I would ask, I'm I'm not asking tonight, but I just see uh working with the big builders, the insuranceances on town homes or you know, the HOA dues are getting crazy, right? And it's supposed to be more affordable. I do think just as as an open mind, we tried at DCM is smaller, narrower lots, you know, um but and less town homes. I think you'll see more, you know, >> more vill >> whether I'm up here. Yep. More people will be and and all these guys are figuring out how to get lots on 40 foot wide lots and, you know, 45s, right, which really about, you know, 55 is about what you need to to get on, you know, but but as today I just there there's also demand, right, for I mean new families are moving out here, right? Not all retired people. So I think I think this is the right fit. It's kind of in the center of the hub. So, but after that, so I I think I understand the transportation. Um I'll work on a couple concepts, you know, after I get council's feedback to to run the the traffic uh through. Um, I think back to the parks, I didn't spend a lot of time uh on them cuz is all our roads going to get changed? But I would say I would I would invite anybody. My cousin Lee owns the property, but I know he'd let us tour it, so I have to let us into like a a community park and whatever. And I mean, that's that's super top, you know, it's really rolly and it's all the trees. So, yeah, you maybe have the lake, but what's there? If you're really going to make it a park or you're going to put a, you know, a city building in there, some you're you're wiping out all those trees. You know, is that area a more condensed park and that's more of just like a nature park. It's not the for, you know, I personally don't think that's the right area for athletic fields and stuff. Why don't you go out in a corn field, right, that's open? And and I think you can see it on a map, but you know, >> are you talking north of Dubet? Dub >> North of Dubet. North and west. You know, probably Westmore. I mean, Jason, what is that? You know, we we looked at different things of bringing sewer around there and that pipe, I think, was going 70 ft deep if you had to go through there. >> There's a lot of Yeah, I don't think you want to run the sewer through there. You're going to want to go out more to Zanzibar up and bypass bypass that. Um, so that that would be I'm I'm not I'm not saying that for anti park or any of that. I'm just saying >> it's it's a beautiful piece of land. It's more like a protected woods maybe than a big park. and that's where I think maybe last Darren you mentioned you know is there a connector if there is a city park there to me that maybe rolls to whatever happens to the north right to get it away from the lake a little bit >> yeah I'm looking at the topography maps them understand what you're saying. >> Um I'll try uh including just some more more uh trails and stuff on a different plan as the notes. But like I said that really I you know my biggest thing was just you know my two biggest questions were density and guided. >> I don't know if you had any questions for me. Tom, I I do have a question for you that you brought it up. Um, so the town home area you're showing, you know, I can't tell if these are four plexes or six plexes or a combination of the two. >> Are you thinking you're saying you'd have a preference for detached town homes rather than >> connected? Okay. >> Does the commission have any preference or opposition to that? >> I don't. >> I don't. I just I think that when you have them, you just got to have their very niche little neighborhoods. So, you have to find the right places where you know there's one in and out just like you did on the DCM farms. >> Yeah. I'm curious to see how that gets built out and especially with how you have the single loaded road against Fernbrook. So, you got a nice buffer and landscaping there. Like I'm I'm >> Yeah. And maybe by the time that's building, right, and there's some product to look at, it might be a a different, you know, >> uh, different thought. But >> when you got the alley in there, too, right, >> for the garage access like Yeah. >> So, we had um, you know, at first had it all laid out with villas over there and then the density count was really low and I'm like, I don't you know, usually it was been too much. No, I just don't know if it wasn't enough. So, >> which is why I think that on our agenda needs to be if we're going to consider staging 20 to 30 that we can also make up density if the commission decides the the take those 10 acres on the corner and make them high density. >> Mhm. >> We can make up density there for you. >> Um, obviously that it'll be a while, but that's fine. >> Yeah. And I I to be honest, this is such a big junk. I I never reached out to either of those folks. I don't know them, but I didn't I didn't reach out to them either. I don't even know if they're maybe in the room. >> Mr. Chair, so concept plans do not require public hearing, but traditionally we we have public comments. Anyway, I am going to unless the commission thinks otherwise, I'm going to bypass that. It is 10:00 and I believe we have we want to consider a show of hands that people might even speak. >> We do have a few more items on our agenda. We do. >> That may take a while. >> I think I think there's people here that want to speak on it. We should let them speak. That's why they're here and that's why we're here, too, is to listen to them. I don't know if anybody wants to partake in that, but I would certainly give them the opportunity. >> I guess >> I guess I I'll entertain a motion if someone wants to open a public hearing, but I'm not going to. I will have that stance right now. >> I'll make a motion we open a public hearing. >> I'll second since we got gentlemen ready to go. I want to leave him hanging. All right, we have a motion and a second. We got a vote on this. All those in favor? I >> I won't take up much of your time. >> All right, Joe Bartak 15900 117th Avenue. >> Um I'm connected to Dubai Lake. >> Um it seems to me that a lot of this uh area, it's so highly packed with houses. You you figure each house is going to have at least two cars. And the the problem is trying to figure out this traffic. Um, my recommendation is to reduce the density instead of raising the density. So you have less traffic in there and have one one main thoroughfare there to feed everybody but with less less cars in there. It might just help solve that problem. And why do we need so much more housing in there? Is it for taxes >> at council? Oh, >> we have a meet a density requirement in the long term. >> Understood. Okay. Thank you. >> Would anyone else like to come forward and make a few comments on this concept plan? I'll be quick. Eric supple 11534 uh Braburn Trail. Since I stuck around, I just wanted to like um express um u support or gratitude for some of the the topics that you did to bring up particularly trail connections um and making sure that those are safe safe corridors for kids and families. Um and I think that comes into play a little bit too with what does the traffic look like 117th and how close are those trails to the roadways and and how does that work with right away? Um that'd be probably my my prim primary thing with this. Um, I guess the other question I might have that didn't come up in the critical comments and and I could just be um off on on plans that may have changed. I thought at one point when it was talked about the um the new water treatment facilities and um the water plans that this area was maybe a potential area for like a water treatment facility or andor a um uh why am I blanking on what it is? >> Water tower. Yeah. Um, so I guess I was curious if that had changed or if it hasn't, um, just the, you know, being transparent with what those plans would entail around this area when this moves to preliminary plotting and so forth, so future residents are aware of what might be coming for where they plan to build versus being caught off guard or surprised. >> Thanks, Jason. Can you speak on the water? >> Yeah, the targeted tower location is west of this development. There's kind of a high spot, if you will, north and west of Duet Lake that we would like to consider for the tower. The treatment facility that is within this area most likely if there's consideration for a civic campus, if you will, it could be incorporated into that. So, also likely west of Dubet Lake. >> Which direction is it from French Lake Road? East or west? >> Uh, east. >> East identified today. I mean could change but yeah Gary Gary Felgy 11637 Naver Lane North just a couple of things um um we've lived in our house for three years already and it's been a construction zone for three years and I'm just wondering how many uh more years we're going to have to put up with the noise of of construction. >> Okay. >> Um the um I think the ordinance is that uh construction can begin at 7:00 a.m. and must conclude at 9 or 10. I'm not even sure. Um but uh starting at 10 starting at seven but they they arrive before that to prep for things so they can start you know work at 7:00. So you know h how are ordinances enforced? Um is there any way that you can have them cease work by 6:00 p.m. during the week so that we can have a peaceful evening particularly during the summers. Um uh and the other thing that I wanted to speak about is the uh staff had suggested that there be a permanent snowmobile trail through the development and um again I'm just wondering about the noise ordinance and the decibel of those machines going through residential neighborhoods. Uh that would be a concern. Um yeah just those two things. Thank you. Um, just real quick. So, our noise ordinance at 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. >> I believe >> I should know that, but I >> I'm pretty sure. Um, >> 7 p.m. >> 7 p.m. >> But but is that is that construction noise? >> That's anything. >> Because during the summer, they're working there till 9 10:00 at night. >> So, that's just been my observation. >> Y um and then as far as how long construction is going to continue. So at at the current rate of development, we have about a 100redyear supply of land. >> Well, you don't have that. >> Well, it >> and more specifically, your neighborhood's going to be done in 5 years. >> Five years. >> I'll bet a beer on it. >> You better take that bet. You might >> Mr. Chair, I'll just note that I've got two comments if I could read them for the record from online. Uh this uh comment was from uh resident Marshia Grover at 11320 Fernbrook Lane. Uh DCM Farms is putting uh 500 cars on the road twice a day. Now this will put another 500 cars twice a day on Fernbrook. We have to cross Fernbrook to get our mail as do many people on this road. We have trouble getting out of our driveway now. Uh you need to get this road situation squared away before any more building goes on. Uh these cars did damage to our property. also are to the properties of our neighbors to the north and the south have had cars in their yards. Um, so that is the first comment. The second comment is from uh Matt 2 living at uh 15608 116th Avenue North. I would support the subdivision plan given the transportation is well planned. Uh 117th Avenue is designated to be a minor collector and not an arterial. Um my understanding 125th and 129th will be another collectors with the amount of the housing units uh in this area. I don't want 117th to become the only collector for this big subdivision uh given we are closer to Dayton Parkway. Uh also we need to plan uh the traffic control at Fernbrook and 117th. Um, I think the new subdivision uh should route most traffic to the future Zanzibar uh to be the arterial. Uh, the transportation needs to be well planned before it is too late. >> Thank you. All right. With that, uh, I'm going to close the public hearing at 10:14. And so, uh, just for anyone that's watching this, this will go to the city council on March 24th. Um, Tom, I I don't know if you have plans of revising this and coming back again with the wait till the city council comments. >> I would probably just wait for city com. >> So, and and I because it's a concept plan, no action needed on behalf of the the project. All right. Item 8E. Okay. Uh, this is also a concept plan for the Stenzi Sterns property. Um, this is generally located off of County Road 81 in territorial road. U, the project is 25 acres. um is currently zone A1 agricultural and guided for general mixed use one. Uh it's general mixed use. So uh what what general mixed use is or the way it's written in code is that it's intended to be I'm going to say mix of land uses whether it's residential and or commercial retail. Um it can be just one or the other. So the idea in the comp plan is that this offers the ultimate flexibility in what could be built here. Um the project is proposing 172 town homes. So in this case it would all be residential. Uh critical topics here is what is the highest and best use of this area. Um GMU uh one zoning standards uh the architecture, parks and trails and uh I'm going to say transportation and parking. So I'm just going through there. Um the map at the left is the compreh 20 240 comprehensive plan. Again uh this area is guided for mixed use. It is entirely consists of this project. So um we have uh residential single family residential to the east and industrial to the I'm going to say to the north there's a large wetland complex that um separates the two. And so again, this area could really be one or the other, just about anything. So we're we're looking for some guidance from the planning commission. What is the highest and best use with that? Um the idea within uh the zoning ordinance for the GMU1 district is that it's a compact and walk walkable community with mixeduse developments along key corridors and again a combination of uses. Um so here we have the concept plan that's overlaid on top of an aerial photo um for zoning standards for the GMU1. Uh again it's high quality design with pedestrian connections and uh you know landscaping and other amenities. Um so the question for the commission first question that I have is what is the highest and best use for this um project for this project area? you know, go back in history. This is it's a big question. We've had a number of projects that have been proposed for this site. I believe this is the fourth one that we've had a a formal application. Um, and we've had a number of informal discussions with other developers. >> So, what's the density on this project? And I noticed there's stuff in the code that we're we're our zoning minimum eight, our comprehens 12. I mean, part of the problem of figuring out the highest and best use is we don't have what's legal. So, there's multiple layers of that. We need to decide what's legally permissible and we don't have good direction as part of it. We need to get that figured out. Um, you know, when I think of highest of SUS, I think of what returns the most value to the city and whether that's medium density or industrial, it seems like potentially high density. Those are your three choices. And I'm not super partial to one or the other, especially when we have a development or an applicant trying to push one thing. It's like, you know what, let's hear them out. And if they ever can execute it, let it happen. I mean, >> and I believe on the last couple, that's what we've tried and it didn't pan out. >> Correct. And all of them have been medium to, you know, >> they've all been 12 plus units per acre that have came in and this one's not that, I don't think. Uh this is 10.7. >> Yeah. So it's a little lighter. And all the ones that are 12 plus I mean it was just the designs were like I mean it was it's it's a lot of density. You you have to go vertical in my mind at 12 other it just gets really compact. So, I'm not I'll again I'm just I think that if the developer can execute and it's allowed by our code and it sounds like this one's not perfectly allowed because our comp plan says 12, but I'd like to hear them out on their concept and how they think they can execute it. So, >> other comments related to the lane use? And again, I'm being generic here of residential versus industrial. >> I I I don't think this is a a good spot for industrial. Um, you know, maybe on the northern half of this if it were to redevelop with some of the lots that are up there, I could see that. But from a access point and and use of with adjacent property being zoned for residential industrial doesn't seem to make sense to me. >> Um I tend to agree with that. Um to me highest and best use really is subjective. Um, you know, it's maybe what at the whim of the council to say what do we want and then what's being proposed and and what's the um, you know, what does the a developer want to see happen on this property? And if the council agrees, then then I think we should hear the developer out on that. Um, I I would lean towards more residential here than industrial also. Um, I have some other concerns on the property, but I would I would lean more for residential than industrial >> and to qualify the industrial part of it is that I know the city's explored access to 113th. >> Yes. >> So, and I apologize just to >> and I understand the whole land use thing, but there is a buffer and there's industrial to the north, industrial to the west, industrial to the south. So, >> yeah. 113th is going to be off the screen here. Um, this orange line is a uh underground uh uh petroleum uh line, >> which is going to make building an industrial building tough, >> meaning that your width is getting really we haven't ever seen this development with the property just to the east, which would make it a more regular size or shaped thing with better access to territorial. And I don't know if that propertyy's not developable or they've just not talked to that land owner, but it looks like >> someone told us once that they're just not interested in ever selling, but I don't. >> Yeah, it could be. But I mean, we also have Yeah. I mean, we have the the neighborhood, the one more property, the east that's like teed up with like three entry points, right, to this. >> Yeah. So, it's pretty clear that that's going to become low density. So, >> you got low density on one side, industrial to the north, south to west. Yeah. >> Which means like again if you can make industrial work which maybe you can't with the pipeline but medium densities makes sense complete sense too. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. At some point we have to buffer to it. So I mean presumably a good development would leave a little extra buffer zone at that north property line knowing that they need to you know put some extra burming and trees or something knowing that there's industrial on the on the north side and it's going to be that way. I mean I think I mean maybe you're one of your next slides but I mean traffic at territorial and 81 I mean that's >> then everything on all these conversations about this property is that's the most important thing to solve. >> It's it's kind of interesting that with this being GMU and looking at all the other development that we have going on in the city and I I know um with DCM farms we had that that neighborhood kind of commercial center. This seems like a great spot for one >> a budding 81 a budding uh >> access is the issue. >> Access is a huge issue. >> It it is but it but it doesn't seem that I mean if it's a use like a daycare like a in within a a mixeduse facility, right? So you have maybe you have some town homes and then you have a daycare and you have maybe a coffee shop. You're not getting all day long traffic in and out of there. I think if you get a signal at territorial, right? Where you can it's safe. >> Yeah. It's 24 acres. So if it became man >> Yeah. >> And keep in mind that the intersection at territorial is moving the current territorial road even further east. So that connection becomes more >> and that's where it's it's if you look at the uses that that accompany a neighborhood, not necessarily, you know, people coming from >> outside of this this French Lake area development and territorial farms and Sundance areas. You know, they're coming off territorial anyways. They're not coming off 81. >> Jason, where are our access points going to be on a pre property like this? Are the is the county going to let us go to 81? >> I'll say well it'll come down to the actual permitting. I'll say where it sits now in our com communication so far a right in right out is likely I'll say maybe even very likely uh but nothing more than that. >> So that's not going to be cool for people that live there. >> No, I mean >> they can come in off a territorial too. So there'll be an access point in the south corner of the property. >> Right. That would right and then the one off of uh >> yeah was mentioned off the roundabout on on territorial that would actually be the primary access. >> I mean >> and then if it was an industrial we would explore going to 113 >> even just having a right out of there. Sorry Jason talking over you but >> I mean you're block away from Dayton Parkway and access to the freeway. I mean people that are going to work anywhere it's that's a quick way out. So getting that right out >> would be huge for that neighborhood. >> And you know there's a lot of well there appears to be interest in medium density and the parcels that are owned by uh he was in here earlier when we were dealing with OPEDM development um to the east and north of here and connecting a road going north should be maybe something we keep in mind too. You know what I'm talking about, John? >> Through through here. >> Yeah. Um, >> yeah. Through there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Especially if it all becomes medium density. >> Yeah. >> It's all kind of a connected use and we can give them away north, too. >> Um, okay. I'm going to back up a little bit. So, in terms of the highest and best use, what I'm hearing is residential. I wouldn't in my mind I wouldn't rule out industrial but it seems with the pipeline medium density residential is likely more likely. >> Okay. >> Pipeline's going to make it more difficult to figure out how to put a big industrial building in there. >> Yeah, we we've tried to put industrial on some other triangle lots and >> it's going to be a very narrow industrial building if you got to avoid the pipeline and you have to put parking over top of it, loading areas. And that's that's kind of where I was saying I you know if if it were the parcels to the north expanding. I could see that but that's that's the only way I could see it happening. >> Um I I'm not sure if this is a question or a comment. Um in our well I'm going to say in our ordinance I mean we have we've got five different mixed use districts and and this is one GME1. Um I guess in my opinion or interpretation it, you know, if uh the city is supportive of this project as town homes, the GMU1 zoning district is not the appropriate zoning district for this. Um so it would be more the RM medium density, which is uh 6 to 12 units per acre, and this is coming in at um 10.7. So I think when we wrote this the idea what I'm going to say we probably had grandiose ideas for this project and and probably not understanding the realities of how difficult this this uh property is. >> Well and I think I think our GMU uh land use categories are to have seemed to try to encompass hard to develop properties. So we >> tend to be more flexible in those areas allowing >> allowing residential or commercial or >> Yeah. And I guess specifically it's as it relates to the architectural standards which I've got a slide for that. So then GMU district assumes you're going more vertical than horizontal. >> See? Yeah. And there's the next slide. So, um, on here the intent of the GME1 district is you have I don't know if it's 10 different options, but choose pick four out of the 10 or what whatever that A through J is. Um, and so comparing these four options to the two plans that are proposed. I guess my question to the commission is um you know will the commission be supportive of these um the building facades or is there something else you'd rather see? >> You look at some developments in Maple Grove that have been town homes and they're very unique. They're very modern. They're I mean there's three or four different developments that come to mind that are unique as opposed to the 1980s town home development that we're seeing here. like it's just it'd be nice to find somebody that's willing to to do something above and beyond. I mean, this is right on the road. It's it's very visible. Um, make a little bit of a signature move here. Um, I I I don't like these standard town homes. I think we can do a lot better architecturally. >> Um, put a little bit of context on that. So, uh, Tom Dean, who I believe DCM, you're doing twostory detached town homes, if I remember right. Um, and part of that idea was based on um, using a town home development off of a hemlock in Maple Grove, which I believe is a David Winkley product. >> Yes. >> So, small, you know, everything is kind of circular here. Um, so once we get to that point, I guess maybe the question of, you know, are there other products that you could put in here versus just this one? >> Well, we kind of got to get sense. >> Why don't you guys come come on up and maybe we can make this a little quicker, too. >> You have a dancer. >> Yeah. >> I got to go to the hockey tomorrow. >> Hey, I'm the old one here. >> Yeah. I'm Flynn with >> and um this is Nate Herman. >> The difference between this project and u let's we call it donical is we need to get the density to make the make it feasible to work. >> What do you mean feasible? You mean uh pen and paper economically pencil out or Okay. How much does the architectural design because obviously when Commissioner Crossing was asking for something nicer, obviously it adds more cost. Is that part of it too? >> Yeah, that's part of it as well. Also, too, I mean, when we're talking town homes in this location, you know, it's going to be we want it to appeal to the masses. If you just look down the road, um, in Maple Grove, you have PY and LAR has those town homes right off of 81 as well. and they're they're using a product that is tested. The mass is light and that's the similar kind of idea here too. It's this is going to be more of a uh uh entry level or starter home whereas the dono product is a little higherend. It that's a different lifestyle. It's based on a muse. In the center is a parkway. Um that not a parkway, but a park and fire pit and it has a sense of community. With those homes, you always want to have it centered around an amenity. These are attached homes. It's more of an entry level. >> What is the approximate price point you'd be targeting? >> It would be uh low 400s. which is always shocking when you hear numbers for anybody entry level. >> Yeah, it's real hard to get it's really hard to get below 400. So comments I'm going to say specific to the the uh the architecture and if if this is reszone to uh residential mixed use it's residential medium density it's not an issue it is an issue if it's uh mixed stays as mixed use. >> Yeah I mean I understand commissioner cross's comments. I mean, I completely get it, but I also think that because it's visible on Highway 81, because it abuts to industrial, you have to be very conscious of the price point. And so, I'm okay with, you know, what they're presenting from that perspective. >> Then you go back to the question if it's the highest and best use of the property. >> Like, meaning that you would >> I mean, just is I mean, that's the question is whether >> be the highest end town home development, which Yeah. Right. Correct. >> But if you do look at the architectural style, it will blend the town homes that are currently adjacent to it and also the single family that's just down the road. And that's why we think this this product is a good fit. It's more of a blend. You know, industrial right there. I don't think that many of the uh current residents probably don't know that this is zoned as industrial, right? >> And if an industrial complex went up, they probably wouldn't be too happy. any comments specific to whether it's the use or the architecture? >> I you know I from a from the standpoint and and you you made a good point of the LAR town homes just to the south there are very similar in character and very visible from 81. um >> until those trees grow >> and well >> hopefully they will >> and that's something maybe we can you know with this maybe there's some opportunities >> I just don't think it's hard to just do a little extra to just make you know upgrade a product right I mean I don't know if you're the national builder who it like people just come in and they've got the same floor plan and they just put it everywhere and that that town home could be literally anywhere in the world and it's looks the exact same the same floor plan everything and that's how you make money. I get it. But like is there just some thoughtfulness that can be added to it? >> Yeah, you can um >> you can a nice slightly nicer level without completely your price point. >> You can work with exterior finishes, get um different textures, different colors and and make it look pop and make it pop. >> Yeah. And even like you know the drive in on your plan like there's like a row of four of them but there's a bunch of land kind of right behind it. Can you like stagger them a little bit so you don't have just a flat wall of >> Yeah. And if you also look at street and >> Yeah. If you look at the current land plan we varied the the the buildings aren't just in parallel. We've got some perpendicular to kind of break it up a little bit. We also curved the street. We thought that that would be be a little more appealing than just a whole straight runway of >> Yeah. I mean, like you drive in, it's it's that row of four buildings in a row where you've got 16 units that are all just lined up and it's just all garage doors, you know? It's like what can you do anything? Can you push one of the middle ones back a little bit and get a couple trees or just like little thoughtful mo moves like that to just help break up the neighborhood and >> sure >> the monotony of a town home development. >> Yeah. Um in in this scenario, it's kind of hard to tell, but um there's a crosshatch in there. It's purple. That's like a theme of flood zone. And um and then the rest of the rest of that area kind of right right behind we got we got the the trunk sewer, the 12-in sewer in the in the pink. And then we got the back of the units, and then everything in between that is uh you know, planned for storm water. >> Yeah. That's why this hasn't been developed yet. >> It's hard. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, just to, you know, to push push the lots back, you know, I think we're going to be looking for storm water. >> Yeah. >> Mhm. >> With regards to the concept plan, this is just the idea, but if you could you consider uh access heading north up in the northeast corner to connect to what's also guided and likely to become multi- medium density town homes. So, I get you're going to have to rearrange some units, but I think there'd be a lot of benefit for future residents because it's going to connect up if you want to go north to Dayton where eventually there's more commercial in 20ome years. So, if you guys could take a look at that, I'd appreciate it. >> Okay. I I mean, I think one one thing is right now the current concept plan has the main road coming from territorial and doing that riding right out into 81. Right now, that's shown as a public street. Um, everything else is private. >> Private. Got it. So, you have to >> I think John, did you mention staff is recommending just to go? >> Yeah. >> If it was all private, then I completely understand why you don't have that connection. >> Correct. Okay. >> But yeah. >> Are we going to be talking about traffic soon or connections soon or is that coming up here or would now be a good time? >> We're jumping around. I It's been a long night so we're we're a little jumpy. Uh got parks and trails first. So um I'll get to transportation though. Uh this is within a search area for um I believe it's a tot lot. Um the question came up at so the park commission had discussed this on Tuesday. A question came up of you know is a tot lot appropriate or or something bigger? This is probably more of a park commission um discussion, but uh the park commission's going to say staff's recommendation was to consider some type of a park in this general area. It would include a portion of this property. It would include portion of the adjacent properties as well as a trail. Um probably skipping ahead a little. No, maybe not. A trail that's uh colllocated within the sewer uh sanitary sewer easement and then potentially becoming a loop trail at some point in the future. Um but again, you know, as this being a concept, it's important for the developers to know if the intent is uh to have land dedication for a park. And this is probably more on staff of of trying to figure out okay what does a park mean and how big is it is you know the assumption tot lot is one to two acres neighborhood park is closer to 10. is not a neighborhood park area in my mind, but >> yeah. So, I was going to I was going to suggest um for the developer um I would highly consider and and maybe it comes from our parks, but the trail an internal trail system to the site. Um I live in Sundance Woods just just east of here and there's always people walking their dogs along along territorial and it's not doesn't have a sidewalk today. They're always looking for somewhere to walk those those dogs, right? Um and you know, maybe at least future connections to the neighborhood just adjacent there where there is the the park in the territorial trail neighborhood. So, if we can get a trail connection over there, it's probably the right move. Yeah. I'll just say that I would not recommend the little circle you've had for the top lot largely because it's right next to an industrial use where >> we've already heard what do they call it the country smash country crusher >> country crush you guys don't want to know >> probably not okay moving on uh let's transportation. Okay. So, it has been has been discussed. Um the assumption here is that the county would would allow a right in right out on the west side of the the project. Um and then the east side of the project would be connection on uh territorial. Um the city has a plan to move this intersection closer to the south and then for a roundabout. Um the roundabout is needed if this is a residential project. If it's not a residential, um the assumption is there would be no connection to territorial and all access would come off of 81 directly. Um with this um this would this would be a city project. Um we would be looking to the developer for a contribution towards that roundabout. And I think that's one of the struggles of why this project hasn't developed yet. I'm assuming the contribution significant is what you're saying. >> Yes. >> But we do have the rightway for it. >> We do have the rightway for it. So when um I can't think of the name. >> Well, what's the need? What's the need for a roundabout? I mean, I get it. It's better, but to me, the biggest issue is the access to 81, the stoplight, not the roundabout. So the the reason for the roundabout is for vehicles turning off of 81 on the territorial and then if there was a queue to build up to wait for a left turn because it's blocked or because there's just that many vehicles um approaching 81 that that queue would back up into the intersection. So in other words, if folks were coming out here, this is a pretty short distance. I think it's about 300 ft. If they can't make a left due to cars either stacking or just high traffic levels, this queue begins to block out into the 81 intersection. It's believed the roundabout would help keep that traffic moving in those cars to >> and pass free. And today without this development, without territorial uh the the new territorial trail development going in and all the stuff at 117th that we just discussed um that stacks up probably 10 cars, 12 cars in the morning. >> This is it's a terrible I I take it every day. I live three blocks away from this. I take this intersection every day. It is terrible. And I know that average traffic counts won't warrant the the light, but it is there's a time where I had to turn back around cuz I was waiting 10 minutes to get on to 81. Um AM Peak, PM Peak, everybody in that neighborhood avoids that intersection. It is terrible. And that that doesn't include the uh the French Lake and Territorial Road development that hasn't occurred yet. That's under construction. >> That's what I was saying. And then the additional 360 plus cars that'll come out of this property too with only a right in right out. I I get coming out would be better cuz probably the majority of that traffic is going to most likely go to Dayton Parkway, not all of it. Right. So the ride out is fine. Coming back though, there's that the only way to get back into this proposed development is on territorial. If you're coming from Dayton Parkway or you're coming or you're traveling all the way back down to Furbrook or whatever it is, you don't or >> parkway. Yeah. You don't want to do that, right? So, without a signalized intersection here, this I this is not a great thing to have here. That many more traffic. I know that it probably won't warrant it. I know that the county probably would say no and whatever it might be, but it's it's very bad now and adding that much traffic is going to make it that much worse. Plus, you're not even seeing the traffic that's going to be accumulated from the new development that hasn't been started yet. One, the model homes up. That's it. It's And the other thing is moving the intersection. I could I see the benefit of that, right? Do you want to make it more of a tea instead of what it is now? I I get that part, but even moving that intersection south further might not be as safe as people think because of traffic coming, we'll call it north on 81, there's a curve there that you can't really see very well. Even sitting at the intersection where it is now, you're you have to time perfectly. And I I mean it's just it's it's there's accidents that happen there because people think they can make it because it's the one small little gap that they see that they haven't seen in five minutes. They say I can make it and inevitably they can't. Um so that that's my huge huge huge concern on this uh this development is that is that uh intersection there. Um, the other question would be, and maybe Jason, you know, I know right now they have a bypass lane for people traveling south on 81 to turn left onto territorial. I don't know how long that bypass lane extends. And if this is going to be shifted, is that bypass lane going to be extended to allow that traffic to move around people trying to get into >> that actually goes away entirely to have a dedicated left turn. >> It would be a completely dedicated left turn. >> The count, it's a requirement of the county. We would want to see it as well just for safety. >> And that's a left turn on to territorial is what you're saying. >> Yes. Yeah. >> You know, we had this and we had this conversation about highest and best use, but this is now back to that's why it should be industrial. >> But and that's why I said when I initially said highest and best use, there's there's issues that I had with this pro and not necessarily the developer or the product. It's more of just introducing that many more cars there without a signalized intersection. It It's bad. It's bad. >> I don't know what percentage you might be asking a developer to pay for that roundabout, but everything you just said in my brain, it's like this is an amenity to the city that I mean, yeah, the developer maybe has to pay some, but >> it's the city. It's everyone else, too. So, I I just always struggle when people say have developers pay for this, pay for that. I get it. The city needs to figure out money to do it and people need to move forward. But >> the problem though is if not for the development that wouldn't occur. >> Would if not for your development that you live in. If not for the one across the road, if not you keep going down the road. >> At some point you pass it on to just one. >> Yeah. I mean there's a tipping point at some point and I think that's >> where >> right it's like the determination has if the assessment benefits to area you special assess everybody if everyone benefits. You don't just say, "Oh, you guys," because who's end up paying for it if if they can make the numbers work is the home buyers there. That's who end up paying for it, assuming it doesn't turn the feasibility upside down. >> Now, they start at 425 instead of 500 >> and then they have to trust that they can get that. >> So, to me, I just think you got to be careful about what you ask because you got to look at like a special benefit and ask yourself who's really benefiting. If they're the only ones benefiting, I get it. But if there's other people benefiting, just don't over ask because that's not going to help development move forward either. >> That part of this whole project is is really not a concern to me. And I'm sure you've heard that before. Um, no offense to these gentlemen, but it's it's just not. But what I the discussion that I've heard here from the area that you guys are familiar with is the exact same issue we have in every >> every street, every cross street on every major road in the southern half of Dayton. Every street that intersects with 121 is like that. 117th is like that. 113th is like that. Rush Creek Parkway is like that. Every single one. So, it's not just right there. And I get what you're talking about. I won't go through that intersection. >> Yeah. >> I grew up driving these roads. I learned how to drive on Territory Road. I will not go through that intersection to go east. To go west is fine. You can get breaks from the stoplight at at Parkway. But to go east, I mean, you're you're giving your life to somebody else because it's just a horrible intersection to go through. >> And the common denominator is we're dealing with the county. >> We are. all of them. >> And the county lags >> the county lags and we keep piling more cars onto the road. >> And it just exacerbates the whole problem. And it doesn't get any better. I don't see it. I don't see any projects that are going to fix that. >> Yeah. >> I just don't wor the city has to fix it by understanding, you know, how to set aside some dollars. is like when a new development happens, there's future tax dollars and you need to understand that and make sure we're allocating some of those future tax dollars to to solve these problems. So, backing up to the critical issue that John was asking, developer expected to pay costs. I I'm with Keith on that one. I I think we need to expect our developers to pay and contribute towards at the time of development. I don't >> you might be the last guy in, but you got to contribute something, right? >> I'm okay with the something. It's the making it sound like >> it's Well, and that's what it says up there is a percent, >> right? And that was my whole point is that you can't you can't push that percent. >> Um, meaning you have to look at the whole area just like you would a special assessment and say who's all benefiting. >> Yep. >> All right. Uh, one quick item is parking. >> I was going to say next item. Yes. >> You have one more. Uh so required is two and a half well it's two garage stalls plus two and a half surface stalls. What's being proposed is uh two garages and two point 2.4. So it's very very close to complying. Um the guest parking it is street parking and so the question for the commission is if you have any uh comments, recommendations or suggestions on visitor parking. >> How wide are the streets? >> It's private streets. Yep. >> So, if they want to have private parking on private streets or street parking, I have no problem. >> How wide are the streets? Like when you if are you parking on just one side of the streets or both sides of the street? Um >> uh so the the yellow dash line is the um parking whether it's on the street or bumpout parking stalls. Are those dedicated striped stalls or just hey we have available parking on the street in those locations >> on the plane it's shown as dedicated stalls. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> There's some there's some kind of turn turn in perpendicular to the street like and then the ones kind of along the what's now shown as the public street. Yeah. There's some like parallel type parking. >> Right. That's >> So you're you're considering two cars on a driveway outside the garage? >> Yes. >> For each unit? >> That's our code allows. Yeah. >> Okay. >> I mean, I think we we ran into some of those concerns with the um the other development too, right? So, I mean, these a little bit different because these are private drives. My only concern would be access if there's, you know, if it's wide enough to be able to accommodate. That's my whole issue is access whether it's emergency services or whatever it might be. >> Y >> but see if there's bumpouts and it's wide enough for cars to get through then that you're >> Yeah. >> is I mean you're so close to the required. Can you get to the required? >> How many John? How many? >> I think it was less than 10. Close to 10 >> or we over parked. I mean, we've had that discussion multiple times on on multifamily units. This is with the town homes. I don't think those developments I think that they need more parking than most people provide with town homes. But >> if you've ever visited somebody that lives in a town, oh, they understand that. Mhm. I >> mean, on the average Monday night or Thursday night, no, not an issue. >> But when there's something going on, it's it's an issue. >> So anyway, if you could, I just would prefer it just meet the code if if you can make it work. >> Anything else? And Joey, I don't know if you have more qu any questions for the commission. I had um a question I had was the staff had recommended a reuse system and we've installed reuse systems in projects like this and it tends to be a a nuisance for the HOA later on. Um >> new reuse uh irrigation >> for irrigation I'm sorry. Yes. An irrigation reuse system. I mean, would you waver on that or the staff was recommending it and I didn't know what the >> Is it required or recommended? >> I don't know. I'm thinking that's in the code for general mixed use. >> I'm pretty confident it's a recommendation. >> I could be wrong, but I think >> it said recommendation, but I don't know what the code says. >> I don't know, Jason. Do we have other projects that use re >> trails? I know does. I think there's probably only a few. I'm not thinking the weather's off top of my head. >> I could tell you there's problems in Brightburn Trails. >> So, >> there was a well installed. >> We look at you got to put a sand uh the sand filter pond in, right? Or we use >> I I I don't have one. If you're looking for feedback from up here, I don't really have a strong recommendation, especially if it's just a recommendation. I I don't >> It's not a lot of irrigating usually in developments. >> And then another question was it sounds like the commission is recommending a buffer on the northern property line to screen from the towing company. >> Yeah. So, um again with the GMU district, it I think it's elsewhere in the code. Uh it does require I believe it's a 35 ft landscape buffer along 81. And then we're staff is recommending doing a a two row two tree rows along the north property line against the uh I think this is Minnesota towing I believe. >> Yeah. >> Are we sticking to GMU? Are you because I heard also you are recommending going to RM6. >> Um I for the screening I would recommend it no matter what the zoning is. >> Right. Okay. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure that we're okay. >> Um I I'm going to say these probably aren't the most compatible uses being next to each other. Um so Minnesota Towing does have a double row of pine trees. It's pretty thick right around here. Um but you know, there's no guarantee that those trees are going to be there permanently. So the idea is match that buffer along the residential development. >> What about what about along 80 line, John? Right. So back down to a >> I think the idea is have something that's attractive and I I don't know what that looks like. Um we have other projects. You know 81's a very busy road, but I mean we we have this landscape buffer we require for all um you know major collector roads. So any county road you're going to see um landscaping on Fernbrook. It it's much more subtle like you can see through everything. You know, it's not necessarily a screening. It's more aesthetic. Um I don't know if the commission has any the rightway for 81 is pretty wide. >> Yeah. >> I don't my opinion is it doesn't need to be like the goal is not necessarily 100% screen it, but I do think it should have a landscaping emphasis along 81. >> Yeah. And this and and I think where the the couple are, you know, a couple areas that jumped to mind is to to what Paul was talking about earlier is to break up the monotony of the straight row of homes. So you're not just seeing that, right? So if you can if you can get some variety of trees in there or or whatever to break up that linear fashion with with some landscaping, it helps. Um, I think along the north property line that's, you know, most beneficial to your customers. Um, >> Mhm. >> I don't think the industrial will care that there's town homes right there. >> Understood. >> The question was asked earlier about the width of the streets. I didn't if I missed it, I'm sorry. I didn't hear an answer. >> Current plan, I believe, shows 24 face to face. Uh John, one of John's comments was that um city requirement is 26 face to face. >> I think it's 28. >> Okay. >> Is that for all streets? >> Depends on Yeah. 32 parking on both sides. 28 parking on one side >> cuz that's face to face. >> 24 no parking. That is actually back to back >> on all of those. That includes private driveways too. >> Private streets. >> Private streets. >> Um we just have them as residential. We don't distinguish between the public private >> based on the >> and you said that's back to back. >> That is back to back. >> So behind curb to behind curb. >> Yes. Y >> just for everyone else. And >> parking on one side was 28 foot back to back. >> 28 for parking on one side. Yep. I safe to assume that we didn't throw numbers at a dart port to get those numbers. We figured that those are a safe distances that allow for emergency vehicles. >> That's what they're done. So yeah, a parked car would take 6 to 8 ft each 18 to 20 for a emergency vehicle. >> I suppose you take out the curb width, but that's all I have. Do you have anything? >> No, that's that's it. I'm going to thank you for sticking around. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Do you guys have any feedback in general about because you heard us how we're struggling with the site and other applicants. Um I mean >> do you guys have feedback on the highest and besties? I get it. You're not industrial developers, but >> I don't know. I I think you're on to something with the with the pipeline. It kind of breaks it up. I I have to say if somebody would have bought it and developed it already, if the industrial was the highest and best use, just great location and get right on the highway right down the road. I mean, >> yeah, with the exception we haven't really our code doesn't allow it right now, >> industrial GM up. >> Well, it would be a zoning map amendment, >> right? But >> yeah, >> you recognize John that when people look at land for sale, they don't it starts with what's legally allowed by our zoning code, which is why I keep pushing you and everyone that staff to, you know, make it make it be what it it's going to become versus just waiting whatever we have to wait for the comp plan, next comp plan. >> I have to say though, I don't think any of your neighbors are going to be happy if it's industrial just the way that the residential comes right up to >> on the west side. >> 81. >> Yeah, the east side. East side. >> Yeah. >> Who owns the property between the the two going east? >> I think that's Yeah, this is Stern. Who owns that little triangle piece? >> Yeah. I don't think that they're interested in selling that right now. >> We've heard that from other applicants. >> Yeah, >> we had we didn't have any luck. All right. Well, thank you, guys. >> Thank you. >> Uh, looks like F and G are crossed off on my agenda. They are now. >> Uh, >> we got time. >> Notice and announcements. >> Yep. Uh, Mr. Chair, if I could. So just formality, I'm looking for a motion and uh and to table um item F and G. >> I'll make a motion to table item F and G. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to table items F and G. All those in favor? I >> I. All those opposed? >> That's G R O G E R. Yeah. >> On >> we didn't close >> on this on the one we just talked about. >> We never opened it. >> We We never Yeah. Come on up. >> I promise. >> No, that you're fine. >> You've waited it out. >> It's a concept plan, so it it's it there's no action on it, >> of course. Uh, and I'm not even going to sit down just to keep it brief. >> If if you could state your name and address though, it's easier to sit sit down and and pick it up in the microphone. >> Darren Peterson. I am the country crusher. >> Nice. Nice. Uh, we actually have some new equipment that we don't do that crushing the way it used to be. But uh a substantial portion of our meeting today was was uh discussing how commercial butts up to residential and I think that's one of the challenges. My address 17171 113th Avenue is where we operate. I live in a small town of 1,200 people and we don't have these challenges. Uh so just as we're talking about uses I I have great ideas you know it's just a question of down payment. Uh so just you know when we talk about highest and best use ask people to also consider I'm not going to be hitting golf balls at at uh my neighbors town homes. At the same time, we do have the tree buffer in which we have brought in pine trees and we water them religiously throughout the the summer. Uh but there is inevitably going to be challenges with with neighbors and I think this lot provides a wonderful natural wetland buffer in which yes the the easterly neighbor might always have some difficulty butdding up next to industrial. I think a great use might be some of the metroplexes that that are down in the Madina area. And one possible solution for the roundabout might be us being willing to to allow access to come through the the western edge of our property. I haven't worked out any of those details yet, but as you talk, I don't know what the cost of a roundabout would be, what the contribution. I don't need those specific information. Uh, but that's talking about highest and best use. And trying to wrap up talking about lower-end product, we're talking about town homes that are likely going to become rental properties and to to to afford a 400 or $450,000 price point. You're going to have three and four tenants in those properties, which is going to be three to four cars per unit. And so those are just some of the things that I think about in our conversation about traffic. Drive down that road at 4:30 at night. >> You'll you'll you'll be at that stoplight for for 10 minutes going going west. >> And so just things to think about. uh if I were faster with uh certain developments, maybe I could make your your uh quest a little bit easier for what is the highest and best use. So, >> thank you for your time. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thanks for hanging in there. >> Okay. So, we're tabled 8F on the accessory storage buildings as well as the park. Address those when we're there's more time. I'm going to try to zoom through announcements. Uh it's spring and so we've been fairly active planning for uh 2026. So, I apologize there's a lot to go through. We have an app. I hope hope that you all have that on your uh smartphones. Um, Dayton is working with uh the cities of Champlain, Maple Grove, and Ramsey um to uh I'm going to say lobby the legislature for funding to complete a a tier one and two uh environmental EIS, environmental impact statement related to a river crossing. Um this is a fairly expensive project and it takes several years to go through. So, you'll hear more information about that >> um as the year goes goes on or as the legislative season goes on. >> Does as you go through this, I would like to know what staff's opinion is. If there is a river crossing, how does that change >> the makeup of Dayton Parkway? >> Quite a bit. Um >> I that's what I mean. I think we need to talk about it publicly so everyone knows it goes from this type of road to this type of road, speed limits, access, everything. We've had a river crossing in our plan since 1973. >> We're about where we were in 1973. >> Yeah. And I'm not talking about the timing or the probability, but when we talk about it, it just makes everything so much more complex that people need to know that if there is a river crossing, the Dayton Parkway format changes. >> Yes. Yep. >> Great topic for the comprehensive plan. >> Very critical. >> You going to have this figured out by then? Uh no, we we'll see. Uh wallhead treatment plant should be online uh towards the end of March. Uh play place is every Tuesday. Uh the deal in Dice and Dominoes or game day is second and fourth Wednesday. This is all at the at the activity center. uh social work uh worker is available at the police department for the public on the third Wednesday of the month from 3 to 5:00 pm. Uh shared water and shared future. So this this is um more of a conglomerate uh effort that Three Rivers Park District is involved with. What I didn't know 1926 there was a survey done of the Mississippi River and there were only three fish that were found. Uh so uh this shared water shared future um coordination is celebrated at a hundred years of of effort of bringing uh ecology back to the Mississippi River. Uh so there are events that are planned um at Mississippi Gateway Regional Park as well as elsewhere within the Mississippi River corridor >> every now and then. >> Leprechaun is on the loop. So, if you need something to to wake you up, uh Wednesday through Wednesday, March 11th through 18th, there will be gold coins uh scattered around LC Stevens and Clover overlook Park. So, if you find some uh maybe we'll have enough to build a bridge or a roundabout. Swap it. Uh this is sponsored by Henipin County. as you can trade items or swap it events on Saturday, March 21st and May 2nd in Edina and in Crystal. Easter egg hunt will be on Saturday, April 4th at Central Park. Uh spring cleanup day will be on I believe this is sat I'm going to say it's Saturday. I could be wrong. Uh May 2nd at Central Park. uh Mother's Day bouquet arrangements at the activity center on Saturday, May 9th. So, it's a very um busy weekends here in Spring. Uh the annual city open house will be May 13th uh 5 to 7:00 p.m. at the public works facility. Uh sponsor dog treat station backup one >> uh open house. So I I've attended as a resident. We should have planning commissioners attend as staff to this and each take an hour or a half hour shifts. >> Did you at my dog? >> It's only a twohour program. So I think >> half hour shifts or whatever. But >> I'll take the shift. >> I think it's important. I think it's important for us to be there and and be part of the open house and not not just have staff run it is where I'm going with this. So, >> okay, I will uh put it on matching hoodies and name tags. >> Where my name tag? >> Okay, three of them. >> Sponsor a dog treat station. So, if anyone would like to donate $780, uh we're we're looking to um stock uh up to six treat dispensers throughout the city. So, I guess dog dog treats are expensive. Citywide garage sale will be uh the weekend of June 3rd through 6. Um what? Well, yeah, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday. Uh the uh intention is to register with the city so that um there's a map available to anyone that's garage sale shopping. Dayton Community Car Show will be six weekends throughout the summer. This will be at LC Stevens Park. Adopt a park. So there's a number of parks that are available for uh households and families to adopt. The I think the request is that the sponsor or adopter would clean uh or pick up litter at that park once a month. Uh the city is looking for election judges uh for the August primary and the November election. Uh judges are paid uh between 16 and $20 an hour. Uh Elevate Henipin. So this is a a program that the city EDA participates with. Uh the county tries to match up small businesses with advisors in certain specialty areas. The county offers up to 25 hours of free advice or consulting cons consultation time. Um the Elevate Hen kind of um rotates throughout different cities. So in March it will be at Brooklyn Park. Uh the city or the EDA still has a piece of land for sale in downtown. Uh the guide is for a mixeduse both restaurant as well as commercial retail on the first floor and apartments above. Um we're listing price is 259,000. This is really intended to be more probably more of a word of mouth. So if uh you know someone driving down the street is going to see a sign or is watching this movie or not this movie >> uh popcorn this Yeah. with with popcorn and thinking, "Oh, I've I've been looking for a place." >> Um, >> when you say word of mouth, you haven't engaged a broker is what you're saying. >> We have. Yes. >> Okay. Well, then it should be listed. >> Okay. Um, I'm goal, this is a kind of a month-to-month um information on uh housing start. So, uh the goal is to have this updated and and presented every month. Um, so this is I mean it's kind of a histogram of new homes, whether single family or or town homes and apartments that have been been permitted since 2007. It's a month-to-month average. Um, I was at a a webinar recently where a presenter said, you know, when you only look at annual information, it's only accurate on December 31st. Doesn't tell the whole story throughout the year. So, um, this is kind of a cool diagram. It it basically shows that nothing was happening in Dayton until about 2016. Um, and then it got to be a little bit chaotic. Um, especially after CO and then it's kind of evened out a little bit since then. Um, February we had a good month of 20 homes uh 20 per home permits that were issued as opposed to January which that was 11. Do you curious? Do you have the data prior to 08 and 07? >> No. >> No. >> I'm sure that there was no public there was no public water and sewer, so it was pretty minor. >> Yeah. I mean it it's signal to >> I have it though if you want it. >> Of course he does. I back to 1996. >> It's got to be higher than what >> but I don't have it monthly. I I only have it annually. >> Right. Because 08 is when everything scratched to a halt. >> Yes. >> At Sundance and sat for quite some time. These um kind of grayish bars here are recession months, you know, but you know, as you can tell from the recession, you know, if we went from 10 to five, it's really not that big of a change. Um nothing really happened until, you know, I'm going to say about midway through 2016. >> And it might have started earlier, but that was when the pipe got extended. So, it couldn't start earlier. Y >> but there was a pretty big lag after the financial crisis. uh front page of the newspaper on March 2nd uh Filmore County Journal is Hayden Tensgard accepts position of Rushford city administrator. Uh so sad to say this will be uh Hayden's last planning commission meeting. Uh is going on to much bigger things in in the larger metropolis. As long as this meeting was, it wasn't an easy decision. >> I uh this wasn't an easy decision, but uh I have been uh fortunate enough to be offered the opportunity to be administrator of my hometown. Um so I will be moving uh back home to my with my family and uh yeah, so it is very bittersweet because there's a lot of good things going on in Dayton that I was excited to be a part of. Um I don't know if there was another position that I would have taken to leave here. Say I'll say that. So I appreciate everything that uh you guys have done. Uh the kind words that you gave me last month were untimely. You can you can get out the door. >> You can you can retract them if you want. I'll understand that. But, uh, no, I I I am extremely fortunate to have been able to, uh, um, be working here for the city of Dayton, and I appreciate you all. So, >> I'm going to say, you made my life much easier since you started here, so I I don't think I can enough. >> Sure. >> It's a pleasure. Glad we gave you a bang for your buck at the end here. >> Yeah, absolutely. Yep. >> I wouldn't want it any other way. Yeah. >> Okay. Next plan commission meeting will be April 2nd. Um we have two uh pro well other than tonight. So we'll have two plat um no one plat um potentially two ordinance amendments on park parking is is that's a big discussion item. Um I know right now we're not prepared for it so it may get tabled again. Um storage containers we'll have uh Sunday green screens 12th edition. Um I believe that's it. So it'll be a shorter meeting kind of hard not to be I'll leave it when I >> make a motion to adjurnn >> before second. >> You can do this after we adjourn. I'll just go ahead. >> We have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor? >> I I All those opposed just to bring