May 1st 6:30 we will call the planning commission to order. First item in business is the pledge of allegiance. Algiance 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. All right. Roll call. Uh, so we have to take roll call. Verbalize who's in attendance. So just let's just say our names and go from there. Peter Deuth. Darren Rowan, Jeff Sergeant, Paul Crosslin. All right. And uh we'll go from there. All right. Role of Planning Commission. I won't read it, but it's on the agenda. Uh next item is approval of the agenda. Any changes or corrections to the agenda? All right. I'll make a motion to approve the agenda. I'll second. We have a motion uh from Brown and a second from Crossland. All those in favor? I I motion passes 40. Uh next item, consent agenda. We have planning commission minutes from April 3rd. Mr. Chair, if I can know, there's a couple of uh misspellings that I'd like to correct. Okay. If you'd like me to say what they are, but otherwise we'll just note it in the we'll just make it. I think grammar and spelling corrections are okay. Just curious, this was uh the was this the first AI generated? Yes. Meeting or meeting minutes? So, how did that work out for staff? Has it met expectations or what did you think? I've not talked Cadence. Yeah, our uh administrative assistant in the office, Kelly Thielen, has said that it's uh worked out really well. Just obviously the uh realize on the review uh miss a couple spelling errors, but um she said that it's been working really well. Great. Good to hear. So that's part of the why it's important to to introduce yourself at the beginning of the meeting. Does it recognize our voices like I believe so. Yeah. after. Uh, I'll make a motion to approve the planning commission minutes. I'll second. All right, we have a motion and a second. A motion from Brown and a second from Crosslin uh to approve the the minutes from April 3rd. All those in favor? I I I. All those opposed? Motion passes 40. Uh, next item is open form. Open form is limited to three minutes for non-aggenda items. Is there anyone here for open form? All right. Uh, with that, I guess we'll move on to item seven, council update. Okay. For April 8th, um, we had our end of the year financial closeout. The freeway interchange came in I think after everything was said and done um 500k over budget. The we had a a three river park engagement plan. There was some concern a couple meetings back that we really wanted an idea of what their plan was for all the properties they're buying up along the river. And this is kind of a start of getting an understanding what's going on, what their what their plans are. We had a park improvement bid award. Um there were a lot of alternates in it. Um pretty much all of Stevens was an alternate and we ended up pulling those alternates, but the rest of the bids went through. I think there was um some tree plantings that we pulled out of the other ones too. But um that was that TCM farms. There was a lot of discussion on roundabout 114th. Um it um passed with some caveats uh 3 to2 that uh that roundabout on 114th gets gets figured out because as of you guys are aware of this there's been nothing done as far as that goes. So it's kind of a significant caveat. uh 113th water extension. Uh that was to go out for a design on the 113th on the west side of territorial up to 117th. I had passed 5 to zero water trail. Um there was an approval to go out for bid on the bulk of that. So there was the uh kayak launch. Uh there's a there was a lot of other pieces to it that was approved 5 to zero. And then we had a uh close session for performance the yearly performance review on the city administrator on the 22nd. Uh we got the moratorum that you had recommended that went through um 5 to zero. There was a lot of discussion on making a 3-month or six month. Uh it finally went out at six month. There was also some discussion about the scope. U but it ended up I think pretty much is what you guys had seen as what we approved. And then there was um some discussion about the Stevens Park alternates that we had passed the the meeting before um or that we had withheld. There was some discussion uh on how we were going to fulfill some of those things. There was also a lot a larger discussion on on doing something with the amphitheater, putting a a uh some sort of shelter over the at least the stage. that was put on hold until we get the update on the overall design done or at least that part of the design. Then there was a small discussion on conduit debt which was new to us. I don't know if you want details on that feel freezac but it boils down to um certain groups can get bonds through the city. they get a better bond rate and the city doesn't have any liability and it's it's an odd deal but apparently it's very common though legacy woods preliminary plat was approved I think there was some adjustments to the um the green way overlay that passed five to zero there was a short discussion on an easement problem on um on a kind of a three-way easement on Lndale. Uh so that ended up getting tabled until we can get more information. Parkway neighborhood phase two preliminary plat was approved five to zero. The South Diamond uh mill and overlay was the bid was accepted 5 to zero. Uh oh. Then the property there was a uh so there's been some discussion on on uh the EDA purchasing a property on the freeway uh just off the freeway interchange. They had some negotiation with the county, but this was to transfer the property. See if I get this right. Transfer the property back to the county. so that we could then get it sold. Yeah. Buy it from the county. Yeah. Yeah. I It was one of these pingpong things, but yeah. So, that was it. Any questions? Do you want to cover this? I've seen it. Do you want to Do you want to mention anything on it? Not really. Okay. Are you going to cover it at all? It it looks like um Nick has resigned from the planning commission, so we will uh be opening up a uh slot. It's unfortunate because I think he was a good asset to that, but family comes first. So, Yep. All right. Any other questions or for the council? Just a general question. I don't think it's going to factor in tonight with the discussion on the constant plan, but with the greenway overlay on legacy woods, I believe. Did you guys make it like bigger, smaller? Anything important to I think we limited it to the white lands. Um, yeah. Well, it was the same recommendation that the plan commission was. Okay, got it. All right, perfect. Perfect. It was the same I think same elevation and we did keep that strip to keep them connected. All right. All right. Oh, we did delete the strip around lower lake and I don't remember if you guys had recommended that, but I don't remember talking about. Yeah, you might not have there's a little there was a what was it 20 ft or something? So, we just nuked that. All right, moving on. Uh item eight, public hearings. Uh 8A concept review plan for unsuited single family residential development. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the planning commission, uh tonight you're asked to review a concept plan for uh as the chair mentioned, a single family unsured residential development uh in the northwest portion of Dayton. Uh it's east of Brockton Lane, north, south of Dayton River Road, and west of Lawndale Lane. Uh the overall site is 117 12 acres and if you include the easements easement areas previously dedicated to Brockton Lane north and Dayton River Road uh the site is roughly 119.5 acres. Um property is currently zoned A2 and A1. This would require reszoning to the A3 uh zoning district. Uh the entire site is guided lowdensity residential uh for sewer development and currently it is within the post2050 MUSA staging area. Uh the concept proposes 12 total lots uh single family including uh 11 new and one existing that uh would be replplatted with this uh development. Uh the total area proposed to be developed with this plat is roughly 19% of the entire property area. Uh all new lots proposed are an acre and a half of net acreage uh oriented all in the northwest area of the project. um includes connection point to Brockton Lane North. Uh Henipin County has a review authority over all preliminary plats that are adjacent to their county roads. Um so they will provide at the time of preliminary plat review provide a comment letter for the planning commission and city council to have in their packets. Um also includes uh outlaws adjacent to the well site for a potential future well treatment location. Um I'll just make a note on that. The public works and engineer staff did review that size for a well um treatment area. Uh they said that that uh proposed 71 acres would be of sufficient space for it. There's just a view of the overall site looking uh south. This area really is the uh where the 11 new lots are proposed currently. Uh here's just a breakdown of the uh A3 district requirements. Um all lots with the exception of lot five block to meet the minimum standards. Uh the minimum lot width at the setback of this property is 137 ft. So that would be something we would look to uh have revised at the time of the preliminary package uh submitt. Um the impervious surface requirements in the A3 district is 30%. That's obviously at this point undefined. uh is that uh is kind of a continuation of review when lots get developed. Uh some considerations to note. Uh the A3 district does require a 2 per 20 acre standard uh for um lots. Uh the concept is proposing 12 total single family residential lots which would require 120 acres in total for the plat boundary. Uh currently the boundary consists of that 117 12 or 119 and a half depending on how you view those easements um along the property lines uh adjacent to those county roads. Um this based on what was approved for the A3 district uh standards, this would not warrant 12 lots uh given the the the current acreage of the property. Um there are some mechanisms that uh could be reviewed by the planning commission and the city council to otherwise allow 12 lots rather than 11. Uh a couple of those include uh there are unplatted uh well sites um that are adjacent to this property that were previously a part of these properties. Um they could essentially become part of the plat boundary if the city were to consent to that. Um that would be an option. Um, another option would essentially be proposing a text amendment to um discuss the uh rounding option of uh acreage when there is a decimal to the total property boundary. Um, that could be something that we could look at as part of uh the preliminary plat review. Um, there's also uh an opportunity for the applicant to apply for a variance as long as there are findings of fact for a variance. And I will just note that when it comes to preliminary plats, you're kind of starting from scratch and it makes it very hard to uh warrant a variance. And the other alternative is to require them to only limit this to 11 lots. Um so that could be a discussion point as I go through. Um and feel free to stop or interject if you have any comments or questions related to these. Um the existing single family home on the site is expected to remain longterm. Uh and the concept shows uh this lot getting platted as a landlocked 4acre parcel that would not have street frontage. Now the subdivision code does require that all new lots, all platted lots in town have street frontage. Um the there was a a sketch in your in your packet that showed a conceptual outline of how that um could be accomplished uh out to Dayton River Road. Um, another option would be for the applicant to apply for a variance related to the existing easement that's in place. Um, that would probably be a little bit uh easier to tackle in in staff's opinion just based on the long-term uh planning for this area. um if they didn't want to bring the property lines out to Dayton River Road to grant them access using the existing easement that's in place for the existing driveway um and granting a variance as part of the preliminary plat would be something that uh the planning commission and city council could consider. So um just wanted to note that as well. Um streets the uh proposed concept shows the road ending at the north property line adjacent to Maria Avenue. right ofway. Uh the new road will be designed to meet city standards at the 60 ft rightway with uh allowing for uh future sidewalk or roadside trail um to be added at a later date if if wanted. Um staff does recommend that because you're bringing the the proposed concept brings the road to the edge of Maria Avenue rightway at the north. Um staff does recommend that Maria Avenue be extended to the south to connect to that street. Um and uh staff will obviously be looking for feedback from the planning commission and city council on that recommendation. Uh I will just note that that is uh not an out of the ordinary request when it comes to uh developments and new roads getting uh connected into existing systems. Um staff also recommends that rightway be dedicated uh at least dedicated on the east side of the proposed street um between two of the lots extending to the east um to plan for a future road connection um and the eventual uh extension of Shady View North. That type of uh roadway extension would likely be um incorporated into a future development that would happen at the time of sewer being available in this area. Um, I might not have mentioned it prior, but because they are orienting the lots up in the northwest and they're not utilizing the whole area of the plat, the plat acreage is what uh warrants the 11 12 lots within this area. So, the remaining lots or the remaining area of the plat would essentially be not developable until that uh sewer and water is extended to the area. Um, I did mention about the sidewalks. There's no sidewalks planned on the new street. Uh being that sidewalks, if sidewalks were installed at this point, uh they would not connect anywhere as there's no uh trail along Brockton Lane yet. Um sidewalks, uh staff recommended that sidewalks would not be necessary at this point in time. Um and just one note on the street light. Uh staff doesn't feel the need for street lights uh within the roadway itself, but at least on the Brockton Lane um intersection, there be a Cobra light or something like that to light up that uh T that would be there. Uh the wetland staff is recommending that the wetland and upland buffer area that would be established for the wetland be platted as a separate outlot for the city to own. Um one of the main reasons that this helps protect the wetlands in its existing condition by not splitting it uh between the buildable lots. Uh creating confusion for property owners that are not aware of uh what can be and what can't be done within the wetlands. um and uh also avoids any future issues related to uh unwarranted um work or disturbance within the wetlands by the by private property owners. Um wetland buffer signs would be placed uh at the buffer boundary uh essentially acting as the property line. Um the comprehensive plan the comprehensive trail plan uh does show a future roadside trail along Brockton Lane North and Dayton River Road. Um if the Henipin County letter does not uh require enough rightofway at this point when it comes to platting this property to um install a 10-ft uh roadside trail in the future. Um staff would look to have a 20ft easement along both roadways the extent of the plat boundary of course be established. Um, again, that is only necessary if Henipin County doesn't require uh adequate right of way um to to have that go in there. Um, and then just a note, the landscape buffer along um at least the buildable lots that would be platted on Brockton Lane North, there is a requirement in the zoning ordinance for a 35- ft landscape buffer. Um, and that uh would be expected to adhere to the minimum requirements for that. Um and then general site landscaping uh would also be a requirement at the time of u development and a landscape plan would be something that we would see at the time of preliminary plan. Uh the planning commission and city council are asked to provide feedback on this concept plan. Uh all comments are non-binding but uh are able to be incorporated into the preliminary plat package that would be submitted in the future. Um the city council is anticipated to review this concept at their May 13th meeting. Um they would uh the two applications they'd have to re they'd be required to apply for a preliminary plat and resoning. Um the applicant has also approached staff about a future site um for an event center within this plat. An interim use permit would be required for that uh which will also be reviewed by the planning commission and city council at that time. Um, if the applicant chooses, that request could be reviewed concurrently with the preliminary plat of this property. And because we've had conversations with the property owner prior to this concept coming before you, um, staff would recommend that that area for the event center be platted as a lot and block rather than creating it as an outlot. Uh, which would essentially make it not buildable. So then they would have to come back for a replat if, uh, that would were to get approved. Um, so with that, I'll take open it up for any questions for staff. Uh, your last question, Hayden, or comment regarding the the event center, just so I'm clear on it in my brain, is if we if the applicant wants it to be a lot, that means that they've identified the area then, right? So we're it'd be good if we're approving a plat a preliminary plat that we obviously have gotten through that concept plan before we say yeah it's a lot versus a lot. Sure. Yeah. I don't uh disagree with that. The other alternative um actually it's not really an alternative because that acreage is a part of this um plat boundary. uh at least the the area that uh a general area for that lot and block uh would be something that the preliminary plaque could um incorporate or should incorporate. And uh certainly at the time of preliminary plat submitt, we can work with the applicant to see where they're at in their process for the IUP review. Um potentially bringing that all concurrent to the planning commission and city council. Sure. I can add the the farmland has buildings now or existing buildings. So typically with an outlot, you'd have no buildings at all. It would just be farmland. So with the A3, you're we're allotting, you know, units per acre, right? And we're already saying we're one unit over what's allowed based on the the calculation. It's still allowed to have a outlot with a event center. Uh beyond that because it's not a residential home. Okay. So yeah. And additionally, these event centers are um allowed by the zoning ordinance in residential districts on an interim basis. So um if you platted the whole lot or if you platted the whole outlot as a lot, it could still be unbuildable. Yeah, by conditions of the preliminary plat uh you don't have to call it an outlot. I just don't want to trigger certain fees either. Maybe I don't know if that's the case, but I know what in subdivisions that triggers a lot of fees. I don't know if that's the case here, but I mean to me, as long as it's clearly identified and we can track it, whether you call it an outlaw or a lot doesn't really matter to me. As long as we all everyone knows that, you know, all the density has been allocated somewhere else until the sewer pipe gets here. Yeah. I think, you know, just looking into the future at the time of the preliminary plat being submitted, I think one of the conditions at the very least for that lot specifically would be that that could not have a single family home on it. Um, so that would be something that we would call out with the resolution for the preliminary plan. Uh, the other question I had, and I guess I'll just leave it as a comment since the question would probably be more directed at Jason. Um, but obviously if they come in here, we get to the preliminary plat, I just want to have the city engineer confirm that we're not inhibiting orderly development in the future either with the sewer pipe, the water pipe. I see that the sanitary sewer runs east of here, the main pipe somewhere it's going to run. And so I guess the question is is how is the properties potentially on the west side of Brockton going to be serviced? Like is there the sewer line going to run through this road that we eventually that becomes part of this development? Just want to confirm that everything makes sense and like there's no requirements for lift stations or other development costs that normally would be incurred by development that the city might have to pick the tab up in 20 30 years. Sure. Just high level reviewing the the west side of Brockton, at least on the south side, is picked up by a force main. Talk to me. I'm not force main lift station. Yeah. Yep. The purple. Um the east side is is gravity fed with the green to a lift station south of here on the the east side. Um, so the little blob up here in northwest Dayton, what you're saying is that would all be fed. It could could all be fed into there if they if they do a smaller non septic type. Yeah. And I was just even looking at the elevations, too. It actually drops as you move to the east. So, yep. There could even be the gravity fed if it came down. So, it could be gravity fed to that. It's labeled 19 in the comprehensive plan. Um, okay. And it's it size is an 8 in force man. That's that's going to be a huge force man for that small area. Um just to be clear in the driveway before the applicant come up here is so what you're saying is that there's a instead of I guess I'm not a fan of the plat the way it is because you're creating a potential of 20 or 30 years from now there's two different property owners involved for all we know. I mean that's not their intentions but there could be if you plat it and that could prevent an orderly development. I'm a bigger fan of leaving it as an easement and have language in the easement that essentially says when the remaining land is platted that easement is distinguished as long as the plat provides public right away to that 4acre parcel. I mean I understand the code um this is just a unique property I guess where I think the variance would be justified for having just leaving it as an easement and adding some language to the easement that it's automatically distinguished when the outlaw's platted as long as it was public right away coming to a public. Yeah, certainly. And I I think along with that, just as we talked about the preliminary plat resolution, a variance resolution in this regard could uh direct an amended easement agreement between the property owners at this point um to make sure that that language is protecting the the landlock parcel. Okay. Any other questions for staff? All right. Uh, would the applicant like to come forward? I can. I think we might have a few questions for you. Yeah, no problem. uh name and address and uh Jack Bernon's uh my address is actually 14770 Thicket Lane and uh my son's house is the one you guys were just discussing which is 17921 Dayton River Road. Um yeah, I I mean we have been working on this a while. Uh when the A3 district came available, we you know were looking to see if we could do a couple things. One, kind of go with the city's vision of having larger lots that weren't all just LAR, you know, eight houses per acre lots. Uh as well as uh our bigger goal is the event center, the vineyard, and the winery. And so we thought we could do a real service to the city, if you will, by developing part of that. That obviously proceeds helps us build the event center as well. And then the other roughly 75 acres would remain either in corn and beans or in vines. We have 10 acres of vines right now. Um, and our plan is to probably go up to 30 or more, but we'll just take ground as we expand. Uh, it's a, you know, event center, wine tasting room, uh, winery, and vineyard. Uh, like some you've seen around the state, there's not really any up in this area. I've been operating one at my place for since 2011. uh and uh we've been making wine and you know it's uh just a kind of a venture we want to take on. As far as the development itself, you know, I guess we're open to we drew the street from Brockton to Marie or at least up that way. Whether we connect to Marie or not was more city staff's recommendation. um you know if it make more sense to go over and connect to Shady View or something like that it would be more expensive for us but um certainly willing to look at that as part of the preliminary plat. Um, you know, we have a few concerns on things that have been recommended by the staff, but I think we can probably discuss those as we move toward preliminary plat unless you guys, you know, want to discuss those tonight. I guess I'd be curious on what those conversations were. I mean, this is going to be one of the steps you have to take with the planning commission anyway, so we might as well know what those concerns are so we can work those into future discussions. Yeah. Well, I only had just a few, you know, like most of the stuff that's being rec recommended like the um the landscaping BM, the trail, you know, easement for a trail, all of that I think we're generally pretty pretty okay with. Um I just got to find my notes here. Uh so there were just a few things. the 11 versus 12 lots. Our understanding is that the gross acres is what you go by, which is 119.5. And if you take the two wells that are on our property, uh it used to be 120 like 25 I think something like that. They're like each of those is like a quarter to a half acre. So, we would ask to consider the the 12 versus 11 being my son's being the 12th, though it would still be 11. Um, you know, if we did take the road over more toward Shady View, that would probably increase the size of the remaining lots because that would add probably two or three acres, maybe four acres to what's currently drawn. Uh the other thing that wasn't mentioned, but um the there it's proposed that there'll be full park fees because there's a potential park I think up kind of where the water tower is maybe being planned to be up where that's not on our land. It's on uh the church's land. Uh but our feeling is well if that park ever happens it's going to be 20 plus years down the road. So you know it's kind of a theoretical and I we we don't even know what the park fees are but doesn't seem like it makes a lot of sense considering the park may never happen and if it does happen it could be 20 plus years out. Um um the only other thing was really just the wetland ownership. We're we're continuing to farm this ground. There's 75 acres that will continue to farm. And I don't know where if we're just talking about the pond behind my son's house, but it just it doesn't seem like um it would make sense for us to and I assume we're gifting the property to the city. I I don't know how that works, but you know, there's there's probably at least seven or eight acres there at $20,000 an acre was a lot of money to for us to just donate to the city because of they feel like they could take better care of it than us. We're more than willing to move the property lines on the homes. So like if the proposed homes need to not have any part of the park or pond and we move that back to the wetland buffer and then the rest of the pond is just owned by the outlot. Uh that you know which is the rest of the acres or we could obviously extend my son's lot to cover the whole pond. But that that one's a little concerning to us just from a freedom to farm perspective. And I mean, we're trying to operate and we don't need the people going to the city every time we got to do something to ask them, you know, can we farm this ground or because you you know how it can get. You get people in there and then they're like, "Well, you can't farm here." Well, it's been tiled for 40 years. So, you know, what do we You just tell the farmers, "Okay, we can't farm that. We're just going to put it in grass or something." you know, now we didn't put any of the tile in, but there's a lot of tile that's been put in this farm over the years, so to to make it farmable. So, those those are really the only major things that that we have any concerns about and like I said, we'd like more than willing to discuss those through the preliminary plat process or however you guys want to do it. So I guess question for the city on on the park dedication fees that's calculated based on the the 11 or 12 lots based on residential units. Yep. So that's it's it's a relatively small number at this point. It's roughly 76 $7,800 a lot between the park and trail dedication and as per the subdivision requirements. That is a requirement for all new lots. um and usually is paid prior to the release of the final plat and then that goes into a fund to to fund all parks, not necessarily one. Uh well, so the the city's policy is, if I remember correctly, 75% of that fee is going to stay within the neighborhood. Y and 25% is a citywide project. So in this case, 75% of Jack's case would go in a fund for a future park in this area that might be 20 years from now. Yep. Okay. Yeah. But it's for general maintenance and upkeep and uh not for maintenance. This is specific for like equipment improvements and all that. Okay. For replacement of facilities, but not not maintenance. And it could be used if if there was a let's just say a I mean either of these have Brockton or Dayton River Road have potential for trails that this fund could be used for. It it could also, you know, McNeel Park is in this area, so it it could be used for upgrades to McNeel Park. Thinking about purposes of that. Yeah. And just to be clear, to make sure everyone's got the right understanding is so we're asking you guys to pay for park dedication fees on 11 or 12 lots, not to give up any land for a future park or any fees for a future park on your property. Yeah, correct, John. That's what I understood. I was just from what we understand and what the church's plans are whether those ever come to fruition or not is that you know the likelihood my our understanding was the the reason the park fees are assessed is because there's a park that's planned within the geography of the area and that's at least the way we read the document. And so we were saying, you know, like if we pay, you know, that's still, you know, $100,000 that we're going to have to pay for a park that may never exist. And I think the answer is the park fees are paid by everybody when a lot gets platted. Okay. And not just in that area. Is that That is correct. And that's also the same for simple subdivisions. When a existing lot does a lot split, park and trail dedication fees are required as well for that in a existing developed neighborhood. And Mr. Chair, just for clarity, it's so when we're talking about the church property, it's the church the property that's adjacent to the south that's owned by a Holy Spirit academy. So versus St. John's Church, which is up the road. Okay. Um, one question I have, Jack, is regarding the whole driveway easement. Um, because I'm assuming that you control that easement, meaning we do. You're the benefit. You're Yeah. Both sides of it. Yeah. Are you open to the suggestion that we talked I talked about earlier about not platting that and just keeping it an easement with adding some language that basically says that it's extinguished when the owner of the lot that the easement goes over goes to plat it. Yeah. Absolutely. Okay. So, it just be kind of remain the way it is now, meaning the easement would be there. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I would support that, too. Uh, makes the most sense. I think, um, Darren hit it on the head as far as what kind of makes sense with this property. It might be a little bit more work or it might be a variance that's required, but I think it is one that's justifiable. Um, and again, it's a common sense type of approach that I think we should take as a city as far as how we control that property or how it's controlled in the future for future development. From a concept perspective, I would prefer Shady View. I should say, is that Shady View? Did I say get it right? Yeah. Yeah. I would prefer the connection to Shady View for a couple of reasons. Um, I think one is that you're getting the road closer to the future development to the east. So, you're going to have to give up less land for a future road to begin with. And I think it allows you to maximize more lots along the pond, which I think are going to be a premium even if you shifted the road a little bit further to the west if you can. Mhm. Um uh the other big thing and then I don't know until someone like Peter might be able to help out here, but you know when that sewer main comes through, it's just everything's going to line up better. I feel like and and even like when you go to Ghost Plat, there's a natural pinch point between that wetland and Dayton River Road that we can see right here is that you really don't it's 500 feet. So if you put a 60 foot road in, you're talking 200 220 foot lot depths. We can probably end the ghost platting at that pinch point if you go to there. As long as you're understanding how those lots along Dayton River Road, making sure that road lines up so that eventually everything works out right. But again, at 220 ft, that's about the standard lot depth to Well, you could you can get smaller, I guess. But so my suggestion is that I get it. The lots are going to get a little bit bigger. And you know, when we get into our discussion on 11 versus 12 lots, maybe that helps this decision, too. Yeah. Yeah. Understood. Yeah. I mean, it would I think the way it's drawn today versus what you're suggesting would probably add it's going to add some more roads, like four acres, three, four more acres. Yeah, you're going to lose some land. You know, I don't have But I agree with you that I mean, we've always seen that kind of from the wetland. You can see the drainage toward Yeah. Dayton River Road. And it's it's a low spot. And you know, at best you're probably going to take that road extension if and when it ever happens down across that wetland, but they're not going to be houses built down in that low area because it's just, you know, I don't think it'd be suitable. My is my guess. I mean, maybe part of someone's yard, but it's amazing what they do to land if it's not marked. Yeah. Not labeled wetland. Yeah, true. So, so I somewhat agree with you on on connecting to Shady View. Where I'm stuck at is looking at the the neighborhood just to the north of of you. And I know it's not your problem, but if we were to able to connect to both Maria and Shady View, we could we could actually deadend Johnson Street and and eliminate a a what I would call a worse connection point on Brockton. It's just an older connection. It's it's not as you know it's coming up to the curve where where we stop you know the the what would be I guess Maria Avenue in your in your development you know is going to be a nicer newer connection more modern and it'll it'll be safer um where it connects to Brockton or where you connect to Brockton. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. You take out the where Marie connects to Brockton on the on the north side. It's called Johnson Street on the map, but yeah. Yeah. Um, and connect, you know, not this is more I don't know that I'd put this on on the developer. This is more city connectivity connectivity and city comments of, you know, what does the roadway network look through both our existing homes that are there plus the new development. I think I think there's some potential there. I think there's some thought that needs to go into that. you know, the wellhouse is certainly, you know, it's it's there. And, you know, if you look at the the drawing you have, it's with your plot or plat. Um, you know, maybe there is room to to put a roadway, it's 100 foot wide at that um that wellhouse. Is there room to to sneak a roadway east west there on the north side of of where the current accesses the gravel. Yeah. What would be your lot seven, right? Is there room to put a roadway in there? Um that's that's where I'm I'm in my head thinking. But are you talking about back to Brockton then on the west side? No. Um it's lot seven block two. If you're looking at the packet, there's lot space for a a 60oot right away. That's what I'm saying. Is is there a way we can get 60 feet there in that and shift some of these other lots down? Maybe maybe it comes into how how just things are laid out, right? Or you go to the reduce the lot and make the uh remaining ones a little wider after you put the road through. Yeah, that's that's where my head is in looking at connectivity overall. So would that put a another We we didn't even think about that because we figured the access to the well would be removed and then there would only be one access on Brockton, but I because we were the understanding like the county is not going to like another. So, so my thoughts not my thought is more closing an access is closing an access for the city standpoint up up on in the future when your when your outlot develops and basically putting an east west road on the north side of lot 7. And and I know John, you said there's not room, but that's a Yeah, there's a chance to if the plat shifts like this. Lot seven is lot seven block. Yeah. You want to put a road right against the back of all the current houses. What? Right next to the what current well? It'd be on the south side of the current well. Yeah, it' be along this property line here. And then you're still pushing keeping Maria open but dead ending it at Johnson. That I'm and and trust me, I'm thinking, you know, I'm thinking big picture here of of the county wants us to to limit access on county roads. This this provides an opportunity to do that on two points where, you know, it starts to get tight between Brockton and River Road. Oh, I I just that house right there by that well. So, not only are you taking my front yard for more putting Maria through, you're putting another road right on the other side. And we got we got to wait. We got to wait until we got we'll have a public hearing in a minute. The the the thought though is not necessarily to put the road in, it's to preserve an easement for a road. There's no reason to put a road adjacent to lot 7 east west in today's conditions. It's the easement for or a rightaway for the road. What would be the the issue with instead of see you're talking about closing out Johnson just basically moving that access to where it is now at the wellhead or at not the wellhead but uh well yeah on this development move the access down to the where the development is and then you have to come in there to get up to the wellhead and then close the Johnson. I think certainly you certainly could do that. Uh, mine was pushing it further south to where Maria is shown here where the wellhead or the wells come. No, just this axis here would be a Yeah, you were saying the same thing, Peter. Is there a wellhead down there? No. Okay, you're saying I think the wellhouse. Yeah, some So, yeah, right there is the wellhouse. Yes. Um, Hayden, can you pull up like the Hampton County GIS or Google Maps? You know, as I'm looking at this, one thing that everyone should be conscious of is I mean, I like the idea of going in the Shady View better, but I also realize Shady View and Dayton River Road has got issues and not, you know, and so it just doesn't align right. And so, you know, I'd be curious to see if Peter, you see how it kind of jocks to the left, but I mean, is that roundabout material in 15 years, 20 years, or it has wide open sidelines. But yeah, you're right. It is at a weird, but it's also I'm dealing with I'm dealing with County Road 81 and and 42nd Avenue in Robbinsdale right now with this exact same alignment from 90 years ago. What I would propose because this is, you know, if we're planning a residential in here, I would propose that Shady View get cut off at Dayton River Road and it go and I know I can't project what I have drawn up on here, but we tee into uh Dayton River Road south of at at a at a right angle south of that triangle parcel. So, in that scenario, if that ended up being the road, dumping this new road in the Shady View would be kind of worthless. Yeah. Although Shady View would could turn into this, then you close off the north access and Yeah. connect the goal to to 90 degree intersection close the Shady View access to River Road. The South Shady View. Yeah. South Shady South Shady View meaning south of River Road. As traffic gets more and more and more, that will be a very tough intersection. Yeah, but we're a few we're quite a few years away, but it's more thinking of where do we want the right road coming up from your development? Well, I was just wondering if if you did want the road to come up and connect to Shady View, couldn't from Shady View and they could all essentially come out to that Brockton, the new Brockton exit. Okay. or you know where it's drawn on the plat where you where you have it going to Brockton you come in and then you'd be able to go all the way up the Shady View dead end but they'd have they'd have to go through the neighborhood to get out the new neighborhood so to speak the thought I I I don't care yeah I think understanding this and I don't have a good picture and I'd like the engineers and Peter to think some more about it but it I think it has a big deal on if you dump that road in the shady view, we could be which I think it's better for a design concept for this project. But I don't want to create an issue in the long term either. Yeah. My my idea in in my head would be to take I'll call this the Johnson triangle, the whole neighborhood here. take all of this neighborhood and close off in my thought at least would be, you know, we'd have to study this some more, but it would be to close off these streets to Dayton River Road and Brockton and funnel them out essentially your your property to much safer connections at where we can have it at a right angle to Dayton River Road and a right angle to Brockton. And so to get in and out, you'd go south of the neighborhood to get out and then back in to go. So I understand where on Brockton kind of maybe where it's proposed. Where would it be on River Road? You think it, you know, where it's proposed? I have no idea. Um Oh, down on Brockton. It would be down Brockton. It would be the what you have drawn right on River Road. Um somewhere somewhere close to where your driveway the driveway is. I don't know if I'd go that far south. Um once once that's developed, you once that's developed. Yes. This is, you know, this is talking once you develop 2050 plans, kind of starting to think about what this looks like. And this is part of I think one of the challenges we we knew we were going to face with these. So that that's why we're having the conversation here about the A3. Well, yeah. I mean, you could stub it and then have it longterm connect to where his driveway is and then out or or some or reroute it to have it come out further down river road. I mean, we go out through the well access just to not have another entrance onto the road. Yeah. Or my son does, I should say. And we we did we had that conversation with the city and said, "Yeah, sure. We can use your well exit versus putting in a new one. lot of elevation issues on that side too. Yeah. So m Mr. Chair, you suggesting with the ghost plan of showing where a future connection intersection would be with Dayton River Road. I would say it's worth worth maybe showing on the ghost platting. Um you know it's ghost platting so it doesn't have to be stuck there. Right. Right. But it's it's showing that we are recognizing that there is an access to Dayton River Road that you know eventually somehow that that driveway then connects to as well. And you know some of these things that I think we have concern over from the city. And if Johnson Street gets closed at Brock, then Shady View gets closed at Dayton River Road, then we need to have connections to both Maria and Shady View to give those homes future access. Yep. Yeah. And we'd be responsible for the connection to Maria up to the property line basically. I I think you you one or the other like if you did both of them there's probably this is my opinion there's pro there's not the need to construct both of them today. Oh just putting the ease of it right you you got to construct pro one of them so you have continuity and connectivity but um that's my opinion anyway but you need to have the land dedicated so it can be constructed in the future. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, that seems to be a a big question to figure out. Yeah. To make sure we don't mess it up. I guess I'll just note for the commission um as well is that if the preliminary plaque comes in and the road is uh proposed to be to end where Maria Avenue rightway ends on the north portion of this property um staff would offer two solutions for the city council to consider in the planning commission as well. And that's one is just dedicating the area and making sure that that right remains so that connection could be made um in the future. The alternative would be that the at the time of them installing this uh proposed street for the new development um the applicant could uh construct the extension of Maria offsite off of this uh project and the city could credit back the uh cost for those improvements. Um those would be the kind of the two things if um the preliminary plat proposed m that Maria uh alignment. All right. Any other questions for the applicant at this point? All right. This is a Thank you. We might call you back up, but yeah, no problem. Uh, this is a public hearing, so we will open the public hearing at 7:26. Anyone who'd like to come forward and Hello. Hello. Uh my name is Bruce Graffender. I live at 15720 Brockton Lane uh just north of the Barren's property. And uh it sounds like they have a lot of good ideas for event center and it all sounds very interesting. Uh the only concern we have in our neighborhood is uh Maria Street uh although it's platted, it doesn't really exist between uh our house uh and 15720 Maria uh street. Uh it's basically Jeff and Sue Johnson's driveway. And our concern is that it will ruin their property because basically their deck will be right on a road if that road got punched through there. So, we're thinking there there's got to be a smarter way of, you know, connecting that development and perhaps I know there was some discussion that existing well pump road there may be room there. Uh there's already a driveway there. There's already, you know, access to to Brockton there. Uh that could be an option, I would think. But, uh I don't know. It's our opinion that the uh worst option would be to extend Maria through the neighborhood there. There's there's uh families on the north side of Johnson Street there that have kids that uh you know are playing there and it just seems like routing it through that you know corner and back out to Brock and it just doesn't seem like a good idea. So that's what I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mhm. I'll just make a note too for the people that are attending online. If you do feel wish to speak during the public hearing portion of this, uh, feel free to use the raise your hand function. Quer staff, do we know, uh, how long ago this area was platted north of the subject property? Right. Look at the mayor for the history. A million years ago. Million years ago. For what it's worth, a lot of the houses are built in the late 70s and mid 80s. I mean, my my only point in that is that, you know, obviously uh rights of way are platted at the time they're platted with future development in mind, right? And uh when you're platting property that many years ago, 50 plus years ago, um with the idea that it could be potentially built in the near future or in the distant future, obviously a lot changes between then and what would be today. Um, so I I completely understand the concern of the neighbors as far as actually improving that right ofway, whereas in the last 50 years essentially it has never been a right of way. It's it's been maybe a glorified driveway in some instances along Maria um you know going south from Johnson. With that said, I mean it is platted rightway, right? So, the city will have some some big decisions to make of whether or not they want to use that platted ride ofway for the purposes of improving street connections for the betterment of the city. So, this might be a tough one. Um, you know, listening to the ideas from the other commissioners here, they sound great. Uh I think that this plat in front of us or the concept plat might be a little bit too preliminary at this point because of these these new uh um ideas that are coming forward. But um certainly that's something that the city's going to have to look at pretty closely as far as what is the intended uh development idea for this whole area and not you know not just this new development that's coming and how is it going to tie to that that triangle Johnson Street neighborhood as as the chair indicated. Um, so yeah, I mean I could see both sides very easily as far as u concerns that neighbors have and the usability and flow and safety of the new development that's going to potentially happen here. These these actually these um lines I think at some I don't know when it was done uh but you'll even see down in the backwaters Mississippi you've got easements or you've got you know platted roads. So, well, you look at I mean, if you look at the aerial, I know it's not 100% as far as accuracy, but you could see there's actual development from a a property onto one of these platted ements, right? So, that's one of those it's like, well, I'm it's it's probably been there forever and it's just that's how that development happened. U perhaps it was there before it got platted. Who knows, right? So obviously there is some planning that happened 40, 50, 60 years ago and you know that not necessarily should drive what the future pladding should be in the area. Yeah, both Johnson and Maria were just simply driveways. And then uh when the sewer came through um enough of them was paved to get to whatever houses were there. Like Johnson Street could have gone all the way across, but you're you're welcome to come forward. Name and address. Uh Sue Johnson and I live on 15720 Maria Avenue. To Dennis's point, when we bought our home in 97, Maria was a non-maintained city road. Um so it was gravel. City water and sewer came through whatever that they widened it and now it's you're what 30 ft. So that speaks to the why people feel it's a driveway and everything. Um my husband did ask at that time before city water if we could have it given to how do you take it what's the word vacated vacated? Yes. And we were told no. So it's not like we haven't tried. Um I'm not opposed to the the development at all. I'm just concerned that our end of our property is going going to be 15 ft from that road. Sorry. Anyway, I'm done. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Mary Graphender and I live at 15720 Brockton Lane. I just want to take the opportunity to point out a couple things on the aerial view because I'm sure you're probably not familiar, although uh Mr. Fischer is probably familiar with the area, but Johnson Street here is already deadended. Mhm. And Maria is less than a block. So if you hooked up here, people would come here and then they'd have to turn here and get out on Brockton there. So it's a very short uh piece of road that is not going to be ideal for access for people to get from this new neighborhood out onto Brockton. We need to come up with a better solution than squeezing it in on this little Maria. Maybe you do need something east and west here that's wider. If you look at the the actual size of that property, I don't think that it's feasible to squeeze a road in there. And I just want to make sure that you are familiar with that neighborhood. It is kind of a goofy triangle and maybe this is a time to get something improvement there. But I don't think putting that access on Maria is the way to do it. So how is access onto either Brock Denton or Dayton River Road for the people who live in that area? Is it hard? No problem. No, because they just improved that intersection. Um they put a little traffic island so people can get across. You say that when you're referring to Brockton and Dayton River Road. That's right. Yeah, they just improved that last year. Do you still have stackup? Do you still see um cars back up to Brockton up to Johnson? I know you used to on occasion. It's better since they improved 101. Typically, it only happens on like Labor Day weekend, Memorial weekend, or if there's a bad accident tying up traffic on 101, they will divert and come on to Brockton. But that's improved a great deal since the upgrades on 101. So So I I think one of the things just because we've we've had frankly we've had other concept plans come through in DCM farms, right? Impacting longtime residents of Dayton. So I'm glad you guys are here during the concept plan so we can have some of these discussions early on. Um, one of the things that I'm trying to do or with with what I've drawn up, I know I can't share it, which is, but one of the things I'm trying to do with or show with the connection of Maria to the new development is actually to provide it's not to provide the new development access to Brockton through through your guys' neighborhood. It's to provide your guys' neighborhood a better connection south. There would be no reason people would go safer. Yeah. safer and not so much today, but like in 20 30 years, traffic on Brockton is even more. Yep. And that's that's what what I'm what one of the struggles we we're running into in in a lot of these Boulder areas that were just grid platted that didn't didn't consider what the future holds. and how I think I recognize that how this triangle gets accessed through this development is very very important not so much today but for the future and that's why we got to give a lot of thought whether it's Maria Shady View both um because it'd be good to know what the other alternatives are too because we just talked about one plan but you know no one likes this but another plan is you take out one house and you can better connect stuff now but you know no one wants their house taken out. And that's not happening today by no means, but that's other options, too. Like the house on Shady View, the one bigger lot, when that intersection gets redone, if that got taken out, you can take Shady View up and bend it over into Johnson and then it's a self-contained neighborhood. And maybe you leave the access point on Brockton because I'm assuming that's going to be less worse in the future than the access point on Dayton River Road. The access point on Brockton currently only services just the residents of those homes. It's not a busy road, right? And it's more so when Brockton gets really busy, like if you guys are turning in, do we need a turn lane, which the output? Yeah. We just don't want anyone rear ended, you know, turning in. Yeah. That would when you get 15,000 car. Hopefully, it's not that many. Yeah. And there's around 20 29 on Shady View 12 and 13. Oh, intersection. Yeah. Intersection. Yeah. I mean, do we know what our long-term plan is with the Shady View Dayton River? I think that'd be a good thing on staff's is to think about what is the long-term plan with the county with that intersection. I think that's a tricky intersection. It is. Yeah. And we need to understand it so we make sure that access through this development um provides access to these homes. I'm sure that Henipin County would prefer to close those intersections and have the existing homes go through the the new neighborhood. Okay. Um, I see we do have one person online. Jeff, let us know if uh feel free to speak. I think I've unmuted your mic. Let's get Jeff online first and then uh can you hear me? Yep. Okay. Hi, Jeff Johnson. uh 15720 Maria Avenue. Um so I basically Maria Avenue is like my wife said is our is our driveway. Um right now and to the to the platting piece of it when it was platted probably 40 50 years ago I don't know if 60 foot width was what the city usually um looked for their streets. So perhaps it was, you know, platted or or extended as a, you know, maybe like a a 33 or, you know, 40 foot easement or something. I'm not sure. Um, but to my wife's point and to my neighbor Bruce, thanks for speaking up for us, Bruce. Um, is it literally if you go 60 ft wide there, we'll be able to hand people coffee as they drive by our patio um, you know, and and they're waiting out or whatever. So, I I would ask that the you know, the the commission maybe go and and look at the area. Um I like the idea of going out Shady View. Um uh sorry, Larry, I'm not trying to put more traffic on your street, but it's it's already really wide and it it wouldn't there'd be no more disruption to that street than is already there. Um so, there's no no additional houses that would be affected or anything else like that. So, I do like that proposal. It's a good consideration. I understand your um discussion about, you know, shutting down Johnson and Maria down there. Um we don't have a problem except like Mary said when um there's a bad accident on 101 uh or you know you get a holiday or something and people think they're being smart and and getting around traffic. Um but that's really the only time we don't we don't have any problems. Um, and I and I do understand your your thoughts about, you know, future development and and everything else that might drive more traffic there. So, um, I guess I'm just asking, you know, actually rather than look at maps, take a drive. Look at look at the properties. Um, and I and maybe you do. I'm not trying to be disrespectful. Um, but, um, look at the properties, see how everything lays out, and then make a decision. But I I really do think that um you know that that pushing Maria through is is kind of is going to be really tough. Um as well as and you're probably aware is the main sewer and water runs right down that street right now. So um coming from the well well house I don't know if that affects anything or not but that's where the mains go. Um so anyways thanks for listening to me and I look forward to seeing how this develops. Uh again I'm not against the development um at all. I mean, you know, that's that's fine. I just think uh you know, the routing of traffic is going to be probably the the the key point for us and, you know, hope you keep that in consideration. So, thanks a lot. Thank you. Hello. Uh my name is Philip Frederick. I live at uh 17881 Dayton River Road. And it my property is right next to the well as the uh barrens come out of the their property out on Dayton River Road there. And uh it was mentioned earlier that the elevation is something to be considered. You know, if you're going to be going out to Dayton River Road because right now, as I sit in my driveway on the motorcycle pulling out of my garage, I cannot see a fire truck coming from the left coming up that road. That's how much of an elevation there is. And I I just want everybody to take a look at that. drive up and down the uh the roads there and if you want come sit in my driveway. We'll sit down and talk for a while and you'll be able to see that I have no vision either direction once I commit to pulling out onto the road. I'm at the mercy of who's ever driving too fast. That's about all I've got to say. Just drive out there and see what's going on. and elevation is a big concern of mine. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Hello gentlemen. My name is Nancy Hanowski. I am on the board at Holy Spirit Academy and I just had a question maybe echoing Mr. Vernon's concern or a question about the fee, the park allocation fee. I'm just wondering if this is a equal opportunity fee for the whole city of Dayton development is and how long it's been around and who who gets to pay it. Do you want to talk about the park dedication? I couldn't tell you how long it's been around, but it's paid by all new uh residential development. Okay. So we don't know for how long. Yeah. It's also it's not anything that's unique to the city of every single D every single city has the city county. It's just kind of a sticker shock when you're Yeah. I mean it's it's really for new developments. It's really in lie of not being able to provide park space for new residents on the property being developed. So if you do incorporate a park in the area that you're developing as part of the plan, then some of those park dedication fees can be extinguished. So when you're not planning on that, you have to plan for the future use of green space for the new families coming in that are living in that development. And so that's why that park dedication fee is established to help uh improve other parks in the area or set aside for a future park in the immediate vicinity. So the the offset if you will if you have green space is something you guys consider. No park. Uh no. So the the way it's written in in uh Minnesota statute is the the first option is to dedicate land. And if if the city determines that's not appropriate. Then the second option is to pay a dedication fee. Dedicate land for public use. Correct. For a park. For a park specific of paying fees. In le of paying the fees. So for so something like a vineyard or event center wouldn't qualify. No, I mean it's public unless it's a public clear here. They're not going to be paying or the formula that you use is different for different uses and how you calculate park dedication fees. Okay. And so like for homes we've been talking about what the fees were per home. If you have a different use, a vineyard or a school, it's a different calculation. It's based on the acreage rather than residential units. Yeah. Sure. I so just fair warning we're we're looking we are able per our deed um specifications we can sell off part of the land to help fund building the school. So we're looking at doing a similar thing to what Mr. Vernon is asking. So that's that's my question. Thank you. Yep. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We do have another hand raised. Sure. Here we go. I think we can hear you now. Hello. Yep. Oh, so I I'm This is Marsha Grover. You know me. I just have a question on how this A3 works because it looks like Mr. Bernins has maybe 120 acres, but it is in three separate parcels and all of these houses are going to be put on one parcel. So, I don't know how that works. Could you explain that a little bit with this A3? I just can't figure that out. Sure. Thanks. Thank you, Marca. Just for minutes, if you could repeat your uh address, please. Oh, it's 11320 from Brooklyn. Okay. Thank you. Um, so currently it's three parcels and let's say uh Bernins is is able to uh subdivide into 12 residential lots. There would be a 13th lot that is for the farm and it is not cannot have a house on there. So, it' be going from three lots to 13. So if you have three parcels of land that are um contiguous say in A3 and you put all the houses on one parcel then what happens to the other two parcels? Um so the intention is that the density is one home per 10 acres. So the remaining area wouldn't be allowed to be developed until that sewer and water becomes available. Oh okay. Okay. Yeah. Another way to say it, Marca, is that whatever you start with, it doesn't really matter how many parcels you are because they're replatting it. And so, as part of their replat, they're combining all three parcels and then separate them out into 12 lots and lot. Okay. So, they're going to end up combining all three into one big one. Then they separate it out in the platting process. Okay. All right. Thank you so much. Any other public hearing comments? All right. Uh, with that, we will close the public hearing at 7:49. Um, any other comments or thoughts from the commission? It's a concept plan, so we don't need to give directions. Yeah, I think the one thing that we haven't talked about is we all need to state a little bit of opinion on this 11 versus 12 lots. So, the applicant has clear direction as far as the planning commission. Um, I don't know if we want to tackle these, but that's one of them. I think the wetland versus DU we need to have a discussion on wetland is all lots too. Um, and it's hard with the concept plan itself because I don't feel confident that we have the road connections options understood. I want to make sure I understand those options. So, it would it would help if we had some drawings for everyone to understand the options if the applicant even could just sketch out different options. And it's not just about their property. So, this is where staff is involved. It's about the options for what happens in that triangle for connectivity in particular if one of those curb cuts eventually gets closed such as the Shady View on Dayton River Road. So I think what what this is a sketch I did and sent uh to staff. Um, so I my thought is you you do the primary S-curve road connecting from Brockton on the south at the entry of the new the new proposed development and then you kind of cut it through lot six. You and then you combine lot seven which is the one we talked about which butts the north end of the property into one larger lot. So, we lose that lot that we're talking about and then connect into the Shady View uh as part of the day one connection and then um future day two connection is you could close off Shady View and put that leg off to the east connecting to Dayton Road um through the undeveloped part of the land and then leave an easement um connecting to Maria. So in 20 years that connection could be made and close off Johnson, but it doesn't mean it has to. Johnson and Maria could still function as their own thing. You just have that easement that cuts through. You still need to provide access to that northeast or northwest lot. But um I I Shady View is just an easier connection at this point. Uh it's a little longer road for the developer um but it it's less impactful on the existing neighborhood and I think long term it it provides a better connection for the neighborhood. I see your concept, Paul, and I generally agree with the idea. Uh Hayden, I just sent you an email just if you could maybe throw that image up there just so the applicant can see it. Um, I would agree with everything you said about the Maria be on a easement for future, not anything that's built today. Um, the hard thing I'm having is that the way you the road I don't think it's a good idea to have the road obviously it can smooth out and they replat it, but I'm debating I would if the applicant's okay with it. I what I wouldn't mind seeing his plat get extended and so the connections like that and then how you connect the Dayton River Road is the next question which serves the bigger development area when it gets developed too versus shoving it all the way up in the corner. So it's very similar concept same idea. Yeah, just different different angles. And I guess the biggest thing I wanted to show is that like the way you drew it, it's going to probably be tougher like the plat's going to have to get bigger because of the road to meet all the lot sizes is my guess. Yeah. Yeah. And this is also not considering grades and Right. Correct. And I purposely that end it and so even that with the road uh to the north of Shady View, they don't even need to build that road. They can just put that in easement. So the two easements are going up to Maria Avenue or rightway dedication, whatever it is. And then the other one would be where you know you turn up and then plus when the city snow plows come through, we don't have deadend roads cuz that's not a good thing for public work. So you essentially called a sacket at this point. There wouldn't wouldn't be a need. There would it would have the extension from from Burns development to Maria or Shady View at this point. You you would have the Shady Shady You wouldn't have the Shady View to the east. You just have to dedicate because it's not going anywhere. Okay. Yeah. So, you're proposing connect to Shady View Day One. Day one. Yeah. So, then it's And I don't I'm open the idea. Which way does it zigzag through? Yeah. Yeah. I think these are good ideas and maybe good um opportunities for the developer here to take back to his team. Um it's it's really hard for us to sit here with MS Paint and start designing this for him, right? So um I I think at least he understands kind of what we're thinking about as far as that connectivity from that property to the north into this newly developed property to the south here. Uh but perhaps that's just something we should put on on the developer to say, you know, kind of kick this around, see what you could come up with, come back to the planning commission when you have something more concrete. I think from a I think from a concept though, I mean, this is concept plan and the these are the types of feedbacks. um you know when we start talking 11 12 lots this this type of connection or or providing these connections makes it more appealing to get to allow more lots. you know, putting some thought into an area that frankly I I mean, even in the the one the initial concept that was I was struggling with that that north corner up up where Shady View and and the new road are struggling with how that gets developed without, you know, without um putting pen to paper, right? It's an odd shaped piece of property at some point. You know, once these properties get chopped up like this, you inevitably going to come up with a weird shaped lot somewhere, right? I think one of the things this one does that that I didn't think about initially, but I did hear some comments of from the neighborhood, you know, this one assuming all the homes would be frontage to the new road, this one puts um backyards to adjacent properties. Mhm. You know, versus versus a a roadway or something else. So, definitely some fine tuning that can be done with this. Yeah, you can come you can come back up. It's more for clarity. Yeah, anything because there have been a lot of ideas and uh bounced around here. So on this particular rendering, you're saying like we'd go here to shading you and then just stub like here and then that could be a lot. This could be a lot. Correct. Kind of thing. And then future Maybe that comes up somewhere here or this way or whatever. We don't have to figure that out now, right? That's what you're You just got to keep in mind that this would just be an easement for future right away. Yeah. And then this this right now is an outlot for the city. So might need to bring this road this way more to not waste too much between here and the outot. I don't know if there's enough for a lot there or not. is not an engineer, you know, the Yeah. Yeah. You can move the road. Yeah. Don't don't look at that road as like that's exactly where it needs to be. Those are fat lines on paper with I think it's more about the connectivity. Yeah. Than it is the these sketches are just so you can visually see what we're talking as opposed to us just pointing and saying, you know, from 50 ft away. No. And it's I mean what we're trying to figure out is I have a preliminary estimate just on the road. It's like $700,000. So, I don't know how much more that's going to add to go over to Shady View, but I might be able to get the staff probably won't want to hear this, but uh you know, if we had 13 or 14 lots, it might make it a lot more financially feasible. Now, I know it doesn't gel with the A3. We got to get the 12 first. Yeah. Well, 12 would be wonderful. Uh, I'm just trying to figure out, you know, like, you know, does that add another three $400,000 for a road or I I don't know. I have no idea. Yeah. I think when you come back, that's something that we need to hear. But So, when you say come back, are we do we do that in I I'm not I'm not a developer, so I'm not familiar with the process. We're working with someone that'll probably build the road in the homes. Um, does that mean come back? So, another version of the concept plan or can we move to preliminary plat and just make the changes for preliminary plat? People have done it both ways to be honest. I would say I mean you can go either way and bring back a concept. I mean, I could put together a concept for the May a different concept for the May 13th meeting for the council and then and then use that to go to preliminary plan if that put that work. Yeah, I think because I have enough time to get the architect or whatever or the survey, you know, the the engineering company to draw it. Typically, that's how a lot of developers do it is they get our feedback on a concept. You know, we agree. I think we're all in agreement that the the road needs to be thought about through here for connectivity purposes, for future proofing it. That's that's the one thing that we're Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I mean, that's good feedback. I got I'm just trying to get clarity on how to move forward and because I I think I could get this redone somewhat along these lines by the May 13th and then you know um see what the council's feedback is and then and then uh go to the preliminary plan from that. So oh I was going to say just for clarity the concept plan would go to the council on uh May 27th. Oh okay. For some reason, I thought it was the 13. Well, if it was going to be the same one, I'm sure that we had an extra week in April, so we would be able to push those items that would the planning commission would see here. Say the 13th. We We would need the revised drawing by Tuesday, next Tuesday to meet the 13th. Uh the 6th. The 6th. Yeah. If you want it to be at the 13th meeting or you can go to the 20 27th 7th. I'd push for the 27th. But let me see what I can do. Yeah, it's probably not really your guy you're working with what he can do. Well, I think I think a consideration should be made on this 11 versus 12 then too because that's going to certainly drive what your uh architect or whoever is putting the stuff together is going to be able to come up with as well. Um my initial thoughts on that is that a half an acre is pretty darn close. um you know when you're talking 120 acres and you're off by a half an acre to not be able to get in a 12th which is probably going to be needed financially to help make this thing work. Um I would lean more towards that what kind of mechanisms the city could put in place that may would make the most sense to allow that 12th especially if you're within that half acre or an acre. Sure. So so generally there's three options. So option one is an ordinance amendment where you're defining how close is close enough. Option two would be a variance and option three is to go through the um the title search to show where and actually that might be tied to the variance. What is what is the history of the I'll call the parent property of did the parent property include the well property um where you'd say okay this was it used to be over 120 acres it meets the intent of the code I'm leaning strongly towards the variance route assuming that the applicant can provide access to that north triangle and that's the justification for it um but the the only reason I don't want to get into the minutia of a half acre is we could have the next one come in at 19 12 the next one come in at 39 and I just don't want to if it makes sense like here that's why I'd lean towards the variance myself because of the justification to solve the problem with access to the north this a PUD right will um at this point it's not anticipated that the PUD route would be necessary okay um is that one. That's another option, but not probably not necessary. But even if we did a PUD, I think that the justification of not following the one per 10 is because of what the applicant's doing, giving up land to connect to the north, that is a little atypical. And I'll just add to the mayor's point. Um, so in the code requires that if if there's a greenway overlay district that's included on the property, it does require conservation ease conservation PUD. In this case, the greenway overlay goes along the tree line on the north property line. Um I think not ne not entirely. Again, it's a fat line on a big map. Um the intent there is to preserve the trees along the the north property line probably much of what it which is going to be outside the plant boundary. Trees. What? What trees? The tree line on the north property. Isn't that the neighbors? Mostly the neighbor's trees looks more than likely. Property line technically kind of goes through the the middle of the trees and take care of them, but I think the property line is right through the trees. Sure. So you brought that up just as a possible route to PD. Yes. Yes. Okay. I' I'd support Darren's thoughts going with 12 where you're talking about the out for the water treatment. Yes. Y there's water. So the point being the trees are already protected because the existing easement I never thought of just by trees but it's they probably technically. Peter, do you have any thoughts on the 11 versus 12 for the applicant? I'm I'm in favor of of what you were suggesting of of variance if we can um you know if we can figure out a way to make some connectivity for a future problem that may arise. Does staff feel confident that they could come up with a justification for a variance legally? I think one of the things that uh John had mentioned related to the pair and parcel and if there was title work pulled on that uh the wellhead sites were dedicated for the public infrastructure that is served um feel that we can get there. I I mean that's my personal it it is and and you know kind of to your point we can draft a lot of things but ultimately it's the plan commission and the council that are making those approvals right. you just don't want to set precedent when you don't have to. Um, you know, the next person along the line is going to say, "Well, they you approve this one kind of willy-nilly. You could prove mine the same way." Right? So, um, the other thing to consider is that variances, you know, used to be like really strict, like you have to have a hardship. The reason why there's some kind of imposition on this property that doesn't allow you to develop it or build the same way your neighbor could. um since a couple of years whatever 10 years ago it's kind of shifted more to more towards like a reasonable use of the land. So is it reasonable use and they're you know I think the courts are kind of looking at that first justification of is it reasonable to allow this variance to occur and I think within when you're within a half an acre I think that reasonleness does present itself especially with a brand newly created uh zoning district as well. So obviously I would hate to have to go back to pen and paper with a with a zoning code that we just got done creating for the A3 district and the variance route would work if if staff felt it was appropriate to do that. So it sounds like you got support for 12 from the planning commission. Anyway, that's what I'll instruct from the planning commission. Y group to look at connecting the shady view and well um the one other thing just to give staff feedback on is the wetland ownership outlot versus uh DNU. So th this is more of a a larger policy decision. So in, you know, as we get more experience with plats, um the direction that staff is going is to recommend that wetlands and wetlands buffers be platted as outlots versus be platted through as lot and blocks. I understand a little bit of uh so I'm trying to so I I guess platting it as an outlot in my mind doesn't stop someone in the public from altering it. It's just now we own it and they altered our stuff. Yeah. So, um I don't know. I'm a little torn on but I don't know enough history on our other communities doing a lot of it this way. I've seen it done both ways, right? We have both ways in in Dayton. Um, yeah, I'm comfortable with the DNU, but I guess I'd want to hear more justification if I guess as a city, you know, if it's a DNU. I mean, plus way, if something happens in there, I don't know if First of all, how much maintenance have we done in wetlands in all lots? I I think it's minimal. Minimal. Yeah. Right. So, I don't Yeah. And I don't think that we would it'd be hard to justify that expenditure, but that maybe that's maybe a discussion when the council has this conversation is if you're going, you know, if we're really going to justify expending money to fix wetlands or not. And it's it's few and far between. But there are also circumstances in newer developments where the sod company comes in and the wetland buffer signs aren't established yet. And the wetland buffer is to be treated as the wetland is. um and they will sod right up to the edge of that wetland essentially eliminating the what the intent of the buffer was originally. Um not going to tell you that that happens often but it has happened and we've dealt with the consequences at a staff level before. Um and I'm if they did that in a DNU they'd have the same issue though if the city has the DNU, right? Uh well go back in would have an outline. So the the intent there is you're signing up to your property line. your property line ends at the buffer. Got it. So, so in a in a neighborhood like mine with, you know, quarter acre lots and um you know, you have multiple homes on on these wetlands and maybe when the the the parcel to the east develops, I I could see going to a city owned on on that half. But I think on this half, I think just let it let it be. That's my opinion. Well, eventually if that whole area gets developed into single family homes or whatever might be developed into, that wetland's probably going to serve as some kind of treatment for runoff. Correct. They have they typically have to pre-treat it before it goes into the wetland. Right. But so what I'm saying is that you would want if they're going to use that wetland for calculations for runoff before it gets you know after it gets treated to help maintain drainage throughout that whole development. Maybe there's other man-made wetlands too or whatever it might be. So, um, but with that, the city probably would want some kind of maintenance agreement anyway on top of that to make sure that it's maintained properly to meet, you know, to meet the requirements of the engineering specifications. And then at that point, you would probably want some kind of control over that wetland area to say, okay, well, it's time to go in and make sure it's cleaned out properly. Probably not in this wetland, but yeah, it's more so with with storm water pond. So frequently what what when when a development goes in is you'll have a storm water pond that's next to a wet line. Correct. Yeah. Okay. And then just for consideration on this is that the the the bank because I don't own this outright doesn't care, you know, I I will have to pay off the wet land in order to give it to the city because the bank's not going to just give it to the city. So I would have I believe you know, uh, whatever the value of the land is times the acres to the bank just so I can so that the city can maintain the wetland. I guess I kind of agree with you know when the rest of the land gets developed whenever that is then if that's what needs to be done we need to pres if we wanted to do that when the land the rest of it gets development we kind of need to preserve that right now not necessarily well you could do your half like you said but if you want to do the whole thing you need to do it now because otherwise we'd have to buy the DNU from the property owners well we could still put a DNU on the wetland. Yeah. John's talking about city owning the wetland, right? Oh, as an outlot. Yeah. So, if we put a DNU on the wetland today and then determined we wanted to be in an o lot in the future, it's basically you're taking property. You're taking a property right from that property owner now that you might have to pay. But if we buy it as a or if we put it in a DNU today, we still have rights to maintain it for its intended purpose. That's why that's kind of why I'm leaning that way. So, yes. And and and John, I know you said we've we've had it in both situations. I'm just scanning throughout the city. The the areas that are city owned are adjacent to roadways. This the areas that are privately owned are there's no roadway access to them or a trail access. Yeah. I'll just say this is a much bigger policy discussion that needs a lot a lot more time and research in it. The one thing just to clarify with the wetlands while the applicants up here is when we or when staff requested that the wetlands become outlot. You guys are just talking about this one wet land that we're dealing not the whole property. Correct. Correct. Correct. Wet land in the buffer. Just this one wetland that these new lots were going to. Okay. Just wanted to make sure Jack was aware of that. They're only talking about this wetland. Okay. And again, as as John had mentioned, this was a a policy consideration that we wanted to bring forward at this point. Um, and from the the conversation that we had at the planning commission level, I think that it'll be noted at the city council level that you would want to retain a drainage and utility easement over it. Um, and that's the that's what we will move forward with for this for this concept at this point. So, just wanted to note that for Jack. Okay. So, you're thinking of I didn't know what a DU was, but it's a drainage utility easement. Okay. So, Okay. I mean, I don't think if I do an easement, I've got to do anything with the bank, but you shouldn't. Yeah, you should tell the banks that the wetlands don't count in your credit. So, it's not doesn't have any value anyway. Well, they only look at like this is the land that you own and we just they just divide by, you know, the total acres into what's owned. So, okay. staff has good direction from the the considerations that we brought forward tonight from the planning commission. We'll certainly reach out to the applicant in the near future to discuss kind of the next steps and uh the potential schedule for bringing this to the city council pending a potential revised concept plan. So, all right. Um moving on. Item uh 8B, consideration for a request to reszone 15520 South Diamond Lake Road. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. This is uh consideration of reszoning 15520 South Diamond Lake Road from A1 to SA uh in connection which is the special agriculture district in connection with uh this property entering into the Metropolitan Agriculture Preserve Program uh that is authorized by Minnesota statute. Um the property is currently zoned A1 and uh is in the 2040 MUSA staging. the property owner back in 2014 actually went into this program prior and filed for expiration out of the program uh which occurred in 2022. Now um at that point when the program expires the property goes back into A1 zoning because the by zoning ordinance the special egg district um is only for properties enrolled within the program. Um, so again, this property was uh removed out of the program in 2022 and uh the applicant is requesting that uh the city council consider a resolution and the planning commission consider recommending uh this resoning request to the city council prior to him going through the process of applying and enrolling. Um city consent to entering into this uh state program is a requirement uh as part of that application. So, um, for tracking purposes, as I mentioned, the city of Dayton requires this, uh, resoning, um, making these properties that are enrolled into this preserve program identifiable on the zoning map. Um, and then unless initiated by the property owner at the time of the at the time of a comp plan change, um, the city or the property owner has the authority to initiate that expiration or removal from the program, uh, which is a minimum eight-year process. Um staff recommends approval of this request based on the Musa staging of this property and the upcoming comp plan amendments or comp plan update that's going to occur that will give the city ample time to um evaluate this area as a whole for future development and then consider whether this property could uh stay within that uh program or not. With that, I'll answer any questions. Just so I'm clear, Hayden, when it's in the program, is the only way it can come out is the applicant withdrawing it or can the city have some control, too? The city does have some control and that's related to comp plan amendments uh specifically for making these area or the properties itself developable. Um because the property is within the 2040 MUSA staging, a comp plan amendment would essentially have to occur before development happen. Um and uh given that it's an 8-year program and it's in the 2040 um so we'd have the ability to take it out. Yes. By 2030 whatever years if it happens. Yeah. Essentially that comp plan amendment would occur first and then we would initiate that as a city. Any other questions for staff? All right. This is a public question. What? No questions. Oh, this is a public hearing. So, I will open the public hearing at 8:18. Anyone? Anyone online for this one? Uh, there is one person still online. If you'd like to speak during the public hearing portion of this item, feel free to use the raise your hand function. Not seeing anything. All right, I'll give it a minute. uh just so we have a recorded minute on record. Any other uh discussion from seems pretty straightforward. I don't have any concerns with this. Yeah. It up yet? No. All right. At 8:19, I will close the public hearing. I will make a motion to reszone the property at 15520 South Diamond Lake Road from A1 to SA. A second. We have a motion from Brown and a second from Sergeant uh to reszone from S1 to SA. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed? Motion passes four to zero. All right. Item eight passes thing. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the planning commission. Uh this item is a consideration of a zoning ordinance text amendment to uh solidify exterior lighting regulations within the city. Um in February the city council requested that staff look into an ordinance amendment related to exterior lighting in all districts within the city. Um historically the city has not had exterior lighting standards. Um the majority of the new developments have been guided by uh conditions of approval related to those lighting standards uh on a given site. I will just note that really the only things that uh address lighting within the community are broad very broad nuisance uh items that are very subjective and hard to regulate. Um this kind of puts it into an equation or for lack of a better term. Um and also promotes the city's designation as a dark sky community um by adopting an ordinance for exterior lighting in all districts. Um there was another thing that I wanted to mention. Oh, the only specific things that are regulated by um the zoning ordinance for lighting are lighting standards related to outdoor storage areas and um exterior or outdoor display areas um where they establish foot candle requirements um maximum requirements at the uh at the property lines um adjacent. Um staff has researched common requirements for both single family residential properties as well as commercial and industrial and specifically put that into those two categories. Um and uh staff is ultimately looking for uh feedback on the draft ordinance uh from the planning commission and to consider providing a recommendation to the city council on this item. Um so I'll get into the the details. Um the two main items related to this and uh as I mentioned the city is considered or designates itself as a dark sky community in the comprehensive plan that all lighting uh with only a few or a couple exceptions um shall be downcasted with a cut off angle of not to exceed 90° um to ensure that light is not projected upwards. And those exceptions uh include um lighting of the American flag on a pole uh as well as low wattage architectural lighting. I couldn't get a good example of the low wattage architectural lighting, but if you've ever driven by the Greyco site at night, um they've got uh blue uh lights that kind of show low blue light that goes up uh the walls on the sides. So, that's kind of what uh what we had in mind and uh I guess a common exception around other communities that I've that I've researched. Um the uh the second portion of this is related to limitations of the amount of light to allowed to trespass on adjacent properties uh which is measured in foot candles. Um for new developments this is easy to regulate because they come in they come in for preliminary platter site plan review. A phototric is generally a standard requirement of that package submitt. Um so we can al understand what the foot candles are with the proposed lighting plan on those um properties. uh for single family residential. John and I actually were we were in Golden Valley on uh was that last Wednesday or two Wednesdays ago. Um stopped at a professional lighting store and got an understanding of uh what the what is a light meter, how can we use that and uh where's the best place to get one to measure foot candles. Um and essentially what they had mentioned to us that uh the there are apps on the phone that uh can read light and are actually very accurate from uh from the um professional people that know more about lights than than John and myself. But uh that would be the mechanism that we would use for uh measuring light when a concern comes in. Um so for single family residential agriculture properties and then the civic and institutional uses uh light at the property line will not should not exceed a half foot candle. Um and to put this into perspective because also light shadows and things like that don't show up very well on pictures. So that's why you're not seeing any pictures in the presentation or the staff report. But essentially a 0.1 foot candle or a 0.5 foot candle is if you're at the property line and a light is shining on you looking over at the other property is barely visible that there is a shadow cast on that property. So that that is my best example to provide to you for understanding what is a 0.1 ft candle or a.5 foot candle and then as you increase that number of uh foot candles that shadow cast it is more and more apparent. Um so for multif family uh commercial and industrial uses and parking lots uh light at the property line shall not exceed one foot candle. Um both of those bullet points are common industry standards that I have uh seen from the majority of the uh cities that I did research in. Um multif family commercial industrial uses are very common to limit foot candle measurements at the property line. I will just note there was only three or four communities in the metro area that I found that regulates single family residential in this regard. Um but at the same time they're also dark sky community designations as well. Um so for those those communities that are dark sky uh examples that I found for single family residential was uh Greenfield and Independence were two communities that do have um general lighting standards for single family residential. Are we proposing it for single family? That is the current the way that the ordinance is written is that uh the single family residential will be limited at a half foot candle and uh lights on the property would have to be downcasted. So there's no um uplighting. Uh I do want to make the note also is that the ordinance requires that uh the single when commercial and industrial are adjacent to single family residential or agriculture that light at the property line shouldn't exceed 0.1 ft candles. Um, and the reason for this is that's consistent with what the outdoor storage and the outdoor display limitations are in uh the current zoning ordinance. But as well as when new pro when new developments come in for commercial industrial that are adjacent to single family residential and agriculture, it's understood that uh there is going to be concessions related to nuisance problems, whether that be traffic or noise issues. um single family residential adjacent to commercial are going to um experience more issues related to traffic and noise compared to being adjacent to another single family residential as those are harder to uh regulate. This would be an opportunity for us to at least try and lighten the uh potential impact on those adjacent properties. So that was kind of the the the justification for staff's recommendation in that regard. And it it's just also worth noting that the origin of this project is a complaint where one neighbor complain about the other neighbor's flood light in the agricultural district. I'm more concerned about the policing or the staffing level if people start complaining about it in subdivisions. Yep. But I don't even know how. So do you have a better example in my brain about this one foot? Like for example, if I'm standing across French Lake, should I be able to see light at Greyco? Because I can. So the the visibility of the light is not necessarily the illuminance of the light. Um you can see the light, but there's not light that is being projected far enough that will end up casting a shadow um behind you where you are, right? So if I was standing across from French Lake and I could see the cubes lights on their property and I put a light meter up to it, it would read zero foot candles. Okay. So the visibility is different than and that's again going to be another learning curve for uh residents when this uh question comes up is that just because you can see it doesn't mean that there is light trespassing on adjacent properties. No, it's I feel how often does staff get complaints about lighting? We do not I at least in my experience here I am frequent. And and just because we're creating an ordinance doesn't mean that you're going to start getting an influx of of uh complaints about lighting either. Uh the good thing is that you'll have something to back yourself if you do have to respond to a complaint. Um if it's legitimate, uh if there's a legitimate complaint and you said, "Yeah, this is a really bad use of lighting and there's nothing to back it in the code," you're hamstrung, right? So, I commend staff for putting this together, especially since, you know, if when Dayton continues to develop, there's going to be that intersection between residential and commercial or residential industrial that's inevitable and you have to be able to protect that that residential side from that commercial or industrial development um with, you know, light pollution or whatever it might be. So, it's a good step. Couple of comments. Um, I I would generally say no uplighting. You know, the one of the first points that you made, you know, we can uplight flags and then like lowlevel architectural lighting. I just say get rid of the level architectural lighting. I mean, there's no, you can get around that with other types of lighting. If you want to have feature lighting on buildings or on your house, um, if we're a dark sky community, let's just not allow up lighting unless it's a flag. Um, and then I think we should also make a distinction. There's a a big trend now with newer homes to put um permanent lighting around all the eve lines. Um, which could be considered holiday lighting, which is exempt, which I appreciate that holiday lighting is exempt, but it doesn't say temporary holiday lighting. It just says holiday lighting. So we should put do permanent do permanent eve holiday lighting fall under the exemption or should that be considered part of the kind of permanent lighting of the house and if there's if there's you candle readings that go under your neighbor's property and those things are glowing well bright white messy I well I think I think if you want to put the the permanent eve lighting on your house you still have to meet minimum code requirements but then the question is are you not meeting the the the um upward facing lighting at that point? I think I mean usually that's downward facing because it's tucked under your eve maybe. Usually sometimes sometimes neighborhoods and it's it's very popular that Yeah. I I mean yes I have a neighbor who is doing the same thing. Um doesn't bother me any but I I don't know if I mean not above his house either. I don't know if you could see it from, you know, above or, you know, any kind of light casting. It doesn't shed light on anybody else's property either. It's, you know, lowle LED lights probably most like a glow. Yep. Yeah. Like the great I think it's if we're restricting things in residential areas, that could be one of the things that you start getting complaints about. Well, and it might be it might be hard to uh hard to enforce and it's this I don't know if this is considered a workaround by for lack of a better term, but uh if you have it on an eve that is at a 90° that essentially serves as the cut off um for that lighting. I don't I've never seen this before, so I don't know where the light is installed on the eve. Typically, they're under typically they're under Yeah, it's tucked into the corner of the eve usually. So, it's it's usually illuminating down, but there's a more of a glow than you would have from just typical house lighting, but but if we look at the what's the the intent of the ordinance, I mean, it is at the property line. Mhm. So, I don't know of anyone who's got I've got plenty of neighbors who have these and they're just lighting up the house and not the property lines. Yeah. Just bringing it up so we can talk about it. Yep. It's when they get installed and I shouldn't say installed but hung by the homeowners on the outside. Give me an example up my whole backyard with the upward or with just lights. Yeah. For those temporary holiday lights or are they permanent? Yeah. And again, this is this ordinance is open to any changes or amendments the body would like to recommend. Uh so we can certainly look into uh into how it does holiday decorations still need to meet the intent of this ordinance or should it say temporary holiday decorations um to make that distinction that um these are not permanent fixtures on a house. I think it should say temporary holiday displays that would not uh need to meet the the foot candle requirements. uh if you want to go the more permanent down lighting or the undergrow underglow lighting at your house I don't know under your eaves I think it would have to meet the intent and specifications of the ordinance at that point for foot candle readings and so on and so forth sure it's hard to define temporary uh holiday lights correct there's a lot of holidays and it's not just one day out of the year I believe Not all holidays are official holidays, but they're still a holiday. I I believe my neighbors lighting that they use can change the colors of the lights too for the LEDs. So, they just change it to whatever the holiday for what color that the Right. Exactly. Yeah. But if it's if it's a plugged in in like wire, that's temporary even if you leave it up year round. If you're fixing it to your house and it's hardwired and it's controlled, then it's permanent and should abide by your foot candle readings. Yeah. And it wasn't really necessarily the foot candles when it came to considering it. Yeah. But the more so the when you say that you put Christmas lights around or holiday lights around a tree, um those individual bulbs are not all downcasted. So that was kind of more the the issue that we were like, well, we still want to have, you know, I want to see Christmas lights when I drive down the street, you know, during the during the season and things like that. So, um, I don't know if it was necessarily a matter of the brightness at the property line, but more so the how do we avoid the requirement of downcasting holiday lights? I don't think you I just don't think I I think you I think the intent of the or any kind of lighting standard ordinance is for permanent fixtures on any type of property. So, it's back to Paul's point. Are they permanent or not? And that's subjective at the point. I mean, if we rarely get any complaints and if we get a complaint about some holiday lights, we could say, "Well, we we'll be back in 3 months to see if they're still on when it's March 1st. They're supposed to be Christmas lights, so to speak." So, yeah, if they're fixed to your house, it they're decorative lighting and it's not holiday lighting. You can use them for holidays, but it's a decorative light. I think it's one of those areas that staff would just have to use discretion at that point to make make a decision. If it's attached with a screw, then it's fixed. If it's a wire with its clip, then it's temporary. We work on the definition. So, in looking at So, the exception would be temporary holiday lights, not permanent. Yeah. Well, the more the discussion is why do we have to call out temporary? Because I feel like we're opening ourselves up. Just call it holiday lights and if it becomes a problem, we have to change the code anyway. Sure. Okay. That's just my quick thoughts. I mean, I I get where Jeff's coming from. It makes complete sense, but we're now we're trying to define what temporary is. It's growing pains with any new code that we find out that that might be an issue and uh we'll bring it back and explain to why maybe it needs to be amended in the future if it does. I mean, I I know so just from my my use of the backyard ice drink, I put a flood light out there and it's a temporary light that gets mounted in in November and taken down in February or March and we turn it on when we use the rink and turn it off when we don't. I I have a shield over it so I try not to spill lights into the neighbors the neighbors yards. Um, it's just one of those flat LEDs. Mine I have no neighbors behind me directly, but I know of other neighborhood neighbors in the neighborhood who do rings who have the stand mounted lights, whether they built them their own or they're the the garage work lights. So, the temporary lighting thing, I think, opens a whole can of worms. Yep. I think you get into a nuisance complaint at that point. Let the police department deal with it. Yep. Yeah. So to Peter like those examples would be in violation of the code. Well, pending investigation of the but because they don't have shields. Because they don't have shields. They're not. They're shining. Well, depending on how they have them angled, too, right? I mean, it's all it's all how it's built, how it's looked at, what it's what it's doing. I mean, 99% of the codes are only looked at when you get a complaint anyway. And a lot of I mean I think that if if they're in there they're you're obviously trying to appease everybody. And if those types of temporary lights are required to have a shield then that's when the conversation could be had with that person using that light to say hey look we did get a complaint. It's right here in our code. If you could shield them down more that would be appreciated type of thing. It's easy to make a shield for them. It is. Yeah. Um the one I did have uh maybe an add or a modification is we've got the lumination of outdoor sports fields and performance areas. Um and we have it we have it regulated to games or events I should say. Um well it does say game or event but but um I don't believe we currently light our outdoor ice rinks. Yep. So, if we wanted to, this one's got a light that glares into my house. Yeah. So, like like if we wanted to just add some language in there for outdoor recreational areas, it's it's just preventing a future outdoor city recreational areas. Prevention of a future amendment. Um, I got Yeah, I mean you guys post I feel like I've seen in the past there's hours of operation that the ice rink is open and the lights are on. It shuts off and the light goes off at 10 p.m. or whatever. And this this this is explicitly game or event. So it is. So you're not always going to have, you know, an event in a hockey rink, you know, sometimes you have someone there and a couple hours go by and then someone else shows up, right? So, and I I'm guessing you're talking about the one over in this area. And I just for my understanding, this is where it would be. Yeah. Yeah. I will say that there is an exemption in the code for city- owned um lighting in existing field lighting and existing. Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah. It wouldn't read any foot candles in my yard, but I could see them glow. Look out my back window. It's brighter than my Christmas lights, which is not easy to do, but it's all good. I'm okay with it. And then do the the only other one that I I can see a tie with the event centers and do we have any provisions? Do they have to follow this? Yes. And so just right making sure we're checking boxes. It is a can of worms. Yes. Uh a couple things that I had here too if I can. Um maximum uh lighting height of 30 ft of 30 ft. And this is kind of dovetailing on the sports fields. Are we going to have any development that might come in that might need to go higher than 30 feet? are we aware of? Or perhaps we we have an 80 foot sign that's going up, right? So, most industrial buildings are above 30 ft. Right. Well, I would say that the the ones that I did look at like Opus and the cubes were right at 30 ft and that goes with their uh their lights were they weren't on the top of the near the top. Their wall lights were at 30 ft was what uh was shown at least on the plans. Now, um what's out there now is may be different than what was originally proposed and we could certainly take a look at that. Um but that was one mimicking what I've seen around the other communities for uh wall lights or parking lot lights. And then additionally, um, that's consistent with what the parking standards and outdoor display requirements are within the community or within the zoning ordinance. Are you suggesting, Jeff, that that 30 foot limit, it's like a little arbitrary, like it should be more or less? No, I just want to make sure that we're not uh shooting oursel in the foot if there's a need for anything higher than 30 ft in any in any application. Yeah. I mean, the one thing that we probably didn't uh consider was if uh say for um the church discussion today, if they put in a ball field or something and they needed stadium lights for whatever reason, um that could be certainly something to consider. and maybe stadium lights are really the only thing that comes to my mind um that would have to exceed that um okay maximum height limit. I can't personally I can't think of anything else that would require that. Yeah, I think I'd put an exemption in there for field lighting. Uh the only other question I had too was on uh sign lighting uh number nine. So, are we taking into consideration any kind of like LED readerboard signs? Um, the brightness that those would have to be. Do we have any requirements specifically to LED readerboard signs as far as the brightness of them? Yeah, it's the um standard language in the in the sign ordinance, but uh it's that one's calculated in nits, right? Um and I believe it's 500 at night and 5,000 um during the day. Um, and I think that uh one thing that uh I've seen too and that I've always tried to ask when these signed ordinances are these signed permits are few and far between at this point, but uh when there is a reader board, um always double checking to see if there is a dimmer um capable on on the on the sign. So, if it does end up being too bright, there is a mechanism to turn that down to meet the standards. Uh the other thing I know like highlighted gas station likes to put like a really bright LED light around the entire sign. It's it's not a readerboard. It's a lighting standard. So obviously that would have to meet uh our ordinance as well for it's not really a readerboard, but it's a lit freestanding sign that probably wouldn't meet our proposed ordinance. The holiday lights. Yeah, that's Yeah, that's what Well, those holiday lights, I guess. Holiday gas station. Um, the other thing that I didn't see in the ordinance that we might want to consider is that, you know, sometimes lighting is for the benefit of the public as far as safety and all that. So, we don't, this code does not show any minimum requirements. So, some codes would say, well, you need five foot candles on any entrance into a building that's coming in. And again, that's for safety reasons. Um and would also some ordinances also require u minimum levels for lighting of you know public use space for parking lots or whatever it might be. So something else to consider that we could potentially add on to this this ordinance are those safety mechanisms anyway for lighting for pedestrian use. Sure. I think uh building code should cover that especially for entrances and parking lots should be in the code. I mean actually like I Minnesota building code yeah covers that. So I don't know if we have to cover that in our audience too but some ordinances double down on it just so they could check that box off while reviewing a phototric plan or whatever might be but yeah I mean you you could add as simple as see building code for just so that someone Yeah. And then the only other thing or I guess I said that a couple times here but the question was here uh posed to the planning commission on what you should do with existing existing lighting. Um you know obviously the three examples would be that you uh all lighting in the city of Dayton shall comply with the ordinance regardless of installation date. So you would, I don't know, proactively go around and say you you you and you now have to conform. Uh property owners if you're found to be out of compliance would have certain number of years to bring all the exterior lighting into compliance or all lighting installed prior to the adoption of the ordinance shall become legally non-conforming uh shall be brought into compliance with the ordinance upon replacement. Uh, I think the easiest way obviously is to go with the non-compli or the the um uh legal non-conforming route to say this is a new ordinance. Everything that's been established before this date is is allowed until that time that it's replaced or uh upgraded or expanded on. Yeah, that's my opinion. I appreciate the the comment and the other consideration that uh I had in my head was uh basically existing lights become non-conforming and if we do end up receiving a complaint at that time they would have to have to correct it. So, um that was going to be my original kind of recommendation to proceed forward was it would just follow under our standard nuisance process of um passive enforcement or if a property owner comes in to do improvements and tries to get a building permit for whatever at that point then they have to bring other things up to code. Certainly. And I think that uh just to be proactive as well for new um single family homes in town. Um that would be something we would share with our uh builders that build new homes in town. Um just to say, hey, the city has um pending obviously the city council approval of the city adopted an ordinance related to lighting. Um just please adhere to this if you have lighting that's going in immediately. Um I don't know if a phototric plan would be necessary at that point for the building permit application, but uh can definitely be considered. Uh, this is a public hearing, so I am going to open it at 8:47. [Music] Wait a minute. Uh, for the one person that's online, if if you'd like to speak, please use the raise your hand function. N. All right, I will close the public hearing at 8:48. Is this looking for a motion? Do we have Do we need a motion, John, or are you just looking for feedback? Oh, this unless uh motion unless you want to table it and then it's just feedback. Well, I think there's a little bit of reworking, not a lot, but tweaks to it. So, give them since it's not an immediate need, do we table it? And if if we want to see the tweaks, I mean, please let us know those tweaks as a as a as a group as well. There's no rush to this. And you know, as was mentioned, this was based on a neighbor's complaint. I don't think this ordinance necessarily resolves. This was based upon a complaint. Yeah, that's that's just my concern that if you have one of those neighbors, you're now I mean, granted, if you if you're causing an issue because you got too bright of lights, I get it. But there's a lot of circumstances where, you know, it's just one of those things you're better off figuring out with your neighbor versus getting the city involved. But that's just my opinion. I will note as well just because that was brought up when this ordinance was drafted um there was no consideration given to what is existing out there related to the problem that was brought up to city staff. So um there was no we didn't go out and look and see how we can u change things on that. This was a broad broad thought. There was no consideration given to um the existing issue that was brought up on that property. So, um, just wanted to note that like even in like residential neighbors, my neighbor moved now, but my neighbor that next to me like to leave their lights on, exterior lights, they lit up their house all night, 24 all all year long. And so, like whenever you went to bed, your bedroom was you got a nightlight. I' i'd be happy if they turned it off, but I guess that's where are we going to be getting a lot of complaints like that, too. or is it and I don't even know if it's in violation how you read it, you know, but it lights up your whole, you know, your whole bedroom if you're close to it. Right. Right. Now, those people like you just stay quiet. Yeah. I told my wife if it really bugged me, we just got to get different shade. Yes. Um and like I said, I got a neighbor, too. It's lit up like a Christmas tree. And I I don't know. I'm really torn on this thing cuz the concept of it I agree with 100%. I just don't want to create a like are we setting up or an enforcement nightmare? I I don't I mean again I'll I'll double down and and say that this is it's a critical ordinance I think because of of the development that Dayton's seeing. Uh especially when you get that intersection between industrial and residential or commercial and residential. um those buffers are are critical to have as far as is livability. Um so I I think it's needed. I don't think that this is going to be something that's going to open the floodgates for complaints. I I really don't. Uh what it will do is it will give us some credence to try to resolve a problem that someone might have been living with for 10 years and finally got fed up enough because they couldn't get to sleep or whatever it might be that you know something flipped the switch and now I'm I'm going to complain about my neighbor because I don't care anymore. Right? It's gotten to me that much. Uh but I think you know having an ordinance in place is going to give the ability for the city to react in a way that is fair across the board because it's it's an ordinance. One option is you just remove residential requirements and just have commercial industrial requirements and if they bought residential you have higher standards and the residential to residential foot candle stuff like maybe that's not necessary. I like we're concerned about I like having the residential in here because it gives our builders something that that we're looking for for guidance. Yep. For new homes, it's probably for new homes. Yep. Yep. Do you think that they really follow it? I just thinking about when I built my new home, you go to your lighting selection and they're trying to sell you more lights, not less. Well, it's it would be also difficult to police, so to speak, the light that's casting upwards, right? It's like I really like this sconce. It looks awesome next to my garage door and it happens to shoot light, you know, lighting sources both ways. Well, it looks great, but it's not meeting the ordinance. So, in the day, I'm going to get a letter from the city saying I have to take out the light I just put out, right? It's my need as a builder, as a homeowner. I need to research all the rules and regulations before I do that. But, you know, that's where I kind of agree with Paul a little bit to say the residential against residential isn't to me as critical as residential next to industrial or and commercial. But, and like I noted earlier too, the commercial and industrial standards are uh very common. Almost every city has uh regulations regarding that. Um the single family residential is more few and far between in terms of um regulating it like this is proposed. So at the very least I guess staff would be hardfast to um keep the commercial and industrial language in there if uh if you were to consider an amendment related to the um single family. I can concur with Jeff and Paul that the commercial industrial that it makes sense. It's where I was a little bit on the fence. Was it the residentialness and all that? I don't know. And our nuisance ordinance already has some language in it regarding lighting. Correct. Is that what you said in the beginning? Well, it's vague. It's to you. It's subjective and uh I don't have it off the top of my head, but I believe that it's more so related to uh glare um affecting um drivability on roads adjacent. Okay. So, if you drive by and you someone just can visibly see that I'm getting shined by this light um that's would be considered a nuisance. So, a spotlight that your neighbor decides to illuminate his entire backyard on that he just bought that is blowing up all the other houses in the area with light. Uh, the proposed ordinance would help deal with that, but if we took the residential standards out, it would not be able to deal with that is what you're saying. I'd have to do it. I'd have to double check on the what the ordinance uh specifically says and um with direction we can certainly bring this back in uh June after what we figured out. And uh I think we might have to. Yeah, that's what I Yeah, I kind of is echoing here with Jessa, but what I don't want to see in the residential is all of a sudden that people are installing fixtures that you know are on an hour a night that don't meet the code and and all of a sudden the city is because what happens when you have an enforcement issue, you start have if you get a few complaints, word spreads faster and if people feel bitter about it, you you're gonna have a lot of people upset calling the city, the council members, everybody. And it's just not worth it for that part of the residential side. Now, protecting from the flood lights that are, you know, on residential properties that are maybe maybe a nuisance. That seems like a better route maybe to tighten up the nuisance code. It's security lighting too, right? That only goes off when the dog runs through the backyard and it I mean it shines everybody, right? Yeah. So in those you buy a couple bucks, you know, not a couple bucks, but I mean I buy them at any home improvement store and install it yourself and now there might be an issue that's created at that point. So I I don't know this. Yeah, I think I think the nuisance code should deal with that more than your residential standard lighting code does. So we can I was just going to say we can certainly look into that and uh if you uh wish to uh table this uh um item um we can look at how can we amend the nuisance code to focus on light trespassing rather than maybe like you said those sconce on the on the wall have a opening on the top of the light that shines upwards and it's glaring and it's not an issue, but the way that this would be currently written, they wouldn't be able to have that. So, um maybe we can refine that nuisance um code to really get after the the trespassing of light on other properties. Do our does our code also address like neighborhood street lights? So, developers come in, put the street lights on, uh depending on the style of those lights, they might be, you know, shining up also. Does this code require have we already required in the past that it that they don't shine up? No. The uh the way that this code is written and then uh just in past examples, it's not something that we've regulated and uh because they'd be um public street lights eventually when the plaque gets done and the road is in, it would be an exempt um light from this code. Even if we were a dark sky community, why? Yeah. Why would that be? Why why would the city not comply with the same thing that everybody else has to? Well, it's not necessarily the the downcasting of it. I guess it's more of you have the right of way where these uh street lights are and then right behind it you have the property line. So, obviously it's going to be if you've got a 25 foot or 35 foot 30 foot Cobra light um it very good chance that light is going to trespass on that uh adjacent property. Um, I haven't seen in uh driving around town that there are lights that upcast uh that are street lights. Um, but again, that's another thing that we can look into and refine as necessary. They're more of the decorative lights that you know, depending on where the casing around the bulb is. Sometimes the casing has like a an opaque top where it doesn't allow the upcast like you see on Pine View. Correct. Some of them are just glass all around that would allow for that intrusion. So, just something to consider. Also, and I I think it it may be warranted to to call out in here what is exempted from on a city on a city street light. Like in in this case, we don't want the city lights to upcast, right? You know, it's not even just upcast. I mean, those pine view lights reflect even off the mean off the pavement. They were Well, there are too many originally. So, there Yes. Yes. J Jasonber could could talk more about that, but like the the Pine View lights are downcasted. So, um there are other city lights that we have that are upcasted. Um but what I was getting at was even the downcast can be can be. I mean, we had one of the neighbors there move because he was an astron he couldn't see the stars anymore. He picked up stakes and moved because of those lights. So, they can be a problem even if they're downcast. I was really happy when my neighbor moved because the new neighbors never had the lights on. I I even, you know, even straight lights that aren't on intersections. Um, I just I think there should be, you know, questions asked about those kind of lights also. So, I'm I'm kind of in favor of leaving the residential stuff in here. Maybe it it needs to be a little looser, but in here um you know, we were talking the wall sconces as an example. I mean, if we don't want holiday and put them on or quick trip, why would we want our residents to do it? Um I think it's more the fact that people are going to do it because they didn't know. And I don't think this is a good example of why you should have known the code like you should when you're, you know, building building your whole building, right? And that's just going to I mean, unless it's really serving a purpose and it's that important, different story, but I feel like it has more of the ability to upset people than necessary. I I think if we move the residential lighting out of here, what I'm afraid of is you're going to get someone who said, "Well, I'm I'm upcasting on trees in my yard." And and there's people doing that everywhere then. But but I can think of houses that are in rural Dayton that do more upcasting than But where that becomes a problem is when you have I think that where that becomes the problem is I don't know. It's it, you know, making sure that it stays within their property is the bigger problem with it. Um, just for the direction that we're going, I think the commission is would like to table this and maybe if we come back with some examples of what is in violation and not in violation based on the draft ordinance and like Peter said, tighten up the residential or maybe it gets moved to the nuisance code. I don't think it should just get ignored necessarily, but Okay. So, we will need a motion for that. Make a motion to table. Second. We have a motion from Crossland and a second from Brown to table. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed? Motion passes four to zero to table. Thank you. All right. Notice and announcements. All right. Here's right on time. Uh May is let's get moving month. So just look at all the the excitement we have sitting in the chairs here. Um this is a pedometer. I'm sure that you guys have have all seen this in some form or another. Uh this can be given for free or obtained for free outside of city hall uh next to the utility billing box. So there's the city has a challenge to grab one of these and just keep track of how many steps you put in. You're getting steps right now even. Um I I know in past years we've had competitions with other cities. I I don't know if we have that. I don't believe we have that currently this year, but uh Yep. Okay. What else? Uh, spring cleanup day is this Saturday. So, if you have uh stuff in your garage that you'd like to get rid of, th this would be your opportunity. So, it's Saturday, May 3rd, 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. at Central Park. For anyone that doesn't know where Central Park is, it's behind uh well, essentially behind the elementary school um on what used to be the gravel parking lot and is now paved. John, is this on the website. Yes, this is this is all on the website as well as the city's app. So, just to push, the city does have an app that you can download on your smartphone that has all of these wondrous uh announcements here. Uh May 14th, Wednesday, May 14th, 5:00 pm to 7:00 p.m. at the public works garage is our city open house. So we will have um all information of how the city works. Uh every department will have a table. We'll have a zoning map or you know maybe you can color your own map in and and do better job than we do. Um but it's been very well intended in previous years of you have kids you can go on tours of uh climb around the plow trucks and the fire trucks and what else? Uh citywide garage sale will be June the weekend of June 5th and 7th. So Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Uh participants are asked to register their garage sale and and why register it. Um we can put that on the website noting where you are and what you are selling. So I have on here you can't see. I I will be selling a gently used planning commission packets. Nice. And then also tonight uh the council is appointing in uh a committee for LC Stevens master plan update. Uh the council and all the commissions are asked to appoint one person to serve on this committee. Uh it is a right now a three meeting commitment over the spring and the summer. So what I'm looking for from the commission is a volunteer. Uh to put this in perspective, is there a timeline on when this master plan might get executed or is it going to executed slowly over multiple years? Executed as in constructed. Constructed. Oh yes. Yeah. Yeah. Like long time in little chunks. Yeah. Once a year we'll probably throw something at it, but Yep. Spring summer is not good for me with coaching my daughter softball team. So I would have a hard time committing extra nights. And I don't know if this would be evenings or daytime. So it's really up to the members of the committee of what works for them. All right, let's Does anyone have experience with the park commission? I do. I just don't have time. Fair enough. Um I was going to say, is there anyone who's interested? I wouldn't have interest. It just schedules a little thing. I'm a little concerned about the time. Um so before I overthink it, Jeff, are you interested? I mean, I'm interested, but I'm in the same boat as everybody else as far as time commitment and without knowing exactly. Um, spring and summer is busy for me as well. So, when's the new guys start? Uh, how many how many meetings are anticipated? Three. Three. John, is this was there uh any like public uh resident members or is this it? Uh so there there's oh I'm going to get the verbiage wrong. The intention is you're going to have us this as like a steering committee and then more of um a larger group of of public influencers. So, you know, of neighbors and other community members and and church groups, school groups. Um, you know, so you're going to have a uh what is this? Six people and then you'll have a larger influence from 20 or 30 people. When's that committee get put together? Uh, I don't think it's necessarily a committee. It's going to be, and this is just me thinking out loud of like, you know, I I'm representing my special group. cures my opinion. Okay. So, so I mean personally I I I appreciate the offer of asking for someone from the planning commission to to serve on this. In my opinion, I based on where this is located in development nearby is basically kind of planned out. I don't know that there is necessarily a role for us if we if we can't make it work and there's you know if there's no desire for someone to make it work but I'll leave that up to the fellow commissioners. There's one adjacent property that isn't is in its current use that on the river. I guess I'm a little just concerned too of of I don't know what I can really provide to be honest. Um, as far as the concepts of designing a park, what should go first? I mean, I don't I wouldn't be too hung up on you either time or not necessarily not having and that's kind of what I was getting at. If it doesn't work for us, I don't think it's it's huge, but if you I'll put my name down and I'll do what I can to work with our schedules. I think that's appreciated. Yeah, I think it'd be fun. I mean, it's opportunity to do some actual planning foresight as opposed to just reacting to other people's plans. We get a chance, right? You'd be good. Hopefully, it works out with your schedule. Yeah. I mean, I think if people can be flexible, I and I say that, you know, obviously we've got other parks in our our master plan that are more oriented around development and so this one is more kind of landlocked and I don't see as big of an impact from a planning commission what we can offer to Darren's point. So that was just to clarify that comment, but Thank you, Paul. Yeah, you're welcome. Y make a motion to adjourn. Second. We have a motion from Cross and a second from Brown to adjourn. All those in favor? I. This meeting is adjourned at uh 9:11 p.m.