It is April 2nd, 6:30. I am calling the planning commission meeting to order. First order of business is pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Uh item three on the agenda is the role of the planning commission. I'm just going to read this since we got some new faces in the audience. Uh the planning commission consists of five residents appointed by the city council. The commission administers the comprehensive plan, zoning, and subdivision regulations. The commission conducts public hearings and provides recommendations to the city council. It is the city council who may approve or deny land use applications. Item number four is the approval of the agenda. >> Assuming there's no changes. >> No changes. >> I'll entertain a motion. >> Make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Motion carries 40 with uh chair de currently absent. Do we need to do roll call? >> Um >> we're Yeah, we're we're okay. >> Perfect. I'll just make a note once uh Peter comes in, we'll announce that he uh he's arrived. >> All right. Uh item number five is a consent agenda. These are routine and pre previously discussed items that are enacted with one motion. Uh the only item on the consent agenda is the planning commission minutes from March 5th. Move to approve the uh March 5th planning commission minutes. >> Good. >> You got it. All those in favor? >> I I. >> All those opposed? Motion carries 4 Z. Uh, next item is item number six, open forum. Uh, these are public comments that are limited to three minutes for non-aggenda items. State your name, address, and no actions going to be taken by the commission. The items will be referred to staff. Um, is anyone here for open forum? Anyone online? Um if uh anyone who's attending uh would like to speak in Oh, here we go. Okay, there we go. Uh if anyone attending online would like to speak in open forum, uh please raise your hand. >> All right. I'm assuming then that uh >> well just let me repeat this because if anyone attending online would like to speak if you could raise your hand please. There we go. Operator error but I'm not sure what my error is yet. So there we can continue. >> All right. Uh then we items seven A and B is the council update from March 10th and March 24th. The mayor is not present. John, do we want to do it or do we just want to delay it and save for the next meeting? >> I I would say delay it. So I don't have a agendas in front of you. Okay. >> For what we what all we did. >> All right. Then we are moving on to item 8A public hearing for the concept plan of opin. >> I'll just note for the minutes uh Peter Demouth has arrived. >> Exactly 3 minutes late. >> Not bad. >> You almost made it. >> Okay. Um so oped in this is a concept plan. as a concept plan. The intention is is that individual or I'm going to say it's a high level plan. It doesn't have the same level of detail as you would expect with a formal preliminary rate plan or site plan. Uh it's there's no formal approval or denial, no formal action. The intention is that individual commissioners will give their opinion if if um they are if you are supportive of the project or what you would like to change to make the project better. Um so this uh applicant is OPED. Uh they're proposing a 172,000 square foot uh speculative um warehouse uh industrial building. Uh this is located off of 121st uh Avenue uh immediately east of Dayton Park or the mobile home park. Um so the property is vacant. It is uh wooded and has been wooded for many many years. Um, this project will require four different applications. The first one will be a comprehensive plan amendment and I'll go the go in a little bit more detail about each of these. So, first item is a comprehensive plan amendment. The second is a zoning map amendment, then pre-rendering final plant and then finally a site plan review. uh for the comprehensive plan uh amendment. Uh the future land use map guides this property as a mobile home park um you know with a mobile home park that obviously it's intended to be for mobile homes not for industrial. So it would be this map would be amended for mobile homes into industrial. Um this property was previously guided as industrial. Um no I'm sorry. Yes. was previously guided as industrial and then uh amended in 2021 I believe uh to mobile home. So uh in 2021 there's a proposed project or planned project to expand the mobile home park um that that project did not uh go through and so now the property owner is has listed it for sale and is looking for you know whether it's a use for an industrial or for a mobile home park uh the market is stronger for industrial. So that is why we have this project tonight. Um similarly to the comp plan, uh the zoning map amendment or the zoning map would need to be amended from a mobile home park to industrial and then you get more into the details for the preliminary plat and site plan review. So uh currently this is platted as an outlot. Outlots are not buildable by themselves. The intention is that it be platted into a lot and block. um with a site plan review. This is required for uh larger or most uh commercial industrial projects. And that gets into the more uh detailed of you know uh is there enough parking? Is there enough landscaping? And what does the building look like? Let's see. And this is an overall plan of the building. So that's um so again uh this the entrance would be off of 121st. Um the building uh this I believe is the second rendition of the building. So originally uh it was more of a north south orientation. There's a a drawing this that's included in the packet. Um the building has shifted in order to avoid impacts to wetlands and to uh the south ditch. So, within this property, um, and it's a little hard to see on the screen, but everything that you see in yellow is a wetland. Um, and then there are two ditches that go across the property. There's a a north ditch and the south ditch. So, um, the north ditch, um, and I I believe the applicant has someone that's much more knowledgeable than I am on on the wetlands and streams. Um but again the the intention is to avoid impact to that south ditch as well as the um southwest one. >> When you say everything in yellow, you're talking everything with the yellow circle >> the yellow >> yellow. Yep. Just for clarity. >> Yep. Um, so again with this drawing, it's a little hard to read, but you've got a building with uh I'm going to say passenger vehicles that are on the northeast uh corner of the property and then semmit truck docks and trailer parking on the southwest. So, and we have the applicant and their team that are here. Otherwise, I can try to answer any questions that the commission may have. Any questions for staff? >> I have just general question for you. Um, being that uh the city's getting pretty close to the comprehensive plan update for 2050. Uh, I know the Met Council has some considerations as far as when the cuto offs can be for amendments. I'm not I'm not aware of those or when I I'd have to refresh my memory as to when that is. But are we running up or is the applicant here running up on the Met Council not accepting comp plan amendments because of the fact that we're so close to >> the whole comp plan update? >> Going off of memory might not be correct. I believe it's October. >> Okay. >> Of of this year. So perhaps it's probably a good idea to let the applicant know what that date is for sure for timing issues if they want to get u an amendment into the the city before that deadline before yep >> they'll accept anymore. >> Yeah. And I'll have to confirm it. So I I believe it's after October. um you know any comp plan amendment would have to adhere to the new MET council standards which it gets more into density probably not as effective with impacted with industrial um and then I think it's the end of this year then it's kind of a hard stop and wait until the new comp plan is adopted. The only other question I would have too is that it sounds like from the staff report that you've had some communication from the watershed district about uh encroaching into the wetlands. Could you share a little bit of that? >> Um yeah, sure. And I I'm going to ask the the applicant correct me if I don't remember this. So we had we had kind of a online meeting with the developer and city staff and the watershed district staff and um for the tech panel or the technical evaluation panel. One of the comments were is you know the idea of wetlands is first to avoid impact to the wetlands and then to minimize what that impact is. And so this is a difficult project or property. So as you can see there are several wetlands in there. Uh some of them are um not sure what I'm going to call them insignificant. I think there's a different name for that though. Um but you know they're able to be filled in. There's other wetlands that should just be left alone. And so, uh, the watershed district's kind of question is, can the building be smaller? Does it have to be there? Does it the parking lot need to be as big as it is? And, you know, and and you know, from a developer standpoint, you want as big of a project as you can, and then you start whittling down to what fits. >> And then piggybacking on that, does Dayton have uh specific wetland mitigation requirements? Um, not different than the stator from the wershed. >> Okay, >> that's all I have right now. >> Any other questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward? Uh name and address. Uh Ryan Dandin, >> 400 uh Water Street, Excelsier, Minnesota. Jay Moore Aiden, 400 Water Street, Excelsier, Minnesota. Um Chair Demouth and members of the planning commission, we appreciate tonight's discussion and the opportunity to present this project to you all. Um, as I said, I'm Ryan Dan with Oppedin and joined here with uh by Jay Moore. With us today, we are joined by Melissa Barrett from Chellog Environmental Services, a wetland specialist who conducted a wetland delineation for our project and has worked on other industrial projects in the area. Uh, we also have Andrew Glover from Marco Murray who has provided civil engineering and architectural design services for the project. Additionally, John Roush from Kushman Wakefield is present as a representative of the land seller. Collectively, we welcome any questions from the planning commission. any questions, thoughts to start? Um, I'm generally supportive of the industrial use change. Um, I don't have a, you know, when I first looked at the plan, I was kind of hoping maybe the building could be flipped a little bit from a trailer standpoint. um meaning that not against a residential use. Um but I also looking at the MTL site and what happens and it's really no not much more invasive than what's going on right next door at MTL. So I'm kind of impartial on that fact. Uh other than that, I like the design. I like how it's got the customer parking on one side of the building, the trailer parking on the other. So that's my general feedback. You know, one thing this plan doesn't do a great job is that there will be fencing on the on the western portion of the site to kind of block and limit the impact of that trailer um on the on the south side of the site as well. Yeah, I guess uh maybe maybe to Darren's point um you know we saw saw a rendering in our packets and I I think I don't know John did you have it on your slides of December's but like just help walk us through what you looked at on the site and and why this this makes some of the most sense. >> Sure. Um, I don't know if you have it up in the agenda, but uh, to John's point, the original plan was a north south um, kind of layout. It was a bigger square footage as well, and it had office parking directly abuing the trailer park to the west. After feedback from the wershed, we decided to try and mitigate, you know, try to limit the impacts to the wetlands as much as possible. So, you'll see now to the south of the site, there's there's a man-made ditch slash uh, stream running and wetland two and wetland one. Um we shifted the site and moved it to the northeast to limit impacts to that area. Um additionally we we heard feedback that West French Lake load if you look at the industrial projects on that uh roadway they all have office parking facing that. So to the best of our ability we're trying to maximize the street appeal of the project to West French Lake Road and the amenity of the lake right there to any potential tenants. Um, and again shifting the trailer parking in the back, trying to use as much of the existing trees and wetlands as possible to limit the noise impact to the residents as well as building a fence uh again on that west line that will hopefully cut down additionally on noise. >> Would any of the existing growth old growth trees in the southwest corner be able to maintain be saved or do you have to clear those in order to do the proper storm water management? >> Nope. upgrading >> all the storm water management areas um as demonstrated on the map are to the north of the site kind of on your entrance off of 121st Avenue North and then on the east of the site in that other area really anything south of that trailer uh parking stalls will not be touched so we're trying to save as many of the trees there as possible we you know Melissa's familiar with the site sounds like there's some old grow trees so to the best of our ability we're going to limit you know the impact to those if I could just add a comment as John mentioned we did have a kind of an informal meeting in January with with Jason Quizberg as well and our storm water ponds. Um if needed, we would be willing to work with the city if there's kind of a partnership that the city needs some extra water. If we have room for it, we would try to accommodate and work with the city because I know there's some potential runoff that comes from that mobile home park that we would try to capture it and just treat the water for better quality. So, we're open to working with the city on kind of a a partnership there to help the overall quality of the water. >> Yes, that's a good point. And I didn't have this in the staff because I'm not 100% knowledgeable about it. So, independent of this project, the city is doing a storm water um plan, I guess, to treat the storm water that's coming off of the mobile home or treating it before it goes into French Lake. And we're looking at having probably more of a retail pond um on the it's a white line now. It was a constructed pond at one point and would potentially tie into this project or be expanded into this project. >> So I guess one one other item that I would like to mention and John I don't know if you can pull up you drew a red rank rectangle in your in your staff report about the possibility of moving our building back. Um, we want to bring Melissa up here to talk about um what those yellow lines are in the in the front of the building. Um, if Melissa, probably be a great time for you to come up and talk about that. >> Thanks. >> Hi, Melissa Barrett with Chell Environmental. Um, >> yeah, if I could have that figure back up there. Sorry, if I could have the figure back up there, please. He's getting to the one with the red. >> Okay, perfect. >> You're Yeah. >> Well, that not that one. The one with the red shift is I think what >> Okay, >> that one. >> Yeah, >> sure. So, um, we did have that pre, we call it a pre-application type meeting with all of the, uh, the wershed district and other technical evaluation panel members. And, uh, what we did hone in on is that we wanted to try to avoid the more natural wetlands on the site, the more remnant wetlands on the site. This is a highly disturbed site. And as the south part of the site is less disturbed, as we move north, it became more disturbed because as you probably know, we had that large uh area to the north of the site, which was when I worked on it was for Elro Steel. It might have turned into a different industrial development, but that was like the most disturbed with the MPCA ponds and things like that. Um, so wetland 2 in the southwest corner of the site is basically a remnant wetland. It's in its natural condition and it's surrounded by um old growth trees as is the drainage feature in the southeast part of the site, the D12, D13, D14. That's a basically a natural tributary that'd be regulated by the core of engineers as a stream feature and we definitely cannot go near that for permitting purposes. So, this plan avoids those natural features that are still on the site that are pretty um remnant and have been there historically. The wetland three in the middle of the site, I call that my goldfish wetland cuz it's kind of shaped like a goldfish. That one um is a large wetland, but it's turning out that probably half of that wetland is incidental, meaning that it was created not intentionally to create wetland, just with previous disturbance on the site. probably half of wetland 3 is not regulated under the state rules and it's also not regulated under the core of engineers rules. And then we have in the middle of the site kind of near the two northern storm water pines. Yep. We have that wetland 4 that actually is like an excavated wetland prior to the mobile home park even being there. This was kind of like a wet swale feature that probably flowed through the site. And I'm talking like 1940s here. So, um, that that little wetland is actually an excavated basin. And then all of those ditches up to the north, they're a different color. You can't really see it on here cuz those are man-made ditches. And what I found is that most of those ditches were actually kind of passing the water through that MPCA kind of situation, testing situation they had going on to the north. That was to basically route that water through. And none of that water comes through the site anymore now that it's been developed to the north and also to the east. So those remnant trenches are still there, but they're actually not flowing with water anymore. And so this wetland that spans the northeast property line, um there's the green line on the other property, and then we have the yellow line. And you can see it's like really kind of jagged and odd shaped because it's really not a natural boundary. Um, and if this project moves forward, we will go be be going to the TP to um with information to support incidental determination for that bigger knob up near the pond. Yep. Not quite sure about those two little fingers jutting out. We'd have to um to the southeast. Those are possibly kind of like remnant flowage areas. obviously very disturbed from the what they would have been historically. But um if you go on like the Henipin County properties page, you can flip through historic photos and you'll see that that blob up by the northern pond. I mean there used to be a road through there. There used to be a gravel pad on there. It's pretty obvious when you flip through the historic areas that that area was being used previously um as upland. So that would be our intention. And so this plan in my mind would satisfy the TAP in that we listen to their concerns about avoiding the quality wetlands. Um not that they like to see wetland impacts, but the ones we are going to impact, you know, they're disturbed or partially maybe fully incidental and not actually regulated. >> So the wetland um well the watershed district has not seen this specific plan. >> We have not shared this one. No, we shared the other one with the building uh north south facing which they weren't that happy about and they wanted to see the the stream features and that wetland too specifically. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> So you feel that this is going to be more favorable in the watershed district's determination. Got it. >> Yeah. >> Currently the water from the mobile home court flows through that property. At least half of that mobile home court flows that direction. It's downhill. >> That that D10 on the very >> Go back to that other one, John. Yeah, >> that southeast corner of the site. >> That one? >> Yeah, that D10. Uh, I followed that west and there's a little It's like this big. It spits out of the ground and that forms D10 and it starts at the southeast corner. There's a little culvert right there and it spits out and I have photos of it. Um, so that's how D10 starts out of a little culvert underneath the pavement. I have no idea where the water, but there's water coming out of there. And then also up D4 at that northwest pond, we also had a culvert there. So, there's actually some underground direct discharge happening. Plus, there's probably surface flow, right? Yeah. >> Well, there were I grew up in this area, so I know like the back of my hand, right? There are two areas on this property where water came from the trailer. One is the lower green one that you're talking about right there. >> Yeah. >> And the other one is up farther up. >> Yeah. There's actually a ditch >> right where those where those two structures are in the trailer court. >> Mhm. >> That's where >> 60% of the water that was collected on the streets in the trailer court ran through and into that property and it went across that property. And that little area that you talked about was was uh dredged out. >> Mhm. That property was dredged out by the people that owned the trailer court. It actually was a swimming hole, a man-made swimming hole, and it was closed in 1961. >> So, that's how long that's been there. But that water ran through that swimming hole and then on across into the uh the ravine on the adjacent property on the west or on the east side, excuse me. >> Yeah. >> So, John, maybe it's a question for you. Is the water from the trailer court still running the same way? We don't have any storm sewers in that property, right, from the trailer court? >> I I I'm not knowledgeable about >> I've never seen any there. I've >> I don't think there are. >> So all the all the runoff water from the whole mobile home court runs >> through that property. >> Sir, there is storm sewers there. I used to work maintenance in the park and storm sewers there. You go past where they built the playground. You'll see there's a manhole there where everything drains to and drains out. >> Where's the playground at? >> Right. It's one of those two structures right there. >> There all the storm water runs up right. >> Do you know where it goes? Does it go underground? >> Not sure. >> Yeah. Once >> we we'll call the public up in a in a little bit to to talk to. Um but I it it's very helpful to have some knowledge and and background on that. Um >> I guess any other questions for the applicant or comments at this So, I guess I think your question was the >> the shift >> the shift the shift and in my mind that um >> that shift would be to avoid that northern knob and I'm if you scroll through the Henipin County aerials you'll see that that is likely incidental and that's what we would be applying for that impact and if it's incidental it doesn't need doesn't require mitigation it's not a regulated impact. So the the the red box shift seems more than the magenta shift of the parking on the >> southwest. So you're squeezing the the trailer and the truck movement parking >> a little bit on the northwest. >> Yes. I mean, we we think that those because those wetlands are incidental, there should be no reason to push that building back off of the setback. So, we can maximize the size of our building and have the truck court, as shown as designed, flow and function properly. By pushing that building back, it completely wrecks the the back row of trailer parking. So it it's a it's a major financial impact and we don't think it's it's quite necessary from what we've what we've moved that building and and and listen to the TP. We've tried to avoid every single wetland possible and we think this is positioned the best for this building to be successful and have the parking lot vehicle parking kind of the front door look to the northeast and look over the lake and have that as an amenity. How much smaller is that shifted building or would that shifted building have to be? >> We didn't even look at it because we don't support it. I mean, it it it it greatly impacts this and we don't think there's a need for it. So, we we really at this point don't feel the need to redesign it at this point. We want to come and ask for what was presented originally. And that's the plan that we think we can get done and accomplish a a real nice building and bring tenants into the city of Dayton. And I guess I'll also I'd also say that the there's remnant trees in the southwest and there's also if you look at the historic alios you'll see that the stream feature that we have in the southeast those trees have been there for a long time too. So um in my mind as a ecologist right I like to stay away from the stream features and then there's slopes that they have the historic trees on. So I like to see the building further away from that thing. So, >> and there's quite a big tree ordinance as well in the city. And so, what what we're trying to do is leave all those trees at the bottom of this plan and those original wetlands and keep those buffers in place. So, moving it back would only cause more trees to be excavated or torn down and chopped down and we don't want to do that. So, we like the original plan and that's that's what we're here to ask for support on. Now, I have some concerns on the the the layout of the building and the the way that you have it sitting. I understand that that looking out at the front of the window would be nice to look at the lake, but in doing so, you're putting all of the traffic and the truck traffic adjacent to residential development. We did talk about putting uh you know 8 to 10 foot high fence. We can listen to any recommendations that are put forth. We also plan on putting a lot of evergreens and keeping the trees that are on those borders in place. And I'd also look at the bottom of the plan. I see lots of trailers and a building that ab butts up already to that mobile home park. So I think some of that precedent has already been put in place. How many bays does the building have that face the the mobile home cord approximately? >> Approximately 12 to 14. >> 12 to 14. Thank you. My my first question for the commission is what is the highest and best use? Yeah, we let's let's get to those after we do the public hearing. >> Okay. >> Because right now right now my mind's in a in a feedback mode. >> Sure. >> Okay. >> Um clarifying questions from I think where where I want to go is clarify questions that we have for the applicant. Then we'll go to the public hearing, maybe call the applicant back up to have some more discussion about what we can and can't do. and and then to your point, John, go through what you need from us. >> So, any other clarifying questions? Um, I think the one I had and and John, maybe you can help with this one um or or the applicant, but storage of these trailers. These trailers are not they're not storage facilities that are parked there for It's out outside storage. So, generally speaking, you know, the I don't know how many stalls there are, but it extends the length of the building. >> Um, it's fairly common on an industrial. >> It's below the threshold for outdoor storage, though. >> 43 code is right. >> 43 trailer parking stalls is >> We should look into that to make sure we're following the code. >> That's and that's where I was going with that one. >> Um, >> because I believe the limits I forget what it is. I want to say it's like 30% or so. >> Yeah, it's it's it's a healthy amount amount of trailers that can be there. >> Yeah. So, this is significantly less than the neighboring MTL. >> Yes. >> And this is a speculative building. Um, so we don't know if it's going to be actually used with trailers or if it's going to be used for uh you see the indoor slide parks at some of these places, right? >> Correct. >> So, but to give us, you know, our our best shot at landing the a user pool, this is a strong amenity if if so that if the tenant desires that like you look at invent just to the north and that doesn't occur there because because of the use. So, it's just when you go into a project like this and you put all the risk in in the investment, you know, you're hoping to give yourself the best chance of success. That's what this plan reflects. >> Any other questions for clarification from the applicant? >> No. >> All right. At this time, I am going to open the public hearing at 7:02. I guess I'll call you guys back up afterwards to there's anyone who would like to come up and discuss a little bit. Um yeah, come on up. Uh we'll do name uh name and address. Uh we'll give you about 3 minutes give or take. And >> and then the this is just a rule for most everyone. If we hear a lot of repeated stuff, I just kind of ask you to move, you know, move along. But, um, >> my name is Lel Norw. I live at 701 York Avenue and the Dayton Trailer Park. That is right where the ponds are going to be buted up against. My concern is already with the two large businesses you've got going there. The news, the noise pollution, it is 247 banging in trucks and it I mean, it's it's almost unbearable. I mean, the noise that we already get in there with the small amount of bays and the traffic coming up 121. We have trucks parked out there for hours during the day. We got them parked out there idling at night. I mean, the last two summers, we haven't been able to open our doors and windows just because of all the dust and the nasty debris. I mean, the quality of our life has really been impacted over all this. and uh bringing another project like this for another couple more years of that. I mean that that's pretty inconsiderate of a residential. Um we had issues with the other construction companies starting at 5 5:30 in the morning and running until dark and that isn't fair to a residential. If >> I could just say what that was the noise was that only during the construction period or is that >> No, it's still it's 24/7. You're hearing you're hearing forklifts banging into truck, tractor trailers backing in the I mean it's 24/7. I mean it it's constant. And I had a a gal that was with the city. I think her name was Fang and she came out and said they were going to put up all these uh sawing barriers and do all this and that. Nothing ever came of that. I mean, so we're already we're already hearing a I mean, a ton of noises and you're going to bring this in. It's it's not right to the residents, especially having all them loading docks in the back and take out the wetlands. And I mean, ever since um all that development, the wildlife has been impacted out there. We used to see tons of feeasants and deer. I haven't seen a pheasant out there in four years. I mean, so it it's impacting more than just I'm just going to leave it at that. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> My name is John Waldron. I live at 209 New York in the Dayton Mobile Home Park. Uh actually on the map you can see my home uh in the lower southwest corner on that first one coming up. So I'm right there uh in that corner where the so-called privacyfed sound barrier that MLT has up. It's a joke. I I hear everything. And the construction that was going on that entire time, it was a complete disruption. uh used to have wildlife in that area. Uh we still do, but not like what we had. I mean, we had turkeys in the backyard, possums. Uh they're all displaced with with all of this and the deer and and the animals. I take my dog out through those woods, you know, for her walks, my walks, and she's kicking up, you know, birds and tree and turkeys and stuff. But but the sound itself, even north of 121st at 11:00 at night, we can hear trailers banging into the back of the dock doors, you know, and then to have this right here on on the property line, right right at our back door, literally, it's it's just going to be more more of a nuisance to us residents that are still there. I mean, because it's still a residential area. Whatever the plans may be in the future, we're still a residential area and we we we should be able to enjoy our privacy and and our homes that we own. We literally own our homes there and we should be able to enjoy that privacy. When we moved there, we we didn't plan on living in an industrial park. We we we we were there and we enjoyed the privacy and the seclusion away from the metro and and in the woods and the wilderness and that's all being, you know, slowly taken away from us and that's the last little piece that we have left. That was part of 505 property that owned Dayton Mobile Home Park, you know, before they sold it in 2019 or right around then before the co. So those woods there, the park and that whole area up front where Quick Trip was is all that was the Dayton Mobile Home Park. And you guys, it's it's slowly slowly being taken away from us. And something like this. No. and and the water the the water the runoff in that lower corner there where that culvert is that the new owners finally put in and updated the culvert there but as Tom had mentioned you know that's I believe Tom mentioned but that's all runoff so all of our water when it rains or or the snow when it melts it runs off and it comes out and it drains into that that that property it was all designed to drain there so that's all part of our drainage that it's going to affect us in in so many ways. Um, and again, the privacy, you know, the sound barrier, they're talking about putting up a privacy fence at 10 foot. That's the exact same thing that's behind my house. It's literally 15 20 feet from my bedroom window. And I I had to move my bedroom from the back up towards the the middle. I had to change my bedroom so I wouldn't get as much of the noise of the trucks running out of MLT. And now they're going to do the same thing over here. It's It's just going to be a Yeah. I mean, I don't know what else I can say. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Yes. >> James Newman. I live on 409 York. Right. Couple of houses down from the playground. Right. Basically right where their corner of their driveway where they want to put the trailers is going to be basically like 3 ft from my shed. And my wife has a an illness called mass. activation and she's basically triggered by noise, vibrations, and with all the construction that's been going on, it's been hell for her for the last couple of years. And now I get it. I've been out in the park since 1991. My parents bought this lot in 93 and I took it over in 2005. and we picked that lot because of the woods, because of the animals that were available. And I understand development's going to happen, but you really put us into a commercial zone. I mean, everything around us is now commercial. And if they have trucks running at night, it's going to shake my whole house. And I just had the house reinssulated. So, I am committed to staying in this park as long as the park is open because I can't afford to move. My house is paid for and all I have to do is pay the lot rent. And putting something like that right out my bedroom window is kind of unfair. I I was going to come in and I I see what they're doing and I was going to suggest, hey, let's put the trailer, you know, the building and put the trailers on the opposite side because semi-truckss when they idle, especially in the winter, are going to shake the property. It's just a given. I've been around them my whole life working. So, and I understand you got the wetlands and and I understand everybody wants to look at the lake. I mean, I want to look at the woods. So, I mean that that's my take on this whole thing. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Probably the last one. >> If you could wait till you come to the microphone. >> You could feel free to sit down too if you want to. You don't have to stand up to because I'm just going to reiterate that I agree with what they're saying. I'm at 405 York, which is just down from that um the triangle and the one that comes across. He lives right across from where that is. And I'm down three trailers. So, I'm going to be right at that corner. And I don't like the fact that they're taking the woods out. There's a lot of wildlife back there. You're going to be displacing. I mean, you're all talking about wetlands. Well, there's a lot of um wildlife that doesn't it depends on the wetland, but they also live back there. Woodchucks, um possums. I mean, we since I'm putting that stuff up on the MLT, all the possums have come down to our us, you know. Um we have other issues going on, but I'm I just want to reiterate that I am, you know, on board with what they're saying. We need to fix it or rethink it. >> I'm sorry, Pamela, could you spell your last name, please? >> Assh. >> Yeah, there pretty simple. Thank you. >> Hey guys, Tom Olsen on 11 Gaywood Drive. Um, my backyard is 121st Avenue. When we moved out here 26 years ago, we had the field behind our house. Now we got 121st Avenue. Now, if this place goes in, where's the where's the trucks? They going down 121st. Well, then for us to get out of the park right now, it's suicide. If we want to take a left go on Brockton, we got fight the FedEx trucks or we be fighting more semis. I mean, right now the traffic on Brockton is already bad. Now, this is going to make it worse. I mean a quick trip coming in there, all the FedEx trucks going into the Quick Trip is a nightmare. So we're all these where all these traffic going to go. That's our main concern. And and our our backyard is the 121st Avenue. We have semis running up there all night. We our bedroom is is in that area. It's like we are trucks all night now going back and forth. I mean we first moved out, we had the elk farm out there. I'd run my dogs back there. I hunted back there. Now all that's gone. So, it's just getting harder and harder for us to live out there and we can't afford to move. So, that's just my opinion. Thanks, guys. >> Tom, did you you you had a couple comments on the the um the storm water. >> Yeah, there is the pot. >> There is um there is storm sewers at the park. >> Yep. >> Where Mobile Hope used to be, there's a storm sewer there. >> One on Burns in York. There's a storm sewer there. I think it all ties in when we went with um the Maple Grove City and water. All that should tie in parts there. But in the by Gaywood where John was talking about the playground that will run out towards towards the woods. >> Okay. >> But there is there is um um storm water sewers there. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> If we want to get get plans for that too. So >> it it might be good for the city to have these. >> The city should have them plans. We I'm sure we do. I'm just not knowledgeable on storm water. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. We do have one person online. >> Were you coming up for the public hearing? Yeah. >> Yeah. Come on up. >> Person online if you'd like. >> We'll do in person first. >> All right. My name is John Roush and other 5229 Minitoga Terrace, Minnetonka. Um, and we currently own that land, the 7.93 acres, which is adjacent to this parcel. And I actually did own this land at one point in time, which we ended up selling to Mr. Fitter, who owns it now. Um, when we did some land exchanges for the for the quick trip. >> Mr. Fitter, just to clarify, that's the owner of the mobile home park. >> Mr. fitter, not the mobile home park. He owns the subject property that we're talking about now. He sold the mobile home park a little while ago. >> Um, I've been a commercial real estate sales guy for 25 years just selling land. And what I'd like to do is differentiate a little bit between what MTL did and what we're proposing here. This will not be a transfer station. There will not be that many trucks. They can't afford to to pay the rent for this building. We envision this building being a lot more similar to the Envent property, the you know the corporate headquarters, the one user which is to the north. Um we're not not set up to be a cross dot truck terminal, you know, transferring things and running trucks 24 hours. Um this is set up and we don't have anybody. It's a speculative building, but our intention is to bring a corporate user like Env um to the city. that building to the north, the invent building, that lease because of the views to the lake. They they toured the entire metro and when they came up there and saw French Lake when this thing was under construction, that's that's what sold it to them rather than some of the buildings in Rogers and Corkran and and other places, which is also partly why we want to have the building facing that way um towards the lake. Uh secondly, just having having those trailer drops in the back. That's not truck parking. That's trailer drops. And what that does is ideally is going to keep this building full, keep the tax base up. Uh a lot of the buildings in Rogers don't have that. And those are the buildings that struggle. You'll see some of the neighboring buildings in Corkran and uh Maple Grove that just have a little bit of this trailer drop parking. Um, those are the ones that are staying staying leased. >> So, again, this is not intended to be a 24-hour thing where you got, you know, tractors parked back there doing garbage transfer or anything like that. Much much cleaner. Um, and of course, you know, this is private property. It's trying we're we've been trying to sell this for a while. Um, we've offered it to the city and to the park district and everybody anybody in the world could buy it, preserve the trees or not. Um there is a tree ordinance that we're prepared to follow in the city of Dayton and I think um because I've you know when I owned it I walked out there with permission of course but there was a really nice um row or row of trees that are going to be saved as you can see south of the building and south of that of the red line um more so than we see in other developments. So, that was quite conscious. Um, and I empathize with the the folks that that live right there and maybe there's some things we can do to soften, you know, the developers could do to soften that up with maybe some trees that, you know, some green spruce or something that actually absorb a little bit more of the sound, you know, throughout the year rather than just during the summer. >> Thank you for your time. Anything? Will Kushman Wakefield continue to own the building after >> construction? Kushman Wakefield, it's just a we're just a sales group. We're just a brokerage firm. So, Hen would build it >> and then what they and then fill it up and >> then from there we we don't know what they would do if they'd sell it to an institution or hold it or >> Yeah. >> which is quite common. >> A question, John, before you leave. The the truck traffic in the back. Obviously, that's a concern for me and for the neighbors that are here. >> Yeah. >> Speaking tonight, >> when a truck has to come in there to drop them, right? >> Yeah. >> Um, what is the reason for the trucks pulling the trailers in there and dropping them? Are they dropping material off or product off to the business or >> Yeah, good, good question. So, a lot of times what happens and and this is a speculative building. We we do work with Amazon, for instance. Amazon, they bring their their trucks in, they'll they'll drop them off. This is not an Amazon facility. I don't mean to say that, but and I am not a logistics expert, but you take your your your trailer, the 52footer, you're going to back it up. You're going to unload all or some of the the stuff that's in that trailer. Then you're going to you're going to bring it over here, let it sit while you're sorting or manipulating, you know, the the stuff inside. And then you're going to bring those trailers back and fill parts. And then you're going to have other, you know, stuff inside that'll be filled up. Um, or that'll be manufactured or made, maybe go into a different trailer. So, they're going to need a little bit of time. Uh, you know, some some are going to be, you know, wheels. Some will be not wheels, but wheels then ch if it were a car, wheels, then chassis, then hoods. Can't load that all in at the same time. bad answer >> somewhat. If you I'm just trying to be clear on what >> the future is of the building and what the operation is. So if if we don't know what businesses are actually going to be in the building, >> how in the world do we know what kind of truck traffic we're going to have >> to and from the building? >> Good questions. You're not going to have more trucks than what you can park there. We know that. So by limiting that number of parking stalls to whatever we have here, you you will not have more trucks than than that for sure. >> Yeah. And I'll just say, you know, we don't know who the user is and even if we did, the user is going to change over time. >> Yeah. Could you up every 5 10 years or maybe they're there for longer. There in lies the rub that really bothers me is industrial next to residential because if we if we don't we're talking about it today. We have no idea what's going to be in that building. We have no idea what kind of truck traffic is going to go in and out of there because we don't know who's going to be there or what they're going to produce or not produce or or move. And then even if we did today and they were going to bring three trucks in a week and leave them sit there, three years from now a different business is in there and we've resorted industrial and now you have truck traffic going in and out of there like like UPS or FedEx or Amazon because they needed extra warehouse. Then we have a a horrible thing in these folks backyard even more so than what they're experiencing now. That's what really bothers me. >> So Thank Thank you, John. >> Yeah. Can I can I just add one more thing to to answer your question, Keith? >> So long as we don't have doors on both sides, that will severely limit the amount of truck traffic that's coming in out of there. You know, these cross stocks, they're the ones that really drive the the truck traffic. This thing's going to be intended to have office up front and then the warehouse manufacturing and stuff in the middle, you know, and then the trucks will only be on one side. So anyway, thank you. Thanks. >> You said we had one online. >> Uh yes, Eric, if you have uh any comments, you can speak >> maybe. Eric, do you have any comments? Uh, can you hear me at all? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Excuse me. Can you hear me? >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Go ahead. >> Oh, sorry. Um, yep. Parents up at 11534 Trail. Um, I guess just speaking out uh to kind of support um residents that have already spoken. Um, acknowledge their concerns. there's quite a bit of context in city code that references um the impact on well-being um enjoyment of your your residence or property and I think those things do need to be considered here. Um the other part is is I I guess I'm curious how far the setback is set at that parking lot relative to the uh mobile home residential properties. Um you know related to other things that I've been involved with lately. It would appear that maintenance um setbacks relative to adjacent residential property are um quite a minimum compared to some other cities. And I think that considers or warrants evaluation in in something like this and even moving forward with future industrial or commercial uh type projects near residential. Maple Groves is 100 ft setback. I believe Plymouth is 75. um concept 20 is pretty inadequate and um whether whatever goes forward here doesn't go forward here with this concept plan I do think a increased setback if anything else would be would be warranted to help protect these residents. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Anyone else? >> I'll let John be. >> Okay. Anyone else for the public hearing? With that, we will close the public hearing at 7:25. Um, first off, I'd like to thank the residents um for coming and and speaking. Um, not often we get many. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Um, first wanted to start with that. Um, I understand and and I understand and have some concerns about um both what what Eric was saying with the setbacks. Um, if we were to go forward and and reszone this, that's something that I would I would think we we'd want to put some thought into on this property. um in particular um as well as our code code in a whole. Um that's something we should we should really look at. Yeah. I guess the discussion item that John started to talk about a little bit is the highest and best use. Um, you know where I struggle is if this became more residential, they're just going to be budding industrial anyway. And so from that standpoint, it it doesn't seem like uh the residential is going to be feasible from what the feedback we're hearing where industrial is. It seems to me it should be industrial, but we need to and I don't know what steps we can really take to solve the problems next about the residential uses from what I'm hearing is they're hearing noises already pretty far away. So it it you know obviously burming and trees and the fencing is going to be necessary but to me the highest and best use is still industrial because if you turn it into mobile home we're just going to have the exact same thing. We're going to be putting more manufactured housing next to MTL which is a much more intensive use. It was one of the concerns I had when we approved MTL. Um, and to me, this is a much less intensive use, but it's still going to be a burden to the residents. Absolutely. I'm acknowledging that it's going to be a burden. Um, but to me, I still think it's I think it's industrial and we have to do our best to work with the applicant to minimize the impacts. >> Yeah, I guess I'd like to uh echo that in some respect. And in in the staff report, at least when uh John was giving his analysis, he indicated that this was at one point guided for industrial use. Correct. And then it got uh switched over to mobile the mobile park uh guidance just to accommodate or potentially to accommodate a larger or an expansion of the mobile home park that's currently there. Uh obviously, this property is for sale for a reason, right? the market's not there or uh the current owner doesn't see um expanding the mobile park to be um financially feasible for for any kind of development of expanding that park. The question then becomes, well, what do you do with that property? It's it's guided for mobile homes and from what we see that the the market's not going to support mobile homes to go in there. In my uh experience, the best thing to do is to revert back to what the initial guidance was, and that'd be back to light industrial. Every city has the issue and problem and concern of where and when residential butts up against some other type of use that's not residential. And it's a common concern in every city. It's a common concern for all the residents in those cities that have butt necks to commercial, that have butt necks to res or industrial. Uh it's the hardest thing to plan for because no one's you're not going to make 100% of the people happy 100% of the time with this. I I think, you know, I have sympathy for the residents there. I mean, during some of the testimony that we heard in front of us tonight, uh, it came back to some of the discussions we had for comp plan amendments al along French Lake Road and 117th. And a lot of the comments from the planning commission was, well, we want to make sure that, you know, to try to keep industrial as far away from residential as possible for the same exact reasons why uh the residents here tonight were were uh explaining the noise issues, the vibration issues, so on and so forth. Don't want to see semi- traffic uh as is prevalent. And those were the same concerns that the planning commission had. I acknowledge that's a complete is is a different situation, different part of the city. Uh if you look at the the comp plan guidance map that was up before, uh a completely surrounding this current uh residential home pro property is industrial and commercial. Um that's the nature of the guidance for this area of the city. It it just is. Um, going back to the highest and best use, I would have to revert back to saying the highest and best use given the the uses around this area is going to go to be back to industrial and the fact that we have to do our job to make sure to mitigate everything we can to make it as less uh impactful as as far as noise and and traffic and all that stuff as as we possibly can. It's not going to satisfy the residents 100%. I I get that. But I think the best thing for the city to move forward is to revert this back to industrial. >> I think I concur with with uh Darren and Jeff too. Um it was 5 years ago when we saw that mobile home expansion project. Um that ended up not happening. Um, so obviously the market shifted and um, this area is obviously this is one of the last pockets of of land um, in the area. There's a couple other ones but that are kind of guided for industrial um, stuff. I mean, this property is just set up well for large industrial and to try to be a nice neighbor um, with the way that it has to be placed. Um, I totally understand the applicant's desires to have the parking and office towards the lake. Um, that's obviously a huge amenity. Um, I guess I'd be curious to see what a plan look like where it does flip just to understand like what the how it works if the trucks could go on the other side to just get them a farther away or is it a more substantial soundwall that you see along a freeway or something like that, but then that blocks the morning sunlight from the residents. Right. So, I mean, it's there's no great solution here. Um, yeah, this this this whole project here to me just it it fers in my mind, not just here. And it's not your project. It's how the city looks at or has looked at in the past and putting commercial or industrial products right next to residential. It bothers me. I My personal opinion is is Dayton has done a horrible job and I realize like Jeff says that it's difficult. It's difficult to try to figure out where you going to where you're going to merge one type of activity into another. and especially becomes um more difficult when you're talking about people's lives, their livelihoods, their their sense of well-being, living in their home, being able to sleep in their bed at night without listening to a truck sitting out there idling all night on a street or in a parking lot. Um I hear what you're saying. I understand what you're talking about and I've had this discussion up here before. I I do not think we've done a good job at protecting people in residential when we're talking about putting commercial or especially industrial right up next to them. I think we ought to have a a a way bigger buffer zone. And if we had that, I don't know that this property works for, you know, for what we've, you know, heard described here today. It may not. I don't know. But I don't I don't carry that burden on my shoulders. I understand the plight of the, you know, of the applicant trying to get this reszone so that they can put this structure there. I get that. I mean, you're all try every you're trying to build something. You're trying to sell property. You're trying to put a a building on there and make money. I understand the whole process, but somebody's got to be sitting there protecting the people that live there. And I I carry that on my shoulders. I wouldn't if I lived on that street today. And maybe this carries a little heavier on me because I've lived on York Avenue when I was a kid. My parents lived in that mobile home court for 5 years before they bought the farm that we moved off to. I lived there when all those homes that they live in were moved in there. I was their paper boy, their first paper boy. So, I go way back on this whole area. >> I know that's I'm painting myself as old. I did it. When I said to put a seven in front of my age, I realized I was old. But, uh, I have a hard time a hard time putting this kind of development next to people's backyards. I just do. I mean, I feel for you guys. I get it. I understand why you're here. But I think we need to look really closely at what we're going to do to those people's lives. I think what we did with the the development on the property to the south of this and allowing that parking and and those trucks right up to the back of people's house, there's no way that we should have done that. That's my opinion. We've seen the result of it. You've told us what the result of that is. It's not good. that whole 40 acres there. I remember when that was all woods, the product or the the property south of you. I remember when a friend of mine's dad cleared the property and turned it into farm property. And now when I look at it now and I see all those industrial things right up where I lived on York, they'd be in my backyard. I wouldn't want that there. I heck I was mad when they took the woods away and farmed it for a farm field. I thought that was horrible. But then I was only 10 years old. So I just have a real problem, not specifically with anything that you're talking about, but just with the way the city looks at how we butt those two together. And I and I think Keith, you're you're hitting on exactly Keith and Jeff, you guys are hitting on exactly our job. And and I want to I want to point out and and make it clear that just because we did something on a project south of here or at or talked about something at the industrial park um off 117th and we did something there or talked about doing something there doesn't make it right. and we are we we owe it to both both the developer and the citizens of Dayton to find a way to make this work. Um I'm sketching up here on mine um a a little bit of a concept uh trying to look at you know can we on that it'd be the north or the southwest corner of the building. Can we mirror the the angle that you have on the the southeast corner? Can we mirror that? Try to pull the driveway in a little bit. Get a 60 ft get a 60 ft buffer from the driveway and the trailer parking to the the property line. I mean, we heard we we heard I didn't fact check it, but we heard from one of them, one of the uh Eric Seold, we heard 75 ft was what Plymouth uses, 100 feet is what Maple Grove uses. I got I I started with 60 um without without too much modification to the building. Looking at some ideas to maybe you know we don't have it that strict in our our guidance but maybe it's something we can do with the with the developer on this on this one to try to get something better. I don't like it. Um, I'll say that I don't like I don't like the the fact that we're putting trailer that we're putting trailer parking next to residential. I don't mind light industrial next to residential. It's but the the trailer parking is what has me hung up on this. So, if it were more of a manufacturing with a with a few bays to to get material out of there, fine. If it's trailer parking that is, you know, constantly moving around stuff, loading up vehicles, that that's there's a difference there in the operation. And and that's that's what I have a hard time with um is not knowing what the operation is going to be. And I don't want to put anyone on the spot here, but we knew exactly what MTL's operation was and we approved it. And so I'm not trying to put anyone on the spot. I know I was probably the biggest negative sayer about the MTL1. And I guess one thing I I mean there's some mitigating things I'd like to say about this plan when we get to that point. But in general, I do think it's an industrial use and we do need to keep moving forward with an applicant with the residents to mitigate all the concerns and and you know, maybe that even means um I know Peter sketched up something he can share with the applicant to make sure that he has understanding. Maybe that also means cutting off, you know, five to 10 truck stalls closest to the uh the the manufactured housing park or something like that. Um, but I think there's things we can do. And it's also important to know everyone here that this is just a concept plan hearing. Actions are being taken. This is going to the council. Um, and so, you know, that's where I guess I'll just move into my feedback for the applicant because I mean, that's kind of where we're at is I'm in favor of the reszoning to an industrial. And anything you can do, whether that be flipping the building, um maybe the suggestion that Peter's doing of putting the other 45°ree angle in the other corner so you're just shifting more of the traffic away and maybe even taking off, you know, five to 10 stalls in that corner. I think that would be some mitigating things and the verming and landscaping is the you know spend the landscaping dollar requirement in that area. I mean I I think all those suggestions are are good to to start to move towards what some kind of mitigating factors might be. Um in reality I think shifting you know a you know a driveway 10 ft is not going to make much of a difference uh for noise mitigation um especially if there's constant traffic out there. Uh vibrations too. I mean, even shifting it 60 ft is as far as noise is concerned that you're not going to find much uh alleviation from from that with a 60 ft adding a 60 ft buffer onto whatever is out there right now. Um even sound walls are they look nice, they're expensive, they don't do a great job. um they maybe do a good job on the other side of that wall within 10 or 20 or 50 ft maybe, but anything past that you're you're hearing all the noise anyway. So, I will go back to saying that I do still think the highest and best use here is industrial because of the fact of what all the other area is is guided for and used for right now. um you know if if we knew the market for mobile homes was was good uh this would already be developed right it would already be residential and I forget which which uh commissioner said it but I think it was Brower here uh we'd be running into those same issues with the impact of the residential up against an industrial uh zone district uh so I think the best way for us to move forward is to try to mitigate as much as we and even if it may not make much of a difference um to try to to minimize the impact between those two types of uses. I'm not the expert on noise but I know BMS can help too. So the more you know if there is any shifting of moving stuff and creating more space like the 60ft buffer it gives you a chance to burm a little better too and that can help with noise. We spent a lot of time talking about noise, but we also think be concerned about lighting, too. Um, these truck courts usually are pretty well lit and um, you know, obviously want to see a photo photometric plan um, to make sure light's not going across, but even if light isn't landing on somebody's property, you still see the light source, and that's a annoyance. Um, so I think just if this does move forward, we got to be very thoughtful on how the back of this building is lit. Um, how tall the lights are, which way they're facing, all that. Um, yeah, I agree. I mean, we can we can make a lot of little moves, but the fact of the matter is, you know, like right now, the closest truck trailer parking is within 100 ft of probably five or six different mobile homes. And it's close. It's too close. Yeah, I don't know. I mean, it's I agree industrial is probably the right use for this, but just the size of this building that we're trying to put on here and the use of it and amount of truck traffic just feels like it's too much. The building looks nice though, you know, for considering some uh pre-cast buildings that we see. I mean this is a it's a nicely you know the corners look good and you know grounded base of the building are are well addressed. So >> yes one question I have just before uh with the applicant too with regards to flipping the building. I understand the view of French Lake can be attractive in the future but um when Mr. Rous eventually sells that property and gets development. If there was a 20 foot tall, 28ft tall building there, it probably will block the view. And so one thing to be thinking about too is you know what that user in leasing activity when something goes in there cuz one applicant that came in there was pretty intensive outdoor storage. So your views would have been of an outdoor storage area and we don't know exactly what that property is going to become. So just something to keep in mind. The the other thing I was going to bring up and and Darren, you usually bring up the the parking on the the other uh the car parking, vehicle parking. >> It looks like a lot. >> It looks like a lot. And one of the things I was going to suggest too is as as you look at as we look at it, you know, it feels like it's overparked for what it is. Um, you know, maybe there's a a way to to We've got 64 ft of of pavement on the souththeast side of the building. Is there a way to maybe eliminate those stalls along that southeast side and just have a ring road and shift the building? That would allow you to shift the building maybe just a hair, you know, 12 12 15 ft. Doesn't sound like a lot, but it it might it might. All these little things will add up, right? >> The one thing I will say about when you do have a lot of parking, your odds of getting a manufacturing and a less truck intensive use goes up. So, >> Peter, we were talking about this parking lot. >> Yeah, that parking lot there. Um, you know, >> and you I don't know how many semi-truck trailers will ever be parked here, but there's a lot of these type of properties that they use half that truck parking. It really depends on the user. It could be a user that uses them all. >> Was it feasible to not build the truck parking day one? And have it go sit in and be there. So, if a tenant comes in saying, "We need 12 truck spots." And you build out 12 truck spots and you don't put the money in day one. You just have the space there. might might be something. >> So then then it could right size it >> and you know I'd be maybe even a little bit more generous. So like 20 to make it more so maybe you don't have to touch it for quite a while but it would basically cut it in half and >> use the south half east half first and >> um but you could have it like approved that you know you could expand. I guess the other the other thing on this concept plan that that concerns me and is we've got three very big storm water ponds management areas. What what's the landscaping going to look like in the landscaping requirements? Um >> not a lot of room to put when I look at it. Well, >> and again, this is why I think that we with our new landscaping code, we have some flexibility. There's a lot of mature trees being kept on here. I mean, to me, landscape around the building, landscape around the ponds, and more importantly, spend the landscaping money along the manufacturing. >> And that's that's that that's where I was I was going to go is there doesn't seem like there's a whole lot of room on that side to put landscaping in on that side that is going to be of any any value. Yeah. And unfortunately those storm water ponds at the north are negating the ability to put the landscaping up there. So those houses are going to full view of the building. >> There should still be some room on the west side of that big pond for so I hope. >> Yeah. >> Or you resize is the pond to allow for landscaping on the west side. >> Well, it's storm water management area. So it could be a it >> Yeah. might not be a pound on person, but >> Peter Jer. >> Yeah, come. >> Sorry. I said I was going to invite you up again and have a conversation and we got right into it. But I guess con it's a concept plan. So just reiterating, right, we're not going to take any action. We're we're giving guidance to the applicant, >> giving guidance to the city council when it comes in front of them on how we feel and so great. So, we we do appreciate all the comments that the residents have have stated tonight. You know, we we we feel for them. Um, you know, we're not we're not here to be a nuisance. We're not here to cause noise. We're not here to cause, you know, 4 in the morning traffic. I think I counted on an area within a half mile there's nine industrial buildings within located in its proximity. So I don't think this project is going to be the beginning of what already exists there. Unfortunately there are buildings that are zoned industrial that this traffic and these roads were designed to handle that traffic. Uh we're not here, as John said, to do a cross stockck, which is 24/7 operation where trucks are in and out all day long, all throughout the night. This is office, warehouse. This is the way it's set up to be high finish in the front and for businesses to do their business and operate, you know, 7 to 5:00 p.m. most likely on weekdays. Weekends ghost town. That's how most of industrial buildings function that are not distribution facilities. And we're not setting this up for a distribution facility. We're trying to attract highquality tenants that have highpaying jobs and bring employees and improve the tax base. So I want to first say that I don't think that this proposed project, whether we move the building 10 ft, 5t, take 12 ft off of a driveway is really going to limit the existing noise that's already out there. So, I respect the comment, but I don't think that this is going to be the the majority of the cause that's out there. So, I just wanted to state that publicly. And you know, we this is my seventh meeting in this council chambers fourth with you guys. And you know, we were over at DDL before and there was should we do industrial, should we do residential, and a couple moratorium came in. And then there was industrial right next to residential. Let's put an apartment building there because industrial trucks are going to go out on the road. So, let's put residential right next to industrial. So, we've seen this occur multiple times. It's it's you know, there's not a perfect situation for everything, but um you know, we're trying to buy land that at one point was zoned industrial. Um it's costly. The project is costly. So any um we we want to work with city staff, we want to work with engineering on what would make it a better project, but to cut the building in half or downsize it or move it 100 ft over, you know, we're also trying to work around the T panel. T panel very protective of the waterways and the in and the wetlands in the trees. So we're trying to manage all of this here. But in reality, you know, this is this is concept to say, can we garner support because, you know, to go forward to the next level, as you know, is is a big investment. So, we want to get, you know, either a yes or a no that we should go forward or if this something the city would like to see in happen in Dayton or if we're going to get shut down. I mean, that's that's basically why we're here, you know, and we spent a lot of time and energy on it thus far, believe it or not. So >> in part of you know so it it it's going to take the applicant time to prepare a preliminary plan. Um the uh south ditch I believe it's under control or under authority of the army corps of engineer takes a long time to get a permit for that. So um the idea with the concept plan is to get a a definite answer if there's support to ch amend the comprehensive plan or not. If there's not, there's no point in in going through the time and expense of preparing more detailed plans. Um, so I guess you know more questions I have for the commission. So I I have have definite answers from three of them. Um, Peter, as far as the highest and best use, whether it's industrial or a mobile home as as the con I I'll state it this way. as the concept plan has shown. I don't I I'm okay with it being industrial. I don't agree with the concept plan. >> Sure. Okay. >> Is is is where I'm at and and it was pointed out and I just want to state it was pointed out we've got some big flaws that we need to solve. We we ran into those issues with DDL as you mentioned too. And so we've got to solve some of those issues for me to be comfortable with putting something next to a residential. But for the property as a whole, I think there's plenty of space on this property to put industrial and and have a highest and best use with that. >> Okay. And Keith, >> I'm not in favor of industrial next to residential. Period. >> Okay. So then any I guess anything >> I've heard what the applicant has to say about regard feedback. I think the only the only thing I would encourage you is like when you go to council is continue to maybe fine-tune um what you're going to I mean I get it that you can't eliminate the noise for the residents but you know present as good as plan as you think you can to council when you take this in front of them about whether it's a burming a wall landscaping stuff like that. Um and if you're going to make any changes by potentially reducing some of the trailer parking stalls where they are closest to the residential that's probably the easiest change. Um, that's what I would encourage you to think about because I have a feeling you're gonna get the same feedback from the council >> and and yeah, I mean I'd be happy to like as John mentioned, it'd be happy to share with what what I kind of sketched up just as an idea. Um, it's literally I mimicked the 45 or or angle on the the south side and popped it over on the west side and straightened the driveway out a little bit and I eliminated it was five five of the truck parking stalls and I think five days get eliminated. It's not a huge it does it it it doesn't feel like a huge impact from someone who doesn't do these buildings, but it it if I were a resident right there and someone were to put this in front of me versus that concept, I'd take that concept all day long. Um and so it's it's given a little bit more room for that that landscaping and buffer. Um, and if if you have to increase the building size, right, the parking on that that southwest or southeast side seems like it could be eliminated or reduced. Um, I know I know you said 12 ft doesn't matter to you guys, but 12 ft when when someone's house is there or a fence is there or a shed, right? 12T matters to those those people who are using that. >> It's more the visual than it is the sound. >> Yep. Completely understand. I think our issue on that southeast portion is more to do with the um you know the waterway um even reducing the parking unfortunately the building you see we'd have to continue angling it almost to a point um but understand the comments on the parking and we'll look into you know ways we can fix it >> um >> yeah I mean and I would offer up that you know we are willing to take 10 12 trailer parking stops out of the >> top left corner if that's too close to the adjacent residential that that can be easily adjusted. >> Yeah. Um and then I would I guess the other thing John kind of what can outline the next steps in this process? >> Uh so the next step so this is a public hearing. Um this will will go through the same format for the city council. Um that is not a public hearing but council often does accept uh public comments. Can't see half the group. Um, and that will go to the city council on uh Tuesday, April 24th. >> And then and then >> 28th, I'm sorry, Tuesday, April 28th. >> And then we would again have a public hearing to amend the >> uh to amend. Yes. So of the items um you know there's again there's four applications that are needed. Uh this would all happen concurrently. So there's there will be another public hearing >> another public hearing for for more >> comprehensive plan amendment uh the zoning map amendment the preliminary plant and the site plan >> and the site plan. So, so with that, and this is more for for the residents in the room that with that, right, there's another chance to voice voice some opinions, see a see a refined concept or plan, see understand what the the landscaping is going to be, what the treatments are going to be. Um so yeah and and and outside of the city process which John has outlaid um you know the wet the wetlands are another process and so that's about a five to six month process. So, that's also something that we're tracking and monitoring and wanted to discuss with with your board here tonight to kind of go through what the initial findings are. And, you know, we feel if warranted, if we have support to move forward on an industrial project that we would also engage the wetlands application because that takes 5 to 6 months and we would try to dual path both the city process and the wetlands kind of at the same time. So it would, you know, fast forward 6 months, if it all comes together, that's kind of where we would be. >> Did you have a question for us on the wetlands or do you think that you got what you needed from us? I don't know if any of us are qualified to say much about wetlands other than as long as you guys are getting the approval. No, I obviously Melissa laid it out, I think, pretty clearly that the the the wetland up front in the yellow where the where the vehicle parking is is pretty much incidental. And so that was our intent to pull that building as far away from residential as possible. So we didn't want to >> push it back towards the residential as the the one rectangular image showed. We want to put it as far up because we think that that was uh as Melissa said, you know, obviously there's been trails and I don't know what the incidental version of that wetland is, but seems like it might be able to be mitigated, but we have to go through that process. We just wanted to inform you of we've looked into it and Melissa's the, you know, the scientist and expert behind it and she gave her viewpoint on it. So, we appreciate that. >> Thank you. Great. Thank you. >> Thank you guys. Thank you very much. >> I think that concludes that item. Uh item 8B. Close the public. >> I did close the public hearing. Okay. Did you 7:25? 7:25. Now you're losing it. >> Both of us are. >> I'll work on my time. Um okay. Item 8F is a public hearing for a ordinant an amendment to the zoning ordinance for section 11135 uh regarding accessory buildings and structures. Um the plan commission previously discussed this and I apologize I can't remember what month it was. Um and this is specific to uh uh shipping containers of should they be allowed in Dayton or not. Uh currently shipping ta containers are the use of shipping containers as a permanent structure are prohibited. Uh the city code does allow their temporary use up to 9 months but not as a permanent use. And I'm sure as the commission is aware and the these are scattered throughout Dayton um both on residential property in on farms and as well as on industrial property. Um, so kind of where this came about, uh, in uh, recent years, we've had, um, the city has approved a, uh, I'm going to say a small handful of interimm use permits for whether for home businesses or for event centers that use, uh, shipping containers either as storage or, you a concession stand or a haunted house maze. they've had different uses for this and you know and I guess from my interpretation I think they've become more popular more accepted. Um that leads to the commission's discussion direction of you know if we amend the ordinance what would this look like? Um the draft ordinance uh would allow shipping containers on parcels that are 5 acres or more whether it's residential or agricultural. Um so if you have 5 acres you would allow be allowed one shipping container and then um one additional shipping container for every 10 acres. So 5 acres it's one container 10 acres it's two uh 20 acres it's three and that's that's the start of the conversation. Um, I did have a resident that uh submitted uh their idea for an ordinance amendment that was uh provided to the commission just in paper. That's what this one is. >> Um, yes. And I believe that was to allow shipping containers of uh on property that is one or more acres. >> So say they did a very good job at writing the code. John, am I reading that right where it says the metal storage container shall not count towards accessory or >> Yes. And the >> the reason for that is more administrative. It's just difficult to to manage. So um shipping containers come in different sizes whether it's a you know full 52 length or 20 foot length. Um >> but they require a permit >> if it's more than 200 square feet. >> Yeah. We'll have the square footage. To me, I think they should count towards it. I mean, >> whether whatever you use for accessory structure, use kind of what you want, but it goes towards whatever the limits are in that district. >> Yes. It's a shed or a storage. >> Yes. >> Container. >> I kind of feel like it needs to be part of the formula. >> Yeah. I mean, I understand the extra burden if they put a bunch of 120 square foot storage containers on you, but >> they're easy to measure with GIS on your computer. >> Yeah. >> Is they're always square. >> Close enough. >> Yeah. >> I mean, for for that purpose, it's close enough, right? >> All right. That's what I was just curious about that verbiage. Sure. It seems like we that we should include them in the portal, >> right? One or the other. >> Yeah. Both depending on the square footage, >> right? Depending on what you're allowed in your zone. Yeah. >> What do we think of the 5 acre lot minimum compared to a 1acre? I think >> oneacre lot's decent enough size that if a storage container is a storage container. Um I mean there's obviously going to be certain HOAs that don't allow them and that's their choice and that's what you where you live. So part of me says because of that is it's just a I mean metal storage sheds I know you gave the example of a wood shed, but you can put some metal storage sheds up that are a lot cheaper than $10,000 if you really want to >> and don't probably look as attractive as a metal storage container that's painted appropriately. So, I I'm not against going a little bit smaller. >> Um, and I should say, >> what was the staff's logic for not doing smaller? >> 5 acres is what you need in order to park a semi-trail on your property. You know, so semi-trail being similar to shipping container >> that's in our ordinance. >> Yeah. >> Interesting. >> That's a 40ft shipping container though, >> not Yeah. And everyone puts all different size shipping containers, >> right? You can get a 6x6 shipping container. >> Yeah. >> And I I would think that if the shipping container >> fits the current ordinance for people putting or building a wood shed in their backyard that we shouldn't care what type of building they put up as long as it looks nice, as long as it conforms to the standards of the community, right? >> Yeah. Like which we kind of put in there matching the primary house color or whatever. Obviously, like a shipping container is not going to have the same aesthetic as a house, >> but it could be made that way. You know, like the shed up in the top one, you could that that might match the house perfectly with the aesthetic and colors and shingles and everything. >> The shipping container, >> those clearly don't. So, so that picture there, >> that's a red one matches the bar. There's a green one. There's two of them there. >> The top one's blue and the the house is blue. But I guess Keith, I'm what I'm hearing out of you and and I'm right. We just talked about trailer parking next to residential. >> Mhm. >> And to me, if I had to look at one of those, that's that's no different than looking at a trailer. >> Except it doesn't move and make noise, >> right? It doesn't sit and idle all night rather than people slam. Yeah, people slam on those doors pretty good, too. >> Those doors make noise when you shut them if you do it the right way. >> Yeah. I think the uh the 5 acre requirement also helps mitigate some of the issues that people might have as far as seeing them. >> Yes. >> Um hearing them or whatever might be. >> Um my my thought on the 5 acre minimum requirement is that's kind of pseudo agricultural size pieces of property, right? So you get into your single family housing developments, you're not going to be getting any one not many oneacre properties, right? But >> um I would think that any kind of new housing development like the one I live in, the HOAs aren't going to allow these things anyway, right? >> They just won't. And and our lots are considerably smaller than 1 acre. They're probably a third of an acre, right? So I I don't see it being an issue with the newer developments because they're not going to be allowed anyway. Uh I think there is some freedom for larger properties like five acres might need the need for these types of things more than a 1acre property for extra storage of materials or equipment or whatever it might be to maintain the property just like their a storage shed or pull barn or whatever whatever else they might be using. So I I like the 5 acre threshold especially because it mimics the uh the threshold for parking a semi-trail on there. Um, I look at these things more of the agricultural type of use anyway than a residential use. I mean, you obviously could have a uh, you know, residential house on an agricultural piece of property and and have this on there, but that's kind of my interpretation that this is more of an egg use anyway. So, 5 acres, I I'd be comfortable with that. >> So, Mr. Fischer is not here tonight. Um, I just pulled his property up. He's on four acres and he's he's got a barn and he's got horses. >> Mhm. >> I could see something. This is this is where I'm not in favor. I I could actually see something less than 5 acres for a property like his um where he he could put one of these on his property and and make it work. I'd be willing to go down to two acres. um one acre seem we see a lot of one acres in in our newer residential subdivisions. The two acre properties we don't see I don't remember seeing one of those. >> Right. >> And so I could I could see going down to two acres. >> I'd be comfortable with that, too. >> Um and that's that's kind of where why I pulled up his house was to see how big it was. Yep. >> The uh the neighborhood directly west of Central Park and the city hall here, Norwood Lane and 137th, those are all two to 2 and a half acre properties and I walk my dog through there occasionally and it's a nice neighborhood. It's, you know, established houses >> mostly um but I don't know if there's any probably not with these fisher. So I I don't know if I'd want to see shipping containers in that neighborhood, you know, cuz you know there's trees. >> Three acres. Three acres, right? >> Yeah. So I mean that's where it's like I don't know. I But I agree like 5 acre lot feels good. I think Fiser's property is 3.99. So even if we went to four, he still wouldn't qualify cuz we don't round. >> And more of what I was saying is like right his types of use that he's using. It's a hobby farm. >> Yeah. And that's that's kind of where how do you draw the line on that? >> Yeah. >> And I don't want to over complicate this, but when I think of a smaller parcel, I don't think of the big 48T should be. I think of a smaller one that might be appropriate. >> So that's where it's like, >> well, it we have limit how what of the size that they can build an out building now or shed or whatever you want to call it. I mean, if you were on a twoacre lot or a two and a half acre lot, how big of an out building or a shed can you put on that lot today? Go buy some butt ugly thing from Menards. >> I I got to >> I'm pretty sure you can put a 48 foot shipping container. If that's 8 foot wide, that'd be what? >> Why is my math hurt? 500. >> I don't do math in my head. Yeah, >> but I think it's more than I think it's closer to a thousand if I my brain 800 my brain John will tell us. >> Yeah, I don't I feel like too small. >> What was it? >> 2,000 square feet for uh over one acre. >> Oh, yeah. I'm going to say our ordinance on accessory buildings is, you know, one of the more difficult sections of our code. And I guess I know we had this discussion of why don't we why aren't we just looking at these like accessory buildings again? Why are we distinguishing them? >> Because beef against them if you make a match. Like I think campers can be more of a eyesore that never that moved three times all year in someone's backyard for a neighbor than a storage container that someone painted. I mean, I don't I mean, I guess like can we like somebody throws a shipping container down, we're saying they're going to paint it, make it look nice, but are they >> there's a decent expense to that too and maintaining it >> through building through permit process. They they would have >> they would have to >> you would have to show you know that would be the >> if it's overifying if it's over 200 >> if it's over 200. >> Yeah. But but our code still would require even under 200 square foot if our code says it has to be you matching the principal structure and color and building material whatever the code says they still have to meet the code and if they don't then it's an forcable action right so >> yeah it what's what's difficult you know a lot of this is subjective you know so we have the photos here where you know the top photo I I don't know what color the house is but I'm going to guess it it matches is the shed and the shipping container is the same general shade of of beige or similar to beige. >> What I'm saying though is if we ever got a complaint on a shipping container that's under 200 square ft that didn't need a permit and it was obvious that it did not meet the intent of the code for matching compatible building colors or materials or whatever the code says, we as a city could say, "Guess what? You need to either paint it or get it off your property. >> Good. Yeah. >> Right. So, and that would be based on complaints that would come in from neighbors that say, "This thing just moved in the backyard. It's an isore >> city. Please do something about it." Right. So, >> and I think you're going to get less of those types of complaints with larger properties because of >> Yes. maybe the way the properties are being currently being used or the way that somebody is using their property and you know wants one of these things for their convenience also still have to meet the minimum code requirements for how it looks and where it's put and >> so is there I mean I'm just interpreting the comments I'm here is there a consensus to just treat shipping containers similar to any other accessory building >> I'm starting to come around in that just to simplify things >> that's my take on it always I feel like we're just trying to overanalyze it and >> right otherwise we're setting up a whole new set of rules >> because we've already over analyzed it. >> I would agree with that, John. >> Okay. >> Well, that also means potentially if the code requires proper foundation and things like that, right? So, it's, you know, under 200 square feet, maybe you don't require, maybe it's just a slab on grade, who knows? But, you know, anything over 200 square feet with a building permit required, >> you probably want proper foundation or whatever that might be to meet code requirements. um they would have to be anchored. So essentially, you know, and I'm not a building official, so I'm interpreting a little bit of, you know, essentially a big screw anchor that you're tying the the building or the structure to so it doesn't blow away. >> So how does I haven't built my shed yet, so how does >> how does uh our building but I have done other building permits through the city. How does the building permit for like a a shed go? If I wanted to build something over 200 f feet, do they come out and inspect it just like you would your basement? Yep. Okay. >> They did it to me. setbacks and they'll look at your plans of what you're submitting to say here's what I want to build and they're they're going to make sure it's structurally, you know, has structural integrity and it >> and and so where I'm going with that is this may be a this is maybe why we need to separate it because these aren't buildings. >> Yes, they are. >> We we would treat them as a structure. >> Yeah. Uh, not in the building code. We'd have to figure that out. >> That have we talked to West Metro on this? >> Okay. >> Yeah, we would treat it the same. >> Yeah. In West Metro when they inspected mine, it was more about am I meeting setbacks? It wasn't like a house inspection as far as building code. >> Okay. That's and that's what I was asking, >> right? They don't tell you to build it out of 2x4s, 2x sixes, 2 by twos. >> Oh, you should use more structural structural integrity of the building is they would do the manufacturing specifications. They would look at those to say, is it meeting minimum code requirements for >> mine on a two-dimensional Excel met that? I'd be shocked, but that's what I gave mine. >> I I And that's that's what I was wondering is what what are they what are we having them come out and inspect >> on these on these if someone were to put in a gravel foundation? I >> we we wouldn't I don't think they would necessarily need a gravel foundation. It's just the anchoring. >> It's the anchoring, too. Just put a couple helical anchors in there. >> Okay. That's And that's it. Yeah, I don't think with a steel container, I don't think you got from from a safety standpoint, a steel container like this sitting in somebody's backyard in a quote thunderstorm or to terrible storm. I would rather have that sitting in my neighbor's yard than a stick building or a shed that they bought from Menards or Lowe's or whatever because those I've seen those things just explode. You could drive a tank on these things. You could set >> 15 of them. We you can see them on ships, right? They stack them up 15 high full of product >> and you're not going to hurt one of these. These ones are strong. >> I I I'm not worried about that. I was just wondering if they if they do look at the building itself like like they do an addition to a home. >> And if they don't, then that's fine. Um, the other the other question I had in that regard, um, and why the foundation might be important is we want these to I mean, the homeowner is going to want them to sit level, but we're going to want them to sit level long term. If someone's putting these in, they don't have the equipment to move it or adjust it. >> Yeah. Everyone builds their shed square. Can't >> I would hope so. >> Carpenters's kid. >> I would hope so. >> You can't tell when you got a peaked roof, right? Right. >> No, I It's I I just I It's something It's something to think about. And that's that's the engineering me coming out of, >> you know, do we do we require them to put down a some sort of aggregate base or >> So, when you think about it, you could go buy a pre-built stick frame shed. >> Yep. And a lot of people just set them on concrete paper patio blocks in their backyard. >> Yep. >> That's probably what'll happen with a lot of these, too. >> Yep. >> Um I >> Yeah, I'll add, you know, you for anyone that has a driveway, you know, you can put in a concrete pad and the pad settles. >> Yep. >> Concrete doesn't crack. >> I'm I'm just And I'm I'm running through the the scenarios that that may be a little different than someone building a shed. and trying to just make sure we're vetting everything in that regard. >> Yeah. >> Are there any downsides of treating these like accessory structures that anyone can think of? >> Uh we'll find out after the first few that go in. So, and just to you know, for clarity again, the currently you're you can't have a shipping container as a permanent structure in Dayton. Um I've got six examples that that are here. Um so, they do exist and they've been there for many many years. Um, and I've had no complaints about any. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think we just treat them the same as an accessory structure. They're for 200 ft. They have to get a permit. Then >> I do. >> West Metro. >> Yeah. I do agree that they should count towards the overall square footage aotment for a se accessory structures on a property though. So, >> you're right. >> Would you like to see the ordinance amendment before it goes to council? I mean, I'm I'm clear in the direction that I'm getting, but we So, we we hit basically all residential districts. >> Are we do we need to have anything different with other districts? >> Um, yes, because in many district commercial industrial, they're not allowed. So, >> and we're sticking with that. >> To me, I' I'd prefer to stick with it. I know there's an example out there. I feel really bad about it cuz I don't think it impacts them because they're where they're at. But I just don't want to see shipping containers stacked up in a new industrial park, but that's ex these guys are not a new they're surrounded by eggland. So I could >> I kind I feel bad for it, but I don't think they should be allowed in commercial and industrial. That's my take. >> I would tend to agree with him. So no shipping containers and commercial industrial >> they can already do it temporarily right >> they can do it temporarily um in depending on the district should say we in many districts we do not allow ind uh accessory buildings other than through a conventional use permit. Um I I guess my opinion I think it'd be unreasonable to have to go through the conventional use permit process uh to get a shipping container you know. So, I guess my opinion either allow them or don't. >> Is there any chance that if you were a user that had one, say you were industrial user and you've had one on your property for 10 plus years, your grandfathered in? Uh, >> I don't believe so. >> Okay. I guess where I've seen them used on industrial in not not I I'm picking examples not in Dayton but um I've seen them on a lot of like construction um construction like their their shop bays or areas. I don't know that we'll necessarily attract those in our industrial areas. Um the other one that I I've seen that is different but similar um Kemps uses them in Minneapolis. Um but they're not they're on a flatbed still but they're hooked up to plumbing >> and they have a bathroom in it. um I believe. And so it's it's one of those it it um or maybe it's a parts cleaner, but it's it's to do maintenance on their trucks. and it looks like just one of their trucks in their parking lot. So, you would never know driving by it, but it's something like I'm not opposed to it on industrial, but generally speaking, it doesn't make sense. >> If we don't allow accessory buildings, I don't know why we'd allow this, >> especially if we're saying these should be treated as accessory buildings. >> Yeah. Um, so again, is there a consensus not to have uh shipping containers in commercial and industrial districts? I'm also assuming I'm lumping mixed use in that as well. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Forehead knots. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> That leaves what? >> Um, >> egg district >> and and residential. Well, I think the residential we're treating them as accessory structures in the in the egg district >> because their accessory structure rules are so different >> in particular on large parcels. Do we need to even work care about it or not? >> Um well, >> and I I've left the event center out. So, let's come back to that. That's separate. >> I would say treat it the same as accessory buildings, any other accessory building. But on an egg parcel of over I forget the acreage, but when you're over a certain acreage, you can pretty much have as many accessory buildings as you want. It's now more about the >> impervious surface coverage >> and it's there's a lot of flexibility. It doesn't really become an issue. >> I don't see that being an issue, but >> the only exception I would make, you know, in one of these examples, we have a 1acre parcel that's zoned agricultural. Oh, I think that the the land size trumps the zoning. I hate to say it, but until we get our zoning lined up with the actual uses because we have a tons of small parcels zoned by agricultural. So, >> tons of them. >> So, to me, that agricultural has to still kind of follow the accessory code for building sizes, which I think it'll cover that. It's the big egg parcels that >> maybe the one per 10 acre or one per 5 acre you want to put something like that in. >> Okay. Um so again just my interpretation treat shipping containers the same as accessory buildings. Continue not to allow them as permanent structures on commercial industrial and mixed use. um and that you would like to see this rewritten again before it goes to the city council um or not. >> I feel like we're in pretty good consensus. I don't know if there's any interest to >> see. But where are we at with the acreage? >> Yeah, with the acreage. I was going to ask >> I mean I'm with Peter on I think I think two or two and a half acres. >> Yeah, it sounds about right. >> Two and a half sounds okay. >> I I don't I think two is good because I think when you run two and a half you're going to run into a lot of right around 2.4. There's Yeah, there's a lot that start at two. >> Every every lot that you're think is probably 2.4 something. >> Yeah, >> right. >> Yeah, I'd be okay with two. >> I feel like one acre lots are >> too small for an industrial shipping container. >> Even if they're using it as their accessory towards their accessory count. >> I guess that's where I'm confused. I thought we if we're treating them like an accessory building, it doesn't matter your lot size to >> it. And the Yeah, I guess >> but you're still with an accessory building. There's still a limit to the square footage you can have. Yeah. >> For accessory structure with your house, right? With your lot. >> So that would make sense, right? >> So you wouldn't have a lot size requirement >> unless we're missing it just follows accessory. >> The smaller detached garage you can build essentially. >> Okay. Yeah, I agree with that. >> Okay. where where I hesitate on that is I like I would like to see the one acre. Um we do have a lot of new neighborhoods that don't have HOAs. >> So well there's legislation out there to propose that are going to are looking to do away with all HOAs anyway. >> That'll never happen. Well, it's on it's on the table. So, yeah. >> So, the bridge over the Mississippi River. >> Well, >> my whole life. >> Well, yeah. >> I I I'm just saying it's the idea is that the HOA aren't necessarily a permanent type of venture either. So, >> yeah, I I like the one acre also. I I think we should limit it. I mean, to properties more than one acre in size. And I'm I'm I'm kind of where where I'm at is is I it'd be it'd be good to know where John Smith lives and what his concern is with his property. Um and like would that fit, right? If it if a two acre fits on his then I' I'd go to two and >> but >> it's going to be arbitrary with the land. So whether it's one, one and a quarter, one and a half, I think it needs to be can't be more than two. And I would be okay going even lower than two just looking at some of the lots, but I think one and a half's a better number than one. >> Uh, Mr. Chair, this is a public hearing. We do have one person online that would like to speak. >> Sure. Uh, I will open the public hearing at 7 or at 8:27. >> And Eric, if you give me one second to Morning. Okay, there we go. >> Quick meeting now. >> Eric, what what do you >> what do you have? >> Yep. Eric Sles 11534 Rayburn Trail. Um I know you guys had a lot of deliberation up there. Um, and to be honest, I hate to kind of disagree with any of you cuz I'm hoping all of you will be on my side in about a month here, but I think there's one piece that I I feel like maybe hasn't been considered that um I maybe have a little bit exposure to with the building being proposed near my home. You know, I live in a neighborhood that has really strong rules, but I live next to somewhere that does not. And I could see this happening to 1 acre, 2acre, 5acre lots that live next to somewhere else that maybe has rules. And just because one is allowed on 5 acres or two is allowed on 10 acres, does that mean you can stack all 2, three, four that you can own on your 20, 30, 40 acre property in one area that is the farthest away from your residence, but very near someone else's residence? because I think the setbacks right now would allow them to build it 5 to 10 feet or not build it but put up one of these shipping containers 5 to 10 feet from a neighboring residential property. And I think that's something to consider here. Um you know shipping containers were never designed to be storage structures. They were designed for shipping on aquatic vessels on semi-truck trailers on on railroad cars. And I think what we have in the ordinance is what we should stick with that they're not allowed. They they don't fit what I think the vision for our city should be. We're going to grow rapidly. And how do I think these are going to be super common? Probably not. But we need to take into consideration if they would become common, what do we really want scattered around our city as it will grow? And once one goes in and it's allowed to stay in, a residential property may may be built up around that and then they would be stuck with the consequence. So I just ask that that be taken into consideration when we're delivering something so extensively that in my opinion should just stay as is where they're not allowed. There's other more suitable options to build a storage shed is to buy a pre-fabricated storage shed that that meet the cohesive design that I would think we would want um as we build out our city. Um you know I I left a comment in the Q&A before in case I wouldn't be able to be present during this but you know if portaotties became a common you know refurbished product for storage would it be okay to start painting them the same color as the house and putting them in? So I I don't think the fact that it's become common practice um should be used as our standard of allowing it as common practice. Um so I appreciate your time. I I respect your decisions. Um I hope that maybe some of these other points will be uh taken into consideration um you know with with scripting things or deciding whether to move forward with this amendment. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh and John Hugh is the only one online. >> Yeah. Uh the only one that had a question >> or for the public hearing. >> Yep. >> All right. It is 8:31. I will close the public hearing. >> I'm just going to add, you know, this this is a direction commission directive ordinance amendment. There's no hurry to make a decision on this. So I think well couple things I think uh Eric Eric brought up a good point and it's maybe something to consider. What if people stack these >> height limit requirement, right? >> There's there's a height requirement in relation to the house, but but is there something and this is John something you might have to go back to West Metro on cuz if we're stacking them >> it's double the square foot because it's two floors. >> Yeah. >> Well, I mean just thinking size limits they prevent people from that way. >> What's that? >> It's based on the footprint, >> right? We got to >> Yeah. I remember we just came up with a garage that was really tall that they were having living quarters above it and not that it was wrong but I'm like well that's part of the square footage just not the footprint but yeah >> and with that we got to we got to figure out the I mean I'm assuming there's some sort of anchoring attachments on these that would have to be followed but >> I think the the square footage on accessory buildings needs to be thought about how we determine because people can go vertical. >> Mhm. >> And so it's part of the square footage if you ask me. Now it doesn't mean you can't do it and maybe there's the right kind of a rule out there CUP to exceed it, but that would avoid the the stacking them issue. I >> mean, do we just have a subscript that says no stacking of shipping containers? >> Yeah. >> Regardless, >> shipping containers can't be stacked. >> Yeah. Uh, one thing I'm concerned about is that I would these shipping containers. We have some egg parcels out there that uh they have outdoor storage occurring on them is if there's no limit on these buildings, are they going to shift to more of them? And because that's not what that's not what any I don't think that's the intention of any of us up here is to open up a a little loophole where someone can basically rent out storage containers in their on their 30 acre parcel. >> Sure. So they would need a permit for a home uh home extended business and that's how you would catch that. >> Yeah. So >> but but >> so my point being is with these storage containers, I personally think they should be for personal use, not like you can't rent out like you can outdoor storage. >> Well, so a couple things >> maybe that's too far, but yeah. >> Well, well, you're you're on to something there, though. If we consider shipping containers in our city as accessory buildings and storage people in our city have to get the extended home use business, you cannot use an extended you cannot have an accessory building for someone else's extended home use business. >> Um, you would still need a permit for that. I mean we do allow we uh a few months ago I had discussed home extended businesses should they be homesteaded and the answer was no. >> Um so theoretically you can you know you can run out a business on someone else's property and use the storage container. >> And I guess my point is I just don't want to see storage containers viewed as all of a sudden in placement of mini storage. Mhm. And yeah, right. And that's kind of where I was going with that. >> And so that's where I think on larger parcels, limiting them to what you were saying about, you know, one every 10 acres that solves the problem. So you can have one storage container on any parcel that fits the accessory structure, but if your parcel's over, but you can only have if you want a second parcel, you need to have or second storage container, you need to have at least whatever that threshold is of one per 5 acres or one per 10 acres. >> Okay. I guess the other question we can ask too is you know a lot of this rules and regulations ordinances do boil down to aesthetics right so we do have requirements for uh what it's you know what it's how it's colored it has to match the house whatever it might be the question is do we feel that a corrugated metal building sitting in a backyard is aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood I mean, that's that's the bottom line question. And I think that's kind of what uh Eric was trying to get at was the fact that there's other ways of skinning the cat, so to speak, to get a storage shed or storage out building or an accessory building that would look a lot nicer in a lot of people's eyes than a corrugated metal box sitting in a backyard somewhere. Um, I I suppose that's all subjective, too. Um, >> he's an eye, the beholder. >> Eye, the beholder. I know uh I think Peter just said earlier that he wouldn't want to look out his backyard and seeing one of these things in his neighbor's backyard, right? >> Unless his neighbor turned it into a bar, >> right? No. Exactly. No. And and I I would feel the same way. I mean, our my lots aren't big enough, right? They're, you know, if everybody had one of these in the backyard, it would look terrible. Um, my neighbor put up a storage shed that's really close to my property line, but it looks exactly like the house. Looks nice, you know. Did I like it there? Well, you know, it looked it looks different. It's odd. It's It's real close, but it meets all the setback requirements and HOA requirements, and I'm living with it because it's there. And I I don't Now, if that was a corrugated metal box, I'd have other issues with that for sure. Um, so that's why I'm when I said initially I thought this is kind of more of the like the agricultural type of use of I need something quick. I need a a a a quick solution to some storage needs I need that I have right now. Um, but if we feel that these things are okay on 1 acre or 2acre properties because of the fact of the the proximity, the distance uh that these things would have and understanding that not everybody's going to have one of these things in their backyard. Um, if we're okay with that, then I think that's what we have to consider. Um, but you know, as as far what what Eric's concern was is just don't allow them at all. If you're really in need of of that kind of uh storage, then go do what you're supposed to do or you know what the current code allows for. >> I think these storage containers I know John, I saw your numbers, but I don't a lot of people I know have put up sheds, they're it's about the similar cost. The storage container you have to pay someone to deliver it to and drop it off. They add up. I mean, you're making a choice whether you're doing a stick building or putting a storage container in and maybe you're saving some money, but I don't think it's significant. >> I think where you're saving is a durability issues, too. >> Exactly. That's what I was going to say. That storage container is going to be there 50 years from now. >> Yeah. >> You know, with no maintenance on it at all other than maybe paint the outside, you know, if it gets chipped up like any other paint on your house. >> Yeah. >> I mean, those things are structurally sound. They're airtight. They're watertight. You don't have to You can put things in there. You don't have to worry about rodents. I mean, they are far superior to any stick building that you're going to put together out there. You can't keep mice out of a stick building shed in your backyard. I don't care how well you build it, they will get in. >> That cleared for you, John? >> I was going to say we did a circle and then came back. But there's things to consider. So, so right now and and I guess we're I think we're what what you're hitting on is under accessory building design requirements number three. it I mean these don't it says this shall include accenting through the use of a porch or building trim windows door trim uh dormer wing coating other elements that are complimentary to the the principal structure and and by our code these don't meet that requirement. So right now the code even if we add these in we need to change >> unless the house is built of of shipping containers doesn't meet the code. >> I mean I think the code was written to keep these shipping containers out. >> I think what the code was written for is that you didn't have vastly different types of buildings on one property. Yeah. In other words, you didn't have your, you know, white house and blue accessory structure, whatever. They wanted some cohesiveness. That's how a lot of codes are written. But, uh, you know, with the the same roof pitch or, you know, shingling color or, you know, Wayne's coating or windows and all that stuff, too. Unless they're going to make those improvements on these shipping containers, I think that that part portion of the ordinance also needs to change to allow these these types of shipping containers, >> which is is then going to impact other types of >> and that's degrading I think what what the code is trying to accomplish. >> Yep. It's good to have these discussions. So I because I think I'm back on the other side of that fence is that we should just not allow them talking about going around that circle. >> I mean you have to >> if we did allow them it sounds like without redoing the whole accessory building code we probably can't treat them as an accessory building. That is that right? >> Well, unless you unless you make them meet the accessory building code, >> unless you make them do something on the outside. >> Sounds like we have to change a lot of the code because >> the code so written in a way like Peter just read that >> everything needs to kind of match the home. I mean, I think you could just have a subp part for shipping containers and you just list out what you need to do to the shipping container in order to make it acceptable, which beyond painting it, I'm not sure what else you do. >> You're not punching window. >> You might be. Well, some people some people would, but I don't think you can require >> punch a simple utility door in because they don't love the the heavy duty doors. And >> but I don't think we could require people to do that. I mean, because some people just don't they they want it for the security. >> Yeah. So really you say, you know, whatever gravel base so you don't have grass growing underneath it and paint it. And I don't know, >> John, have you looked at the code enough? Because I'm kind of still on the page of treat them as accessory building. But I think we need to look at the code and identify all the issues >> that that could create >> if we do that. If we haven't >> um I'm going to say in detail, no. I know that, you know, there are going to be contradictions and so as Peter pointed out, >> right? So, >> um, you know, we're not going to have shut, it's not likely we're going to have windows and shutters on the storage containers. >> Yeah. >> Um, so the way it would be written is there'd be, you know, an exception of essentially uh shipping container has to be painted a color similar to the house. >> So, what what you're going to get is the perfect example is the top picture here. >> Mhm. >> That little storage shed is what is currently allowed and required. and the shipping container right right now is not allowed, but that's what you're going to get if we allow them to happen. And so if you look at that top picture, you ask which would you rather have looking out your backyard at your neighbor's property? And I think a lot of us would say, well, I like that small one cuz it's looks like a house. It looks like a mini house. It has the same design elements as a residential structure. And the other one looks like an an industrial uh you know semi-trail with no wheels that dropped off for temporary reasons. I'm going to suggest that uh one of the commissioners make a motion whether it's to approve a rendition of the the ordinance or to table it. If I were to table it, help me out guys that are kind of maybe leaning my way. What would we what if we're going to table it? I want to have specific direction to John on here's what we want to know. So next time we're done. We well we I think we need to table it because there unless because if we are going to move forward with any changes to the accessory building code to allow these there's too many other things that could conflict >> that could conflict that we haven't that aren't addressed. >> So >> well the very minimum we would have to do what Paul recommended. Right. >> Right. would have to have an addendum to that code specifically dealing with this type of structure. >> Yeah. And and the code is not written that way right now. So it would change a couple other areas. >> So because we have a we do have a section for carports that's different that's different in here. >> Yeah. Section shipping containers and >> right you'd have a section for shipping containers >> and so it' be a section written for shipping containers. that would >> what would be the want for us to allow shipping containers? I what's I mean is it just convenience? Is it I mean what's what's the impetus? Why why are we saying we should allow them now? Is it because they're more prevalent? They're cheaper? They're more view more of a just a different option for >> a different option. >> And it's really, you know, >> I'm not sure they're cheaper either up front. Yeah. But if you ask me 10 years from now with with that building there sitting there versus the shipping container sitting in my backyard that building is going to need maintenance andor repair replacement in 10 or 15 years the shipping container won't. So in the long run you're way better off putting your money in the shipping container than you are in a stick building like that. >> I mean I guess part of our direction to John is I mean do we have support to allow them? I know I I support allowing them. I do want to make sure we're not creating conflicts, but I support allowing them. >> I think I do, too. I mean, I think it's allowing people to kind of do with their property what they desire. If they prefer this for security or weather, whatever it is, they like the look of it. I I think it's providing options and I think we just got to be thoughtful on how we allow it. Then we have the ability to write some guidelines that you know make it fit in and do it in a proper way. So whether it's >> paint it only single st you can only do one layer can't stack them. >> And I've even seen some where people paint murals on them and it actually looks pretty cool. So it's not always about just >> No. >> And if not no one's complaining about it. It usually looks good. >> Yeah. >> So, >> I mean, maybe there's different setback rules. If we're concerned about neighbors views or something, maybe we go bigger setbacks or I think if you open that can of worms up in the city that everybody that gets a shed put in their backyard by the neighbor is going to be um have issue with the setback rules as we currently have them. So I don't think it's going to make any difference whether it's a a steel shipping container that's 10 by 10 or whether it's a stick built building 10 x10. Nobody wants that in their backyard. I understand that. But still you own your yard. You should be able to do reasonable things in your yard. That doesn't mean your neighbors going to like them. I mean I've had neighbors build buildings you right on the property or right off the property line, you know, with a proper setback. I'm assuming because I didn't get a tape measure out there and measure it. I didn't like it there. I mean, I thought it was a butt ugly thing to stick in the back of a house, but I love my neighbor. He was a great guy and he wanted to build this building to put his, you know, to store his lawn mower and his camper in and all these things. And so, we got built. I mean, I lived with it. I didn't like it, but it's his yard. It's not my yard. >> Yeah. So, we got three people that support them as accessory structures. I am in the boat of, as much as I want to move on from this, I am in the boat of tableling it from a standpoint. I want to make sure that we're identifying appropriately everything we need to in the accessory building structure with conflict. So, if we carve out an addendum like carports, we do it right. >> Yep. and and the fact that we and if we need to as we're going through this if we need to even add to the table of different setbacks for these um I'd be I'd be interested in discussing that as well because I think I think these might want a different setback requirement. >> I'm not sure. I think I'm more in key, but we can save that discussion for when we get to it. >> I I'm I'm just thinking of these require a stick built building, right? Someone can haul 2x4s across their property to build. These require a substantial >> equipment. People are going to have issues getting them in their backyard, >> getting them in and out. And >> Exactly. That's a good point. With a lot of the lots that we have, these little posted stamp lots that we've been allowing in the city, you can't get a 12x 12 building in there because you don't have that much room between the homes. >> Requires them from having it. >> They can't have that. They'd have to build a st >> and we're still going to be at least a one and a half acre minimum or something like that. Maybe one. So, I I think >> I >> Yeah, >> but I but I think it it's to it's it's also to think about I I mean I pulled up a property that was 1.9 acres and I I showed it to Paul and it's 1.9 acres but it's it's 90% wetland >> and it there's a house on it and it should be a 2 acre lot >> realistically. >> We can say the requirement is net acres versus >> grow. Yeah. And so those are the things that I'm like I'm thinking about um you know cuz at right at some point someone may need to remove it if we're building right they may be able to access it today but are they going to be able to access it in the future to remove it? Um just things I'm thinking about >> and the one thing that could open me up about your setback suggestion is that it is going to be a one maybe one and a half maybe two acre minimum lot requirement. The setbacks become a less of a concern when you're on two acres. Like if you like I get why people want to put it 5 10 ft from the border when you got you know a third of an acre to begin with. I I've seen ordinances also that require specific setbacks from neighboring structures too. >> Yeah. >> So not just from the property line, but has to be 50 or 75 ft from the next or the neighboring structure, whatever that might be to. So I mean I could see some of that language in there, too. So I, you know, I would be in in favor of tableing this also. Um I'd like to see what's what staff, you know, proposes back to us. Um, you know, again, I think that the larger acreage allowed, the more inclined I am to allow or to support allowing these. >> I'll make a motion to table it. >> I'll second that motion. >> All right. >> Is there any discussion? Are any points of emphasis, John, you need from us at this point? >> Minimum lot size. >> I can just leave it blank, too. Is there a minimum w there's a minimum wide for accessory structures, isn't there? Or no, you can just have one. >> There's a difference between one, you know, below one acre. >> And I think maybe that's where this falls. >> One acre >> if if we already have we already have this in our code of a one acre is allowed certain sizes and under one is allowed certain sizes. >> I think I think we just add it right there. We don't create new columns and rows in our table. We just >> Yep. >> added as part of the stuff that's >> work. >> So yeah. So >> enforcement wise >> you have to get one is for qualifying for the shipping container >> and we don't want these in small res >> largely because you it'll be more difficult getting them in and out. >> Yeah. The practicality of it and that could even be a sub note underneath the shipping container section. >> Yeah. One one maker lot minimum. >> That answer your question John? >> One acre. One acre. Okay. In a moment. >> No, I think >> motion in a second. >> There was a motion. >> There was a motion discussion. We just want to make sure >> we have a little bit more discussion. I think the other thing as we're looking at this code >> and I'm I'm just I'm thinking about it. I'm thinking about >> I'm thinking about our newer developments. I'm thinking about the carport section. Is there anything we want to address in this section in this part of the code while we're looking at this? That's that's the only other thing that >> I think that'd be a good one, Peter, to send those suggestions to John. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Because >> I Yep. And all that, you know, again, this is one of the more complicated sections of the code. I I think we've my impression is we put several band-aids on this. Um it's difficult to read. Um, so if if you'd like to rewrite the whole thing, I guess I would encourage it, but >> send me your draft. Simple. >> What you're saying? >> I'm just I'm just thinking I was just panning through it and and like, you know, do we want carports? Do we want, you know, >> sounds like a good project for your new plan or when you get one? >> When we get >> I can think of more important projects to be honest. >> Can we wait that long? >> Yeah. So, I think we should keep it to the storage containers for now, but I think it's not a bad idea what you're suggesting, Peter, at all, but we've already discussed the storage containers two meetings more than we needed to. So, I think we need good direction from you, John, but now you take these ideas and let's get this to the finish line. >> Sure. >> Okay. Can we also look at neighboring cities just to see how they I mean like cities right that are kind of on that the the development side of things to see what they would allow for >> St. Michael might be an interesting one >> corr just cuz St. Michael has a lot more single family development >> y >> that have smaller lots but yet they still have tons of rural. >> Sure. >> Where Corkrin's kind of all rural >> but mostly >> all right so we have a motion and a second to table this. All those in favor? I >> I. >> All those opposed? Motion passes 5-0. Next item. Um, I'm requesting to continue to table ordinance on parking. >> I'll make a motion to table the motion on the parking >> second. >> I have a question. Why do we keep pushing that >> time? You know, and I I'm fine just taking this off too and republishing a public hearing notice for this. Um, you know, a good point of that. I don't This has been tabled for several months and and I really don't remember what the original problem was that we're trying to solve. I think part of it's going to be 9 foot wide stalls and the other part of it is certain uses are requirement is very dated compared to how times have changed. And so we're up here constantly discussing um why an applicant wants less parking than our code. And it's because our code is is needs to be modified with how the trends have changed. >> Another great project for your new city planner. >> Yes. >> I'm just I'm just going to take a wild guess here. >> I think applicants want less parking than our code puts forth so they can have more money to do other things. >> Yeah. >> Or save money on >> Think about the applicant that came here tonight though. >> Parking lot >> when he's building a spec building. Keith, he's trying to also create a product that is viable cuz someday he's going to want to sell it. So, it's not just about at that point in time. No different than apartment developers like >> and the most flexible. >> They they want to make sure that their product can have enough on-site parking. So, not only when they own it, but the next owner cuz they got to sell it. That's not an issue. But you're you're absolutely right. There are people that want to go on the other end too to save money. But we also don't want Walmart parking lots that are just overized and just we'd rather landscaping too. So >> yeah, >> it's a balance. It's tough. Depends on the use and >> and you know the thing with parking whatever we come up with it'll probably it's not going to be perfect but it's better than what we're dealing with now because we're like what I don't like about it sometimes is we say the parking require our code says 400 stalls and then we're approved 250. that delta is just a lot for the public to absorb like what are you guys doing, >> right? >> And so if we're going to have, you know, ever make some difference in variances, I'd rather have the gap be much smaller than what it is now. >> Yeah. Yeah. I've got to do a little bit more research on this. So, um, I believe New Brighton had done a a study or on their ordinance ament and you know, so I could be wrong on this, but I believe they have a certain minimum. If you want to go less than that, you have to do parking study where you're comparing similar uses and not just one but a few. >> Um, >> those are so subjective and you know that whatever the applicant presents to us is going to support the case. >> So, as much as you don't, as much as I agree with what you're trying to say, we're going to get stuck in a situation where the applicant's always presenting their side of the story that is to their benefit. >> It's the city though that's conducting the study, not the applicant. It's it's no different than we had the traffic study on the cubes. The city commissioned it with the cubes people and of course they're going to say it's not going to be an issue. >> That's that's what consultants do with whoever hires them. >> But okay, >> I think it's better to do a case by case and not I mean I hate to say it but AI can write the parking code right now. Like I use the AI for my parking calculations all the time now. It's like you just you use Gemini chat GPT you say how many square feet for retail how many it's it's right there it's not it doesn't have to be a you'll be surprised how that's probably just as good as anything you gather from city research >> cuz it's already pulling from the code you just got AI >> it's already pulling from all the city codes help us >> so we have a motion >> second it don't we'll second it Jeff second we Have a motion and a second to table. All those in favor? >> I I. >> All those opposed? Motion passes. 5-0. All right. Notices and announcements. >> Yeah. Close. Close on schedule. Okay. A lot of these are going to look familiar because you see them every month. So, we have the city of Dayton has an official city app. So, please uh I know if any of the commissioners have them on their phone. Oh, there's some head nods here. Okay, good. Um, wellhead water treatment plant uh should be online uh soon within the next few weeks in middle middle April. Dayton play place is every Tuesday at the activity center. Uh the dice and Dominoes the second fourth Wednesday at the activity center. Uh drop in for the uh uh embedded social worker is available the third Wednesday of the month at the uh Dayton Police Department 3M to 5:00 pm. Shared water and shared future. So this was um it was provided this by Three Rivers Park District. Um in 1926 it a survey was done of the Mississippi River for fish and three were found. So, this is a celebration of a 100red years of restoration of the Mississippi River. And there's uh different speaker events that are happening this spring at the Mississippi Gateway Regional Park to uh celebrate um I'm not going to say refurbishment, but uh bringing back the ecology of the river. Uh, Easter egg hunt will be this Saturday, April 4th at 9:00 am and 11:00 a.m. So, I've not looked at the weather of how fantastic it's going to be. Uh, also, uh, the the city is encouraging people to shut their lights off and close their blinds, uh, to not distract, uh, birds and wildlife as they migrate through Minnesota. So, this is a kind of an interesting um web page that's uh being facilitated by Cornell University. Um the majority of of birds that migrate uh do that between 9:00 p.m. and 6 a.m., which is something I never thought about, uh you know, flying through the sky without being able to see where you're going, but birds do this. So, again, uh the intent is to limit light pollution and interference with those uh bird migrations. Spring cleanup day will be May 2nd at Central Park. Uh does require um participants participants to be a Dayton resident. Uh and if you'd like to trade gear, uh Henipin County is offering a swapit event for I believe this is for uh outdoor gear on May 2nd. In this case, it'll be in crystal. Uh, Mother's Day bouquet arrangements will be Saturday, May 9th at the activity center. Uh, we have our city open house which will be May 13th. I believe that's a Wednesday, um, at the public works facilities. So, I encourage the the commissioners to attend that if if you have time. Citywide garage sale the weekend of June 3rd through 6th. uh Dayton Car Show, six events throughout the summer at LC Stevens Park. And then speaking of parks, we have the opportunity again to adopt a park. Uh so the expectation here is if uh for a family or an organization that or individual that adopts a park that you uh pick up litter once a month. Um we have again we have uh sponsorships available for uh flower planters in the old village or oldtown or the historic village. Uh we have eight planters available for adoption. It's $125 per season. And you for anyone watching this just please contact me. Um, and if you'd like to donate more, we have sponsored a dog treat station for 70 $780 for a station. And I believe we have six of these. Um, hope might be halfway through. Election judges. We are looking for election judges for the August 11th primary, the November uh general election. It pays $16 to $20 an hour. Uh, Elevate Henipin again is sponsoring several events for uh, local entrepreneurs within Henipin County, whether you're a date resident or or not. Um, the EDA continues to market uh, the EDA's property in the historic downtown. Uh, this is planned or intended to be a mixeduse development. Uh, the image at the top um, includes a restaurant with commercial below and apartments above. Um, our broker that's marketing this has mentioned that they've had about 50 uh inquiries so far, but no offer. So, I think uh whoever ends up developing this, it's going to be based more on word of mouth and who do you know? Um, that's why I keep mentioning this in case you know somebody. Um, similarly, the EDA is marketing uh what we commonly refer to as the triangle property. So, this is a a tax forfeite property off of Dayton Parkway and I 84. Um, the EDA is soliciting offers. There's no minimum price tag with that. So, uh, generally the EDA wants to consider what is, uh, a developer going or buyer going to build there. Um, you know, just the use is as important as the price. >> They don't have an RFP out, do they? >> For development? >> Yeah. >> No, >> it's just listed for sale. >> Correct. Yes. And I just saw the job creation up there, but it's zoned B3, which is retail commercial. >> It is. Yes. >> Are there anticipations of anybody or feedback the EDA has been given about any other potential zoning? >> Um, the EDA is interested in what whatever gets built there, it needs to be a job creator. You know, whether it's industrial or commercial. Um, you know, again, as you mentioned, zone B3, which is general, commercial. Um, this goes back to what was the city's intent of the Dayton Parkway corridor, you know, when the interchange was built in or even before that. Um, it's evolved since the interchange has gone in. It's more industrial because that's what the market is. >> Yeah. I'll just add that when we approved like the turbine pros building and everything is the one site in the area with the best access for potentially commercial is this one. Not saying commercial is going to be a viable use anytime soon. I don't know. But this site has the best access. Yep. Uh oh, getting towards the end. So, we had 14 um home permits in the month of March. So, this is kind of our handy histogram going back to uh uh 2007. Sorry, at the council meeting when they were discussing Dubet Lake, there was a 600 lot supply if I caught it right at the beginning of the year and that includes developed lots as well as lots that are part of preliminary plats. >> Yeah, I yeah, I've got to I don't know those numbers off hand. Um I'll I'd have to research it. I I just want to reiterate that there's absolutely no question that we're going to have to if we don't want to see a lag in development, we're going to have to suck something in to current that's in 2030. I feel like council gave the impression like we have time. And I guess my point being is whatever we suck in, we need to do the studying that people are talking about about water treatment, transportation plans. I saw Dayton Parkway take almost two years. So when I like we do have time, but the more people just act like we have time, this is what leads to bad planning, bad development, and not being prepared. >> Um there's no question we're going to run out of lots before 2029 and 2030. And that was my whole point of that we're going to have to suck something in unless we want a leg in development. >> And kind of what um we we didn't have a council update today, but um March is was a very busy month for us as far as projects go. of the dubet pro concept plan uh was reviewed by the council. Um you know again with concept plan there's no approval or denial but there's a consensus that was questionable if there was support or there probably was not is not support to amend the u >> staging plan. Um and the reason for that had nothing to do with debate. It's just that we're um lagging behind in in the ability of providing services and the council wants to make sure that um we're keeping up with the the demand for public services and not overbuilding. >> And part of it was the water treatment decision. >> Yeah. And that's where I guess even on the planning commission like when things come ahead in front of us even in concept plan but it'd just be good to understand like what is in the capital improvement plan as far as the intersections and all the things that need to be done for development and if they're not known that's just the whole point that you know we need to have some certainty about them. Well, that's I mean that and that's exactly why, you know, several months ago I asked John to kind of put these in here, these notice and announcements is to to to prompt that stuff um of what's going on that could impact us. Yeah, developers were ramping up if the war in Iran didn't start and which moved interest rates up. Developers were anticipating this year to be crazy. something happens with interest rate and again I don't like want to like develop super fast but I don't also want to have a leg in development because and number one is all those fees that we're collecting and taxes that's what's paying for all the stuff on our wish list that we're trying to identify that needs to get done right so if us tax paper taxpayers want to keep our taxes reasonable we can't let development stop we got to moderate it and be smart about it but and that's why we got to plan ahead that's why I say a year and a half apply like we're going to be we're going to want to be I don't know if the lead property is the right property but whatever property gets sucked in it's got to get sucked in in the next year and a half to make sure everything's keeps flowing otherwise we're going to be stuck you know last second doing it and we maybe do have some bad planning as a result and my take on the and listening to the council in that session too was not just the water issue but it was the traffic issue the roads issue We can't just keep letting developers come in and stick houses after houses after houses and have no improvements to the infrastructure, right? >> Someplace along the road, >> that has to happen. >> None of that has happened on on any of the development on the south end of Dayton. It hasn't happened down on Jeff's end of the town. It hasn't happened at my end of the town. And there's nothing on the plan to even approach the county to see if they will help us with this. They talk about uh they talked about the roundabouts, the two roundabouts, you know, one at Rush Creek Parkway and and 114th and maybe 117th. >> No one's approached the county on that at all. That's my understanding from what I heard at that meeting. There are there are there are no plans for the county to actually do that. >> Sounds like no funding from the county. >> Well, it doesn't make any difference, right? Funding or planning. There's nothing being done there. We can't keep building homes and expect them to be able to go somewhere without creating a horrible mess and it's already bad now. >> I know, but you have to keep adding to capacity before the county will do it. It's a catch 22. >> It is completely. What I would like to know, John, and I don't know if you guys the staff can do this, but we don't ever talk about numbers, and I'm a numbers guy, but putting and I get that sometimes they're estimates because you haven't completely engineered it out, but putting numbers cuz I know you guys have them like what the roundabout costs. I know Jason mentioned it >> and understanding what's our shortfall in the CIP plan. >> None of us know it. >> Well, it really depends on what you prioritize in the plan. I get that, >> but that's what it's like. like and I'm talking about just a specific South Dayton that area if we're going to actually open up more and do development is that what's the develop here's the expectations of the developer meaning he's going to update 117th >> and then what's the expectations of the cities with the roundabouts and and how how are they going to be funded. >> It's sounding like this is a good idea for a work session. >> Yeah, it's way overdue. it's not going away and we need some numbers behind it because otherwise you have people just throw out ideas and um Paul might say let's just do it but then you know Keith over there saying we don't have the money. It's like well that's why everyone just needs to be fully informed on everything and understand because even the citizens of Dayton want to understand if we have to bond why they're going to bond. >> Mhm. >> And you know it's just we need to see the numbers and make them public. >> I don't have a slide on here. So, the city is doing a a Fernbrook study and it's not it's still in the works as far as what the cost would be or estimated cost would be for uh three roundabouts, you know, plus turn lanes and and so on. Um, you know, otherwise, I mean, you know, just a generic cost for a roundabout is between million and a half and two million. >> Yeah. And to me, you can work with rough numbers because that's what I'm curious about, like what do we have in our CIP plan? What do we even have? >> Okay. Um, you know, so in the discussion, I guess, you know, if you'd like, I I can send you our CIP >> because none of these projects are in it, right? >> Uh, you mean for public pro, you know, as far as like the Fernbrook improvements and Yeah. water and Oh, yes. I I don't I don't know exactly what year these these are in. I mean, part of it is, you know, you you have a project, you have a cost to it, you throw it in a year, um, and you don't have a any funding identified, so it gets pushed to the next year or five years down the line. >> And I think that's what the public wants to hear is what's the gap in the funding >> because they want to understand how we solve it. And if solve it is only way to go beg the state for money or the federal for money, it is what it is or raise taxes. But, >> you know, that's what the decisions need to be made. But right now, everyone's just saying roads and it's not enough and then now people are saying it's too expensive. I think we need to put some numbers behind it so people can decide for themselves, especially since it's an election year. >> Yeah, it's clear to me that Hannip County has just ignored this end of the county when it comes to infrastructure. Unfortunately, it all starts back to our original 2040 plan because Henipin County budgeted their funding on our plan and at that time the leaders chose to say we're only going to grow at what was it 100 homes a year which is ridiculous but >> yeah. >> So my point being is it's okay to be aggressive in the plan because that's how you get everyone's attention when they do their funding and then let the market take care of itself. You don't put a road in if you don't need it. But when you have a really super conservative plan, this is what happens. All right. >> So, I will email you the the capital improvement plan. Well, we call it the long-term plan. So, okay. Um otherwise, uh looking forward to we're in April now, so May, um we will have a continuation of the Sundance Greens 12th edition. So, um the developer needed some more time with that to to for the design for the maintenance shed. Uh we will have a project an assisted living project. Um take another stab at the ordinance amendment for shipping containers and potentially parking, but I'm guess parking is probably going to get pushed off again in favor of shipping containers. >> I think parking is more important myself. >> Agreed. Okay. But do we do what we can do both? >> I think we just need to do the shipping container thing. Get it done. >> I hear a Yeah, let's just be done with it. >> We've been kicking that ball around the room way too long. >> Yes. >> Is it a new um assistant living one or is it the triangle? >> Yes. >> Lot. >> Um yeah, this is the same off of Balsam. So, this is the concept plan that was re previously reviewed. >> Yeah. >> Um, it's smaller. >> That little pie shaped piece. >> Yes. >> Should make the neighbors happy >> that it's smaller. >> Smaller. >> Hopefully, it's shorter. >> Maybe >> less tall. >> One story. >> Yeah. >> Oh, there you go. >> Okay. >> That's all I have. >> Motion to adjurnn. Second. You have a motion and a second to adjurnn. All those in favor I >> I >> I motion is or meeting is adjourned at what's >> 9:16 >> 9:16