View the meeting (click to open)
Current Events
- If you or people in your area want to meet and discuss current/future topics related to the city, reach out to me to set up a time to visit. (email, phone call, or in person)
- As you're driving on the river road by Stephens' park, you'll notice construction on the south side of the road. That's the new central water system treatment facility in progress.
- Many of you are familiar with the phrase "rural look and feel" or "rural character." Dayton residents have said this is important to them and I agree. It's even in our mission statement. We've had a couple work sessions on the topic and I believe it'll result in a list of ideas we will be prioritizing for the future. If you have ideas, please let me know.
- There is a possibility of correcting Dayton's logo from the consultant-driven toothpaste logo to something that actually has meaning. If you have thoughts on this please let me know.
Item H (Eminent Domain)
This was to provide approval for staff to go ahead with the Eminent Domain process on a property on the south side of the freeway.
Early last year, a preliminary plat was approved with a roughly 150 ft area carved out for city right of way (ROW) which would have provided a road to a property to the east. That area was verbally agreed to by the developer as going to the city. Unfortunately, staff never locked in that ROW separate from the preliminary plat and the verbal agreement. Subsequently, another property to the east had plat approval for a significant residential development that was depending on this roadway for its access. Recently, the developer containing the roadway changed their mind and is no longer going forward with their plat and are now denying the ROW access.
I’m normally not a fan of Eminent Domain, but in this case, given the promises the developer made, I would have been ok with it. Unfortunately, we had a legal opinion that it would not survive a court challenge. Given this I voted against it. We have another law firm looking into it. It failed 2-3 to go forward.
Item I (Stephens Park)
A few meetings ago the council was presented a long list of Stephen’s park improvement suggestions. That overall list had a $20M price tag which we quickly declared ridiculous. Unfortunately, that didn’t stop someone on Facebook from declaring the city had approved plans to spend that much on the park. Yay for misinformation. We did give staff approval to go forward with a few of the items and to keep the budget under $1.5M, which we have in our development funded park account. Three of these items generated most of the discussion; permanent bathrooms, a water park, and some form of cover over the bandshell. Though we set the budget at $1.5M, staff came back with $2M for these items including water and sewer pulled in from across the river road.
That water/sewer (at $400k) was proposed due to the water park. After a lot of discussion, we found that other cities don’t use municipal water and sewer but use a local water pump and a holding pond. That’s the route we took. Regarding the cover over the band stage, we directed staff to look at a specific product shown in the item info.
Item J (ADESA Site Plan)
This was to approve a site plan for a new building at 18270 Territorial Road. It was approved 5-0.
Item K (Dimensional Rounding)
A few months back some on the council and planning commission members were concerned about requirements on things that are so close... but not quite there. An example might be a requirement for 10 acres to qualify for something, but you only have 9.99. Staff suggested we come up with a rounding mechanism but none of the planning commission and council liked that idea given it was fraught with issues. It was not accepted.
Item L (Assisted Living)
This would allow assisted living facilities in the zoning on Balsam Lane. This was primarily due to a project going in on the north east side of Balsam. It was approved 5-0.
Item M (Home Extended Businesses)
This was to mitigate a concern that some people applying for extended home business permits aren’t actually living where they are requesting the permit. The suggestion was to require that the applicant homestead the property. However, that solution would remove the possibility for a home extended business for renters. It was rejected 2-3. I voted against it.
Item N (Spanier Site Plan)
This was to change the requirement to have the council look at every site plan change. Many of these are very minor. It was decided to only require planning and council reviews on building changes greater than 1000 sq. Ft with a vote of 5-0.
Item O (Park Facility Needs Study)
Staff wanted to go out for bids on a study to find out what athletic fields will be needed in the future. I’m a little tired of studies telling us what we already know. Council has agreed we do need to keep an eye out for land that could home a large athletic program (40+ acres) but 3 of us felt we didn’t need a study to confirm that. It was rejected 2-3. I voted against it.
Item Q (Attorney Services)
This was to approve LeVander, Gillen & Miller as the new city attorney firm. It passed 5-0.
Feel free to contact me with your questions or comments.