June 25, 2024 Council Meeting

View the meeting (click to open)

Current Events

  • Election Updates: There are 5 council candidates and 2 mayor candidates. Primary election is Aug 13. General election is Nov 5th. Click here for list of local candidates.
  • 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.

Council member Trost was not present for this meeting.

Due to the scheduling being off, some of these items were done out of order as applicants showed up.

Item E (Planning and Park Commissioners)

Commissions have 1-2 seats open up each year. This year we had 2 from Park and 2 from Planning. The Planning commission had 3 applicants, 2 of which were in current seats. The 3rd applicant was a good fit, but the council agreed the current commissioners were doing a good job and reappointed them. Park Commission had only 1 commissioner reapply and he was reappointed.

If you or someone you know is interested in the Park Commission, contact me or the city.

If you have questions, reach out to me or city staff.

Item F (River Road Trail Extension)

This was kind of a bummer. Last month we believed that we would be able to put a trail in from Cloquet Park down to 142nd. This would basically connect the entire north east side of Dayton to Cloquet and Stephens parks. Our understanding was that when the County rebuilt the River Road in 2029, they would replace the trail which likely wouldn't survive the rebuild. Unfortunately, when everything was factored in (including Three Rivers Park District) financing, we realized we would be spending close to $1M to have that trail for 5 years. Needless to say we pushed that trail off to 2029 when it will be free (the county and TRPD will split the cost).

Item G (Brayburn Trails East 2nd Addition Final Plat)

This development is a continuation of the Brayburn Trails development on 117th. This is a final plat which means we basically repeat the approval of the preliminary plat as long as all of the conditions were met, which they were. This passed 4-0.

Item H (Brayburn Trails East 2nd Addition Encroachment)

It turns out the development ended up putting some landscaping 5 feet into the right of way (city property). This item was just to acknowledge that and allow the landscaping (trees, shrubs, etc.) to stay there. This passed 4-0.

Item I (Sundance Greens 11th Addition, and
Development Agreement Final Plat)

This development is a continuation of Sundance Greens off of 113th. This was a final plat and was approved 4-0.

Item J (IUP for an Increased Animal Unit)

Our city allows up 3 fowl (chickens/ducks) for a R1/R3 property. R1/R3 is typical of our single family home developments. A resident in Granstrom requested permission for up to 9. They were going to start out slow and increase as they felt capable. They had created a larger coop and run and the council felt it would handle the 9. The planning commission had recommended 6, but a couple council members have chickens and didn't believe 9 was much different than having 6. I have approximately 26 (depending on how active the fox population is) and they're benign as long as they are fenced in from wandering off the property. If there are complaints, the permit can be pulled. The permit was approved 4-0.

Item K (Bluestone Properties Concept Plan)

All of the cities within the Met Council's reach have what is called a Comprehensive Plan that they redo every 10 years. In that plan is a schedule of all of the developable land and the decade it is scheduled to be developed. This plan also deals with all of the infrastructure such as roads and sewer needed to develop those properties.

The proposal presented was to put 45 single family homes on 40 acres on the north side of Diamond Lake. This land is scheduled in 2050+, which means the city has done virtually no planning for anything in this area. On top of that, it was obvious the developer had put no thought into roads, parks, etc. His plan had 2 entrances onto the county road, which would have left no road access for the properties to either side of his. The developer was planning on getting sewer from Rogers, which also results in an issue with surrounding properties when they develop. There were plenty of other problems with this development, but the bottom line is both the Planning Commission and the Council agreed it was extremely premature.

Item L (Shany Concept Plan)

This was similar to the previous concept plan in that it's property was scheduled for sewer in 2050+, but that's the only thing it has in common.

This was a plan for 13 properties on 104 acres ranging in size from 3-24 acres. Here's some of the information regarding this development:

  • These properties would have septic and private wells.
  • Due to topology, the property would be very difficult to sewer when the it became available.
  • This would allow Thicket Ln to finally be a through road.
  • Dayton has VERY few large lots like this available (and they ARE in demand).

Unfortunately, there is a Met Council aspect to this...

Currently, the city allows large Ag properties to split. In the past, the reasoning given to the council for size restriction has always been that the minimum the Met Council will allow is 10 acres per house. The land stays planned for residential zoning (3 houses per acre in the future), but in the mean time the land can get some use. My question for years has been "How does the Met Council mandate the minimum be 10?" It's not in our Comp Plan. It's not in state statute. They don't approve our zoning ordinances. They don't approve our developments. City staff doesn't know where it comes from either.

The direction was for staff to find out if they do have the authority to block smaller Ag parcels than 10. Unless staff finds a reason this development shouldn't go forward soon, I'm inclined to push for it's approval.

Item M (DCM Farms)

This was essentially a pre-concept plan for a development just north of Dehn's Country Manor. This plan didn't have enough details to actually make it as a concept plan but the developer likes to get the city's opinion about a lot of topics before he puts a lot of money into it. There were way too many issues to cover here. If you're curious, the Planning commission covered much more than we did and you can go back and watch that portion of the meeting. The bottom line is there would be a mix of housing (apartments weren't too highly received for that area) and possibly some local commercial wrapped around where Dehn's Country Manor is today.

Item N (Polte Development Concept Plan)

This is a plan to put 42 houses on 18 acres and would finish off the Polte development on East French Lake and Territorial. About the only question here was whether or not there was an access on East French Lake road. The fire department wants it, the residents in the area want it, but our engineering is not happy with all the accesses in the area and the original concept plan back when the current development went in didn't show any. The overall decision was to encourage an access a little south of where it was projected in the plan and to clarify the park would not be a tot lot since there was another one of those near it.

Item O (Driveway Aprons)

This came up a few months back and it's gotten tossed around a lot. When a house is built, the hole it's put in is obviously larger than it. Once the cement foundation is complete, the area is backfilled with dirt. In a perfect world, all of the backfill would be carefully packed so it wouldn't settle later. Unfortunately, even my house which was built buy someone that did a very good job everywhere else, didn't pack it well enough. The result is a lot of houses end up with settling up by the garage which can cause problems. Even though I had settling up by my garage, it didn't cause an issue because I have 4 feet of cement in front of it (an apron). I had a neighbor up the street who had the same issue but her concrete settled with the underlying fill about an inch. She had to have it jacked up (much cheaper than replacement). I had another friend who had pavement up to the garage and the pavement followed the settling. That means having a company come in and pulling out old stuff and then likely putting cement in.

So the question came up, should we require a cement apron to mitigate the issue. The original problem isn't fixable so the next question is, can it be minimized. In addition, I asked what the cost difference was between putting 4 feet of cement there versus 4 feet of pavement and the answer was very little. That made it a simple decision. Do we help mitigate the issue or not. The Planning commission had 2 members that didn't like the fact it didn't fix the original problem as did one of the council. To me a problem isn't a problem if it's mitigated, and mitigating some is better than none. It was approved 3-1.

As always feel free to contact me with ideas, opinions, questions anytime.