Alright. I'll go ahead and call this meeting to order, and welcome to all of our guests today. Thank you for coming to our meeting. We'll start with roll call, and if we can start with Mark. Mark Sloan. Steve Astro. Lisa Kildy. Ryan Weinserl. Mike Reeder. Chad Wilson. And on the staff side, we have Peyton Masera. And Don Larson. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the agenda approval for today's meeting. Is there a motion? So moved. And a motion. Do we have a second? Second. And a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Alright. Motion passes. And on to the next item is the approval of the minutes from 11/05/2025 planning
commission meeting. Is there any, questions or comments, or is there a motion to approve? I did see an error in section six a. In the part in the top part, it mentions $7,000 for the border city tax credit, and the motion says 7,500. So I think it's clerical to fix it in six a. Yep. We gotcha. The motion itself is correct at 7,500. Thank you. Yep. K. So just to change to the 7,500? In correct. K. If you catch. Alright. Other than that, do you have a motion? I have a motion to approve it with those changes. Alright. We have a motion.
Is there a second? Second. And a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Alright. Motion passes. Onto the next item on the agenda is our public hearing aid chat. Maybe you ask the public to make sure that they sign in as a matter of public records so we could have a chance. Thank you, mister mayor. If, everyone didn't have a chance before, if you could sign in at the back table there. Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. Our public hearing. We're going to we have two items for public hearing today. I'll introduce the first item and we will go into the open public hearing for that. We'll have a staff presentation and then that will be open for public comment after
that if anyone would like. We just do ask that if anyone does come up for the open public comment that you come up to the podium to speak. Okay. So we'll open the public hearing at 05:37. And, was a copy of the public hearing notice and a list of the we didn't have a list of the owners. Okay. Alright. So we'll just do a staff presentation on this. Yep. Very well. On that Metro COG staff. Adam, come on up and do do this on behalf. Perfect. So we'll talk about plan contents. We'll talk a little bit about the community input and key issues that we heard throughout this planning process.
We'll talk about the vision for the future, that we that we've developed here for this for this plan. Talk about recommendations, and I know this is something that we focused on a lot last month. We're gonna go through them again tonight, so bear with us. But these will, these will reflect all the different, changes that we heard night. After that, talk a little bit about implementation. So what's what is your responsibility? What's the c's responsibility after this conference plan is approved? And then, yeah, with with that, then after, plan action was. So plan contents, just kinda briefly touching about what is in this comprehensive plan so we do have
background information. Just what is what is a cam what is a comprehensive plan? Why is it important? Thank you, Peyton. Community profile, which talks about, demographics for the city, regarding population, household growth, education, and the like, and what's projected throughout the years up to 2045, 2050. We talk about housing, what's what the current housing stock looks like in the city of Dilworth and whether that's owner occupied, rentals, those sorts of, different dynamics. Land use, this was a very important concept, with this comprehensive plan. So we do talk about current land use within the city, but also developing a future land use plan,
which we'll talk about here a little bit later tonight. So what's what we'd what the city would like to see in terms of residential growth, commercial growth, where they'd like to see that and so forth. Again, we'll we'll talk about that here, later on tonight. Transportation. So this plan looks at different roadway improvements, bicycle, pedestrian, needs, transit, and then what what some of the future, construction needs would be, for the community. Those are reflected here, in this plan. Public facilities and utilities, that's another section that's highlighted. Natural and cultural resources, economic development, governmental cooperation and then,
again, recommendations and implementations, which are incorporated within each chapter. So for community inputs, when we kicked off this plan in early March, 2025, we had an online survey interactive map, that went live on April 2 and then ran from April 2 to May 23. So this included a survey that people could take online. It also had an interactive map where people could actually pinpoint, specific, actions that they'd like to see within the city. So if they wanted if there was a crossing that was unsafe, people could highlight that. If there was,
a park that they'd like to a park need that they'd like to see, they could fill in a comment for that. So with that, we did receive 86 unique responses, both through the survey and the interactive map. We also held, several open houses and pop up meetings. We had an open house on April 24. We also had a pop up meeting on July 25 during local days. And then we had an open house here tonight or today, this afternoon, from 02:30 to 05:30. Also with that, after the Planning Commission meeting last month, we did have a public comment period on the draft plan. This was opened on November 10.
And I believe there was the public notice in the paper as well as information on Facebook where people could go online, take a look at the plan, and then if they wanted, they could, send us comments. To my knowledge, we, Metrocog did not receive any additional comments during this public period. I don't know if the city received any additional comments. Okay. So key issues and themes. So this is going back to the, survey and the interactive map that we had, last spring. What we found were eight reoccurring themes from the survey answers. The one that kind of popped up the most was the road,
roadway safety roadways safety and accessibility. Those had to do with, concerns about how to safely cross Highway 10, lack of certain, connectivity for bicycles, pedestrians, like sidewalk gaps, also used paths, that didn't maybe connect from one area to another, or else connect from Dilworth to Morehead safely. That was another comment other comments that we, saw as part of that. Second to that was parks and community amenities. So a lot of people talked about what they'd like to see for park amenities. Again, we are aware that the city is looking for a regional park.
That was something that came up a lot in some of the survey responses. That's the amenity that we'd be going up north of the school there. And then thirdly, just growth and development. Just concerns that to try to keep the character of Dilworth as it is, to not upset that too much, but also to acknowledge that it would be good to see, if there's certain areas that are appropriate for medium density housing, for example, high, higher intensity housing, just to make sure that that is incorporated so that, people that do, prefer different housing types, and wanna live in Tilburg,
that those are accessible to residents. So from here, I'm going to go back into the land use goals and policies. Again, we talked about these a lot last time, but these do reflect all the different, changes and suggestions that we, heard from the planning commission. So for land use goals and policies, promoting balanced orderly growth. And maybe I'll just go for goal one and then I'll go through the policies here, if that's okay. So goal one, promoting balanced orderly growth. The The policy associated with that, coordinating land use decisions with infrastructure capacity, encouraging infill development with an efficient land use before expanding city boundaries and then maintaining
a mix of housing types to serve all age groups and income levels. Goal two, support economic development through land use. The policies for that, reserving land for commercial and industrial uses in strategic areas reimagining downtown as a mixed use corridor with employment and retail opportunities and then leveraging rail access to support industrial expansion. Goal three, preserve community character and livability. Policies for that require connectivity between neighborhoods, parks and community facilities use buffers and design standards to maximize land use conflicts and
maintain green space, parks and trails as the development occurs. Goal four, plan for future growth. The policies for that, identify and phase future growth areas to align with infrastructure planning, coordinate land use decisions with school district, utility providers and county partners, and use annexation policies that support logical, cost effective expansion. The next set of, goals relate to oh, I think we skipped housing. Thank you. So housing goals and policies. First goal is to provide a range of housing types and price points. Policies for that encourages the development of all housing types,
support housing that serve a mix of incomes, ages and household sizes, and consider incentives to promote workforce housing and fill housing gaps in the Dilworth community. Goal two, promote housing quality and neighborhood vitality. Policies for that enforce property maintenance standards and support housing rehabilitation programs, encourage high quality design and new residential developments and preserve and enhance established neighborhoods through reinvestment. Goal three, address the needs of seniors and special populations policies for that, support development of senior housing and assisted living facilities,
promote accessible design and new housing universal design principles, and also coordinate with local and regional service providers to support aging in place. Lastly, encourage oops, infill infill and redevelopment. One more. Thank you. Identify strategic sites for infill housing near downtown and Highway 10. And then support mixed use development in key areas such as Highway 10 and the rail District. Next, we have transportation. Goal one, ensure a safe and efficient street network. The policies for that maintain and improve key corridors like Highway 10, 34th Avenue and 15th Avenue.
Address intersection safety, signage and traffic calming yes, address intersection safety signage and traffic calming across the community and then plan for long term road capacity and pavement maintenance. Goal two, expand multimodal transportation options, policies for that, develop and implement a citywide sidewalk and trail master plan, add bike lanes and off street paths to support cycling for recreation and commuting and improve pedestrian crossings near schools, parks and commercial centers. Goal three, improve public transit access and use.
Policies for that work with MAPbus to expand service hours, frequency and coverage, explore options for transit stops and park and drive facilities near future growth areas and promote transit use through education and coordination with senior housing schools and employers. Lastly, enhance connectivity and mobility across the city. Policies for that create more connections between neighborhoods and between residential areas and commercial or public facilities seek funding for overpass or safe crossings across the Burlington Northern Santa Fe rail corridor, and use land use planning to support walkability and reduce vehicle dependency.
Four is we go on to infrastructure goals and policies. Goal one, maintain and upgrade core infrastructure. Policies for that prioritize investment in water, sewer and stormwater systems based on condition and growth patterns. Implement asset management practices and capital improvement programming minimize system disruptions through proactive maintenance and continue partnerships and intergovernmental coordination with neighboring jurisdictions. Goal two, plan for long term growth and resiliency. Policies for that align infrastructure investment with the future land use plan, coordinate utility expansion with phased development and annexation strategies and design systems that can withstand
extreme weather events and changing climate conditions. Goal three, provide high quality public spaces. Policies for that, maintain high standards for police, fire and emergency response ensure equitable access to clean water, sanitation, broadband and solid waste services and evaluate and modernize public facilities for efficiency and accessibility. Two more to go. Parks and recreation goals and policies. Goal one, provide high quality accessible parks and facilities. The policies for that, maintain and upgrade existing parks to ensure safety, accessibility and relevance incorporate inclusive play and universal design in all new facilities and use
community input to guide design and investment priorities. Goal Goal two, expand recreational opportunities. Policies for that support diverse recreation programming for all age groups, develop new parks in growth areas as development occurs and explore new facilities such as splash pads, fitness stations or small indoor recreation centers. Goal three, build a connected trail and greenway network. Policies for that complete missing links to this in the city's sidewalk and trail system. Next policy, provide safe, separated bicycle and pedestrian routes across the city, especially across Highway 10 in your schools.
Coordinate with regional partners to extend trail access to Morehead and other destinations. And then lastly, coordinate with regional partners to plan for and implement the Heartland Trail expansion across Clay County. And then lastly, goal for enhanced environmental and community benefits. Policies for that incorporate natural features, pollinator gardens and native landscaping into park design use parks and greenways as part of the city's stormwater management strategies promote volunteerism and civic partnerships with park stewardship and then lastly, continue park promotion from the Park Board. And lastly,
economic development goals and policies. Goal one, support local business growth and retention. Policies for that partner with the Chamber of Commerce and regional agencies to support local entrepreneurs, encourage homegrown businesses to provide resources for start ups and create programs that support business expansion and succession planning. Goal two, expand commercial and employment opportunities. Policies for that promote strategic commercial development along U. S. Highway 10 and within new mixed use areas attract light industrial logistics and manufacturing to industrial areas,
near the Bienes Zip Corridor ensure infrastructure investments, support designated employment centers and attract office light industrial use to the 34th Street corridor north of 15th Avenue. Goal three, strengthen Dilworth's identity and brand. Policies for that, develop a marketing strategy that positions Dilworth as a business friendly family oriented city highlight access to regional markets, rail and workforce as part of business recruitment efforts and revitalize and promote a walkable mixed use town center or Main Street or Main Street areas.
And then lastly, goal four, coordinate with regional economic development efforts. With that, collaborate with the Greater Oregon Moorhead, EDC, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, and West Central Initiative, And support regional workforce development initiatives, technical training programs, and infrastructure funding partnerships. So with that, after plan adoption here. So, when it's not that once this plan is approved, or hopefully approved next week, you as planning commissioners, city staff, city council members, and others in the community, just to monitor and update the plan,
as you see changes in the community. Consider revisions or amendments. So make just to ensure that this isn't this isn't just a static document, that this can be a living document, and that you can amend it if there's potentially, if there's land use that you see changes within in the next couple of years, go back to the comprehensive plan, look at those goals and strategies, and say, do these fit what's in the plan? Or do we need to maybe make some small modifications? So just making sure that this plan is a living document. And as part of that, too,
just to have an annual review and reporting at approximately one year intervals. So just taking a look at the plan, taking a look and seeing where are we. Have we implemented some of the actions that have been, developed as part of this plan? Are we not taking actions? Is there more that we need to be doing? Just so just, again, just just kind of as a refresh for for, planning commissioners and city staff, city council members, and the like. So with that, do you want me to stop, or do you want me to go into the land use? I'll be going into it.
Okay. Yeah. So again, a major component of this plan was a future land use map. If you want to go to the next slide. So this really kind of serves as the foundation of how Dilworth will grow and provides a long range vision for land use and guiding decisions on housing, commercial development, infrastructure, and then parks and different community amenities. So back in, June, we had a small task force with, several planning commissioners, city staff, several of us from Metro COG. We really kind of we took several hours just and a number of follow-up emails
to try to figure out what are some of the land uses that would be best for the city as it continues to grow. So if you want to go to the next slide. So one of the aspects that we discussed was how would the City of Dilworth fit with the, discussions with, White Earth about a new casino convention center that we'd be going up on March. So we actually had several different scenarios for this area. One was more residential focused, so it had more single family,
more medium density residential use within the area. We also had another scenario that was more commercial focused. So whether that's going to be looking at more, convenience stores, hotels, those sorts of amenities that would help to serve people that may be coming, to the area in the future for the casino and convention center. But we also had another scenario that was more kind of looking at mixed use. So again, looking at the rail district, it's looking at combining, residential and commercial uses, and maybe having kind of another mixed use center in that area as well.
And what we decided on was kind of a hybrid of all three of those scenarios. So what you see is you do have commercial that fronts 12th Avenue and 336. But within that, you do have high density, residential. So and this, we thought, would be an appropriate area to have, higher density residential, within the community. And then to that, to the west, we actually do have kind of more of a mixed use urban center. So that would maybe have some more of those residential combined with commercial uses. And that would and we don't really show it here,
but you can kind of see that where it says future BNS Of Overpass. It is we're anticipating that 14th Street would likely cross, the current rail, railyard and then go south. So that would potentially be a future, higher capacity, roadway in the future. And also connecting with a potential future interchange along I-ninety 4. But we know that that spacing is going to be about a half mile off. So we didn't show how that future alignment would work, but we just wanted to point out that there with what we're talking about now
with different studies with MnDOT and others, just to make sure that that's all incorporated and that we've considered, all those different transportation, future transportation components. From there, maybe we could go up to 8th Street. Can I make Or is it One quick note on this? We also met to do our due diligence, had a meeting with the City of Moorhead's planning department to make sure our land uses were aligned with their growth area plan that goes out to 336 South along on the south side of 12th Avenue is where their annexation boundary goes.
Ours on the north side of 12th Avenue South there. And they seem to be in alignment and agreement with what we have put in for the future land use map, and it sort of aligns with what they're envisioning too as part of future development along through here. Yeah. Is there any questions about this area, I guess, before I move on? Alright. And another area that we did focus on was 8th 8th Avenue. Excuse me. So, late last year, another study was completed to look at potential corridor alignments for that,
corridor. We discussed how the different alignments would fit with the land use. And there were three different alternatives that were developed as part of this corridor study. One that kind of had the roadway more to the north, one that you kind of see right now. This is the option B, and this is the one that we went with. And then there was an option C that actually kind of followed closer to the south. Looking at the pros and cons of all those different alignments. And also not wanting to, wanting to minimize potential impacts to the residents that are that do currently live,
just to the south of this future corridor. We did pick this alignment B. One of the one of the reasons for that, this is a little bit more curvilinear. The thought with that is that would that would actually help to, help with traffic calming. So people wouldn't be essentially speeding down this roadway. So having some of those curves would help, with some of those traffic calming, measures. We did, put in some areas of, medium density. We did not put any high density along or close to this corridor. Again, not wanting to,
to how to say make any larger impacts, again, to residents that are living along this corridor, currently. But we do have areas of medium density. We do have a small node for mixed use that you can see there. And then again, the regional park that you see, that would be going up north of the ball fields and north of the school there. And then going to the so going from, I suppose, 14th Street then to, 7336, We did kind of have that as a straight shot. The reason for that, where that terminates there, that would be more that would kind of be a 90 degree intersection.
If we had it more to the south, you get to to that where the roadway curves. We didn't want to see that. But we didn't want to push it up too far north, where you were likely going to have another major corridor along 15th Avenue. So that's part of the reason that we settled on that roadway design and then how the land use then fit in with that. We did have, more medium density to the east there. Again, there's, the thought with that, there's not any development over there right now. So again, it wouldn't be upsetting a lot of the current land uses,
closer to the city center. Yes. And one remark I wanted to add about this, and you can speak to madam chair or anyone else on the subcommittee. One thing that the group is really trying to take into consideration, take into heart was the metro housing study that was commissioned a couple of years ago. So I don't know if you wanna speak to that just a little bit, Adam, as far as that serving as a motivation for a lot of their decision making providing this recommendation. Sure. So this is a regional housing study that was completed in 2024.
And it was really kind of an impetus for the entire region to think about housing needs and what how communities could best respond to workforce housing, again, higher density and that sort of thing. And then make but making sure that it's, how to say, maybe spread out throughout the community so it's not just, concentrated within, say, Fargo or Morehead. So that you have people who want to live in Horace but could actually afford to live there. So that was kind of I guess so.
But again, that kind of goes into the land use, and making sure that you do have those, different density types, medium density and to an extent, high density. So to accommodate for those different housing housing types throughout the community. And then lastly, so we did, look at, future land use north of 15th Avenue. We do know of, potential, commercial light industrial center that's been talked about within the city that is, going forward is my understanding. So making sure so incorporating that, that would be going up North 50th Avenue along 34th.
And then just showing additional, low and medium density housing, to the north there, kind of North Central Park. Again, with the idea that 15th Avenue will likely be a busier quarter in the future, so having that medium density from 15th Avenue but then having lower density single family housing within that. So Steve, yes. I have. What's the name of the San Francisco? Is that it? Anything else you wanted to cover? No. I did sorry. I just wondered if you might wanna speak to the area West Of Summerwood
up there in the North. So it would be East Of 7th. East I'll be East Of 7th. We're here. Yep. So The treat area, Peyton, that is that small treat area with the the medium density that's in tucked in the low density, that is a Oh, this right here. I'm sorry. Yes. Yes. I can or Peyton, you might do my under maybe it's better that you'd respond to that. Yeah. Again, it's more just identifying, pockets and areas of the metro as a whole that could potentially be in support
of some medium density residential. It's currently an unplatted area that is trending towards coming in the city's possession, we'll say. And so that was just an area that the group discussed and, identified just another little pocket in there that could potentially be used for medium density residential to make you know, you get the most bang for the buck out of the deal. Anyone else who was on the subcommittee can't speak to any of the other land uses or any other considerations or anything else that you'd like to add? Feel free to add. I'll I'll speak a little bit as to the smaller committee that met.
I I think we met for close to two hours. A lot of consideration into that 8th Avenue, that really gives Dilworth a, a new a new look to the north. And, we really wanted to be purposeful with what we were doing, keeping in mind to the neighbors who are there right now and, making sure that we're able to expand Dilworth with successful housing to everyone because we don't want to limit to who can be in Dilworth. And so while we all identify Dilworth, I think as a,
single family majority, you'll see the the color on the map represents majority single family homes. We do, include some more development of the medium density with higher density. But the majority really is that low density residential. And then just making sure we also, were intentional with our mixed use, districts as well. That's been new to us in Dilworth. And so making sure we are intentional with those and how we can mix our commercial with our residential and make our city,
a destination and walkable. And so it, yeah, it's it's been a a long process and, a lot of considerations were were discussed. Adam, can you speak just a little bit more, kind of buffering that point, about the I know we use the term missing middle all the time, but when we're talking that two to nine unit, that gap that exists out there right now, like, what that really means. It's nothing that that's not that was not taken lightly as part of the whole discussion and part of the metro housing study,
but we just speak to that a little bit, like that gap that exists and why it's important to fill that? Sure. So, yeah, the missing middle refer refers to duplexes, townhomes, fourplexes, those sorts of, so anything I mean, really, anything between a single family home and then the apartments that we're really used to around this area, those 24, 36 plexes. Again, that's the type of housing that is really, attractive for first time homebuyers or first time people that are looking for their first home. It's usually priced a little bit lower than a single family home.
So, again, it's a great it's a great, starting point for people that are, again, finding their first home, starting a family. And we just we're we're we're kind of missing the mark. And it's a community ride issue. And it's, I mean, it's a U. S.-wide issue. Part of that housing study, kind of, again, going back, there's what we're finding is that we have a we're looking at a gap of 23,000 homes if we want to keep up with people that want to move to the area, that want to take jobs in the area.
The price points are are they're getting more and more cost prohibitive, especially for single family homes. If I'm not mistaken, this is maybe a year or two ago, the average price of a single family home was 425,000 and for the community as a whole. I mean, a teacher, firefighter, they're not gonna be able to afford something like that. So that's that's where the idea of this missing middle comes, that these are typically homes that can go for maybe, say, 200,000. So incorporating more of that in a community like Dilworth would bring more,
more more residents that would be more attractive to different different types of residents that would like to live in the community. Yes. Go ahead, Ryan. The missing middle was very loud and clear. It's been very loud and clear, he told to us for quite a while. So we did want to get on the subcommittee and be able to find places to have more missing middle. But in order to do that, you have to take away from either the high density of the areas or the low density areas. And it I think it's very widely agreed upon that we are a largely a one bed or a one a single family house community.
And so what we tried to do with this is to take about 5% or so from the high density and shift it to the medium. We did as far as I know, we did not hardly touch the percentage of single family homes from the previous land use map. What we did was We shifted from apartment buildings to condos in a couple of areas. Anything further? I don't have any other comments or any other Okay. Any other k. Motions or anything. Any other questions from the planning commission? Otherwise, we can get into our discussion after public comment. K. K.
Thank you very much. Appreciate all your hard work on this. Okay. That's the end of the staff presentation, and we'll go ahead and take public comments from the audience. I'll just make a note to audience members that the testimony will be limited to three minutes in length. Everyone will have an opportunity to speak, but we do encourage participation not to be repetitive. If one person says what you are planning to say, you ask ask others, we ask others not to repeat the statement. We need everyone coming to the mic to provide their name and address for the record. So I'll just open the meeting to public comment if anyone wants to come forward.
Hi, guys. Hi. Tara, as I said, we've lived here for twenty years, my husband and I, started on 3rd Avenue in a twin home, 1010. Could see, like, the land was completely open. Not against development, but I do have a concern with investment. We moved from 1010 3rd Avenue to 814 4th Avenue. Loved it at home. Poured everything we had into redoing that whole home, but watched with Keystone 4th Avenue turned into a raceway. People with speed. Our kids went from being two years old until we moved to Summerwood last year.
The twin home became rental south of us. Seven cop cars would be there on an occasion. Getting to our twins being teenagers, it becomes where you don't feel safe. And that's not a fun thing in Dilworth. We're fortunate that we were able to look elsewhere. We looked and we've been eyeing Summerwood, and we finally find a home in Summerwood, and it's everything we've dreamed of. No offenses. Our kids run through 10 neighborhoods, backyards. And now I see that map, and I'm heartbroken all over again.
You say that it's getting the most bang for our buck as a city, putting medium housing density in our backyard. What about our investment? We bought November. I felt I was, like, 80 sick one of 86 people, which in a town of 4,000 is disappointing. How are we getting out and getting information from a large group of people? That corridor is gonna affect all of Summerwood. I love and appreciate that you're thinking of curves slowing people down. That's not enough. It hasn't done enough. 4th Avenue, what have we done? There's a young family living in my old house,
and I wonder about when their kids grow up. I think we I'm not against growth, but what are we doing to ensure what we have in place is ready? DGF schools, I'm a former teacher at DGF. That they couldn't get their referendum to pass. Was there this did the study collaborate with the school? Our middle school kids are bursting out in Glendon. The elementary is amazing here in Dilworth, but it's bursting. So I'm just wondering, like, I love growth, but it can't be at the expense of current investments in low destiny housing. I get us a bang for our buck,
but that's our backyard. That's our investment, and that's not what we signed up one year ago. And And so please think about that as you guys move forward. I want growth, and I love Dilworth. I've lived here for twenty years. My kids love the school district, but I don't think it's for like you said, we do not wanna disrupt current land, but we can't do it at the expense of getting the most bang for the buck. You have to think about the investment and the families that live in those homes. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. Hi. I'm Allison Napper. I live at 608 4th Street,
so kinda right on the edge of the new development. So the main thing I had it's not the amount of medium density because I think everyone did a decent job of the percentage wise. It's why, like, write next? Like, why can't there be a bigger buffer zone? It's just like, I was speaking to I'm sorry. I don't remember your name, sir. Don Don Larson. Okay. Thank you. And all I'm asking for is, like, two rows of single housing. So then you don't go from 70 style homes that are all flat to,
like, a three condo living place. I just don't I just don't think that's very efficient. I don't think that has a lot of care for the existing residents. And we can say trees trees take thirty years to to build a fence. It's I don't want a little twig. I just sorry if that sounds rude, but I just I just don't think that's very efficient. And the big thing is, yes, there are medium density next to single family areas, but those homes were built at the same time. I've looked at all the properties,
and they're built within about two to three years. Either the medium density was there first and people built their single family homes. So now people that have had these homes since, I'll say mine, '78, they don't get a choice of what they're living next. So and you're my backdoor neighbor. Mhmm. So there's just no choice. So people that build new homes know exactly what types of housing they're building next to instead of just placing it somewhere because paying for your buck. Thank you. Thank you. Dayton Schwieger,
reside at 1114 Summerway. So we back up right to the square that, lady was talking about here before, my neighbor. So, I'm just gonna just well, I just wanna echo that I'm on board with them. We talk about the trees, and it takes a long time. Like, that's the nicest grove in all of Dilworth, I would argue. And we're gonna put up something that's probably just gonna take out all of our shade and all of our trees that we have right there. So, I'm just here to voice my, opposition to that mid level, nexus of. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Ken Park.
I live at 605 2nd Street Northeast. I had the opportunity to view the city's proposed comprehensive plan and the future land use plan. Overall, I'd say it looks very good. However, I do, along with many property owners that have contacted me, have concerns with the change in the existing land use plan. In the existing plan, vacant vacant land on the south side of the proposed 8th Avenue North Corridor from 2nd Street Northeast to 7th Street Northeast is designated for low density residential, which is the same as the residential development presently
abuts it. The proposed land use plan has changed that to medium density residential. The plan defines medium density residential as permitting townhouses, twin homes, duplexes, and multiplex units. The question is on multiplex units, are they gonna be property owned, or are they gonna be apartments? And I think, will zoning allow either or? Earlier in the year, a public meeting was held at the Dilworth Elementary that presented various proposals on the alignment of the 8th Avenue corridor, and a survey was taken with the following question. What best represents the type of homes you want to see along the 8th Avenue
corridor extension? The options to the public who attended were two types of single units, twin homes, duplexes, townhomes, and multifamily units. You could vote for as many as you supported. 298 votes were accounted for by those attending. 204 or 68% supported single family. On the other choice on the other choice is multifamily units received only 13 votes or 4%. So single units, twin homes, duplexes, and town homes made up 96% of the votes.
I believe this these are all allowed under the existing low density residential designation. So we're questioning why this survey was done, when the outcome has no consideration in this proposed future land use plan. The present the present land use plan already identifies 25 acres in the plan for medium density residential. Is there really a need for additional land? The latest proposal for development that I've seen in this area between 2nd Street Northeast and 7th Street Northeast on the south side of the proposed 8th Avenue corridor includes
eighteen six to eight unit apartments for a possible total of a 144 units, 28 twin homes, and 16 quad homes for a total of a 188 dwelling units. I have a hard time believing with everything combined that this isn't closer to high density versus medium density, unless we're really pushing the fold on that. In reviewing the present land use plan, the majority of the land recognized for medium density residential density residential, commercial, or a budding future undeveloped low density residential. It didn't see I didn't see any abutting on any established single family developments.
Now on the proposed future land use plan, the area I'm talking about, 2nd Street Northeast to 7th Street Northeast and a small area along County Road 9 by the XL Power Station, are the only areas now identified for medium density residential that abut existing single family districts. All the other areas identified for medium density are in undeveloped areas or abutting commercial property or high density residential. If the city feels there is a great need for this type of multi housing, why don't you place it on the immediate north side of 8th Avenue of the
8th Avenue corridor versus abutting it to an established single family development, which has not been a common choice in Dilworth, and I believe would be a considerable, undesirable situation. With my experience in land use, I don't believe this is a favorable transition from a single family residential area to the medium density residential development. It carries many unfavorable concerns. The homes impacted have been established for forty to fifty years with no development to its north because of the farmland. So here's some of the concerns. What will be the impact of noise and the change in the quality of life
that homeowners have been accustomed to, especially with 188 housing units abutting their properties? The 8th Avenue corridor will generate enough change in itself. What infrastructure impacts will there be with the proposed high density development on the water sewer and storm sewer in the area? Would any necessary improvements generate an assessment for the existing properties? What will be the quality of construction on apartment buildings and how will they be maintained and kept up? Will we continue to feel we have a safe neighborhood since we presently know everyone
when we add a large amount of rental units next to us that will most likely consist of continuous turnovers? In my research, while some studies suggest multiple fam multifamily developments do not lower single family home values, others find that negative externalities like noise, traffic, and aesthetics can negatively impact nearby property values. You have a perception versus a reality. The fear of negative impact is often stronger than the reality. If a property's marketability drops,
so will the value. Sadly to say, numerous concerns here will not be addressed until after the fact. By then, it's too late. We ask for your consideration on leaving this land in the same designation as identified in the present land use plan, which is low density residential, which allows townhomes and two family dwellings. It's easier to change it now than deal with it through a planning procedure and rezoning that will eventually need to be done. In viewing the comprehensive plan, it says its purpose is to allow residents to participate and help guide the city's
future. It also says that the plan will ensure that growth makes the community better, not just bigger. I hope that that turn turns out to be a true statement. Thank you. Thank you. Any further public comment? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing, and we will move on to the planning commission discussion. Well, I just wanna first, thank everyone for coming and speaking in this public, hearing. We know I know it's hard to speak in public and and to voice your opinion, so I appreciate that. And we are here to listen to you.
And I'll just talk about a little bit of of our process. I think we started this early this year. Was it late last year, Peyton? Yeah. Late last year. Late last year. So almost a full year, we've been working on this planning commission or this, sorry, this planning comprehensive plan. And I was here for the 02/2019. I think, Steve, you were as well. And, I would say from 2018 to 2025, a lot has changed and none in our control. And whether it be, you know,
development in our area, in the metro area, whether it be in the housing market itself, so much has changed. And so we as a planning commission have to take what the professionals give us from Metro COG and all the studies that we get before us. We have to take that information, and we have to do what's best for our community. And it is. It's it's taking us as Dilworth citizens all sitting here and trying to blend these
together. How do we grow as a community, and how do we keep the current residents in Dilworth happy. Right? We have to marry those two. And will we make everyone happy? We will not. It's impossible. When you talk about when I talk about the medium density and we talk about buffer zones, from a low density to a medium density, that is the buffer. The buffer between a commercial district and low density, you put those medium and high densities in between the commercial and the low residential. So that's something that we do when we put that plan together is we talk
about the buffing zones. You know, you don't wanna put low density residential right next to Aldi's and Walmart. That's why the map has those transitional buffer zones. So I just wanted to first address the very different outlook that from 2018 to 2025 that we we do have. And I and I want to just make sure that everyone has that same understanding. So that's just kind of my first comments from that. As to the the comprehensive plan, Peyton, are we taking the plan and the map together today?
So there's two different suggested actions that were in your staff reports, and the city council will be evaluated the same exact way given the recent changes, economic, physical, social nature, the recent road and corridor studies that have been done. You know, that's why we felt it was prudent to separate out the feature land use map to have its own approval process. So there's two suggested or two motions you would be considering here.
So just the to forward a recommendation to council on the draft comprehensive plan and then, motion on the future land use map. Okay. And then they'll make that final determination at their next city council meeting. I guess I'll make one more comment as to, a big part with the 8th Avenue development, was 4th Avenue. A lot of us use 4th Avenue for that transition from east to west just because then you're not having to get on that Highway 10. This 8th Avenue is is to relieve that pressure on 4th Avenue.
The plan, I believe, for the city's point of view is to not have any driveways backing up to 8th Avenue for whatever future development would be. There are some houses on 8th over south of, Summerwood that are existing and would have the driveways backing up to 8th Avenue. But that is something that we as, a, planning commission have discussed a lot on is the 4th Avenue residents shouldn't have to, continue to have that that traffic flow between, you know, if it's people going to the coffee house or or whatever,
we need to have an alternative alternative East West route and and not just Highway 10 or and then take off from 4th Avenue. So that has been definitely our consideration as well. Any other discussion points from the planning commission? Questions? The term was brought up a couple times, bang for your buck. That was the first time I had heard that term as part of our conversations. It is never bang for your buck was never part of the process that I remember in making any type of decisions or suggestions for the land use map.
As far as the South Side Of 8th Avenue with being medium density, there were a couple of reasons to choose that. I believe Ken came up and talked about having a 188 units in that area. That's an area from 2nd Street to 7th Street. It's a very large area. So it sounds like there's a 188 units. Oh my god. There's so much coming in. That's five full blocks of units. So it's not it sounds like a lot, but I don't think it's as much as it's coming across as far as the statistics that were brought up earlier. The reason we we chose to put it on the South Side and not the
North Side, and anyone can correct me if they remember differently, was because it was a smaller section than the North Side so that we could have more single use unit housing on the North Side and keep that ratio together of more single family versus, medium density or low density versus medium density. Are we married to it? No. But it's it it feels to me like no matter where we put a medium density, it's coming across with some kind of a negative connotation with that type of housing
that I don't agree with or understand completely. Twin homes don't have bad people living in them. Townhomes, condos, all of those things don't mean more crime. They don't mean anything other than another viable option for people to try and start their lives in that type of a housing concept. So, I mean, those are the reasons that I remember why we put it on the South Side. And then it also abutted up against the community park that will eventually be created there. I think that's my feedback for the feedback we were given tonight.
Mark? Madam Chair, I would like to just say that the comprehensive plan itself, its categories, its policies, I think, we worked on those quite a bit, and I think they're in good shape. As far as that piece of it altogether, I think it looks really good. And with that, I'd like to make a motion that we move the draft we recommend a draft comprehensive plan to the city council for approval or adoption. K. We have a motion by Mark. Is there a second? K. Can you bring the, the motion language up, please, since we don't have an air packet today?
Thank you. So okay. So, Mark, just to clarify on your motion, the motion to forward a recommendation on the comprehensive plan, the first motion. Right. K. Thank you. Is there a second on that? I'll second. Alright. And I have a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. Okay. Alright. Motion passes. Alright. And, next is a motion to for the future land use map as presented. Is there a motion or is there further discussion? Do we want to discuss moving it to the North Side, moving the medium density to the North Side? Because there is existing housing on the South Side that isn't done in Arcadia.
I'll add to that. I when you were talking about that, I I remember, also discussion about our infrastructure that was in place, as well. That was a consideration as to where that was going. For the medium density? For 8th Avenue. Right? So as as we develop 8th Avenue, it won't be all at once. It'll be piecemeal as the development happens in Dilworth. And we have to have the development there to drive that that 8th Avenue. So if we push it north of, does does that require us to do any different infrastructure than what we would have
to do if it was south of. I guess what I'm speaking of is is changing where it is medium on the South side to low and then creating a medium on the North side instead. Right. But I think the reason why that that particular one is there is that there's an actual interest currently. From the developer? From a developer. Yes. Developer in that area. Hayden, would you mind putting that A map. In there? That developer has developed other things than Dittworth. Other things that meet in density too. Yes. Steve.
Ryan, maybe to to dovetail a little bit on that in understanding, you know, intentional growth. Better not just bigger, I believe was the the phrase that was that was used. To your point, it might be worth considering looking at those that didn't choose, but will have a choice as far as that medium single or, single density to medium density. I don't think I I didn't hear you suggesting that we take that medium density and shift it all the way to the top,
but is there is there some veracity into slump into segmenting that 8th Avenue, medium density portion right now. I'm putting in some single density so that those that are moving into those single density understand what it is that they are getting into versus those that are being subjected to something that maybe when they purchased, they didn't necessarily consider. Madam chair and planning commission. So what you're talking about basically is a single family buffer zone that would go
across existing development area and maybe up along 7th Street. That way, when the developer comes in, they're sort of notified that they would have lower density along that area and that the up the higher density is, as was discussed before, would move to either the middle of the area? Taking into consideration some of the, what we've heard tonight, I I think that's worthwhile to to have some discussion about. So you're suggesting segmenting that medium density into a sliver of yellow on the bottom
with the rest staying orange? That is a An alternative, like, that we can present. You know, again, in the spirit of not being married to the idea Right. Again, I think it's worth worth consideration. Could we, in in the spirit of, looking at the, to the east on 8th and also just west of the regional park, can we if we're going to, let's say, Steve, have a have a single family, new single family buffer. You know, but that developer might say, well, I want more potential for that medium density.
Could we mirror that medium density on the North of ACE so they don't lose the capacity of their medium density, but we also give that buffer of, new development low density. So you wouldn't lose any of the square footage of the medium density. It would just get split to the top of eighth. And then to the current residence, it would be that. I don't know developmentally how that would look, how big of a buffer zone you would need. Yeah. Madam chair, planning commission, when the developer discussed that,
he had both. He had larger units and smaller units within that development. This basically would cause a shift Mhmm. Of how they wanted to lay it out. Mhmm. But there's still area within there to lay that same development out if it's turned around. Yeah. Because that's that's another thing that and there needs to be enough room. We don't want the driveway access. Therefore, you have to have separate access, separate streetways within that area. Yeah. But I think you could still do that and accommodate the step up in density. Okay. And so how the proposal that we saw,
there'd be like a horseshoe, we'll call it, that kinda comes through here. I'm sorry. I don't have a pointer, but a hand is good enough here. So there'd be, like, a little roadway that comes all the way across. So, theoretically, yeah, you could have single family. I guess, it'd be the back door of the single family row homes through there potentially. Mhmm. Now you could have attached single family or single family separately or whatever, but they had that in their proposed development lease sketch plans we were looking at. Yeah. Which I don't think would necessarily Change what this looks like.
That and it wouldn't eliminate the potential for twin home type developments Right. Either. So I think that's a point of clarification too. It doesn't mean again, you can always there's always gonna be a buffer to your point at somewhere along the way, just picking the right spot for it and what that actually means there. So it could be, you know, sort of the happy medium of it with the twin home type situation south of we'll call that 7th Avenue or whatever. We'd call that Horseshoe Street through there.
Yeah. I mean, that's that's good to note. I mean, in Woodbridge and Keystone, all of the twin home area is low density. So twin home going in in would be a low density. Peyton, what is, like, the difference between the middle and the low density? Just so we have clarification on that. Is it just the more than two? Yeah. So the and there's a difference between zoning and our future land use maps. Sometimes they can get a little wonky when talking about it. In fact, the the way what we were talking about, like, out in Keystone,
for example, even though it's shown as low density residential, that doesn't necessarily mean it's zoned r one. Yeah. You know, that's a difference. So that zone r two, which is somewhat what I'm alluding to Yeah. This fact, like, that, south portion of of the 7th Avenue could be an r two zone potentially, then an r three up to 8th Avenue, north of there. And there are some parameters in our zoning ordinance when it comes to medium density residential and how many units you can go up to. The good thing about how our zoning ordinance is set up is anything anytime once
you get above a certain unit amount, it has to go through the PUD process. Right. I think that's another thing to to understand about even what's proposed right now is that the planning commission would have control over it more than just go and do whatever you want out there. Yeah. So I was gonna speak ask Dawn a follow-up question, the PUD process. So, I mean, technically, if we left that as a medium density area, that's just it's a development tool. It's not the zoning. It's not the zoning of the the area.
If a developer came in, Don, and said, we want to develop that area, how do we as a planning commission and then the city council address this issue? Well, it'll probably madam chair, planning commission, it will probably come in as a PUD. And if you have the land use designated with a sliver of of r one with your intention that that be that sort of a zoning from a single family to maybe up to a townhome, an attached townhome, or that kind of thing, then the spirit of the PUD should follow that as far as how it's laid
out. You could use that either to approve it or reject it at the time. Is that 7th Avenue that attaches to 7th Street on just below summer. Yep. Is that that's that's a road that actually connects to 7th Street. And And there's a probably single there's a yellow there's a the low density houses on the south side of it. If that came straight across Right. That's where we'd be looking at. There there you can see how there is room there for a sliver of I see what you're saying. Yep. Single family homes all the way. I see what you're saying. Yeah. They would come off here, but, yeah, I understand what you're saying. Yeah. I think it's important to note that 8th Avenue isn't there yet.
So, I mean It can be We can it's on paper. Yep. Mhmm. True. We adjust it. Yes. It does have to come out at that spot, though, to connect to Yeah. Right. Right. What happened? Yeah. The rest of it is literal. So right now, in our R 3 zoning district, as far as, like, what is permitted, Residential use is single family and two family dwellings. So you can put a single family home in our three zone district. It has to be less than eight units. That's really the kicker. So you can't go in and put in a 16 unit apartment complex. And and when I think of apartments, because I know that term is used a few times tonight,
apartments, I think of a shared common area, one building, and that's not necessarily what's being developed, more condominium style, we'll say, similar to what you would see, you know, in existence over here west of where the, you know, fields are located. And then two unit single family attached dwellings, then two unit condominiums as part of a larger scale family attached condominium complex. So in essence, that's sort of what we were getting to is that it would probably go through a PUD process if we're doing anything more expansive.
Is there high are there high restrictions on those as well? Mhmm. Yep. And I believe let's see if I've got that. Which you can control that as well as part of the PD process that are 35, which is pretty typical when we we see in all our residential zoning districts. So I have a question too as far as I guess we have a mechanism to change things when according to after it is approved, there's still a mechanism to adjust, to amend, and that kind of thing. So I just wonder how how much power do we have to do that,
and what does it take? So so we have to have some kind of plan, and everybody won't won't be pleased. But, I mean, if we have some kind of mechanism in place to maybe if it doesn't quite work out, to tweak it or do something else. I mean, how hard is that? Is that something that we could look at as kind of as a some way to go forward? And I'm not sure if I'm going to fully answer your question here, but I think the best way to address is get to where you want to
right now. If it's what you see there, roll with it. If it's having a one notch below on the lower density side, that would also allow when we set the zoning as an r two to allow for twin homes or something similar of that variety. When you're setting your future land use map, you really need to do your best put your best foot forward when trying to adhere to it for future decision making. You know, you don't wanna just say, well, we'll go with this and deal with it at the time. That's not really fair to,
the the public, the Developer. Developer, anyone involved. Right? You know, you really wanna be intentional about what you are setting forward in your future land use map. Now if there are changes of an economic, physical, or social nature and that future land use map needs to be adjusted at a later time, we go back to the drawing board then and and go back and try and improve those things and adjust the future land use map before we even set the zoning of a property. So in a roundabout I don't know if I'm fully answering your question,
but I would recommend, you know, going with what you feel would be the best use of the property going forward and, for all parties involved. I agree with that. I think either way if correct me if I'm wrong, Peyton, the steps would be the same anyways. We would have to notice a public hearing if we amend it anyways. So Correct. It the steps would be would be the same. So can I just get the temperature of the room then? I mean, what what's the commission thinking? Or, like, to put that one essentially, one row of single family housing along the existing houses between 2nd and 7th?
I think you should flip flop them. Or you so yours okay. So, again, I'm just trying to Mhmm. I'm trying to visualize this. And if we're and and for me, if we're looking at what was the is 2nd Street to 7th Street, again, it so mister Raider is talking about flipping it and moving the median density above it to the north side of 8th Avenue. Correct. Is that okay? Because I was thinking maybe that we've maintained that, but put a sliver of yellow or whatever. I think both options have been discussed. But And I'm just with that,
if we look to the to the west k. And you look, where we have 4th Avenue Northeast and go north, you have existing single family. Nope. To the West of the North? Nope. Nope. More over to the West because that's a budding medium density, I believe. The same thing. Yes. So you're gonna have to do the same thing there. And that that's where my head was at. I mean, so it it's the same argument on the east and west side. And I and I don't like I said, I'm not I wanted to make sure that I was in the same headspace as everybody else with regards to how do we finalize this land use map in terms
of how how we maximize our growth opportunities for the city of Delaware. And that's that's where I'm at, and we're looking at this. So I'm going to step back from that conversation and let you continue to develop and see where this goes. And I'm not here to speak for the developer, but I will convey the message that they conveyed to Don and I is that their what they proposed or talked about with and brought to the city council recently, was and it kinda gets back to Adam's point on
the supply and demand issue. Mhmm. Fully eliminating it or flipping it to the 8th Avenue, North of 8th Avenue, it can be done, obviously. They would not develop because they just there's just not the market for it right there. I think that's where their mind is more at at this time. Again, I'm not defending or saying it's right or wrong. Just giving their viewpoint on it. Do you think it devalues the land north of it? Do I think it Or is that is that a would that be a maybe I don't know. I guess we're not talking about how the developers are thinking,
but would that be their mindset that that flipping that would devalue that land? Because it's the same argument what's what's butting up against those neighborhoods and the people here are worried about it devaluing their property. I don't think so. No. It it the because at that point, you would have an existing medium density with lower density being backfilled, basically. They they would have the option whether they'd want to be there or not. We're we're trying to accommodate the the current resident's concerns. So 100%. So the developer you can't speak for them,
but they are they are requesting or they came up with this plan because they're getting requests for medium density and not because they had seen our future land maps that said this was going to be medium density? Because that's what I thought they were coming in with medium density plans because we had already sketched this part out and they were asking about it. That's why they haven't developed up there. You know, there's no need for single family homes and they don't feel they can Okay. Sell it, right now, single family residential. So if we kept it as a sliver, they'd be fine because they essentially have that kind of already a ballpark place with
their current plan? I can't speak to that, but I can say that I feel that would probably be more palatable than fully eliminating it. But if if we keep this as is and they go in and build their medium density, the city would have to build the road at least to the park. Correct? Yes. 8th Avenue will go will go to the park. If we flip them Well, I say that they still have to the city would still have to build that park, but they would develop on the North side, not the South side. Based on the future land use map. Yeah. Because that road would get built either way if they want to develop on develop
on either side of that 8th Avenue corridor. And one thing to clarify too, because the council and then we're looking at multiple options when they were originally looking at this. And so one again, it calls road construction. It's so much right now. One option they talked about was horseshoeing around, like I talked about, but not extending this roadway for the time being. So it'd just be coming in on a little bit on eighth, coming down, almost having a roundabout area and going back. Yes. That was the city council that discussed that. There was lots of options floated out there so 8th Avenue is billed as an
area wide assessment if you look at our area wide assessment map so basically everything north of where my hand is right here is kind of in the 8th Avenue district and so just in a way to sort of minimize that impact for the time being that was being discussed by extending the roadway over, I don't know what that would be, 300 feet or whatever then horseshoeing it around but not connecting up to another roadway. Which could be done on the north side of the road as easily as itself. I don't I don't feel like, I don't know. I don't feel like flipping it. We we then we just create the same problem to the west.
You can't flip that one. I mean, Alright. The madam chair. Yes, Steve. And maybe just a maybe just a comment because I'm still contemplating. I do think that there's a little in inherent unfairness to be handcuffed by the desires of the developer. Although they as we've talked about, they need to walk in partnership with the public, with the city, and with us. So just internally, to kinda give you a window into my thought processes, I mean, that's where my confliction arises. How do we how do we meet the developer in a manner that's beneficial to them while also being beneficial,
to the city without displacing, or displacing as few individuals as possible in the sense of where they're coming at this problem. So I mean, I in where I land on that more often as I've thought through, hearing some of the comments is that horseshoe option that that you presented, Peyton, providing that buffer, you know, seems to be the appropriate compromise that I think meets the public, meets what has been discussed and appreciate the subcommittee that came together and Metcog's contributions,
but then also meeting the developer as well. My thought process was we've looked at this map for how many hours over how many meetings, right, and say take the developer out of it. We know there's a housing need. We know that there's interesting demand, out there. If you had and because we have the pen. Right? We we get to make the plan. What's what's the most ideal transition? And is that horseshoe sliver piece of it and maintain, the efforts? I I don't know. And I I like I think take a break. And if we had the perfect world or perfect scenario,
what does it look like? How do you draw it out? Well, Matt shared it. I mean, in response to that, you know, Chad, I I I agree with you. We've, you know, these colors are blending together. You know, that's why I appreciate the opportunity for a public comment because I think that that, for me, has at least taken the way the lens that I previously had and put a new one on, which I think is a healthy way to relook at what we have here. And maybe, Peyton, can you provide maybe a little bit of guidance on, you know, if we can't come to a consensus today, what are the ramifications if we move this to a January meeting and table this
discussion for now? I don't know if there's any ramifications necessarily. The other parts of the comp plan, I didn't wanna hold it up just on the merits of Mhmm. When, you know, a thousand feet of, yellow or orange color on the map. So I don't know if it really impacts much on the metro cog, and they would just just a matter of them taking probably just a handful of minutes to update the map for us. That, you know, that said, I mean, if you also have the information in front of you that you feel comfortable with.
I know from a staff perspective I I guess, kinda not to put you on the spot, not. Would you feel comfortable with something like that, the compromised option? You think that really that does that, satisfy what what we're trying to what they're trying to accomplish up there or anyone I I think separation? Yeah. I think it well, thank you. Yeah. I I think it does. But I do think if you're gonna apply it there, you should apply it over to the other area to the west. Because you have existing residential development, you're gonna run into the same issue over there. Now what should that be?
Should it be at least a 200 foot mark on there? I think in my mind, it tells the developer this is really where we want the development to go. Bring us in something that shows this. Mhmm. You know? Come come in good faith to show us something that is gonna provide the buffer that we want. And I think tonight, I don't have an issue with doing that and then moving forward with approval of the map. I think it would be I think it'd be more problematic if if there was a consensus that once it gets to setting the zoning that it
has to be single family, r one only. But if that flexibility is there to do the r two zoning with potential twin homes, I can see where that would be more palatable in my estimation. I mean Palatable for the developer? Yes. You look at Keystone, and that's an r two. That's what I'm saying. Like, how Keystone is. Yeah. That's what I mean. Nobody And it can say be single family homes. I don't think anyone's contested having Keystone being an r two that you have some twin homes. You have some very beautiful homes. It's, you know, it
just is kinda how the world is today. But, so can we go forward today with instructions to metro cog to give us that buffer between the current north boundary of our residence and what the medium density proposed would be, on those two pieces, excluding the one that's connecting right up to the medium density that's already there. Right. Yeah. And, I mean, does it have to be a set footage? I mean, this is really just a guideline. I don't think that you It just has to be 100 feet or Pardon me,
Medicare. Yeah. Just coloration on the map. I don't know if Adam can come up and speak to how they would accomplish that or what it would look like. Right. Right. I just I just see a line. Extend. Yeah. Extend. Yep. Extend by a single row of Mhmm. Yellow. Yep. It fulfills the intent of what's trying to be accomplished on both of those Mhmm. Oranges. Yeah. The other thing with the with the with the 8th Avenue coming across 40th Street, that there there are two boxes we took we had also talked about having the avenue going between those two. I can't remember what's over there. There's a lift station.
Yep. Oh, okay. So if if we move that further even south, then we don't have to worry about that orange part at all. But for the for the specific parts of this, I think extending that sliver of houses on the south side of both of those orange locations would be sufficient to stay within our medium percentage that we're trying to get to as well as, provide some some things for the current land owners that didn't that that when they purchased this house, it was yellow. Madam Chair, do do we wanna extend that same sentiment to to that not challenge I was
just gonna bring that forward. Yeah. Of Summerwood. Period. Yeah. In the same light, how do we then treat if if we're gonna say this is this is across the board, how we're gonna try to accommodate, how do we, address the Summerwood, cut out? No. I'm sure. Yes. Can I ask a series of questions about that property? If Peyton allows, then certainly. Because I think there's like, when I look at this what did I write down? Dylan. Dale? Was it Dylan? I think he left. Dayton. Dayton. He left. One of the probably one of the truest kind of that is arguably one of the nicest groves of trees in the city of Delworth.
Development doesn't always mean trees at the end. So when we look at that, I'm I went inside of that. How big is it? Yeah. And what is the best fit for that size of land? Because I I one of our policies is, like, environmentally friendly. Right? Do things that you know, to I'm not saying go green, but part of it is, like, trees and green space. And I don't wanna see those cut down, but I don't know what fits inside there. So how big is it? And then what what what could arguably be a quality use for that that dirt.
I think it's a beautiful homestead. I just I'd hate to see it. Chad, we have a stand in. It's a three acre parcel. It's a little Sorry. Well Three acres. Okay. Thanks. Three. Okay. Sorry. So when we look at, like and and so how does that when we look at three acres, I mean, is that does it work to have medium density in there? Can you put, like, a a set of condos in there in that setting? I I don't know the answer to that question. I really don't. But I think it's it's worthy of discussion as as the other part is maintaining the integrity of that
three acres. I like those trees. I think it does provide, some not fencing, but what's the word I'm looking for? Screening. Screening. Yeah. Some natural screening. So if there is something different in there or whatever the case may be, maybe r two is the right zoning for that too. I don't know. Yeah. I I would I would like to say you can always have some wonderful medium density residential in there. Right? It doesn't always have to mean low income. You could have great medium density in there without without having the trees down or
you could, you know I mean, trees don't live forever. Let's also state that they're have lifespan. But, I don't know. If it's r one, r two, and r three patent, is that low density on this map? Our our ordinances and I know there's some that's where it gets really kind of confusing. But I don't know. I think for simplicity, your orange is gonna be your R3. Okay. So yellow would be R1 R2. Yeah. Just for Purposes. So And r three means what?
R three means single family up to eight units. So inside of three acres, there could be eight units. Absolutely. I mean, inside of three acres, you could have eight single family houses. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, you get four an acre. Yep. So you could put 12 actually, if you want. I mean, if maybe even more depending upon the size of the lot. Right. So I I don't know. I I liked that. I liked the idea of something going in there without disturbing much of mother nature. And I don't know how we use our land use map first for that. And then zoning, I thought, I'm not sure. I don't know the answer to that question.
I'm glad I asked it, though. Yeah. Ma'am, chair and planning commissioning, you know, really and and Chad, to answer your question, you'd have to lower the density, I mean, of what you guided for if you're gonna try and save save more trees. Right. You don't think you can get eight units in there? Three acres. You could get eight units in there theoretically. I you'll be bringing in a cul de sac or a road bulb road with a cul de sac on the end of it. And that, again, most likely would have to come before us and city council as a PUD, most likely? Or More than likely, it would probably come in as a PUD.
But would it also wouldn't have to? I don't know. I'm just trying to get No. It could be traditionally platted too. Yeah. But the the plat would come before us as well. Pardon me? The plat would also have to come before us. Absolutely. Any development would that would have to. Yeah. Other than somebody just buying it and putting a single family house on it. Right. Any further discussion? What what is the current status of that property? It's owned by someone. Privately owned. It's low density. Yeah. I think it's transitional zone. It's transitional? Yeah. Any further discussion?
Otherwise, I think I have a couple choices we could talk about for moving forward. So we have the motion that was given to us, or are we wanting to propose, the Metro COG go back, draw up, I guess, what their recommendation from our recommendation is. They're the professionals. They've they've done this. They've heard you've listened, been here. I think they can work with city staff, get a proposal put together for January. Or does it just need to be changed in with our suggestions?
Yes. You can and say council votes next week. Mhmm. Yeah. Yeah. If you feel comfortable with doing the the buffer option, we'll call it, then that's a pretty simple adjustment we can do for next week. I think that I'm comfortable with the buffer on the two areas. I'm just now I don't know what we're doing with the summer wood. I think we could change that to low density also. Keep it as transitional. Well, I mean, it stays transitional. So we set the zoning on it, but it would stay low density residential as a possibility. It would probably be limiting in the sense that you'll probably get a single home
on it there most likely. Madam chair, I think from my perspective, I guess I'd understandably, city council meets next week, but I'd like to see this again in January. If we can come to an agreement on something to do with Summerhill or sorry. I'm sorry. Summerwood. I'd be comfortable sending it to city council next week. We've looked that up for a year. This is gonna be What's one more month? Well, there's that too, but it's it's to me, it feels like we should put a bow on it. Because we're gonna every every time when something comes somebody comes in to develop, we're gonna look at it again, and we can adjust it at that point. So these No.
We've got we've got pen. We're writing this in pen, but it's a race of blank. Not every time. I will say from our from our 2018 to now, I I don't think we've ever needed to The only adjustment we made is when we were doing the mixed use district. The key the the rail district. And And the downtown Downtown mix. Mixed use Okay. Districts. Yep. Yeah. That's right. We did this the or the zoning plus Yeah. The link. Future. Okay. Thank you, Payton. So we did. Sorry. Seriously. So do we have a motion that anyone wants to put on the table?
On motion that we send it back to to Metcock and reevaluate in January 2026. K. We have a motion from Steve. Second. And there's a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. K. So I got a I have one sheet for this, so hold on. Okay. Mike, you second that? Yes. Mike. And Ryan, you opposed? Opposed. And Mark, opposed. Okay. First, second. Okay. I I think I have that noted. K. So we have two, k. So the motion passes that this will move to the January comp,
planning commission meeting with Metro Krog, hopefully understanding all of our comments and, concerns. Have we given them direction on Silverwood? No. Okay. We're on other one for that matter. Well, I feel like we the buffer zone okay. Let's clarify. The, instructions to MetroClog? Like, from my perspective, I'd like to take mister Sloan's suggestion. What does that look like? What the buffer was looking like with lava? So can we have two options, Steve? Is that what you're asking? One with a buffer and one with, maybe an alternative? Sure. And those will be points of discussion.
Any questions? K. Are you confused? No. I have a question about the procedure then. So if it's coming back to this board, do we have to have another public hearing in order to Mhmm. Finalize this? No. You had your public hearing. Correct. You do not have to have another public hearing. But we still hold a vote to bring still gonna vote on it. Approve the one. Still in your it's in your purview. It's at your board now. It'll be at your board again in January. Okay. So then, madam chair, you said that there's the buffer zone on the two areas that are Adjacent to
existing neighborhoods. Yeah. What about the Summerwood three acres? Did we have direction for Metrocog there, what direction are we gonna get Metrocog there? I'm sorry. I I did not hear that piece. I guess there's not many options. Ordre yellow. Yeah. So it'd be the alternative, which would be just low density. Yeah. Can can we just decide real quick, like, what color we're gonna tell them to paint that box? It it sounds like the reason that we're having the discussion is to change it to yellow. Yeah. I Which I don't I like the idea of yellow. I know some come someone comes in, buys a three acre trunk, lives in Dilworth.
So it sounds like there's a consensus to change it to yellow It'll make sense. To give direction to Metro Con. Mayoral mansion. Well, the consensus was to see this again so we can have further discussion. Okay. That was the motion so that we could see it in January and have discussion on it, I guess. Right. But you, can come to consensus on what you'd like to see on the map to give them further ideas on what they should be representing back to you in January. Right. So one one being the buffer with the yellow adjacent to the current residential. Yep. And an alternative for the summer wood would be low density.
Okay. Thank you. Yep. Okay. Moving on to the next public hearing. Okay. We're going to do have the public hearing for the amending title 15, land usage, chapter 153, zoning ordinance as it pertains to outdoor storage. We'll open this meeting at 07:10. And is there a staff presentation, Peyton? I'll let community development director, Larson, handle this one. Wonderful. Sure. Madam chair and planning commission, staff has made several modifications to the proposed draft ordinance since our initial review of
it back at the September 3 Planning Commission meeting. Since the November 5 Planning Commission meeting, staff has made some final edits to this. One, per discussion was removal of two c and the language there was any trailer with two or more recreational equipment items shall be counted as one item. So we're saying that's implicit and therefore, it was asked to be removed and has been. And then the second one was the addition of the R3 residential limited multifamily. We realized with the lot sizes,
this could be applicable to that district as well. So we want to make sure that we included the R3 District. Those are the two changes that have been made. And again, the reason for this is to clarify the existing language in the ordinance, improve administration of the requirements and ensure greater conformity with the off street parking requirements and standards that are in the existing ordinance. Thank you. Thanks, Don. Any discussion, questions on this ordinance? Becky, are you comfortable, city staff comfortable with this? I know I asked last time,
but with the few changes that were made Yes. That'll be helpful. If no further discussion or questions, we can entertain a motion. Did we close the public hearing? Oh, sorry. K. We have staff presentation. We have, any comments from the audience? Everyone left. Left. Okay. We'll close the public meeting. 07:12. Planning mission discussion. Thanks, Mark, for your order. I'll make a motion to forward recommendation to the Dilworth Sea Council to adopt the resolution amending title four land usage chapter 153 zoning ordinance as it pertains to outdoor
storage as presented. Second. I have a question real quick. Just a this says, or okay. Go back to that. Sorry. I'm just concerned. I've said amending title 15 20 that should be. Is it 15 or 25? It was both. The agenda says 15. The top of the ordinance says 25. And that said scroll down. Title Four. Four. So which which one are we amending here? Just so we can get that straight. So Outdoor storage, ordinance. We'll get the numbers. Yeah. Okay. I think it's section four,
title 20 15. Yes. Yes. K. With that change with that motion. K. Bruce, you good with that? I am good with that. Okay. Is there a second? Second. And a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Alright. Motion passes. Okay. Next item on the agenda is to receive and file building permits. I'll move. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Project updates. Peyton or Don? Only thing to make note of is we are progressing nice
the design of the community center, still on track to have everything completed through the wintertime with hopes of getting it bid out later on this winter and, spring summer spring early summer construction. How did public meeting go on the community center? Went great. No objections. Lots of feedback. Completed by next fall? It's anticipated to be a yeah. Yeah. Maybe a year, eighteen month construction time window.
Local day is 2027. Yep. Hopefully, by then. They'll be pushing it, but yes. Yeah. K. Anything else? That's all I have. K. I'll go ahead and adjourn today's meeting. Thanks, everyone.