in terms of they lost control of of what they're approving and denying to some extent and and has if you look after that after they got action brought against them and lost suddenly they become a lot more dense for the most part so I would say we're better on figuring out how to develop the least amount of density in the framework that were provided than trying to just never mind but I I think there's also you know there's also a desire to try to be creative and Fa on staff level not necessar I'll be silent on that council's desire um but we're trying to figure out creative ways to reach your goals um while um working within that framework so and if I could just point out we're we're elected to represent the residents of corkin they're not they're not even elected they're appointed personally I'd say bring it on but I that's now let's look at John and see what he says back here in the corner John's CA before before before John talks and stuff I've got a couple other thoughts and stuff that that Barn I know Brian is using it for wood storage and stuff the bones of that Barn the Morse and ten tenant Barn that's there and such not to put words or thoughts into the applicant's mind and such but it'd be cool to preserve that in our community room something to that effect um I don't know how well that would stand up without some type of intervention related to new product to protect it on as an outside framework and such but just oh my gosh all kinds of opportunities there to preserve that thing my big thing I I have stood ever since I've been up here and longer for this neighborhood and keeping what they have um I came from a neighborhood like this 18 years ago in map Grove of many 20 24 properties 5 acre lots um that were just overcome by developers but again there was a difference of uh what was offered and what was on the table to each and every one of our residents in in my little uh rural community that I I lived in and such so I've done everything I could can to help these folks preserve what they have but there's an awful squeeze going on not just from um Hope Church development um this property and such is is I don't consider as part of it but it is part of it so to speak and then the property to the sou so again I'm doing everything I can thinking of where I came from folks um it just I don't have a solution so if you guys got one if you guys can think of something you guys got my number Jason I think I'm speed dial 1 a right after Diane so it it's it's I I'll listen to any one of you guys and uh it just it's a big it's a big deal and again the comments that I bring up about impacting your your costs and your kind of things and this is nothing you all have asked for and such that's what I'm up here representing and such folks so I appreciate you guys um I I do like like what you've done as far as the thoughts and ideas I think I've uh joked in my mind it's a total of 9.8 acres and if we go three to five you could you could come in with a proposal of a really tight mess on here if we were to change that zoning and such so um a lot of things going on in our minds up here folks so appreciate everybody sitting there respecting the applicant respecting us and as we voice our concerns so that gave enough time to John can respond to what he's thinking as far as our comments about bringing on I think is what council member lanterman said power to the people yeah Mr Mayor members of the council I don't I don't have a lot to add over what what's been discussed here I think I my understanding and I haven't specifically researched the the case law and the lawsuits involving that Council and enforcing their their restrictions but my kind of General understanding was very similar to the mayor's which is it hasn't gone well on the municipal side and the the density has changed for the worse I guess as we would do it um so I guess I would say uh from a legal strategy I don't know what that would be advisable they didn't have a good lawyer I I will I will say if there is a time to strike uh I believe they get their money from the state legislature and uh that's not going so smoothly right now so good if you were going to do it uh maybe the next couple weeks is the time I'm there their resources made that motion their resources are more than ours so that's right yeah yeah but they don't represent our our they don't I agree 100% um to answer a couple of the questions or topics you brought up I'm not sure about the siren the the public safety siren that you mentioned um I can just high level um we had this air intersection area marked as a search area so it's this is a concept plan so it just got elevated that it was a search map so it's emergency Sirens there is none in this area so where exactly Lance a lot of it is like elevation driven honestly so I think the intersection more was targeted because it dips down as you go to the north quite a bit and so when you start to minimize the towers and to get the connectivity in the corridors uh I think that's why the intersection was more of a Target than the property to it but again it's just a comment something to talk about it's really uh the chief's you know responsibility I actually added the comment he might not even know what's in there I just know that that was a search area so in that in that intent of just raising topics to to raise awareness I had to way add so that's what I can add today so could I add something oh he confirmed it okay could could I just add something quick if the government requires a siren then it should go on government land not on a private um owner's land and in in my opinion and we have the water treatment facility there I don't know why if it's if it's necessary in my opinion it should go on that land yeah I I wouldn't necessarily be that might still be an option I think it like Kevin was saying might be with the elevation depends on but it kind of seems like a taking of land by the government from a private party and if it's if it's the government's desire to have this this siren and the government needs to put it on its own land not on not on a private owner's land yeah I'll let the police chief respond to those but again it's just elevating the conversation it should be somewhere around if there's we should be Prett big Prett bigot that with all the interaction that's happening so it was just an intent to raise the conversation and I'll just add it's not uncommon for when a plaque comes in where for example we have well sites and things that come as part of those plats when we look at where we need City infrastructure to serve those neighborhoods so I think that's where again why the plat would be elevating that conversation gotcha um the other let me see the other items you raised were the road connection does council have any thoughts on that the the two colx versus the recommendation to connect that back there what what's the what's the goal of connecting them I think it's Public Safety concern of vehicle access oh go ahead it's your project I'm sorry um yeah Public Safety felt that it was important to have that connection for improved uh flow if there were an emergency on the backside of the development it it improves their ability to um get through the the developments with a loop Street rather than a dead end Street um I that's I guess my my understanding of what was discussed at the public safety meeting Kevin do you want to speak to well there's general maintenance benefits to having less C thex in terms of plowing um and then also I think a primary driver in this layout is a sewer and water get service from the north and so your options are to kind of Point go from that gap between the two culde sets is going to be your utility corridor or you have to come down and rip up Hunter's Ridge so I think when we get into the engineering as they said that this is a concept level this is where we take me back like when he gets into some bolts of some of the engineering we at a high level anticipate this changing a little bit and maybe it looks differently and so there's kind of three drivers and we don't know what it's going to turn out as but there's three drivers that may not end up looking like this I might it might for those three reasons look a little differently you know what that looks like maybe Loops through and it's a q or whatever that would be I don't know that's what they have to do in their next step yeah just real quick on that comment as far as the roads and such If This Were to move onward and such I I don't see a whole lot of Advantage out of that being all of the stuff that I've done um previous developments um renia um Trava those kind of things those are there some awful long clde saacs and such and uh I just I don't see the purpose of of that as long as the clde saacs are big enough diameter and such um again I know we've got a public works person here and he probably wants to smack me but uh for Street plowing and stuff a U-shaped an in and out would be better than turn around on a call the SEC I've I've heard that loud and clear many many times but but uh I just it just seems odd um that that green Corridor I'm going to call it if you come out of the water treatment facility that little stub Street then all of a sudden there's a whole bunch of green shrubs um I think that's more of a a Golan stuff isn't it I mean that's that's a huge huge change to this this property and implications related around filling that in instead of following the topography and stuff I I always worry and wonder about stuff like that so um speaking off the top of my head on things I see and things I know about this little parcel so thank you can I add to that please okay um when you look at that too if you were to connect that road and make it more of a u-shape that house I'm not sure who lives in that house right off of that CU this act but that would create a whole lot more traffic for them of people coming and going through that neighborhood whoever ended up living on that section so I think having a CU toac there makes more sense than having it connect all the way cuz the other world connects looks like between the two houses yeah for us I mean I saw the comment I understand I understand whatev saying sanary thing I get um the reality for us though is we we're kind of having to balance hey if I put a 60 foot right away through I'm not going to be able to put a 65 foot lot you know to try to basically offset that cost there's really not we're getting to the point where we're having a road to Loop for Less Lots than what we're currently showing and so it's kind of a tough scenario that way and I mean I guess I look at it and saying in some ways the water treatment facility is its own dead end um they'll around within the water TR facility itself anyway that's crazy so it's kind of you know from our perspective like the additional Street cost is something that's probably prohibitive in that way uh we can certainly look at it and Kevin and the engineering team is really good at working soltion in terms of understand counil would be at relative to the comments on kind of what what's important to you Mr May real quick to the the eyebrow I'm going to call it call the sack up on uh Street B are we calling it is that something that could be applicable instead of a a short stub called a sack could an eyebrow type deal go there and still do what is proposed as far as having four Lots there instead of a stubbed Street that's just some input so we don't have enough data to confirm but this is this a concept so just things I'm thinking of um and then is there anything else that you guys had anything else that we missed that no that's great I mean think I think can I just rest I heard is one you're you prefer potentially based on you know assuming the Met council's actions on the 12 guarden have are in that way then it's for sure you know something you guys would prefer to conservation residential as the guidance if we pursue a conf Amendment the lowest possible that be be allowed is kind of what I'm hearing from the group is that accurate uh hold on state that again the L lowest possible density that would be allowed while still allowing a subdivision of this property is what you would recommend us fors yes uh yep given the M council is like see that and then from that perspective the we would want to avoid a PUD we would want to go towards that rsf3 as Dwight mentioned with the potential deviations or need for variances relative to buffering along 116 instead of 100 foot set back and then potential buffering relative to the water treatment facility those are the deviations that I can think of at the moment so buffering on the Lo's existing property I'm not worried about lande keeping frankly on on that piece we're asking for it to be less than 100 ft you guys have a code section that allows us to be less than 100 ft if we have more Landscaping so be it we'll do that it's that's not the piece I'm just indicating that there's you know that's that's what we would plan on doing because house is at 80 ft off of the current right away 70 ft off the yep and then relative to the water treatment facility screening I guess my thought would be I'd work with City staff to determine what if anything is planned for the water treatment facility to screen it from us on the landscape plans for the city and determine what what is appropriate relative to the screen I don't know that that's how our buffer Ordinance Works yes well the buffer ordinance is agnostic to what the water treatment facility may or may not have planned in this case I'm just I want to have point of discussion is that would be the intense i' i' I'd rather compromise and if we didn't have a good screen which I I I find it hard to believe that we didn't have some decent screening on that south side of our water treatment facility for screening to this property it's it's pretty hard to accept it's pretty hard for me to chew on saying that with the burden is on that property wanted to screen their property from the water treatment when when we should have screened that on our side so that's that's just my thoughts no yeah that's fair um so I don't to clarify the buffer ordinance wasn't in effect fact we didn't have it written in the water approv um I maybe Kevin knows off his hand off the hand top of his head whe what Landscaping might be proposed in that area um and then as our code is currently written like I did that Kevin knows what type of not to that extent back to Kevin it's all Kevin's fault when we talk anything it's always Kevin way out of my Lane I'm the police um but all that to say the way that our buffer ordinance is currently written it's all based on the land use in uh I'm sorry the zoning District so there would be a buffer assuming rsf3 there would be a buffer from the rsf1 zoning District since our water treatment plant is currently zoned rsf1 okay um so I think if we what we could theoretically do is a variance uh to say that we don't we're not going to require additional screening since it is a more intense use on that site um and we'll treat it as public institution because I think eventually I think as part of the 2050 comp plan we likely would re guide that to public institution and rezone it accordingly but the issue right now is if they were to come in before that and we haven't really started a process to do that ourselves yeah it it's the way it's currently written we can't do it without some kind of a variance yeah and maybe from my perspective I I I'm a landscape architect love the buffer I think the ordinance you guys are way early to this compared to most ofi these in terms of actually estatic of the buffer ordinance I don't disagree with it whatsoever it's when in this particular instance with the city of corkin buffer ordinance it's not just hey you have to plant XY or Z it's you have to plant XY or Z plus it's an in easement and starts to encumber the land further when it feels like in this particular instance you know we're encumbering land for a city and building it just feels a little bit goofy that way Y and so that's the point of the the discussion it's not that I don't think that eventually someone whoever lives in that lot with it do landscaping screening to buffer themselves it's just that the city might not be involved in determining what's the appropriate level of screening you know and it's in is kind of the point of the discussion gotcha just real brief on that from memory most of that Southern Property Edge is a parking lot from memory and underneath that parking lot is all of our utilities so that being said I'm not sure there's a ton of space to add significant Landscaping we can certainly look further at that but I just know that that's the utilities are I remember kind of a planed for future connections there's going to be limited space to do something I think for those two reasons we don't plant a bunch of stuff on top of our critical pipes as well as the parking lot creates some challenges gotcha something to keep in mind that's all I have than perfect thank you and one other thing I'd add and and lther do a great job of this and and you as well as I would uh whether it's PUD or not continue to meet with the neighborhood and and I think that always um going through sometimes tough conversations in the end is always paid off um when with these type of projects so I would heavily encourage it yeah as the next step my understanding Natalie you comp Amendment a neighborhood mean required for comp Amendment no zoning so I think um yes if you wanted to do a comp plan Amendment separate you can technically do that um it may be helpful just knowing that we're kind of like well is it low density is a conservation it might make sense to really just that the preliminary plat application so it's all coming in at the same time um if you don't do a PUD a neighborhood meeting is not required highly recommended um and but yeah it's the Pud that triggers that neighborhood meeting requirement thank you for that so I'm committing to holding neighborhood meeting on this apprciate for the plan we'll explain what's going on we yeah we'll get the labels from sounds good appreciate it great as gruesome as they look no pretty good pretty good yeah you know what they're polite they are good folks yep thank you did can I just ask a question about understanding there yeah sure if you if you could come up to the mic just quick so we can hear it on the record I'm trying to wrap my brain around the Met Council versus Coran zoning mhm because this is zoned rsf1 mhm okay 22,000 ft and there's no way 22 lots are going to fit right so will the Met Council come in and basically say city of corporate I don't care about your current zoning here's what you're going to do or can you guys tow the line and say this is Zone rsf1 it will allow loots of this size so make your plan fit the current Zone I on this one council's GNA say they could have X number per acre well but our zoning already says what lot size should be so does that just get disregarded or does that two to an extent in the in the end the Met Council cares about what that average uh units per acre for all of the residentially zoned land in a city or whatever unit you're looking at um and right now that's at three so it has our low density medium density and high density and has to average out to a minimum of three to five units per acre the change that they're voting on might be changing it to four to S four to six four to S four to something the change that they're voting on it's it'd be increasing it from 3 to four but also the high end of it to oh something five or six or seven so they they might change that basically you could and I think maybe the philosophy of it is you know the lot that's there could be grandfathered in and wouldn't be necessarily against met counil but if you were to subdivide at all and add any thing it would have to make sure that when that's added in that with everything else in the city it meets that minimum zoning is matter not not to them as much as the overall uh density minimum unfor yes it is very very frustrating very frustrating sir it's you know we've sat here on night and I appreciate everyone's patience you know the tree guys got shot down because their plan didn't meet the current requirements of the Zoning for that space But this doesn't meet the current Zoning for that space But it's moving forward Mr Mayor May real quick one of the things on that is its current zoning is one thing but we as a council previously the previous two that were sitting here we said we would adjust that to commercial which is something doesn't say yes to this or no to this it just we're open to hearing more and that get other one got a little bit more into uses allowed uses versus uh lot no and probably wasn't a fair analogy I appreciate good way to talk saying just submit a plan that meets the current requirements and that's not what any of this is that's refresh gotcha yeah thank you thank you appreciate it before we go on to 8 uh A and B does anyone need need a break or good to power through I'm good good I'm good thank you guys we'll let these guys have a break let you guys you wanted to head out of course you're welcome to stay appreciate [Applause] it I don't have I my wife was like my wife and little one was like the first one to leave last time you made us stay late you not the first I'm be you didn't find me hold this man out yeah okay yep all righty is Matt here giddy M here I think he's in DC still he's busy uh he's back but he's not in town he I think he he he called me earlier and said I could maybe make it if you need me and I said oh we're probably fine and I didn't know the siren issue was going to come up um let's see here on to uh unfinished business so we have 8A and 8 B the first one is downtown water and sewer connections and I don't see who actually is doing that um I am presenting on behalf Mike thank you Mr Mayor so yeah just real brief um the it's basically in summary the city had initiated a downtown utility Street Improvement project uh with our existing industrial downtown area and that started in 2016 with a requirement for properties in that area to be connected to the water and sewer system originally by May 2019 that has been extended multiple times with the final extension identified June 30th 2023 there are two downtown properties that remain unconnected at this time and we're just looking for a little bit of guidance one of the property owners is here um or at least one of the property owners is here and we're just looking them for guidance on how to proceed so uh 7525 Commerce Street there just has been no communication with them um staff is in we have sent out notifications but they haven't reached out I believe one of their properties is connected but they haven't connected to Southern Property for their business um and so staff is um at this point asking Council to uh recommend moving forward with working with the city attorney to evaluate and pursue enforcement options it's not very clear um what does happen if they don't abide by the connection date um so we'll have to go through what options are available to us and then we would bring that back at a later date when we've identified a rout forward or um it would be to extend the deferral period for the property connect or the council could also recommend other Alternatives and we also have 7590 Commerce Street that property owner has been communicating actively with staff they my understanding is there is a permit but their permit fees that are due at issuance about $565 and that pays most of it is a h connection fee to the me Council that's a pass through so we don't we have to collect that money um how much 5,656 okay I'm sorry I see it um and so I my understanding is the property owner and contractor have inquired multiple times about potentially having the city um assess them for those fees rather than paying at the permit um we have not done that for any other property every other property that's connected at this point has paid at the time of permit issuance so um St staff is recommending to affirm the property owner expected to pay for the permit and connection fees to bring the S to compliance the other options provided for the council to consider that the city pays the fees and assess the cost of the property owner the assessment process is clunky and that's why I step would rather avoid that um and then council could also recommend other Alternatives that have not been considered by staff um and that is the report any questions foral just real quick Natalie this all started in 2016 you've got in there so the original plan was to get everybody hooked up by what time um so there was 19 I believe was the initial final deadline and I'll add in that prop so there was an area charge that property owners were assessed everyone was assessed for those and that was like a larger assessment um and so those have all been paid y um but yeah as far as the connection um that was originally supposed to be done by May 2019 and the city um we've extended some and I remember extending the nurseries and such and I know they hooked up year ago roughly and such after a few years of asking for permission to go longer and stuff we've done all of those things we've been um very open and helpful in every way so this is we are down to 9 years later 8 years later I'll I'll give it a year so to speak and we now have two folks um this one this is just related to the the corner lot correct is all we're talking right now we're talking about two lots we're talking about Phils also correct yeah that's the 7 okay all right so um and again I and you're you're com your comments in here and such we talked um with Phil's Automotive and such last March or April and there was changes to the parking lot a couple of trees fell down H in rock adjusted the parking lot and claim that as parking right now and that's kind of the contention right now of saying that's a no but I thought we gave it a year for them to come in with a plan on what they're going to do to do things to make it right but again the contention is that turned into parking lot and it wasn't supposed to is that am I making it too simple well that's a so that's next on the agenda so there's a two different things okay and so they came in in July was when that was and so yeah so that I'll have Dwight speak on that next he's been working with ph on that so this is more of just focusing on the connection permit um Bas I think the essential ask to my understanding is that they would he would like the fees assessed he does not want to pay the the fees to connect at the time of issuance so basically the ask would be for the city to upfront those fees and then assess it on the back end we have not done that for any other property yeah um so that's why staff is asking for direction gotcha thank you thanks for entertaining my open thinking yeah I I don't think we're a bank you a comment that what's that did you proun if you'd like to but I want to make sure c c lman is done yeah no okay sure if you come up that'd be great yeah my name is Phil Kerber the presid CEO Quality Automotive and forgot to say evening wor anyway the reason we're asking we're just tring to definitive on what your the requirements were they weren't clear when it wasn't Dwight it was other ordinance ordinance guy came by and some papers I signed was going to be assessed regular taxes along with the installation assessment up somehow I remember that I haven't been able to find the papers but I don't know if it's true or not counil staff what that was just of I'm not sure um any thoughts I can speculate I don't know if you want me to speculate um it was a while ago yeah so I think what I think what happened is how speak at a high level and I reserve to correct my statements please um I believe at a high level there is two parts of the project right so when we did a downt it's a 2016 downtown project a third of it was paid for by assessments a third of it was City funds and a was that Tiff the 20 that original Tiff that was out there well before my time here so those are the funding mechanisms for the project with the goal of helping SE and water so that when these properties redeveloped they could eliminate they could create more space in some of these smaller lots that was a challenge so that was kind of the context of the project uh so there was the street assessment part which individuals had the opportunity to assess over 10 years and so I think that was part one and I do think you chose that assessment from memory we can confirm that uh and then there was the con the physical connection assessment so there's the cost of the street assessment and then there was the physical sewer and water connection assessment so there was opportunities for both of those what this remaining amount is is literally the building kind of permit connection to make the connection inside so you know does that make sense there's two funding components at the beginning which paid for the road and the sewer and water stubs yeah what's remaining is taking from the stubs to his facility that was always had a threeyear window on it and just like a drive some if a resident comes us for a driveway and says hey can we you know absorb our parking lot Improvement through the city project and fund it back out that's just not a practice that most cities do we don't do that so again this last 5500 5600 is the physical connection charges related to the building permit connection so outside of the project so I believe Mr Kerber is correct that someone came around and uh off in this and he obliged it and it got processed what we're talking about today is the third piece that was never initially offered in this my specul that Mak sense and then that connection Mr Mayor I may that connection fee is just the connection it's not the work to dig the whole the trench to the it doesn't pay to the sewer water that still has to be done by the the land owner yep because that's your pro I mean that's your pipe right so the other two things pertain to the project that was completed already this pertains to the remaining work and if you look at it it's $251 City Connection fee so that's to go out and inspect the connections because it's a system right so if a private contractor connects to it the water means pressurized we need to make sure the connections are right there's no leaks otherwise it's an ongoing leak that we can't record because the meters are inside so that 250 pays for inspection time uh a meter fee of $435 that's that's typically a by speculating it's cost it's cost of the meter plus 10% that's according to your fee schedule and then it's just sack fees which looks like you had two two sacks for your building I'm guessing because that's usually like a $2500 charge so I'm guessing the Met Council certified your building as two sacks that's a that 4970 is 100% passer with no markup to the city so we we're really talking about I mean that's why it's not that's why it wasn't part of the funding mechanism so I'm trying to substantiate that you did sign up for that that was paid for assessed this is the stuff outside of that so it's the third nugget that you know eight years later might have got L that's my speculation so I just want to clarify you know I didn't catch the third piece teolog but I just want to clarify make sure these are that I'm supposed to beay and we're try to fin get S away some other things come up gotcha I think we have to take action on on the overall thing but then we'll we'll come back to you for the next one perfect thank you um so any other questions from Council for staff on either either one or or what direction we want to go or does someone want one question so the city has paid the Met Council stack Fe already then no no okay we get charged it when the building permit gets released okay and I believe we already got uh we you have the permit approved it's not you have the permit I think probably ready we don't it doesn't get approved until we get the money so it's it's waiting there for that payment and then it's I believe M no response from the other other land owner at all no I there was a meeting with someone that represented the company I want to say 2024 it could have been 20123 because everything's starting to bleed together Y and at that time there sound like there was like a larger Redevelopment component to the site and then ever since then it's gone radio silent so okay I I would recommend we have John LOL too that other development we've got one land owner here that yep we've can clear things up with that's pretty cool thank you Phil for coming in that works did you need a motion or or just kind of cons of counil what did I say um I think yeah Motion makes sense just to proceed with options one for both properties and that should be sufficient option oh they are both different thank you what's that both both option ones are different oh yes you're right I I just saw that too read two I'm not sure where it is in mine it's basically uh that option one and that option oh okay that's for phills that's the other one yes so thank you no problem Mr Mary you want a motion y I'll make a motion for option one in both cases we have a second second any discussion real quick can we clarify in the motion what the option means since it looks like it could be the same sure I mean we see it's the same but I think it needs to spell it out like option one on 7525 needs to be direct staff to work with the city attorney to evaluate and pursue enforcement options yep and the other part of the motion would be on property 7590 option one is affirm the property owners is expected to pay the permit and connection fees to bring the site into compliance yep is that good with motion and the second friendly Amendment friendly amendment I good job all those in favor say I I I perfect on to 8B thank you Mr Mayor uh just a quick overview since this was discussed in July um we have a couple of new council members so just kind of give a brief history of the situation um in September of 2023 the city was um made aware of uh a parking lot expansion at uh 7590 Commerce Street um the parking lot expansion is on the Northern side of the uh of the site towards Commerce Street um we went out and inspected it we um found that it had been um different than what the aerial images had suggested which confirmed that that area had been expanded without um City approval um so we had scheduled a meeting with the property owners to um go over what is necessary for bringing that property into compliance and the necessary um planning and Council um applications to to bring that into compliance um and that was understood at the uh SE 2023 meeting with the um with the property owners and we gave a few months for them to prepare the application and and come back in um with that with that formal site plan um and after several months in July of 2024 we hadn't heard anything from the from the property owner so we um reached back out with with a another um code enforcement update just to um understand what um what what the holdup is and what council's preferred um route we pursue is with the with the code enforcement side of things um and during that meeting um Council had directed City staff to um allow for a one-year extension on the code enforcement side of the nonconformity um while the applicant um prepares those materials and secures the funds to finance the application um and as part of as part of that um extension there was a condition added to it at the end before the motion was made that the expanded parking area not be used for um parking until it receives that site plan approval um there was some um disagreements as to whether or not that um condition was placed on on the uh extension so we're coming before you today to ask for um clarification to um either affirm the previous extension um with that condition that the parking area expanded parking area not be used uh until they receive the site plan approval or affirm the previous extension um with without that condition and allow them to use that expanded area in the inim period here or um there's a third option we could move forward with um code enforcement actions since we haven't um reached a formal uh a formal compliance agreement at this point or um staff has open to other Alternatives that the council may have okay and what do you mean or what would the code enforcement look like you ju you just said option three and and what exactly is that is that a fine is that a lean what is that it goes to City attorney um and as a crime or is that civil uh I believe it is a um typically that would be handled in Criminal Court thank you yep okay um and I I went I forgot to mention that the staff recommendation would be the option one that we proceed with the um with the extension through July 2025 with the um condition that that expanded area not be used okay any question um if the if the owner is willing to go forward with with his original plans why would we not allow him to use the parking space this was this was something that was discussed in that July 2024 meeting I I believe it was um something to at least encourage the progression of the application um if that area is not being utilized and that kind of puts a little bit more um incentive to apply submit the application and bring it into compliance okay is is there an option to get the compliance agreement allow them to use the parking in between getting that compliance agreement signed and on the site plan uh amendment is executed or or updated yes Mr Mayor that's option two on the okay on the staff report there so what's going to change between now and this summer like why the extension like what's going to happen between now and the end of that extension that's going to bring bring this business into compliance so and maybe the property owner can speak to this um himself but I my understanding is at the July meeting he had asked for that extension so he could um gather the funds to apply for those land use applications and pay the necessary fees and escrow requirements how much money is that I don't think it was the city cost as much as the private cost to develop the plan set okay thank you Joanna you guys paper yes know basically you [Applause] see change with of course approval from staff and Council and it's not going to we have if we use it now we're not part of the I don't know if you were able to play my video there's all kind of cars parked on the streets up there a problem mostly from one at the other corner I I've seen it Phil appreciate you so yeah so we're we want to make sure we are not parking on the street so we can at least use that parking lot and that'll keep the people on the street and I've never parked that street 35 years so I'm start but it's a liability too so the big the biggest thing is that it's a temporary paring get our our plan in July hopefully that's time limit and we want to get our site plan done and then that gives us an idea where we're put everything gotcha gotcha gotcha a SW really be nice rest very cool lots of plans M yeah I hear you um so I guess does council have any thoughts on of those options um I'm I'm kind of thinking something along lines of what Dwight was indicating would be option two of if we get an agreement allowing that flexibility until the time that that we had AG on earlier which would have June or July yeah end of July basically of this year yeah yeah I I would agree I don't remember and I didn't go back and listen and such I don't remember saying that that area couldn't be used um again the the story that I remember was the pine trees came down the septic is failing he wanted time to put things together but in the meantime he removed the trees brought in rock mhm knowing that at some point it would be and I thought that's where we left it but I I trust what was documented and and what was down was another situation which has gotten us here I wouldn't have a problem saying number two but the hard stop being now eight almost 9 years of this happening and such everyone else is complied except these two and such I I think that's more than fair and that gives that gives him time to finish up the drawings finish up the plan and get everything together as he promised back in July it's just six eight parking spots it's it's not big on my list but he's right he doesn't use the road other than entrance and exits and again we've got it is a public Street and we've got another group that is using the road for street parking and such which is a whole another conversation I'm sure for staff so so regarding a compliance agreement would we reach out do we have some sort of template we could use for that yeah that's correct Mr Mayor I would um just update that template and send it to um Phil and we'll get that um squared away signed so that we're on the path for option two if that's what the council prefers need to make a motion yeah go for it okay I'll make a motion um for uh option number two affirming previous extension with the formal compliance agreement with removal of the condition regarding utilization of the parking expansion area I'll second it any further discussion all those in favor say I Perfect all set thank you thank you thanks for coming in and Mr Mayor may I ask one more question ground breaking news 2030 2035 I'm just giving you a hard time I got her laughing I I do have a i at the at Summerfest uh out at the virtual school I won a door prize for a $10 gift card from you guys so I might have to come might have to come use that at some [Laughter] point thanks for coming in guys thank you guys thank you perfect and with that thank you staff for what you've done yeah and and great job everyone in Lea stepping in on short notice and and um and great job with everyone it was a great meeting so really appreciate all that you guys do as usual with that we don't have too much else or really anything else on the agenda the I don't think the council schedule made it on this one um but it's oh it did get added okay gotcha so it's in there um subject to change as always um maybe mention that yeah I was say Mr May the oh yes uh you talking about the the work session the work session February 27th it's a January yeah alling together what is it next Monday is can next Monday can I the febru then so I think we'll have Jay maybe um or nelisha yeah what's that I'm very sad about that I wanted my different color posties we we'll we'll get it we'll get in you sent an email out related to three other Mondays so yeah I think one of them is President though and one of them I will be out of town for so we we'll figure it out and I already sent to you I'm good on any three of them because that's my day off so okay perfect good sounds good other than that should be relatively the same um and with that I will entertain a motion to adjourn so move V Kim second all those in favor say hi hi hi turn