for e e the order of January 14th regular meun the Dayton city council stand for the pledge I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible liberty and justice for all okay I'll need a motion and second the agenda I'll make the motion Dave second and Scott any adjustments um yes mayor members of council we have one item be added to the end of consent agenda and one sent out yesterday and an email apologize about the delay but it is for an approval of a elevate agreement that was approved by the Eda but the County Attorney is requesting it to be approved by the city and not the Eda so any other changes is this when we ask for the consent agenda changes you can have something pulled out um I would like to discuss items C and item L from the consent agenda that mean you want is it possible you but know on those or you just want to discuss I don't know oh okay so it's which ones C and L C and L we will pull out we will place those just after the consent agenda so we'll discuss consent and then discuss those two items okay thank you um after open form um if you'd like to do after open form we can otherwise we can do it right after consent whatever yeah when we do it right after okay any other changes where we supposed to do the oath of office first I was just going to mention that do we want to do the oath of office so that they can be voting members is true you know what yeah before we vote we really have to do that all right um we can just hold hold the vote for a minute yep fine you want to go first do you want to go first or don't care you can go first s okay I'll go first okay and you don't need me to do it or want doesn't matter do doesn't matter to me come on up and then I sarahan Aon I sarahan Aon doly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States I do Solly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Minnesota and the constitution of the state of Minnesota and that I will discharge Faithfully the duties of office for the city of Dayton as a council member and that I will discharge Faithfully the duties of the office for the city of Dayton as a council member in the counties of henen and Wright in the counties of henpen and Wright the state of Minnesota the state of Minnesota according to law and the best of my judgment and abilities according to law and the best of my judgment and ability okay thank you come on up I Stephanie Henderson I'm Stephanie Henderson do solemnly swear or affirm do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support the Constitution of the United States that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Minnesota and the constitution of the state of Minnesota and that I will discharge Faithfully the duties of the office for the city of Dayton and then I will discharge Faithfully the duties of the office of the city of Dayton as a council member as a council member in the counties of henan and wri in the counties of henan and Wright the state of Minnesota the state of Minnesota according to law and the best of my judgment and abilities according to the law and the best of my judgment and abilities now you can vote now they can your um that's on public form before we go I've got some questions on pinging the [Applause] claims um okay so we're done with changes here I think so okay so uh all those in favor say I I I all the suppos Say No Agenda carries 5 to zero now we're going to consent any motion second I'll make the motion second s and that is okay so a discussion go basically just questions as far as uh the bonds there's a few bonds that were pay payments made are any of them payoffs orone of them are payoffs just just payments uh flock system six cameras we were able to get seven we were able to get seven of them for the same price as what was budgeted uh let's see Graco Tiff of the 560 that does that end in 26 it does not end in 26 so that will it's projected to end I think in 27 or 28 okay depends on how much taxes are continued to be generated from that facility but and the uh money for mortown that came from Morton yep yeah yep we we put it in there though yep so basically what it's not really payment of claims we have to move the money from our bank account into the investment account and to do that we have to technically put it through the payment of claims even though it's just a transfer between our bank accounts essentially um and that's for collateral purposes for the audit we can't be under collateralized essentially when the bank has our money they have to have it in super safe funds they can't have it invested in a bunch of things and so they only have so much collateral on hand for us if we have technically funds that are uncollateralized and the bank were to fail we would lose anything that's uncollateralized and so because of that we have to we had to move money out from we got our tax settlement in okay but we don't pay a payment of the bonds until January so based on the end of the month stuff we had to move it out and then I moved it back in yesterday or today okay uh I believe that is all I have good question anybody else yeah I had um under Item B I had a question on page seven um there was a renewal subscription for um clear gov can ask your question I guess I'm just curious what that is CC council member Salon emailed me earlier about the same question and I said you should ask the question tonight and he didn't so glad I came up um so cleargov is our budg digital budget book and it's ability for us to have a a budget book that's put together at the end of the year and we're working on getting that more integrated into our website as well that comes forward so I think this was discussed two or 3 years ago we've had it for two or 3 years um about being able to have it um utilized by the public to be able to run budget scenarios on their own and be able to run and see different scenarios and run graphs and run um information we just have not been able to get it on our website in an effective manner that would make it you know worthwhile for a resident to be able to do that so that is something that we're looking to do this year in 20125 so but it's just a renewal of that this is an annual subscription an annual subscription of that that is correct and then a second one also a subscription was to First do um I think that's a fire department one yes Council seant that's our records management system annual subscription for $10,500 okay there's a lot of subscriptions there are do at the beginning of the year yeah yeah there were quite a few on the list um let's see I thought I had one other one that wasn't pulled here um you of course I have to comment on the change order three under item F that we are getting bit once again on unsuitable soil and I don't know if that's something we can ever stop but it's it's on every project that's just a timeline change that's an extension of the completion date not a monetary change with that one with um wellhouse 5 yes yeah U that was because the it was described as unsuitable soil yeah the the site was very wet and we didn't feel comfortable putting the pavement down so we told them to wait until spring which didn't allow enough time prior to the completion date so we allowed an extension of the completion date instead but that was more about weather than necessarily we had a very wet fall more so yeah there was quite a few rain events right before and we're up to the end time for getting mixed for doing the paving that's all I have anybody else all right we have a motion at second all those in favor say I I all those opposed say no consent passes 5 to zero and then we will go into item c um we need a motion and a second for that one I'll make a motion second I'll make the second you want discussion on this right I want the discussion yeah okay go ahead so kind of to your earlier point about um issues with soils that aren't good um the reason that's given for the change order is that due to the existing slopes which kind of makes me feel like they're existing you already knew about them why was that not accounted for in the initial and the initial cost if they were existing slopes it doesn't sound like it's a new thing that just came out of the blue so yeah it was a side slope on the tie-in where they installed the hydrant we felt they would be able to or we anticipated they' be able to install the hydrant while maintaining the slope in its position when we got in there it was unsafe for the workers to be in there working and then addition we felt it wouldn't be good for future access to the hydrant so we removed additional soils unfortunately we didn't have the land rights to use the material up on site and it required to be hauled off site we didn't have any provisions in the bid to haul Material off site therefore the change order for that that work and does that um still keep us under the amount that was escoro by the developer yeah we're well well under the amone es grad for the entire project okay okay yeah I wanted make sure that the May are cable new that's territorial main extension is paid for by a developer um we were just running the project for them they gave us an escrow of 500,000 I believe what we agreed upon and then they are paying for the cost Rel the to the project so just so you're aware um that's probably helpful for um customer V Ain and Custer Henderson so you know what that project is so you see it in the future um and then we will return any escra funds that are remaining under the 500,000 once we're all done with the project so okay thank you for that clarification that was my big thing is if it was existing why didn't we account for it so okay any other discussion on C all those in favor say I I I all those opposed say no KES 5 to zero head him L I need a motion in a second I'll make the motion I'm in a second okay discussion Gary I'm in a second I'm not opposed I just I'm I obviously didn't see the original it it shocks me the bids are literally double the price and so I'm just curious how I mean it's one thing if it was like you know $20,000 higher but how is it literally double the price um and are like can someone talk me through that I guess C Masson I can't necessarily answer that these are the same contractors that we used to bid all the office expansion up service last year and I'm pretty sure it was very similar so high Mark is um a company that we use to help the community um if there's a board up so they're a board up company but they're also a contractor um so they came in and they bid both projects last time and then um Sean and his business uh forget the name of it exactly um but he did the office expansion upstairs so he's kind of a sole proprietor if you will and lives here in Dayton okay um so I can't exactly explain the grave differences but yeah no cuz um my dad used to work in construction and usually if there was a bid that's way out of out of the rest of them but with only two it's hard to know who is actually way out of bounds on this one because there's not a third one to like um so typically do we usually only have two bids or do we usually have more than two bids to work off of we've done two we can do three okay um no issue if you like another that's fine it just helps put the other two in context you know so like because if two are close and one is off you kind of question the one that's off but when you only have two and they're literally twice like one is literally twice as high just raised some red flages for me that was all no understood and happy to get a third I'm guessing that I'm not sure I guess it depends on who it is in that capacity so and I'm find like knowing that this is pretty typical and that we've worked like you've worked with creative Home Solutions before and you feel like this they will do a good job and it wasn't my other concern would be someone coming in with low bids and then anticipating doing change orders after their bid has been accepted that would be my other concern yeah no um wasan and and his business we've had zero issues okay perfect then I'm then I'm fine with it thank youcome didn't we kind of budget 50 for this project we did we did we tried to Ballpark it at 50 um and obviously the 108 or whatever is like way out of the ball and I'm glad you guys are here cuz you'll take the pressure off of uh change orders now for me that's right uh I had yeah just to two questions so as part of this project they're installing some appliances do we own those already or are those on top of this bid that will come out of um fire department's budget um on top of that so there'll be like dishwasher stove microwave um so that would not be included in that okay and it was a little I don't know creative maybe to to call out a $555,000 savings between the high bid and the low bid that's I mean one of them's a throwaway and the other one's the real one so I don't know what and like I said happy to get a third to comparison I'm not sure where it would come in um if the council would like that that's not an issue yeah I I don't have a need to see a third one but if other people do like I said not for this but moving forward it would be nice to help put the other ones in context sure any other comments okay um all those in favor say I I all those opposed say no motion carries 5 to zero and then we are on to open forum limited to 3 minutes for non-agenda items state your name and address no consol action will be taken and items will be referred back to staff is anybody here for open form my board thank you this is kind of the benefit of our new council members um my name is Mara Grover I from Brooklyn I've been coming to many Council meetings lately and if there's one thing I noticed it's that the council seems to bend over backwards for developers they can't say no here are just a few examples I've seen in the last few months a developer wants to change zoning of a farm field from agricultural to commercial there's nothing in the comp plans for this area to be commercial it's only designated as a residential either stick to the comp plan or throw it out and let the rest let all the citizens do what they want to with their property another time a develop came to the council to get final approval of the plan he wanted to build a council member mentioned a few changes to make it easier for safety vehicles to get in and out and the developer claimed that he would have to give up a lot suddenly the discussion about safety ends another time a developer comes before the council to give variances to build an 80ft tall sign because traffic on the freeway just could not see his business in fact a member of the council offered another variant too even though the Builder only wanted one not two this Builder had already built one business in town and should have been familiar with the sign ordinance in Dayton no one suggested that perhaps the business try putting up the blue signs on the freeway maybe even two one for food and one for gas maybe put up a billboard in Rogers they seem to like Billboards in Rogers advertis in the business two miles ahead on the right granting a variance is opening up a can of worms for that the business knew the lay of the land when they bought it and they also knew the sign ordin having built the same business just a few months before now everybody at that intersection will use the same complaint of visibility to get their signs raised that same company is doing the very same thing up in brainer they're building a business up there and they went before the council there to ask for a variance for a higher sign and they're right on Highway 371 right on the main north south drag and here's another one a builder of a humongous apartment building can't supply enough parking spaces for the tenants Council response no problem we don't care a member of the council even stated that the bu it was the Builder's problem since there's no mass transit available over there at that location the renter would absolutely have to have a car to go to work to pay the money to earn the money to pay the rent for an apartment where he doesn't have a parking spot Maybe suggest that they should decrease the number of apartments available then what'll happen if the residents don't have someplace to park they'll start Park in where they shouldn't police will be called you might want to consider a police substation there anyway with all the units going in there I see a lot of problem with our City's future there the same developer mentions plans to build yet another gas station wouldn't wouldn't more cor cars be beneficial to the sale of gas for that guy wouldn't he want more parking spots I've lost count of how many will this will make on the south end of town now will it'll be six or seven gas stations and all south of 117th Avenue or will he need a variance for his signs too H stop bending over backwards to please these guys they all knew what the land looked like when they bought it you don't work for them if the mech Council says three houses per acre then that should be the maximum that that's the rule stick to the comp plan why even have one if you're just going to ignore it don't Grant variances instead consider and offer alternatives for those to choose from think things through think outside the box don't let them make the decisions that's your job remember your choices have implications and people will say well if they can do it why can't I I witnessed the Planning Commission and the city council micromanage variances and permits and I wonder who's who's going to of course all the rules on those variances do we have a department that's going to be uh checking on that you know as well as I do that no one will ever check up on those uh stipulations instead just say no thank you thank you anybody else anybody online uh so if you wanted to speak in open Forum can you use the raise your hand function okay we will close up in for I think yeah I can just talk now uh you're on the is this about your item yeah yeah we wait yep okay staff consult Council update sack um yes good evening mayor M of council I wanted to welcome um Council M van Aston and Council Henderson to the council appreciate um the ability to come out of councel and jump on jump on board right away look forward to having a great couple of years um together as a council and then another update that's kind of important is the Wellhead treatment plant so that everyone's aware um we did post this week for two weeks um which is the last required posting for the aw process to get moving um and then we are able to request funds as of February 2nd um we have notified magne to begin construction and they have started their um 90 to 120 day clock so um you should see some movement on that site again end of March end of April somewhere in there few days currently that is probably a different um contractor doing some work on the well four related to that sand that was at the bottom of the well but you will see some movement on um that site again with magne construction in April so we look forward to having that thing done our plan and we're knocking on wood and pushing as much as we can is to be done by the end of this year that is our that is our goal so thank you very much Amy um we have the state of the Cities coming up and just wondering um who all is able to or would like to attend that that it's going to be held uh January 28th from 11: until about 2: gives you a nice overview of all the surrounding cities and um and then we get an opportunity to um share information about our city as well yeah um so if you can I'll be on okay um so I'll you two down for sure uh if you the recip you want to check your calendar and let me know um um if you can let me know by Friday of this week so I can get everyone signed up that needs to go uh and then I will be out of the office and be missing the next council meeting morning uh M coun I have a couple of items um in uh regards to well for the rehab there is going well uh they've been pressurized in the well um they to release the sand that's coming into the well um they uh got it to stop uh having extra um sand come into the well now so once they've uh pressurized it and depressurized it that's when the sand comes in uh they haven't noticed any going into the bottom of the well now so we're moving on to the next stage which is uh sucking that sand out at the bottom of the well um once that's complete then we will start uh test pumping the well to see that it runs clear um and we take samples of that water to see that there's no sand in that before we put it back online so there's still a bit of work to do in there yet but it's looking good is that testing that's done initially when they do it well uh yeah they do do that initially um for the uh the the test well they'll do that and then they will do that on the actual production well um before it goes into service it can't uh produce a lot of sand and we did do this before um but after it went into production it has um started producing more sand again so this time I had them uh go over and above okay what would normally do and we will do the same with sucking the sand out and and the test pump in as well to make sure you know we've got it as clean as clean and the thinking is the higher pressure will bring more sand down yeah that's that's the idea okay um uh ice rinks uh we've been struggling with ice rinks but we have got them in pretty good condition we were uh shaved the the heaves and bumps off of them last week and and did some flooding this week we been out with the Zamboni just uh putting some thin films of uh water down um they're looking pretty good uh they could still be better but they are in good condition to be able to skate on the lights are on at the uh uh the field down here so that's available the one at Sundance is in good condition as well we'll keep working on those to maintain them um we did get approved for hening County Youth grant for some batting cages down at McNeil Park um we got 12 $1,400 of the cost the cost is$ 27,000 uh the remainder of the cost is going to be covered by cdaa and the city is going to do the uh construction for those um LC Stevens Bridge uh the contract has been working with the bridge fabricator withd drawings and submissions looking at materials and what the installations going to look like uh they will be working on site in the Ravine uh to get that stabilized and ready to receive the bridge ahead of the the Thor um so they their work should be done by mid-February the bridge will be um on site um middle of April um and then the project should be concluded by the end of May uh the RFP for LC Stevens um the proposal should be in on Friday uh by 12:00 noon this week um then we'll review with the uh staff will review the submissions and then it will go through to the park commission for them to review those um and recommendations to the council for the first meeting in February um with the hope of uh awarding a contract by the last meeting in February uh the park improvements uh that were postponed from last year the 95% plans should be in front of the park Commission on uh the 4th of February um and then the 98% plans will be presented to Council on the 20 5th of February that's all I have Marty I'm just wondering if the repairs to the pump for well for had been completed yeah they've been completed the uh the the pump people are holding it um at their shop for us while we get this other thing sorted out so that's ready to SL us go back in as soon as we got this test pumping the test pumping will be done by the well drillers they'll bring a separate pump out to do that rather than install our pump so uh that's how that will work yeah okay good Chief good evening excuse me good evening Mayors and members of council um we have started the process and signed a contract with Hyper reach so hyper reach will be the community's emergency mask notification system probably take I'm going to guess about 60 to 90 days to get up and running um we are going to take use the communicator to advertise it because it is an optin uh service so we want to get as many people interested in as possible so more on that to come um also from additional Emergency Management things um we are rolling out to All City staff is-700 asking City staff to take uh is-700 um so they become familiar with what Emergency Management is um along with uh 100 at some point throughout the year invite Council if you're interested let Zach know and we can get that information out to you there are both online classes um for that so thank you evening mayor members of the council um looking on putting on a threat assessment training for city council and staff um it's a 60 to 90 minute training um I'd like to do it either March 11th or March 25th um be a 5:00 start for the council um if one of those dates worked the best I know spring break for no hand up in is March 10th through the 15th 11th for me they both work for me yeah both of them work for me both either one okay I'll let I'll let the company know that either one works and um hopefully they can do one of them um second of all as mentioned in payment of claim fla system um there working on permitting um for installation um as they're working on that they did give us access to um any open cities that share their data so we have the capability of getting other cities data if need be when when when does that get implemented um I'm assuming it' probably be Springtime being they have to install polls yeah oh okay thank you uh the city took possession of the lent properties last week so this is in uh the Old Village say that again the Eda purchased property the Old Village y otherwise known as the lent properties yep yeah no updates sir that I'm good sir I'm good I'm good uh nothing from me nothing from me all right we will move on to uh console business new business item oh uh I just need to confirm that we'll have the local board of appeals April 8th uh both counties really set this meeting date and time um and then we would just me one trained member along with the Quorum at this meeting uh and then I can get um our new Council um you have the ability to complete training by February in any given year um to get you certified for is it 3 years I was just going to ask that I don't know if curious I'll to look you might want to check who's still certified yeah I believe the three of you are oh okay um so I'll I'll send you guys an email about that information about that meeting but that's essentially for residents to be able to come and argue their valuation that the county put on them it gives the local board the authority to have a say in that um okay and this is just when it's April you don't yeah we have publishing um requirements that's why I'm just confirming it in a open meeting that we're good with that date you want to hit time or you want to say 5:30 still 30th I think is I mean we can reconvene it it seems like yeah sometimes we get nobody and other time we get a number of people so yeah okay really depends on what the county does with the numbers okay thank you okay item P quilling concept review thank you Mr Mayor uh so just real Bri briefly this is a concept plan so with the concept plan it's more intended to be a high level discussion there's no appr formal approval or denial of the project uh the we're looking for comments and recommendations from each of the council members uh one council member can say they like one thing and other council member can say they like the opposite uh this project is located off off of La Lane in Northwest Dayton uh currently it exists as a 20 acre parcel and a 15 acre parcel so two different Lots uh the developers proposing to move the property line uh to create a f look at this a 20 acre parcel and a no 20 30 acre a 30 acre parcel and 5 acre parcel um there are a few issues with each one um or with the project and uh the critical issues uh number one is that there's a variance that is required to reduce the minimum lot size from 40 acres to 5 Acres so this property is zone A1 agricultural uh V second variance is required to reduce the lot Frontage from 300 ft to 60 ft so 60 ft should say the code requires 300 ft of lot Frontage on a public road whereas this is would be 60 ft on currently on a private or on a public easement uh question on the use of the roadway easement proposed bleum as well as unpermitted construction and I'll go through these in detail um with each one there's a few questions that I'll have for the council uh let's see so the first critical issue regarding the variance uh is to reduce the minimum minimum lot size from 40 acres to 5 Acres uh so the existing lot property once again is 20 acres and then 15 and oops and proposed would be 30 acres and 5 Acres so as mentioned before uh the minimum lot size in the A1 district is 40 acres uh the lot as it is currently is non-conforming so variance would be requ required uh to make it less non-conforming um as the council is aware the council and the plan commission have discussed creating an A3 zoning District in which case uh the minimum lot size would be less than 40 acres and Planning Commission is still discussing what that might be um depending on how that turns out it might be that this variance is not necessary but right now it is uh second variance to reduce the minimum lot minimum lot width along a public roadway from 300 ft to 60 ft uh currently there's a public easement that's dedicated um which only serves one house now but it actually serves two properties uh what is staff is recommending to comply with the subdivision code would be to dedicate right of way um for cesac and this then creates the 300 ft of uh lot withth that's required by the code um so my first question is uh should rway be dedicated uh if yes a variance to the L with is not required if no then the variance is required this is another one though that might be changed by what happens with the A3 District anything could change with the A3 District that's true right now I'm not inclined to open up these Varian or approve these Varian is only because we have this coming I mean we we we we don't know what what the A3 we don't know what the A3 is going to do to it um and aside from that I mean we in the past we haven't the the answer to Grant a variance to go below the 40 we've we've the only time we've ever done that that I remember is when we um there was a reason to have that as an outlaw the remaining part as an outlaw it wasn't a buildable site um but to to approve a variance that creates two buildable sites below the 408 to me is a nonstarter I agree if we open up that that can of worms and we got to open it up for everybody um the I have another question on here good originally this is a 45.81 acre the three parcels three Parcels yes how does it proposing to change this thing make it grow because then it's 46.2 I'm rounding numbers so I'm just going to go but rounding there uh the so the third par the the third parcel it is owned by quilling it is not part of the project so I'm describing the staff report that it it feels like it's it's all connected but yeah uh the project itself only is in involves uh the two South properties okay I'm not also a fan of the shared easement I don't situation waiting for a bad outcome somehow or another I would uh try to get rid of that take that easement off of uh one property and just give it put it all on one person okay that's coming up right that discussion yeah okay go to the next um John do you have good enough information for your question um two opinions there's not a consensus but that that and that's fine I just want to make sure you have clear Direction [Applause] that's okay well do you I mean you guys want to you you you didn't like the variances either I'm not I'm not in fan of it just because it's going to open up a can of worms for the whole city okay until until the A3 thing if it if it does come into play yeah and I've been told other people have requested this and been denied and so ex it seems wildly unfair um and and we have rules for a reason um and we are actively we know other people have requested this and we they have been denied which is why we are pursuing the A3 District in the first place to work out all these things in advance so it's not a they're just the rules that everyone follows and not a project by project decision and I am not opposed to smaller Lots me I'm all for them to me we we need to get rid of the 40 acre thing but but we need a rule do this yes yes that's where I'm at we need solid rules that to apply to everybody okay sounds like you're good there um okay so related to that uh for the roadway e easement so as mentioned there is an existing 60t wide um roadway easement uh and this relates to the last question of if the developer dedicates right away to build a street um the city would maintain that street uh the other options for the developer to dedicate roadway or to dedicate roadway but not build a street and they would rebuild a the private driveway um in which the the uh adjacent Property Owners would have the right to use so the question here is if RightWay is dedicated uh should a street be constructed or just a driveway and that assumes the city maintains right you're talking about number one or um yes if so whether or not RightWay is dedicated I guess I should say it's still going to be right away if a street is built the city would maintain that street it would be used by two properties um I guess staff's recommendation is that we would require right away to be dedicated but just have a driveway that's built so much like what's there now so where would that for the developer to dedicate right away where exactly is that right away uh so that would be this yellow portion so the north half of I'm going to say 30 ft um along the current ement and then the full culd Act so it's actually half the right oi that would be required so part of this easement is on the Json property which is not part of the project so we cannot require uh RightWay dedication offsite and this would um replace the current easement agreement um half of it so the easement would now become RightWay so it has different legal meaning it functions the but be in the same footprint as the the north half of the easement correct so when we have an easement to make it I I think I'm hung up on this um is the process that it becomes right away in order to put a road on it or do we not have have roads on my understanding was we did have roads at run we we do why would okay that can happen yeah I'm on Jason I mean I want to think you know we have many Parcels that are not platted where you're going to have roadway yeah yeah so to me there's currently right now today there's no benefit to have that a street as a built Street you mean yeah I don't right we're in my opinion you leave it the way it is however that shared easement to me is an issue well I mean if you're going to share a driveway why won't you share with your family because there is like they're relative I mean my understanding is it's his daughter who lives in that one property that they want to split off already has a driveway right there bordering the easement share that driveway and leave your neighbors alone would be my take on that it might solve all this but and I'll just say I I don't see any good reason for the US to turn this into any kind of a city street um I think it's only purpose was to provide access for the um the Duke residence that's exists there today and the property to the north and I'm not sure what their interest in this ever was but um but they they're part of it and so it's you know it's a shared access point it doesn't lead anywhere even if this um project were to to succeed it uh you know it goes to one more goes to one more place so I don't I don't that doesn't meet the threshold for me for us taking it on as a public roadway and building it like a public roadway I think it's a driveway and it should be I mean it is a driveway but they have a lot of parking areas called out in their plan which to me indicates if you have that much parking you're going to have a lot more traffic and I have a lot of other concerns about this project I'm just talking about the ement yeah but I think to me that's when you say is this a street does it really like to me it's like there's a certain amount of traffic you'd expect in a driveway and it looks like they're it's heading to more traffic than you would expect in a a basic driveway um which adds complications to the easement right it's it's one thing if you and your neighbors are both using the driveway equivalently but if one neighbor is using this driveway significantly more with significantly more Vehicles more traffic then that also makes the easement very complicated like you're not sharing it equally right so that also is why I'm not in favor of it I guess is the sheer amount of use it looks like it'll be getting from this other property with all their driveways and parking spaces called a sa at the end of it just creates more traffic for that the home that's right there go ahead can I ask a question just because it's maybe out of ignorance like lack of knowledge so I guess I'm looking like into the future like with the mausoleum there let's just say you know down the road they have family that they've laid to rest there and then they end up moving if you use the easement now as like a shared driveway does that set it up later on to become a public road because you would then continue to want to see your loved one so then like down the road potentially you know this is like hypothetical but would that not set up that easement to become a public road to give access eventually so what's now a driveway would be set up later on to be an actual more traffic Public Road does that make sense what my question is I'm guessing the easement would have to be altered um yeah based on my based on my understanding of the eement it have to be altered to make it a RightWay which would be essentially a roadway no different than in front of this building um versus an Emma that it sits today that would be my understanding for that this s some ass um just a to summarize on these two questions that there's no consensus to require RightWay to wait till see what happens with the A3 district and the consensuses Do Not build a public Street I I think it's kind of moot given the first two applic or variances we kind of indicated no to but it will probably pop up again if if this A3 works out for them um I mean like what Scott said we want you know some of these large lots to come in here um the problem is this easement brings forth a whole bunch of ugliness um and and I'm not sure you know at some point we'll probably have to deal with it um I would much rather a different solution because I think this one might be haded dread dead end but I I don't know and this my understanding was this easement was a goofy one anyways um How It Was Written how was implemented and were there questions about a further you know I know it sounded like there was a private easement to continue this thing is that uh I I don't know anything about that so just real briefly and there's a whole lot of history on it but just to summarize it's it's my inter understanding that um the Duke's properties are on the southide um it's my inter understanding that this was subdivided in the 1970s by henen county um when this uh when the Dukes had proposed uh to build a second house on the western parcel there was a some dispute of whether that existed as a a separate lot or not um whatever that dispute was it's a separate lot today right so as part of that process um when the house was built in 2004 uh the Dukes and the previous owners the Ben Bennetts did both dedicate um 30 feet each for a total of 60 feet with in um easement roadway easement to the city so this is for the city's use or the Public's use um but in practice it's really only accessible by the Dukes they're they're the only ones that have a house on that eement but the second drawing in here um shows in easement continuing to the back property is that was that a I'm guessing it's a private eement because it's not on the map about the cross access agreement I don't believe there's an current ement or at least not that I'm aware of okay um well regardless it looked to me like it was Private either way it was just an agreement between the two properties which leaves us out it yep um so yeah I you yeah you're referring to this that c crosses uh either the one no not that guy the the the dated line eement the a little bit north there you go right there yep where Jason showed you yeah there is not an eement that I'm aware of um it just crosses from one property to the other uh they're both of the same family okay just above your your mouse there yes that thing what is that I can't read that okay I thought it said utility and something I don't know we it says utility and access easement per document number 10750 757 it's got to be a private easement across cuz we don't have any record of it yep that's what I thought so that's I was confused it could have been set up years ago like and man this might be way pricess to all of us is that likely there was two different owners at one time and then if there was multiple owners and they'd have and they access agreement because that back partial technically had no access to um any City street or ability to get to any other parcel so they had to have some sort of private access across there okay um again nothing by the city we don't own anything okay um anybody else have any more questions for John I have questions for the council oh that's right uh so part of this the site plan does include a mum so Mum would require a conditional use permit um staff's recommendation is that uh the mum should either be included in an easement or an outlaw as well as an access uh easement provided between the public roadway and the mum so that way Stephanie pointed out no matter who owns this property years from now the family would still have access to it did you look at the state statute for law yep but I I was under the impression you can have on your property that that is my impression too but I I don't know that legislation that uh those laws in great detail okay there there's a lot to it I I it almost seems like creating an outlaw almost adds to your mess but I don't know it I don't know yeah but if that's going to be part of the project I think that has to be rung out rung out because as as you said you know what happened I know it's the family's intent to be there as long as the mausoleum is but um you know that things change and what happens then and so I think that has to be talked about and you know an outline or or whatever and access to it has to be part of the final picture okay I'm not sure what we do with this I guess we wait until we get some understanding what the state statutes are yep I I just to me it I don't know it seems to complicate things and it may not need to complicate things yeah so overall the intent is to move property line but how to get from point A to point B is complicated for this project so um I'll add that uh oh last item uh during uh the plan commission public hearings it was noted that uh there was work done without permits uh the building insector did go out and looked at that um I believe it was last week uh so yes there is some work that was done without permit permits have been been applied for and it's going through that process um also the quillings do have commercial vehicles that are parked on the property where they are not allowed um so those Vehicles need to be removed so just for clarity uh to have commercial vehicles on a residential property does require an interm use permit for a home extended business and I don't believe that is the quiling intent so uh what they've told me is that uh the vehicles that are there are temporary they're intended to be moved back to their commercial location uh in Brooklyn Park um it did seem odd though there's pavement there right yeah seem odd that you'd spend that much money on pavement for something that was going to be very temporary but I mean that's I guess we we don't know where that was going so um when you've clearly already made a roadway without having to go onto the easement of your neighbors to get back there because you're already doing it and you already paved it all had a after the packet was put out we did receive a a revised site plan from the applicant as well as a letter from the applicant and a letter from the neighbors did you see any differences I I did I did yes oh yeah there there was quite a few yes uh so the updated site plan does include uh the uh paved areas as it is today so I believe the earlier site plan was probably a year old and I think was done before the driveway was extended um there's also uh some trees that have been removed from the project anything else no that's all I have do you want to come up and answer any questions or do we have any questions for the developer guess if we don't have any questions I don't question okay name and address Jo Ric with controver civil uh 8195 Vernon Street backford um just a little couple points of context so we are proposing to move the lot line we're not proposing to create any new Lots so I just wanted it to be clear that we're not asking to get another buildable lot here we're just asking to adjust property line so it's it's two lots today it's going to be two lots tomorrow two building rights nothing would change in that context so just so we're aware y that is true but it does make that less the Lots SI becomes more non-conforming more understood I just wanted everybody to be clear that we're not asking for additional entitlements here um the other item I just wanted to bring up is that the private easement uh Mr fiser that you were speaking about there is a private easement and my understanding is when the quillings bought the 20 acre parcel they needed that easement to provide legal access to that parcel because you can't sell property without legal access So currently the legal access to that parcel is through the City's easement on that's half on the Duke property half on the previous Bennett Property and then through that new 60ft easement that was granted at the time of purchase of that land so whether or not the lot lines moved or whatever he's going to apply for a building permit and that's the access to his property so when he bought that back is it 20 20 acres correct that back 20 you're saying it was landlocked correct and so here owned the front stuff yep it was under different ownership so oh was the quilling family the you know Jason and Tina own the north 10 acre piece and then um see QQ Farm or QT Farm owned the 15 acre piece and then this was bought in another entity and so at that time in order to make that marketable there needed to be ease AES for that parcel I'm confused so you're saying his business the the farm business owned the front property not him no him and his wife owned the north property okay and then when when they purchased the uh 15 acre property that was purchased in another entity and then when they purchased the farm or the 20 acre parcel that was a separate entity as well and I'm not so sure that that parcel could have existed without legal access it's least it can exist it can't be built on without legal access right so now the legal access as we understand it is through the 60 foot City easement public easement and then through the 60 foot private easement over the 15 acre parcel and who required the private easement the state we the city would require it in order to uh build anything on the landlock parcel I understand that but it wasn't we haven't done that yet right so we have ISS building permit correct we just so there was a purchase that went through and I'm hearing somebody required an easement a private easement would that have been do you know who that was I don't I know that at the time of that it was purchased in 20120 the easement was recorded at that time but I I don't know recorded on the de correct over the 15 acre parcel yeah we don't blender or that just goes to the county right or the county may have required it too because I don't think you can sell landlock property I have no idea without without the county may have required 2020 right it could have been County requirement it was not a city requirement we have no record of it so one way or another it's a private eement so I'm not too worried about that one my point is is the private e easement provides access to the public easement which provides access to the 20 acre parcel that's the legal access to that parcel well if the easement all right if this this easement the public EAS or the easement that we have there that we're a party to um that's just those three parties right so if if this 20 acre piece is going to start using that easement does that require a change to the easement no okay no our easement doesn't change somebody else use it anyone can use it you me okay anyone well wait a minute I have easements all over my property and nobody can just drive on them you have you have sewer and water utility easements right I have a road easement sorry you have a Road E goes right behind all all of our houses it's grass you're saying anybody could just drive on those City roadway easement yes oh if it okay maybe if it's a drainage utility ement that's totally no this is a road it's it's back there you can I don't know we'll have to look at that cuz I thought I got Clarity that until it was determined to be a road unless the city decided to turn it into a road it was basically off limits whatever we can talk about that later but it just adds a little our confusion Scott you had something yeah I have something on page 94 we got a map there that uh that shows the so-called imaginary road that goes all the way back to the back of the property all the way back to the mle area that line on that map doesn't necessarily need to you're saying it has to have that that the city road eement it doesn't have to have it because there's enough room on the south edge of the proposed 5 acre lot to put that road all the way back there yeah if if they retain ownership of that 15 acre parcel in perpetuity but you know if they were to sell that parcel at some point I'm not saying that's part of the plan but if they were then the aess would be literally right through somebody else's Courtyard well I went and look so logically like when I look at this like regardless of all this other stuff that's going on like the legal axis kind of makes sense to me that it would go to the roadway easement versus through somebody's front yard or Courtyard or whatever you want to call it well it's not a corer I mean there I went and looked at the whole thing there's plenty of room to move that easement to the north just 30 30 ft there's plenty of room there so that you didn't infringe on the city easan already based the way this thing is is going to be drawn you're going to you're asking for a street that goes all the way back to the bleum area so to me you're infringing on that property that house that's right there right about 75 ft off of this easement the easan was created for the benefit of the 15 acre parcel and the Duke Parcels that that's who granted the easement so now we're saying that that benefit is no longer for the 15 acre parcel it's just for the 2 acre parcel and I'm not so sure that's fair either I don't think we're going to get anywhere on this whole thing anyway so to me all of this is mute well and to that point this is a concept plan yeah so there's no formal action that's required but our understanding is that if the concept plan or the lot line adjustment gets denied that we can still apply for a building permit build the house and use the easement that's what our attorney is advising us that we have the right to do that and that's our intention the reorganization of the land is kind of a a wish but the ultimate goal and and I believe Jason may have already submitted his building permit yes yeah so the initial plan is to build the house through the axis that's there legally today and then if we can reorganize things building permit on the back 20 correct well he doesn't have the road Frontage um no but it's an existing lot of record so just it's a lan lock par parcel it does require proof of access which they have so lots of record don't have to comply with current statutes um as long as they meet with building setbacks yep yeah they do do not need so they have to Comm with building setbacks um why is that well so if you build on any property you'd have to meet building setbacks from the property lines and why would you not have to me Road Frontage uh because it's an existing a lot of record so it's it exists today we can't change it or we can't require it to be changed okay um through the subdivision process we can require it yeah that I think your question mayor is that how can we allow can be what why can we do this but we can't do before um so if we were to retract all the way back to the beginning I would suggest that this law was never created because it doesn't meet Road Frontage um during the plating process or during the process of a lot that's where the road Frontage is needed because then once it becomes a lot of record then one building permit is allowed on that lot of record okay um and so because normally during the platic pr we require each lot to meet that road Frontage this is no longer needed because it's already a lot of record and that's already been created it just has to have access now and that access is through that private easement that I was not aware of sure yeah this is why we have a minimum lot size of 40 acres is to prevent things like this from happening yeah one lot of record is allowed to have a building permit um and it doesn't become a lot of record unless it meets Road Frontage or it's been there forever question is asked before the L is that's correct yeah is the the the new house that's that's being proposed is that for an additional family member uh no it's for Jason and his wife okay can I ask another question yes good um if we like rewind a little bit and there was discussion about moving the easement like does that then mean Scott was asking about that yes I'm just wondering like what what do that can you say more like what does that entail ises that give the current easement who retains possession if you will of the current easement then if you move it or is it just like the land that it covers now you know what I'm trying trying to ask so the the city would retain the current the existing 60ft wide roadway easement and then there would be an additional 30ft easement or whatever that width is adjacent to it that would be a a private driveway to service um this back property over here the new build yes so so if we kept going with 30 this is going to be a very large easement so you maintain that right now if they put a building on that back 20 um they have a legal right to use that easement that's what we've been advised yes and Amy has looked at this yes and she says the same thing it's a public road essentially that's all it's written it's 30 ft enough for Road it's 6 oh yeah the sh it's split yeah but however you're at the end of that easement at the end of that easement technically you only have 30 ft because 30 on each property yep however at that property line the easement stops the the full 60 foot easement when it gets to the quillings property the easen stops the public easement yes correct correct doesn't that then just become a private driveway for it's a private no yeah that's right then it's a 60 foot private easan west of that point so right off of that right off of that stem you can build your driveway however okay that's our understanding y well in fact the easement goes further that the maintenance of the driveway would be shared mutually between the benefit of parties being the Dukes and the Bennetts now the quillings um and if the and Jason's willing to pay whatever cost there is to improve that driveway if it's needed if not it can just stay as is but um that's with the Eastman States so the city has no maintenance responsibilities it's between the private owners 5050 share of uh improvements and that's where I get a little because based on the the site plan the quilling property is going to be using that driveway significantly more than their neighbors I mean you like they have three different parking spaces like large spaces for parking that are bigger than my house if you weren't planning to have a lot of vehicles back there why would you need all those parking spaces I I don't I don't I can't answer that um I mean no one wastes the money Paving parking space unless they anticipate using those parking spaces and vehicles are what use parking spaces certainly um I don't think the easement talks about use it's just there's two benefited properties and sometimes here's the hangup on that easement though is is if you want a black top but and they don't then what then what who's going to maintain it yeah it it talks about 50/50 share the quillings are more than willing to pay for whatever cost 100% yeah and we would also have to agree to the blackout since we're a third party of the eent or what uh it's driveway permit so it the driveway would have to be built to City standards for driveway plus there's a gas line under under the north side of that easement so the short answer is yes we are the grantor yeah we received the grant I'll take back we'd be the grant grantor grant grant grantee yeah I get confused all the time but we have received the grantee Grant so as these eement so we would be the ones that would request what would need to be done on the so normally we require driveways to be paid which I don't approve of but um on egg though we don't is that correct correct that is correct so okay so all right I I can read you what the easan says I have it here it says improv include but not limited to expansion of the roadway to 12T wide binous surface with 5 ton standard consisting of twoot gravel shoulders and necessary grading for drainage that's what was agreed to at the time of e yeah the city could request that correct um okay and this buffering all these trees along that easement is given that that's in his concept plan are they planning on doing that along the existing roadway along the existing Eastman that yeah yeah we'd like to we would work collab leave with the Dukes I mean we don't technically have the right to plant there but if the city was okay with it and the Dukes were we would um well then I'm if they have a right to this stuff and Amy agrees they have a right to this stuff it seems like I'm not sure what we're here for it's the oddest easement agreement I've ever seen in my life and it's very weird um but yeah it's essentially the easement is shared between the two owners yeah and essentially the grantor or the grantee who received the grant is us and that's it and and the ask today is to adjust the property line that's why we're here yeah um but it doesn't sound like there's much support there so until maybe the zoning changes we kind of stuff have you know for myself as well I think we're trying to work on something that's more usable for people in this A3 Zone and you know to do this in advance of something that's would quite likely affect this um it seems Seems unnecessary to Grant a variance to it at this point when it may not be needed once this done or if it if it doesn't fit the new A3 definition then it's you know it's still I guess a variance request but it's not compliant then either well and one of the things we want to tackle is this very question about driveways and how do you share driveways when you're taking 40 acre lots and splitting them up and so this is something we have to wrestle with not that it will necessarily change this but I think this is something we have to keep when we do have those conversations this issue and all of the headaches that has caused we have to make sure that we don't let this happen again great any more questions for the developer um did you guys want to come up and speak y name and address just try your best to stay in front of the mic so we can hear you okay okay thank you can you hear me now all right my name is Jah Duke I reside at 14661 lale Lane Dayton Minnesota and I'm Jason Duke uh same address 14661 L Lane um we just want to take a moment here to just kind of uh State our position mostly I'd like to really just help you guys understand the cumulative effect that this is having on us and our life um first of all I just like to emphasize that the subdivision I'm really impressed with the amount of detail that you guys have gone through and your um ability to or decisions to just kind of pause and wait for more information more decisions instead of granting a variance um I've lived here for 15 years and how long have you lived here uh 45 44 yep Jason um grew up in the lot that his father-in-law owns just in front of us it was always two separate Lots Jason purchased that um West lot uh when in 2004 to build our home at that time we the city did instruct us to create that easement um the easement was simply created between the the Bennetts and the Dukes because we needed the Bennetts property for grading so that's the only reason two properties or you know two different families got involved um after that we built the road we've maintained the roads the Bennetts had never had any activity on the road um being that that was always supposed to be a Farmland lot until 2040 this kind of adjustments to what's going on here was never expected for us to be dealing with and especially at this time frame um the biggest concern I also have is that Jason quilling is the owner of QT Construction and Roofing QT Commercial Management he has representation here and we've received um letters from the lawyer when somebody has those types of resources I really find it difficult to understand why permits are not being pulled things are being done out of order and the encroachment that we have to deal with as a result of that um I respectfully ask that the council consider whether the quillings existing Road could serve their needs rather than imposing additional traffic on us and that any cost associated with those roads um if we decide to if you guys move forward with use of the easement that that um the upgrades and the cost of those reflect qu willing because he's the benefit of that not us something else that's happening that I wanted to bring your attention to is the lighting I'm not aware that Dayton has any type of lighting or ordinances but again this unique situation is proving things that are happening a pole barn was built pretty much directly behind her home it has lighting all the way around it and it is a white pole barn the lighting is on from Sunset to Sunrise it affects three bedrooms in my home and I have already reached out to the property owners and asked for them to please turn it off during non-use hours to which I have not gotten a different result um it's also bright white lighting which is something that I ask you to consider and think about if you do write a lighting ordinance the use of warm light would significantly change things requirement that the lighting is shielded and then also just asking that timers be placed on these things so that it doesn't become such a burden the other thing that I want to bring up is that there's just been numerous developments on the quilling property that it appears that there was no permits pulled installation of that gas line within the very center line of the easement um reportedly without a permit a construction of water connections without obvious sewer tie-ins and then the storage of these commercial vehicles which the city had already previously told him in 2023 to have them removed given Mr quillings expertise and construction and his resources to have such representation here and as experien as a developer these actions create the perception that these violations are treated as a cost of doing business and this is deeply concerning for the residents like me who really rely on the city to ensure that fairness and inherence to the ordinances the constant construction activity the noise and the traffic has taken a significant toll on my family the legal and financial pressures we were fac during the holidays to be able to respond to this and the unne necessary stress has detracted from our sense of belonging to this community Dayton has always felt like a place where my neighbors could work together and I hope we can turn to that Spirit of cooperation and respect I kindly ask the council to defer any decisions on this property until all facts are reviewed thoroughly I also urge the city to adopt a more proactive approach to monitoring compliance ensuring that all residents can enjoy Dayton's real character without the undue stress or burden I thank you deeply for your time and I'm happy to answer any questions to provide further details do you have anything else I don't think so um I guess the only thing I asked to um which I've reported to the city a few times there's a dumpster back there with all them commercials I haven't commercial vehicles I haven't seen anything about dumpsters but I know there is a the city does have ordinance on dumpsters how long they can be on property so I'd like to add that um well I guess also the road the road when I built the house the road was placed on the easement Center Line Bennetts had 30 ft I had 30 ft the road stayed completely on my side so if and then this gas line was put directly like 3 foot off the side of my driveway now um if it is the council's recommendation that this is used I'd like the road it needs to be moved back to the center line back to the center line and it might mean a again gas line being redone so I don't if the city technically owns that easement How could a gas line be put in without our permission or knowledge it it should have both and did it uh no there's sprinklers as well through the whole sprinkler system got installed in that easement as well oh without trees trees have been planted yeah there's been a lot on that side this is this is the burden that we're facing is that there just seems to be this here's the line we're going to step just over it and and it is more of the burden onto us and we're so small I mean this man has so many more resources to understand how to navigate this and you're all volunteers and some are very newly elected we don't even probably have a lot of the experience to navigate this so I just hope we pause and really deeply look at how this man is collectively impacting Dayton and also just note that he's got violations on his own property for building on wetlands and other things that makes me really want you guys to caution and deeply look into what's right and what's not right and I'm sorry to keep talking that's all thank you oh thank you any other questions okay thank you well um I done huh I have what I need okay any other comments in the mayor council what are the consequences for doing things on an easement that they had no permission for so it's common for private utilities to beond public easement so water sprinklers or or lawn sprinklers is a good example uh it's common where you have private uh utilities that will cross we'll say the the shortest point to get from you know say a gas Bane in the street to the house it's just that the house and or This Barn is quite a bit ways from the street so I think we would look at this as far as what is the most practical point from our interest as as being a public uh easement having a public easement where that gas line would have gone it might have been the same place where it was put or it might have been along the north Edge like are there consequences I guess is my point um other than oh please don't do that again well it'd be to to remove it and move it so if at whose cost oh certainly at his cost not the city's cost not the city's I mean he has technically no legal right to put it there Ain I'd have to refer to our attorney on that I don't it's a per deal issue I think what it my understand the general answer is is if you put it there just if if it's in the way at some point it may be removed but I don't know that there's I mean we have if I if you want the question answer with I'm happy to do I'd prefer to our City attorney and well I don't think we're going anywhere right now so okay well move on okay thank you um let's go I got it I got it we're good item Q yes good evening mayor members of counil um I have provided the suggested 2025 fee schedule um in the council packet um I did not have time unfortunately to put anything together on this PowerPoint so I have nothing forur you to show uh today but um I'm here to stand for any questions you may have if you have any um I did change our format of a lot of things to make it from a Word document to excel to make it easier to adjust make the lines a little more clear um make it a little easier to read but um our suggestion is sometime um we went pretty heavily through this fee schedule this year to really go are we really charging for those things and if we really aren't we should probably just remove them CU um we're not going to charge a dollar for a notary it just just not going to happen it's been on there for ever and we've never charged one and so any Deltas here just minor yes minor changes I mean again we went through and kind of adjusted okay are we essentially the main idea for the C for staff's level is we don't want to lose money on this deal if there's anything we have to do as a fee or as a process our main thing is are we covering our fees and our time and our cost to do those that we could be doing something else yeah um that would be good for the greater good of the public versus that one person's issue or fee your concern so on so is that kind of the explanation then for in that section one administrative fees why those are all just scratched because we weren't charging many we have never if somebody comes in here and asks me for one black and white copy I'm not going to charge them um 50 cents for an oversize and staff time I'm just going to take a copy of it and say you have a great day um because it doesn't take our time to charge 50 cents and then okay I charge you three bucks for my time and call it it and then they use a credit card and they had to pay at least $1.95 fee it for their 50 c copy for yeah so again um our idea is that if it's if it's normal in business to come and help somebody and be you know our idea is to be customer aware and customer service oriented um I'm not going to start printing off hundreds of copies we're not a Kinkos here but um if someone needs a copy of something or needs to request a copy of something that's on their property we're not going to charge them for that but that's the end of the idea so there's some pretty significant increases around liquor licenses yep do we do we have um justification for that in terms of enforcement or compliance costs or I mean what's driving that that change because it's more than a sort ofation growth and what's Allowed by State Statute um and just surrounding communities and um there is time and effort that goes into those um and compliance that is conducted um yeah we are now doing own compliance checks and um we were not doing those before so that was part of our cost now that we have to make sure we cover um again it's also lat population is based on that as well and then also surrounding cities of what they're charging we are not trying to match a Rogers or a Champlain by any means but um the idea is that there is a service that is provided to an on sale place we typically will have you know may have additional calls for those or maybe additional information related to Public Safety for those um places which is this most significant increase in cost um otherwise we're seeing a lot more different types of what do you want to call it alcohol type um places and to try to be on the Forefront of things we're trying to add those like the Brew Pub and the Brewer I can tell you what I'm going to refer to Amy if I have any questions about those things but it's based on if it's brw there or not brew there or sold or and um we kind of use Rogers ideas and fluctuations as their guide um the Cannabis one has to be reduced based on State Statute so so we were following and just used the recommendation of following the liquor license based on we had today um and um appreciate Hayden putting the other information but our Max that we can charge is $500 did the state give a reason for why they limited to that that is what it's in State Statute so it's some language about half the fee um of what you can charge and then it's or $500 and I don't know why they did the half the fee cuz it's whatever is less so I would just say why then didn't just save 500 bucks I'm not sure so they use some other language for the fee and I'm M okay $500 but that's the $4,000 the biggest increase is down sale I think we have one maybe two it's Sundance and the bar think there are only two that we have in town so it's not a ton of them that are affected by that change I'm a little taken back by the the amount of some of these increases I mean 25 to 100% increase um on which on which one the liquor license or which if you look most of the liquor ones are way up U and I don't mind the Brew Pub thing that's just if something ever happens I mean we don't have it here so u i mean if you have a brew pub and you pay $300 license that's not that big a deal probably um the one that really took me back and I don't know if this is a a slap in the face for past performance or what but a fireworks license went 10 times from $100 to $11,000 clearly we don't want to have fireworks in this city ever again kill sure I'm going to I'm going to refer to Chief Hendrickson on the head mayor members of the council the increase of fees and Zach and I talked about this try to be all inclusive so it's a one set fee as opposed to charging for staff time and everything else outside of that so this includes um staff time as well as vehicles um in that capacity so Zach and I talked about having one inclusive fee instead of various levels of we charge her staff we charge her vehicles and so forth so what you're saying is this actually is what was being not if you put everything together and package it it's not that much higher or no it's it's includ yeah correct it's inclusive of an engine and staff and all that together versus what it would be if it was uh separate okay all the cart if you will correct me if I'm wrong Gary but previously you weren't charging for staff time right it would it didn't include all of those so the $100 fee wasn't including the time you were paying the firemen to be there correct no it was just the fee for to go out and cond conduct the survey and then most often what we find is that um we're asked to um I guess donate our time or because it's a nonprofit I guess often so then there isn't a charge back to the nonprofit for that so like this last summer we had a couple of those right we we ate the cost I mean it's with all other functions we eat the cost of Public Safety and this will this will K and this will kill it okay so if we have decided we don't want fireworks we're good though someone could still request to not have to pay the permit correct a nonprofit for example yep y yeah you can you could yeah or to reduce it maybe not yeah you could does the council have a suggestion for a fireworks permit if it's $1,000 is the killer I'm wouldn't surprise it if it kills it but I I think that that's it's likely to and I don't know that we need to to you know essentially if we're creating an artificial ban then let's just create a ban but um I think the the fee accomplishes that you know and and I I understand the you know there is cost with it with people and and equipment and and so on that you know in my head is is kind of already in the budget but these are extra events we have a couple of them here I think I don't know what a reasonable fee is I think you know to me it would be a 500 still sounds like a lot to me to take in the large assembly ordinance and making that a grand also because you know you you you may have to have City staff help so sure can I ask another question to Gary on average this may not may not be able to answer but how many firemen do you send when someone has a fireworks permit yeah so we um send six typically we'll an engine yep and an engine um so we'll send actually um four on a engine usually myself or chief officer um and then um two on Rescue and part of that is depending upon the geographic location so use um over the summer um at uh Magnus Magnus thank you and Magnus um their geographic location needed a off-road vehicle get down to closer to Lake for that and then we staged the um larger piece of apparatus off of uh nor Diamond so we have accessibility and water if needed time wise how long I know they're probably not all exactly the same I'm just trying to quantify like is $1,000 does it cover the time or is that a lot more I guess in my own mind I'm trying to walk myself through it yeah typically we will allow for um we arrive probably before dusk so that we can you know inspect the site with the uh licensed contractor that's uh shooting the fireworks off um that doesn't mean that all of us need to respond at the same time however it gives us the ability to get in place where we need to be at that time um and then we're scattered out to um protect um those that are coming to not come into that area so like LC Stevens Park last year or two years ago excuse me whatever it was um that we had uh we had some challenges in that capacity because of accessibility because you could come through the tunnel underneath Dayton Park way and so to make sure that everyone is safe at the end of the day so I would say probably it's about 2 to 2 and 1 half hours maybe 3 hours at Max for staff time I don't I don't disagree with the assessment of the value I I understand what you're saying I just think that to have a $1,000 permit you're going to kill them I mean never have and I think that's what I'm suggesting is do you have a suggested number that you're willing to go with um I will say that you know anything higher than $100 is going to be better off than we at today so that's our suggested $1,000 should cover most of the cost again it doesn't cover everything but it's most of the costs it's not I just if Magnus comes in here for fireworks and we tell them yeah you can do them but it's a th000 bucks MH he's going to say it's skip or he'll ask to have it to not have to pay it correct so we're going to come back to this same whole thing again I mean why even have it here if we're going to say well if we wave the fee which is why I'm suggesting like a different number so five firemen one Chief sorry Gary we're going to assume that that's part of your normal salary duties but five firemen for 3 hours $30 is that 4450 is my math right David mhm for staff time yes not including the engine right cuz the engine has its own fee if it were to show up somewhere yeah trying to remember I think engines are 250 I don't know that fee schedule in front of it's 150 150 so we're at per hour per hour even if it's just sitting there it's not costing you any money to just sit there no it still needs to run I don't really see where that the engine costs us anything additional I mean it's a piece of equipment and it's there it has value but what C what cost do we incur because it gets used that night d right I guess it depends from the council's perspective of right I mean every time the truck goes out the door regardless if it's for a call or for public education there's a cost to that y so we need to put a value to that in some capacity and like you said I mean we're flexible from Zach and I's perspective trying to figure out what that number is but we don't want to I guess from Zach and's perspective provide like false advertising so to speak of here's $100 but then this is on top of that you know in that capacity yeah I think that makes it makes sense to make it inclusive but I think people are going to choke on the thousand staff time wise I mean that's an additional cost that the city's going to have because that event doesn't occur you're not paying people to be there y right does having fireworks add to the value of the city I'm kind of speaking as someone with a lot of animals who hate fireworks um so from my personal pers like just me I'm like oh thank God no more fireworks um because it is well then we should ban it which I'm not saying we should do that either I'm just saying like if we're so worried that we wouldn't have any fireworks anymore like is that like what what is Dayton losing if we don't have fireworks anymore it's just it's just Community involvement is what it is I'm a Cragin that's why I need to no that's okay I think I'm sorry I mean to interject um from my perspective I would just want to make sure that the staff time is paid for right cuz that's above and beyond what you're I want to say normal but that's not a great word for it it's above and beyond what the fire department provides to the city as far as just like daily operations or protection and so for me $1,000 does feel like a lot I do feel like that would kill a lot of opportunities to have fireworks um but again just making sure that we are covering the time that doesn't just get absorbed into Gary's budget for the department when we have 5 six and that's an exaggeration again Fireworks shows and he's eating the cost of paying that every time and so I guess in my perspective a th000 feels like too much but I would want to make sure that we covered staff time if that makes sense covering staff time about 450 to 500 yes so I mean yeah 450 is roughly what I figured provided that Gary's time is wrapped into his just wrapped free yeah well at that point yeah essentially like it would just be wrapped into the normal salary so I guess anywhere from that 450 maybe you're not paying for the apparatus maybe you're paying it for just the first hour maybe I don't know I'm looking right at you David um well I I think a number under 500 is still a reasonable request so what do we do with the large assembly permit because for example buns they provide police support are we going to charge them for that and kill that here here's how here's a solution to the whole thing and I agree where you're going with that Dennis because to me the idea is to get community involvement through these events any Community involvement event to me shouldn't be charged sure however if you're going to charge fireworks to me you charge police time and so are you going to tell bunes that they got to pay I mean that's probably 500 bucks or better to to take care of buns um which to be fair they did pay that the first few years and it didn't kill the project they did agree to pay it they did they were invoiced for police time so so here's how here's a solution to to the those fees when they they come up for nonprofits isn't that they can wave them I mean we can have the fee in there and they just ask to wave them I mean so it'll come back to us at some point I don't have a problem if you set it at 500 bucks and if you set it in a different context so somebody decides they you know won the lottery and they want to have a big fireworks show at their house and please invite me but happy birthday D um you know so now we're now we're not talking about a nonprofit we're talking about a private Enterprise of some some type then I don't think it's unfair to ask for them to to pay for um additional police time for traffic control and if you and you know then by in that same U bin I guess the the fireman's time is an additional cost of the city and I I think it's fair to ask for something for that as well when it comes to the the nonprofits you know I think we just continue to to wave those fees when they come up I mean there is in there some of them have I'm trying to find one specifically where they have different rates for the nonprofits or is it just completely we that's just the activity center okay um rentals that we've had okay but I'm saying it's we've already we've already established that we in other contexts have waved fees for nonprofits so it it would not be unreasonable to have a two-tier fee here uh you know $1,000 for a private entity that wants to have a great time and then a different fee or just not charge it all for a nonprofit because we've already established that you could do that so um currently just make sure the council's you did set upside $22,000 in the budget this year to be able to wave those fees for nonprofits um related to staff time and um so on and so forth so most of it staff trying to be honest with you I mean to me if we're going to charge fire department time for Magnus or whatever we should be charging fire time for Heritage days technically and yeah and we haven't been the past because it's been it's been waved yeah so mayor m like quickly too is just from a a staff perspective with our new Staffing model we will have station staffed at least a fair amount of the time so if it's leas Monday through Friday anyways we're able to accommodate probably some of those costs within our current budget already it might just extend out if it's on a Saturday or a Sunday just at the moment anyway so just as feedback there as well so where are we going with this all right I'm I'm leaning towards having a regular fee and then a a lower fee or maybe no fee for civic groups and nonprofits to mirror what we do for the activity center um and I'm okay if it's $600 for a regular for a four profit and drop it to $200 for uh Civic group nonprofit that doesn't seem unreasonable um and then do the same thing for the um large assembly permit because we're also requiring additional staff for those that should be compensated as well and same thing have a profit versus a Civic group nonprofit price * is that is that reasonable as the like I'm not the one who has to do the work you guys have to do the work is that going to be really difficult for you guys I don't know the large assembly permit some of those permit hold ERS don't require police yep correct okay the large assembly Department the dollar mode that it's set at it's essentially for them to say we're having an event and essentially it's probably a half hour of both Chief's time okay to review it and make sure go okay yeah we don't need anybody or oh we're going to need somebody else just to make sure it's more or less just a notification for us okay specifically when we have calls for those like I'm having a large assembly out here and then now we you know we don't know about it and now we're getting calls so we're saying it every Squad we got there or every fire department there and now we're like oh no we knew that there was something going on and it's fine so historically if if you look at it and you're like you know what we're going to need some extra officers there then we have historically charged for that in the past or okay essentially the large assembly permit what you're paying for on that fee is for our review okay just a not it's a notification process basic what we're basically looking at was these are community events whether profit or nonprofit and everybody benefit okay um so yeah I don't I'd like this one to at least discuss so we can move on to a different fee on the fee schedule but again it's the council the council has the the M Mr Mayor members of the council I'm the large assembly perit if a private citizen requests the large assembly permit and we do have to have staff time there we do charge that private residence for our staff yeah okay thank you okay are we adjusting this thing or not or I think I'm lost in the weeds can we have a what are we proposing technically we haven't made a motion to even do anything I don't like the whole fee schedule not just the fireworks thing but the whole I I just think we're people so whatever you guys do what you want I'm not okay so s what you're saying is as far as the fireworks permit you're saying what number did you say 600 I said 600 for a Civic group or nonprofit uh no 600 for for regular private entity and then half that or like 200 for a Civic group or nonprofit but so yeah so I'll say $600 for a regular person I don't know that's got to be a better legal term than regular person um we would just call it aor standard fee is $600 that's the F or for civic group or nonprofit would be $200 go ahead I know you don't want to keep beating this up can I ask a complicating question you can ask any question you want um and again this kind of complicates the whole thing but in the spirit of just wanting to make sure that we're covering staff time if someone wanted to have fireworks on a Friday night correct me if I'm wrong Gary but we would have when we move to the full-time model we would have two fulltime firefighters or one fulltime possibly someone from the we'd have people on staff until 10 o00 right that is correct so that would then change cuz those costs would already be they're already budgeted for so really if it happened during the week or a Friday the fee could be dropped even lower if we're just in the spirit of trying to cover staff time yes it could be the question is though fireworks are usually at night and if it's in summer at night you probably pushing past 10 o00 the 10:00 yeah yeah which they're here so they would just stay till 30 or whatever that's what they would do yeah typically even in the summer I mean we've often they're getting yeah I mean it's probably after 9: closer 9:30 depending um but it's probably going to be an hour extra I guess in that capacity but some of it would already be absorbed into the budget because it's already scheduled time maybe that's just an extra complication that doesn't need to be there I'm just trying to out of granularity I understand but I guess I'm just trying to eliminate the um but part of it also then would be averaging it right so if it's not always expensive and soon as it's cheaper we could bring the overall fee down to say 400 and then some days some people are going to be paying more and some people be paying less but overall we're we're covering it over like the course of a year so I'll offer 400 And1 100 400 And1 100 do you feel better about that Scot or you going to still be known no matter what that's it's that's just the fireworks is not the only thing yeah I mean to me to increase on sale liquor license 25% and we got no basis to do it I mean just just cuz we can I mean to me you're telling that business either you pay your money or I don't want you I I'll tell you that's not the case um so that's aware um like I said it's based on population and it's based on time actually spent there's population have to with the fee more there's more people going to that facility there's typically more times that people are there then which can lead to more chances of having additional issues items happen yes that's correct and yeah I think the St that's where all of a sudden Paul's going ask for more money profit there well for reference city of Rogers 8,000 have you seen over the past say three four five years increase in calls well I'm sure you have that would well I don't know I mean I I'm pretty familiar with how many the down downtown bars seeson doesn't seem like like their census has gone up no we have not seen an increase in calls we we do do extra compliance checks uh um now that we are doing alcohol too um so that averages to probably each establishment 600 bucks uh extra compliance calls correct because we got to we got to pay for um officer time and then we pay for um or we get a grant for um the juvenile time that they're here who was doing the checks before uh henpen County was supposed to be doing them but I do not believe that they were doing them on a regular basis um and we took over them when we started our investigation unit um and so now we're doing four checks a year on average so have we ever looked at what these cost us on sale license it's spent $3,000 for no no no no what it actually cost the city I don't think at calls through are how much time they spend down there I don't think we've ever analyzed it okay our thought was okay it was at 3,000 before now we're doing actual compliance checks so I added to it because the $3,000 has been there for yeah I 10 plus years I bet I bet just SP $3,000 I don't even know would you like to table us and tell some more information m the problem is we fee schedule well I don't know something to you guys I I I think I don't know I'm does seem like some of these things oh you again you can suggest another number if you don't feel like that my number is correct or my number is right again the idea is not to gouge people but it's just the cost of doing business and cost of things over time not going to be back here next year going oh we have only 25% increase but things go up over time and if it hasn't increased in 10 years we were probably overcharging then and so yeah I'm just trying to equate cost to where we're at two wrongs make it right not necessarily but based on I don't know I guess based on what Paul is I I think I'm I'm a little okay with that I it'd be nice to know if the the the $3,000 in the original was is what we're consuming but I well we only got a couple of them so right I mean 10 years from now we might have 10 you mentioned that Rogers was how much 8,000 not that we're Rogers and I don't want to be Rogers I'm just sometimes I think context as you said where did the 3,000 number come from in the first place so yeah never Analyze That $3,000 has been there forever and haven't touched it since I got here so well you know it's going to cost some cuz I know I mean given I was a bender I knew that uh we called him down there a couple times I didn't want to get beat up I for you guys that I well I think um thank you Paul for the clarification around your time because I think that helps me with the increase you know now I'm struggling with the original number if you know and no fault of anybody here but um if we don't know what that built was built on I mean it's like when we talk about U construction permits for various things and our our cost for a permit ought to be based on what it actually costs us right we're not in the business to make money on permits and this kind of Falls in that bucket too so if we don't know what the 3,000 was based on you know I can I can see adding a thousand to it but I'd like to know what you know what it should have been I mean maybe 3,000 was low you know I mean we don't know right because we're not tracking the components that go into into that fee would like 3,500 feel better at least covering the because you said what $600 the additional cost um I don't know you know what maybe it' just be nice to get a number later on I the 3,000 is probably reasonable given that we we know they get called down there you know periodical it'd be nice to know what that number more realistically is at least an average between the the two that we have what have we got in this C just won right two suance and the bar the bar so I I guess I I'd be okay with going with this as long as we can maybe get a number at some point as to what we really think that estimate is well and we have two for now do we have any coming I thought there was are some of the new event centers that are coming online going to be eventually yeah so not currently not currently but I'm like it's been to for a very long time but I don't think that's going to last much longer I would be willing to say by the time Stephanie are done we're probably going to have more than two right in the next four years yeah yeah just real so the one thing that I I guess the one thing I do struggle with is that the Cannabis is so much lower um that's only by stay alone yeah that but that seems uh but that we have to take up with our state to throw at the wall number two probably we will probably be eating cost there yeah again that one's based on State Statute there's nothing for on sale liquor license far as to go it's based on state statutes yeah um yeah I don't know is there any other ones on the fee schedule that you guys want to discuss or talk about I'm going through it right now y I tried my best to make it as easy as possible to see the changes because there's just a lot of them I I did my best to remove a lot of them too because there's a lot of fees on there that we have all right let's get over this we beat this to death uh I'll I'll say let's leave the liquor license thing at 3,000 change the fireworks thing to 500 bucks if somebody wants to ask for it to wave it they can we don't need to have the nonprofit profit thing okay and that's I'll live with that and you're yeah I guess I won't okay with the rest I mean I don't know I mean residential or agriculture District application fee I mean it used to be 150 now it's 200 so be it if somebody wants to build that's what it costs that's just the way it is that's based on staff time the 100 bucks is because that's how much more staff time we're putting into it so it's another that's another hour those are the two big ones I see um okay I mean there's a couple of the on all right so is that a motion from you that's a motion I just want to get it over with I need a second motion to accept it with those changes is that yeah okay I'll second that okay any more discussion all those in favor say I all those opposed say no that is 5 to zero more finally on to item R official designations and appointments sorry just want to make sure I got it's $3,000 back for the on sale and then $500 for the fireworks out of the th000 other than that no change other than that no changes just want to make sure I had all right thank you he yes mayor members of council every single year we go through and um discuss our official designations and appointments this year we did have a few that um were on the council previously that need to be replaced um and so this is your time to go through each individual one kind of line item by line item and see who wants to do what and discuss and talk about we're happy to answer any questions that we have but staff's here to help and I'll make my notes I'll go for the park what you going to we'll go I just go down mayor if you want to lead the conversation just go down each line atem and go everyone good with that so Deputy Mayor we got Dave do you want to really hammer out each one of these or I just say any changes the question yeah any changes if there's nothing then move on to the next one okay some we have to change yeah um Planning Commission primary and Alternate I'm fine leaving it there uh Park commission we will definitely need to replace both I'll take I'm willing to spot okay I'm willing to be an alternate so okay um home Creek Watershed Doug beain is a primary and Travis was the alterate I don't know Doug is still would like to be the he can stay there right yep he wants to keep it yep so we will need an alternate I can take that one okay just replace the first mm oh you yeah you can ask for coaching I know I'd be surprised if you ever went to a yeah I don't know if you ever went to a meeting or not I think one I'm not sure uh League of Minnesota cities Zach and Amy yep that's fine if you guys want to keep that that's I'm uh Northwest hen League municipalities that is me and Dave I'm interested but I if if either of you doesn't want to do it but I'm obviously new that's part of why I'm interested so yeah I'll stay going that that's Dave do you want to say that alate you can have it if you want okay I94 quter commission Zach and Marty fine with that 94 chamber me and Dave I'm fine yeah I'm fine with that um Eda H it's Scott and Dave those are by the way voting members okay oh we need an alternate though don't we oh yeah alternate yep I can take it Stephanie or you can I'm not sure what the alternate does to be honest with you mayor cu the alternate is that one of the cons isn't going to show up we just typically call them absent from the meeting at least we have in the past not that's right or wrong I'm not sure if we need an alternate that's my question yeah that's that was not saying that I'm trying to eliminate things I'm just I don't know what the alternate would I think it's cleaner if you just eliminate it yeah probably I don't know enough to have an opinion okay I'm just going to we're just going to remove that alternate then because if you're absent from the meeting you're absent from the meeting um Fire Relief Association how long will that need until it goes soe roughly plan is mid year yeah may members of council I would say that that will dissolve here by June 30th as we just or was in the last meetings information okay so in that time we'll we'll still need a rep we still need a rep for that time yep um I think I'm a conflict with that I'll do it then sorry okay um assistant weed inspector uh Metro cities Dave still good with that yeah that's fine me uh North met mayor is me and Dave Tak care of that fine with that and that's that okay everybody good with everything all right need a motion a second yep I need a need a motion in a second I'll make the motion a second any more discussion all those in favor say I I all those oppos say no 5 to Z carries on to item s uh so we need to appoint a planning commissioner um to replace council member now council member ban ason um so to finish out her term uh just to make the council aware I unintentionally um included one of the applicants res in there my intention was to only include the applications so that you had all the same information on everyone so it was noticed by other applicants and then they asked to also provide additional information um and so I did fix the packet online but just so you're aware that was um not the intention that others did submit more information but just to give you all the same basic information in the same format we just have historically always included the application itself so um I did not intend on giving anyone an unfair Advantage by giving you more for one person when others did submit as well um so this is going to be a little messy given that we have six how long was this open for from January yeah how do we do this I well so unfortunately we can't do a a Pap it's an open meeting um so you guys collectively need to have that conversation and figure out okay that's how Maj vote who you I got my guy I mean I just looking through the whole thing this is I think the right person so well you want to Jeff Sergeant expound on that a little bit I will um so I had his name Jeff Sergeant on the top of my list as well and it was uh basically on the strength of his his role at the city of no New Hope understanding the processes um how government works what you know what the role of the Planning Commission is and also um his uh educational background to me um certainly fits the the role and the context of of the that work as well so he would be my number one okay well I had basically two I'd be okay with one Jeff was one of those and it was Bob Hearns um I I had the same same kind of thoughts he seemed to Jeff seemed to be a good that um would have been yeah it it'd be nice if we could keep it open a little longer but we probably should just be done with this anything else you guys want just I would Echo you Dennis as also the two names that I had in that same order for the same reasons that you both stayed in um yeah from the yes I like those names I one thing that I'm a little um and it's hard because I'm replacing myself um but the thing I thought that I brought to the Planning Commission was of kind of an outsider perspective I was not in the field and so I often asked questions cuz they live it right like that's their job like they know it and so there are sometimes questions that I would ask um and and and I think that brought value I just think um did in my time in the and as a union president at my school I I put together a lot of hiring committees and our general rule was we wanted three faculty in the discipline one faculty that was not in the discipline and then a staff person who had nothing to do with it because often that staff person who is not a teacher just at like they they thought of things and brought things up that no one else thought of um and so many times that was really valuable um and that's one thing but I like that's my only like I see why you guys have them at the top of your list but that's my only little like H that Outsider perspective is missing so I didn't see anybody here I look at as a disruptor yeah I will agree with that which is why I'm not I'm not I don't have any yeah but I was not afraid to ask stupid questions and put myself out there so um but yeah so I'm okay uh Jeff was okay then we need a motion second I make a motion to appoint Jeff Sergeant am I saying his last name correctly I'll second okay any more discussion all those say I I all those opposed say no no no no there's no no carried 5 to zero then all right but you said no no said I said I D no pay attention I wasn't paying attention to where you're going with it well that went is Jeff here better than what I thought there he is congratulations speak okay on to uh pot item two that is not plain old telephone line that is thank you Mr Mayor members of the council I will just note I am not the assistant weed inspector oh come on the primary primary so as as mentioned you were asked tonight to consider an ordinance Amendment uh regarding cannabis use uh in the zoning ordinance um just a little bit of background uh in 2023 Minnesota Legislature legalized adult use cannabis Statewide uh the state originally created 16 licenses and have since been revised to 13 um having some of those medical uses or medical licenses is being turned into endorsements so if you had a if you a retail licensed operator you do not need a separate license for medical uh retail that's just considered an endorsement now um the state did give uh zoning authority to the local governments uh providing them the opportunity to regulate businesses in their communities specific to time place and manner um and just a note for the council it is required by state that uh we allow um all of these licenses within a certain capacity within the city um there's a list of the 13 uh licenses there um just a little bit of background on the licensing process the state will receive an application uh for a cannabis license with an identified site uh which then the office of cannabis management will reach out to City staff to verify compliance and City staff will have 30 days to uh verify that information um uh cannabis businesses currently now have the opportunity to obtain a state license uh as of January 1st 2025 though I've uh seen multiple news articles saying that uh even retail um businesses could be set back as late as 2026 now in terms of full operation uh the Planning Commission held a a public hearing regarding this item uh at their December meeting uh following brief discussion and conversation for both the Planning Commission and city council and September uh in terms of land use uh nothing really changed from the original discussion that uh the council had uh the provisions in this draft ordinance reflect where these types of uses would normally be allowed um manufacturing uh would be allowed in industrial and Retail would be allowed in commercial um including uh provision the provision to limit these activities to occur only within a building so outdoor storage and items like that would not be otherwise uh permitted uh at these locations um the original discussion or the at the public hearing uh the Planning Commission gave staff direction to uh require a conditional use permit for all retail locations uh to start and uh as we learn and as we process those applications we would then uh update the ordinance as necessary from common findings that we would have in terms of conditions of approval for those uh theyve since uh changed their mind on that and uh agreed with City Council that they would just treat this uh retail uh use as you would see uh tobacco and liquor within the city um I will note that uh within that discussion and uh this is kind of the one item that I have that's still outstanding for this other than that uh it seems pretty buttoned up um is that uh the Planning Commission recommended that uh to allow Standalone businesses Standalone retail in the i1 district um just based on the the type of retail uh and uh kind of the the hiddenness of the of the zoning districts uh within the city for industrial versus commercial being on Main frontages um maybe you're answering this question sorry to interrupt but um seems timely so in in a bunch of the um areas that are identified that you know zoning areas GMU 1 GMU 2 Etc it's a permitted principal use and and then like gm4 and i1 it's a conditional use permit and so can you talk a little bit about the logic behind yeah absolutely having that separation sure uh so the i1 just being separate because the tobacco and uh uh tobacco and alcohol retail is not permitted within the industrial district the i1 um what you see for the commercial and I can pull this up on the next slide here what you see here in terms of cannabis retailers where it is permitted is where you would see uh liquor stores and tobacco uh stores permitted within the city the balam lane uh area which is the GMU 4 is actually the only area that requires a conditional use permit for liquor stores and tobacco sales um so it was it essentially to reflect what and where um those liquor store and tobacco sales are allowed and at what capacity so it's mimicking what we already do for those things exactly those two L okay and I think that was a consensus understanding from the council that was kind of how you guys had wanted to see that um the one thing that I do want to note is that uh while the Planning Commission did recommend to allow this uh as a use within the i1 for related to retail um staff would recommend that that not be um included within this ordinance just based on retail not being uh historically allowed as Standalone businesses within industrial districts just like how uh tobacco sales and alcohol sales are not permitted within the industrial district um just to add to that uh there are mechanisms and licenses that allow retail sales within and the industrial district and that would be by way of a meso business or a micro business um which basically has multiple components to it where there's production and Manufacturing going on on one end of the building as well as maybe having a storefront for retail so there there are still uh capabilities for industrial locations to have uh retail given that they're being Industrial component along with that I'm fine with that change yeah I think that's fine well which sorry which change just to make sure the I taken out of the i1 Standalone the Standalone retail soor I just want to make sure it's clear yeah no totally and the way the ordinance is written the um aside from that the Planning Commission you unanimously recommended approval and i' be happy to answer any other questions you may have I got nothing I don't know have a question from because I was at the Planning Commission so know what we all had to say but we didn't have anyone from the police there at the time when we had these conversations I don't recall I don't recall um so do you do you have anything to add to this no we work with staff prior to Dem go in the planning commit okay okay good so I'll make the motion to approve with that Amendment around the i1 district second discussion all those in favor say I I I all those oppos say no motion carries 5 thank you and with that if there are no objections we will be Jed weed e