I'm wondering why are we taking a very different tact for this particular parking lot... there seems to be this emphasis on trying to get more people being able to access the parking that we have so that we can keep cars off the street.

I'm not sure how right to solve it because there's a lot of complexities... that are compounding this particular issue.

We don't maintain it so in the winter time the snow is not plowed so we don't want people in there because we don't maintain it.

What's the public safety purpose of banning kids from parking in this parking lot during school hours or banning anybody... I just want to know what the public purpose of banning that is.

I would feel differently about it if we looked at kind of peak traffic patterns and find out that all the parking spots are full and we've got people who are trying to go utilize the park and they have no place to do that.

I don't want the city to have to pay for this... I was told that we would be reimbursed by the county or the state but I'm wondering why would the county or the state reimburse us for something that is what appears to be purely a municipal project removing trees from a private home and putting them elsewhere in the city.

City's going to hold all contracts... County's going to pay us their share of federal grants they're going to pay us their County state aid we're using our Municipal funds for our own water and sewer systems.

Remember the neighbor wanted that noise wall for years and years that wall has to be up at the top of the hill on mot property and a few of those trees at the top need to be to take in make room for the noise wall.

The aquafers don't know Municipal boundaries so there's some conflicting information sometimes between agencies... they've been working with us and seven other communities to do this phase one Wellhead protection plan as a as an area.

Pedestrian safety that's really interesting um and in the last two years has really gone up... can you um tell us just fill that in a little bit more give a little color as to why you think it's gone up so dramatically.

One reason why a lot of pestan safety requests are going up is we are we're developing a lot more Cross or not crosswalks more sidewalks um we're filling out our system... residents are learning how to submit requests and a lot of them are wanting added facilities at crosswalks.

When I look at the fact that um requests in 2024 were down over 2023 around intersection control it makes me think... as we've narrowed streets and um I think you know tightened up intersections I wonder if that hasn't had uh the intended effect of creating uh a safer environment.

We're we're writing the menu we're not actually cooking the food so we're making a plan for the next 10 years of what we as a city should be paying attention to.

We have more than a billion parking spaces in the United States and that we have more square footage dedicated to the storage of cars than to the housing of people so parking whether it's on off Street or on street is a huge land use issue and it crowds out all kinds of things in addition or including trees.

I always love when we start off out with we're going to collect more data and that's to me what doing the audit means because when we do a good job at that uh we tend to make better decisions when we have good data.

I kind of would like to see that specifically called out as an objective um and so I'm going to give an example... if you told me I couldn't park right in front of me d a grill I would use District parking because I use it when I go to the movies so and so if there's a way that we can think about all right we want to shift your behaviors.

Parking is competing for other things is so important and needs to be kept you know at the core of what you're doing because it's not it's complicated... it could be a sidewalk or a driveway it can be a bike path or short-term parking and that's not a good way to go.

Parking benefit districts are fantastic tools for cities... our thought was there's really only two areas where that applies in a Dy 44th in France 50th in France and the the scale of the the the curb feet that you could Implement a parking benefit district is small compared to the complexity and cost of implementing a program like that.

I just want to thank the city council for bringing up the ordinance the pet ordinance tonight to ban inhumanely pred animals I appreciate that and I hope it will pass.

A USDA license facility May legally confine dogs in cages only 6 in larger than their bodies keep hundreds of dogs stacked in ele in stacked or elevated cages provide only wire flooring expose dogs to frigid or sweltering temperatures for hours breed dogs repeatedly and excessively Without Limits deny Hands-On Veterinary Care to sick or injured dogs and kill dogs they no longer want.

My recommendation is to say that pet stores cannot sell dogs or cats regardless of the how they were BR but it doesn't prevent them from partnering with animal shelters or animal rescue organizations to still offer dogs and cats.

I don't see how we can have an ordinance that says that a business can't sell cats and dogs... it's hard for us to say that a pet store can't sell cats or dogs and if our objective is to ensure that if pets are sold that they're humanely treated then I like then I want to say well how do we answer the question of what's human and what's not.

I think that's the outcome we want right and so I don't know how we do that without leaning into well how then do you define it so I just that I struggle with um it just seems like us saying well you can't sell cats and dogs I don't know that that solves the problem of inhumanely treated animals.

I think there's potential confusion with the addition of the pet store definition just because I use commercial kennel when I drafted the original one because that definition currently exists in city ordinance so I was trying to kind of tie this into the existing language um so I think we'd have to try to reconcile you know the meaning of commercial kennel with the meaning of pet store to make sure there's no overlap or confusion there.

This is just a very very big dis appointment to a lot of people and especially those who are directly impacted at the site and what's even more concerning is that some trees on private property were taken down and that should just never never occur.

This resolution that was passed by the council clearly states that those trees were to remain and there were no qualifications made in that resolution to say that some of the trees would remain there just absolutely no qualifications there.

I believe that three actions are needed... first the REM removal of trees needs to be imediately remedied... second there should be a penalty to the developer that goes beyond tree replacement... third implement stricter oversight measures.

We verified staff verified with their landscaper that they did in fact take out trees along the lot line on the 7200 uh France property in addition to trees on the adjacent private properties so that puts them in violation of the approved site plan for phase one.

The developer and the landscape architect have promised us submitt of a revised landscap plan by the end of the day tomorrow... we intend to meet with some of those neighbors um share the plan um work with the Forester um maybe make some revisions to that plan.

I'm not sure just replanting trees is enough um and so I want to use those two comments that I made both about affordable housing and the trees to Center our ground on this statement um we definitely as a council like we're reasonable people right we understand information and we make decisions the best decisions we can with the information we have but I think sometimes we're so cordial that and I'm the I'm the main one like I'm extremely cordial right uh but there's some things that I think we should like we should be irritated about.

We are irritated about this uh more than irritated um because we do have we we've this is a developer that we expect to be working with on a number of different projects over the upcoming uh decade probably so this is not a good way to get this started at all and it is annoying the way that especially in particular going on to adjoining private property and removing trees without permission that's we just can't do that.