##VIDEO ID:bL41tsNso0o## [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] good evening we'll call the meeting to order on behalf of the Planning Commission I'd like to welcome our residents and viewers to this regular meeting of November 12 2024 on tonight's agenda we have one public hearing and after that we we have two discussion items uh before we open the public hearing we have one housekeeping item to take care of and that would be uh two sets of minutes uh the first sets from our special work session on October 8th and the second set is from our regular meeting on October 8th and we'll take these together are there any additions or corrections to those minutes if not is there a motion motion to approve we have a motion for approval is there a second I'll second motion a second all in favor say I I all right both said minutes are approved with that then we'll open up our public hearing uh this is a combined preliminary and final plat for aan n uh development and Jared you going to take this yes thank you chair Planning Commission members uh a public hearing was noticed and published um in the newspaper for today's meeting uh regarding a combined preliminary and final plat uh for a three lot subdivision to be called aan null located at 19927 Ain Road um as the commission may be aware um a plan of this proposed subdivision was reviewed by the Commission in February of last year um but the applicant is requesting the public hearing be continued to the December 10th Planning Commission meeting um as additional modifications are being done to the plans all right thank you Jared with that then I look for a motion to continue the public heing to our December meeting I'll make motion we have a motion is there our second I'll second motion a second call the roll please wind shidle yes tesy yes Brady yes Le yes snow yes all right with that then that concludes our public hearing we'll move now into our discussion items uh these agenda items are commission discussion where we will discuss and then provide recommendations to our city council the first uh discussion item is the final PL and final planned unit development for the Farmington Technology Park the applicant is tracked and Tony you're going to take this I am thank you Mr chair council member commission members uh yes before you this evening is the final plan final plan un development for the Farmington Technology Park uh the request is from track and they are requesting the review of said final plant and plan unit development um the Farmington Technology Park property consists of three Parcels as the commission is aware including the Fountain Valley Golf Course and the two former Angus properties uh the final plant consists of three lots uh spread over just uh spread over 338 AC ACR of land lot one block one is 150 acres and that's the northern portion of the data center campus lot two block one is uh just over 2 acres in size uh this parcel would be deeded to the city for utility purposes and then the last lot is lot one block two which is 185 acres and that comprises the southern portion of the data center campus uh this particular lot also is encumbered with approximately about 698 of flood plane as well the plat does show a 75- ft rideway for uh biscan Avenue along the eastern boundary of lot one block one um that would be for the county road uh to eventually go through um at this time uh biscane is not planned to be constructed as part of this development it would be largely be a future uh County project at some future date and time city council did approve the preliminary plat and preliminary plan unit development um for this uh project on November 4th the final plat is consistant with the approved preliminary plat that was reviewed uh previously and this is just a copy of the plat itself um as you can see the two large Lots uh are uh lot one block one and lot one block two uh divided by 225th Street um the lot one or lot two block one uh the lot that would be deed to the city is in the very northwest corner of uh the site adjacent to uh Minnesota 50 uh as the commission is aware uh tract is proposing this uh property as a master plan data center Technology Park and it would include up to 12 Data Center buildings and two administrative buildings um they're proposing at least up to six Data Center buildings and one Administrative Building per lot uh square footage for the data centers on the Northern campus up to 1.6 million square ft and up to 933 ,000 Square fet on the southern campus and again these are um the high ends of what could fit on there not saying that that is what is going to fit there um um if you'll recall um when we looked at the preliminary plat there was a representative site plan um again that just shows what could fit there the northwest corner of lot one block 2 is labeled as reserved for future Electric utilities uh this would be the potential location of electric substation which are necessary for uh data center uses uh future site plans will be required to be approved by the planning Mission prior to construction of v data center building and ancillary use on the property there are four anticipated accesses for the campuses uh for the north campus that would be Minnesota 50 and 225th Street West the south campus would be on 225th Street West and biscan Avenue and then there will be additional turn lane improvements that would be needed as part of this uh project uh that have been ident ified by a traffic study so the second thing that we're looking at this evening is the final plan unit development um as you are aware we went through a number of these things with the preliminary planed unit development uh they include things from seacs natural buffers Landscaping General design standards Building height fences electric utility lines noise uh parking substations private community communication Towers maximum lot coverage and lighting um in your packet different things uh there's uh a Redline version of the design standards um these are updated from what was previously uh reviewed by this commission at the preliminary plat stage um there are a lot of enhancements that were made as part of those um added red lines um so that's included and then we also have an ordinance um in your packet uh we will be approving the the Pud as an ordinance uh therefore these designed standards will be essentially codified into the city code um versus having a separate uh plan unit development agreement we'll kind of walk through the uh 13 different um areas that are addressed in the uh P standards uh the first one as I had mentioned is building setbacks uh this uh provides standards for the minimum setback of buildings from property lines uh it includes a minimum set back of 250 ft from any property line adjacent to residential uses 150t setback from any property line not adjacent to non-residential uses a 40ft setback from the right of wave of 225th Street uh number two is our natural buffers and again this provides for a a 40t wide natural buffer along the majority of the perimeter of the site uh with that they are looking to keep as many of the natural vegetation that currently exists within that 40ft buffer um as as they can um that is their intent is to try to keep as much of that in place as uh exists today Landscaping uh this provides a type of plantings that will be used throughout the site allows for the use of rock Gra and mulch as an accent material for maintenance areas adjacent to buildings around utility access points it also provides for landscaping of parking lots uh discusses BMS including burm height and construction timing as well number four is the uh design uh General design standards uh this includes things for facade standard screening Etc uh provides for language that provides protection from un uh undifferentiated surfaces on principal building facades by requiring the use of at least two of the following Design Elements uh change in Building height building step backs uh fenestration changes in building material use of accent materials overhangs use of canopies or porticos arcades and variations in roof line uh including faux Windows green Walls and other enhanced design elements that could be approved by the Planning Commission in a future date it also provides language regarding the screening of both ground level and above ground mounted uh mechanical equipment and structures the fifth one is Building height uh maximum Building height um on site for principal structure is 80 ft however the maximum height at the building setback line is proposed to be at 50 ft the provision allows for step back approach to the building height uh for each 1 foot increase in Building height the building must be steep Back 2 feet maximum Building height for accessory structure is uh proposed to be at 50 ft and the last thing that's provided in this provision is uh language that any building that is 80 ft in height must be set back a minimum of 400 ft from the property line adjacent to residentially zone property the sixth uh area is fences uh the provides requirements for security fencing and perer fencing allows allows for security fencing up to 14 ft in height and perent fencing to a maximum 7 ft in height as well uh there's also a discussion there on relocation of fencing um and that the developer is willing to work with um adjacent Property Owners um to accomplish that um relocation if necessary the next one is electric utility line lines this provision provides language on the need for electric electric utility lines and their construction as part of the overall project and we jump to noise uh this provides language that noise generated from the site shall meet the requirements that are established by the npca provides language that noise study be prepared at time of site plan which demonstrates that the applic the applicable noise levels will not be exceeded based on the specific systems and equipment that will be utilized provides language requiring the installation of physical sound attenuation measures on any mechanical equipment that is installed at the data center building uh located within 1,200 uh feet of any adjacent residential use um under certain circumstances the ninth is parking which requires a minimum of one parking space for each th000 square feet of office use 10 uh talks about substations discusses the need for outdoor mechanical and electrical equipment uh and that they must meet or must be fenced and screened uh states that fencing around the substation must be set back a minimum a 30 ft from a property line adjacent to a residentially zone property and that any substation equipment must be set back minimum 50 ft from a property line adjacent to a residentially zone property number 11 private communication Towers provides language that these are permitted up to a maximum height of 80 ft and are subject to building setbacks 12 maximum lock coverage provides language that there are no maximum lock coverage for all uses built in the designated developable area and then the last one is a newer one that uh this commission did not see it was added uh regarding lighting uh it provides standards for on-site lighting such as the maximum height of whole mounted exterior lighting shall be 18 ft Additionally the maximum height of an of an an building mounted exterior lighting fixture shall be 35 ft in height the action that is requested this evening is to recommend approval of the Farmington Technology Park final plat and final plan unit development or ordinance number 202 24-12 contingent on the following and for that recommendation on to the city council number one a development contract between the developer and city of Farmington shall be executed and security and fees paid submission of all other documents required under the development contract shall be required all right thank you Tony before this this commission gets under discussion um I'll see if there's any questions for you I have one um and it's more of a clarification and it you talked about the uh PUD ordinance we had little discussion earlier on this and just so that the commission is clear because it's this is for going to be for all puds going forward this will be for all puds going forward and and really it's it's listing out the the differences in a PUD and then where you're codifying them really is that can you explain that to the commission correct the there's a couple of reasons why we're looking to make this change um our ordinance doesn't spell out whether or not you do it through ordinance or PUD agreement our past practice has been through PUD agreement um a lot of communes do it one way or the other um why we're looking to move to the ordinance is to in large part what it does is it makes it easier to find those requirements those deviations those things that are specific to that PUD um specifically versus having an agreement that you know that's 5 years old where's that agreement what's in that agreement how can we find that agreement now it will literally be in code um in the zoning ordinance um to where we can point directly to it um it's easier to find it's just makes life easier for the applicant the city and anybody looking to find that that information okay any PUD modifications though will remain the same process same process okay I I appreciate that any questions from the commission from for Tony yeah I have one question Tony can you describe the difference between this final plat and what a site plan is just so we kind of know moving forward how what how the differences work yeah the plat lays out the the the parcels themselves essentially um the site plan is where we're going to really get into how the building looks how it's situated on the lot um where the parking is going to be located um making sure that all those things that we identified in that PUD are being adhered to um that's really the difference um with the the plat you know if you're looking at it from a a standpoint of um did I put this a standpoint of the specifics the site plan is where you're going to get into the specifics um looking at elevations looking at the lighting looking at the sound uh noise all of that all of that will come with the site plan this is literally just setting up the property to where it can be divided essentially okay and this process hasn't changed this is how what goes for any and all development within this community so thanks any else MIT you anything no okay we have a couple people from track did you have anything to add if not get ready for the commission questions because that's we've been waiting on this yeah thank you chair Commissioners U Jacob Steen with Lin Hoffman we represent track um Tony did a good job of going through uh the proposed standards as well as the changes uh that have been made over uh the past several weeks based on discussions with staff uh community members and the council one the only thing that I would add uh is regarding the building height uh as it's currently drafted uh it would be uh for each 1T increase in Building height the building must be Ste Back 2 feet uh because we have changed uh and made a commitment to not having uh or to setting an 80t building back to 400 ft uh that will be changed for every 1ot increase in height the building must be stepped back 5 ft so increasing that that distance with each foot it goes up and the intent is to you know really have that stepped uh development so Tony this is new this is a change to what they're working on it is new but it it cor it correlates to that 400 foot yeah it would with 80 yeah so yeah and it it would be it's definitely an enhancement to it going from the two to the five so but yes it is but again it correlates to that 400 which is a a new one that this commission did not see prior right and okay and what I would say is under the the previous formula it would have been 310 ft so it's just increasing that and and the idea uh based on comments from the mayor at Council was that we want to uh he wants to encourage having a 50-foot building as the closest building uh so this would create that opportunity and essentially encourage the stepping of of structure so that you wouldn't end up with just 80t building at 310 we'll let the commission mull over that one for a little bit I understand your logic um I just want to make sure they they all agree with it so okay anything else with that I'm happy to answer any questions all right we'll start with the Comm teski uh I think these look really good I think it's a step in the right direction to kind of appease the community um I really enjoy the idea around the general design standards of the building and doing some different materials so they're just not all the same building building 80 ft High the setbacks are great um an introduction of materials that are different or differentiate the buildings so I don't have any issues with these I think it addresses the setbacks the screening the bming um the lighting was a nice um add to to see on this so I don't have any issues or concerns I mean you I was going to mention to the commission that um you know just as a reminder and a guide for the commission um you know a final Platinum PD should be consistent with the pimin plat and the preliminary PUD that was approved and with the changes that were approved by both the commission and our city council and I'm asking the commission if you could be detail in your comments to provide because any recommendation that we make will be going to our city council so okay Chris anything else nope that was it commissioner winshuttle no just question Tony on the BMS or so you're starting at a minimum of 10 feet in height is that correct and if they want to go any higher than 10 feet they have to get approval yes they would need to get staff approval for that we'd have to look at a number of things as far as because the higher you go with a burm obviously the more space you need to accommodate said burn um so you're looking at not only grading but drainage as well once you start increasing that overall height is there a reason why the 10 ft versus 15 or 20 I I get the cost and the maneuvering of dirt and Landscaping but do you want me to answer that sure I can I can answer that uh commissioner so 10 foot is uh you know pretty standard and based on the modeling that we've done that would be generally good uh to obstruct with some Landscaping on top of it uh with the understanding that we know that there may be some certain viewsheds designs uh where we want that added flexibility to work with staff and work with the Planning Commission to make sure we do increase that um we feel confident that 10 ft will be sufficient with additional Landscaping on top of it and I guess my question follow up to this is you know there's there's talk that you know the neighbors out there a 10 foot burm isn't going to be high enough with Landscaping I guess how have you guys confirmed that that isn't going to be an issue you know I I would rather see us start at 15 or 20 with the growth of landscaping you know that is going to take time you know I I don't know what type of trees and stuff we're you know talking about bringing in to make that buffer yeah you know and I think the intent is that this is this is the minimum uh based on the modeling that we've done on the representative site plan uh we do feel confident that it will screen uh the the buildings as proposed that being said we don't know exactly what those buildings are going to look like we want be able to work with the Planning Commission and like Tony said this is the exactly the kind of questions that will be in front of you based on the exact specific proposal at site plan review and and we do have one of the additions to and I think Tony touched on it but one of the additions is that any burms would be required to go in before the foundations commence so that uh so that even that foundation work would be screened sure and then just one other question as far as the fencing um the perimeter fencing the the residents are going to have an input I see as to what type of fencing the three different types of fencing that potentially could go in there now I I guess on that part the question was why don't we move the fencing in on the other side of the burm so they don't have to look at a fence out their front door yeah you know and and it was based on our discussions um you know we have so there's a couple of reasons I mean first many of those those neighbors have attached their fence to uh the the perimeter fence which is actually located uh a few feet into the property so we want to give them the opportunity to you know continue to have their dog run around sure we also need the ability to screen and protect that for security purposes for liability purposes it's not going to be a lighted area uh By Design we want it to be uh a natural buffer uh so the risk is that it would effectively be come no man's land uh I mean from a liability risks you know that would be a major concern so and again preserving those backyards yeah I I guess yeah it's just a concern you know if you if you had it on the other side of the burm you know I get people's fencing and yards there um but it's also applicable to put no trespassing signs there to prevent people from going on the property um you know I I do know it was raised the question was raised you know if a kid's ball goes over your fence you know is the security guy going to go get it or you know that well the security and the security fence would actually be inside of the buffer so that would so there's two fences right there's the perimeter fence which you know we we'll build a nice fence that you know essentially replicates what's there now uh or better and then the security fence itself will be 40 ft in so you know and that could potentially be a higher fence and and we'd anticipate that no balls are going over there okay never know some go balls thanks that's all I have for now else commission lato um yeah I just I have additional question about the fencing I mean I don't know that all of the properties are currently fenced but I'm just wondering how much I mean I grinded I'm not I'm assuming that the property owners know what their property line is do you know how much they're going to lose of that kind of open space behind their homes I'm just curious as like how far back will it be going from where the current perimeter fence of the golf course is you know I don't have that exact number I think it varies uh kind of from from place to place it uh you know the the existing fence was put in you know I think a few feet um but it's not consistent right so could be two to 6 feet okay all right and then um the noise mitigation I think I'm generally okay with it but one thing I think hasn't been addressed I'm curious about is the low frequency noise because I know that's a big concern and I just wanted to know if we've address that at all or what how does that work because it's one thing to do the levels of everything running but the low frequency noise I think is something that's really of concern to everyone and have you guys talked about that or addressed how that might work or what the effects of that might be yeah you know so there's a couple of couple of thoughts so first mitigation is the number one goal so we do have a number of mitigative steps in place that will be re-evaluated at the site plan review stage as we know what specific equipment is going to be proposed we'll pair that specific equipment with the noise study and then you'll have an opportunity and there is some language that allows you to create additional mitigative steps uh through that site plan review process so the idea is that right now we would be speculating you know if if if there was specific equipment that we were going to place we'd be able to address that now but um we don't know what what the orientation of the site will be or or what that specific equipment will be and and our hope is that with these guidelines here with staff's input and the planning commission's input and those that that noise study data we'll be able to address those and make sure we do have those mitigative steps in place okay thank you that's all I have thank you commissioner snowbeach on with the BMS and the fences what's the threshold for changing it to from 10t to 15t or 20 F like how does that process look like um would it be community members that are concerned about 10t not being higher is it uh the City Planning Commission you guys feel like just walk me through what that would look like if we're going to change it from 10 to a higher height yeah you know so I think that what we will do is as we get to that site plan review stage we'll know what those buildings look like first and what that orientation is um we you know we would look at uh and presumably the Planning Commission has the authority to ask for viewshed studies so we would have a viewshed study from those individual points around the perimeter and from the neighbors properties uh and then we could model that if it looks like at that time a 10- foot with Landscaping isn't going to be sufficient uh it can either be a proposal from the applicant or it can be a requirement of the Planning Commission so it would be a collaborative process to make sure that we're addressing the screening appropriately and that we have uh sufficient birming and Landscaping okay so be collaborative I mean right it would fully yeah it would be a a back and forth process through the application is in the site plan review thank you any else match good you know the Commissioners you did a great job you asked um good questions you know detail questions and I appreciate that lean asked the million-dollar one and difference between uh plating a piece of land and a site plan and as Tony did a great job explaining it site plan the details I mean that's where we're going to come in that's where we'll do studies like Mitch and Phil talked about you know we're going to see what's going to happen we're going to see Renditions of buildings we're going to see everything else this is as Tony mentioned this is the the planting of the land um we've we've approved or approv we sent a recommendation to our city council they've approved it um this isn't real this isn't inconsistent with it I I like the modifications I appreciate what the council did in modifying and track going following through um I'm a little concerned that uh we talked about G and we it was still on when it went to our city council um CU when I talk to him I go it can't be there um but it was and and you did I appreciate you taking it off um but I know we talked about it in a meeting about not doing that but uh you know about putting those things in the middle of the property if they have to be there at all so um I appreciate that um and I understand your business model from track and how you're going to do it um are you any closer to finding out who's going to be there wish I could tell you don't to answer it if you're not going to but I'm just asking no I I can't yeah we we we don't know today I didn't think we know you know we we as we've discussed we know kind of the class of operator um and you know is over the coming years you'll you'll find out more well and you lead right into my second question um your timing you know what what is what is your anticipated timing of this project if it if it goes through and Council approves it yeah you know I think uh it's intended to be a phased project right so full buildout could be uh a number of years uh could be six seven years um I would anticipate that uh the way we have it structured right now is we could start grading uh relatively quickly you know we could start grading in the spring uh potentially so I would anticipate that work will will start in the next year to two years uh I mean I can almost guarantee that but in terms of the full buildout uh you know there's there's a lot of moving parts and we're working with the city on delivery of of uh utilities and it'll be sequenc and and there will be uh plenty more opportunities for the Planning Commission to review no doubt oh yeah I'm sure and our city council correct and and when we do that we invite residents so um and you know you mentioned greating may start sooner rather than later and part of your commitment is keeping from what I understand is keeping as many of the existing trees minus uh Ash um that you possibly can it's um so how do you if you start grading already when does staff or somebody commission whoever's going to see the tree count and what you're going to try to save yeah so so so there is a a grading process a preliminary grading permit uh that will be submitted now what we did do is amend uh these standards to be clear that we can have access points through that natural buffer uh but where the natural buffers are proposed the intent is to preserve those natural buffers so that 40 ft okay the intent is not to to plow those down I appreciate that okay um you know commission to me it is consistent with the uh recommendation of the preliminary plat and the preliminary PUD that we recommended to our city council and they approved um I do see some of the modifications to the development standards I appreciate that I think our Council and our staff did a great job with the applicant to get those modified um so I I you know if we're going to do it we're I would feel we need to make a positive recommendation to our city council so I uh let me get my paper is [Applause] out so then in front of the commission is a recommendation to our city council uh for approval of the Farmington Technology Park final plant and final PUD with an ordinance in addition though and I want to remind the commission is we are modifying the Pud ordinance um process um I will go through it I I anticipate it'll be a better process better for those that are going to use for us it should probably be pretty transparent but um but we're going to be approving that also there's one contingency and I want to ask TR right now do you agree with everything that's in the staff report tonight because it's going to go to our city council yeah thank you chair yes uh we're comfortable with with those conditions as well as the the change that we mentioned from 2T to 5T and and I I'm fine with that is does anybody on the commission disagree with that and I will ask staff to review it before it gets to our city council and if you have a concern with it please have our city council modify it absolutely okay any anything else with that no okay so I'm looking for a motion with one contingency is there a motion a motion we have a motion is there a second I'll second have a motion a second any more discussion not call the rooll please tesy yes Rody yes PL yes snowback yes wi sh yes all right thank you very much all right we'll move into our second discussion item and that's cannabis legislation and regulation Tony you're going to do this along with uh Rita or I am going to Tee It Up for for her okay all right uh Mr chair commission members we have Rita here with us again um to continue our discussion on cannabis legislation and the needed changes to our zoning code that uh we're looking to achieve hopefully by the end of the year um we have uh some draft uh language that we want to run through this evening with you and with that I will turn it over to Rita great nice to see you all again uh I know Beth was here last time and she prepared u based on the conversations that you all had at the Joint meeting uh what we understand to be the draft standards um so I just wanted to walk through them this evening answer any questions nowhere we still might have concerns um so uh the draft standards I should say skipped over oh I can use uh I just realized we didn't did I not turn that on for you no you didn't that's it's okay sorry it's he's just testing you he does it all the time to me too so the the three areas that we want to discuss this evening are the definitions the uses in the districts and the use standards themselves uh and then I'll briefly touch on next steps uh Marita can I interrupt you just AE because commissioner snowback commissioner windsh shuttle wasn't with us when we discussed this so okay you know it it I'm sure they've read through it but um they may have additional comments but sure from that I think you were here though that when we came the last time I remember having all of you at the DI so that helps but yeah we modified it a little bit with the council all of a sudden I got worried that you didn't have the background because I kind of skipped over for the benefit of the public they are are two experts so we you know we'll rely on them okay I suppose I should take a step back just for everybody who might be watching at home um in uh 2023 the state legislature uh determined that it would be appropriate uh for the the state to allow cannabis use um in uh the state of Minnesota um in 2024 they made some adjustments to those and that's when we have information from the office of cannabis Management on the regulations that local governments can put in place relative to cannabis so the goal for all communities is to have cannabis regulations in place by the end of the year technically January 1st is supposed to be the timeline where uh more activity can happen with cannabis there's been a little bit of activity this uh from July through the end of this year just with some specific applicants that can start working um through opport opportunities um I don't know that I've heard as of late that things are moving quite as fast as that January 1 timeline but it is still good for cities to have these rules in place as we talk about these we do anticipate potentially usually when these things are new there are some adjustments that may be made so we may have to have more discussion next year um but we are doing uh what we can with the information that's available right now um so we had had a conversation with you in October to kind of give you the the foundation to talk about that and then Beth was with you at the Joint meeting talk about again and and I know there were some changes that uh were made and so this is where we understand us to be landing and I think tonight is about um are we in agreement do we have any concerns are there new questions that may have Arisen um and then from there um we are working staff is working at kind of what the next steps would be uh a discussion with the council again or Preparation of public hearing materials uh so that you can work through the process in December I think for sure the December process is probably anticipated with a public hearing and then action by Council just to keep us on that timeline um ultimately uh we have included five definitions um the first three are specific to cannabis so one is about cannabis cultivation um and just as a reminder cultivation can be indoors or Outdoors uh the second is about cannabis or hemp Manufacturing uh what's important here is I think the last time we saw you in October um we had more definitions because we were uh having more uses but after the conversation with you and I think it was confirmed at the Joint meeting um we're just including processing packaging wholesaling testing treatment Transportation or delivery all is kind of one use we were going to treat them all similarly anyway um so cannabis or hemp manufacturing includes all of those elements uh the next one is cannabis retail uh and that's just the licensed establishment that can sell um products and then lower potency hemp edible retail um to contrast that with cannabis retail it's important that we have two different definitions um because of the fact that the products are sold in slightly different ways between the two and there's different regulations um so we do want to specifically identify them um between those two types of uses and hemp products um just a reminder um that is a wide ranging of things uh so there's Edibles there's drinks um there's liquor so hemp uh can Edibles can come in a lot of different forms and that was some of the conversation we had with you in October is that we may want to make some differences with hours of operation because there are different ways in particular that um is made available for use so when we looked at uses in districts uh this is where we would put it specifically in the zoning code to identify where uses are allowed generally communities try and apply um where uh uses would be allowed similar to how they would be allowed if it was a non-cannabis business so as an example cannabis cultivation outdoor allowed in the agricultural District um as we move to indoor cultivation you might have a greenhouse which may be more agricultural in nature you might have it more in a industrial type looking building so that's more Industrial in nature um and you can see overall um the city at this point is recommending use of a conditional use permit uh so that would mean you would still see any of the types of activities that might be proposed and have an opportunity to review and make any comments on those um as we move through uh indoor C cultivation of cannabis um was felt to be appropriate in the agricultural um the business district and the industrial district as we move to Manufacturing in the B3 and Industrial District and then as we look to retail really focusing in on the business districts and the mixed use districts um and that also includes the lower potency hemp so again these match uh the definitions that we just had uh and reflect the conversations that we've had over the last couple of meetings on where things would be allowed in terms of Standards uh my understanding from The Joint meeting I was not part again part of that but my understanding was the general con consensus is that we wouldn't have buffers from schools dayc carees Parks or residential treatment facilities we had prepared the month uh the maps in October um you had reviewed those maths we had made some changes and then the conversation was ultimately determined that that wasn't NE necessary uh we did uh continue uh the can I inter of course just so that Phil and and Mitch understood um my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong you are all there but the rationale for that was is we don't exempt it in any um liquor type things I think Leah mentioned the only place we have any restrictions are sexually oriented businesses so to try to make it as consistent with the alcohol um what whether it is or not that was the rationale on not cuz when we did all those circles and all those phones yeah it was confusing it limited it so much and it might allow one District to do it but you have a very similar District in a different location of our community it wasn't allowed to do it so and why should you you know not the thought was is why treat them differently if they if they're the same area same business same zoning district is that accurate Tony correct yes it was the thought that and we don't have those for tobacco and liquor um so really what's really the difference um in this instance um but yeah that was the the the logic behind removing the the buffers so I'm sorry that's okay I appreciate the additional context yeah just kind of referencing the staff on that it seemed like you guys came in um um supporting having buffers is it after you see saw the the maps is that what helped you explain to me what helped you change your opinion on that uh largely it was Council and Planning Commission that uh uh ultimately changed my opinion on it um but yes after seeing those maps and the amount of um area that they took up um compared to what was available um I just don't know that it it was feasible to do it because we do have to allow them in certain in we have to have a space for these type of uses um we cannot just outright say no we don't want them um and the way those Maps ended up I don't know that we really had a good spot for them if we were to do the minimum even the minimum so just to kind of follow up on the question would smaller buffers allow that to areas that you know that would open up to more logical areas in our city did that discussion happen I just not being there I'm just trying to process everything we didn't resize buffers but because it was so extreme I thought and I there wasn't even a buffer that we didn't include if I recall I what was that one I can't remember but it was it was pretty intense the circles they over laps considerably yes and some more significant you know had a broader uh bubble or you know area than others yeah I was here for all that so I I I get the thought process just wondering how you came came about to going from All To None yeah it was largely the discussion that we do not have buffers for tobacco and liquor right now and to treat it any different would be hard to do mhm and if I recall the council's um Direction on it is that again because you don't have it why over governance this versus that you know type of thing let's try to treat things equally you know seem fair you know yeah the one thing I would add sorry Tony um the one thing I would add is it also starts complicating it when you're trying to set buffers from say a daycare and what would we ha what would happen in the future when a new daycare came in some place or located someplace and I'm just using daycare as an example um and what would you do if there was already an establishment within that buffer area so it just the the actual enforcement as it moved forward became more and more complicated as we started to talk about it out loud and then again those numbers those buffer numbers were very arbitrary in this because we don't already have those kind of buffers built in so it was a combination of all of that and just talking through um the the complexities when the reality is there's only so many of these that ever would be licensed here anyway well I appreciate Cher R and your explanations it's just I I just want to walk my head through the process you know as being in schools and and it's important to me that we make good choices and decisions for our entire Community including our children right so I just needed I need to hear it from you yeah abely it was an argument because I think everybody had the kids on them mind when we were talking about it I mean it it it probably the most discussed thing at that joint session was were the buffers so it was thoroughly discussed it even brought out a new idea that I'm not sure if uh it's been addressed or going to be addressed but I think Leah you brought it out about um the uh maybe you need some kind of uh use type restriction you know what if what if it's allowed here somebody walking down the street and you're you're standing next to the door of a daycare center something that's what I took it from and I don't know if we're there yet or you know maybe Phil and Gary in your business you know how to handle that but what you know what do I do if I got a granddaughter that I'm walking by with you know I don't want them I don't want them in cigarette smoke either but this may be even you know different than that and I I certainly don't want them in that yeah we were we did spend some time talking about public use restrictions which are also a part of this it's separate though from like the business owner themselves and their licensing and their registration but it was I heard from Council and Planning Commission at that joint session um not necessarily like full support for a public use prohibition which you're allowed to do uh but that you do want to kind of continue to talk about it I think so I mean that's I'm an old person but that's my thing I um could you create an ordinance prohibiting marijuana use in public in public on a sidewalk in a park yes yeah yep mean main a few communes have looked at it specifically in Parks Parks yeah some yeah some have done half not in a bad way but half measured or customed to just Parks um but the state statute's very broad on public places yeah there's a definition of public places and what it all includes it's pretty fast so except for schools I don't understand that anyway yeah I that's a good question of I mean well I think that makes the most sense you know if you want to be able to control the use around schools or or even a business district or Parks you know you create the ordinance and and you know mold it to what C citizens and everybody wants you know my understanding is Council left it with staff to at some point in the future review and develop this if necessary I it's we're not going to certainly you know start it but you know it now I don't discuss this with my wife ever so sell them but her question to me was what if we're sitting at the at a park girl kids on a swing and somebody comes and it's their ability to sit on the bench and start smoking right next to their stroller or whatever you know and I said I don't know I'll ask the smart people about that it becomes a larger policy decision that Council has to I'm sure really weigh in on if that's something we want to do I I do believe Kelly our park and rec director has at least had conversations with the park and recck commission um regarding Parks um and at this point they haven't chosen to to move forward with that um but doesn't mean that that couldn't again come up in discussion and potentially something in the future um be brought forward yeah I I believe our discussion Monday won't be real lengthy maybe it could be mentioned again to see if what their interest level is and certainly if they want the staff to pursue us or not I I don't know I mean y we certainly can bring that back appreciate that I'm sorry to interrupt you again this time for you're not interrupting this is why we're here all right we're good on buffers okay awesome um one element that we did maintain uh through all of these conversations uh is that the city should establish a retail limit so that would limit the number of retail businesses that could be operational in the city um what the standard from state is uh no more than one business per 12,500 residents you can increase the number but you have to do at minimum that number um and with applying that that would be a maximum right now of two businesses so um that's something that we would establish as the limit uh and so that's in the standards and would be something that would be covered in the zoning code itself so that's one of the things that's interested about cannabis is parts of it is licensing parts of it is public use and part of it is zoning so that is something that still would be part of the zoning um relative sorry so that's just for cannabis retail not for hemp right Canabis standards is hemp unlimited uh in in theory yet there's no explicit Authority in the statute for a city to establish that um that's not to say it couldn't be you couldn't come up with a reasonable time place man and restriction around that but just in the statute that's only for cannabis retail businesses thank you uh looking on to hours of operation I alluded to this earlier in the in my presentation uh the hours of operation that were recommended um for cannabis retail uses would be permitted between 8:00 a.m. and 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday and then 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Sunday um but the lower potency hemp uh retail uses are slightly different um if you remember the conversation we talked about on and off sale um and trying to kind of Link some of these to the liquor um licenses um so the idea usually lower poncy hemp retail uses uh are things that might occur in other places than the tra just the retail establishment let me back up I don't think I explained that very well the Cannabis retail uses will only occur in a cannabis retail business which means it's easy for them to know what their hours of operation are lower potency H edible retail is a lot more complicated because there's a lot of different types of uses so there might be stores there might be uh Brewery there might there's all kinds of different places so to make it a little bit easier we try to match offsale and onsale liquor so that if you were in one of those establishments that has later operating hours you don't have to remember that just this particular product has different hours I hope that was a better explanation I understood it y um hemp hours match the state requirements um so that's already something that's established by the state uh relative to cannabis use standards um as a conditional use as I said you will be reviewing any conditional use permits uh the idea is that cannabis uses would need to meet the standards and we included in the packet um the actual standards from that section of the zoning code um so this is the criteria that you currently use for conditional uses and so this would be something that you would be using to evaluate against if there was any conditional use um it is something to be aware of this is something um that we would want to think about carefully um if there was a reason why you wouldn't allow it but it does provide you the provision to walk through um each of these to make sure that the location does make sense and if there are conditions that would make it better for the health safety and Welfare that maybe you could address those um and then um there are things that people are concerned about typically with cannabis so we just wanted to kind of identify those um one is that you have um in the conditional use standards uh it talks specifically about noise because sometimes that is something that people brought up um and so there is a way that you can address that if that is of concern specifically so that's why it's bulleted is that that is something that you already have these it's just these are specific things as we work with cannabis and other communities that come up as a concern um similarly uh orders are also something that is of concern and so you do have that already and so something you would be able to measure against um and then lighting so the it's felt like the conditional use standards you already have address a lot of the types of uh issues that people have been concerned about uh and that adopting new standards doesn't really help they would still need to be relatively broad um because of the fact that there's a lot of differences that you would have to address so it's felt like these are things that you can look to and if there is also if there is an issue if you issue a conditional use permit and something is happening these are things you can go back to to revisit that conversation if uh if a use comes in and it is disturbing the neighboring properties you would have things to go back to um so you could revisit and address things that might have those impacts which is also part of the process with a conditional use permit I would anticipate based on conversations with heav other communities odor is one of the biggest things we keep hearing about um but that's something that they should be taken care of on their site but if they're not that's something that you would have the ability to go back and address um and that's what the provisions are with a conditional use permit so that's after the fact that's not pre-approval you could address them proactively but there are standards already in statute that they have to meet um so it was kind of I'm just saying that you can do it proactively through the process but also it's nice because you actually have these in place so if it's not working you would have the ability to go back and revisit them if there was an issue so you probably do it on both sides or there'll be no problem altogether and they will be here and it it won't be an issue but since it's new to all of us yeah it's hard to know how this will go you got a question yeah I I got a question so this is uneducated question but you know aren't there like tobacco places where you can buy a cigar and smoke a cigar in the establishment could that be similar with with uh cannabis use like isn't that a thing like there's places to go and and smoke buy a cigar and smoke it would would that be permissible at this retail store yeah I don't want to step on Rita's toes but um yes so micro businesses is one of the uh 13 or 16 uh kind of business licenses and they could be endorsed at the state level for on-site consumption and tell me more um what does that mean you see where I'm yeah I know where you go it's like a cigar shop or something yeah yeah so so within this license of these two establishments right they could have that capability yeah it could it could how and and we're distinguishing this from hemp right just cannabis um yes cannabis micro business I believe is the only one that can have on-site lounges where customers can use there and I don't they still have to abide by the Clean Air Act Right um so I don't know what kind of product they're going to be using uh but yes I think in your statement you answer my next question um so there there could only be a possible two sites where that could occur or can can be a lounge that does not sell cannabis and they could have it um a lounge that there that that's not selling cannabis I don't ocm is not authorized to have a business that's solely like it's non retail it's just like a room I I mean that's outside of what I've read from ocms Powers so I'm sorry I don't know business wise how that you know how how they make any money if you're bringing in your own weed and you know cannabis and smoking it versus I'm just trying to figure out my head what this all looks like right cuz it's all new absolutely yeah well and I should say ocm is they haven't even started like putting out their official rule making yet so this is this is in flux but communities like yours are working to get a good framework in place but it would be a joke to say that you won't be seeing this again so it's going to change tomorrow so yeah that's my next question then is we can come up with all our all these standards and new legislation comes out before January 1 no that would not happen sessions starting yeah that's oh are you talking about rulle making oh a distinction only an attorney could love I'm sorry like no that can't happen um so rule making uh OC's moving through the process I don't know if they'll be publishing rules before January if they'll be official they do have Draft rules online though that are posted that you can review so we could approve all this and then the new rules come out and we we'll be able to make adjustments to our own you will'll have to we'll make recommendations the council will eventually do it and we talked about this that years and years ago when when alcohol was first allowed you know there was were you were on at that prob but there are people sitting in a room probably having the same see I always get called Old just wait long ago I think it as that der it was not that long ago when we did breweries and tap rooms and distilleries I was around so that's not too far but yeah my sense is is that you know whatever commission sitting up here and whatever staff sitting over there there'll be modifications yeah you know maybe more than you want but they'll have to be done and I I think it's going to be a learning process hopefully for Phil and Gary it's not a too hard a learning process as you get into it I mean you guys are the ones that are going to be out there on the front line um so I you know I feel for you guys but uh it is what it is and we'll do the best we can today and then we'll have to worry about tomorrow concern is it'd be hard to roll back things right I mean not if it's a right thing I would and Leah correct me but I would anticipate that we're going to generally know about those things in advance to have time to make the changes before it's not it's it's a little different than like we make a change and it's non-conforming and this this thing is not fast moving just confusing because the information is not out there so I think we'll have time to adjust thank you everybody for answering my questions we want to have these conversations yeah you never know uh let's see okay uh any other things on conditional use before I go on to the the next are other communities most of the other communities using the cup process for their approval or what are they using honestly the ones we're working with are all over the place there is no clear path that I could tell you some are using buffers some are using smaller buffers for certain things some are excluding some things some are really getting uptight about it oh that was not a good word really concerned about it I only say that because size of community sometimes I'm surprised at how much time we spend um on it and they're doing all kinds of extra rules if they can some are deferring to the county and having the county take charge it's really all over the place um generally the idea of kind of the classes like we have is generally kind of the mode that planners have gone in terms of having classes and trying to make it as similar to how you regulate today that's similar some are just allowing it permitted by right some are doing conditional um it kind of also depends upon the feeling of whether you can do conditional uses or not and there's difference of opinion that's the challenge of not having clear Ru making is that it's hard to know actually where our limits are I don't know if you guys all have anything to add yes okay uh let's see so additional standards we did want to note um that you could add additional standards for certain or all cannabis businesses um we are seeing some on uh security so SEC this is an example um security measures to defer deter and prevent unauthorized entrance into areas containing can cannabis or cannabis products shall be implemented and maintained as shown on a city approved security plan um just note that that's a nice thing but I don't know that we any of us know what a security plan is so that's always the danger as we we Tony and Jared will have to evaluate whether it's a security plan with help from others but that is something that you could do also some people prohibit outdoor storage those are kind of two additional ones it it was feeling feeling like your Co your cup covered noise and odor these are things that aren't covered so if you felt it was helpful certainly things that could be added as additional standards um for cannabis businesses if that it's felt like it's needed at this time would would that conflict with the first discussion we had tonight part of this is in relation to tobacco and alcohol I don't believe those are required to have some of this so I mean are we again being selective on the the different product and maybe should we be I don't yeah that's a great question um and one that you all get to contemplate no uh but I mean something to keep in mind is the city and this is in the statute the city will receive a completed application from ocm and they're required to supply security plans to ocm as a part of their application process so not including it um doesn't mean you won't see it uh adding it as a condition though um maybe that gives some peace of mind but again implementation is kind of a question mark on that so I think it's wise to show you guys what other people are up to um I would not one thing on the outdoor storage that strikes me is that alcohol and tobacco I think are different than cannabis relative to outdoor storage meaning we're generally not talking about a type of uh product that uses outdoor storage or that might have outdoor storage if you think about it um just given like here in the in Minnesota we don't really have tobacco producers that I'm aware of um and so that might be that one to me might be worth thinking about because and alcohol you know if you have breweries you're you're doing some things outside but really the kettles are inside and they're protected so that might be something that is different especially when you have cultivation honestly I don't know if they would do that you maybe Tony I'm not sure the uh the process you're planning for next Monday night um but if if they're not going to bring it up can you add it to your list to ask them about it absolutely and the other one that I'd consider I'm thinking about is just um City's plan Planned involvement what did you I'm sorry what did you say City's planned involvement you know um what are they going to have are they going to yeah that's what I'm getting we both am mun for that and what is what is the local mun are they going to have some of the hemp products I I don't know maybe they already do I don't know you're talking about a municipal can liquor store well that's store you know you know I'm un okay yeah and then and then you know just so that you know this is it's not a secret our residents need to know this if there are or aren't I mean some people are going to use it some aren't um but um just things like that to get their impression right away and and I I do know that it's my understanding anyways that if the community does decide to do a municipal store itself that does not count towards the two um retail establishments retail establishments we would still have to allow two additional so yeah just to consider it'd be good to know for everybody I guess might as well talk about it so do you feel like either of these two because if you feel like they're valuable maybe we come back on next week with more language or more examples so that's why I'm curious what I think we should include them and see get council's opinion um I think it'd be good to get the opinion yeah um okay I like you know I like the security plan I got think to myself okay if you go to a a store I was in quick trip the other day and then they're pretty accessible I mean yeah for the people that are working there you know but a bad person can get access to them also um I suspect you know there's there's alcohol right there at accessible there's no security plan but you know again you guys convince me there's other other reasons why to have that okay so um yeah I was just thinking for outdoor storage just seeing what kind of language people have if that's something that is worth thinking about I don't know if it's just prohibition or there's any other standards okay our perspective is those are the standards that we're seeing any other thoughts concerns questions things that we would address I guess I would look to fill on the what we just talked about these two what are your thoughts no I think it's I think it's good to look at it I'm just trying to wrap my head around you know the cultivation part of it you know I obviously I would assume there's going to be some sort of security measure around the the growing operation part of it um I don't see why there wouldn't be and I I think it's important to look at even just the businesses themselves like are they going to you know security wise have it behind the counter have it laying out like a bag of chips or what is the plan for these right and the state is establishing their standards but I'm not saying I'm just saying there are standards that they will have that they have to meet yeah and I'm curious to know what yep what those are you know is it g you get to enforce this any thoughts I'm just laughing at street cop that just [Music] appeared I'm just saying I thought it was funny you guys want a Mountain Dew too [Laughter] my question would be like there are security measures at liquor stores what does this mean like is this like there's cameras right they have I mean what are the security measures like are there liquor stores that don't have cameras I mean ours do right correct I would to guess 99.9% yes y and as Le I think mentioned I think it's part of their application they would have to have a security plan um submitted as part of their application to GM anyway so we would likely see that information when it gets submitted to us anyway so we could always include that as part of any CP application that would come before this commission yeah just briefly the statute so um this is 34214 uh it's a list of a number of things and one of them says a copy of the security plan including security monitoring security equipment and facility Maps if applicable um except an applicant is not required to secure a physical premise for the business at the time of application but if they have a property and they're talking to us their application to ocm has to include a copy of that security plan so I think a security plan I think it's pretty basic like you know you have an alarm system lock on your doors about the that's a security plan to some of these businesses yeah a lot of the merchandise is under lock in key like it's a different type of retail experience it's not like going to a retailer and just buying a bag of chips like it's a different process I mean I don't see any problem if it's in the OMC including in our conditional use right I mean I think why w we want to see I think just get the right the right um verbage I think is what you want some sort of security measure you don't want it to be nothing yeah you know it's not over the top but it's also the lowest of the low either whatever you could you guys come with a recommendation on those I mean I you know we wouldn't do our best okay appreciate that can I ask another question that I'm still curious about so if someone wants to do individual growing in their own home does the city is there any part of code that deals with that or is it just licensed through the state it's not it's not licensed they can do it by right up to eight plants there's a limit on the amount they can do and it's not supposed to be visible that means and there's no but there's no regulation on that then right so they have just by right so if like oh I have 10 and they're never going to figure that out like for that's concerning to me but that's different I just don't care is because the other thing that I thought as far as the daycare and this is like totally out there but my brain went to okay have an inh home daycare and I'm going to apply for plants at the same time and I'm like who would do that but somebody might and so I just I don't know they won't have to apply for it correct I mean as long as the daycare license is going to go through the county and on that well you would think so but I don't know somebody might not see it in their closet yeah I just I don't know that just you're moving through one of the many stages of grief that many localities have been yeah I just don't well well and because of you know my career and things like that of course there's issues regarding mold and additional water use and electrical and all that stuff too so yeah any other concerns we appreciate your patience with us tonight this is why we do this it's the good conversations though and it will shorten our discussion with the city council Monday evening so I mean that's we're trying to condens it so we have as much under on the Forum as we can for them so that because they got a busy night too I'm sure you're doing your job your job is to work through these things and bring up good points so very good that's good any other things though before I move on it's a really tough slide it's the next step slide um so my understanding is Monday Monday do the joint meeting um and then with that we'll create the ordinance language which we already have it in you know we just need to take it from what we have into an actual format um and then you would if everything feels comfortable on Monday then we would go towards a public hearing at your December 10th meeting and then adoption on the 16th so I think so far we haven't had so far it's been good but we'll see if there's new things sorry and again we get the opportunity to hold a public hearing so we'll get similar questions and Tony I'll have the right people here for that public hearing that um can answer the questions if if staff can't and we can't so right thank you very much all right all right that concludes our agenda Tony staff have anything else to add nothing sir commission do you have anything to add if not I'll remind our viewers and our residents our next regular meeting is again December 10th and with it i' look for a motion to adjourn I'll make a motion to return we have a motion is there a second a second motion a second all in favor say I I I we offici adourn thank you [Music] [Music]