##VIDEO ID:2KJNYpnA68M## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e [Music] all right I will call to order the Monday October 14th 20124 meeting of the St Paul Park Planning Commission uh let's start with attendance uh Patrick DS chairperson is here Mr Glennon present Mr mcinerney present Mr Diaz pres Mr Hagerty I'm here and Mr Conrad here all right we have a quorum so let's stand for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God and indivisible with liberty and justice for all so I would be looking for a motion to approve the last meeting minutes from April 8th of 2024 and wave the reading of I'll make a motion to approve the minutes second all those in favor say I I any opposed all right that motion passes uh tonight number five commission actions we have two public hearings concerning ordinance amendments first one is the ordinance Amendment concerning residential parking and tonight we have Mr Sparks with us good evening honorable members of the commission um got an ordinance Amendment it's a slight tweak to the uh parking ordinance um there's been some difficulty in enforcing it the way that it was written but we're not changing like any policy here it's a reaffirmation essentially of the existing policy but just uh slightly tweaking the language to make it easier for when somebody has to like a the CSO has to give a citation that there's like a easy code section to site sort of like breaking it out a little bit to where um like the the way that works right now in code is you're not allowed to park things in front of your house unless it's on the driveway or a parking pad attached to the driveway and surfaced in the same manner as your driveway pretty simp simple concept right but the way that it's worded in it's worded differently in different sections of code slightly so when it causes some confusion when people get cited for it and the way that we enforce our citations this becomes important so we have to be crystal clear so what we're doing here to try to make this easier to understand is under the nuisance code we're going to add a section that says it's illegal to park and store vehicles on private property except for one on an approved parking surface so like in the front that would be the driveway or a parking pad and in the back like if you were to park off the back we'd want there to be some sort of surface that you're putting your stuff on because what happens if you don't is uh the weeds grow up in it and because this is a public health concern what happens on a that can like Harbor rodentia and things of that nature which becomes a general concern so we just try to avoid that that's just a general common thing and by wording it a little more clearly that that's what we're doing and putting it in the section that talks about that stuff um that's that's the Crux of it then secondarily uh we are going into the zoning ordinance we already have sections that talk about similar uh similar you know about the parking in the front on the driveway or the parking pad so we're just reiterating that here because this section was talking about the surfacing and the parking and the storage of stuff to a degree but we want to mimic the language that's in the other part of the zoning ordinance or we're just saying that you can't park in front of the house unless it's on the prepared surface um and then for multifam we want to set that we've had this come up a couple times that we want you have to park in the parking lot you can't just go parking somewhere else pretty simple concept right but when you're giving people like tickets you have to be very concise with how you word this so that's the intent of this it's just just to make it easier to site for the CSO when they do code enforcement one quick question and you made a comment which is for parking in the front you said if you have a driveway and you have like say a drive up pad do they have to be of the same material or they have to just meet do both of thems had to meet a minimum standard if it's in the front of the house it has to be asphalt concrete pavers something of that nature and then the parking pads supposed to be made out of the same material now we've got a lot of really old properties where people have old gravel driveways and stuff like that or dirt driveways and the yeah I mean those are slightly different circumstances and they might have a parking pad that's kind of matching their driveway and if it's not new like this would just be essentially like when like if one of you guys wanted to put a parking pad in you'd be expected to have it to be the same material as your driveway okay I just didn't know if like you know let's say you had a concrete driveway and you wanted to put a parking pad next to it if you could choose to have maybe a lower class material or or there requirement would be no you've got to concrete the pad you've got to concrete that you could make it binous yes you couldn't make it just dirt you know it have to be paved of some sort what makes me think think of this too is like say someone's got their two cars in a driveway see it's a gravel driveway right and they they they got a boat you know and they got a fishing boat and they want to put that fishing boat in their backyard do they need to put black top or or or gravel in their backyard if they want to put the fishing there you'd have to put some down in the backyard to stop the weeds from growing up CU like when you put a boat trailer back there and let's say you don't move it for like a couple years and just sitting there the weeds grow up underneath it and that's what you don't you can't have so we want them to put a surface down of some sort that that's sitting on but it's in front of the house that we require it to be paved okay but in the back in the back you can use something else but it's just got to be something that controls the weeds from growing I guess I'm just in town here there's a lot of people you know during the summer they got their boats M here there whatever and then come winter time well they they put the boat in the backyard and then when they pull it out in the springtime well they kind of like it to be grass I I can't think of any place in particular I'm just thinking in general so it's just a general thing so so like with the situation you're talking about like let's say somebody in the summer had stuff in the backyard that was just sitting in the yard and the weeds were growing up then they could get a ticket for that now the same as it is today right now it's nothing new okay but it's what we primarily focus on is in the front of the house I mean we're not Idina here we're just like in the front of the house you got to be paved and your parking pad has to be paved when it's coming off the driveway you can't park stuff like we got a code enforcement case going on where somebody Parks their vehicle just in their yard in front of their front door and just hops out and walks into the house right that's not you know what we're doing here um we don't allow that currently and but the problem that we have is in some situations people kind of bend the rules a little bit and it becomes difficult for the people who do the enforcement to have clear language that they're referencing in the citations so we're trying to clean that up a little bit okay and it doesn't appear that anybody signed up to speak on this topic yeah yeah once again I don't know how many people know about some of these get together andu I you know just heard about just talking about it yeah kind of curious how many people if they did know well it's not going to change the rules from what they are no it doesn't change the rules it just makes it easier for the CSO to cite it so it's basically the same as what it is right now right I see so basically we' be looking for what a motion to recommend to the city council that it modify the current ordinances listed in your recommendation to was it ordinance 2632 the nuisance and the 74259 right right okay well I'll make a motion that we that we forward these recommended ordinance changes onto the city council with our recommendation that the city Council adopt them as written I have a question oh sorry that's okay um are you talking primarily currently licensed or permitted vehicles um if stuff is out of registration is that a different animal yes um like junk vehicles vehicles that are improperly licensed or unlicensed missing components that's a nuisance of a different type you're not allowed to have on your property like unlicensed inoperable Vehicles stored outside period even if they were on the proper surface they're still they just still can't be there right yeah so I I drive the streets of our city quite regularly almost on a daily basis if I don't have anything else to do and there's multitudes of examples of both of these things you know licensed vehicles in front yards and unlicensed or expired licensed vehicles in front yards and in streets and far outnumbering the parking spots their fixed surfaces allow um I'm all about making recommendations for rules and guidelines that we follow but it's just our csos the people that handle that at this point right and and generally what the policy of the city is is to respond to complaints so like if somebody made a complaint about your property then the CSO would go out there and take a look at it um if nobody complains about it and it's not brought up I mean there would be occasions where somebody might notice it and engage you but that's that's more rare and infrequent we respond more primarily to complaints and the reason for that is that when you're when you're doing code enforcement like if you if you aren't on a complaint-based property to be fair and Equitable you would have to do like routine inspections of everything but if you're on a complaint basis then you're responding to complaints and you're addressing complaints as they come in because you don't want to be unfair to people so you have to pick a path where it's like all right what we're going to do is when people complain we'll respond to the complaints and will enforce the code to the letter of the law because if you like are doing something where you're claiming that you're doing inspections on everybody and you don't then you get into issues of like treating people differently like if you notice something and you go after one guy then he's going to be like well hey wait a minute that guy's got it too and it's like well we didn't drive by his house right so that's why we do it on a complaint basis primarily it's just to be fair to people we're responding to complains and you know if there was a situation where you wanted the you know the counil wanted the CSO to like drive by everybody's property um that could be something that could be explored you know yeah so I mean that's that was going to be my next thing which is you know the city council wanted to change the policy right you know it doesn't mean you have to have somebody driving around every hour on the hour I mean you you know if you had an established pattern if you had like okay we're going to do code enforcement Drive buys you know X number of days a week or X number of times per month and you're right there's G to be times where you know somebody's car is parked in front of their door and sometimes it's not going to be there right so there's no there's no system that's perfect or necessarily right it's find a system stick to that system so that it's reliable predictable and not subject to people accusing you of being of being you know partial to this you know say no these are the days we do it you know between these hours that's when they're doing it that's when the code you know a code enforcement violation was noticed so again it's just have a system stick to the system but just you just pick one or the other yeah I mean there's probably pros and cons to both right which is the complaint system means unless somebody fills out a complaint or calls City Hall and complains it's just going to sit there right as opposed to you know again again it's it's labor it's time to have somebody go around and do all these things and you know then you got the issue where you know we're relying on one person's judgment to decide or two people depending on how many Code Enforcement Officers you'd have that person's judgment then becomes sort of the community judgment and right is that what we want or not want I don't know is how is this person going to are they going to be stringent are they going to be LAX are they I mean right so if you wanted to have a a a code enforcement officer that went out and just did inspections they're going to need a lot of Direction they're going to need guidelines rules they're going to need some way of knowing like how do I do my job because it's not just driving the streets and issuing tickets there's probably a lot more behind that again which is these are not insurmountable obstacles or or problems that can't be figured out okay going and issuing citations is probably out of scope for what we're really looking at it seems like we're just trying to create some sort of um code that can be referenced in the event that someone is breaking the city code so I think whether or not we go out and do some sort of enforcement out of the scope of what we're trying to do here we're more just trying to give some sort of precedent to the CSO who is issuing a citation I don't think we're going out and trying to issue more citations right right yep good summary yep we're just trying to make it more clear and easy to use yeah in these situation hopefully this does the trick otherwise you'll be talking about it again in a few months all right so um I made a motion looking for a second I'll second all right all those in favor say I I I any opposed all right so that will pass our second proposed ordinance review or ordinance change we have today concerns the Cannabis ordinance okay so new topic uh there was a state law change last year where well where they um made it so they legal ized cannabis that's you know you can smoke uh pot now and grow some pot I mean there's a whole Myriad of new things in the bill that was passed where that impacts us though is as a community we need to um identify what components of this model ordinance from the state that we're going to incorporate and which parts that are options we're not we got a couple a couple areas that we can discuss okay now now first first and foremost um there's the different types of cannabis businesses and you're supposed to match them to uh similar things in your code and there's the cultivation which you know you think about the cultivation businesses those could be in a building like there's models where they have a building and they have fluorescent lights and they have water going into the plants and that I guess we're just kind of taking a a jump here into the content I'm not I'm not going to do a big explanation on on this other than what we can control and what we can't control so let's focus on what we have under our baileywick here and so matching the types of businesses identified by the state law to the appropriate zoning district and what you're supposed to do is make it be like if a similar use would be allowed in that zoning District you're supposed to say that this one's also allowed in that zoning district and so with the cultivation that's the first one uh because that could be in a building and it' be a big building and it would have kind of a similar use style to something that would be in perhaps your I2 District we view that as probably being the most appropriate now what's the I2 versus the i1 that's a good question right I mean if you think about it the i1's like warehousing it's light industrial so it's more like warehousing a storage of things uh like a contractor having his business where he's got his office and his storage area for his business equipment that's i1 so you think of Min storage facility would be i1 I2 would be like well the refinery I to um things like manufacturing processing things that you wouldn't want next to somebody's single family house that's I2 i1 you've got that strip of i1 uh if I may grab our trusty former zoning map um this is the I say former because this is the old zoning map but the same principles at play because the new zoning map if you recall from some of our past great discussions we compress the zoning districts down into a fewer number but the principal is still there this light blue is the i1 it's the same as what the i1 is now right so this is i1 along here um and you see it's close to residential zoned areas right so if there's something that you don't think should be in that Ian like adjacent to people's houses and stuff then that should be I2 right I2 is kind of off by itself and you anything goes in I2 pretty much i1 it's a little more close to the vest so like the cultivation business thinking that that would be more of a fit for the I2 so that's what we put in this draft then um manufacturing clearly I2 right because no manufacturing of any typees allowed in the i1 it's always I2 the wholesale business well now that's where get into maybe a little bit more of a gray area and because we have to be fair with this wholesale is kind of like a wholesale businesses like where typically people store stuff to be sold at the retail level that could be considered more of a i1 possibly or an I2 that could go both ways then um retail we've got four retail commercial districts so we put that in there transportation again that's kind of where we're getting into more of the storage base you're transporting stuff you're storing it to be transported things like that i1 I2 delivery kind of the same way i1 I2 so that's kind of the Judgment that we made on this um if you want to dig into that a little bit more we can but principally that was the one major factor that we were looking at is we're just trying to match it to what seems to be a correlative zoning District based on what other uses are in the zoning District it's not whether or not we want these things because we can't you can't you're not allowed by the state to just say no reefer right you know we've gota we got to say that we're putting it with stuff that it's similar to and then when it comes then to the other aspect of this from a pure zoning standpoint the reason for the public hearing that we're holding is the use buffers you're allowed to have a th000 foot buffer to a school 500 to a daycare uh 500 to a residential treatment center and 500 to uh like a park or a place where children may gather and with that um you know there is a slight policy aspect to this because you have the veterans park where you could be consider that to be a place that would be buffered if you do this and that would wipe out a good chunk of the downtown area but you would still have other areas that would be available which are like the areas more by the gas stations as you enter town because we did those are Zone like retail commercial now and those would be out of that buffer but that buffer would pretty much if we want to look at the visual aid here again that's the park this is the downtown the 500 would put us pretty much in this area here so you're going to wipe out a good CH downtown area with that maybe that's not I mean if you want to do the buffer you want to be safe with it I mean that's fine but that's something that you can recommend to the Council on whether or not to do that and we can even like show them a map like with the dot on the park and like the buffer it to the 500 so we could illustrate to them what we're talking about but um if you you don't have to use the buffer I mean I guess my initial thought on this if you want to know my opinion as a professional is that maybe you do go with the buffer to start and then if somebody wants to play something within the buffer then that would be a code Amendment and you could consider that at that time that's what some other cities have you know that have been doing things similar to that they just you know default to the where it's at see how this goes and then maybe change it based on the situation on the ground so like if somebody came in wanted to use an underutilized commercial building downtown for this type of use maybe maybe people wouldn't wouldn't mind right and they'd be open to that but maybe you want somebody to ask for it first before you just do it right so that would be a consideration um you can't use bigger numbers than these though and um you have to these are the max you can have so you could do less you could say 500 to everything 250 to everything something like that but this is what you're offered that you can do and um so it's a starting point from that perspective um if you want to you could also just say no buffers needed in our city we're fine with it right or you could like maybe try to draw a distinction where like you Zone certain types of real you know retail uses differently and require them to get a cup but at the same time if they're meeting the criteria you can't deny the cup then so it's kind of a pointless cup where you're going to just rile people up if they don't like it and then you're not going to be able to deliver anything for them right so that's that would be the concern with doing that and you know you want to make things cups that you're actually thinking about the criteria for and that you know if you're not meeting that criteria you're not in right but anything with this that you made a cup it's like what are you really going to deny them ever on you know you're you're going to get you'd have to come up with some criteria that you're not probably really going to be allowed to use by state law and so you're going to have to rubber stamp it and if somebody doesn't like this idea and you've invited them in to give input and then there's nothing you can do about it when they give their input that might not be the best approach so that's why we didn't include that in there but we've got a model ordinance where the things in the yellow highlights are the things where um I already just kind of made assumptions about things that I how you I thought you would like to do this so like for example examp Le there's um we're not applying this ordinance to the lower potency hemp edible retailers those already exist and it's we haven't had issues so um then there's this civil penalty amount which is the max amount you can do so we just went defaulted to that um you can do a preliminary compliance check which we just just you know defaulted to saying yes you know we can have somebody from the PD go take a look at it uh we don't have any additional standards that we want that that um that we're looking for to apply to the applications because really I mean we're not looking at anything beyond compliance with the statute right we're not creating our own system here then um we've got whether or not when you change a location uh of a business we would ostensibly want to prove that they're not violating that buffer wherever we land on that right so we would require that to be redone then we've got um nothing new to add to renewals and then um we are not going to put we're not proposing a standard between two um different cannabis businesses because we have limited commercial space and if we had two competitors that both wanted to come into town we're not going to say just because you're first you're the only one necessarily I mean our licensing would handle that so just in terms of fairness just no distance between them uh then we have to do this part that we talked about with the uh zoning districts and part of the concern is if we go I2 with all this stuff and not allow some of these in the i1 that we talked about you know like I said some of them would be i1 and I2 because they do somewhat match uses in the i1 but also if we only allowed these things in I2 chances are we're going to have a a slight issue because I2 is essentially the oil refinery and quid's property and so we'd be essentially zoning out these businesses which could get us some scrutiny on that topic so being making sure that we're being fair is important in this regard so if it's similar to an Ian use we're we're saying it's allowed right and then um we're not giving them a break on any signage they can have signage like any other business and that uh that that's pretty much the gist of it um so again I mean I think the big thing for us tonight reason we're holding the public hearing is because technically that buffer stuff is a zoning regulation and then making sure that we're being correct about the zoning districts that we're using and I think in both regards like generally again limited cultivation to I2 it doesn't seem to fit with i1 um but manufacturing uh we only allow manufacturing and I2 but wholesale transportation and delivery it seems like we'd be potentially tipping the scale to not being exactly fair if we just said I2 with those so saying i1's possible and then um retail we're just saying any any place we allow retail you can get a license to do this if you're meeting the licensing criteria within the buffers suggested buffers and the buffers yes correct and the buffers again I I did I applied the buffers to properties and the biggest concern would be that park that's downtown so that would be the one that would probably have the greatest impact um there's schools are are too remote to um commercial areas it could impact over here the this light Industrial Area you saw your your cannabis delivery business couldn't be right here because the school owns this property so um but it's going to be a marginal impact on those areas primarily just downtown you're going to wipe out a good chunk of the traditional downtown with the buffer to that Park so that's the gist of it if you're generally fine with what we've got here so we can would it make would it make any sense to just like walk through the ordinance Page by page and look at these yellowed sections and and maybe go through them I mean you could um I just kind of did that a little bit uh but you know you can go through that if you want and uh a lot of these your choices are kind of minor on these things but if you want to do that feel free we really need to focus on the buffer and Zoning districts and if you're well one of the things I was I was think concerned about like when you talk about these establishing buffers is uh section 2.3.5 location change so your suggestion is but what if we try some buffers and then we see how it goes and maybe somebody comes in or maybe somebody who establishes a business says hey I don't I'd like to move it someplace else um so it makes a difference right whether or not this 2.3.5 if somebody wants to move if someone wants to move their business or somebody wants to move around whether or not we're going to treat the movement of a business as new or we're just going to hey if you can do all the same things here that you're doing here then go ahead and move and to me that seems to be like the the more business friendly more rational way of of handling which is let's assume if you can if you can put it together over here and run the business properly and stay in compliance just picking up and moving the stuff to another location that is otherwise acceptable shouldn't um put somebody through the additional cost time or hassle of having to sort of reapply so I would my suggestion would be that a location change simply be um allowable subject to compliance right not a new regist I think that probably would seem and and to be clear if you moved and we didn't do this you wouldn't be allowed to move within the buffer if we have the buffers in code right so I mean it says subject to other regulations right so but we just wouldn't be hassling you and make you like if we do the pre-inspection you wouldn't have to do that again you know things like that you'd be fine my other question was 2.5.3 which is uh suspension link so if there's a problem um I I guess is there something that is there a recommended length of time is so let's say someone's out of compliance let's say there's a complaint so we want to balance shutting down a business versus giving ourselves enough time to look at the complaint is it a valid complaint are they out of compli so um I don't know what a reasonable time is um and I don't know what you know what do What would an average you know ordinance compliance investigation look like for a for a business is that something we can get done in a week is something that we want 30 days to do um I'm assuming that you know depending upon the finding that's made is there an appeals period Well I mean it says we can suspend it for up to 30 calendar days and that's just in the model ordinance which is made by the ocm but they're saying that we can also potentially extend that if we were waiting for determination from the ocm before reinstating so if they're taking longer we can put that in our code and say that we we will await the result of our thing until they're done and this already exists for uh liquor establishment right yeah yes so be the similar yeah similar application I mean I get nervous about just saying you know have things like well we can suspend it for 30 days but if we want more we're going to take more right because that that that level of uncertainty is not um it's not user friendly it's it's not certainly not business friendly it's like well uh I mean we don't want anyone to be out compliance and you know let's face it I mean there there are bad faith actors out there who may or may not you know be happy with this kind of business and may want to just come in and nitpick or make a an anonymous complaint and and you know you put a bus I mean take any business in the city and put them out of you know you you you shut their doors for 30 days I that that's huge I mean that that could be and again these are all small businesses I mean there 30 days of not being able to to operate could be fatal just to a small business so I'm I'm I guess I'm I'm I'm just curious again I've never done a code enforcement investigation I don't know how long they typically take so if 30 days is an appropriate length of time um then that's fine if it's could be something different I mean maybe that should be something worth discussing I think the the way that I would recommend that we handle this is we just say up to 30 days but that if they're still in hot water with the ocm that we're that we're not going to give them back the we're going not going to undo their suspension if they're still not out of compliance not in compliance with the ACM just because of the fact that we're relying on their expertise and their authority to determine whether or not they're meeting the statute and that we'll just kind of go along with what they say in that if if there's still a problem we're not going to give them back their license until they've fixed that um just so we're consistent with the ocm right so that would be my recommendation on that because it is kind of a new thing and we're not really sure how this is going to go and we just want to make sure that we're not you know 30 days is up but then they go on for like two years with the O battling the ocm over something it's just what we'll just stay out of it until that's fixed and it's easier to relax things later on than to try to overextend them after we already passed something we just pass the code I mean it's just it's a code Amendment so it's not easier or harder it's just it just what direction you're going I mean it's the same meeting it's the same public hearing it's the same I mean so shrinking and growing there they this they're the same thing they not one shouldn't be more difficult than the other yeah but when you give something and then try to take it away that is more difficult whereas if you have if where where you restrict something and then you give more it's easier to do that but when you give them more and then try to take it away that's very difficult well if the buffer was in place how long would it take a person to come on in and say I want a conditional use permit to go in into downtown you know where you're saying it would not be included because of the park it's one Planning Commission away cuz basically they just have to come down uh request that we have a Planning Commission and then the Planning Commission moves It Forward brings it to city council so would so it would take a month to two months two months three months okay so I I've got two questions on this 3.1 this buffer requirement so I'm going to start with maybe the easiest one which is the city of CH Paul Park shall prohibit operation of a cannabis retail business within X feet of another retail business well um okay go down in Broadway I mean how many how many businesses Within or feet of each other are all selling alcohol right we don't have a rule that says well if you're going to sell alcohol here we can't have another establishment or another bar or or some other place that sells alcohol within so many feet of you I mean we've got buildings touching each other that have alcohol sales so I guess I don't see why we would I don't see why that would be an appropriate thing because we're not applying that standard to other similar businesses if for some reason somebody wanted to open up a cannabis shop and somebody want to open up one next door a few dollars down the Market's going to decide which one wins or loses or which one's going to be there in six months right so I'd rather let people and markets decide and I I don't know why we would apply this rather unique rule to this one kind of business when we don't apply to any other business business that's in a similar situation which is they're selling mood altering intoxicating products so I don't think that that's really um something that should be in the ordinance I don't I don't there's nothing we do to anybody else why are we doing it here other than we have some parochial you know concerns about this one thing when there's all kinds of other things happening down there and uh just to be clear when we were talking about downtown area with that Park I mean the language is technically an attraction within a public park that is regularly used by miners including a playground or athletic field and you know that Park doesn't really have anything in it that would be necessarily considered that but there could be an argument made perhaps someday so we're just being just so we're upfront about it when somebody were to come in and want to be downtown because there the proximity to that Park you know somebody uh involved could be like you know what we view this or something could be put in there or something that's in there could be conru as requiring that buffer so I just brought that up to be clear but you could also argue easily that there is nothing in that Park that would require the buffer well okay so yeah my comments were mostly to the putting multiple businesses next to each other my next concern was where you just went which is which is this this 500 ft buffer from the park um I don't I don't think that that's well for that particular part of town for that particular Park I mean if you put a pin in the park and you drew a 500 foot circle I mean how many businesses are within that 500 Circle that sell alcohol that sell alcohol and are open to miners being in there and even have you know gambling you know gambling so there's a half a dozen places that sell liquor have gambling and allow miners in there so again I don't think that it is reasonable to have that 500 foot buffer for parks for this business because we're not doing that to any other business that is similarly situated and we're only looking at this one little area and I think that by knocking out a major portion of our you know retail area probably isn't a great idea I mean I mean I understand that veterans again it's it's on the zoning map it's a park right I get it not saying it's not the ordinance gives us a little wiggle room it says well a park where you know you maybe would normally find people family friend you know kids playing that's not you know there's no there's no Jungle Gym there's no seesaws there's no Teeter totters right I mean that's not a park where kids are fre and again even if kids were going there well they're still within 500 feet of a half a dozen businesses that are doing similar things so again absence some parochial mindset I don't know why we would put additional barriers or additional terms and conditions on a similar business that might want to be in an area I mean you know the the counterargument is hey if this is where we have got a concentration say our bars our restaurants the liquor store maybe this would be a better place to have this business and not a worse place right so I don't think that the 500 foot buffer for parks in this particular spot now I mean I don't know if we can slice the ordinance so thin to say this park in particular or in this zoning District in particular and we could leave it open to applying to the other parks that are designated in the city yeah you could do that okay you could say this park doesn't count so if you guys ended up putting something in this park that would be viewed as an attraction you could say it doesn't count right yeah but there's multiple family gatherings that take place at that Park which are within 500 feet of a dozen places that sell alcohol have gambling and allow miners into them so again and keep in mind other cities already have this uh buffers in place correct that's what I was wondering yeah what have you seen that has worked in other cities well this is all new so it's this is yeah this is brand everyone's everyone's putting these model ordinances in place now so no one's there's no I mean I guess you could look to other states or other municipalities you know in other states but I mean you can't just call me we can't call up you know the Newport we can't call up Cottage I mean we can't call up Sister cities or we can't call inove Heights or South St Paul and say hey guys what is your experience it's all kind of new right yeah that's where I like to how Nate's he he's involved in different cities like we know and sometimes it's kind of nice to ask the young man say what has worked in the past I I I I'm sorry my back is tuned so I don't always see you I apologize no problem I know there's not a playground in that Park but I run the car shoulder every week and there's two to 400 people in that Park every week all summer families kids and it's a use for a wide variety of things from senior citizens that are just listening to music to car enthusiasts to children that are running around with their parents getting a hot dog from the Alli building and coming back and listening to the music so it's it's not a park per se that gets used for a lot of recreational things the traditional Park use but it's a park that's probably has more people in it on a weekly basis unless there unless there's a rental up at Heritage than any other Park in our city just food for thought no no and again I'm not denying that I believe you and it's true but it doesn't change a fact is why would we apply a rather unique rule to just one kind of business when there are again a dozen similar businesses right there that everybody walks by that everybody uses and that do the same thing so I I'm I'm I'm if somebody can say well there's something unique about this one business that's completely different than these other ones other than just the thing they sell right because that's there's no difference right so all those kids and all those people are are going by those same dozen establishments that again y have alcohol have gambling and allow miners into them right so again I'm just my my my instinct is always to look at something and say okay do we need it is it appropriate right because there's a thousand things we can do there's a Thousand Rules we could make but should we right so the the question isn't can we do this the question is should we is is it absolutely necessary is it Mak sense is it reasonable in my mind the 500 foot buffer and again as Nate said if we could simply say the 500 foot buffer applies to all the other Parks but not to this one just because of of its proximity to the business districts um you know if we can slice the high that thin okay I can buy that I I think that makes some sense right um and again and part of the rationale is the whole point of this this this ordinance stuff the statute which is the the legislature anticipated that cities municipalities would be hesitant and they' be like not in my town not my backyard so the oran or this the the model statute is written okay we're going to give you some latitude but you you got to open up some space right so that's the mentality it's like okay then let's treat this business like we would treat any other business right they're going to have to follow compliance they're going they're going to have co- compliance you know we're they're going to the sheriff are the you they're going to send people in there to do test buys and I mean we're going to have the you know we're going to know where it is I mean all the things that apply to the gas stations that sell cigarettes to the bars the liqu I mean they're not there's not going to be any less scrutiny on this business right so the things that we we hope keep our community be safe they're all going to be there so then I as myself okay what do we do we really want to take that chunk of our downtown that we want healthy we want vibrant we want businesses in there and just remove it from consideration for again what I consider a sort of a you know parochial and and actually almost in a weird way unfair right well just because I'm selling cannabis why can't I be within 500 feet of H I mean cuz that bar that bar that liquor store that restaurant I mean you can just go right down the street and point your fingers so let's I would prefer to adopt a mindset that had a little bit more Equity or fairness about it right let's let's treat all these businesses like they're businesses like they're run by professionals and we're this this is a new business so this is new territory that we're looking at I think we should take take the suggested uh buffers that are in place here well it's not a new business the selling of intoxicating materials is is not new it's just they selling a different kind correct exactly that's what I'm talking about so it's not new it's just a different variety okay right I mean right yeah so that's why we should yeah it's a new it's a new type of business selling a new product and you said it would only take him 60 days to go for a exactly okay yeah well I it's not a huge hardship well if I to other things we did that to uh Duffy's gas station well don't get me started on that one um so well it's just you you said the same exact things but on the other side for the gas stations and now you're on this side for businesses well that's inter it depends upon which type of business you're interested in I'm interested in business I'm interested in treating people fairly reasonably equally and this ordinance creates an undo burden on potential make a motion okay you can make any motion you want okay and my motion is that we uh put forth to the city council uh do we need to have a official public opening and closing of a hearing um right no right Mr chair you could just acknowledge that the public hearing is open okay and then Clos right so I okay so I will officially here I'm going to open up the public hearing on the issue of the Cannabis ordinance seeing nobody in the audience and I don't believe anybody has signed in to speak to the Planning Commission or make recommendations I will then close the public hearing officially there you go and I make a motion uh that we adopt everything that Nate is suggesting in his proposed ordinances and present that to city council including the buffers as he has stated in here motion second a second all those in favor say I I actually let's do a roll call because I don't know okay so okay Mr Hagerty I uh nay nay nay Mr mackinery yeah Mr DS I oh I'm sorry I apologize no no Mr I'm sorry okay uh it's three to two uh motion passes okay okay so we'll take this to the city council at the next meeting and then if um there may be things on this topic that are back before this board in the future and um but we'll forward that to the council then okay uh next on there uh any new business which I guess I always think of new business as sort of a a an opportunity for anyone to maybe make a comment or a thought or share something if they want to we don't have staff reports and I as far as I know we don't have unfinished business so the last agenda mine in my new business so if anybody has anything they're free to speak up Mr chair um just so you guys are aware we do have I believe right now three applications pending for your next meeting we've got an amendment to the oil refinery cup we've got an ordin Amendment and a conditional use permit to change the Residential Treatment Center at St Thomas Church to be just a residential facility uh not where there's no like treatment being offered the people in recovery would just live there so that requires a code Amendment and the third one is um it's this one right mhm no uh what was the third one again which one is this one is that the refinery yeah so it's the refinery oh the concept plan uh we got a concept subdivision concept plan review how could I forget it just slipped my mind it was uh on the south end of town where uh Geneva is on the border of the city between us and Cottage Grove um there's it's some leftover land that was owned by the property owner who sold the majority of their property to BNSF it's a little triangle of land on the other side of the tracks so it's on the east side of the tracks adjacent to the uh single family to the north but it's the last little piece that's in the city um wait I have a map I can show you it's uh right here okay this property uh concept plan for a single family housing development for that property so you're going to need to be ready for some uh serious thinking and talking one month from now sounds good having another other business then I'll entertain a motion to adjourn a second all those in favor I I this motion or this meeting is adjourned e for