##VIDEO ID:jfNu8wObbBY## e e good evening I will now call this meeting to order the first order of business is to adopt the agenda for tonight's meeting Commissioners is there a motion to adopt the final agenda make a motion to adopt the final agenda as submitted got motion second motion and second all those in favor I I I oppose thank you the motion carries our next order of business is to adopt the minutes from our October 15th 2024 Planning Commission meeting Commissioners is there a motion to approve the minutes so moved a motion I get a second second motion and a second all those in favor I I opposed thank you the motion carries we will now move on to our discussion items our first item tonight is item 3.1 consider a variance for two public accesses at 7240 Rolling Acres Road this item does include a public hearing I will now turn it over to city planner Brian McCain for his staff presentation and then I will open the public hearing for all those in the chambers this evening that wish to speak on the request thank you chair and Commissioners tonight we have a request for a variant for two public accesses at 7240 Rolling Acres Road the property consists of two unplatted Parcels which are accessed via County Road 18 or Rolling Acres Road it's also adjacent to the Mount Olivet site just to the West here it's currently zoned R1 low density residential and within our Shoreland District because it has a shoreline along shuts Lake there are a lot of elev ations and wooded areas on the site as well as a small area where you can see it slightly encroached onto the Mount Olive it property with that boat launch uh this property does have an existing conditional use permit for this boat launch which goes down from County Road 18 and weaves through the site and the elevations down to the Shoreline the request this evening is a variance to our municipal code section 10729 which states only one driveway access from the RightWay is permitted per lot they are requesting the second access uh which would split the site so we have one access just for the home and then the second access which is not existing would just be used for the boat launch and then they would remove this portion in the middle that connects the two staff have had a few meetings with this property owner about this proposed variance um and explored some additional options including moving the existing access to the north uh we heard back that it this is not feasible due to existing retaining walls topography and setbacks on the site um and that the two access points are necessary we also explored a lot split shown here uh the principal use would still require a home to be constructed here it wouldn't allow the boat launch was which is an accessory use to remain on its own on the property and it would also conflict with the existing conditional use permit for the site additionally it would be unable to meet the minimum Shore land District requirements for uh minimum lot size width things like that so the DNR would unlikely approve that request as well and then the mount all of it access using an access extending from Mount all of its existing parking lot down to the site was explored uh but they weren't able to acquire additional land or easements to make that possible looking at the Shoreland requirements they do meet all the standards uh with this proposed second access they would be compliant with the current land use setbacks and bulk standards they would meet our Bluff and steep slope requirements since they're not altering the impervious area down toward towards the shoreline at all they are also not proposing any new impervious within 100 ft of the shoreline and the property would still have more than 25 or sorry less than 25% impervious surfacing so the variance considerations as you all know we have to look at reasonableness uniqueness and essential character of the property the applicant did provide reasoning for these which was provided in the narrative with your case this evening uh looking at the reasonableness they are not proposing to change the use of the property it's still remaining as it was used a 100 years ago uh the uniqueness due to the county road reconstruction which results in a divided median creating undue hardship for the property owner uh second access would provide more safe and reasonable access to the private boat launch instead of doing a uturn uh with the existing access and then the essential character uh will not impact the existing locality it will actually improve that because it's providing safer and more feasible access to the site so we did notice in The wona Patriot on November 7th for the public hearing this evening we also sent out mailers to Property Owners within 350 ft of the property boundaries we posted on the city website and at City Hall and staff has not received any comments as of this evening attached on the screen here are some proposed conditions for approval a few of them worth noting is that the variance would only allow the second public RightWay access uh the property also could not be split due to those items that I mentioned previously so a second home would not work for this site to utilize the existing access uh the encroachments onto the mount all of it property would have to be removed and no portion of the driveway shall encroach Within drainage or utility easements and then additionally that Carver County will have to permit the additional access since it is a county road so with that I have a sample motion for you this evening to approve deny or table the variant if you would like to include any additional conditions besides what staff proposed as well that's your discretion uh staff can answer any questions unfortunately the property owner was not able to attend the meeting this evening so I can try to answer your questions as best as I can thank you I will now open the public hearing is there anyone in the chambers this evening who would wish to comment on this item seeing no one and hearing no additional public input Commissioners may have a motion to close the public hearing so moved motion can I get a second second yeah motion is second all those in favor thank you the motion carries and the public hearing is closed I will now open the floor for the Planning Commission to discuss Commissioners any questions or comments just one question do we know for sure that there will be a median that will impede access to the existing uh driveway yes as as chair answered yes we're fairly certain that uh median separating uh Rolling Acres Road will be included as part of the Reconstruction for County Road I'm realizing now it's 13 not 18 so sorry about that um but yes we're fairly certain that's going to go in which is the intent of this application for the second access and it's the boat launch has been used for 100 years so that was one kind of historic thing that I noticed I guess my question would be how does the median impede the situation as it currently stands aren't you usually turning right into there anyway or are you always turning left into there where now there's a wall yes uh chair and commissioner I I'll go back to this image to highlight some of the issues I guess um right now as it exists you're able to turn left into the site and the way that this driveway is oriented is when you turn left into it you're able to go down almost in a straight shot um whereas if you're coming from this direction exclusively with a boat attached to the back you essentially have to make a sharp U turn to make it down towards the boat launch whereas with the second access point they would able be able to do a simple right turn to get down into the site I have a question did you consult with any um traffic experts with the two driveways of the church in that ramp right next to it I could imagine with there being trees or whatever there's somebody turning right and somebody thinking they can haul out and turn left uh chair and Commissioners I will note that this exhibit that's in front of you this evening was uh forward as part of the project team for County Road 13 here so quite a few traffic experts I think have been involved and have seen and discussed these with the city and the county uh to determine if these access points were going to be an issue at all for Sight lines and they didn't see any not that I'm aware of no thanks and Carver County supports this I read yes yeah that was going to be my next question question was number five on your list is number five likely to happen because we can say yes you can you're granted the variance but then Carver County says no this is our road we're not allowing two access points it sounds like they are going to allow two access points correct we just included that condition to formalize that it wouldn't occur unless we had a formal approval from Carver County okay how far apart are these two driveways I think a little less than 200 feet I think it was 180 when Travis and I looked at it but I'm looking at him because I can't recall exactly you're talking about the house and the new one versus the the the points between these two driveways yeah you can kind of tell from the in the image 15 how long the car 12 feet no 10 8T no Plus 20 that's a small car 10 I'm just thinking out loud probably keep my mouth shut while I'm thinking yeah I just did a quick measurement from the edge here to the edge of the existing access it's about 180 ft so at least 150 feet let's say and then from the other Rolling Acres to that is or sorry back to the other one roughly there why is that not showing up let me try that again sorry about that I'm just trying to come up with any concerns that we're not thinking about with yeah three access points within 200 feet of one another yeah another 50 ft so three access points within 300 ft let's say well I don't part of it is the boat launch and the driveway are both private it's not like it's a public boat launch I can't imagine it gets much use the bat launch I mean it's not like it's they're going in and out constantly it's they're both going to end out with a right in right out aren't going to be able to cross the median um and then the Care Center you got workers going in and then family going in and out again that's right in and right out and there's going to be a turnabout right at the church Y at interlock and we'll be a roundabout but so yeah they're only going to be able to go in right or exit left they're not going to be able crossover but probably within a th000 ft there's going to be four entrances going in and out as the church is further to the north um there's a couple houses South as well the trail is changing but because the main Church entrance is going away the South entrance is becoming a right in right out for the church then you got the Care Center then you got the boat launch and you got the house and then you go down to the trail I mean is this going to be used like twice a year that's I don't know how much how many I mean if you're pulling out of there you're going right back to the oh I guess you're not listed as water or uh Su water access for um the city right carford County I think is emergency yeah in emergency situations I could see our fire department potentially having to use this access I don't know if our fire department has ever used this access in the that's a good question yeah good point most most boat private boat launches are not used more than a handful of times a year and so the safety justification I think sort of pales really the question for me is how long this median extends does it truly extend the length of the property involved yes it extends it'll go from interlockin all the way down to overlook okay is where the median will go from from and then there's another roundabout down over Overlook The Pedestrian pass will be a underpass that's right so there's technically not a turnaround between Overlook and interlock and where the two roundabouts are going to be all of the infrastructure costs are owners to who's who's paying for the entrance is that part of the county project or is the homeowner property owner paying for that or no I don't know I'm not involved with the money on the the public project specifically sorry I can't answer that I would assume I would assume that the um with the construction that that it would be the county but is the is the homeowner aware that there may be a charge back for that at the same time is that part of their that's a good question I I'm honestly unsure is there assessment back to the whole M yeah I know they've had discussions with the project team about this but I don't know what the the financials come out to all I know is that they applied for a variance to get the second access I look strictly at the planning yeah the only thing I would add into your notes is to make sure that that connection driveway gets removed oh that's a good suggestion yeah we can absolutely add that as a condition if the planing commission desires right I know it's in the notes that they're planning to do it I think it needs to be listed as a requirement a requirement or yeah because it wasn't in one of the it wasn't one of the five but yeah that would make sense the permit is responsible for all the costs just with Administration enforcing the variance the variance specifically so not the the road project or exactly I'm kind of I mean I guess I would just point out that it looks to me like there'd be less asphalt on the property which is good for the property if you have that house and you have a people going by even if it's a few times a year with their giant boats and trailers and you have a car out in your garage or whatever on your way I think that's a you know pain in the butt and so you know ultimately to me I think they're making that property better not worse um even though we may not be able to find a specific reason they need they need to do you know that we could that we could suggest it's not required but to me it looks reasonable if I'm that property owner I want to have access to the boat ramp and I want to have my private drive and do we know if the um if the boat ramp or the path to the boat ramp is paved currently or is it just dirt it's all paved it is paved it is paved okay any more I'm good hearing no more discussions can I get a motion I'd make a motion to recommend the city council approve the variance with the staff proposed conditions including the removal of the current connecting driveway i' second and a motion and a second all those in favor I oppos thank you the motion carries our second item tonight is item 3.2 considering an ordinance to zoning code selection 6.1 this item does include a public hearing I will now turn it over to city planner Brian McCain for our staff presentation then I will open the public hearing for those in the chambers that would wish to speak on this request thank you chair and Commissioners this request does come uh from a property owner as you know any property owner within the city of Victoria can apply for zoning text amendment to our zoning code uh so this applicant is named Brent groer he comes from 8601 ridg ponds Drive uh there is a little background to his request he has applied for a detached garage on his property um for a building permit now through the building permit review process we discovered there was a discrepancy with the impervious amount for his property he lives in Deer Run and Deer Run has an impervious cap of 25% through their PUD even though his property is not in shorland so regardless of Shoreland and DNR requirements he still has to comply with that 25% impervious we've discussed this with him and tried to explore other Alternatives since he has applied for a tree permit to remove some trees on his property which has already been done uh he's had some expense into the project already um now we are trying to find alternatives for him one of those is the permeable pavement option that we've discussed for other Shoreland properties in the past uh going this route would allow an approximately 600 squ ft garage for this property owner so when we're talking about that permeable area we're looking at two sections here so our general definition section 16-1 which covers all of our zoning code uh does not have this second portion which our Shoreland district has where it says that within a Shoreland District that 2% allowance for permeable pavement is allowed towards a property's impervious surface maximum so what Mr grebner is suggesting this evening and what staff has reviewed and supports is that uh taking that Shoreland definition with that second Counterpoint and putting it into our general definition section to allow a 2% permeable allowance for any property within our R1 residential district uh what this does is it allows the 2% for Mr grer but as well as any other property owner looking to make imp pervious adjustments to their property if they're already at their Max uh resulting in in most cases only a few hundred square feet so not a large difference and this actually creates a conformance between our zoning code section our general definition section and our Shoreland section um and then as I mentioned he would be able to construct the desired garage that he's looking for and the benefit for Future Property Owners and then this also would reduce the number of variances that the planing commission could potentially see in the future while also cleaning up our code and um would provide an alternative for Future Property Owners instead of a variance or any other adjustment to zoning Cod or statutes so with that we have a public hearing this evening on the item it was published in the wona Patria on November 7th it was also posted on the website and in the monitor at City Hall uh we did not have to notify any specific Property Owners even this do even though this does come from one property owner this zoning code Amendment still affects the entire code uh so we did not have to notify specific properties about so with that I have motions for you on the screen this evening uh the applicant is not in the audience this evening so it looks like he was UN unable to attend as well but staff can stand for any questions you may have thank you Brian uh I will now open the public hearing is there anyone in the chambers this evening who wish to comment on this item seeing and hearing no additional public comment Commissioners may have a motion to close the public hearing so moved motion can I get a second second yeah motion and a second all those in favor I opposed thank you the motion carries and the public hearing is closed I will now open the floor for the Planning Commission to discuss Commissioners any questions or comments just one question to be crystal clear this extra 2% then would give the homeowner the additional square footage needed to construct the garage and stay within the impervious requirement correct okay I'm good then I saw something in your comments that this brings us also with State statutes or is that just just a note that okay that if he's pursuing a variance there's not necessarily uniqueness criteria to get that variance so just noting that compliance with State Statute as part of this okay pretty straightforward seems pretty reasonable make a motion to recommend the city council adopt the ordinance as proposed here second motion and second all those in favor I oppos thank you the motion carries our third item tonight is item 3.3 consider two ordinance ordinances regarding nonconformities these items in include a public public hearing I will now turn it over to city planner Brian McCain for a staff presentation and then I will open a public hearing for all those in the chamber that wish to speak on this thank you chair and Commissioners last one for me tonight I promise um so a little background on these proposed ordinances we have a lot of Transportation projects coming to town as you know we just discussed one of them recently um so with that requires some Acquisitions on some properties for right of way um what that does is it creates non-conformities for some properties some properties might have a 30 foot setback currently and may be brought down to 25 feet when that happens um it's called a non-conformity and to address those you either have to get a variance to make it conforming or uh some other method has to be approved so most cities when it comes to public Improvement projects such as transport ation projects have ordinances in place in case something like that happens we don't have 50 variances coming at our door and our property owners aren't paying that expense to bring the variance forward so we have two ordinances to review this evening that were reviewed and approved by the City attorney the first one being to our non-conforming uses section mainly having to do with Part B here any non-conformities resulting from land acquisition for a public project shall be classified as lawful non-conformities without necessitating a variance and then also striking out this note about non-conforming uses shall file for a conditional use permit because when that happens it makes it conforming and we have to do um updates and inspections and verify that and that's not something that we want to be in the business of doing for non-conforming uses and then the change to the municipal code is a pretty easy one as well it's just our definition sectioned for subdivision specifically we allow three exceptions where a property is not required to go through our subdivision process um one of those being creating a cemetery lot or if it results in um 20 acres or larger in size but this third one here we're adjusting the resulting from court orders or the adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundaries existing we're just putting public Improvement projects in this so that you don't have to go through a plating process either for a public Improvement project so as I covered these are the changes that we're discussing this evening removing the cup requirements for non-conformities the addition of public projects without necessitating a variance and the addition of the public Improvement projects to exempt it from platting requirements so with that once again a public hearing was noted in the wakona patri on November 7th it was also posted on the website and the monitor at City Hall and it does not have to go to specific Property Owners since this affects the entire code that I have a motion for you on the screen and staff are available for questions thank you Brian I will now open the public hearing is there anyone in the chambers this evening who would wish to comment on this item seeing none and hearing no public input Commissioners may I have a motion to close the public hearing so Move Motion can I get a second second motion second all those in favor I oppose thank you the motion carries and the public hearing is closed I will now open the floor for the Planning Commission to discuss commissioner any questions or comments Mak sense seems makes sense I've got a question for you you would think it does um if there is a uh land acquisition with a non-conformity acquired for a public project and then that's a lawful non-conformity and if that project then is uh changed so that it does not have a nonconformity and then a new non-conformity exists that falls under the original one is that allowed or disallowed in this circumstance um chair and commissioner sakur if I'm tracking correctly what I'm thinking is that it adjusts that non-conformity it doesn't create a new one it just replaces it so if you're talking about our code standard is 30 foot front yard setback a public project comes through and reduces it to 25 ft and if you're saying another one comes in and brings it down to 20t that 20 ft is the new standard I'm saying if it goes and uh the non-conformity is 20 feet and the project changes it to 30 feet and then some other time later on it goes back to the 20 ft where the original non-conformity exists would that be allowed I guess I'm thinking about as a ratchet right if you sure if you have it that's the max it can ever be as a non-conformity and if there's construction or changed under to the property it can only go one way which is better not worse sure in that scenario um if it's if both of those examples are part of public Improvement projects they would both be exempt in this case I guess it depends on what happens over time if our code is altered again in the future where this is removed then yes someone had would have to go through a variance process to get that so so if you if we would get the uh parcel and there was a non-conformity there could we change the property to reestablish that same non-conformity if there was something there that was torn down or changed or whatever where it would remove the non-conformity and then you'd have the the ability to reestablish the non-conformity which I don't if you remove it I don't think you'd want to reestablish it I think is my point gotcha I understand so if a non-conformity is removed by a property owner of their own accord if they have the ability to reconstruct and meet the standards of the time they have to do that they can't retain that non-conformity unless it's a maintenance you can maintain non-conformities you can't replace non-con that's the question thank you so in this scenario this language wouldn't allow them to reestablish nonconformity if they change the property no and that's intentional that's statute that you can't replace a non-conformity you can only maintain it got it thank you any other discussions comments do we um the second one I don't know that I fully follow followed that can you take another pass at that one yeah sure so when a development comes in it goes through a subdivision process meaning we have to look at uh Landscaping requirements roads all the things that we evaluate as a group when these developments come in that's called the subdivision and the definition of that here is being being altered where if a transportation project comes in with a right of way plat which which is a very specific plat altering Road boundaries what this does is that allows them to not have to go through the lengthy subdivision process they don't have to apply for sketch plat preliminary plat final plat they can just run that plat by staff city engineer and file it it would basically administrative you guys wouldn't see it in normal circumstances if that makes sense I think it does I just uh the only question is um could you perceive that as being you know well the city doesn't have to do something everybody else does why potentially but this is a fairly standard ordinance in other cities as I mentioned our City attorney has looked at it he actually helped draft this language so if he doesn't have any concerns about that perception which he is very fully aware of in the communities that he works in um I can't say that staff has any concerns either about that perception so this would be like if they were purchasing let's say they were moving the road Shifting the road and we're going to take 20 feet of the backyards of everybody while the road they wouldn't need a subdivision moving the road out of their easement MH is what is what I think is where it comes into play as long as they're staying within their easen it really doesn't affect it's just when they're shifting or taking property or buying acquiring property from homeowner yeah the the city is not in the business of developing land themselves so we sell land to developers if we own it but this public Improvement project piece really relates to Transportation projects easements the thing that cities already have control over got it so it becomes an administrative efficiency thing whether so whether it goes through the plating or not it's uh ship is sailed per se is that is that how I'm hearing it correctly I mean that's what it sounds like it could still be held up in the plating process right yeah like when it comes to maybe like the city finds a new water treatment site or the fire station is a good example we still went through a subdivision process for that and brought it forward to be public facing so that is an instance where this wouldn't necessarily apply we're talking about Transportation Improvement so where would this be applied in the past in Victoria yeah um I mentioned right of way plats that's going to be the most specific one there was a right of-way plat with Carver County along County Road 11 somewhat recently okay um so that isn't one that I believe you guys were required to review iway 5 do you want to speak on that another example that chair Comm another example that'll be coming up in the near future with Highway 5 realignment of the road property acquisition and things like that there's a lot of setbacks that are going to get cut into and what this does is this will simplify the process that we can administratively handle you know all those Corrections without creating a negative impact upon those Property Owners as far as the conforming status goes and without having to bring every single property individually to the plan commission for approvals they can just be taken care of administratively it keeps things a lot smoother and keeps the bureaucratic red tape to a minimum I get that but I'm just saying this is for the definition of subdivision and to me any public Improvement project is going to adjust a lot line by the re relocation of a common boundary it's kind of redundant in my book but the attorney I'm not a attorney if the attorney thinks it's something that we should have within the this definition I guess it's the right thing to do but well there are or were few properties I don't know back in their days and I know there's thear Road as properties where the properties actually owned to the middle of the road um because that's how they were put in many years ago that's what and so in essence for any improvements on those types of roads they have to replot those lines um which I don't know if that's what something would like this would work into or not but guess my point would be do they have to go through the whole resubdivision project process because they're moving the road I don't think so I wouldn't think if they do that's ridiculous but or refighting the line yeah they which is already covered anyway I splitting hairs that don't need to be split it's probably fine um anyway um I would make a motion to recommend the city council adopt the new ordinances second yeah motion and a second all those in favor I I oos motion car carries fourth and final discussion item tonight is item 3.4 consider a cannabis ordinance this item does include a public hearing I will now turn it over to associate planner Travis beerley for staff presentation and then I will open a public hearing for those in the chambers this evening that wish to speak on this request thank you chair commission um it started for the Cannabis ordinance which we've already seen before at the last meeting so a lot of this is going to be a little bit redundant um but just a quick background to summarize there's been a lot of things with State Legislature in 2023 creating um adult use cannabis as legalization goes uh we aren't expecting to see any retail licenses till next year in the spring however the logos into effect where LI or where retail licenses could be issued as early as January 1st um there's been plenty of Staff reviews and proposed ordnances that's tonight is based on the planning commission's feedback as well as the city council's where we are in the process so far we've gotten through a lot of things we're at the public hearing um we do plan on bringing uh the results of this public Hearing in a draft form to the City Council next week and then at the following city council um requests adoption U just as a reminder the role of the office of Canabis management or ocm they are governing the application and Licensing process they also set the rules for enforcement as well as productivity and what all the different business types are allowed to do the role of the city is to get it into our zoning code initially uh we want to look at our performance standards we want to look at the community standards for what best fits our community reminder we're not taking a look at use that's regulated by Statute um with the updates to the zoning code we're going to be looking at the use tables now right now in the draft ordinance it has the use listed they haven't been put into tables yet that'll be an adjustment that'll be made uh coming up in the next couple months but we'll have it on the books there's a few things we want to look at such as size and if that's requirement we want to put in for certain performance standards um the other thing that we need to do is update our definitions uh the city is required to allow at least one uh retail cannabis business or at least one license somewhere in the city um just as a reminder of what the laws work for individuals far as your possession limits your consumption you have to be at least 21 um home cultivation is now allowed um that does require Security in the plant you can't just grow out in the backyard and let anybody get access to it um and then unlicensed sales so if you're buying if cannabis flour currently in the state of Minnesota and it's not underneath a license with ocm it's probably not allowed you still can't buy it through unlicensed sources going in the future for businesses a big piece of this is the advertising piece that's going to affect us the most you can't appeal to person's under 21 so it sets restrictions to where science can go if a sign does go in a place where it could be targeting individuals under 21 that would be an ocm issue to deal with they would do the investigation do the reporting and the corrective action if required uh it's also required to have warning statements uh it can't be misleading or have false claims and it's not permitted on any Billboards we're also looking at the tracking systems for the supply Chains It's really tightly regulated this is just an example of how tightly regulated the states keeping everything um testing everything's got to be tested before it could be sold that's not just for concentration it's also safety of the user um home delivery would be permitted as well so there's people that can get a license that all they do is they go pick up product and they drive it to somebody's house underneath the state license something that recently got a good explanation on is there is a 10% gross tax on cannabis sales um not everything gets taxed but what does get taxed um ocm is going to take 80% of that 10% tax and they're going to goes in state general fund the remaining 20 gets split between the county and the city so when we look at it 1% of all the gross sales that can be taxed the city would get in a revenue if it's a half a million dollars in sales it's $5,000 for the city um and Senior staff is looking into how that's going to affect a budgets and where that money would go um we did or um the community development director Brewington and myself uh visited the the excuse me the County Commissioners meeting this morning where they had adopted the County ordinance on cannabis um and just to kind of summarize in there uh they set the limited number of retail registrations to two for the city of Victoria um and this is all based on if we provide Authority and it would be 10 for the entire County in total um the draft ordinance that's presented does give the Authority for the uh retail licenses to the county to take care of the administrative part of that um if we wanted to control it ourselves say we wanted to go to only one which would be our minimum or we wanted to expand it beyond the two what would happen is that we would just amend the ordinance to keep the authority with the city and not delegate it out um the ocm rules won't be finalized uh till maybe the next month or two they do need to present it back to um our legis legislature for final adoption and so we'll see what those look like there's some expected changes but not a whole lot uh the number of retail permits being issued by ocm is still 150 from the last time I seen issued by a lottery program with roughly half being social Equity applicants um it said the first retail permits could be are going to be issued in the spring as early as January 1 but we don't expect to see anything issued that quickly um just to look back at some of the questions that have come up we talked about uh open and public use there's a stat sheet you can't openly use um cannabis products that create any type of vapor and things like that in public so think of it kind of like alcohol can't just walk around with an open can of beer just it's not allowed um there's the personal use and possession limits which we kind of touched on earlier home cultivation a concentration and strength that's in the Cannabis rules uh that's something that has recently come to light in the media of different businesses doing different things trying to get around that um so another tight regulation and safety of the consumer looking at there um we're also looking at the requirements for a temporary event permit which is in the draft ordinance which we will touch on later just a couple public resources for anybody who wants to look up any of the rules or has any more inep questions you have the office of cannabis management you have the Minnesota statutes as well as the Cannabis rules and there's links in the presentation for those but the purpose of the night is to go over a public hearing we're going to cover zoning code 16-1 which is definitions um and then also section 29 which is going to be the new section once adopted staff didn't receive any comments from the public prior to the meeting uh since last time we talked uh we did publish in the public notice in The Patriot sun on November 7th including on the lobby uh here at City Hall um the topics that that we want to cover tonight we want to stick just with the topics of the ordinance and that way we can stay a little bit more focused and see how it relates to the city so further public hearing tonight more specifically at definitions Administration registration of a business requirements of the business temporary cannabis event permit as well as the enforcement rules we're taking a look the definitions that that we have in the draft ordinance that are highlighted in red those are definitions that ocm wanted us to put into our ordinance those are in addition to the uh definitions that are in the Minnesota statute uh we also have with Administration we got our typical legal stuff as well as the to delegate the retail registration authority to Carver County uh so and then the other part is there's a consent to the registration which says basically we agree to allow this to happen three requirements for cannabis business um we want to make sure that we're not creating a situation for our business owners where they could accidentally break the law including our ordinance or statute so the hours that are proposed follow along with our on and off sale liquor licenses so if you are an establishment which has on sale liquor as long as your license is good then our ordinance would allow you to continue to to sell those type of products that includes the hemp derived products such as THC years and that's the main driver there um but if you're just a retail store outside of uh any type of alcohol then you're restricted to the same hours that we restrict off sale liquor um advertisements they have to conform with the sign ordinance it's a big thing there's also different requirements that were shown earlier that statute has as well as ocm has for rules on what you can and can't do probably the biggest thing for us with the advertisement piece is the display of the cannabis and cannabis products so that includes anything from uh paraphernalia to use the products to the products themselves they need to be inside the store they can't be from the outside so a passer by can't just see a whole Shelf full of cannabis flour or any of the other various hemp products that are created uh we we would require that if a retailer wants to change locations within the city they would need to reapply for their permit and and that's a way that we can just verify zoning and address any other concerns that might come up at that time uh we also went through and set up the permitted in different zoning districts in the previous meeting we saw the tables I have those in here as well but we just listed them out later on that'll be shifted into the tables and they'll and we'll take care of that when we get there because there's still a few things staff needs to work out one thing you will notice in here excuse me one thing you will notice is that there's no buffers listed anymore the buffers were removed because when we looked at it there wasn't a strong direction to go either way in addition to that a lot of the regulations with cannabis will be shifted over to the municipal side of the city code um at something that we'll probably be doing early in the spring or later in the spring but sometime early next year is when staff is looking at making those adjustments how that affects what we're doing today and the effectiveness ordinance it doesn't have any effect it just puts it in a different part of the code where it better Alliance in the long term we need to look at business types uh there when we're looking at all our types there's 13 licenses um and we're just going to take a look at these out of all the license we're not going to talk about the transporter license event organizer delivery service or medical cannabis combination license um either one they won't have a hard building that they would be in or for the medical cannabis combination license still Falls underneath the the retail permissions so there's no reason to set something very specific up differently for that as a reminder of the areas that we look at we've got our CBD which is circled in the red circle we have our agricultural areas which are in the green and then we have our C1 and C2 commercial districts LED in the blue just south of of where the map is so we're pretty spread out when we're looking at for residential districts we'd only be looking at the agricultural where we would allow a cannabis business to go um and that's your cultivation uh micro and meeso businesses can also do the manufacturing and they can do product packaging and they can do retail as well so that'd be similar to uh an apple farm you can go there you can walk around their trees are growing apples are droing you can still buy the product on the site um cultivators they can just grow and then they're required to sell when we're looking at our non-residential we're looking at everything else and basically we want to keep our retail within the CBD the C1 and the C2 districts uh you'll notice that micro business and medical businesses aren't included in there and that's because they have the ability to grow and there's better use for the space in the long term for the community our industrial district though would allow for for cultivation but not for the retail so they can have cultivation they can have the manufacturing but it keeps that away a lot of it is because because of where our industrial zone is located it's on a curve you got to go down a slope it could cause issues if you if we increase traffic in that area uh without a long-term process and since we only have 30 days to respond to an application that's not long enough for the city to make sure that we do it right and safe for all our residents next up we got the temporary cannabus event like I said we have 30 days to approve or deny a permit application uh it's restricted just to the CBD District so just the red that's highlighted in the green on the screen it's not permitted in our P1 and open space District which is our Parks so if someone did apply for a permit and they wanted to go down to the park behind City Hall which is a Three Rivers Park we wouldn't be able to issue that permit underneath our current code the other thing with it is there's restricted hours to when it can go we don't want it to go too late and um on certain days and not be disruptive so a lot of that fits with inside our noise rules now we can revoke the permit at the terms of the permit AR violated which is one of the powers that that the city will hold and that's put out in statute as well the other thing the statute does is it lists off a whole bunch of rules that have to be followed such as distance away Odor Control security making sure that minors and prohibited persons aren't partaking and making sure more or less that it doesn't become a nuisance for anybody else uh so it is very interesting to where those spots can go and and the city does have some discretion in how and where temporary event or cannabis event permits would be issued and how we would enforce that uh the overall enforcement is with the city we're responsible for the Enforcement Administration of all our ordinances uh we can delegate our Authority um which would be to the Carver County Administration and that's mainly with just the uh General administration of getting licenses issued um as well as the Carver County Sheriff's Office who are the law enforcement that we have in town in addition to that ocm will manage um just not their rules but they'll also be helping to manage a lot of the state statutes and restrictions and those include inspections penalties uh corrective actions as well as any revocations they feel would be appropriate so if we have a violator and we don't and catch him or the county doesn't catch them or whatever if ocm catches them ocm has the authority to take any of those licenses away as well going through our next steps after tonight um we will if if we were provided a recommendation to move forward uh we'll bring it to the city council's a draft But ultimately we want to get the final draft for consideration in front of the city council we're going to take a look to see if we need to change or add any performance standards within the zoning and then we would up update the use tables with that information so again tonight it is for the public hearing uh specifically to talk about the topics on the screen uh for just the section 29 1-5 as well as the definitions for that I can stand for questions thank you Travis I will now open the public hearing is there anyone in the chambers this evening who wish to comment on this item last chance [Laughter] Steve hearing no additional public input Commissioners can I have a motion to close the public hearing motion to close public hearing motion can I get a second I'll second motion and second all those in favor I oppos thank you the motion carries and the public hearing is closed I will open the floor for the Planning Commission to discuss Commissioners any questions comments I only have one question uh there's an accommodation there for testing facilities uh is that all going to be done by the state is it by county or because we have a retail operation do we have to do testing in the city uh commissioner that's a good question all the testing uh it's listed specifically in the rules but my understanding is ocam will take care of making sure those products are tested at one point they wanted cities to do it I'm not an expert in that and I don't know if we would want to get somebody who's an expert to do the testing and spend that time so there's a lot of push to get ocm to take over that role which to our understanding they will be taking over and handling business opportunity to to build on that question there's a requirement as I recall that there be at least annual um visits to retail locations to ensure that product isn't sold unlawfully to people under age 21 is that a city responsibility and if so have we delegated that to Carver County uh commissioner that would be delegated to Carver County um as far as any type of tobacco or liquor checks that would be done to it' be done the same way see and then the office of cash management will also be doing their own compliance checks in addition to that type of stuff and um help me understand why have we decided with Carver County or why has Carver County decided to issue two retail licenses as opposed to zero or one I the the county looked at it and the formula that we can use is one for every 12,500 which means for Community ours are under 25,000 that means we have to allow one what they did is they looked at and said well we'll do we could do X plus one for all the communities and and then we set a limit based on the County's population so it allows flexibility at the lower levels but sets a maximum the only Community that's expressed they won't be partaking in delegating the authority of the county is the city of wakia this point okay and to clarify that's two retail versus two licens correct that is that is to retail okay so you could still have a cultivator on top of it or or a meso business or uh the the hemp products that can be sold those are different than a Canabis retail license so THC beer could be sold in any liquor establishment presumably correct if they have the appropriate licenses for it yes so they need a separate license for THC and fused beer that is my understanding because it is a hemp product interesting okay and there's no cap on those we don't have a cap with the local level commissioner but I don't know uh the state rules on hemp products okay one question about the county and this came up in here in this but we're deferring some ordinances to the county and it looked like the county of Carver was supposed to have 10 different retail operations is that correct yeah uh commissioner yes they're limited it to 10 for the entire County and that's just the communities and townships which have delegated authority to the county okay so it's limited to that my problem with that is when I do the math I got chan Hassen with two I got chasa with two I got Victoria with one now maybe two that's six then you got Waconia they get one then no other community has to or being forced to have a retail operation can we be forced to have more than two by the county in order to hit their 10 number commissioner that is a great question uh I want to just unpack the two different parts uh to it the state allows the at the county level versus City level for us to determine how many minimum licenses were required to issue um for for the retail part with that we can use the County's population and then we can limit that number throughout the entire County which that limit is 10 once the county grows and hits the next level and needs to be at 11 then that'll be 11 but in addition to that each City and Township underneath the County's ordinance is set with the limit that goes with that so if we add up the total limits for two is what the county has us at and then you have Chan Hass and every and Chas and everybody else when you add all those together that's going to be higher than 10 but once they get to 10 it satisfies the requirement for the minimum for the county total um if we wanted to the county could change the rule and say that we have to accept a higher number at that point we would go ahead and discuss that and determine if an amendment's required to where we pull the uh the authority from the county and we keep it for ourselves which allows us to set our limit underneath state statute which in this case would be one currently but the other part to it is if you pull back like wona w conia if they were underneath the counties um de or they delegated the county they'd be limited to two as well but because they're underneath their own won could have as many as they want as long as they allow at least one so it would be up to that Community to determine what their maximum would be what is the reason for Toria to delegate to the county as far as permits we are to allow a commissioner delegate into the county saves on saves Administration on our end and really doesn't change anything we still have to approve the zoning and the location so that power is always going to stay with the city the county has an entire department which handles licensing and handles all this and they have professionals who understand the process where to go and how to deal with any complaints that may arise so for the most part it it adds an efficiency to the licensing program as well as takes off um an additional Mandate of Staff especially so we can focus on other things um and we currently have them also handle our LIC and tobacco licensing so it it makes sense it keeps things smooth and efficient um it's one thing that at the local level we always strive for unlike higher levels of government so we can keep it efficient we definitely want to do that and so we don't have any other form of Licensing within the city nor do we have staff kind of understanding of that role the licensing that the city does ourselves it's either handled by the state or it's handled by the county but we still will always have input on those that's the big thing is we're not giving up our right to say no we're just saying hey we don't want to do the paperwork do we have to have one by by commissioner by State Statute we're required to allow for at least one adult use cannabis retail license for every 125,000 residents that come to the city so that means we're required to have one until we hit 25,000 then we're required to have two so I know wanted to stick to the plot here but one retail no other license is required we do not have to we only have to permit the retail we don't have and then and then is there any other type of business that we are required to have in our City Commissioner my understanding is no so we could there are several different types of businesses that we went through ch ches in zoning and we said these are not these are not things we want in our city and you know they were I don't know from adult stores to um several different types of other stores that we we discussed and we can prevent those from coming into the city is that right if we don't want them in the city we can prevent we're allowed to choose the uses that we want within the community just like we would if we want to say bowling alleys are allowed or bowling alleys aren't we have that right when it comes to the different uses that go far enough the different uses that were're looking at to put into the use table we can say you know we don't want that um I would be careful with um putting that into our code um we would want to be able to justify why we wouldn't want that as far as land use or safety or anything like that but I think my point is that if we decided that that we didn't want a cannabis retail location in the city of Victoria we couldn't prevent it correct with the retail part portion no we cannot but we could prevent any other type of business we wanted to in the city of Victoria not not all there's some First Amendment businesses and um some adult use businesses which were required if they're applied for but those are those are protected by statutes um what we can do is we can create reason performance standards that make it so that there's a compromise between being required to have these type or certain type of business and how we want that business perceived uh publicly by people who may not know what it is so the other thought I had because it kind of drives me bonkers to be forced to have to have some type and I'm not saying it's good or bad for the community eventually who knows right we could look at this in a year and say wow we want three more wow we didn't want any um however if we were to designate a certain type of zoning condition for this unique retail requirement and put it in the spot that we were to decide would be the best for the city because we know it's going to have to be there could we could we make that decision to make a special zoning code that would permit then that business to be in the location we in a sense saw foreshadowed it to be commissioner we would be able to do something like that that'd be an overlay District um my concern would be that it might get messy and have legal challenges to it the best way that we would want to do that would be through a conditional use permit and that's been something that's been highly discussed and has been pushed for by many communities throughout the state the issue with the conditional use permit is if we got an application we might not be able to get a public hearing with the Planning Commission and then get in front of the city council before the 30-day rule hits and then they automatically get it without any conditions so there's some things we're working on one advantages that we do have is this is new and this will be the first year that Minnesota handles it just like every other state they have their own specific rules Michigan's rules are different than Colorado's rules this is also one of our legislative years for our legislature next year is going to be the budgetary year this year is the legislative year so there's going to be a lot of lobbyist groups including groups like Metro cities that we're part of that have an influence on how laws are created uh League of Minnesota cities also helps with getting feedback from communities throughout the entire State on different things and presents that to our legislature so there's a lot of things that could change in the next 6 to 12 months um we'll see what those are there there are a few things especially that 30-day rule every meeting I've been in that we've been talking about the the Cannabis rule cannabis statute that comes up how are we going to get that extended can we get that pushed out to 60 days or 90 days to have a chance to review put reasonable conditions on and then go through that process conditional use permit just as a reminder is a permitted use where the city can put on reasonable conditions but it's still a permitted use um you you can deny that but it's very difficult and has a high standard that needs to be met I guess I would just suggest we consider um brainstorming whether or not that overlay District to to coax the permit to be in a certain area that we would enjoy it being versus where we would not enjoy it being uh because if we do that planning now if we figure that out now now uh versus when it's too late um it'll be too late I don't know and commissioner that's one of the other things that we looked at on the screen the only spots that you would see it are going to be they're away from for the most part uh residential neighborhoods schools um of a lot of our Parks um so yeah we we do have that and the other part to it is it's one of the reasons we also looked at moving into the municipal side of the code um and that's and that's part of the process with this and we're keeping an eye on what's happening with the legislature and the subcommittees and with what ocm is doing and waiting to find out what their final rules are um so it is there there's a lot of lot of different things that are happening unfortunately we just we're not per to those conversations until they're completed this is at least the third time we've discussed the Cannabis regulation and um Travis and Jen and I'm sure others have done tremendous work an incredible amount of work and resource dedicated to this at this point my sense is that we have more questions than answers but we have a January one legal effective date for this new regime and so I think there's going to be a lot of figuring out as you go along um I fully support delegating to cver County the licensing Administration and enforcement process that makes some sense to me but um I do think that we're going to have to continue to come back to this as the regime evolves because it is Ben you you raised a number of important questions I think there are many more around the temporary licenses whatever those events are called um again more questions and answers yeah certainly court cases will um will occur and that'll have some pretty Major Impact I I would expect yeah we'll see either either good or bad well it's the one compromise that kind of is there is going with the county it doubles the amount of businesses that would be potentially pot potentially right yeah that was basically my concern too was but you also have 150 licenses Statewide being submitted throughout in chair commission if I may the total number of licenses and Carver County that's also one per Township for the retail so it's not just cities just to kind of throw that out a little bit con Township and Township and Lake Town Township lown Township so here M you brought this up so I'm just throwing it out there for brain storming purposes there's a lot of concern about having cannabis sold in CBD just from my travels over the last 90 days you brought up tax I understand how we would get that is there a way we can put an unreasonable city tax onto a cannabis retail store so that our location wouldn't necessarily be so appealing to them or is that I don't think we want to make a record of imposing on reasonable taxes to keep people out but we can regulate time place and Manner and and I think you know some of the questions that we've been discussing are around the those issues agreed but I think the only way to stop it would be to like sue the state of Minnesota commissioner that is that is one option I would recommend talking with the city attorney before we go that way uh as far as taxation goes from the city side we're limited under statute to what we can tax and usually it requires a legislative action for us to tax and those are generally used for Capital Improvement planning and to pay for those type of projects but that would be a tax on all our businesses not just uh the sale of cannabis good I'm just throwing it out there you brought up you brought up you brought up tax earlier and what our revenues are going to be and five grand plus whatever we get in the general fund doesn't seem like it's that great tax won't support the effort exactly my point all right no other questions for me I have one last question regarding kind of getting to the point of the 150 the lottery so if there's got to be one in the how does this Lottery work if there's only 150 in the state commissioner is there a chance that no one will even be able to so commissioner that's an excellent question um there are believe 857 cities Plus at least a thousand townships uh throughout the city or excuse me throughout the state 150 licenses doesn't get divied out real evenly throughout the state what happens is that they're saying that the first 70 will be for social Equity applicants those applications were able to be submitted back in August um nothing's been issued yet but the first 70 will go to those applicants in addition to that the remainder will go through the through everybody else that doesn't qualify it's projected that the majority of issued licenses will be to Minneapolis St Paul the first string suburbs uh duth Rochester and St Cloud and then possibly Mano so you're talking the majority of them are going to be concentrated throughout the state there some of the larger communities um such as Minneapolis have gone through and said hey we want as many of these as we can get uh the the 150 limit is to keep from an oversaturation um and c m said they would keep that limit in place through 2026 before they would look at possibly expanding that and a lot of that's for an economic purpose a lot of that's to see how this really does affect the the economy safety and comfortability of of minnesotans so there's there is a probability that no one's going to get the lottery in our community commissioner it is a very real possibility that nobody gets it it's a very very real possibility that there could be all 10 retail licenses issued on the first go in Carver County it's it's a lottery yep we have no idea but the one thing with cannabis sales is that it's unlikely you're going to get a bank loan and it's very expensive to start up so that limits the pool of applicants right there to begin Cash Money More comments um chair Commissioners uh if there's no more questions I do have a recommended motion to move this on to the city council for consideration and I would like to remind the commission uh we're going to bring to the city Council two times and it'll be the second time that we're going to uh ask for for them to consider adoption so if there are questions or comments after um I'd be more than happy to uh talk to anybody individually or take those comments uh and get them presented to the city council could I get a motion I'll make a motion to recommend approval to the city council for adoption of the Amendments made to the zoning ordinance section 16-1 and section 29 as presented second motion is second all those in favor oppose motion carries Commissioners that concludes our items for this evening moving on to our miscellaneous section of our agenda staff you have any miscellaneous items yeah just a few um thank you chair first off we would like to thank uh or congratulate commissioner Pon on his election to city council uh looking forward to that in January to go thank you uh secondly Quick Trip has applied for preliminary plot so we have an active application that you guys will see in the next few weeks here for that first commercial site in our South growth area and then Travis and I have been working very hard on the residential code updates so after all this Canabis business is done uh we will be bringing something forward for you all to look at for first draft of that and then I think Jen has a few business updates for the group I wanted to share some great news about our downtown west project so that project has officially closed as of last week uh Marco mlan will be breaking ground here on phase one of downtown west located by the Dairy Queen uh yet this year so just a reminder it's 145 units with a 2 acre Green Space so very excited it's been two years since this project has started so um that'll kick off that project um moving forward here um November 30th from 11 o' to 1:00 we are going to be celebrating our small business Saturday event downtown Victoria businesses are going to have uh promotions some events we're going to have games and such um out front uh in our downtown area and then our light up Victoria our big holiday event is December 5th from 5:30 to 7:30 we did extended an extra hour this year due to um all the people that showed up last year we are expecting around 2,000 people this year so it's going to be wild and exciting so bring your family friends um and hopefully we will see you there thank you thank you Commissioners any miscellaneous items let evening no more items this evening could I get a motion to adjourn so moved second motion to Second all those in favor I I oppos thank you the motion carries