big time good job I like the overall process one thing I would like to see for 2025 is a better understanding of unit economics say that one more time a better understanding of the unit economics of the city I think I've mentioned this a few times in the past but just getting a better understanding for what a mile of road costs us to maintain the the key pieces of infrastructure that we're responsible for are we really able to attain enough revenue from the kind of development that we're actually seeing to pay the costs of those items and you could think about you know Public Safety impact of having 100 new homes or 300 new homes in a year what's the rate that we need to continue to invest in you know officers and overtime and equipment to support Public Safety in those new areas and snow plows and Trail maintenance just so we get a sense for are we on the right track from a long-term budget fiscal Health perspective in in that regard uh in order to gather some of that data right now we lack some of the sophistication or the tools to do that and so that will be a good discussion for us during strategic planning if that's a goal it might be in the acquisition of certain software or certain tools to make sure that we are gathering the data over time so that that it's not just a swag it's actually if data is going to drive decisions we want to make sure that our data is accurate yeah maybe if you want to follow up with Jay you you can have an idea of what to propose uh at that session some options to look at great um other than that there be just kind of general direction that'll be brought back to us at uh 12 truth and Taxation meeting will be on uh December 12th sounds good anything else in the budget good deal we're good on to new business we have uh 8A which is the Cannabis business regulation um and I believe Jay that we're just kind of doing a final look through and that this will also be brought back to us in December um corre in December in two three weeks yeah okay for the actual probably public hearing and um well the first the public hearing will be at the planning session okay um which is yeah the first Thursday of the of December um and then for adoption of that of an ordinance on the 12th on the 12th y okay and so John's here to talk if you have any questions about it uh or if you have any anything in particular you want him to highlight joh you yeah thank you mayor members of council um you have in your packet a um draft business regulations ordinance for cannabis uh just for a little bit of background uh you recall in 2023 we dealt with um an ordinance to adjust for the legislation that got passed that year which allowed some of the sales of some of the lower potency P Edibles the gummies things like that um we also added a couple of uh additional uh parts to that relating to public use drug paraphanalia things like that what uh what this would do would take that section that chapter 119 and uh um have basically repealed in place with these RS the the same Provisions that we dealt with in 23 are rolled into this um and what we're going to be doing is um and just to for the council's benefit um I worked from the model ordinance that was prepared by the office academ's management so ocm um that offered to cities uh kind of their their suggested ordinance in compliance with 342 which got passed last year um um there were some obviously decision points in there and there was also a few things that I thought should be tightened up and did and and what you're left with is sort of some high level decision points and Direction you can provide as Jay alluded to the the process tonight we're just going to be doing a little bit of info gathering for directional purposes um Natalie's got a few maps that you can that you can show to give you an idea of what some of this stuff may look like um there'll be a business regs ordinance there'll be concurrently a zoning ordinance and then probably a fee schedule adjustment uh that'll be brought back to you on the 12 um the reason that it's important that we do this dually is that most of the authority uh given to you by 342 is based in local zoning Authority um you're as a city we are not given any licensing Authority for example we have a a little bit of authority to register certain retail operations um but beyond that most of our Authority pertains to zoning that is why a lot of the regs have to be placed there as well um the the direction I took from 2023 and what I applied here as a starting point for your benefit was to um sort of be air on the side of limiting uh where cannabis operations where retail for example uh could be present and and what um the uh Minnesota statute 342 does not allow you to exclude all cannabis retail from uh you know from your city um there are exceptions to this but um what I have done is is limit it down to the the ma the minimum you're you're required to to accept which is uh you have to have one such business for every 12,500 residents uh there is an exception that indicates that if the county reaches that threshold 1 for 125 before before you get an application you are free to deny the application and and exclude it I've put into this draft that we would so choose to do that um if if we if we were positioned that way when we got our application how many how many would that mean for henpen County what's 1 million divided by 12,500 that's a humongous number well there it basically it yeah it goes by County if there was a number of cities that loaded up on them and had them for you know so if that threshold is reached I don't believe that it probably will be before you get one but it's there to use if you so you can I I have been asked in the past what about you know can the city create its own operation and then control the sale of it in one spot and not allow any others the answer is that the first part of that question is yes you can uh set up your own retail operation should you so should you choose to do so but you that would not allow you to exclude all others you still have to allow the one per 125 over above any that you are affiliated with um there are a few sort of General decision points in here and as I mentioned um you know where this goes we Natalie and I were looking at it more um similarly to what we did with the the lower potency items and where it would kind of just make sense um but there's a few things that I think we need some guidance on um and I'll tell you kind of what I opted for in here and then you can correct uh whatever uh direction that you you choose um so so a couple things um the as I mentioned the authority comes down to largely zoning based the registration is only retail businesses that's a very limited number of the licenses the so for example a cultivation or a manufacturing operation you will not register you will basically it just follows local zoning generally speaking you're going to need to find a place for every business that the city allows a license or I'm sorry the state allows a license for um there has to be some place that's permitted but you don't have to allow it every you can you can decide that makes sense uh for the city of corporate and can you say that again yeah so you don't you don't have to allow for example a manufacturing business in every zoning every Zone uh zoning District you can put it where you think it it can be but you have to put it somewhere okay um because it's an actual licensed uh business by the state um some have asked about well what about curtailing that with a conditional use permit or something along those lines I think that's a bit of a gray area I think you can do it uh I think it's stronger if you don't if you have it as a permitted use somewhere else there's a few reasons for that one of them has to do with the 60-day rule um there is a hard 30-day cap on our uh deadline to respond to any uh any request to register a business uh as most of you know that's just not enough time to process a cup one way we could address that is by simply denying any such application until they obtain a c that CP we don't guance yet about ly how the state will address that but that would what we would probably do to start and I actually did put a provision in the code that if that um inconsistency ever came up that is what we would do um the second uh issue with it is conditional use permits um generally speaking you know you can you can I think you can get to the same place by using performance standards you can say these are set a list of parameters that we want to use to control the types of businesses and make it safe for the surrounding neighborhoods um if there are specific things uh that you want to address by cup you could but I would still again recommend you have it as a permitted use somewhere else because what we can't do due to statutory preemption is we can't take an area occupied by state law and then make them jump through additional hoops at the local level you know uh that would that would be basically a state function in regulation right so in this case uh again it comes back to zoning so my suggestion to you is find the the zoning performance standards that you're comfortable with and we we've offered some suggestions we would put those into the zoning code they then become zoning restrictions and we're able to uh potentially uh deny applications that are not congruent with that um as an example when a retail oper operation attempts uh when they receive a license from the state there one of the steps that they will have to undertake is to seek registration from you uh the city when they do that the state will ask you in a form of it we don't know exactly what it look like but you you'll get a form that basically asks you to certify whether it does or does not comply with local Zone and the reason that we're doing a lot of these things and placing them in the zoning code even though we're talking about them over down to business BR side is so that we can say it doesn't comply with local zoning it needs to go somewhere else or in a different way um the so a couple of the decision points um well let me maybe actually let me tack on one other thing so in addition to which zoning District it goes into the state law provided you with some inherent authority to keep the businesses away from certain things generally speaking they how from our town what's that how about from our town unfortunately no not not the town but certain things within your town so 1,000 ft from schools 500 from dayc carees um State uh facilities uh State residential facilities and um uh par thank you parks with with with children's amenities and specifically the amenity within the park um so those are the ones they they they gave you and said you are able to do and those are the the buffer distances uh Natalie's prepared some maps and should kind of show you what that looks like but the uh there are some cities that are are have discussed expanding into other things you can look at doing that um it it's it's sort of a gray area you know we don't know what our Authority and I think you have to be ready to defend the public interest in whatever you add so for example um i' I've been asked about churches generally speaking I think if a church for example has a school function similar to like a Sunday school or something like that if you can draw the distinction or Draw the the comparison to be similar to a daycare I think you could argue that that is defensible as an additional buffer most of the cities that I um that I've seen have come up with any regulations have not elected to go outside of the state standards that they know are defensible that are allowed um so what what this draft has done is take the maximum buffer distances from those listed um items um so one question that the council I we give you some direction from the Council on related to the buffers is whether or not um you choose to buffer from retail operations or all businesses you can do either um the you know the point can be made that the the greatest concern comes from the point of sale so if it's it's retail you're concerned with you want to keep that away from kids right you know you keep it away from schools day carees things like that however there are some cities that feel NOP I don't want those operations anywhere near any whether they're working behind four walls the entire time or not um you are empowered to do that uh because the law when it refers to your Authority in that section talks about cannabis businesses cannabis businesses is a defined term in 342 that includes all of the licenses not just the retails so you can do that if you choose you can just do retail I believe the draft actually only does the retail portion as far as that is the the source of the concern but if you want to expand that to do all businesses you can so that's one point of Direction um another item that that that has got received some discussion recently is related to cannabis events this is a separate license at the state level you have to allow them somewhere um however um one kind of odd piece of of the law on this one is cannabis events you have the option to elect not to allow consumption at them um you cannot so restrict a retail business then comes town uh it seems a little incongruent to me but that that is what the law says that's shocking they didn't really thoroughly analyze it the law in this case um well that that part of it when you write a law with cran it leads yourself to not actually having it be that yeah that part confused me a bit I I don't know why why that Authority was given to us on one and not the other I mean there's a lot of cities for example that prohibit tobacco sampling or things like that it would seem to me to make sense that they would allow cities to do that it was not something that we were an authority we were handed in in 342 however so we can we can limit cannabis event to I think this is what it says in the draft to being at one of those locations that meets the zoning correct requirements yeah and and the Authority for that really come it for me it comes from your your zoning Authority um there's nothing in that section of of the law as far as the license that says you can get b generally speaking the some of the guidance on this has sort of suggested that it's it's just like any other permitted activity and if you allow the permitted activity here or there you have to allow it here I don't know that that's entirely accurate because depending on what the activity is there's different places you allow it and obviously we're all acknowledging the Cannabis uh activities are curtailed differently than other activities so as a result I think because they didn't tell you in 342 that you don't have that Authority that I believe it still falls back to your local zoning Authority there may be something that comes out in one of the patches follows this that tells us differently but until they do I think you can make you can opt for that to say I I don't want any events that involve retail to take place other than in areas where retail is allow right seems kind of I'm a little confused as to what a cannabis event would be at a bur man is one for example but if it's like a retail Place having it at their retail location especially if you can't consume or or whatever if we opt for for that what's different than just selling it maybe they're selling it in their parking lot instead of and they're offering H tattoos a concert yeah and I think you're pointing out to you're pointing out a little bit of the kind of the strange inconsistency there but yes you would as a city have the ability to tell them at the event you cannot allow people to consume however the license itself um if you come back with certain retail licenses do allow for such consumption on you know just a regular sales basis so a little bit strange but that is that is what it what it appears to tell us and and we also won't want people where there's other events to tag a cannabis event permit to an existing event so like corking days D oh I was going to mention that can I ask can I ask a question on that like there's this uh 5D where you have to have a medical profession certified medical professional um on site if there's a cannabis event can we H can we include it sounds like we can't include in the lure a certified medical profession on staff at the cannabis dispensary or is it only if there's an event we we can make sure there's someone there that knows something about cannabis and it's medical effects but if it's a regular store right no uh good question we can't add that in like you got to have a doctor at the right you you have a little bit more Authority with the events because it fall it also falls under your local permitting Authority but the businesses themselves that's you fall fall back to the regulation at the state level they're they're going to say that enforcement comes to us and and and they're going to take that now although coming to enforcement um that's the that's the unfunded mandate bit of it which is to say that every business that you register you will also be resp responsible for administering at least a minimum of an annual license check to that registered business um so so enforcement and registration are are hand inand and that is an obligation of of the local entity um for that that was handed to us from the state that's awesome right um don't they limit our our fee amount very substantially what's that and they have a pretty limit on that fee amount don't they the the yeah the registration fees are are set by Statute we have no ability to increase them and what are they they well it's it depends on the business it's basically half the State registration amount um it's it's not going to be much and it it won't cover the cost of doing the enforcement great um there is there is supposed to be some funds that are generated from the retail businesses that are handed down from the tax bill that a company did it's uh it's something about it's something along the lines of it's a 10% total profit tax and then the cities get I I think a 20% share of that that gets divied up based on the amount of retail businesses you have I believe is how it goes um at the end of the day if you have one in town I wouldn't expect a big check um yeah and especially if the the doctor on on duty at all times well I really I I added that in there we don't have to yeah no I'm glad you did is there can I ask a legal question yeah can we make dispensaries only only located where since it was a one party Rule and a one party pass think you asked this before four uh registered Democrats their Corners meet we can only have the dispensaries there I asked that before but has the law changed where we can only have it impact one political party in Minnesota or do we have to carry the water for that political party in our town I I think our our our regulations will have to be political party blind fortunately okay A a political just double check I didn't know that was a protected class by the way I question than would have been a good time to ask it but um it's not lost on me that we're in a county that Outlaw is selling flavored tobacco yet is now you know leaning the way on flavored marijuana can can marijuana be regulated by Flavor the way that you know you tobacco couldn't be outlawed across the county yet our County outlawed flavor tobacco because of his impact on Youth and I would seem to the logic that seem to follow the the flavored and even the state law of marketing can't be of child's um candies can't be shaped like candy can we follow that logic for regulation that almost using Hanan County's language well um and I can I haven't looked up it looked through 342 for specifically for the flavoring and whether there's any any allowance for that my my speculation would be that there because there is some of the language you're talking about as far as packaging and things like that to avoid you know confusion with kids products and things like that that does exist that will carry forward I imagine it'll be something similar I don't know if they'll leave that to to to County Authority the county will be producing an ordinance that will regulate some of this stuff as well um we were hoping to have that by the end of last month we we uh we don't have it and I'm informed we won't have it until next year so we really couldn't wait for that great um but when we get that if there is an attempted of course we you know we can follow on that I I fully expect just for the council's benefit that this whatever we do we'll probably have to keep tinkering with it over the next few years as we adapt to whatever how people are using 342 and as it rolls out um but this is really sort of the initial set of parameters that we're going to allow people to use it under um and and some of the main questions are our our sort of council's desired approach do we want to am I correct that we want to limit it kind of as much as we can um in which case things like consumption at events I presume we would block um I imagine that will have a chilling effect on people's desire to have events um I mean if you if you read uh to the mayor's point if you read the the law itself seems to contemplate more of a a large scale like an expo something like that right it seems to be what the drafters were were thinking about when they wrote it but there is a concern from some about what about scaled down events that are much what about have selling something in the ditch in front of the you know this other operation well some of that's going to be dialed back just by the performance standards we're talking about right and having to have uh you know an officer there and having security and things like that and and those costs will make some of those operations you know really less doable um so uh so my my presumption in putting this together was no consumption at such events only in areas where retail would be allowed we would want to buffer up to the the max standards we would uh Natalie can give you kind of her her suggested guidance as far as the sing districts we would follow that um uh oh questions about lower potency hemp Edibles what about that stuff it's a separate license under the new law um we basically I carried forward the the Caps that we discussed in 2023 law and and left that as a separate Capp item um my feeling on that is again falling back on local zoning Authority plus the plain fact of the matter is any any that exists have to be evaluated by law enforcement there's a cost associated with that so it would seem to make sense to carry forward the same um cap numbers and locations um so with that I I'm happy to answer whatever questions the council has and we're again we're just sort of looking for some preliminary guidance this will go through Planning Commission because we involved it's going to involve a zoning ordinance change there'll be a public hearing the business regs will be available for the public so they can comment on both you will get both back probably with the fee um the fee schedule Amendment proposal all to be approved at your final meeting year and then the moratorium will end the um will end first of the year next year so this will be a place to replace that okay Mr Mayor yeah real quick question we don't have any schools in town Yeah we actually have one we got St John's that's true yep so going down that road we've got 500 ft from dare 1,000 foot from schools how much from the Park public 500 everything's why not make it a th000 across the board can we do that no unfortunately the the the that's the the state law guidance right they gave you the perimeters of a th000 from a school and 500 from the other other three so following on the max level of the authority they give you would be doing that um as far as and we can inflate those numbers at all on our you could go less but not more you could build more Parks well and and and related to that point just he just has a solution it say throw more money at pars come on Jeremy the remember the the the applicant will be evaluated the time the application comes in so there are more schools Parks anything that get built between and now then you know they're evaluated from that buffer and public property City Hall all of them well so City Hall in this case there would be a buffer because I I believe because we have Memorial Gardens in the back I think we could argue that that is an amenity that's available to the public but it's got to be a park it can't be more exactly it's more of the park so like the Public Works who wouldn't be able to buff it from because there's not a public we can't put picnic table out in public works and call it I don't think we want the public accessing public works like that no uh especially children so how about like so looking at that map is the blue the areas that it would not be allowed correct these are the buffers is that including all of our Park like pretty much all of it all the ones that have amenities so I I preemptively are on Bell weather now keep in mind what if we have a Parkland that doesn't yet have amenities in it so open space to count and I'm and I counted it so like all L of the amenities aren't there but I went ahead and put a b there because we know that that's part of our plan to get a park there in the next couple years um why the two different sh there's no commercial there right so so yeah okay um sorry we're answer asking too many questions no it's fine um so as far as the different colors so I believe the purple buffer was for parks with amenities blue was for daycares and then there's a for school so um I did put a buffer around our Park that really only impact our downtown area our existing downtown area from City Park um and so I do think um we should definitely go ahead and put it I don't think it makes it overly restrictive and we should definitely regulate it to the extent that we can um but yeah so so the parks like because they're in the middle predominantly in the middle of residential areas for the retail purposes really doesn't change a whole bunch um other with in City Park and then um but we do have a number of licensed dayc carees they do have to be licensed okay um and I I found eight as of this weekend when I was looking at this so if other people know of licensed day care is that doesn't sound right please let me know that's what I was able to find unfortunately because our ZIP codes are broken down by post office like hopes daycare it says it's in Rogers so I had to kind of look at surrounding zip codes to make sure it didn't get lost in there so it might not be perfect but this is what I was able to determine some hard work good job I do yeah I definitely took some time but know like for example in our rural commercial if we were to allow retail operations um there is a daycare licensed daycare center that would prevent it especially as these Parcels turn into commercial because right now they're transition um but it would allow it technically um but these are D andd service so I don't think we're going to be seeing a whole out there but we could theoretically allow it in that uh District can we can we identify Trails as part of that was my next question don't believe so because it does say parks with amenities and they specifically say playgrounds and Fields I don't believe trails are going to even a Regional Trail Regional Trail all the way along 19 I don't believe so the trail from south to North 116 yeah the the language basically talks about uh Park amenities that are frequented by children so you can you can make your argument on on any of them but you have to be a little careful because you have to draw the distinction right so there have to be a distinction you we start from that point okay and then can't just tell all our kids to go walk on a trail right I mean because you can say the same thing about every park right you clearly said it's not going to be the four corners of every Park but there's a playground you can draw from the playground if there's a ball field you can draw from the ball field um if the if on the tra there's maybe something that kids play on or something maybe we could use that but you could have a swing set every [Laughter] tht CRA what if we just said no we're not letting them too bad just say no ferally against the law we're going to we're going to side with the feds which almost makes me vomit but we're going to take the FED side and not the state side here screw you we're not having go to deed and the state would come down on us somehow how are they going to come down that basically be a directive so I don't know if that's really where we want come build one is it f are there fines laid out for non-comp yeah what are they going to do tell them to come come take come build one have you I mean if really that's the direction you want to see what finds out just keep in mind that that is Staff time to go against the state and make that AR you just don't have to do anything clarify that is something I would like to see but I I'm not necessarily going to why would it be staff time because say not going to do it don't take their calls go fly a kite go pound sand you don't have to do anything but actually staff's responsibility is to protect the interest of the city and and so what's the interest uh lawsuit potential lawsuit what is it what are they going to do come to at this point I I would submit in terms of the risk and the concern uh we have one potential retail spot and and we can put restrict it even more we can talk about restrict rtion uh so that it just doesn't make sense for a business to even consider it I I would submit that that uh as as far as Trail amenities proximity to a park would probably be an indicator that we could clarify so that some of the trails could be considered as a park amenity that families could go on it if it was in within a certain proximity as long as we spelled it out but we couldn't cover all of the CHS did you see who their favorite applicants that how they make their applicant are people who have already broken laws people who from disadvantaged communities whatever that is could you say we're not going to do it on the basis of um we're not going to endorse discriminat discriminatory lure can can we make it to he's got a question I'll let you guys chew on out when I got it I think the problem is the state being the Arbiter of it it's going to be a problem the most restrictive that staff is com from proposing based on what the I guess I'm not going to be here in a month I'd say go pound s you moving out of town good to address that point I think the you don't even have to address it no one cares but me so qu question on the ownership of the license and stuff or the the issuing of they have to be the property owner they can't rent they can't do you see where I'm going on that yes Li they have to own building they're not transferable right but what I'm saying is so they would have to own the building they couldn't rent a building in a retail area to sell no I wouldn't say that it doesn't prohibit them from leasing instead of owning a commercial space they'd have to go they'd have to they couldn't transfer their license they their um all of their their checks would you they'd be subject to to their their compliance with their site with that lcy they can't pass it off or transfer it or buy but what I'm saying is can we make it they have to own the property in the building that I don't think anything do that because I think the state would view that to be uh exceeding you know what an area that's occupied by state law basically you'd be eliminating applicants I think if you did that um that maybe couldn't afford to buy bu a building but could afford to lease one so I I think you'd have to allow them to lease but you could hold them accountable to where and to meeting all of the conditions so kind of a separate question when we do enforcement to to make sure everything's being F let say there's one and we do a check compliance check and something's out of compliance then we do what good question yes so the the the enforcement action generally speaking it's it's going to be enforced primarily through the state but the initial line of enforcement is you know Matt and his team are going to do their compliance check if the compliance check fails as you mentioned uh that's going to be a report that's that generates potentially a local violation right of the of the state law it also gets reported to ocm and then they would follow up and require and there is a provision in here that allows uh us to hold off on you know we have we have ability to suspend licenses and things like that we can wait and withhold our decision until ocm has has investigated and ruled on it as well uh there are civil penalties that are that are part of this we've adopted them as a part of this as well um generally speaking the teeth is going to be with the state bill that's that's so but there is supposed to be a body that we can then report to that then correct office of canis management be that body yes gotcha I'd like to see the number of licenses more limited under G2 it's currently drafted to allow three registrations I'd like to change that to one or two since we're so far below since we're so far below 12,500 it seems if we don't even have a coffee shop probably shouldn't allow three cannabis retailers yeah that's that's yeah that's our existing I know but I think we could reduce it right so um you're looking at G2 yes got it okay um y so that's that's just Carri forward from the 2023 legislation that we we adoped respon to if you wanted to um to limit that down a little bit further I think could I don't know if you have existing LIC businesses or that's compromise anybody currently but I I don't believe you do so you could be a little more restrictive on that wanted to I don't think I would do one um I I would I would probably allow at least a couple of them I that this is one area that I can see that there there may be push back in the in the future about any any regulation on I do believe we retain some ability to require this registration based on the fact that our zoning Authority hasn't been specifically compromised by 342 and it does have an enforcement component that we have to f um therefore I think it's it's similar to the other businesses but on the list of the can cannabis retailers that uh that are subject to the cap it's conspicuously absent from that list although it does fall under a retail operation under that definition right well I don't fine retail but anyway it it is it is a um a retail operation it it is subject to all of the same enforcement protocols there for absence some Authority in 342 that says you may not um you may not cap that that I think we we put a cap on it but I would just be cognizant of you know that may get called in the question the lower you go I guess is the best way I can say it um I think that and the reason I didn't pick this out of the sky like I said I selected that based on what council's direction was in 2023 so I I thought the number was sort of key to the population of the city though is that not specific to retail location lure I think it was just selected based on I think was the districts correct yeah I think we ideally were were saying theoretically one per district and then um but yeah I think it just just to make sure that we're on the same page it's it's two different components so there's the the Cannabis retailer that would only sell cannabis and that's one Li insure and this is like um like an existing retail operation that is choosing to also sell this as of product um and that's the lower so that's so that just be clear it's too different so I think when we looked at this last year we had the same conversation I'm like let's just do one and we ended up at three after going back and forth um to I know it's painful to listen to my voice right now so I'll try to finish I'm sure it's painful to speak too um but I think we are we had some debate last year and I encourage you to maybe go I remember okay remember so I think it had something to do with we had identified three zoning districts where it could go in and theoretically allowing at one District to not consolidate um recognizing that it could consolidate but I think that was the where that language came from as a suggestion council member Nichols if it if it's a situation where we don't have any you know present V doesn't create any immediate issues as far as legal foring or anything like that then one thing you can consider doing would be to drop that number from three to two because remember that the Canabis retail business will count will be a an additional business that can sell the lower py product there effec that would be holding the line of the exact same number one of would also be able to sell Acy prods that be that' be one thing you could do and then you could leave the same zoning District so it can go you should have avilability in one of each just be potentially one could I think that sounds I think that sounds like an improvement um and then John just to kind of touch on the areas that you said are kind of um you know Direction needed or or are in the draft but there's potential uh decision points for us um I would be in favor of having the um the buffer and the performance standards on all of the different types of operation not just retail but I'd be open to hearing what council uh thinks of that um and then I I don't know if this is in the draft or not but uh I think you mentioned it John not allowing consumption at the cannabis events would be my preferences especially on that second one at least until we maybe see something in action somewhere of what that actually looks like and is I'd rather be more restrictive on it until I know what it possibly is um and then I think the only other thing would' be looking at the specific zoning districts next other than that but if Council has any other feedback agreed dis agree I going to suggest the same thing okay everyone else generally on same sh have no feedback I already say we should go tell the state to P sand fair enough I don't disagree with it disagree with it no I just think it's I don't disagree with it I think it's a fight we'll lose but if we ever have to fight it yeah if yeah I I've got nothing I uh I'm kind of the same as John as far as it is a federal offense still and uh how much does things affect that the judge set aside the decision of handing out her to identifying am I reading or right 600 the 600 permits today how long is that pushed out they wrote it with a cray so probably not on there so we can't extend the moratorium for another months or a year or anything like that come on give us does it mean that in reality we won't see anything for a little bit longer okay that that's the most likely scenario is that you'll just see a delay in in the roll out coming through but they didn't all do anything to alter the law because the the law actually gave the city greater Authority than you would typically have for most and we've we've exercised that up to the limit which is January 1 we need to stop one party rule in the state that's what we should do technically did tied Tied House one one part is tied so if we just held out said pound sand held out well we'll see what comes out of the legislative session look what happen in the national election yeah I I would assume that there will be like staff has mentioned a lot of updates coming from the state on this I'm sure some of them will make it worse but maybe some will make it better or at least more clear in the future hopefully so I know it's a lot to ask of the state of Minnesota to clarify the laws they pass but here's hoping um and just real quick on what happened today they dropped it from 1,200 possible to 600 possible actually happened last Monday and then now someone's suing and so that's why it's so that'll really slow theying because they want it to be even more open than it is today I just kept trying to remember what was reported on the news that I saw so it's okay keep an eye on more restrictive better so yeah I think most restrictive I think on those decision points want to be the more restrictive side then did we want to go over the zoning districts Natalie um yes so the zoning so basically at this time when we did the lower potency we had identified CR C1 so I'm proposing that that be remain consistent for retail operations have that be permitted use with performance standards that's outlined by um in the in the draft currently and then as far as cultivation only allowing that as a permitted use in the rural residential um for that one I would recommend adding a performance standard that's not in the current draft regarding a privacy fence of at least 6 feet I like that can we razor wire because that PS in um con sorry concertina concertina because that actually might be more of a public safety hazard having those but still allowing for Park wire if that's desired by a business operation but just trying to contain it and then um other operations such as the manufacturing process and indoor growing only allowing that in business park or and or industrial those two that's kind of the initial thought that I had I'm sorry cuz that last so for what uses in business park and indoor growing like indoor cultivation and like manufacturing process to make it a usable product so in the like in the agricultural area it would just be cultivation they would have to process it so that that would have to go to a um more industrial site could we could we do it that they have to be indoor in the rural do indoor only um um so the state license for outdoors so we believe that you're going to need to allow outdoor to some extent in the city but I do think we have if we allow it in one District I think we have the authority to prevent outdoor cultivation in like industrial or business park so the conversations I've had with people they'd rather indoor and an enclosed building because it's gr lights 247 how do you grow care of itself I think the reality of our climate that will be what is but is preferred um but we can't put that in the we need to be careful with how we contradict the State Licensing yes and just make sure that we're allowing it in some area I think it's a much easier argument that we prevent it in some areas if we allow it in others so my initial thought would be I I'd be more okay with the what is it the not the cultivat the manufacturing the processing processing in light industri than Business Park okay I would think I don't see a huge distinction between there's not a lot no from the outside at least and then all of it is separate from retail sales yes so different licenses make that happen my proposal would be um cultivation only no retail operation in the rural residential um and then uh only allowing res uh retail in our specific commercial districts so not even necessarily allowing it in downtown mixed use or general mixed use because of the close interaction with presidential there or mixed interaction with presidential and then um the industrial for this like that more process intense part of the operation okay so you can't end up with like an equivalent of a brewery where they're making process ing selling and offering ax throwing at the same establishment correct theoretically a city could allow that but what I'm proposing does not one item oh okay there are business drink con next and pot smoking all in one place okay there there are business licenses at the state that do allow dual use like that cultivation and sales and things like that but what we be saying is if you have a retail component you can only go into the retail District so we can keep that that stuff separate without being questioned so that would be the C1 or the C2 and was the other one that we had identified last year commercial I think it makes sense rural to start like that and if for some reason we found that advantageous to allow that we could always change it to allow a business like that but i' I'd prefer to start yeah exactly you keep talking about rural residential is that everything in white that's our that's Musa um sorry let me zoom out but yes that is I'll make a right so all that would be pred in the white would be cultivation thetic yeah so keep in mind um a lot of these are already existing Farms so I I think that um it looks SC proba scary thinking about that but keep in mind these there's a lot of family farms and some of them you choose that this is they want to pursue and others are probably going to be like I don't want 10 people rent land to cultivate I I believe so there's a I don't think there's a way for the city to get involved in that level of the licensing with the state I believe that is true but to your point I think that um as far as the climate and what is going to be a financially feasible operation it's going to be something that's indoors most likely so would that still be subject to whatever we have an in code for agricultural structures oh y yep so it be considered an agricultural y so still be set same step back same height same yep so agricultural structures have 100 foot step back so that's a good point that they put it in one of an agricultural structure so essentially without knowing what's being grown what's growing inside it there would be no difference in terms of what could be now if someone wanted to grow a different crop inside correct so we'd have to modify that ordinance to include equipment storage whatever else plus grous no so our agricultural just has to be used for agricultur purposes so you can't like Park a RV in there with you so if we're saying that um not even if we're saying since it's an agriculture use you're growing a crop you'd be able to do that indoors Chang our current legis current ordinances yeah the way to a good way to think about the non- retail businesses is just you would treat cannabis as widgets right if you can manufacture it in this Zone then you can manufacture cannabis you can cultivate same thing right so um so all the same rigs as far as what can be stored in the structures and what you know what you can and can't do with the property with all be the same and then in terms of the number of licenses per this 12 500 whatever it is that's coming from the state or the county which is it State um is it essentially just once those licenses start coming out which may be delayed now um it's first come for a serve till it hits that Mark and then okay right so so the the reg comes down from the state but the determination of 1 for 125 is at the county level sry and and and so the what we would do is at the time you got such a registration if it had been for example N9 months from now and you wanted to get you probably you'd reach out to the county find out what their if they've reached that threshold if they have then our code would dictate that we would deny the application if they haven't we would process it gotcha makes sense what uh on your fence item that you mentioned I I did like that okay and for to add to like the light industrial and I was a little unclear on I was saying I was saying referred light industrial over business park but I don't know that Council necessarily agreed um and the an added standard there was that any cultivation would have to be indoors for that one um so allowing the outdoor um for it makes sense that we don't necessarily want the outdoors in our in our industrial areas and then use soci so that would be another I would add that's not currently in the can we limit the square feet of those buildings for agricultural yeah it would really that's an open question limit the square foot of processing limit the square foot of it it had you'd have to treat it like any other legal product okay I'm just throwing darts here so I will I will think on other that we would typically want to see like other uses so I'll see if there's any other standards that might make sense I'm just if we start talking a business park and there's a 200 square foot building and we turn into the I just it just seem like the industrial esque properties it made more sense to have the processing there um we could just limit it to light industrial that's preferred um keep the business park for I don't think it would ever happen but I don't want to become the Cannabis processor no I don't have enough industrial for that so I think that is a risk I just don't think that we have the land to support that good job thanks for putting up with us any other we beat that one up good it's very th 9 ago been waiting for an hour and a half uh mayor there's been a request to adjust the agenda sure for an applicant that's been waiting with uh a request to move item 9A up to this point I'll make a motion to amend the agenda to move item 9A up uh to right now uh so it'll be after is the applicant here yes is it you guys 8A and then after this we will go back to 8 b c and d and then 9 we talked about maybe making it more friendly to the people that are sitting here yes we didn't know which one you were on sorry about that I thought you were like ation yes I did make a motion a second perfect any further discussion nich second all those in favor say I yep so we'll go on to 9A [Applause] and then going future Natalie if you've got stuff like that yeah just let us know let's say let's do something sooner if we can and we don't have to yeah I I'll keep my eye on a closer next time no worries no worries initi called it the uming you had no interest in the Cannabis discussion just ask wasn't it from that was one of the ones what we we had an unofficial rule about uh for people in town with Concept plans trying to move them up I think we called it the cring the rule it was after someone who came in with a application that we made for like four hours to a meeting I remember and they actually remember when somebody sat for four hours and they were actually on consent and didn't know it yeah oh no and then the Trava group that it was like a and a half inch yeah they got the the red circle Varian yeah yeah was for an easement vacation but they weren't sure half fo to be fair the notice just set had like a big red circle like something was wrong they set till that was 11 1130 sorry second so we're going to 9 9il Rob norling okay 90 is it the concept that's in the file you're about to do it yeah so there's a there should be a sending me a a powerpint this is about page 290 285 two 285 thank you for anyone on the agenda online or on the digital version yeah pull Tick Tock Tinker T I used to uh work at scoreboard for when I was at wake I work for the athletic department for baseball games when the Umpire would come up or the other team's coach pitching coach would come up and take too long I'd play the Jeopardy music nice and they got real mad about that but I had a lot of fun it's amazing they'd let you do anything little Rebel inside you sorry for the delay Mr Mayor and Council I came in earlier today and tested it out and worked then of course when you move it up it doesn't work um wor wor so item 9A which is isn't I guess an outdated PowerPoint is the Arland norling uh osmp concept plan uh this concept plan is brought to you today from uh Rob norling and he's just requ ing some informal feedback on an &p concept plan which consists of eight residential lots and two out Lots on just shy of 39 Acres off of Pioneer Trail uh the proposed development would be constructed in two phases the first phase um consisting of three new single family lots and it would retain the existing single family uh structure and then the second phase would um utilize the remaining uh for development rights and uh construct for single family lots the site itself is guided rural egg residential and zoned rural residential and is located outside of the 24e uh Musa line so you can see it's right on the border there on the south side of Pioneer Trail so it's very close to the use of the just outside of it so the site itself currently has four development rights but um through the osmp uh process the applicant could increase those rights by 200% uh to eight total development rights uh in order to do that the applicant would be required to uh Preserve at least 50% of the site in total for uh for common open space and 50% of that open space would have to be um Upland area so specific numbers would be 19.3 five acres of common open space and then 9.67 Acres of that open space would need to be Upland the applicant's concept plan is currently showing 2 1.4 acres of farmed open space all of which uh appears to be Upland area u under a formal application uh the up area would be required to be preserved in an easement until Municipal services are available to the site uh the preserved structures uh the applicant is preserving two structures the uh home on the southernmost lot and then a uh out building on of what would be I guess labeled Outlaw a on the southwestern portion of the site these two lots or these two structures would be required to comply with all the necessary ordinance requirements uh and it appears that the existing residents would uh comply with those uh requirements but the um outbuilding would not as agricultural agricultural buildings are only allowed as a principal use through a conditional use permit on Parcels that are actively farmed located in the herb Reserve or rural residential district and are located adjacent to The Farmstead of the same ownership so um that out that Outlaw with out building on it wouldn't comply with those standards and and the formal application would include a requirement to um remove or relocate that out building we go to the next slide B um so the lot size uh standards of the osmp development are U detailed there on the right side of the screen um the plan appears to um comply with with these standards however the side lot lines um must comply with or must be substantially at right angles to Street lines or substantially radial to curved Street lines and it appears that the proposed side lot lines are not substantially radial to the curved Street line uh and staff does not believe that the um current side lot lines results in the bettered Street or lot plan and recommend that the a formal avocation revise those side lot lines um to meet that standard access for the development as a whole would come off of a a newly constructed Road uh that would access bioner Trail and that new road would be a CAC that be constructed in two phases the first phase would be installed about halfway through the developed area to lot three uh and then would be extended through uh in phase two toward closer towards the open space area um existing access uh to Pioneer Trail from the existing lot with a formal application um would be required to be removed and access should come off of the newly installed uh roadway whereas the current concept plan is showing access to both streets um osmp uh &p plats are um encouraged to meet as many of the nin um design objectives as possible um based on what's been provided so so far it's unclear how many of those were met um but it does appear that around four of those four of those objectives are met or at least partially met um those objectives being um one two three and five and those are listed towards the back side of that uh stack report um and Council may wish to provide some feedback to the applicant on how they may want to um try and address some of those uh objectives with a formal application so at this point staff recommends that the city council review and discuss the concept plan and provide the applicant with some informal comments um and just note that any opinions or comments provided to the applicant by the city council are considered advisory only and shall not constitute a finding decision on the request sounds good thank you first does anyone have any questions for Dwight or the I'll summarize up to eight on 20 acres 8 30 something they could they could construct eight um single family lots and they would have to at least preserve 19.3 Acres of open space yep oh you're doing the right thing anybody else's website keep crashing I have it downloaded I downloaded it otherwise it does all the time all let things particularly with like plans it'll crash a lot um but if you need a specific page I'm sure staff could pull it up you're good I remember it all I just the numbers are such that it's per our ordinance of preserving to do whatever so okay just noticing on this one it says 200% increase to 10 and then yeah I I apologize for that Mr Mayor this this was a drafted present ear afternoon the updated one of my S says a should say should say a perfect that's what I thought it was I just wanted to double check um but yeah I mean I think otherwise the things that need to be maybe addressed or updated in a potential application um seem to make sense sorry j so this seems similar to the one that we had a few months back where they originally were going to do the open space as a tree farm yep and the as I remember the original presentation there was supposed to be like a walking trail through the tree farm as the amenity MH and as it came in later it was clarified no nobody's getting in there it's just we're doubling our we're doubling our uh unit count but there's really no amenity here other than you get to be next to a tree farm and we had a conversation at the time I I think John brought this up and I agree with him that the intent of the osnp is to preserve open space longer term but if we allow just simple farming to count as the open space it's really just a hand out of additional density and so what I would want to see I think this can work I think you can achieve it but if you could look at sorry where you can see the the number one item on the list of criteria is it's organized around a central feature that provides a open space value like a stand of trees Central Green Meadow um I think adjacency to a farm doesn't count for me as I would interpret the standard but I think like this lot here if this were done as a meadow or done as an orchard or something like that now you've got all your other Lots organized around a central feature that would be preserved for the community as an amenity so to me I think that's an easy get maybe you can carve out another lot somewhere a little bit farther up so you don't have to give up a lot but you're just organizing the space around your open space amenity rather than just adjacent to the farm that's the the major one that I want to see if this gets further developed um I think staff had notes about adding in architectural requirements and Landscaping common areas with Native vegetation I think those make sense too those are a usual thing that's you have to landscape anyway it's just what you choose um but those are my only you know major pieces of feedback trying to organize the neighborhood around the open space rather than just being next to the farmed field and then the other things that are easy to include in the plant if if I always think that like one of the beauties of our town is that there's this uh acres per so if you have 100 acres you get to put 10 houses on there and it doesn't matter where they go you put them all right here you can have 10 acre lots you can have five acre lots um whatever the case may be you get a certain amount of homes per acre and um I think if if if it's so easy to get double the homes per acre mhm why even have it in the first place why not just have it be 20 per or you know five each each uh five acres gets a building right we're we're going away from the whole concept that makes our town unique in the building right concept and you're doubling up on building rights and you don't give up anything there's there's nothing given up here well you're specifically because of the doubling yeah you just oh we'll just keep farming this and we'll get it double I think the the initial intent of it was like this was in that 7s comp plan that we yeah that we got there was a desire by the ad councils back then to incentivize continued agricultural use so so that maybe we want to change so what's the what's the difference then there would be no almost no properties where you wouldn't get the double the amount almost none the some of the things that the reason why we don't see open space and preservation plats all the time um we are starting to see um some interest and definitely but I would say they are hard to proceed with um because of the architectural and other design objectives that you also need to meet with them as well as you are putting in a public street that is paved to get the density bonus so that that is a um part of the but people don't drive by and say wow it's it's really dense there but they got a asphalt road so it's looks way less day correct but we also know that dirt roads cost the city more to maintain in the long run so we're putting in a public street that PR the costs weren't an objective when they had open space requirements not OB the 1970s but that certainly is an objective of this current program that's why we requireed the pave street because the long-term maintenance costs to the city are reduced significantly we're requiring that so then the um the other aspect again was you to encourage farming um long term and to recognize that um keeping large tracks of land is going to be the most effective way to allow for farming to continue on a longer term period so those are those are where we're at I don't know if this would discourage farming in any way if we just said you could put four building rights there there there's no way that would not discourage farming no that's fair I'm just trying to say that's that's the when we had this discussion back with Heather Meadows um that's that's totally get hisory we yes but there's nothing special like the whole point of here is double the rights CU you're going to make this really special well there's nothing special here it's it's Farmland up it's a northern it's a it's a ploud field North that yeah and so I think why not I'm not suggesting we do it but why not just say fine everybody gets twice as much because we're never going to deny it if all you have to do is not develop half your property and you get double the rights so keep sign me up for that keep in mind the Met Council also limits density in this area 1 and 10 unless it's part of an open space and preservation plat so that's part of why we're able to increase it too what Yep this isn't even M well they still requir it's stupid in the non Musa area in the non Musa area it's one 10 but they do allow for rights to be double or do allow for increased tensity when it's part of an open space and preservation plan so that's how we're able to do that while being in compliance with our density numbers that doesn't imp that doesn't impact people in corkrin in a positive way the Met Council dble right if you have an OS so the idea being infrastructure is going to be more easily to implement in the future if you were to ever be within the Musa you either want really large tracks of land or you want really Consolidated Lots so that's the idea why they would allow for the increased density here's what they allow it doesn't matter what they allow that's fair but this is what our code I'm just trying to explain how it in the larger framework what currently totally get it but there's no differentiating if they said we want four Lots or we want eight Lots regardless they're going to still farm the land it doesn't matter we're just doubling the amount of houses people the whole concept of the building rights is to not have our property or not have cor be so dense if there's nothing standing basically nothing standing in the way of having four houses and Eight houses why even have the delineation there's nothing that goes totally a cont Contra for what we set out to do back in the day to have our town less dense if it doesn't take anything but we'll put eight properties and we'll keep farming it there's no difference so if you're going to have something have it be there's there's a difference with there uh there's no delineate there might be a difference in theory but there's no difference no one's going to put four four houses on 40 acres and not Farm it anymore so so in terms of code for osmp right right now this is meeting it I hear some feedback that there's a desire to have some space that is more clearly set aside I I don't think it meets it because the requirement is that it meets as many of the criteria as possible okay and I don't think this meets as many of the criteria as possible the way that it's currently drafted but I think you can get there Jeremy so when you when you gave that suggestion of like a Meadow area or something kind of central to a development M you'd have to make it on this do you think in theory have you know um how big is that second that the uh Northern track land that would be in the proposal or in the in the concept plan uh kept as agricultural so the that northern part called Dwight I think that was about 21 AC Y and then the so then the 21.4 so are you suggesting that they'd try to incorporate a all or most of that into the development or just a portion they could still keep I don't know if you can see large chunk to the north what I suggested was this existing Central Area could be your amenity instead of a lot and then you got every other clustered around that one and if you still want to get eight maybe you extend your call the sack a little farther and add another one in the corner here um you you could also think about you know you could do a Treeline Trail around all of this and still keep the center for farming if you don't want to give up the middle but I think you need to do something to give people access to the open space and make it useful for the for those in the neighborhood but my issue then is is a liability of the land owner somebody gets hurt on that trail or that open space I thought that's what we talked about on well that was in the the tree farm specifically of having people go through an active Tree Farm of like going through it and that may be that might be why you not you don't want to do a trail winding through the agricultural part of that property right but in this place it's a trail to Nowhere it's nothing I I well I mean I think that's just one hypothetical that Jeremy was thring out is a trail looping around it but another option potentially is some sort of smaller centralized um Meadow or plant 100 apple trees yeah a foot high m and then you can still keep a large chunk of that parcel as continued agricultural use you just take a little bit of that acreage and incorporated into the middle of that some somewhere and then the long range stuff how long down the road before that were to ever happen we've got that over on the tree farm where we've got all those people off a Heather and it was a cesac road with a Farm Road to the field and now that Farm Road to the field is turning into a road to development you know what I'm saying it just the same thing here but that's 40 50 years I I won't be around well how long until that's like a it's going to be a long time before anything gets out there yeah I almost agree with what John's saying is yeah I would say that's pretty at this time I don't believe from what I've heard there's a blow of appetite to expand our music well and not only that from what I've heard this area what maybe thought was future like the next whenever the city does that right but it's in that area that's like the potential future hash isn't it which may not be the future hash of I believe that they are planning to move forward with this year yet last I heard Freya mentioning to me or met Council staff representative um that there so I I think that that's a question mark still um but yeah I think we're talking even within what will be our 2050 plan we have more land and capacity so I don't think there's going to be a need to expand it um at this point excuse me right to include it so we're talking to like at least three decades out before we're it may be that this part this kind of uh South Western part of corkran may end up being the last part that sees sewer access if if the changes that me council's talking about with the Rogers plant and and not coming up from the r happens and that search area kind of goes away and becomes if we're expanding on the western side it's going to have to come from the north I think so yeah I to come to Baron Camp's Point eventually there would be a road that goes to the north um in the event this ever becomes developable this open space area so at that point we'd be relooking at it the amenities of it anyways and if it's owned by an HOA because that's one of the deed restrictions that typically happens if it's no longer farmed it then should go to the HOA um or it needs to be retained in some capacity uh but there are restrictions so it is eventually owned by an HOA they would be able to hold their own destiny they wouldn't need to necessarily sell to a developer if they don't want to do that if they want the amenity to stay as part of their local neighborhood so that um so it's not necessarily uh for sure that it would get developed even if it were to be in the new out depending on what happens with the ownership of the outlaw go ahead we've seen what's what's going to happen with the one right next to the mus line um eventually whatever you have as set aside land can get developed I'm I'm speaking of experience I came from a neighborhood in Maple Grove that was 245 lots and developer came in and bought it Muse expanded tore everything down put in streets put in everything I mean here's what I will do um I own building rights and if I ever want to put double the building rights I will bring this video to my uh to the courtroom and say look how easy it is to get double the building rights all I have to do is Farm some part of it and I'm good to go it's precedence for having no hurdle to double your building rights I'll do it I'm fine this will make me a ton of money so would your suggestion be to change cuz that's I mean have a hurdle okay other than just farming right I'm trying to give constructive feedback I'm not going to be here in a month um but no I I I I get what you're trying to do I'm just would that action be for us to revise our osmp ordinance give feedback that I think potentially there's a higher hurdle that you might have to get through other than just farming that's what I would say it's written down in the code already I think there is some language that gives us flexibility to say no this isn't a slam dunk here to get double the double the amount of uh building rights okay maybe it's a policy that we should work on what what we would expect in an osnp Beyond any agricultural component I think generally what we're we're saying is we'd like to see some of those other goals met whether it's that centralized um some sort of community space um and the size of that could you know be worked out as some of the other revisions to the plan have to be made um but in terms of of if that's necessarily required I would that probably be an analysis by staff uh under the current code I I think the the point tonight is to get the feedback so I think we've heard loud and clear we want some kind of interaction with the open space I think F whether or not that's something that loops around or enters into the farmable area or if there's some additional um open space that comes down into the residential portion to have some kind of centralized area I think that that's back and I think that's something that we can work with the applicant to accomplish I think it's important not to have it be on the analysis of the staff it's the opinion of the council that will determine the analysis of the staff right I don't disagree I just wanted to make sure that we're not giving feedback that is directly opposed by what our Cent oron says it sounds like that's not the case well what what what makes this different that we're asking for more than what we did on the I'm going to call it the nursery farm so I would say the nursery Farm was different in that the feedback provided at the concept level um really there was some discussion of a trail that was never really discussed by the applicant Bo was and um they felt very strongly that their farming equipment really did not allow for Trail where based on um configuration of their property I think this configuration allows for a bit more of a centralized I think at this point we have the ability to redesign whereas they were already well into the process and we had talked about the where this is more of a farm field than a nursery and things are established those kind of things that's a difference between the yeah and we have some ability at this point we have some ability to look at okay what would it look like to um allow for a Central Area um especially because the houses are more centralized that one they were a bit more spread out and disconnected and so I think uh in there was like the two existing homes in one area and then there was the new homes and there really wasn't a centralized space other than the farmed outlots themselves I it was it was separate from the original two homes where the two homes that are going to be here and then eight more around it yeah this one's more Consolidated so I think we have a little bit more more flexibility in trying to get something a more centralized Green Space that might be easier I just the biggest thing is this is just one great big farm field back there there's not much no I think it's I think feedback TI sorry to kind of squash what you yeah pleas up you just come up your name and address Rob nor the owner at 6700 Trail um this property's been our family for over 100 years been a resident in corkin for 32 years our main objective and one of the reasons we I think we chose the OSP was just what it allowed us to do is to get a little bit smaller lot sizes to not consume so much of the farm field so when you break it down just into four Lots you can break it up and larger Lots so you do actually lose some of the farming field in that presentation so I think this was an opportunity to get smaller lot lines plus of the top the Topography of this lot is interesting a huge Ridge that runs just north of where we're showing that and so it kind of limits us that's why you see kind of The Irregular Lots there's a ridge that runs kind of right on the south or actually the north side of those homes makes it a little bit challenging to keep those homes kind of up on the hillside so again the OSP allowed us to do some of those things I'm not doing this as a development piece that's just a little bit of FYI this is actually just for my family mostly uh my kids son my oldest son is here um I have four kids actually they all want to live out here um so we're just trying to continue that Legacy is really one of our main missions in it U but again we're open you know we have the avilability that whole property there currently it's old by my father and mother-in-law we're going to probably be the whole property over if that makes things easier I know I saw a few comments on the OSP about who owns what and how that can affect that we have a wide open opportunity to do whatever works best for the city and makes it easier so just to let people know that so that's just kind of you know nutshell what we're trying to accomplish and of course we're want to work with the city we're not interested in working against the city that's not how we roll but just want to hopefully provide opportunity for our family so thank you appreciate it best of luck thank you okay so Natalie you think you you got sorry Dwight perfect he was back there finishing the class so he's okay um I think one of the questions called out in the staff if I recall correctly was just the the orientation of the Lots on the southwest side as compared to the road whether we felt that that met the standard that they are um perpendicular as possible to the road line um if we were okay with that shape design or really they should try to square off those lots a bit more so the pink clot I think the lay of the determines that doesn't it a little bit we actually Possibly play other ideas we cly open to that we have two others we've that do kind of do exactly say kind more regular Lots kinding straight from north to south um and I think that also works cool okay perfect good deal just the more question are you losing then one of your barns one of your sheds I'm losing a barn and a shed actually you're taking them both out on that side that corner okay trying to keep the one create that bigger lot of the far west side if that's an opportunity but I can own it all that helps with that eating and all that work so we'll just have more communication with the staff I think to find some solutions and I'm not opposed to that open space you know we have the do it so do you know let's do it that's what people that's what we're trying to accomplish and then I assume that that Barn is worthy to keep for you then too I mean it would be OB never have enough storage yep no I just I go buy your property and it's it's neat to see so it's neat to hear you growing the the the property for your families and stuff like that kind of surprising but kind of fun in this we we all want to move away from where we grew up that's what he means it's good to see you don't want to do that just depends on how much Dad gouges you to buy one of these pieces okay there you go I didn't have the heart to do it to my kids either so too funny all right well thank you very much thanks for coming yeah no problem give them a minute and then we'll go back to uh 8B and actually since we're kind of having a natural breaker does does anyone need a break I'm break okay we'll recess for 5 minutes come back at uh 911 is 911 record in progress um and we will pick up with n or 8B uh yes mayor and council members unfortunately Uh Kevin Matson can't be here this evening so I'll be presenting for him uh as you're aware we've been working on a a bellweather boardwalk I actually call it a bridge uh because of the height that's going to be required on it uh it's going to be roughly 600 feet and in working with the py developers we've come to an agreement on the design standards and uh also on um the scope of the project a right now py would cover the cost of developing it and implementing it and we also have the opportunity to so this this is the rough of where it's located crossing the Wetland from the amenities facility uh to our our trail system which I believe everybody's had an opportunity to visit um the the key components of this uh in the pack you saw a picture that spells out the design standards um there's some height requirements uh some other things the when it went to the parks and trails commission uh two things that were really key uh to highlight one was uh the design the proposed design in the packet you saw three different designs they did not like design number one they did not like design did not okay they preferred design number two uh for a couple of different reasons but primarily for the more finished look I believe this is uh the trail that you see if you go to a diner in Bloomington the 9mile uh Creek Trail which is a very extensive piece of Boardwalk if you want to go and check it out yourself um there was questions raised about the materials if they could use a different kind of material um I think staff is still going towards the common use concerned about the cost uh because if we encroach on cost cost uh there's concerns that py might want to have us take over some of those costs right now having py uh build it is in our best interest because then we preserve those Park dedication dollars towards other projects the second part so this this would be their preferred design of the three pictures that were included there's the third uh this was parks and trails commission's preferred uh the second was uh there is an opportunity here to add or enhance the amenity um and they threw out a couple of different proposals one was a uh a kickout or a a open additional area if you will a walk out on it Lookout M uh which could have some bench seating or some toe lights uh then would light it uh during the off season or in the evening rather uh so uh of the different proposed uh potential enhancements they preferred the the the kickout or the buildout with some potential seating uh if possible they would like to see some tow lighting included a couple important notes on this is um because of the design standards it was not designed to take on any heavy equipment so uh there was a a phase yes I had a question on that um with an elder population some of them are going to be in motorized wheelchairs would the base design accommodate those people people so we took note of that uh that there was questions about ADA accessibility and we're going to confirm that but but we believe at first blush that that would be the case uh when we were talking heavy equipment there are concerns that some of the residents would drive their golf carts uh to the club facility the clubhouse uh this could not accommodate a golf cart and uh when we had the heavier design standards it was really to accomplish heavy equipment when the water treat or where the water tower was going to be located there in order to provide maintenance to the water tower it was going to be needed as an access way uh so that's why it had the heavier design standards since that's not necessary um it couldn't accommodate even the likes of a golf cart uh the implication of that is that it will not we will not be able to perform winter maintenance on this it'll be closed in the winter because we can't get a tractor on there in order to clean it off would there and it's 600 ft long truth would we get maybe some of the details of cuz couldn't there conceivably in a heavy snow winter be a point at which it needs to be shovel shut down or or well if the snow that accumulates on it is so heavy that it causes it to fail like like the metronome ceiling did um but we can't get equipment or whoever can't get equipment on there to do that does that create a problem um I don't know that we'd have as enough snow to make it know okay make S be that High um but never say never here right um but hopefully not okay uh so so those those were the highlights of the conversation um and then just looking from for Council to give some guidance again parks and trails request is to have this uh to the enhancements be uh a lookout area with potential seating and if there's still sufficient budget to have some tow lighting yeah I would 100% agree with both of those um I I think that little kickout area would be a nice amenity to make it more than just a little path it be could be a little destination you could sit and hang out um and the toil lights I think would be useful given the length of it even if they're not all that frequent just to have some lighting there so it's not Pitch Black out 600 ft I mean there's railing so you'd be okay but still I think you'd like some some small lighting um so I think both those would be great many of these to have I agree on the seating area I would maybe throw in a fra for shade during the day in that area too I'm a little concerned with the to lighting just because it'll attract mosquitoes to Wetland or from the Wetland to the pedestrians well you can do the yellow yeah I don't know not not so much anymore right yeah cuz it's better than no heat with the LEDs and stuff yeah about bug zappers all the way down use the bug zappers to light everything it just Electrify the pond [Music] uh um but yeah other than that um and to Jeremy's comment if I I certainly wouldn't be opposed if there's funds available to add some sort of shade structure as well um but I would I would put kind of the same priority like order priority that parks and trails did and then that as the third okay and uh just affirming the of the three examples uh does council also for the second or would they wish to change that I I guess I want to know the second one what's to prevent people from falling in the board there are or there still cables on that one hard yes so you there's cables located two is good this has the topper and then it also has an inside guarding board so it actually has more two is good the question uh where do we get these pictures and who who's waving in that second one uh don't know it's not mine I just thought it was a funny picture Little W yeah it's young cabin we'll go good read could we Implement shade structures uh Willows do real well in wetlands and stuff is there a willow tree or something trees that could be planted in the middle you''ll be underwater most of the time yeah so the bounce at at this point uh is is pretty high and a willow if you've had a willow is actually pretty high maintenance tree it's dirty and stuff forget that I didn't say anything scratch that life cycle of a willow is pretty true true true okay but yeah I'm fine with too I think yep if parks and travels like it works for me um that's helpful feedback I don't have anything else on the boardwalk design has nothing else sounds good I think Bel weather will be excited about that well done Kevin getting done hope soon uh so next is the crop land seating can I make a motion on crop land seting yeah do we need a motion well it's direct staff sure uh option one Yep this is really obvious this is a really obvious one because we're not even making the decision we're asking parks and trails to help us make a recommendation so we're not even giving input into what we actually do here works for me we have motion and we do have some like work to do it was a productive discussion with them perfect um to understand and really what's going to dictate it is the quality of the soils so we got to get some feedback from soil Bings sounds good to we have a second second give it give it to him okay he's I was going to give it to v n Dean Dean has his hand up first you had you verbalize it first second is Nichols uh any further discussion all those in favor say I I okay put another notch in my iPad case that's not your I I've worked with those entities with up like four of those three of those options and so I'm curious as to what they come back with yeah good deal uh as far as winter Trail maintenance um I know this has been a longstanding conversation and I think that there has been uh in just my short observ from when we brought this forward in December January of last year a uh a little bit of a pivot and I think there's a couple reasons for it um one is uh the expenses related to Winter maintenance are significant and then the benefit that you get from Winter maintenance is negligible I think Tom Anderson had the best testimony at the parks and trails Commission in which he talked about going to to a park adjacent to 117 in Rogers in which they do provide winter maintenance but just the nature of our area out here in this rural area it it drifts over there and so it becomes unpassable because of drifts soon after and and because it's been cleared the wind makes it slick whereas if you aren't trying to do that we don't have the staff and the equipment to clear it every hour uh we're trying to do that with our heavy trucks to keep our roads clear um and the same challenge that we have on the roads is even greater on the trails because the roads are connected the trails are disconnected so we have to take the equipment from spot to spot to spot to spot if we were to do that so I think that was one growing in awareness of that uh what would be the timing for us to consider it it would be if we had an easier maintenance solution which would be Loop mhm so for example when we have a maintenance facility or a maintenance storage place in City Park and we have the loop trail that becomes a trail that everyone in the city can go and access if they want to walk in the winter on a cleared off Trail MH uh another conversation was the expense related to it because we do have to transport so much and trails are not they're disconnected and they're not looped there is the desire right now of uh one HSA in particular but potentially the desire of other hsas in the future even though the city is not budgeting to do that there's still a desire to clear off trails in a particular neighborhood and so it was identified that we need to develop some agreements with those hsas HOA oh sorry HOAs sorry thanks yeah HOAs not health savings accounts yeah yeah so we we need to develop some agreements with those HOAs uh in case as they're Contracting to have those Trails cleared off if they do any damage to the trails uh just just in terms of liability for the infrastructure um to make sure that if if if we're going to allow them to clear them off if they want to at their expense if something happens that we've discussed how we want that to be dealt with if something happened um and we could deal with that on a case case basis uh if and when HOAs uh desired to do it one of the things that was brought up is for example the bellweather HOA has a lot of driveways adjacent to a trail and the timing if we were if the city were to do it it wouldn't be the priority we would get our roads cleared first by the time we get to clear a trail if we were to go through Bell weather uh we're potentially going to have a lot of frustrated residents as we've now taken Snow Trails across all of their driveways um and so to to synchronize that probably would make sense for the HOA to have the people who are doing the sidewalks to do the Trails um so a lot of that at least some of the HOAs have it's the homeowners doing the sidewalks I don't know if that's the same in all of our H H neighborhoods but some can I ask you a question Dames um question to wake him up um the if we allow uh HOA to plow city trails and some something happens they'll just the attorneys will just say well who's got deeper wallets because it's a city Trail and we allow someone to pave them or to plow them then it's e they're going to sue both the city because it's our trails and the HOA and the company plowing them company plowing them won't have any money the HOA isn't going to have any money and then we have m so they're going who's suing in this scenario I'm saying if we allow HOAs what who is suing who if we allow HOAs to plow the trails and some something happens an attorney is going to sue us because they're all our Trails the HOA because they're the ones doing the the plowing and the plow company they'll Sue they'll just Sue all of us the plow company won't have any money the HOA won't either and we'll Al if we allow someone to do something on our property on our Trails I think we'll be legally responsible ultimately because we're going to be the ones with the money well I think that's you're worried about that but we're not worried about the state suing us over refusing to because I think we'll win that one um but like you that's what the recommendation is from staff to have an agreement in place if we were to do that right agreement don't mean anything mean that's not true exactly like all right fine if it's if it's something that's common and will be bulletproof then so what you're saying is you don't want to allow the ho to plow the trails in the winter time no maintenance whatever uhuh they should have signs that say we do not maintain maybe we shouldn't let people walk Trails either they got them in Baker in Baker they say we don't I don't know unless you tell whatever true unless you say otherwise that we ultimately um won't be held responsible for granting permission to somebody for somebody to power trails I think we I think we'll be held responsible but that's just me I guess I'm open to allowing to allowing it on a case- by case basis if we think there's an agreement that we can come to a contract that we can make with each of these HOAs that protects us from that so so the request from the commission was to explore that as an option for HOAs that wish to because right now uh they believe that there's not a necessity nor an appetite for us to start doing winter Trail maintenance uh part of that is just the realities of our operating environment and instead to encourage people to put on their snowshoes put on their Cross Country Skis put on their muckluck or their cells and enjoy the rural character of our community yeah is there a motion that needs to be made don't think no just getting guidance all right I I think we should allow them to clear them if they want to if we feel like we're in a safe position um yeah with if if we can and my level of concern about being in a safe position is extremely low I I I'm more worried about the trail being damaged by somebody getting over with a snow plow that anything else yeah I would I would lump that into the same thing just general liability for the trail being damaged we don't want to be having to pay for that or if I guess the trail hurt and Su us we wouldn't want that so so one of the things we did Kevin and I talked about is is we would require them to demonstrate that they have appropriate Insurance uh and then what are we going to do to make sure there there's no snowmobiles cut across this bridge or do stuff like that is there that's back on the other one oh so so the Bell weather Boardwalk Bridge uh that that's going to we're going to have to close that down in the winter we're not going to want people crossing it I would so how how we do that figure that out operationally um because we we also don't want people walking across in the winter because if they to the point of you know liability slipping falling slip fall and then we've got to figure out a way to rescue them in the middle having a way to shut it down okay uh if there's nothing else I think we're go down Trails sounds good then we will move on to we already did 9A uh so 9B which is the revised commercial industrial work plantion um I will ask natal if there's any um I think you can make a motion I think the motion would essentially be to accept the timeline as well as move forward with the comparable cities that staff used for earlier comparisons in this process I think that would be the direction I'll make a motion to authorize uh or mod ify the revised work plan as desired and direct staff to use on the to yeah to use the comparable cities okay do second Camp perfect any further discussion all those in favor say I I iOS we got two was four for the record I said it was two verbal yeses and two kns you're done okay and with that um Council reports I don't have anything specific uh anyone else have that anything like to share no all kinds of stuff I'd love to share just I don't want to take time fair enough there will be more meetings so y one more meeting you decide to run you long we'll give you many agenda items as you want and that last one um planning project update is in the agenda as usual same with our schedule uh if you're interested in paying attention online to the video later I'm assuming because I don't know if anyone's on right now uh kind of a wonky schedule ahead next meeting is December 12 12th and then that's it for the year um we do have holiday food and toy drive coming up a lot City stuff coming off 10th and then yeah the other thing on uh at City Hall um and yeah the fourth on the fourth so yeah and then we'll be in Feels Like a Star Wars year 2025 caught up Star Wars year yeah