[0:13] Madam Chair: [Music] good evening I call the October 2nd 24 Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting to order the first item of business is the approval of the agenda is there any changes from staff [1:00] Alex Sharp: good evening Madame chair members of commission we have no changes for you at this time [1:12] Madam Chair: thank you any changes from the Commissioners [1:16] Commissioner Schindler: move approval [1:17] Commissioner Scanlan: second [1:18] Madam Chair: thank you that was um moved by commissioner Schindler and seconded by commissioner scanland any discussion if not all those in favor signify by saying I I I uh oppose nay motion carries next item of business is the approval of the consent agenda the consent agenda items are considered routine and will be enacted with a single motion without discussion unless a commissioner or a citizen requests to have any item separately considered it will then be moved to the land use action items for consideration can I get a motion [1:49] Commissioner Scanlan: so moved [1:50] Commissioner Schindler: second [1:51] Madam Chair: motion made by commissioner scanland second by commissioner Schindler any discussion if not all those in favor signify by saying I I I oppose nay motion carries brings us to public hearings and it looks like there's none on the agenda tonight so that brings us to land use action items and we have tonight a zoning ordinance Amendment cannabis business ordinance by by Alex sharp [2:36] Alex Sharp: thank you chairs members of the commission chair members of the commission so the commission previously reviewed this item on September 18th there were very little concern items and so we did move this forward a little bit from the schedule that you previous previously had seen I will go through a pretty light recap here we we are seeking action from the commission this evening we are looking for that top action where you recommend adoption of the ordinance and then uh add in a provision to address a commissioner concern that was expressed I'll bring that up a little bit later go into a more detail and then secondarily we are asking that you uh make that adoption also subject to a recommendation on whether separation distances between retail businesses should be sought and if so at what distance uh that the council suggested would the Planning Commission also recommend so real quick just based on uh some initial pieces wanted to make sure the commission's aware of a recap of some of what was discussed at the last meeting last meeting there were essentially three major provisions that city council recommended going forward with based upon State Statute State Statute allowed allows the city of Apple Valley to limit the total number of cannabis retail sales based on 12,500 residents the maximum or minimum number that we could allow would then be five by our current population that was something that was recommended by the uh city council and then presented to the Planning Commission we didn't hear any comments or concerns on that number secondarily it was based upon separation buffer distances should we have them between sensitive uses those sensitive uses were things like daycare schools uh uh halfway houses things of that nature they were also set by State statue at 1,500 ft the as their maximum buffer that they were allowed to have and those distances were set by State Statute presented to city council uh pretty universally they recommended that we that the city move forward with 1,500 foot separations at their maximum distances so presented that to city council but very minimal discussion is they were already recommended by city council to be at the maximum distance unless the commission felt they should be less for some reason third was overall zoning districts which we presented to you and if you do have any questions can go into greater detail not prepared to present on all the zoning districts at this time this evening though uh as we did go through that pretty thoroughly and then the one major question that uh city council had asked Commissioners to study was those buffer distances with that I'm going to go into some of the public testimony because that was a little bit uh more what I was planning on going into but wanted to make sure that I'd answered or addressed questions the commission that they'd had previously so we received no public testimony and by this I mean uh there were no comments from people that came up however we did receive one written testimony uh that that was entered into the record you had that on your DS last time that namely uh was in concern about the definition of a retail cannabis business our City attorney shared that concern and has gone back and revised our definition within the draft ordinance before you this evening the draft ordinance was then sent out to that concerned party they were able to review it and withdrew any concern from their comments so we were able to address their concern as part of the definition secondarily one of the primary comments that staff heard the Commissioners had was a uh what would occur if a existing licensed and registered retail business with the city of Apple Valley were to go into place and then one of those sensitive uh uses that uh have those 500 or th000 foot buffers schools daycares Etc were to move in closer once that business had been established the City attorney uh did a very good job of addressing that at the last public hearing however we did find some example language in the city of Lakeville ordinance that we are going to amend and you'll see that part of your motion this evening is to kind of tweak out that language a little bit it'll be very similar to what you see in the motion itself uh essentially stating that that use will be allowed to continue if it was licensed and registered prior to one of the sensitive uses moving into place it would not be obviously subject to if the Planning Commission and city council adopt adopt additional buffer between retail spaces so that's not what it's attempted attempting to address just so you have a little bit of background of what that Lakeville provision is I've copied it directly from their ordinance Lakeville only chose to include buffers from schools they didn't include daycares or those other sensitive uses that we've spoken about and they actually didn't include a full 500 foot buffer or I'm sorry a full thousand foot buffer they only put in a 500 foot buffer so our motion or our ordinance will address all of the other uses as well not just the schools but it'll be similarly worded to what you've seen in both the uh recommended action and then in the provision above that addresses the planning commission's concern about uh that going forward I will suggest that you just take a look at that motion make sure that you are comfortable with it as we move forward here but if you've got questions on it or need to tweak it we can uh what this does allow is for the City attorney and staff to determine where in the ordinance we want to place this provision uh as we didn't have it within your draft ordinance for this evening but we will have it in time for the city council review there is one additional motion that noted already just wanted to go into a little bit of detail on that uh so that you could ask questions if you want to and to facilitate your discussion I additionally also have the map that was shown to you at the last meeting to help show you some of those already existing buffer distances that were recommended at their maximums whether that be 500 or a th000 there was one commission commissioner who had asked at the last meeting what the difference between a 500,000 foot buffer did in terms of total number of sites so I want you to have that information as part of your discussion at a 500t buffer between retail cannabis businesses there' be approximately 19 sites within the community at the Thousand there's only around 13 ft it starts getting pretty tight at that but we are pretty confident we could hit that minimum of five be compliant with State Statute that we have that one of the other things to note is that that is a uh that is an all right amount of number either way considering after we've added in all of those buffers uh whether that be the sensitive or the sensitive use buffers I should clarify we have around 87 sites available so getting down to the 19 or 13 doesn't present a high concern for staff in terms of being able to still say there are sufficient sites within the community percentage wise what I'll do is I'll go back to this map if it's helpful for the commission's discussion um as the next slide is asking to begin making your motions and opening things up for any questions that the commission may have so if You' like me to proceed to that slide I can otherwise we can leave it on here to facilitate your discussion as you are asking questions and moving through the uh recommendation that we are seeking this evening [10:20] Madam Chair: thank you Alex uh commissioner Mahal [10:28] Commissioner Mahal: thank you madam chair Alex um I guess this is just more of an observation um you know uh I I just think this is I'm a little bit perplexed as to what this is this is an observation not really a question at this point in time um that it it's it just seems kind of ridiculous the way this is get gets handed down to the cities and local governments um without very very much discretion at all and I I just find the the heavy-handedness the mandatory nature of this handed down from on high from the folks in St Paul is just bizarre but here we are um and I think the staff has done a great job um drafting up the uh ordinance based on the dictates of uh the legislature and the governor on this particular um business that has to be required um and I I I'm I'm certainly in favor of the maximum buffers that the statute allows but I also want to note one of the inconsistencies and I don't have the the specific provision of the legislation in front of me but kind of the the the strangeness of this whole exercise is that if if the the the the buffers that are allowed under the state statute would result in fewer than the maximum number of um sites you the city would have to adjust its buffers accordingly and again to me that's just a bizarre heavy-handed approach that takes this issue completely out of local control um it just sort of but it is what it is um so I think staff has done a a wonderful job uh drafting the the ordinance that is required by state state law I'm going to support it because there's really no other choice that the legislature and the governor have given cities um but I I just think it's moving Full Speed Ahead Damn the Torpedoes and you know forget uh letting local governments make decisions that are in the best interest of their cities it's just being for for down the throats of the of the Cities so that's my thought [13:17] Madam Chair: thank you maybe this was discussed at the last one so I apologize if this is being repetitive but I just want to clearly understand a couple of things myself before I get to the other Commissioners is again I remember talking about it when the city Grows Right so 12,500 if there's more people do we add another Sher C [13:30] Alex Sharp: uh yes but we'd have to add the additional 12,500 right now the way the ordinance is written is it would require an ordinance Amendment it was something that staff in the City attorney discussed but rather than place it per 12,500 we'd rather have the definitive uh number within the ordinance and go back and amend that if need that uh it's going to take some time before we need to add it so we're not in danger of needing to go back and amend the ordinance in the next several years [14:04] Madam Chair: good I'll be off the board by then but the second one I wanted to ask is and again I apologize if this has been talked about but how do you separate them how are you going to have some on the east side and west side I mean they're not all going to be just Cong in one group of area right I mean they're when they come in do you understand what I'm saying like 42 and uh and uh Cedar aren't going to have like four them right there right I mean do you have to move them around a little bit so everybody [14:43] Alex Sharp: that's the separation buffer that the Planning Commission is asked to weigh in on with that 500,000 foot between the two businesses uh that would do that alternatively there would they could congregate all in one area one intersection uh they could be on all four corners of Cedar and 42 if separation buffers were not in place [15:00] Madam Chair: so do does the applicant get to choose kind of their location will you say well we've got four opportunities four places where you can possibly go into do you choose them or do they choose them who chooses them [15:10] Alex Sharp: like any other retail business we don't choose how many mattress stores or where they locate really no I know if it's a retail this is a retail sale the state is categorized it as a retail sale like a coffee shop they could go in all four corners like a mattress store they could go in all four corners and without a separation buffer distance the city would not be able to weigh in on where they would go we don't we don't pick any more with this business than we would with Bed Bath and Beyond sure to choose one that's left if they chose to come back in so this is a retail sale like any other um tobacco shops are in the same way which was brought up at the last meeting there is no separation distance on tobacco shops there's no separation distance on Apple Valley Liquor Store does from other uses this is one of the very few uses that would have that uh the only other example two examples that we have en code are adult uses with separation distances from separate from sensitive uses and uh class two restaurants which are those with high drive-thru very little sit down and class two hoods so your typical fast food they have a th000 foot separation distance from residential those are our only two existing examples of a retail sale that have that kind of a buffer so just giving you the context as they was brought up at the last meeting but staff the city would not choose individual locations they would apply for them and if they are compliant and outside of all buffers would be permitted [16:38] Madam Chair: you understand my concern right [16:42] Alex Sharp: no I I get it I understand it it's just you know it can affect people's property in one area if it's heavily in one area versus in another area uh Cher Gritz I believe that's the concept behind the buffer distance is to prevent individual intersections potentially or areas from becoming overwhelmed with a single business type um that said from the trainings that staff has attended on this type of business there is a significant upfront capital investment that will be required these are regulated similar to liquor stores they can't just sell any product they can only sell the specified products that they have and they must meet some pretty high security requirements that will require some very very large Capital expenditures and so if you do see this go into a location there will be a significant investment in that location as well whether that's for good or ill in terms of how that serves the neighborhood or what the characteristic or feeling is and I think that's why that separation distance is there but one piece that I wanted to at least try to alleviate is you aren't going end up going into there are other uses uh and not to pick on them but tobacco shops for instance that have gone into lower rent areas and more dilapitated buildings and they see very minimal reinvestment in their spaces that's not as anticipated with the use like this just because of the capital expenditure and their security that they need to have in and the other state Provisions how they need to set things up um so there's that was the intent that is what the industry has stated it has been whether that comes to pass uh is to be told we haven't seen this come around yet so ask me in a few years whether that that will will hold but that is that was the intent by some of this so I wanted to share some of the context because I've had the privilege of being able to attend some additional training uh reading some of those additional state requirements that are outside of zoning that we presented to you Etc [18:59] Madam Chair: okay thank you commissioner scanland [19:04] Commissioner Scanlan: Madam chair well first Alex thank you for all the work that you're doing here and just the explanations and things you're doing tonight is very helpful so much appreciated yours and along with staff's work on this um retail a retailer wanting to come in they can basically look at and and come up with a location any location within these red zoned areas that you have selected with the exception of the buffer [19:45] Alex Sharp: chair commissioner scanland that is correct [19:47] Commissioner Scanlan: okay then the then the next question is is my concern is and I don't have the answer to this so maybe with some of your um education on this in diving into this you might be able to help out a little bit that an establishment like this coming in the my concern is the effects on existing retail whether that positive or negative and especially with the idea is if we don't do any buffering that you know you could have one two three or all five of them lined up next to each other and just can be competing and what that would do to an existing retail retailer of any type [20:25] Alex Sharp: chair CZ commissioner scanland I think that's a extremely valid concern that I don't think anyone has the crystal ball to fully answer um looking at other states doesn't provide as clear of a picture as you think that it might uh states where it has been done a little better um the regulations have put some of the security stuff in place perhaps you don't see as many of the concerns but there's still concerns within those localities as well so I don't think there's anything that could fully address that question and until we see it occurring that said if were I a landlord and this were a multi-tenant building I would seriously have some reservations about allowing a building or a use like this in and the trainings that I've been to most of the time they've the Cannabis businesses themselves have been advised either find a very sympathetic landlord or buy the property or have your landlord buy a property and have you be the sole proprietor most of these by the industry standard looking around at other states have been still proprietor rather than multi-tenant buildings whether that will always come to pass here within the state of Minnesota or within Apple Valley I could not Hazard Hazard a guess [21:55] Commissioner Scanlan: okay you know kind of you know just based on my question and your your feedback on that um I I guess I'm looking to think of it more conservatively in terms of looking out for the existing retailers that are in a particular business Zone and to look at the maximum th000 foot because we can always come back if and that there's data or there's somebody that comes back with asking for a change in the um um Z zoning that we can sit back and um re re revisit it and move it to 500 or not put anything on it in in the future but I think until we have have a better understanding of it I'd like to think more conservatively um and look at the thousand feet option thank you [22:38] Madam Chair: that's why we're looking for it yep commissioner puit [22:42] Commissioner Puit: yeah thank you madam chair uh Alex a question on the definition of available sites when you referenced uh the 500t separation distance these are the buffers between retail sales of cannabis products or a th000 ft 13 sites are these undeveloped properties are these storefronts that are available currently just kind of curious the definition of an available site developable site [22:54] Alex Sharp: uh thank you chair curs commissioner puit developable site would be any site that allows retail sales within the community so the one clarification I would have to a prior comment that I wanted to get to was some of the purple which is our mixed business campus was set up to allow for some retail business sales which is why it's on the map um anywhere that a retail sale would be allowed whether that's a brand new site or whether that is an existing site that they demolish and refurbish or try to go into a new multi-tenant space would be considered a retail business site this is again treated similar similarly to any mattress store coffee shop tobacco shop going into any location where they would be permitted so not necessarily like a shovel ready here's an office front or a store Front NE necessarily could be but not required to be [23:42] Commissioner Puit: okay thanks [23:45] Madam Chair: commissioner sandal [23:48] Commissioner Sandal: chair CTS um Alex um kind of following up with um commissioner Pit's um comments so if there if if it was the the Thousand buffer zone thousand feet buffer zone there's 13 sites but they're not able to rent those sites for whatever reason or buy those sites for whatever reason would there be consequences to the city for that like would we have to come back then and allow [24:32] Alex Sharp: chair CTS commissioner sandal if I State this incorrectly I'll let the City attorney jump in but no the city does not control the private Market we don't need to require land to be available for them okay we can't prohibit them from at least five locations within town we don't have to make sure that five locations within town are available or that we have five locations okay so all the city is stating and and I'm sorry I haven't clarified this better the five locations is not a requirement that we have at least five locations it's that we couldn't have we couldn't prohibit it down to any less in the number of licenses that were allowed to uh registrations were allowed to issue the state will still issue the license the five is not a requirement that we have five cannabis retail spots nor that we ensure land owners Property Owners would allow five locations [25:17] Commissioner Sandal: thank you [25:19] Madam Chair: any other discussion do we want to weigh in on the three options do you want to discuss the recommendations of um having no buffer recommending the 500 buffer or the Thousand anybody want to weigh in on their opinions and what they desire commissioner Hass [25:56] Commissioner Hass: Madam chair um I after the discussion here it just confirmed what I was thinking prior to this is the thousand foot buffer is the one that um is going to be a better I can't say protection of our our current retailers but uh keeping that the Cannabis retailers from clumping into a certain area and overwhelming a certain area of town in a certain area where the retailers are are doing their business and changing things for them I think that that's a good way to start off and I think it was mentioned earlier is if we have to come back to the table and talk about this again uh because of whatever the situation might be to change and drop it two a 500 that's an option for us but I think being conserved on on the first round is looking at the Thousand being consistent on that it would be a better bet for for what we're looking at [26:42] Madam Chair: okay thank you commissioner milal [26:49] Commissioner Mahal: I would concur with with those observations [26:52] Madam Chair: any else discuss I guess I personally would say that also um I'm in was in sales for many years and you never start low and go up high you always start up high and you can go low right and that's what I think too is that you start out high and then you can always take a look and see what needs to be discussed and altered if need be commissioner puit [27:30] Commissioner Puit: I just want to concur with that consensus as well and uh knowing that if this becomes an issue or a concern we can revisit it a future date um you know I would be supportive of the most conservative of the three options there knowing there's 13 sites available thank you [27:46] Madam Chair: commissioner Schindler do you want to weigh in [27:51] Commissioner Schindler: um yeah I'm comfortable with the thousand feet I mean the way I kind of look at it is I would treat it no different than the sale of alcohol to me it's the exact same thing but and it surprises me that we have no rules on alcohol or tobacco kind of surprised me I guess I should have read things a little closer but that I would just treat it like that so um but since we don't do anything with alcohol sales because the city controls that um I guess I'm comfortable with letting it see how how it works at that at that level Commission I will say just to throw this in I I went on business to Albuquerque and they're all everything's all built out in the in the in this business and if you go into a nice area the dispensary is gorgeous it it's you almost want to go in and tour it but if you go to a bad neighborhood it looks just like a tobacco shop so I think I think you're going to get what the neighborhood wants because and also the number you put in you're assuming that we have enough people in Apple Valley to Warrant 5 to 13 dispensaries I mean I don't know I mean if I guess if five can survive here then there's a need [29:01] Madam Chair: I was going to agree with that saying that if they were business savvy they would know to keep it you know the smoke shops can get kind of Dungey out fromont I know they smoke out front you know and that kind of stuff um but if they kept it neat and clean and classy might get the different kind of people coming in too you know I think and I think we're we pigeon hole who the customer base is too sure sure [29:39] Commissioner Schindler: makes sense CU you go to these affluent neighborhoods in Santa Fe it's like a museum yeah I'm sure and uh it's not just like you know predy sure people that are going in and out right right right [29:47] Madam Chair: commissioner sandal do you have an opinion [29:50] Commissioner Sandal: I do um I I concur with um what's been said here tonight um I think it makes the sense most sense to go High um before moving low if it becomes necessary [30:00] Madam Chair: okay well any more questions for Alex before we make a motion no Alex you did a good job so we don't have to ask you a whole bunch of questions so thank you for that do I have a motion [30:17] Commissioner Scanlan: Madam chair I recommend adoption of the draft cannabis business ordinance with an additional provision stating that the setb bum buffers do not apply to an existing licensed and registered cannabis retailer if one of the setbacks special uses subsequently commences operation within the buffer area Additionally the Planning Commission recommends a 1,000 ft separation distance buffer between retail sales location of cannabis products [31:07] Madam Chair: do we also add the provision he just did the no about the setback buffers do not apply to the existing license chair I apologize confusion that's in the original Rec uh recommendation above gotcha second anybody second [31:29] Commissioner Sandal: second [31:30] Madam Chair: okay so the uh motion was made by commissioner scanland and second by commissioner sandal do we have any discussion all those in favor signify by saying I I oppose nay motion carries thanks Alex okay that brings us to other business and we will let Tim benetti have the floor [31:51] Tim Benetti: thank you madam chair um thank you for that U for your time and effort in this uh very important ordinance by the way it's you're right it's something that we really didn't expect in my years as a planner that I'd be working on and I'm sure the planners back in prohibition days are thinking the same thing so guess what we're here and I think you did a great job I I I think we've got I think this will work for our community and I think the limitations will probably uh temper that a little bit so we're hopeful this ordinance will work for for for everyone in the community so thank you for your for your work and and your comments tonight that those are very helpful uh just want to let you know our next meeting of October 16th uh I don't think we have any applications in the pipeline so I think we're going to give you uh a night off just before Thanksgiving uh and we'll have our next meeting on November 6 and our Council October 10th and 24th our plan is to bring this ordinance back to the council for either October 24th October 24th for first reading and if they're inclined to do so they may wave the second reading and just adopt it that night so uh so feel free to just uh chime in or or text or uh email us if you have any questions on that uh uh other than that um have a good evening and we'll see you soon thank you [33:04] Madam Chair: uh motion to adjourn [33:07] Commissioner Schindler: so move [33:08] Commissioner Halas: second [33:09] Madam Chair: okay that was moved by commissioner Shindler and second by commissioner Halas favor say I this meeting has adjourned [Music]