**[0:00] [Music]** **[0:14] Chair:** Good evening. We'll call the meeting to order. On behalf of the Planning Commission, I'd like to welcome our residents and viewers to this regular meeting of November 12, 2024. On tonight's agenda, we have one public hearing, and after that, we have two discussion items. **[1:00] Chair:** Before we open the public hearing, we have one housekeeping item to take care of, and that would be two sets of minutes. The first set is from our special work session on October 8th, and the second set is from our regular meeting on October 8th. We'll take these together. Are there any additions or corrections to those minutes? If not, is there a motion? **Commissioner Chris Teske:** Motion to approve. **Chair:** We have a motion for approval. Is there a second? **Commissioner Leah Le:** I'll second. **Chair:** Motion and a second. All in favor say "Aye." **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair:** All right, both sets of minutes are approved. With that then, we'll open up our public hearing. This is a combined preliminary and final plat for Aan Null development. And Jared, you going to take this? **[1:45] Jared Aslakson (City Planner):** Yes, thank you, Chair, Planning Commission members. A public hearing was noticed and published in the newspaper for today's meeting regarding a combined preliminary and final plat for a three-lot subdivision to be called Aan Null, located at 19927 Akin Road. As the commission may be aware, a plan of this proposed subdivision was reviewed by the commission in February of last year, but the applicant is requesting the public hearing be continued to the December 10th Planning Commission meeting, as additional modifications are being done to the plans. **Chair:** All right, thank you, Jared. With that then, I look for a motion to continue the public hearing to our December meeting. **Commissioner Phil Snowback:** I'll make the motion. **Chair:** We have a motion. Is there a second? **Commissioner Mike Windshuttle:** I'll second. **Chair:** Motion and a second. Call the roll, please. **Staff:** Windshuttle? **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Yes. **Staff:** Teske? **Commissioner Teske:** Yes. **Staff:** Brady? **Commissioner Brady:** Yes. **Staff:** Le? **Commissioner Le:** Yes. **Staff:** Snowback? **Commissioner Snowback:** Yes. **[2:30] Chair:** All right, with that then, that concludes our public hearing. We'll move now into our discussion items. These agenda items are commission discussion where we will discuss and then provide recommendations to our city council. The first discussion item is the final plat and final planned unit development (PUD) for the Farmington Technology Park. The applicant is Tract. And Tony, you're going to take this? **Tony Wippler (Planning Manager):** I am. Thank you, Mr. Chair, commission members. Yes, before you this evening is the final plat and final planned unit development for the Farmington Technology Park. The request is from Tract, and they are requesting the review of said final plat and planned unit development. **[3:16] Tony Wippler:** The Farmington Technology Park property consists of three parcels, as the commission is aware, including the Fountain Valley Golf Course and the two former Angus properties. The final plat consists of three lots spread over 338 acres of land. Lot 1, Block 1 is 150 acres and that's the northern portion of the data center campus. Lot 2, Block 1 is just over 2 acres in size; this parcel would be deeded to the city for utility purposes. And then the last lot is Lot 1, Block 2, which is 185 acres and that comprises the southern portion of the data center campus. This particular lot also is encumbered with approximately 69.8 acres of flood plane as well. **[4:04] Tony Wippler:** The plat does show a 75-foot right-of-way for Biscayne Avenue along the eastern boundary of Lot 1, Block 1. That would be for the county road to eventually go through. At this time, Biscayne is not planned to be constructed as part of this development; it would largely be a future county project at some future date and time. City Council did approve the preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development for this project on November 4th. The final plat is consistent with the approved preliminary plat that was reviewed previously, and this is just a copy of the plat itself. As you can see, the two large lots are Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, divided by 225th Street. Lot 2, Block 1—the lot that would be deeded to the city—is in the very northwest corner of the site adjacent to Minnesota 50. **[5:36] Tony Wippler:** As the commission is aware, Tract is proposing this property as a master-planned data center Technology Park, and it would include up to 12 data center buildings and two administrative buildings. They're proposing at least up to six data center buildings and one administrative building per lot. Square footage for the data centers on the northern campus is up to 1.6 million square feet and up to 933,000 square feet on the southern campus. And again, these are the high ends of what could fit on there, not saying that that is what is going to fit there. **[6:24] Tony Wippler:** If you'll recall, when we looked at the preliminary plat, there was a representative site plan. Again, that just shows what could fit there. The northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 2 is labeled as reserved for future electric utilities; this would be the potential location of an electric substation, which is necessary for data center uses. Future site plans will be required to be approved by the Planning Commission prior to construction of a data center building and ancillary use on the property. There are four anticipated accesses for the campuses: for the North campus, that would be Minnesota 50 and 225th Street West; the South campus would be on 225th Street West and Biscayne Avenue. And then there will be additional turn lane improvements that would be needed as part of this project that have been identified by a traffic study. **[7:12] Tony Wippler:** So the second thing that we're looking at this evening is the final planned unit development. As you are aware, we went through a number of these things with the preliminary planned unit development. They include things from setbacks, natural buffers, landscaping, general design standards, building height, fences, electric utility lines, noise, parking, substations, private communication towers, maximum lot coverage, and lighting. **[7:59] Tony Wippler:** In your packet, there's a redline version of the design standards. These are updated from what was previously reviewed by this commission at the preliminary plat stage. There are a lot of enhancements that were made as part of those added redlines. So that's included, and then we also have an ordinance in your packet. We will be approving the PUD as an ordinance; therefore, these design standards will be essentially codified into the city code versus having a separate planned unit development agreement. **[8:47] Tony Wippler:** We'll kind of walk through the 13 different areas that are addressed in the PUD standards. The first one, as I had mentioned, is building setbacks. This provides standards for the minimum setback of buildings from property lines. It includes a minimum setback of 250 feet from any property line adjacent to residential uses, a 150-foot setback from any property line not adjacent to non-residential uses, and a 40-foot setback from the right-of-way of 225th Street. **[9:34] Tony Wippler:** Number two is our natural buffers. And again, this provides for a 40-foot wide natural buffer along the majority of the perimeter of the site. With that, they are looking to keep as much of the natural vegetation that currently exists within that 40-foot buffer as they can. That is their intent. Landscaping: this provides a type of plantings that will be used throughout the site, allows for the use of rock, gravel, and mulch as an accent material for maintenance areas adjacent to buildings and around utility access points. It also provides for landscaping of parking lots and discusses berms, including berm height and construction timing. **[10:19] Tony Wippler:** Number four is the general design standards. This includes things for facade standards, screening, etc. It provides for language that provides protection from undifferentiated surfaces on principal building facades by requiring the use of at least two of the following design elements: change in building height, building setbacks, fenestration, changes in building material, use of accent materials, overhangs, use of canopies or porticos, arcades, and variations in roofline, including faux windows, green walls, and other enhanced design elements that could be approved by the Planning Commission at a future date. It also provides language regarding the screening of both ground-level and above-ground mounted mechanical equipment and structures. **[11:06] Tony Wippler:** The fifth one is building height. Maximum building height on site for a principal structure is 80 feet; however, the maximum height at the building setback line is proposed to be at 50 feet. The provision allows for a step-back approach to the building height: for each 1-foot increase in building height, the building must be stepped back 2 feet. Maximum building height for accessory structures is proposed to be at 50 feet. And the last thing provided in this provision is language that any building that is 80 feet in height must be set back a minimum of 400 feet from the property line adjacent to residentially zoned property. **[11:53] Tony Wippler:** The sixth area is fences. This provides requirements for security fencing and perimeter fencing. It allows for security fencing up to 14 feet in height and perimeter fencing to a maximum of 7 feet in height as well. There's also a discussion there on relocation of fencing and that the developer is willing to work with adjacent property owners to accomplish that relocation if necessary. **[12:40] Tony Wippler:** The next one is electric utility lines. This provision provides language on the need for electric utility lines and their construction as part of the overall project. We jump to noise: this provides language that noise generated from the site shall meet the requirements established by the MPCA. It provides language that a noise study be prepared at the time of site plan which demonstrates that the applicable noise levels will not be exceeded based on the specific systems and equipment that will be utilized. It provides language requiring the installation of physical sound attenuation measures on any mechanical equipment installed at the data center building located within 1,200 feet of any adjacent residential use under certain circumstances. **[13:27] Tony Wippler:** The ninth is parking, which requires a minimum of one parking space for each 1,000 square feet of office use. Ten talks about substations, discussing the need for outdoor mechanical and electrical equipment and that they must be fenced and screened. It states that fencing around the substation must be set back a minimum of 30 feet from a property line adjacent to a residentially zoned property and that any substation equipment must be set back a minimum of 50 feet. Number 11, private communication towers, provides language that these are permitted up to a maximum height of 80 feet. Twelve, maximum lot coverage, provides language that there are no maximum lot coverages for all uses built in the designated developable area. **[14:14] Tony Wippler:** And then the last one is a newer one that this commission did not see; it was added regarding lighting. It provides standards for on-site lighting, such as the maximum height of pole-mounted exterior lighting shall be 18 feet. Additionally, the maximum height of any building-mounted exterior lighting fixture shall be 35 feet in height. The action that is requested this evening is to recommend approval of the Farmington Technology Park final plat and final planned unit development or ordinance number 2024-12 contingent on the following: number one, a development contract between the developer and city of Farmington shall be executed and security and fees paid; submission of all other documents required under the development contract shall be required. **Chair:** All right, thank you, Tony. Before this commission gets into discussion, I'll see if there's any questions for you. I have one, and it's more of a clarification. You talked about the PUD ordinance. We had a little discussion earlier on this, and just so that the commission is clear because this is going to be for all PUDs going forward. It's listing out the differences in a PUD and then where you're codifying them. Can you explain that to the commission? **[15:45] Tony Wippler:** Correct. There's a couple of reasons why we're looking to make this change. Our ordinance doesn't spell out whether or not you do it through ordinance or PUD agreement. Our past practice has been through PUD agreement. Why we're looking to move to the ordinance is, in large part, it makes it easier to find those requirements, those deviations, those things that are specific to that PUD specifically, versus having an agreement that's five years old—where's that agreement? What's in it? Now it will literally be in code, in the zoning ordinance, to where we can point directly to it. It’s easier to find for the applicant, the city, and anybody looking for that information. **Chair:** Okay. Any PUD modifications, though, will remain the same process? **Tony Wippler:** Same process. **Chair:** Okay, I appreciate that. Any questions from the commission for Tony? **[16:30] Commissioner Chris Teske:** Yeah, I have one question, Tony. Can you describe the difference between this final plat and what a site plan is, just so we kind of know moving forward how the differences work? **Tony Wippler:** Yeah. The plat lays out the parcels themselves, essentially. The site plan is where we're going to really get into how the building looks, how it's situated on the lot, where the parking is going to be located, making sure that all those things that we identified in that PUD are being adhered to. That's really the difference. **[17:16] Tony Wippler:** The site plan is where you're going to get into the specifics: looking at elevations, looking at the lighting, looking at the sound, noise—all of that will come with the site plan. This is literally just setting up the property to where it can be divided, essentially. **Commissioner Teske:** Okay, and this process hasn't changed? This is how what goes for any and all development within this community? **Tony Wippler:** Correct. **Chair:** Anything else? Mitch, you anything? No? Okay. We have a couple of people from Tract. Did you have anything to add? If not, get ready for the commission questions. **[18:09] Jacob Steen (Attorney, Kimley-Horn/Tract Representative):** Yeah, thank you, Chair, Commissioners. Jacob Steen with Larkin Hoffman. We represent Tract. Tony did a good job of going through the proposed standards as well as the changes that have been made over the past several weeks based on discussions with staff, community members, and the council. The only thing that I would add is regarding the building height. As it's currently drafted, it would be for each 1-foot increase in building height, the building must be stepped back 2 feet. Because we have changed and made a commitment to setting an 80-foot building back to 400 feet, that will be changed: for every 1-foot increase in height, the building must be stepped back 5 feet. **Chair:** So Tony, this is new? This is a change to what they're working on? **Tony Wippler:** It is new, but it correlates to that 400-foot setback. It would be an enhancement, going from the two to the five. But yes, it correlates to that 400, which is a new one that this commission did not see prior. **[19:42] Jacob Steen:** And what I would say is under the previous formula, it would have been 310 feet, so it's just increasing that. And the idea, based on comments from the Mayor at Council, was that he wants to encourage having a 50-foot building as the closest building. So this would create that opportunity and essentially encourage the stepping of structures so that you wouldn't end up with just an 80-foot building at 310. **Chair:** We'll let the commission mull over that one for a little bit. I understand your logic; I just want to make sure they all agree with it. Okay, anything else? **Jacob Steen:** With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. **Chair:** All right, we'll start with the commission. Teske? **[20:28] Commissioner Chris Teske:** I think these look really good. I think it's a step in the right direction to kind of appease the community. I really enjoy the idea around the general design standards of the building and doing some different materials so they're just not all the same building 80 feet high. The setbacks are great. I don't have any issues with these; I think it addresses the setbacks, the screening, the berming. The lighting was a nice add to see on this, so I don't have any issues or concerns. **Chair:** I was going to mention to the commission that, as a reminder and a guide, a final plat and PUD should be consistent with the preliminary plat and preliminary PUD that was approved. I'm asking the commission if you could be detailed in your comments, because any recommendation we make will be going to our city council. Commissioner Windshuttle? **[21:15] Commissioner Mike Windshuttle:** Just a question, Tony, on the berms. So you're starting at a minimum of 10 feet in height, is that correct? And if they want to go any higher than 10 feet, they have to get approval? **Tony Wippler:** Yes, they would need to get staff approval for that. We'd have to look at grading and drainage as well once you start increasing that overall height. **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Is there a reason why 10 feet versus 15 or 20? I get the cost and maneuvering of dirt, but... **[22:00] Jacob Steen:** I can answer that, Commissioner. Ten feet is pretty standard, and based on the modeling that we've done, that would be generally good to obstruct with some landscaping on top of it, with the understanding that we know that there may be some certain viewsheds where we want that added flexibility to work with staff and the Planning Commission to make sure we do increase that. **Commissioner Windshuttle:** And I guess my follow-up is, there's talk that the neighbors out there feel a 10-foot berm isn't going to be high enough with landscaping. I guess how have you guys confirmed that that isn't going to be an issue? I would rather see us start at 15 or 20. I don't know what type of trees and stuff we're talking about bringing in to make that buffer. **[23:33] Jacob Steen:** You know, I think the intent is that this is the minimum. Based on the modeling we've done on the representative site plan, we do feel confident that it will screen the buildings as proposed. That being said, we don't know exactly what those buildings are going to look like. We want to be able to work with the Planning Commission, and this is exactly the kind of question that will be in front of you at site plan review. And we do have one of the additions—I think Tony touched on it—but any berms would be required to go in before the foundations commence, so that even that foundation work would be screened. **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Sure. Then just one other question as far as the fencing. The perimeter fencing—the residents are going to have an input, I see, as to what type of fencing... three different types. Why don't we move the fencing in on the other side of the berm so they don't have to look at a fence out their front door? **[24:20] Jacob Steen:** There's a couple of reasons. First, many of those neighbors have attached their fence to the perimeter fence, which is actually located a few feet into the property. We want to give them the opportunity to continue to have their dog run around. We also need the ability to screen and protect that for security purposes. The risk is that it would effectively become no-man's-land from a liability risk. **Commissioner Windshuttle:** I guess it's just a concern. If you had it on the other side of the berm... I get people's fencing and yards there, but it's also applicable to put no-trespassing signs there. You know, it was raised—if a kid's ball goes over your fence, is the security guy going to go get it? **[25:51] Jacob Steen:** Well, the security fence would actually be inside of the buffer. So there are two fences: the perimeter fence, which will build a nice fence that essentially replicates what's there now or better, and then the security fence itself will be 40 feet in. And that could potentially be a higher fence. We anticipate that no balls are going over there. **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Okay. Never know. Some good balls. Thanks, that's all I have for now. **Chair:** Commissioner Le? **[26:36] Commissioner Leah Le:** Yeah, I just have an additional question about the fencing. I don't know that all of the properties are currently fenced, but I'm wondering how much—granted I'm assuming the property owners know what their property line is—how much they're going to lose of that open space behind their homes? How far back will it be going from where the current perimeter fence of the golf course is? **Jacob Steen:** I don't have that exact number. I think it varies from place to place. The existing fence was put in, I think, a few feet, but it's not consistent, right? So it could be two to six feet. **Commissioner Le:** All right. And then the noise mitigation. I think I'm generally okay with it, but one thing I think hasn't been addressed is the low-frequency noise. Because I know that's a big concern. Have you guys talked about that or addressed what the effects of that might be? **[27:22] Jacob Steen:** Mitigation is the number one goal. We do have a number of mitigative steps in place that will be re-evaluated at the site plan review stage. As we know what specific equipment is going to be proposed, we'll pair that specific equipment with the noise study, and then you'll have an opportunity and language that allows you to create additional mitigative steps through that site plan review process. Right now, we would be speculating. **Commissioner Le:** Okay, thank you. That's all I have. **Chair:** Commissioner Snowback? **[28:09] Commissioner Phil Snowback:** On with the berms and the fences: what's the threshold for changing it from 10 feet to 15 or 20? Like, how does that process look? Would it be community members concerned about it, or the Planning Commission? Walk me through what that looks like if we're going to change it. **Jacob Steen:** I think what we will do is, as we get to that site plan review stage, we'll know what those buildings look like first and what that orientation is. We would look at—and presumably the Planning Commission has the authority to ask for—viewshed studies. We would have a viewshed study from those individual points around the perimeter and from the neighbors' properties, and then we could model that. If it looks like at that time a 10-foot with landscaping isn't going to be sufficient, it can either be a proposal from the applicant or it can be a requirement of the Planning Commission. **Commissioner Snowback:** Okay, so it’d be collaborative. Thank you. **Chair:** Anything else, Mitch? Good? You know, the commissioners did a great job. You asked good questions. Phil asked the million-dollar one on the difference between plating a piece of land and a site plan. As Tony explained, site plan is the details. That's where we'll do studies. This is, as Tony mentioned, the planting of the land. **[30:26] Chair:** We've sent a recommendation to our city council, they've approved it. This isn't inconsistent with it. I like the modifications; I appreciate what the council did and Tract following through. I'm a little concerned that we talked about G and it was still on when it went to our city council... CU when I talk to him I go, it can't be there. But it was. And you did—I appreciate you taking it off. I understand your business model. Are you any closer to finding out who's going to be there? **Jacob Steen:** Wish I could tell you. No, I can't. We don't know today. As we've discussed, we know kind of the class of operator, and over the coming years you'll find out more. **Chair:** Well, and you lead right into my second question: your timing. What is your anticipated timing of this project if Council approves it? **[31:59] Jacob Steen:** I think it's intended to be a phased project, right? So full buildout could be a number of years—could be six, seven years. I would anticipate that we could start grading relatively quickly. We could start grading in the spring, potentially. So I would anticipate that work will start in the next year to two years. I can almost guarantee that. But in terms of the full buildout, there's a lot of moving parts. **Chair:** No doubt. Oh yeah, I'm sure. And when we do that, we invite residents. You mentioned grading may start sooner, and part of your commitment is keeping as many of the existing trees—minus ash—that you possibly can. So if you start grading already, when does staff or commission see the tree count and what you're going to try to save? **[32:46] Jacob Steen:** So there is a grading process, a preliminary grading permit that will be submitted. What we did do is amend these standards to be clear that we can have access points through that natural buffer, but where the natural buffers are proposed, the intent is to preserve those natural buffers. So that 40 feet. The intent is not to plow those down. **Chair:** I appreciate that. Commission, to me, it is consistent with the recommendation of the preliminary plat and the preliminary PUD that we recommended to our city council and they approved. I do see some of the modifications to the development standards; I appreciate that. **[34:20] Chair:** In front of the commission is a recommendation to our city council for approval of the Farmington Technology Park final plat and final PUD with an ordinance. In addition, I want to remind the commission we are modifying the PUD ordinance process. I anticipate it'll be a better process. There's one contingency, and I want to ask Tract right now: Do you agree with everything that's in the staff report tonight because it's going to go to our city council? **Jacob Steen:** Yeah, thank you, Chair. Yes, we're comfortable with those conditions as well as the change that we mentioned from 2 feet to 5 feet. **Chair:** I'm fine with that. Does anybody on the commission disagree with that? And I will ask staff to review it before it gets to our city council. Anything else? No? Okay. So I'm looking for a motion with one contingency. **Commissioner Phil Snowback:** I'll make a motion. **Chair:** We have a motion. Is there a second? **Commissioner Leah Le:** I'll second. **Chair:** Have a motion and a second. Any more discussion? If not, call the roll, please. **Staff:** Teske? **Commissioner Teske:** Yes. **Staff:** Brady? **Commissioner Brady:** Yes. **Staff:** Le? **Commissioner Le:** Yes. **Staff:** Snowback? **Commissioner Snowback:** Yes. **Staff:** Windshuttle? **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Yes. **[35:43] Chair:** All right, thank you very much. All right, we'll move into our second discussion item, and that's cannabis legislation and regulation. Tony, you're going to do this along with Rita? **Tony Wippler:** I am going to tee it up for her. Mr. Chair, commission members, we have Rita here with us again to continue our discussion on cannabis legislation and the needed changes to our zoning code that we're looking to achieve hopefully by the end of the year. We have some draft language that we want to run through this evening with you, and with that, I will turn it over to Rita. **[36:44] Rita Albrecht (Consultant/Expert):** Great, nice to see you all again. I know Beth was here last time and she prepared, based on the conversations that you all had at the Joint meeting, what we understand to be the draft standards. So I just wanted to walk through them this evening, answer any questions, know where we still might have concerns. The three areas that we want to discuss this evening are the definitions, the uses in the districts, and the use standards themselves, and then I'll briefly touch on next steps. **Chair:** Rita, can I interrupt you just a second? Because Commissioner Snowback and Commissioner Windshuttle wasn't with us when we discussed this. I'm sure they've read through it, but they may have additional comments. I modified it a little bit with the council. All of a sudden I got worried that you didn't have the background. For the benefit of the public, they are our two experts, so we'll rely on them. **[38:16] Rita Albrecht:** I suppose I should take a step back for everybody watching at home. In 2023, the state legislature determined that it would be appropriate for the state to allow cannabis use in the state of Minnesota. In 2024, they made some adjustments to those, and that's when we have information from the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) on the regulations that local governments can put in place relative to cannabis. The goal for all communities is to have cannabis regulations in place by the end of the year. Technically, January 1st is supposed to be the timeline where more activity can happen with cannabis. **[39:01] Rita Albrecht:** We had had a conversation with you in October to give you the foundation. We are working—staff is working—at what the next steps would be: a discussion with the Council again or preparation of public hearing materials so that you can work through the process in December. Action by Council is anticipated to keep us on that timeline. Ultimately, we have included five definitions. The first three are specific to cannabis: one is about cannabis cultivation (indoors or outdoors); the second is about cannabis or hemp manufacturing. After the conversation with you at the joint meeting, we're just including processing, packaging, wholesaling, testing, treatment, transportation, or delivery all as one use. Cannabis or hemp manufacturing includes all of those elements. **[40:33] Rita Albrecht:** The next one is cannabis retail—the licensed establishment that can sell products—and then lower potency hemp edible retail. To contrast that with cannabis retail, it's important that we have two different definitions because of the fact that the products are sold in slightly different ways. Hemp products can Edibles can come in a lot of different forms: edibles, drinks, liquor. That was some of the conversation we had in October, that we may want to make some differences with hours of operation. **[41:18] Rita Albrecht:** When we looked at uses in districts, we would put it specifically in the zoning code to identify where uses are allowed. Generally, communities try and apply where uses would be allowed similar to how they would be allowed if it was a non-cannabis business. Cannabis cultivation outdoor is allowed in the agricultural district. Indoor cultivation might be in a greenhouse or an industrial building. You can see overall, the city at this point is recommending use of a conditional use permit (CUP). That would mean you would still see any of the types of activities that might be proposed and have an opportunity to review and make any comments on those. **[42:04] Rita Albrecht:** Indoor cultivation of cannabis was felt to be appropriate in the agricultural, the business district, and the industrial district. Manufacturing in the B3 and Industrial District. And then retail really focusing on the business districts and the mixed-use districts. In terms of standards, my understanding from the joint meeting was the general consensus is that we wouldn't have buffers from schools, daycares, parks, or residential treatment facilities. We had prepared the maps in October; you had reviewed those maps, we had made some changes, and then the conversation ultimately determined that that wasn't necessary. **Chair:** Can I interrupt? Just so Phil and Mitch understood. My understanding was the rationale for that was we don't exempt it in any liquor-type things. The only place we have any restrictions are sexually oriented businesses. To try to make it as consistent with the alcohol—that was the rationale on not... because when we did all those circles, it was confusing. It limited it so much. And why treat them differently if they're the same area, same zoning district? Is that accurate, Tony? **[43:38] Tony Wippler:** Correct. Yes, it was the thought that we don't have those for tobacco and liquor, so really what's the difference? That was the logic behind removing the buffers. **Commissioner Phil Snowback:** Just kind of referencing the staff on that—it seemed like you guys came in supporting having buffers. After you saw the maps, is that what helped you? Explain to me what helped you change your opinion on that. **Tony Wippler:** Largely it was Council and Planning Commission that ultimately changed my opinion on it. But yes, after seeing those maps and the amount of area that they took up compared to what was available, I just don't know that it was feasible to do it. We have to allow them in certain... we have to have a space for these type of uses. We cannot just outright say "No, we don't want them." And the way those maps ended up, I don't know that we really had a good spot for them if we were to do even the minimum. **[45:12] Commissioner Snowback:** Just to kind of follow up: would smaller buffers allow that? Did that discussion happen? I'm just trying to process everything. **Tony Wippler:** We didn't resize buffers, but because it was so extreme... it was pretty intense. The circles overlapped considerably. **Chair:** And if I recall, the council's direction on it is that again, because you don't have it, why over-governance this versus that? Let's try to treat things equally. **[46:45] Rita Albrecht:** The one thing I would add is it also starts complicating it when you're trying to set buffers from, say, a daycare. What would happen in the future when a new daycare came in? What would you do if there was already an establishment within that buffer area? It just the actual enforcement as it moved forward became more and more complicated. The reality is there's only so many of these that ever would be licensed here anyway. **Commissioner Phil Snowback:** Well, I appreciate your explanations. It's important to me that we make good choices for our entire community, including our children. I need to hear it from you. **Chair:** It was an argument because I think everybody had the kids on their mind. It was thoroughly discussed. It even brought out a new idea—Leah, you brought it out—about maybe you need some kind of use-type restriction. What if someone's walking down the street next to a daycare center? **[49:04] Rita Albrecht:** We did spend some time talking about public use restrictions, which are separate from the business owner themselves and their licensing. I heard from Council and Planning Commission at that joint session not necessarily full support for a public use prohibition, which you're allowed to do, but that you do want to continue to talk about it. **Chair:** Could you create an ordinance prohibiting marijuana use in public, on a sidewalk, in a park? **Rita Albrecht:** Yes. **Tony Wippler:** Some communities have looked at it specifically in parks. At this point, Kelly (our Park and Rec Director) has had conversations with the Park and Rec Commission regarding parks, and at this point, they haven't chosen to move forward with that. **Chair:** My question to Rita was: what if we're sitting at the park, kids on a swing, and someone comes and sits on the bench and starts smoking right next to their stroller? **Rita Albrecht:** It becomes a larger policy decision. **[52:10] Rita Albrecht:** One element that we did maintain is that the city should establish a retail limit. The standard from the state is no more than one business per 12,500 residents. You can increase the number, but you have to do at minimum that number. That would be a maximum right now of two businesses. **Commissioner Mike Windshuttle:** So that's just for cannabis retail, not for hemp? **Rita Albrecht:** Cannabis standards. Is hemp unlimited? In theory, yet there's no explicit authority in the statute for a city to establish that limit for hemp. **[53:42] Rita Albrecht:** Looking on to hours of operation: cannabis retail uses would be permitted between 8:00 a.m. and 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday and then 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Sunday. But the lower potency hemp retail uses are slightly different. We try to match off-sale and on-sale liquor so that if you were in one of those establishments that has later operating hours, you don't have to remember that just this particular product has different hours. **[54:29] Rita Albrecht:** As a conditional use, you will be reviewing any CUPs. The idea is that cannabis uses would need to meet the standards in that section of the zoning code. This provides you the provision to make sure that the location does make sense. We just wanted to identify things people are concerned about: one is noise, odors, and lighting. The CUP standards you already have address a lot of the types of issues people have been concerned about. Adopting new standards doesn't really help; they would still need to be relatively broad. If a use comes in and it is disturbing neighboring properties, you would have the ability to go back and revisit them if there was an issue. **Chair:** That's after the fact? That's not pre-approval? **Rita Albrecht:** You could address them proactively, but there are standards already in statute that they have to meet. **[57:35] Commissioner Mike Windshuttle:** I've got a question. Aren't there like tobacco places where you can buy a cigar and smoke it in the establishment? Could that be similar with cannabis use? Would that be permissible at this retail store? **Rita Albrecht:** I don't want to step on Rita's toes, but yes, micro-businesses could be endorsed at the state level for on-site consumption. **Commissioner Windshuttle:** Tell me more. What does that mean? **Tony Wippler:** Within this license of these two establishments, they could have that capability. **Rita Albrecht:** Cannabis micro-business, I believe, is the only one that can have on-site lounges. And they still have to abide by the Clean Air Act. **[59:06] Commissioner Windshuttle:** So there could only be a possible two sites where that could occur? Or can it be a lounge that does not sell cannabis and they could have it? **Rita Albrecht:** OCM is not authorized to have a business that's solely—it's non-retail, it's just like a room—I mean, that's outside of what I've read from OCM's powers. **Chair:** Well, and we talked about this—years and years ago when alcohol was first allowed, people were sitting in a room having the same discussion. My sense is that there'll be modifications. I think it's going to be a learning process, hopefully for Phil and Gary (Police/Staff), it's not too hard a learning process. **[1:02:10] Commissioner Leah Le:** Are other communities using the CUP process for their approval? **Rita Albrecht:** Honestly, the ones we're working with are all over the place. Some are using buffers, some are really concerned about it. Generally, having classes and trying to make it as similar to how you regulate today is the mode planners have gone. **[1:03:44] Rita Albrecht:** Additional standards: we did want to note that you could add additional standards for certain or all cannabis businesses. We are seeing some on security. Security measures to deter and prevent unauthorized entrance... this would be shown on a city-approved security plan. Just note that I don't know that we—any of us—know what a "security plan" is. That's always the danger. Also, some people prohibit outdoor storage. **Chair:** Would that conflict with the first discussion we had tonight? I don't believe tobacco and alcohol are required to have some of this. Are we being selective? **[1:05:15] Rita Albrecht:** That's a great question. But something to keep in mind is the city will receive a completed application from OCM, and they're required to supply security plans to OCM as a part of their application process. Alcohol and tobacco, I think, are different than cannabis relative to outdoor storage. **Chair:** Tony, if they're not going to bring it up, can you add it to your list to ask the Council about it? **Tony Wippler:** Absolutely. **Chair:** And the other one that I'm thinking about is just city's planned involvement. What is the local municipality? Are they going to have some of the hemp products? **Rita Albrecht:** You're talking about a municipal liquor store? **Tony Wippler:** If the community does decide to do a municipal store itself, that does not count towards the two retail establishments. We would still have to allow two additional. **Chair:** Might as well talk about it. Do you feel like either of these two—security or outdoor storage—are valuable? **[1:08:18] Commissioner Chris Teske:** I like the security plan. I thought to myself: okay, if you go to a QuickTrip, things are pretty accessible. A bad person can get access to them also. Alcohol is right there. There's no security plan, but you guys convince me there's other reasons why to have that. **Commissioner Mike Windshuttle:** I'm just trying to wrap my head around the cultivation part of it. I obviously would assume there's going to be some sort of security measure around the growing operation part of it. I don't see why there wouldn't be. **Nate Siem (Police Chief):** [Approaches the dais] **Chair:** I'm just laughing at the "street cop" that just appeared. [Laughter] **Police Chief Nate Siem:** My question would be: there are security measures at liquor stores. What does this mean? I mean, our liquor stores have cameras, right? I would guess 99.9% yes. **Tony Wippler:** And as Rita mentioned, I think it's part of their application; they would have to have a security plan submitted as part of their application to OCM anyway. So we would likely see that information. **[1:12:08] Commissioner Leah Le:** Can I ask another question? If someone wants to do individual growing in their own home, does the city deal with that? **Rita Albrecht:** It's not licensed. They can do it by right up to eight plants. It's not supposed to be visible. **Commissioner Le:** But there's no regulation on that then? If someone has an in-home daycare and they're growing plants at the same time? **Rita Albrecht:** You're moving through one of the many stages of grief that many localities have been. [Laughter] **Chair:** Thank you for your patience with us tonight. This will shorten our discussion with the city council Monday evening. **[1:14:25] Rita Albrecht:** So, Monday is the Joint meeting. Then we'll create the ordinance language. If everything feels comfortable on Monday, then we would go towards a public hearing at your December 10th meeting and then adoption on the 16th. **Chair:** All right. That concludes our agenda. Tony, staff have anything else to add? **Tony Wippler:** Nothing, sir. **Chair:** Commission, do you have anything to add? If not, I'll remind our viewers and our residents our next regular meeting is again December 10th. I'd look for a motion to adjourn. **Commissioner Chris Teske:** I'll make a motion to adjourn. **Chair:** We have a motion. Is there a second? **Commissioner Leah Le:** I'll second. **Chair:** Motion and a second. All in favor say "Aye." **Commissioners:** Aye. **Chair:** We officially adjourn. Thank you. **[1:16:02] [Music]**