[music] Now 6 o'clock and we're going to call the meeting of the Forest Lake Planning Commission to order. Right on time. Um it we are now called to order. Abby, are you doing roll call tonight, please? >> I am. Thank you, Chair Young. Um, Commissioner Applowski >> here. >> No. Uh, Commissioner Hyman is absent. Commissioner Seer >> here. >> Commissioner Wagner >> here. >> Commissioner Dender >> here. >> Noting also for the record, our chair Gerard is absent this evening. Um, acting chair young here. QB2. >> QB2. >> Okay. Those who are able, could you please stand and join us in the pledge of allegiance? Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [clears throat] >> Do I have a motion to approve the agenda as provided to us this evening? >> Motion to approve. >> Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Thank you. All in favor? I I >> Any opposed? Thank you very much. We have an open forum. Our open forums here are for anybody that has um an issue or a a concern u to bring before the planning commission. They are not our public hearings. We will have two public hearings this evening. Um and if you are here to at one of our public hearings. I encourage you to do it then because then your comments will be fresh in our minds. But do we have anybody who is interested in bringing something in front of the planning commission tonight that you think we we should be aware of on any any topic in the community? >> Abby, do I have anyone online? >> Uh, no. We no longer have online participation options. >> Okay. Um I do have Jamie White stand up but [clears throat] it does indicate for the budding measures IUP. So I think um mention want to wait until that public hearing. >> Yes. >> Okay. Then I am going to close the open forum. I'm looking for a motion on the consent agenda or um a motion to remove one or the other of the items from the consent agenda. Just for the information of of folks, if we approve the consent agenda as is, both items, both minutes are automatically approved. >> What's the pleasure? >> Madam Chair, could you pull approval of the minutes from the October 22nd meeting? Thank you. >> Then I'm looking for a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of October 8th, 2025. >> I'll make a motion to approve the October 8th minutes. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I >> Any opposed? Any abstensions? I'm looking for a motion to approve the minutes from the regular meeting of October 22nd, 2025. >> So moved. >> I'm sorry. Why did we pull them? Why did we >> have one abstension? >> Oh, okay. I thought maybe he had something else to say about Okay. >> Um I I will second that approval then. >> All in favor? I >> I >> Any opposed? >> Any abstensions? >> Posting. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay, we are now on the regular agenda for tonight's meeting. We have a public hearing and our first public hearing will be to allow for a garage at 780 Woodland Drive. Um I'm not sure which of you all would like to set us up for that this evening. >> Oh, it's me, ma'am. It's your lucky day. Uh so tonight before you is a variance request for 780 Woodland Drive and it's brought to you by Jim Johnson, the land owner. Uh Mr. Johnson owns uh two adjoining parcels. These are at 780 Woodland Drive in an unadressed parcel lot directly north. The detached garage sits u currently sits on a separate unadressed lot. You can see it right above the 780. It's a a slight It's a building just right there kind of straddling to ride away on this map. Um there is this is a code issue essentially because the accessory structure can't exist without a principal structure and there is currently no driveway serving the garage. Tonight's request is to relocate that garage onto the 780 woodland parcel so it's compliant. But doing so triggers the need for two variances. Uh before you is a request for a front setback reduction from 30 feet to 9 ft to accommodate the garage as well as an imperous surface increase from 30% to about 35% depending on the size of the driveway. We're suggesting because this lot is less than 15,000 square feet. It's a non-conforming lot for this district. So the maximum pvious surface is 30% but no greater than 3780 square feet rather than the regular 25%. Here's what exists today. The 780 woodland parcel is small. It's roughly 4,700 square feet with a 680 foot home built around 1930. The adjacent land lot holds a 320 square foot garage only about 1 foot from the rightway and there's no paved driveway. The total impervious surface on 780 right now is around 21%. The goal here is to bring the garage onto the main property and bring the overall use into better compliance. The proposal is to move the detached garage onto the 780 woodland parcel and add a paved driveway about 350 square feet by our estimations which is required in the city code 153119K. The garage structure itself isn't changing. Same size, same look because he's just moving it over. But the new placement will sit about 9 ft from the rideway creating that front setback variance. including the new driveway impervious surface coverage goes from 21% to roughly 35% with the addition of the garage and the driveway. Staff has evaluated the request against the city's variance criteria. The lot small size and existing home placement make compliance difficult. This is a unique condition. The use single family with a detached garage is consistent with the district's intent. The situation wasn't created by the current owner. The lot configuration predates him. The change won't harm nearby properties or alter the neighborhood character and overall it maintains the spirit of the code bringing the property closer to compliance while correcting a greater nonconformity. So staff recommends approval of revolution or resolution 11122501 authorizing a 21 ft front yard setback variance and a 5% imperous surface variance. The approval would come with standard conditions. The site must match submitted plans. All permits from the city, county, and watershed district must be obtained. A certified survey and driveway permit must be submitted before any work starts. The intent is to ensure this remains compliant through construction while minimizing neighborhood impacts. >> Do any of the commissioners have any questions? >> Is the intent to split the lot after? Is that what that one slide showed? >> Uh I the Mr. Johnson has suggested that it's in his plans to split the lot and combine his other property which is that 776 that north property he also owns he owns all three lots and he wants to he has suggested he would like to split the property in the future >> and sell it off >> add just add property. So essentially, if he were to do that, if he did the lot split or lot consolidation, it would it would make the the 778 780 property in compliance with impervious structure because you've added that additional. >> So it's not like we're just doing this to then sell it off. And >> no, that's his his suggestion has been that that lot consolidation lot split kind of to expand the his two properties 780 and 776. >> If if that's his intent, can that be part of the condition. Can't that be part of the condition? >> Conditions can be reasonable and proportionate to the request that's being asked. And so I do think that this body could make that requirement. We did encourage the applicant to make that request at the same time as this request. Um knowing that that would definitely decrease the amount of variances needed or this is how they wanted to move forward. Um, I think that that's definitely something that you can discuss is whether or not it's a reasonable condition of approval. >> Okay. >> It does appear that the 70 on the survey, it does appear that the 76 property encroaches into the nothing land. >> Yeah. The unadressed >> the unadressed land. Um, in terms of being able to construct something there. I I drove by and tried to pay stuff off today. Um it would be very difficult to build anything there um without significant significant variances. Um, I'd like to point out according to this survey here, um, that that might be an issue with the map representation with our county and and city GIS that this survey shows that it it doesn't straddle the right way. But your your point is held that if you were to do this, it'd be less of an encroachment to that side setback. >> And it has been the history of this planning commission that when we have the opportunity, we try to reduce the variances and especially um reduce the amount of impervious surface. Um there are great concerns about water quality and forest lake here and the more impervious surface we have the the greater lake degradation we see. Any other questions from the planning commission? >> Mr. Johnson? >> Yes. would you like to come up and and either talk to us or have answer questions or and I would like your name please and your address. >> Uh my name is James Johnson with EN. I live permanently at 1940 Mandel in Lake Elmo. Uh just give you a little background on my who I am. Uh the house at 776 belonged to my grandfather grandparents way back when when I was this little. We tore it down years ago when uh we decided we had a business in St. Paul that my aunt wanted to buy because my dad and uncle never involved it because we were running the business. So she bought and tore it down and so I've been come up here forever uh all my life. Carol seen on one side grew up with her since 12 years old. Mel Mel Novak that I bought the house from. What my intent was when Mel was selling, "Hey, Mel, can I buy 10 feet or 15 feet because it's so skinny of a lot there, right?" And he said, "You know, Jim," he says, "It's a buildable lot." And I said, "Okay, this going to cost you some more money." But I said, "Mel, what I want to do," I says, is I want to be able to split that lot someday if I have to. I don't I live on three and a half acres in Lake Elmo. I like my space. what my intent is to move the garage over to the other side where it looks like that's where it should be. And I do have intent to rent it out. I uh going to remodel, clean it up. You know, uh splitting the lot. We talked about that, right? Right now, I I don't want to do it for only one reason or two reasons. one, I think if you take the 20 feet or 2515 and move it to the properties, I think it'll increase the house value tax- wise. And because they're both non homesteaded, I didn't want to have that more tax burden. Now, my goal is stay healthy. But if I have to sell one or the other, the twotory versus just a little cabin because my leg, uh, I might want say, well, let's me take 25 ft towards Mel's cabin at 780 and I'll give 15 feet to the other one. I have no intention on trying to uh uh try to sell it as a lot because I like my space and uh so my intention is to just give more space for everything. And I'm looking at the tax thing, you know, whatever it is. But, uh, the neighbor behind me said, "God, Jimmy, move that garage over there." Gets off the road. He said, "I'll be able to see the lake again." So, my intention is, and I'm a straight shooter. That's how I am. I tell the truth. I I don't blow, you know, blow smoke. I don't want to go 2020 right now. I rather believe it as it is. And then if I decide to do 25 because I'm going to move the Mel's cabin, the blue one, because I want a little more space there, I'll give the other people 15 feet, not five feet. So that's my whole intent. I didn't plan on buying Mel's cabin until he told me he wanted to sell it. And I wanted to make sure what kind of neighbor I had. And if somebody did build a house there and they could build a house there, God, it'd be right on top of me again. So that's where I am. I'm a squ straight shooter and I tell the truth. >> Any questions for the applicant? >> I have one. So, you own both 776 and 780. >> 776. I bought that from my my aunt. Yes. Just two years ago, she passed away. And 778. >> Yep. 780. >> 7. Yeah. 7. Okay. 776 is that one and then 780. I own both. Yes. Yes, I own them both. So Mel's 780 is got the double lot or the extra lot, I should say. Yeah. >> Any other questions for the applicant? >> Thank you very much, sir. >> Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. You guys have a wonderful day. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Why commissioners? Is there some discussion or do you want a motion to start your discussion? >> Chair, may I please just um ask if you check if there's any additional comment and close the public hearing portion of the meeting. >> Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Is 6:15. I'm going to close the public hearing. Thank you very much. Um, commissioners, >> thoughts, >> my thoughts. So, I've probably been here the longest since you, Susan. Right. We we I remember we did a uh one on lake number three years ago and it was they wanted to remodel the place and it had a lot of non-conforming stuff and and even though I voted to approve it, it got shot down because it didn't meet the the impervious. And here we have an opportunity. It's not it's really not a big deal to meet the impervious by putting that requirement on there that they subdi subdivides the lot prior to doing all this. So, um I think that's got to happen. That would be my recommendation in approving this is that that that subdivision of of the lot of that space happens um as part of this only because that way it doesn't go against what we >> shot down before on at least more than one occasion. >> Is there any discussion on that particular topic? I would have to agree with that as well because it seems like by not combining the lot right now, it's more of a financial decision than to make it conforming. >> The public hearing is closed, but did you have a comment, sir? >> I was asking you guys on the I was saying if I had the opportunity I put in say I will not build on that house. You know I'm building that property if I decided that I want to put 25 ft one way and 15 ft the other way depending on which house I wanted or 20 either way. And that's that's all I was trying to hold off and I was worried about because both are non homestead that if you did it now 20t on each side or whatever it is is I'm going to get the burden of hitting me with more taxes, you know, because they're not home. Maybe not. >> Not sure how why that I mean, you may I don't control the taxes, but >> now you got 60 ft with two houses of value, but you got a little garage that's probably worth $1,000. >> But the land area hasn't changed. >> Sorry. >> The land area between all the property has would not have changed. >> No, but just the value of you took 20 feet here and 20 feet there. May maybe I'm wrong. I'm not a taxation guy. >> Yeah, I'm not either. But I mean you you originally have um all that those three lots essentially and you still have those three lots or the same area. The area has area of land hasn't changed. >> No, >> the taxation's broken up. They break out area separate from structures. So I I may but I I can't f I can't believe it would change much. >> Again, I don't I'm not taxation. If you had 60 feet of frontage on a house over here, you might say, "Well, you got 60 feet of frontage." Again, I was just trying that's the only thing I was trying to If I had to put something in writing, I'm not going to build a house. I'm not going to build a house. But whatever you got to do, I'll accept it. >> Okay. >> Okay. Again, you guys got to move on. Thank you guys very much. Appreciate it. I believe that we could add a requirement that um at some point in the future um that the [clears throat] unadressed lot would be divided between the two properties and not sold as is as a separate lot. Um, chair, a point of clarification. It could also be combined that that unress lock could be combined with 770 or 780 and and just I just don't want to hamstring us going forward to say this has to be split when it he may decide to go with a like lock combo um with the two two parcels >> and and I think that that if we said divided because the other one the 76. I don't believe that it meets its side setback, does it? >> No, it does not. >> Um, >> it does not, but I will state it is a legal non-conforming property that is not a part of the request before you tonight, though it is under the same ownership. I think again, we kind of have to get back to that. What's the reasonable request for the action tonight? And I would say that I hear um Commissioner Steeler's concern about reducing the um need for a variance and the increasing the permeable land area. Um but the condition should be imposed upon the subject properties, not necessarily the adjacent property. Though I will say for the record, I understand the intent of the planning commission would be to try to reduce the nonconformities on both properties. What is the ownership of the propert who owns the unregistered or the the unnumbered lot? Is it 76 or 80? >> Where is the ownership? >> The all three parcels are independently independent parcels from one another owned by Jim. >> So it would actually be 778. >> Yeah, it's unressed. the the garage has addressed 778 on his survey, but it as a part of all records, it's unressed. >> I think what it is is that the owner of 778 once upon a time built a garage on that ancillary property that they owned. There is a provision in the code when you own property next door if it's vacant. We consider it one, but I can understand the concern that a vacant lot just sitting out there can be sold independently and we wouldn't necessarily want that to occur either. For all intents and purposes, there are three separate tax lots independently owned. The middle one is not necessarily a product of either of them given the ownership structure today. Does that make sense? >> And I will say that somehow the county has gotten a piece of my property um that they consider quote vacant and that is taxed at a higher rate than the rest of my property. So moving the garage, Mr. Johnson will have to figure out things in the future. Do I have a draft motion from the from the planning commissioners? >> Um, I guess to word if I was to make a motion on on my thoughts on this, I would uh move that the applicant um divide reapply with uh the three lots turned into two lots. he can determine he'll have to, you know, decide whether it's 15 or 20 and 20 or how how he's going to divide those lots but to to reapply with that division or I mean if we can approve it per that division so long as do we need to put restrictions on that division? I mean we I mean do we care if he puts five feet versus 30 feet or I don't know how wide that lot is. I know that >> one of my concerns with with reapplying is that it starts the process over again and he has to pay the fees again. And so I think perhaps putting a condition in there that the planning commission um is would is anticipating. So, you'd like a motion to approve um on the condition that the three lots be turned into two lots >> at some point in the future. >> And but >> I I have a problem doing that because of the 780. >> I think you're going to want to date certain. Yeah. either before we release a building permit for the moving of the garage or something of that nature, but just saying in the future, >> yeah, >> isn't going to be enough for us to go back and say, "Hey, Jim, you were supposed to do this thing." Um, what I would say is it sounds like, if you don't mind, chair, it sounds like Commissioner Steeler wants to make a motion to approve resolution 11122501 with an additional condition that three lots be combined to two um, prior to the release of a building permit. >> Is that correct? >> That's well worded. Yes. Thank you. And that would he still has the nine ft that that the variance would still be required for but the variance for the imperial surface would be removed. [snorts] >> And looking at the other properties out there that 9 ft probably not that different than many of them. So I >> when I drove it today it was pretty tight. Yeah. >> I have no idea where y'all put snow. >> In the lake, >> that whole little oneway culde-sac. I have no idea where the snow goes. >> Yeah. Well, I just moved up there two years ago and I took a slope over and I blew it here and there and stuff. And then of course you got with the house, you push it not in the lake because I'm not going to ruin my yard, you know, but it's going to be pushed up, you know, 10 feet or whatever, where the driveway is. You're going to have the garage moves over to the house. You'll have that whole area kind of like an extra lot. That's where the snow is going to go there. It's not going to go in the neighbor's yard be on my side, but not going to push it into the lake because I'm going to move my yard. And I just uh had it all cleaned and fertilized look nice. >> Okay. So, I have a motion. Do we do you want to state that motion please for us as as you hear it? >> So real quick let's clarify. Um essentially what we're hearing is that uh we will approve the front setback. It's the impervious that that we don't want to improve approve is unless there is the lot change lot expansion lot consolidation. So it may be prudent for us to provide another resolution that removes the impervious and adds all the other conditions that you have suggested here to make sure that we make this hole going forward because we don't want to approve have a resolution that approves an impervious surface requirement. That's no longer a a var a variance that's required if the the property changes. So even though I had said for commissioner Steeler approving resolution, he moved it. So I don't know 11. >> Approve a revised resolution then. >> Yeah, I think what it would actually be is a motion to approve the uh setback variance, deny the impervious surface variance with the conditions outlined by staff and the additional of the commission tonight. um and direct staff to bring a new resolution back. So, basically what that does, commissioners, is is we're saying we're going to be okay with your with your 9 foot and and deal and and the setback because that reflects the character of that particular culde-sac. Um but in terms of the impervious surface, we're denying that portion of it. Um and a new and will anticipate a new resolution coming back with the conditions. All right. Is that appropriate, sir? >> That that is works for me. >> All right. Do I have a second for that motion? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Motion carries. >> So all that what does that mean to me? Everything's going to go forward to what we talked about then. >> Yes, but you're you're going to essentially split them a little sooner. >> Split it sooner. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Split or combine? >> Or combine? >> That's what I mean. Combine, whatever. Do I have a choice of when to do it or how much to do it at any given time? >> You'll need to at the very least combine that lot with the lot that the garage is going on >> before the building permit. >> Okay? And then later on you can move that lot line >> either way. Either way and that's fine. But like I say, I have no intent of putting a house up there. >> The combination process is administrative through Washington County. And so we can send you that information. Okay. >> After tonight's meeting. >> All right. And then as far as I seen 120day deadline of that for something that I can't put a cement slab there now. So am I have to come back again or is that something that that in May or whatever I can start it then? >> This approval is valid in perpetuity. It will be recorded against the property. The 120day deadline is for us to take action on the variance request. >> Okay. >> And so you've got the approvals that you need and in the spring when you come in for your building permit, as long as those two properties are combined, then we can release that building permit. >> Okay. Good enough. Well, thanks for your time. I know I just I'm not a real estate guy, so uh >> I understand. >> But I just want to make sure I understand everything. >> You had enough of my time. I had enough of your time. Hey, thanks a lot for everything, guys. Take care. >> Welcome to Forest Lake. >> I I love Forest Lake. That's why I came up here. Like I said, I had a bar and restaurant. I can't go to Pine City because when you go up there, next thing breaks, you got to come back, right? And I love Forest Lake. You guys got a great place here. My family lives up here. My family's up here. That's a good >> take care. Thank you. >> All right. Uh our next item is an interim use permit for Forest Lake Cannabis at 1467 Lake Street South Suite 200. We are going to have a public hearing for this. Um but Abby, would you like to set us up first? >> Uh Stephen will be taking this one as well this evening. >> Yes. Tonight before you is an interim use permit request for Budding Measured Movement LLC. They're doing business as uh Forest Lake Cannabis. Uh they're requesting to operate a cannabis retail store at 1467 Lake Street South. This is within the MU2 zoning district and classified as a retail cannabis use, which requires an IUP under city code. Our role this evening is to hold the public hearing, review our anal staff's analysis, and make a recommendation to the city council. Just a quick reminder of what an IUP is. Uh interim use permit is temporary. It expires after a set period. It gives the city some flexibility, especially with something like cannabis where state rules are still changing. This one would run for five years, just like the others we've approved so far, ending in November of 2030 or 5 years from when the date of council approval if they approve. Here's a quick rundown of our internal reviews. The police reviewed the security plan, had no concerns. building has a couple of standard items, uh, building permits, restroom access updates, but nothing unusual. Engineering, fire, and public works don't have any issues since there's no exterior work. The wershed rules also don't apply because nothing on the site's changing physically, and they'll need odor control and future signage will go through the regular permitting process. So, just a a quick review of the site and use details. This is a small tenant space. It's about 2100 square feet in a retail center. Uh parking is shared and nothing outside is changing. The applicants proposing retail sales only. No growing or manufacturing. Their hours fall within what we typically allow. The site falls outside of the existing 500 foot buffer zones for retail cannabis. Um on this map, child care is purple, parks are green, and the residential treatment facilities that aren't there, but if they were, they'd be amber, and schools are red. The key issue here is the license type they plan to apply for uh with the state of Minnesota. It's a micro business license which includes growing our manufacturing. Even if they don't plan to do that, which per our code requires a 250 foot buffer from residential. If they applied for a retail only license, this buffer would not apply. It's helpful to note they are not proposing anything but retail on the site. This uh 200 foot buffer is city code section 153092 UU10A. if you're keeping track at home. Uh this uh slide shows why the license type matters. Our city code requires a 250 foot buffer from residential zoning only for licenses that allow cultivation and manufacturing and this includes a micro business license. The applicant's license triggers that rule and as you can see on the map, the site is well within that distance with green that green shade being the 250 foot uh foot buffer from the parcel with the purple being residential. um if they were applying for a retail only license, that setback wouldn't apply at all. So the issue isn't the proposed retail use, it's how the state license category and operations it allows interacts with our code. So looking at the usual findings, the proposal fits the surrounding land uses and we don't see impacts of traffic, utilities or property values. Um it's consistent with the comprehensive plan and matches the MU2 district's intent. The only complication is again that 250 foot setback tied to the micro business license. So, uh, staff are are suggesting two options for, uh, this commission. Option one is denial because this site is within 250 ft of residential zoning and doesn't meet the buffer requirement of 153092. Um, option two is a conditional approval. And this is where we get into some nuance. Uh, this requires the applicant's license type to better align with city code. Right now, their operations fit the code, but their license type does not. Uh currently they would need to pursue a retail cannabis license unless the code is updated to better reflect the intent of their proposal. Recommended conditions include uh the typical odor control, permitted signage, compliance with all cannabis rules, annual registration, and we and making sure the final license type complies with code. In addition to these uh two options, and we'll come back to those, we are suggesting that this body recommend to the city council um that uh to consider updating our cannabis zoning rules. Uh the code currently focus on the state license type instead of what the business is actually doing. Aligning those better would give us clear, more fair standards going forward. >> And that's it. >> Commissioners, do you have any questions of Steve? I'm sorry, but I do. >> Yep. Got it. >> Um that that building has four separate business opportunities of which one of them the um um PC the physical therapy um is on the end. Um I counted 18 spaces in back for employees of which today. Nine of them were used by the sole business that's operational, the physical therapy. And there are 15 spaces in front um plus three handicap spaces of which this afternoon six of them in the front were occupied. Um this business expects to have seven employees on a on a regular basis. Um so as long as the other businesses stay vacant, there may be enough employee parking um in the back. My concern is that this is going to be a medical and recreational um retail establishment and I am not sure that six spaces in the front is going to be sufficient even for this business much less if the other two retail spaces are rented out. Staff, I'd appreciate your thoughts on that, please. Um, when we look at multi-tenant buildings, we look at the uses at the time of the building's construction and we look to see that it's generally conforming with the parking standards in place. This is one of the challenges we kind of run into with multi-tenant buildings um, in a multi-use district, right? Some of the uses might be office, could also be maybe even warehousing, have low parking requirements, but then we have other types of uses where retail we might have a little bit more intense or medical might have more intense. Um the challenge with this is that there would not be any additional uses. Um that the parking has already been defined when the building was established. And so the idea of whether or not we would um potentially deny it on the basis there is no parking is essentially um um limiting the ability for the use of the structure. >> So we get to set up a really bad situation, a potentially bad situation. I think at the time that we look at site improvement plans, site alteration permits for properties and the new construction, we should probably be looking more scrutinizing those um worst not worst case scenarios, but maybe those worst case scenarios for parking that let's just say if the highest intensity use in this particular zoning district for this particular building was a restaurant which needs one space for every 200 maybe we should be looking at that them achieving that parking standard if we don't know what those future uses are going to be. Um but unfortunately the time of construction of the building when we approved the site plan was when we approved the parking plan for the property >> and it really becomes a burden for the owner of the building, right? Right. I mean, he's going to have a hard time renting out those units if the a potential renter can't allow their employees or don't have employee parking or customer parking. Right. If if the all the parking spaces are filled all the time and there's two vacant units there, he's probably not going to be too happy about that. >> I I would think, right, he's an owner. He owns a building, >> but his two his priority is to rent the space, not to worry about whether or not there's going to be parking out on 61. >> Well, there's not going to be parking on 61, but um yeah, I I just think that's I I guess I wasn't concerned about that. >> Okay. All right. >> I have a question. >> Yes, sir. Um, I was just wondering if this is more like a stop and go or stop and browse shop. I mean, if people are just going to come in, grab their stuff, and go right out. Or if they're going to come in and browse for like a half hour or something, then you could be looking at, you know, more parking spaces. But if they're just buzzing in, grabbing what they want, and heading out. Maybe this the parking spots are are sufficient. >> I can't necessarily speak to the nature of the sales and the timing of the patrons in the facility. >> We can ask the applicant their thoughts later. There was another question. >> Yeah. Uh more of a statement of I am uncomfortable with us approving cultivation within residential areas and that's really what we're being asked to do. There's all the good faith in the world, but those homes are 50 feet from that place and it's a slippery slope. I want I want to clarify for the record that uh one, they're not proposing any anything other than retail use, and two, we can condition the IUP to be solely uh retail use. >> Cultivation is not proposed on the site. >> So, What staff is saying is that if if we are to approve this this evening, we could make it a condition that only retail sales. >> Does that open us up for lawsuit though if they're licensed by the state? My understanding is what the state says dictates to this in this industry. >> They are licensed by the state. um the state is uh that the license that they proposed or applied for is a micro business license with a retail um endorsement. The city's registration is a retail res registration and everything that we can determine thus far and I think you bring up a good point is that it's regulated by the state and there have not been challenges. Um, but everything that we're doing is saying that the use, not necessarily the license, the use of retail is allowed. And we set that up in our zoning code when you established the cannabis ordinance. >> Do we have a breakdown of square footage like we did with the last store where they kind of had a foot or floor plan of what was going to be used in the packet? Was there >> Can we pull that up again? Yeah. One second. And before the public hearing, I'm going to give the applicant an opportunity to come up and then we'll do do the public hearing. Good evening. So, my name is Jamie White and I am the um consultant for Jeff Kresler and this is our general counsel, Matt. And I'll give everyone the opportunity to give their names and addresses. Correct. So, I live in Brooklyn Park, 5054 93rd Avenue North in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443. >> Good evening. Matt L 17870 Jaguar Circle in Lakeville. As as Jamie mentioned, I'm council for the applicant. >> My name is Jeff Crestler. Address is 4213 West 125th Street in Savage. It's nice to meet you all. >> I will definitely address any questions after I read my statement. I hear you and I am slightly prepared. Um, but budding measured movement LLC, we seek an interimm use permit to operate a cannabis retail use at 1467 Lake Street South Suite 200 within an existing multi-tenant retail building in the MU2, so the general mixeduse District. The company is owned by Mr. Jeff Krestler, a Minnesota raised recent father of two who has long aspired to responsibly operate his own neighborhood cannabis retail business that is compliant, secure, and community-minded. The proposed operation is retail sales only within an approximately 2100 square foot tenant space. No cultivation, no manufacturing, processing or production activities are proposed or will occur on site. As you were um mentioning, if anything like that were to ever come up, the city could completely deny us. We have no plans to do anything like that. But even though the state writes it in our license to allow that, you could deny us at that time, but we have no plans to do that. But the city still have full ability to deny anything. Um it's still your city. You're in full control with what you can allow. activities are proposed or will sorry um the use aligns with the city's framework for cannabis retail in an MU2 um in an IUP and the site plan involves only minor interior improvements. Exterior conditions remain unchanged. The applicant has been preapproved by the state of uh the state office of cannabis management for a micro business license, not a standalone retail license. We wish to kindly note for the record because the applicant's pre-approval is for a micro business license, we cannot switch to a retail license at this stage. Accordingly, we respectfully acknowledge the staff's alternative pathways, suggesting a retail license. It's just not feasible for this applicant. Even so, the applicant reiterates and formally commits to using only the retail functionality of his micro business license at this location. We therefore request the commission recommend approval of the IUP with a strict condition that the retail component is the only permitted use of the license on site prohibiting any cultivation, manufacturing, or any non- retail activities. The targeted condition preserves the city's land use intent while addressing the license type nuisance. Retail cannabis is permitted in this district with an IUP. The city's code links certain spacing standards to the state license type micro business license trigger of the 20 or the 250 foot separation from residential zoning. While the site lies within the 250 ft residential zoning, the applicant's retailon commitment and the proposed IUP condition prohibiting non-retail functions mitigates the concern that underlies the space ruling. We are comfortable with the city's standard IUP practice for cannabis use, including a defined term ending November 24th of 2030 and annual compliance checks, which gives the city ongoing oversight. The multiple tenant plaza provides shared customer parking and separate rear employee parking. No adverse parking impacts are expected. The applicant will observe retail hours compliant with city standards Monday through Saturday 8 to 10:00 p.m. Sunday 11 to 6:00 p.m. Deliveries will be managed discreetly and in accordance with state and local rules. A comprehensive security plan has been reviewed by the police chief who reported no operational or security concerns. Odor will be managed through enhanced HVAC filtration systems to ensure no detectable odor at the property line or adjacent tenant spaces. The applicant accepts city review of odor control as a condition of approval and will implement improvements if needed. No interior site work is proposed. The applicant will obtain all required building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, fire, signage, and any SACE or other determination permits prior to occupancy and operation. The watershed and public works reviews identified no issues for an interioronly project. Our requested action is that given the applicant's retail only commitment and willingness to accept strict restrictions that prohibit any non- retail use of the micro business license at this site, we respectfully request that the planning commission recommend approval of the IUP subject to standard cannabis retail conditions, including a retail only operation, ongoing compliance with the state lensure and city registration, police approved security, odor control meeting city standards, adherence to hours, signage, review and all permitting annual review renewal mechanism typical of a cannabis IUP. And this approach enhances the city's policy goals for safe, orderly retail while honoring the applicant's immutable state licensing status. Thank you. Other questions of the applicant? Your opening statement said you wanted a neighborhood establishment. Um, are you moving to Forest Lake? >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> Is there an estimate of like how much traffic you expect on a daily basis? I mean, with three cashiers is what it looks like, plus two security and an inventory manager daily. That sounds like it's going to be high traffic. >> Could we ask you to step up to the podium just so that we can record? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. They couldn't the folks who are listening online couldn't hear what you just said. >> Okay. Um I mean I just said that obviously we'd love to be busy. Every business would like to stay in business. Um but that is up to the community and how well that they accept us in and um you know like I said we only plan to have seven employees or like you mentioned um three kiosks and uh obviously we'd like plenty of traffic but with this being completely new to the spa to the state and to the area we really have we do not have a solid understanding of how busy will we we will be especially with these serious supply issues we are facing in the state. Um it's hard to really make a firm statement on anything right now being that uh supply is a major problem. [snorts] >> Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Okay, I'm going to open the public hearing. Um it is 6:48. Are there any comments from anyone here regarding this application? Did we receive any emails or letters regarding this? >> No, ma'am. >> We received an email from the >> business themselves which you all have a copy of and will be in the record. I will ask the traditional three times. Second, is there anyone who wishes to comment on this application? Are there any comments on the application? hearing. None. I'm going to close the public hearing at 6:50. >> Um, could I could I request real quick that we return to Commissioner Applesk's request to see the the footprint if that's okay? >> But I think she can close the hearing. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, you can close the hearing. Obviously, it >> it is closed. >> And I did. I just didn't scroll quite far enough. >> Okay. So, you have it. Okay. Commissioners, what are your thoughts, concerns? I have a a question more for the city on an sometimes we get into issues of enforcement and and let's say you know we we grant this and we understand and and they understand it's only going to be retail and and whatever happens down the line and all of a sudden whether they sold the business someone else is running it or they decide to do cultivation manufacturing or some something other than retail. How do we enforce it and how quickly can it be rein how quickly can it be enforced? That sort of thing. >> Sure. The state um does have a provision for this uh with those retail endorsements on the micro mezo some of these other types of licenses that also have a retail component. It's very clear that we can revoke the registration immediately um and require them to rectify the matter. We also have an administrative enforcement program that once we determine there's a violation, we can send notice to to um to rectify the matter and then we can cite them immediately. And so I think that there's a couple different tools in effect. It's usually the leg is the knowing that there's a change of use >> um and there being some sort of complaint our ability a day or two to get out and take a look to see if that is the case. >> Okay. >> Yeah, that would be concerning. Then it would fall back on the city to make sure there's when it comes to manufacturing of marijuana, you could simply be manufacturing in the back room of that. We wouldn't know as a city level and you be within your right with the license that you have. At what point does the city have any action that we can take? If six months from now they're producing a grow room in the back of that because we all know you can produce marijuana in a small space and their license would apply for that. >> It would fall on the city to make sure that there isn't things happening on the site that don't oppose the usage. One of the conditions and one of the requirements of code for dealing with these types of businesses, it there is uh inspections um annually surprise inspections that are done uh by the city. So that would be at their own detriment if they were to have those operations. >> So at that point would the license be revoked? >> Yes, we would have the the IUP would not their retail registration their local registration would be revoked. we'd have to notify the Office of Cannabis Management immediately. It is um like any other kind of use and that people don't always do as they say. I'm not saying that's the case for budding measures, but any type of use in our code has runs the risk of expansion. So, >> you have um one on that is I think if the state says, "Well, they're licensed for it. You can't enforce it." Now we're in in court, right? That's why I really um with all the best intentions and promises in the world, I just think we're opening up for a problem. I'm really really against having manufacturer within residential area. I think it's good that our code prevents that. Uh my question for staff is are we required to approve two dispensaries? Did it did I mishar that at the last meeting? The city council has limited them to one greater than the minimum required by the state. The state requires one per every 12,500 residents. So, we're required to have at least two. Council said we would allow one more than the minimum requirement. >> So, we need three. >> We would cap it at three. >> Cap it at three. And we have two. >> We Yep. We have two applications. >> This is the third application for IUPs. No registrations have been uh no local registrations have been issued. So we could go through a hundred more of these first three to get those registrations are the cap. >> So So the first three and they have the wrong license for the type of location >> is what I'm hearing. >> Well, they have a license that pro that allows cultivation and manufacture. That is the issue is our code is written specifically about the type of license you get, not the not the use proposed. Our code itself as it pertains to cannabis only allows retail um in this district. So our code applies to the operations being proposed here and that's what controls those in in in state statute. That is the nexus there is the that these licenses go but the code of the city is what governs those licenses in that city. So if our code says only retail can happen, then only retail can happen. But right now our code says that the license type runs into these restrictions, not the use that's being proposed. So that's the that is the over overarching issue here. Not that they're proposing cultivation, manufacturing, anything. It is that the type of license allows that and that's what our code is currently written to. And I'll just state for those that weren't here, including um other staff that sit with me tonight and some members of the commission, when we created the cannabis ordinance, we really tried to highlight the types of uses and the appropriate zoning districts. Um the buffer distance from residential, I believe, forgive me a lot has happened in the last year. I believe that intent was to not allow for some of those higher intensity uses, transportation, manufacturing, distribution next to residential. I don't believe the intent was to limit the retail associated with or nearby residential. This is where it gets a little tricky in the code because where the code all talked about uses in this one section, it flips to licenses when it talks about the proximity to residential. But that's where again staff and legal council believe is the intent to limit the type of use associated with those, not necessarily the retail sales. Um if retail sales were limited to 200 feet, there's it definitely would take a re-evaluation um because there's many retail district or districts that allow for retail that butt right up to that residential I'm a little concerned because um you know, yes, we are the city of Forest Lake, but the state says we must have at least two dispensaries. Um and will we will we it is what the state says. Um do we have anything from our city attorney that says that They have a stateisssued license to grow, manufacture and sell. We are allowed to restrict to only retail. In other words, will our city ordinance regarding retail only supersede the state allowance of grow manufacture sell at the moment. We do not have that in writing from our legal council. Our legal council does recognize as many members I think of the commission and uh applicants representatives in the room new state laws and none of these have been vetted or challenged. And so um I think that that is an area that all of puts us in precariously maybe of moving ahead with the intent of reading through state statute to say this is what it says for retail registrations. We're saying that this IUP is allowed for retail. We believe it is in compliance, but at the same time, I think that is a great question, Commissioner Young, of you know, are we certain and we're not certain. >> On that same legal note, um that the IUP, which has a a fiveyear, at the end of that five years, can it be terminated by the city for any reason whatsoever. >> It will be automatically terminated at the end of the five years. Okay? >> They would need to come back in and reapply for an interimm use. Additionally, in that five years, if the rules and regulations change, that allows us then at the end of that five years, if it's no longer in compliance with local or state laws, then it can it would drop off the >> I know when we tried to push that fiveyear to threeyear, I mean, we passed a three-year with the other one and then the city council ignored that and went with five previously, right? >> Yeah. >> Is uh is that 250 ft is that for all businesses? >> Um, no. And so that's the tricky part is the license type is gets brought up when it comes to the 250 ft for micro businesses, measure businesses, trans >> cultivation, >> cultivation, manufacturing and transporter specific license types in the state. >> So it didn't say the uses associated with those licenses. It just said in general those licenses in particular. This hasn't come up before because neither of the previous applicants had disclosed the type of license they were applying for. >> I'm just wondering if there [clears throat] it looks like they're being singled out. I mean, do liquor stores have that same requirement or and you know other >> there are buffer dis >> restaurants with that sell liquor are do they have the same requirements of >> No, not for retail sales. Um the and that's where we believe again the intent when we switched in the code from use to license was that there are a wide range of uses allowed in those license types and there were some of those uses we would not want to see next to residential i.e. cultivation and manufacturing being the two largest ones that we'd want to have a buffer distance from the residential uses. But we do limit the number of liquor and vap cigarette licenses still, don't we? We used to. I don't know the answer to that. We'd have to check into that and get back to you. >> Okay. Again, I'm going to ask what is the pleasure of this commission? I I think that in in some ways because things are so very very new and because um there are things that the state tells the city to do willing we will we >> I think uh >> we do have some >> I think from my standpoint there was very well researched and presented uh they covered a lot of things that I was going to ask questions about as far police department, fire departments, HVAC, uh stuff like that. And from a business standpoint, I think if if the parking becomes a problem, um I don't think it's going to be the city that has to solve that problem. I think it's going to be the company that's either going to purchase land maybe nearby to make a a parking lot or or something like that. Um but I I think it was very very wellresent researched and Ed. Um, so, um, I think we should I'm I'm in favor of it. We have staff provided us with um a couple of different recommendations for motions that we could make. Is there is there one of these that or a modification of either of them that the commission would support >> through the chair? Uh with the information available, I make a motion that we recommend a conditional use of an interimmuse permit permit to the city council on the condition that the final license type and use meets all city code requirements and approval standards. In addition to the following conditions set forth by the staff, there are 13 uh staff recommendations. If those are adhered to, I would motion for approve or recommendation. >> And that includes retail sales only >> with retail sales only as one of them. >> Do I have a second for that motion? >> I second. >> Is there any further discussion? anything that we want to bring up for each other hearing none. All in favor? I [snorts] >> I >> I. >> Any opposed? >> No. >> Okay. I hear one, two, three, four, five eyes and one no. Motion passes. Um, this will move on to the city council. We are not the final arbiter on this. Would you like to make the further recommendation to to the council to look at our codes? >> Yes. Um could you please uh inform the council that that this was something that we found very difficult because of the the lack of clarity on the city's ability to enforce retail only. um the the city's ability to um quite frankly shut down a state authorized use if such as grow and manufacture uh to be to remain in compliance with city requirements. All right, >> commissioners. Are there any other topics that you wish to discuss tonight? We are now on the discussion portion of our agenda. >> You don't have to stick around for that if you don't want to. >> I have one more thing to say if you allow it. Come up. First of all, thank you. Um, and I hear your concerns about the license type that the state allows, but I hope that um, I wanted to provide some clarity on that even our even though the license type as a micro license allows for cultivation or growing, we still have to apply to the state to allow that. We have never even written a plan to allow for that. We have always written our uh the state calls them a plan of record to be a retail only. So even as that a concern I want you to understand that the state may allows us to apply for it but that doesn't just allow us to have that. Um and hopefully that helps. >> One question with the license. Does it allow you to have multiple locations like a manufacturing place somewhere else? Retail licenses do, which is why we did not apply for a retail license because if you have a retail license, you can have five different locations in the state of Minnesota. We have no plans to have five different locations in the state of Minnesota. We just want to have our one location in Forest Lake that is a retail only. Any further questions? >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Commissioners. I'm not hearing discussion. Um, updates, Mr. Council member. Sir, >> I have no updates tonight. I'll answer any questions after you have if though. >> You're thinking >> where? Yeah. Where you at on the public works facility and potential sales tax, >> public works uh matter. we're going to be discussing on our next uh workshop meeting a little further also along with our more of our our budget stuff. Sales tax, we haven't really landed on anything yet. It was just in discussion uh currently. Uh we did have a lot of people show up for a meeting to discuss that. Uh showing opposition and some respect towards that. Um but it's still a process. Okay. Our our our new planner, >> nothing from me. Just excited to work with all of you. >> That's a good that's a good opportunity to uh introduce Michael Burchland to uh the the committee. He'll be here uh the commission. He'll be here uh every meeting along with me. I think Aby's pro proven that she can't she's not going to get off the hook anytime soon. Joke. she's uh you know uh but yeah he uh comes to us also uh by happen stance from the great state of Florida uh another refugee like myself um so uh happy to have him he's brought an incredible expertise he's from uh Palm Beach County is where he previously worked as a planner and it's already helped us understand especially with the amended staff report the first thing we did was ask him hey how do how do you go about amending a staff report in Palm Beach and his input is really what guided us to be able to make those changes as those kind of new information came to light. So, he's already proving his way probably more than I ever have so far. That's a joke. >> Palm Beach County is one of the the areas that I am most familiar with because you have one of the leading solid waste systems in the United States. >> Trash ladies are forever. >> Uh, thank you, um, Chair Young. I have a couple um updates. I want to also welcome Michael. You've seen a many new faces now come into the city and the community development department. Today we also welcomed a new building official, Jason Wagner. Um if you didn't know, we have not had a permanent in-house building official for over a year, about 16 months. Um so this is a pretty big step for us. Also too, this marks the moment that building inspections division now comes under the umbrella of community development. Um, still have a little bit of a tie with the fire uh department, but we are trying to streamline our operations and businesses come in, they work through entitlements, they work through building inspections. Um, I think this will really help uh improve our development climate, our interactions with businesses and the community um to just help more streamline our operations. happy to answer any questions about that. Um, I do also I shout out the other night to the council meeting. Our building inspector, Nate Moes, has really been helping hold up the building inspections division as well as Don Boogie, our administrative assistant. You guys see her name, our community development assistant, see her name quite a bit. Um, the two of them really helped keep things afloat. Um, and I'm sure you probably heard things weren't staying afloat. We were trying our best with uh what I would say is a half we had, you know, the three of us operating a nineperson department. So, it was pretty tricky there for a while. I also just wanted to let the planning commission know next u Monday evening or this coming Monday evening on the council's workshop will be a council discussion item uh regarding the comp plan amendment process. So, this will be the council's first introduction to imagine 2050. That's the M council's name for it, Imagine 2050. Um, in addition to being introduced to the council, the Met Council's um, imagine 2050, they will also hear Forest Lake specific items that have been identified in the Met Council's system statement. The system statement is, "Hey, city city of Forest Lake, here are the things you need to implement into your comprehensive plan that will then meet the regional plans." Um, included in that is an increase of overall community density. Our current community density is uh three units per acre on average of the open developable area in our urban um land development. That is going to increase to 3.4 units per acre in the imagine 2050 um realm. And so that will be something that the council will be helping provide staff with some guidance early and upfront on how we strategize in terms of being able to achieve those requirements. I will share with them the increased frustration that this body continues to have when you're looking at development applications and being able to for new developments to meet those requirements. Our council has been very proactive in um and working through me of pushing back some on the Met Council in terms of the challenge that we are having in meeting those density requirements and continue to advocate for the different ways that we can determine what is developable land area as opposed to undevelopable land area. Because if there's um this cluster bucket of things you can take out, but you can't take out some things in this cluster bucket. If we took even just one or two of those things, i.e. storm ponds, um you would find swamp you can take out. Wetland you can take out. Um, but in that if you if you were able to take more out of this cluster bucket, roads, storm ponds, um, and put them into the undevelopable land area because I can't put a floating home on a storm pond, um, then you would find that those developments that are unable to meet the minimum of three units per acre and where we're kind of getting those increases in smaller lots probably won't have to do that because you're decreasing the developable acreage. So, those are some of the things that they'll be introduced to. Um, they'll also then be introduced to a very high level plan for certain plans and studies that need to be done before the final comp plan amendment needs to be approved by the city and that council uh December 31st of 2028. So, I just wanted to at least share this with you knowing that this is going to kind of start those conversations um at least and seek some policy direction from the council. >> When will their workshop packet information be online? >> Um it should be online on Thursday. I will say I'm not the most prepared to have all of the stuff, but certainly the copy of the system statement will be in there and a high level of some of the things I just talked about right now. Are there other questions on that? When I think about um other cities that have to deal with this Met Council and their rules like this and I I immediately comes to mind with Eden Prairie for instance, they've got the actual rail runs to Eden Prairie. Now, I find it hard to believe that they're having to meet this three unit per acre density. When I've been to Eden Prairie, they're not 50 foot wide lots being built. So I'm just curious how they are able to get around this and and we're struggling. >> Sure. Each community has what's called a community classification. The Met Council has four or five community classifications and depending on your kind of land or community characteristics determine your density your classification and then your associated density requirements. um I'd have to look up individual cities particularly the thing that's um should be taken into consideration is the this 3.4 units per acre is only on the future developable area. So if you are just taking only our corn fields or you know soon to be former corn fields and saying that's our futable future developable area and you're saying oh we want them all to be larger lot then no you wouldn't end up meeting it's more challenging to meet that 3.4 units per acre. But if you have more of that developable acreage that you say, "Oh, these are areas where we would see some higher density." That helps balance out those numbers. And so each community gets to decide how it wants to potentially achieve their minimum density requirements. But that's where also too we have to be realistic in our urban staging areas that we're not saying, oh look, all this land all the way to Harrow and all the way to County Road 50 and oh all the way to 190th when in all reality in the next 10 years we're not going to get to 180th and 190th maybe 190th I guess. Um, I think that might be some of the hindrance we had in the past is we created very large staging areas or decade of development areas where we said that urban infrastructure would go to. And if we look at potentially scaling those back a little bit more reasonably and growing at a maybe a smaller or more reasonable growth rate. Not to say that we're unreasonably growing right now because when you look at some of our neighboring communities, our housing production, the actual number of units is still relatively low compared to another metro. >> Yes. But they have infrastructure access that we do not. >> They don't have transportation. Susan, Lake Elmo, Hugo, Lino, those those transportation systems don't exist there either. >> I think they just built a $500 million bus for for like, didn't they? >> Oh, yeah. As a matter of fact, they did. >> Yeah. The gold line. >> There you go. >> Yeah. Uh we don't have BRT here. >> And and quite frankly, the Met Council has told us they will never bring back bus service to Forest Lake. I have had conversations. I haven't heard that. But I will also bring up the concerns about the transportation and I know this right. I know that >> new transportation plan. >> I'm new here. You but you guys have all heard my frustrations about these small lots. Um I think I I did share with the city council my agree some notes and basically we're a rubber stamp for the Met Council is what we're turning into. And that's not what we want. We're not urban. We're exurban at best. We shouldn't look like the urban core of Minneapolis and St. Paul or some of the inner ring suburbs. We like lots. We like yards. I think we're not building parks fast enough near where people live, where people are begging for that. And we're letting the Met Council tie our hands. So, I'll say it here publicly. I don't think we should surrender our rights to determine our own destiny to the Met Council. And if that means slowing down development, maybe even a moratorum, so be it. That's that that's Thank you. That's all I had to say. >> I'll continue to share the sentiments I hear. Um I will, you know, I will Andy, I know that you've reached out to them. Um, I can't say that that's necessarily the sentiment of the entire planning commission, but I think definitely part of what staff needs to do is go to our our leaders, our policy makers, and say, "Hey, how do we want to address some of these concerns?" Um, and you know, because now is the time to start those conversations if they're going to be radical departures from the current um systems and our current comp plan >> and plan commissioners. Those workshops are open meetings. You are allowed to tend attend those meetings. I don't guarantee that any of us would speak, but we are allowed to attend those meetings. >> Yep. Those are the only updates I have tonight unless you have any questions for me. >> I have nothing. >> Good. >> Nothing. >> Nothing from me. >> And nothing from the chair. >> Do I have a second? >> So moved. >> All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? We are adjourned at 7:22.