I would never do busy listen >> watching my clock. I took my resertification for my permit to carry yesterday. Went over to Okay, >> I'll call this meeting of the Oak Park Heights City Council to order. First item is pledge of allegiance. I >> pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. And next item up would be approval of the agenda. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I opposed. Motion carries. All right. We have council and staff reports. Anybody on the council have anything? Um Mike and I did the tour of the Stillwater Prison in Port today. Was kind of very interesting. And then I also I had a um a Zoom call with Betty McCullum and the I guess metro area mayors this morning was and staff and well Jacob was on that too. So city administrators. So >> I had one update. Um so tomorrow I'm going to be meeting with the mayor of Bayport and our county commissioner. I think it's just a women in government little meeting, but if anyone has any messages to pass along, please let me know. >> Okay. All right. Anything else? Jacob? >> Yep. Mayor, council, good evening. Just a quick update here. Uh we have started the uh city code recottification update process. Uh it's going to take some time. Uh anticipate uh completing here sometime this year. Uh all staff are going to be involved in it and so it's pretty big undertaking, but know something that uh the city was has been looking to do for quite some time. So we'll be excited when we uh get to the finish line. Please, Chief. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. A couple of things. Uh we've got our we'll be participating over at the Presbyterian Church on Thursday for the uh pit stop event which we coordinate with Washington County and our local churches. Uh that's from 9 to 1. And then uh just an update on our new hire. It's on the consent agenda. We have completed that entire process and now just looking for final approval uh for our new full-time police officer with a start date of February 17th. So, we're excited for that. And then uh we do have another demonstration that is planned over the Beach Road Bridge uh or over 36 on Beach Road. Uh that's from 12 to 1. So we'll be monitoring that like we've always had and we're in communication with organizers and uh uh parking and making sure everybody with the snow now encroaching on our roadways. We don't have that extra parking. So we'll be out there monitoring and posting a few spots uh for no parking down in the both north and south of the bridge there. So, should be good. That's it. >> All right. Thank you. All right. And the assistant city administrator, >> mayor and council, just one item for you this evening. Becky and Chris Borshime at 14054 53rd Street North were chosen as the most recent recycling award winner. >> Thank you. All righty. And this is a visitors and public comment. This is a opportunity for the public to address the council with any questions or concerns. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes in length. Anybody for that? All right. Then we will move on to the consent agenda. Um item A, approve bills and investments 72,605 to 72,643. Approve city council work session notes from January 13, 2026. Approve city council minutes from January 13, 2026. Approve the renewal of a consumption and display permit for the St. Croy Yacht Club. Approve hiring of Annie Birds as a 2026 summer park program coordinator. Approve 2026 pay equity compliance report submission. Award the 2026 winter ash tree removal and stump grinding project to save a tree. Approve 2026 vegetation management to for prairie restoration areas at Swagger and Valley View Park. Approve appointment of full-time new hire police officer Reed Larson. >> I will move approval of the consent agent as presented. >> Second. >> All right. Roll call, please. >> Council member Johnson, >> yes. >> Council member Ligren, >> yes. >> Council member Rock, >> yes. >> Council member Swinson, >> yes. >> And Mayor Dhy, >> yes. >> All right. We have no public hearings this evening. So, we'll go on to old business. And item A, land use zoning amendment and conditional use permit, St. Corey Cannabis Dispensary, 143 0360th Street North. >> Uh, mayor and council, good evening. Um, Richard Zimmerman, the applicant, has submitted this application uh for a conditional use permit. Um, application has also been received for amendment to the comprehensive plan. uh the proposed land use map and the zoning map to designate this property as commercial and change the zoning to B2 general business district. This uh retail dispensary is in the uh former veterinarian uh uh clinic that was owned that is owned by John Junko. Uh and the entire uh site will be used for the uh business referred to as St. Croy Cannabis. uh property is currently designated residential business on the proposed land use map. Again, that is proposed to go to commercial uh land use and the property is currently zoned RB residential business transitional and the request is to reszone to B2 general business. Uh council has reviewed this already. Um, of course, the planning commission um at their November 13th meeting uh held the public hearing, recommended the application uh for the um conditional use permit, the comprehensive plan and the zoning changes. Uh when this came to the city council in November, you discussed the applications uh continued uh the matter to this evening. Uh the uh uh council wanted uh to uh even though a public hearing had been held uh wanted the uh city staff to put together a neighborhood meeting on this. Notices went out to those neighborhood uh uh residents and uh uh that meeting was held on January 8th. We had about 10 12 people there. Uh I thought there was a lot of really very good discussion that evening. Um, and most of the residents in that area uh were in favor of the uh of the changes and the conditional use permit, the changes to the land use uh zoning, except one household was concerned about the cannabis use uh at that location. Um this is a matter that uh you know, we've extended the 60-day timeline to 120 days. Uh but that 120 days comes up on February 9th. Uh so we should take action uh on this. the applicant always has the ability uh to uh uh allow us additional time if if uh that is deemed necessary. But uh for your discussion tonight uh there are the u uh resolutions the ordinance for the uh the zoning ordinance change the resolution for the conditional use permit uh the resolution for the comprehensive plan um amendment. Uh there's also um a resolution in the packet of denial of those requests if if we do not get uh uh approval also for discussion and I'll let uh attorney Sandstrom discuss this if he wants to a bit further. There was something we discussed at the end of the week uh Jacob and and I and and uh and Kevin related to another way to look at this is maybe we could amend the residential business district uh to allow there is a allowance within that district in the conditional uses for a very limited uh retail um uh operation. uh but uh with some changes and and again that's reflected in this uh in this uh allowances and uh a small retail operation like this could be uh uh could be considered. So again you simplify the process we wouldn't have to go through a comprehensive plan uh amendment zoning amendment we could just uh leave the property zoned as residential business. the um also there is some uh minor changes to uh the one resolution related to the comprehensive plan amendment. Uh Mr. Sandsrom uh Jacob and I discussed some some language to tighten that up and I believe you have uh the most recent copy that's been passed out in front of you tonight. And there's also another minor just correction in the references in the uh conditional use permit resolution uh rel it says residential business where it should say commercial. So, just wanted to make you aware of those. Uh, the staff has uh uh cleaned up some of that uh that language um for that matter. Uh any other questions? >> Yes. So, Scott, for that, I want to move forward. So, then that would be moving that on to the planning commission again for another public hearing. Correct. >> Yes. Uh thank you. Yes, we could even uh conceivably achieve this uh at the February um uh planning commission meeting for a public hearing if we get a notice in tomorrow morning uh that's been uh been drafted. Uh so again, if if that's the direction the council wants to go, but uh you know, we still have to would uh have to ask Mr. Zimmer Zimmerman if he's willing to allow that extension to uh to go through that process. >> Question for either you or for Kevin. Would there be a way for us to have that public hearing at the council level at our next council meeting, which would then expedite it a little bit? >> Typically not. The statute specifically says that if a city has a planning commission, the planning commission is expected to be the one to hold the public hearing and mandated to make a recommendation to the council before the council takes action action on a zoning amendment. So although and as I discussed with Scott uh in these sort of scenarios uh regardless of what's before the council, it is actually quite common for the applicant to grant additional time beyond the 120 days if necessary and if they're amendable to that if they see that as a path towards getting their manner matter approved by a council. It's not at all uncommon to get a voluntary agreement to go beyond the 120day timeline. So that's what we'd I think be looking for here today from the applicant if we wanted to go that route. And just to explain in a little bit more detail, the council will recall I believe I brought this up to the council as a potential option way back at a workshop I think in November as an alternative avenue for this issue. So it's kind of a eitheror uh choose door one or door two. The comprehensive plan amendment, as the council will recall, um that was before you back in November, requires a four-fifths majority vote for any amendment to the comp plan. And so that process of doing a C uh a comp plan amendment zoning reszoning from uh residential business transitional to uh commercial zoning um requires a four-fifths majority. Essentially, this zoning amendment to the residential business transitional district itself um is a simple zoning amendment which would only require a three-fifth majority vote, which is why we kind of put it as a secondary alternative for the council to consider. >> So, is there a process that Mr. Zimman would have to go through? Can we just ask him tonight or is there a process that he's got to go through to >> There's really there's really no process for him to go through to extend it. What I would want is if we wanted to go that route to have him agree on the record here tonight that he's going to allow the city to go beyond the 120day timeline. And then we'd follow up probably with a written email or letter to him tomorrow just saying, "Hey, confirming what you said at the meeting last night, we you've agreed to allow us to go beyond that 120day timeline." >> And is he the sole applicant or isn't it a joint application? We'd need both all. >> Um yeah, John Junko was technically a co-licant on that process and so we'd want that >> want there on the record as well. >> Right. Good. So I guess the one one thing that's really nice about that it doesn't lock in any other businesses that other than that one particular business. Correct. >> Um so the conditional use or sorry the um comp plan amendment and the reasonzoning is specific to just this junko Zimmerman parcel. And so you're changing the zoning of that parcel to commercial for one parcel. But we've talked about the fact that that likely causes a precedent set for other parcels to come in and try to do the same thing. There probably would not be a whole lot of reason to deny it so long as the intended use was similar or or whatnot. The zoning change to the residential business transitional district overall would be a citywide change. So, it's not just this parcel, but all parcels along 60th, as well as a handful of other areas in the city that have that zoning district. >> Well, I can kind of start the discussion since I was the loudest at the last meeting. Um, I mean, in terms of the reszone, I I follow Kevin's concern of once we do this, we're we're really looking at really in essence reszoning that entire area, which I'm not prepared to do right now without doing more studies. And I know Council Member Run has kind of proposed doing a small area study to make sure when we're making that choice and opening that Pandora's box, we're doing it wisely and intentionally. I think I'd be willing to look at expanding the use for RB. When I looked at the map for where RB is in our city, most of it is fully developed with apartment complexes, which is a proper use for RB or in areas that are already pretty commercial where it wouldn't be, again, use your judgment on the map, but when I looked at it, it didn't seem like crazy locations for a cannabis facility. And I mean obviously this is our fourth applicant um in fourth fourth license. So unless that limit changes or a application falls through that would be we're kind of looking at very few growth. >> One excuse me uh mayor and members of the council. One of the things too in looking at the ordinance drafted by our attorney uh you know they'll go through the planning commission. The planning commission here is very good at picking up a number of uh of things that should be added, whatever. But u I believe this was in your packet. You know, one of the things we could look at is uh we don't necessarily want retail wide open in terms of of large scale or large um uh format retail. You know, we could put limitations on square foot size and so forth. um you know and other things that I think that would be fleshed through by the u uh by the plan commission and then and given to you in a recommendation. So this is just a a rough draft on this. Uh but you know would this obviously wouldn't be the final ordinance that there be additional discussion >> and do we do we think that's warranted from the standpoint of the size of those that somebody's going to come in you know and ultimately if this were to pass that someone's going to come in based upon the size of those that would change that would change anything. If you said this is going to pass, you're referring to the comp plan if we were zoning or the change to the business transitional district >> to the comp plan. >> Um I mean as it stands right now all the parcels are relatively small I'd say overall and so to say you know is a is a big box retailer going to come in and build there? Probably not. they would hypothetically, I suppose, have to combine together a bunch of parcels to create a larger parcel to do a really larger commercial development in any of those areas. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Mayor and council, too, just to add on that, um, agree with what the city attorney said. I mean, there'd be a lot of land assembly that would need to take place, but also, you know, talked to a couple of you about doing the small area plan. um you know doing that study would kind of help set the vision and kind of expectations of what we'd intend what we'd like to see. You know that's always helpful too and just sharing that with the development community when we meet with folks when they come in and say what does the city want to see you know and we have that and so um I know it's been talked about here and that is an option for the council to consider as a part of this process. >> Can we do that? Can we can we have a decision tonight on this and still move do that at a later date? >> But >> instead of pushing instead of pushing cuz I I just think >> yes >> we should have had this discussion at the last council meeting then >> in my opinion we sat with the applicant here and denied saying we'd like to hear from the public. We heard from the public. Now we're going to put the applicant out again to come back through and stuff. I I just I think that's wrong. >> Well, certainly I think if I could, Council Member Ligin, the first and foremost issue before the council is the the applicant's current application. And so you need to vote tonight on comp plan amendment, zoning amendment. Uh and if those things pass, um that's all fine, well, and good. and then the the property is reszoned and his application and business can go forward. And you certainly still can do additional study on what should be the fate of that entire area and the remaining parcels in that district going forward. If the council votes and don't get a four-fifth majority in favor of doing that process, then you can look at the change to the RB transitional district as an alternative. Uh but certainly if if neither of those are palatable to the council, you you have the option of studies in the future regardless. >> Sure. >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm since it's come up about the small area study and I have something here that if the public wants copy for my going to remark on tonight. >> Yeah. >> I'll pass it to the little the couple down there. I think the city attorney needs a needs needs one. Jake, I'm giving you one even though you've got it. Um I'm the one I said as this process has unfolded. What I found is we don't know a lot and there's a lot of misunderstanding going on. And I said, so I looked and said there were three things that I think the council should do. Um, only one of which do we have to do tonight, but I'd like to see it because we found that and I mean in talking to Mr. Dowski, we talked about the fact that Bob, do you want I guess Bob's looking for a copy back there and if he wants you there's two copies here. I looked and said I mean even today I'm learning things that we don't that I didn't realize. I mean the applicant Mrs. Junko is kept on referring to me. She kept saying, "This is historically. This is what her property was." Cuz I was looking at the zoning of the house. Cuz I says, "I personally have a problem in the fact that there's two lots there that were both owned by Jonos. One they want reszoned, one they don't want reszoned. Realistically, what she's saying historically happened there doesn't qualify under the zoning that she that they currently have because it was a residence if they would have what is it? Home occupancy per home Jake can help me here. >> Yeah. Home occupation. >> Home occupational permit. They would have had to have when the entire time that Dr. Junko was operating his his office out of his home. He didn't have a permit to do what he was doing. And they're assuming that that's what the what it is. And I looked and said, and we found out that the property to the east of the jungle property is a single piece of property, four acres combined with two different zonings. And it's just And then we've got Mr. Zakowski is across the street there where they have Blue Bell Salon and they've been operating for what 40 years. And he had questions about what happens because if he doesn't live there anymore, does his permits? And so I looked and said there were I had three items. One was that we need to put it in the record that we recognize the property and I conclude in the maps with the numbers. The first one is 414337 60th Street. That's the that's the property to the east of this. That's the question of how does one single piece of property have two zonings and how how are we going to handle that? I looked and said that's something that we should put in the notes so that the next time we do a comprehensive plan somebody does it. The second one is the one thing we do have to act on tonight, which was that co currently both properties at 14303 and 5925 Oldfield Oldfield Avenue both have an RB applicate zoning, but they only want to re reszone one of the pri properties. And I looked and said that doesn't make any sense. So, I've requested I've actually just been in communication with them and they I got a response just a little before the meeting saying that they hadn't really considered this before. So, they weren't ready to respond on it tonight. But uh like I said in going through find out that their entire argument that well he's traditionally had his office there in the house and well that wasn't that isn't what the zoning is because the RB zoning is the purpose of the RB zoning is you know I had it up is to provide a buffer. The purpose of the RB residential business transition district is to provide high density residential use for the transition in land use from residential to low inensity business allowing for intermixing of such sites. I mean this one piece of property that is just out just I'm somewhat uncomfortable with that. The third thing is what Jake's kind of been referring to is I think we should make a commitment to do a small area study and the properties I listed were the five properties west of Oldfield east of Oakra. Two of the properties the one property is zone R1 where he's going to operating a business currently. The next two properties are currently zoned RB. And was that done as part I'd have to ask. Was that done as part of the development when they built the houses on Odell? >> That is even before my time. Um, so I'm not certain when that was actually. >> That's the only thing I can figure out because to the west of that are two open space. And so when we start talking about having large pieces of property, there actually are a couple of large pieces of property there that you could have somebody come in and say, "I want to reszone this commercial and we would be committed." So I would like staff to put together the information to allow, as I said, we've done this peace meal. Mr. has mentioned that everything's been I would like to have an area study done with those five properties looked at so we can determine what type of zoning is proper and have somewhat of a vision so that when somebody does come into us we have an adequate answer that it's not just that we do it. So that's what my discussion was. So, I mean, as far as the rest of the actions, I'll let you people make the motions. And >> so, the one thing I like about the the option the city attorney put forward. It allows this prospect to go forward. You know, I think I I was not on the council when the hearings happened before, and I should have gone back and watched the planning commission meetings, but I wasn't comfortable with my heart because there was a lot of folks that I talked to that said they did not understand what was going on. We had folks that were at the last meeting that talked about, well, there's going to be an access off of Oldfield and no, there's not going to be an access old. So, there's a lot of, you know, misconceptions on on stuff and the the negatives were way there was hardly any people that were against this against this process. So my thoughts are is you know tonight to go forward with the zoning text change which allows us to do it and then you know it kind of puts us to the fire saying that we'll do a small area study and we can we can get it done and we can hold ourselves accountable to make sure that does get done but I think you know we've got a local resident that that wants to put something in and I don't think it's going to be you know it's the new way you know it just we can't say no because of what it is and that building is sitting empty and I'm worried if that building sits empty much longer it'll just like the building that's to the east of where that is right now. It's just a it's a blight is what it is. >> The hard part with me voting on the reszoning is if we do that, as as Kevin has said, it does open the door for people and those adjacent parcels to argue that it should be reszoned commercial. Us doing a small city area study after we've made this reszone vote will not change that fact. it will still have those people will still be able to argue and combine parcels and make arguments that they should be commercial regardless of what we want in a small area study. I don't know I don't want to speak for Council Member Run but based on his statement I don't know if you have a four-fifth vote I think you have a three-fifth vote on the RB and if that's something the applicant's willing to consider having that extension so we can get that vote so they can do what they need that might be the best outcome. >> Can we ask the applicant if Or do you want do we want to make our make a motion first if he'd be willing to extend his time? We ask that now or should we ask it after we take a vote on one or the other? >> Um I >> if we voted down, do we screw up the timeline though? Like would they have to like resubmit? I don't want to have that issue. >> No. What what would happen I guess is you'd vote on the comp plan amendment and if that fails the the cup application still exists and that would be tabled at the request of the applicant uh or with the consent of the applicant go beyond that February 9th timeline uh in favor of kind of looking at that zoning district amendment. >> Okay, >> that would be my recommendation. We need to make a vote on the comp plan amendment, >> right, >> first, >> which requires four fifths, >> correct? >> As does the zoning. >> So, do we do we actually have to pass that one? Can we just go for the zoning text change? I mean, do we have to bring up the zoning change? >> Yeah. >> You're obligated to take action on the applicant's request for a comp plan amendment and a resoning within 120 days. Otherwise, it's automatically approved by operation of law. So you do need to make an action on that or and or I suppose that could be tabled and pushed beyond the 120 time day timeline if if the applicant wanted all options still available out through that next um public hearing process they could all be tabled. I suppose that is an option and so I'll I'll change my suggestion July if the applicant prefers that and they want to go that route and have all issues kind of tabled out through uh planning commission meeting and a council meeting in February. I think that's an option. >> How and then I guess my question to follow up on that is if if we did that, how does that change then what's coming next on the agenda and the number that we have if there's no If there's no approval or a setback and something the next one in line gets approved tonight behind that now, does that put them as in essence number five and now we got a problem with we're only taking four? >> No. Um I think we've made clear with all applicants and with the council that our expectation as far as the operation of the four licenses that are available is it's in a first come first- serve basis based upon application date not approval date by the council. And so there is already a clear condition in uh request number five, so to speak, that says you are number five in line and uh regardless of when others are approved, if the other four are approved, um even if they're finalized beyond your timeline, uh you're still number five in line. Would we even vote on that one today or should we t like continue that one so that there or how would >> how would you prefer we handle >> I don't think there's any reason to um table or forego that other one. I think you can vote on it and have that be finalized and done um because it does have that condition in it about it's still conditional upon what happens with the other first four. >> Do we need a do we need a motion to have Mike's the handout that he gave to have that part of the record? Can we just put it in there? We don't need a motion for that. He's made clear with his comments on the record that he's handed that out and it will be noted in the minutes. >> Now, if we voted to table this and the applicant doesn't say are we going past 120 days without >> a vote? You can't you can't table it without it express consent from the applicant saying I won't move. Let's move a vote. If for some reason the applicant does not give that, let's say he rescends that in two days, you would have to do a you could do a special meeting. Um, and it could be voted on at that point. I believe that's correct. Uh, >> sure. Which one do we want? Which one do we first prefer not to prefer not to do? >> Yeah, I would hold the applicant to their word on that issue if they want to go that route that we are going to have to do through February these things. >> So, the right way to do it would be to get the zoning bring up the zoning. >> Are you going to do the condition then? >> Zoning change. I'll go >> would be the first zoning and then condition. >> That's preferable. I think if you want it if there's the possibility that there there'll be a four-fifths vote on that and it'll just move forward then the the other zoning district change becomes >> suggestion. >> So if that so if that doesn't happen then so if we don't get the four fifths then we can bring up the vote to change the zoning text. Correct. >> Right. >> Suggestion from to the minority or majority. Um, do you guys want to consider the condition from rank about the two parcels? It seems like he might be willing to consider >> I think we from what I understand that that can't be a condition >> that I I can express my I've discussed this. I can express my opinion and say that I think the two should be changed and I still am convinced of that and I would think that if we approve this that maybe that would even be included in the small area study. >> You'd have no leverage to downgrade it. I think >> and >> except for the fact that I think once they find out that what the zoning actually is and what the conditions on it are for RB that the opposition would be there because their when I've discussed with them their entire idea was the fact that they I mean she even tonight in the email she talks to me about the fact that they're hoping that somebody would come in and buy the house and operate the business next door just cuz it's historically bad. And I looked and said, "But that isn't what the RB district is." I mean, that's why they didn't have the permit to operate his office out of there when he was doing it, unlike Mr. Sakowski came in and got permit from the city. So Kevin, what would be the wording to move forward with proposing his own zoning jam? >> Sure. And first I I can certainly address council member Run's concerns or suggestions here on on this other uh parcel next door with a house on it. And so that was brought to staff's attention as a possible request. in my opinion was it's it's not appropriate to link that reasonzoning of that parcel to the a condition in this application because that parcel is really not part of this application process. Uh it's a separate parcel even though it's owned by the same person. However, I will say um I I understand your rationale and the reason for it and and why that might make sense to some people. Um, and I will say there are processes to reszone any parcel in the city if the council thinks that a parcel needs to be reszoned. Uh, it's just that there is a notice proc a proper notice process and hearing process that's required for that prop property owner and that particular parcel before that reszoning can occur. And so I I think if the council could all generally agree that yeah, that makes sense. Council member Rung's suggestion that this other parcel to the south should be reszoned into purely residential. Then direct staff to undertake the actions to have that reszoning matter come before the council under appropriate reasonzoning processes directed at that particular parcel. Don't make it a condition of the cup because that just creates a potential legal hornets nest within your cup as opposed to just making it a separate process that you can vote on in a future meeting. Well, yeah, that would be something part of the study that we, you know, I think that's so who >> so Oh, go ahead. >> The wording to do that would be then to approve this resolution. >> So, >> for the comp plan for >> the comp for the comp plan. >> Yeah, that that would be um approving of the comp plan and then there's also a resolution a resolution sorry no an ordinance in your packet for the technical reszoning from our RB district to commercial district. And so it's kind of a a package combination of those two actions is what changes the zoning. First the comp plan change and then the actual zoning change. >> So the comp plan change would be the first one or the zoning change. >> Typically comp plan first. >> I'll make a motion to approve the comp plan change. >> Second. >> Okay. It's been moved and second. Any more discussion? Okay. Let's do a roll call, please. >> Council member Johnson? >> No. >> Council member Luligan? >> Yes. >> Council member Rock? >> Yes. >> Council member Swinson? >> Yes. >> Mayor Dhy? >> Yes. Okay. And then the reasonzoning wants to >> So now we have to ask him if he's involved more than 120 days. >> No. Now you need to make a motion to approve the resoning ordinance 2026-41. That's in your packet. >> Second. >> Okay. The resoning has been moved and seconded. Any more discussion? >> Okay. Roll call, please. >> Council member Johnson? >> No. >> Council member Ligrant, >> yes. >> Council member Ron, >> yes. Council member Swanson. >> Yes. >> Mayor Dhy. >> Yes. >> Okay. Then we look conditional use permit. >> So moved. Second. >> Okay. Conditional use permit has been moved and seconded. Any more discussion >> and again that's just to clarify that is the document also that Scott mentioned before. There's one minor typographical error correcting in the uh condition number one of that um cup. Just noting for the record >> and just to explain >> also moved with those corrections. >> And just to explain my vote, this is because now it's zoned commercial. So I don't think we have reason to ny. So that's going to explain why it's a different vote. >> Yes. Second. Okay. Moved and that's been moved and seconded. Any more discussion? Let's do another roll call, please. Council >> member Johnson. Yes. Council >> member. Yes. Council member Ron. >> Yes. >> And council member Swanson? Yes. And Mayor Dhy? >> Yes. Okay. Good. >> Can I make a motion now? >> Now, now I would make a motion to do a small area study. >> Second. >> As I as I outlined and the question I would have is we want to look at all the properties including the uh property to the east. >> So basically anybody on anybody along >> 60th Street. >> 60th Street. >> 60th Street. >> Yeah. I mean, >> but we're not going to we're not going to go back like off Odell. That would be just the 60th streets. >> Just the 60th streets. I mean, I just figured that I said we >> I think it's a good idea. Mike, >> and mayor and council too, we can talk um city planner Richards, myself, um the Stantech planning team and kind of put together a framework here, a scope obviously, and we can circle back and say, "Hey, here's what we're thinking." Um too, before we started, just to make sure that you're all on the same page. >> Yeah. How about that? The motion would be to have the staff >> come up with a plan for the >> I think the way let's see the way I put it um the council should conduct a small area study to outline future zoning issues. Staff will prepare proposal outlining the process including defining the exact area possible zoning alternatives a possible moratorum to allow time for the study and projected costs. Do we want to >> once once the council approves the proposal which they would bring back as chief said staff will then apply for a grant from the Washington County I want to say redevelopment but I got it wrong here >> CDA the community development authority >> community development >> that um and I think you could probably outline a little bit more on that as far as how much they would cover. >> Yep. Mayor councel >> that's my motion. >> That's a that's motion is a second. >> Okay. Got a second on that. Okay. Second. Okay. >> Uh question. Do we want to include We have some properties that are not on 60th Street. Do we want to include those on this? Like could you have them on this list? >> No. >> Okay. >> Okay. I think we're trying to keep it as simple as possible so we get it all done at one time. >> Okay. So, we have motion. Any more any more discussion? >> Mayor, can I just ask one? So, Mr. Are you talking about the that build that area 47 or wherever the house is? That would be included in that study. Correct. >> That's what I'm saying. And that was the question I had was do we want to include that? >> Yep. So, why wouldn't we go all the way down to the end of the strip mall? Because isn't there another property owner that's got the property after that one? They don't go all the way to the end of the strip mall, do they? >> There's another piece of property there, but it's already zone commercial, so they didn't need to sell commercial. Okay. And then the the question with the uh 14th through 41 group was the question there was because of the fact that it's got two different zonings that >> but we're trying to straighten that out. Everything to the east of that is already zone commercial. >> So I didn't figure we needed to look at that. I just was you know that I mean, that was my thought process. And then, like I said, I listed the the four the five properties to the west because I looked and say, you look and say the one house I know the one at 14151, which is the farthest west of the properties. That house was built in 1955. It's zoned open space, I would suspect because when it was annexed into the city >> from Baytown, >> they put it from Baytown, they put it into open space >> and nothing has ever been looked at as far as >> that doesn't mean that tomorrow somebody couldn't come in and say, I want that zone commercial and I want to put a gas station there. So that's why I included it all the way down to there so we'd have some type of, you know, do we want to zone it all commercial? Do we want to zone it all RB? Is there another possibility? I don't know. I just figured that that's as it was pointed out, the city's done everything peace meal and half. >> So how long would this process take you think, Scott? Uh I don't know if you've had any discussions um Jake with uh with Stantech but typically a small area study it take two three months probably the most. So I mean and then we'd have to find out about put possible moratorium on but I just after going through all this and trying to trying to find out why was this done well nobody knows we can take guesses but nobody knows. >> Yeah I think council member run though is correct. This was all township. A lot of the the development was or at least what was out there was all township. it came in those uh we always whenever anything's annex was always zoned open space. The uh the one uh long property that's two different zoning districts. It's kind of made sense for the last 40 years to zone it the way it has because if you zone the whole area behind it as commercial it's a number of houses backyards. So you know it's that really does require its own study. I know I know with each comprehensive plan that we've we've looked at those. The planning commission's looked at, city council said, you know, we'll leave it the way it is, but now it's really time to deal with it. So, >> okay. >> All right. We have a motion on the table. Um, is that a roll call? Might as well do a roll call. Why not? >> Just majority. >> Yeah. Council member Johnson. Yes. >> Council member Los. Yes. Council member Rock. Yes. >> Council member Swanson. Yes. And Mayor Dhy. >> Yes. Okay. Is that everything on that? >> I think. >> Yeah, we got her. Okay. So, we'll move on to new business, which is the conditional use permit for cannabis retail dispensary power plant cannabis shop at 1343560th Street North. Uh mayor and councel, this is the fifth application uh that came in that was submitted and was accepted uh to move forward. Uh again, power plant cannabis. Uh looking at the old McCormix uh furniture space um proposed to occupy about 4200 square ft of the front portion of that building. Uh there's still about another 10,000 ft behind that that would be uh available for other tenants. Uh the uh uh planning commission uh went through uh took a look at this um uh at their January 8th meeting. Uh they uh recommend the application uh for the conditional use permit with conditions u and that's reflected in your resolution uh that's before you tonight. Uh the uh there's uh really the only discussion point or or major discussion point at the planning commission was the um uh was the parking uh for um uh for that site. And uh uh again with the number of employees that the uh applicant is talking about would far exceed the number of space out there. But again, it's going to be a gradual uh uh you know operation that will be building up. And I don't think at first we would see an issue with that. Um, and there is a condition that reflects uh that the city council would uh uh come to the applicant say you need more parking and we need to force your hand in in developing that additional uh uh parking uh area. Uh and I think it's the intent that with any additional tenant in that building, there's going to have to be a buildout to the parking to the rear. Also, there's the issue of providing access uh to the south. Um again the uh uh the dentist office adjacent to it to the east uh does have a connection between uh the two roadways uh is that 58th or 59th excuse me 59th and 60th. Um uh we have required uh in this application that these applicants and the property owner provide that access to 59th uh to start with because you know that has now become the main the main access for those biz is from the rear as opposed to the 60th in front of the u in front of the buildings and adjacent to highway 36. So with that, uh also the the city attorney had mentioned the um uh condition number one related to the language um as to if one of the four of the first uh applicants falls by the wayside that then they would become the fourth uh under our limitations of the of the four uh uh cannabis related business in in the community. So again, all that should be reflected uh in the uh in the resolution for your consideration tonight. Any questions? >> Any questions? >> The only question I had that was brought up at planning commission and it is addressed in here is whether or not we would want them to to move forward with parking sooner rather than later. The doctor was in and it sounds like she has issues with parking already from the other two businesses to the to the east of her. Um, so I think they had Scott, how many parking spots on this? Was it nine that were angled? >> So whether or not we wanted to wait to become a potential problem or do we want to solve the problem right now? it be condition 13 in the resolution and in the report and it it discusses if traffic parking or delivery issues develop uh attributable to the proposed use shall be required by the city to implement traffic parking or delivery control measures as determined by the city. So, we've more or less said that as a condition of approval, uh that if we see issues, uh that they uh uh need to move forward. And the applicants are here tonight. Maybe they have an update, too, of what their plans are with that building and and uh maybe updating that parking sooner than later. >> I think too, mayor and council, just to add, it's kind of weighing that, you know, urban heat island effect of trying to want to respect the ordinance that we have in place um here at the city and also making sure there's enough parking. So that's why we did have add that condition where we could circle back to it here if it becomes an issue. >> Any other questions? >> So with this being the fifth application, what happen? So there there technically is there is none right now. So they just sit in limbo until something happens to one of the other four or something else changes. Correct. >> Yes. I make a motion we approve it. >> Second. >> Okay. >> I had one question to Jake. Um would the parking situation if if we had made them do it now, would that have affected the watershed requirements? >> Yep. Uh mayor and councel, uh potentially it could. It depends on how much parking is added. Um, in talking with the city engineer, um, from a watershed standpoint, I think it's at about 10,000 square feet would trigger it. Um, the drive, the access drive, I think just doing the quick math that I did on that, it was around 3,000 square feet. So, that would trigger watershed um, review, but if you added an expansive parking in the back, it it could get close to that threshold. Um the repaving if if they would repave it as a part of this project, it would trigger watershed review um as well. If they repave it, and this is a watershed regulation, if they repave it in the future, say like a year from now, the existing parking lot, it wouldn't trigger the watershed review. So, it's kind of an interesting process um that they have there. So, uh, long the long story short, I guess >> the access drive would not trigger any any wershed, uh, review. So, >> what wershed are they in again? >> That's clear as Browns Creek. >> That makes as Okay, any more questions or discussion? >> Okay, then we have a motion for approval. I guess we'll do a roll call. >> Council member Johnson? >> Yes. >> Council member Ligren, yes. Council member Bronc. >> Yes. >> Council member Swinson. >> Yes. >> And Mayor Dhy. >> Yes. Okay, that passes. And move on to item B, plan unit development conditional use permit amendment for Dave's Hot Chicken at 5910 Neil Avenue North. >> Yes, Mayor and Council. Uh we have a a request. Uh this is the former or I guess it is the former. It has closed now. Uh Taco John's building 5910 uh Neil Avenue. uh north uh use as the mayor had said uh as a Dave's hot chicken is a request for a plan U development uh conditional use permit amendment to allow for additional signage and site plan design uh guidelines review uh property is zone B2 with a PUB overlay u when this was uh uh first uh this area first developed it was the uh KFC uh Kentucky Fried Chicken which is now K&J catering um at 5920 Neil um with the Taco John's approved for the resoning the final plat plan new development uh with a a parking um cross easements to allow uh both the sites to work together uh as one. You'll see that there's a pylon sign there too that was originally used uh for both businesses. The um that was actually approved back in 2003. uh planning commission at their January 8th meeting. I held the public hearing. Um planning commission agreed with the staff recommendation. Uh mostly that you'll note from the staff report there was not a lot of issues with this. Um but there were two things. Um they had requested six signs, wall signs. And typically what we've allowed with these uh fast food type restaurants or even like the uh the latest tire uh change or oil change place is that they all come in with multiple signs all the way around the building and we say you we have limited it with a conditional use permit to four or one per per facade or on one facade they can uh again just take put two of the signs and then they would have two facades with two other signs. Planning Commission agreed with that recommendation. Also, there is a variance from the design guidelines. We don't do that very often. Uh there's only been probably a handful since the design uh guidelines were first um first developed. And that is for the uh the white color of the building. And for the graphics, uh Dave's uh hot chicken use a graffiti style um motif uh point painted on the existing structure. uh those pictures are in front of you. Um planning commission discussed that and really did not have any any issues with that. Again, it's a it's uh something uh specific to uh Dave's Hot Chicken and uh uh uh based upon what we've done in the past, the car wash just down the street with those uh you know, multiple color um uh graphics essentially uh the planning commission um was uh favorable to that uh uh favorable to that color uh thing. One thing counc u um that uh one that you have brought up and sorry uh is uh you know maybe we should put the same type of condition on that approval uh that we did with White Castle uh that you know White Castle had a very distinctive like tower effect that goes back to the 1920s and franchise design uh that there was some specific language uh that I've uh shared uh that we could add into that to say you know those graphics think those it has to be brought back to kind of a neutral uh uh look to that building if they uh decide to vacate it which I think was a very good uh very good >> that was kind of the debranding language >> the debranding like we did Carly had brought that up I'm sorry >> hey Scott is there anything in the lighting ordinance that says it can't be flashing or blinking lights it has to be steady >> yes now the exception to that is uh signs the changeable copy signs uh that uh can be uh changed and I believe in this ordinance it's uh 8 minutes. Some ordinances have 10 minutes but I think we have 8 minutes or 8 seconds excuse me that they they have to remain steady and then change but they can't do a blink >> or anything like that. I'll make a motion to approve with the uh conditions >> include the um >> debranding. >> Yeah. Return >> including the branding or whatever you call it. Whatever >> the reasonable return condition or return to a reasonable condition as determined by the city. Yes. >> And a penalty that's drafted by the lawyer. >> Okay. >> I'll second that. >> All right. Is this a roll call? >> Council Johnson? >> Yes. >> Council Ligin? >> Yes. >> Council Ruck. >> Yes. >> Council Swanson. Yes. >> And Mayor Dhy. >> Yes. All righty. Are there any other council items or announcements? >> I move we adjourn. >> Second. All those in favor? >> I opposed. We are adjourned. Thanks everybody. My goodness, Carl