call this meeting of the city of Oak Park Heights city council meeting to order. First item is pledge allegiance. 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. >> All right. Next item would be approval of the agenda. >> I move approval. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I opposed. Motion carries. And then we have a swearing in of of chief. >> Good evening, mayor and council. Uh tonight uh we're going to do the oath of office for our new sergeants fair and back in late September for promotion and time official office. And today we have honorable to present the judge and sorry step forward office in the back. [laughter] >> I think they have some room to go. >> Yeah. >> Please raise your right hand. Repeat after me. I, Kaylin Faridor, >> I, Kaylin Faridor, >> do solemnly swear >> do solemnly swear >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> that I will support the Constitution of the United States >> and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota >> and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota >> and that I will discharge faithfully >> that I will discharge faithfully >> the duties of a police sergeant >> the duties of a police sergeant >> in the city of Oak Park Heights >> in the city of Oak Park Heights >> to the best of my judgment. judgement and ability. >> To the best of my judgment and ability. >> Congratulations, SERGEANT. [applause] [applause] >> Brand new for [laughter] >> Thank you. >> Yes. [laughter] Awesome. Yep. [applause] We just have two seconds to get a couple quick pictures. >> Yeah, we'll take a short recess for pictures. Go right ahead. >> Yeah. >> Sergeant, can you come over here and sign this real quick before we do some pictures, please? >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Yes, it's official. Yeah, for this >> then you'll see. >> Yeah, we're not coming back. We're not >> Oh, and then I wanted to grab you up. You remember that that little piece of property? Thank you. Appreciate it. Of course, >> your emails always go to my spam. I keep trying to see a bunch of stuff. I better see what that is. >> Oh, man. Well, you've always been quick to reply, so you must be on top of checking your spam filter. >> This is bizarre. Okay. Well, thank you. We appreciate you. >> Good, good, good. I said put in the >> Sure they do. Like what do you delete right away? >> Auto file. I got to see what we >> Yeah. I don't know whose baby that is. >> That's very cute. >> Yeah. Perfect. Nice work. Yep. Copy that. >> Sure. >> Oh, yeah. >> Oh, that's easy. >> Whatever that's worth. Yeah, she did it was right on things. Yeah, it was it was helpful that she was there. >> Okay. Okay. We'll call this back into session. Next item on the agenda is a summary of the October 28th, 2025 close session. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We did hold a code session at [clears throat] uh the tail end of the last city council meeting on October 28th, 2025 under Minnesota statutes 13D.05 subdivision 3A in relation to uh performance review. So we conducted a performance employee performance review of city administrator. Uh and this is the summary of that. The city council of Oak Park Heights did meet on October 28th and conducted a performance review of Jacob Reich, your city administrator. During this review, the city council uh indicated it had been very satisfied with the leadership, management, relationship development, and quality of work performed by Mr. Refe. The city council then discussed the administrative leadership of the city and goals and objectives going into 2026. Um the city has overall been very satisfied with Mr. Re's performance. >> Thank you. Um, okay. Next item is um where council and staff reports. Council, anybody on the council have any reports? All right. Yep. Uh, mayor, council, uh, good evening. Just had a quick, uh, picture here for you of our well three project that I wanted to put in front of you. It was a little bit of a gloomy day here today when I went out and took the picture. I wish it was nice and sunny, but um, you can see we're moving moving right along. Uh the mason's got the majority of the brick work done, which is great that we got the majority of that [snorts] done here before the cold weather sets in. So obviously have to get the roof trusses taken care of. Um have some concrete flat work um as well to do. Uh interior still needs to be completed as well, but uh hopefully a lot of that we can do over the winter. So moving right along with that project. >> Very good. >> Assistant, the city administrator, >> I just have one thing for you tonight. Mayor and Council Steven Amy Vulkman at 5487 Oak Green Place North. They have the recycling out for collection this month and they received an award for doing so. >> Very good. Police chief. >> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Just a heads up on our campaign. We have the Toys for Tots again and that's where we have our boxes in our city hall as well as out at Carbon's in Joseph's restaurant. Um, additionally, we have our shop with a copy event coming [snorts] up already, and that's going to be next week, the third and the fourth, at Walmart. Uh, we partner up with Washington County Sheriff's Department on that. And then, uh, we recently completed our compliance checks at all of our local businesses. Those are for the tobacco, alcohol, and cannabonoid products. All of our businesses passed, so no problems there. And then, uh, just an update on our our hiring. We are currently backgrounding two right now and they're still in the application or getting the background packets in to us completing. So still backgrounding for that one open position. That's it. Okay. All right. Um Okay. This is a visitors and public comment. This is an opportunity for the public to address the council with any questions or concerns. Please limit your comments to three minutes in length. Have anybody for public comment? Blake Vanderberg. I live on in Oak Park Heights on 64th Street and I have one quick question. I sat through the work session today and we're talking about a lack of staffing and time for the staff to catch up on things. I'm wondering what caused the decision for a reduction in staff when we're looking at not having enough time for our staff. Just curious, >> Jay, I I don't think it was that the staff didn't have time. I think the problem was we just don't allow staff to work together as a group. Cohesiveness is so important in government. You need to have everybody beating on the same drum and for us not to give our staff and our team members the time to get their desks arranged to get everything all purged out while taking care of the community. I think that was the number one thing. It wasn't because it's a staff reduction because we're trying to give staff the time to do their job correctly. Okay. >> I'm just curious. Yep. Appreciate it. Thank you. Good question. >> [snorts] >> Okay, we'll move on to the consent agenda. Um, for approved bills and investments 72 check 72,311 to 70,331 and check 72,332 to 72,443. Approved council minutes from October 28th, 2025. Approve proposed annual liquor, tobacco, and amusement license renewals. Approve 2026 taxi cab licenses for pickup LLC. DBD DB DBA 8 taxi. Authorize ARC ARC GIS software update purchase. Approve cannabis retail registration for Bounty Waters Capital. Approve amendment to the employee handbook related to the Minnesota paid leave. Accept donation from Dany Malbury for a memorial bench at Brekie Park. Approve resolution authorizing receipt of a donation for to the police department from Cornerstone [clears throat] Chevrolet Headway Marketing LLC. Approve separation agreement. >> I will move the consent agenda as presented. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Roll call. >> Council member Johnson? >> Yes. >> Council member Ligrin? >> Yes. >> Council member Runk? >> Yes. >> Council member Swenson? >> Yes. >> And Mayor Dhy? >> Yes. >> All right. We have no public hearings tonight and we have no old business. So we'll move into new business. First item is [clears throat] land use zoning amendments and conditional use permit for cannabis retail dispensary St. Croy Cannabis Dispensary 1430360th Street North. Thank you, mayor and councel. Uh just a little summary uh for the council on this. Uh the property is uh currently designated in the comprehensive plan as residential business transitional. Um and the property is zoned also residential business uh uh transitional. Uh so the request is to reszone and to change the land use classification uh to a commercial excuse me designation and the uh the B2 general business district. uh the applicant has applied for a conditional use permit for for a cannabis retail uh location. Uh but um uh within the residential business uh that is not a lawable use as a conditional uh conditional use. The uh the property is the uh former Junko uh veterary clinic uh right on the corner of 60th um street uh north and Oldfield Avenue. It would be that easterly uh uh portion of that uh that area. Uh adjacent uses uh Highway 36, 60th Street to the north. Um uh property with a vacant house to the east, residential to the south, and residential business to the west. It's a interesting area. I know that the planning commission over uh previous comprehensive plans have looked at this area and what do we really do with that? Uh and I think they've left it this way at least designated um in the past designated as uh a residential uh business area to provide some buffer uh between the u uh the low density uh the the single family R1 uh to the south and uh then the more intense density of of the highway 36. Uh the um the report goes through land use compatibility uh issues. Uh staff had recommended uh uh to deny this particular request. Uh the request was uh uh I guess it is of the council even yet uh that maybe this area should be looked at as a as a sub area study and or uh as part of the next cycle of the comprehensive plan process which probably starts very quickly. Uh it could be uh updated or reviewed and and updated if necessary. Uh the conditional use permit um again pretty straightforward. uh all the uh uh the issues have been uh discussed by the applicant. Uh there have been some improvements to that building. Again, we've got the old uh Junko building uh that hasn't been utilized for a number of years, needs some uh update. So, that's a positive aspect of this. You have the property also to the east uh that was also a business, maybe just residential uh that is set empty for some time. So, planning commission looked at this uh at the public hearing. Interesting enough, uh many of the people uh that were at the public hearing spoke in favor of this request and and I think their main concern was that some investment is going to be put into that property. Uh and uh you know, some activity there. Uh there's discussion of vandalism and uh you know, activities happening on that site uh that probably uh you know, not not the most uh something you don't necessarily want adjacent to a residential uh neighborhood. So again, really no issues with the uh conditional use permit. It's really the land use and zoning matter that was uh uh most discussed. Uh planning commission, as I said, uh voted in favor of uh allowing for this land use change uh the uh the reszoning and the conditional use permit. Um this does uh as you were considering this does require a purpose vote because you are taking a property that's uh residential and moving it to a commercial [snorts] uh commercial zone. So that's one thing to keep in uh keep in mind. Uh any questions at this point? >> Yeah, Scott. So the the biggest heartache I've got with this is when you take that transitional piece out of it, you know, where you've got, you know, 60th Street where you've got, you know, the little strip mall there, you got Carbon, got the other businesses. I I'm really concerned that if we do reszone this, it's going to open the gates for other reasoning that could possibly happen along that same area. And if we do that, we can't tell them no because we've already set the precedence. Correct. >> Well, you know, I guess that's a good point, council member and mayor and council. Maybe we could have the city attorney kind of elaborate on that a little bit. I think that would be that would be helpful. >> Sure. And that is kind of one of the exact issues that I talked to the planning commission about when this issue came up. And that that is a big part of the reason why staff initially was recommending denial of this request because this is ultimately first and foremost an amendment of your comprehensive plan which is your overarching land use document for the entire city meant to look at long range planning for larger swasts of the city. Um the council's vested with a a fair amount of discretion on what it thinks is appropriate in relation to amendments to the comprehensive plan. Um far more discretion than for example at at the zoning or or conditional use permit level. Um for that reason as well because it really those issues really are left to the council's discretion. It's part of why staff was recommending denial because it's not for us to make that policy decision or policy recommendation on completely changing what the comp plan says. Certainly, this there is a concept within your existing comp plan about the residential business transitional zoning district and and the apparent intent and purpose of that is to provide a buffer uh between residential areas and commercial areas and provide for some amount of business related use. but what we would typically see as a less intense use to to protect the interests and the values of those adjacent residential properties. And so the businesses that are allowed within that transitional district are are typically more office uses, medical clinics and not retail sales with the thought process apparently being that retail sales are more intense. there's more traffic coming and going, maybe more deliveries coming and going, and therefore more impact on that adjacent residential neighborhood. Um, but the reality here is, and as the applicant promoted at the planning commission level, you do have a property here that is on 60th Street and it's directly adjacent to other commercial zones. It's right fronting on Highway 36. There is a lot of commercial use up and down that entire 60th Street frontage road corridor. And what we saw from the neighbors that came in at the public comment portion basically saying, "Hey, we don't care. We're in favor of this. We think it's fine to be residential or sorry, to be reszoned as commercial and to have that retail use. We we think it's positive for our neighborhood and we're not concerned about it." And so we saw a real lack of opposition by the neighborhood and in fact support by the neighborhood. Um and that coupled with the fact that you know this is this property will be essentially serviced by 60th uh the 60th Street frontage road which serves a whole lot of commercial properties up and down there. Your planning commission ultimately decided they thought it was appropriate for this uh this uh comp plan amendment and resoning to occur. But certainly it's ultimately the council's discretion on that issue. Um, and as Scott has pointed out, both the comp plan amendment and the zoning amendment, due to the nature of them, state statute says that both of those require a supermajority vote. So, four fifths is you have to vote in favor of it for those things to move forward. Um but otherwise you know generally speaking in terms of precedents certainly I also discussed with the um planning commission as council member Swinsson has uh indicated it would be our view that any other residential business transitional property along 60th street has to be treated in a similar fashion if if any of those other property owners were to come in and ask for the same sort of thing because the same sort of ration would apply. any of those other properties. And so, as I explained to the planning commission, I think we have to kind of assume and and be comfortable with the concept that other RB transitional properties along 60th Street would likely be entitled to a similar change if they requested it. But overall, the planning commission did consider that and decided, yeah, that's probably fine. We're probably fine with any of those parcels along 60th Street being reszoned to be commercial properties. uh you know that that corridor that makes sense and whatever the rationale was back in the day for those protections of the adjacent residential [snorts] areas generally speaking I I think the residents that live in that area apparently are at least in the planning commission's view and and the people that came to the public hearing they're comfortable with it uh you know there's enough commercial traffic up and down 60th in general uh that this the change of the handful of properties that are RB transitional they don't feel was going to negatively affect them. Although the plan commission did uh be sure they were careful to place some additional conditions to make sure that there's there's a natural hedge of kind of screening by plantings that exist between the building and the adjacent residential properties. And as one of the additional conditions that the planning commission added was to ensure that those either those trees stay there or if they're ever they ever die or they're removed for some reason that a privacy fence isn't installed so that that intense uh retail use is shielded from the directly adjacent residential properties. And certainly conditions in this sort of scenario uh are something that the council should look at. Um and if you're going to allow this resoning to occur and the CUP to be approved, we do want to always consider what sort of conditions may be necessary to protect the the health, safety, and welfare of the adjacent properties. So those are kind of the issues that we talked about at the planning commission level. Planning Commission did consider those issues and determined they thought this was still appropriate to move forward. And so you do have in your packet a a proposed resolution of approval based upon the recommendation from planning commission. Those are the issues that the council should consider tonight. And >> and Kevin, if we do ultimately decline it, would the recommendation be that we send it back to your office for a proper finding and a resolution in accordance with the denial? >> It would. you know, whenever there's a denial of an application, we we need to have a resolution that reflects that with appropriate findings of fact. And so, yes, you don't have that presently in your your packet. And so, we'd want to make sure that's grafted. >> Just to state my position for the council, I'm strongly opposed to this position. I think while not just looking at the cannabis, I think that that is separate from it. I think we have to look at this in the long term and thinking otherwise would be pretty shortsighted. Switching it immediately to a commercial use would allow this property to eventually be redeveloped to a car wash. It would [snorts] allow for open door storage. It would allow for a mechanic building. It would also allow for a drive-thru. So, these neighbors that are signing up for a cannabis business might then get a Chick-fil-A in 10 years, maybe. That would significantly impact the property value of those adjacent parcels. And it's going to be something we're going to get those residential concerns from. And also I want to remind the council that this isn't consistent with the comprehensive plan especially page 32 and that goal of a buffer which the majority of our council adopted. Um and so it would be going back on that. It'd be a slippery slope and I'm just worried we can't put a genie back in the bottle. So that's where my position is on this. >> Well I my biggest concern was is the zoning change and I mean I've talked to people out there. I said I happen to have two relatives, one on each side of the street on Oldfield, one of which spoke in favor of this. One thing that I would say and I watched the planning commission meeting is that I don't think they understood the entire impact that it could have. I mean the big thing was we don't want any asking the developer we don't want any lights that shine onto Oldfield. Well, you know that's something they can say but at some point that could change. Also, I am worried about the fact that it does set the precedent and I says directly to the west on the opposite side of Oldfield you have what is currently Zakowski property. I said they've operated there a couple they over the years have operated a beauty salon there and they've also he at one time operated his insurance business out of there. I look and say if you take that piece of property and you particularly if you were if they were able to acquire the piece property to the west of that which we currently have approved a project for but have they haven't moved forward on construction as of yet. In fact, they asked us that would be I could see a developer coming in now to Zakowskis and saying to the Zakowski family and saying, "Hey, we're willing to pay you top dollar for that piece of property." And I said, "Then you would be opening it up." when I said I started looking at one of said one that you'd see an automatic with the change in zoning you'd see an automatic increase in the value of the property. I said I was trying to get an idea. I was trying to compare other commercial properties on 60th Street which is kind of hard to do because of the you know but I would say probably at least 20%. I mean I mean like some comparable parties where I could based on location they were up to 80% higher and I'm just afraid that the people don't realize when you say well they were okay with it. I don't you know she mentioned Chick-fil-A. I said I it said the proverbial White Castle on the corner and there wouldn't be any restriction there. We have our lane ordinances, but you know, access off of Oldfield would definitely be a possibility. If you were to build a strip mall in there, the service road to the strip mall would be behind it. Um, one of the properties on Odell if if all of the properties that are there would be eligible, and I think there's five Um with the with the Odell properties the they are large lots set back the property line the back line is quite a ways back the house at 5925 Oldfield would find themselves basically with three two of the sides the one side would be the street then two the other two sides would be um commercial and I think uh I don't think the people I don't think the people in Odell would be thrilled with it considering the only person that was here there to discuss it was because she thought it was going in one of those lots and uh she was opposed to it going in there. She didn't care if we went in down the street. But um I look and say we would see all five of those properties eventually want to be commercial and we would have to structure something to some type of a buffer. I mean a mandatory 8 foot fence along the line or something all the way from uh where I know where Oolen and 59th Street the corner there all the way across the adjoining properties and the the line would be kind of buried but um I don't know what we also have a blank spot in the middle there with the uh the old Connell House and that is apparently is a is listed as a single piece of property that the city has tried to figure out what [snorts] ever could do with it. So I want to hear what the rest of you think about the zoning and what we could do. Well, I think one thing if you look back in the [laughter] history, the money we put into buying the bell property down in stage coach when it was the north side of the bus garage, we didn't want a another residential house going there. We wanted to keep that kind of a commercial alley because what you had the bus garage and you had the prison over there and then the north side of the or yeah, north side of Whartman's property. They said he bought that too. So, we'd have more of a a buffer in between them. we can kind of control a little bit more what was zoned commercial industrial to keep that in that you know keep residential residential and keep industrial industrial and yeah I I can't support this either. >> Also my other bullet point is this would be an easier solution if we were resoning because there was a demonstrated need for this resoning like if we didn't have other cannabis applications down the line and here we have plenty of locations for the cannabis businesses to go in. We already have two. There's more down the pipe coming down with that. So, it goes back to that slippery slope. We have no actual need for it. So, with that, I'm going to make the motion that we send this back to Oh, >> I'm not necessarily opposed, but I think then something needs to be done because we have certain things then that just don't match. I mean, right down right down the street from this, >> we have we have that already >> where we have retail stuff. So, it it's kind that's a slippery slope as to well, okay, we're fine with that, but now we're not fine with we're not fine with this. And I understand Mr.'s point. I don't think some people that stood up and were okay with this realized that a change could bring a gas station or something in. You're probably right. But from the st where I see it is it's a it's a hard cell for a definite no when we already have stuff zoned right down and right next to you know right behind pizza man and stuff that's all residential and there's people there's people coming and going in there too. >> Yeah. So yeah, >> the difference there would be behind pizza man there is a street that it serves as somewhat of a mobile. >> Yeah, but I would agree. I'm with Mike. I think this I mean it's it's a frontage road basically on an interstate with 50,000 cars going by a day. I think the pressure is going to be to make some changes and make some adjustments. some when we get looking at the comprehensive plan or at some point and and and figure out what we're going to do with this properties because I I mean there's got to be some a middle ground there, but I you know obviously we're not going to get >> I mean I've been opposed to other reasonzonings where it doesn't make sense to plop some residential piece in the middle of a commercial, but here's this is this to me is different from the standpoint of as as Chuck made mention is it's right there. I mean, that's the the what was the what was the buffer supposed to be? What was the buffer supposed to be? I mean, it's right along 36. Did we not think or was there not thought process in as to there's going to be commercial built here? >> And we're not saying that. I mean, right now it's residential business transitional. You could have an office space. You could have a nursing home. You could have limited retail, which I mean going that buffer right now that that council member Run pointed out with that big strip of land is kind of in the divider between more low inensity uses to more aggressive commercial uses, >> but we don't have that currently with this some of the stuff that we have. >> Yeah. >> So, we're setting in a spot where we're going to potentially say no to this where we already have it in the city. To me, this one this one I can see pulling in and having a discussion or making more sense from the standpoint of some of the other stuff at least that I voted no against. Like I said, dropping a residential property inside of a commercial. That doesn't to me make sense here. It's a little bit different that we've already got it and now we're going to say to potentially say no to something that we already have in other places zoned in the city. It's kind of a hard cell. >> You You have a motion? >> Yeah. I think my motion is we direct it back to staff to create a resolution rejecting this resoning proposal. >> I'll second that motion. >> Any more discussion? I'd like to see if it goes back that we do some type of a study to figure out what we're going to do because yeah, I think at some point the forces are going to come, but I said I don't think at this point we've looked at it to see what what are we going to do? >> Yeah. >> Do we want to just do that with our comp our next comprehensive plan in like a year because we're probably going to have to start that in a year. >> Okay. and send it to the planning commission at that point >> or do we want to send a separate one starting now just to study this area to see if we >> we can talk at a work session too if the council wants to do that about this a little bit further decide you know here are some options what we could look at and direction of where we want to go with this area >> is there any restrictions that we can put on is there any restrict like I said an eight mandate that if we do this we're going to have a 8 privacy fence along separating the residential area from the commercial. >> Well, again, this is still commercial. It's just limited. >> And one suggestion here that you could consider because you've got kind of a split in the council on and what should be done in this scenario. Um, you've got an applicant who's, you know, wants to move forward with their their business proposal. There's some talk about a study. Um what can be done these scenarios is requesting the applicant to agree to a a a longer extension uh a mutual extension on the deadlines that are in place to take action on an application of this sorts. So typically speaking everybody is I think familiar with the 60-day rule by statute that you have 60 days to act on a land use application and then that could be extended by another 60 days out to 120. But the applicant is entitled essentially to a decision by the council within the 120day period. However, uh by mutual agreement of the applicant, they can have that extended out even further. And so you're kind of, I think, looking at two potential options here. One is just denial. And then if it's denial, then their application's done. They're out. Uh the other app the other option here is to extend by mutual agreement well beyond the 120 days uh to allow some time for a study which would then also allow the application to remain pending. So it's not technically rejected. Um and and I'll say for the benefit of the applicant then that you know there is some demand for these cannabis businesses to come into town. We have a limited number of available slots. that sort of extension would allow them to at least remain in the queue so to speak because typically speaking staff has been uh taking these applications on a first come first-s serve basis in terms of who gets a complete application in the door. Uh if you reject this application they're done and they're out and by the time you know any sort of study is done and they were to reapply those four licenses are probably full. And if you have any inclination to potentially want this application here, you could just extend them out and then conduct a study over the course of a couple of months if if a study can be conducted in that period of time. Otherwise, the the motion it sounds like it's headed towards rejection of the application and then they're just out and probably someone else is going to take that cannabis slot. >> I stand by my resolution because I don't think I'll be changing my my vote to change this commercial. I don't think given I mean I think it the issue is I'm viewing this from the Oldfield perspective rather than the 60th Street perspective and having that much to residential abuing a a potential commercial use that could be a drive-thru in 10 years. I don't think I'll change my vote. Again, this has to be a four-fifths vote. So unless someone else thinks they're open to reconsidering, >> I don't think I am. >> As the applicant, am I free to speak? >> Certainly. Yes. Um, we have an [clears throat] 18month window that we have to exercise that license to perfect it. If we don't meet that requirement, we lose our application. We could throw in the waste. [snorts] In listening to you, I'm a little concerned that we went before the planning commission, five people, unanimous four. Everybody in that meeting that got up that were local residents did not they [clears throat] were in favor of it. My question is what do you agree on? I I don't see how there could be any more support for that. Mr. Junko, the property owner is in favor of it. If you stand at the end of that driveway and you [clears throat] look to the east, you look to the west, there's 40,000 plus cars a day going up and down there. I opened my first business in Oak Park Heights in 1978. Subser Wines and Spirits. We built that building. There was nothing there. Today is Advanced Auto Parts. Across the street was Jones Bradshaw Funeral Home. They sold their property to Walgreens. I'm sure that had to be resolved. I don't see any issue there with traffic and being a problem going on the corner of Ozgood at 36 on the back of Herburgers. They closed that um street to the residential area. They put a barricade out there. I mean, I think there's ways to work around this, but you know, we're under the gun here a little bit for approval. Again, as as just a citizen, I would ask, what does it take then to get something approved to this point? Everything was unanimous. With that, I'll let it be. >> Thank you. >> I I [clears throat] say a word, too. And I think maybe I correct the record a little bit because I heard a lot about 5925 house behind it which I own and that's zone the same as the clinic property. It's zoned RV and that means something that is the buffer to that building to the neighborhood. I don't I didn't hear that mentioned by anybody again tonight. Uh I think that's a pretty important thing. There was a relatively heavy commercial use of that building for well from 1964 until a couple years ago and we were open seven days a week and there was no screening. We never had any trouble with the neighbors and you know this business is a good fit for that. And I think that uh you keep hearing about precedents and everything that comes up you guys vote on. It seems like and I don't see I think this business about a gas station or a car wash is sort of a red herring. I don't think that's even realistic. Uh, so I'm just going to say that I think you really should give some consideration to the house behind actually being the buffer. Uh, that's a fact. It's zoned RB whether or not you heard about it or not. So that's all I had to say, I guess. But it would make sense, and I'll say this again, it would probably make sense to set a precedent in that strip because I don't think it's people are entitled to use of their property. I pay commercial taxes and you know, they're $11,000 a year and uh it's my tax statements have said commercial for many, many years. So, it just seems to me that it's just a common sense issue. >> So, thank you. >> Thank you. Do you have time? Can >> I address? Yeah, let me address it as the planning commission chair. I'd like to address the council as the planning commission chair. And actually at the planning commission meeting, there were some comments made tonight that we did not evaluate the future of those properties. We changed that. Those are untrue if you watch the video. We did talk uh extensively about that that the planning commission was well aware when we made this recommendation that we used to those properties could all come forward and be adjusted and they could house car washes uh other businesses, strip malls, whatever. We spoke in depth about that in planning commission. So that was taken in consideration in our recommendation list for approval. We also um took the recommendations of the individuals there which were the individuals that live directly adjacent to these properties that they're talking about. So the individuals that actually own the properties that would therefore become the buffer properties behind these properties we're talking about potentially become commercial were all present at the meeting and all recommended in favor of these changes with the understanding that this may create a precedence. Mr. Sandstroman was there that we talked about this extensively. He explained the legalities. So it was understood by the individuals that own the land directly adjacent to this property that we may set a precedent in the city and they still all expressed favoritism for this change. We also talk this current land use study was done in 2017. How many cars in town 36 in 2017? Not 40,000 a day. Right? You guys made this study in 2016 when that bridge wasn't even completed. So they were all going across slip bridge. We took that into consideration. 10 years ago is a large difference. That road and that fronted road was not the way it was today. 36 has changed drastically. So we took that into consideration. So just for a point of clarification, the planning commission did take all of those into consideration and we looked at this very extensive very long meeting. We used our city attorney very extensively to explain this to the public and we had a good amount of public presence for them. So that's why we looked at this because we looked at it could create a precedency. We looked at it made sense. We also looked at the legalities behind this specific business going in there because it has higher regulatory backing than potentially other businesses that could go in the future. And the local um individuals were super excited about that. They actually wanted because of the security lights and regulations behind the type of a cannabis or liquor type facility. So just for the council's awareness, we did look at all those things. There were some comments made that we did, but those were all spoken about extensively. So thank you. >> Also, to be clear, I did not state that that wasn't considered by the planning commission or the resident. I don't want to question anyone's intelligence on that. You can sit down, too. I'm not going to. But from this is a tough vote. I obviously listened and respect the planning commission on this and they're >> you know, we're really not a public hearing. I just heard from the applicant from the planning commission. So you don't Yeah. like and I respect their insight. And if it was just this cannabis business, you can promise it'll be here for 50 years. A a retail business is not what I'm concerned about. I'm concerned about the drive-thru that comes before us in 10 years if this doesn't work out. >> But see, I'm I'm I look at this and I I I I have to agree with the planning commission. I think this is this is a commercial strip and maybe we need to put some regulations around how that develops, but it's going to develop that way and and why not have a a a solid businessman in with a a solid plan and and what they're doing to be the first one to go that way. But we can put we can put buffer requirements. the house behind is a buffer house according to what we're being told now with the zoning. >> Yeah. No, I looked in that as well. >> So, um, so there's already that's already there. So, I you know, I still it would be in favor of making the change on this. Did you have something else? >> Just one point of clarification. Planning Commission did establish look at the size of those lots. So, for certain of these things, like Miss uh Council Member Johnson mentioned, we would have to have the city recommend and approve combining these lots >> under the current size of these lots. They would not house the businesses she's talking about, >> but then in the future, somebody obviously >> they could get the adjacent >> but right now these businesses we're talking about. No, >> I I'd like to have some some time to look at some things just because I mean he says that all the adjacent property owners were there when they weren't all there because I know like I said I got relatives that live there and the people from on on Odell that would be affected if we established the president's president none of them know would have known about it. I don't think the people that lived in 5952 Oldfield were there and I said they would be definitely impacted by this Zakowski property. So I mean I think when the thing that has bothered me is I have no problem. Yeah, the business would be fine as a one-off, but we're sending the president that what are we going to do when the they come in and they want to go in the three properties to the west of this property that do directly abut housing. And that's I'd like to know if there was some type of protections or some type of restrictions we could put on. >> Mr. Chairman, would you be willing to put a pause in this for a while? [laughter] >> I think we've already we've already gone the application was granted the end of August. So, we've already gone 90 days and 180 days. But can I make a reference to your comment? All of the property owners within 500 ft of that location were notified by mail that there was a public hearing on the 13th. They chose not to be there. What I'm saying is they didn't realize that that was they were thinking we had a one-off that okay your piece of property is fine. They didn't realize that by us doing this we're going to set a precedent that's going to affect Jakowski's property. It's going to affect the property to the west of that. It's gonna pack property that used to be valley trophy and you know so those people they didn't realize that they were signing up for the entire block which is something that the city council's got to look at. We got to look at the entire area not just >> could I interject again? Uh none of those properties have a RV buffer next to them. If they're RV, they're adjacent to whatever. But it's not RV. There's a buffer behind that property. >> Behind your your property? Yes. But not the other ones. >> The other no buffer that it's an entirely different situation. >> No, the just for clarification, >> the [clears throat] the RB was the buffer. >> Uh just for clarification, the zoning uh the zoning, correct? that your property, the house behind is zone RB, but the comprehensive plan has that as low density um residential. So, there's there's a disconnect there. Also, we're we're throwing some timelines around the um 120 days ends on February 9th. Uh so, we have until February 9th, which is I think the day before your February 10th uh uh city council uh meeting, but there is a little bit of time uh for the planning commission at least to discuss this. I would be >> I'd be I'd be I'd be fine with that, but I want to make sure that that comes before the timeline that has though cuz I don't think that's I don't think it's fair then if we put a timeline on that they miss than their state application and then we make a decision and somebody else get would get that piece. I think that's a disservice. >> Kevin, is their state application tied to this location or because I don't want to give them false hope. their their particular approval by the state is not tied to this location at all. What we're seeing is people come into o OCM, get their preapproval in terms of their qualification to operate this sort of business anywhere in the state and and then once they have that pre-approval, they go out and pick their location. But and what Mr. Zimmer is is saying is they have 18 months from the time that their preapproval is approved to find that location, get it secured, and start building it out. Um, and that's the timeline that's ticking for them. In fact, we had uh one application came in that advised us that it was the Mango Cannabis folks. I mean, they told us we have five locations and we can put our five locations anywhere in the state. One of them that we want to go into is Joseph's, but you know, we have to find five different locations that we're going to do this in. So, no, their their particular pre-approval is not tied at all to this particular property. And so, if it's denied, they would have to essentially go find a different property somewhere else, but they're that many months behind in their process of trying to get approval. >> I mean, I'm up up to allowing us to do some more studies, but I again don't want to give the applicant false hope here. I have no I have no problem waiting till the end of January to try to let us talk to the neighbors. I'll go talk to them personally and I'll see if they have any any qualms about it. I I have no problem with that whatsoever. If you're willing to do it to put it on, if not it just wasting our time. >> And just another suggestion here. I mean, the concept I like the the concept or I agree with the concept that some of the other neighbors may not have realized the impact to the other properties along 60th with setting a precedence here. Maybe the the strategy is to hold a a public not a public hearing, but a a neighbor neighborhood informational meeting to gather more information, but with the understanding and the the express message out to say, hey, we're kind of doing a mini study here of the the corridor up and down 60th. not just this particular property, [clears throat] but it's it's all the properties along here that are zoned as RB that we kind of see the dominoes potentially falling here. And we want to hear the neighborhood's input on what what do you feel about the impact of these other properties potentially being reszoned in the future as well because this property could lead other properties to go the same way and and get the neighborhood impact and neighborhood input on those issues. >> I really like that idea. I'm f I'm fine with that too. Uh but the thing is is how quickly can we get that done >> just because to me that would have to start. We we won't wait. We can't wait till January, February. Just so you know. >> Okay. That that >> another another point um that isn't being brought up that was brought up in the commission meeting is the residences have got >> Excuse me sir. Could you speak up to the microphone just for people? >> Please say your name for the record. >> Troy Zimmerman. I am the son of the applicant Richard Zman. And um the a point that I had brought up is that you've got a problem property right next door that the residents have called the cops on. One guy said this person, we called cops twice. Another lady said me too a couple times. One of their enthusiastic support was because we'd be coming in there and we'd stop that element from coming through. You're not going to be coming in there smashing up that house, trying to sneak into that house when we've got cameras and lights blanketed all over that property. And that was a real big bonus for the res. I know you don't aren't taking into consideration with the residents or that they supported it, but that was one of the reasons they had for support was because it's such a property next door. So, we could be doing legal drug deals in there or you can be doing legal drug deals in that's all up to you, but that's what you're having. >> Can I clarify the last statement I tried to make here? I I'm trying to say is that this particular property is different than all the rest of this precedent you're talking about. I don't know what it's got to do with Odell or the other properties in the sense that it's it's got a buffer behind it now. It's a RV house behind it that I own and that it's the same width as the lot. You know, if there was a business in there, nobody would even know it. Uh it's uh I mean I [snorts] I think all the students said well what if what if uh I again I think a lot of that's just uh there's no car strip malls going in. You know when I should mention that when they put the strip mall in down the other side of Connell's house that was done over his strong objections that there was a drive-thru [clears throat] right next to his bedroom. U they wanted to put a Dairy Queen in next to his house. Uh, of course that was years ago, but uh that property was not zoned for a drug mall and and there's a difference between this property at the old medical hospital and all the rest of this you're talking about and that is there's a buffer now in place behind it. And I I haven't heard much attention given to that. Well, that's a I mean, if if we if this was approved, that would make this unique compared to the other other properties because there is another >> lot behind it. >> Shows that it's not investments or something that >> I mean, I'd have to rely on the advice of our city attorney instead of my legal thoughts. So, I'll let him talk about that. >> And again, we have that disconnect between the comp for that particular property between the comp plan and the zoning. >> Echo that too. Um there is a well first of all the actual use that what's constructed on that property right now is a single family home. It's not any sort of business transitional buffer so to speak from a otherwise commercial zone. But the other aspect is, as Scott has pointed out, the comp plan says that should be just be single family residential. And the comp plan trumps your zoning, [snorts] so to speak. And and the law would say, in fact, we should be amending our zoning map to conform it to what the comp plan says, which is that that lot is in fact single family residential and not a residential business transitional buffer property because the comp plan says otherwise. And so there is discrepancy in the in the law says in a discrepancy situation you can go either way but typically speaking you should conform the zoning to what the comp plan says. Okay. >> I'm going to make one more comment on that because I ran my business out of that house since 1991. That's my office was in there. Uh this this you're making a distinction. It's not not uh I don't see any difference, you know. Uh uh it was just uh well it's just it just doesn't make any sense that that you can say it's been zoned RV since who knows how long before I bought it the house I'm and now all of a sudden there's a comprehensive plan that says it's not going to be zoned RV. I've been counting on that all these years. And it seems to me that's uh I'm no attorney, but does that fit anywhere near the unlawful taking component? Uh because it would diminish the value of that property and just because some commission gets together and says, "Oh, is this our comprehensive plan is this?" Um, you know, the plan should have been that that clinic building should have been zoned commercial 40 years ago. And you mean I I I don't think that's too far out of line to say that. It's just common sense. Again, none of those other properties that you're talking about are bordered by something RV and that zoning means something regardless of what the comprehensive proposed comprehensive plan. >> That's all. Thank you. I get up again. >> Sure. >> I don't want to. Um, and it's it's still called the Highway 36 business corridor. Is that do we refer it to that still? I grew up in this town. That's what people used to call it at. And we're sitting here talking about if we're going to do business on the northern tro of a business corridor and worried about more businesses going in later. I understand the drive-thru aspect of it. We opened up decided to sell to Chick-fil-A. Just like said, I get that. I really do. It's a terrible spot for a drive-thru. It really is. I don't have them believe that they would buy that property. Um, also, is there any possible way to do a conditional use? Give us the thing. That way, you don't have to completely resone it and we can still operate business and you guys could pull it out later. >> Can Kevin, can we do that some way where they just I was going to say we can't do that. We have to reszone this commercial. We can't at that point ever go back to anything else besides commercial. >> Right. Uh, as Scott pointed out earlier, cannabis retail use is not an allowable use, whether by conditional use permit or any other aspect in a business transitional zoning district. It has to be reszoned as commercial to be a retail facility. >> I mean, if we could guarantee this being cannabis forever, this would be an easier question for me. But we can't. So, that's where I'm kind of falling. I think maybe we do the community engagement and maybe you look at what we want to [clears throat] do with the frontage road, but to the applicant's point, that's probably going to screw up their timeline and we're probably looking at after the >> we'll have to take our half a million dollars worth of tax won't even go to another city. >> That's what the average 2,000T cannabis retail operation gets. I know the city doesn't get all of that, but we'll take any of it. [clears throat] And and again, we have two, as I think someone pointed out, one from staff. I mean, there's other proposals down the pike that will fill up our four licenses pretty quick. [clears throat] >> I don't know how to word our next action besides I make a resolution that we ask staff to put together a community listening session maybe in whenever staff thinks it's reasonable. >> Well, mayor and council, I I don't know if the applicant is even interested in and waiting for that. >> It sounds like the council might be still wanting to do that. >> Well, either that or do it part of the comprehensive plan which is coming up sooner rather than later anyway. >> Yeah. Would we have to start the comp plan? >> Uh technically it should be done by uh the end of 28 um 2028. But >> yeah, mayor and council >> we'll probably move a little. >> Yeah, we we'd probably sometime in 26, you know, look to engage a consultant. Yeah, it's probably going to be about a year-long process then. So, late 26, early 27 to start that the comp plan process. I mean, I I just say about the listening session, I I think it's a great idea, but if the applicant's not, you know, not interested in waiting, um there's not really a lot to share about the listening session. Um we haven't had interest in this the property for quite some time. This is the first interest that we've had in it. So, I I don't >> because you could always do the listening session. later later on down after after this decision is made. Absolutely. >> And decide at for future stuff versus >> taking this off the table if that's not going to meet the >> Yeah, absolutely. There's there's no rush to do the listening session if um you know the applicant would just not going to want to be a part of it. So, >> and I'll I'll throw this out there that council certainly is within their discretion to punt on this and say, "We're going to set a a neighborhood listening session to talk about this. They will do it sometime in December or January and and leave it at that. You're at least not denying their application." Clearly, the applicants are frustrated and irritated here tonight saying they're going to take their ball and go home. Uh, and they can choose to do that. And if if that's the council's decision is we're going to punt this for a month or 45 days and and request a public uh neighborhood meeting, they can choose to withdraw their application, but then the ball is at least left in their court as opposed to an outright denial. Uh you've made the decision for them and they're done. They certainly aren't happy tonight, but maybe tomorrow they'll have a different viewpoint on it. >> I would personally wait a year, but the January timeline is still I can't risk that. I can't risk waiting on a contractor and an architect to get things plans together in that. >> And I think we and I think we heard from the planning from the folks at the planning commission at least behind this property. That's where I would say and this we I'm agreement that we should talk about this. But for this property right now versus the rest of those properties, okay, then let's have something and talk to those folks behind theirs so they understand what could potentially be and what we would do. But I I just don't see I would not be in favor of the current motion. >> [clears throat] >> Carly, would you be willing to amend your motion to put a pause on this till the first meeting in January? Or we can >> have a hearing session. >> We can have a listening session with with the neighbors, make sure we send a a good detailed letter out to everybody that's within that area and see what you know if if it still comes back as the same. And I think we should extend it to people just in that general neighborhood because I think this is an area of kind of regional in Oak Park Heights concern and I'll accept that friendly amendment. >> What when we say general neighborhood just so I'm clear. Um is there a anyone have an idea of what you'd be looking at? >> So you went 500 ft. Do do a little bit more because you know I I I told I respect what the planning commission came back with this. What I don't think is that people really understood the whole gravity of what the totality the totality of this is so much different than just us just granting you that Dr. Jungle, the spot that's beside you to the west, to the east, I'm sorry. If we would pass this today, that could actually that the one you've got your the building next door to you could become the same thing. >> Well, he's not he's not bordered by an RV. >> Well, but if you would sell that property tomorrow morning, the property behind it, you wouldn't have control over that property anymore. So, if you sold that property, you >> talking about Sakowskis? >> No, I'm talking the the property you're saying that you own. That is the buffer. Well, I do own it. It is. >> So, what if you sold that property? >> Mr. Mayor, I'm calling the question on my vote on my resolution >> and your motion. What is your motion? >> My motion is that we delay to the January meeting and we have a listing sess session. >> Second meeting in January. >> Second meeting in January. >> That's good with a seconder. >> And so, I'm calling the question on that vote. >> And was that seconded? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> My only comment to that would be is why would we do that? Then we then you might as well pull a pull a vote to have >> well >> because in essence the >> we're not denying their they can make their decision what they want to do knowing what we're doing I think is is is the best we can do. >> Going to say as long as there we're two votes against them this is a partial win for them. >> Okay. And do a roll call please. Council >> Johnson. Yes. Council Ligrin. >> No. Uh council >> R. Yes. >> Council member Swenson. >> Yes. >> Mayor Dhy. >> No. So motion passes. >> All right. Um we'll move on to item B. Considering issuance of a tobacco license to Smoke Clair Cigar, Inc. Mayor and councel, Smokeclair Cigar Incorporated has applied for a tobacco license to sell tobacco tobacco products and or tobacco related devices at 1437560th Street North. That's the former smoke shack location. The application has been investigated by the city attorney and found to be in compliance with city ordinance requirements for tobacco issuance. and the investigation has been feed uh paid. Um city staff is recommending approval of the tobacco license contingent upon approval from the state of Minnesota and payment of the license fee. >> Move approval. >> Second. Okay. Is that a roll call >> or no? >> Doesn't have to be no. >> All in favor? >> I opposed. Motion passes. Okay. Okay, we any other council items or announcements? >> I just want to say that uh I'll be missing the next meeting, so I'm done until after the first year. I want to wish everybody happy holidays and good luck with the gingerbread house. >> I was going to say December [laughter] 13th, mark your calendars to watch us take down Still Water again in the annual ginger gingerbread contest. >> All right. Okay, then. this that we're well you want to go to close session. >> Sure. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um I'll announce again that we are going to go into close session tonight under Minnesota statutes 13D.03 subdivision 1B in relation to labor negotiations strategy. Uh the city has a number of it's union labor negotiation contract coming up. Uh those negotiations are ongoing and we're going to go into close session to have discussions about the status of those matters. The intention of the council will be to, I believe, uh, adjourn simply at the end of the closed session without coming back to open session because I don't think there's going to be any action items for the council to undertake tonight back in open session. And so, we'll provide a summary of that uh, close session meeting at our next regular council meeting. >> Okay, in that case, let's go to a close session. >> A motion for second. >> All in favor? I posted