Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2022-10-19 City Council Regular Meeting CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE Equal Opportunity Employer 2897 -458-Fax 651 2800 -458-651  gov.mnwww.cottagegrove Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016 12800 Ravine Parkway  MINUTES COTTAGE GROVE CITY COUNCIL October 19, 2022 COUNCIL CHAMBER 12800 RAVINE PARKWAY SOUTH REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P.M COUNCIL CHAMBER 1. CALL TO ORDER The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, held a regular meeting on October 19, 2022, at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Parkway. Mayor Bailey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience, staff, and City Council Members stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL City Clerk Tammy Anderson called the roll: Mayor Bailey - Here; Council Member Dennis - Here; Council Member Khambata - Here; Council Member Olsen - Here; Council Member Thiede - Here. Also present: Korine Land, City Attorney-LeVander, Gillen & Miller, PA; Tammy Anderson, City Clerk; Ryan Burfeind, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Gretchen Larson, Director of Economic Development; Christine Costello, Director of Community Development; Pete Koerner, Public Safety Director; Brenda Malinowski, Finance Director; Mike Mrosla, Senior Planner; Emily Schmitz, Senior Planner; Zac Dockter, Director or Parks and Recreation; Eric Rigby, Communications Manager; Rick Redenius, Fire Chief/Deputy Director of Public Safety. 4. OPEN FORUM Mayor Bailey opened the Open Forum, noting the Butt family wished to speak. Wayne and Angi Butt, 7405 Lamar Avenue South, extended an invitation to the Mayor, Council Members, Planning Commission, EDA, and City staff as they’re very excited about their new project in Old Cottage Grove. They want to give them a sneak peek of Angelayne at 7404 Lamar Avenue South. They’ve scheduled a meet-and-greet with their preferred vendors on Thursday, October 27, at 5:00 p.m. to capture the beautiful sunset at Angelayne. Why are they doing this? As a former Council Member, a successful business owner with his wife, Angi, and our community, we’ve put a lot of City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 2 blood, sweat, tears, and love into everything we do. That’s shown by the folks that have told us how we’re doing, who love this for fixing up and maintaining Old Cottage Grove. We’re not the only ones who are successful business owners in the Cottage Grove area; the Chamber is full of successful entrepreneurs. We’re celebrating an evening of excellence on Thursday, October 27, at 5:00 p.m., by reservation only, at the historic Furber Farm. Our business was built on trust with other small businesses in our community, and we rely heavily on each of them to build and maintain what they’re doing. After we purchased the site at 7404 Lamar Avenue in August 2021, we advertised on the City website and reached out to the community on social media to lease this space for our business adventure. Many ideas came to them, but no one stepped up to the plate. Our goal is to do the best we can with what is given to us. Angelayne is a masterpiece of art in a historic area of Cottage Grove. How did we come up with Angelayne? It’s easy, Angela and Wayne, drop the W and you have Angelayne. We took a storage building and land riddled with debris and overgrown with vegetation, mostly buckthorn, and turned it into something very beautiful and desired in our community. With the cooperation of City staff, the Planning Commission, and the Council, we’d love to have Angelayne be a destination wedding venue for folks who desire to have a special, intimate place to celebrate. This is what is most desired when it comes to tourism in our community; like in the movie Field of Dreams, “Build it and they will come.” We have a track record built on this that puts hundreds of people to work in our community to live, work, and play in the City of Cottage Grove. We thank the Council for your time this evening, and look forward to seeing each of you on Thursday, October 27, at Angelayne in Old Cottage Grove for a magical evening. As no one else wished to address the Council, Mayor Bailey closed the Open Forum. 5. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Council Member Dennis made a motion to adopt the agenda; second by Council Member Thiede. Motion carried: 5-0. 6. PRESENTATIONS - None. 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve the September 7, 2022, City Council Closed Meeting minutes. B. Approve the September 21, 2022, City Council Regular Meeting minutes. C. Receive letter in response to Open Forum concerns raised at the October 5, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting regarding Hinton Avenue trail crossing at 79th Street South. D. Receive letter in response to Open Forum question from October 5, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting regarding the Economic Development Trust Fund. E. Receive letter in response to Open Forum concerns raised at the October 5, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting. City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 3 F. Authorize issuance of a massage therapist license to Jacqueline Joyce Head, who will be working at The Healing Place of Cottage Grove, 8617 West Point Douglas Road South, #140, contingent on meeting the outlined certifications/education requirements. G. Approve the issuance of rental licenses to the properties in the attached table. H. Adopt Resolution 2022-139 approving Pay Request No. 3/Final in the amount of $3,448.58 to Meyer Contracting, Inc. for the Lake Robert Outlet Project. I. Approve the Service Agreement with Washington Conservation District to conduct MSA erosion and sediment control inspections. J. Approve the contract with Washington Conservation District for the Stormwater Monitoring project. K. Adopt Resolution 2022-136 approving the feasibility report, ordering the project, and authorizing preparation of plans and specifications, and Adopt Resolution 2022-141 authorizing easement acquisition for the East Point Douglas Road & Jamaica Avenue reconstruction and signal modification project. L. Adopt Resolution 2022-135 rescinding the motion to authorize filing a petition for the return of forfeiture proceeds. None of the Council Members wished to pull any items for further comment and/or discussion. Motion by Council Member Olsen to approve the Consent Agenda; second by Council Member Khambata. Motion carried: 5-0. 8. APPROVE DISBURSEMENTS A. Approve payments for the period of 9/30/2022-10/20/2022 in the amount of $2,062,745.86. Motion by Council Member Dennis to approve disbursements; second by Council Member Thiede. Motion carried: 5-0. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Tall Weeds Assessment Staff Recommendation: 1) Hold the public hearing on assessments for tall weed removal. 2) Adopt Resolution 2022-137 adopting the assessments for tall weed removal. Brenda Malinowski, Finance Director, stated this public hearing is for the assessment and removal of weeds on private property. Per City Ordinance 4-3-1, there are requirements on weed and plant height; in 2022, our Code Enforcement Officer sent 48 City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 4 letters to property owners for violation of the ordinance. Each owner was given five days to abate the conditions, or the City would abate those conditions. In seven instances, the owners did not comply, so the City had a vendor remove those conditions, after which we sent an invoice to the property owners for the abatement costs incurred. At the Council Meeting on September 21, 2022, you declared those costs and ordered the assessment hearing to be held tonight for those seven properties. As required, we sent an assessment notice to those seven property owners, and we also published tonight’s public hearing notice in the newspaper. Two property owners paid the assessment, so those properties have been removed from the assessment roll tonight. We’re asking Council to hold the public hearing tonight and then Adopt Resolution 2022-137 for the assessments for tall weed removal on private property. If that assessment is adopted, then a one-year assessment is put on the property tax rolls for next year. Mayor Bailey opened the public hearing. As no one wished to speak on this item, Mayor Bailey closed the public hearing. Motion by Council Member Khambata to Adopt Resolution 2022-137 adopting the assessments for tall weed removal; second by Council Member Olsen. Motion carried: 5-0. B. Hazardous Properties Staff Recommendation: 1) Hold the public hearing on assessments for hazardous conditions removal. 2) Adopt Resolution 2022-138 adopting assessments for hazardous conditions removal. Director Malinowski stated Minnesota State Statute 463 provides cities the ability to assess costs associated with removal or elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property. There was one property in 2022 where a notice was sent about hazardous conditions on private property related to trash removal. The property owner did not abate those conditions and so the City abated those conditions. Once we did so, we sent the property owner an invoice for the cost of that abatement. At the Council Meeting on September 21, 2022, Council declared those costs to be assessed. You ordered the preparation of the assessment roll and to call tonight’s public hearing. As required by Minnesota State Statute 463, we published tonight’s public hearing in the newspaper, and we sent a notice to the property owner. We ask that the public hearing be held tonight, and we then ask Council to Adopt Resolution 2022-138 adopting assessments for hazardous conditions removal from this property. If Council adopts this resolution, the assessment will be added onto the tax roll for one year. Mayor Bailey opened the public hearing. As no one wished to speak, Mayor Bailey closed the public hearing. City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 5 Motion by Council Member Dennis to Adopt Resolution 2022-138 adopting assessments for hazardous conditions removal; second by Council Member Thiede. Motion carried: 5-0. 10. BID AWARDS - None. 11. REGULAR AGENDA - None. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS Council Member Thiede stated the Monster Bash parade is coming up on October 29, at 10:00 a.m., which is another part of the Strawberry Fest; that is a week from Saturday, and he hopes we’ll have nice weather. The parade will start by the District Service Center. If you want to be in the parade, you’ll find an online application at cottagegrovestrawberryfest.com. It’s a fantastic time and everybody loves a parade. He invited everyone to attend and have some fun. Council Member Olsen tipped his cap to our Public Safety Department for what he considered to be two really fun, exciting events for the families in Cottage Grove, open houses at the Police Department and the Fire Department. He attended both, and they were both very busy. Many families came out to meet their heroes in the Police Department and in the Fire Department. Folks enjoyed good food prepared by our Cottage Grove Lions, who donated their time to cook for both events. All of the proceeds from the food sales, which totaled just over $1,100, were donated to the Cottage Grove Public Safety Board; we thank the Lions for that donation. Other groups there included the Youth Service Bureau, Beyond the Yellow Ribbon, and other nonprofits, including the Public Safety Board, who sold pink patches for Breast Cancer Awareness Month. A good job was done by everybody who planned and executed those events. He especially thanked Mike Dandl of the Fire Department and Dan Schoen of the Police Department, as well as other police officers and members of the Public Safety Board who helped coordinate the Public Safety open houses. Council Member Olsen reminded everybody that it is an election year, and it’s really important that people take the time to vote. Please exercise your right as a citizen to cast a ballot in the election. You can vote on Election Day, or you can vote early with an absentee ballot at the South Washington County Service Center on Keats Avenue. Once you’ve cast your ballot and it’s captured by the Secretary of State, you will no longer receive phone calls or items in the mail as your name will be removed from the voter rolls, so the candidates will no longer contact you. Mayor Bailey thanked his colleagues, specifically Council Member Dennis, for standing in for him over the last couple of weeks. He thanked the public for their many words of support with the passing of his dad; it was nice to know that he had the support of the Council and all of our staff and the community. The number of messages, flowers, and notes was over the top, which was awesome. He thanked all those who had helped out City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 6 with a number of ribbon cuttings. He thanked everyone for their thoughts and prayers for him and his family. Mayor Bailey stated tonight we have a workshop session, open to the public, in the Training Room; the purpose of the workshop is the City Code Recodification. We are reviewing all of our zoning regulations, rules, and ordinances, and we’re finally nearing the end. We’ll hopefully be reviewing the rest of it tonight, and that will eventually come back for approval by the Planning Commission and Council before the end of the year. Mayor Bailey stated we’ll be adjourning tonight from the workshop in the Training Room. 13. WORKSHOPS - OPEN TO PUBLIC A. City Code Recodification Work Session City Attorney Korine Land stated the City Code is comprised of Title 1 through Title 11. Tonight, we’ll cover some unfinished Sections from Title 1 through 9. We’ll also finish Zoning Sections, which were previously under construction. Then we’ll review the schedule moving forward to get to adoption of the entire City Code. Attorney Land noted there are two things that we’re not going to be able to codify when we do the complete adoption of the City Code: Subdivision Regulations and our Sign Section will both come later, as those are two very complicated things. The Community Development staff has been working really hard on Zoning to make sure they get that right, and they felt these two Sections could be parceled out and done later to ensure they have time to get those right as well. Title 2 - Boards and Commissions Chapter 2 - Advisory Committee for Historic Preservation (ACHP): We’d kind of skipped over this the first time because it was living in Zoning, and we hadn’t gotten to the Zoning Sections yet. When the Community Development Department got to that Section, they felt it really should be living in our Boards and Commissions in Title 2, so that’s where it is now. We felt it should be rewritten as it was a little cumbersome and confusing; it had probably been written and revised over many years. It now makes more sense and is cleaner. The ACHP is created by ordinance as it’s optional, not all cities have one. If you’re going to have one, you have to create an ordinance to have it, which is what we’ve done. The purpose is to stake our properties that have historical significance to the City. We’ve tried to clarify the duties and responsibilities: Basically, the ACHP can identify historic properties and put them on a local list; there’s a National Registry, a State Registry, and now we have a Local Registry. It requires the property owner’s consent, so we don’t just get to decide; the property owner actually has to want it to be on that list and may not want that for whatever reason(s). If a property is on that list and the property owner wants it to be removed, then they have to notify the ACHP in order for it to be removed from that list. Once on the list, if the property owner wants to apply for some kind of a planning application, such as a Conditional Administrative or Interim Use Permit, they have to go to the ACHP. The ACHP has to give a recommendation to City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 7 the Council as to whether or not they can adjust the property in the manner that they’re requesting. The ACHP is an advisory body only, so anything they do still has to come before the Council for approval. So, the review permit section will be in the Zoning Ordinance. As you look at the Boards and Commissions in Title 2, they all look the same: The makeup of the body, the number of people on it, all of the typical things you see in Title 2 will be there. The actual review of the planning application things will be in Zoning. The changes that we’re specifically making are: 1) They have an eight-member body, which is very unusual; none of our other commissions have eight members, so we’re reducing it to seven. No one will be removed, but if someone leaves, we won’t reappoint. 2) We’re removing the HCUP as nobody really knew what it was, it was a special Conditional Use Permit just for historic properties. If anybody has one, they can keep it; going forward, none will be issued. 3) The Zoning Sections will be moved to the Zoning Ordinance. Title 3 - Business and License Regulations Mobile Food Trucks, Chapter 12: Attorney Land stated we feel like the ordinance is working, although we’ve only seen it through one real summer season. The fee seems to be a recurring theme because it’s a $250 annual fee whether you do this once or want to have a food truck all year. For special events, like a birthday or graduation party, it’s cost prohibitive for somebody to come in and do just one event. The request is for Council to reconsider the fee, so she asked for discussion on whether or not the fee should be reduced. Council Member Dennis stated when we decided on the fee, he recalled that staff had looked at what we had into the process, so we were never at a point where we were making money on this but were simply covering our costs. He asked if that was correct; City Clerk, Tamara Anderson replied yes, because we have to do inspections. He asked if we decreased that fee so we’re not covering our costs, where that cost is going to come from; would it just come out of the General Fund. That was confirmed. He felt that the City would then be subsidizing this business opportunity. Director Costello stated it’s not unusual for us to do that, to have a reduced fee for licenses; we don’t recover our costs on everything. Council Member Dennis asked if she could give some examples of that, and she replied no, because she didn’t know what the fees were for everything. It’s nice if we can recover fees on things, but rental inspections is probably one where we never get our cost recovery; there’s so much legwork just on the application process, the approval process, as well as the inspections. Director Koerner stated the police backgrounds that we do on all of the massage licenses doesn’t cover the time spent. Council Member Thiede stated when we first discussed this, it didn’t click with things like Strawberry Fest and other events where we might have somebody who’s doing a single event and they’re also supporting the event. There was a lot of heartburn with Strawberry Fest and obviously we waived the fees this year, but even going into next year, we’re losing some of those vendors. This year we had quite a good year with Strawberry Fest, but the weather was good. He thought if it’s somebody that is in an City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 8 event, there’s still a certain fee, but if that’s the only event in which they’re going to participate, potentially we could have a lower fee. If they decide then they’re going to participate in another event, then it gets to a point where maybe they’re better off just paying the one-time fee for the whole year. If they’re going to be doing multiple events, it’s better off for them to buy the annual; if it’s a one-time event, maybe we should charge a lower fee, maybe half. City Attorney Korine Land stated we’d discussed if we should do a per time fee; the problem is just enforcement monitoring, who’s got the one-time fee, who’s got the annual fee. It’s difficult to keep track of everything. In addition, we’re doing away with the Special Event Permit; we’re recommending that be removed so those events will have to apply for a Special Event Permit. So, if Strawberry Fest requires its vendors to sign up and pay a fee for participating in Strawberry Fest, that would be the only fee they would have to pay. If they have to pay for the City license, that would be an additional license fee. Council Member Olsen stated that the Special Event Permit actually would have provided us with a way to delineate between a one-time user or a two-time user versus being able to have a food truck in the City based on the $250 fee paid; it makes things a little more challenging. When you think about our County park system or fishing licenses, you have options as a consumer. If you want to buy a fishing license because you’re going camping one weekend of the year, you can buy a short-term fishing license. If you want to enjoy a County park, you can buy a one-time park permit versus the other permit that lets people enjoy the County parks all year. He doesn’t know from a management or execution perspective at City Hall if that’s something that we could do effectively. We could tell a potential user if they’re only going to be participating once, there is a one-time fee that’s paid and you get your temporary permit; if they want to use it all year, you get a different permit, which will cost $250. He didn’t know how difficult that would be to manage, but it would be a way to enable people who want to take part in an event like Strawberry Fest or the VFW’s food truck event each year to pay for a short-term license from the City of Cottage Grove at a reduced rate. Mayor Bailey stated we keep coming back to this food truck issue, so he’d personally prefer that if we just said if you want to operate in the City for the entire year, it’s $250. If you want a one-day permit, it’s a reduced rate, like $50. If they want additional days, it’s another $50. So, if it’s Strawberry Fest and they’ll be there for three days, from a vendor standpoint it would be $150 versus $250. That way if a homeowner wants to have a food truck come to their home for a graduation party, it would be a $50 one-time fee for that one day. He assumed we’d have some type of an Excel spreadsheet that would say here are the yearly permits, like Northwoods Smokehouse. We could break it down to a fee per day and then have the $250 option for those that want to be in the City for the year. City Clerk Tamara Anderson asked if they’d want that going to Council every single time; Mayor Bailey replied no. Anderson asked if annuals would go to Council; she was told no. Mayor Bailey stated he thought this would help, and Council Member Olsen agreed. City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 9 Council Member Dennis stated he thought $50 was a fair amount for a daily application, but it really positively reinforces the value to get the $250 permit. He thought that was reasonable to do and he’d support that. Council Member Thiede stated he thought that was a good idea. Most of the vendors are just on Friday and Saturday, so he thought we could make that work. Planner Schmitz stated it would be $50 a day for a short-term permit and $250 if you want an annual permit, and we should make it administrative. Director Costello asked Attorney Land to please clarify that all licenses need to go to Council. Attorney Land stated we can delegate; for those that meet the qualifications, the City Clerk has the discretion as we don’t do background checks on food vendors. They just turn in their application and know the rules, so she thought we could write in language that that can be an administrative approval if Council is comfortable with that. Mayor Bailey stated he was comfortable with that, as did Council Member Thiede and Council Member Olsen. Director Costello stated this way it could be approved much more quickly, although we’d still like the application in advance because we need to get the inspection done. Council Member Olsen asked Clerk Anderson if she’d be comfortable with that. Clerk Anderson stated she was but wanted to clarify something: If she had a food truck that wanted to work Strawberry Fest and bought a permit for two days, $100, but then changed their mind and wanted an annual permit, she asked if she could use that $100 towards the $250 annual fee. Council Member Thiede stated no. Council Member Khambata asked what happens if somebody buys three $50 permits; we ate the initial cost of this the first time, but it’s obvious that you’re going to be here more than once, so you should get the annual permit on which we’d recoup our costs. If they paid $50, that doesn’t even cover the time for whoever is going to do the inspection of their unit. Mayor Bailey stated that’s a good point, and he might agree with Council Member Thiede on that. They have a choice to make on which permit they want. Council Member Khambata stated there should be a one-day permit, and if they’re going to get another permit, we should encourage them to get the annual permit because there’s no discount. If the real cost to the City of the permit is $250, in all it cost the City $1,000, and we only got our $250 from them. He didn’t think it was a smart move. From a labor and resources standpoint, it’s just going to bog down the staff. Mayor Bailey stated we keep coming back to this. The only thing he asked of staff is if it becomes an issue, staff just has to let us know if we need to revisit it. His thought is someone will come in and most likely they’ll be here for two days and then will move on. Council Member Olsen asked Clerk Anderson if she had a preference. Clerk Anderson stated she was very happy that Council is being flexible because vendors also have a lot of other fees that they incur, including their health license from the State and a permit fee from Washington County. She knows it will be very busy during events, like Strawberry Fest, the Hmong festival, or graduation parties, but she thought it might open up some opportunity to have different vendors come in for smaller events, too. She thought there might be a few vendors that are working in Cottage Grove City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 10 without a permit and waiting to get their hands slapped, so maybe they’ll be willing to pay the $50 fee. Council Member Thiede asked how Washington County handled those things, if it was per event or if it was annual. Clerk Anderson replied it was annual, and she thought Washington County’s cost was approximately $130. Each city has a different fee for the vendors on top of that, so vendors have a lot of fees by the end of the year. Attorney Land stated she can adjust that, and we’ll implement it; she thanked everyone for the good discussion. Chapter 13 - Intoxicating CBD Product Retail License: Attorney Land stated we’d discuss a new ordinance that hit us by surprise. We did the moratorium as the legislature focused last minute shenanigans by slipping in the intoxicating CBD edible products. It was in the middle of the public health bill where it was really buried, and nobody even saw it until right before it actually went into effect. So, cities were scrambling on what to do; she appreciated that the Council was willing to have the moratorium to call a timeout on it because it’s just out there and it’s chaos. So, intoxicating CBD or edibles and beverages are available for sale today with very little oversight or regulation. Intoxicating CBD products are currently being sold anywhere, including gas stations, hair salons, chiropractic offices, gift shops, and massage therapy businesses because there’s no State oversight. State regulations are very minimal; they talk about packaging and labeling. They’re supposed to be packaged in child- resistant containers that are tamper evident, they must be in an opaque container, they have to indicate a serving size of 5 mg. per serving, and no more than 50 mg. for THC per package. She dared anyone to say they stop at one serving size, if anything, but they do have to label their packages that 5 mg. is only one serving. Products cannot look like a cartoon or anything that appeals to children. It came to be that they actually had to put that into the law because that means that these products typically do look like something that children want to eat. They can’t look like an existing candy or snack. You have to be 21 to purchase it. Product cannot contain more than .3% THC, although we’re not sure exactly what that means; is that per gummy, is that per package, what does .3% of THC per product mean? The law is not clear on that. The product cannot claim it has medicinal value unless that’s been approved by the FDA. The Alcohol, Gambling, and Enforcement Division of the State of Minnesota has said affirmatively that intoxicating CBD edibles are not to be sold in liquor stores. There’s been a lot of confusion about that as you will see them in liquor stores; the AG has confirmed that they are not endorsing that and have said it’s illegal to sell them in liquor stores because it is a food, and you can’t sell food in a liquor store if it’s something that can go into the liquor. Council Member Dennis noted meat sticks are not allowed to be sold; however, they can sell pickled vegetables and even fruit. Attorney Land stated there has been a lot of talk amongst City Attorneys about what to do and how to help the cities get hold of this and manage what the legislature did without any regulations. She was on the committee of the Minnesota City Attorney Association on the legislative policy, trying to develop the legislative policies to tell the legislature how they need to fix this. Her guess is they will not get a complete fix this next session because it took them years to figure out how to do medical marijuana, and City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 11 they did that well. It surprised her that they unrolled this so quickly, under the radar, and with so few regulations. The legislative policy that we’re going to convey to the legislators is we need State regulatory framework for licensing inspections and enforcement because there is none on any of this. We need testing requirements because there are none on any of those things. We need reporting and enforcement structures because there’s no enforcement or penalties in the law. With the lack of State oversight, most cities have chosen to somehow regulate this industry through licensing and through zoning. So, that’s what we’re recommending. She introduced an ordinance in Stillwater, which they’ve already adopted, which is similar to this but it’s not the same. Cottage Grove and Hastings are considering it; West St. Paul has a different take on it right now, but they’re also looking at some legislation. Most cities are looking at licensing first. She’s suggesting a license ordinance, which can be tweaked and modified, but she needs Council’s reaction to some of these ideas. She also met with Public Safety to get their take on it because from her perspective, this is more a public safety issue than anything else because these products are so chaotic and unregulated. We don’t know what’s out there, but we do know that people are selling illegal products. We have no way of testing them and have very little enforcement ability. Her suggestion is we try to control the environment for the moment until we can figure out what it all is. She recommends starting small and if things are fine, we can expand later. If you start just letting these products go everywhere it’s harder to get a lid on it later. Recommendation: We would allow four licenses in the City when we tie them to a tobacco license or an exclusive CBD shop, so we can better monitor who’s selling it and how they’re selling it. They will hopefully take ownership in the fact that they have one of the few coveted licenses in town, which means that they would do it right and legally. So, tobacco stores are familiar as they know how to card people, as they already have an audience that has to be over 21 in order to sell them their products. We have only four tobacco stores that are licensed today, which is why we picked four. It is a local mandate that we have to enforce this, but it’s an unfunded mandate; we’re footing the bill for the cost of enforcement and for compliance checks, making sure that they’re doing it right. We need to be mindful of our limited resources when we do that. Our license ordinance, which you heard about in the spring, is very robust, and they would have to follow that licensing process with background checks. In addition, licenses are not transferable; so, if a business is sold, the new owner does not automatically get that license. Performance Standards: No product can contain more than 0.3% THC, as that’s what’s currently in the State Statute. If the legislature eventually flips to recreational marijuana, we can say our ordinance only allows 0.3% THC, so you can’t sell recreational marijuana in our City until we figure out where we want it and how we want it. You can slowly unroll that without it automatically just being dumped on your community.  Require customers to show proof of ID when it is purchased.  Require signage in the business that no one under age 21 would be admitted into that business. If you just allow it anywhere, like at a gas station, you can’t require age 21 and over to enter.  No product delivery allowed. City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 12  No sampling on site.  No internet sales.  No mobile sales, so it wouldn’t be allowed at festivals.  No door-to-door sales or sales at a Farmers Market because we could not control who the end purchaser would be.  Distance requirements between stores, schools, daycares, parks, and playgrounds. Most cities are choosing 1,000 feet, if not more, from schools, daycares, parks, and playgrounds.  Retail location only, so wherever retail is allowed is where it would be allowed. We’re thinking it’s commercial because that’s where tobacco stores are allowed. If Council feels differently about this, we can have that discussion. Council Member Thiede asked if the existing four stores meet these requirements. Attorney Land replied no, they don’t. Currently, there are four stores with a license, although one has not yet opened; all would be legal nonconforming. Whatever regulations we adopt, even if these four apply, we would grant their licenses and they would be legal nonconforming. We wouldn’t deny their licenses because they can’t meet these distances because these weren’t in place when they started their business. So, they’d all be legal conforming. They could continue to operate but they could not expand. So, the Cottage Grove Smoke Shop is only 500 feet from the ALC, which is pretty close; so, even at 500 feet, it will not be able to comply. You don’t have to use all of these, like parks or playgrounds; you could eliminate one of those categories if you felt like you didn’t need to protect that. Certain populations need protection, particularly schools, but maybe you don’t feel as strongly about parks and playgrounds or daycares. The chances of a three-year-old running into a CBD shop is probably pretty slim, but the chances of a high school student doing it are much higher. Council can weigh your factors on which of the uses are more important, and we could eliminate some of the distance issues. Attorney Land displayed the B-1 District and starred those that would actually be in complete compliance, whether it’s a 500, 1,000, or 2,000-foot perimeter. In the B-2 District, near Walmart and across Highway 61, there were maybe a couple spots within that bubble that would work. These are not ideal locations but it’s possible. The point of these maps is to show that it’s possible to locate a shop and be legal conforming in the community and meet the distance requirements. She reviewed each of the Business Districts and potential sites available: B-2 District, Old Cottage Grove: Nothing could probably be located there because the two parks are too close. In the Manning Avenue and Point Douglas area, again it’s too close to the park. It could be fit into one spot on East Point Douglas Road. B-3 District: Maybe the back of that property is far enough away from the park, but it seems that there’s just too many parks close to that area. Mixed Use District: Maybe has a couple spots where it could fit, tightly, and meet the perimeter requirements. Planned Business District: Probably one spot where we could kind of tuck it into that area without being too close to Hamlet Park. Attorney Land asked the following: Are the number of licenses right? Do you want to tie tobacco and CBD as exclusive CBD stores? What are the distance requirements? City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 13 What should be the fee for this license? We’ll go through each of those separately so you can vet any issues.  Are four licenses right based on the fact that we have four tobacco shops? Do you want to tie CBD shops to tobacco shops? Council Member Olsen stated he thought we all agreed that the legislature has a lot of work to do on this, and that’s work that needs to be done soon. Up until that point, we’re stuck having to manage this. He previously sent an email to Mayor Bailey and Attorney Land and Administrator Levitt about the framework that the City of Woodbury laid out. Their City Attorney really tried to take a more stringent, restrictive approach as it’s easier to do it that way and then perhaps loosen the strings later. They had some things in their ordinance language that he liked: 1) They took the issue of compliance checks off the table by including administrative compliance checks. So, it doesn’t have to be law enforcement, as administration can also do those. 2) They acknowledged that the marketplace is the marketplace. Our Council is made up of businessmen, so one thing we try to do is ask ourselves, from a business perspective, what’s fair? Each business owner has to make a determination on whether or not they want to carry any line of product, as shelf space is valuable. Four correlates to the number of exclusive tobacco shops; one concern of Public Safety was these things will require compliance checks. That seems to be the guiding principle behind some of this information; he argued that’s not the right guiding principle. He felt the guiding principle is we need to be fair to the business operators in the City of Cottage Grove with respect to their ability to actually do business the way that they choose. If they want to carry CBD products, there needs to be a regulatory framework in place that guides whether they truly can. There may be other local businesses that sell cigarettes or liquor, and we don’t limit the number of people who can sell either one of those, but he understands CBD can’t be sold at a liquor store. From his point of view, we need to be aware of the fact that there might be local people who are going to want to sell this product, and they’ll need to meet some very stringent requirements in order to do so. He didn’t think we can just set the number to four, five, or ten; he thought that’s arbitrary, and he wants to be fair. Attorney Land stated that’s a really important point, but it’s based on being able to control how many places that law enforcement has to touch and we have to enforce. So, it’s not arbitrary. Council Member Olsen disagreed, stating we can control more than four. Attorney Land stated we can’t because every gift shop in town, anybody who owns a home business could be selling these products and we would not know. We would say, sure, you have to get a license, but we would not know. There’s no way for us to be able to monitor all of the places, all of the retail businesses in town. Council Member Olsen asked if we pick four, what will stop the home business from breaking the law? Attorney Land stated they have to be an exclusive tobacco shop or an exclusive CBD shop. Council Member Olsen told Attorney Land she’d just said we have no way of knowing; we’re still not going to know if somebody is selling it out of their basement unless they are licensed. To be fair, he thought we would encourage people to get a license. He didn’t think we should be picking and choosing who gets to sell CBD; we have to be reasonable about it. So, if the number is four or ten or thirty, the risk still exists that anybody could try to break the law. Just like anybody who City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 14 breaks the law, we’re going to have to enforce the law. If you want to be a business that carries CBD, then there have to be stringent requirements in place. We talked about distance, which could be a factor that would disqualify a business. We talked about other factors that could disqualify a business from even being able to get in line for a license, but at this point, he didn’t think it’s fair to say it’s only tobacco shops or exclusive CBD shops. He didn’t think that’s the way business is supposed to work. We don’t do that with tobacco and liquor, so we’re being inconsistent in the way that we’re applying the law. Obviously, the State blew it, they need to fix it, and hopefully they will next year so we can all operate under the same umbrella. At this stage of the game, he thought there needed to be a recognition that if you put four licenses out there, there will be a lot of arguing about if a person does or does not qualify for a license. If we say you need to have a tobacco license in order to do this, how many people have tobacco licenses in the City? Attorney Land stated it’s an exclusive tobacco license. Council Member Olsen stated that means Cub Foods and Hy-Vee are going to ask what about us, as they’ve been doing it with beer and liquor for years. They’ll be asking why they can’t carry CBD. Council Member Olsen stated he recalled that Woodbury didn’t put a limit on their number of licenses, so that’s why he’s thinking that might be a little bit arbitrary on our part. He was curious what the rest of the Council thought about that. Council Member Thiede stated that he’s more in favor of limiting it, to be more restrictive to begin with; we can always adjust it if we get a lot of feedback on it. He would definitely say at the absolute very least he’d rather not add to the burden of compliance checks, having to do different stores. Ultimately, he’d see a prerequisite as at least having to have a tobacco license, someplace we already check anyway. Right now, with the popularity of it, he’d rather be more restrictive and see what happens; we could always loosen that if we feel that we’re getting way too much negative feedback from it. Council Member Dennis stated this is an interesting one for him to weigh in on because he happens to be probably the only license holder in this room that goes through a process we currently have in place. He reminded people that a license is a privilege, not a right or a guarantee. You have to meet the requirements of the issuing body and stay in good standing in order to continue to have the benefit of that license. Because he’s not in the firewood, meaning that his business is not selected to sell this, he’s actually grateful for that because he can speak freely and truly. He can do that calmly and without emotion, and he has no prejudice relative to seeking a fair and equitable outcome. When he got the Council packet last Friday and he saw what had been indicated by staff as a recommendation, he applied a process that he’s seen our staff use, which is called the SWOT Analysis, Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats. He stated it’s an internal process used by organizations to seek the cause and effect relative to decisions that might be made and how it might turn out. He took a 30,000-foot look at this, over the top, didn’t get down to the granular level on any single point, but just looked at the core of the philosophy that could be used to map out a program that would hopefully be fair and equitable to people. He thought that was the biggest key. There were four areas that he identified on what the City could choose to do, that we have the purview to do, if we want to: 1) Simply do nothing: Nobody says we have to adopt a program or let any of this activity occur. Attorney Land talked about City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 15 the issue of control; thinking about the SWOT Analysis from a staff perspective, do we have the horsepower to get out and add an additional number of businesses, four or more, into the matrix where we have to provide the service and do compliance checks. Do we have the ability to do that? He Googled what percentage of Americans use CBD or cannabis, and that percentage was 18%. So, there would be some people unhappy about the fact that they could not purchase that product here. We have to weigh one against the other. 2) Open market: That would be to put a minimally invasive platform out here, and let the people of the community, by virtue of how they spend their money, determine what the community will support. It was mentioned that I own a liquor store; historically, we had a cap on the number of licenses, 1 per 7,500 individuals. About 13- or-14 years ago, for reasons he still doesn’t know, the Council and staff decided to take that cap limit off and just open it up. So, at the high point, he thought we had 6 licenses, and we now have 5; so, the market found the place of equilibrium, which is where it stands at 5, that’s what it can support. That’s not to say another business couldn’t open because there’s no cap, but if it does, as business operators know, it’s going to take away sales from the other stores. The question ultimately comes down to is there enough to support everybody; he doesn’t know the answer to that. 3) Take the staff recommendation and cap it at 4 licenses: Like Council Member Olsen said, it’s a difficult thing at face value to consider manipulating a market and do it in such a way that it’s not going to be fairly applied to all. So, if we limit the number of licenses, the threat could be that there might be other investors that want to come in. For the staff team, it makes it a lot easier for people to be able to get their arms around this program and manage it. 4) This was actually born out of the third recommendation, the staff recommendation, and it really came down to the issue of equity and fairness. When you look at the licenses that we have available for alcohol, tobacco, and now CBD, what happens is everybody who is in the realm of selling age-restricted merchandise to the public falls under virtually the exact same set of rules and laws, things that we have to do: Distance, age restrictions, days, times, location, etc. All of that comes into play. The question is how do we orchestrate and do four licenses and build, in essence, what is a protection or an advantage relative to those businesses that have it. The license isn’t for sale, but the business is, and the business can’t exist without a license. Therefore, knowing how a business would be marketed and sold, there is going to be an intrinsic value built in. If Mayor Bailey wants to buy one of the four existing stores, he’s going to arrive at a price with them, and if he doesn’t have the money to pay, he’s not going to own it. There’s a value to it, there simply is. The bottom line is do you limit it at four. We’re doing it on the basis of saying that those are the individuals who are here as investors. Do you also apply that, then, to I don't know how many places we have selling tobacco; what’s the number, 20? Director Koerner replied it’s less than 20. Council Member Dennis stated we have five dedicated liquor stores; so, do we treat everyone equally and fairly across the board? That’s the question we have to look at is how do we operate fairly and equitably for all investors that are here. Again, he’s grateful that he’s not in the mix of selling that. Those are his thoughts. This is one of those things where we’re not going to make everybody happy, that’s just not going to happen. We ultimately have to decide what can we come up with as a plan that’s fair and equitable that we can live with in good faith. City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 16 Council Member Olsen stated let’s say that he wanted to open a liquor store in town. It’s not just about if he can qualify for the license to open a liquor store, there’s also other regulatory framework that would either enable or prevent him from being able to do so, like distance from another operator, a 1,000-foot radius. He stated there are other variables that come into play, and that’s what he was trying to say about this. We can still manage the number of licenses without saying that it’s four, five, or ten. But we manage it through our regulatory framework. Then if those who desire to carry this product are simply unable to do so because their business doesn’t meet the other variables, then he thought that was fair. They still have a shot as long as they can meet all those other criteria, which is also fair. Council Member Khambata stated to Council Member Olsen’s point of limiting the number, he thought just limiting depending on what we choose for a minimum distance from a park, a school, or another similar retail business, we’re going to limit ourselves to two-or-three nodes in Cottage Grove where a new business would be able to open. The potential proprietors of those new businesses are going to be pretty frustrated that the others exist in areas that wouldn’t otherwise be allowed. He understood they’re an existing business, they’re already selling tobacco, they’re already geared up for doing this, and he thought they were already all selling it. If they were to sell that business, the new license isn’t going to get them that spot; so, that’s one way to make it fairer and equitable moving forward. Eventually, those shops would fall off the radar and move to those other nodes where the restrictions would allow them to operate or until the State has a more uniform set of standards. In terms of the four licenses, he stated he respectfully disagrees with Council Member Olsen. We regulate other uses within the City that are limited for various reasons, including public nuisance: We don’t park semitrailers on East Point Douglas Road, mechanic shops are limited, noise and light pollution are limited, and various types of outdoor storage are limited to certain areas. By limiting it to certain areas, we’re ultimately limiting the number of those types of businesses that can exist. He specifically remembered when he was on the Planning Commission that we declined an Interim Conditional Use Permit on semitrailer storage; again, further limiting that type of business within our City. So, could somebody apply for a variance or apply for rezoning if they were hellbent on having a business in a certain location? They certainly could. Council Member Olsen stated so Council Member Khambata agrees with the legal nonconforming use. Council Member Khambata stated he agrees with the legal nonconforming use because it doesn’t transfer. So, if that business leaves town, that type of business will no longer exist in that place where it isn’t otherwise allowed. Currently, there are four businesses that would be able to sell CBD, but he doesn’t just outright disagree with limiting it to four because we limit other types of businesses, too, without losing any sleep at night. He thought knowing that we’re ultimately going to be expanding it in the next couple of years, he thought that’s a worthwhile tradeoff because you can’t put the genie back in the bottle. If we have four, and it becomes clear that it’s a public nuisance and it’s hard to control, then we’re going to decide that maybe we don’t want more. Council Member Olsen asked Council Member Khambata how those businesses are limited; Council Member Khambata stated they’re limited through the other zoning City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 17 standards, which haven’t been set yet. For now, we currently have a moratorium on it, and somebody could argue we’re limiting their ability to conduct business, that’s not fair. We need time to find out what kind of public nuisance this is going to be for the City, and what staffing requirements will be involved for Public Safety. Indefinitely, he’d be against limiting the number of licenses to four, but for the next 6-to-12 months, while we and the State figure out what this means in terms of operating cost for the City, he’d be okay with it. Council Member Olsen asked why we just don’t leave the moratorium in place until we know; Council Member Khambata stated he’s okay with doing that. Council Member Khambata stated that gets him to his next point, which is what is the City’s mandate here? Why are we even talking about this? He thought it comes down to the City’s obligation to provide Public Safety; outside of that, he thought making sure that they’re not selling it to kids and people aren’t getting sick from this product is kind of where our interest in it starts and ends. Council Member Thiede asked if the moratorium had a time limit. Attorney Land replied yes, it’s 12 months. The problem with the moratorium is it allows any existing business to continue to exist, and we don’t know where they are. We’ve done some inventory, but we can’t possibly have visited every single business in town to know who’s selling it and who’s not. Council Member Thiede asked if we’re able to extend a moratorium; Attorney Land replied no, 12 months is the maximum moratorium by State law. Council Member Thiede stated if we wanted more time, this is the way we’d have to do it. Ultimately, by initially keeping it more restrictive, we can see how many people think it’s an issue. Council Member Olsen asked when our 12 months was up. Attorney Land replied that would be in August 2023. Council Member Olsen stated the legislature goes back in session early next year. Council Member Thiede stated we’re not guaranteed they’ll do anything. Council Member Olsen stated if our moratorium is in effect until August, we don’t have to make this decision today. Attorney Land stated another option to limit this is instead of putting a cap on the number of licenses, Woodbury has a very high license fee. So, that might be self limiting because smaller businesses just can’t afford a $10,200 license fee on top of their other license. So, that might be a way to compromise; remove the number of licenses, remove tying it to a tobacco shop, and just have a fee that would accommodate Public Safety’s increased expenses for compliance checks. Council Member Khambata stated we could just make no exceptions on the proximity to a school or park, as that limits it, so we’re creating two-or-three areas in the City where somebody would have to move if they wanted to operate. That would also be self limiting. Mayor Bailey asked Attorney Land if somebody could ask for a variance. Attorney Land replied no, as we’re putting this in the licensing section, so they can’t get a variance for that. However, they would be considered legal nonconforming because they existed before we had those regulations in place. Mayor Bailey stated that would be for the ones that are already here, which Attorney Land confirmed. She stated if we were to open it up like Woodbury did, they basically allowed anyone to sell it in their Business Districts. They also have a lot of rules around how to sell it, which she didn’t City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 18 put in here because it’s an exclusive store, so you don’t have to have it behind the counter, you don’t have to have the customer always getting it directly from the seller. We didn’t have to have any of those regulations. Council Member Olsen stated Woodbury has the CBD has to be behind the counter; Attorney Land replied that’s correct because they allowed anyone to sell it. If we allowed it only in an exclusive store, we don’t have to worry about that because it’s already somebody who has to be age 21 already in order to enter. So, we could pack all of that stuff back in it, but then put a higher license fee on it, which is going to automatically reduce the number of people who have the ability to apply for that license. So, that’s also an option on the table. Council Member Thiede stated so then it could only be large stores that could afford it, which Attorney Land confirmed. Council Member Khambata stated that would eliminate anyone who was going to sell it as like an ancillary item because it wouldn’t be worth it; the potential for revenue recapture wouldn’t warrant the cost of the license. Attorney Land agreed.  Do you like all of the categories, school, daycare, park, and playground? Council Member Thiede asked if those all exist now. Attorney Land replied no, she’s just suggesting them; she put it in the Code now, but you don’t have to have playgrounds or daycares. Council Member Thiede asked what we currently have for tobacco or liquor. Attorney Land stated only on-sale liquor has churches and schools; they’re the only ones that have the distance requirement. Off-sale liquor is the distance between stores. So, we’re still recommending 1,000 feet between stores so they’re not all clustered together. Council Member Thiede stated he’d tie it to the current situations we have now for tobacco and liquor. Mayor Bailey confirmed there isn’t any distance requirement right now for tobacco. Attorney Land stated it would just be schools; should we forget daycares, parks, and playgrounds and just keep them away from schools? Council Member Olsen stated the daycares resonate with him, but he could go either way. He thought the schools, parks, and playgrounds is probably good language. Council Member Thiede asked if we should change our others to include that language, too. Attorney Land replied they’re just very different. Council Member Khambata stated with the daycares, he didn’t think a lot of five- year-olds would be going over to the dispensary. Mayor Bailey stated he agreed. Council Member Khambata stated he thought with the parks and playgrounds, those inherently attract younger, more impressionable, potentially unsupervised kids; he thought having that close proximity is asking for issues to surface. Council Member Thiede stated that would be true for liquor stores, too. Attorney Land stated that distance is just between stores, so it doesn’t have anything to do with schools, parks, or playgrounds. It’s just on-sale liquor has the 300 feet, which are the bars. Attorney Land asked what the distance in feet should be; Council Member Olsen stated he liked 1,000 feet as 500 feet is pretty close. Council Member Khambata stated that feels like a pretty healthy buffer.  What should the fee be for this license? Attorney Land stated many cities are going anywhere from the tobacco fee to the on- sale liquor license fee or somewhere in between. She stated Woodbury and Coon City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 19 Rapids are at the high end, which might be intentional and strategic on their part to limit the number by virtue of the fact that not everybody can afford it. Council Member Khambata stated they drafted their ordinances pretty much immediately after it was passed by the legislature. Most cities put a moratorium in place until they could vet it. Every city ordinance looks different, but some took their tobacco regulations and tucked them in here because it felt right. Council Member Olsen asked how many cities Attorney Land was aware of, other than Woodbury, whose ordinance stipulates that the product has to be sold behind the counter; she said she’d say all of them. Council Member Olsen stated he agreed with that because that will mandate that staff are checking IDs. They’re already doing it for liquor and tobacco, so it would give us another layer of protection. Council Member Thiede agreed and said we should follow the same rules as cigarettes and liquor, unless it’s an exclusive type of venue where only those 21 and over can enter. Council Member Olsen agreed, and stated he wasn’t at all uncomfortable with the elevated license fee. If you want to play the game, you have to pay to play the game. That’s a cost-benefit decision that every business owner/operator is going to have to make. The potential is there for very robust sales, and it might be that they determine the juice is worth the squeeze. He stated he’d be comfortable following the same guidance that Woodbury is giving us in terms of the fee. Council Member Khambata asked if anyone was aware of how many vendors went ahead and paid Woodbury’s fee. Attorney Land stated she didn’t know, as they might be taking applications yet; these ordinances are fresh, within the last 30 days, so she doesn’t know if any city has approved any licenses yet. Mayor Bailey stated his recommendation is we make this fee the same as our on- sale liquor license fee. Attorney Land stated we could, but then we’re going to get all of the businesses that couldn’t afford Woodbury. Mayor Bailey asked her if she thought there were that many people between $6,000 and $10,200; she replied it might matter. Council Member Khambata stated other communities have an overabundance of liquor stores or other business uses because their neighbors have all zoned them out. Council Member Olsen stated that’s a true statement, which is why he’s been advocating for mirroring to the best of our ability the ordinance that Woodbury passed; otherwise, we’re going to create a situation where we become the preferred destination. Director Koerner stated Administrator Levitt asked for clarification: It’s 1,000 feet from schools; he asked if that includes parks, too. Attorney Land replied yes, schools, parks, and playgrounds, just not daycares. Attorney Land stated we can have an ordinance that’s extremely similar, not identical, to Woodbury’s, including the fee. Mayor Bailey stated we should just do that. Council Member Khambata stated the risk here is the blowback is going to be people who are already selling it are going to decide that they don’t want to sell it anymore because they don’t net $10,200 a year in revenue from it. Council Member Dennis stated yes, they do. Council Member Khambata stated the gas stations and the little businesses won’t. Council Member Dennis stated the gas stations won’t get that license because they’re not exclusive. City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 20 Council Member Thiede asked if Woodbury’s ordinance says their sites have to be exclusive. Council Member Khambata stated it’s just anyone who wants to sell it in a retail area. Council Member Olsen stated no, they haven’t gone to that degree; they’re making people carry it behind the counter, so if you’re a business that can’t do that, then you can’t sell it. Mayor Bailey stated he thought if we mirrored Woodbury the question would be if a gas station could sell CBD if the fee was $10,200; Council Member Khambata stated they might choose not to even if they were able to keep it behind the counter because there’s not any gross revenue there, depending on what they project for volumes. Mayor Bailey asked Attorney Land if we had our radius clauses in there, if Cub Foods wanted to sell CBD would they be allowed to sell CBD if we were to open it up to everyone? Attorney Land replied yes, if they followed all of our rules. Mayor Bailey asked what if they have alcohol; Attorney Land replied yes, as we don’t have a restriction on selling more than one intoxicating product. Mayor Bailey asked if this was specific to liquor stores. Attorney Land replied yes, and that’s a State regulation; the AGU has said that. Mayor Bailey asked what about Walmart? Attorney Land stated they couldn’t sell it in their liquor store, but they could sell it in the grocery store. Council Member Khambata stated they have two separate entities, their liquor store and their grocery store. Attorney Land stated the other factor is they can also sell this at on-sale liquor establishments, so they can serve intoxicating THC seltzer, beer, anything infused with THC at an on-sale establishment. This is the tricky part with the State law; it still has to be prepackaged and labeled, so they can’t pour it for you. They could bring it to your table in the can or bottle, whatever it comes in, but on sale can sell THC products. So, they can be selling alcohol and THC at the same table unless you prohibit them. You can regulate that and say it cannot be sold at on-sale establishments. Council Member Olsen stated he wasn’t aware that that was in the law. Attorney Land stated that it’s not in the law, that’s the point. Council Member Olsen stated he’d have a hard time with that. Attorney Land stated they are marketing it to bars like crazy. Council Member Olsen stated we’ve had issues with a DUI because somebody was overserved at a liquor establishment, a bar or a bar and grill, and what would the penalties be to that establishment if they overserved somebody. It just seems like we’d be better off just limiting it. Council Member Thiede stated those places should already be checking compliance and already have the rules in place. With these products, they’d have to make sure that the individuals were older than 21. Attorney Land stated from an age compliance, yes, absolutely. It’s more of an under the influence factor when you think about these two products being at the same table at the same time in front of the same person. She didn’t know what law enforcement is going to do about somebody that they stop, who has an open bottle of THC seltzer; where does that fit? Attorney Land stated it’s not against the law. Council Member Khambata stated there are no standards set on it either, so how do you test them for it. Attorney Land stated we can test for intoxication, it’s still under the influence of a controlled substance, which is a violation of the law. But if somebody has it in their car, that’s not a violation of the law, even if it’s open and they’re openly City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 21 drinking it. So, there’s a lot of loopholes to this law, and a lot of them are still unknown; we’re just sort of scratching the surface on things as we think of them. But that’s the question of whether or not you want to allow the on-sale liquor because you can permit it or allow anything. Council Member Thiede asked Director Koerner what he thought, as his department would have to regulate it and deal with those issues. Director Koerner stated he didn’t want them to feel like we don’t want to do the compliance checks, but there are so many challenges with this. Every chief in Washington County has a different opinion; our biggest fear is the way we have to do compliance checks. We already wanted to simplify those a little bit. How do we go into The Healing Place and do compliance checks; that’s what we’re looking at it. When we met with Attorney Land, Stillwater was looking at it, too, and they didn’t want it to be downtown. The one that really scares him is the home businesses; we’re already having issues with internet sales with illegal products as it is, so if we’re allowing home businesses, he doesn’t know how we would do compliance checks on those. Council Member Olsen asked if that level of fee would preclude the majority of those home businesses from doing business. Director Koerner stated he thought there was money to be made if you don’t have the storefront. Attorney Land stated Woodbury prohibited home-based businesses. Director Koerner stated Woodbury and Coon Rapids both have a $500 investigative background fee also; Director Koerner stated our fee is nowhere near that. We reduced our fee years ago with the liquor license from what it had been when they were using police services. Now when we do the liquor license renewals every year, there are only one or two calls at establishments, so it’s not the same. Council Member Olsen asked how Woodbury handles the on-sale liquor. Attorney Land stated they don’t. Again, that came up with a discussion with another city, and everybody wasn’t sure they wanted them to just carte blanche things. Council Member Olsen confirmed Woodbury prohibits the home-based businesses; Attorney Land replied yes, as well as internet sales and delivery. Mayor Bailey asked the Council if we’re good with the fee, matching Woodbury, and all Council Members agreed. Mayor Bailey asked if we want to have staff come back with a mirror of Woodbury, though he didn’t believe Woodbury limited their permits, which we could do. The only other thing he might add in for consideration was what we were just discussing; do we want this to be sold in on-sale establishments. Council Member Khambata stated he would prohibit that. Council Member Olsen stated he didn’t think so, which might not be a popular opinion with some of our bar owners. Attorney Land stated she’d discussed that with Director Koerner, who didn’t think there were many bars that would even want to sell it; Director Koerner confirmed he didn’t think most of them would. Council Member Khambata asked if that was due to the liability standpoint. Director Koerner stated he didn’t see the corporate bars selling it at all. Director Koerner noted Woodbury used 500 feet for daycares and schools. Council Member Olsen asked if they had daycares; Director Koerner replied licensed childcare, parks, playgrounds, and schools had to be 500 feet away. Attorney Land stated that’s a City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 22 really short distance; most cities are doing 1,000 or 2,000 feet, so she was surprised Woodbury only did 500 feet. Council Member Olsen stated 1,000 feet feels right to him; if the rest of the Council wants to include licensed childcare centers in there, he could go either way. Council Member Dennis asked Attorney Land when she looks at the percentage of cities that are doing 1,000 versus 2,000 feet, he asked what she thought of doing one over the other. Attorney Land stated 75% are doing the 1,000 or 2,000 feet, but Woodbury is an anomaly. Stillwater did 500 feet because of their specific Zoning District where they wanted to allow them and only in that Zoning District. There was a school located in that Zoning District so they had to jigger it so it would still be allowed there, but they zoned it to one Zoning District. Council Member Dennis asked Attorney Land how it broke down between 1,000 and 2,000 feet. She stated she didn’t know, as she hadn’t done that math. She’s been trying to gauge where cities are going with it. Council Member Khambata asked if we could add a stipulation that it needs to be zoned within an area that’s zoned for retail; that would eliminate home businesses and anything like that. Attorney Land replied we would say no home businesses. Council Member Olsen stated in the verbiage earlier she’d mentioned retail only. Attorney Land stated we would consider it a retail use; we could certainly put those words in here to make it very clear. Mayor Bailey stated the only other question is if we want to add daycare; we’d removed it so asked if we want to add it back in. Council Member Khambata stated looking at that map, how would that significantly change the opportunity to conduct that type of business. Council Member Olsen stated he thought that’s why Woodbury did the 500 feet because there are so many licensed daycares. Director Koerner stated Administrator Levitt stated she thinks we should keep daycares out because they’re in the Business Districts, like KinderCare and Tutor Time. Council Member Olsen asked if Administrator Levitt liked the 1,000 feet; Director Koerner stated Coon Rapids is 1,000 feet also. Mayor Bailey stated let’s do 1,000 feet, and they have to sell it from behind the counter. Attorney Land stated she would put in all of the restrictions and the longer list of things that Woodbury has in it because if we’re not going to have them in exclusive shops, you’d need those protections. Council Member Thiede stated those are essentially the same as cigarettes or tobacco, which Attorney Land confirmed. So, let’s use that instead of doing it like Woodbury did. Council Member Thiede stated we’re doing it because we’re trying for it to be the same as the cigarettes. Council Member Olsen stated he thinks the relevant factor here is that we’re next- door neighbors, and we don’t want to become a destination because we’re doing something different. Attorney Land stated she feels what she needs to do is rewrite this and bring it back or have Administrator Levitt distribute it to the Council so you can review it, and we can discuss it again. We have an optional date where we can meet again, and she thought this was maybe a reason why we should meet in a shorter period of time. She’ll try to get it revised and get it out to the Council. Council Member Dennis asked what was the consensus on the number of licenses; Attorney Land stated we’re throwing that out, it will be open market, other than the City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 23 restrictions on the distances, which we’ll limit somewhat. There will be legal nonconformities that will be allowed to come in, and the high fee might automatically reduce the number of them. Council Member Khambata asked if there was a fee for operating without a license; Attorney Land replied that’s a crime. Council Member Khambata stated it’s a crime with no penalty; Attorney Land replied no, it’s a misdemeanor with court, so they would be charged with a crime. Council Member Khambata asked if it was up to us to set that fee schedule; Attorney Land replied no, that’s set by Washington County Court. Council Member Olsen asked if we were also going to include something regarding the investigative fee; Attorney Land replied we can certainly revisit the fee schedule because the investigative fee for this or massage therapy includes the same amount of time. Council Member Olsen stated we should be consistent with respect to all of those. Attorney Land stated we may need to adjust it to make it actual cost recovery. Director Koerner stated liquor licenses are more in depth than massage licenses. Attorney Land stated we need to revisit the fee schedule anyway. Council Member Olsen stated we might as well discuss all of it. Title 5 - Police Regulations Chapter 5-1-4 - Catalytic Converters: Attorney Land stated there are a couple of ordinances that Council has not heard about before; they have been adopted by other communities in Dakota County and Washington County. She already pitched them to Director Koerner. We’re going to talk about catalytic converters, which the League is also working on, to try to get them to fix the catalytic converter law. Right now, the State law requires scrap metal dealers to make records of purchases of catalytic converters. It’s not a crime if you see somebody who has a trunkful of catalytic converters unless you catch them in the act of stealing it. So, our solution at the moment, until the legislature fixes the law, is to say that it’s a crime to possess catalytic converters unless you can show your proof of purchase. She asked her auto mechanic about this ordinance idea, and he said he has a junk dealer who comes to his shop and buys all his catalytic converters; he writes down all of the cars that they came from and who removed it from the car because there’s requirements in State Statute that you have to do if you’re selling your catalytic converters to someone. So, the record can be made. Now we’re going to say if you’re a legitimate junk dealer and you want to buy catalytic converters from somebody, you will have your record. If you’re a thief and you just have a trunkful and we stop you, it’s a crime unless you can prove where you purchased them from. It’s that simple. Hopefully, it will help law enforcement. Every once in a while, we get a guy with a trunkful of catalytic converters. Council Member Thiede asked how the auto mechanic verifies where he got his catalytic converters. Attorney Land stated her auto mechanic is getting them from underneath these cars when he needs to replace them; so he’s removing it and writes down the catalytic converter and vehicle so he has a record of it. Council Member Thiede asked if he writes down a V.I.N. number or something like that, too, the car he took it from. Attorney Land stated they’re pretty detailed records, and yes, anybody can dummy up anything, but the thieves usually aren’t that smart. City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 24 Chapter 5-1-5 - Third Party Gift Cards: Attorney Land stated there’s another ordinance that’s supposed to help with the credit card theft that leads to them buying gift cards with the stolen credit card. It happens a lot, and it’s impossible to trace. So, the idea is if the thief has to show proof of ID when they purchase a gift card, if they’re buying it with a credit card, they’re not going to bother. They’re not going to bother coming to Cottage Grove if we have an ordinance that says when Walmart sells a gift card, they have to have the buyer show proof of ID. You actually have to go to a cashier, you can’t use self checkout, and if you’re buying by credit card, the cashier will ask for your proof of ID, so you show your driver's license, and it shows your name and your name is on the credit card, too. It’s that simple. It’s just a matter of educating our retailers for those that sell these gift cards, this is how they’re going to have to do it. The Retailers Association has put up a little bit of a stink, but not a huge stink because there are enough cities that are now doing this, and it has really greatly reduced these thefts. Shakopee started it, and they won an award from the League of Minnesota Cities because their investigations decreased by 90% on these kinds of thefts. It will take some educating, so we’ll have to meet with the Chamber to get them to understand what we’re trying to do; we’re not trying to hurt anybody, especially our retailers, we’re not trying to push more regulation on them, we’re trying to help them. In West St. Paul, both Walmart and Target thanked us for trying to reduce the thefts they were seeing. Special Event Permits Renamed: Attorney Land stated we’re turning those into just Park Permits, which are administrative and do not have to come before the Council. There will no longer be public hearings for Special Event Permits for all of the special events. It’s fun to be able to talk about them and promote them, but we won’t have to do it with all of the red tape that goes along with it now. Now you can just talk about them because they’re fun. When she read the Special Event Permit Ordinance, and then tying it to the Park Permit process, she realized there isn’t a Park Permit process. So, if Parks and Rec actually wants to deny somebody a Park Permit, it would be completely arbitrary, as there are no rules or regulations around when they could do that. If they wanted to revoke somebody who’s being a nuisance in the park, there aren’t any reasons or regulations around when they could do that. So, that’s what this ordinance now does; it gives the Parks Department authority and teeth behind approving, denying, revoking Park Permits. We now have the ability to charge fees, so they have to refer things to Public Safety all the time; they were just doing it, and Public Safety would say we need to get some cost recovery, so they’d add fees, but there were no words in the book that gave them the authority to do it. So, that’s what this ordinance is intended to do. Council Member Olsen asked if removing the Special Event Permit process would save time for everybody, especially Public Safety. Attorney Land stated that could be an overwhelming request from the big how do we fix Special Events discussion; it was asked if we could just not have to do this. Director Koerner stated it’s all a part of the job. Director Costello, Director Koerner, and Clerk Anderson all had to look at them, so this will save us all a lot of time. Council Member Khambata asked about shouldering the administrative side of these; Attorney Land stated they do it anyway, that was the thing. We realized all we City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 25 did and had been codifying was what Park and Rec does today. She’s just giving the authority to it. Attorney Land stated that was Titles 1 through 9, and would like to see how far we can get tonight. Mayor Bailey stated we should just keep going. Title 11 - Zoning Regulations Attorney Land stated she’d recap the changes quickly. This is our current Zoning Ordinance; we had lots of categories and lots of special districts. The proposed Zoning Ordinance reduces the number of Zoning Districts, so our map looks a little cleaner and it’s a little bit easier to interpret. She showed the two maps side by side. For uses that will become a different number or letter, they will be legal non-conforming; so, they will still have all of their rights that they had under the ordinances when they were born. The legal nonconformities would cease if they stopped doing that for a year or we destroyed the typical nonconforming language in the law. If they existed under a Planned Unit Development, or something that was adopted by resolution, that is legal conformance. They actually came in, got approval under the existing ordinances at the time, they have regulations that they have to live by; so, that gets to continue to live on. So, they are not legal nonconforming, they are legal conforming. Any land, district, or planned development overlay district all were adopted with a resolution that had three pages worth of conditions. That all continues to be, and that’s legal conforming. People sometimes get an uncomfortable feeling that they’re going to be called legal nonconforming and they’ll never be able to sell their property. There are actually very few properties that will be officially legal nonconforming. Residential Highlights: We combined the R-2.5 into the R-3. R-3 no longer allows multifamily housing, which is what Council requested. R-4 changed its name to Transitional District: Is now somewhere between low and high density, so it allows single family, but it also allows multifamily. We removed the R-2A through R-2F. Business District: We removed the Neighborhood Business District. We cleaned up the use table, but didn’t get rid of anything that was relevant. Industrial District: We combined the I-1 and I-2, which is now just the I-1, and we combined the I-3 and I-5 into an I-2. I-3 is just Commercial Excavation. We cleaned up the use table, but didn’t eliminate anything that was relevant. Chapter 3, General Zoning Provisions - Section 7 Off Street Parking & Loading: The goal in parking was to simplify. First of all, the use table where it showed all of the uses and the map as to the number of parking spaces had a lot of terminology duplication, so we simplified some of the terms. Auto Repair had been broken into two categories, so now its just Auto Repair. Senior Citizen Housing was broken into about five different types of senior citizen housing; now it’s just two, whether it’s dependent living or independent living. Community Activities: There were lots of different things that could be thrown into that category so those are now all together. They have similar parking regulations. She displayed the old map on parking, where we used the gross floor area of the entire building; we looked at the entire building, regardless of how it was used within the four walls. The new map is we looked at the interior of the building and broke it down into the uses within the building. So, Cub Foods of course has the big giant City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 26 retail space, but they also have a big giant warehouse space. So, we broke down those uses into those different uses and used the map for each type of use. You don’t need the same number of parking stalls for the warehouse that you do for the retail. It makes sense. For example, Walmart under the old map would need 889 stalls based on the gross floor area of the entire building. When you look at the retail space versus the storage space versus the clinic and the restaurant and break it down, it’s now only 719 stalls that they need under the new map. So, it’s a significant difference but it makes sense. We’re not just trying to say there’s too many feet of parking, we’re actually putting some reasoning behind it. G-Will Liquors was used as an example because we had the square footage of their store; if you look at the gross floor area, it indicated they needed 63 stalls on the old map. However, on the new map they only need 34 stalls, which is a significant difference because they have a giant storage space. Council Member Olsen stated with these changes, that will obviously result in changes to impervious surface for new businesses; he asked if that was correct. Senior Planner Mike Mrosla stated the impervious surface will be reduced, which will just put more thought behind the parking counts; when you look at the gross square footage of a building, you’re overestimating parking sites. You’re using areas that don’t need retail. We’re scaling it back to the uses inside the building. G-Will, for example, they have a walk-in cooler, but you don’t need to count that space as retail; the same thing with all of their coolers, you don’t need to count that towards their customer parking area because people aren’t in there. Council Member Olsen stated that will also have a positive effect on our relationship with the Metropolitan Council as it relates to holding ponds, etc., and there’s a lot of ancillary benefit to this. In the past, sometimes we’ve been going too small, like the Walgreens area and Caribou area and not having enough parking and/or enough space for maneuverability. He hoped that is also part of this conversation; it’s not just about how many parking spaces are available, but if there are multiple vehicles trying to move around in the parking lot at the same time, we need space for that as well. Planner Schmitz stated a lot of that is on the Site Plan. Council Member Olsen stated he loved the idea of less impervious surface, thought it was awesome. Council Member Khambata asked about a multitenant building where the use could potentially change. Planner Schmitz stated with shopping centers, we’re going to use the same formula which is based on the tenants and the uses and their space, but it’s not going to be perfect. It’s going to be perfect on the day they built their shopping center, but we know tenants don’t own their space and they change over time. Permitted uses can come and go, and we never even know they’re there. An existing parking lot is not going to get any bigger. So, when we have new shopping centers come in, we’ll leave some flexibility to provide proof of parking so that we can require them to expand the parking lot if needed should the uses change significantly. We’ll try to put a condition of approval in there that says this is the number of parking spaces you need today, but if we find it’s a problem, we’re going to make you build improved parking. That’s about the best we can do. Planner Mrosla stated we’ve discussed an existing multitenant retail building where a restaurant goes in; that’s going to take away from the retail parking. Council Member Dennis stated that creates challenges at times. City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 27 Mayor Bailey asked regarding Almar Village, before Carbone’s, when Carbone’s came in to get a building permit, would we be able to do this with the parking. Planner Schmitz replied no, because it’s a building permit, which has nothing to do with the Site Plan. Mayor Bailey stated the use would be changing, though; Planner Schmitz stated it was a permitted use. Council Member Dennis stated the proof of parking was for one year. At that time, it was 22 spaces according to the formulas that were used. Mayor Bailey stated they were told if there was an issue, they had to add parking within a year. Mayor Bailey stated in the future, we don’t have to put a sunset date on something like that; Planner Schmitz stated that’s correct, and we would use this language, require proof of parking, and leave it open ended if we ever determine it’s needed. Mayor Bailey confirmed we could force them to add the parking. Chapter 6, Performance Standards - Section 7 - Architectural Design Standards: Attorney Land stated we mostly deal with Class I and 2 materials in the Business District. Staff added a couple of things, but for the most part, this is what we have today. Architectural Design: We don’t have any requirements in single family. Multifamily and Mixed Use: We have 65% of the building has to be Class I or 2 materials, and they have to use three types of Class 1. Business District: They have to use 65% of Class 1 or 2; again, they must use three types of materials. The only difference is the Planned Business District can use the industrial standards. Industrial District: They get a little bit of special treatment if they use 65% of Class 1 or 2, they must use three types of Class 1 or 2, and for industrial uses only, they can actually use the precast concrete panels, which are a Class 3. Chapter 6, Performance Standards - Section 8 - Landscaping: This has changed. Right now, on single family lots that are 55 feet or less, there was a lot of pushback that we were requiring too many trees as we required 4 yard trees and 1 boulevard tree. Now we’re saying 2 yard trees and 1 boulevard tree. For greater than 55-foot lots, we require 4 yard trees and 1 boulevard tree, and now we’re saying 3 yard trees and 1 boulevard tree. So, it’s going from 5 to 3 and 5 to 4. Rear lots abutting a major road, like 70th Street, right now we require a 75-foot buffer, which is a lot. We understand it looks awesome, but we have to able to justify we have such a large buffer; if there are reasons to justify it, that’s great. We felt like we needed to be a little more reasonable and so 50 feet felt a little more reasonable because you’re taking space on which the developer could add lots. So, 50 feet felt safer and sometimes roads wander; so, we don’t want to say every one has to be a 50-foot line, so it’s a 50-foot buffer on average but a 30-foot minimum. No location within that area could be smaller than 30 feet. Council Member Khambata asked how roadway easements are factored into that for future expansion. He was told it is not an easement; it is owned either by the HOA or the property owner. Council Member Khambata stated on 100th Street they’re eventually going to widen it. He asked where does that line start, is it at the edge of the Right-of-Way; that was confirmed. Council Member Khambata stated then the future expansion is already factored in because presumably the County or the City will have an appropriate Right-of-Way. He was informed the buffer doesn’t count as Right-of- Way. So, the buffer would begin at the roadway into the lot. Director Koerner stated Administrator Levitt wanted to remind everyone that stormwater ponds are typically in the buffer zone. City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 28 Chapter 6 - Performance Standards - Section 9 - Tree Preservation: Director Costello stated typically we require a tree inventory of what we call qualifying trees; the only change we’re making to that definition is a diseased tree is clearly not a qualifying tree because it should probably come out anyway. Planner Schmitz stated a diseased tree is not a qualifying tree now and it won’t be then; however, what we’ve said is any species on the DNR Invasive Species List, like Elm or Ash, is not going to be considered a qualifying tree. After the tree inventory is completed, then we determine how many trees they can actually remove, the percentage; we’ve reduced the percentage of trees that can be removed. So, they can’t remove as many, which is good. Then we determine the quantity of replacement trees, so we have to figure out how many inches they have to replace based on how many inches they removed. Council Member Khambata stated if there are fewer qualifying inches, then the tree mitigation fee will decrease proportionately. Planner Schmitz replied not necessarily; that’s why we reduced the amount of inches that they could remove. We gave a little and took a little, evened it right out, at least that was our thought process. Replacement is on a 2:1 basis, that’s inches, not trees; if it’s not possible to replace them on site, then they pay $150 per inch, and the fees have to go to the Landscape Initiative Plan. Citywide Rezoning: Attorney Land stated we are completely adopting a new map. The Council has to initiate the rezoning by passing a resolution to undertake Citywide Zoning. That resolution will contain those things, and the Planning Commission will then hold its public hearing on all of the ordinances, including the rezoning map, and then the Council will vote on all of the ordinances, including Zoning and the Rezoning Map. It does require a 4/5 majority to pass the new Rezoning Map. That first step of initiating the process will be done earlier, rather than later; so, we’re going to do that on November 2. We need to get it done so that we can unroll it with all of our open houses. The optional Council Meeting is a Special Meeting on November 9 to fully go through everything to make sure you’re comfortable with it. We can talk further about the CBD ordinance. She thought it might be worthwhile to schedule that meeting, but that’s up to the Council. The plan to let the community know what we’re doing is we’ll have the Chamber Lunch on November 15, there are a couple of open houses we’ll be hosting in December, and the Planning Commission public hearing is scheduled for December 19. The Council will adopt the whole thing on December 21. Mayor Bailey asked if it would roll out with the new year; Attorney Land replied yes, it would be effective January 1, 2023. Council Member Khambata stated when we did partial rezoning of Langdon Village, we had a room full of unhappy people. Attorney Land stated it’s Citywide, and yet it’s not because it’s not going to affect everybody. Planner Mrosla stated it will actually benefit some properties and not restricting some. Planner Schmitz stated they’re getting a better Zoning District out of this. City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2022 Page 29 Mayor Bailey asked in Renewal by Andersen’s efforts to save trees, they ended up saving some trees that already look like they’re dead; he has a real problem with that. He didn’t know how we deal with that. We also dealt with that in Summers Landing; in the end we got there with the nearby homeowners. He didn’t know if any other cities had ordinances specific to that. Planner Schmitz stated we could look at it more in depth at the time as we’re looking at the tree inventory and perhaps involve our City Forester a bit more to understand that. Typically, businesses in our community are absolutely more than willing to work with us. We could tell Renewal by Andersen these four trees look questionable, so maybe we could replace those with two nice trees, and they’d say absolutely, let’s work through that. So, we have some options. Mayor Bailey stated he knows Renewal by Andersen will work with us. Also, when Up North Plastics took out all the Ash trees, they put in all new landscaping, and it looks very nice. Council Member Olsen asked if they typically involved Forester Gavin in those conversations; Planner Schmitz stated when necessary, yes, they do. 14. WORKSHOPS – CLOSED TO PUBLIC - None. 15. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Council Member Dennis, second by Council Member Olsen, to adjourn the meeting at 9:26 p.m. Motion carried: 5-0. Minutes prepared by Judy Graf and reviewed by Tamara Anderson, City Clerk