Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024/10/07 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Study SessionOfficial minutes City council special study session St. Louis Park, Minnesota Oct. 7, 2024 The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. Council members present: Paul Baudhuin, Tim Brausen, Sue Budd, Yolanda Farris, Lynette Dumalag, Margaret Rog, Mayor Nadia Mohamed Council members absent: none. Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), deputy city manager (Ms. Walsh), associate planner (Ms. Champoux), community development director (Ms. Barton), economic development manager (Mr. Hunt), redevelopment administrator (Ms. Monson), planning manager (Mr. Walther) Discussion items 1. Development project process overview Ms. Monson presented the staff report. Council Member Rog asked if developers typically conduct market studies before a development project in the city. Ms. Monson stated that they do; prework takes place to make sure a development will not have empty units. Mr. Hunt added developers' lenders typically require they conduct market studies as well. Council Member Rog noted that there were community meetings held related to the Belt Line project, and now there have been changes to the development. Ms. Monson stated the site plan has not substantially changed. Council Member Rog observed that exterior items have evolved without further public input. In cases like this, she asked if there is an opportunity to reengage and update the community about project changes. Ms. Monson stated if there are changes to a project, staff engages the community, and pointed to the Wooddale Station as an example. When the concept changed, numerous public meetings were held. Council Member Rog asked if the fiscal impact report for new developments is new information. Ms. Monson stated that it is not new. Council Member Rog asked if council may review the report. Mr. Hunt clarified that the information is not formatted as a report, it is a questionnaire asking for input from departments. If there is any significant input, staff shares it with council. Council Member Rog asked at what point impacts around public safety are identified. Ms. Monson stated that the police department patrols locations of concern, and when problems are solved with redevelopment to help correct a problem, calls for service at that location are reduced. Docusign Envelope ID: BD983119-3A7B-4C15-AE30-AC68DDF67814 Special study session minutes -2- Oct. 7, 2024 Council Member Rog asked if the impact reports pertain to each individual development, rather than cumulatively for multiple new developments. Ms. Monson stated yes. Council Member Rog asked if public art is included. Mr. Walther stated public art is generally included when a developer is not meeting their planting requirements for landscaping or cannot provide enough trees, and is usually negotiated. Council Member Rog asked if the housing authority is ever involved. Ms. Barton stated they are involved only if there are project-based vouchers. Council Member Rog asked how square footage is certified and if a developer builds what they say they will build in every case. Mr. Walther explained the assessing department measures every inch of a building after construction to assess taxes. Ms. Barton added under the construction plan, the inspections verify the development is built to the plan requirements. Council Member Dumalag asked if there is a cap on the number of extensions with a development. Mr. Hunt stated there is not. Council Member Baudhuin asked if square footage is actually lower in a development unit, but it is marketed as higher, does the city have any regulation in place for recourse. Ms. Barton stated the city has no mechanism for regulation but added the development plan would present the details of the square footage, verified by city assessors. If there were still a discrepancy, this may be a civil matter. Council Member Dumalag stated development plans are continuously reviewed and verified during the construction process. Council Member Budd asked if projects have ever failed to meet the 60 day deadline. Mr. Walther stated that the city has always met the required deadlines during his 18 years with the city. Council Member Rog asked how a development such as Via Sol gets to a place where approval is denied and what can be learned from that experience. Ms. Barton stated Via Sol was unique from the beginning and the developer was not as experienced as others, but the city wanted to help him become successful. As the project moved forward, the city and developer tried to work together. She pointed out that it was not a complete failure and there have been some improvements. She noted that communication between council and staff and addressing concerns is important. She also noted that during her time at the city, staff have completed reference checks on developers to be certain they are capable of completing projects. Council Member Brausen asked how the city is staffed for development projects. Mr. Walther stated there are three planners, a zoning administrator, and at times, an intern. Docusign Envelope ID: BD983119-3A7B-4C15-AE30-AC68DDF67814 Special study session minutes -3- Oct. 7, 2024 Council Member Brausen asked when the presentation they were viewing during the discussion item would become available to council members. Ms. Monson stated it would be published for the public on the city website following the study session. 2. Cannabis zoning ordinance Ms. Champoux presented the staff report. Council Member Dumalag asked if there are limitations in establishment size. Ms. Champoux stated she believes there are regulations in statute on the size of plant canopy but not on the size of the facility for several cannabis business licenses. Council Member Baudhuin asked if the terms dispensary and retailer are essentially the same. Ms. Champoux stated that they have the same meaning. Council Member Bauduin asked if there will be education around these terms, especially with some stigma around cannabis use, noting he would like to see education take place. He asked what happens if the city takes no action before January 1, 2025. Mr. Walther stated January 1 is not of major concern, as the state has moved the deadline to mid-2025. He added the city would like to present some ground rules to residents so they can be prepared for what is coming. He stated they also want to get registrations in order while the state will handle licensing. Council Member Rog asked to discuss hours of operation. Ms. Champoux stated the new legislation does not permit retailers to operate between the hours of 2 a.m. – 8 a.m. The state statute also allows the city to set additional restrictions such as limiting sales to Monday through Saturday and prohibiting hours of operation between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. as well as from 9 p.m. - 2 a.m. Council Member Baudhuin stated he would prefer that Sunday should not have more restrictive hours of operation, adding that seems to be outdated. Council Member Rog stated more consideration is warranted on hours of operation restrictions for cannabis similar to restrictions on liquor and she would like more discussion in this area. Ms. Keller confirmed that staff will present options for future council consideration. Council Member Rog asked about the buffer zone differences between liquor stores and schools and cannabis retailers and schools (1000-foot buffer for cannabis and 300-foot buffer for liquor stores). Mr. Walther stated last time council reviewed the proposed buffer zone from schools, they wanted to look at a larger buffer, but noted the topic can be revisited. Council Member Rog stated both liquor and cannabis buffer zone requirements should be parallel. She added concerns that part of Walker Lake would be excluded. Council Member Budd noted that racial equity was addressed well in the staff report. She observed there is a commitment to have follow-up metrics and she is excited to see the outcomes. She asked if daycare was incorporated in the analysis. Ms. Champoux stated that daycare was considered and included in the conversation last year. She stated that daycares Docusign Envelope ID: BD983119-3A7B-4C15-AE30-AC68DDF67814 Special study session minutes -4- Oct. 7, 2024 were not included in the present recommendations as they are difficult to track, making the code difficult to administer. She described how buffer zones from schools and parks are intended to limit youth who have autonomy to go to the retailers, whereas children in daycare do not necessarily have that autonomy. Council Member Budd asked if distances from other businesses are measured across city lines, for example by Knollwood near the city of Hopkins. Mr. Walther stated the code has not been applied to sites outside the city boundary . Council Member Rog asked if retail registrations will be issued on a first-come, first-served basis for the four retail licenses, and how would that work for someone who already has a THC- oriented business. Ms. Champoux stated there is no preference for businesses that currently operate when it comes to getting a license. She stated there is a lottery system for licenses and, if the city sets a cap for retail registrations, that will be a question to answer. Mr. Walther added the statute provides the city 30 days to conduct a zoning compliance review for cannabis business license applications meaning these would need to be reviewed administratively. The city will likely need to rely on the state’s criteria for license applications (e.g., social equity applicants) to determine the order in which retail registrations are issued, and the city would need to process them in the order they are received. Council Member Dumalag asked if microbusinesses count as retail or operations. Ms. Champoux stated it could be both, with retail as an accessory use. If it has a retail endorsement and it is only conducting retail sales on a site, then the principal use of that site would be retail. Something to note about cannabis business licenses is that they are issued to a business, not necessarily one location, so a licensed business may have several locations. For microbusinesses that are permitted to cultivate, manufacture and conduct retail sales, they may choose to conduct all these activities in one building or at separate sites. Council Member Dumalag asked what the classification would be for a retail shop, product consumed on the premises, without cultivation. Ms. Champoux stated this would not be allowed and onsite consumption is limited to locations already approved for food and beverage consumption. Council Member Brausen stated he is in favor of the proposal and the 1,000-foot buffer because the smell can potentially travel. He stated he is not in favor of limiting the number of cannabis retailers within the city and would like to create more opportunities for emerging businesses. He added statewide caps are at 150 and there are already 1800 applications submitted to the state. Of these, over 800 are racial equity applications from out-of-state entities trying to capture this market. He stated even four applications for the city will not be a quick process. Council Member Budd stated she supports both proposals and believes four is the right number. Docusign Envelope ID: BD983119-3A7B-4C15-AE30-AC68DDF67814 Special study session minutes -5- Oct. 7, 2024 Council Member Rog stated she is supportive of the proposed regulations with the exception of the 1000-foot buffer for schools and is interested in parity with the liquor establishments. She requested a discussion about hours of operation at a future date. She supports limiting the number of retail businesses with the option to increase later. Council Member Dumalag stated she supports the 1000-foot buffer, and the number of retailers could start with four. Council could revisit this conversation each year to look at increases. Council Member Baudhuin added he is supportive but does want to further discuss hours of operation. He also agrees with the limitation of retailers but would agree with a higher number than four. He stated he would like to further discuss the 1000-foot buffer. Council Member Farris added she supports both proposed regulations as written. Mayor Mohamed stated she is in favor of both proposed regulations including the 1000-foot buffer and the limit to four retailers. She thanked staff for their work on the racial equity piece as well. Ms. Keller summarized that staff direction from the city council was to prepare the ordinance with a buffer of 1,000 feet, a cap on the number of registrations at one per 12,500 population, and staff would propose limits on the hours of operation for formal council consideration. Written Reports 3. Wooddale Station Redevelopment update – Ward 2 4. 30-day pre-eviction notice city prepared form Council Member Brausen stated he supports the Wooddale Station redevelopment. Ms. Keller stated if a study session is needed on Wooddale Station, staff will need to know from council very soon. Council Member Dumalag stated she is open to having a study session on this, and Council Member Baudhuin agreed. Council Member Rog stated the pre-eviction notice form is much improved and she thanked staff for their work. She asked if there is going to be information about STEP, and noted the only resources listed were not within the city. Ms. Barton stated those outside of the city are required to be included, and then the form does refer people to the link on the city website for more resources. Council Member Baudhuin stated he would like the Human Rights Commission to review the pre-eviction notice also. Docusign Envelope ID: BD983119-3A7B-4C15-AE30-AC68DDF67814 Special study session minutes -6- Oct. 7, 2024 Communications/meeting check-in (verbal) The meeting adjourned at 9:39 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor Docusign Envelope ID: BD983119-3A7B-4C15-AE30-AC68DDF67814