Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

[Music] [Music] [Music] Good evening. I call the May 7th, 2025 Apple Valley Planning Commission meeting to order. The first item of business is the approval of the agenda. Are there any changes from staff? Good evening, Madam Chair, members, commission. We have no changes for you at this time. Thank you. Any changes from the commissioners? Move to approve the agenda. Okay, I'll second. Uh, agenda approval was made by Commissioner Mahwald and seconded by Commissioner Halas. Any other comments or questions? If not, all in favor say I. I. I. Oppose. Nay. Motion carries. The next item of business is the approval of the consent agenda. Consent agenda items are considered routine and will be enacted with a single motion without discussion unless a commissioner or citizen requests to have any item separately considered. It will then be moved to the land use action items for consideration. Can I get a motion of approval? So motion second. I believe that was made by

Commissioner Hass and seconded by Commissioner Puit. Oh, sorry. It was Commissioner Mohol. All in favor say I. I. I. Oppose. Nay. Motion carries. That brings us to number four, which is our public hearing tonight. And we only have one. And I will open the public hearing. We will now open the public hearing for agenda item 4A. The affidavit of publication for the notice of public hearing is available for inspection in the planning department. Everyone wishing to speak at this public hearing should be sure to fill out the attendance roster in the back. It include your name and your address so that accurate records can be maintained. We will begin the procedure with a brief presentation by city staff followed by a presentation by the petitioner of the hearing. Upon the conclusion of the presentation, city staff will be asked to comment on the proposal's conformance with pertinent regulations and policies. After that, comments will be taken from the general public and this is for a Sydney. Thank you, Chair Curts and commissioners. Tonight, I will be presenting to you the request for a text amendment to plan development 975 regarding impervis impervious surface requirements. Specifically, the request is to consider an ordinance amendment to PD 975 zone 1 regarding impervious surface for lots 9,999 square ft or less in area. The zoning map shows PD 975 zone 1 outlined in this red outline. So zone one includes primarily single family uh properties ranging in size from 20,000 square feet to um

8,450 square feet. Um and then zone two would be uh of the PE would be these two large lots to the south and those are just two storm water ponds that serve the neighborhood. The applicants for tonight do live within plan development 975 and they have a lot that is just over 9,000 square feet. Uh plan development 975 specifically calls out the maximum impervious surface requirements of 35% for all properties regardless of sides. This is not typical for residential plan developments. Uh most residential PDS refer back to our standard imperous surfer surface requirements um that are set out in section 155 uh.350. The applicants are interested in installing an ingground pool, but because of their smaller lot size and the PD requirements, they are fairly restricted um uh with adding any impervious surface. So, the request for tonight would be to add a footnote to the existing standards within the plan development. And the footnote would state essentially that lots that are under 10,000 square ft would be allowed an additional 10% from that 35% uh with the installation of a city approved on-site storm water management facility, which would be something like a rain garden or a French drain. We do have an existing uh application for this that other uh properties within our standard zoning requirements can apply for and I'll go into that process in the next slide. Um so this wouldn't necessarily be uh something that's hasn't been done before. It's relatively typical within our standard zoning. So the section 155.350 sets out drainage requirements which would include impervious surface maximums for standard zoning districts. The requirements apply to any residential plan development that does not specifically call out

impervious surface requirements within the individual PD. Most residential plan developments refer back to this table. Um additionally there are properties within standard zoning that are allowed an additional 5% of impervious surface. again show uh if they install a city approved storm water management facility. So we have we do this um currently with lots um any size lot if they want to increase 5% we do allow that if they apply and show that they're installing some sort of on-site storm water mitigation. Um, so this would be done through the natural resources department and the applicants have initiated that process already with our natural resources department. In doing research on plan development 975, there was no specific reason on record as to why impervious surface was specific specifically limited for this plan development. staff is comfortable with amending the PD to allow for the same maximum that a lot in standard zoning would be allowed, which would be 45% so long as the additional 10% is mitigated for with an approved storm water mitigation facility. This would ensure that the additional drainage would not impact the storm water ponds that serve this neighborhood of plan development 975. So lots that are less than 10,000 square feet that could apply to increase impervious surface are highlighted in red. Um it's about 77 properties out of I believe just over 160 for the total plan development. So um any property that is highlighted in red if they wanted to go anything above 35% they would have to apply with the city um in order to do so. And that would be how the ordinance is drafted tonight. So with that, staff is recommending to open the public hearing, receive comments, and close the public hearing. Um uh if there are no outstanding public hearing uh questions or comments, and

the planning commission concurs, staff would recommend approval of the draft ordinance amending article 34 plan development number 975 of the city code by amending imperous surface requirements. Thank you. Thank you, Sydney. Commissioners, do we have any questions for Sydney? Any questions? No. Uh, then I will let Eric and Amy come up. Evening. Good evening. Hi. Good evening. Hi. Um, I'm Eric Edstrom and this is my wife Amy. Um, we appreciate you allowing us to be here tonight. Um like was stated before um what we are proposing is just to allow uh similar lot sizes to ours in our plan development to have the same impervious surface um aotment um as other properties of similar size um in the city of Apple Valley. Okay. We appreciate your consideration. Okay. Thank you. Anybody have questions for the Edstroms? I don't think so. Thank you for being here. Thank you so much. So that'll bring us to the public hearing. If anybody would like to approach the podium, please do so. State your name and your address. No one. Just all here to support them. I'm the neighborhood spokesman, I guess. And you and your wife have been here before, right? We have once upon a time. I remember you. I won't remember any names, but I remember faces. I'm Chris Molden at 60358th Court. My wife is Lauren. Um, we are homeowners in Corey Ponds. And when we built 8 years ago, I guess it really wasn't explained to us that we were

governed by different ordinances than the rest of Apple Valley. and I'm here along with a lot of the neighborhood um to express support for Amy and um Eric and I guess I ask that you two support it and um approve their request for the variance. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And you must be have a good neighborhood if everybody's there to support you. So any questions for anybody here? Okay. Do I have a Let me close the hearing first. If there are no further comments, is there any other comments before I close it? Okay. I will close this public hearing. It is the policy of the planning commission not to act on an item on the same night as its public hearing. The planning commission will weigh all comments and information received tonight as in its deliberations at future meetings. This item will continue to appear on future planning commission agendas until a recommendation on the petition can be forwarded to city council. Unless we decide to make a motion tonight. Do I have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the draft ordinance amending article 34 plan development number 975 of the city code by amending the impervious surface requirements. I'll second. Okay. So that motion was made by Commissioner Puit and seconded by Commissioner Halas. Any concerns or questions? If not, all in favor say I. I. Oppose. Nay. The motion carries. Thank you. Okay. So that brings us to number five, our land use and action items. Um that is also Sydney.

Thank you Sher Curt again and thank you commissioners. Uh so for the next request this would be tax amendments to uh relating to cannabis micro businesses within the city. Um there was a public hearing for this item on April 2nd. Um and there were a couple there were no public comments from the general public or residents but there were a couple of questions from commissioners. So those answers were included in the staff report as well as will be gone over in the presentation. So specifically the considerations would be an ordinance amendment to plan development number 409 to allow uh for a cannabis micro business and then secondly an ordinance amendment to section 155.320 uh relating to cannabis businesses specifically zoning for cannabis uh to allow cannabis micro businesses in planned developments in general. The site uh that the applicant would like to operate a cannabis business is located at 6950 146th Street West. Um this is an existing multi-tenant uh strip uh off of Galaxy and 146th Street. The zoning for the existing property is within plan development 409 and is highlighted here on the map. PD 409 is uh highlighted in this hatched area on the map as well. So you can see it's uh there's a section here to the south and then it's split off by industrial zoning area and then there's just a couple of parcels north of that that are also within plan development 409. So the text amendments that would be that are drafted by staff um related to this request would be to allow a cannabis micro business within PD 409 as a conditional use. The cannabis micro businesses would still be regulated by section 155.320 um with the additional requirements uh

as stated on the slide which would be that all cannabis micro business activities would occur indoors. Um no retail sales of cannabis products would be uh um shall be permitted except in conjunction with a cannabis micro business in operation on site and with the retail operations endorsement from the state. Uh, an order mitigation, an odor mitigation plan would need to be submitted and reviewed by city by the city staff. Uh, off- streetet loading areas would in conjunction with the cannabis micro business would be subject to our standard off- streetet loading requirements. And then lastly, on-site retail operations in con junction with cannabis micro business would be subject to the retail limitations that are set out within the plan development for section 155.320. Uh this would also need to be amended because currently cannabis micro businesses are only allowed in the BP I1 and I2 uh zoning districts. Uh I do just want to note that per the city attorney's advisement there originally when you were shown this chart at on April 2nd there was a P with two asterisks it's been changed to just two asterisks um with the same provision that was seen on April 2nd that cannabis micro businesses may be allowed within a plan development district when specifically allowed as a permitted or conditional use under the zoning regulations of the specific plan development district. So what that would mean is that uh if this were to be approved any other PD in the future uh would have to be if requested would have to be reviewed and also amended as this one is being requested. So if any other plan development were to come forward and uh or any applicant were to come forward and want to amend another plan development, we would go through a similar process of you reviewing the request and uh trying to determine if that would be an allowable use within an individual PD. So this isn't necessarily opening the doors to allow a cannabis micro business in any uh plan

development without review. So considerations related to this request would be does a cannabis micro business align with the intended purposes of the PD. So the intended purpose of plan development 409 is to provide for an integrated mix of limited industrial, general business and retail businesses and and limited business uses. Um PD 409 currently allows the following uses that are similar to the operations of a cannabis micro business. So that would be light mag light fabrication, manufacturing and assembly including the fact that some or all goods produced are retail on site research or testing of uh research or testing laboratory conducted entirely within a building and then retail sales and services uh which would be subject to the floor area maximums that are set out in the PD. Additionally, do the drafted conditions that staff have drafted mitigate any potential adverse impacts of the cannabis micro business use within the PD? So, regarding the questions that were uh asked from commissioners uh the night of the public hearing, first would be the history of the PD, the ordinance creating PD49 was adopted in 1988. And again, the purpose is to allow for an integrated m integrated mix of industrial and uh business uses. The properties within PD49 were originally zoned I1 and I2 and then reszoned to be to BD to PD to allow for a wider range of permitted commercial uses than what was allowed under the previous industrial zoning. Um PD 409 is a hybrid of of I1 general business and retail business zoning districts. The PD ordinance was drafted and adopted to limited retail to limit retail and limited business uses to 35% of the total floor area of buildings within the PD to ensure that the district did not lose the industrial character. Another question was related to existing uses and tenants within the

multi-tenant building um located at 6950 146th Street. So the applicant has provided a document that was provided to you in the staff report which shows the current utilization and tenant mix of the multi-tenant building. There are 12 tenant spaces uh two of which are vacant and then the rest of the tenant spaces are filled with various businesses. Last public question uh was has the applicant considered locations where cannabis micro businesses are currently allowed in Apple Valley. So, in in staff's review of this question, cannabis micro businesses are currently allowed in the business park I1 and I2 zoning districts. Uh, based on the cannabis buffer map buffer map, it appears that there are currently 14 properties zoned for industrial use that do not have a se a buffer setback requirement. This does not mean that all 14 properties are available or for sale or um lease. The applicant has stated that um the locations that are available within the industrial zoning districts where a cannabis micro business is allowed uh of the ones that are available, they all have are impacted by buffers. And the applicant's full response was provided in the staff report. So here's a cannabis buffer map. Um it's a little hard to see on the slides uh from my view at least, but this light gray area are is land that is guided for industrial. So that would mean land that is zoned BP, I1, I2 or PD. So this is the subject property where the applicant is looking to operate. Um as you can see there, there are a handful of properties that are not impacted by buffers. Um but again that doesn't mean that they are for sale or lease um or are suitable for this type of use or development. Um so within the plan development only one property is impacted by a buffer. So that would mean if this ordinance were to be passed that

um only one property would not uh be allowed to operate a cannabis micro business but the subject property that the applicant is is interested in is not impacted by a buffer. So with that the decision to add a use to a district is a policy related decision. Staff is providing the following options in consideration of the requested amendments. So, so there would be two sets of um approvals related to the request if you were to recommend approval and then if the planning commission considers uh after considering decides that they would not like to recommend approval then there would be uh two options related to recommending denial of the draft ordinances. Thank you. Thank you. Sydney, can I just go back to what you just said? Did you say there's only one location that's available that would be affected by a buffer? Is that what you said? Uh, I'll go back to the map. Uh, Chair Curts, within the plan development 409, there's one property. So, this property is within PD 409 and it is impacted by a buffer, but the rest of the properties that are within PD 409 um would be allowed a cannabis micro business. Okay. commissioners. Uh, Commissioner Halas, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Sydney, for the presentation. Um, from what the map shows that we are outside the buffers for the preschools and the schools and was there another item that was on the buffer list that we had to watch for? Was it other other businesses of the same style? Uh, Commissioner Halas. So, yes, it's schools, parks, uh, preschools, a residential treatment facility, and then, um, if a cannabis biker business were to be approved to the state, approved through city zoning and were to locate at this site, I

believe we have enacted, I believe it's a,000 ft from other cannabis micro businesses themselves. So if there were a cannabis micro business approved and located here then there would be a thousand foot buffer around that business itself where another cannabis micro business or where another cannabis retail business could not go. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Mahwald, could you please go back to the slide? Um, we're discussing section 155.320 and I just I I was kind of intrigued by the discussion of the the footnote there um with the the allowing the business within a plan development district or zones therein the parenthetical there. Um, and I don't know if it makes some sense, at least for me anyway. Um, if you look at the the plan development map, that top section, even though there's only one of two parcels that's affected by a buffer zone, um, it's right across the street from a residential area. There are there is a a nice buffer fence uh on the south to the north of that uh parcel. Um but I guess what what street is that? Could be 145th. Yeah, 145th. So there is a a kind of a nice boundary fence to the residential area on the north side of 145th Street West. But the the thought that I had with with regard to that parenthetical is would it make sense to um exclude that portion of planned

development 409 from the amendment. So, I'm kind of looking at the the language or zones therein and if if if this were something that the commission were and the council were inclined to approve that it just apply to the southern port portion of PD 409. Does that make sense? Commissioner Hass if um if I can just say for the the amendment that has been drafted for 155 320 um the or zones therein would be applicable to all PDS. So some PDS have multiple subzones. So um that would mean that you could amend specific subzones within PDS and I believe I'm interpreting that correct. Um city attorney shaking your head so I think um that that's correct. So that would mean if in another PD, say Cobblestone, Cobblestone has a number of subzones, uh if for some reason Cobblestone were to come uh someone were to request an amendment to the plan development for the Cobblestone neighborhood, you could specifically say that it can only be within this individual sub zone of that PD. Um but for this plan development 409, there just happens to be one subzone only. Uh but the language is drafted so that it is applicable to any PD uh that if it were to come forward, it could apply to it so that you could regulate it by even the sub zone of a plan development district. Um and then in terms of possibly limiting it to the just the southern half of the plan development, so these buffers that are shown uh so the PD includes these two properties. This buffer that touches this parcel uh um the draft ordinance for the plan development says that it is required. It refers back to the standard zoning requirements for cannabis. So

that would mean that a an a cannabis micro business would not be allowed to operate here whether you add that provision or not. And then and then that I would assume that the smaller parcel just to the east of that if if this were to be approved would be within a,000 ft and also then excluded as a similar business buffer. I did not do an exact measurement, but if it were within a thousand feet, um it would be excluded if this cannabis micro business were permitted by the state and then approved to be here. staff. Madam Chair, if I may, if if I may just follow up with um Commissioner's comment, keep in mind that the buffers are a moving target because the buffer showing for the daycare is that when this map was created, there is a daycare that exists within that area. Next week, that daycare may be gone. So, that buffer is gone. Um, I think the blue is a residential treatment center. Same thing. So, just by saying, well, it can't go up in that little if you if you amend the ordinance, it will apply to that northern piece regardless of the buffer because the buffer may not apply a week from now, a year from now. And then the setback between uses too. this if this is ordinance is approved and the business comes in, they may not be here forever and so the ordinance amendment will apply through the entire 409 district. That's a good point. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I have a few um things here. First of all, I want to know has anybody in the um area there been notified about

the interest of the cannabis coming in? Chair Kurtz, the everyone within PD4, every property owner within plan development 409 has been notified of this requested amendment. And did you hear any feedback? Staff has not received any um feedback to date. So my opinion is you start opening up a can of worms and you start opening it up for this, you're going to have other cannabis companies coming in wanting to do the same thing. I feel that meaning there are other opportunities to locate adequate amount of them. Um, I just don't feel that I would personally support the decision to make an amendment. Um, I think we should keep the ordinance as it stands. Um, and to me, this cannabis should be more I know that you want to mix it up a little bit and everything, but the cannabis should be more in an industrial um area. you know, I can just see numerous future disturbances and future complaints coming in about this and I think it's just going to be hard to deal with. So, I just am referring that I would support just keeping the ordinance as it is. Any other questions? Yes, Commissioner Halas. Thank you. I just have a follow-up statement on in regards to opening. I'll go off of what Jody just mentioned here, Commissioner just mentioned here. Um, with the residential areas being so close and with the potential of daycarees moving in and out and what we're doing here, we're going to run into some issues where we're going to be on that buffer. Should this be open in this area, then we got a daycare that does open, we're going to

have we're going to have an issue on this. It's, as was said, there's other opportunities in other retail and commercial areas and industrial areas that should be looked at that would uh not put us into the situation where we're going to have a conflict on the buffer zone. Thank you, Commissioner Mahomeald. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I I would echo those comments. in particular. I guess I'm I'm more concerned about that uh the the northern piece of uh PD 409, which is again right across the street from the residential areas, which as we now know would would still be included um within the parcel, the two parcels at at the north end there would be included um within this amendment. And because the the subject parcel itself is, you know, if if you go down that street, it is a largely industrial mix of uses there. And and so is the current use. I guess the current use on that uh the parcel off of 145th is a I think it's a um precision auto care. I'm not sure what's what's on the eastern. Um, but I I guess my my concern is just the the location in close proximity to the residential neighborhood that gets pulled into this because of its application to the entire PD 409. Thank you. Anybody else? Commissioner Puit? Sure. Um, thank you, uh, Chair Kurts and Sydney. Thank you for the presentation. Just a a quick question. My understanding was um for the micro businesses there is an obligations to get a license through the state and the site um has a number of requirements not

just odor mitigation ventilation filtration systems, wastewater disposal, things like that. Um, I anticipate should this move forward, um, maybe you could speak a little bit to the consistency of the amendment with the requirements from the state for the site and is there any correlation between the two? Uh, Chair Curts, Commissioner Puit. Um, so for requirements for the states the s when the staff um reviews the zoning compliance of a cannabis business if that were to come forward. Um, I I don't believe we have any uh review of the state requirements. The state takes care of that. The applicant may be able to provide more information on what step they're in within the state um licensing process and what requirements the state uh requires of them on that side. So, I would maybe defer more state specific questions to the applicant. Any other questions for Sydney? Okay. Thank you, Sydney. Uh, would the applicant Jason Sewell like to um approach Good evening. Good evening, members of the commission. Madam Chairwoman, thank you, Sydney. Was amazing. I'm Jason Su. I reside at 15724 Cobblestone Lake Parkway in Apple Valley. I'm an advocate for cannabis, a military veteran, a medicinal cannabis patient, a retired engineer, and the founder of Highisha Minnesota based cannabis micro business. Spent a number of years in strategic planning, and I can appreciate your

efforts and your diligence that uh that has practiced in making the decisions that your position requires. Nine months ago, I've been looking for a suitable location for Irish. I did not set out to find a location that would require reszoning or the amending of an established ordinances. My intentions were to find a suitable location that would require minimal municipality involvement, a location with minimal challenges, and one that would help streamline my venture. In addition to the zoning challenges faced while hunting for an adequate location, cannabis touching businesses are also faced with stigma from property owners. Further denials and rejections are also encountered through the property owners chosen financial institutions and insurance companies. 6950 West 146 Street was initially identified and marketed as being in an industrial zone. After working with the ownership of Small Bay Properties, it was determined their business stack is open to shaking hands with the cannabis touching business. It was not until I approached the city planning department that I was informed of the quasi industrial zoning associated with PD49. And it wasn't until after I verified that there are not any other suitable locations within the city that the decision to go after that property in question was made. It was after learning all this and consulting with Alex, the previous planner, as well as Sydney, that the option to approach the commission to request request the reszoning of the property seemed feasible. Uh, I appreciate the consideration. I want to thank you for this opportunity and your time and attention to this matter. I'll go ahead and uh address any questions you guys might have now. Okay. First of all, thank you for your service. Much appreciated. Um, did you want to re uh reply to uh Commissioner Puit

on what his question was? I can rest if you like. Yeah, I mean there's a number of obligations or requirement of a site that's under 5,000 square ft which is applicable to a micro cannabis business and um I guess my question is um whether it's the ventilation and filtration systems, wastewater systems that are obligated to be a part of that. Have you confirmed that that site does comply with state requirements? And possibly where you at in the um licensing process and submittal of the license uh and and the steps, you know, do you looking for this first and then the state license application is next or is it vice versa? Uh well, as it stands today, I'm I'm pre uh what do they call it? Preliminarily approved. So, I'm on the road. But I'm beyond the application process. The state has already considered my uh application which includes my business plan, my operation plan. It addresses waste water. It addresses electricity. It addresses uh all the standard operating procedures for any and everything that you can think of. It's a regulated business. It's more regulated than the pharmaceutical industry. That's not coming from me. That's coming from pharmaceutical reps that have transitioned from the pharmaceutical industry into the cannabis industry. So, as it stands, I I'm preliminarily approved for a license. My step, next step in the process is procuring a location, getting that location adequately outfitted to meet not only the state requirements, but to fit in with the city ordinances and the permitting as well. Okay. Thank you. Welcome. Anybody else? Mr. Sualt, could you explain to me the other locations? Why were they not uh suitable for you? Sure. So, in doing a search, like I said, I'd mentioned I'd been doing this

for about 9 months. Uh initially, Apple Valley did not offer anything. Um after being rejected in some other uh surrounding municipalities, I did another search basically looking for uh industrial/commercialized properties available near me in Apple Valley. And lo and behold, that's when 6950 West 146th Street came up. I looked at it. I I did not necessarily think that it fit my bill, which I what I was looking for. It said it was marketed it was marketed and advertised as being industrial slash retailmanufacturing. I saw that it was uh saw that it was zoned as that and I thought, well, you know, that that is a a positive. So I uh approached the ownership and I you know had to uh question who their finan question to make sure that all of those pieces would line up as well. the their financial backers, their insurance company, and the uh the virtues of the ownership company as well if they would be willing to uh to be partners in a cannabis type of of a venture. And they aged up, everything was great. And that's when I approached the city. I thinking that hey, this is you can clearly see on the map here, it's an industrial zone. I thought there's not going to be a whole lot of, you know, I didn't think we were going to have to go through this process. That's when I was informed by Alex then later Sydney that well no this it was you know in 1988 it would have would have worked out just well um because it was primarily I1 and I2 but then it was later uh you know transitioned and changed over into a different type of the PD 409 if you will. Pardon me but I don't feel like that's really answering my question. So my question is all the other locations. So why were you turned down? Why was it not suitable? So the only other locations that you you know you go and you do a search on this and Sydney had

mentioned that there are 14 buildings um in Apple Valley that would be suitable for a cannabis micro business. Correct. Now there are not 14 businesses that are available for rent which you know for sale or for development. I found three locations that were available that are zoned and a uh that would be feasible for micro business. Let's say one location was 6275 147th Street. Uh that is just kind of north of the English I think or maybe just east of English Way if you will that there's a little stack warehouse development over there about eight warehouses all lined up. It's all they all sit inside of a buffer zone. Uh the one that is available in that area 6275 147th. Um I do have some information as far as why that wouldn't be available. That offers 32,000 uh square feet up to 78,000 square ft of space. Uh micro business. Um the license is 5,000 square feet. And by definition of a micro business, I'm not going to have more than 10 employees. So 32,000 square feet is is out of the realm of possibility really for any micro business. Second location was 6175 147th Street and that only offers 1,400 square ft. So we go from one extreme to another. The 1400 ft² is just not sufficient. Third location is 14720 Energy Way and that offers 56,000 square ft. Again a little bit too much for a micro business. And all three of those locations that I mentioned are also touching a buffer zone, be it a park buffer zone or a school buffer zone. There is not a location anywhere today in Apple Valley where a micro business could move into and and start operation. So even with the large uh square

footage, I mean we can always talk to the leasing manager and see if that can be multi-shared with other um tenants and stuff like that too. But you're saying there was a buffer in those areas as well. And the the three locations that I mentioned. Yes. And and of the ones, as an example, that offer 32,000 ft up to 78,000 ft², the 32,000 ft² is already the subdivided square feet that they would be willing to allow for any business to come in there to subdivide their building up. No. To answer your question, I did not approach them and ask, would you be willing to subdivide that further? I did not do that. Okay. Thank you. Welcome. Any other questions for him? Okay. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Okay team. So that brings us to uh this is not a public hearing, correct? No. But if you'd wish to make a comment, I will allow it. Sure. Please come up to the podium and state your name and address. I apologize. I looked online and I thought it was public comment. So, I apologize. My name is Hillilary Swanson. I live at 15565 Finch Avenue. Yep. And so, I've I thought there was and I called someone too to say that I was coming. Okay. maybe misunderstood, maybe thinking that was for the other public hearing that we just closed, but that's okay. State your statement. I apologize. That's okay. I have a statement. It's about four minutes and 14 seconds. Okay. Okay. My name is Hillary Swanson. My husband and I have owned a home here for six years. I want to take a moment and thank the applicant for his service to our country. He is a veteran. It's not lost on me that I'm able to do what I'm doing

tonight in part because of the brave because of brave men and women like him. Our society owes him a debt. Thank you, sir. I do not think the proposed amendments to planned development 409 and section 155.320 should be allowed. And I'd like to offer my reasons in opposition. Our community has not been sufficiently notified of the eight of the proposed changes. I went to 6950 building the building to interview the eight current tenants. Of the five of the five I made contact with in one day, I was able to gather comments from four. The last one at the time of this meeting has not yet returned my call. Only one of the tenants was aware of the proposed retail store and two of the four I interviewed were not in favor of such a store. I can only assume that the building owner had been notified but chose not to or forgot to notify their tenants. There appears to be a lack of notification to the general public. I'm a member of the Apple Valley Chamber of Commerce on Facebook and the citizens of of Apple Valley Facebook page as well. I did not see any information regarding this proposal and these pages these pages are known to share information with the community. I didn't receive a letter, nor have a couple neighbors I've checked with, which is probably why there may have been not much public comment or comment from the owners uh on April 2nd. As a community, we should be able to weigh in on things like this, which is why I'm here, but it's just me. I believe that if more people knew about this, there may be more people here tonight. The planning commission makes recommendations to the city council according to the goals and objectives for the comprehensive plan and

requirements of the zoning subdivision and sign ordinances. Since you make recommendations to the city council, then you fall under the mission of Apple Valley and you are pledged to promote and enhance the health and safety and general well-being of Apple Valley citizens and all who visit the city. The planning commission recommending a cannabis store would not enhance the health, safety, and general well-being of Apple Valley citizens. I pulled an article from the New England Journal of Medicine from 2015 and they state and I quote, "Recreational use of marijuana has been associated with a multi-state outbreak of salmonosis, illustrating the potential for widespread exposure through either inadvertent contamination during growing and storage or purposeful adulteration. More worrisome are the risks of marijuana use for med medical purposes particularly by the population of the imunocmpromised patients. Prior reports have documented that frequent contamination of marijuana with fungal organisms and the potential for severe complications including death are evident. These risks are not well studied and thus poorly defined. To date, 23 states allow the medical use of marijuana. However, dispensaries are currently not subject to regulation or quality control. We believe that the infectious risks need to be better defined, which would allow for appropriate regulatory oversight. The current approach places patients unknowingly at undue risk for acquisition of severe and often lethal infections. The proposed site for Hyish is about it's not that far from East View High School and it's not that far from Apple Valley High School and there are two elementary schools that are well within the vicinity in my opinion. I think we should be careful with what we allow in

our community. What would enhance the health, safety, and general well-being of our citizens, especially children, would be safe places for music and the arts and games and sports and places of belonging, especially for teens. More of those spaces would be better. I want to say in no way do I want to attack the applicant personally, and I hope it hasn't been perceived that way. I understand the idea of opening your own business and the desire to do this that can be seen as beneficial to the owner in the community. But what is sold is just as important as pursuing the American dream. And if I could just say one more thing, had a wonderful conversation with the couple of the tenants. One of the tenants wouldn't allow me to use their name or even the business name, but they were actually in favor of Mr. So well uh stated they stated basically that what business was it of theirs. However uh uh two other tenants one in the building said that he didn't approve of Mr. Soel's idea and it was because of what may be attracted to our city because of it. what dangers would be associated with um with uh uh making or growing this uh this product and how that may uh negatively impact the city and the proximity of the schools that we have in this particular where the building 6950 is across the street is D is Dakota Auto and I could use his name his name is Derek he owns Dakota Auto and he's across the street and he was not in favor of the the uh micro business and he said because of again what kind of people may be attracted and also what kinds of dangers there may be within uh that kind of business. Uh he also said that he didn't own the building Dakota

Otto Derek he doesn't own it but his parents do and they would have told him had they received some sort of notification. uh they live in an Alexandria, Minnesota. But he said that his parents did not tell him that they've received any kind of notification about the uh possibility of a micro business, a cannabis micro business. So in conclusion, I'll say that I don't think that many people know and that's a concern of mine. I think the community needs to know so they can have a chance to comment on their own and do the research that I happen to do as well. Again, no um to lose to use a a familiar colloquial term, no shade to Mr. Su. I just don't think that's appropriate for this community. Thank you for your And your name was Hillary. Hillary Swanson. Thank you for your hard work. You can tell that you worked hard at this. Um you know, the state mandates that we have five five cannabises in our city. So, it isn't that we are against the cannabis because the state mandates it. Um, my biggest issue is just where it's going to to be located. So, um, you'll probably be seeing other cannabises coming into the city. Like I said, it's all about the location. Thank you. Um, do I hear any questions or concerns? Any more for um, Sydney or does anybody want to make a motion? Well, I'd like to make a motion that I recommend denial of the draft ordinance um amending article 16 plan development number 409 of the city code by allowing cannabis micro business as a conditional use with the conditions as drafted. Um and I don't know do we need number two on that also? Correct. No, one at a time. One at a time. Okay. Do I hear that? Second. Second. I'm sorry. Who was

that? you. So, the motion was to not be amended by Commissioner Halas and seconded by Commissioner Mahwald. All in favor say I. I. I. Oppose. Nay. Motion carries. We recommend that denial of the draft ordinance amending section 155.320 C uh regarding cannabis micro business and plan development district. Second. This was made by Commissioner Halas, seconded by Commissioner Mahwald. Any questions or concerns? If not, all in favor say I. I. Oppose. Nay. Motion carries. Thank you. So, this brings us to number six, other business, and that is Mr. Tim Benetti. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be very brief. Just want to remind you our next meeting is May 21st. Uh we might not have a meeting that night, so you might have just this one meeting today. So, uh we'll provide you some more information later. Also, followed by June 4th. We have our next council meeting tomorrow night uh Thursday and also on Thursday, May 22nd. Um it gives me great pleasure to announce or uh introduce to you our newest city planner. Her name is Terry Dill. Come on up, Terry. Terry comes from uh by way of Scott County where she was a transportation planner for about two years. Prior to that, she was with the city of Savage for I think 78 years as their senior planner or city planner. No, just about 20 some plus years, right? 23 23 years 23 years. Before that, she was a city of Jordan. So, she's got a great uh wonderful uh resume of experience, exactly what we're looking for. And uh

I'm just going to have her I I know she met a few of you. So, two of you still have to shake her hand at the end of the meeting, please. So, uh she's going to be she's digging in already. She's been here a week in one day. Yes. And uh she hasn't quit on me yet. So, I'm gonna take that as a win. So, no, it's been a great first week. So, I'm very excited to be here and be part of the team. Welcome. Welcome, Terry. Appreciate that. You saved the best city for last, maybe. I hope so. I hope you join us. Yes. Welcome to Apple Valley. We're excited to have you. Yes. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay, that brings us to closing. Anybody give the motion to adjurnn? Second. Motion made by Commissioner Mahwell to adjurnn. Seconded by Commissioner Halas. All in favor say I. I. I. Oppose. Nay. This meeting has adjourned. [Music] [Applause] [Music]