Laserfiche WebLink
WORKSHOP MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />AUGUST 28, 2024 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />What buffers, is any, would the Council like to see <br /> <br />Harrington outlined the 1,000 and 500-foot buffer guidelines for the council. T. Fischer asked about <br />how this is similar to sexual offenders which prohibited the entire city. Attorney Johnson outlined <br />that the state statue gives the city the right to go up to or less than. H.Heller outlined there is are no <br />residential treatments. <br /> <br />D. Miller asked if they could vary, but Harrington mentioned similarity and ease would be better. D. <br />Miller mentioned mirroring alcohol and tobacco, which the city has varying buffers. Discussion <br />around buffers ensued. <br /> <br />H.Heller mentioned where the buffer would start would need to be discussed. Harrington and <br />Johnson mentioned property line would need to be the basis to avoid issues. T. Fischer mentioned <br />we could mirror either liquor or tobacco, Administrator Heineman also mentioned those buffers <br />could be changed. <br /> <br />T. Fischer mentioned now is the time to be conservative because buffers can always be “dialed <br />back.” Harrington mentioned this would potentially limit and St. Paul also experienced challenges <br />with the max buffers. <br /> <br />Administrator Heineman mentioned that, from a community relations standpoint, a larger buffer <br />from schools would be helpful. Harrington mentioned that Viking drive is the largest area of <br />concern with the 500 vs. 1,000 buffer for consideration. <br /> <br />H.Heller asked about adjacent schools, and Attorney Johnson mentioned the city was allowed to <br />buffer neighboring schools. <br /> <br />500 for both was discussed, and it was mentioned there were a lot of schools in Little Canada. <br />500 for both was agreed upon for a draft. <br /> <br />What are the Council’s preferences for evaluating applications in the event we receive <br />multiple? <br /> <br />Harrington outlined how applications could be received, but clear, objective, and measurable would <br />be best, including first come, first serve, distance to favorable retail locations, and asked for other <br />ideas. Harrington asked if standalone vs connected businesses could be part of the measurement. <br />Attorney Johnson mentioned a preference would be a good idea, to keep the city from a tenant <br />issue, so a standalone building could be a factor in evaluating. <br /> <br />T.Fischer outlined the experience with Hookah Hideout. D. Miller asked about time buffers for <br />applicants and how to manage that. It was asked if there was a proposed application period. <br />T.Fischer mentioned the moratorium. H.Heller mentioned it would be a 30 day period, which <br />Johnson confirmed. It was clarified that a moratorium could not be extended. Attorney Johnson <br />mentioned the conditional use process could be part of the OCM response period for the 30 days. <br />