Based on the context provided for the City of Hastings and the dialogue within the transcript, here is the speaker-attributed version of the townhall meeting. **Note on Speaker Identification:** * **John Hinzman** is the Community Development Director who presents zoning and planning items. * **Melanie Peters** is the Chair of the Planning Commission. (Note: Although a staff member uses the formal address "Mr. Chair," Melanie Peters is the officially listed Chair). * **Commissioners** were identified based on the Planning Commission roster (e.g., "Sweeney" as **Rachel Swedin**, "Mos" as **John Moes**, "Deamra/Deal" as **Nicole DePalma**, and "McGrath" as **Missy McGrath**). * **Amy Fox** is identified in the text as the applicant representing Spiral Brewery. *** [0:01] **Melanie Peters**: All right. And next up on the agenda, which is coming up, is City of Hastings City Code Amendment, lower potency hemp edibles. And this will be a public hearing. [0:13] **John Hinzman**: It will be. [0:15] **Melanie Peters**: All righty. And who's doing our— [0:19] **John Hinzman**: It'll be me. [0:20] **John Hinzman**: I'm doing it from here. There's not any great visuals for this one. So— [0:24] **Melanie Peters**: So we're doing it right from there. [0:25] **John Hinzman**: I'm doing it doing it right from here today. Okay. threw me off. I did throw you off on that one. [0:29] **Melanie Peters**: We We normally have a a certain choreography that that goes on and he did not move. So, [0:37] **Melanie Peters**: All right. So, we'll go ahead and turn it over to you, John. [0:37] **John Hinzman**: Thank you, Madam Chair. For planning commissioners, we have before us tonight a ordinance amendment to our city code chapter 155 zoning pertaining to low potency hemp edibles. We've been through a few iterations of cannabis and lower potency hemp products over the last couple of years and there's some modifications necessary to the code which I'll go through tonight. This is stemming from action we took back on December of 2024 in which we voted to amend the code to have new regulations for cannabis and then to clarify what was lower potency. At the time before that, we did not have regular grade cannabis considered under the code and [1:23] we were provided that differentiation at that point. So the action the council took in December was consistent with what the planning commission reviewed in October of that year. The staff memo included a table which is included in this report that outlined conditional use permits and also permitted uses within different zoning districts. And when we took a look at that chart and took a look at the regulations and the code, some of those things did not match up. So most of the ordinance amendment today is ensuring that the chart which was included in the December memo is included within the ordinance itself. A little bit of background on what we're doing here today. There's two grades of cannabis that we're looking at. One is what we call cannabis. That is your higher grade cannabis. And we also [2:11] have lower potency hemp edibles that have a lower potency. Their beverages, their food items, and they have certain limits on that one. So, we have more stringent regulations on the production of cannabis. There's more negative attributes with that production as well as the sale of higher potency cannabis as well. What we're dealing with today is not the regular cannabis, the higher potency, but the lower potency hemp edibles themselves. put in here some of the city code regulations that we have and also the chart from back in 2024. So really looking at three things in the amendment we have before us. One of them is to clarify that cannabis and lower potency hemp edibles are permitted use within a number of zoning districts. [2:59] The C1, 2, 3 downtown core, C4 and I1. These are consistent with the the chart that was adopted in 24, but they were not carried forward to the code. We're going to make that change. The other one is to clarify within the code things that are pertinent for cannabis and things that are pertinent for low potency hemp. Sometimes they use those terms interchangeably or use the term cannabis more generally. So the ordinance amendment here provides that clarification. And then the third portion of that is the retail sale of lower potency hemp edibles is permitted with liquor licenses. This was included in the chart. It was limited to edible beverages. They had that differentiation in there which meant that if you had a liquor license you [3:45] could you could sell beverages but it was unclear as to what was happen with edibles. So with this amendment, we are allowing those entities with liquor licenses to sell lower potency edibles that would be expanded beyond beverages such as gummies. So this would be a change on that one. Uh but that is is the amendment that we're proposing tonight. [4:09] And one of the other ones that we're doing here with this is the buffer for cannabis concentrate and manufacturer of low potency. So, back to the manufacturing end of things, we put certain regulations and distance requirements for the manufacturer of cannabis. Cannabis manufacturing when you you take the leaves and you're processing can have an odor associated with it. So, we wanted to make sure that we had adequate setback to mitigate against the odors. In low potency hemp manufacturer, oftentimes what happens is a concentrate which is produced elsewhere is used to manufacture something else. It might be to manufacture a beverage or inject into a gummy. So the actual product itself would be mixed in that does not have the [4:55] same negative aspects to it. So we're clarifying within the code the buffer for manufacturer of cannabis is still present. But if you're using cannabis concentrate produced elsewhere to produce lower potency hemp edibles, they're exempt from the distance requirements on that. So that is another change that we have in here. So that is the ordinance amendment that we have moving forward. This is a public hearing. So I can stand for any questions related to that or you may open the public hearing. Thank you. [5:25] **Melanie Peters**: Okay. Thanks, John. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. [5:28] **John Moes**: All right. I have one one quick question. [5:32] **John Hinzman**: Oh, sure. [5:34] **John Moes**: So, when you're talking about edibles in liquor establishment, is that on or off sale? [5:37] **John Hinzman**: Both. [5:39] **John Moes**: Both it is. [5:40] **John Hinzman**: Yeah. Perfect. Okay. [5:41] **Missy McGrath**: Can I have a question to you? Reserve it for after the public. [5:43] **Melanie Peters**: Yeah, we can just do the public hearing and then we'll open it up to questions. [5:48] **Melanie Peters**: Uh, okay. Public hearing is open. Um, anyone on Zoom first of all? [5:54] **City Staff**: Nope. [5:56] **Melanie Peters**: Nope. Okay. Do you wish to speak at all? It's up to you. You can if you want to. [5:57] **Amy Fox**: Only questions really. [5:59] **Melanie Peters**: Okay. No problem. All right. So, we will go ahead and close the public hearing and open it up to commissioners for your questions, comments, etc. All right, Commissioner McGrath. [6:12] **Missy McGrath**: thank you for the report. Um, on the in the table, I just wanted to clarify the P's and the CUP. Is that conditional use permit and permit? [6:21] **John Hinzman**: You got it. Yeah. Permitted use and conditional use permit. Correct. [6:25] **Missy McGrath**: Okay. And then what triggered my question is actually on the other proposal that we're going to hear, it's it's referenced as a special use permit and I just didn't know if they're used interchangeably or what the difference between the special use and the conditional use in this instance are. [6:39] **John Hinzman**: Fair question on that. They're used interchangeably here. When we are adopting our new zoning code, we'll use the term conditional use permit. That's the more generally accepted term, but our history in Hastings is to use special use permit in lieu of conditional use permit. [6:52] **Missy McGrath**: Thought I remembered that, but I just want to clarify. Thank you. [6:55] **Melanie Peters**: Sure. All right. Commissioners, any other... All right, Commissioner Swedin. [7:05] **Rachel Swedin**: Um, about like the Oh my goodness. 155.07 topic 3E, like the exception. Um so it says that it's use of cannabis concentrate in manufacturing is exempt from the distance restriction but in my brain the only distance restriction I think it would apply should apply to really is part D. Does the statement E mean that it is exempt from all four location? [7:32] **John Hinzman**: Yes, it would be exempt from all four of those up there. [7:41] **Rachel Swedin**: Maybe that should be like cuz this E seems the most related to manufacturing. [7:46] **John Hinzman**: That could be better stated. I agree there. I'll clarify that as to what's applicable. And my intent is that the distance requirements for all of these and number two would be exempt. [8:01] **Rachel Swedin**: Okay. Is that standard to have those types of exemptions for liquors um like um THC liquor beverages in other cities or is that something that would be more unique to Hastings to not have any distance requirements on sales of low potency beverages? [8:16] **John Hinzman**: Yeah, the one distance requirement that would remain in there would be the 500 foot requirement distance requirement between facilities that would still be in place there and I'd clarify that one. We do have that for low potency hemp other types of entities in there. But when you look at—and it's not included in this amendment—but it is in the text elsewhere that the lower potency hemp edibles are exempt from these other requirements but for that 500 ft requirement between facilities. [8:55] **Rachel Swedin**: Okay. Thank you. [9:05] **Melanie Peters**: Okay. Commissioners, any other questions? Is everyone satisfied with what they see? Accept a motion. [9:14] **Rachel Swedin**: If John is going to clarify the language caused like do we need to amend to update the— [9:21] **John Hinzman**: what I would suggest in a motion for a recommendation of approval is under 3C or 3E the use of cannabis concentrate that it shall—to produce cannabis concentrate shall be exempted from distance requirements. But within the amendment it would still be subject to a 500 foot requirement between low potency retail facilities and low potency manufacturing facilities. If that makes makes sense, that would be my recommendation moving forward on the amendment. [10:29] **Melanie Peters**: Does that help? [10:31] **Rachel Swedin**: It does. I need to think of how we word this. [10:34] **Melanie Peters**: That's okay. I'll let you think Commissioner DePalma. [10:37] **Nicole DePalma**: Yeah, I I do have a question if you don't mind. Um and forgive me for being new, but I'm going to learn something right now. Um, it mentions a security plan must be submitted to and approved by the chief of police um to address security issues. Has the security plan been submitted? [10:55] **John Hinzman**: Yeah, commissioner. We'll get into that with the in the next portion with the application itself. [11:00] **Nicole DePalma**: Okay. Thank you. I was wondering if we could flush that out a little bit. Yeah. Thank you. [11:12] **Melanie Peters**: All right. Give give her some additional time here. Commissioner Montgomery. [11:19] **Angela Montgomery**: Um I'll make the motion to amend the city code chapter 155 zoning code lower potency hemp edibles with the uh review of the language that John had was going to check into. [11:33] **John Hinzman**: Yeah. So subject to the 500 foot distance between low potency. [11:37] **Angela Montgomery**: Yes. [11:38] **John Hinzman**: Okay. And that would be subsection 3E, correct? 155.07.3E. [11:47] **Angela Montgomery**: Yeah, let's get that on record. Okay. 155.07.3E. Okay. So clarify language. So motion to approve subject to the clarification of language as directed. [11:58] **Rachel Swedin**: Second. [12:05] **Melanie Peters**: All right. Any new discussion? If not, all in favor say I. [12:08] **Commissioners**: I. [12:09] **Melanie Peters**: Opposed. All right, that motion carries. [12:12] **John Hinzman**: Okay, thank you. And that recommendation for approval will move forward to the city council for first reading of the ordinance coming up on November 17th. [12:22] **Melanie Peters**: All right. And next on the agenda is another public hearing. This is for part two sort of... Spiral Brewery special use permit 2025-40, manufacturer of lower potency hemp edibles. And that report by John. [12:35] **John Hinzman**: Thank you, Madam Chair, planning commissioners. So, the purpose behind the previous action for the ordinance amendment mostly related to the special use permit request moving forward from Spiral Brewery. Spiral Brewery, as you all know, is in an operation in downtown Hastings, 111 East 2nd Street as a brew pub. The ordinance as it sits right now for low potency hemp allows for manufacturer of that and they seek both retail sales and manufacturing of low potency hemp edible products on this. What we're reviewing tonight is the manufacturing end of it. The the sale of those type of products would be permitted under the existing code and then under the amendment that we had before us tonight. However, some aspects related to manufacturing is a special use permit with some other clarifications that move forward. So, we did have a notification hearing go out on this one to everyone within 350 ft of the facility. Have not heard any comments back from the public on this one. Property is zoned mixed use, guided mixed use in the comprehensive plan. Being in the downtown area, it's surrounded by other commercial uses and then residential uses on the second floor of the building's downtown. Their special use permit as a brewery tap room has been in existence since 2017. Looking at the special use permit, there's certain performance standards related to cannabis and then certain performance standards related to special use permits in general. I've gone through a few of those within the report itself. also took some liberty in adding some of the proposed language that is proposed along with the ordinance amendment that comes along with this. Looking at the cannabis ordinance regulations, the site does meet the minimum setback requirements from cannabis and other low potency hemp entities. So, it meets those requirements for setback. It would utilize a cannabis concentrate or tincture produced elsewhere to manufacture the edibles including the beverages and this activity would be exempt from the 500 ft setback from cannabis manufacturing from residential uses per the ordinance amendment. A security plan is required. It has been submitted and has been reviewed by our police chief. There's some questions related to how best to deal with the cannabis beverage sale on site and alcohol beverage on site. And so we'll work through that as a condition of approval with the with the special use permit. Other special use permit requirements generally deal with the operation of the facility itself. It's in a downtown area. It has proper ingress and egress. Parking is fine. Not a change to refuse and service areas. Utilities are adequate. Screening and buffering of activities don't really come in. Everything is indoors here. There's some signage requirements that are specific to cannabis or low potency hemp which are included in here. And it's generally compatible with other uses being within a mixed-use downtown area. So we are recommending approval of the special use permit subject to the conditions that are listed within the staff report itself. One of those conditions, number nine, is the approval of the security plan by the Hastings Chief of Police. So there may be some more specific elements to that that we may bring forward from more discussions with the chief. But ultimately the approval of that security plan is a condition of approval here. Amy Fox from Spiral Brewery is with us tonight. If you have any questions for her and this is a public hearing, you can open it at this time. Thank you. [16:30] **Melanie Peters**: Okay. Thanks, John. We will go ahead and open the public hearing. Zoom? [16:37] **City Staff**: Nobody. [16:39] **Melanie Peters**: Nobody. All right. And Nope. We're good. Okay. And we will go ahead and close the public hearing and we will open it up to commissioners for any questions, comments. Commissioner Swedin. [16:51] **Rachel Swedin**: Um there's question for John. So everywhere for zoning classification, it talks about this as C3. Isn't this in the DC zone? [17:04] **John Hinzman**: Talks about what? [17:06] **Rachel Swedin**: Like your zoning for like zoning classification. It's talking about it as C3 zoning. Isn't it in the downtown corridor? [17:09] **John Hinzman**: It is. It is zone C3. There's a few properties—some of the newer properties are zoned downtown core like the Confluence and ArtSpace, but the main part of the main street there is still C3. [17:27] **Melanie Peters**: All right, commissioners. Any other questions? [17:31] **Rachel Swedin**: Sorry, follow up on that question. Does that mean that this would be exempt from the rules that apply specifically to the downtown corridor with the cannabis laws? [17:48] **John Hinzman**: Oh, you mean as far as the the distance requirements? No, those would still be in place because that's not specific to a zoning district. It's specific geographically to being east of Vermillion and I think north of another street. [18:03] **Rachel Swedin**: I thought there was one of our cannabis rules was that like the downtown corridor door was going to be exempt from the 500 ft spacing. So like multiple bars hypothetically could have—is that not true? [18:15] **John Hinzman**: Yeah. When we take a look at cannabis retail uses it says cannabis retail use is located east of Vermillion and north of Fourth Street, west of Bailey in the downtown core or C3 district. So, it it would include both of those. That's under I think exceptions to distance 3C. [18:36] **Rachel Swedin**: At one point, I thought we passed an amendment that like downtown corridor doesn't have to be 500 ft away from things. [18:42] **John Hinzman**: Yep. And that's what that says. [18:44] **Rachel Swedin**: And that's what this says here because it's it's exempting that from those requirements. [18:47] **Rachel Swedin**: Okay. That's what—Sorry, I just needed to clarify like—the C3 and the—like it is downtown is clashing with that rule of like could more than one bar downtown get a permit is really what I'm getting at. [18:59] **John Hinzman**: Exactly. Yep. And they're exempt from that. [19:03] **Rachel Swedin**: Okay. Thank you. [19:05] **Melanie Peters**: All right. Commissioners, any other questions discussion? Commissioner Montgomery. [19:14] **Angela Montgomery**: I have a question for the applicant. Uh besides beverages, are you guys looking to produce any other type of product to for sale? [19:28] **Melanie Peters**: You can make it official and step up here. [19:33] **Amy Fox**: Hi, thanks for having me. Um right, as of right now, we're really just focused on beverages manufacturing. I don't want to close the door on edibles because that does fall within our licensure by the state, but really it's mainly beverages that we're looking at. [19:51] **Angela Montgomery**: Okay. All right. Thank you. [19:55] **John Moes**: Would you be uh producing um beverages just for your own use or are you are you planning on selling those wholesale too? [20:07] **Amy Fox**: So, whenever it is that we would actually start manufacturing, cuz that probably realistically won't be for a while, like months, months and months potentially, um we would be producing them to sell on site, but also distribute out to liquor stores or whomever. Yeah. Like we do with our beer. [20:31] **Melanie Peters**: All right. She is ready for any further questions. Anyone have any more questions? [20:44] **Nicole DePalma**: Yeah, if I could just follow up on the security piece. Um if I don't know, John, is this up to you to answer or Amy? Um we're talking about approval of the security plan by the Hastings Chief of Police and I'm assuming that one has been um submitted. Is this the type of security plan that you would use at say a liquor store? and it's the same type of proposal or how does that work? [21:02] **John Hinzman**: Good question on that. I know specifically under the cannabis legislation, they require a security plan. I think that's part of the state statute language that's been carried down through our ordinance itself. It's not terribly—there's some language as to what it includes, but I don't know if there's similar language in there for liquor stores or not. I know that as they go forward with a liquor permit, the chief of police is involved with inspection of it, but I'm not sure if the things that they're looking for are similar or dissimilar. [21:40] **Nicole DePalma**: And just to follow up on that again, please, have there been security issues with um this type of sale? I'm I'm just asking. [21:51] **John Hinzman**: Yeah, from a low potency cannabis, I'm I'm not aware of any issues that have come up. [21:54] **Nicole DePalma**: Okay. Thank you. [21:58] **Melanie Peters**: Commissioners, any other questions? Amy's still available for any questions? No. All right. Commissioner Swedin. [22:14] **Rachel Swedin**: Motion to approve special use permit 2025-40 for Spiral Brewery subject to those conditions. [22:21] **Melanie Peters**: All right. We have a motion to approve subject to those conditions. Do I have a second? [22:27] **Angela Montgomery**: Subject to the conditions. Sorry. Second. [22:30] **Melanie Peters**: There we go. All right. Have a second. Any new discussion? No. Okay. All in favor say I. [22:36] **Commissioners**: I. [22:37] **Melanie Peters**: Opposed. All right. That motion carries. [22:42] **John Hinzman**: And commissioners, this recommendation for approval will carry forward to the council on December 1st. So we would have first reading for the ordinance amendment on 17, second reading on December 1st, and then follow up with special use after that. [22:53] **Melanie Peters**: Okay. Thanks, Amy. Thanks for coming. Appreciate it. You can stay for the rest. [23:01] **Melanie Peters**: We're just doing other business if you really really want to stay. [23:05] **Amy Fox**: As much as I'd love to watch. [laughter] [23:08] **Melanie Peters**: So, I think that's a lie. Thanks for coming. All right. Um, next on the agenda is other business. John? [23:16] **John Hinzman**: other business. Uh last meeting we had an ordinance amendment pertaining to church uses within the agricultural district that moved forward as a as a first reading to council. The second reading and adoption is scheduled for the 17th on that one. Looking at our meeting schedule here, the next meeting we have scheduled is in two weeks on the 24th. We do have a a meeting scheduled for that. We do have a a type two home occupation that someone is bringing forward. So we will have that coming up on the 24th. I'm unaware this there's any other action that'll be occurring at this time. So that's what I know for planning commission schedule for planning commission vacancies. Uh at the end of the year we will have two vacancies on the planning commission. So we are looking for candidates. I know we originally had a period of time to October 31st to take applications or interest. We've extended that to increase the number of individuals. So, if you're interested or if you know of anyone who might be interested, let them know if they have any questions. They can give me a call and I can tell them a little bit more about what that would be. And that's all I have. [24:20] **Melanie Peters**: Okay. [24:25] **Rachel Swedin**: Can I ask a clarifying question on that? Is it—So, do we have two people term ending or we're just adding more seats? [24:32] **John Hinzman**: We have six years term limits on commissioners and two commissioners that are coming up to that six-year term limit. So, it'll be the same number of commissioners, but two new bodies. [24:43] **Rachel Swedin**: Okay, I think I could guess. [laughter] Thank you. [24:45] **Melanie Peters**: Obvious. Yeah. All right. Commissioners, anything else? No. All right. If so, I'll take a motion to adjourn. Commissioner McGrath. [24:53] **Missy McGrath**: I'll make a motion to adjourn. [24:59] **Melanie Peters**: All right. Second. [25:01] **Nicole DePalma**: Second. [25:02] **Melanie Peters**: Commissioner DePalma. All in favor say I. [25:04] **Commissioners**: I. [25:05] **Melanie Peters**: Opposed. Thank you. We are adjourned. [25:10] **John Hinzman**: Thank you guys. [25:12] **Melanie Peters**: Thank you. Keep us. It's very narrow.