This transcript appears to be from a **Richfield Planning Commission** meeting. Based on the context provided and the dialogue within the transcript, I have identified the speakers as follows: * **Chair Brendan Kennealy**: (Referred to as "Commissioner Kaly/Canaly" in the text). He presides over the meeting and leads the discussion on the amendment. * **Sam Crosby**: City Planner (identified in the staff list). * **Greg Dick**: General Manager of Lakewin’s Food Co-op (Applicant). * **Commissioner James Hoie**: Planning Commissioner. * **Commissioner Kathryn Charlesson**: Planning Commissioner. * **Commissioner Benjamin Stersa**: Planning Commissioner. * **Commissioner Johnson**: Planning Commissioner. *** **[00:00] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** I'd like to call the uh 24th of November meeting of the Richfield Planning Commission to order. The uh first thing on the agenda would be the roll call. **[00:10] Sam Crosby:** Good evening, Commissioner checking in. Commissioner Hoie? **[00:12] Commissioner Hoie:** Present. **[00:13] Sam Crosby:** Commissioner Charlesson? **[00:14] Commissioner Charlesson:** Present. **[00:15] Sam Crosby:** Commissioner Johnson? **[00:16] Commissioner Johnson:** Present. **[00:17] Sam Crosby:** Commissioner Stersa? **[00:18] Commissioner Stersa:** Present. **[00:20] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** The next thing on the agenda is the open forum. This is an opportunity for residents and community members to address the planning commission generally on items not on the agenda. People can participate in written comments or virtually. Um, Planner Crosby, have we received any comments? **[00:40] Sam Crosby:** Chair and commissioners, no, we have not. **[00:42] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** All right, seeing no one here, we'll move on to the approval of the agenda. Is there a motion to approve the agenda for tonight? **[00:48] Commissioner Canaly:** Commissioner can move. **[00:50] Commissioner Charlesson:** Commissioner Charlesson seconds. **[00:52] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Moved and seconded. All those in favor of approving the agenda, I. **[00:55] Commissioners:** I. **[00:56] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Opposed? The agenda has been approved. The next item would be the approval of the minutes from the regular planning commission meeting of September 22nd. Need a motion to approve those. **[01:05] Commissioner Canaly:** Commissioner Canaly moves to approve the minutes. **[01:08] Commissioner Charlesson:** Commissioner Charlesson seconds. **[01:10] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** All right. Moved and seconded to approve the minutes. All in favor, please say I. **[01:13] Commissioners:** I. **[01:14] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Opposed. All right. I don't believe we have any presentations. Is that correct? So, the next thing would be the public hearing. It is a public hearing to consider requests for an interim use permit to allow temporary and occasional parking on a vacant lot adjacent to the Lakewins Co-op. Do you have a report for us? **[01:30] Sam Crosby:** Yes. Thank you, Chair. Lakewin's co-op has submitted an application for an interim use permit to utilize the vacant and unpaved lot south of their property for approximately 122 days a year for the next 5 years, which is the maximum term afforded by the zoning code. Lot four, an adjacent but entirely separate lot from the Lakewins co-op lot was acquired by the grocery store in 2016. At that time, the co-op requested and was granted a 2-year interim use permit to utilize the lot for occasional employee parking. The IUP was granted on the basis that the need for long-term parking in the area would be better evaluated once the parcel to the north was developed. Development of the parcel to the north of Lakewins has proven to be slower than anticipated. Additionally, in the years since the previous IUP expired, Lakewin's customer base has grown significantly, which in turn puts continued strain on the availability of parking. As explained in the attached request letter, which you can see for more information, parking is not permitted as the primary use of a parcel. In order to develop lot four into permanent parking, it would need to be formally combined with the Lakewins lot and the planned unit development would have to be amended. An IUP would afford Lakewins more time to evaluate long-term needs in conjunction with the eventual development of the northern parcel. Building more parking when it is truly not needed would be unfortunate and goes against the premise that property should be used for the highest and best use. Staff finds the request reasonable as in 2016 only minor maintenance of the lot as opposed to paving and striping is recommended. Paving and striping could encourage regular use of the lot by non-employees which is not the intent. Appropriate signs and landscaping as required in the draft resolution will further prevent non-employee parking. Um, the applicant is also here or a representative for the applicant is also here if you'd like to hear from them as well. Thank you. **[03:45] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Would you like to approach and if you wouldn't mind just saying your name and where you're from. **[03:50] Greg Dick:** Hello, my name is Greg Dick. I'm here on behalf of Lakewin's Food Co-op. My role is general manager at the co-op and uh I want to thank you very much for your willingness to take our application for this purpose. And I also would like to thank the city staff for the support that they've provided in guiding us through the application process. **[04:10] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Any questions from commissioners? **[04:12] Commissioner Johnson:** Actually I'm wondering where um five years is an awful lot of time and this is going back all you know it'll be it's been almost 10 years now. Um where did you arrive at the five-year figure and is it possible that something will happen with that parcel? From what I understand, it was not designed... there was some expansion that was put off or something. What's the long-term plan with the co-op? **[04:35] Greg Dick:** Thank you. Um as the lot exists now, it is essentially a parking lot. Um and the planned unit development as I understand it [clears throat] considered that to be used differently. And in the 11 years our co-op has been on premise here in Richfield, our business has grown considerably—three times since opening. Um, and that we're finding on our busiest days to accommodate the community of Richfield and Bloomington and South Minneapolis that largely comprise our ownership that that lot makes it feasible for us to support our business. The term of five years was, as I understood it, the longest amount that could be applied for. And so we pursued that knowing full well that as we continue in our business here that its use as a parking lot would serve our co-op very very well. **[05:25] Commissioner Johnson:** So are you anticipating that in five years you'd like to come again and request an extension to continue to use it for parking? **[05:32] Greg Dick:** If not before then. **[05:34] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Any other questions for... Commissioner Hoie? **[05:36] Commissioner Hoie:** Um, the you know approximately 122 days a year—I guess like how is that monitored? Like are you... is it just like when the lot is full you find people using it approximately that often? Can you kind of add some guidance there? **[05:52] Greg Dick:** Definitely can. 122 days was derived through carefully calculating um our busiest days which are Tuesdays of the year um to support our senior discount day. Uh, Sundays are a very busy day for individuals to shop to prepare for the week. Um, and then the other days to bring the 122 to balance includes the days leading up to Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter, as well as the scheduled community events that occur at least currently at the amphitheater that comprises the 122. **[06:25] Commissioner Canaly:** You're welcome, Commissioner Canaly. Um, you mentioned the amphitheater. I read your letter. You mentioned that it's common for members of the public to access the amphitheater in Richfield Lake by parking lot sharing that space with your employees. **[06:40] Greg Dick:** Yes, thank you. Um, mornings on weekdays and even on weekends we'll see a number of people amass even prior to the opening of the co-op with dogs and strollers and things of that nature. And so it is a jumping-off point for people's recreation around the lake and amphitheater. I'm included in that. Thank you. **[07:00] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Thank you. We may have you come back up here if there are other questions. Thank you. I would like to then open the public hearing. Did you receive any comments beforehand? **[07:12] Sam Crosby:** Chair, we did not. **[07:14] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Is there anyone here to speak to that? All right. I would accept a motion to close the public hearing. **[07:18] Commissioner Hoie:** Commissioner Hoie motions to close public hearing. **[07:20] Commissioner Charlesson:** Commissioner Charlesson seconds. **[07:22] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor, please say I. **[07:26] Commissioners:** I. **[07:27] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** And opposed. The public hearing is closed. Um, let's... we need a motion to take the staff recommended action and then we can have discussion on that. **[07:35] Commissioner Canaly:** Commissioner Canaly, I would like to move that we take the staff recommended action as outlined in the packet. **[07:40] Commissioner Stersa:** Commissioner Stersa seconds. **[07:42] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Thank you. All right. Any discussion? **[07:44] Commissioner Johnson:** My only question is what happens if someone wants to build on that parcel in the next five years? Does this preclude that from being developed or what would happen? **[07:55] Sam Crosby:** Um, not necessarily. I mean, if it's owned by the co-op and I mean, I don't think they have any plans to necessarily sell it, but the IUP would basically be... it expires either upon, you know, the five years ending or the conditions of the approval not being valid anymore. So, I mean, the answer to your question is no. **[08:15] Commissioner Johnson:** I think it's reasonable. That was just my one question I was concerned about. **[08:18] Commissioner Charlesson:** I would echo commissioner's comments that I think that this is a reasonable request um and I support it and I [clears throat] support it for five years. **[08:26] Commissioner Hoie:** I just have some questions for staff, I guess. Um, with you know the location of it obviously landlocked from the public road by the other parcel. I guess I'm not understanding why it wasn't initially part of the original parcel. Why wouldn't they just combine the parcels? Would then that create an issue with the overall land use? Like, do we want to create a situation where we're constantly revisiting this every five years? What's the benefit to that versus just finding a more permanent solution for this from the staff's perspective? **[08:55] Sam Crosby:** Yeah. So, it's kind of a bit complicated. Like the history of the entire Lindell Gardens PUD is very complicated. I don't really have an answer as to why it was excluded. It's always kind of been to the side. Like if you go back through like staff reports and resolutions, this lot four has always kind of been to the side. And depending on which documents or which staff reports you read, it was planned for any number of things. I've seen it was considered to be green space at one point; it was considered to be perhaps developed in the future. Although you're right, it is a landlocked parcel and it's not really developable by itself. It would have to be platted differently maybe as part of the other parcel so it can have street frontage. At one point in some other documents, it's even considered as an actual permanent parking lot or even parking structure. So, it seems like the plans or the vision for this lot has kind of always been outside of the PUD and it could really go either way. Um, which is why we're kind of on the side of... we really don't think that if it's truly not needed that we shouldn't have more surface parking because that's not a good idea overall. But this PUD in general is really unique in that there's so many different uses that in five years possibly it does make sense for there to be more surface parking because the lot to the north—hopefully by that point there'll be some more permanent plans for it to be developed—would kind of add to the need for more parking because then there will be another use. Um so yeah it's complicated. Um, I think we're just erring on the side of caution and truly just seeing if we can explore all options to see if we can actually develop this in the future and leave that open. But if in the future the additional permanent parking really is needed, then that's also an option. Um, it would just require a parking study showing that the additional need for parking is actually there. Like we're not just going to grant it just because it's being requested. Um the PUD would have to be amended. The lot would have to be combined with the Lakewins lot. So it would be a truly permanent thing. Um so we think this is a good middle ground. **[11:30] Commissioner Hoie:** Thank you. Um, yeah. I I guess my my feelings on it... I would love to see it not be a surface parking lot. Obviously, that's what it's been for a while now. And it feels like every time we renew for five more years, we're kind of settling into that as this is what it is. And it kind of feels like we're moving farther away from the alternative. And we're also not imploring Lakewins to figure out what a world without that looks like. And when we maybe someday get to a place where we do have an opportunity where someone comes in and wants to purchase it, there's more friction there holding it in the steady coast of things. Um, and that's my main concern. I mean, right now knowing the storied history of lot 4, that seems unlikely, but also we're kind of continuing that narrative, I guess, by going with the flow. I'm open to being persuaded either way, but that's my broader concern outside of just this moment and this decision. **[12:35] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** I share your concerns and I am strongly um... I don't think five years with the possibility for an extension is appropriate or aligns with the direction that we're trying to go in terms of sustainable development and use of land space. And I mean the amount of parking spaces exceeds other large volume food co-ops in the twin cities by significant margins. Um, so I I think it's a lot of parking and for five years with another opportunity to renew, I don't think that that is imparting the sense of urgency on more sustainable use of land in the city. So I would like to move to reduce it from a five-year approval to a three-year approval with administrative approval available for an additional two years—but by default to three years. So I'll move to amend the staff recommended action to reduce from five to three years with administrative approval for two additional years. We need a second to do that. **[13:40] Commissioner Hoie:** I'd second that. **[13:42] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Okay. Is there any discussion on the amendment? **[13:45] Commissioner Stersa:** Discussion on amendment. Um, my concern about limiting the interim use permit, especially if it's renewed by administrative approval, is that I guess I think we know that right now this is not an ideal time to be... we're seeing a slowdown of redevelopment. It's not likely that the environment is going to thaw anytime soon. And also we have a north parcel that while I believe the ownership is different, there is this unknown about the north parcel right there. And I would hate for us to require something on this small little parcel that Lakewins owns that could be better utilized once we see something come in north. The proximity—it just feels like why would we force the hand at something in a tough economy when we hope for something on that land just directly north of Lakewins? **[14:40] Commissioner Hoie:** Can I ask a follow question on that? I'm trying to understand the kind of the push and pull there. To me, it almost seems like if we have a shorter term on it, if they come back to request it, if something does start activating on that north parcel, hopefully having the parcel not locked in might give us the option of: "Okay, we have a more timely moment to kind of maneuver all these things together" rather than "well this is locked in for another three years now so there's not a chance of this happening." Am I misstating what you're saying? **[15:10] Commissioner Stersa:** I just don't perceive an interim use permit as locking anyone into anything, so perhaps that's just a difference of opinion. Lakewins owns this land and will continue to own this land until they decide they want to do something with it. I don't think that whether... I there's nothing that by approving it for five years would permit it to expire before we pursue it. I don't foresee that happening and I am just comfortable with the five years knowing what we're seeing with redevelopment right now. **[15:40] Commissioner Hoie:** I agree with you on the on the timeline of redevelopment. I'm not optimistic that those two years are going to make a huge difference, but I would love to leave the options open. So, I guess the picture I see is like if something does happen and then that two-year moment—the difference of two years vs three years—comes, you're like, "Well, someone else wants to purchase this from you and redevelop it." We can't force you to do that, but we don't want this to be parking anymore. We want it to be a greater space that contributes to the combining unit of this space and the frontage on the lake and we want this to be used in its intended purpose. "Now I no longer want it to be parking" and then it would be on their hands. We at least have a little bit of say. It's not a war against Lakewins by any means but I just want to... and I just would love to see a return to that. **[16:25] Commissioner Charlesson:** Sorry overlap. I just... I think until... I am not a fan of over-parking anything. I'm not someone who thinks that parking lots are for the benefit of Richfield residents or that we need to start having more parking. But I do think that until we have a better sense of what's going to go in on that north lot, having some flexibility with land in that area is to everyone's benefit. So that's why I'm more open to this. And the general public are using that parking. I'm there—I mean like... you can see how full that is. So until we know what the north lot looks like, I feel like the flexibility of this arrangement benefits a lot of people including the general public. So I'm okay with it. **[17:10] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Yeah. I would just like to say I understand your concerns greatly, but the reality is I don't want that to be a parking lot in 10 years. I don't think that that's in alignment with any of the work that we've been trying to do or that the city council has been trying to do or the policy direction that we want to take as a city. So to do a blanket five years... I mean it's been since 2016 and then another and then another five years. The whole point is—I mean my amendment effectively allows for five years because it's three years with the allowance of administrative approval for an additional two. But it's not just an automatic. I want there to be thought about what else this land can be used for and not just an assumption that it'll come before us, we will rubber stamp another five years and then it continues to be used as parking because I don't think that that's what this community needs. So that was the point of my amendment. They still have the possibility for five years, but three years guaranteed and then administrative approval for two more. I don't think any of us want massive extra parking and I think you're right with planned development we do need to strike a balance and so that's what I attempted to do with the amendment. So, we do have the amendment before us. It's been moved and seconded. Unless there's more discussion on the amendment, we can take a vote on that and then return to the main motion. So, the amendment before us is to change the staff recommended action from five years approval to a three-year approval with the option for administrative approval for an additional two years. All those in favor of the amendment, please say I. **[18:45] Commissioner Hoie:** I. **[18:46] Commissioner Charlesson:** Are we inviting further discussion or no? **[18:47] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Well, we had been having that. Was there much? **[18:50] Commissioner Charlesson:** I've been waiting. Sorry. I want to echo Commissioner Stersa that the amount of time doesn't feel important to me right now because they own the lot and they can use it as they see fit at whatever time they decide. **[19:05] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Well, I mean, that's that's not really true, though. **[19:07] Commissioner Charlesson:** Well, what I mean by "whatever they see fit" in this context is they can use it as a parking lot permanently if they go through that process. I mean, they would have to come before us because they're already over their parking as for that. I want to make sure I'm understanding this right, that if they were to come before us as the owner of this lot and say "we do want to use it for parking at any time," they have the option to go through that application. **[19:30] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Sure. But it would be an application. **[19:32] Commissioner Charlesson:** And they only want to do that if it's absolutely necessary. And we can allow them as much time as they want to determine if it's necessary, which is up to five years. So by allowing them that time, we're making it possible that it isn't turned into parking. I just wanted to make sure that we didn't see that we were interfering. **[19:50] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Well, fundamentally, right, we've had owners who've wanted to come before and put a swimming pool in their yard, but it doesn't meet the square footage requirement. We have rules. So yes, they're the property owner but... do you fundamentally think a parking lot is the best use of that space long term? **[20:10] Commissioner Charlesson:** I trust them as the property owner to make that decision at the time they feel they need to and I don't think that we need to tell them, "Hey, this is the time when we should make the decision." **[20:20] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Okay. So I suppose that would be analogous then to a private homeowner who wants to create a larger driveway because they want a bigger car. Would we trust them to decide how they want to use their driveway? **[20:30] Commissioner Charlesson:** If it's allowed within city code, then yes, I would support it. **[20:35] Commissioner Stersa:** I think an extension of a driveway or a swimming pool—those are all variances with very specific criteria. This is a planned unit development which is legally just a different animal in my mind. The whole idea behind a planned unit development is that there is flexibility. The city gets something, the developer gets something. Um, so I would caution us not to think of this as a variance process because the standards for a variance are so much more strict. I would strongly encourage us not to use the same guidelines with that. **[21:10] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** That's fair. But a planned unit development is to allow flexibility, but also it's to encourage "best and highest use." Right? So it's not carte blanche to a property owner to do whatever because it's in a planned unit development. That's the whole point is that they have to come and request things and then there's give and take. I just don't think that the best and highest use of that land is a permanent parking lot. And I feel like it's been since 2016... they initially asked for two years for 45 days a year... and now they want another five years with the potential to come back and ask for more. I think that we ought to set some guardrails here. They still have the ability to get five years; I'm just saying that it can't just be an automatic carte blanche. **[22:05] Commissioner Hoie:** And for a question for staff, I'm looking at the map right now. It looks like there's 20 spots on lot four guided. How big is that lot? Are we thinking that you could just build a building on lot four? What could you do on lot four? **[22:20] Sam Crosby:** Lot four is a smaller parcel. It's not even half an acre. And like I mentioned earlier, it doesn't have any street frontage. So, by itself, it's not really developable. It's really a case of it could kind of go either way to be honest. This parcel doesn't seem like it was very well planned. It's not really entirely clear what it was meant for. That's why I mentioned earlier that even though we're not in favor of more surface parking when there's already a lot, it seems like it could be a reasonable use because of the way it is. Even though we don't want more surface parking, it could be reasonable here in the future, especially with the amphitheater that generates a really large parking demand during the summer and doesn't really have a designated parking area. You could put something there, but it's very small and doesn't have frontage. **[23:15] Commissioner Stersa:** Well, I mean, rain gardens or greenery instead of parking to attract bees and butterflies—to me that's a better use than more surface parking. One thing I'm concerned about though: if we take this other parking area away, would a logical next step be that Lakewins just locks down their main parking lot for their own people? I've used that as a public person before to get access to the lake. I worry if we take that option away, it's going to cause more issues than harm. **[23:50] Commissioner Hoie:** One thought I had as we're having this conversation... hopefully in the future when this area continues to be more developed, maybe we would want to consider more dense parking there—kind of a garage or something that the city partners with private landowners to fund and develop. Something shared because that area is dense and we want to encourage them to be there. I think what it comes down to is: five years, or three years with a two-year extension. I like that it just gives a little more friction. It just forces us to think about it more often than getting into the vibe of "all right, five more years, five more years." None of us will be here in five years, maybe some of us will be, and I worry it's just going to keep going on. I would just like us to force some mindfulness around this. **[24:45] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Okay. So, let's go back to the amendment. On the amendment to change from five-year approval to a three-year approval with administrative extension possible for up to two more years. All those in favor of that amendment, please say I. **[25:00] Commissioner Hoie & Chair Kennealy:** I. **[25:01] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Opposed? **[25:02] Commissioners Stersa, Charlesson, Johnson:** Nay. **[25:05] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** The amendment fails. So, back on to the main motion, which is the staff recommended action. Is there any further discussion on that? It's already been moved and seconded. **[25:15] Commissioner Hoie:** I just had one more question for staff with the five-year original staff recommended action. There was a reference to administrative approval for extension of that? I'm not finding that. **[25:25] Sam Crosby:** Chair? Yes, it was something that the applicant had requested in their letter. They were asking if there was a possibility of having the five years and then having the option for further administrative approvals. But that is not an option. No, when the five years is over, they would have to come back and do the entire process again. **[25:45] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** So then we're on to the main motion. All those in favor of the staff recommended action, please say I. **[25:52] Commissioners Hoie, Stersa, Charlesson:** I. **[25:53] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** And opposed? **[25:54] Commissioner Johnson:** No. **[25:55] Commissioner Canaly:** No. **[25:56] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** The three to two carries. The motion carries for the staff recommended action. Thank you. Um, the next item on the agenda then would be liaison reports. Let's start with the Sustainability Commission. **[26:10] Commissioner Canaly:** Um, big thing was the pumpkin smash which was a big success. Um other than that, that's the only thing that was in the notes. **[26:18] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** And oh um as I recall um Stephanie sent in a her liaison report. Sam, do you want to read that one then? **[26:25] Sam Crosby:** Sure. Um she said that La Doña Bonita opened on November 1st—she's the Chamber of Commerce, by the way—and it was a welcome addition to the Richfield hub. Prior to them, the lot was vacant for seven years. Also that The Coven is planning on moving into the old Richfield Medical Group in either May or June of 2026. It's a co-working type business. That was all she had. **[26:55] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** All right. School board, no report. Housing Authority? **[27:00] Commissioner Hoie:** HRA met in November and they heard from Ehlers and Associates with an overview of TIFF districts and the status of each of them in the city which was actually really interesting. If anyone's at all curious about TIFF in Richfield, I'd recommend replaying that. They did decertify a total of three districts. Two of them were scheduled; the third one is the ME proposal that we approved on 66th and Stevens that's not moving forward—which is a bummer. But with the decertification, it's anticipated that there'll be $2 million more in additional tax capacity next year. Staff also gave an update that abatement was beginning at Penn Station on Penn Avenue and that building should soon begin. **[27:50] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Surma is absent for Transportation. For Community Services? **[27:55] Commissioner Stersa:** Yeah. At the October meeting, they discussed the public works projects over at Adams Hill Park; they were dredging the pond and doing the drain. **[28:05] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** And for City Council, at the most recent city council meeting, I presented our update of our activities from the previous year. In addition, the Civil Service Commission presented their annual report. Of note, tomorrow they will be doing their truth and taxation hearing about property taxes. All right. City Planner’s report? **[28:30] Sam Crosby:** Thank you, Chair and commissioners. Just that the site plan approval for 7424 Lindale Avenue South, which was the Lion Cannabis item on the last agenda, was approved on the council's October 14th consent agenda. I received their building permits a couple days ago, so those are under review. MIC has applied for formal land use approvals and will be on next month's planning commission agenda in two weeks. **[29:05] Commissioner Charlesson:** Is it appropriate to ask a question? With the 7424 Lindale, has there been any word about their excitement moving forward with the federal stuff regarding hemp laws? Has there been any impact on their product lines? **[29:20] Sam Crosby:** I haven't really talked to them about that. I couldn't say. **[29:25] Commissioner Hoie:** The legislation you're talking about is pertaining to hemp-derived THC only. Cannabis itself remains federally illegal, but these stores are opening up in legal states separate from the hemp. So maybe some of the products they would have stocked they won't be able to, but they still have other variety. **[29:50] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** All right. I would accept a motion to adjourn unless there's other business. **[29:55] Commissioner Charlesson:** Motion to adjourn. **[29:57] Commissioner Hoie:** Commissioner Hoie seconds. **[30:00] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor, please say I. **[30:03] Commissioners:** I. **[30:04] Chair Brendan Kennealy:** Opposed? The motion carries and we stand adjourned.