This transcript appears to be a meeting of the **Hastings Planning Commission**. Based on the names provided and the internal context of the discussion, here is the identified transcript. *** **[0:00] Chair (Planning Commission):** All right. If none, we'll go ahead and consider those to be approved. Uh, next up are public hearings. First public hearing be special use permit 2025-2, cannabis retail 1304 Vermillion Street. **[0:17] Chair (Planning Commission):** And we have our staff report from our community development intern, Amelia Tibo. It's all yours. **[0:24] Amelia Tibo:** Good evening. So, our first public hearing tonight is for a special use permit for cannabis retail sales um on behalf of Leonard McQuen for Kalúa Cultivation, which will be um is currently being um applied for at 1304 Vermillion Street. **[0:44] Amelia Tibo:** So, here's kind of where it is in location to some other uses. Um the property is currently owned by Invest Group. Um, and it's surrounded by all other commercial uses. It's currently zoned for commercial. Our comp plan has it staying commercial, so there's kind of no um tricky things there. Um, the property is currently, it seems, partially occupied as office space. Um and um uh it's a little unclear exactly which unit if it's like it wasn't listed specifically and there's currently a business that says it's listed there. So that was like one of the only things that got a little bit flagged. Um but it **[1:32] Amelia Tibo:** currently meets all of the distancing besides the 500 ft minimum distance from a low potency. the address right below it um like just south of it um 1310 um it is H to Tobacco which has a low potency license um we've received um notice from them that the it would be the same owner and H tobacco would um then seed their license to operate the higher potency at 1304 um and that is a lot of what's um the Only tricky thing is is just making sure that there isn't ever an overlap between the two. Um, but they're they share a **[2:17] Amelia Tibo:** parking lot, so there's no parking issues. Um, and it's all commercial. So there's um this one's pretty straightforward besides the distancing with the low potency. Um and the um only other thing um to yeah to mention with this one is um besides the distancing with that all the other distancings are um followed with like the school and um parks and all of those other distancing things. **[2:52] Amelia Tibo:** And then all of our other um general special use permit um qualifications are all met in terms of ingress and egress and um all of those things that we've gone through with the all of the other special use permits as well. **[3:15] Chair (Planning Commission):** All right. Thanks Amelia. All right. this that we got handed. Is this pertinent to this particular one? **[3:23] Amelia Tibo:** Nope. That one is part of the next one. **[3:25] Chair (Planning Commission):** Next one. Okay. **[3:27] John Hinzman:** Mr. Chair. And Mr. Chair, as a reminder, we do have a few individuals that are on Zoom tonight. And as a request to those on Zoom, if you wish to speak during one of the two public hearings we're holding tonight, please raise your hand. Thank you. **[3:37] Chair (Planning Commission):** Okay, we do. Okay, perfect. And with that, I'm going to go open the public hearing. All right, so does anybody on Zoom wish to speak? hit the raise your hand feature. **[3:54] John Hinzman:** Okay, I do have one. I will bring Stephen into the meeting. Stephen, can you hear me? **[4:09] Stephen Week:** How you doing? Can you hear me, sir? **[4:13] John Hinzman:** Yep, I can hear you. **[4:14] Stephen Week:** Hey, thank you so much for uh allowing me to speak, council. Um I actually am representing a client of mine that has received preliminary approval. We we've received uh registration with your group. Um to my knowledge and and you know understanding uh the city of Hastings is only going to be issuing one license. Uh my my question um being is there any consideration or has there anybody has there been any thought or or conversation excuse me more so about um potentially opening that up to more than one license at any given point. **[4:50] Chair (Planning Commission):** John I will turn that over to you to answer that question. **[4:54] John Hinzman:** Okay. Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh Stephen we've don't have any official action to do so. We have had that consideration. We may do that in the future, but right now the ordinance would be one retail permit. **[5:10] Stephen Week:** Thank you so much for answering. I appreciate it, sir. **[5:14] Chair (Planning Commission):** Okay. Thanks, Stephen. Any other hands? **[5:21] John Hinzman:** Mr. Chair, I don't see any other hands wishing to speak. **[5:27] Chair (Planning Commission):** Okay. And sir, did did you want to speak on this one? No. Okay. All right. If there are no additional hands raised and no one here that wishes to speak, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing. And with that, we will open it up to commissioners with any questions, comments, discussion. **[5:48] Commissioner Moes:** Oh, I just just had one question. Just one question. Thank you. Um, so I I was just a little confused about so the the business that's um it's already currently in operation that has the low the low um potency. They're the ones making the application for this one. Is that is that what I'm understanding? **[6:11] Amelia Tibo:** That was the understanding that I have gotten or that they are connected. **[6:15] Commissioner Moes:** They're connected. **[6:18] Chair (Planning Commission):** John. **[6:20] John Hinzman:** Yeah. I just offer some clarification that commissioners the owner of H tobacco has agreed and submitted written authorization that if this was to be approved that he would surrender his low potency license. **[6:36] Commissioner Moes:** Okay. **[6:38] John Hinzman:** So that's a requirement that we have under the conditions for approval. **[6:42] Commissioner Moes:** So he wouldn't he wouldn't uh close the whole business just just that part of his license. **[6:47] John Hinzman:** Correct. That's my understanding. **[6:49] Commissioner Moes:** The rest of the license would have no bearing on the distance requirement just the low potency cannabis. **[6:51] John Hinzman:** Okay, so they're not really a affiliated per se then. I am not aware of an affiliation maybe but I'm not aware of it. **[6:58] Commissioner Moes:** Okay, that's that's what I was wondering. Okay, great. Thank you. **[7:04] Chair (Planning Commission):** All right, thanks Commissioner Moes. Anyone else? Commissioner Halberg. **[7:07] Commissioner Halberg:** Amelia. So, just point of clarification, we're not sure exactly which office space this is looking to go into. **[7:13] Amelia Tibo:** The application itself um only listed the entire address and currently the building is listed as office space and it seems to have multiple entrances. I personally am unclear if it's actually divided office space or it's just currently categorized as office space with only one retailer inside. Um there also was a retailer on the other side of the building with the same address that has closed. So, I it was just unclear if the person who is currently operating a business inside is still operating a business or if it's close to closing or **[7:55] Amelia Tibo:** if there's more space within this building than is apparent. I I just can't it's it's a little bit unclear and it wasn't um necessarily like pointed out to me that it's multiple units or it's all one. **[8:09] Chair (Planning Commission):** John. **[8:12] John Hinzman:** Okay. All right. Thank you. and uh planning commissioners. I I think that raises a good point there. We will clarify which one uh and which portion of the rental space would be used under this and provide further clarification on that if this does go forward on the location description in the special use permit. **[8:33] Commissioner Halberg:** Okay. Thank you. And I guess I'd also say it depend and also what the nature is of the other businesses that are in there whether or not they meet the other criteria for the ordinance too. **[8:43] John Hinzman:** So commissioners I believe uh when we looked at the locationational requirements for cannabis sales everything else was met on the site I think is a except for the H tobacco license. So we have verified that. **[9:01] Commissioner McGrath:** I would just like to point out on the record um that we would then would then have liquid vape aged tobacco and then this new um business all within a very close proximity and I think it's well within Sydney or city ordinance but I just would want to clarify that having those three businesses within that those are very close proximity that that's all within the city code. Okay. **[9:27] John Hinzman:** And commissioner with that one the liquid vape I believe is H tobacco. So, it's just maybe a different name they're using the outside of the building, but the same location. So, there'll be one tobacco shop there, I believe, and then this potentially. **[9:41] Commissioner McGrath:** Thank you for that clarification. **[9:43] Chair (Planning Commission):** All right. Thank you, Commissioner. Is any other discussion? If not, I'll accept a motion. **[9:49] Commissioner Swedin:** Uh motion to approve special permit uh oh my goodness. 2025-2, I think. Finding that one. Special permit for Leonard McQueen Kalúa cultivation with the recommendations by staff. **[10:14] Chair (Planning Commission):** Okay. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Swedin. Second? **[10:18] Commissioner Peters:** Commissioner Peters second. I'll second. **[10:20] Chair (Planning Commission):** Okay. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor say I. (Group: I). Opposed? Okay. Motion carries. **[10:25] John Hinzman:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. and the recommendation for approval. We'll move forward to the city council meeting on August 4th for final action. Thank you. **[10:35] Chair (Planning Commission):** All right, we are at public hearing number two for the evening. This one is for special use permit 2025-25 cannabis retail at 2324 Vermillion Street. And Amelia, you'll be doing this report as well. **[10:51] Amelia Tibo:** Yes. So here um is a second public hearing for special use permit for cannabis retail sales. Um the applicant Steve Enzaki um and at for 2324 Vermillion Street. Um this property is currently owned by Elgen Properties LLC. It's zoned uh C3 for commercial and is um consistent with our comp plan that also continues it as commercial. Um it is bordered to kind of the northwestish to um commercial. There's residential to um the west and south with Vermillion Street to the east with **[11:37] Amelia Tibo:** commercial/residential to past um Vermillion Street to the east. Um this site is currently vacant. It used to be the Old Mill Pawn Shop. Um, and it's now currently vacant. Um, it currently meets all of our uh distancing requirements, so there's no issues with any low potency licenses with this one. Um, and it is um it also meets all of our requirements for a special use permit, parking, ingress, egress, all of those good things. Um, for this one, there has been an update to the memo. Um, when this was submitted, we hadn't received any public comment. Um, and we have since received public comment. Um, we received a letter **[12:24] Amelia Tibo:** today um, which is the copy I gave to everyone um, um, on behalf of Hastings Commons um, from um, Lambert and Associates um, which um, is um, objecting to the proposed um, cannabis retail um, for being um, pretty close in terms of across um, Vermillion Street from um, the mobile home community. Um, and so that's kind of that's the comment that we have received um before we open up for a public hearing. Um, and everything else in terms of the application special use permit requirements, um, this application has met those. **[13:02] Chair (Planning Commission):** Okay. Thanks, Amelia. All right. Excuse me. With that, we will go ahead and open the public hearing and turn to John. Quick roll call on Zoom. **[13:27] John Hinzman:** Yeah. Anyone on Zoom who wishes to speak to this item, please raise your hand. And if anyone in the audience wishes to speak to this item, please come to the podium. **[13:48] Dan Madamero:** Hi. My name is Dan Madamero and I live at 114 West 25th Street. If I had a pointer on the thing, it would be right there, two doors away. Um, I think my concern is echoes what was said about Hastings Commons. Um, it's right on the corner of a residential street. Um, there are lots of kids in the area. I'm not I'm not opposed to the business itself. I'm opposed to the actual location of it because of the residential um zoning in the area. I **[14:34] Dan Madamero:** have other concerns. I'm not I'm not um I don't have any illusions of people hanging out in the dark recesses behind the building and you know like hiding behind the weeds outside of a a high school or something like that bringing back my youth. Um but I do have concerns about the property itself and its accessibility by people that might have other issues about trying to break in. Um, I have uh concern about the traffic flow because that has historically been a bit of a problem for people who are heading north on Vermillion and turning left and they turn left not onto 25th Street, but they **[15:22] Dan Madamero:** move adjacent to it and go into the subway instead, which is a cause for concern and has been for some time. And I also know that there's always been sort of in the background about traffic flow and the possibility of roundabouts and re-addressing the entrance to 316. It's also u I'm concerned about signage and how that blocks visibility for people and being a distraction for those people that want to get there. I um thankfully subway is set back or it's high enough where you're not seeing. If you've ever been on 25th Street and you've tried to turn left and somebody is parked in Subway, not in a parking spot, they park outward, it's very difficult to see around it. More cars, even though the parking is limited there. Um, I don't I'm not imagining, you know, gobs of people in the parking lot, but it does make it more difficult for the people that are going up and down 25th **[16:30] Dan Madamero:** Street to access the street safely and a lot of people use it as a through street rather than uh for the residents. Um, the other thing, couple more things. This is more like editorial. Um, I don't see what a business like this in this location provides for our community. Where is their responsibility and the owners of the property itself toward our community? What are they providing for us other than one more recreation? I'm not a I'm not a again I'm not opposed to the business itself or the cannabis business at all. I just think that any business like this should be coming forward and saying this is what we are doing for the community of Hastings. I think that's sort of a symptom of how things tend to be unfortunately these days. So, thank you for your time. And if you have any questions for me, I'll— **[17:34] Chair (Planning Commission):** Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. John, do we have anyone on Zoom? **[17:47] John Hinzman:** We do. We do have Stephen on Zoom. Stephen, I'm going to bring you into the meeting. Whoops. I almost did. Let's see. And Stephen, if you can introduce yourself, your full name, your address, please. Thank you. **[18:02] Stephen Week:** Yeah, absolutely. So, uh, my name is Stephen Week. Um I actually the authorized agent uh that applied on behalf of Steven Messi at uh the said location that we're speaking of uh just right now. Um and Dan one I just want to say thank you so much for your comments and more so concerns about uh the uh the community the traffic um everything that you talked about. I want to say thank you so much for that. and uh council, I would love to either comment uh whether it's specifically back to some of the of Dan's concerns and or uh just speak directly to you um as as my comments. **[18:44] Chair (Planning Commission):** Oh, I'm sorry. Was there more? Go ahead. **[18:46] Stephen Week:** No, no, no. That was it. I was just asking if I could speak to those uh those comments. So, so, uh, one council, um, as far as, uh, the the one talk that about, you know, making, uh, the the concern is more about, like Dan said, not the business, but more so the engage with the property and one of the comments being the accessibility of potential risk and or people breaking in. Um, so, so my name is Stephen Week and like I said, my background is regulatory compliance specifically within the cannabis industry. Um, one of the things that uh I I specify in is security. And with that being said, uh the the the **[19:30] Stephen Week:** city alone, let alone the county and the state have rules set forth that us as applicants have to follow um to be in order to even pass. So, one of those things that what I'm getting at is we would make any modification uh uh that was needed uh to the building to ensure one that everyone that was safe around the community would be there, but more so um that our building to your point would be essentially new and altered. So, there would be compliance with any issue that you may see. Um as far as the doing what are we doing for the community, I would love to speak about that. Uh because one of the things that we plan to do is uh we have to employ 10 people um when we commence operations and uh we are absolutely planning and looking to hire from the city of Hastings themselves that we are given the opportunity to get this board. Um you know we we we really look back at at at the sales that we given and and that would all be going back to taxpayers money for the city of Hastings. Uh so we'd be really looking to reinvest into the community itself. Um and hopefully uh you know help you with that area. I hope um and then you know basically as **[20:43] Stephen Week:** far as parking uh we'd be making any modifications again that were needed um specifically in order to make sure the safety of the community and the people walking around were you know a high priority but um short of that uh those were my my only comments that I wanted to make and uh I appreciate the time. **[21:03] Chair (Planning Commission):** Okay. Thank you, Stephen. Appreciate it. John. **[21:08] John Hinzman:** Yeah. If there's anyone else on Zoom that wishes to speak to this issue, please raise your hand now. If not, uh I think the chair will be closing the public hearing. **[21:19] Chair (Planning Commission):** Okay. No other hands raised. **[21:20] John Hinzman:** No other hands. **[21:22] Chair (Planning Commission):** Okay. All right. We will go ahead and close the public hearing and we'll open it up to commissioners. Commissioner Peters. **[21:30] Commissioner Peters:** Um, John, this might be a question for you, but when I looked at this and before you spoke as well, um, I did have questions and concerns about the parking, and I just wondered, um, for this type of business, how is the parking lot size and number of spaces determined? I know when we've talked about other businesses, it's been like if there's this many this large of a seating area, then this many are parking spaces are needed. How is it determined for this? And um is there eventually a site plan that we look at with this? **[22:06] John Hinzman:** Yeah, commissioners. The the parking on this site is tough. It's been tough historically. Uh when its past use was a a pawn shop and and before that, I think is auto uh repair, auto part shop, excuse me. Generally, those uses are retail uses under the zoning code. And so the parking requirements for those are all similar. Unfortunately, I don't believe that this property meets those parking requirements, but is grandfathered in because it has been in that situation for for some time. If this was a situation in which the use was intensifying parking needs beyond other past retail establishments, that would be problematic. In this situation, since it is similar to other retail uses that have been on the site from a **[22:52] John Hinzman:** parking demand standpoint, it's grandfathered in. But do uh identify—but do certainly see the situation of parking being challenging on that site. Absolutely. **[23:08] Commissioner McGrath:** Uh thanks John. H how do we know that the parking demand is similar? I mean the the conceptual business model for the the spaces is very different. Um and so I I'm curious as how we know that. **[23:23] John Hinzman:** Sure. over for the actual demand. It's a fair question. I don't know that. But from a zoning standpoint of what we base our parking requirements on, it doesn't specifically call out cannabis uses. It calls out retail and service uses. And so this would be fall under that retail and service uh demand. **[23:49] Commissioner Peters:** Another question is about the parking too. I understand that um you know this is a retail space that has it's been used for retail before and that um you know it should be grandfathered in. Is it as a planning commission we are supposed to look at these special use permits and determine do they do they fit do they align? Um are we required to grandfather something in if it's a situation that's been challenging or unsafe in the past? Like to me this would be an opportunity to um you know say this this feels like the wrong—like an unsafe situation. Is this an opportunity to correct that so we don't have a continued challenge with that **[24:34] Commissioner Peters:** space or are are we somehow required to grandfather it? **[24:44] John Hinzman:** Commissioner, it's a fair question. from a parking standpoint outside of the special use permit, we would be obligated to grandfather the parking in there. But you do raise a good point that under a special use permit, we can take a look at establishing certain conditions to ensure that any problems that might occur could be mitigated. Lighting might be one of those. Uh, so I think it would be within the consideration of the planning commission to add a condition if it so chooses to address the parking on there. Not that it uh necessarily would require more because it's grandfathered in and meets those requirements, but that if parking becomes problematic, if the actual parking demand of this is different than other retail uses, that that could be re-examined. **[25:41] Chair (Planning Commission):** And John, would that be done now or procedurally? Because right now we're just looking at moving these into the next phase. This is not an approval or not approval situation. This is just moving it to the next phase or not moving it to next phase. City council is still going to look at this. **[25:57] John Hinzman:** The council will. Yes. One of the questions that was brought up earlier was would the planning commission review a site plan on this? And the answer to that would be no. Uh the building exists and there's no modification to it. So unless there was some sort of modification, it would come back to you. Uh but yeah, if I would suggest if that's something that the planning commission is looking to do, putting a condition on the special use permit would be the prudent thing to do. **[26:34] Chair (Planning Commission):** Okay. All right. Commissioner Halberg. **[26:36] Commissioner Halberg:** I guess my question is sticking with the the parking, who would enforce and look at an increased need and how do we quantify the increased need? Because I I I don't think this is going to be case at at you know noon like a restaurant everybody's going to come in and make their purchases. It's going to be sporadic. So how do you track the number of people coming through? **[27:09] Commissioner Halberg:** Maybe I'm not making myself clear. I just I don't know how we would quantify and then if we did how would we go back and change the special use permit? It's not like we can add another parking lot to it. So, I think with the idea of the grandfathered, I don't want to say we're kind of backed into a corner, but really I I don't know how they would remedy the situation. **[27:34] John Hinzman:** Mhm. And this is dealing with parking, I presume. Correct. Okay. Yeah. this situation, a suggestion that you could do would be to put a condition into the special use permit that requires staff to monitor parking on the site to ensure that the site the parking the parking provided is adequate for the facility. I know that's very vague language. It doesn't provide us a lot of direction, but provides us enough impetus for us to review that. If it got to a situation where there's a lot of parking beyond that that it can't handle the site, then it could be something that we could potentially come back, review the special use permit, and make some determinations as to what to do with it at that point. **[28:20] Commissioner McGrath:** Thank you for the discussion on the parking. I would add that I think in addition to the parking, I think there's um if if we're going to put a provision in there that allows us to relook, I would also want to observe any traffic issues on the through street with the you know there increased accidents are there increased um traffic jams or I mean I think it's it kind of goes beyond pack parking—that's just a tough spot for a lot of traffic to be going in and out and that and of course the residential people are impacted by that as Well. **[29:07] John Hinzman:** Um, so I'm understanding what uh what might you suggest on on that as far as— **[29:13] Commissioner McGrath:** it's probably too much to ask for a traffic study, but at the same time, I agree with Commissioner Peters that we know there's identified issues and so I feel like we're perpetuating that or almost making it worse. And it does feel counteractive or counterintuitive as a planning commission to know that we there is potentially issues and and not acknowledge them. **[29:34] John Hinzman:** Okay. Yeah. Trying to this one to me commissioners is a little more problematic to quantify in this one. I mean the situation we have throughout both sides of Vermillion south of the river is difficulty for anyone to take a left-hand turn off of any home, any business, etc. Most times of the day. Uh I I don't know if this is going to present something that is extraordinarily more severe than the other ones. I I guess I I'm not quite sure how that would be how we'd look at that from a traffic study standpoint. Our when we have required traffic studies to be conducted, they've been on facilities that have had uh stronger traffic demand than than this facility would be. So this would be outside of the bounds of what we've asked for in the past for that. **[30:35] Commissioner Moes:** Um, well, I know that that whole corridor was um reviewed um recently and I know that uh that's all going to be redone within the next I don't know what the time frame is again. It's a couple years. **[30:47] John Hinzman:** Yeah. '27, '28. **[30:49] Commissioner Moes:** Yeah. Um so I'm I would assume that that intersection was looked at and there are probably uh things that they are doing to that. I'm assuming it's probably only going to be a left or right-hand turn. Who knows? I don't know. I don't remember specifically. I remember seeing some of that, but I'm sure that that that will be addressed as part of that restructuring of 61 when that's done. **[31:07] John Hinzman:** That's a good point, Commissioner. I don't recall specifically if there would be closures that would prevent left-hand turns at 25th Street. I do know throughout the corridor that there are many left-hand turns that are being eliminated. **[31:33] Commissioner Swedin:** Mine is untraffic related. Um, this letter I I I want to make sure we are understanding this correctly and I'm understanding this correctly. This is like a large like a business complaint essentially about not wanting this other business here. Right? **[31:45] John Hinzman:** Just to provide some context to that, this is the owner of Hastings Terrace, the mobile home community on the other side of the road. **[31:49] Commissioner Swedin:** And so this is just them saying they would not like this over here. There is no formal like breaking of our buffer zones. Like it's not a school. It's not a daycare. **[32:00] John Hinzman:** Correct. **[32:02] Commissioner Swedin:** This isn't a place that generates those legal buffer zones. Just a business that would like not to have this other business across the road. **[32:09] John Hinzman:** Yeah. I can confirm, commissioners, that the requirements for minimum distance that are within the zoning code are met with this uh business proposal. **[32:19] Chair (Planning Commission):** Yeah, that's the key thing I think we need to remember. is well two—a few things I want to clarify before you just get on the record. First of all, I know I heard the word council a couple times, minor, but we're not we're not city council. We're planning commission. So, we're not approving or not approving. We're simply recommending or not recommending that the application move on to the final approval process with city council. So, this is not an approval or not approval kind of situation. We don't do that here. It's outside of our scope. Um, speaking of scope, you just mentioned it, you just touched on it. Um, if you look under the analysis under page four, there are five things that these permit applications have to meet and they are: 1,000 foot minimum distance between retail cannabis uses; 500 ft minimum **[32:57] Chair (Planning Commission):** distance between from a lower potency hemp business; 500 ft from a school, residential treatment facility; uh 500 ft from a playground, athletic field, athletic court, picnic area, restrooms, pavilion, park building, or disc golf; and then a preliminary security plan approved by the chief of police. So those five have been met. I mean there's no argument there. Um this letter here is generic and and and I get it. But um we have liquor stores that you have to be a certain age to buy liquor at and kids walk by them all day long. They're they live in the area as well. So that's all up to enforcement and the businesses and and everything else. So there's not much you can—we can't even incorporate that into our decision-making process here because it's outside of our scope one more time. You know, "not in my neighborhood, not my backyard." That's something that the city council can look a little bit more broadly on if they want to go down that route. So, I just want to remind everybody our scope here is those particular planning commission type of um requirements, city code, and then the applicant requirements. So, that's kind of where I am on that. Um, as far as 61 goes, I I think it's too—too early to talk about Highway 61 and its traffic. It's the worst it's ever been. We know that. But, it's it's going to undergo a complete rehaul in 3 years. And yeah, you're right. MNDOT would never do a traffic study on this. It's not—it's not in their purview. This is not a new business. This is not a new development. It doesn't meet the requirements of a complete traffic study. It's just a change in the way—change in businesses essentially. So, um that's where I am on that. So, Commissioner Peters, go ahead. **[34:44] Commissioner Peters:** Um I just did have a question and it was about the mobile home park. Um, when considering that it needs to be 500 ft from a playground, is there a playground that's not a city playground within that? And do we have to be 500 ft from it? **[35:05] John Hinzman:** trying to remember if not the language playground equipment—something attractive to kids—uh related to that within Hastings Terrace itself I'm not aware and I'm getting a little—I might be going on a limb here. **[35:21] Commissioner Peters:** It says public—what's that? It says public park. **[35:26] John Hinzman:** Okay so it does say public park so I guess the the location of a playground within Hastings Terrace because—if there is one since it's not a public park—would be a moot point. So wouldn't it be applicable? I guess is the short answer. **[35:47] Commissioner Peters:** Just one more quick questions about the process. I know that they've had the lotteries. Do we know—where—have they awarded any licenses yet or do you where that status is? **[35:56] John Hinzman:** Yeah, my understanding is there's about a thousand preliminary license that have been issued throughout the state. About eight full licenses, none of those within Hastings that I'm aware of. **[36:05] Amelia Tibo:** The second round of lotteries um for anyone who was um not selected in the first set of lotteries um that just happened back on the 22nd. Um and they're only for retail cannabis, which we're looking at, they're only going to allow 150 licenses total um within the entire state. So there's a few different numbers that like are around in terms of applicants and this and that, but that's the amount that's going to be allowed total during this process to the way that I've understood it um in terms of just this first round. And those applications were closed back in March, but this whole process has taken um a lot longer than I think they had previously thought. Um but those the next step for any of them hopefully is that the city will be contacted by OCM when they are getting ready to secure uh or grant a license for a business because they need to check with the city to make sure we have granted them the correct zoning. So that would be kind of our first notice that OCM is getting ready to give a license to a business that we have previously interacted with during this whole process. **[37:31] John Hinzman:** Yeah. And that that's good—good information to pass along. I don't believe that we've been contacted from conversation with the clerk's office in the last couple of days on any of the pending retail applications for zoning compliance. **[37:45] Chair (Planning Commission):** Perfect. Thanks. Including tonight's we have total how many so far? **[37:55] John Hinzman:** We have five so we have three special use permits that have been issued and two pending tonight. **[38:11] Commissioner McGrath:** Just really quick I just wanted to point out as I read further for a point of clarity um as it relates to the restrictions on page three of the document it under letter C it does say that distance restrictions shall not extend across Highway 61 or Highway 55, but shall terminate if it intersects with such highways. So, I think even if there was a park in that, you know, in that area and it if it was public, I it wouldn't—my understanding is it would not be applicable. **[38:32] Chair (Planning Commission):** Good point, Commissioner. Thank you. This is just a question to clarify my understanding of the lottery. So, with this lottery, it's not that they're picking Hastings, they're picking one of the applications from Hastings. So if this one were put, right? Because so if if this if these two special use permits were also approved by the city council, then there would be five that are in that lottery to be picked. And if this particular one was the one from Hastings that was able then to move forward, it would be the the spot, right? So like it might not be end up being a city council choice of which establish where it goes or would it still— **[39:18] John Hinzman:** It's a little bit different on the—on the lottery end. The lottery has no bearing to Hastings whatsoever. Uh entities at large throughout the state are involved in the lottery and they randomly choose—they could choose all five of them from Hastings. They could choose none of them from Hastings. I'm not sure what that would be at this point. So, the determination that Hastings has established for—for—let me go back a little bit. You've got the—what we're doing tonight, which is the special use permit, which is zoning compliance for the sale of retail cannabis. You have the Office of Cannabis Management, OCM, which is going through the licensing. They've issued some prelim—preliminary license on some. I've been made aware that in Hastings there's—there's a couple that have received preliminary approval. That preliminary approval I do not believe involves any sort of comp—zoning compliance check because we have not been contacted at this point. So the way our code stands is they would need to get the special use permit, need to get full licensure through the Office of Cannabis Management, and then the first person, first entity to come forward with a registration, which is a licensing effort through our clerk's office would be issued the full permission to have a retail cannabis establishment in Hastings. So it's confusing, it's convoluted, and the rules constantly change. So it's uh it—it's difficult to keep track of. **[40:51] Chair (Planning Commission):** Any other discussion questions? commissioners any other questions discussions? Nope. Okay. Okay. If anyone's ready, I'll entertain a motion. **[41:12] Commissioner Swedin:** A motion to approve uh special use permit 2025-25. **[41:18] Chair (Planning Commission):** Correct. Yeah. Okay. I'm just making sure that was the last 2025-25. There we go. um with the recommendations from staff in addition to add a sunset clause that if parking becomes an issue this is revisited one year after site opens. **[41:40] Chair (Planning Commission):** Okay. Commissioner Swedin. Second? **[41:49] Commissioner Brun:** Second. **[41:51] Chair (Planning Commission):** All right. Commissioner Brun second. Any further discussion? New discussion? If not, all in favor say I. (Group: I). Opposed? All right. Motion carries. Oh, you got one. Oh, I'm sorry. We have one nay. Commissioner Peters? I will make note of that. Thank you. Yep. **[42:15] John Hinzman:** Okay. Commissioners, I will forward this recommendation to the city council for final action at the August 4th meeting. Thank you. **[42:21] Chair (Planning Commission):** All right. Thank you. And thanks, Amelia. appreciate it and thank you for coming. There'll be another opportunity again. This goes—to I'm sorry, it goes to city council when? Can you repeat that for me? **[42:35] John Hinzman:** August 4th. Next Monday. **[42:39] Chair (Planning Commission):** All right. Thank you. All right. Under other actions, we have an accessory dwelling unit discussion. **[42:50] John Hinzman:** Why am I okay? Give me one second here. For some reason, my mind's going blank. Unless you did something to help me out. **[42:55] Chair (Planning Commission):** I just put it. **[42:57] John Hinzman:** Okay. Well, that's right. So, commissioners, before us, we have Leslie Oberholtzer, who is our consultant working on our zoning code update. And as part of that, we've had some discussions on various items that we may look to consider for inclusion within our code. One of these topics deals with accessory dwelling units. Though the purpose of tonight's discussion is not to recommend anything at this point, but more for Leslie to provide an explanation and some uh some description of accessory dwelling units, how they may be beneficial, issues that you may want to consider prior to adoption if you do consider that just to provide us with some direction. Uh if you have questions or need further information, it would be good to ask those questions tonight. uh then we can provide that for you in the future. Any topic related to changes pertaining to accessory dwelling units would be done at a later time. It would be part of the public hearing process. So with that preamble, I will turn it over to Leslie. Leslie, can you hear me? Okay. **[44:01] Leslie Oberholtzer:** Yes. Can you hear me? Great. Um thank you very much for having me. Um so as John said, I'm just providing some information for for potential discussion um on whether or not we should be including this in um our draft. Um so I just thought I'd start with a little bit of background information. Um what exactly is an ADU? So we call it um an ADU. It's an accessory dwelling unit. Um they have been called a variety of different things over the years. Um carriage house, coach house, backyard cottage, garage apartment, granny flat, mother-in-law unit. um they are in and as a use accessory or incidental to the principal use of a house, a residential single family dwelling unit. Um so they are meant to be um typically smaller than um the principal unit of the house. They are a full dwelling unit, so they include full living facilities, a kitchen, a bathroom, and a secure entrance. Um, and they must meet the building code because they are a dwelling unit. Um, these are just some examples. Um, I think these are from a blog post called the ADU of St. Paul. *(Technical audio gaps/summary of presentation provided by Leslie Oberholtzer on ADU benefits like supporting aging in place, affordable housing options, and neighborhood character).* **[53:43] Leslie Oberholtzer:** But it is something for your consideration as we look at the draft. **[54:08] Chair (Planning Commission):** Okay, thanks. Appreciate that. John, do you have anything to add to that? **[54:15] John Hinzman:** I don't know if I got too much more to add to that. Purpose again of tonight is to ask questions of Leslie on her knowledge of uh the ADU information that she's presented here. Uh if there's specific questions later that you'd like us to answer, we can come back with more information. Uh if there's any certain direction that you may be ready to grant tonight and I understand that if that's not the case, that's not the case. We're not looking to vote on anything, but if you want to inkle a direction in which we should go—is this something we should explore more? Is this something that uh would not fit within the city? Uh, we're certainly happy to respond to whatever direction you give us. Thank you. **[54:50] Commissioner McGrath:** Uh, actually a couple questions. Does a unit um that may technically include another living space, so like a kitchen, a bathroom, a second kitchen, a second bathroom, lower level bedroom—let's say these were all on the lower level. It could potentially be an ADU, but it's not being occupied by another family. Would that have to be recorded as an ADU or what is the trigger for like, okay, now it's an ADU? **[55:24] Leslie Oberholtzer:** That's a really good question, and it's actually one that we've just been discussing. I think it would be a question for your attorney. I would not consider it to be an ADU if it was um simply lived in by the same family. Um, however, some attorneys uh believe that if it is a single family dwelling unit that it shouldn't have a full set of um living arrangements, um the—a separate kitchen, a separate door, um completely separate from the rest of the unit. Is is that what you're asking? **[56:11] Commissioner McGrath:** It is. Um, yeah, it's interesting because I actually—I mean I'm familiar with a lot of homes that have that that's just occupied one by one family. Um, and then I guess I just would follow up by saying to me it feels like an ADU within an existing dwelling feels different to me than an ADU which is an additional structure on a property. And so I was just curious to know if cities have handled those as separate with separate approaches because they do to me feel very different um as a neighbor. Am I you know—would I know that I'm allowing a second building to be built versus a second dwelling with an existing—I hope that makes sense. But I'm just wondering if if you've seen that come up as a topic and if that's been discussed and handled. **[56:58] Leslie Oberholtzer:** Yes, I had. Um, and that was what I was referring to, um, with limiting it to within a principal structure in the more sort of suburban zones, um, of the community where it wouldn't be sort of changing the overall kind of structure of the lot as much. Um, and the principal structure is also limited in terms of how much coverage it can have. Um, so just making sure that, you know, we're sticking with the kind of character of neighborhood and not affecting the adjacent neighbors um while still being open to allowing for this extra unit um I think is important. Um so the separate accessory structure in the rear is um is definitely um similar to an accessory garage. Um and so in the community or the neighborhoods that have those as kind of part of their physical form um That's typically where we would allow this to occur, but we can address it differently if if you wanted to decide. I I will also say that there are different sort of levels that we can address and and what you might think about doing um should this be a policy, should this be something that you want to um pursue is to maybe take a step in and allow it to be to occur in certain situations and maybe put—put some more parameters on it. um that could then be removed after revisiting it after a couple of years. Um that is definitely how most of the zoning codes that we've written um over the past I would say probably seven or so years started out and now we're we're removing many of those requirements and kind of opening them up a little bit more. Like for example, they used to require owner occupancy in the principal unit. Um, and as times have changed and people have started talking about it, now we typically only require owner occupancy in either the principal or the accessory unit, just as an example. **[59:12] Commissioner Moes:** Well, uh, I'm an appraiser by trade, too, and so we run—we run across this issue a lot and it really comes down to the zoning, what the municipal overriding zoning is. somebody does have a second kitchen and a bathroom and a bedroom in the basement. If the current zoning does not allow it, I don't—we—I don't call it an ADU. It's just a a wet bar or a mother-in-law suite, per se, especially if it's connected inside of the building. That's—that's a whole different entity. Um, you know, we'd have to discuss whether or not these ADUs could or should be completely separate or if they have a connection interior. Is that going to be a different entity as opposed to, you know, a, you know, "quote unquote" duplex where it's two completely separate entities with two different addresses? Does the ADU um have a separate address? Is it um, you know, those type of questions? There's a lot—there's a lot that you need to think about when it comes to this because it really can change the dynamic of a neighborhood as well. **[1:00:18] Commissioner Peters:** Um I I love this as a concept. I think it's a really creative use of space. Uh the question that I have for it is are you noticing or could this be something where um an ADU would be used as like an Airbnb and have—have there been ordinances in place to allow or not allow that? Because I think that's a different thing than um having someone that's living there permanently. **[1:00:47] Leslie Oberholtzer:** Absolutely. Um, we just had a code adopted where the ADUs uh will be—or—well actually we did revise it but no short-term rental allowed within the ADU. So we can—we can explicitly state that they would not be allowed. **[1:01:13] Commissioner Peters:** Would not be allowed. Okay. **[1:01:18] Chair (Planning Commission):** Just want to make sure we had the same question she did. It's exactly my question. Um, you know, cuz what's—so if I—if I—if I buy a 650 foot home on Amazon, have it delivered in 2 weeks, and plop it in my backyard, that's an ADU, right? But if I take and knock out a back wall on the house and build a 650 foot addition, ADU? **[1:01:47] Leslie Oberholtzer:** Yes. Well, if it's separate and separate living quarters, and you're—and you're leasing it. Yes. **[1:01:54] Chair (Planning Commission):** I'm not leasing it. Just adding on to the house for a family member. **[1:02:04] Leslie Oberholtzer:** Again, I I would ask your uh city attorney how they would interpret that if it is a completely separate dwelling unit. Um I think it—it really—if you're not leasing it, I don't think that it's an ADU. I think that it has to be leased in order to be considered. I think that's the use that we're talking about. **[1:02:25] Chair (Planning Commission):** Okay. So leasing. Okay. That's the key point is the leasing part. Okay. Thank you. **[1:02:35] Commissioner Swedin:** So, anytime these ADUs are built, they're still subject to our normal zoning codes, our normal density, our normal like—this is how much yard you have to have versus just like—you can't just build a huge ADU that takes up your whole yard and now it's practically a whole another address. That's not allowed. There's still normal—like you still have to have so much space between you and the next neighbor and you can't take up your whole yard of building essentially, right? **[1:03:00] John Hinzman:** Yeah, Commissioner. We the zoning regulations we have in place pertaining to the number and size of accessory buildings if this was a detached ADU would still uh be in effect here. So that would limit the size. Plus, I think with some of the ADUs, you generally have a top end. I think what's being suggested here is 850 square ft. **[1:03:22] Commissioner Swedin:** Okay. I think this is a really cool idea as long as like—I don't care if my neighbor builds a back building or a side building as long as you know our houses don't feel insanely close anymore or I think that that's kind of a fun way to use our space in our growing community. **[1:03:41] Commissioner Moes:** I would also say there—um—there's certain—there's certain neighborhoods and certain developments that have restrictive covenants that we have to take into account too that some don't allow accessory buildings or detached buildings that type of things too. So, I don't know if an ordinance by the city would circumvent those or not. And that's something we—I don't know if the attorney would talk about or not. **[1:04:02] John Hinzman:** Yeah, commissioner. Based on those type of situations in which private covenants offer more restrictions than the city code, the private covenants would take precedent over that. I in particular on the wall-in development and fencing—fencing is not allowed within the wall-in development. Uh so but it is allowed within the zone in the wall-in development. So it's one of those things that when those come through we're cognizant of and ask if they have any permission from the association to do it. So it's we do have those situations that come up. **[1:04:37] Commissioner Halberg:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um it is a cool concept. I currently live in a home that has a mother-in-law apartment built onto the side that my parents built back in 1998. um it's a fantastic option for families, especially with the raising costs of long-term care, assisted living, what have you. So, I guess I would like to see further discussion around this and how we could possibly adapt this into Hastings for families moving forward. **[1:05:10] Commissioner LeBron:** One question I had. Uh Leslie, so you flashed up for a little bit there um kind of the breakdown of different form factors and then some high level costs associated with them. I was wondering um do you have any idea kind of what the cost breakdown is for those? I mean obviously there's—there's—you know some size considerations just as far as construction materials um you know just overall size to build it in general. Um, but I was also wondering kind of on the city's end. Uh, would we treat this differently than say like a new build home as far as permitting and some of the the development fees, the sewer and water access fees and things like that? Um, would these be exempt? Would we have some separate category for these? Basically, I also agree with kind of the the general tone here that I think this is a good thing, a good way to give people flexibility with the property that they already own. um you know with changing family sizes and styles it just gives people you know that nice potential if you can do that either for a older parent or children or whatever right um and I'm just wondering what the city could do to um I guess help people out as much as possible and not make barriers you know allow this in the zoning code but then cause barriers that make it unfeasible you know I'd like to see these be as feasible as possible for people within the amount of control that we have if that makes sense. **[1:06:55] Chair (Planning Commission):** Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Swedin, do you have anything? No. Okay. Commissioner, is there any other discussion? Well, good discussion. Um, yeah, I think I think it does require just a little bit more thought process. You know, we wouldn't want to do anything tonight because she brought us some—Leslie brought out some really good points. Is there possible to get that presentation sent out to us as well? **[1:07:11] John Hinzman:** Yeah, Leslie, you'd be able to send that to me and I'll pass that along to the commissioners. **[1:07:14] Leslie Oberholtzer:** Yeah, because I just like some time to study it, you know, a little bit beyond here and just do some research and some due diligence and come back at a separate meeting and pick it back up again. **[1:07:27] John Hinzman:** So, from the comments and discussion I'm hearing from the commissioners tonight, it it sounds like this is something that may be on the table for consideration. Uh there's certainly questions that you'll have when you take a look at any specific piece of legislation we're looking to adopt. So we'll continue to explore this for inclusion and have more information brought forward to you in the future. **[1:07:52] Chair (Planning Commission):** Appreciate that. Right, Leslie. Thank you so much. **[1:07:58] Leslie Oberholtzer:** Thanks, Leslie. Thank you. **[1:08:02] Chair (Planning Commission):** Thank you. Thanks. All right. Thanks, John. And next is um other business. **[1:08:08] John Hinzman:** Other business. Well, uh we haven't met for a couple of weeks here. the cannabis special use permit we had the last time we met did get approval by council. It's one of the three that have been approved. So, we'll continue on down that road. The next meeting we have scheduled is August 11th and I'm happy to say we have something related on that meeting that's not cannabis for a change. We do have one low potency cannabis application on there. So, we will consider that and also I think a site plan for uh new Chase Bank and the parking lot over by Cub. So, we will have those two things for sure and maybe one or two other things on there for the 11th. **[1:08:38] Chair (Planning Commission):** All right. Thanks, John. Commissioners, do you have anything to add? All right. If not, I'll take a motion to adjourn. **[1:08:52] Commissioner Moes:** Commissioner Moes moves to adjourn. **[1:08:54] Chair (Planning Commission):** All right. Second by— **[1:08:55] Commissioner Swedin:** Second. **[1:08:56] Chair (Planning Commission):** All in favor say I. (Group: I). Opposed. All right. We are adjourned. Thank you.