This transcript features a meeting of the **Hastings Planning Commission**. Although Melanie Peters is the designated Chair, the transcript context (repeatedly addressing the presiding officer as "Mr. Chair") and the presence of Melanie Peters as a separate speaking commissioner indicate that **John Moes** (the only male member listed for the Planning Commission) is the Acting Chair for this session. [0:00] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: Comments, concerns, or changes please let me [Applause] know. Hearing no changes, I will take that as those minutes are approved. All right, and secondly is our meeting from October 7th of 2024, that was a workshop meeting between the Planning Commission and the City Council and Mayor Mary Fasbender with several members of staff present as well, talking about the Highway 55 study and also the cannabis ordinance amendments. If there's any comments, questions, changes to those? No? All right, hearing none, I will put those as approved. All right, so next [0:47] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: we have our main items of public hearing on amending city code chapter 155 zoning code cannabis uses, and John Hinzman will lead us through that. John, thank you. [0:58] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: Thank you. See, perfect. Well, Planning Commissioners, this is a recap and an ordinance amendment from our discussion at the workshop we held with the council back on October 7th. As you recall at that meeting, we are in a position to adopt new ordinances pertaining to cannabis sales. We've got an existing ordinance right now that was adopted about a year ago which covers only THC levels of 0.3% or lower, which we consider now low-potency hemp. So we had considered a few conditional use permits, special use permits for operation of facilities that sell those type of products. At the end of this year, the Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management will be taking over the permitting of those, and we also need to adopt an ordinance that will provide regulation on other legally recognized cannabis within the state of Minnesota which is going to be under the Office of Cannabis Management starting at the beginning of 2025. So we are in the position to be able to establish certain regulations under certain parameters. Now under this new rule, it creates 13 types of different cannabis businesses that are within the zoning code itself. The charge that we have is that we can regulate the time, which is the hours of operation; the place, which is the zoning districts and distances from other types of uses; and the manner, which is really the performance standards that we'd have for different types of cannabis uses. So what I'm going to do tonight is go through a few maps, go through a few portions of the code and what is being proposed tonight. So one of the things that we have within the requirements are certain distance requirements and I'll put maps up here in a moment to show the effects of some of these. One of them is that we're going to have a 1,000-foot separation between different cannabis businesses. Now these are the full-scale cannabis, those that are selling THC in excess of 0.3. These are not the existing businesses, but the ones that would be higher than that. So they need to be at least 1,000 feet away from one another. They need to be 500 feet from a school, 1,000 feet from a daycare in a commercial district, 500 feet from residential treatment facilities, and 1,000 feet from an attraction within a park used by minors. And then with the low-potency hemp edible products—that's essentially the conditional use permits that we've issued today—those type of permits would be a 500-foot distance. So this is what it looks like right now. These are the existing THC licenses that we have within the city. Within the city, we've got a conditional use/special use permit allowance within all of our commercial districts: C-1, 2, 3, 4, downtown core, downtown, and within our industrial park. So what's shown in the colors are the different zoning districts in which they are allowed: Vermillion Street, 316, the industrial park, and then Highway 55 going west. So these are primary commercial districts, and then the starred items here are existing businesses that are within there. I think we've got about seven businesses altogether. These would all meet the 500-foot requirement, but for example, if you had a situation here where you had a business that wanted to go in between these two and within the 500-foot buffer, this would be something that would not be allowed. Now going into the adult use: these are items that are with 0.3% of THC or greater. And there's a couple of different definitions that are brought forward by the state based upon the type of businesses. They have a microbusiness which is of a smaller size, meso—a medium size, a full-scale production facility, medical facility, those type of things. From our workshop, what we did—you saw similar maps at that time—this map has been modified based upon that conversation. One of the things that was discussed was expansion of adult use retail sales from just the C-4 zoning district (which is essentially Highway 55 going west) to the C-3 district and the downtown core. Now these districts are essentially along Highway 55, within downtown itself, and along Vermillion Street. So these are the different buffers that would affect that. On the yellow, you've got the 500-foot from residential treatment facilities. Blue is from schools, that's at 500 feet within the district. And then within the next two—the childcare and the park amenities—we showed both 500 and 1,000. I think there were discussions on both of those within the code itself. Let me go back here. We've got 1,000 feet from parks and 500 feet from other treatment facilities. So this shows the impacts of it. You can see there's a lot of park facilities within town, so this does have an impact right now within these districts. So if you are within a colored area here, then even if the zoning district is allowed, the distance requirement from these type of facilities will prohibit those types of operations. So that's what the impact would look like here. Looking at other requirements that we have, we discussed at the meeting the sale of low-potency edible products and beverages at existing on-sale and off-sale liquor stores. What we're proposing to forward and what was discussed at that meeting was if you have an existing on-sale or off-sale liquor license, you could go ahead and sell these low-potency items; there would not be any further requirements necessary under zoning to do so. And so this is a map of where those types of facilities are clustered around downtown, Vermillion Street, Highway 316, and Highway 55. Then we get into some of the cultivator products and these are where you're growing the facilities in the different sizes of those growth between the micro, meso, and manufacturing. What we're proposing is those would occur within the Agriculture, I-1 and I-2 zones—or excuse me, the industrial zones, the I-1 and I-2. So the industrial park is down here. We have a 500-foot buffer from park attractions which would affect the park like so, and then 1,000 foot from a school. We do have a little bit of industrial property centered along 10th Street where SEMA is, for example, so it would impact the cultivation of these type of facilities in such a way. And then we have the cultivator within the agriculture industrial district. These are more growth facilities looking at outdoor facilities and also indoor facilities. So we would allow those by a conditional use permit in the agricultural districts and the industrial districts. There would be certain size requirements on that in order to operate. I think within the agricultural district, I believe it's 20 acres would be the minimum size. So when you're looking within town here, you see a lot of smaller green areas; these would be below the threshold of 20 acres. 20 acres would probably be about the size of this parcel right here roughly. So that is what's being proposed. When you look at this from a regulatory standpoint within districts, what would continue on is the lower potency edible retail products would still be allowed by a conditional use permit in the zones that they are today: the C-3, downtown core, and C-4. That would not change. We also would have lower potency edible beverages within your on-sale and off-sale liquor stores being permitted in all of our commercial districts and our industrial districts because that's where our existing liquor licenses have been issued. Then we get into some of the adult use. These are some of the new regulations. We would have adult use retail; this would be for the retail sales of anything above 0.3% THC within those same districts: C-3, DC, and C-4. So essentially Highway 55, downtown, Vermillion Street, most of our commercial districts. And then we have the wholesale products and some of these other growth facilities located just within our industrial districts or I-1 and I-2. Manufacturing of this as part of a brewery and distillery—what this is is you're taking a cannabinoid product and you're putting it into a mixture, into a beverage. The impacts of this are quite negligible; there's no processing, it's just more of a mixture type of a thing. You're using it to make another product. So we're allowing those in the same districts that we already have breweries and distilleries. In case a distiller or a brewery wanted to add this type to their line, there wouldn't be any further impact from the wholesale aspect to it. We have that as a conditional use within our industrial park districts, I-1 and I-2. And then our cultivator—this would be the growing of it within our industrial districts and our agriculture districts. So those are what we're doing right now or proposing to do as far as how the uses would be subdivided within the city. The predominant tool what we see here is a conditional use permit. This would be a public hearing, as you know, before the Planning Commission, reviewed by the Planning Commission with ultimate approval by the City Council. The ability to set certain conditions on operation so that we can ensure that the facility itself would fit within the zone. As far as some of the performance standards that we would be looking at here with some of these outdoor cultivations: we have a minimum of 20 contiguous acres available for the crop, had to be set back 300 feet from property lines, you've got a fencing of 6 feet and landscape fencing around that; the crops can't be visible from the right of way. For indoor cultivation, we'd be able through the special use permit to set lighting standards. I've heard secondhand that some of the medical cannabis facilities have had lights on that have been very bright and have been a nuisance to neighbors, so we would be able to regulate that if that was to come up. In testing and manufacturing, the building setback would need to be 500 feet from residential districts. You would not be able to have exterior storage, and we would be able to take a look at the mechanical odor suppression and trash enclosure regulations with the special use permit. So in general, that is what we're proposing tonight. The changes specifically are within the ordinance amendment within your packet and I can stand for any questions. Again, this is a public hearing, so if you want to open that up at this time please do so and we can go from there. Thank you. [12:23] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: All right, thanks John for that. All right, we will open up the public hearing. No one is here in person. John, is there anybody on Zoom? Nope? We're good. No. Okay, I can close the public hearing then. Commissioner questions, comments, concerns for John? Anyone? Commissioner Tyken. [13:11] **Commissioner Tyken**: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The cultivator—does that have any bearing on residential growing as far as the ability to grow within your home itself? [13:21] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: Let me take a look at that. I think there's a minimum requirement under micro of what... let me see. I think if it's under a certain standard it wouldn't be considered commercial, so I believe that would be outside of what we're proposing tonight. I'm not sure what state statute states pertaining to the ability to grow a certain amount of plants within your home. I believe it's four plants per home. [13:58] **Commissioner Tyken**: Okay, four plants per home. Okay, so that would be under the threshold that we would be establishing here for the micro business. I'm looking to see where the micro business regulations would be as far as size goes, but I think they had them here... actually I had them here one time, I took it out. Never mind. [14:14] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: It would be nice to know if we're going to look if there's any standards around that residential. Can they be in their front yard? Can it be in their backyard? They have to be protected from view in a fenced or like locked area. You can't just walk up and access them, otherwise they are illegal. That's the state law that they rolled out with plants. [14:45] **Commissioner Tyken**: Okay. And then so the other question I have is the buffer around the park attractions. Our map here, the dark green and the light green is the 500 and 1,000 foot setback, correct? And that pretty much wipes out all of downtown. [15:10] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: It does, yeah. Under the 1,000 feet is what's proposed within the code right now. So within the code right now, anything that's in the lighter green would be prohibited. So that would basically take out everything from downtown almost over to Pine Street down to 55. Looks like there's one... yeah, because then the childcare kicks in. If you were to instill a 500-foot level for example, that'd be the darker green. You'd open up a few spots, but you do have the predominant area of downtown that would be prohibited from development because of its proximity to Levee Park. [16:03] **Commissioner Tyken**: So I thought we discussed during the council joint workshop that opening up downtown and more of the Highway 61 corridor... [16:13] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: We did. And so we've got conflicting things going on here. We have the provision to allow them in more zoning districts than was proposed at the workshop, but with the buffer requirements along certain facilities, it limits those areas, especially on the green. [16:32] **Commissioner Tyken**: What is the history or the purpose of the park buffer? [16:37] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: It is something in which I believe under the guidance we had from the state were areas in which we could have buffers within our code. And it really comes down to: A) do we want buffers, and B) what would be the appropriate size of buffers around those facilities? [16:54] **Commissioner Tyken**: Um, so I get the childcare. I get, you know, residential treatment, I definitely get. I'm just struggling with the downtown corridor not being available. Is that specific from the park buffer for some other purpose? [17:15] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: I think that has the biggest effect on the downtown from what I can see on the map here. [17:21] **Commissioner Tyken**: Yeah, I'm concerned that we're not opening up downtown for an adult use one because of the park buffer. The other area is... there's still available spots, but the park one especially downtown. So I'd like to hear the feedback from other Commissioners on that. Otherwise, I thought you did a pretty good job of interpreting the meeting we had last time into legal words. [17:47] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: Well, thank you. Well, thank you. Most of that's Corey. I'm just learning as I go. [17:50] **Commissioner LeBron**: I'm just trying to give you a kudos. So yeah, just thanks. Yeah, I'm kind of on the same page as far as the downtown in general, but just the commercial zoning in general and the overlap with our park districts. You know, we're fortunate that we have so many parks, but I guess I just don't see the merit. It might feel really nice and it's a nice thing to put on paper necessarily, but I just don't see—specifically for the park buffers, even the 500-foot buffer—I'm just struggling to find the benefit to having that type of restriction on the market of the commercial districts that we have available. So again to Commissioner Tyken's point, you know, we decided or discussed at the joint workshop to open up beyond, I think we had less... I think it was just the C-4 Regional Shopping Center at first. But then yeah, looking at the maps here in the packet tonight, it kind of goes right back to where we started. So yeah, just the merit overall. I'm not... the more and more I thought about it throughout the week or the last couple days, I just don't see it necessarily for the park buffer specifically. I think residential treatment facility, school, you know, all that as far as visibility and proximity makes a little more sense. The parks I think are a little more nebulous, and just with the amount of parks and the wide distribution we have of them in Hastings, it says one thing and does another functionally, right? And I guess I'd be concerned to limit that land use and kind of corner the market. We don't do anything similar for liquor licenses either, right? So again, not exactly the same thing, but as far as portability, the potential for getting into the hands of kids, I think is kind of the main thrust of it, and I just don't see how limiting the distance from a particular park or park area makes a difference there. [20:07] **Rachel Swedin**: So I would agree with Commissioner LeBron. I also think that if you think of the actual landscape of the park versus the industry part that is blocking these off—the park is not integrated with downtown like, right, like it takes some effort to get to the shops downtown from the park below. If you look at the part by the mill along the river, bird's eye looks all the same but that's a walk. You're not in the park as much even though the buffer kind of makes it seem that way. You feel pretty departed from the park at that point, which I think is kind of the point. No child is going to accidentally be walking into a cannabis store from the park; they're not connected in any way where it's an easy flow. I feel like getting rid of the park buffers would allow for exactly what you said. Like, the point was let's open up C-3 in downtown to be able to invite these businesses in, and if we have park buffers, we can't do that at all. There's almost no space still. Where is the... I don't know, most of those parks, I feel like they're not even close to those industry places if you're walking around, they feel distinctly different. [20:53] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: Thank you, Commissioner Swedin. Commissioner Peters. [21:00] **Melanie Peters**: I have two things. One, I think just with the zones, limiting to DC, C-4, and C-3—those are such condensed areas of the city anyhow. So I agree that maybe, especially the park buffer that takes up so much of the downtown core, maybe it wouldn't need to be there unless we're absolutely required to have some type of park buffer. The second thing—this is just a clarification question—the light green and the dark green: explain the difference between that because why do we have both 500 and 1,000 on here? [21:40] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: Sure. For the park buffer, we're doing 1,000 feet from a park, and it states here "from an attraction within the park used by minors." So that's a really kind of nebulous term there too. And I think the map here shows primarily park distances on them. There's 500 feet for testing, manufacturing, transporter of medical cannabis. So we have those two competing different regulations in here for different types. That's why they're both on there. But yeah, the park buffer—and I believe that these are a generalized park buffer—some of the stuff around Levee Park isn't shown, so it's more concentrated stuff, but yeah, it does have a disproportionate effect certainly. [22:30] **Melanie Peters**: Have one more question. When we did the workshop, I thought that Corey said that there could only be two. Like for a city our size, the most that we could have are two dispensaries? Is that correct? [23:17] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: Actually the opposite on that one. We're legally required to allow at least two. But I don't know if there's a limit on how many we could have. We can certainly place one if we wish to do so. I think we had some discussion on that. There wasn't any direction on placing a cap, but more placing some limits on the proximity to one another and setbacks on some of these type of uses. [23:44] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: John, question—I wasn't able to be at that meeting—so the 500 and the thousand, is that a city idea or is that come more so from state wording? [24:02] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: City idea on that one. The state provides language of things you *may* buffer from, like residential schools, childcare. So these are things in which the state recognizes the city's ability to provide a buffer. It doesn't provide any direction as to whether a buffer exists or what the feet of the buffer would be. [24:25] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: Okay, thank you. I guess I'm in the minority with the downtown district. I have no problem with the park and the buffer zone down there. I think that that can be considered to be a separate area, because there's still groups that could go down with the lower-potency cannabis with a special use permit, so on and so forth. So I guess I don't see an issue with that. There are other areas where we could add in the adult use throughout town. That's just my personal opinion. Commissioner Peters. [25:05] **Melanie Peters**: Yeah, I can just share that the reason why that came up in the workshop is that a dispensary could potentially be sort of a destination for downtown; that it could attract people to Hastings and into downtown. So I think that was part of the intention of including the downtown core just in the discussion from the workshop. [25:36] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: Thank you for that. Commissioner Tyken. [25:39] **Commissioner Tyken**: Thank you, Mr. Chair. John, I want to correct something you said. You said we "legally must have two." We legally must *allow* two, right? Not must have? [25:52] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: Thanks for the correction, yes. [25:54] **Commissioner Tyken**: The 500/1,000 is what other cities are doing. So the lawyer looked at other cities to see what they're enacting, and that's kind of... so we're just kind of following what other people follow. The way the map is drawn, there would be two locations—and I don't know if that's Jimmy John's or what's in the middle on Highway 61 there—because if a dispensary went into either 55 or on South on 61, it would eat up that whole area right there, there'd be a 1,000-foot buffer on that. So that would allow two. My preference would be that we leave the park buffers in place, but we allow the downtown corridor to be exempt from the park buffer because of the nature of the businesses and the style of the street. It's a big long block of stores; it's not an individual store where people could walk to the park or what have you. So I agree there's a big enough buffer between the park, which is basically the river, and the downtown buildings. So I don't know if that's something that we could write in, or if other people would be in support of it, but that would be my only thought. When I read through this, I like all the other buffer stuff. I like the buffers around the industrial park where they could be manufacturing where odors might get out. I 100% agree with buffers there, both residential and park. But the one downtown just... I agree it could be a great destination; it could bring a lot of business to downtown Hastings since we are so close to other places. Thank you, Mr. Chair. [27:55] **Commissioner LeBron**: Just two points to jump off at that point. I guess in the future I wouldn't want to limit the potential for redevelopment. I know we have long-range plans, comprehensive plan, Vermillion corridor plan, etc., that kind of show the type of development that we currently have in downtown—the historical style, closer businesses, street-facing storefronts, things like that. I would hate to limit that in the future potentially in some of these other areas if we did get some redevelopment, and have kind of a double standard—well downtown's very special, but everywhere else has to play by a different rule. Not a big fan of that. And I think also in other places in both the state law and then the city statute, I think there's enough mitigation for the type of issue that we're thinking of between the park and the business and that crossover. As far as a security plan, these places are not easy to just walk into like a liquor store. You're not just going to sneak in; it's generally a single point of entry, you're checked at the door, it's all kind of set in stone. So a kid isn't—unless the business isn't doing what they're supposed to be doing, which becomes a different issue—I don't really see it. And then it's a person-to-person interaction, which again, a park buffer is not going to change that. You can go up the street if somebody really wanted to hand off to a kid, right? So we're kind of chasing our own tails a little bit. I would be in support of maybe just removing the park buffer entirely. And I don't know if John, maybe there's a way we can meet in the middle and have some sort of further mitigation that's objective? Maybe like visibility from the attraction where miners may gather, that the access faces a different direction or signage or something like that. I don't know if there's anything that might allay some of those potential issues in others' minds. But yeah, it would be in support of potentially a motion to remove the park buffer if there is something we can come up with that again meets in the middle. If we do have some parcel that—I'm thinking of maybe like the block one with Wilson Park behind it—if that redevelops and the business wants to move in, that they don't have an entrance that looks directly at the kids' playground, that it's off of 61 instead. I wouldn't want to pick and choose winners and losers so much. I see what you're saying about exempting the downtown core, I agree generally, but I wouldn't want to have different rules for the rest of the commercial areas that we all agreed made sense to add at the workshop. I don't know if anybody else has any other thoughts, or if John, to my point in the middle there, about if there's some sort of objective standard that we could use to maybe add to the security/access to mitigate some of this. [30:58] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: Commissioners, it's difficult for me to come up with specific language in lieu of the park buffer off the top of my head here. I don't know what that would be. We certainly could look at that, but I don't have anything to offer at this point. [31:20] **Commissioner Tyken**: So in lieu of the park buffer, you're saying for looking like it not facing... anybody who wants to open a business within the buffer zone can also apply for a special use permit, correct? Or a conditional use permit? [31:34] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: No. Anything within the buffer zone would prohibit operation, so they would not be able to. They would never be allowed to. [31:44] **Commissioner Tyken**: Okay, I was just double-checking because sometimes it's case by case and if we can deal with it then maybe special cases then it's allowable. But if that's not the case, then never mind. Thank you. [32:15] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: Commissioner Tyken. [32:20] **Commissioner Tyken**: Thank you again, Mr. Chair. I guess I stand by my "allow in the downtown corridor" and the fact is that we do have different zoning districts within the city, so we treat different areas of the city differently by design. In my opinion, it's easier to allow to free up the zoning code than it is to restrict it. So my opinion would be let's see how it goes. If it goes well and we don't have any problems, we can always visit it again down the road and we can open it up for more business. If it doesn't go well, then we don't have to do anything to change where existing businesses are. I know during our workshop there was a comment about selling firearms close to schools, and she's like, "well I wish we would have had a buffer on that." I'm like, "yes, it would have been great." Now's our chance to do it for this. We can't roll back things that already exist, but we can definitely take baby steps to move forward. And to me, the downtown corridor is so different than the rest of the city, it kind of makes sense. I could be swayed either way, but I'm leaning towards suggesting that we open up the downtown corridor, but the rest of city, let's just see how it goes. You would allow basically three dispensaries in the city and see how it goes. It might be a great boon for the downtown corridor. [33:48] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: I guess that's kind of where I sit. It's a case of this: if we pass this and city council passes it, it's not like this can't be revisited. I think there's so much murky water with all of this. I think we're better off being more restrictive to start and to see how it goes. Could it be a boon for downtown? Sure. But driving five minutes up the road really isn't going to make that big of a difference as to where it's placed. People are still going to go to downtown, they're going to go to Spiral, they're going to go to the restaurants what have you. But Commissioner Tyken, I agree that we should start with this and then revisit once we start getting some people that are interested to move into town and see how those go. I don't want this to turn into Hastings has a dispensary on every single corner. I much rather us restrict things first and then ease up some of those restrictions based on: can these businesses continue to have the safety plans? Are they being followed? So on and so forth. There's 9,000 different checkmarks that they need to make first instead of turning this into the Wild Wild West and us putting one on every street corner. So I guess that's really where I stand. I agree that I think the downtown quarter is different, that it is more of a special district within town, but I guess that's just where I'm sitting right now. I like how it's proposed and then we can revisit and tweak as needed. With that, I'll... [35:10] **Commissioner Tyken**: I have one more comment. I don't like how it's proposed with a 1,000 foot on parks versus other things. I like the 500 across the board. That's my personal opinion. The 500 at least allows a little bit of edge businesses in that C-3 district, otherwise why did we even open up the C-3 district then? That's my one thing. It would be nice if we could get a 500-foot buffer around parks, especially looking at Vermillion Falls Park and allowing some of that C-3 business to move in just in a couple places. I would propose the 500-foot buffer and then the special allowance for downtown. [35:55] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: Commissioners, anything else? If not, I'll take a motion to approve or deny. [36:08] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: And just a point of clarification to Commissioners: if there's amendments suggested from the conversation tonight, certainly you can propose to make an amendment to this. We can vote on those amendments individually if you so choose. [36:26] **Commissioner Tyken**: Can we also table it for further discussion? [36:31] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: It's up to you. If you wanted to direct some questions to come back for further discussion, we can do that as well. [36:45] **Commissioner Tyken**: Mr. Chair, there is a timing on this, right, John? End of the year? [36:54] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: Yeah, so we've built in a little bit of slack right now as it stands. If it goes through first and second reading of the Council, it would be adopted by the end of November. So we have a two-meeting slack in there between Council and Planning Commission. We could take action on this; we could also take action on an amendment. One way path forward is if you wanted to suggest amendments to this code—we talked about the park buffers, we talked about exemptions for downtown—if you wanted to propose an amendment to the code based upon any of that and send that recommendation forward to Council, that would be an option tonight as well. It's not a situation in which you need to take a look at the code as is and vote it up or down; you can offer amendments to that. [37:40] **Commissioner Tyken**: My thought is this is going to go to the City Council. It's not going to be on a consent agenda. They're going to discuss it. They're going to read what we wrote or will—and now an asterisk next to it. [37:55] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: Council goes to what's called a first and second reading. So the first time it's to the Council, it's generally going to be on the consent agenda. The second time, it would be on for discussion. Now with the impact of this ordinance, it doesn't preclude a councilmember from pulling it at first reading, but generally that's the way it goes. [38:15] **Commissioner Tyken**: Okay, so their first reading would be what we propose? [38:18] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: Yeah, whatever would be proposed tonight, we would bring forward as the suggestion from Planning Commission as first reading on the 4th. If you took action tonight, that's what would happen, and then the final adoption of that presumably would be the 18th unless there's a tabling by the Council. [38:36] **Melanie Peters**: So just trying to gather up what we've talked about so far. I think I heard that most people were agreeing with exempting the downtown core at a minimum, and then I would be comfortable with that. I do think about how Corey said you can always... it's so much easier to pull back from a restriction than to add a restriction in once it's there. So that makes me think if the downtown core would be exempt, to leave the rest of the setbacks in place knowing that they could always be pulled back in the future. So there's the 500 and the 1,000—knowing that they could be pulled back in the future if needed, but I think it would be a good step to exempt the downtown core as one change. [40:02] **Commissioner LeBron**: So one last thing with the downtown core point: there is still the 1,000 feet between businesses. That would basically—even if we did exempt the downtown core from the park buffers—we'd have basically one for the whole, you know, Second Street and then the piece that extends up Vermillion as well. So I don't know if we'd consider anything with that, with again the nature of the businesses, the type of storefronts, short lots, building to building, etc. I don't really have a thought right now; I didn't consider that until we opened up the possibility. [40:40] **Melanie Peters**: Well, I think that even if the downtown core was exempt, with a 1,000-foot buffer between locations, I don't think you... maybe you could get two, but I think you would just end up being one anyhow regardless. [41:02] **Commissioner Tyken**: I think that speaks to the importance of not having maybe the 500-foot or 1,000-foot park buffer just to allow a second business a spot to move into, because then we would only really have maybe one location. I think that shopping corridor... I don't even know what's down there honestly, I've never been down there and I've lived here three years, so I wouldn't say that that's the most... and then the other one maybe in that Cub strip mall. That's the one other place. But then you're not allowing any other business. You maybe have room for two or three businesses, which seems limiting just real estate-wise too of what is available. [41:46] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: I guess I am of the ilk that we start off limited, we see what businesses come in, how they go, and then we look to pull back some of the restrictions, whether it be downtown, C-3, wherever it might be. But I think that we have space available that a dispensary and adult use could come in, could start operation, and then see how things go and start to kind of peel back the layers. But if you take away the restrictions now, adding them back in is going to be much more difficult. [42:21] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: Do we need to amend before we move? [42:25] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: Yeah, I think the proper way to move forward would be if a commissioner wanted to suggest an amendment to any portion or a series of amendments, then we would vote on that amendment itself being part of the proposed ordinance. [43:04] **Commissioner Tyken**: I'll make a motion that we have an amendment to the proposed code that the downtown corridor is exempt from the park buffer. [43:18] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: Okay, can I get a second on that? [43:21] **Rachel Swedin**: Second. [43:23] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: Further discussion? Okay, we'll put it to a vote. All those in favor say Aye. [Multiple Ayes]. All those opposed? Nay. [One Nay]. So the amendment then passes. So then we would need... if there's another amendment that would want to be put on the table. We need to make an amendment, whether it be changing park distances or what have you, before we can move on to approving the amendment to the city code chapter with the approved amendments. Does that make sense, John? [43:45] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: Sure, yeah. [43:50] **Commissioner LeBron**: Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to amend the proposed code to reduce the park buffer to 500 feet to match up with the rest of the park buffer restrictions as well for sales. [44:02] **Commissioner Tyken**: I'll second. [44:04] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: Discussion? Is that for the entire city, that the entire city is only 500 feet? [44:11] **Commissioner LeBron**: Yes. So eliminate the 1,000-foot buffer completely, reduce it all to 500. [44:20] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: And then just a point of clarification: that would still provide for an exemption for downtown of the park district, correct? [44:28] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: Okay. [44:31] **Commissioner Tyken**: Discussion: point of clarification. Is that park for adult use only or everything? [44:42] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: I believe the original ordinance was 1,000 feet within an attraction within a park used by minors, and that's for cannabis businesses. And then it was 500 feet was the buffer for testing, manufacturing, microbusiness, meso, etc. Basically the rest of the list. [45:01] **Commissioner Tyken**: So just make that bullet point just 500 feet for all the above? [45:07] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: Point of clarification: with the existing code of what's being proposed, the lower potency would be exempt from that rule. This would just be things of 0.3% or greater. [45:19] **Commissioner Tyken**: Okay, thank you. [45:21] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: Any other further discussion? All right, then I will ask for all those in favor say Aye. [Two Ayes]. All those in oppose say Nay. [Three Nays]. Okay, so that motion fails. Got it. Okay, then I would take a motion if there's any other amendments I would like to make; otherwise, I will take a motion to amend the city code chapter 155 Zoning Cannabis Uses with the approved amendment. [46:02] **Melanie Peters**: I'll make a motion to do that. Not repeating it, thank you. [46:07] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: Can I get a second on that? [46:09] **Commissioner LeBron**: Second. [46:11] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: All those in favor say Aye. [Multiple Ayes]. All opposed say Nay. [None]. All right, motion passes. [46:16] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: Well, Commissioners, what will occur now is this will go before the City Council next Monday on the 4th for first reading. Generally that's an item that's on consent unless a councilmember decides to pull it and discuss it. And then the discussion and final amendment would then be scheduled for the 18th. So, appreciate your time and thoughts and going into this. Thank you. [46:44] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: Thank you, John, as always for everything. All right, any other business? [46:55] **John Hinzman (Community Development Director)**: Other business going on here: we've got a meeting scheduled for the 11th, which would be our next regular scheduled meeting, which is Veterans Day. So if we were to have a meeting, it would be that Tuesday the 12th. At this point, I don't have anything on that agenda; however, I do have potentially two items already for the next meeting on the 25th. So I'm unlikely to have a meeting on the 12th, but we're very likely to have a meeting on the 25th at this point. So other than that, we're continuing to plug away on the zoning code. We're spending a lot of time going back and forth on specific regulations pertaining to zoning districts with our consultant. When we're ready from a staff level, we plan to bring that back to the Planning Commission for a more intensive review of that. So that'll be something coming down the road here. [47:35] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: Okay. All right, thank you, John. All right, Commissioners, I will take a motion to adjourn. [47:43] **Melanie Peters**: Motion to adjourn. [47:45] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: Can I get a second? [47:46] **Commissioner Tyken**: Second. [47:47] **John Moes (Acting Chair)**: All those in favor say Aye. [Multiple Ayes]. We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.