You're good. [clears throat] >> Okay, we'll call the meeting. First thing we do is have the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> The first thing we're going to do is I guess I have to call you a city clerk. City clerk do the roll call. >> Chair Ames >> present. >> Mr. Havla >> here. >> Mr. Bees >> here. >> Mr. Arson >> here. >> Mr. Perrell >> here. >> Mr. Lewis >> here. Commissioner Jorgensson >> here. >> Mayor Hib >> here. >> And myself Natalie Johnson and Planner Nash here. call is complete. >> Thank you. Uh the next thing we're going to do is uh [clears throat] we're either going to approve approve and amend our agenda tonight [clears throat] October 28th, 2025. Somebody like to make this motion. >> I'll make a motion to approve the agenda for tonight. >> Commissioner Perrell made a motion. Somebody like second. >> Second. >> Commissioner Be seconded. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, we'll call for the vote. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Carried. >> The next thing we'll do is approve the uh uh September 23rd, 2025 meeting minutes that we receive. We we need motion for that. Somebody like to make that motion. >> I'll make the motion. >> I'll second it. >> I'd like to second it. Harold had commissioner Jurgson second it further discussion seeing none I'll call for the vote all in favor say I >> no pass okay we'll open our first first public hearing is an end to use permit and a variance for burns bottle shop and so we'll we'll go to our planner here and see what she has to present to Thank you. So, um, the applicants have applied for an interimm use permit to be able to sell the low potency hemp edibles in their shop. They have been selling them as have many people around the state. Um, and at this point in time, the the state is requiring everybody who has been selling them to go ahead and get their lensure with the state and as part of that, they've got to complete their zoning requirements as well. So your ordinance when it was adopted last year included low potency hemp edibles as a interim use in the commercial zoning district. So hence they're asking for the interim use permit. Um and as part of that because of their proximity to one of the ball fields they're also needing to request a variance from the buffer requirements. So both of those are contained together in one motion. Regarding the variance, even though they're not within the required minimum, they're not meeting the required minimum buffer of setback distance, they are basically separated from the active use of the facilities there by a fence and a storm water pond. Um, so in practicality, somebody would have to jump the fence to go there. And even if they did, um, it's it's heavily regulated. So if somebody went inside the store, it's not it's not like you're going to have a 5-year-old kid jumping the fence going into the store and buying the product basically. So looking for a approval of the variance as well as the interim use permit with the conditions that are included in the um in the findings. Happy to answer any questions. and the applicants are here this evening if you would like to hear from them and what they're what they have been doing and what they'd like to continue to do. [clears throat] >> Yes, we'd like to hear from the applicant what they have been doing and what they plan on doing. >> Okay. >> Just give your name when you come up here. >> I am not a good public speaker. Um but my name is Becca Pasitz. That's my husband, Michael Pitz. for the new owners of Burns Bottle Shop. And um so as far as like THC sales go, it is heavily regulated and it will be even more regulated with these new guidelines that are being created. Um, but right now as far as it goes, if someone walks into our shop to buy THC, regardless of their age, if they're 90 or look under 21, everyone is required to be ID um for THC sales. So, that's something that's already like a guideline. Um, as far as our biggest hindrance with being um the location is like the park we said. Um, but I think you covered those guidelines really well. Um, I don't know. I'm not really good at this. Uh, so we plan on having uh all our employees are very well trained. They're all long-term employees that we've had for a long time. Um, we've never had any issues with our THC sales. All our THC actual like edibles, which are the chewables, are behind the counter, so they're not accessible to the public. Um, so those have to be uh someone can't just grab them off the shelf. They have to actually um request them kind of like you would a pack of cigarettes at the gas station. Um, actually most of our customers that purchase THC are probably 60 years and older and use it for like pain management or anxiety or sleeping. Um, so it's very it's been a really beneficial thing to have and we're hoping to continue to be able to keep offering that product safely and regulate it. And we will be working with Anoka County as well. Um, starting January 1st, everything goes through Anoka County and they'll be coming in and doing random audits and checking and making sure that we're following the guidelines. >> Okay. May Ling have any questions to ask group this? >> I got a quick question. >> So, um, you guys just purchased a store in May. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> So, they were selling this product before you bought the store, >> correct? >> And then you guys continue to sell it and you still sell it now. >> Correct. >> So, I think that's an important point. This is not something new. This has been an ongoing thing. And just to make sure that's clearly >> we don't have any more questions this this time. I don't think we for the public hearing we may be asking some questions. Okay. >> Sure. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I want to ask the clerk if all the legal mailings have been sent out. >> Yes sir. >> Okay. I did I didn't see in the favor. So [laughter] by what you said. Okay. Uh, no. If there any questions of planning and zoning, I can ask the planner or Mr. Chair. >> Yes, Mr. Hop. >> So, how close to these 500 ft are they? >> They're right put right right up next to it. The fence is right in the property line, I believe. >> Right. >> Is a property line with it. So, they're right up next to it. >> That's why they're asking for the variance. Do they set it from the building or from the property line? >> Property line. >> Um, >> it's from the property line to the activity that's occurring that's causing people to gather. And you could argue that even though part of the ball is right [clears throat] there, that likely by the time it's the area where people are gathering for that activity itself, you know, it's on the complete other side from where they're at. Any other discussions or questions that we may have as >> I had looked through the ordinance and I didn't see anything. So, we don't have any distance requirements for the alcohol, right? So, >> yeah. So, and then I don't see this as being that different. So, um, yeah, I mean, if if if they [clears throat] can sell the beer and the liquor and everything and be within that vicinity of the park, I I just don't see any difference. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Bees. [clears throat] >> Are there any other questions? >> U Mr. Chair, the Commissioner, >> the sale of low potency, do we have a specific number on that? I guess I didn't check. The state doesn't >> the state does not have a >> the state has a specific limit on what that is. And um and there's a distinct separation between the low potency and the higher potency cannabis products. >> Okay. >> And this if this permits granted, it would only allow them to sell the low potency and only in the bottle shop, not the restaurant. >> Okay. Does anybody else on the plane is only heavy questions as >> I think I read somewhere there's a house in another building. >> No, that is a typo. Ignore that >> cuz I was thinking I've never seen it over there. >> No, I haven't either. [clears throat] >> That was wondering ourselves around. >> She was just checking if you were really cover. >> Yeah, no worries. >> Okay. [laughter] Any more discussion here in the planning zone? Seeing not none, we'll open up the public. Anybody in the public out here in the public had anything to say? We have to give the public a chance to make any comments. [clears throat] See none, I'll come back to our planning and zone again and make sure that there's no more questions we have here. See none. I have to go back to those out on the floor. Is there anybody on the floor? Does he have anything to say about this? [clears throat] Yes, ma'am. >> Just one thing I'd like to add for curiosity if you guys are wondering. We do like the THC products that we purchase are all purchased through like our liquor distributors. So, they're not I just wanted to make that clear, too. So they are heavily regulated as well as far as like making sure everything is compliance as far as potency and things like that go and uh the low dosing for THC is 10 10 milligrams is the most that you can sell. So I just wanted to make sure that you knew that that's where all product is coming from a licensed distributor that's heavily regulated as well. >> Okay. So the state's already qualified your your product as being okay then. >> Yeah. Currently how it worked is we have been able to just register with the state. It's just that the state has changed their guidelines now. So now you have to go through a separate process. It's like a separate licensing process that has to be done. And that's what brings us to this point. So, we've already been registered and approved and we've already had them come out and check the liquor store, making sure we're in compliance and everything like that. They're just changing the guidelines going forward. >> It's It's new to us, too. >> Me, too. [laughter] >> But it's very I mean, almost every liquor store, if you go into them, it's it's very common. Even um >> Coburn's has a giant section of THC products and they're not I mean theirs is right when you walk in the door. They're not like >> it's just big [clears throat] toys. >> Yeah, it's just the new >> right. It's just the new thing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. [clears throat] Thank you. Is there any more discussion here on the planning zone? If not, we'll close the public hearing. Now, we'll we'll sort of act upon this. As I look through this whole thing, there's a lot of information here to go through and read. And I went through it several times. I still don't understand all of it, but and I don't know if you understand all of it either, but there's a there's a lot here. And so, we're at the point now that we got to make a motion. Even they accept this amendment to our ordinance. >> No, it's the >> various I'm sorry to our >> So, somebody like to make that motion. >> You can't look at me. I'm a leazison. I don't get to make a motion. [laughter] >> I'll I'll make a motion to uh approve the uh the amended variance, I guess, as written. >> Okay. and approved the >> the yes made a motion to accept the and also the [clears throat] various like second it >> that's your first name >> y >> commissioner Lewis is seconded. Is there any further discussion? >> Mr. Chair, I guess I had a question about the um there's a planner. There's a there's [clears throat] a fence on the in the park. But if in the future that fence is removed, seems like there would be no barrier on you can require a fence on their property. Um there wouldn't be if you're right if the city removed the fence there wouldn't be a fence there. But um [sighs] >> it's part of a playground too. So that's why there >> Yeah. If the park got reformatted, the fence could be gone somewhere be a barrier park. >> Well, the park probably wouldn't be there if it didn't have a fence. the park still park in the future and after that we want to be able to change their IP based on parking later. >> Well, you it's only good for a certain number of years. So, you could at that point in time if there was some a change of circumstances like that. Now, under the state law, if something else went in that was a different buffer, um you couldn't apply the buffer from it. For example, if um you know, one of the other a daycare went in there instead um the state law provides that we can't penalize an operating business who's already there. But um >> parks first seems like the >> park would change remain a park. You could add that as a condition if you wanted that if um the city took down if the park that or if the fence that's on the city property was removed for some reason and it was still a park [clears throat] there. Um I guess I would add that that that they would need to install a fence within 90 days or something something reasonable. um plan to do that. >> I I think it would be a good idea because who knows if baseball eventually leave here you still have a partner if something's just said if the fence is ever removed they'd have to put a fence up. Would that be a >> only if you made that a condition and if the city council of course >> have that recommendation in there? >> Personally, I I think it should be a condition because you never know what's going to happen. >> Any other may have any other questions? >> Mr. Chair, quick question. Mayor, how long uh city is the uh IUP good for? How many years? Was it three years? >> We put five years in there. >> Okay. So within 5 years it's going to be reevaluated. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I just want to make one thing clear. Uh when you did your motion, you were referring to the variance for the the not the variance correct zoning. Okay. So [clears throat and cough] >> anything we want to add? No. We could add the cons. >> I have no I have no um issues with the way it's written up. I on the phone. Is there any other discussion? I still think it would be a good idea to have something in your fence with that removed. You think the IUP would take care of that? You could include that, like I said, as a condition only. It would only take care of it if it's a condition in the >> Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Does anybody know of any plans that the park is going to move its fence? >> I'm just thinking in five years by the time, you know, >> Well, it's been there. >> Yeah. You know what? I I don't I don't necessarily disagree with having a barrier there, but part of me is thinking >> it could be handled in five years, too. Um, in addition to the what is it's the drainage for the water shed. I mean, >> hold. >> Yeah. I have barb wire on the fence here. People climb over that on occasion. I just >> But I know how politics works. problem >> we had with the the town board in that baseball park. >> There was a [snorts] lot of hard feelings there that we didn't think some people didn't think we should have it. They bought things like crazy. That's why the scoreboard is not there is because the team took it because the team was was kicked out of the city more or less. uh they they took the scoreboard with it because it was gift to the team not to the township. So there was a lot of like I say there was a lot of controversy goes back >> there is [clears throat] >> for another we're not here to discuss that. >> No, but the thing is that's why I think we should have something in there if that fence is ever removed. The fence would have to >> I think it's unlikely the fence would be removed but if you put it in there it would be covered in >> Yeah. my personal legacy see that's that's up to us. So no any other discussion >> Mr. Chair. Yes. I guess I I will amend my motion >> um to approve the the interim use permit and variance with the addition of wording that if the city removes the fence from the park that um it would have to be the the interim use permit would have to be I guess um reapplied for with the addition of a fence uh to create a barrier since they're within the 500 ft. Does he have to make that motion or we he make a separate motion? >> No, an amendment would be fine. Um just a point of clarification. So there would be two ways to do this. One would be the way you stated with >> Yeah. >> making it be a termination condition of the IEP or the other way would be to say that they would need to install a fence within >> 90 days or something. >> Okay. I would I would be on board with them not having to reapply >> and it would set into motion >> with a sixmonth um terminating because it could be in the middle of the winter for all we know. So giving them a six-month leeway to get another fence up and installed within seasonal conditions. >> Yeah, I'm good with that. You accept that part of it too? >> Yeah. Who seconded me? >> Nobody yet? >> Nobody yet. I do have a reading second. >> You accept what he amendment he made to the motion. >> I second. >> Okay. She second. Okay. We don't have to do. >> Yes. >> You need to vote on the um >> the whole >> on the whole motion. >> Okay. We vote on the whole motion. Just to clarify, we let our plan. >> Sure. So there it was a recommendation for approval of the interuse permit and variance with the conditions as drafted and the addition of a condition that basically says if the city removes the fence from the park then a fence needs to be installed on their property line within six months. >> Six months. >> Okay. Any further discuss discussion on this motion? Seeing none, I'll call for the vote. All in favor say I. I. Motion carries. Okay. Uh, that takes care of you. You have to come to the planning and zoning the second Tuesday next month. >> Yeah. Well, actually, it's there's a city council meeting this Thursday and planning items will be at that meeting. >> So, if you want to come back, you can see Thursday. >> Okay. Sounds good. >> And they may they may be interested in this next item as well. >> Okay. Okay. And what we'll do, we'll we'll take and we'll open the next public hearing and it's ordinance a minute related to cannabis and uh so on we turn over to our planner and I'll let her expend. >> Thank you. So um this is sort of a staffdriven proposed amendment to the ordinance on cannabis specifically related to the low potency hedibles. So when you adopted the ordinance a year ago um like many communities you went pretty conservative in your um in what you included within the ordinance. And if you remember the time frame, there was a lot of um unknowns about how the state was going to be handling things at that time. Um since that time, most communities have backed off quite a bit from maybe some of those original thoughts. And the local and sea hemp edibles are an item that the majority of communities, probably not all, but the majority are including as a permitted use within their commercial zoning district instead [clears throat] of requiring them to be say an interim use or a conditional use. So kind of paralleling their application, we're bringing this amendment to you to consider um having those be a permitted use instead. what that would mean in regards to their current application as well as any future ones kind of similarly situated in that district selling only the lower potency product is that they would not need to obtain an IUP. They are very heavily regulated. Um there's really not conditions that we're putting on this that are not already probably being better handled by the state anyways. Um, and you've delegated the retail registration to the county to do. So, they'll be doing all those background checks. Um, they'll be doing the um the underage checks to see if anybody is um, you know, will assault somebody that's underage when they go in there. All of that is still going to be done. So, in a lot of ways, it's it's at least as regulated as your liquor stores and tobacco is. And we don't require interse. So, we wanted to bring this to you for consideration at a recommendation one way or the other to the city council. Um, if this ordinance amendment is passed by the city council, their IUP would effectively be in place for a limited amount of time until the ordinance would get passed and then published in the newspaper. >> Do we have to go over anything that's in it? Um, literally the only thing in it is I took low potency hemp edibles out of being an interim use and put them proposed to put them in as a permanent use in the same zoning district. So, it's not expanding the use [clears throat] anywhere. It is just allowing solely the local to be in permanent use. Um, and that keeps um that then from a zoning process review, all that would happen is that the state would say that somebody has applied for a license. We would check the zoning, make sure they're in the right zoning district, and then inform the state that they're meeting our zoning. >> Mr. Chair, >> yes, please. >> Uh, a question. The reason we're doing this in this order is for expediency so that they can get through everything quicker than the ordinance would be because if we did the ordinance all they would need is variance, right? >> Well, if the way the way it is, no, if we do the ordinance amendment that's here, >> the varian they wouldn't need the variance either because the buffers wouldn't apply. >> Okay. So, is there a reason we're doing it in this order and we didn't approve the amendment to the ordinance first so that they didn't need to do this? >> Yes, there is actually. So, um they don't have the luxury of time. >> Okay. That's what that's what most people Yeah. What people don't know is that when the state when the state told all these throughout the state, all these um people who are already selling that it's time to get your license, the state also only gave them a window of time from October 1st to October 31st to apply. >> Okay? >> So, they have to be able to say that they meet the zoning in that window. >> Okay? >> Or they they would have to >> Okay. So they'll qualify on next on Thursday or >> well it depends on what the city council does of course but >> yes >> but that was an opportunity to give them two different paths to qualifying >> and technically um if if the city council adopts the ordinance amendment on Thursday which we don't know one we don't know if they will or not >> but two um we have to publish it in the newspaper before it takes effect so that's after October >> 31st okay understood so it's just kind of giving the two paths for them to have a possibility to be compliant. >> Perfect. >> Okay. I'm going to ask the clerk to send all the legal publications mailings to sit up. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh [clears throat] I guess is there any more questions we have here on planning and [clears throat] >> I just want to clarify >> Commission Barl. Um, so you've separated out the low potency from the entire cannabis um, ordinance that we set up last year. This then would just approve anybody that's requesting a low potency as long as they meet certain um, the requirements that are listed here. If they meet them, they don't have to come in for a variance and they don't have to come into us for a public hearing. [cough] >> Not not quite. >> Okay. >> Partly. They do not need to come into you for any application of the planning commission level. >> Okay. >> There's also no requirements. A permitted use is a permitted use just like a single family home. >> Um I guess I mean like the 500 ft and that kind of >> that only applies to the canvas. >> Yeah. >> The higher potency. >> Oh, the only higher potency. >> Yeah. So the lower potency would not have those buffers on it. Why not? Again, it's really just try just like we don't have buffers on the S from alcohol or tobacco. Um okay. So that's what it's doing is it's taking it out of this larger picture and putting it into a smaller one here. But they wouldn't be in their situation, they wouldn't even if if we'd already changed this ordinance already, they wouldn't even be here because they would have been permitted. >> Correct. >> They would have been. Now, if you had a different scenario where somebody was constructing a new building and um [cough] that was something that was [snorts] also going to have quarantine there. You'd see it from a site plan perspective, >> but not really from a a cannabis related um licensing. >> That's what I was trying to wrap my head around. I guess understanding at what level we are going to see it come to us and if that's what we want it to be if we don't want to be able to see those. Guess >> Mr. Chair. Yes Mr. Mayor. So, Miss Nash, if we would have had this here in the planning and zoning last month and would have had time to do that, then the IUP that that the first one a it wouldn't have been even here. But it was simply just you that was it by the time you learned about it with the time to react and plan another meeting queued up for you guys and then plan another city council meeting right behind it. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to sell the low potency which they've already been selling. So, but it is reclassifying it. So, And [clears throat] to kick off that information, that's why I was asking in the future, this is allowing everybody to just apply for this license and go through the process without having to come through us and they don't have to have they don't have to be 500 ft from public places and that kind of stuff that are listed here. And that's what I was trying to I got get that point across that we are removing it from these said, >> right? items that we said you didn't want anything >> just for the low. >> Yes. Yeah, that would be for the low point because the full the high higher point would still be under that. Yes. Those >> items. So that's why I was just wrapping my head around both of those concepts that we dealing with. >> I have a question. They still had to come in for appearance. No, they would not because the buffer is >> buffer is a condition of that cannabis retail business um of being able to apply for that. So they would not that that was a condition of that interim use permit process. >> So we're taking that condition away. >> Yes. >> For low potency. >> For low potency only. >> Okay. Chairs, I have one question. >> Yes, go ahead. >> Will they have to apply for a permit just like alcohol and tobacco still does through the city as well so that the city knows that it's there or does it just go through the county because they're because we've delegated it? >> You've delegated it. >> Okay. So, we'll get the um the state office of cannabis management will send us a um notice that there is something. So, we will we will hear about it, >> but it'll be coming to us for a quick zoning review to confirm that they meet zoning. And what meet zoning means in that perspective is are they in the right zoning district? Anything else that might be relevant depending on somebody's individual situation, but it really wouldn't be for this type of buffer. So, and that's what I'm drawing everyone's attention to before we pass it forward that we understand that these are now being removed from the local section section of the canvas. >> Okay, we got any more discussion here in the fine joint? >> Mr. Chair, so it sounds like >> we uh won't be able to see anything that comes before us like can't regulate anything in a case by case basis would be potentially anyone C1 restriction control. >> It wouldn't be with no restriction though because >> the state has a lot of restrictions on sale. And similarly um like a bar for example or a restaurant that serves alcohol um that's a permitted use for you as well. So you would see if somebody was constructing new, you would see their site plan and that review for it for storm water and that type of thing, but it's not a review for um the use itself and whether it's okay that somebody's selling alcohol. >> So could someone just sell it out of a retail store that's open to any miners and anything? >> Convenience store. Sure. If they can sell it out a convenience store. that change make this change. >> But you couldn't really review that before either even the way it was drafted >> if it was near park or something. >> Yes, then you could. But >> so there's there's some restriction if we keep it the way it [clears throat] is. there's a situation. >> Mr. Chair, >> um, >> one of the most obvious things that we've just discussed would be if this ordinance was set in place and they came in and applied for their licensing, we wouldn't have a say of a sixmon window for offense. is no longer even would be no longer conversation because it doesn't fall under that category any longer. >> So heart course before the cart kind of thing, you know, and we're talking about it. We just made this this this change to their variance that they came in with and now we're going to completely remove that variance that we just added into their IEP. That's to say if the city approves us to go forward with this ordinance change and the city approves their IEP and everything, then everything kind of cancels. It's kind of silly. So, I'm just making sure we talk about all what we're doing here and if everyone's on board for that. I don't really have any kind of heavyweight decision on any of it, but I realize what it's going to do and what we just discussed and how it bothered some of us so that a public fence could be removed and now we're talking about that not even being a potential question in the future. So, just throwing that out there, >> Mr. Chair. And just to clarify, it's the low potency that the state considers like tobacco and all that. The higher stuff would still be >> through this whole process. >> Absolutely, >> Mr. Chair. >> What that means, >> Commissioner Be. >> Yeah. So, I agree. I mean, it basically what it's what what the state is doing is equating low potency to alcohol and tobacco. And it just feels like that should all be aligned and and we shouldn't have any differentiation. It's the same distributors. It's the same everything for those products. So, I mean, that's where I'm okay with it. >> Mr. Bees, are you okay with if the city removes the public fence between the ball field and the the park that all of a sudden there's no nothing to deter anybody even though our ordinance right now says it needs to be there? >> The liquor store is already there. selling beer and everything else and and I again I I don't see for the low potency I don't see a distinction. So, I yeah, I I I would have been okay without the fence myself, but um and uh yeah, >> and I didn't bring it up while you were discussing the fence, but I'll point out too that putting a fence on the rear property line doesn't stop anybody from walking around when we get to the next property or a line of trees. I mean, this is going to dodge. >> Yeah, >> just commission. I can see like a liquor store different situation because you don't have miners shopping in the liquor stores using the each on a case by case basis see if we should approve it or not as is allow us to do I'm trying to think where I stand because we're we probably should have acted on this one first before we did. >> No, it didn't matter either. I think it was actually good to go through the discussion of the IEP first to see what you guys would think. So, I agree. >> Um, This may be a little confusing go when it goes to city council, too. >> I'm tracking. I got it. [laughter] >> Take notes. >> This is a prep discussion for two days from now. So, I've already read it. >> I'm ready. >> Mr. Chair, have we opened a public hearing yet? [clears throat] >> No. Okay. I'm going to ask the Yes. You got >> I do have one comment. I don't know. I should have brought a picture of a property line to kind of I think if you physically saw it. There is a a pond you would have to literally swim through and there's also so as far as Yeah, >> we do have a picture. >> Yeah, we do. It's very um >> there's a holding pond cuz the whole back wall the bar >> connected to you. >> Yeah. And also the entrance to the store is on the opposite side of the building from the park. There there is no public access from the back side of the building which faces the park. So you have to walk all the way around the building through the front door from the park. >> And I don't believe I mean I I don't own a convenience store but as far as I know convenience stores are not able to sell cannabis because I don't know maybe I'm wrong. I that would be >> there's there's a bunch of convenience stores registered for that >> are there. Okay. Yeah. So, okay. >> But as far as our property goes, it's the pond is pretty pretty [clears throat] wicked. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Want to open it up to the public. Does anybody else out there like to make any comments having to do with this ordinance change? We just discussed it pretty good. Uh I understand [clears throat] it now. It's better than what I came. I didn't quite understand it. But uh again, I'm going to ask the public if there's anybody out there that has anything comment to make or not. Seeing none, we'll close the public. Okay. What we have on the agenda here is a importance amendments. We have a motion somebody like to make his motion for this amendment. >> I'd like Mr. Chair. >> Yes. Commissioner Hip, >> I'd like to make a motion to not pass this change to keep it as is. >> Okay. Does somebody have a second this? I'll second. So we'll put up for vote. Any discussion? See none. All in favor of not passing this or say I >> I oppos four days I think. Okay. Okay. Now we'll open up for another motion. I'll make a motion to approve this ordinance as written. >> Okay. Commissioner apparel make this motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Commissioner B. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor of this motion say I. >> I. >> Nays. >> I. >> It pass. >> So this will also be on the council's agenda for this Thursday. >> [clears throat] >> So we'll go to the third party hearing what amendments related to third party consultant has had to do with the fee schedule. Uh >> thank you. So, um this is actually something that um you as well as the city council adopted last year, but um there was recently a change made to the feast schedule that accidentally um took off part of this ordinance. So, we're having to bring this back to you now so that you can um reapprove this. So this is the um piece of the ordinance that talks about um escros and paying for the cost of myself the um city engineer and city attorney has passed through cost to people with applications. >> So there are no changes from what >> we're just adding this >> we're readopting it. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh, has the clerk sent all the mailings out or >> Yes, sir. >> All mailings. >> Mr. Chair, may I ask a quick question to Miss Nash? So, is it just the highlighted areas in red are the only changes? >> Um, >> most of those were already done, right? >> So, I think it's Natalie, I may need your help. So, the highlighted parts in red are the is um um I'm going to say let's only talk about the professional fees because I believe >> the rest of it will be addressed when we um address the coding code enforcement. So this looks like it's a working copy. So the only thing that needs to be fixed tonight could be the escros. rest of it will be taken care of when we do the code enforcement. So if you you should be looking at pages um 42 hours, >> right? 29 to 32. >> Yeah. 29 >> 29 is not even in the section. >> Well, no. Our packet has 29. >> Yeah. At the very top 44 is the rest of our pages. 42. >> You're just you're talking specifically about page 42 where it says professional fees and escrow accounts. >> That is correct. >> The rest of it that's in red will be brought back to um council when we have the code enforcement, >> but also the stuff that's on pages 29 to 32. >> You got incorrect page numbers here from the packet. >> Somehow we do. >> There's nothing with 29 through 32 in this section. It starts on page. >> No, it is. It's an amendment here. 29. The fee schedule is actually there, but the actual ordinance is on page 29. >> Yeah. So, the the part you're looking at at the back is just >> there. There's nothing technically different. It's just that um when there was a a change that you guys didn't see that was at the city council level um it kind of accidentally replaced arguably without actually deleting either. So this is more just to make to cover that and um that situation. So this is restoring something that we >> Yeah, that is what you guys looked at last year and the adopted >> I think it was June 2024, >> Mr. Chair. >> Oh, so the but the changes aren't actually other than the fe schedule. They're not violated out. >> There's no changes actually. >> Okay. >> Are we handling it all together? you don't have to handle the fee special because there's no planning fees in that. It's all you know part fees and other things. So we don't we only have to do public hearings related to fees in relation to parts that are building related which is why you guys typically don't see these kind of this is public hearing. We got to open up to the public if they have any comments they'd like to make to this. [snorts] Seeing none, if there's no more discussion, we'll close the public area's closed now. We'll act on this. Actually, all it is is just adding the fee schedule to the uh third party. consulting to the schedule break. >> Y people can be charged for consulting goes for the uh third parties. So if we somebody like make a motion to uh accept this uh amendment chair, >> I'll make a motion to accept this back to the ordinance. proceed. Somebody like second this. >> I'll second that. >> Second it. Any further discussion? >> Seeing none, I'll call for vote. All in favor say I. >> I. I. days. Yes. >> I guess we're ready for adjournment. Like to make that motion. >> I'll make a motion. >> Mr. Jurg made a motion for adjournment. We have a second. >> Second. >> Mr. Car made a second. All in favor say I. I. Thank you.