This is the city of Hastings Plan Commission meeting, regular meeting for April 28th, 2025. And call the meeting to order and our first order of business is a oath of office to our newest commissioner, Commissioner Mos, John Mo. Welcome. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Planning Commissioners. John, if you'd stand up, please. I'm going to go to the other side here, and if you could follow along with me on the sheet here, Minister of the Oath of Office for Planning Commissioner. So, I, John Mo, I, John Mo, do affirm do affirm that I will support that I will support the Constitution of the United States of America the Constitution of the United States of America the Constitution of the State of Minnesota the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and the charter and ordinances of the city of Hastings and the charter and ordinances of the city of Hastings and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of planning commissioner and that I will faith faithfully discharge the duties of planning commissioner for the city of Hastings for the city of Hastings. things. Counties of Dakota and Washington counties of Dakota and Washington and state of Minnesota and state of Minnesota according to the best of my ability and understanding. according to the best of my ability and understanding. Welcome, Commissioner. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And again, welcome John to the planning commission. Thank you. I'm glad to be here. All right. Approval of the minutes from the March 10th meeting. Commissioners, any comments, corrections, additions, subtractions? All right. If not, we'll consider those to be approved. And we have three public hearings tonight. The first public hearing will be Steve, is it Benowitz? All right. Steve Benowitz, special use permit 2025-05, cannabis 21103 Vermillion Street. and our staff report be John Nman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commission is so for the first two items we have tonight, they are public hearings, both related to a similar item, and that is a special use permit for cannabis retail sales. So during the first presentation here, I'll go through a little bit more background on the permit, some of the history, and then uh stick with some of the specifics of the second one here. So the first public hearing that we have tonight is for Steve Benowitz. This would be a cannabis use a special use permit for cannabis retail sales at 21103 Vermillion Street. This is a property right next to the bar. Uh this is what we're looking at here, Highway 61. The bar is located on the yellow outline parcel and then right in this location here is where the retail facility would be proposed for cannabis. So tonight, what we're asking you to do is to hold a public hearing, take comment that may come up, and then review the special use permit application, and provide a recommendation to the city council on this. So, a little bit of background on cannabis. On December 2nd of last year, the city council adopted an ordinance amendment for cannabis and lower potency edible use. This was the second round of cannabis permit applica or ordinance amendments that we went through about a year ago. We adopted similar types of requirements pertaining to what's termed now low potency edibles. What is a little bit confusing within the code is back in 2023, we approved a number of special use permits pertaining to retail sales of cannabis, but those are now low potency cannabis. These are there's about five or six of those within the city. what we're looking at now and the applications we have before us tonight are for what I would term full potency cannabis. There's not a restriction uh that this that is present on the lower potency cannabis sales tonight. So just a little bit of background on what is different between what we're pertaining to now and uh what we adopted earlier. Other thing that's important about tonight too is the special use permit and how it complies with other requirements necessary before one sells cannabis. Uh this has been a a changing process and there's a number of different steps involved in it. I think the important factor tonight for the planning commissioner commission is the approval of the special use permit uh recommendation by by planning commission adoption by council does not necessarily guarantee any entity the ability to sell cannabis. It's really the first in about three steps that are necessary to secure cannabis sales in the city of Hastings. What the approval of a special use permit would do would be to allow an applicant to u to complete the office of cannabis management's application for lensure and there's a portion of that application which states compliance with local zoning. So, if the planning commission agrees and the city council ultimately approves, they would be able to check the box and say yes, it does meet local zoning requirements for the issuance of a cannabis retail permit. After that, it would go through the office of cannabis management uh with their application and background checks and so forth and then they would be eligible to potentially sell. Then comes the second portion of our ordinance. There is the zoning ordinance portion of dealing with cannabis and then a lensure or registration portion dealing with cannabis that would come later on in the process. Uh there's similar restrictions in there, similar methodologies for how to to regulate the sale of cannabis and so forth. But the one important aspect of the the registration is our ordinance as it sits would allow only one retail cannabis business within the city. So even though we have two applications tonight and perhaps we may have more in the future under our code we can only allow the issuance of one uh registration of cannabis. Now this is not a decision that the planning commission needs to make tonight nor does the the city council ultimately need to make it with the zoning aspect to it but once we get to the registration there will need to be a determination of how that will be issued. So, just wanted to provide that background information. So, it's a kind of a multi-step version that we're dealing with here. With all special use permits, we have a notification of public hearing. So, we sent notice out to all property owners within 350 ft. I did not get any comments specific to this application here uh prior to the meeting. looking at our zoning and land use for the property. The property is classified commercial in our comprehensive plan in zone C3 regional commerce in our zoning code. So under the zoning code, cannabis special use, cannabis is allowed as a special use. So it uh is allowable with the permit. Looking at the property itself, we are surrounded by other C3 commercial uses. Everything surrounding and abuing this property is commercial already with O'Reilly Auto Parts to the north, Century Links property to the east, Rivertown Event Center to the south, then Vermillion Street and Los Margaritas on the other side of of the um the property here. So, cannabis sales would occur within that small portion of the building itself, like a little over thousand square ft. It's next to the bar, owned by the same entity as the bar. Bar, as you know, has been in operation for a number of years. And the proposed space for the cannabis retail operation was last used as a bottle shop a few years ago. So special use permit review. Under our code, we allow cannabis under zoning as a special use permit. We establish certain performance standards as well for retail facilities. One of those would be the operation limited to 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 7 days a week. and also they cannot violate the public nuisance ordinance which is a wide-ranging ordinance dealing with nuisances. There's also certain distance requirements that are established for the operation of the cannabis facility as well uh based upon its location near other facilities, schools, uh sites that are attractive to to miners and other treatment facilities. So looking at those requirements, the site does meet the,000 foot minimum distance requirement between cannabis uses. It's more than 500 ft from a school or residential treatment facility and it is more than 500 ft from a playground or athletic field, court, picnic area or restroom, pavilion or park building or disc golf. These are entities that we have established within our code uh that would be attractive to children. Now, when you look at the property itself, you'll notice that Vermillion Falls Park is located not too far to the north and indeed portions of the park are within 500 ft. In cons consultation with our city attorney, uh we looked at the facilities within the park and the facilities that I mentioned uh are none of those are within 500 ft. So, it does meet those requirements. It does meet the parking requirements as well. and a security plan has been submitted has received cursory review by our police chief. We will have a condition of approval that that there's a final review and review of the premises uh before operation as well. So those are the requirements that we have specific to cannabis sales within the code. We also have our general requirements pertaining to special use permits which I noted within the report and then in red detailed how this application meets them. In general, there's not going to be much change to the exterior of this building and the functioning of this building itself. When you're taking a look at special use permit requirements, most of these are really not applicable. The ingress and egress to the property is adequate. It's been served as retail in the past. There's adequate off- streetet parking facilities. Refu and service areas are present. Utilities are fine. U signage do has does have some specific requirements which will be noted in the special use permit for requirement. So we are recommending approval of the special use permit with the conditions within your staff report itself. I think a couple of things to note on that one is it's conditioned upon obtaining a license for retail cannabis sales through the Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management, registering the license for cannabis sales with the city clerk's office, adherence with the codes that we have and subject to a sunset clause provision. So I believe the applicant, Mr. Benowitz, is here tonight if you have any question for him or you may open the public hearing at this time. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, John. We will go ahead and open the public hearing. All right. If there's anybody here that wishes to speak, um, please come up to the podium, state your name and address. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak? Oh, okay. Sure. You got one behind you as well. Um, first of all, it's nice to meet all of you. Uh, my name is Steve Benowitz, a head of 213 Vermillion Street. Um, I've been a business owner here in town since 1976. So, I I've been here next year will be 50 years. Um, and um I'm very grateful that back in 76 the city of Hastings granted me that liquor license and now I'm here to apply for a cannabis license. And it's very important for me to make sure this is done properly. What I mean by that is to make sure that state and federal state and federal laws um are carried out in the business uh best practice also carried out in the business. And I personally am going to take the time to make sure uh that all this is done properly. Um, and we I just want to introduce Jen Seibles. She's our GM there. Uh, she's been there for quite quite a few years. Um, she's very thorough, very organized, and a good person, and I trust her immensely. Uh, but anyways, I'm I'm here, like I say, to get get try to get her. Hopefully, we'll get the cannabis license and um I'm sort of semi-retired now, but Hastings is very important to me because it was like say it was my first license I received uh back in 50 years ago. So, again, it's very crucial to me that this is done properly and I'm going to personally take the time out to make sure that this is done properly. again, make sure that the all the laws are are u carried through properly. Uh insurance and everything and uh spend time there uh again to make sure the laws and and the staff and everybody does the things that they're supposed to do. Um, I' I've been in business for I don't want to say how long, a long time. And we, my son and I, and we're in uh, we have a business called Craft and Crew Hospitality. And under the umbrella, we have uh, seven restaurants right now. and uh we're in the process of opening up the eighth one next month um in Rogers, Minnesota. I'm not here to to brag because that's the last thing I I do. That's the last thing I want to do. But I'm here to say I the reason why I'm saying that is I just want to I I've been through a lot of things in business and uh it's true that the cannabis business I don't know a lot about. But when I first started in business, I didn't know a lot about anything uh meaning in the business and I learned as I went along. And again, uh I want to reiterate that I'm going to take the time out to make sure that everything is done properly. Um, so, um, you know, I am here to hopefully get the license and I'm here to, um, just say that I'm going to do everything in my power if we do get the license to make sure that everything is done right. And, um, you know, um, I've been I've been in the business a long time and again, we've been through a lot of things and I don't give up easily. and they want to make sure everything is done the proper way. And I don't know if Jen if you want to say anything. Uh follow that. What's that? I'm not sure how to follow that. Well, anyways, she's a really good girl, really good person, and again, I trust her and uh she's uh again very organized and extremely thorough. Um, that's one of the reasons why I want to do this because it takes it's it's hard to find people that you really can trust in this business and she's very trustworthy and I give her 100% of my I I'm just 100% behind her. Um, I don't know if anybody has any questions for me. Well, not at this time, but we'll call you back up if we Thank you. Thank you for your time. Yeah. Thank you. and gentlemen in the back row there. Do you want to speak? Thank you. I just wanted to uh Can you do me a favor and state your name and your Oh, my apologies. That's okay. Yeah. Josh Bruns, 333747th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota. I just wanted to note that Mr. Hinsman did uh cover the distance requirements, but I just wanted to enter this into the record just for record sake. Uh if you guys would just note for me please uh 155J 5D2C. It's just the distance requirements. Um 500 ft from an attraction within a public park that is regularly used by miners. So I just want to quote specifically and that might include may or may not uh a pathway uh that is marked as an entryway or the entrance and entrance into Vermillion Falls Park. That's all. Thank you. Is there anyone else that wishes to speak? All right. Anyone on Zoom? Are we using Zoom? Nobody. Nobody on Zoom. Okay. We'll go ahead and close the public hearing and we will open it up to commissioners for any comments, dialogue, questions. Commissioner Sweden, I'm pretty sure John said this, but for very clear clarification here there, we are not deciding which permit is going to be used in the end right now. We are just deciding that each spe if each special use permit will be administered today. Correct. There's be no final determination based upon the registration by planning commission or city council during this process. That would be a separate portion, but just highlighting that for something to be determined down the road. Thank you, John. I just need some clarification. So, section two there, C where you talked about it and that gentleman talked about more than 500 ft from an attraction within a public park. And I know you consulted the city attorney and she said it didn't seem to violate it, but I just wanted to get some clarification on that because when I read it, it does say regularly used but not limited to a playground regularly used by minor such as but not limited to a playground, athletic field, athletic court, picnic area, which doesn't need to have anything. It could just be an open area um or restrooms, pavilion or park building, disc golf features um as each is measured from the location of the public park attraction to the use. And so that was the part that I had a question on as to um how she came to the conclusion that that would not violate. I just a little I need a little bit more specifics as to what portions do not of of Vermillion Park do not fall under that because I do I do see that open area in there that could be used for that. You throw a blanket down, you have a picnic. Sure. So, I'm wondering how she uh made that determination that that did not fall under that 500 foot rule that area. Sure, Mr. Chairman. Looking at the map here, this is Vermillion Falls Park in this location. When I consulted with the city attorney, we were looking for for facilities within this park that may meet the requirements of being 500 ft or less. The closest thing that we could find would be this is the pavilion area I believe of the park right there that was I think close to 600 ft away from that. So there are spaces that uh that are open within here but there's not any formal facilities that are designated or identified in that area. So it was our conclusion that it met the requirement. Okay. All right. So it's the designation the official designation of that area. Right. the legal determination. Mhm. Okay. Thank you. Questions? Other questions? Oops. My mic on here. All right. No other questions. No comments. Okay. If not, I'll entertain a motion if you're ready. Motion to approve the permit for Oh my goodness, name the a permit for the bars special use permit cannabis retail sales by Steve Benowitz with the uh listed recommendations outlined by staff. Okay. So, we have a motion to approve special use permit 2025-05. That's okay. 21103 Rillian Street. I do I have a second? I'll second. Okay. Second, Commissioner Peters. Do we have any further discussion? Okay. If not, all in favor say I. I. Opposed. Okay. That motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The recommendation will bring be brought forward to the city council at their May 5th meeting for final action. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Okay. All right. Um second public hearing. This is for Joshua. Is it ruins? Not here tonight. Okay. Close enough, I guess. All right. Sounds good. Uh, Minneapolis Kombucha special use permit 2025-07 cannabis, 215 Ramsey Street. And again, we have John Hinsman with the staff report. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair, planning commissioners. Uh, the basis of this application is similar to the last one. This is a special use permit consideration today for retail sales of cannabis. This location is 215 Ramsey Street located in the downtown area. The applicant is Joshua Bruns from Minneapolis Kombucha. The property is owned by Suriri Group LLC and located here at 215 Ramsey Street. It's right near the corner of Ramsey and Third Street. It takes up half of this building here. This is kind of an unusual property in which this portion of the property in yellow is owned by Suriri and the property to the north is owned by the Hastings Economic Development and Redevelopment Authority. These parcels within the parking lot area are jointly owned and subject to a joint parking and use agreement. So we we share the parking on this property with the neighbor to the south and uh that's a little bit unusual situation that we have there. Actions we're asking for you today are similar. hold a public hearing and review the application and provide a recommendation to the city council. So, I won't go through some of the background on on cannabis. Issuance of the special use permit is similar in that the approval of a special use permit does not necessarily guarantee the right for one to operate tonight. It provides the opportunity for one to check the box for the office of cannabis management. Once their review is complete, it would come back to the city via a registration process and then at that time under our code only one retail cannabis operation would be allowed. So bring that up again. Notification to public hearing was similar on this out to all Sinclair who's the owner of the property directly across the street. uh national facility solution stated some concerns about the operation of this facility within the downtown area and in particular in the proximity of uh uh Hastings Prescott Arts Council which is located within as a lease within our building that Hedra owns directly to the north. So I do bring that forward for the record here. No other comments that we've received at this time. Comprehensive plan and zoning is similar to the other proposal. It is designated mixed use like the remainder of downtown. Property is owned C3. Similar to the other property allows for retailers of a special special use permit for retail cannabis on the site surrounding the site. Uh mostly commercial businesses. You've got HPAC's offices that are leasing to the north. You've got a vacant home which is located directly to the east, but that home is zone C3 and has been vacant for some time and has been the subject uh of a redevelopment plan uh in the past. To the south, we do have Mississippi Terrace, which is a senior housing community, and to the west, National Facilities Solutions. Background of the permit here is similar to uh the one we shared earlier. Uh the one notable difference is within the downtown areas the setback requirements that I reiterated earlier uh businesses are exempt. So there is no setback requirements from uh the items that I listed earlier pertaining to treatment facilities, schools, park facilities, those types of things. So that does not come into play in this area. Uh the site does meet minimum parking requirements and a security plan has been submitted and has been uh uh initially reviewed and approved by the chief of police. Special use permit requirements, the general ones that I've noted within the report. There's not going to be much change to the exterior of the building. It serves a lot of the requirements right now with meeting ingress and egress, off- streetet parking, refuge service, utilities, and the like. So there really isn't anything significant to note there other than the cannabis permit does have a restriction on signage in that and that's been added to the recommendations for approval for the special use permit. So staff is recommending approval of the special use permit following uh with uh the requirements that are within your report. There's 11 conditions that are listed there. Mr. Bruns, the uh owner of the proposed business is here tonight. if you have any questions for him or you may open the public hearing. Thank you. All right. Thanks, John. And we will go ahead and open the public hearing. All right. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak? Go ahead, sir. Come on up. Name and address. Good evening. I'm Scott Northard. I live at 716 West 2nd Street. Um, I'm the treasurer for the Hastings Prescott Arts Council and as uh Mr. Hinsman pointed out uh we are leasing the uh property at 213 Ramsey adjacent to this building to this that part of the building. Uh we actually are have been working in the property to get it ready for a grand opening on May 17th. Uh we're going to be conducting art lessons there for many uh students including minor children. Uh we're going to use that uh property also for uh supporting the Hastings Prescott Arts Council and our meetings that we have. But we also are the fiscal sponsor for the Rivertown Band uh the uh uh new River Valley uh choir that has been formed and then now the orchestra which is just coming together and the river uh River Valley band actually uses that property to store their music and other things. So we have a lot of traffic going in and out and a number of uh the people that will be using the building are minors uh minor students and uh a big part of our uh initiative there will be to conduct art lessons and uh we envision a lot of other things uh uh as HPAC continues to grow um we've been around since I believe 2008 uh serving the community. We worked closely with Hedra and others to create the Arts and Culture Commission. The city uh sponsors that now and uh we're really trying to grow the arts in Hastings. And we just uh don't have a problem with cannabis per se, but the location of this is uh and the proximity to our building and our intended uses uh just doesn't seem to fit. So, I wanted to make sure we brought that up today so that the planning commission was aware of that and uh would consider that in uh any cons any uh discussions you have regarding this uh use of the the building for cannabis purposes. I don't know how welldeveloped the laws are yet for cannabis in Minnesota. It's still a fairly new thing, but if you think about uh edibles and other things and in the vicinity of minor students, I know there's been a lot of discussion among parent groups and school groups about trying to control that uh around uh children and not make it attractive uh to them and it just seems like this is just not a a good fit uh for this building. So, I just wanted to make sure I brought that up today. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak? Come on up. Hi, I'm Barb Hollandbeck. I live at 212 East 2nd Street. And not only am I a property owner, I uh live downtown. My toy store, SEC, um SC Toys, is located downtown as well. And so I also have uh similar reservations as Scott Northard about the um closeness to the property and my toy store. I have kids in and out all day long and I know u the downtown area is exempt from some of the parameters in the ordinance. uh which I still find disturbing because I do have kids um in and out all the time and a lot of kids coming down from seas that would pass right by the dispensary or subject property. Um another issue that I would like to bring up is the senior housing and the density in our neighborhood. So I just don't feel that the dispensary would be a good fit with all the residential units that are available. And I am one of them that I do live downtown. um which I love downtown and it's a great place to live. So I just think the density it could be an issue um just seems like it should be a more in a commercial area away from residents um just in my viewpoint of course. And then um another note that I uh was looking around the neighborhood and we have the AA club which there again the downtown area this particular building is exempt from the 5- foot barrier from uh residential treatment programs but AA certainly not a residential treatment facility but it is there to help people uh with addiction problems. Um and many times uh when people are attending the the meetings, they will park right on on that street on Ramsey and Third Street and have to converse to the building from their car in in that area. So I think it's just a detriment to those people seeking sobriety. And then also um because I live downtown, I know a lot of my neighbors I know there's a lot of neighbors downtown that are chemically dependent. and then to put another resource um when they have had convictions and trying to get away from drugs and alcohol to put another um source of temptation next to them is uh I feel detrimental. So I just don't feel and then of of course with our downtown and we've been working for the past eons it seems like to bring in familyfriendly entertainment and this is certainly an adult use and wouldn't could have an impact on those familyfriendly activities. So, I'm not in favor of this going forward or being approved. And I just wanted to make my voice heard and raise some concerns that I have. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, come on up. Hi, my name is Kathy O'Keefe and I live at 1560 Tyranny Drive and I'm the president of HPAC which is housed right next door. And I think Scott just so clearly expressed all of our feelings about finding out that our new neighbors would have um be offering things that we didn't feel were appropriate for the use of our building. We just have visions for lots of children being able to come in. Um, like Scott said, we started in 2008. We've been working really hard to be promoting arts in our community and offering a lot of free classes and free events and um it just was surprising to hear that that that and Tippies is our wonderful neighbor. I mean, it's all just working out so well to find out that quickly that may change as we are looking at our opening our our vision that we had for this building. So, I too am in opposition of having that kind of use as our neighborhood partner. So, I think that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? Come on back. Yep. Come on up. Hi again. Josh Gr 33747th Avenue South. I just want to apprec I appreciate you guys comments. Um I would like to just put into the record the um letter and security plan that I submitted. I encourage you to email John so you can read that over. Um I do address a lot of those issues. Um, I would just like to say that uh I took city as a work of art at the uni and uh including a very walkable uh city that embraces the arts is something that um I hold to a very high uh standard or you know thing that should be part of the city uh to create a city. Um I hope that you don't you know exclude uh this business because of its particular use. I think uh there there's definitely a lot of um variance and opinions about um how that use may occur. Uh I just want to say we're not a uh place where people will use that is definitely still against city code. um and all the other points that you brought up absolutely something that I would want to address directly each and every one of those um in order to uh quell to the best of our ability but at the same time uh want to allow um this business an opportunity to prove itself and not uh be categorized uh prematurely. Um, as far as uh walkability, I think uh and traffic of children uh signage is a big part of uh actually uh a a great study is from St. Paul uh in their distance requirements. Um there's a retail section that's about 10 pages that I think should be submitted into the record uh because it addresses a lot of these issues. Um as far as advertising is concerned, um most sales from uh cannabis retail stores are via online advertising. So we are definitely not going to be having u we're it's going to be incognito signing for sure. Um and as a condition to the use uh I think that is absolutely a condition uh that I would place on this business for its particular location. As far as a detriment, I hope that uh there's definitely uh ups and downs to this new industry and implementing and it's especially used for a reason. Uh, but I hope that uh I don't I'm not a to say that the best for the most amount of people is a way to, you know, make choices, but um I think that there's definitely a lot of folks that might be uh supportive and and please reach out u with to my information uh submitted to the city uh for further concerns again so we can address these directly and if you come up with more things as I'm sure we will uh over the next coming weeks, uh to quell these concerns, mitigate these concerns best we can. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak? Okay. Anyone else? Nope. Okay. We will go ahead and close the public hearing and we'll open up to commissioners. Commissioner Hwood. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um John, quick question, clarification. Oliver's Grove. What is the formal uh designation of that? Is that considered kind of like a park area? Is that I'm just curious because I know that there is many youth that hang out downtown and hang out at Oliver's Grove. Mhm. Commissioner, I don't know specifically. It is owned by the city. It was once purchased by the HA for redevelopment purposes, but after a period of time with the improvements that occurred there, uh, it's being used as a park. So, I would consider it a park, although it's may not be designated such. It does appear on our park map. Okay. Do we know the distance? Would that be within the 500 ft? I think it would be cuz when I originally looked at distance requirements, I I looked at that and went that one's good to be within 500 and then realized that the downtown area is exempt from those distance requirements. So it would be a moot point. Okay. Um I do share a lot of the concerns that committee members brought up uh as well with this particular uh application. So, I I'm open to hear other conversations with the commissioners. Okay. Thanks, Commissioner Albert. Mr. Peters. Um, thank you. And I have to say that I agree with Commissioner H Commissioner Halberg. Um, I think special use permits are brought to us so that we can give them consideration. And with the downtown core being exempt from some of the setback requirements, um it makes sense. Otherwise, there wouldn't be an opportunity for a business like this to go in the downtown core. However, knowing that this would be coll-located in a building where from what I'm understanding, a lot of the main traffic is minors. I don't think this makes practical sense. Um, I don't I mean I think it it's what we're trying to avoid when bringing in cannabis industry into the city. We want to allow for it but not put it in the hands of miners, you know, try to to keep a protective barrier. And I I think that this particular location doesn't make practical sense. Right. Thanks, Commissioner Peters. Commissioner Sweeneying, I have a question for John about a different park, which is Depot Park. How close is it to that? Because that is more concerning to me than Oliver Grove. Commissioner, the blocks within downtown are generally around 300 ft wide. So, if you you take a look at the block on the screen there, about a block and a half distance is where you're going to get to 500 ft. So the depot park would be pretty close if not within 500 of that. Oh, thank you. All right, Commissioner Mo. Well, John, I I do have a quick question, too, about the reason reasoning for the exemptions um for this particular type of business in the downtown corridor. I'm surprised that or couple questions. I'm new, so maybe I it's been brought up before, but was there a rationale or a reasoning why this particular type of business would be exempt from um those conditions that are, you know, the the first applicant was subject to? I guess I'd be more inclined to or I'd like to know some of that reasoning. Sure. Commissioner, when the city council was considering rules for cannabis sales and looking at setback requirements, are we put together some maps showing distances from certain items uh from the schools and parks and so forth. When you put those setbacks into the downtown area, it prohibited the potential sale of cannabis within the downtown. And so the city council reviewed that and wanted to have the opportunity for cannabis sales to occur within the downtown area. So I believe that's why the exemption came forward. Right. Thanks, Commissioner Mos. Commissioner Swedian. Just for point of clarification on when we did make those or like those decisions were made, the exemptions were that not even an application within those buffers would come across our plate, right? Like if it was within 500 ft of a park without the exemption, there would be no application. Correct. Not that we couldn't approve or disapp like added, right? We would not be able if the setback requirements were present within the downtown area. If an application was made, there would be no way we could approve it uh without a change to that ordinance. Okay. Thank you. And Commissioner Hubard, I'd like to make a motion, Mr. Chair. Uh, I'd make the motion to reject the special use permit 202507 Cannabis at 215 Ramsey Street based on concerns of distances to parks. I know it's not part of the setbacks, but I don't think it's appropriate for the location it's going into. Okay. I have a motion to deny. Do I have a second? Second. Second. And any further discussion? Okay. I do have one thing that um I want to bring up. I do have a question. Oh, go ahead. Um my question um is just will this still go to the city council either way if we reject it or approve it? Yes. Yes, Commissioner. Any any action either to recommend approval or denial of this will move forward. Correct. Yep. My only secondary comment would be just listening to and everybody has a good point here is when we looked at the first application, you know, I brought up the fact that we were within x amount of feet from part of a park and the city attorney kind of weighed in on that and said not an issue. You know, we think we're okay with that one. Um, and now we've got one that's in a zoning area that has no setbacks requirements. And so zoning wise, we are right where we were on the first application, but the first application was reviewed by a city attorney. Here we're looking at a lot of whatifs. What if kids gather at this intersection? What if kids gather at this park? What if kids gather at the What if kids are here? you know, and so are we the only thing I ask myself is are we giving fair and equal assessment to both applications because the first one is technically um within 500 ft of a park and you know there's a grassy area that could be used as a as a picnic area if you really want to get down to and the city attorney deemed that that it would not be an issue. So that would be my only discussion as far as looking at the applications from a from a from a equal playing field as far as tonight goes. We're going to have additional ones I'm sure. Um and so this isn't the end of this discussion. Obviously there's going to be further discussion as John indicated in his opening remarks about this is just a very very beginning step in the process and so there's going to be more evaluation. only one is going to be able to open per our ordinance and that one will be determined by the comments we received tonight. The comments the research he does after because he's took notes obviously of all the concerns and we'll probably circle back with the city attorney make sure that we're doing what we need to do and so that would be my only um my only discussion that I would have on that. So, Commissioner Sweeney, um, I would like to add that a part of my decision process is not just the park aotment, but it is also that the co-owner or like the neighbor of the building is not in agreement with this. Whereas in the first case, the building is owned by the same person. I think that that says a lot towards if we are going or like as cannabis gets introduced into our community that it is in a space where the people who are directly next to the space also feel comfortable with that. That is a huge part that to me makes the cases very different not just about parks but very much space that the is co-sharing or coexisting in. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Bose. And I would also say that on the first application, there was there was nobody that showed up to disagree or um have any objections to this to the site. So, that says a lot. I think that's pretty telling as well. But, uh but and but I also agree with um your point in the sense that it does meet the criteria as set forth in the city code. So, you know, that's something to consider as well. Mr. Mo, thank you. Fisher, is any other conversation? If not, okay, we had a motion to deny, we had a second. Okay, so we will go ahead and absence of any further discussion, take a vote. So all in favor of denying the motion, say I. I. I. Opposed? I And I'm a no on that. So, so I will note for the record that that was five eyes to recommend denial and one nay four four four four that's yeah that's okay I wrote four it's total five and and one chair to that vote against that motion that is correct then that motion and that motion will be brought forward to the city council on May 5th for final action thank you all right thanks Okay, we're on to our third public hearing and this will be Fred Wland variance 2025-08 sideyard setback and garage move for 14 or 413 2nd Street West and again John Hensman with or excuse me Justin Fory with our staff report. Um just a correction uh Chair Mina I don't believe this is a public hearing. It is not. No. Oh, okay. So, we'll make that correction to the agenda. Then, do we concur that is not a public hearing? Yes. Uh, Mr. Chair, that incorrectly noted. Notification was made to individuals in 350 ft, but it's not technically a public hearing requirement under our code. All right. So, we're just going to take this as part of the regular agenda then. Thank you. All right, Justin, go ahead. Um, so this is uh two requests. One of them is uh to move a structure onto the site and the other one is a side street side setback. This is a picture of the front of the property at 413 Second Street West. The arrow is pointing to the general location of where the structure would be moved. Um uh the in the in the state city ordinance there's a structure move um component um for when a new structure is proposed with the potential for a difference from the surroundings whether it's moved or can built or modified um it can be um sent to the board of design control which is a planning commission duty um with a recommendation to the city council. The site is also a heritage preservation uh site locally. Um and the HPC did review this proposal. In fact, um last summer there was a proposal for uh a different structure to be moved. It was to move a structure that was adjacent to this um home. And uh the applicant uh after had that approved um decided to just rent that um structure out as a rental property and he has since found uh this new structure to move on to the site to be used as a garage. Um the HPC approved this one with um the condition that it have damage to it um be repaired. Uh the structure is from the Rose Mount area. It's a vacant home. It has some damaged siding, rotten boards. It was built in 1949. It's 920 square feet. It's about 46 feet long by 21 feet wide. Um myself and a building inspector went and looked at the structure and um saw that it has some missing siding. It has some fascia and um damage and some window uh damage. Uh the building inspector did look try to look at the sill plates which is just the bottom of the walls where it connects to the concrete slab for any damage and he didn't find any but it was hard to see because it has walls uh uh covers on the you know drywall on the inside and then siding on the outside. but he was just a little concerned because the dirt was was fairly high on the on the cement slab and um noticed that the center wall is a likely a loadbearing wall which would make it difficult to use as a garage. Um he commented that the building inspector commented that there's a good chance that a a engineer could um have a plan for a beam and post to replace that that uh center wall. Uh this area where it's the um the structure would be moved to is predominantly mid to late 19th century homes. Um across Forest Street there's a Rambler built in 1959 and then across Second Street West there's a house um that was built in 2004. Proposed changes of the applicant to the structure include repair and repaint all the siding, convert the second street facing cross gable end into an open porch, increase the wall height from 8 to 10 ft um with um with concrete and install garage doors on the south side which would be rear facing. The time frame of the applicant to make these changes and move the structure, he's stated, would be two years. This year, he proposes to move it, excavate, and install the concrete work and make the structural and cosmetic changes next year. Uh, the site is 413. It's in the center of the screen. the there's a in this aerial picture there's a trailer parked about where the the house would be set that would be used as the garage. This these are some pictures of the proposed structure. Um, a lot of the the paint is peeling, which is those areas that are looking kind of gray. And then there's some damaged sighting on the bottom, which would be where the uh the wood siding is kind of soft and u the paint isn't sticking. And those those areas would have to be replaced for sure. Um, again, on the front there's an area that was that was removed of siding and some other siding damage and then damage to the fascia. um and the edge of the roof. And then there didn't appear to be any damage to the shingles, but they you could tell that they are they are old. This would be the the side that would be facing south where the garage door would be located. This was an area that was shown to have some rotten wood around the window framing. This is the area that it would be moved to. These uh red arrows are my arrows pointing at uh some thin um markers that he had put in the ground. It's hard to see without those red arrows, but those are pointing to the corners of where the structure would be if it was to meet the 10-ft side uh setback from the property line along Forest Street. And this is looking at it from a different vantage point from Forest Street. Um, so the variance I'll talk about in a in a second will um move those corner uh area uh arrows closer to the camera by 5T. Um, these are some photographs the applicant submitted showing uh the where the building would be located by using the trailer to show kind of where those those wall areas would be. Um, he may have some some other comments on that. One that is kind of easy to tell what's going on here is on on this one here. You can see that it would be lining up with the front of the the front of the the front of the proposed structure would be lining up with the the front of the house. Not the front of the porch, but the front of the house behind the porch. These are sketch drawings that the applicant drew showing um the structure with the improvements that he's proposing. Um there would be a a front open porch on the side facing Second Street. And these are two um drawings showing those changes. Uh the variance for the streetside setback um can be reviewed by the board of zoning adjustment and appeals which is the city council with planning commission review. There's 10 foot 10 feet required for setback from the property line along a side street. Um the applicant is proposing five feet. Um a variance can be approved with findings of fact supporting a variance. Um and I'll go through those with you. Um, one of the most important ones is that there needs to be a physical surrounding shape or topographical condition of the land that makes uh practical difficulty to the owner if they were required to meet the um strict uh ordinance requirement. Um so I went here I added a list here of some non um some different some physical surroundings um that are different difficult different from most other properties. The area near Forest Street is the most level part of the lot. Further west increases those slope issues and also would increase damage to the the roots of those trees. Forest Street is a deadend street that won't be extended because of the the great um uh drop off that occurs after that dead end. And Forest Street in this area is very narrow. It only serves um three properties. And that those issues create a very large boulevard area. The area between the edge of the street and the property line is over 20 ft. Um, under most circumstances, it's between 12 and 17 ft. Um, similar circumstances aren't readily found in other areas of town. The variance request is not based on increasing the value or the income potential of the it wouldn't be detrimental to the area. uh the setback from the street would be consistent with areas that comply with the full setback due to the wide boulevard. Just meaning that if you got a variance for five feet from the 10-ft setback, it would still be as far from the street as most other side um garages. The variance would not impair light or air or cause congestion, fire, danger, um public safety or impact property uh values in the area from the variance. the variances within har with harmony in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance. This is a site plan um showing the location of the of the garage with the dimensions of the structure um measured out. Um this is showing where the location of the garage would be if it met the 10-ft setback. So um you know five feet would be half that distance. Um the slope as you get closer to the house rises significantly and also there's a row of trees that are fairly close to that um east side of that proposed garage. Um like I mentioned before, the garage door was would be located on the back of the structure. So it' be loaded from the rear. Um, as for alternatives for location of the garage, of course, there's an area towards the back of the property, um, but that is a driveway to access, um, some small garages that are on the back of the home. This is a diagram showing the the slope difficulties. Um it's difficult to see on here, but John, if you wouldn't mind passing that large um copy um down. You can see that the the slope differential um if the structure was maintaining that 10 foot setback significant uh cut and fill to level out that location. And um with that I can stand for any questions. The applicant is also here. Thanks Justin. Pass this down here. Sorry. All right. This is not a public hearing. So we'll go ahead and open it up to commissioners for any questions and comments. Give them time to look at the drawing here. John or Justin, I have a question. Uh so this is kind of a unique one. Um the sunset clause. Yeah. So the first year is for what part of this? Um it would be for excavation, pouring the concrete and moving the structure. So, it would be able to sit in that position in or in that um area there in that condition for how long prior to it being brought up to the standard that we're asking in the conditions. How long would it be able to sit like that and look like that? our um typical approvals, we have a sunset clause on it for the um action to begin for one year. So, um if he began the the process of what he got the approvals for, the sunset clause would be um valid valid um or wouldn't be he would have met his requirement. Um but as far as how we don't have we've never come in we haven't had a time frame before for things. Um I did comment in the staff report that this two years is typically longer than um a a garage construction would take. But it certainly does take that long sometimes. um after they start the process of making the improvement that they've been approved for, they pretty much rely on what the building department requires for timeliness. Um a permit is generally good for one year. Um but as long as they are continuing to work uh on the project and are having in regular inspections done, um it that process is extended until it's complete. Um the com plan commission and council are able to put conditions on any of the uh approvals that would require a certain timeline of events. So essentially as it is written currently there's no once it's moved as long as something happens and keeps happening and it can stay in a how am I trying to put this in a in in a condition other than the way it's supposed to be for how long? That's what I'm trying to get to is do is it just until he until it's done in perpetuity until it's complete as long as something's happening? Well, it it doesn't as it is right now. There's not a condition that has a timeline. Okay. I'm just passing along what the applicant told me is his plan. Okay. Um the building department issues permits that are good for one year and if they go over one year they can they will give a extension as long as they are continuing to do work. If it seems like they're not continuing to do work and the permit is just open without work being done then they will start um enforcement action on closing out the permit. Okay. And Mr. Chair, I would I would strongly suggest that you address that within the conditions of approval tonight because I think you bring up a valid point that uh a continuation of this could be longer than what we would like to see on the property there. So, to establish a time frame for when the building would be improved per the plans in there, I I think that's a a good suggestion, whatever that might be. I I do believe the 2-year period that was established by the applicant, frankly, is too long. I think it's something that I think the exterior of the building can be done in a much shorter period of time. And I don't know, Mr. Wyland, if there is a time period of of six months or or something related to that that would be amendable to get the work done. Well, if Yeah, come on up, please. My name is Fred Wland and I live at 413 Second Street West. And when I throughout that period of two years, it's based on the idea that I have to uh have contractors involved in excavating the concrete work. The building mover has to be coordinated after the concrete's done. And then the uh exterior of the building is primarily going to be able to be worked on during the summer. I don't foresee being able to paint a a structure like this in the wintertime. And so therefore, interior work would continue for the structural purposes during the winter. And then we'll be back on to the exterior come the summer. But, you know, I I do have to coordinate these things with other people. And uh you know, I don't want to drag this on any longer than I have to. That that would be ridiculous. we'd have another uh Thorwood and I don't think anybody wants that. So, um if you have any other questions. Um so, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner. I'm sorry. So once you get the approvals, do you have you have us any type of a time frame as to when they would actually start or do you have do you think it would actually take more than towards the end of the summer before you could get the concrete work in the house moved to the site? I have nothing scheduled with any contractors at this point because until I get a permit, you know, I'm kind of wasting their time. I have had discussions with an excavator. I have had discussions with the concrete man. I have had a building mover come out to the site and look at the structure and we've actually run the route that would have to travel to get back here and he's quoted me a price for that. And uh at this point, you know, it's it's uh it's like any other building project. you have to get your contractors in a row and they've all got to work in a timely fashion and you have to keep after them because you know and there so there's certain things I can't do which are all of the above but my specialty will be in renovating the building itself and uh you know like I say there's certain things I can do over the winter and there's certain things that are going to be required to do in the summer. Was the last use of this structure a house? It was a house. Okay. And you plan to use it as a garage. Garage. And to address the uh concern about the sill plate under the uh structure when the building mover lifts it up, it'll be all exposed and so it'll be very easy to put a new sill plate on. Okay. And in fact, some of the uh siding that uh from the area the garage door is going to be placed, we'll be able to use for patching other areas. Um there'll be uh that whole north wall when it gets removed where the porch will come in, there'll be more siding there that'll be and able to access so it all remains consistently the same and it'll remain wood siding which is in character with the historic district. and uh we'll see what we come up with for windows. So, all right, commissioners, any other comments? Commissioner Peter? Um, so it listening to the plan, there's definitely phases and um, I just wondered in terms of timeline if it would work to say like set a timeline once the house is in place because it's one thing to see, you know, excavation being done and things like that. It's a whole other thing to see that house in that condition, you know. Um, so I don't know as a reasonable timeline after it's in place, six months or, you know, I I I just don't know what the amount of work would be or um a timeline to at least have the exterior done so that, you know, neighbors and people looking at it are are seeing something that fits with the character of the neighborhood sooner. So, I'm just throwing out six months if there's someone who knows better. Right. And the reason I brought it up is because the actual thing is a variance here. So, this thing is like it's exceeding it by 5t both sides. So, we're edge to edge. So, it's going to be significantly wider than what is normally allowed. So, we have we have the variance. That's what's at at discussion tonight part of that. So when we're looking at an exception, we have to be cognizant of the other variances that we've done over the years and make sure that we're in line and we have that time frame. But I do think that once it gets set here and this property that there has to be a time frame to get that outside looking inside, you know, it's a garage. It is what it is. As long as you can shut the door, nobody sees inside. It is what it is, right? Um but there has to be a time frame for that exterior work to be done so that we don't see continued rot. We don't see broken windows. We don't or not broken windows but um broken sill um plates and that needs to be done. That has to have a time frame on it as soon as this building is set into place. And that's the condition I would be looking at is the time frame is once it's set into place. We don't want I don't want to sit there. We already got a variance, right? So we're already in 5t into a 10-ft setback which is an exception that the Hastings preservation commission preservation commission has already made right HPC already reviewed that is that correct? So yep. Okay. So they've already reviewed and they're okay with that. So now we want to take the structure itself and look at it and go okay got the variance. Now, we want to look on the outside like it's something that should be there or it's not going to be completely out of place. And I think that's where we're going. We need we need a a time frame to get that out exterior work done at minimum. That's what I'm looking at. So, that's what I'm looking for input from my fellow commissioners as to what I I tend to agree with that, but I guess it really depends on when he gets that set in place. if he doesn't get it set in place until September 30th, let's say, is that going to be enough time for him to get the project done before winter sets in. And so I don't know if there's a way to set the time frame so as you know it's during um you know from like we do snow removal from April you know November 1st to April 1st maybe right it would be say 6 months after it's set in place but excluding those those winter months or something like to that effect maybe if that's if that's maybe agreeable. Commissioner Sweeneying go ahead. I feel like if we put a cap of six months on it, then that's also up to the builder to choose a time when that those repairs can be done and not letting it sit there for an extra five months just because it was winter and maybe just place it after winter. And that is a like I I don't know if that's feasible or not, but trying to plan a little bit ahead of get it set in place when there is time to make some of those repairs and some of those people are able to be booked. Thank you. Albert, did you want to respond to that, Brad? I saw you make a move to come up. Come on. Yeah, you can stay up. So, the plan was Yeah. attacking this. And if you'd bring up the picture of uh well, any of it, but the front porch area and then the west front that you would see from the road. Um there we go. So where this door is and and to this side here is going to be where the porch is obviously that be the north face and that would be the first attack with the uh porch facade in there and then to work the west side. So from everything from the road would be the first attack of getting this addressed and then of course garage door will have to go in and that's a very minor side then at that point because that'll encompass most of that area where the where the uh in between the two windows for instance. And so by managing this doing parts, you know, obviously the most noticeable parts first and then we'll finish up with the side that faces the 413 structure. I I think uh Commissioner Swines what she was alluding to is when she was talking about moving the house for lack of a better term. When does that need to be accomplished by you know is that a thing where you can get that moved and put in place in the next say six months? I think I can and I'm without consulting contractors and their schedules, but I'd be hoping to have the house here and set in the end of three months and that would give me some time here yet this summer to work on the exterior and then through the winter the interior structural components can be addressed and then next year would be finish up on exterior. Commissioner, was that where you were kind of going? So, is there a possibility to get all of the base work done, all of the excavation, all the concrete, and say that's done by uh August? How what's your time frame on being able sooner, but I But what's your time frame for being able to move the house? Do you have until next year to move the house? No. No. So, the house has to be moved probably in the next two months in order to facilitate the uh building that that gentleman's doing on that lot. Okay. On the lot in Rosemont. In Rosemont. Gota. Okay. One more. Yes. Go ahead. Are you and are you doing most of the structural outside work yourself and interior work? Is that is that the plan then too? Yes. I'll be handling most of the exterior. Okay. And uh the interior I may need to get some professional guidance with, but we'll see how that goes. And everything will be done per permit and building code of inspections. Commissioner Peters, so when you're saying two years, are you actually meaning two summers, not 24 months? Cuz when I hear two two years, I think 24 months, but is this summer year 1 and next summer year two? So in reality, it's really only about 14 or 16 months. That's closer to what I've really got in mind. I I don't want to drag this out, you know, into 2027, but again, you have to take into effect, you know, what other contractor schedules are and availability and things and uh you know, so I threw out a generalized two years. Okay. Okay. video. If it does get placed somewhere in like the like end of the next two months, potentially maybe more of a year would be reasonable to allow for a couple months this year and a couple months at the beginning of next summer, but that this is kind of done by the end of next like there is or at least like outsidewise inside is totally different ball game. that just that it aesthetically does not look falling apart as much within, you know, say fiveish good months of weather. I see where you're going that like one calendar year with Yeah. from the time it's set in place. Yes. Could I suggest um just to give him a little more leeway? Maybe instead of one calendar, say 15 months. And that actually gives him some of that extra summer time, you know, and and um and gives him a little more leeway and but it still gives us, I think, a reasonable time frame. Mr. Robert, go ahead. Or or is it a case that we do the one-year sunset clause at the placement of the building with the condition being it needs to be in place by July 31st, so to say. And that's when the the one-year sunset begins. Either either way. Yeah. Yeah. Mhm. I'm not quite sure on the the wording and the I have a little familiarity with house moves and that might be a difficult one as far as the move goes because he is correct on you can't just find anybody to move a house. It has to be a house mover and there's only a couple in the area that do them and it takes a while to set them up and to get them moved and get the permits and get the I mean it's it's a process. So, um but might not be enough time. I'm just talking about from the time it's set in till the time it's the exterior is done is more of the what I was looking at. But as far as the move goes, he's at the mercy of one or two house movers if that available. Could could we agree on a sunset of September 30th of next year? That would give me the oh entirety of the summer then weatherwise to Yeah. September 30th. Sure. Okay. I I'm okay with that. Anyone else? No. Yep. Okay. So, we want to go ahead and any further discussion because if there's none, um I'll entertain a motion and then we'll make sure that the motion includes that condition. And Mr. Chairman, just a point of clarification on this. We have two actions that are going to be before the commission tonight. One is going to be on the board of design control relating to the structure itself. But I think that's the appropriate time to put in that sunset clause if you choose to do so. The second would be the variance which this really isn't uh a part of. Thank you. Understand? Okay. Yeah, good point. Keep them separate. Yeah, we will definitely do that. Yep. Commissioners, any other discussion on either one of those subjects? No. Okay. So, I'll take a motion. Let's address the uh variance first with the condition as John. John, do you recommend the condition be on the variance or the other side? Mr. Chair, I would recommend the board of design control on the move that should be on. Thank you. Sounds good. All right. Commissioners motion. Commissioner Peters. I'll make a a motion to um approve variance 2025-08. I I'm trying to find the specific language for it. Uh side backing project 413 second street west maybe. Yeah. All right. All right. So we have a motion to approve. Do we have a second? Second. All right. Commissioner Swedine second. Any further discussion? If not, all in favor say I. I. Opposed. The first motion carries. Okay. So, second one. I can do it. Mr. Sweetie, I move to approve 202508 with the condition that the exterior of the structure Oh, sorry. Part two, the uh moving Oh my gosh. move an existing Rambler from outside the city to the subject property to be used as a garage with the condition that the exterior of the garage be in accordance with HPC I don't know aesthetics by September 30th 2025 26 26 there we go yep 26 uh with the uh recommended conditions also outlined by staff all right Nice job. Do I have a second? I'll second. All right. Commissioner Mo second. Any further discussion? All in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. And that motion carries. Mr. Chair, that'll also move forward to city council on May 5th for final action. Thank you. All right. Thanks, John. Thank you for everybody coming. We appreciate it. Before you leave, I didn't want to forget to thank everybody for coming tonight. Appreciate the community input. Uh other actions, other business, John? No other actions or business. Just a report on our zoning code. We continue to work on that behind the scenes here. We will have I think various discussion items that we want to discuss with the planning commission here in the coming months, but uh work does continue on that one. We do have our next regularly scheduled meeting coming up in two weeks on the 12th. I don't have anything scheduled at this time for the meeting, but I'll let you know what happens. All right. Thanks, John. Commissioners, any other business? All right. If not, we will take a motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjurnn. Commissioner Sweden. Second. Second. Commissioner Hubber. All in favor say I. I. Opposed. We are adjourned. Thank you.