Okay. I'd like to call to order the uh joint city council and planning commission meeting for October 6, 2025. Um and will you call the role, please, Matt? I'll go first. Um, Commissioner Sigreed >> here. >> Commissioner Kip >> present. >> Commissioner Chamberlain >> here. >> And Commissioner Kelly and um Oaks will be absent this evening. >> Thanks, Sarah. Now, Matt will call the role for the council. >> Council member Bliss >> here, Council Member Gilmore >> here. >> Council member Doll >> here. >> Council member Hill >> here. >> Mayor Hansen >> here. Now everybody knows why I asked for these ahead of time because they're confusing sometimes and I didn't get this one. That is confusing. >> All right. So now we are going to the public hearings to consider an amendment to append appendix B zoning related to the regulation of cannabis and hemp businesses. And Amanda is here to explain everything to us. >> Yes. Good early evening. >> Good evening. >> For those of you who don't know, I am the city attorney. My name is Amanda Johnson. Uh, and I will be walking through some relatively minor modifications that we needed to make to the cannabis ordinance for your consideration tonight. And the reason that this is a joint meeting is because it obviously impacts the zoning ordinance, which under our city code, the planning commission needs to make a recommendation to the council related to changes to the zoning code. So, just a quick highle overview of the changes that we will be talking about tonight. Um, we did some modifications to the definition section in your code. This was largely to just to bring it into conformance with some state statute items. Um, we did some changes relating to how we describe the uses in the zoning code. Right now, the code is set up that uses are defined by the license type, but I'll get into why that isn't potentially the best way to set it up. um clarified that when we said we wanted one retail sales registration in the city, that was regardless of the type of license. What we were talking about was we wanted one business to be able to sell the products. Um delivery services were not previously addressed in city code and they are a particular use under the cannabis statutes. So we added that and then also added a little bit of clarity around the annual compliance checks that the city is required to do. Those compliance checks are very similar to the tobacco and liquor licensing compliance checks where you make sure that they're com uh conforming to the age verification requirements. So moving to the definitions uh what we did is we incorporated state law by reference when you know when it's available. So just clarifying where in state law these definitions can be found. that just allows um or provides some clarity when people want to look at our code and helps remind city staff, myself, everybody, here's the sections of the statute that you want to go cross reference when you're looking at our code. Um really the meat of what we're talking about tonight is license types versus zoning uses. So, the way that your uh ordinance is set up right now is it says if you're a particular license type, you are a permitted or conditional use in that zoning district. So, for example, um if you are a cannabis retailer or a cannabis micro business, under the state law, those are two different types of licenses and we have those identified as uses that you can be in certain zoning districts. Specifically, we're talking about the B2 zoning district and the industrial zoning district. The problem with that is that under the state law, uh, cannabis micro businesses and cannabis mezo businesses can essentially do every possible type of cannabis related use. In other words, they can grow cannabis, they can manufacture cannabis, they can prep cannabis, and they can sell cannabis. um that may or may not be an appropriate use for the B2 district specifically. So, for example, while I believe it was the city's intention to want to allow the sale of cannabis products in B2, that does not mean that the city wanted a cannabis to be growing and manufacturing cannabis in the B2 district. But under the code, the way it's written right now, technically they would be allowed to do that because we are defining by license type versus use type. Um, so just as uh to break down what the proposed changes now clearly state, if you are a temporary cannabis event, um, you are permitted in the B2 and you are permitted in the industrial zoning district provided that you have an approved certificate of compliance. That does not change. It's just we have changed it from cannabis event to temporary cannabis event to match what the state of the term that the state uses uh hemp low potency edible retailer. So that is the that is the um retailers that are not licensed by the state. They are registered by the state. It's going to get kind of confusing because some of this stuff isn't designed interestingly. Um and so those are permitted in the B2 district again with a certificate of compliance. Um largely how the city wanted that structured my understanding is as an accessory use to a liquor store. So a liquor store can sell the THC beverages. Um and so that is how it's structured currently in your city code and that is how it is staying in your city code. That is not changing. >> Just to clarify, not just liquor stores but any off liquor. >> Yes. space. So like Woodies for example. Correct. >> Yes. Okay. >> Does that Does that include like I know hair salons were able to sell it in like St. Paul and things like that. Is that included in that? >> Say that again. >> Like hair salons were able to sell things. >> Yes. So that's that the first one. The hemp low potency edible retailer that is permitted in the B2 district. Uh my understanding is it is the intention is as an accessory use. However, it is not listed that way. So, if you look at um your section two of the actual ordinance, it is listed as a permitted use hemp edible retailer business. Hypothetically, somebody could come in and their entire business could be a hemp edible low potency retailer. Practically speaking, I don't know if there's enough of a market for an entire business to to be that. as you mentioned, they're kind of a product that various businesses provide, you know, for sale, but I don't know if you would have a whole store that that's all they would sell. But they could, >> but it's not tied to a liquor license. >> It's not tied to a liquor liquor license. Under state law, they're required to register. They are not required to get a license like the cannabis businesses. Um eventually it's supposed to be brought in under OCM as a as more of a regulated license, but because Minnesota's a little different because of um the way that the really the THC beverages took off in Minnesota, they didn't regulate it the same because they didn't want to stop the essentially the industry that was already existing. They didn't realize it was going to be an industry, but but the industry that was sort of created under the um legalization of the low potency hemp was that like 5 years ago now, four years ago. >> So, just to reiterate, nothing is changing about these uses. They're structured as you have them right now. Um just slight word change to make it clear that it's hemp edible retail sales as a permitted accessory use. Got it. hemp edible retailer as a permitted use. I don't know that anybody would actually open a full store for that because I just don't know if there's the demand >> and the temporary event just to clarify all those things. So that they could have a temporary event outside of those districts, but that's where their business is located. Like if they wanted a temporary event in Lakeside Park, did we thought we allowed that? We didn't. No, temporary cannabis events are only allowed in the B2 and in the industrial district. >> Oh, >> we we talked about that as a hypothetical that >> Yeah, I thought we were all fair. Yeah. >> And they wanted to be >> I think it was the hypothetical being brought up as a potential worst case scenario or that events. Yeah, I remember I was talking about specifically those events couldn't happen outside of those districts and there really isn't a place for them to happen. So, the park was brought up. >> Well, one of the things that you have is currently in your ordinance is that uh temporary cannabis events can only be held indoors, >> right? >> So, I don't know that a park would work from a outdoor perspective. I suppose they could put up a tent, but um >> I mean, I remember the discussion. I just my take away from the discussion was different than what this seems to be, but >> because I thought we allowed it, but they couldn't smoke there doing it. >> Yeah, they could sell it. >> Yeah, they could sell it and it could But I guess I don't know if we That was just a pre- discussion before anything happened and then anything happened with it. I don't remember. >> Madame Mayor, I think one of the big discussion points in that discussion was the fact that if you weren't going to be able to smoke it at one of those events, having it say at the park or somewhere outdoors kind of defeats the purpose of having such an event, right? So, um, selling it at an indoor event where, um, the business already was kind of was the where, at least I remember the discussion going. >> Well, and I don't understand the point of having temporary event if you already have sales at that spot. Why would you need to have an event? >> Well, you in theory, you could have it at other locations in the B2 district, >> but you can't smoke indoors anyways, >> right? That's what I thought was part of the discussion is we talked about what how would that work cuz >> you couldn't I don't think you can anyways. >> Yeah. And keep in mind it's more than just smoking. It's consumption, right? So you can't drink or eat >> consume it at all. I think one thought would be opening opening it up to parks and saying you can't consume it creates a bit of a headache for the police to enforce that because you're sort of even though you're saying we don't want you to consume it, that's probably not what's really going to be happening. And so now you've put the police in an awkward position of trying to enforce something that is going to be difficult to enforce. I remember talking about it because I remember asking the question I'm going to ask again right now. >> Are we allowed to have alcohol in our parks >> and we are and so I to me >> they're sort of >> not the exact same but to me they're >> they're both legal now >> legal and interchangeable >> the not smoking it because then you could be around kids and in parks and that sort of thing consuming edible things. >> I thought that that was >> we're not sorry. No >> that's too hard to differentiate. We're not talking about consumption though. We're talking about in the context of retail I believe. Right. >> Yeah. But this event one is is >> but it's a retail event where there would be where we're talking about consumption as opposed to consumption at the park or consumption at other. >> Yeah. I think they got mangled together because an event could have consumption at it and that's what we were saying could be difficult. >> Right. But the context of this discussion is just around the retail context. Well, but >> cannabis event did get looped into this. So, it's not only about retail. Yes, that the cannabis temporary event is pretty wide ranging, right? You could have all kinds of stuff under that. >> Well, I think that was one of the things again going from my memory and maybe this just a new thought on it is I mean, do we have examples of this to pull from that are happening in in our area that we would be able to glean something from? No, I mean it's not a secret to anybody who's been paying even a little bit of attention. The licensing by OCM has not gone well. >> Um and so what when they thought this would be rolled out and people would be you know businesses would be opening it's obviously we're probably at least 12 maybe 18 months past that point right now. So we don't have good data yet to know what does this entire market look like and I think in the next 5 years we'll have a much better idea of what does this market look like but we just don't know right now for anything related to cannabis. So, even just like having an event where Woodies or the Legion are selling alcohol, they couldn't also sell THC beverages at that event or they could. >> No, this is a temporary cannabis event is a little bit different and I don't honestly know why this the state felt compelled to create it as a thing. >> Okay. >> But they did. And so the idea is I think they thought it was going to be more like a whole lot of different cannabis creators and growers were going to get together and come almost like farmers market style have booths, right? Where you would be going around and showcasing >> your wares >> like a beer dabbler. >> Like a beer dabbler but a cannabis dabbler. That's really what this is about. On-site consumption for a retailer is different than a temporary cannabis event. On-site consumption for a retailer is a completely separate thing. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> I'm still not clear why it's only permitted in those districts then, but >> that's what you have in your >> I know. Well, that's why I don't remember the discussion boiling down to okay, but we'll only do it in those districts. But >> I mean >> I don't I have a >> probably not going to be >> a big deal hopefully. But we who ever thought we would have to worry about delivery? I mean >> I think the one thing is what I what I would suggest is you know unless the council wants to see changes now I think you can leave what you currently have in your code. And if there is somebody who is really excited about the idea of creating a temporary cannabis event, they can come to the city and they can say your code doesn't work for what we want to do. here's what we want to do and I don't it wouldn't be that much work to make modification >> and that would be the opportunity because now we've got somebody who's explaining here's how we do this >> and then we would say oh we didn't know that that's how you did it we can tweak >> perfect you know >> that sounds great okay we can be flexible >> and hopefully this conversation right here is the council being on the record of saying we're not asking you to never come here we're saying if there's something that's not working please let us know what that is right >> so that's market moves faster than we will. >> Yeah, definitely. >> Okay, thanks for the little side track there. Why? >> Yeah, it was a good discussion. Okay, I like to call those side quests and I'm on them a lot. Okay, so then we have our conditional uses and this is where there was some some changes. Um, again, keeping in mind everything related to cannabis is either going to be in your B2 or your industrial district. So now instead of saying cannabis retailer, we're saying the sale of cannabis products because keep in mind that a cannabis retailer, a cannabis mezzo business, and a cannabis micro business can all sell it. So we want to be clear, we don't really care what your license is. We care what you're doing and what you're doing is selling it. And you can do it in the B2 and that is a conditional use and it is also allowed and is a conditional use in the industrial district. What we have clarified is that the growing and harvesting of cannabis, packaging, really anything related to the production, creation of the products, the growing of the products, those are not permitted in the B2. Those are uses that are better served in our industrial district and our conditional uses in the industrial district. And my understanding with talking with staff is that was the council's intent, but because of how the state has set up the different licenses, when it was set up by license, we were actually inadvertently allowing all of these things that are listed as non-permitted in B2 as a conditional in B2. And I guess I still would like to have some discussion around what we think we should have permitted at least conditionally in B2 because for example delivery services I can see going with a retail business in B2 and not causing a lot of >> issues. But that's just my opinion and I'd like to hear what everybody else has to think and I don't even understand what testing services is. So I need to understand that better. I mean the delivery service like if you send somebody to you know Turning Leaf up in Still Water like a you know Door Dash is that what we're talking about? >> That's kind of what I picture people could do. Right. Like >> it is and I'll quick go there. So the delivery services were not a use in your code previously. So it wasn't talked about at all. Um and we needed to have it somewhere because we needed to allow for it. It came up because there was uh somebody considering applying for a cannabis um business and they had a delivery services component. And so we were talking about that in the context of we don't really have anything around this um what you know what would we be looking for here. Um the statute does have a decent amount of performance standards already for their delivery services. So I don't think that there's a whole lot that the city needs to do in this area. Um, but the two things that we talked about at the staff level were that delivery service, the delivery vehicles need to be parked on an improved surface and that the vehicles can't take up on street parking because in your be you know you already have limited on street parking. So those things you wouldn't allow another business to have their delivery vehicles set up that way either. So th those were really the only two performance standards that were added. The statute has a fair amount of rules on what delivery service vehicles need to do. They can't be logo identified so nobody would know that they're, you know, selling the cannabis. They need to have a locked box system where they're storing the product. They have a limit on how much they can travel with. Um they uh they need to provide a fairly lengthy list of information about their their delivery vehicles to the state, including proof of insurance, including all kinds of different details on the vehicle itself. Um, not that delivery services couldn't be an accessory use in B2, and that is something that I think we kind of talked about, but it didn't seem like this is a good area for a delivery service being a principal use. Not because of the cannabis part, but because I don't think you want 15 vehicles or a fleet of vehicles that were trying to figure out where they park. >> Well, that would be what they'd have to figure out, right? So, >> just like an Amazon truck or a FedEx, >> right? I feel like >> we could still allow it, but they have to figure out how they're going to follow all these rules if they want to do it. You know what I mean? Like I don't want to say they can't in the B2 if they have a way to make it work. If they can find the parking and they only need one vehicle and only needs one spot, seems pretty easy. >> They do it on bicycles or god know who knows what. Yeah. I just feel like I don't want to be limiting someone who might have a great business idea just because >> you do it at your house like have your house be the business. No. No. >> No. It's not permitted in a residential. >> In a residential. So you would have to have a building to >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> I mean the most likely building that's going to have this is the Heartfeld Silks building. So trying to picture it there might be the most logical thing for us to do as we're trying to imagine what it could be. Hm. >> Do they have parking? >> They do have parking back there. That's what I was thinking. >> And how many spots did you end up figuring out they could do when that one guy was trying to apply? >> Is it like six? >> 10 probably. >> Almost 10. See? So, there's quite a few spots you could get back there. >> So, I don't want to limit someone that has an idea. Are you saying this is just not a primary business is delivery, but as an accessory business? None of that is allowed if >> primary primary business is not allowed in B2. I mean it's not it the only zoning district right now where we're showing delivery as a use is in the industrial >> and that would have to if you had an accessory delivery business it would have to be in industrial as well. >> Yeah because we couldn't allow >> or you can you can make you can make a change to that but right now that's not what it has listed. >> I don't see a good reason not to allow it. How do you guys I don't know if this is the time for us to discuss this or not, but >> well, if we're redoing, >> we need to go back to the drawing board. We go back to the drawing board, right? I mean, is there a >> time crunch here? I mean, other than get it off our >> Yeah. So, we'll get to the part where there's a time crunch. So if there's something where you feel like you want delivery vehicles to be in or delivery services to be uh use in B2 one whether that's a conditional primary or accessory. I would probably recommend accessory just from a to fit with the aesthetic of what you're trying to create in your B2. Um you probably want it to have that retail front, you know, facing as well. But um if that's something that you want, I would ask that we come back with that and have a minor modification that we would make, but still pass this and and we will talk about why in one second. >> Okay. >> But but I want to finish getting through. >> No, it's me. I keep diverting her, but it's okay. >> It's okay. >> Yell at yourself. >> Yeah, that's fine. Um so just to be clear the the uses that um we understood council didn't intend to have the city didn't intend to have in B2 have been shifted over. So industrial is where industrialesque uses are happening manufacturing growing uh the selling stays in B2. The other issue that we have in the ordinance right now is that it was um staff's understanding that the council wanted one retail registration for the entire city. In other words, you want one cannabis retail shop, but you don't want more than one cannabis retail shop. Understandable. Bport's not a big town. I don't know if it could support more than one. But so that was the understanding. the the way that the current ordinance is drafted, it is not clear that you are only allowing one retail shop. It sounds like you might be allowing more because there's a different because a cannabis retailer is a license, but it's also cannabis retail is sort of an activity, right? You can retail as you're selling something, but then there's the cannabis micro business. And the cannabis micro business allows you to sell it, grow it, manufacture it, and you can do on-site consumption. And the cannabis mezzo business allows you to do all of those things, but it allows you to grow a larger area of the product. So, those are the three licenses. All of them are able to sell cannabis. Because of that, there was some some business with the way that the wording was written that it sort of sounds like actually we're only limiting the retailers and not the cannabis micro micro businesses and not the cannabis mezo businesses. So, this clarifies that there's one for the entire city. We don't care if you're a retailer, a micro, or a mezzo. You come in and you want to sell it, you get the registration. We're out of registrations. We have one. And then it also clarifies that the process for uh processing applications for this registration is first come first serve. So first person through the door with a completed application and fee would be considered first and that may literally be a day apart. It's possible that somebody comes in with a completed application and check and a day later somebody else comes in and what we have now clearly tells the council you got to consider the first one first and if you give it to them then the second one is a no and that just seemed like frankly the fairest way. creating a system different than that creates potentially some issues of fairness and issues for somebody making an arbitrary and capriccious claim against the city. So um so those are the changes around the registration and that is the reason why I would suggest you if you're willing to approve this tonight you approve it so we can make that clarification sooner than later. So just to be clear again on the language that is explaining that now is that under that 749.03 no person or entity may operate a and now it looks like it's been added cannabis mezo cannabis micro cannabis retailer. That's what's changing. >> Yes. >> I would recommend that we use that um Oxford comma. So, cannabis retailer should have a comma after it. >> Correct. Otherwise, it could be confused again as cannabis retailer or hemp edible retail. Like, that's one thing. >> Yeah. Okay. >> I will always second the Oxford comma. >> I use them. >> I love them. I think they clarify things and I don't know why we ever got rid of them. >> Well, and so technically when you're looking at uh 749.03, that's not the registration. If you go down to number two where it says number, there shall be one single because that hemp edible retailer >> there isn't a cap on those. >> Okay. >> We could have them. >> Oh, okay. Cuz that's why they're not listed then at two. >> Exactly. So, and there there is the Oxford comma under number two. >> Yeah. >> Notice and >> but it's weird that it's not in the first one. But anyways. Okay. >> Makes sense. Yep. I just want to make sure that because it wasn't clear before. I want to make sure now that it actually is clear that we >> and to be fair, you know, am I being maybe a little bit nitpicky about it probably, but >> but you need to close those loopholes if they're >> Yeah. And the expect here's what happened. I because of the um social equity applicant component to the licenses where they have certain licenses, they have caps on them and they will only issue the same number of licenses to non-social equity applicants as they issue to social equity applicants. So, in other words, if they get, you know, 50 social equity applicants, then they'll issue 50. But if they get 49, then you're stuck at 49 over here. >> What's a social equity at? >> I know. Like, >> the social equity applicant. Um, so a social equity applicant was a uh something that was created by the statute that said if you meet a variety of different metrics, you get to go into a different line for a license. And so, basically the front of essentially a line. Um and the social equity applicant uh metrics that they used were people who are were disproportionately affected by um the war or the the illegalization the >> cannabis being illegal if they had a family member who had been convicted of a drugrelated crime. um if they lived in an area that had a higher uh percentage of people who were convicted of cannabis related crimes compared to the general population. Um I believe there was a point that you got if you were a veteran. Um and there was a whole bunch of different points that you could essentially get. They have modified that slightly. Um although it is still fairly similar to what I just spelt out. Uh so the retailers had a cap and that cap and so basically social equity applicants you get this everybody else is in the second pile and you only get what we've given to social equity applicants. the cannabis micro businesses had no cap and they don't so they don't have that social equity game is not the right word but they don't have that component and so um everybody shifted from the retailer line to the mezo or excuse me to the micro business line and the other piece of that was when they were I I believe I I can't pretend to get into the heads of our lawmakers when they wrote this because It's some of it's a little circular. Um but uh I believe the thought was a micro business would be a business that would have multiple locations. One location would be your retail shop and one location would be your c your growing and manufacturing shop. And what has actually happened is not that. And so there has there have been situations where they are trying to manufacture on the same site or um not so much growing but certainly manufacturing creating particularly like the gummies and things like that >> in the same space that they're doing retail. It's >> like a tap the cannabis version of a tap room. >> It's kind of like a cannabis version of a tap room. Um but the difference is of course a retailer is one thing but with the manufacturing and the growing you do have odor issues. Um, and this is still a cash business. So, we we do have public safety issues when we're just talking about a cash business. That's how that goes. Um, so anyways, that's the long story about the social equity applicants and how I think what was intended made a lot of sense, but as this has evolved, we're realizing we need to tweak it a bit. And so people are trying to apply as a micro business but may only really be wanting to be a retailer here in Bayport for example. Okay. >> Because they know they don't have to wait in the line for that. >> Yeah. >> But then we're given then they have a micro business and they could do more with it eventually and that's where make sure they're doing it in the right zone. >> Right. >> Okay. >> That's complicated. So, we talked about a little bit about the delivery services, but like I mentioned, this is a new a new use that we haven't talked about where it belongs. Um, we do have it in the industrial right now. We do not have it in the B2. My my understanding was just largely the B2 is pretty much built out. We know what's what exists and there's like two locations in P2 where this could possibly go >> right now. I mean, you never know what the future, right? And so we weren't sure if that was, you know, if delivery was something that the council would want. We don't currently have any delivery in B2. So we' asked about I asked about is there a restaurant that has a pizza delivery component? And there wasn't any. And so had there been already a a use that was doing ancillary delivery, the position of staff would have been yes, this is permitted. But because that doesn't exist, we wanted to clarify where this is permitted. Yeah. And I could see and I've even talked to the owner of Mabels about, you know, a coffee delivery thing someday or something. So if we do write it, I think it could apply to other businesses then to allow in the bee too. So I am open to that concept know how >> Yes. >> Everybody else feels as an ancillary. >> An ancillary. Yeah. I can't Yeah. I don't see how you'd I guess maybe there someone could explain to me a primary business that's just delivery that would use I guess >> it' be like an Amazon warehouse but on a smaller version with 10 delivery trucks going all over the >> belong in our industrial right yeah >> or even if it's one or two delivery trucks they could not have a storefront we use the space to fill orders >> I mean right now for example that creator of Dots does not technically have a storefront she's in there creating. So >> yeah, >> I don't know. It's >> Yeah, I mean if you could come up with a scenario that would be reasonable, right? Without like you said 10 or 15 vehicle. That's not the intention. >> But they'd have to be able to make that work. Like it says they have to have parking for it to like think figure that out. let it play out >> as a conditional use in B2. >> Madam Mayor, >> yeah, >> I do have a question for Amanda. So, if we would allow delivery service in the B2, what's our ability to restrict like number of vehicles and different things like that with the CUP? >> Yeah, I would recommend that you do that. We spell that out frankly probably in our performance standards and just say this is an accessory use. And so we would want to define what is accessory and when does it become primary. And so whether that's you you get five cars or whatever the number is, but I think you're better off to do that. And the reason for that is twofold. One is is because we don't talk about delivery services in our code at all. Even though we're we're applying this to cannabis, this would also have a ripple effect of other retail businesses or restaurants who may want to employ a delivery service. And so I think you'd want to be thinking about are you okay with all these places having five or six delivery vehicles? Maybe, maybe not. Um but so you're going to want to set it up so that you're protecting the zoning district a bit from like >> from that. >> We're protected from that by the fact that they could not park five vehicles because no one owns five vehicle spaces. I mean, very few of those places own their vehicle spaces. So, I don't see how we'd be overwhelmed with delivery vehicles in the B2 because they >> if they had to be on a >> Yeah, because we're saying they can't Yeah. improved surface off street. >> I don't know how that would ever cause a big issue, but >> Well, so what happens if they take up their entire parking lot with delivery vehicles and so now all their customers have on-site parking versus being in their parking lot? >> So now you have >> Tell me who has their own parking lot. I don't >> Maybe that's not a thing. Greystone may like the behind the Greystone Woodies could do it or like where's the >> Well, on just a bar is >> on Fifth would have it. >> It's ours. >> What's that? >> On Fifth Avenue would have it. >> Fifth Avenue has their own parking lot. >> Just behind. >> Yep. Behind >> Oh, behind the where all the restaurants are. That little >> manger. Yep. >> But literally right behind their buildings. Not the actual to the north. That's ours. There's like four spots there or something, >> right? Correct. And the building with the most recent applicant, >> but again, how many could they I don't know. Their customers don't park back there anyways right now. So, it's kind of I don't know. I'm trying to see why this could be a problem if someone can come up with a I just want to be open to things if we can be and I don't want to limit it because we >> Right. I would rather have something in it. >> I don't want to miss out on a business. >> Generally, you're right. We have very few parking lots for retail establishments that are on the customerf facing side of the building. >> But then could White Pine become >> delivery service? >> Is that in B2? >> Technically their own parking lot >> and then that's their parking lot and that's like 20 no 10 15 spots maybe. I guess I don't know. Yeah. >> Oh that would No, I don't even know. Well, there's two there's two little parking lots for the back one that's like not that's gravel, >> but technically those are public. Technically, they're not like totally public anyways right now. But but so we're getting into the weeds, but um >> I do think that I'd like to see delivery available in B2 if we can work out whatever those specifications are. And if we have to do that later and figure out what you need figured out right now, that's fine, too. So, >> in the meantime, we're pretty well on the record now with >> Yeah. >> And it's hard >> to have the conversation with somebody. >> Yeah. We're trying to have like typically we would have a workshop to go through all of this stuff and we didn't. You guys had to just sort of come up with here's what we think it should be. So, I feel bad that we're now throwing all these wrenches in your >> No, I think it's fine. Just for a point of clarification is the idea that it would be an accessory use still in B2. That's what you're looking for. >> I think so. And defining that, I don't know if it's possible to do it by, you know, the majority of your income has to come from something other than the delivery service. If there's some way to do that or I don't know how you would define accessory business, maybe that's somewhere else. But yeah, we can >> figure that out. But I you're right, we should define it. We can't just leave that out there. >> Okay. So I made notes for that to come forward with a modification to what you see here. Um but like I had mentioned before somebody comes in and they have a plan frankly that would be helpful because then we could see what they're planning and it allows you to sort of understand the market a little bit. Um but that they are able to do the delivery service in the industrial. So that is it's not like it's not allowed anywhere which I realize again my understanding is industrial is pretty limited in terms of the options how much you just you're a built out community in that regard in >> the commercial regard right and so that is what it is >> we may have more of that in the future though because the prison will be closing and we don't know what's going to zone up there that so um >> what was the plan just out of curiosity that the person came to us with the delivery option did we learn something from that like is that going to be helpful for us then to like he wanted one delivery vehicle multiple >> Madame Mayor um the inquiry we got was for multiple vehicles and it would be employees of the retail business using their own personal vehicles to deliver and a lot of the questions or inquiries I'm getting are from people that probably aren't familiar with the statute and really don't know the rules regulations around what they're proposing to do. >> So, each question and applicant is different and Amanda and I have tried to navigate those as best we could. I really think it's important to define the license types because we are getting a lot of people skirting the retail issue and going after a bigger license because they're more available even though they only want to do a retail business. Yeah. So, um, we can maybe have a workshop if we want to open that door to talk about, you know, the delivery or other things you possibly want to allow or disallow. Um, but for tonight's purposes, we would really appreciate clarifying the type of license and number. >> Definitely. Okay. Thank you. >> Then the final change in the ordinance in front of you is just inserting language that we need to do annual age verification compliance checks. This is something that is required under the statute. We must do it. If we want to register uh the retail related businesses, we need to also do the age verification. We didn't have anything in our ordinance. And so I just wanted to pop in some language to remind future us what we need to do. So just reminding us it's required by statute citing the statute that we need to do them once a year. These are very similar to to the tobacco and the liquor where you have somebody under uh age 21 go in try to buy if they buy you're busted. Um and that compliance failures need to be reported to the office of cannabis management. So um nothing really too exciting there just giving future us a reminder of what what we need to do. And so that is um the summary of the of the ordinance. I am available for questions otherwise I have the next steps that need to happen um on your screen as well and I can toggle back to other screens if you need to see something else. >> Okay. So next step is for Colleen to open >> the public hearing. Correct. Um, at this time I would like to open um the public hearing and invite anyone wishing to comment to come forward to the podium and state their name and street address for the record. Um, since we do not see anybody here, does somebody want to make a motion to close the public hearing? >> So move. >> Wait, you can't. The planning commission, this is a planning commission meeting right now. >> So move. It's okay. >> Okay. So, um it is moves that we close the public. >> You need a second, right? You go through the whole motion process. >> Second. >> All in favor. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> Sorry, Colleen's not the chair. She's just ad libby. No. So, >> all in favor say I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> All right. So public hearing has been done. Now individual council and planning commission members can discuss which we kind of do as we went because you know we like to add lip. Um >> I do have a quick question about the delivery >> about the delivery thing. >> Yeah. I figured you should the state is requiring you to have a specific like licensed vehicle through the business for delivery. You cannot use your own vehicle. Is that a state thing? Yeah, the state is requiring that you provide um spec specifics about the vehicle and high in you know various insurance requirements. It's not like my personal insurance. You have to show that the business is covering insurance for the vehicle and a few other things. Does that mean that the somebody couldn't also use it as their personal vehicle? I don't think that's what the statute is saying. Um, but I don't but the intention that all of your employees are just going to be driving around kind of all Door Dash, right? Independent contractor style, that is not going to work under the statute. >> Wait, just understand it. You can do it with alcohol. >> Should we have quick on the vote why they're so against everything with >> Yeah, go ahead. It doesn't matter. >> But wait, I'm so sorry, but she just left and I thought we needed roll call from the planning commission and now we only have two >> members. >> Oh. Is that okay >> for the recommendation? >> Yeah, just excusing yourself for >> Well, so you had a quorum when she was here. We've done this has happened in a couple maze. You had a quorum when she was here. So now in order to make a recommendation of approval or denial to the council, you both have to agree. >> Okay. >> So because you're still you're two out of three, right? So you're a majority of >> good. Sorry. I just like she just snuck out and I'm like, "Wait, I don't think she's coming back." So, >> madam mayor, I apologize. I was aware that she had a prior commitment, so I asked her to stay through the public hearing she was able to do. >> Okay, we're good. Sorry, I panicked. Sorry, Ethan. You were asking questions and I was looking at procedure. >> No, it's just learned something about quorum today. >> I do have a lot of worries about quorums today. Whoever this stuff is ridiculous has a he has a question. >> I've got a few from that don't think we're covered. >> Okay, go ahead. >> Uh my first one, and this is probably just me not being around for the discussion about uh the previous uh ordinance, but um it's just curious why just one retailer uh kind of seems like creating a monopoly. Like if you were to think about it more globally, like limiting something to just one entity seems like not a good idea in my head. Anyway, >> yeah, I I hear what you're saying. I would agree if we weren't surrounded by other communities that also have to have >> Yeah. >> allow one, right? So, I think we'll be okay with that. But I mean, I get your >> It's like saying, "Oh, you're this place. You can only have one bar in this town." Like what? What's the point? If you want >> and if you're a mun, you can do that. >> Yeah, >> we should have done that. We could be a mun cannabis if you want to. >> Uh, okay. >> Make a lot of money. >> Second question. Um, so we kind of touched on the delivery vehicle thing a bit, but I was reading how I read the delivery vehicle shall shall not be parked on street at any time. My thought went to as they're making the delivery that they couldn't be parked on street. Yeah, that does seem kind of >> and I feel like that's like the point of on street parking is to make deliveries or one part of on street parking would be to do that. >> That's a good point. >> Maybe entertaining some language to clarify that if it's the desire that like not using on street parking while you're >> like or something >> overnight or something so they're not leaving the street or something. >> Yeah. not making deliveries cuz then you could even think like I get my Target delivered now they're not allowed to park in front of my house to deliver it. >> Yeah, I'm sure you can come up with language around that, right? >> 30 minute window or something in one spot or something. >> That's a really good point. >> Um, great. Uh, I think I had two more things. Okay. uh the registration suspension or revocation. Um I I read that and I was just thinking like >> uh can you should tell us where you're at? >> Okay. 74905 on page five of the ordinance. >> Thank you. >> So it's talking about that the registration can be suspended if you're in violation of the city code etc etc. Um it can it says it can be up for up to 30 days unless the OCM suspends for a longer period of time or it can be you know reinstated as violations have been resolved. Um I just like question like who is making the determination that things are resolved and um like could there be something put in there that that's to satisfaction of city staff or whoever is making this determination. And then like I was just thinking of like if this entity is constantly causing trouble, you know, could there be like some like kind of three stripes policy for like, okay, you're causing trouble. You you've had your thing suspended, you know, three times now. We're just going to be done with you in this license or something like that. Is that like >> something that could be entertained or I don't know what the the law says about that state statute. So >> yeah. >> So um that is just for clarification that is language that did not change in today's um edits >> which is why I didn't even really read it. >> This is like oh that was already outside I was looking into it's a valid question. Um this is language that's basically straight from statute. We don't have the ability to invoke that three strikes and you're out rule because OCM can trump us at any time for any reason really. Uh so it it's there isn't anything special about these words in terms of they're not unique. They're they're just pulling from the statute >> um to to again remind future us what can we do if we have a somebody that's violating. And so if if that's not something that can happen, this does get brought up every year for their registration renewal, right? So like if you do have a issue with somebody like that is maybe the time that you could not renew their registration. >> Yes, but OCM limits why we can say no to a registration. And so right now, you know, previous failures are not a reason. Um, that does not mean that in the future OCM won't hear from enough cities and modify their their rules that they've made. Um, but they've worked pretty hard to try to take as much authority out of from the local area as possible. In reality, our tool is our conditional use permit. And so in our condition be because the vast majority of these are conditional uses. You have a retailer who is violating terms of their registration, failing their compliance checks, you know, things like that. And you those will be there will be a lot of terms in their conditional use permit and it will be ex explicitly to give the city the ability to revoke their zoning authority you know from a zoning authority perspective if that becomes necessary. >> Okay. So there is some teeth then it'll be this it'll be >> I guess that's where I was going with it was where's the teeth >> the yeah your teeth will be in in the conditional use permits that you create. if I recall from our earlier discussion may have been the impetus for the single uh in the ordinance the single use the single >> application >> registration >> and then uh yeah I was really um perplexed about what a temporary cannabis event wasn't and we talked about that already uh and I was just kind of wondering as the discussion was happening is that something it sounds like the state law defines what that is. Is there things that you can kind of more define through our ordinance of like, you know, what is or isn't allowed? >> The big thing is the on-site consumption, right? That that is the area that the state has said, city, it's up to you if you want to allow on-site consumption or not. If you want to allow on-site consumption, there are some performance standards. They don't want it to be visible from the public. So, it's supposed to like hypothetically if it's outside, it's a tent with sides, right? and and you're supposed to sort of separate it over. If you think about how um you know, Still Water had done beer tents and things like that, the idea would be it would be similar. I'm not sure why so much energy was put into these temporary cannabis events in the state law or just in general because I just don't know that they are a thing >> because you know it's someone went what if someone wants to have an event and then they had to go on this whole thing about it, right? a Renaissance Festival for Cannabis, but I'm just not sure that that's >> that's going to happen in every city. Yeah. >> I don't know. I'm not sure what the >> Well, maybe they have it. Like, does Colorado have these things or like do it with other states have these events that we >> Yeah. I mean, obviously there's a kind of a subculture that goes along with cannabis. And so, I think that that's true and fair in certain areas. We have the limit of weather. So, we have really in reality what four months at most where these events are probably even considered. So there's that piece that sort of narrows the desire and then we have struggled to get to the part where we even can grow the cannabis for the for our businesses to sell it right >> because we haven't got our licensing you know feet underneath us because keep in mind just a reminder you can't sell what's not grown here. So, if I'm a retailer, I cannot sell cannabis from a different state because it is still illegal to take it across state lines. So, if I'm selling something here, I have to have it has to have been grown here and manufactured here. >> Okay. Do you have more questions? Those are all very good questions. Thanks for looking at it so closely. Again, like I said, I knew that we had already done a lot of this few changes. So, okay. So, next step. Does the anyone else have comments or questions on either commission or council? >> No. Um to the to the retail and we're crunched. It's a time crunch here. Um so low dose is the lowd dose hemp derived stuff is is completely separate from the cannabis stuff. >> Yes. But we're still only going to allow one cannabis retailer in in the city. I I can see retail wise having more than one the the medo messo businesses and micro businesses. I can see one retailwise I think there could be a a possibly >> well that's a whole another discussion that we'd have to go back to the drawing board on. I mean that is outside of what we're trying to accomplish, right? >> I mean we could have that discussion when we talk about some of those other things, delivery and all that, but >> yes, >> I think for now we just need to get this clarified. So we >> I mean because basically we are this is trying to limit it to one. I mean that's the whole point of what we're doing today because of the the conversations we had before where we all decided >> that's what we wanted. So are we opening that >> again? As I remember it, it was like well we got to revisit all this. Well then not to but this sort of got just >> we didn't get a lot of time to really meet about this and discuss it. So um in fairness to us I don't know that we've had a you know and maybe it's it's not going to be a big deal but retail wise I I see no reason to limit it to one. And I'm certain I said that before. >> And I think once one is open, I'm assuming there's probably not going to be another guy like I'm going to come and take that guy on in Bayport. But if he wants to go ahead, I guess >> that's the way I look at it. But I don't I mean once there's one, I don't think anybody else can open another one. But I don't think we should limit it as well. So I don't I just don't see the point of it. >> So if I if I could brand new, hot off the press is fun fact. uh as of this afternoon, >> it's never going to be a fun fact when it's coming from >> uh is the new loophole is, and I haven't had a chance to talk to city staff about this, >> is that there is a medical combination license where you sell medical cannabis and retail cannabis. And they changed that in the last legislative cycle to basically say, "Oh, never mind. you guys can sell both and you don't count to any registration caps and you don't really count for anything and you're a separate special thing. And so I have at least three cities right now where somebody has been a little savvy about loophole and my my point of saying that is it's possible you won't have one anyways. So, like we did with a short-term rental that wanted to be established too close to another short-term rental, you know, we allowed it at our discretion. Are we are we permitted >> in cont ordinance to allow a second registration >> distance requirements? >> Yeah. Sorry. >> To allow a second retail registration. >> If we go with that this as it is and someone else came along and said, "Oh, we want to add a second one." We could >> we just modify the or >> modify it because my fear is the market's going to move way faster than we ever will and and will be way more imaginative than we will be here. >> Um and so locking it down as best as we understand it now gives us more flexibility to serve the community and respond to an emerging market uh than opening it up too wide to creative interpretation. Well, other than the fact that I would imagine like Sarah talked about people call and ask questions and if there's already one and somebody says I'm interested in being a cannabis retailer and not >> Sarah's going to say we have ours >> which is also why I said in a public meeting so now >> you know I'm not you're not that way but so there's that's kind of a the other perspective on that is that >> yeah By doing that we are >> limiting it. >> I I am still on board with limiting it to one for now. I think it does as kind of like Carl was I think trying to say maybe I misinterpreted you that it gives you more control for like kind of watching what is going to happen with this market and we don't not that we've got a bunch of empty buildings that are going to be filled with cannabis shops right now but I feel like we're a little more in control of how that plays out if we limit it to one right now. now. And I know we're supposed to be having our council meeting because bells are chiming, but we need to get this worked out. So, um >> I would >> I guess we have we have two for sure that are saying they don't want to limit to one hour how if there's a majority of us that feel that way, then we need to go back to the dry murder. We shouldn't be approving any of this. Right. >> Right. I would say allow more than one as well, but I don't know. I would also say go ahead and manufact do it in B2 as well. Like hey, if you want to buy one of the buildings and not make it bank it and you're going to have a business and you're going to be bringing in taxes and everything, why not have it even? But that's I know that's not what we want our storefronts to look like, but like you said, the one dot place she you can't go there in there and buy. >> Mhm. >> So what's the difference of >> right now? It's one of all three business. I feel like you should almost have one of each business. >> That's what I thought we were doing. One of each business, right? >> One of the total we used to. >> That's not what it you just never talked about the other two. Okay. >> Okay. >> So, you didn't address them and because you're using retailer as a use versus retailer as a license. laser light. >> It just to me when you the now the the retail person clogs it up from an industrial use elsewhere in in that >> I don't know. I don't >> I I don't understand what >> Oh, so you're kind of are you proposing one of each too? Kind of like Katie was thinking or are you thinking >> that's my whole thing with the limitation on on She makes a a great point. I didn't think it was, but I mean, if somebody wants to be the retailer now, we're not going to have a mess business. We're not going to have a micro. Those are out of the mix. Is somebody >> No, that's not that's not true. You just can't have that in the B2. >> Oh. >> So, and and you can, but they just can't sell, right? Cuz keep in mind, they can get a mess business license, but they would be growing it, manufacturing it. What they can't do is sell it in the B2. >> And actually, you have a limit to one in your city. So they can't sell it in your city, but they can do the other parts of that license. >> I mean, >> now I don't know why they would get that license if they didn't want to sell >> stuff. Why would we care if somebody's in the back room putting stickers on a bag or, you know, I don't >> Yeah. I think most people envision like all these marijuana plants, right? And the smell and all that, but there's the gummy version of it doesn't have all of that. >> As we live next to a power plant, Anderson Linda's worried about smelling that. I know the power plant's going down, but >> well, >> at least I >> smoke stack. >> I say we probably need a workshop. >> Yeah, >> I don't think we should pass anything. >> Either way, >> that's me. >> We're going to have we're going to leave this meeting with one registration though. >> If if we take no action or >> right because that's what we have right now. But it's one more complicated registration that's harder to >> if we don't do anything now. We could have as many as we want, right? >> No, right now it's right now >> because you could have >> ordinance. >> No, >> Madame Mayor, it's it's a little more complicated and hard to explain on how it's written currently as only one. Technically, it's only one retail. So, in theory, a mezzo business, micro business, and then a retail all could come and be in the B2. Because of how our code is written, different people could interpret different ways. I mean, we could interpret as yes, it's only one retail, but in theory, city attorney has indicated that there's enough gray area there that um possibly all three could come. >> Hence the reason that we're here. >> Well, >> and and it sounds like the majority of the council's like, we don't really care if all three go. >> No, no, no. That's not what I said at all. Not even close to what I said. I don't want an industrial place on Main Street, >> but in the other district, but if we pass everything now, then that means we're saying one retailer only. >> And I don't I'm not comfortable with that. But no, I'm fine with passing the micro and mezo business, not in the B2, but not in the industrial. >> Can we go back to that one slide that had the conditional use, the blah blah blah that that Yeah. So, this is where we kind of >> So, the industrial all still the same. through what those should say is what you're saying. >> I'm >> like what what would you change in this? >> I'm not saying I change anything in that. What I'm saying is the retail the retail >> you want to be >> I guess maybe I'm just not understanding it perfectly. So I think maybe we should have a little more conversation about it. I mean, you can put forward. I'm just telling you my opinion. So, maybe we've already talked about delivery services, things like that being changed and then want, you know, not wanting, but potentially having more than one retail. And then she said the medical could get another one, but that's like a whole thing. I don't know. It's it's unfortunate because I I mean we're we're forced to think about these worst case scenarios and we're finding solutions for problems that don't currently exist. And so it it's just not to mention how ham-handed this whole roll out has been for multiple years now. >> Yeah. you know, and then we're we're stuck making these decisions with very little, >> right, >> you know, real world scenarios in front of us. >> It is our job to think about worst case scenarios though. >> Absolutely. Yeah. And it look like Dean had a comment. I I was wondering would it make sense to at least clarify that you know the number part because the intention right now in the ordinance is that it's one right even though there sounds like there should be some more discussion around that but it sounds like we also have a lot more to hammer out with all this. Yeah, I guess >> like would it would it make sense to pass something to at least clarify that 749032 bit >> and then have hammer the rest out at a different meeting just as a thought because I know you guys have another meeting coming up. >> Yeah. One thing to keep in mind is right now you have zero, right? So, it's not like you're struggling to find a spot for a business to exist that, you know, for a business that doesn't can't exist right now. Right now, it can come and it it can apply. And while we've had a lot of activity, every city has had a ton of activity, but activity is not the same as somebody who has the financial backing, the ability to put a business together, all of the things actually necessary to execute. So a little bit, you know, until you have one business, it's moot because you don't have any. So who cares if the number is one or 50? You don't have any. >> Uh once you have one business, then by that time, that's when you definitely want to have a conversation about if you want to keep it at one or if you want to move that number or if you want to remove the number and just have I have a city where they don't have a cap, but they say no more than 500, you know, no less than 500 feet between businesses. We don't want a row of cannabis businesses, but number we don't really care as long as you've got space between them. That so there's a lot of ways that we can talk about in a work session to to do what you want to do. I would my recommendation right now is there's cleanup things in this ordinance. There's clarity in this this ordinance that I think is helpful for applicants when they're working with Sarah. Unless and until you've got the one slot filled, whether or not you allow five more is sort of moot. I agree. >> All right, Madame. Yes. One comment, too. >> So, we haven't even gone through the process, the CU pre COP process to determine how much push back potentially from the public or even business owners that you might receive. And conceivably that might also change your mind on how many we should add. I I know that everybody or a fair majority up here think that it should be unlimited. Um, but sometimes the public does play a pretty significant role on some of your decisions. >> That's true. There were people that came to that last meeting expecting it to be part of that agenda and he had decided to not go forward with the cannabis business here. So, um, I think that's a good point. I think maybe I mean I'm comfortable passing this as it is now just so that we can help staff have a clearer vision of what needs you know as people come through and we're not just seems it's neater for for those purposes for now. So >> I agree. >> So right now like someone tomorrow could come in >> with a micro business but they're just going to manufacture it and take up our only slot. You're saying >> yes. >> And not sell it. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> On B2. Yes. >> Yeah. >> And then we could decide that we want to open it up to more after that. >> I mean, like she said that we >> don't have any right now. So there's >> Yeah. >> But I um I do like that we have rules about what's in B2 versus industrial. I'm still thinking the delivery thing needs to be worked out. So that would be the only that delivery could be in B2, but that's not huge for now. I don't think unless I suppose if someone difficult to go back and discuss some of this. I don't want to pass something and then go back and have to tear it off again. >> Yeah. So that it does this does allow cannabis delivery service, but only if it's in an industrial. >> Yeah. Is that something that's easy to change so that it can be open to be too? Because what if the first one that we get it they want to have a like the one person that you said came they wanted a delivery >> component. How are we going to they won't be able to do that unless they find a space in our industrial? >> No. But you can as a council tonight can approve the ordinance with a modification that delivery service is a conditional accessory use in B2. >> Okay, we can even though we haven't decide like defined access the final ordinance that we publish would have that. So I can watch what your motion needs to say. It's not this guy. It's going to tweak a bit but we can tweak it to say that you want it to include delivery as an accessory conditional use in B2. Those would be that that's I think the bucket that you would want it to go under because you don't want it to be a principal use. You want it to be accessory to something still needs to be conditional because we want to be able to as we talked about our conditional use permit really is our teeth, >> right? >> So generally these will be conditional uses unless and until you know five years from now and everything's running swimmingly and we don't need to be as involved. Yeah. >> But >> okay, >> does that make sense? >> Yes. If someone wants to make a motion, >> can you just say move? >> Yeah. The planning commission has to first give us their recommendation, right? >> Yep. >> Madam Mayor, >> yeah, >> I recommend that the city attorney >> indicate the motion and then so moved. And before that, we meet our esteemed planning commission to decide if they have anything that they would like to recommend to the council before we move to the council's decision. Um, I make a motion to approve ordinance 903. Uh, okay. I'd like to put one condition on it in 74904 6C to clarify that delivery vehicles can be parked on street during deliveries. >> Okay. >> That's your So you're making a recommendation of approval with that >> with subject to that >> subject to that condition. Okay. >> Wonderful. >> Do you? Yeah. Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I don't have anyone. We have that done. So now there is So now the recommendation portion is just trying to make sure we're following procedure. So now it moves to the council. So the so the recommendation from the planning commission is approving the ordinance in front of you repealing and replacing ordinance 903 with the amendment to uh 749.046. C that would clarify that delivery vehicles um shall not be parked um sorry are permitted to be parked on the street while at the business >> or sorry while making deliveries. >> Flip that >> while making deliveries but not while they're at the business. And we al they're not recommending that we change the conditional use to the accessory in B2 though is what you're saying or >> well they didn't but you are perfectly capable of adding that as an additional amendment. >> So they're just going to make that they're >> okay. I thought you were trying to set it up for us to say so moved. That's where I was going. Okay. >> So now so I'm just going through there. Okay. So the motion as I believe if I'm hearing what everybody is looking for is a motion to approve the ordinance repealing and replacing ordinance number 9003 with the following two amendments. Number one, that section 4, appendix B, zoning, section 601, uh, districts 5, B2, central business conditional accessory uses, is, uh, we add delivery services to that list. And the second change is that under section 749 046 C that delivery vehicles are permitted to be parked on street while making deliveries. >> May I add to the Chamberlain amendment for no more than 30 minutes? >> Mhm. some time limit on >> friendly amendment. You can >> do we have a second on this little amendment? >> I second. >> Okay. >> So, somebody needs to make that actual motion. >> Oh, I thought he didn't. >> Nope. >> Oh, you did. So, >> I thought I have that. >> You make the motion with that amendment. >> So, somebody needs to say so moved that motion that that lady said, >> but he also uh >> with the amendment recommendation I just made. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So moved. I second. >> Thank you, Carl and Katie. All those in favor or do we need a roll call? >> Roll call. >> Roll call. Matt. >> Council member Bliss. >> I. >> Council member Gilmore. >> Nay. >> Council member Dah. >> I. >> Council member Hill. >> I. >> Mayor Hansen. >> I. All right. That was hard work. I didn't think it was going to be that hard. >> That's why we should have had another meeting. >> We should have. Next time we'll we've learned that. Yeah. It's hard to interpret what everyone's going to think they want, you know, like as staff. So, you had a hard job of trying to come up with that without knowing what was on our minds about it. So, all right. Um, now I guess we adjourn this meeting, right? Make a motion to do that. >> I move to adjourn the meeting. >> Second. >> Thanks, Katie and John. All in favor? >> I I >> We are adjourned from the joint meeting. So you guys are welcome to go home or stay and listen or whatever you want to do.