Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right, we'll get started. Call out the order of the meeting of the Austin City Planning Commission for Tuesday, June 3rd, 2025. We have five open public hearings on the agenda tonight. Before we get to those, we had our last meeting on May 13th. Does anyone have any additions or changes to the minutes from that meeting that you would received in your packet this week? If not, we need a motion and a second to approve those minutes as written. I'll make a motion. Second. Thank you. Have a motion from Commissioner Swanson and a second from Commissioner Norman to approve the minutes from the May 13th meeting as written. All in favor of the motion, please say I. I. All oppose? No. Motion carries. Those minutes are approved as written. First up, the first open public hearing uh is a rerun actually from April 1st meeting. Uh petitioner 11:09 Oakland Avenue West is requesting a variance to the 20% green space requirement. Yes. So this is uh uh brought by Acer Properties. Um they have a uh acquired the uh old metap building at 1109 Oakland Avenue West. Um that area is a K2 community business. Um they have asked to uh have a green a variance to their green space in order to create uh initially more parking spaces. Um the uh the planning commission did uh award a variance or approve a variance uh that was also uh approved by council in April of this year. Um the uh there was a condition that if they

were not able to um make uh changes to the drive-thru that they they may not uh continue to occupy that space. Um, so there was a condition that they would have to have the drive-thru uh modified the way that they wanted in order for it to have the green space variance. Um, it the the modifications to the drive-thru did not work out as they had hoped. Um, but they did uh reconsider and decide to continue to try to make that location work. Um so they came back uh with an amendment a request for amendment uh to uh essentially do what they initially were approved for is just to have a green space variance. Um they did provide a site plan uh which is in your packet and that gives a little more detail on what the space will actually how the space will actually operate. Um hang on I'll pull it up here. and what the uh remaining green space will be which um it wasn't in your packet but I got that information after we sent it out. Uh so the required green space is 20% existing right now is about 18 and ultimately there will be 11% green space with the design as shown here. And essentially this green space was removed to uh replace these parking spaces in front of this door. not to share. It's here if you have any questions. This would again be a recommendation to council. Uh the same items apply. Variance.

So this would be a recommendation to council for what exactly? How many? Uh to allow them to remove the green space as shown in their site plan. But the remaining 11% space. So instead of having 20% 20% green space, it would be allowed to have 11% green space in order to implement the plan that they have shown. So the so the difference from the last time to today is the drive through has been changed and now it's a walk out or a those double car. Is that what that is, Sam? Um you want to ask? Yeah. Um Sam Yun is here. on behalf of Astro and answer some questions for you. So the curbside pickup is that changed from the last time that we were um Yeah. No, last time we didn't really have Last time what we wanted was a little extension on the building and then a second exit from the drive-thru, right? We couldn't make that work. So this is essentially uh our plan for how we can make the drive-thru work to our satisfaction. So the the striped area or is just that it's just striped area. Um and then the idea is to have two drive-thru lanes. As you could see, they would stop at the black rectangles there without the second exit off the drive-thru. What we need to do in order to handle the volume is make sure as far as possible that whenever a patient gets to the drive-thru window that prescription is ready. So, in order to accomplish that, they can't just come up to the window whenever they want. So,

our plan is to have them stop at the two um black rectangles there. There would be a speaker box where they would interact with a pharmacy cashier. pharmacy cashier would say, "Okay, yep, prescription's ready. Pull through into the drive-thru lane." Or, "No, it's not ready." Yeah. So, our proposal is that the exit there on 11th Street become an exit only. Um, and that version you're looking at with these stacked four cars stacked coming off of the alley, that wouldn't be out. Wow. So, so we put that there because it's not very desirable for the city or for us to have once those six cars are in front of the store to have them backed up on Oakland Avenue perhaps. So our thought would be to direct them somewhere around the rear of the building and then wait that stacking area there. So by no means ideal, but um we feel like we can do this relatively quickly, relatively inexpensively and make that building function. So you don't have any worries about them back. That was one of my questions. where they be backing up on a lefthand turn off of Oakland to come in, but you're what you're saying is you'll pull them around the back like maybe like McDonald's does, right? Yeah, that would be the idea. Yeah, I mean that's going to take patient education and maybe a signage and you know people do whatever they really want to do, but right in in theory the Yeah, the the goal would be to have them either pull through the parking lot and out of the exit only exit or just over time

In an ideal world, there's not six cars in that in the truck. Okay. Times when there is. So, yeah. And Holly, I didn't see any is there was there any feedback from the variance mailing list? Did you get any of that? I didn't see it in the packet. Is there is that something that just is handled when it comes in? How's that worked? Was there any feedback for what for the variance list that you know were you notified? Uh yeah, we didn't get any responses or any questions from the public. Okay. And then the the remaining landscaping is what showed there. Would you set the 11%? Is that just grass and a few bushes? Is that what that is? Is it or is it a smaller version of what's there at this point or does it matter? Put any conditions on what it would be. So it could be just grass. I mean grass could be counted as green green space. Okay. Just not paved. The only area that's really um so the green on both sides and on behind the building that's all there currently and there' be no reason to change it. The additional five spots is in the front. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, so the area the two areas there on Oakland are currently rocks and shrubbery and stuff. So that's the only areas that would change. Yeah. This is removed here. This is shaped off a little and then this would be more dramatically altered.

Oh, is that what you have now? That's your current plan. That's the one I sent you on Friday. Sorry. This is what I had. Is it Is it different? Well, maybe there's another It's Is it significantly different? Do you mind if I show you the the difference is here? Oh, another parking spot. Oh, is it an entrance or parking spot? Oh, it's just a parking spot. Okay. Well, that would change the percent green space or was that the number? Okay, that's the number that you got from your consultant. Yeah, this is the last version. And then how do you how do you how do you condition or educate your customers to go around like I mean all I can see is you know cars backing down on Oakland Avenue and trying to take a left in there and then and then obviously crowding your lot up there so people can't even get through or out. I'm not sure if that's a concern or not. It is. I mean, I was I was there today and frankly there's people going through the building to take a shortcut. Like there's cars coming in and out of that exit only sign. I mean, it's hard to stop people doing whatever they want to do, especially when it's not busy, right? When there's just when there's no cars in the drive-thru, but I think it's I mean, we would we would have some handouts developed. We try and talk to people about it. If we could put signs up, we could put signs up. I think it's just a matter of getting people in the habit of doing doing what we expect them to do. But there are going to be times where it's going to be

uh a little bit out of control, I'm sure, but I don't anticipate affecting any of of you know Oakland or anything like that. Like I say, it's really the best we could come up with um to help us ensure that we can use the drive-thru as is. Okay. Thank you. Okay. While you're still at the podium, need to have you state your name and address for the record. Uh my name is Sam Yuing. Address is 2817 Stonegate Court Southwest. Thank you. Any more questions from the commissioners for the petitioner? Anyone prepared to make a motion? Motion. Sorry. Go ahead. Motion to approve. I'll second. Okay. Could you be a little more specific? I'll make a motion to approve as as the addition that he gave us or the addendum that he gave us which had the additional parking spot. So it would be a recommendation to council to allow uh removal of green space to 11% with the amended design that was shared. Yeah. Okay. with an additional spot. Parking spot. Yeah. And you with a second? I would second that. Yes. All right. So, we have a motion from Commissioner Mayor and a second from Commissioner Bartley to recommend a council to approve the request to reduce the green space to 11%.

and approve the amended request the with the traffic plan and the layout the last layout that we saw the most current layout. Everyone clear on the motion? Any further discussion? Hearing none, we'll go ahead and vote. All in favor of the motion, please say I. I. All oppose? No. Motion carries. Request is approved. Could I excuse me? Could I ask just a clarifying question there? Does that mean I'm good to go or Stephen, do you and I need to get together or council? You are good to go as far as removing green space. It has to go to council. Well, council's got to go to council. Sure. Oh, right. That's true. Yeah, it's a recommended to coun recommendation to council which will be the 16th of this month. Okay. I can remove green space and lay out the parking lot as is there or is that um I think you shared an amended version that had an additional parking spot. And you said that that was 11% green space as shown. Yep. And that would be uh something that would have to be approved by council. they would oh sure uh hear the recommendation of the planning commission and make a decision and I appreciate that and I appreciate the approval. I'm just saying does that mean I can go ahead and strip the parking lot by speakers um after the 16th? Yeah. Yeah. All right. Got it. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Good night. All right. Next up, we have a petitioner request an offense

appeal for a 8ft tall privacy fence in the rear yard. Miss Wallace, the floor is yours. All right. I just need to zoom in here a little bit. Uh the petitioner is Armando Pedro at 2 2011 4th 4th Avenue Southeast in Austin. Uh this property is a single family residence uh zoned R1. Uh the petitioner uh is limited by city code 4.70 subdivision 5C which only allows a 6-ft fence uh along lot lines. Uh the petitioner is asking to uh put a 8 foot high fence in his rear yard uh which is 2 ft higher than typical. Um it would be unusual. We don't see a lot of fences of that height. Um the proposed location does not appear to have uh to create any hazard. Uh and there were no utility easements shown on the plat. Um he indicated that the 8-ft wooden fence was for privacy for his family, uh his wife and three children. Um the actually the uh an 8ft wooden fence would require a also require a building permit. So we would have to get a permit after if he did get approval from the planning commission uh for uh an 8ft fence. uh he would still have to get a a building permit. So, the fence uh on here, let's see. [Music] It's a backyard fence, right? Emily,

well, it's going to be on three sides. starts starts along the house and then goes into the along the neighbor boundary neighbor's property line and then uh enclosed at the rear yard back to the rear end of the house. Did you say why he needs an eight over a six? Yeah, I'm I went and visited this property yesterday and I met the homeowner and talked to him because I specifically wanted to ask him why 8 ft why why wouldn't six foot work. But, uh, a couple things. First is when you look at that GIS overhead, that garage isn't actually there anymore. That's an empty slab. And he's actually, in fact, while I was there, a contractor was there measuring behind there. He's going to build a new garage back farther behind that existing spot. It'll be five feet, the minimum five feet from the back lot or the back line, the setback requirement. And so this fence will be like roughly five feet behind that then along that back row. And then it'll come up both sides up to the back side of the house. And that the real reason he wants the 8 ft, it's it's for privacy. It's a privacy fence, a wooden fence. And it's mostly for the neighbor that's on that back side that you can't see it here, but when you're standing in his backyard, that neighbor's property, as you look back at it, sits higher than his. So when you're up by his house where he's putting in his new patio, it's high enough that they would look right over that 6ft fence. But that's true with any house that's a a do if it it's a two-level house. I have a six foot fence and half my neighbors can look in my backyard because they've they're two levels. So it doesn't m I mean that happens and I can't remember being on the commission and we had one other appeal that I remember being an 8 foot fence

and that was because the unique property of that retaining wall on that one over by the church on the south side street there. Yep. Yep. So I guess I disagree with you. I'm just telling you what his reasons for why 8 foot instead of six. Is he here? He's not. He had to work tonight. He works nights. So, uh, the other thing I would tell you is that entire neighborhood, as I looked around, is I think it's early 50s vintage ramblers. They're all almost all the same design. They're 8ft sidewalls and then the fascia. So, then with 412 slope, which most all of them are, it's about a 12 to 14 foot roof line on the ridge. So, as far as sight line goes, that 8ft fence doesn't really block anything that isn't already blocked by the housings themselves because it's really tight neighborhood. You can see in those overhead photos, those houses are house to house, driveway to driveway, garage to garage. I mean, they're they're pretty tight. So, as far as sight lines, I don't think that fence would be an issue. But, yeah, that's that was my concern. We haven't done 8ft fences. And I know that Mr. Byum, if he was here, would tell us that we don't set precedents by approving this. Everyone is an individual case that we look at on a case-byase basis. But reality is once you approve something that when the next person comes along and if you want to say no the second time, then you better have a reason. Mhm. And it has to be something other than what you approved this for. So I understand that side of it as well. I that's what I saw when I talked to him and that's his reasoning and that's the reason for his request. So couldn't be a eight-footer in the back and six on the sides probably. I don't know. We did not discuss that option. I understand. I I can understand

just from a home homeowner's perspective. I have a 6ft fence behind me. It's not mine, but I can't see over it. But I'm not that tall. But an 8 foot would be massive. Mhm. I think that's just my opinion and it would affect me just because I'm the neighbor. So, I don't know how that all factors in. Um, but I did drive through the neighborhood and and look, there's there's a just a mishmash of a lot of different kinds of fences. There's, you know, there's vinyls. Yeah. There's chain link. So, it wouldn't be, you know, a problem in that regard, but it just seems like it would be uber tall for for a fence. And it's, you know, the other f there's not a fence around. I think there's a fence on the right hand side. You're looking down on the right, but on the left there isn't. If I remember right, you can consider anything related, reasonably related to the installation of the fence. So, how it would impact the neighbors is certainly a consideration. Okay. Well, my neighbor has a a dual height fence, so he's got a tall I can't say if it's eight, but it might be six and then four, but I know it can be done. So, that idea is the the back to kind of block out the view of that garage being 8 foot, then the sides remaining six. I think that's doable, but and maybe get behind that. Well, without the homeowner here, the request is for 8 foot on three sides. So, that's what we're dealing with tonight. You if we deny that, then yeah, he could come back with a different plan, I guess. But, sure. This is strictly us, right? This is not a recommendation to council. We do fences on our own. Um, fences do go to council. They do. Okay.

Yeah, we're looking at this particular instance then I you know I think that maybe adjustment would be okay but I think you'd have to come back and present that. Uh what are our options Holly? We can recommend the council to approve recommend and deny. Yeah. Or you could recommend approval with conditions. could change his request, something that you feel is more palatable. And what's the likelihood that we get a permit to build that fence, a building permit to build that fence? Is that just a procedural thing or is that also a Yeah, there be some additional requirements for uh securing the fence due to things like wind load. You have to have a plan. Yeah, there'd have to be a plan. None of the neighbors have spoke up about this or they're not here obviously. No, we haven't gotten any responses and I don't think anyone here in the audience is here for that particular item. Yeah. You did? Okay. No, I just asked uh our administrative staff if she gotten anything and she did not. We don't send notices, right, for Yeah, that's true. Yep. Oh, that's true. That's going to be changing. Any more questions, commissioners? Yeah, technically, yeah, this was uh this was noted as an open public hearing, but technically it's not. It's a fence appeal. So, the notices don't go out like they would for a variance. Yep. If there's no more questions, is

anyone ready to make a motion? I have a question. How many um asks do you get for 8oot fences? The only one I remember was for the annex uh for Hornell and that was a chain link fence that they wanted additional height for. So it's not common for for residents to request an 8 foot. No, I don't think the whole time the 10 years I've been here I don't think I've ever seen a request for an 8ft fence. the one that I think that Commissioner Burroughs mentioned varied in height and that's the one uh that's along 12th Street. I guess I look at it more as a commercial fencing as opposed to residential. That would be my opinion. And you know, I would look at that as as I think it would it would it would be very noticeable, but and I think you might be set could be setting precedent there. I don't know. But well, and it's unfortunate too that the homeowner isn't here to be able that we could ask questions. you know, if there was issues with dogs or something, you know, that would potentially, but we only have what's on the paper to be able to decide. He does note neighbor dogs. So, request reason for request is I am requesting this for the increased privacy neighbor dogs for my wife and three children. Thank you. Yeah, I think that's more of just the privacy fence and the wooden fence cuz I don't know of any dog that's over 6' tall. You can jump at 6' tall fence. Yeah. I mean, there's few, but I don't know. I don't think anyone's ever told

me that they had a neighbor dog getting over their fence as a reason for having a a taller. Other than like a 4ft to a 6 foot, maybe. There's a six-foot wood fence in my neighborhood when we go walking. These people don't take care of their yard and I notice it, but there's no way that a dog could get over that fence. And it it makes the property on the other side feels small and enclosed and so that might be why the neighbors don't want it. That one's a 6ft one and it's plenty high. I don't know. I don't And that's in the same neighborhood. We're talking a couple of blocks from there. same house number and I think 6 foot if it's a wood one is plenty high we have three options I move to deny the request second is you okay so we have a motion from commissioner Burroughs and a second from commissioner Norman to recommend the council to deny the appeal for the 8-ft fence. Any further discussion? They'll still be made aware then that they have an option to modify the request. They are permitted to put up a six-foot privacy fence in the location that they've indicated. So, they would not have to get any approvals to do that. They could just pull, right? But if they wanted eight on one end and six on the sides, that this will shoot that down, too. Or does this not shoot that down? They have to come back. They could come back. Yep. Okay. Yeah, they might. I don't know if there's a delay for fence appeal

for for a variance if there's unless there's new uh some change. They would have to wait a year to bring another variance once they've attempted it and been denied. I don't know if that applies to fence appeals. I would have to check the ordinance. But presumably at some point they would be able to come back and ask again. Okay. And that communication would come from you to them or would they have Yep. I'll let them know. Okay. Will the item be an open public hearing at the council meeting? Will he be able to speak if he shows up? Uh council can allow it. They wouldn't be required to uh hear any additional information, but they would they would likely I well actually I shouldn't say that. I really don't know if they would have let him speak or not, but he still works nights or I believe so. Any further discussion? Okay, we have a motion on the floor to recommend the council to deny the request. Any further discussion or questions? All in favor of the motion, please say I. I. All oppose? No. No. So the motion carries. 7 to one. Recommended council to deny All right, next item up. Conditional use permit for cannabis retail business. Wallace, uh, do we have anybody here on behalf of Okay, which which one are you here for?

Okay. Um let's see. So we have some uh new developments uh with regard to cannabis. Um as you know the state has uh legalized uh retail and other uh cannabis production. Uh the city of Austin recently adopted uh some ordinance uh to develop some local uh controls with regard to cannabis. Uh and one of the things that is required uh locally is that a uh retail or other company that is interested in locating here would have to get a conditional use permit uh prior to completing their licensing with the state. Um, so we require them to have a location uh that and then verify that the zoning is uh appropriate. In this instance, uh they're allowed in a B2 or B3 commercial retail. Um this particular place is uh located at 501 First Street Northwest. Uh and then that property is divided into I believe three suites. Uh this particular prop uh business is proposed in sweet B. Um the petitioner is Beth Bremer on behalf of Wendy Whistle LLC. Uh last known owner was with Blue Wolf Capital Capital LLC out of Rochester, Minnesota. Um so we have some criteria. Well, I should say the surrounding land uses are zoned uh B2 and B3. Um the current land use is retail and there's some vacant

retail there. Uh some of the criteria uh in granting conditional use permit. Uh the planning comm uh commission shall consider uh the advice of the planning and zoning administrator on the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan and upon the health, safety, and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. Among other things, the city council shall make following findings were applicable. And this would also be actually hang on a sec. So you should consider uh whether the use will create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities which serve or proposed to serve the area. Uh that the use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. that the structure and site have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. That the use is reasonably related to the overall city needs and to the existing land use. That the use is consistent with the purposes of this chapter and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. That the use is not in conflict with the city's comprehensive plan and that the use will not cause any traffic hazard or congestion. Um, we again I I took the snippet out of the cannabis uh ordinance that uh allows cannabis retail as a conditional use in the B21 and B3 districts. Um, there was a question, let's see, we had some other items that are typically considered. Um, in this instance, the

petitioner does propose to use the location as a retail cannabis business. Um, we do have three licenses available in the city of Austin. In order to apply for the license, the proposed business must secure a location again and CUP approval. Um this is a this would be a final decision by planning commission to approve, deny or approve with conditions. Uh our city clerk is here. So there if there's some questions about how the process would continue after the conditional use permit, but it's my understanding that most of the uh the requirements would go through the state uh at this point for licensing. Um the city did consider buffer zones uh for certain uses like schools and daycarees um and parks. Um, however, we initially have decided to not require those uh due to potential unintended consequences for both the cannabis retail and protected uses uh in being able to locate or move around to different uh retail locations. the see the approval if you do decide to approve the conditional use permit uh it should be conditioned on final approval of license by the state of Minnesota in case something falls through in that particular area. Uh some of the general considerations common to cannabis businesses are security uh prohibition on exterior outdoor operations, odor, waste disposal of products, lighting, uh and signs. Um and then generally a conditional use permit is allowed.

Um but we are able to put conditions on that use. Uh and we want to show and we want the applicant to show that they can either meet or exceed the standards uh and criteria in our additional use permit ordinance. Uh the applicant has provided some information about how they intend to uh run their cannabis retail dispensary. this particular business and all of the ones uh who have applied for cups have gotten pre pre-approval from the Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management for their business. Um that is uh intended to show that they will will have the ability to obtain full lensure once proper zoning and land use permits are obtained. Um, in this instance, the area is about 750 square ft and they'll be remodeling it to uh meet their operation operational needs, including public retail sales area, secure product storage area. Uh, and then some back of house areas including staff, break rooms, offices, and employee restrooms. Um, they've included a site plan with a a layout. Um they have no uh changes proposed to the existing driveway access point. Um and then they will be using uh planning to use the public parking area for customers. Uh they plan to uh have an exterior sign on the south face of the building and that that signage will comply with city ordinance requirements. um the hours of operation proposed. Um actually this was a little different than what we have in our ordinance. Um so they just asked that they be allowed

to be open uh to the greatest extent possible per our city ordinance employees. They uh anticipate approximately 10 employees on site during regular business hours for security. Uh they will have cameras installed at exterior interior access points. Uh can cameras will monitor interior retail area areas and secure storage areas. Uh they will have commercial grade locks at external access points including windows. Um and then all of these security measures will be installed per uh Minnesota statute 342 um as uh administered by the Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management. Uh they do have an exterior lighting plan. We do also have an ordinance with some exterior lighting requirements. Uh so their lighting plan should just comply with our existing ordinance which I had a snippet up here on that. Um for lighting uh guidance here is lighting should be lowest level possible for the purpose intended. Uh shall be uh designed to essentially remain on the the subject property. Um there's a maximum wattage uh and then light stress bash shall be controlled. Um there's some exceptions. This would not uh be one of those exceptions. The question of order mitigation. Um I mean typically that's more of a a concern with cultivation and processing of cannabis.

Uh I guess I don't really have any experience with uh the retail establishments and whether there are any nuisance orders associated with it. Um the uh applicant indicates that uh since there is no on-site manufacturing or cultivation proposed uh orders beyond those found in a typical retail establishment are not anticipated. And again, the retail space will utilize the existing parking lot across Fourth Avenue Northwest that also serves other existing retail and that their parking demand is uh anticipated to be consistent with other retail uses. Um they did draft some responses to our um conditional use uh considerations. Um so whether the use would create an excessive burden. Um they indicated that the project site is in a B3 central business district and is currently developed and used for commercial use. Uh the site is more than 500 ft from the nearest park or school. Traffic to the business is anticipated to be that of typical retail business and not uh expected to be substantially above the existing condition. Um, let's see. Excuse me. The use would be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening. Uh, so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and no deterrence to development of vacant land. Again, uh, it is in a city's B3 central business district. Um, there's no real concern in that area about develop development of vacant land. Um this particular area is already developed and used for commercial use.

Um there are no vacant properties other than parking uh options. Uh the nearest residentially zone property is not directly adjacent to the site uh and it's screened by trees. Uh the applicant asserts that the improvement will uh the sign uh site improvements will be limited to addition of signage on the south face of the building and they're uh asserting that that will not adversely impact property values. Of course, the sign permit would be a separate action. Um whether the structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. Uh the project site is an existing retail building. Um they intend to have minimal changes to the form of signage on the exterior of the building. Uh the signage will not be visible from the residential neighborhood north of the site. and they're not anticipating any adverse effects. Uh whether the use is related to the overall city needs and existing land use. Um the applicant uh indicates that the existing use again is commercial retail. Seven several adjacent retails along 4th Avenue Northwest and First Street Northwest. The proposed retail use is consistent in the city's existing land use plan. The future land use for uh the use is not in conflict with the city's comprehensive plan. The future land use

plan uh indicates that area is commercial retail. proposed business location uh is in a suite of an existing retail building. Uh the use will not cause any traffic hazard or congestion. Uh they just indicate the uh access point uh First Street Northwest will be maintained. Uh there are two other retail businesses in the same locations A and C uh and the business is expected to generate traffic uh consistent with adjacent retail use and not increase substantially above existing conditions. uh whether there's adequate utilities uh access drainage or other necessary facilities. Uh the proposed conversion of uh the applicant's response is that the proposed conversion of the existing retail suite or can re cannabis retail dispensary would include uh modifications to the exterior of the building uh and maintenance of the access points uh that are existing. Uh the suite is serviced by uh city uh services. Now uh they do not propose any changes. Um their estimated use would be in alignment with rates uh or commercial land uses. Um and then they would work with the city on any required building modifications and permits as required. This is let's see this is their uh site plan for that

location. It's unfortunate that Mr. Byron isn't here. I had a number of questions for him. I don't know, maybe Bri, maybe you can answer them. I don't know. Have you had any involvement? Let's go ahead and ask the question. The statute. Are you familiar with it? So, to start with, uh, it says in the in the document with the staff report that the city of Austin has three licenses available. I'm confused by that statement because the statute doesn't set any limits at all. It's It only sets the minimums that you have to and you don't even have to actually have that many, but you have to be you have to allow that many if you in fact receive applications. You can't just deny it completely the statute, but you have to allow one for every 12,500 residents. So, city of Austin is 26,000 and some people. So for the first 12,500 you have to allow one dispensary. For the next 12,500 you have to allow the second. Yep. Now the next threshold would be 37500. We went over the 24. We went over the 24. Is that how it works though? Mhm. Pardon? Is that how it works though? Is if you cross that boundary then you have to provide another dispensary even though you haven't reached the next 12,500. Correct. If you go over the 12,500 in your population, so we went over the 525, so we have to allow three the minimum. So the county has to allow four. Correct. Okay. So if the county gives out four, if if Lyall gets one, Graham Meadow gets one, Rose Creek gets one, Leroy, then we don't have to give out any. Yes. And we spoke about that when we

talked about our ordinance. But the city decided that we would um we would do the minimum. We would do three. We would allow three to come in city limits. Um there were cuz you can allocate your licenses to the county and just let the county take it and not have to deal with it. Um but we didn't do that. So, we decided as a city to allow three regardless of how many others there are in the county. Correct. That the county only be eligible for one addition if the county wanted to. The county could say now Austin has three within the county. We can just take on one more. And you lost me there. So, the three Austin would count towards the county's four. Correct. Yeah. Can I interrupt just for a quick second? It's just a logistics thing. You have to come up to the podium, state your name and address. Record. There are three. There are three applications. Okay. Thank you. I was like, this one isn't the one by your property there. Okay. Yep. I don't know which order they are. That one's last. Okay. Thank you. Sorry for interrupt. No, you're okay. So, is the city saying we have to allow three? Minnesota states that the minimum, Stephen, you might have to help me with my verbiage here. The minimum we have to allow would be three in the city of Austin due to our population.

But by state statute, by we could say we, if the council wanted to, the council could, it depends on your city, they could open it up and say we allowing 10 or we're allowing eight. Right? Some cities have decided they're not putting a limit on it. But due to our population, we have to allow three. But at the same time, if the county out in the county, there were already three or four rather, we wouldn't have to allow anymore if we didn't want to. I don't think that's accurate because Austin is a separate entity, a government agency. So, they have to look at it in terms of the Austin city limits. Oh, that's an Austin city population. I think county can over in our ordinance though. We took that language right from the office of can cannabis management's document and from the state statute and it's all very confusing obviously but I think we would have had to but you're saying if there's four in Leroy Austin has met their qualifications and that's not true. I'm saying if there's four out in the county if there's four out in the county the county has met their obligations under the population requirements. The county's obligation covers the whole county including Austin. Correct. But that but Austin can't get credit for the four and Leroy. If more county has one active cannabis retail business registration for every 12,500 residents, the city of Austin shall not be required to register additional statelicicensed cannabis retail businesses. If the county has given them their license, our county has already met the requirements for 40,000 people because the county more county is 40,000 in population. Austin takes up 26 of that. And if the county gives out a county on Austin city limits, is that what it means? No, the county can't dictate where we put our licenses.

But if the county were to give out three retail licenses in Mo County, that counts towards the population. That counts towards Austin's three. Correct. But the city of Austin has decided that we're going to open up and we are going to allow three tail three retail registrations. The county basically if Austin grabs three now we're shorting the rest of the county. No, they can have as many. We're not. No, they can have as many as they want. Okay. This is just minimums, not Oh, got it. Got it. Yeah. Okay. Austin, there's nothing in the statute for maximum. No, there's no limit. The state legislature only addressed the minimums, but that's a city council issue with their licensing, not ours for the cup. Yeah, that's why I'm trying to clarify. We have to give out three. Correct. I think that's wrong, but that's what the council decided. These are open retail, not medical card ones. Medical can come in. Medical doesn't count towards retail registration. That's completely different. So if somebody comes in with the mixed use with medical retail, they can come in. So then we could technically have four and like the all the gas stations that have the that's low potency hemp edibles hemp that's completely different. So that doesn't count because these are um these are cannabis retailers. Okay, those are low potency. It's a lot of different um registrations and licenses. Um, and right now that everything that's coming out is like the uncapped and then eventually um the capped ones such as the cultivators and um testing and stuff. You'll see more of that come out as well. So, it gets a little confusing. We did have many meetings of the staff. Okay. I I I think I understand the

numbers thing now. I don't like it, but I understand it. I don't think it's I don't think that's consistent with what they put in the ordinance 734, but if that's what it is, that's what it is. My other issue is all three, the state statute and our ordinance and the the OCM support document all site within the definitions different license types. Okay? So there's micro business, there's mezzo business, there's cultivator, manufacturer, retailer, wholesaler, etc. So, as I look at the attachments here, all three of these requests, I don't know if we're trying to talk about each of these separately or not, because it looks to me like they're all one entity. I don't see a separation here. I see two different owners for three applications. I three three applicants, but two owners and I don't know. It's confusing to me, but the documents are all from the same entity as well. But each of these license statements that are in here include the uh the business license number and all of those numbers start with the word micro. So I assume all three of these licenses are micro business licenses. Is that that is correct? That is correct. They're micro. Okay. So, by definition, micro businesses, they can cultivate cannabis, they can manufacture cannabis products, they can manufacture hemp products, and they can package, and they can also have a retail sale. Yep. And we spoke with all of them to clarify that they would not be growing or manufacturing. These these ones, these three applicants are strictly retail because if they were to cultivate, they could not be in these B2 or B3 because these are only retail. For any of those other uses, we require an industrial zone. Correct. Okay. So,

they're aware of that that even though they have a micro license, they're only going to get to be able to do the retail piece. Correct. Okay. Is there any way that can change after we approve it? If we changed our ordinance. What? If we changed our ordinance potentially. Okay. If they wanted to change what they were doing in their operation, they would have to change their location. So, if you're saying if if they wanted to change if they wanted to start cultivating or growing within their store, is that what you mean, Jay? They would have a license. They have the license per the state of Minnesota statute to cultivate manufacture, but they'll only have a conditional use permit from us to do retail. Correct. So, under what conditions can that change? That's what I'm asking. That's I mean, once we approve this, is it out of our hands? Uh, no. If there's a violation of a conditional use permit, uh, it can be revoked. would be the same process as granting a conditional permit. Okay. Is the the one on Main Street, is that a dispensary or do they just do the THC? Uh, you mean the Superior? I can't think of the name. Cuz we we haven't actually granted licenses yet. No, they don't do THC. They are they're low potency. Um they do low potency hemp edibles and like the the drinks and I think more so he doesn't have a state license then not like this not he hasn't applied with

the city of Austin um for any type of retailer business. Okay. for THC. So, can I have a question though as to the cup? So, you have the two applicants from this Blue Wolf Creek. Do they uh No, the the owner of the property is Blue Wolf Capital. Okay. So, he owns It used to be Top 10 Nails. There's two I'm not can't remember. There's two suites and then there's two separate LLC's. So, are we having two different potentially two different cannabis businesses right next to each other in the same building? Correct. Yes. Because then third one is the one that's out by Pet Authority, right? By Jimmy Johnson. Yeah. Place. Yeah. So, two in this location and their uh application is pretty similar. And who who is the blue wolf that owns it now? And do they have leases with them? Yeah, they have leases with them. Okay. So, are we granting it to the owner? This is where I get confused with the conditional use permit. use permit goes with the store, not the app or the location, not the applicant. So, okay. So, the property owner or the who owns the building or the business that rents the building, the location would be eligible for this kind of business per our conditional use permit until it's either until it either lapses for whatever reason or is removed or they might never use it again. if the retail business leaves too.

So, it's just those limit them to any it kind it broadens their uh I guess their leasing ability by allowing cannabis retail just for those two suites cuz if it was a building if they own the whole building why why would they have two, right? No, it would just be for those two suites because that's all they've asked for. But I mean the cup is always contingent upon them getting a a city license. Uh getting the state license the state license and city and then city approval. There's some additional so once they got this up once they were app got their state approval because right now they have the preliminary approval. So they get their state approval. They pass their inspections because the state would do their inspections on the property to ensure that they've done everything that they are required um by statute. Um then there would be city inspections um building and fire. Then they would get the city registration and pay the the fees to the city. He's Is there somebody here? I don't think for this one. For the next one, maybe. Are you here for Windy Whistle or for the Well, they're all the same one, aren't they? You could speak on this one. Um, could we get him the microphone? Sure, if you could, and then just give your name and address. a business. They don't like join me because they state your name and address for the record, please. Yes. Uh my name is Aaron

Bushart. Um 2999 Walnut Ridge Lane, Iowa City. Uh and yeah, question. So you're from Iowa City, did you say? That's right. Okay. So, which of these companies are you here to represent? Uh I am a consultant um for both of the entities at 501 um and the third as well. the business or the building owner, the the applicant. Uh so the building owner in this case um is wanting to be able to you you know utilize this use and so and really the conditional use permit being associated with the is a land use. It's like it's associated with the location, right? And it's the mechanism I understand that the city's utilizing to issue uh to to kind of vet the permitting process that we're going through here. So in this case, it's being issued to the property or the real estate. Uh and so you know, I'm the consultant representing the applicants in this particular case. So who's going to own the business? Um uh uh Beth Bremer Windy Whistle LLC in this case. Okay. But she does not own the property. That's correct. She would be a tenant leasing leasing the suite. Yeah, that's correct. And this is kind of where the cop process you know as the mechanism to issue this is just that's where the con the conflation of these things start to come together because you have the applicant who's just leasing but the cop is associated the real estate itself right so that that's where all that's why it's confusing crosses over yeah uh but ultimately um Wendy Whistle LLC is the is is the the person applying and fulfilling the cannabis required you know condition you know the conditions. Yeah. So, so if Wendy's granted this, then they move out. That building's back to just a regular property that can be rented for I mean it wouldn't am I understanding

that correctly then they would the conditional use would be null and void. Our conditional uses go with the property. Okay. No, it wouldn't be null and void. Okay. Any other cannabis business could come in without coming back to us. Right. So, they get this ball rolling, they leave, somebody can come in without getting the ball rolling, move right in and open up a cannabis shop. Is that Well, I don't know that that I don't know that that's correct because we do our ordinance does require a cup in order to get a city to get the state license and then that's right. They would have to also get a conditional use for themselves even though that location already had one, but it wasn't for them, I think. Right. Yeah. So there's steps in place for that process, right? What's that? So there'd be Okay. Yeah, there's steps in place. Yeah. In order to apply for the conditional use permit, they have to have a pre-approval from the state to show that they meet certain requirements. I'm trying to establish if this is all just one company. That's what I'm trying to do. chairman. Uh, no. So, if we're going to give out three total allowances, do we want to give them all to a single entity? Right. Is this in fact three applications or is this just one application with a bunch of different business names and applicants? We did talk about that with Mr. Byron and there's nothing that prohibits it, but yes, you could consider that and go. I want to point out that all of these applicants are all individual social equity qualifying applicants. So we are consulting on behalf of all of them uh because you know obviously social equity applicants in many cases are not able to navigate some of these processes. So the uniformity here uh is that we assisted with real locating real estate. We

assisted with navigating this process but these are separate individual uh these are individual applicants um that will own individual businesses. It'll be two competing bituite suites right next to each other will be That's right. There's not a lot of real estate that meets all these requirements. So, so the your hands are tied kind of. We did the best we could for it for these three. Yeah. Are any of these companies local companies or local businesses or local people? No. No, they haven't. You have to start at the states and then the state's the one that issues the preliminary approval and then you go and you approach the cities on where you want to put your location. So no, these applicants are not from Austin and there's no guarantee that a business that's currently here would be able to get the licensing from the state. So when you say it starts at the state level, essentially the state provides a list of here's locations that may you may qualify to put your business in. No, you you go to the state and you apply right with them. They have the state is the lead in the majority of this process and the the cities the municipalities kind of take a backseat and just have to ensure that the applicants have all of their paperwork um that they're following everything that they need to that they're doing the inspections um and as long as they've done everything that the state has required and followed the city's guidelines, then there shouldn't be an issue in issuing a registration.

Dumb question, but we've been by some dispensaries in different states and they have security on and they say that their city requires them to have that. Is that something that the state or the city would require? Uh there are security requirements for the facility itself and the operations. Uh but for example like having a security guard in this case is not required by either the state or the local. Okay. Security is something that you can consider as a condition when you if you approve a condition. You could add some additional security requirements if you felt that was necessary. Um but we don't require anything additional uh from what the state requires in vote on all three of these separate things. Mhm. We can kind of have a group discussion. We can three separate groups, right? Could we excuse me for again? Yeah. I mean, these first two are are almost identical. They're in the same location. The third uh property is uh in another location, so we should go over that one. But um do you want me to just kind of go through the the other um CP request before you I mean they're all the same. It's just address. Yeah, it's pretty much identical. I mean I think the third one only has its own parking. Yeah, the third one we had some additional uh recommendations. Um we do have a neighbor of that property here was waiting for that one to come up. Yeah. Would you like me to just jump to that one and talk about that one? Yeah, let's do that. No. Yeah. I I still I'm still trying to understand how these are separate. I'm

still So Beth Bremer is the first one. That's the applicant and the owner is Blue Wolf. No. Oh, well the owner of the property is Blue Wolf, right? They have nothing to do with Beth Bremer, right? She's the applicant of record. Her name's on the license. Their relation. Yeah, they would have. The second one is Jodie Connelly and Blue Wolf. Same thing there. And those are the two suites that are side by side. The third one is Casting Coast Light LLC. That's the applicant. And here's here's where my confusion is. The street address for Casting Coast is the same as Jod Conny's street address in Brooklyn, Brooklyn Center. Correct. Yeah. Looks like they have one. So they're all three the same thing. This is one entity in the end. That's a registered agent. It's trying to get all three of our allowances. It's a registered agent address that you're referring to. What's that? The It's a registered agent address. So many entities use registered agent addresses and in that case they both use the same registered agent. So like when you incorporate an organization uh you typically many many times you use a registered agent service and that registered agent service uh will have an address and so many entities can have the same registered agent address because they're using the same registered agent service. So there's like maybe five or six of them in the state of Minnesota that probably register 80% of all the LLC's in Minnesota. So you would actually find this to be true across many many organizations with registered agent addresses in that case. So these are separate entities separate applicants. So like the OCM for for example the OCM could not issue two micro business licenses to the same group. That would go against the statute. So these are

distinctly separate individuals that have been vetted for social equity through the OCM with separate entities. Those entity structures have applied and received preliminary approval as separate individuals. So Beth and Jennifer are not here today. So just a bunch of names to work around. We're an organization that assisted all three of these, but they're all separate individuals. like they would be p they would be being punished by association of their consultant in the case that they were lumped together. Does that make sense? Like if they all use the same law firm, they weren't the same company. I'm not looking to punish them, but if we're going to just give out three, the idea giving all three of them to the same entity doesn't seem fair to me. Well, again, they're quite literally different entities. The cons the cons this theme here is the consultant that assisted all three of them not the individual entities. They are separate distinct business owners that once this process has gone through and they no longer need this consultant they that association that you're that that you're seeing there is exists through their association through the consultant not necessarily as individuals. So are any of the business owners here today? Are any of those business owners here tonight? They are not. Any of the applicants here tonight. Uh the one and the same, but no. And again, I'm their consultant, so I'm I'm here on behalf of them. What's the role of an applicant besides getting the license? Uh the applicant is a true party of interest in the business. So the applicant is required to make all business decisions, conduct the business on a day-to-day basis. Okay. So this Beth Bremer would actually work in that dispensary. Well, she would own the she would own the dispensary. So it be her decision whether or not she

worked there every day, but she would own the dispensary and and for example, she would have to write all the checks, make all the decisions, would need to be the principal of the business. Um it was required to do all things in control of the business. This is this is a legal issue at the at the OCM level that you can't have, you know, one organization that just puts up a bunch of fronts to have a bunch of other organizations like the individual they use. It's called true party of interest and the true party of interest of each license needs to be separate and they have to have cross the threshold of making a certain level of decision-m that effectively they are in control and make all decisions for the business for example. But she probably wouldn't live in this community, contribute to this community or work in this community. I can't speak to that. I would guess that some of the employees that will be working there would be from the community if the owner is not I would imagine we have other businesses that I would imagine many businesses in town are not that criteria. So in the city of Austin, we can have we the minimum is three, right? We could have other businesses if if where they want to have their business would meet the requirements. So this is just a minimum. We ended it at three. The council could go back and decide to open it up, but right now we are Oh, it's just three, right? And it's on a first come, first- serve basis. There isn't one at the the old Stoddheim jeweler, is there? No, there's a tobacco shop. Okay. And there's no renewal to this like every two years. It's yearly. It It is yearly. They have to register every year. Yeah. But the cup is Oh, perpetual, right? Right.

uh CP would not come back unless there was some violation or a change of ownership or teny. Sure. I'm taking that. So this is basically first in get to three. Nobody else is allowed to come back unless they go to city council. Yeah. Yeah, unless the city council decides that it would be good for us and they have additional detail. But even with these three, like if they're all gone tonight, there isn't I mean the um they still have additional additional steps that they've got to do. So something might fall through. Correct. If the state comes in and you know they didn't do something, security cameras or whatever it is, they might get denied. So this is just a step in the process for them. Okay. For as the variance mailing, was there any feedback on that? Yeah, we sent out about 29 not almost 30 notices for uh this particular location and we did not get any uh calls or responses. Oh, you are? I was just going to ask if anyone in the audience was from there. And are you from? Which where where do you live? Okay. Do you have any questions? Okay. Do the commissioners have any more questions for No, I'd like to. All right. It is an open public hearing. So, anybody from the public would like to come up to the podium and speak, now would be that time. Hi, I guess I have a couple questions.

Hi, I'm uh Mike Sassy. I'm one of the veterinarians at Willow Pet Hospital. We're at 70217th Avenue Northwest. We're adjacent to the what I now know is the third application tonight. Um my my one question um I I guess when we get specifically to the third application I have some concerns about parking but I guess we can kind of go to that. Uh my one question about the licensing part if the cup is approved and then you apply for your state licensing. Is that a true statement? Uh yeah they'd be simultaneously. Yes. it once that state license is issued are you required to open up that store? Uh well in Yes. So it's licensed at the premise. So the license would have the license issued to them at that location. they could move they could uh move their license by going through that process but basically by going through the whole process again but they would be entitled to move it for example through a like change of location application with um like the OCM as well as then going through whatever local process like this at the local jurisdiction level to achieve you know all the steps essentially again so like once you're licensed it's not like it's permanently located at that location from at the OCM level at the state level is that that person h they actually obtain a license like like it's almost like an asset right like it would be the the entity would be licensed to do that operation and then the location would be inspected uh for lensure to operate I guess my my questions were like fundamental is there a requirement for the actual doors to open in the dispensary to do business uh I believe it would need to transact um in order to do and I I I Guess I just asked because I think you were kind of

alluding to this is that is I guess the for lack of a better word is this like a catch and kill process for city purpos. So the CP is associated to the location right? So if if they were to moved it, it would require going through this process again, in which case, but if if this person had no intent of doing business and was just capturing or only wanted to open up one and captured all three permits, there's a timeline that they have in order to once they're issued, they have, I believe it's 18 months where they have to get a location, do the renovations, complete [Music] the installation of security cameras, lighting, XYZ. So, what you're asking is there's somebody out there, the one entity is going to take up all three that are available and open up one and have a monopoly on Austin area, right? That's what I'm trying for. That's what I'm trying to get to is somebody gaming this. Uh I think that's a legitimate question that Yeah, I agree. Um my this is just more theoretical in so I'm a DEA registration registrant by the uh with as a veterinarian. I have class two and three drugs. Marijuana is still a class one drug according to the to the DEA. It's it's right up there with heroin and uh methamphetamine. I I have no problems with marijuana. I think it has incredible medicinal value. Uh I I not here to oppose marijuana. What I am here to say is there is just so much confusion about this drug. I don't understand how this is going on at the state level. There are I can walk into several tobacco stores and I can go in. I'm supposed to be able to buy Delta 8, which is, if I've got that right, uh,

which is allowed under the Farm Bill of 2018, but I can walk in and buy Delta 9, which should be illegal. I don't understand that. And then you guys are going to going through all these hoops to be licensed or permitted by the state, but this other stuff exists on our streets or in our stores. it it it doesn't make sense to me at all. Uh the other thing from a veterinarian standpoint is um because it's a class one drug by the DEA, universities and research facilities won't do research on marijuana because it's a class one drug. Uh therefore, I as a veterinarian don't have any guidance by the FDA on how to prescribe that. So I can't prescribe it. I've been told by the state board of veterary medicine, I can't prescribe CBD or THC to dogs and cats because of this. And so, it's just completely messed up. And I feel like this is just a whole another layer to the being messed up. And so I guess my one ploy uh my one thing that I ask of you if you know a state repres or a congressman or a senator at the US level tell them that this needs to be taken off of a class one drug list because it's just ridiculous. It's everywhere. Um, and that I really wish there would just be some consistency in law enforcement why there is THC Delta 9 in a tobacco store when these guys are sitting here trying to get permits for uh dispensary. That doesn't make sense to me. Um, any questions about that? Uh, the the only other thing so I'm I'm Kitty Corner from Sweet B is Dr. Williams old location, correct? Yeah. So, what's

weird about that location to me is if you look at the property, there's a vacant land between Culver's and that building. Yeah. For this particular location, um I did recommend that those two lots be combined. Okay. Are they owned by the same person? Yeah, they are. Okay. Uh this is KSL and KSL. Okay. I thought that other vacant lot sold and wasn't there like a development thing that happened like a year ago. There may have been an attempt to sell it, but I mean they do have this issue with their parking lot, you know, going over the property boundary. Yeah, that's that was my concern cuz they're really that whole back parking lot technically doesn't exist for that building right now, right? If somebody bought that vacant land, we tossed it around with our city attorney. I mean there may be some rights based on just the existence of the parking there all these years but the proper way to resolve it would be to either split off the uh green space from the parking lot you know to make sure the parking lot's combined with the existing uh structure that Jimmy John's is very busy pet authority is very busy there's just a lot of traffic uh so I just I just hope that there's adequate parking in the big plan for that because you know what they had proposed for the other locations seems like a lot of uh potential customers and not enough parking. That's all I have. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right, commissioners. Any more questions? I

want you. Deb, did you want to speak? No, I just want to speak to Kevin. Okay. So, yeah, as noted, uh we did I did have one um recommended condition for the property as we just covered uh that those two lots either be combined or that parking lot. uh be somehow all on one property, however they want to do it. Um the property boundary would have to move in order to get that parking lot on on property. Okay, these are agendaized as three separate public hearings, three separate requests. So, I assume we need to uh deal with them that way. Yes, please. If there's no more questions, is anyone in any position to make a motion? Okay. So, the first one would be with uh for Beth Brumner on behalf of Wendy Whistle LLC uh conditional you use permit for uh retail cannabis at 501 First Street Northwest B. Uh approve, deny, or approve with conditions. And this is just us. Yes. Hey, this doesn't go to council. No, that snatch and grab licenses without being required to open does really it's

it's got me thinking now, not going to lie with no clarification on that. You are you have 18 months. Okay. But but the OCM rules say that you you have 18 months from the preliminary approval which has already occurred for all three of these applicants that if you do not operate in that time frame that it would be revoked the application. So if two out of the three carried on with business then there would be one available. Am I understanding that? Yeah. Yeah, like if they weren't achieved Yeah. If they had not achieved OCM lensure at one of them for example, then I'd say if they didn't operate one within the 18 months, it would be revoked. Yeah. Bri, do you have any information on that too to kind of cooperate? I mean, is that what your understanding is of it as well that they have 18 months? So, correct. That's what I've seen or read is that they have 18 months that from when they get approved to complete the process. Okay. So, they can't sit on it. Okay. At this point, they each have a preliminary license that's been granted and then they need the cup and then the the the full license when they meet the rest of requirements. Then it's location specific at that point. Right. Yeah. It's issued to the location basically. Right. Now, any of these three can take that preliminary license and go any place. That's right. And get a cup and go through this whole process, whatever local regulations are required. So, they're essentially at like step four here on this graphic. So they would undergo a pre-licensure inspection by OCM and partner agencies. If they pass their inspection, their

pending lency and then their license would be issued. Have to pay a fee. They get their license. Uh but it doesn't give a lot of details about the uh time requirement. One other question. Do you try to hire local people or do you bring in people that you are experienced with with your LLC? So in the context of this that would be the the choice of the applicant. But um you know in terms of like operational consulting you always want to hire local these are retail associates right? So they're not traveling in or relocating. these are, you know, $15 to $20 an hour jobs, you know, that you're not having, you know, bringing someone in from another state, you know, and relocating them for retail positions, if that makes sense. So, uh, these are often high, well paid, good paying, you know, retail jobs that are based in the community. Yeah. And I think that this is just one muddy step into many other steps that are going to be going on. Um I don't think that there's a clear path. I mean um so this is just one step of many that they'll have to do in order to be able to run their business. But no more with the city. Correct. This is the only step with the city. Yep. The rest is all with the state, right? Once they were licensed, they would be able to register with the city. Again, it's first come, first serve, though, right? So, um on that fourth a fourth avenue property, can we talk about parking issues? cuz right now you have the the

public lot that's across the street, but that feeds into about a dozen businesses around there, including employees. And my concern is the parking on that location specifically in the traffic and the number of jaywalkers that cross over the public parking to those businesses. Um, I guess the I guess I would say if you know if there was an expectation that the traffic would increase uh substantially from what it is now, you know, that definitely would be a consideration. I guess we don't really know for certain what the traffic will be. Um, it is an existing retail business. Um, so it's It is what it you know it adds what it it doesn't increase just because it's a retail business in there just vacant right now. Well, I would say it'll only increase the traffic and then they we just took out stop lights and put four-way there, right? Mhm. And there's confusion there all the time. I don't know. I It could be a safety issue if it's a hightraic business. I have no idea what it does or will do. What's our parking requirement for that business? Like normally parking like we just had a strip in here. They had their business requires 14 spots for that business. How do they calculate the parking needs in a suite? Well, essentially uh as a pre-existing building, we haven't required additional parking. Uh yeah, even if they evaluation downtown, I mean, even if they evaluate the the

parking spots, like to Megan's point, it says 58 stalls, but those 58 stalls are uh shared by that's a public lot, too. Hormemell historic home, the businesses across on first there, the other two businesses there. There you have the church that's busy. You have all that half I mean I I'm trying to calculate it in like normally a business requires so many spots and I know the public lots can be counted or the street can be counted. What is the requirement for these lots if it was a standalone business? Do they not own any of the parking behind that in the little strip mall thing or I but that's where like the garbage cans are. Yeah. And then you have that other strip mall now with like I don't know. It used to be like Jaguar, so I I lose track of which businesses go in and out of there. At one time we did. I don't know if it's still existing, but we did have a lease agreement with Top Noodle at one time. Do we still have a lease agreement with them? Did it transfer to Blue Blue for the corral across the street? Okay. Do we still license Do we still lease parking spaces for them? or the parking just Oh, so we had them pay for parking space because of the corral. That's right. So, they had to because of the restaurant, they had to have a corral for their uh for the restaurant. Mhm. And so we uh charge them for the stalls that are occupied by the garbage corral. The lot behind is owned by somebody different. That public parking lot that you're talking about across the street from the old Austin drive, doesn't that have restrictions on parking there as far as electric cars and some businesses that rent or paid to have parking there?

When I worked on Main Street, there were restrictions on where you could park within that public lot. There is a I mean there is a solar uh e vehicle charging station. They no longer have the reserve spots like they do behind Steve's Pizza for instance. I know that lot has got a lot of reserve spots. That one doesn't. If anything, I think Donnelly only has a couple and then that's it. Like they don't have them in that lot anymore. The only ones that we're keeping are the ones behind Joyce's Nice. I mean, you could require, I guess, that they lease some spots, but I don't know if we we don't want to do that. Okay. The whole idea of downtown parking, it you know, none of the businesses on downtown have their very few of the businesses have their own parking cells. The whole downtown business district is all based on communal parking in public parking lots and rotational parking of on street parking. And this business being close to downtown, close to a public parking lot would would fit that that whole vibe of El Mariachis, you know, all all the businesses there along Main Street and people walking across Main Street to and from their business that they want to go to. Um, this this would fit that in that the same theme. We would encourage designated parking stalls in our public lot because it it takes away that rotation of vehicles. that the more specific stalls that we designate toward one business, it it takes away that rotational shared stall velocity. Oh, and then just to for the record, um we've gotten some additional comments

from our city clerk, Ram Wolf, and our city engineer, Steven L. Does that answer your question? Mud. Yep. Just like everything else on this. Yeah. And what did Craig say again? There's nothing to prohibit or what about the three? Yeah. And it sounds like if he were here, the explanation that the consultant gave um I think would have uh relieve some of the concerns that it was one business. I mean there's it's hard to I guess um anticipate every possibility. So you're just trying to make the best decision that you can with the information that we have and that's essentially how the staff is operating as well. I mean there are things that are probably still changing on the state level. I think that um Bri has Brienne has experienced that uh from the city clerk perspective. Um, so yeah, this is just sort of working our way through this initial process and seeing how it goes, which is why I think one of the reasons why we limited the number of licenses uh for that reason as well. We have 30 days that we have to decide. So we can't table it. We have to make a decision on each of the three tests. I don't know.

Anybody ready with a motion? Again, so this would be the first item or the first cannabis retail cup for Oops. Windy whistle. Holly the Hormal Home never said anything. Anybody in there said anything? No. Okay. No. No. Neither Lauren or I were contacted. I don't know. A little reservation. I guess I'm going to make a motion to approve. I'm being pro business. I I think we got to start somewhere. Um so yeah, I'll for the first one, I guess. Is that what we're voting on? I'll make a motion to approve. I'll second. Was that you, Ria? Okay. So, that's approving with the following the city ordinances and Yes. conditions as noted. Mhm. Okay. So, the first one. So, we have a motion from Commissioner Bartley and a second from Commissioner Shack to approve the conditional use permit for Windy Whistle LLC to operate a retail cannabis business in a B3 district at 501 First Street Northwest, Sweet B per the city ordinance. And there also needs to be a condition that contingent on they received the state license. Yes. And that they uh of course are compliant with city ordinances that are applicable and compliant with the city ordinance 734 for cannabis retail. Well, and lighting and any other signage. Okay. Any further discussion? Everyone clear on the motion? Nope. I was thinking of another one. Go ahead. Sorry.

If not, we'll go ahead and vote. All in favor of the motion, please say I. I. I. All oppose? No. Motion carries. The cup for Windy Whistle is approved. Next up is the same request for Bud Cult Prosperity for the 501 First Street Northwest Suite A. Commissioners. I'll make a motion to approve Jody Connelly Bud Cole Prosperity at 501 First Street Northwest Sweet A. I'll second it again with the condition the condition that they follow all city and state ordinances and rules and the and they achieve the state lure and they yeah and they achieve the lensure you getting all this Lauren we have a motion commissioner Norman We get a second. I second. A second from Commissioner Bartley to approve the conditional use permit request for Bud Colt Prosperity to operate a retail cannabis business in a B3 district on 501 First Street Northwest Suite A. First city ordinance 5A. uh contingent on receiving the state license and meeting all requirements in uh for the city of Austin and the cannabis ordinance. Any further discussion? Hearing none, we'll go ahead

and vote. All in favor of the motion, please say I. I. I. All oppose? No. No. No. Okay. Okay, in the opinion of the chair, there were multiple votes both in favor of the motion as well as opposed. So, we're going to vote again by roll call vote to make sure we get an accurate tally. So, when I call your name, please respond I or something in the affirmative if you're in favor of the motion and no or nay or something negative if you're opposed to the motion. Again, the motion is from Commissioner Norman and seconded by Commissioner Bartley to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for the Bud Coat Prosperity location. I'll just start at the left end and work down. Commissioner Shurak I. Commissioner Shurak votes yes. Commissioner Stewart I. Mr. Stewart votes yes. Commissioner Norman I. Commissioner Norman votes yes. Commissioner Swanson no. Commissioner Swanson votes no. The chair Commissioner Loots votes no. Commissioner Mayor yes. Commissioner Mayor votes yes. Commissioner Burroughs I. Commissioner Burroughs votes yes. And Commissioner Bartley I. Commissioner Bartley votes yes. So by my tality commissioners by my tali commissioners Stewart Stewart Burroughs Srock Norman Bartley and Mayor all voted yes and commissioners Loots and Swanson each voted no. So by a total of 1 2 3 4 5 six yeses and two nos. Does everyone agree with that tally? Does anyone disagree with that tally?

So by a vote of 62 the motion is carried. That request for CUP is approved. All right. The third request is the same condition use permit. This one is to Casting Coast Light to operate a retail cannabis business in a B2 district at 803 18th Avenue Northwest for city ordinance 5A, cannabis retail business with the condition that they meet the requirements to receive the state license as well as meet our requirements of city ordinance 734 and any other requirements from the city of Austin. Do you have any uh was there any decision on the parking on that particular property? Oh, I don't know what condition we would put on other than they resolved. Yeah, I just position of that parking area. I don't know how that works crossing the property boundary, but they same owner put that under part of the requirements of the city that they've got to resolve that the parking situation. Yeah. I mean, we more of a probably a civil issue between the the property owners and the tenants and potentially a buyer of that other parcel. I mean, we can't prevent them from selling it necessarily. I did talk to Mr. Byum and he did say that it would be related to the use because it's parking. um to require them to uh correct the property boundary with regard to the parking. I mean, they could remove parking or they could change the property boundary, but yeah, I think just something to the effect of resolving the property or the the

parking crossing the property boundary, however they want to do that. I I think part I think part of the challenge there and I don't know to what degree we have influence on that is there's only 10 spots and that's the back end of Jimmy John's which was mentioned very busy drive-thru. Um I I used to take my dog to that vet there and it was always difficult to even get out of your car to uh to go go in there. So, I mean, I I would question that being being a viable location for any business, let alone one that might be real busy with the existing parking layout. Just with the layout of that whole Yeah. that whole parking lot. Yeah. If I guess if you feel like it's a zero sum either way, that's valid. Any further discussion? Need one more motion and second. As far as the variance on this piece of property with the addition of of the two folks that spoke here, I mean, has there been any other the you mean the conditional use permit that we have right now? No, for that property, you know, the variance letter that you sent out for to all the neighbors. Has there been any any type of feedback at all? The notices for the public hearing. Yeah. On the conditional use permit. Yeah. Not a variance. But you don't get any feedback from them like saying I you know somebody just sends you an email or it's something says I they do sometimes I mean or sometimes people just come to the meeting like tonight. It was only five for that one. I think they were all businesses that are right in the area.

So you didn't get any feedback from anyone else? We didn't. No, we didn't get any any feedback on any of the matters that we had tonight. That answer question mark? Yeah, it does. anybody. Parking thing doesn't really concern me. If they want to slice their own throat, they doesn't work out. It doesn't work out what I think. So, I'll make a motion to approve. Second. Who's that? Yeah. Okay. All right. All right, we have a motion from Commissioner Bartley and a second from Commissioner Norman to approve the conditional use permit request for Casting Coast Light to operate a retail cannabis business in a B2 district at 8031 18th Avenue Northwest in accordance with city ordinance 5A contingent on the business getting the state licensed approved contingent on meeting all the requirements of the city ordinance for cannabis. ordinance 734 on any other requirements and contingent on some resolution to the parking situation being addressed. That sound adequate. I'm not sure that that was motion. My motion is I'm not concerned with the parking um properties owned by both parcels are owned by the same entity. Is that correct? Okay. So, maybe you can get me there. Help get me there. The problem is is they could sell that southern lot at any point. So, we could make

a um I think how it was stated by Fisher Loots would be sufficient. You don't want it specific to say that they have to combine it as a condition of the car. I mean, that would be that would be more direct. Yes. I mean, yeah. Yes, that would be fine. I think we would like to see the city would like to see that area that resolved, you know, and I guess if would this be a me I guess it should probably be a little more broad because if if they just decided to remove some of the parking lot, then that would not comply with the request to combine the lot into one parcel. Right. But at some point if that sale takes place, that would be a battle at that particular time. Yeah. I mean, you don't want them to lose the parking, right? But there was a comment that that parking is not that uh accessible, I guess. Mhm. Just because the location is not ideal, I don't think we can vote on that. That's up to them to lease the space or not, isn't it? Well, are those parking spots included as what's required for that that building? Yeah, they are included. They're counted. So, if they were suddenly to sell the southern part of their lot, then they'd no longer be in compliance with our parking ordinance, the whole building. Yeah. I mean there would be there would be various um issues I think both for their tenants and you know it would it would raise some legal issues potentially. What is that for this board to decide? Um I did speak to um Mr. Bum beforehand about making this a potential condition

and he did say that it would be appropriate from his perspective. Okay. Well, does it based off that? Yeah. No, I get it. If it's appropriate for us to have say on that, then yeah, I would modify my motion then. Yeah, you would modify your motion to what? Basically, that the parking does need to be considered then. Okay. So, I don't know how to put that into words exactly. Here's M. Bakan, could you please read back the last motion that I stated or no? Well, I think you're going to make me do it over. Yes. Okay. So, we have a motion. I can't remember. I second. Second. Okay. So, we have a motion from Commissioner Bartley and a second from Commissioner Norman to approve the conditional use permit request for Casting Coast Light to operate retail cannabis business in a B2 district at 8031 18th Avenue Northwest per city ordinance 5A. cannabis retail business with the condition that they meet the requirements and receive the state licensing and the condition that they meet all requirements from the city under the cannabis uh ordinance and any other requirements from the city and that they address the issue of the parking. I'm going to leave it at that. Address the issue of the parking All right. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please say I. I. All oppose? No. No. No. No. Say no. Okay. So, in the opinion of the chair, there were multiple nos and eyes's for that motion. So, we're going

to vote again. Roll call. Just as before. Does everyone understand the motion? I'm not saying that again. All right, we'll do it the same way. Mr. Shar, I Mr. Shack votes yes. Mr. Stewart I. Mr. Stewart votes yes. Mr. Norman yes. Commissioner Norman votes yes. Commissioner Swanson yes. Commissioner Swanson votes yes. Commissioner Loots votes no. Commissioner Mayor no. Commissioner Mayor votes no. Commissioner Burroughs I. Commissioner Burroughs votes yes. And Commissioner Bartley I. Commissioner Bartley votes yes. So by my tally, Commissioners Stewart, Swenson, Earls, Srock, Norman, and Bartley vote yes. Commissioners Loots and Commissioner Mayor vote no. Does anyone disagree with that tally? So by a vote of 6 to2, the motion carries and that conditional use permit is also approved. Any further discussion on any other issues from the commissioners? Thanks everybody. It was a long night. Thanks for hanging around. Thanks to everybody that came out to help us muddle through this and answer our questions. Thanks for the the the business rep to come and answer our questions as well. If no one has anything else, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Just uh thanks everyone for accommodating this earlier schedule and I will be out for a few weeks and we uh are anticipating not having a meeting in July. Um if there is an emergency, uh something needs to appear before planning commission. Uh I'm sure Lauren and Stephven will alert you uh or possibly Mr. Byum, however that gets uh

addressed, but right now anticipating that July will may not hold a meeting in July. Hey, do you have any other questions? In case she's stay, I'll make a motion to adjourn. Second. Yeah, we have a motion from Commissioner Norman and a second from Commissioner Burroughs to All in favor of the motion, please say I. I. All oppose? No. We'rejourn.