HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 05212024CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGE
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
Tuesday, May 21, 2024 at 7:00 PM
Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person.
Call To Order
Pledge Of Allegiance
Roll Call
Approval Of Agenda
Approval Of Minutes
Approval Of PC Meeting Minutes
PC 04 -16 -2024.PDF
Public Hearing
NOTICE - MAY 2024 PUBLIC HEARING.PDF
Beekeeping Ordinance
Steve Grittman, City Planner, presenting.
COVER MEMO.PDF
PEC BEEKEEKPING STAFF MEMO (RS).PDF
BEEKEEPING ORDINANCE TEXT.PDF
Cannabis -Zoning Ordinance
Steve Grittman, City Planner, presenting.
CANNABIS CODE MEMO ORD MAY 2024 -PCRPT(1).PDF
Staff Reports
Other Business
Community Forum
Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any City business item not
included on the regular agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign
their name and address on the form at the podium, state their name and address for the
Clerk ’s record, and limit their remarks to five minutes. Generally, the Planning
Commission will not take official action on items discussed at this time, but may
typically refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled on
an upcoming agenda.
Information And Announcments
Adjournment
If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City
Clerk at 612 -782 -3313 or email city@savmn.com . People who are deaf or hard of hearing can
contact us by using 711 Relay.
Our mission is to promote a high quality of life to those we serve through
outstanding city services.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
A.
Documents:
VI.
Documents:
A.
Documents:
B.
Documents:
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
CITY OF SAINT ANTHONY VILLAGEPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDATuesday, May 21, 2024 at 7:00 PMMembers of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so in person. Call To OrderPledge Of AllegianceRoll CallApproval Of AgendaApproval Of MinutesApproval Of PC Meeting MinutesPC 04 -16 -2024.PDFPublic HearingNOTICE - MAY 2024 PUBLIC HEARING.PDFBeekeeping OrdinanceSteve Grittman, City Planner, presenting.COVER MEMO.PDFPEC BEEKEEKPING STAFF MEMO (RS).PDFBEEKEEPING ORDINANCE TEXT.PDFCannabis-Zoning Ordinance Steve Grittman, City Planner, presenting.CANNABIS CODE MEMO ORD MAY 2024 -PCRPT(1).PDF
Staff Reports
Other Business
Community Forum
Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any City business item not
included on the regular agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign
their name and address on the form at the podium, state their name and address for the
Clerk ’s record, and limit their remarks to five minutes. Generally, the Planning
Commission will not take official action on items discussed at this time, but may
typically refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled on
an upcoming agenda.
Information And Announcments
Adjournment
If you would like to request special accommodations or alternative formats, please contact the City
Clerk at 612 -782 -3313 or email city@savmn.com . People who are deaf or hard of hearing can
contact us by using 711 Relay.
Our mission is to promote a high quality of life to those we serve through
outstanding city services.
I.II.III.IV.V.A.Documents:VI.Documents:A.Documents:B.Documents:
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
3 APRIL 16, 2024
4 7:00 p.m.
5
6 CALL TO ORDER.
7
8 Chair Socha called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
9
10 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
11
12 Chair Socha invited the Commission and the audience to join her in the Pledge of Allegiance.
13
14 ROLL CALL.
15
16 Commissioners Present:Chair Socha, Commissioners Anderson, Erickson, Hark, and Morita.
17
18 Absent:Commissioners Gaveske and Rude.
19
20 Also Present: City Planner Stephen Grittman, Assistant City Manager Nicole
21 Miller, and Student Liaison Henry Kling.
22
23
24 I.APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 16, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
25 AGENDA.
26
27 Motion by Commissioner Anderson, seconded by Commissioner Hark, to approve the April
28 16, 2024 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Agenda.
29
30 Motion carried 5-0.
31
32 II.APPROVAL OF MARCH 19, 2024, REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION
33 MEETING MINUTES.
34
35 Motion by Commissioner Erickson, seconded by Commissioner Morita, to approve the March
36 19, 2024, Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes as presented.
37
38 Motion carried 5-0.
39
40 III.PUBLIC HEARING.
41
A.42 Conditional Use Permit – 4004 Silver Lake Road NE.
43
44 Chair Socha opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m.
45
46 City Planner Stephen Grittman reviewed the Applicants are seeking a Conditional Use Permit
47 to modify an existing drive-through facility on the Culvers Restaurant property to add a
48 formal second order/stack lane and make some modifications to parking and traffic flow
49 resulting from the change. Restaurants with drive-through facilities are allowed in the C-
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2024
Page 2
1 Commercial District by Conditional Use Permit provided they comply with the requirements
2 of the terms of the Conditional Use reviews and code requirements.
3
4 For this project the applicant will make only a few construction changes to the site, with the
5 primary access points remaining untouched (an internal private street on the south and a right-
6 in, right-out driveway from Silver Lake Road on the west). Internal circulation will be
7 modified, however, resulting from two new medians installed to separate drive-through
8 ordering and pick-up traffic, and a change to the circulation flow – creating a one-way
9 counter-clockwise circulation on the north and east sides of the property from what is
10 currently a two-way pattern.
11
12 The one-way circulation change reconfigures 90 degree parking on the north and west
13 boundaries to a combination of 11 angled spaces and 5 parallel waiting spaces for pre-order
14 customers – reducing overall parking on the site by approximately 16 spaces. A small change
15 to an existing curb island is also included to manage waiting spaces at the exit portion of the
16 site.
17
18 Staff has reviewed the project for land use compliance with the intent and policies of the
19 City’s Comprehensive Plan, and for zoning consistency with the Commercial District as a
20 baseline. In summary, the Comprehensive Plan supports commercial uses in this area. The
21 proposed application would, with appropriate conditions, facilitate that purpose for the subject
22 property. However, there are conditions that staff has recommended to mitigate or clarify
23 potential impacts from the revised plan. With those conditions, staff recommends approval of
24 the proposed CUP.
1.25 The applicants provide confirmation of the easement and rights to use, improve, and
26 maintain the subject property.
2.27 The City finds that the changes to parking supply are supported by the additional
28 drive-through configuration.
3.29 The applicants are subject to a City requirement for additional site plan modifications
30 in the event that parking requirements for the restaurant are shown to be inadequate to
31 support dine-in and employee parking on the site.
32
33 The application and Supporting Materials were provided for Commission consideration.
34
35 Commissioner Erickson asked about the dining capacity and noted there does not appear to be
36 enough parking spaces to match the dining capacity according to the Code.
37
38 Commissioner Morita asked about Condition #3 and Mr. Grittman stated the property owner
39 would be contacted if there were concerns about capacity issues and what additional changes
40 would be needed to maximize capacity. Mr. Grittman stated the ability of the City to
41 reconsider how the site is used as part of the review it is not uncommon for including
42 Condition #3. A few extra parking spaces could be added if necessary but no problem is
43 anticipated. Commissioner Morita stated it would be a self-regulating issue. The condition
44 does not need to be over-regulated.
45
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2024
Page 3
1 Ms. Jenny Hudmeyer, representing Culvers in St. Anthony, stated business has grown and the
2 drive-thru is being expanded to handle the customers in a more timely manner.
3
4 Commissioner Anderson asked about the curb side pick-up in the front of the building is being
5 shifted to the west side. She stated this seems like a good idea. Ms. Hudmeyer stated this
6 would assist customers being served quicker.
7
8 Commissioner Morita asked if there has been a shift from dine-in to drive-thru and Ms.
9 Hudmeyer stated since the pandemic there has been a shift.
10
11 Commissioner Erickson asked how many parking spaces are taken by snow after plowing.
12 Ms. Hudmeyer stated there would still be room for snow.
13
14 Chair Socha asked if the applicant objects to any of the conditions and Ms. Hudmeyer stated
15 she finds the conditions acceptable.
16
17 Commissioner Erickson asked about the Equinox apartments and whether their approval is
18 needed as there may be increased traffic. Mr. Grittman stated that is the purpose of the first
19 condition for the use of the easement.
20
21 Chair Socha asked about the third condition and how would the decision be made that
22 additional modifications are needed. Mr. Grittman stated Conditional Use Permits are
23 recorded with the property and process would be if there are traffic issues on the site there
24 would be a review. Any modifications or amendment to the CUP would come before the
25 Planning Commission. The site plan becomes the document that the CUP is reflecting.
26
27 Chair Socha closed the public hearing at 7:24 p.m.
28
29 Motion by Commissioner Morita, seconded by Commissioner Hark, to recommend the City
30 Council approve a Conditional Use Permit at 4004 Silver Lake Road NE.
31
32 Motion carried 5-0.
33
34 This will be on the City Council agenda on May 14, 2024.
35
B.36 Cannabis – Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
37
38 Chair Socha opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Mr. Grittman stated this was not noticed
39 as a public hearing. The opening of the public hearing was retracted.
40
41 City Planner Stephen Grittman reviewed as the Planning Commission has discussed, the State
42 of Minnesota has passed legislation during the 2023 legislative session legalizing various
43 aspects of cannabis use, sales, agriculture, and manufacturing. This legislation follows 2022
44 legalization of certain low-potency hemp-based THC products. The City of St. Anthony
45 subsequently adopted regulations for hemp-THC products.
46
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2024
Page 4
1 In August of 2023, the City adopted a moratorium on cannabis-related businesses in
2 anticipation of the State’s establishment of an agency and rule-making activities. The State
3 has created the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) to carry out the requirements of the
4 legislation, with an originally-anticipated start date of January 2025. While that date may
5 shift, the City is seeking to update its zoning regulations to comply with the local land use
6 impacts of the legislation.
7
8 One aspect of the City’s regulation is personal cannabis use, which was legalized by the 2023
9 legislation, and took effect in August of last year. As a part of that process, the City separately
10 established a prohibition on smoking in public places, which is applicable to any smoking or
11 product. That aspect of the City’s regulation is not further addressed by the materials for this
12 review.
13
14 A map showing the exclusion areas was provided to the Commission. Very few City parks
15 would be impacted. Salo Park would be the only one with a 500 ft. distance.
16
17 Mr. Grittman provided background and review including Land Use Aspects of Cannabis
18 Legalization and Local Limitations.
19
20 The Commission is requested to discuss the separation distance aspects of the potential
21 regulations and raise other issues as they may impact a final ordinance adoption. Staff will
22 generate a set of Ordinance amendments to reflect these discussions as a part of a public
23 hearing to occur at the Commission’s May 2024 Meeting. No formal staff recommendation is
24 proposed at this time. The item is raised for discussion at the Planning Commission level,
25 from which an ordinance will be developed for consideration at an upcoming meeting.
26 Attached for Commission consideration was the State Law – Local Control.
27
28 Commissioner Erickson asked if there was any feedback on how other cities are approaching
29 this and Mr. Grittman stated that is not known at this time. Other cities are at the starting point
30 looking at exclusion areas.
31
32 Chair Socha asked a Conditional Use Permit would be required for any businesses selling
33 these products. Mr. Grittman stated the expectation is that these would be retailers and the
34 City would not have the ability to a Conditional Use Permit process. Chair Socha asked about
35 ordinances regarding odors and Mr. Grittman stated he will research the Code. Commissioner
36 Anderson stated she had similar concerns.
37
38 Commissioner Anderson asked Mr. Grittman if there are any distance requirements for liquor
39 stores and Mr. Grittman stated there is not. Commissioner Hark stated she would categorize it
40 similar to tobacco shops.
41
42 Commissioner Morita stated he does not have any objection to restricting distances. He is
43 most concerned about distance to parks. He would not want to see the entire shopping center
44 eliminated as some of the store fronts may be a good location.
45
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2024
Page 5
1 Chair Socha asked if the products can be smoked in City parks and Mr. Grittman stated the
2 MN Clean Air Act considers cannabis smoking the same as tobacco smoking.
3
4 Commissioner Anderson asked what the age restriction is for sales. Mr. Grittman stated 21+.
5
6 Commissioner Erickson asked what portion Salo Park would be restricted and Mr. Grittman
7 stated the corner of Salo Park out to the first couple of parking rows of the Cub Foods parking
8 lot.
9
10 Chair Socha stated she is concerned about the daycare centers and the parks. She is not so
11 concerned about Salo Park.
12
13 Student Liaison Kling stated his experience is not a lot of kids are in Salo Park.
14
15 Commissioner Hark stated in her experience in California the dispensaries were tucked away
16 off the main roads. The parks are in residential areas.
17
18 St. Anthony Village needs to have at least one dispensary per State Law. The process for
19 approval at the State level is still being worked out.
20
21 Mr. Grittman stated there is a 300 ft exclusion for liquor licenses around places of worship
22 and schools. This does not include daycares.
23
24 Commissioner Anderson stated the City liquor store sells cannabis drinks.
25
26 Commissioner Morita asked about zoning for manufacturing of cannabis and if the smell issue
27 is a non-issue. Mr. Grittman stated the State created two categories micro and mezzo. The
28 mezzo locations would most likely be in Industrial zoning areas and include manufacturing.
29
30 Chair Socha stated the odors will happen and are most likely minimal. She asked if
31 Commissioners are concerned with the distance to daycare centers other than the smells.
32 Commissioner Hark stated the only thing we can control is the distance. Commissioner Morita
33 stated the City needs to consider what the public would want. Commissioner Morita suggested
34 moving forward with the daycare distance but not the park distance due to only Salo Park
35 being minimally affected.
36
37 Commissioner Morita suggested one location be permitted in the City.
38
39 Chair Socha asked if it could be determined 300 feet from a daycare and 500 feet from a
40 treatment facility. Mr. Grittman stated 300 feet is a classic City block distance. He suggested
41 going with the guidelines that were called out and keep it at 500 feet. Chair Socha stated
42 another concern would be traffic if dispensary was too close to a daycare. Mr. Grittman stated
43 traffic would not be more of an issue than any other retail establishment.
44
45 Chair Socha proposed the consensus that the Commission is not concerned about Park but are
46 in favor of separation from daycares and discussion has ranged from between 300-500 feet.
47
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
April 16, 2024
Page 6
1 This can be discussed further at the next Commission meeting. She requested updated maps
2 showing distances and research if there are any public nuisance laws that would apply.
3 Commissioner Hark requested research be done on how similar cities the same size as St.
4 Anthony are handling. Commissioner Morita asked that the number of affected retail spaces
5 be included on the map. Chair Socha stated regarding distance from treatment centers would
6 be 500 feet.
7
8 Commissioner Anderson asked if the number of businesses is included in the zoning and Mr.
9 Grittman stated that would be in the Code.
10
11 Student Liaison Kling asked if a liquor store selling cannabis infused drinks counts towards a
12 license or is that separate. Mr. Grittman stated the only licensing restriction is for a cannabis-
13 THC facility.
14
15 IV.STAFF REPORTS.
16
17 Mr. Grittman updated the Commission on Council actions. The garden center requests were
18 both approved per the Planning Commission recommendation. The Council held third reading
19 of the Zoning Code updates with some revisions.
20
21 V.OTHER BUSINESS.
22
23 Chair Socha asked Mr. Grittman to research whether or not there is a restriction on the
24 number of tobacco stores in the Code.
25
26 VI.COMMUNITY FORUM - NONE.
27
28 No one appeared to address the Planning Commission.
29
30 VII.INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
31
32 None
33
34 VIII. ADJOURNMENT.
35
36 Motion by Commissioner Morita, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to adjourn the
37 meeting at 8:35 p.m.
38
39 Motion carried 5-0.
40
41 Respectfully submitted,
42 Debbie Wolfe
43 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
May 21, 2024, 7:00 p.m.
City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, MN 55418
Notice is hereby given that the City of Saint Anthony Village Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing to solicit public response to amendments of the zoning code related to land use aspects of
cannabis legalization and amendments to the city code related to establishing requirements for
beekeeping. The Planning Commission agenda and packet item relating to this application will be made
available prior to the meeting online at www.savmn.com.
Ways to Comment:
In Person
The public is welcome to attend in person at the City of Saint Anthony Community Center, 3301 Silver
Lake Road, in the Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m.
Written
Written comments may be taken at the St. Anthony Village City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony
Village, Minnesota 55418 until the date of the public hearing.
Comments can also be conveyed via email, to planner@savmn.com until the date of the public hearing.
Questions?
Questions may be directed to the City Planner at 612-409-6503.
The Planning Commission will make a recommendation regarding the proposed request to the City
Council for their meeting tentatively to be scheduled on June 11, 2024 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall.
Steve Grittman
City Planner
MEMORANDUM
To:St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From:Stephen Grittman, City Planner
Date:Planning Commission Meeting – May 21, 2024
GC Project No.140.00
Request:Beekeeping – Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Property Address: NA
Property PID:NA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Ordinance amendment has been generated by the Parks and Environmental
Commission (PEC) to allow beekeeping in St. Anthony. If adopted, beekeeping would be
allowed by license as a waiver from what is currently a prohibition on “farm animals”. The
license would be subject to a set of regulations that are designed to ensure that such licensees
are thoroughly trained to responsibly keep and maintain bees on their residential property.
The existing City Code provisions relevant to “farm animals” prohibit them in the City, with the
allowance that the City Council may approve specific requests, waiving the usual prohibition.
This waiver has been primarily utilized for chickens in the past. There are no specific
requirements for the keeping of chickens, however, staff and the Council routinely add
requirements to ensure that chicken facilities are installed and managed to minimize
neighborhood concerns.
For bees, the waiver process would still exist, however, extensive requirements for bees are
proposed. Beekeeping operations can be difficult for potential beekeepers to successfully and
safely implement in residential environments, and the requirements in the attached ordinance
are intended to address those issues.
BACKGROUND AND REVIEW
The PEC reviewed the ordinance contents with Code Staff at their March, 2024 meeting. A copy
of the staff report is included with this report for Planning Commission background. The
updated ordinance in this packet reflects staff’s updates based on the PEC’s comments and
questioning, as well as three additional modifications related to (F) License Term; (G) Allergy
issues; and (I) Location.
May 21, 2024
Page 2
Those changes are summarized as follows:
(F)Staff added to the license section to create an administrative renewal for
licenses on an annual basis, unless the City Manager finds that the request
requires City council review.
(G) License Limitations for Allergies. The ordinance creates a requirement for
potential applicants to survey neighboring property owners as to “medically
documented” allergies. The original language in the PEC version required
documentation for all property owners within “100 feet” of the subject parcel.
Administration of this requirement may prove complicated, and as such, the
standard is proposed to be limited to “abutting property”.
(I)3) – Location – planning staff modified the original draft language that required a
200-foot separation between hive placements and any property zoned other
than R-1, Single Family. Instead, planning staff proposes that on any property
“abutting” non-R-1 property, the hive shall be located as far as practical from the
non-R-1 boundary. It is believed that the 200-foot buffer distance would be
difficult to manage, and would exempt many R-1 parcels from eligibility.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
If acceptable to the Planning Commission, staff asks that the Commission consider
recommendation of the proposed ordinance to the City Council for adoption. This may include
recommended modifications to the proposed draft as deemed appropriate to the Commission.
SUMMARY AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the Ordinance, based on the recommendations of the Parks and
Environmental Commission, with the modifications as noted.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A:Draft Ordinance redline
MEMORANDUM
To:City of Saint Anthony Village Parks & Environmental Commission
From:Richard Sonterre, City Code Official
Date:March 4, 2024 Parks & Environmental Commission Meeting
Request:Review Draft Beekeeping Ordinance
BACKGROUND
The draft ordinance provided has been created to meet the guidance given to staff by the Parks and
Environmental Commission. The code sections are summarized briefly below to assist in the Commission’s
discussion and review, along with the complete draft, visual examples of defined terminology and feedback from
the University of Minnesota Bee Lab.
STAFF RESEARCH
Staff found a draft ordinance on the MN Hobby Beekeepers Website and began using this a basis for a St.
Anthony Daft Ordinance. Staff followed this up by reviewing established language available from Coon Rapids,
Falcon Heights, Fridley and Mounds View. In doing so, the vast amount of language within these city ordinances
appears to have also come from the Minnesota Hobby Beekeepers draft ordinance as well. Each city, along with
our draft, made some modifications to meet their own specific needs, but on the whole are very similar. Lastly,
staff engaged Jenny Warner, beekeeping specialist in the U of M Entomology Department/Bee Lab who
reviewed our draft ordinance and was fully supportive of the content.
DRAFT ORDINANCE
staff asks that the Commission provide comments on the proposed ordinance. Some of the proposed sections
may be withheld for further study and researched if the Commission’s review requires it.
Proposed ordinance sections:
Section 1. Identifies and defines key words associated with the language contained within the proposed
beekeeping ordinance.
Section 2. Establishes a statement of purpose to guide the beekeeping ordinance.
Section 3. Defines the requirements for approval of a required beekeeping license.
Section 4. Establishes location and setback requirements for an apiary.
Section 5. Identifies required conditions for the purpose of licensing of an apiary, as well as a basis for
inspections and license renewal applications.
Section 6. Provides policies and practices for inspections and, if needed, revocation of licenses.
Section 7. Serves to provide guidance for the relocation and removal of an apiary.
DISCUSSION ITEMS FOR COMMISSION FEEDBACK
Below are the specific items for discussion and feedback for staff:
Does the Commission have any comments and/or recommendation on the draft ordinance?
Would the Commission wish to conduct community engagement around the proposed ordinance?
NEXT STEPS
Staff will integrate the Commission’s feedback into the draft ordinance and move it on to the Planning
Commission for a future public hearing and comments for recommendation to the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft ordinance outline
§ 91.06 DEFINITIONS.
Domesticated animals means house pets such as dogs, cats, and birds, or other common pets kept in
small containments which can be contained within a principal structure throughout the entire year,
provided that containment can be accomplished without special modification to the structure requiring a
building permit from the city. In addition, the term "domestic animals" includes birds (other than
chickens, ducks and geese) and rabbits normally sheltered outside the home.
Farm animals means cattle, hogs, bees, sheep, goats, chickens, turkeys, horses and other animals
commonly accepted as farm animals in the state, and/or which are kept for agricultural purposes or food
production.
With regard to bees and beekeeping, the following definitions shall apply:
Apiary - The assembly of one or more colonies of bees at a single location
Beekeeper - A person who owns or has charge of one or more colonies of bees.
Beekeeping equipment - anything used in the operation of an apiary, such as hive bodies,
supers, frames, top and bottom boards and extractors.
Colony - An aggregate of bees consisting principally of workers, but having, when perfect, one
queen and at times drones, brood, combs, and honey.
Flyway barrier - A barrier that raises the flight path of bees as they come and go from a hive.
Hive - The receptacle inhabited by a colony that is manufactured for that purpose.
Honey bee (also “Honeybee”) - All life stages of the common domestic honey bee, apis mellifera
species.
Lot - An area of land intended for occupancy or use as permitted in the zoning code, and
otherwise meeting the requirements of the zoning code.
Nucleus colony - A small quantity of bees with a queen housed in a smaller than usual hive box
designed for a particular purpose.
Undeveloped property - Any idle land that is not improved or actually in the process of being
improved with residential, commercial, industrial, church, park, school or governmental facilities
or other structures or improvements intended for human occupancy and the grounds
maintained in associations therewith. The term shall be deemed to include property developed
exclusively as a street or highway or property used for commercial agricultural purposes.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.5", First line: 0"
Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic
Wild Animal: Any animal which is not a domesticated animal as defined herein, or which is not naturally
tame or gentle, but is of a wild nature or disposition, or which would constitute a danger to human life
or property. The term includes animals and birds, the keeping of which is licensed by the State or federal
government, such as, wolves, raptors, and pheasants. By way of example and not of limitation, the term
includes: ducks, pheasants, geese, turkeys, birds of prey, squirrels, chipmunks, raccoons, coyotes,
weasels, wild ferrets, sheep, goats, swine, monkeys, chimpanzees and deer.
§ 91.56 KEEPING OF CERTAIN ANIMALS. Except as allowed for Bees in this section, Nno person may
keep farm animals or wild animals as defined in this Code, nor more than 2 dogs or 3 dogs allowed under
§ 91.01 through 91.05 or fowl, within the city nearer than 500 feet to any human habitation or platted
land, without approval of the City Council. The City Council may, before approving or denying any
request for approval, request a report from the Health Officer concerning the effect on public health.
(A) KEEPING OF BEES. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish certain requirements for
beekeeping within the City and to avoid issues which might otherwise be associated with
beekeeping in populated areas. Compliance with this ordinance shall not be a defense to a
proceeding alleging that a given colony constitutes a nuisance, but such compliance may be
offered as evidence of the beekeeper’s efforts to abate any proven nuisance. Compliance
with this ordinance shall not be a defense to a proceeding alleging that a given colony
violates applicable ordinances regarding public health, but such compliance may be offered
as evidence of the beekeeper’s compliance with acceptable standards of practice among
hobby beekeepers in the State of Minnesota.
(B) City Council Approval Required. No person may keep, harbor, maintain or allow to be kept
any hive or other facility for the housing of honeybees on or in any property in the City
without approval of the City Council. If the applicant is a tenant, they must also provide
proof of approval by the property owner permitting the keeping of bees on the property.
(C) Training and Education Required. Beekeeping training and education is required for
beekeeper applicants prior to the approval of the City Council. At the time of request, the
beekeeper must submit a certificate of completion of an approved honeybee keeping
course.
(D) Any person desiring keeping of honeybees shall make written application to the City
Manager or designee, accompanied by a site plan of the real property upon which bees are
to be kept, showing:
1) A site plan of the property showing the location and size of the proposed apiary,
setbacks from the apiary to property lines and surrounding buildings, including houses
and buildings on adjacent lots;
2) Inclusion of and location of safety fencing, flyaway barriers and water supply;
3) Proof of the applicant having completed coursework on beekeeping;
4) Agreement that property may be inspected by City at all reasonable times;
5) The property must be in compliance with all other applicable City regulations in order
to receive approval.
6) If the applicant fails to maintain the conditions set forth in the Required Conditions
Section after issuance of a beekeeping approval, the City Manager or their designee may
revoke the approval.
7) The application materials shall include a statement that the applicant will at all times
keep the bees in accordance with the provisions of this ordinance and any additional
restrictions, limitation conditions or prohibitions specified in the permit as necessary to
safeguard public health and general welfare.
(E) Residence Required. The beekeeper approved to maintain the apiary must reside upon the
property in which the apiary is located.
(F) License Term. The beekeeping license will be valid until May 31 of each calendar year
following initial issuance and must be renewed prior to annual expiration by submitting a
renewal form provided by the City and paying the renewal fee in the amount set forth in the
Fees schedule approved by the City Council. Renewal shall be an administrative license
process, unless a violation or other event requires City Council review as determined by the
City Manager or designee.
(G) License Limitations for Allergies. The property must be in compliance with all other
applicable City regulations in order to receive approval and renewal. To ensure that
concerns over bee allergies are addressed, the applicant must produce a document showing
that no current resident of a parcel abutting the property for which a beekeeping license is
sought has a medically documented bee allergy. The document shall include the printed
name, address and signature of the abutting property owner(s), and for rental properties,
names and signatures from all adult non-familial related occupants. If any owner or
occupant has a medically documented allergy to bees, the condition must be recorded on
the form. A documented bee allergy on any parcel abutting the property seeking the license
will result in the license being denied by the City Manager, or their designee. This section
shall be required for the initial license application only, and shall not become an ongoing
requirement for maintenance of a license.
(H) License Non-transferable. Beekeeping approvals are non-transferable and do not run with
the land.
(I) Location.
1) Approved beekeeping shall be allowed only on property zoned R-1, Single Family
Residential.
2) Hives must be located in the rear yard and must be located a minimum of 15 feet from
all property lines and 30 feet from any neighboring building.
3) When a proposed hive location is on a parcel abutting any property zoned other than R-
1, Single Family Residential, the hive shall be placed on the site in a location that
maximizes the distance from the adjoining non-R-1 property.
(J) Conditions for License Consideration.
1) No more than two colonies may be kept on the property at the same time.
2) For each colony permitted to be maintained in this Section, there may also be
maintained upon the same apiary lot, one nucleus colony in a hive structure not to
exceed one standard nine and five-eighths inch depth box, ten frame hive body with a
maximum of five supers.
3) Honeybee colonies must be kept in hives with removable frames which must be kept in
sound and usable condition.
4) Each colony on the apiary site must be provided with a convenient source of water
which must be located within 10 feet of each active colony.
5) Materials from a hive such as wax combs or other materials that might encourage
robbing by other bees must be promptly disposed of in a sealed container or placed
within a building or other bee and vermin proof enclosure.
6) Each beekeeper shall maintain their beekeeping equipment in good condition, including
keeping the hives painted if they have been painted but are peeling or flaking, and
securing unused equipment from weather, potential theft or vandalism and occupancy
by swarms. It shall not be a defense to this ordinance that a beekeeper’s unused
equipment attracted a swarm and that the beekeeper is not intentionally keeping bees.
7) Hives will be continuously managed to provide adequate living space for their respective
honeybees in order to prevent swarming.
8) For each colony licensed to be maintained under this ordinance, there may also be
maintained upon the same apiary lot, one nucleus colony in a hive structure not to
exceed one standard 9-5/8 inch depth 10-frame hive body with no supers.
9) In any instance in which a colony exhibits unusual aggressive behavior, it is the duty of
the beekeeper to promptly re-queen the colony.
10) Flyway Barrier:
a. Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, in each instance where a colony is
kept less than 25 feet from a property line of the lot upon which the apiary is located, as
measured from the nearest point on the hive to the property line, the beekeeper shall
establish and maintain a flyway barrier at least 6 feet in height.
b. The flyway barrier may consist of a wall, fence, dense vegetation or a combination
thereof, such that bees will fly over rather than through the material to reach the
colony.
c. If a flyway barrier of dense vegetation is used, the initial planting may be 4 feet in
height, so long as the vegetation normally reaches 6 feet in height or higher.
d. If a wall or fence flyway barrier is used, the materials must be decay resistant,
maintained in good condition. A wall or fence flyway barrier shall not exceed the
maximum allowable fence height per section 150.072 of City Code.
e. The flyway barrier must continue parallel to the apiary lot line for 10 feet in either
direction from the hive, or contain the hive or hives in an enclosure at least 6 feet in
height.
f. A flyway barrier is not required if the property adjoining the apiary lot line is (1)
undeveloped, or is (2) zoned agricultural or industrial, or is (3) outside of the City limits,
or is (4) a wildlife management area or naturalistic park land with no horse or foot trails
located within 25 feet of the apiary. If the adjoining property becomes developed, a
flyway barrier must be erected according to the specifications of this section. No
allowance for a legal nonconformity shall accrue under this subsection.
11) Hives shall be continuously managed to provide adequate living space for their resident
honeybees in order to prevent swarming.
12) Where a flyway barrier is required, the hive openings shall face the flyway barrier.
(K) Inspections.
1) As part of the approval, each beekeeper must allow an inspection of the apiary site. The
City Manager or their designee has the right to inspect any apiary for the purpose of
ensuring compliance with this Section upon providing prior notice to the owner of the
apiary property. In the case of a complaint regarding the apiary, the apiary site may be
inspected by the City without prior notice.
2) If an approved apiary site is found to be non-compliant with any requirements of this
section, a compliance order shall be issued by the City Manager, or their designee. The
licensee shall have up to ten (10) days to bring the apiary into compliance or risk the loss
of their approval.
3) If the City Manager orders the revocation of an existing Beekeeping approval, a hearing
before the City Council shall be scheduled as follows:
a. Scheduling of hearing. If the city makes a determination that it will be revoking an
approval pursuant to this subchapter, the City Council shall conduct a hearing on the
matter. The hearing shall be scheduled at the next regular City Council meeting
following the date of the notice of intent to revoke.
b. Hearing. At the hearing, the City Council shall hear all relevant evidence and
arguments and shall review all testimony, documents and other evidence submitted.
The applicant shall have the opportunity to address the City Council at the hearing.
c. Findings. After the hearing is concluded, the City Council shall make findings on
whether to uphold the order to revoke. The City Council shall issue a written decision
within 30 days following the date of the hearing and shall send a copy of its decision to
the licensee by mail.
(L) Removal or Relocation.
1) If any approved beekeeper serves the community by removing a swarm or swarms of
honeybees from locations where they are not desired, that person will not be considered
to be in violation of the colony density restrictions of this Section if the following
conditions are met:
a. The person temporarily houses the honeybees at an apiary site of a beekeeper
licensed by the City;
b. The honeybees are not kept for more than 30 days; and
c. The site remains in compliance with the other provisions of this Section.
2) Any resident who has lost their approval shall not be eligible for a new license.
3) Any resident who voluntarily forfeits the approved colony may reapply for a license in
the future.
4) Any resident who wishes to transport the approved colony must first establish a new
license in whichever jurisdiction they plan to relocate to.
MEMORANDUM
To:St. Anthony Village Planning Commission
From:Stephen Grittman, City Planner
Date:Planning Commission Meeting – May 21, 2024
GC Project No.140.00
Request:Cannabis – Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Property Address: NA
Property PID:NA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As the Planning has discussed, the State of Minnesota has passed legislation during the 2023
legislative session legalizing various aspects of cannabis use, sales, agriculture, and
manufacturing. This legislation follows 2022 legalization of certain low-potency hemp-based
THC products. The City of St. Anthony subsequently adopted regulations for hemp-THC
products.
In August of 2023, the City adopted a moratorium on cannabis-related businesses (as
authorized by the legislation), in anticipation of the State’s establishment of agency and rule-
making activities. The State has created the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) to carry
out the requirements of the legislation, with an originally-anticipated start date of January,
2025. While that date may shift some, the City is seeking to update its zoning regulations to
comply with the local land use impacts of the legislation. Included with this memo is a draft
ordinance establishing basic zoning regulations in this regard, based on additional research and
the Commission’s discussion at its April, 2024 meeting.
One aspect of the City’s regulation to note is personal cannabis use, which was legalized by the
2023 legislation, and took effect in August of last year. As a part of that process, the City
separately established a prohibition on smoking in public places, which is applicable to any
smoking or product. That aspect of the City’s regulation is not further addressed by the
materials for this review.
BACKGROUND AND REVIEW
The cannabis topic is complex and has many facets that impact local government. For the
purposes of this review, these materials limited to impacts on land use regulation and zoning.
For most of this, the requirements will be addressing business regulation – business type,
May 21, 2024
Page 2
location, and related concerns. Municipal sales, law enforcement, and other administrative or
General Code aspects of the law are left to separate consideration by City Council.
Land Use Aspects of Cannabis Legalization. The legislation creates several categories of
licensing for Cannabis business activity. The State OCM will assume all requirements for
licensing of cannabis businesses, including retailers, manufacturers, transporters, and
warehousing. The law includes all types of cannabis product, including hemp-THC products and
medical cannabis.
The law provides that the City may not prohibit the business uses for cannabis products due
merely because of the nature of the product. Therefore, where the City allows manufacturing,
a business that manufactures a cannabis product licensed by the State must be accommodated.
There can be no additional limits for these businesses, such as number of licensees, proximity
to other uses, etc.
Included in the types of licensed businesses are retailers, however, retailing can be limited by
the City under specific circumstances. There are six categories of retail business that are called
out for these limitations: Cannabis “Mezzo-businesses”, Cannabis “Micro-businesses”,
Cannabis Retailers, Medical Cannabis Retailers, Medical Cannabis Combination Business, and
Low-Potency Edible Hemp Retailer.
Cannabis “Mezzo-“ and “Micro-“ businesses are essentially processor facilities that may, if
licensed and appropriate under local zoning, qualify for a retail sales license as a component of
their industrial enterprise. The difference relates to licensed processing space – up to 5,000
square feet for “Micro-business”, and from 5,001 to 15,000 square feet for “Mezzo-business”.
Cannabis retailers, by contrast, are specifically retail-oriented, in which no industrial activity
(manufacturing, processing, etc,) occurs. Medical cannabis retailing or combination businesses
are those that may retail consumer products, but are also licensed to dispense medical
cannabis treatments. Low potency Hemp retailers are those that are currently eligible to sell
such products under the prior 2022 legislation. In St. Anthony, those potential locations are
limited to only those also with a current tobacco sales license.
Local Limitations. The legislation permits the City to limit cannabis sales, with specific
limitations on that authority. Essentially, those limitations are as follows:
a.The State OCM will assume authority for licensing all cannabis and hemp-related
businesses.
b.As a part of the State’s licensing process, the OCM will contact the local government to
know if the City will “register” the business location, which is an information process,
not a licensing authority. Zoning compliance will be an aspect of local “registration”.
c.A City may not enact any ordinance that has the effect of prohibiting cannabis
businesses.
d.A City must provide for an allowance of at least one cannabis-retail facility, whether that
is a “Micro-“ or “Mezzo-“ business, a cannabis retailer. This allowance increases by one
additional business for each 12,500 residents.
May 21, 2024
Page 3
e.St. Anthony’s current population of under 10,000 requires the allowance of at least one
licensed retailer. The City may by ordinance limit the number of licensees to its
minimum registration of one retail location, although the City is not required to do so.
f.The law permits the City to limit the location of cannabis businesses by routine zoning,
and also by a separation distance from certain listed land uses. This allowance appears
to relate to any cannabis business, not just retailers.
g.The law permits the City to enact a minimum distance of 500 feet separation from any
daycare, residential treatment center, or an “attraction within a public park that is
regularly used by minors, including a playground or athletic field”. There are three
commercial daycare operations in the City that are within 500 feet of Commercial or
Industrial zoned properties – these are highlighted on an attached map. All of these
would create exclusion zones prohibiting cannabis businesses around them if the City
adopts the separation distance.
h.The law permits the City to enact a minimum distance of 1,000 feet separation from any
school. There are three school sites in the City – Wilshire Park Elementary, St. Anthony
Middle and High Schools, and St. Charles Boromeo School. None of these schools are
within 1,000 of any Commercial or Industrial zoned land.
i.Based on a preliminary analysis, the distances from the City’s parklands are all more
than 500 feet to any commercial or industrial zoned land (Emerald, Silverwood, or
Central Parks), or are already in excluded areas due to daycare locations (Silver Point
and Trillium Parks).
j.Salo Park – if included – could have a separation distance would exclude most of the
Silver Lake Village shopping center area (including Cub Foods and the City’s municipal
liquor store). However, Salo is identified in the City’s system planning as a stormwater
facility, not technically a park. Moreover, few of the activities are designed to
specifically attract minors. As such, no separation distance would apply.
k.Regardless of the allowance to require separation, the law requires that the City may
not enact a separation distance that has the practical effect of prohibiting the location
of a cannabis business in the City. It appears from this preliminary analysis that
1.Enactment of a separation distance for schools would not impact any
Commercial or Industrial property;
2.Enactment of a 500 foot separation for daycare locations would impact some
Commercial and Industrial properties in the south portion of the City, but
retain eligibility for such use in some other portions of those districts.
3.Enactment of a 500 foot separation for parks where minors commonly use
the facility would not impact the City’s primary park system properties.
In summary, the primary zoning separation requirements would apply to the daycare facilities
in the south portion of the community as follows:
3055 Old Hwy 8 (Ikram Child Care): Any exclusion distance for the daycare facilities at
3055 Old Hwy 8 would result in a prohibition of retail sales for other potential
commercial/industrial uses on that site. Depending on the separation distance chosen,
the industrial property south of Highway 88 could be impacted – the closest distance to
those areas appears to be approximately 270 feet.
May 21, 2024
Page 4
2812 Anthony Lane South (Jack and Jill Preschool and Childcare): This daycare parcel is
located in an industrial park area. Exclusion of cannabis businesses of any distance will
impact some potential retail locations, primarily as a part of a “micro-“ or “mezzo-“
business which does some form of industrial processing and proposes to also sell retail
products as an aspect of the business. The number of parcels impacted will depend on
the separation distance chosen.
2955 Pentagon Drive (Step by Step Montessori): This facility is located in the St.
Anthony Shopping Center, zoned Commercial. Much of the shopping center area would
be prohibited from retail sales, again depending on the size of the separation distance
adopted.
As noted, the statute permits (but does not require) the City to create exclusion distances from
schools, parks, and childcare facilities to any cannabis facility that includes retail sales. For St.
Anthony, the proximity of schools and parks to any potential Commercial or Industrial site is not
applicable, given the geography and land use pattern. The primary issue would be the location
of childcare facilities in the south portion of the city. There are three such facilities that would,
if a separation distance is adopted, create an exclusion area for surrounding property.
At its April meeting, the Planning Commission discussed whether the exclusion area was
relevant to daycare, based on an assumption that unlike schools and parks, there is less likely to
be unsupervised child presence using daycare facilities. The zoning action for the City would be
an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that eliminates the current total prohibition of
cannabis businesses, and replacement with language related to separation where applicable.
Although no impacts are foreseen for Schools and Parks as noted, staff would recommend
adoption of the full State-allowed exclusion area for those uses (1,000 feet for schools, and 500
feet for parks). There continue to be discussions at the State level (both legislatively and
agency-driven) that will continue to refine aspects of the law. As such, these protections would
be consistent with the allowances, and address any unforeseen circumstances until additional
guidance is provided. Guidance is likely to come from a variety of sources, including both the
League of Minnesota Cities and the Office of Cannabis Management (in the form of a model
ordinance).
For childcare facilities, there is likely to be some pressure to adopt a limited separation zone
from retail cannabis outlets. As noted, the full 500 feet would significantly limit retail outlets in
the south area of the City. A distance of 250 feet would have a lesser impact, but still affect
some potential sales locations. In the alternative, the City could create a limitation that
prohibits retail sales on premises that abut a parcel with childcare, rather than default to the
distance allowance. This would be effectively the same as a “1-foot” buffer. The attached draft
ordinance incorporates alternative language for Planning Commission review and discussion.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
If acceptable to the Commission, staff asks that the Commission further discuss the separation
distance aspects of the potential regulations, and raise other issues as they may impact a final
ordinance adoption. With these comments, and if the proposed Ordinance amendments
May 21, 2024
Page 5
reflect those discussions, forwarding the zoning amendment to the City Council would be in
order.
SUMMARY AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
If the Planning Commission is in agreement, staff recommends approval of a draft zoning
regulation that creates the separation distances for schools (1,000 feet), parks (500 feet –
specifically for Central Park, Emerald Park, Silver Point Park, Trillium Park, and Water Tower
Park), and either a specific distance or an “abutting property” separation for childcare facilities,
and noted in this report.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A:Draft Ordinance Amendment
Exhibit B:State Law – Local Control
Exhibit C:Map of Separation Distance Impacts
May 21, 2024
Page 6
Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Language
152.188 CANNABIS FACILITIES (AKA MARIJUANA DISPENSARY)
(A) Except as specifically provided for in this Section, Cannabis Facilities are prohibited
in all districts.
(B) The prohibition on Cannabis Facilities shall not be construed to prohibit any health
care practitioner from writing a prescription for medical cannabis or any patient or
registered designated caregiver from possessing and administering medical cannabis in
compliance with the law.
(C) Where allowed by a C, Commercial of LI, Light Industrial District, and when
specifically licensed by the State of Minnesota, Cannabis retail sales facilities shall meet
the following separation distances, as measured by the closest point of a parcel on which
a cannabis facility is located to the closest point of a parcel on which any of the following
land uses are located:
1) Public or Private School as licensed by the State of Minnesota for such
purpose, with any or all grades from Kindergarten through Grade 12, a distance of
1,000 feet must be maintained.
2) Public Parks, limited to Central Park, Emerald Park, Silver Point Park, Trillium
Park, and Water Tower Park, a distance of 500 feet must be maintained.
3) Childcare Facilities, as licensed by either the State of Minnesota or the
respective County in which the facility is located, a distance of XXX feet must be
maintained.
-or-
3) Childcare Facilities, as licensed by either the State of Minnesota or the
respective County in which the facility is located, no cannabis facility with any
retail license shall be located on property which abuts the licensed childcare
property.
May 21, 2024
Page 7
Exhibit B.
Sec. 13.
[342.13] LOCAL CONTROL.
(a) A local unit of government may not prohibit the possession, transportation, or
use of cannabis flower, cannabis products, lower-potency hemp edibles, or hemp-derived
consumer products authorized under this chapter.
(b) Except as provided in section 342.22, a local unit of government may not
prohibit the establishment or operation of a cannabis business licensed under this chapter.
(c) A local unit of government may adopt reasonable restrictions on the time, place,
and manner of the operation of a cannabis business provided that such restrictions do not
prohibit the establishment or operation of cannabis businesses. A local unit of government
may prohibit the operation of a cannabis business within 1,000 feet of a school, or 500 feet of
a day care, residential treatment facility, or an attraction within a public park that is regularly
used by minors, including a playground or athletic field.
(d) The office shall work with local units of government to:
(1) develop model ordinances for reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and
manner of the operation of a cannabis business;
(2) develop standardized forms and procedures for the issuance of a retail
registration pursuant to section 342.22; and
(3) develop model policies and procedures for the performance of compliance
checks required under section 342.22.
(e) If a local unit of government is conducting studies or has authorized a study to
be conducted or has held or has scheduled a hearing for the purpose of considering adoption
or amendment of reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of the operation of a
cannabis business, the governing body of the local unit of government may adopt an interim
ordinance applicable to all or part of its jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting the
planning process and the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. Before adopting the
interim ordinance, the governing body must hold a public hearing. The interim ordinance
may regulate, restrict, or prohibit the operation of a cannabis business within the jurisdiction
or a portion thereof until January 1, 2025.
(f) Within 30 days of receiving a copy of an application from the office, a local unit
of government shall certify on a form provided by the office whether a proposed cannabis
business complies with local zoning ordinances and, if applicable, whether the proposed
business complies with the state fire code and building code. The office may not issue a
license if a cannabis business does not meet local zoning and land use laws.
(g) Upon receipt of an application for a license issued under this chapter, the office
shall contact the local unit of government in which the business would be located and
provide the local unit of government with 30 days in which to provide input on the
application. The local unit of government may provide the office with any additional
information it believes is relevant to the office's decision on whether to issue a license,
including but not limited to identifying concerns about the proposed location of a cannabis
business, or sharing public information about an applicant.
May 21, 2024
Page 8
(h) The office by rule shall establish an expedited complaint process to receive,
review, and respond to complaints made by a local unit of government about a cannabis
business. Complaints may include alleged violations of local ordinances or other alleged
violations. At a minimum, the expedited complaint process shall require the office to provide
an initial response to the complaint within seven days and perform any necessary inspections
within 30 days. Nothing in this paragraph prohibits a local unit of government from
enforcing a local ordinance. If a local unit of government notifies the office that a cannabis
business other than a cannabis retailer, cannabis microbusiness with a retail operations
endorsement, cannabis mezzobusiness, lower-potency hemp edible retailer, medical cannabis
retailer, or medical cannabis combination business poses an immediate threat to the health or
safety of the public, the office must respond within one business day and may take any action
described in section 342.19 or 342.21.
(i) A local government unit that issues cannabis retailer registration under section
342.22 may, by ordinance, limit the number of licensed cannabis retailers, cannabis
mezzobusinesses with a retail operations endorsement, and cannabis microbusinesses with a
retail operations endorsement to no fewer than one registration for every 12,500 residents.
(j) If a county has one active registration for every 12,500 residents, a city or town
within the county is not obligated to register a cannabis business.
(k) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local government unit from allowing
licensed cannabis retailers in excess of the minimums set in paragraph (i).
(l) Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the state shall not issue a license to
any cannabis business to operate in Indian country, as defined in United States Code, title 18,
section 1151, of a Minnesota Tribal government without the consent of the Tribal
government.
May 21, 2024
Page 9
Exhibit C. Preliminary Map of Separation Distance Impacts
Daycare locations – Approximate 500’ exclusion zone (not to exact scale)