2024.11.18 CC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Council Meeting Minutes for November 18, 2024 Page 3 of 5 of Cannabis Management (OCM). Section 342.13 of the act allowed a local unit of government to adopt “reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner” of the operation of cannabis businesses. Associate Planner Max Gort explained that staff had begun to draft an ordinance relating to and regulating cannabis businesses within the City of Hugo, which would include definitions of cannabis businesses, a procedure for registering cannabis retailers within the city, zoning and land use designations for cannabis businesses, performance standards for cannabis businesses, and processes related to temporary cannabis events. Staff was seeking Council direction on a number of items within the draft ordinance, including proposed zoning, buffer requirements, proposed fees, and temporary cannabis events. The draft ordinance would be available for comment at a public hearing in December. Gort reviewed the different types of cannabis business and pointed out the nine that would need to have a specific place in the ordinance. Lower potency hemp was currently allowed under 2022 legislation. Microbusinesses and mezzobusinesses allow for multiple types of licenses and ways to distribute product. They would be comparable to microbreweries, but there was no process in Hugo City Code for microbreweries. The OMC would approve licenses and require a certificate of compliance from the local government. The Washington County Sheriff's Office would likely do the compliance checks, and the OCM would respond to complaints made by City on alleged violations. Gort presented a chart with fees based on limits set by state statute showing the initial fees and the renewal fees. The City would need to ensure businesses were in compliance when licenses are renewed. Gort showed zoning districts staff proposed for the different cannabis business types. State statute required the City to have at least one retail license per 12,000 residents. The City would need to register two licenses but could permit more. The workshop held in April indicated the Council wanted to keep it at two. State Statute also established limits for cultivation at up to 30,000 square feet indoors and up to two acres outdoors. Statute also included more security measures than for a normal Agricultural use, and it needed to be decided if cultivation should be allowed in the rural district. Signage was regulated by City Code, but additional sign requirements could be imposed for cannabis. State Statute allowed for buffers for up to 1,000 feet from school and 500 feet from businesses and areas frequented by minors. Gort presented a map showing the location of schools, churches, daycares and parks frequented by minors that showed parcels that would be inside the buffer allowed by statute. If the buffer were reduced to 300 feet, the same buffer in Hugo’s code for sexuality-oriented business, more parcels would be permitted to have retail or industrial cannabis businesses, but there were situations where neighboring proprieties in the same zoning would have different permissions based by proximity. Cannabis businesses would be required to have safeguards in place to ensure no access by minors, and impacts to neighboring properties could be addressed through performance standards. For those reasons, staff had recommended no buffering. Gort talked about cannabis events that must be allowed by State Statute, but the City could place restrictions on where and when. Staff was proposing no consumption be allowed on-site of cannabis business or City-owned properties and the time be limited to 10 a.m. – 10 p.m. Gort asked for questions and feedback from the Council.