Planning Commission Agenda - 11/04/2024AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING — PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, November 4, 2024— 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners: Chair Paul Konsor, Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Teri Lehner,
Melissa Robeck, Rob Stark
Council Liaison: Councilmember Gabler
Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Ron Hackenmueller, Tyler Bevier
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
B. Roll Call
C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items
D. Approval of Agenda
E. Approval of Meeting Minutes
• Regular Meeting Minutes
- June 4, 2024
• Regular Meeting Minutes
— August 6, 2024
• Workshop Minutes —September 3, 2024
• Regular Meeting Minutes
— September 3, 2024
• Regular Meeting Minutes
— October 1, 2024
• Special Meeting Minutes —
October 23, 2024
F. Citizen Comment
2. Public Hearings
A. Consideration of an amendment to Title IX for General Regulations, Title XI for
Business Regulations and Title XV, Chapter 153: Zoning, for the regulation of
Cannabis land uses subject to local adoption of the provisions and mandates of
the Minnesota State Statute Chapter 342. Applicant: City of Monticello
3. Regular Agenda
4. Other Business
A. Community Development Director's Report
5. Adjournment
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING — PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER, 1, 2024— 6:00 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Commissioners Present: Chair Paul Konsor, Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Melissa Robeck,
Rob Stark
Commissioners Absent: Teri Lehner
Council Liaison: Councilmember Gabler
Staff: Angela Schumann, Steve Grittman, Ron Hackenmueller, Tyler
Bevier
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
Chair Paul Konsor called the regular meeting of the Monticello Planning
Commission to order at 6:11 p.m.
B. Roll Call
Paul Konsor called the roll.
C. Consideration of Additional Agenda Items
None
D. Approval of Agenda
ANDREW TAPPER MOTIONED TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. ROB STARK
SECONDED. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
E. Approval of Meeting Minutes
• Regular Meeting Minutes - June 4, 2024, Workshop Minutes — September 3,
2024 and Regular Meeting Minutes — September 3, 2024.
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO TABLE THE JUNE 4, 2024 REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-
0.
Regular Meeting Minutes — August 6, 2024 ROB STARK MOVED TO TABLE
THE AUGUST 6, 2024 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. PAUL KONSOR
SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
• Workshop Minutes— September 16. 2024
A CORRECTION OF THE MINUTES WAS REQUESTED BY PAUL KONSOR TO
REMOVE "MR. KONSOR" FROM THE LAST ITEM ON THE WORKSHOP
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2024 TO REFLECT THE COMMENT WAS MADE
FROM A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC REGARDING HOUSE PRICING.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 16, 2024
WORKSHOP MINUTES AS CORRECTED, PAUL KONSOR SECONDED THE
MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
Audio and visual recording for the October 1, 2024 Planning Commission
meeting corrupted at 4 minutes and 16 seconds and continues for the remainder
of the meeting.
Citizen Comment
None
2. Public Hearings
A. Continued Public Hearing — Consideration of a Request for Amendment to the
Camping World Planned Unit Development District as related to required
building materials Applicant: Camping World
Community Development Director Angela Schumann stated the applicant has
withdrawn their application. It is their intention to use E.F.I.S. on the walls, and
staff will follow for compliance.
No questions from commissioners.
B. Consideration of a Request for Application for Amendment to Conditional Use
Permit for Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plat and Final Plat
Applicant: Stephen Rohlf
Steve Grittman began with the overview of the preliminary plat, explaining that
the proposed parcel for subdivision jogs around a series of existing
improvements. The lot is currently used for parking and storage. The applicant is
seeking approval to split the existing Lot 2. Steve Grittman stated that both of
the resulting parcels are easily in compliance with zoning ordinance for lot size
and frontage. There are existing encroachments on the proposed Lot 1 such as
small sheds, paved areas, an area used by a daycare, and a paved area to the
north along Metro West dealership property. Steve Grittman continued noting
2
that if there is future development of Lot 1, then those non -conformities would
be brought into compliance.
Steve Grittman stated that staff is recommending approval with the Exhibit Z
conditions, including working with the City Engineer regarding the end of
Sandberg Road to determine if should be additional right-of-way for the cul-de-
sac.
Chair Paul Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item
Paul Konsor welcomed the applicant and reminded public commenters to state
their name and address
Stephen Rohlf, 188 Avenue, Elk River, addressed the Commission representing
Cornerstone Auto. He stated that the daycare shed encroachment was allowed
by the current property owners and requested clarification on the cul-de-sac
right-of-way requirement.
Angela Schumann stated that staff would make it a priority to communicate
requirements for the cul-de-sac and if any expansion of right-of-way is needed.
Paul Konsor closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2024-39
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE CARCONE
SECOND ADDITION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON
FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION.
MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
ANDREW TAPPER MOTIONED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC-2024-40
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CARCONE ADDITION,
SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID
RESOLUTION. MELISSA ROBECK SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
C. Consideration of a Reauest for Amendment to Bie River 445 Planned Unit
Development District and Development and Final Stage Planned Unit
Development for Automobile Repair — Minor use.
Applicant: SFP-E, LLC
Steve Grittman began with an overview of the Big River 44 Planned Unit
Development. He indicated that the northwest corner of the development is for
consideration for a minor auto repair facility and the applicant is developing the
site in concert with the originally approved PUD and the site layout.
Regarding the flow of vehicles he stated there are two entrances to the property.
Steve Grittman continued that the developers of Big River 445 are still in the
final platting of the lots and that the platting is a condition of the approval; the
plat needs to be final before a permit can be issued.
3
Steve Grittman walked through the Exhibit Z requirements. stating that city staff
also recommend a administrative conditions including required cross -access
assurance. Other conditions require that there is no outdoor storage of the tires,
and to specify the use of the canopy area proposed for the building.
Steve Grittman continued that city staff want to make sure there is no use of the
parking area for maintenance of the vehicles, and stated there is no concern
with the parking supply for customers or employees. He continued that staff is
requesting the building material for the canopy extension area comply with
building standards, all rooftop equipment is screened, and that no trash or waste
could extend higher than the screening walls. HE noted that large vehicle minor
repair would be a flexibility of the site. Steve Grittman concluded with the
amenity improvement near the stormwater area for a public use in tandem with
the original PUD that included small amenity improvements for the public. Staff
believes this is an appropriate use and recommends approval for the
development stage PUD and amendment to the Big River PUD.
Paul Konsor stated the questions he had regarding signage and materials were
addressed by Steve Grittman and asked about the adjustments for the
commercial building standard. Steve Grittman said the materials are generally
masonry for the majority of the building; staff has asked for metal siding for the
canopy extension area to be replaced with general commercial building
materials to match city standards.
Andrew Tapper asked if the materials need to be precast. Steve Grittman stated
that they do not.
Andrew Tapper said the screening looked complete, yet does not have a roof.
Steve Grittman stated the material for the screening area is not described and
the use is not confirmed from the applicant.
Paul Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
Ron Issacson, 411 East Main Street, Bozeman, MT, 50015, addressed the
Commission on behalf of Les Schwab. In regards to Exhibit Z, he indicated that
the canopy building materials would be updated, and that the use is the same as
the other work bays, but is where a boat trailer could pull through to be worked
on. Regarding conditions relating to the bullpen area, he stated there is no
outdoor storage for the bull pen, and clarified that the bullpen is the larger 8' tall
fence, with a dark bronze steel slate with no spacing. He stated that the bull pen
is for spent tires are stored and picked up once a week. Regarding the expected
types of vehicles, he note that these are spelled out in the application narrative
with a variety of vehicle types that will vary; including, motorhomes, four
wheelers, boat trailers, pickups, cars, tractor trailers.
Paul Konsor stated they were not familiar with Les Schwab and asked for a rough
estimate of the number of vehicles that are coming through for tractor trailers
M
and RVs. The applicant stated it is mostly cars, but other types of vehicles may
pull off the freeway for a repair.
Paul Konsor inquired whether the applicant had evaluated the turning radius on
the private roads to accommodate these vehicles. The applicant stated that a
turn analysis was completed early on in the process with a tractor trailer used in
a simulation to make sure the circulation worked.
Paul Konsor asked why the bullpen was open on the top. Applicant stated that it
was standard for Les Schwab.
Charlotte Gabler stated the appreciation for the frequent pickup of tires and
noted that it is placed behind a fence. Shefollowed up with a question on why
Monticello was chosen for their next location. The applicant stated a retail study
showed an expansion into Minnesota after a recent push in North Dakota. The
demographics, economies, farm and ranch areas are attractive for the tire
changes.
Paul Konsor closed the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
Paul Konsor brought the discussion back to Commissioners.
Andrew Tapper asked about the non -conforming billboards.
Angela Schumann stated there were two billboards that were lawfully non-
conforming. One was removed and one dynamic display billboard was replaced
in the exact location at same height and area.
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2024-41
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT & FINAL STAGE PUD FOR LOT
4, BLOCK 1, BIG RIVER 445 SECOND ADDITION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN
EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ANDREW TAPPER
SECONDED THE MOTION, MOTION CARRIED, 4-0
PAUL KONSOR MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2024-42
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE BIG RIVER 445 PUD
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT 4, BLOCK 1, BIG RIVER 445 SECOND ADDITION, SUBJECT
TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID
RESOLUTION. ROB STARK SECONDED THE MOTION, MOTION CARRIED, 4-0.
D. Consideration of a Request for Amendment to Big River 445 Planned Unit
Development District and Development and Final Stage Planned Unit
Development for Automobile Repair — Minor use.
Applicant: Valvoline, LLC
Steve Grittman opened with an overview of Big River 445 similar to the prior
item regarding the proposed Development Stage PUD and amendment to the
zoning ordinance.
This application request incorporates the final plans on Lot 2 of this portion of
the plat. Regarding configuration of the site, traffic will enter on the west,
circulate through the site, and with the nature of use vehicles will enter the
building. Passengers will stay in the vehicle and the vehicle exits when oil change
is complete along the internal access road. Regarding access, Steve Grittman
spoke of the shared driveway and that the site is reliant on the shared private
cross -access road.
Steve Grittman walked through the Exhibit Z requirements. These include final
plat recording for permitting, and an amended PUD district to incorporate final
site plans. Staff is recommending approval of the development stage PUD and
amendment to the planned unit development district.
Paul Konsor asked if there was an area for benches, as the previous applicant
was asked. Steve Grittman stated there is a sidewalk on the north side of the
site. The proximity of the prior application stormwater area was why it was
attached to the recommendation in that application.
Melissa Robeck asked if there was uniformity around the PUD building plans as
the buildings all have different looks.
Andrew Tapper stated that each development likes to have their own brand on
the buildings. Steve Grittman explained that common architecture was not a
requirement of the Big River 445 PUD, but stated that lighting and signage is
required to be in conformity, rather than the building materials.
Paul Konsor opened the public hearing portion of the agenda item.
Jim Douthit, 11400, San Antonio, Texas, addressed the Commission, representing
the applicant. He stated that 100% of the materials that are worked with in the
proposed facility are recycled in a 15-minute oil change, with an estimated 15 oil
changes in a day on average, and explained the oil change process for the user.
All the work takes place inside the building, no work is done outside. Any water
that leaves the building goes through an oil and water separator so no oil leaves
the facility. The tanks at the lower level are filled by truck, and extract the old oil.
There are no oil cans or gallon drums on site. He noted that the trash enclosure
is similar to the building. He stated that several locations are being constructed
in the Minnesota market.
Paul Konsor asked if the tanks are used versus individually bottles. The applicant
stated that it would all be coming from the tanks that are serviced once a week.
Paul Konsor closed public hearing portion of the agenda item.
ROB STARK MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2024-43 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT & FINAL STAGE PUD FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 1, BIG
RIVER 445 SECOND ADDITION, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT Z AND
C:
BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED
THE MOTION, MOTION CARRIED, 4-0
ROB STARK MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. PC 2024-44 RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT TO THE BIG RIVER PUD ZONING DISTRICT, LOT 2,
BLOCK 1, BIG RIVER SECOND ADDITION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT
Z AND BASED ON FINDINGS IN SAID RESOLUTION. ANDREW TAPPER SECONDED
THE MOTION, MOTION CARRIED, 4-0
3. Regular Agenda
4. Other Business
A. Community Development Director's Report
Angela Schumann gave an update on City Council actions regarding the enforcement
zoning amendment and the Wendy's CUP approval. She also noted upcoming special
meetings, including those for cannabis ordinance development. It was noted that
the planning Commission vacancy interviews will occur before the Monday,
November 41" meeting. She reminded the Commissioners that the January 2025
meeting will be the regular officer appointments.
Angela Schumann then gave an introduction to the Community and Economic
Development Coordinator Tyler Bevier.
5. Adjournment
ANDREW TAPPER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE OCTOBER 1, 2024 REGULAR MEETING
ONF THE MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION. MELLISSA ROEBECK SECONDED
THE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED, 4-0. MEETING ADJOURNED.
Recorded By: Tyler Bevier
Date Approved: November 4, 2024
ATTEST:
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
7
MINUTES
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, October 23, 2024 — 5:00 PM
Monticello Community Center
Planning Commissioners Present Chair Paul Konsor, Vice Chair Andrew Tapper, Teri Lehner,
Planning Commissioners Absent:
City Councilmembers Present:
City Councilmembers Absent:
Staff:
1. Call to Order
Melissa Robeck, Rob Stark
Charlotte Gabler, Sam Murdoff, Tracy Hinz, Lee Martie
Mayor Lloyd Hilgart
Angela Schumann, Tyler Bevier, Ron Hackenmueller, Steve
Grittman — Grittman Consulting, Jack Brooksbank —
Campbell Knutson
Chair Paul Konsor called the meeting to order at 5:01 p.m.
2. Discussion on draft amendments to Citv Code (Various Chanters and Sections). as
related to the regulation of Cannabis businesses.
Community Development Director Angela Schumann began with an overview of the
workshop and welcomed Jack Brooksbank from the City Attorney's office. Introductions
were given from the City Council members and Planning Commission members.
Angela Schumann explained the workshop would focus on the zoning ordinance,
including general regulations and specific -use regulations for cannabis business,
proposed locations for allowing cannabis use, distance buffer between uses allowed by
statute. She reminded policymakers that no formal action would be made, only
discussion for development of the ordinance.
Angela Schumann first explained the intention to present a draft retail registration
ordinance and its location in the business regulations portion of the City Code. The
business registration ordinance will outline the process for registering certain types of
cannabis businesses, and reminded policymakers of the 16 different types of licenses.
She noted that Monticello had delegated registration to Wright County via the Joint -
Powers Agreement (JPA). Local jurisdictions can issue retail registration for a subset of
the 16 types of cannabis businesses, including cannabis micro -businesses and cannabis
mezzo -businesses with a retail endorsements, cannabis retailers and cannabis medical
retailers. Angela Schumann reminded policymakers that Wright County is electing to not
register low -potency hemp retail, as they are an existing business, yet it will fall under
Statute 342.
Angela Schumann reminded the policymakers the registration will require a crosscheck.
The local jurisdiction will verify maximum number of registrations, zoning requirements
and compliance with proposed buffers. Although the registration process has been
delegated to Wright County, the City will need to adopt an ordinance for retail
registration that includes Monticello's registration cap, the delegation to Wright County,
and the required buffers.
Chair Paul Konsor asked about the license types and if the hemp -related and medical
related licenss count towards the registration count. City Attorney representative Jack
Brooksbank stated that the hemp retailers would still need to register, yet would not
count to the two retailer requirement by statute based on Monticello's population. He
explained that the registration pertains to recreational retail cannabis including
cannabis microbusinesses, cannabis mezzobusinesses, and retailers. Only those types of
registrations count towards the two minimum registrations for Monticello.
Angela Schumann reminded the policymakers that staff has acknowledged that this is a
starting point and that the adopted ordinances are likely to change as the environment
shifts, data is collected and any state law changes.
City Planner Steve Grittman began with the zoning discussion noting that an ordinance
cannot prohibit the 16 license types, but the City retains the zoning authority by statute
to regulate for where the license types can locate and the land use performance
standards. For purposes of discussion, staff would suggest that retail cannabis facilities
are grouped into B-3, B-4 business districts, with the industrial cannabis business
grouping in 1-1 light -industrial, and 1-2 heavy industrial districts.
Steve Grittman spoke about the regulatory standards for each use category; including
the buffer, aspects of outdoor storage, managing odor, and requirements of general
standards of building codes and standards of the zoning district. A separate table of
cannabis uses has been prepared including permitted, conditionally permitted and not
allowed. Zoning districts other than B-3, B-4 and 1-1 and 1-2 were not included as they
are adjacent to residential neighborhoods, except for the very limited lower -potency
hemp retailers as B-2 uses.
Steve Grittman reminded policymakers on the 30-day timeline to respond to a cannabis
license application for the location within Monticello. The state Office of Cannabis
Management will notify the City. The city would utilize our existing processes if a
conditional use permit is required.
2
Steve Grittman gave an overview of microbusiness and mezzobusiness, as defined by
the size of the building nd allowable activities. Their allowable business endorsements
are intertwined and both can request a retail endorsement. Staff is proposing for
discussion that the retailing component would need to be located in B-3 or B-4, and the
cultivation and the production industrial element would be in the 1-1 (light industrial) or
1-2 (heavy Industrial). The intent is to separate uses, even if a single business entity is the
same applicant. The rationale is related both to reducing buffer conflicts, reduce retail
trips within industrial districts and to congregate trips from the user for retail purposes.
Lee Martie asked if they would still be considered one licensee, even with two locations.
Steve Grittman confirmed.
Charlotte Gabler asked if these businesses would be eligible to applyfor a PUD, if the
applicant did not see a fit in the 1-1, 1-2 or B-3, B-4 districts. Steve Grittman stated that
they write a custom zoning district for the individual project, and as a rezoning action
that decision would be at the discretion of the City. Andrew Tapper stated a possible
PUD consideration scenario would be a combination retail and industrial cannabis use in
Otter Creek.
Angela Schumann noted that regulations prohibit operation of a cannabis business in
residential zoning districts. Steve Grittman confirmed that and stated a Home
Occupation Permit would not be an appropriate licensee.
Angela Schumann asked the City Attorney's office if there would be a way to prohibit
the use of PUD for cannabis businesses. The City Attorney's office stated his
recommendation that the City could not adopt an ordinance prohibiting a future Council
from adopting an ordinance that has not been established yet.
Steve Grittman reviewed the draft Cannabis Business Use table noting that is similar to
the existing zoning use table, with permitted uses, conditional uses and prohibition.
Consistent with the proposed text language, the retailers are in the B-3 and B-4 districts
and industrial uses are located within the 1-1 and 1-2 districts within the table. Cannabis
Events are treated as administrative permits in B-3 and B-4 and he stated that low -
potency hemp is identified in the B-2, B-3, and B-4 districts. He continued throughThe
delivery service for the retail delivery of the product is proposed in the B-3, and B-4 with
a Conditional Use Permit.
Andrew Tapper asked for the rationale for excluding the Central Community District
(CCD). Angela Schumann stated CCD and Pointes District have residential components
and may be excluded because of that aspect, along with parks and other buffers.
3
Charlotte Gabler asked about drive-throughs. Steve Grittman indicated that a drive -
through would be prohibited both in ordinance and by statute and deferred to the City
Attorney's office for clarification.
Paul Konsor asked if the regulatory requirements for allowing businesses was coming
from the State or Wright County. Angela Schumann clarified that it is per the statute
that that we can regulate, we cannot prohibit. Steve Grittman echoed this and further
that the prohibition cannot be done with buffers.
Paul Konsor asked if it is feasible to manage odor control in the manufacturing district
and its spillover into residential areas or area roadways. Steve Grittman stated there is
technology to scrub and filter odors and odors cannot cross the property line.
Angela Schumann reminded policymakers that the City cannot prohibit manufacturers
and only apply the registration cap for cannabis retailers.
Charlotte Gabler asked if the cannabis notification deadlines are separate from that of
the zoning 60-day rule. Steve Grittman confirmed that they are separate.
Angela Schumann stated the allowance for CUP was written with consultation with the
City Attorney's office , as the statute is less than specific on guidance.
Angela Schumann reminded policymakers of the buffer maximums in the statute,
including 1,000 feet from a school, 500 feet from a day care center, 500 feet from a
residential treatment facility and 500 feet from a park amenity where minors may
congregate. She reminded policymakers that they can reduce the buffer distancing, yet
may not exceed state statute maximums.
Angela Schumann gave an overview of the planning department's recommendation
regarding the park buffer and that of the city attorney's office. The planning department
is recommending all parks be included as it is difficult to distinguish between where
minors would not congregate. The city attorney's office is narrowing the scope in their
interpretation of the statute and only looking for parks with park attractions where
minors would congregate.
Angela Schumann shared how staff prepared maps for both scenarios and in either
scenario of the interpretation that there is a minimum of 25% of the parcels available in
the allowable zoning districts for cannabis business operations. Angela Schumann
reminded policymakers that they do not need make sure these parcels are available for
lease or sale, simply that they are allowed for use.
It was shared that legal challenges could present themselves if one believes the city has
over -buffered themselves greater than statute's intention. Steve Grittman illustrated
M
the vagueness of the statute and the likelihood there would be updates to the statute
from the state.
Teri Lehner asked if a park receives a new amenity, whether it would drive out the
cannabis business. Steve Grittman stated the City would not be able to prohibit the
existing businesses, yet a new buffer would be created with annual review.
Paul Konsor asked if the ordinance would only relate to public parks. Steve Grittman
stated only public parks are subject to the buffer.
Paul Konsor asked about county enforcement procedures. Angela Schumann stated that
the county is taking a broader approach to regulation and noted that staff have reached
out to the Wright County Sherriffs Office and the Monticello School District. In prior
initial discussion, the district seemed to lean towards maximum buffers for schools.
Teri Lehner spoke about the desire to take the conservative approach and open up
slowly, versus having to try and close the door later.
Paul Konsor gave support to the maximum buffer for schools.
Rob Stark supported the maximum buffer for schools. This was echoed by Melissa
Robeck for a maximum for schools and daycare.
Angela Schumann reminded the boards that residential home day cares are included in
the buffer. Andrew Tapper stated that the home day care has the least effect and could
be redundant as the majority of the day cares are located in a residential
neighborhoods, which already would not allow for cannabis businesses.
Sam Murdoff spoke about the Goddard School being approved and yet is unbuilt, if this
was built it would exclude nearby properties such as the movie theatre.
Paul Konsor asked if the City could make a choice to add one buffer to day care centers
and home day cares. Angela Schumann asked the City Attorney's office if regulation for
day cares in B-3, B-4 and day cares in residential areas could be buffered separately.
Jack Brooksbank confirmed.
Andrew Tapper spoke about the desire to not limit future development of day cares
with the proposed language.
Tracy Hinz asked for clarification on the discussion points for the evening. Angela
Schumann responded that staff is looking for feedback on the buffers, the zoning
districts allowances and whether micro and mezzo retail businesses should be allowed
to include retail within the industrial districts or to keep uses in the retail districts.
Charlotte Gabler asked if a conditional use could be used for the accessory portion of
micro and mezzo businesses' retail component in industrial districts. Staff confirmed.
Andrew Tapper concurred that it is easier to open up the allowable uses slowly, versus
having to backtrack later.
Sam Murdoff explained that it is important for the City to evaluate its overall position on
whether it wants cannabis businesses to locate in Monticello, or whether it wishes to
take a more restrictive approach. If it wants to allow businesses, then where those
businesses are allowed would be more broadly written into ordinance.
Angela Schumann stated that Wright County now indicated that they will allow the City
to exceed the 2 retail registration regardless of how many registrations are in the
county, and exceeding 2 retail registrations would not remove Monticello from the
Joint -Powers Agreement (JPA) as discussed in the prior workshop.
Rob Stark agreed with a more measured approach versus a an initial 'free-for-all'.
Angela Schumann spoke about how staff plans to continue conversations and open
dialogue with Office of Cannabis Management and local law enforcement. Local law
enforcement could be asked to give a report specifically regarding cannabis businesses
to share with the planning commission.
Teri Lehner asked about inquiries from cannabis businesses for Monticello and
surrounding communities.
Angela Schumann stated that based on a recent Star Tribune article it appears that
Monticello has one inquiry for a cannabis business license with OCM..
Paul Konsor asked if medical cannabis is treated differently for tonight's discussion.
Angela Schumann concurred based on the attorney's presented information for medical
cannabis registration and that these have a specific designation in the table.
Lee Martie summarized feedback from the evening's workshop that policymakers
wanted to keep the 1000' school buffer, 500' buffer from amenities used by minors
within the parks consistent with the city attorney's recommendation, zero -in on
daycares buffers, and for the 1-1 and I -2 districts to prohibit retail at this time.
Jack Brooksbank spoke to the difficulty of the language interpretation for attractions for
minors versus attractions in general regarding the outer edge measurement for the
attraction. He also spoke in regard to the day care buffers that the city should have a
rationale for that approach.
Andrew Tapper proposed language to state that the day care buffer applies in districts
where cannabis is not allowed, yet a district where the cannabis is allowed then no
buffer, such as B-3, B-4.
Angela Schumann reviewed the concluding item of the evening, Cannabis Events.
C:
Steve Grittman gave an overview of cannabis events and as recommended, they would
need to be located in a B-3, or B-4 district on a non -buffered site. Consumption at
events, would be limited based on other regulations, , yet would allow for consumption
of edibles and informational handouts.
Angela Schumann asked if policymakers would like to allow cannabis events on publicly -
owned property.
Tracy Hinz asked if the City was required to allow cannabis events.
Steve Grittman stated the statute states that cities must allow the events, and up to 4
consecutive days.
Jack Brooksbank stated that cannabis samples are not allowed per State Statute.
Angela Schumann stated that a property that is vacant in the B-3 or B-4 could be
allowed for cannabis events, granted all other conditions are met.
The general consensus from policymakers was not to prohibit publicly -owned properties
at this time.
Angela Schumann gave an overview of the next steps, regarding publication of the
public hearing and posting with planning commission review on November 4, with
council review on November 25 pending Planning Commission recommendation, with a
study document in place with the research from the interim ordinance.
3. Adjournment by consensus
Recorded By: Tyler Bevier
Date Approved: November 4, 2024
ATTEST:
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
7
Planning Commission Agenda— 11/04/2024
2A. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of an amendment to Title IX for General Reeulation
Title XI for Business Regulations and Title XV, Chapter 153: Zoning, for the regulation
of Cannabis land uses subject to local adoption of the provisions and mandates of the
Minnesota State Statute Chapter 342. Applicant: Citv of Monticello
Prepared by: Grittman Consulting -
Meeting Date:
Council Date (pending
Stephen Grittman, City Planner and
Commission action):
Community Development Director
11/04/24
11/25/24
Additional Analysis by: City Clerk, City Attorney, Community & Economic Development
Coordinator, Chief Building & Zoning Official
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Motion to adopt Resolution PC-2024-45 and Resolution PC-2024-46 recommending
adoption of Ordinance No. 835 for amendment to Monticello City Code Title XV: Land
Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning and Title IX: General Regulations, Chapter 96: Public Gatherings
for establishing regulations for cannabis and low -potency hemp products pursuant to Minn.
Stat. 342, based on finding in said Resolution.
2. Motion to deny adoption of Resolution PC-2024-45 and Resolution PC-2024-46
recommending adoption of Ordinance No. 835 for amendment to Monticello City Code Title
XV: Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning and Title IX: General Regulations, Chapter 96: Public
Gatherings for establishing regulations for cannabis and low -potency hemp products
pursuant to Minn. Stat. 342, based on findings to be made by the Planning Commission.
3. Motion to table adoption of Resolution PC-2024-45 and Resolution PC-2024-46 recommend
adoption of Ordinance No. 835 for amendment to Monticello City Code Title XV: Land
Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning and Title IX: General Regulations, Chapter 96: Public Gatherings
for establishing regulations for cannabis and low -potency hemp products pursuant to Minn.
Stat. 342.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
In 2023, the State of Minnesota legalized recreational adult -use cannabis and a regulatory
framework for cannabis and low -potency hemp. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 342 legalizes the
possession, use, manufacturing, and sale of certain cannabis products. The law also establishes
1
Planning Commission Agenda-11/04/2024
the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM), which will be responsible for the regulation of the
cannabis and hemp consumer industry in Minnesota, including licensure.
Cities are allowed to adopt reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of the
operations of a cannabis business through adoption of zoning ordinances. Cities are not
allowed to prohibit cannabis businesses as established under the law. In considering licensure
for cannabis businesses, the OCM will forward license applications to cities for verification of
compliance with local zoning ordinances. The OCM may not issue a license to a cannabis
business that does not meet local zoning and land use laws. The local municipality will have 30
days to provide input to OCM on the application.
The City of Monticello has adopted an interim ordinance for moratorium prohibiting the
operation of cannabis business on August 28, 2023. The interim ordinance allowed the City
time to study the new law, its impacts, and to develop local ordinances. The interim ordinance
ends on January 1, 2025, and may not be extended, consistent with state statute.
To support development of local cannabis and low -potency hemp regulations in response to
the new law, public meetings of the Planning Commission and City Council were held in October
of 2024. A special meeting of the two boards held on October 1, 2024 and provided an
overview of the new law and a summary of potential ordinance amendments for cannabis
business regulation. At the conclusion of the meeting, the City Council formally approved the
development of cannabis -related ordinances for consideration and called for a public hearing
on the land use ordinances on November 4, 2024.
The second public meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council was a workshop held
on October 23, 2024, with discussion focused on the development of zoning regulations for
cannabis businesses. No formal action was taken during the workshop. The two bodies
provided feedback on buffer requirements, zoning district allowances and applicable use
standards.
With the input of the boards and resource information from a variety of sources, staff have
developed a draft zoning ordinance for review and public hearing consideration.
The proposed amendment to Title XV. Land Usage, Chapter 153 —Zoning provides for the
regulation of time, place and manner for the cannabis business license types authorized by
Minn. Stat. 342. A companion amendment to Title Xl: General Regulations, Chapter 96 — Public
Gathering is also proposed to detail the standards for temporary cannabis events.
The draft ordinance proposes definitions, findings, general requirements, use allowances by
district, and specific performance standards for cannabis businesses. A summary of primary
components of the draft ordinance follows.
Planning Commission Agenda-11/04/2024
• Definitions: provide clarity on the application of Monticello's cannabis ordinances. All
other definitions defer to statute.
• General Regulations applicable to all cannabis uses:
o Establishes the minimum buffers between cannabis businesses and schools,
parks, childcares, and residential treatment facilities. The City can be less
restrictive than the state in setting buffer distances, but not more so. The
proposed buffers fall within the parameters of state maximums and are
proposed as:
(10) No cannabis -related business use shall be located closer to any
property occupied by any of the following uses, measured as a horizontal
distance from the closest point of the property on which the cannabis
business is located to the closest point of the property occupied by:
a. School: 1,000 feet.
b. Day care: 500 feet from any day care facility that is located in a
zoning district where cannabis businesses are not allowed. This
buffer shall not apply to day care facilities that are located in a
zoning district in which a cannabis business is allowed.
c. Residential Treatment Facility: 500 feet.
d. Public Park: 500 feet from amenities regularly used by minors
within a public park. Public parks included shall be as identified in
the City's most currently adopted Park System or Master
Plan. This buffer shall not apply to sidewalks or trails, or other
public lands.
o Requires that the operation of cannabis businesses meet the requirements of
state statute and the other applicable standards of the zoning ordinance. For
example, a cannabis business must comply with the City's ordinances for
parking, building materials, and landscaping.
o Other general regulations of note:
■ No odor may be detected beyond the property line
■ Outdoor storage is prohibited for any cannabis use
■ Signage must be consistent with Chapter 342 and the Monticello
ordinance
• Use Table:
o The draft ordinance limits exclusively retail activities of cannabis businesses to
two primary zoning districts, B-3 (Highway Business) and B-4 (Regional Business).
3
Planning Commission Agenda-11/04/2024
While the city's ordinance currently allows general retail in other business districts,
such as B-2 or CCD, the restriction for cannabis retail to the City's more intense retail
districts recognizes that other commercial districts are generally in close proximity to
residential districts and/or allow mixed residential and commercial uses, which could
present a conflict with the regulatory buffers. In addition, the location of cannabis
businesses in B-3 or B-4 district recognizes the concentration of retail activity in
these areas, supporting convenience and consolidation of retail trips.
■ Microbusiness and mezzobusinesses may include a retail endorsement
which allows operation at a standalone location or in combination with
its other endorsement activities. The ordinance as proposed allows the
retail component of microbusiness and mezzobusinesses in the B-3 and
B-4 commercial districts only. This is to avoid additional retail activity in
industrial districts, which presents other land use impacts inconsistent
with industrial districts.
■ The two separate locations qualify as one cannabis business for
registration purposes.
■ The number of retail registrations for cannabis businesses will be set by
the City Council in its retail registration ordinance and based on
allowances in state law.
o The majority of other cannabis business types are proposed to be limited to the
1-1 (Light Industrial) and 1-2 (Heavy Industrial) zoning districts given their
characteristics and operational aspects are similar to other industrial uses.
These include cultivation, wholesale activity and/or manufacturing uses.
■ The majority of cannabis businesses in the 1-1 are proposed as conditional
uses. The majority of cannabis businesses within the 1-2 district are
proposed as permitted. Again, no retail cannabis activity permitted as an
accessory use.
• Specific Use Standards: The draft ordinance provides specific performance standards
for individual cannabis business types. These regulations are intended to address the
potential land use impacts both to the subject site and surrounding properties. The use
standards are similar to those for other commercial and industrial uses as applicable.
• Temporary Uses: The draft ordinance provides the outline of companion regulations for
cannabis events, which will be included within Title X: General Regulations of the City
Code. A cross-reference with the zoning ordinance is provided. Cannabis events are
allowed up to four consecutive days.
4
Planning Commission Agenda-11/04/2024
In addition to the proposed zoning ordinances regulating the time, place and manner of
cannabis and low -potency hemp businesses, the City Council will be asked to consider
amendments to the Code to address other components of cannabis and low -potency hemp
regulations including retail registration, smoking and public use, and companion special event
permitting.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends alternative 1 above for adoption of the proposed cannabis zoning
regulations. The recommendation is based on findings specified in the resolutions
recommending approval, including the City's authority to consider zoning ordinances for the
purpose of promoting the public health, safety, and general welfare for the municipality.
It is fully recognized that as Minnesota's cannabis law is implemented, further amendments to
address rulemaking by the Office of Cannabis Management and additional legislative action
may be needed.
To address any changes to the ordinance as a result of rule -making or statutory amendments,
staff will coordinate a workshop in early to mid-2025. Information on registrations,
concerns/complaints, and law enforcement impacts will also be gathered for review.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution PC-2024-45, Zoning Ordinance Amendment
B. Resolution PC-2024-46, Temporary Cannabis Related Events
C. Ordinance 835, Draft
D. Cannabis Definitions, Cannabis Business License Information, & Cannabis Use Activities
by License Type
E. Preliminary Buffer Application Mapping Analysis
F. Office of Cannabis Management, Cannabis Events Excerpt
G. October 18, 2024 Staff Memo - Cannabis Regulations
H. October 1, 2024 Meeting Agenda
October 23. 2024 Meetine Agenda
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
e ► ► ► 010 ►] �ll►�ll�*f [@
RESOLUTION NO. PC 2024-45
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE XI: LAND
USAGE, CHAPTER 153: ZONING PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF
CANNABIS -RELATED BUSINESSES
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has City has enacted Minn. Stat. Chapter 342 authorizing the
operation of cannabis -related business enterprises; and
WHEREAS, the legislation authorizes local government to exercise land use management
regulations over cannabis business operations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello finds that such regulation is in the best interests of the
community and its residents and business properties; and
WHEREAS, with the applicable Ordinance, the City would establish adequate opportunity for
such uses to locate and operate with the City, while protecting the health, safety, and welfare
of the community; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the amendments modifying the applicable
ordinances and their effect on the City's land use plans and policies; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 4th, 2024 on the
proposed amendment and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present
information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report,
which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of
Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1. The amendments for the regulation of cannabis businesses will promote the
community's interest in reasonable stability in zoning for now and in the future, and
that the proposed provisions are in the public interest and for the public good, and are
in the interest of the public health, safety, welfare of City residents.
2. The City's land use planning documents direct a balanced approach to development,
requiring adherence to high standards of use, but also recognizing the needs of the
private development market to efficiently plan for and finance that development.
3. The location of cannabis -related businesses has the potential for adverse land use
impacts without reasonable regulations and land use management.
4. Regulations are required to address general locations in the City, including (but not
limited to) proximity to schools, daycare facilities, residential treatment facilities, and
public parks where minors may regularly assemble.
5. The City finds that these land use regulations, in concert with other state, county, and
local regulations, are critical factors in managing these businesses, as well as providing
for their ability to be successful as private enterprises.
6. The proposed amendments create a reasonable process for both the City and the
private development interests working in the community.
7. The proposed amendment details meet the intent and requirements of the applicable
zoning regulations, with the City's Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives, and are
consistent with the applicable land use policies and ordinances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota recommends that the Monticello City Council approves the proposed zoning
amendments in Ordinance No. 835, based on the findings noted herein.
ADOPTED this 41" day of November, 2024 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
IN
ATTEST:
Paul Konsor, Chair
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
e ► ► ► 010 ►] �ll►�ll�*f [@
RESOLUTION NO. PC 2024-46
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MONTICELLO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO MONTICELLO
CITY CODE TITLE XV: LAND USAGE, CHAPTER 153: ZONING
AND
TITLE IX: GENERAL REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 96: GATHERINGS PROVIDING FOR THE
REGULATION OF TEMPORARY CANNABIS -RELATED EVENTS
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has City has enacted Minn. Stat. Chapter 342 authorizing the
operation of cannabis -related business enterprises, including the operation of temporary
cannabis -related events; and
WHEREAS, the legislation authorizes local government to exercise land use management
regulations over cannabis business operations, including such temporary events; and
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello finds that such regulation is in the best interests of the
community and its residents and business properties; and
WHEREAS, with the applicable Ordinance, the City would establish adequate opportunity for
such uses to locate and operate with the City, while protecting the health, safety, and welfare
of the community; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the amendments modifying the applicable
ordinances and their effect on the City's land use plans and policies; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 41", 2024 on the
proposed amendments and members of the public were provided the opportunity to present
information to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the comments and the staff report,
which are incorporated by reference into the resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello makes the following Findings of
Fact in relation to the recommendation of approval:
1. The amendments for the regulation of cannabis businesses will promote the
community's interest in reasonable stability in zoning for now and in the future, and
that the proposed provisions are in the public interest and for the public good, and are
in the interest of the public health, safety, welfare of City residents.
2. The City's land use planning documents direct a balanced approach to legitimate
business uses, requiring adherence to high standards of use, but also recognizing the
needs of the private development market to efficiently plan for and finance those uses.
3. The location of temporary cannabis -related events has the potential for adverse land
use impacts without reasonable regulations and land use management.
4. Regulations are required to address general locations in the City, including (but not
limited to) proximity to schools, daycare facilities, residential treatment facilities, and
public parks where minors may regularly assemble.
5. The City finds that these land use regulations, in concert with other state, county, and
local regulations, are critical factors in managing these events, as well as providing for
their ability to be successful as private enterprises
6. The proposed amendments create a reasonable process for both the City and the
private interests working in the community.
7. The proposed amendment details meet the intent and requirements of the applicable
zoning regulations, with the City's Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives, and are
consistent with the applicable land use policies and ordinances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota recommends that the Monticello City Council approves the proposed zoning
amendments in Ordinance No. 835, based on the findings noted herein.
ADOPTED this 41" day of November, 2024 by the Planning Commission of the City of Monticello,
Minnesota.
MONTICELLO PLANNING COMMISSION
-31
ATTEST:
Paul Konsor, Chair
Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
ORDINANCE NO. 835
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF MONTICELLO,
TITLE XV: LAND USAGE, CHAPTER 153: ZONING
AND
TITLE IX: GENERAL REGULATIONS, CHAPTER 96: GATHERINGS PROVIDING
FOR THE REGULATION OF TEMPORARY CANNABIS -RELATED EVENTS AND
ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR CANNABIS AND
LOW -POTENCY HEMP PRODUCTS PURSUANT TO MINN. STAT. 342
IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Monticello, Minnesota:
Section 1. Section § 153.012 DEFINITIONS shall be amended to add the following:
CANNABIS -RELATED BUSINESSES. Unless otherwise noted in this section,
words and phrases contained in Minn. Stat. 342.01 and the rules promulgated
pursuant to any of these acts, shall have the same meanings in this ordinance.
(a) Cannabis Cultivation: A cannabis business licensed by the State to grow
cannabis plants within the approved amount of space from seed or immature plant
to mature plant, harvest cannabis flower from mature plant, package and label
immature plants and seedlings and cannabis flower for sale to other cannabis
businesses, transport cannabis flower to a cannabis manufacturer located on the
same premises, or perform other actions approved by the office, for either adult
use or medical use.
(b) Cannabis Retail Businesses: A business enterprise that is licensed by OCM for
one of the following cannabis -related uses: A cannabis retailer, or the location(s)
of a mezzobusiness with a retail operations endorsement, or the retail locations of
a microbusiness with a retail operations endorsement, medical cannabis retailer,
or a medical combination businesses operating a retail dispensary location, (and
excluding) lower -potency hemp edible retailers.
(c) Cannabis Industrial Business: A business enterprise that is licensed by OCM
for one of the following cannabis -related uses: (1) Cultivator; (2) Manufacturer;
(3) Wholesaler; (4) Transporter; (5) Testing Facility; (6) Delivery Service; (7)
Mezzobusiness; (8) Microbusiness; (9) any such business that conducts these
activities for Lower Potency Hemp enterprises; (10) any such business that
conducts these activities for Medical Cannabis enterprises; or (11) any other
cannabis -related business enterprise that is not expressly and solely a retail
business.
(d) Daycare: A location licensed with the Minnesota Department of Human
Services to provide the care of a child in a residence outside the child's own home
for gain or otherwise, on a regular basis, for any part of a 24-hour day.
ORDINANCE NO. 835
(e) Lower -potency Hemp Edible: As defined under Minn. Stat. 342.01 subd. 50.
(f) Office of Cannabis Management: Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management,
referred to as "OCM" in this ordinance.
(g) Place of Public Accommodation: A business, accommodation, refreshment,
entertainment, recreation, or transportation facility of any kind, whether licensed
or not, whose goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or
accommodations are extended, offered, sold, or otherwise made available to the
public.
(h) Preliminary License Approval: OCM pre -approval for a cannabis business
license for applicants who qualify under Minn. Stat. 342.17.
(i) Residential Treatment Facility: As defined under Minn. Stat. Chapter 245(G).
0) Retail Registration: An approved registration issued by the City to a state -
licensed cannabis retail business.
(k) School: A public school as defined under Minn. Stat. 120A.05 or a nonpublic
school that must meet the reporting requirements under Minn. Stat. 120A.24.
(1) State License: An approved license issued by the State of Minnesota's Office
of Cannabis Management to a cannabis retail business.
Section 2. Section §153.090 USE TABLE, shall be amended to add Table 5-1C: Cannabis
Business Uses
See Exhibit A — Table 5-1C: Cannabis Business Uses
Section 3. Section § 153.091(A) General regulations applicable to all uses shall be amended
to add the following:
(4) Cannabis -related businesses.
(a) Findings and Purpose.
1. The City of Monticello (hereinafter "City") makes the following
legislative findings: The purpose of this ordinance is to implement
the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 342, which
authorizes the City to protect the public health, safety, welfare of
City residents by regulating cannabis businesses within the legal
boundaries of City.
2. The City finds and concludes that the proposed provisions are
appropriate and lawful land use regulations for City, that the
proposed amendments will promote the community's interest in
reasonable stability in zoning for now and in the future, and that
the proposed provisions are in the public interest and for the public
good.
(b) Authority & Jurisdiction
1. The City has the authority to adopt this ordinance pursuant to:
ORDINANCE NO. 835
a. Minn. Stat. 342.13(c), regarding the authority of a local unit of
government to adopt reasonable restrictions of 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.
b. Minn. Stat. 342.22, regarding the local registration and
enforcement requirements of state -licensed cannabis retail
businesses and lower -potency hemp edible retail businesses,
subject to any Joint Powers Agreement with Wright County
which explicitly supersedes these regulations.
c. Minn. Stat. 152.0263, Subd. 5, regarding the use of cannabis in
public places.
d. Minn. Stat. 462.357, regarding the authority of a local authority
to adopt zoning ordinances.
(c) Any cannabis -related business or lower -potency hemp edible business licensed
by the State of Minnesota under Minn. Stat. 342 shall be subject to the following
requirements, in addition to any specific standards in this section, and other
reasonable regulations required as a condition of any zoning permit issued for
such uses.
1. No cannabis -related use shall operate outside of the hours of operation
established by Minn. Stat. 342, or those established by the City of
Monticello, whichever is more restrictive.
2. No cannabis business use shall operate or occur on property used for
residential purpose
3. No cannabis -related business use shall create odors that are detectable
beyond the property lines of such use.
4. The facility shall display its state issued license on the interior of the
facility, visible to the public, at all times.
5. No person or facility shall dispose of cannabis or cannabis -containing
products in an unsecured waste receptacle not in possession and control
of the licensee and designed to prohibit unauthorized access.
6. All cultivation, processing, storage, display, sales or other distribution
of cannabis shall occur within an enclosed building and shall not be visible
from the exterior of the building.
7. Outdoor storage is prohibited for all cannabis -related uses.
8. Cannabis -related business uses shall comply with the City of
Monticello's sign regulations.
ORDINANCE NO. 835
9. Cannabis -related business uses shall comply with all other applicable
standards of the Monticello zoning ordinance and City Code.
10. Buffers. No cannabis -related business use shall be located closer to
any property occupied by any of the following uses, measured as a
horizontal distance from the closest point of the property on which the
cannabis business is located to the closest point of the property occupied
by:
a. School: 1,000 feet.
b. Daycare: 500 feet from any day care facility that is located in a
zoning district where cannabis businesses are not allowed. This
buffer shall not apply to day care facilities that are located in a
zoning district in which a cannabis business is allowed.
c. Residential Treatment Facility: 500 feet.
d. Public Park: 500 feet from amenities regularly used by minors
within a public park. Public parks included shall be as
identified in the City's most currently adopted Park System or
Master Plan. This buffer shall not apply to sidewalks or trails,
or other public lands.
Section 4. Section § 153.091(E) Regulations for commercial uses shall be amended to add
the following:
(7) Cannabis Retail Business. Including Cannabis Retailer, Medical Cannabis
Retailer, Medical Cannabis Combination Business with Retail Location, Cannabis
Microbusiness Retail Location, and Cannabis Mezzobusiness Retail Location shall be
subject to the following standards:
(a) Cannabis Retailers as enumerated above shall comply with all of the requirements of
Section 153.091(C).
(b) Any location of a Cannabis Retailer, Medical Cannabis Retailer, Medical
Combination Business Retail Location, Cannabis Microbusiness Retail location or
Cannabis Mezzobusiness Retail location in a B-3 or B-4 zoning district shall have a
license or endorsement allowing for retail sales at that location from the State of
Minnesota OCM.
(c) The combination of retail cannabis sales and any other cannabis business as a
"microbusiness" or "mezzobusiness" shall be considered a single business entity for
purposes of signage allowances.
(d) No cannabis -related business shall permit consumption of any product on -site, except
by Conditional Use Permit, subject to the following conditions:
1. The facility shall only be located in the B-3 or B-4 zoning district.
ORDINANCE NO. 835
2. If the facility is a part of a multi -tenant building, the facility shall ensure that
no odors from smoke or other on -site activities can detectable outside of the
facility.
3. Consumption may be allowed only indoors, located in a specified area
physically separated from other retail floor space.
(e) No Cannabis -related business with a retail component or endorsement shall provide
delivery of its product to retail customers unless expressly allowed by a State license,
except that Medical Cannabis Retailers may make deliveries to their customers with
valid medical prescriptions.
(f) Receipt of cannabis products by a retail customer shall only occur within the building
establishment and shall not occur through any outside pick-up or drive -through
delivery process.
Section 5. Section §153.091(F) Regulations for industrial uses shall be amended to add the
following:
(7) Industrial Cannabis Businesses. Including the following cannabis -related uses:
(1) Cultivator; (2) Manufacturer; (3) Wholesaler; (4) Transporter; (5) Testing Facility; (6)
Delivery Service; (7) Mezzobusiness; (8) Microbusiness; (9) any such business that
conducts these activities for Lower Potency Hemp enterprises; (10) any such business
that conducts these activities for Medical Cannabis enterprises; or (11) any other
cannabis -related business enterprise that is not expressly and solely a retail business, shall
be subject to the following standards:
(a) Industrial Cannabis Businesses shall comply with all of the requirements of Section
153.091(C).
(b) The entire site other than that taken up by a building, structure, or plantings shall be
paved.
(c) A drainage system subject to the approval of the Community Development
Department shall be installed.
(d) The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct source of light
visible from adjacent land in residential use or from the public right-of-way and shall
be in compliance with § 153.063.
(e) In an I-1 District, when abutting a residential use, the property shall be screened with
an opaque buffer (Table 4-2, Buffer Type "D") in accordance with § 153.060(G).
(f) In an I-2 District, no parcel may be used for cannabis -related business if such parcel
abuts a residential district.
(g) All signing and informational or visual communication devices shall be minimized
and shall be in compliance with § 153.064.
(h) Provisions are made to control and reduce noise.
ORDINANCE NO. 835
(i) Waste -handling equipment and processes shall be enclosed and indoors.
(j) No outside storage shall be allowed for any cannabis -related business. Parking of
delivery or transport vehicles shall occur only in designated spaces, and shall not be
considered outside storage.
(k) Cannabis cultivation uses as part of any Industrial Cannabis Business shall be
subject to the following additional requirements:
1. Cannabis Cultivators shall limit site and/or building lighting to ensure that light
at the property line is measured at 0.0 footcandles.
2. All lighting shall be hooded, downcast, and not create glare to any other
property.
3. All buildings shall comply with the City's zoning and building regulations, and
be adaptable to other non -cultivation use.
Section 6. Section §153.093(E) Specific Standards for temporary uses shall be amended to
add the following:
(12) Temporary Cannabis Events.
(a) Any Temporary Cannabis Event shall comply with all requirements of §
96.21-96.24, Special Event Permit, and § 96.25, Temporary Cannabis Events.
Section 7. Chapter 96 PUBLIC GATHERINGS shall be amended to add the following:
§ 96.25 TEMPORARY CANNABIS EVENTS.
A. Any Temporary Cannabis Event shall comply with all requirements of § 153.093,
Temporary Uses.
B. Any Temporary Cannabis Event shall comply with all the requirements of this
Section, and all of the requirements of § 96.21-96.24, Special Event Permit.
C. No Temporary Cannabis Event shall be permitted except where the Event organizer
holds a valid Temporary Cannabis Event Organizer license from the State of
Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management.
D. No Temporary Cannabis Event that provides retail sales of any cannabis or low -
potency hemp product may occur in any location other than a B-3 or B-4 zoning
district, and shall be subject to the buffer requirements as found in § 153.091
(A)(4)c. of this Code.
E. A Temporary Cannabis Event that does not allow retail sales or on -site
consumption may be held in other locations of the City, except that no such event
shall occur on property used for residential purposes.
F. No Temporary Cannabis Event shall allow smoking of any tobacco, cannabis, or
lower -potency hemp product.
G. A Temporary Cannabis Event may allow consumption of cannabis or low -potency
hemp products that are ingestible as a beverage or as a product to be eaten provided
ORDINANCE NO. 835
the event follows the requirements for such on -site consumption set forth in
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 342.
H. A Temporary Cannabis Event may occur on any property eligible under this
Section, whether such property is occupied by another principal use and/or
building, or such property is vacant.
Section 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to make the changes required by this Ordinance
as part of the Official Monticello City Code, Title XV, Chapter 153, Zoning
Ordinance, and Title IX, Chapter 96, Public Gatherings and to renumber the
tables and chapters accordingly as necessary to provide the intended effect of this
Ordinance. The City Clerk is further directed to make necessary corrections to
any internal citations that result from said renumbering process, provided that
such changes retain the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as has been
adopted.
Section 9. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage
and publication. The ordinance in its entirety shall be posted on the City website
after publication. Copies of the complete Ordinance are available online and at
Monticello City Hall for examination upon request.
ADOPTED BYthe Monticello City Council this 251h day of November, 2024.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor
ATTEST:
Rachel Leonard, City Administrator
VOTING IN FAVOR:
VOTING IN OPPOSITION:
NOT PRESENT:
Ordinance No. 835: Exhibit A
Table 5-1C, Cannabis Business Uses
A
R-A
R-1
R 2
TN
R 3
R-4
B-1
B-2
B-3
B-4
CCD
PCD
IBC
1-1
1-2
Additional Requirements
Commercial
O
Cannabis
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
P
P
N
N
N
N
N
§ 153.091(E)(7)
Retailer
Cannabis Microbusiness -
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
P/C*
P/C*
N
N
N
N
N
§ 153.091(E)(7)
Retail Location Only
*CUP required for on -
site consumption CUP
Cannabis Mezzobusiness—
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
P
P
N
N
N
N
N
§ 153.091(E)(7)
Retail Location Only
Medical Cannabis Retailer
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
P
P
N
N
N
N
N
§ 153.091(E)(7)
Medical Cannabis
P
P
§ 153.091(E)(7)
Combination Business —
Retail Location Only
Lower Potency Hemp Edible
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
P
P
P
N
N
N
N
N
§ 153.091(E)(7)
Retailer
Temporary Cannabis Event
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
A
A
N
N
N
N
N
§ 153.093(E)(12)
Industrial Uses
§ 96.21 - § 96.25
Cannabis Cultivator
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
P
§153.091(F)(7)
§ 153.091(F)(7)
Cannabis Manufacturer
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
P
§ 153.091(F)(7)
Cannabis Microbusiness
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
P
§ 153.091(F)(7)
Cannabis Mezzobusiness
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
P
§ 153.091(F)(7)
Cannabis Wholesaler
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
P
§ 153.091(F)(7)
Cannabis Transporter
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
P
§ 153.091(F)(7)
Cannabis Testing Facility
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
P
§ 153.091(F)(7)
Cannabis Delivery Service
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C*
C*
N
N
N
C
P
§ 153.091(F)(7)
*Accessory only to
Licensed Cannabis or
Lower -Potency Hemp
Retail in B-3 or B-4
Medical Cannabis
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
P
§ 153.091(F)(7)
Processor
Medical Cannabis
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
P
§ 153.091(F)(7)
Combination Business
Lower Potency Hemp Edible
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
P
§ 153.091(F)(7)
Manufacturer
N- Not Allowed P -Permitted I C - Conditional I - Interim A -Administrative
EXHIBITA
�� Monticello
Cannabis Definitions, Cannabis Business License Information, &
Cannabis Use Activities by License Type (Informational Only)
Definitions, Excerpts
Source: 2023 Minnesota Statutes
342.01 Definitions
https://www. revisor. mn. gov/statutes/cite/342.01
Subd. 20 Cannabis product.
(a) "Cannabis product" means any of the following:
(1) cannabis concentrate;
(2) a product infused with cannabinoids, including but not limited to
tetrahydrocannabinol, extracted or derived from cannabis plants or cannabis flower; or
(3) any other product that contains cannabis concentrate.
(b) Cannabis product includes adult -use cannabis products, including but not limited to edible
cannabis products and medical cannabinoid products. Cannabis product does not include
cannabis flower, artificially derived cannabinoid, lower -potency hemp edibles, hemp -derived
consumer products, or hemp -derived topical products.
Subd. 31.Edible cannabis product.
"Edible cannabis product" means any product that is intended to be eaten or consumed as a
beverage by humans; contains a cannabinoid other than an artificially derived cannabinoid in
combination with food ingredients; is not a drug; and is a type of product approved for sale by
the office, or is substantially similar to a product approved by the office including but not
limited to products that resemble nonalcoholic beverages, candy, and baked goods. Edible
cannabis product does not include lower -potency hemp edibles.
Subd. 37.Hemp-derived consumer product.
(a) "Hemp -derived consumer product" means a product intended for human or animal
consumption, does not contain cannabis flower or cannabis concentrate, and:
(1) contains or consists of hemp plant parts; or
EXHIBITA
(2) contains hemp concentrate or artificially derived cannabinoids in combination with
other ingredients.
(b) Hemp -derived consumer product does not include artificially derived cannabinoids, lower -
potency hemp edibles, hemp -derived topical products, hemp fiber products, or hemp grain.
Subd. SO.Lower-potency hemp edible.
"Lower -potency hemp edible" means any product that:
(1) is intended to be eaten or consumed as a beverage by humans;
(2) contains hemp concentrate or an artificially derived cannabinoid, in combination
with food ingredients;
(3) is not a drug;
(4) consists of servings that contain no more than five milligrams of delta-9
tetrahydrocannabinol, 25 milligrams of cannabidiol, 25 milligrams of cannabigerol, or
any combination of those cannabinoids that does not exceed the identified amounts;
(5) does not contain more than a combined total of 0.5 milligrams of all other
cannabinoids per serving;
(6) does not contain an artificially derived cannabinoid other than delta-9
tetrahydrocannabinol;
(7) does not contain a cannabinoid derived from cannabis plants or cannabis flower; and
(8) is a type of product approved for sale by the office or is substantially similar to a
product approved by the office, including but not limited to products that resemble
nonalcoholic beverages, candy, and baked goods.
2
EXHIBITA
Cannabis Business License Information
Source: Office of Cannabis Management
General Licenses, Available License Types
https.Ilmn. gov/ocm/businesses/licensing/
1. Cannabis microbusinesses: Cannabis microbusinesses can grow, make, sell, and buy
cannabis (including plants and seedlings) and lower -potency hemp products. They can also
have on -site lounges where customers can use cannabis.
a. Cultivation up to 5,000 square feet of plant canopy indoors, and one half acre
outdoors (and up to one acre with OCM approval)
b. May operate one retail location
2. Cannabis mezzobusinesses: Cannabis mezzobusinesses can grow, make, sell, and buy
cannabis (including plants and seedlings) and lower -potency hemp products. This license
type is available in limited quantities, and licensees will be selected through a vetted
I otte ry.
a. Cultivation up to 15,000 square feet of plant canopy indoors and upwards with OCM
approval, and one acre outdoor (and up to three acres with OCM approval)
b. May operate up to three retail locations; locations do not have to be at same
location
3. Cannabis cultivators: Cannabis cultivators can grow cannabis plants from seed to maturity.
Cultivators are allowed to harvest, package, label, and transport fully grown cannabis plants
to manufacturers. They can also package, label, and transport seedlings. This license type is
available in limited quantities, and licensees will be selected through a vetted lottery.
4. Cannabis manufacturers: Cannabis manufacturers process raw cannabis plants into various
products, such as edibles, concentrates, wax, oils, and tinctures. Manufacturers can buy
cannabis flowers, cannabis products, and lower -potency hemp products from other
cannabis businesses. They turn these materials into cannabis products, then package and
sell them to other cannabis businesses. This license type is available in limited quantities,
and licensees will be selected through a vetted lottery.
S. Cannabis retailers: Cannabis retailers sell packaged cannabis products to the general public
and medical patients. They can buy cannabis (including plants and seedlings) and lower -
potency hemp products from other cannabis businesses and sell them to customers. This
license type is available in limited quantities, and licensees will be selected through a
vetted lottery. A cannabis retailer may operate up to five retail locations; however, no
person, cooperative, or business may hold a license to own or operate more than one
cannabis retail business in one city and three retail businesses in one county.
3
EXHIBITA
6. Cannabis Wholesaler: Cannabis wholesalers buy cannabis, cannabis products, and lower -
potency hemp products from cannabis businesses and then sell them to other cannabis
business.
7. Cannabis transporters: Cannabis transporters are businesses that move cannabis, cannabis
products, and lower -potency hemp products between businesses.
8. Cannabis testing facilities: Cannabis testing facilities receive cannabis, cannabis products,
and lower -potency hemp products from manufacturers and cultivators to test. They ensure
these products meet safety standards.
9. Cannabis event organizers: Cannabis event organizers plan and host events featuring
cannabis, and may allow for the sale of cannabis, cannabis products, and lower -potency
hemp products to consumers at events like festivals (an event cannot last more than four
days). They can also provide spaces for consumers to use cannabis. An event organizer
must receive local approval, including obtaining any necessary permits or licenses issued by
a local unit of government.
10. Cannabis delivery service: A cannabis delivery service purchase cannabis and lower -
potency hemp products from specific cannabis businesses and sell and deliver those
products directly to consumers.
11. Lower -potency hemp edible manufacturers: Lower -potency hemp edible manufacturers
produce edibles from hemp. These manufacturers can create, package, and label lower -
potency hemp products, and sell them to cannabis businesses. This license type cannot
hold any cannabis business licenses.
12. Lower -potency hemp edible retailers: Lower -potency hemp edible retailers sell packaged
lower -potency hemp edibles to consumers. This license type cannot hold any cannabis
business licenses.
13. Medical cannabis combination businesses (medical cannabis cultivator, medical cannabis
processor, medical cannabis retailer, or medical cannabis combination business): Medical
cannabis combination businesses can grow, manufacture, package, label, and sell cannabis
products (including cannabis plants and seedlings) to both medical patients and adult
consumers. These businesses can package and sell medical cannabis products to other
eligible cannabis businesses. They are allowed to cultivate up to 60,000 square feet of
medical cannabis plant canopy for distribution into the medical market, and depending
upon the total amount of medical sales the year prior, up to an additional 30,000 square
feet of cannabis plant canopy for distribution into the adult -use market.
0
EXHIBITA
Cannabis Business Use Activities by License Types
Source: City of St. Paul Planning & Economic Development
Staff Report to St. Paul Planning Commission
Comprehensive and Neighborhood Planning Committee
March 15, 2024
The chart below provides general information on the types of activities and/or endorsements
a cannabis business type allows. This is not a zoning district or use allowance table.
Litense Type
Business Activity
Cannabis
Retail
Cannabis
Product
On -site
Other
Sales
Wholesale
Cultivation
Manufacturing
Consumption
Activity
Cannabis Microbusiness
X
X
X
X
X
Cannabis Mezzobusiness
x
X
X
X
Cannabis Cultivator
X
X
Cannabis Manufacturer
X
X
Cannabis Retailer
x
Cannabis Wholesaler
x
Cannabis Transporter
X
Cannabis Testing Facility
X
Cannabis Event
X
Organizer
Cannabis Delivery
X
Service
Medical Cannabis
X
X
Cultivator
Medical Cannabis
x
X
Processor
Medical Cannabis
x
Retailer
Medical Cannabis
Combination Business.
x
x
x
x
Lower -potency Hemp
x
Edible Manufacturer
Lower -potency Hemp
x
x
Edible Retailer
5
LA o
A-O: Agriculture - Open Space Day Care 33�
R-A: Residential Amentities District Park
,v
R-1: Single Family Residential School
\`\
T-N: Traditional Neighborhood Residence Area 0 500 ft. Day Care Buffer N
w
\.\
m
R-2: Single Family and 2 Family Residential 500 ft. All Park Buffer
�\
R-PUD: Residential Planned Unit Development 1000 ft. School Buffer o
\�
\\�
0
R-3: Medium Density Residential 0 Parcel Boundary Fn
v ;
v
R-4: High Density Residential 0 City Boundary
�
\
c>
M-H: Manufactured Home Park District
�.\
B-1: Neighborhood Business Q
\�
B-2: Limited Business
�\
B-3: Highway Business Si
B-4: Regional Business o
�\
CCD: Central Community District
IBC: Industrial and Business Campus District
a
I-1: Light Industrial o
1-2: Heavy Industrial N
ROW A
i -� I ` •
I
\
Split
_
_
I I
1 ,
UP
.
I I I I
II I
I
1
I
I
I
r-------�
�
I ----I
I j
I ,
I I
CITY OF
Figure 1
N
� Monticello
Cannabis Zoning
0 4,000
Feet
\ n �C
V V J
Transparent Zoning + All Parks + Pointes at Cedar Park
1 inch = 4,000 feet
25
25
1
25
ME
ME
1
r 'a 4j
■
WE
�q MES/ 2 5
a■
25
ME
ME
ME
Total Number of Parcels by Zoning District
Zoning Classification
Number of Parcels
A-O
31
B-1
10
B-2
26
B-3
82
B-4
66
CCD
271
PCD
8
IBC
15
1-1
43
1-2
45
Figures 1 & 3 - Total Number of Parcels Remaining AFTER the Buffer is
Applied
Zoning Classification
Number of Parcels
A-O
8
B-1
2
B-2
10
B-3
46
B-4
40
CCD
77
PCD
0
IBC
2
1-1
12
1-2
17
Figure 2 & 4 - Total Number of Parcels Remaining AFTER the Buffer is
Applied
Zoning Classification
Number of Parcels
A-O
10
B-1
2
B-2
13
B-3
59
B-4
47
CCD
85
PCD
7
IBC
2
1-1
12
1-2
25
Home Hosting Cannabis Events With On -Site Consumption
Hosting Cannabis Events with On -Site Consumption
Office of Cannabis Management Home
For Adult Consumers
Starting a Business
Rulemaking
Expungement
Tribal Nations
About Us
With the passage of Minnesota Session Laws - 2023, chapter 63, adults in Minnesota have begun to explore the many ways to use and enjoy
legal cannabis. As the weather improves and holidays and events begin to appear on the calendar, the Office of Cannabis Management
(OCM) provides the following information to those wishing to plan public events.
The new law includes specific sections that make possible the ability to host an event, open to the public, where cannabis and hemp -derived
edible products are consumed. (Minnesota Statutes, sections 342.24, 342.28, 342.39, 342.40). While most parts of the law went into effect on
July 1, 2023, until the Office's rules are in force in early 2025, there is no mechanism for OCM to license event organizers or to issue on -site
endorsements for other cannabis license holders. The information below provides key information that may impact where and if you can
host an event, and what products or activities may be allowed at such an event.
Disclaimer
This document is designed to assist persons and businesses wishing to host public events celebrating adult -use cannabis and lower -potency
hemp edibles. This document is not intended to provide legal guidance to any person or business, and it is recommended that anyone
seeking to hold a cannabis event seek independent legal counsel.
New Cannabis Laws
Public Consumption
Minnesota Statutes, section 342.09 regulates the locations where cannabis may and may not be used. Specifically, cannabis use is allowed
only for those age 21 and over:
• at a private residence;
• on private property, not generally accessible by the public, where allowed by the property owner; or
• on the premises of an establishment or event licensed to permit on -site consumption.
Sale of Cannabis Products at Events
Minnesota Statutes, section 342.09, subdivision 4 prohibits the sale of cannabis flower and cannabis products "without a license issued
under this chapter that authorizes the sale." Licenses to sell cannabis at retail will only be issued once the office adopts rules governing the
cannabis industry. Moreover, while Minnesota has legalized the sale of the adult use of cannabis flower, cannabis products, lower -potency
hemp edibles, or hemp -derived consumer products, the legislature did add new statutory provisions, Minnesota Statutes, section 152.0264,
making illegal the unlawful sale of cannabis.
With respect to both consumption and sale, any cannabis event would need to comply with the new cannabis law as it stands today, the
existing laws on hemp -derived cannabinoid products, and any applicable local ordinances or rules related to events —in particular those
related to alcohol and lower -potency hemp products.
Existing Hemp -Derived Cannabinoid Products Laws
Minnesota Statutes, section 151.72 regulates the sale of hemp -derived edibles to adult consumers age 21 and over and assigns regulation of
this market to the Minnesota Department of Health. Any retailer or business wishing to sell edible cannabinoid products must register with
the Commissioner of Health. Section 151.72 also contains provisions for the sale of product designed to be consumed on -site:
• the retailer must also hold an on -sale license issued under chapter 340A;
• products must be served in original packaging, but may be removed from the products' packaging by customers and consumed on
site;
• products must not be sold to a customer who the retailer knows or reasonably should know is intoxicated;
• products must not be permitted to be mixed with an alcoholic beverage; and
• products that have been removed from packaging must not be removed from the premises.
The Minnesota Department of Health provides a Hemp -Derived Cannabinoid Product Event Checklist (PDF). for people wishing to host a
hemp -derived cannabinoid product event.
Local Considerations
Finally, as you consider hosting an event that may feature either cannabis or hemp -derived cannabinoid products, consider the
requirements of the municipality in which the event will occur. It is recommended that you reach out to the municipality with jurisdiction
over your event's location to ensure that your event is in compliance with all local requirements.
If you plan to sell hemp -derived cannabinoid products for on -site consumption, you will want to ensure that the location of the event
has a liquor license issued by the appropriate authority.
If the event will feature retail sale of tobacco, tobacco -related devices, and electronic delivery devices, it may require a local tobacco
license, under Minnesota Statutes, section 461.12.
Depending on where you host your event, you may be required to obtain local permits, insurance, and/or security.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I give away free samples? What if my organization gives out samples in exchange for a donation?
Minnesota Statutes, section 342.09 allows an individual to give to another individual who is age 21 or older two ounces of cannabis flower,
eight grams of cannabis concentrate, or 800 mgs of cannabis or lower -potency hemp edibles. Cannabis may be gifted if the gift is made
without a promise of payment or exchange of other goods and services and is not associated with a commercial transaction.
Can I create advertising or merchandise for my event?
Minnesota Statutes, section 342.64 provides limitations on advertising for cannabis businesses, hemp businesses, and other persons that
includes images likely to appeal to children, including cartoons, toys, animals, or children. Similar prohibitions are found in Minnesota
Statutes, section 151.72, subdivision 5a. Minnesota Statutes, section 342.01 defines advertisements to include "any written or oral
statement, illustration, or depiction that is intended to promote sales of cannabis flower, cannabis products, lower -potency hemp edibles,
hemp -derived consumer products, or sales at a specific cannabis business or hemp business[.]"
What about the Clean Indoor Air Act?
Minnesota Statutes, section 144.414 prohibits smoking —including use of an electronic delivery device —inside a public place, a day care, a
hospital, or on public transportation.
Return to top
CITY OF
Monticello MEMORANDUM
TO: Monticello City Council and Monticello Planning Commission
FROM: Angela Schumann, Community Development Director
DATE: October 18, 2024
RE: Cannabis Regulations
Overview
In November and December of 2024, the Planning Commission and City Council will be
asked to consider ordinance amendments regulating cannabis businesses and cannabis
use within the city.
As a reminder, the City cannot prohibit any of the types of cannabis businesses authorized
by law, and the statute provides specific limitations on other regulations for cannabis sale
and consumption.
To support ordinance development for local regulations, two public meetings of the
Planning Commission and City Council were set. The first was a special meeting of the two
boards held on October 1, 2024. The second public meeting of the Planning Commission
and City Council is set for Wednesday, October 23, 2024. The meeting will be in a
workshop format, with discussion focused on zoning regulations for cannabis businesses.
No formal action will be taken.
During the October 1, 2024 meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council, general
context on Minnesota Statute 342—Cannabis was provided, along with a timeline of past
actions and future considerations relating to cannabis regulation. City Council was asked
to provide direction to staff on ordinance development as related to cannabis business
retail registration, cannabis special event permitting and smoking. The boards also briefly
reviewed the next steps for development of cannabis land use (zoning) regulations.
Following discussion, City Council formally approved the development of cannabis -
related ordinances for consideration and called for a public hearing on the land use
ordinances.
The cannabis ordinances proposed are listed below, with a brief description of the policy -
related considerations and the direction provided by the boards October 1, 2024. More
detail on specific discussion can be found in the approved minutes of the meeting.
1. Title XI: Business Regulations Ordinance
Background:
Minn. Stat. 342 details the types of cannabis business licenses authorized and provides
for a local jurisdiction registration process for a specific retail sub -set of cannabis
businesses. The State of Minnesota, through the Office of Cannabis Management, will
issue cannabis business licenses. Under the law, cities are allowed to limit cannabis
retailer registrations to no fewer than one registration for every 12,500 residents. For
Monticello, this equates to two business registrations. In addition, if a county reaches
the registration requirement of one active registration for every 12,500 residents, a city
within the county is not required to register any additional cannabis businesses.
Cities may also adopt a maximum distance buffers to 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. A city may decrease these buffer distances by
ordinance, but not increase.
While Monticello has delegated its registration of cannabis retailers to Wright County
under a joint powers agreement, the City will need to adopt amendments to its
Business Regulations ordinance to include a retail registration process specifying the
delegation to Wright County and establishing both the maximum number of cannabis
business retail registrations for the City and the required buffer distances.
Policy Considerations:
The establishment of cannabis retail with the community includes both the potential for
public health impacts and law enforcement impacts. Given these considerations,
staff's recommendation was to limit the initial cannabis retail registration number for
Monticello to the minimum of two businesses as required by statute. Staff also
recommended setting the maximum buffers consistent with the statute maximums.
The rationale for the staff recommendation is the ability to monitor demand for these
types of businesses, available public health data, and information on compliance and
enforcement issues from Wright County. The City can amend the ordinance to increase
the number based on an evaluation of those considerations. In the most recent
conversations with Wright County, it was confirmed that should the intended county-
wide maximum of 15 retail registrations be issued, the City could amend its ordinance
to allow additional registrations beyond the County maximum.
Regarding the buffers, staff's recommendation was based on the same consideration
for public health and law enforcement impacts. Preliminary mapping completed by the
2
City (attached) indicates that there would be sufficient available commercial and
industrial parcels available for retail registrations after application of the maximum
buffers.
Direction:
The consensus of the Council members present on October 1, 2024 was to initially set
the registration number at two retail registrations consistent with the state minimum
and staff recommendation.
The City Attorney's office is preparing an amendment to the Business Regulation code
for cannabis retail registration. The draft ordinance for registration will be brought to the
PARC for a recommendation prior to Council consideration given the park buffer
requirement. Council consideration in November or December is intended.
2. Title XIII: General Offenses Ordinance (or Title IX: General Regulations)
Background:
Wright County Ordinance No. 23-3 is currently in place, which prohibits the use of
cannabis within any public place. The ordinance also includes lower -potency hemp
products. The ordinance is applicable throughout Wright County, including individual
municipalities. The ordinance prohibits the use of any cannabis product in any public
place as defined by the ordinance. There is an exemption for licensed cannabis events,
which is discussed later in this memo. Wright County staff have stated that it is their
intent to leave the ordinance in place as part of their overall cannabis regulation.
In addition to the Wright County ordinance, the City of Monticello currently has a park
rule in place which prohibits smoking within public parks. This is not in ordinance.
While Wright County's ordinance is in place and prohibits the use of any cannabis
product in public places, it is recommended that Monticello also adopt a city ordinance
to further define the city's position on public use for enforcement purposes.
Amendment to the General Regulations section of the City code will be presented for
consideration to adopt a city -specific ordinance prohibiting smoking, including
cannabis.
Policy Considerations:
Smoking within any public place is a public health policy decision. Unlike alcohol,
which is voluntarily consumed, smoking has a second-hand or involuntary component.
While Minnesota law has made cannabis legal, public health study is on -going related
to its effects and impacts.
3
Staff's initial recommendation was to develop an ordinance which would prohibit all
types of smoking, inclusive of tobacco and cannabis products in public places. Public
parks, outdoor spaces surrounding public buildings (public property), municipal
parking lots and public events held on public property were initially recommended to be
included in the prohibition. Staff also presented for discussion the consideration of
prohibiting smoking within 25' from places of public accommodation, such as common
entries, restaurants, etc. The recommendation did not include prohibition of the use of
cannabis edibles.
The rationale for the recommendation is related to second-hand smoke concerns as
well as public nuisance complaints. As defined by Monticello's current ordinance,
nuisances are those acts which "annoy, injure, or endanger the safety, health, comfort,
or repose of the public" and/or "render a considerable number of persons insecure in
life or in use of property", among other concerns. Smoking has generated complaints to
the City Clerk's office and has created littering and nuisance issues in City parks.
Direction:
The consensus of the Council members present was to continue forward with
preparation of a draft ordinance but limit the ordinance to prohibiting smoking within
public parks and events held on public property.
The City Clerk's office is preparing a draft ordinance in consultation with the City
Attorney. The draft smoking ordinance will be brought to the PARC for a
recommendation prior to Council consideration given the park -related issues. The
smoking ordinance is likely to move forward for consideration in December.
3. Title IX: General Regulations Ordinance
Background:
Minn. Stat. 342 provides for specific Cannabis Event activities, which are open to the
public and where cannabis and low -potency hemp products may be consumed. Events
may be open to the public and the organizer must hold a cannabis event organizer
license.
The law limits cannabis use to those over 21 only and limits consumption to a private
residence, private property not generally accessible to the public and where allowed by
the property owner, or on the premises of an establishment or event licensed to permit
on -site consumption. The law also prohibits the sale of cannabis flower and cannabis
products without a license, which license must include a designated location.
0
Taken together, these provisions would allow cannabis use during events arranged
through a licensed cannabis event organizer, but sale of cannabis products at a
cannabis event would be limited to locations where retail sales are already permitted by
the local jurisdiction.
While cannabis use events could include consumption via edible ingestion and/or
smoking, both local ordinances adopted for smoking and the existing Minnesota Indoor
Clean Air Act would further limit eligible locations where cannabis events allow
consumption via smoking.
Given these parameters, it is recommended that the City develop an ordinance
framework for the time, place and manner associated with hosting cannabis events.
The framework would add clarity to the complexity surrounding use, sale and location
for these events.
Policy Considerations:
The policy considerations related to cannabis events includes both the public health
and nuisance considerations noted earlier for the smoking ordinance, as well as the
potential risks associated with cannabis use and sales on public property.
Staff's recommendation for cannabis event permitting is to develop an ordinance
allowing such events within the existing "Special Event" permit section of the City's
"General Regulations" code and limiting their location to those areas where the City has
permitted retail sales via zoning district regulations. In applying this standard,
cannabis events could be allowed in locations where both cannabis sales and on -site
consumption are permitted within the zoning ordinance. Staff recommend that
cannabis events be prohibited in public places such as parks, streets and municipal
parking lots.
The rationale for the recommendation is related to the public health second-hand
smoke concern and public nuisance impacts.
Direction:
The consensus of the Council members present was to continue forward with
preparation of a draft amendment to the General Regulations Special Events ordinance,
with the understanding that more discussion would be needed. Likely discussion
points would include available locations for this activity and enforcement related to
product sale compliance.
A draft ordinance amendment to the General Regulations code is being prepared in
conjunction with the draft zoning ordinance, given the reference to allowable locations
5
by zoning. The City Planner is preparing a draft ordinance, in consultation with the City
Attorney and Community Development staff and City Clerk.
4. Title XV: Land Usage
Background:
Minn. Stat. 342 does not preempt local jurisdictions from setting reasonable
regulations for the time, place and manner of cannabis businesses. However, as noted
earlier, the City cannot prohibit any of the businesses allowed by statute.
During the October 1, 2024 meeting staff suggested development of zoning regulations
which include the following: general regulations applicable to all cannabis businesses
(including the required buffer consistent with the retail registration ordinance),
identification of cannabis businesses as permitted or conditional by zoning district, and
minimum performance standards for individual cannabis use types.
A draft zoning ordinance amendment for cannabis land uses has been developed for
discussion and direction during the October 23, 2024 joint Planning Commission and
City Council workshop.
Summary
The City's current moratorium on cannabis business operation ends on January 1, 2025,
and may not be extended.
Following the joint workshop on October 23 d, 2024, staff will prepare a final draft of the
zoning ordinance amendment. The hearing on the proposed amendment to Title XV,
Chapter 153—Zoning will be held on Monday, November4, 2024. Council consideration of
the zoning amendments is expected to occur in late November.
The proposed amendments to the other sections of City Code (Business Regulations,
General Regulations, General Offenses) are expected to be brought to City Council for
consideration in late November or early December.
It is fully expected that as the law continue to evolve on cannabis and more is understood
in terms of local demand and impacts, amendments to the proposed ordinances will be
necessary.
Supporting Data
Cannabis Discussion Graphic
Wright County Ordinance 23-3
R
Planning Commission Agenda — 11/04/24
4A. Community Development Director's Report
Council Action on/related to Commission Recommendations
• Consideration of a Request for Application for Amendment to Conditional Use Permit for
Planned Unit Development, Preliminary Plat and Final Plat. Applicant: Stephen Rohlf
Approved on the October 25, 2024 City Council consent agenda.
Consideration of a Request for Amendment to Big River 445 Planned Unit
Development District and Development and Final Stage Planned Unit Development
for Automobile Repair— Minor use. Applicant: SFP-E, LLC
Approved on the October 25, 2024 City Council consent agenda.
Consideration of a Request for Amendment to Big River 445 Planned Unit
Development District and Development and Final Stage Planned Unit Development
for Automobile Repair— Minor use. Applicant: Valvoline, LLC
Approved on the October 25, 2024 City Council consent agenda.
2025 Planning Commission Workplan
In December, staff will request feedback from the Commission on development of the
2025 Workplan. The 2024 Planning Commission Workplan is attached for reference.
Hotel Project Updates
The hotel/restaurant project previously approved for development on Chelsea Road, on
the northern side of The Pointes continues to work on construction documents and
review of agreements. A late fall start was planned based on last correspondence.
The hotel/restaurant project proposed along 1-94 on the east side of the community
requires application for final plat and final stage PUD, as well as annexation approval.
Those applications are anticipated in November. A late fall start was also planned based
on last correspondence.
Rental Connections Program
The next Rental Connections meeting is scheduled for November 13th, 2024. The
meetings with owners and property managers of Monticello's multi -family projects are
an opportunity to share information on existing City programs and build communication
with tenants. The November meeting will focus on fire safety and the fire inspection
program. Heart Strong Monticello will also present to the group with the hope of
increasing AED awareness and access. Increasing communication opportunities with our
rental owners, managers and residents is a great way to build relationships and help
them feel more connected to our community.
Site Landscaping Inspections
As summer turned into fall, the Community Development Department completed a
number of site landscaping inspections. These inspections ensure development sites are
Planning Commission Agenda — 11/04/24
in compliance with their approved plans and allow us to reduce the securities held to
guarantee installation and survival. The good news is that the development sites are
compliant in the majority. These small details make a big difference in the community!
As Community Development adjusts to staffing changes, we are also hopeful that we will
add compliance inspections for approved Conditional Use Permit and PUD conditions.
This is an important step in verification that development sites are meeting the Council's
approval requirements.
Downtown Facade Improvement Forgivable Loan Program
More Downtown businesses are taking advantage of the EDA's Downtown Fagade
Improvement program. Staff have been assisting three downtown properties seeing to
utilize the program for their proposed fagade improvement projects. These properties
include Lucille Murray's Studio of Dance and Monticello Family Dentistry. Bliss Salon
recently completed their faced improvements using the program, as well. The fagade
improvements represent a significant reinvestment in the downtown area and are part of
a multi -faceted approach to downtown revitalization.
Block 34 — Redevelopment Steps
The EDA released a Request for Proposal for site redevelopment concepts for the publicly
owned property on Block 34 in September of 2024. Two proposals were received by the
September 30, 2024, deadline. As a next step, the two RFI responders will be invited to
attend an EDA Workshop in early November to present and discuss their specific
submittals. Following the workshops, the EDA will work through the next steps for
redevelopment on the block, including timeline, phasing and public feedback process.
Development Status
Current status update through October is attached.
CITY OF Monticello Planning Commission
2021-2025 Workplan
Monticello 2024 UPDATE
The Monticello Planning Commission is established to advise the Mayor, Council and Community
Development Department in matters concerning planning and land use matters; to review and make
recommendations regarding the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan, subdivision and zoning ordinances and other
planning rules and regulations; to establish planning rules and regulations; and to conduct public hearings.
Purpose Statement:
The Planning Commission will support efforts to implement the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. The Planning
Commission will work collaboratively with the City Council, other City boards and commissions, and
community stakeholders in its work to achieve the Plan and the strategic goals of the city.
Organizational & Training Activities:
• League of Minnesota Cities training
o Land Use Mini Course - Land Use (Mini -Course) - League of Minnesota Cities (Imc
o Land Use Regulation: Your Role in Land -Use Decision Making - Land Use Regulation:
Your Role in Land -Use Decision Making - League of Minnesota Cities (Imc.ore)
• Continue to support regional planning as identified by the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan.
o Implementation Chapter - Land Use, Growth & Orderly Annexation
■ Strategy 1.10.1 - Consider the outcomes of regional planning initiatives and participate in
processes resulting from the efforts of the Central Mississippi River Regional Partnership.
• Consistent with Policy 1.2 for Agency Coordination, monitor opportunity for
engagement in roadway and pathway connectivity planning across
jurisdictions, including the current Planning and Environmental Linkage
study.
• Initiate and/or facilitate organizational projects in support of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan.
o Implementation Chapter - Land Use, Growth & Orderly Annexation
■ Strategy 1.1.1- Facilitate biannual meetings to serve as a "Development Forum" with
interested property owners, realtors, builders and developers to discuss long-term
planning, real estate market conditions.
• Pending outcomes of a 2024 City Housing Workshop, facilitate a housing
forum with builders and developers.
11Page
Comprehensive Plan Activities:
• Support the implementation of the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan through implementation of the
Goals, Policies and Strategies identified within the Plan.
o Land Use, Growth & Orderly Annexation Chapter
■ Review Land Use, Growth & Orderly Annexation Goals from Chapter 3 of the
2040 Plan.
■ Participate in a Council and Commission workshop on the amended Orderly
Annexation Agreement.
■ Residential Land Uses
• As needed following the 2024 Housing Policy Workshop, consider
amendments in the Goals, Policies and Strategies of the Implementation
Chapter of the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Future
Land Use Map.
o Economic Development Chapter
■ Review industrial land inventory and planning consistent with Monticello 2040 Land
Use policies for industrial land use, including:
• Policies 1.1 (Land Use) and 8.1 (Economic Development) - Opportunity Areas
• Policy 1.2 - Growth Management (Land Use)
• Policy 5.1 - Land Supply and Employment Growth (Land Use)
• Policy 2.1 - Diverse Economic Sectors (Economic Development)
• Policy 2.4 — Industrial and Business Site Analysis and Availability (Economic
Development)
• Continue to support the priority projects set by the City Council, including The Pointes at Cedar and
reinvestment in Downtown Monticello. Small Area Plans for both projects are adopted as
Appendices to the 2040 Plan.
Zoning Ordinance/Map Activities:
• With City Council, establish City policy related to recent cannabis legislation, adopting the
necessary amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance.
• Consider amendments to the Monticello Zoning Ordinance and Official Zoning Map in support of the
Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan guided land use, including, but not limited to the following.
Evaluation of Zoning Map:
■ CCD and its Sub -Districts
Evaluation of the following Zoning Code sections:
■ Floor area ratio requirements for commercial, industrial zoning districts
■ Impervious surface requirements for residential districts
■ Updating noise standards for more practical enforcement
■ Evaluation of regulation on short term rentals
■ Evaluation of the need for both B-3 and B-4 Districts
■ Evaluation of temporary use permits for portable container retail/specialty eating
establishments
21Page
Subdivision Ordinance Activities:
• Complete a review and amendment of the Monticello Subdivision Ordinance, including
consideration of amendments as recommended in the Goals, Policies and Strategies of the
Implementation Chapter of the Monticello Comprehensive Plan as follows.
o Implementation Chapter, Land Use, Growth & Orderly Annexation
Strategy 2.5.1 - Implement measures to slow down or "calm" traffic on local streets
by using design techniques and measures to improve traffic safety, provide eyes on
the street, and enhance the quality of life in Monticello's neighborhoods.
Strategy 3.8.2 - Require pedestrian and bike connections in new commercial
development.
■ Strategy 6.5.1- Conduct regular review of parkland allocation and ensure sufficient
amount of land is designated for parks and recreation activities in the City as the
population increases.
Research & City Department Update Topics
As resources and time allow, the Planning Commission will consider research and information related to
the following topic areas.
Topic
Annexation Process
Sacred Settlements (2023 Legislative change)
Policy and decision -making — City Board and Commission authority discussion
Review actions and next steps for East Bertram Planning Area and Northwest Planning Areas identified
in the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan
31Page
MONTICELLO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
88 acre parcel bounded by The Meadows to the North, Highway 25 to the
Wert, 85th Street NE to the South, and the Feather-, Residential Concept Stage review for a planned unit development for a multi -phase Medical ice Joint City Council and Plannine
Project Commercial/Light Industrial neighbohood to the East Buildings on roughly 25 acres, with subsequent phases of private development to follow. Commission review on 3125/24 On hold
joint City Council and Planning
General Equipment Industrial 13 one parcel along CSAH 39 and West Chelsea Road Concept Stage review for planned unit development for Machmery/Truck Repair and Sales Commission .in. on 7/2/24 Post Concept Stage PU D, Pre -Development Stage PUD Application Submittal
1PB Land/Meadowbrook
Residential
44 acre parcel along Edmonton Avenue
Concept Stage review for planned unit development for single-family residential
Reviewed in Joint PC/CC on 9/3/24
Concept Stage PU D Submittal
Tamarack/The Meadows at Pioneer Park
Pencil La Use Applicatio Projects
Residential
Project Type
68 acre parcels a long Fallon Avenue
Add,ess/Locat[on
Concept Stage review for planned unit development for single-family residential
D ipti
Reviewed i n Joint PC/CC on 9/16/24 Concept Stage PU D Submittal
Appro,al Di,t, & l,f,, Progress Report
ng nd n
Nearthe Southeastcorner d85th Street NE and Fallon Ave NE, Also South of
Concept Stage review for a planned unit development for a 298-unit residential
Reviewed by Pannine Commission on Preliminary Plat,Remning and Development Stage PUD Application
Haven Ridge West
Residential
85th Street NE between Eislele Ave N E and Edmonton Ave NE
development with various lot sizes and townhome section
8/6/2024:
Approved; Next Submittals to Final Plat and PUD
6321E. Broadway Street bound by Interstate 94 to the North and East
Development Stage PU D and preliminary plat for a76-room hotel, 15,000 square -foot event
Reviewed by Plannine Commission on Preliminary Plat,Remning and Development Stage PUD Application
Broadway Plaza PUD
Commercial
Broadway Street to the South
center, 6,800 square -foot restaurant, and a 6,000 square -foot port -frame building.
7224
Submitted; Council review pending
1.46 acre vacant lot a long the West side of Fallon Ave NE between Washburn
Development Stage review for a plan red unit development of a vacant site for a n l ndustrial
Reviewed by Plannine Commission on Development Stage PUD Application Submittal approved; pending Final
Mastercrak Outdoors PUD
Industrial
Computer Grou p and Norland Truck Sales
Service use
7224
&
Stage and Rezoning
P,evi..sly Approved P,.je-
Savanna Vista Apartmentr
Project Type
Residential
Add ... s/L,c,tl,,
Southeast area of The Pointes at Cedar
D—riptimn
2 100 unit multi -family apartments
App—.1 D.te Irm
12/13/2021
P,,g ... s Report
First Building CO; continued construction
Twin Pines Apartments
Residential
South Side of School Blvd. East of Wal-Mart
96 multi -family unit apartment building
2 28 2022
Vet to Break Ground/Received Plat Ear. on 1/22/24
Block 52 Redevelopment
Mixed -Use
NE Corner of Highway 25 and Broadway St
87multi-family units with rougly 30,000 sq ft of 1st floor commercial
7112022
Received Temporary CO/Residenial Units Being Rented/Office User CO
Featherstone 6th Addition
Residential
North of 85th St NE and West of Highway 25
21 Single-family lots with commercially guided outlots for future development
4 25 2022
Under Construction (Last New Cruet. Permit Pulled)
Haven Ridge 2nd Addition
Residential
South of Farmstead Ave and West of Fallon Ave NE
59 Single -Family Lot Development
Reapproved 8/28/2023
Site Grading Commenced (Building Permits Being Issued)
Headwaters West Development
Residential
Along South side of 7th St W between Elm St and Golf Course Rd
82 Twinhomes Senior 55+Development
4 22 2024
Under Construction
Deephaven 3 (Lot 2)
Commercial
Southeast corner of Cedar St and Chelsea Rd
New Construction of a Clinic/Medical Service Facility (10,000 sq ft)
N/A (Permitted Use)
Completed
JimmyJohns/Baskin Robbins
Commercial
Southeast Corner of Oakwood Drive E and Cedar Street
New Construction of Quick Service Restaurant with Drive -Through Service
1 22 2024
Commenced
Vacant property north of Chelsea Rd, south of Interstate 94, and west of PUD for New Construction of two commercial lots for a quick -service restaurant and
Big River
Commercial
Fermin Avenue
a coffee shop, with blots platted for subsequent commercial development.
482024
Commenced, Chipotle and Starbucks Permitted
New Construction of a Panera Bread Location (Restaurant and Drive -through service) in the
Panera Bread
Commercial
Vacant Lot west of Mattress Firm/AT&T location on E. 7th Street
B-4, Regional Business District
5 28 2024
Permitted
Holiday Store EV Charging Stations
Commercial
110 Oakwood Drive E.
Installation of up to 12 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in Lot behind Building
5282024
Permitted
Preliminary & Final Plat of Cedar Street Storage, Dev. & Final Stage PUD for expansion of
StorageUnk(Donnas Site) PU D and Plat
Commercial
36 RondasRoad (Southeast corner of Dundas Road and Cedar Street)
permanent storage area
6242024
Approved; Not Started
Conditional Use Permit Request for Wrecker & Towing Service as a Principal Use in the B-3,
'
Bob's Towing Conditional Use Permit
Commercial
219 Sandberg Road
Highway Business District
6242024
Approved
Development Stage Permit (CUP) for construction of a 98-room hotel and restaurant in the
Development Stage permit approved; pending conditions resolution and
Good Neighbor- Pointes at Cedar Development
Commercial
Along south side of Chelsea Road directly north of Deephaven Apartments
northern"Populus" biomeof the Pointes at Cedar District
7222024
building permit
Wendy's CUP
Commercial
Near Highland Way, Union Crossings
Conditional Use Permit for Amendmentto PUD and a ccessory drive -through
9232024
Approved ,
Valvoline
Big River 445 PUD
Amdt to Big River 445 PUD a nd Development and Final Stale PUD - Auto Repair - Minor
10/28/2024
Approved
Commercial
Les Schwab
Commercial
Big River 445 PUD
Arndt to Big River 445 PUD and Development and Final State PUD - Auto Repair - Minor
10/28/2024
Approved