New Ulm council conducts first consideration of cannabis zoning ordinance

The New Ulm City Council on Tuesday, Feb. 18 conducted first consideration of an ordinance to add zoning districts and use-specific standards for cannabis and hemp businesses in the city.

Planner John Nisley, who presented the proposal to council, said the draft ordinance separates zoning rules (where businesses may locate) from licensing procedures (how the city would license them) and is intended to mirror how the city regulates alcohol-related uses such as breweries and distilleries. “We tried to craft the ordinance to be very similar to uses ... such as breweries, bars, brew pubs, distilleries, micro distilleries,” Nisley said.

The draft would define retail, delivery, manufacturing, testing, transportation, wholesale, hemp manufacturing and cultivation uses and place retail sales as permitted uses in the city’s B-2 (general business), B-3 (community business) and B-4 (central business/downtown) districts. Manufacturing, testing and other industrial uses would be limited to I-1 (planned industrial) and I-2 (general industrial) districts. Cultivation — indoor or outdoor — would be allowed only in the AOS (agricultural open space) district.

The ordinance uses the maximum buffer distances allowed by state rules: a minimum 1,000-foot buffer from schools and 500-foot buffers from day cares, adult treatment facilities and parks. Nisley said the city applied those buffers to entire park boundaries rather than point locations, and then removed buffer areas from the map so the remaining unbuffered zones show where retail could locate.

Nisley told council staff had received no public complaints but had been contacted by a proposed business that helped staff understand the state licensing process. He said staff reviewed ordinances from comparable Minnesota cities — North Mankato, Owatonna, Marshall and Fairmont — and that the city’s draft is “very much in line” with those communities. He also said the city administration is drafting a separate licensing/registration process through the finance department.

City Attorney David Scott, on the line, said he had no additional comments and described the draft as consistent with other cities’ ordinances. Council members asked for a closer view of the downtown map that shows small pockets where retail might be allowed, and asked whether the draft cap on local licenses would remain (Nisley said staff will bring the registration portion back to council, likely in March).

Councilor (motion mover not specified) made a motion to conduct first consideration of the ordinance; the motion carried on voice vote. Because this was action on first consideration, the council must complete subsequent steps before adopting final licensing rules; clerical and administrative tasks remain.

Next steps: staff will continue work on the city’s licensing/registration procedures and bring that draft back to council for review; any future ordinance amendments could follow guidance from the state Office of Cannabis Management if the state issues further guidance that requires updates.