Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council discusses draft cannabis ordinance; planning commission recommends retail in commercial zones not industrial
Summary
Councilors debated a revised cannabis ordinance that would increase school buffer distances to 1,000 feet and restrict retail to industrial zoning in the draft. Planning and Zoning told the council retail is ordinarily appropriate in B1/B2 commercial zones and asked for the item to be returned for further review if the council wishes.
Councilors reviewed a revised draft cannabis ordinance and voiced differing views over zoning restrictions and buffer distances.
Planner Jenny (last name not specified) summarized changes to the draft ordinance: administrative formatting changes, a city verification requirement that applicants be current on property taxes, correction of "application fees" language to reflect a registration fee, an increase in the buffer from schools from 500 feet to 1,000 feet, and a zoning change that would allow cannabis retail and manufacturing only in industrial zone districts rather than in business (B1/B2) districts. The draft also added a standard severability clause.
Several councilors argued that restricting retail to industrial zones would limit viable locations and harm downtown and mall‑area economic opportunities; Councilor Johnson said retail businesses operating on main corridors are better monitored and that heavy restrictions would unduly constrain small business opportunities. Planning and Zoning Commissioner Mary McReynolds (representing Planning & Zoning at the meeting) said the commission had discussed the item and that planning recommended retail in B1/B2 commercial zones rather than industrial, citing incompatibility between typical industrial uses and retail foot traffic.
Councilors also discussed regulatory complexity and the likelihood of the state’s Office of Cannabis Management continuing to update rules; some councilors urged a simpler ordinance aligned more closely with state statutes and planning recommendations. No formal council action to adopt the ordinance was taken; Planning & Zoning offered to revisit the item at the commission’s next meeting if the council requests additional guidance.
