Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Cannabis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hopkins commission backs staff work on tighter cannabis rules for downtown MX‑D zone
Summary
Commissioners continued review of proposed zoning changes for cannabis businesses in the MX‑D downtown zone and directed staff to draft an ordinance to make cannabis uses conditional in that zone, while commissioners disagreed on whether new rules should apply to already operating businesses.
The Hopkins Planning & Zoning Commission on April 28 continued a discussion about potential amendments to city code regulating cannabis sales, liquor stores and tobacco shops in the MX‑D downtown mixed‑use zone. Planning staff said the revisions would clarify spacing, design, and review procedures for those businesses.
City Planner Krzos reviewed prior commission deliberations and described the elements staff expect to include in a draft amendment. Planner Krzos told the commission that a conditional‑use requirement would trigger a public hearing and a formal review by the commission and the City Council.
Commissioner Adam Minter said the commission should consider spacing cannabis businesses throughout the city rather than concentrating them downtown. Commissioner Joshua Montgomery said he believes cannabis businesses should be treated the same as liquor and tobacco uses and opposed adding special restrictions for Mainstreet (the MX‑D zone). Commissioner Nathan Miller proposed that all cannabis businesses in MX‑D be classified as conditional uses, requiring license review and public hearings; Commissioner Michael Ujifusa said he would be open to buffer requirements similar to Miller’s proposal.
Planner Krzos clarified that most proposed procedural changes would be forward‑looking. Miller and other commissioners noted the practical effect would likely apply primarily to the lone remaining cannabis business in Hopkins because two existing businesses are already operating. Montgomery said he was not supportive of imposing additional restrictions on businesses that had opened under the current rules.
With general agreement among commissioners that some additional regulation was warranted, the commission directed staff to draft an ordinance establishing conditional‑use requirements for cannabis businesses in the MX‑D zone and to return the draft for further review. The commission did not take a formal vote on a zoning amendment at the meeting, and no ordinance language was adopted.
