Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mendota planners recommend strict local limits for cannabis businesses, including one‑dispensary cap
Summary
At the Sept. 25 meeting the planning commission discussed how the city should regulate cannabis businesses under new state laws and developed recommendations for the City Council: cap dispensaries at one, restrict dispensaries to the Mixed Use Main Street District with a conditional use permit, register all cannabis licensees locally, and generally prohibit onsite consumption or confine it to rear/side yards.
City Planner Jennifer Haskamp presented a staff report on how Mendota could manage and regulate cannabis businesses in light of new state laws, and the Planning Commission developed a set of recommendations for the City Council to consider.
The commission recommended that Mendota cap the number of dispensary licenses at one and that dispensary locations be restricted to the Mixed Use Main Street District. The commission also recommended that dispensary operations require a Conditional Use Permit (the same process required for other retail uses) and that all cannabis license types be regulated by their use in the zoning ordinance (for example: retail, manufacturing, cultivation — indoor or outdoor). The minutes note concerns discussed by commissioners including safety and security, odor, congregating and loitering.
The commission recommended that, to the extent possible, onsite consumption be prohibited. Where local prohibition is not feasible, the commission suggested consumption areas be confined to rear or side yards rather than front yards or areas in front of the principal building. The minutes record that the commission favored the most restrictive ordinance consistent with state law and that operators holding vertically integrated state licenses should identify the specific use they intend to operate locally.
The minutes also record that the commission discussed registration requirements and whether Dakota County will pursue county‑level registration, but no definitive conclusion was reached at the meeting. The Planning Commission’s recommendations were developed for the City Council’s consideration; the commission did not record a formal ordinance vote at this meeting.
