Planning commission recommends conditional use permit for cannabis shop at former McCormick building, adds parking and enforcement conditions

The Oak Park Heights Planning Commission recommended approval on Jan. 8 of a conditional-use permit for a cannabis retail shop proposed in the former McCormick building, but members added explicit parking and enforcement requirements and said the council will make the final decision on Jan. 27.

Planner Mr. Richards told the commission the applicant seeks to occupy roughly 4,200 square feet of the larger vacant structure and has preapproval from the Minnesota Office of Cannabis for a micro-business license. He noted the property is in a B4 general business district, that city code section 1413 (1413.08) restricts the number of cannabis retail licenses to four in Oak Park Heights, and that the ordinance allows retail cannabis only by conditional use.

The commission’s recommendation includes three notable staff-led or member-amended conditions: require construction of an ingress/egress drive to 59th Street prior to opening; strengthen a traffic/parking mitigation clause (Condition 13) by changing discretionary language from 'may' to 'shall' so the city can require specific remedies should parking or delivery issues attributable to the use arise; and require the applicant to return to amend the CUP if the owner leases additional tenant space or the retail operation expands.

Applicant representative Omar Salo, who said his group previously operated liquor and cannabis retail outlets in other states, told commissioners growth would be gradual. "We probably start out with maybe three to five (employees) at most," he said, adding that the longer-term goal could include "30 employees at one time" as the business matures.

Nearby resident Rose, who said her building at 13481 60th Street shares close proximity to the site, raised safety and parking concerns and noted the second floor of the adjacent building houses a mental health clinic. "It's a healthcare clinic," she said, expressing unease about a retail cannabis use near that facility. Mr. Richards and the applicant said odor and on-site smoking would be controlled by ordinance and the CUP’s conditions; staff added that failure to comply with CUP conditions can lead to warning letters and, if uncorrected, revocation of the permit.

Property owner Eric John Osmanson, who identified himself as the owner of the former McCormick building, said the building has sat largely vacant for years and supported the proposal as a positive re-use. He described additional unstriped parking adjacent to the structure that could be used for employee parking but acknowledged the need for engineered plans and coordination with city fire and police for any new curb cuts.

Commissioners repeatedly cited parking and site access as the chief constraints on approval. Mr. Richards confirmed the site currently shows 11 parking spaces and that a 4,200-square-foot tenant requires at least nine stalls under city standards, noting the city will require a licensed engineer’s plans for the 59th Street access point if the CUP is approved.

A motion to recommend approval, incorporating the membership’s changes to Condition 13 and the requirement to revisit the CUP for additional tenants or expansions, passed in the chamber by voice vote. The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be transmitted to the City Council, which is scheduled to consider the application and other related cannabis matters at its Jan. 27 meeting.

If the council approves this CUP and other pending approvals move forward, the city’s limit for retail cannabis locations and the sequence of prior applications will determine which applicants can complete registration under state and local timelines. The Planning Commission’s action is a recommendation only; council action will determine whether the permit is granted and whether the city reaches its four-license cap.