Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 06, 2026 - Planning Minutes CITY OF SHAKOPEE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES August 6, 2026 Shakopee City Hall, 485 Gorman Street 1. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Josh Forsythe, James Weiler, Collins Cherus, Sean Vander Veen and Kent Robbins Absent: Commissioners Mustafa Sandhu and Noreen Reding A quorum was present. 2. Approval of Agenda Commissioner Kent Robbins moved to approve the agenda as presented. Commissioner Collins Cherus seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Recognition of Interested Citizens No members of the public requested to address the Planning Commission regarding items not on the agenda. 4. Consent Agenda The consent agenda consisted of approval of the July 9, 2026 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Commissioner Sean Vander Veen moved to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Kent Robbins seconded the motion. Commissioner James Weiler abstained because he was not present at the July 9 meeting. Motion carried. 5. General Business A. Public Hearing—City Code Amendments Related to Cannabis Cultivation and Manufacturing in the B-1 Highway Business District The Planning Commission considered a request to amend City Code Sections 151.002 and 151.007(K) related to the definition of cannabis cultivator and cannabis cultivation and manufacturing uses in the Highway Business (B-1) zoning district. Commissioner Kent Robbins moved to open the public hearing. Commissioner Sean Vander Veen seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Planning and Development Director Michael Kerski presented the staff report. Staff explained that the City Council adopted cannabis-related zoning regulations in December 2024 establishing permitted cannabis and lower-potency hemp uses within the City's zoning districts. Under the existing ordinance, cannabis license types and endorsements issued by the Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management must each be permitted within a zoning district for the associated activity to occur. Applicants Rory Cummings and Tom Madden requested amendments associated with a proposed cannabis microbusiness at 491 Marshall Road in the B-1 zoning district. The requested amendments included: • Modifying the City's definition of"cannabis cultivator"; • Allowing indoor cannabis cultivation of up to 5,000 square feet in the B-1 district; • Allowing cannabis manufacturing in the B-1 district; and • Modifying the ordinance provision requiring individual cannabis license endorsements to comply with the City's zoning use table. Staff stated that cannabis cultivation and manufacturing are currently permitted in the I-1 and I-2 industrial zoning districts but not in the B-1 district. Staff explained that the primary purpose of the B-1 district is to provide goods and services directly to consumers and that manufacturing and horticultural production not involving retail sales are generally not permitted. Staff further stated that allowing cultivation and manufacturing in B-1 would introduce industrial uses into areas guided by the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan for mixed-use commercial corridor and mixed-use commercial center development. B-1 districts also include or are located near residential uses, raising potential compatibility concerns related to odor, noise and security. Staff recommended denial of the proposed amendments, finding that: 1. Cannabis cultivation and manufacturing are not consistent with the spirit and intent of the B-1 zoning district. 2. The proximity of B-1 properties to commercial businesses and residential uses creates potential odor, noise, security and land-use compatibility concerns. 3. Allowing industrial uses in B-1 would conflict with the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 4. Creating a separate local definition of cannabis cultivator could create inconsistencies if state statutes or regulations change. 5. Eliminating the requirement that individual cannabis endorsements comply with the City's use table could allow activities in zoning districts where those activities were not intended to occur. Commissioners discussed the relationship between state cannabis licensing and the City's authority to regulate land use. Staff clarified that although a state cannabis microbusiness license may include a cultivation endorsement, the City may restrict cultivation to particular zoning districts. Applicant Testimony Rory Cummings and Tom Madden addressed the Commission. The applicants stated that their proposed cultivation operation would be small and would primarily provide cannabis for their Minnetonka retail operation during the current shortage of legally available cannabis products in Minnesota. They stated that approximately 1,000 square feet would initially be devoted to cultivation and that they anticipated growing approximately 50 plants. The applicants discussed proposed odor-control measures, including enclosed grow tents, carbon filtration and a negative-pressure HVAC system. They stated that their proposed filtration system would exceed minimum state requirements. They also described security measures required by the Office of Cannabis Management, including continuous monitoring and video-recording capabilities, and stated that they intended to install security measures exceeding minimum state requirements. The applicants explained that locating cannabis businesses has been difficult because of zoning restrictions, state regulations and reluctance by many property owners to lease space for cannabis-related businesses. They stated that their original intention was to operate the Shakopee location as a retail dispensary but that limited product availability and high wholesale cannabis prices led them to seek authorization to cultivate enough product to support their business operations. They indicated that they ultimately intended to convert the Shakopee location to retail use when cannabis supply and pricing stabilize. The applicants also compared the proposed operation to microbreweries and other businesses where limited production and retail activities may occur at the same location. Commission Discussion Commissioners discussed the applicants' proposed odor, filtration and security measures and acknowledged the applicants' efforts to mitigate potential impacts. The Commission's discussion focused primarily on the broader land-use implications of changing the ordinance rather than the operation of this individual business. Commissioners expressed concern that: • The requested amendment would apply to all B-1 properties throughout Shakopee rather than only to 491 Marshall Road; • Allowing cannabis cultivation and manufacturing could change the intended retail and commercial character of the B-1 district; • Approval could establish a precedent for permitting additional production or manufacturing uses in B-1; • Creating City definitions that differ from state terminology could create future inconsistencies; • Removing requirements related to individual cannabis endorsements could create unintended land-use consequences; and • The Marshall Road property is near residential uses and a hotel, which could increase potential compatibility concerns. Commissioners also discussed the distinction between activities authorized under a state cannabis microbusiness license and the City's ability to determine where specific activities, including cultivation and manufacturing, may occur through its zoning ordinance. No additional members of the public requested to speak. Commissioner Kent Robbins moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner James Weiler seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Recommendation Commissioner Kent Robbins moved to recommend denial to the City Council of the proposed ordinance amendments to change the definition of cannabis cultivator and to allow indoor cannabis cultivation and manufacturing in the Highway Business (B-1) zoning district. Commissioner James Weiler seconded the motion. A roll-call vote was taken: • Commissioner Forsythe—Aye • Commissioner Weiler—Aye • Commissioner Cherus —Aye • Commissioner Vander Veen —Aye • Commissioner Robbins —Aye Motion carried 5-0. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed ordinance amendments. 6. Other Business There was no other business. 7. Adjournment Commissioner Sean Vander Veen moved to adjourn. Commissioner Kent Robbins seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 7:54 p.m.