MONTE VISTA—Barbara Sears and Ruthanna Seger of the Monte Vista Planning and Zoning Commission met on Thursday,Aug. 10 to finalize work on their proposed zoning ordinances and license requirements for marijuana establishments. If voters approve the ballot question allowing retail, medical, infused products, testing facilities and grow facilities in the city limits, the commission’s proposed ordinance will go before city council for final approval. Commissioners met with City Attorney Karen Lintott and City Manager Forrest Neuerburg.
The proposed zoning ordinance was the product of several months of work on the part of the commission, spending several meetings deciding how to best meet the needs of the city and prioritizing minimizing exposure for the facilities and setting stronger standards than set by the state. The proposed ordinance sets the following restrictions on marijuana facilities:
“Said use groups shall only be permitted via special review in Commercial Highway (CH), Commercial Business (CB) and Industrial (I) zoning districts, subject to the following restrictions:
1. No artistic images shall be permitted on the exterior of dwellings;
2. Use is only permitted in areas where there is at least 1,000 feet, in any direction, from a residential zoning district, operational church, school, or other public institution;
3. Use must be at least 500 feet from the centerline of any highway within City limits and must be, at minimum, 50 feet from any other marijuana establishment;
4. The cultivation of cannabis shall be restricted to fully enclosed (indoor) structures;
5. Bars or equivalent security measures must be installed in the interior of the structure;
6. Structures utilized for cultivation must incorporate black-out curtains or other approved measures to eliminate light pollution.”
The zoning restrictions would only practically allow marijuana facilities in the areas within city limits located on north Highway 285 and southwest of Top Value Market/Big R. Lintott indicated that she has been working with Public Works Director Rob Vance to ensure ordinances regarding water use will be updated before any grow operations might be operational, and the ordinance will include a provision stating facilities must remain in compliance with all current city codes regarding water use.
The marijuana licensing regulations is currently a 24-page document, built from the regulations used by Pueblo County and refined to meet the proposed fees and special review use standards of the City of Monte Vista and the planning and zoning commission. The fees updated by the commission to exclude outdoor grow facilities, which will not be permitted within the facility, include initial operating fees for opening the business as well as annual renewal fees. These are not including the special review use application fee, which will be mandatory for all new facilities or facilities which are not in compliance, are shut down and have to apply to reopen.
A. Operating fees and all other fees necessary for the administration, regulation and implementation of this Chapter are as follows:
1. Initial Operating Fees
a. Medical Marijuana Center: $5,000
b. Medical Marijuana Optional Premise Cultivation Facility: $5,000
c. Medical Marijuana Infused Product Manufacturing Facility: $5,000
d. Retail Marijuana Store: $6,000
e. Retail Marijuana Cultivation Facility: $5,000.00 plus:
i.$.50 per square foot of the portion of the licensed premise in which plants are located for indoor cultivation facilities, including greenhouses, but not to exceed a total of $15,0000.
f .Retail Marijuana Infused Product Manufacturing Facility: $6,000
g. Medical Marijuana Testing Facility: $1,500
h. Retail Marijuana Testing Facility: $1,500
i. Storage Warehouse: $1,500
2. Administrative Operating Fees
a. Change of Location Fee: $250
b. Modification of Premises Fee: $50
c. Change of Ownership Fee: $250
d. Change of Trade Name Fee: $50
3. Annual Renewal Fees
a. Medical Marijuana Center: $2,500
b. Medical Marijuana Optional Premise Cultivation Facility: $2,500
c. Medical Marijuana Infused Product Manufacturing Facility: $2500
d. Retail Marijuana Store: $6,000
e. Retail Marijuana Cultivation Facility: $2,500 plus:
1. $.50 per square foot of the portion of the licensed premise in which plants are located for indoor cultivation facilities, including greenhouses, not to exceed a total of $15,000;
f. Retail Marijuana Infused Product Manufacturing Facility: $6,000
g. Medical Marijuana Testing Facility: $1,500
h. Retail Marijuana Testing Facility: $1,500
i. Storage Warehouse: $1,500
Although the Planning and Zoning Commission will review each application through the special review use process, compliance and renewals will be up to the city council, which similarly to liquor licenses, will act as the Local Licensing Authority. Responding to the administrative operating fees, Sears asked how long the businesses had to inform the city of changes, which Lintott stated was a 24-hour period or they would be out of compliance and thus shut down. Seger added the annual renewals gave the city the option of assessing if the business is beneficial or has been a source of problems. Neuerburg confirmed the business owner will approach the clerk for their renewal application, which will have to be validated by the clerk and the police department to confirm there have been no violations of the state or municipal ordinances when the renewal is presented to council for a public hearing.
Following a discussion about tracking marijuana products for the purposes of collecting sales tax, Neuerburg stated he does not yet have a definitive conclusion on whether or not the county will be able to collect sales taxes on marijuana if they remain opt-out, but stated he leans toward the idea of “sales tax is sales tax,” and they will likely be able to collect their usual sales taxes like any other product but likely not any further special added taxes to the 18 percent the city council discussed at a previous work session.
The commission largely agreed with the work Lintott provided, finding it in compliance with the requirements they had set in previous meetings, but differed on the caregiver provision. Lintott reported the caregiver provision was begun by her predecessor Eugene Farish and the draft presented dealt largely with personal use regulations. Sears expressed the commission’s wish the caregiver provision should include a limitation that only homeowners could be caregivers, so tenants wouldn’t damage properties while growing. Sears also expressed although the state allows caregivers to have up to 99 plants, the city should explore more restrictive options and higher licensing fees, adding, “This is our chance to make it more restrictive.”
Neuerburg added caregivers would have to apply for a business license as a home occupation, which does not carry high license fees but restricts caregivers to only using 25 percent of their home for their occupation, emphasizing it already made it impractical to grow many plants with only a quarter of the home’s interior, as outside grows would be forbidden in the city. Lintott added that including a provision for only homeowners to be able to practice a state licensed service as a caregiver might lead the city to run into Fair Housing complaints as being discriminatory especially because caregivers are not making much profit from their work. Neuerburg added landlords can include not allowing caregivers, grows or use of marijuana as terms on their lease. Sears stated “It’s a business like anyone else; it should be subject to a business license fee.” Sears also asked if the city could see how many licensed caregivers are practicing in the city, which Neuerburg agreed to look into. Sears asked about the safety of caregiver operations, which Neuerburg confirmed are inspected by both the city and the state to meet building safety/fire code requirements.
The commission agreed to review the caregiver provisions in more detail at the September meeting, following research from Neuerburg and Lintott on the requirements set by other municipalities. The commissioners also requested a map of locations where marijuana establishments would be allowable as well as a special review use application checklist to review for the next meeting, to provide voters or potential business owners with if they ask.