Council reviews and tweaks pot dispensary proposal

LAKEWOOD – City Council next week will consider an ordinance regulating medical marijuana dispensaries, but Monday’s study session on the subject made it clear that pending state legislation and the evolving nature of the businesses in question could require a number of changes later.

The proposed ordinance already has changed somewhat since it first was presented to Council and the city’s Planning Commission in a joint study session December.

And it promises to evolve somewhat in the next few days.

“We can change our minds between now and next week,” Mayor Bob Murphy said.

And City Attorney Tim Cox offered a reminder that state legislation now on the drawing boards could force Lakewood to amend any approved ordinance within months.

But Council made it clear they are ready to proceed with regulations to address what already is the newest retail boom in Lakewood. They also are ready to collect the sales tax that accompanies the boom.

The issue looms large statewide and municipalities are reacting in a number of ways.

Some, including Wheat Ridge, Golden and Jefferson County have imposed moratoriums to prevent the spread of MMJ dispensaries into their communities while they decide how to handle the establishments and some are considering outright bans, despite a recent court case that overturned Centennial’s ban on the businesses.

State lawmakers are expected to determine whether “care takers” – the label under which dispensaries operate legally – should be limited in the number of patients they serve. If the legislature decides to impose a limit, especially a conservative one, dispensaries could find it difficult to serve enough patients to make a profit.

At least five dispensaries already operate in Lakewood.

The question “is ‘Are we going to permit these facilities? The assumption that we have been working under for the past couple of months and the assumption we will continue to work under is: That answer is ‘Yes, we are going to permit these facilities’” but with tight regulation, Murphy said.

Much of the proposed ordinance deals with application requirements, fees and processes and those provisions drew little comment during the meeting and will move forward virtually as proposed initially by staff.

Among the provisions Council vigorously discussed Monday were regulations that would require spacing among the dispensaries as well as spacing between the facilities and schools and how – or whether – to control spacing of dispensaries along Lakewood’s borders in relation to those popping up in adjacent areas governed by other cities or the county.

The original half-mile separation proposed between dispensary sites likely would become three-quarters of a mile when the issue comes before Council next week, according to an amendment Murphy told staff to prepare.

The city estimates 50-55 dispensaries could find sites under the half-mile spacing, but that number would be halved if the facilities were required to be a mile apart.

Clusters of dispensaries, such as the flood of new facilities that have opened on South Broadway Boulevard in Denver, concern most Council members, Councilman Scott Koop.

“I think that in moving the medical marijuana ordinance (spacing) up to a mile, that it does lend itself to some uniformity for future businesses that come into Lakewood to know what they might be looking at,” Koop said.

But Councilwoman Cindy Baroway said the distance requirement plus other factors such as building availability, unwilling landlords and the proposed 1,000-foot separation from schools would further restrict locations and prevent clusters of pot shops. Baroway represents Ward 2, which includes large stretches of West Colfax Avenue.

Councilwoman Diana Allen said her concern is that no one area of the city has an undue concentration of dispensaries.

“To my mind that’s probably not really fair,” Allen said. “When I thought about the distance, it was spreading it throughout the city so that it is accessible to the people that needed it geographically and not putting an undue burden on certain neighborhoods.”

Even the language of the proposed ordinance’s title describing its purpose is expected to change after Councilman Adam Paul pointed out that the definition of “Care-giver facility” could include private, not for profit care-givers who provide marijuana for patients with whom they have a close relationship or serve patients who are family members.

Because the proposal would limit the ability “to cultivate, process, prepare, distribute, transmit, dispense, or otherwise provide marijuana in any manner or form to patients” to licensed facilities, Paul suggested the language clearly indicate the ordinance does not affect the rights of private care-givers under Amendment 20.

Amendment 20, passed by Colorado voters in 2000, is a Constitutional Amendment that allows the use of the drug for medicinal purposes, but requires a doctor’s recommendation that the patient has a debilitating condition that could benefit from use of the drug.

“… Where I’m coming from is dealing with the distinction between a retail operation and a home operation,” Paul said, drawing a line between commercial outlets and the more personal care-giver/patient relationships.

Cox conceded that the distinction was somehow lost in the process and suggested ways of making it clear the proposed ordinance applies only to for-profit caregivers, saying private care givers, under Amendment 20, are protected from prosecution by the city as well as the state and agreed the proposed ordinance should be revised to reflect that.

“This ordinance is not intended to change that,” Cox said. “This ordinance is … intended to address those people who want to go into business dispensing medical marijuana.”

Cox suggested the proposed “purpose” statement and other areas be changed to make it clear it applies only to those care givers who operate commercially.

Council will take up the proposed ordinance in a public hearing at 7 p.m. Monday, Feb. 8, in City Council Chambers, 480 S. Allison Parkway.