The meeting began in earnest with a public hearing regarding Zorbas’ request for a signage variance. The restaurant, a local fixture since 1969, sought permission to expand its signage from the allowable 184 square feet to 293.5 square feet. This request included a lighted sign and additional artwork on the north side of their building. City staff recommended denying the variance, arguing that the applicant had not demonstrated a practical difficulty or unique circumstance to justify the request. Staff emphasized that the variance would contravene the city’s zoning ordinance, which aims to preserve aesthetic standards and public welfare, and could set a precedent for other businesses, potentially disrupting the neighborhood’s character.

Jeff Bame from Lighthouse Construction represented Zorbas, arguing that the additional signage was reasonable considering the restaurant’s longstanding community presence. Bame pointed out that some of the signage might predate current ordinances and suggested that the proposed signage could be considered artwork, thus not subject to the same restrictions. He highlighted other local businesses, such as Hub 41, which have integrated artwork into their exteriors. The question of defining what constitutes a sign became a central discussion point, with commission members noting the lack of a clear definition in the zoning ordinance, prompting reliance on dictionary definitions.

The debate concluded without a definitive resolution.

Transitioning to another topic, the commission addressed the city’s need to update zoning ordinances to regulate cannabis cultivation in response to new state laws legalizing recreational cannabis. The proposed ordinance outlined conditions for outdoor cannabis cultivation, including setbacks from property lines and restrictions on sale and manufacturing on-site. Public commentary highlighted concerns over the ordinance’s limitations, particularly regarding the suitability of industrial zones for larger cultivation operations and the potential for combining retail and cultivation spaces.

A participant with experience in hydroponics advocated for more flexible zoning regulations to support educational opportunities in cannabis cultivation. They suggested that live plants in retail settings could enhance consumer knowledge about the growing process. Moreover, discussions touched on defining “micro grows” in B2 commercial areas, with proposals to allow operations up to 5,000 square feet. This would enable public interaction and foster trust in locally sourced products while addressing concerns about odors and wastewater typical of larger operations.

The timeline for implementing these regulations was a concern, as state license applications would soon commence. Members stressed the necessity of having local ordinances in place by January 1, raising questions about the practicalities of waiting for state guidelines. There was a consensus on the importance of acting swiftly to delineate appropriate commercial zones for cannabis retail.

Debates also centered on the ordinance’s definitions and restrictions, including the need for odor management and security requirements. Suggestions to clarify indoor versus outdoor cultivation rules and establish sensitive area restrictions were debated, with a proposed 500-foot buffer from schools and residential areas. The discussions acknowledged the city’s limitations on regulating existing county properties that might be annexed and converted for cultivation.

Ultimately, the commission approved the ordinance with provisions for outdoor cultivation and restrictions for sensitive areas, agreeing on a 500-foot distance from schools, childcare facilities, and homes. Despite the approval, members recognized the potential need for future amendments as regulations evolve and community feedback is considered. The ordinance would undergo further review before presentation to the city council for final approval.