City staff propose tighter rules for vape, tobacco and alcohol retailers; council asks for strictest options

City planning and legal staff told the City Council at a work session they will prepare zoning and licensing amendments aimed at clarifying how vape, tobacco and alcohol retail businesses are classified and regulated, and asked the council for policy direction on stringent options including percentage-of-sales caps, separation distances and staffing requirements.

The proposed changes respond to growth in specialty vape and tobacco shops and enforcement challenges, staff said. "We want your feedback as well, not just we have some ideas and solutions here," Jason Van Essen, with the city's planning staff, told the council. Gary Guidelock, assistant city attorney, said state law more tightly regulates alcohol than tobacco and that state preemption limits the city's authority: "When I say strenuously, I mean, they sort of occupy the field, and they preempt us from a lot of things."

Why it matters: Council members and staff said residents have complained about concentrations of vape/tobacco retailers, aggressive window signage, and nuisance activity near some stores. Council members asked for the most stringent regulatory options that still meet state law, and for controls that use both zoning and the annual license process so noncompliant businesses can lose licensing on renewal.

City staff outlined the current local framework: the zoning code (chapter 134) lists where liquor and tobacco sales are permitted and often requires a conditional use permit routed through the Board of Adjustment; tobacco licensing appears in chapter 30 and alcohol licensing in chapter 10 of the municipal code. Planning staff said they notify property owners within 250 feet and require a neighborhood meeting before a conditional use hearing. Chris Halskov, the city's zoning enforcement officer, explained how separation distances are measured: "We would do, property line to property line is how we would measure that dimension."

Staff identified three main work strands: (1) update definitions to include vapor and "alternative nicotine products" (e-cigarettes, e‑juice, chew and similar products) so enforcement and use categories are clear; (2) clarify the difference between liquor stores, tobacco stores and accessory alcohol sales and consider numerical caps (examples discussed included 25% and 40% caps currently used in the code for certain categories); and (3) consider adding conditional‑use approval or separation distances for businesses primarily engaged in vape/tobacco sales while excluding large general retailers where tobacco is a minor component.

Council members pressed for stronger enforcement tools and said licensing is a valuable lever because licenses renew annually. Council member Simonson urged requiring more on‑site staffing where public‑safety incidents have occurred: "I would guess most of the criminal activities that have happened in terms of stores being robbed and problems there are at locations where only one person is working at a time." Staff acknowledged they already coordinate with the police department and may resolve problems administratively before a Board of Adjustment re‑hearing, but said bringing cases back to the board under the nuisance clause remains an option.

Staff cited other cities' approaches as possible models: Iowa City adopted separation distances and initially considered a cap on shop numbers; Chicago adopted a 1,000‑foot separation for retailers whose gross revenue from e‑cigarette products exceeds 20 percent. Staff said the city can pursue a range of options but will vet each for legal defensibility.

The council also discussed signage, exterior maintenance standards and the role of property owners and landlords. Staff said they plan to draft ordinance language to mirror relevant state definitions where appropriate, take the package to the Planning & Zoning Commission next month, and return to the council potentially in late September or October for final action.

What's next: Staff will draft code amendments and licensing language, route them to Planning & Zoning for review, and return to council with proposed ordinance language and recommended thresholds and separation distances. The council asked staff to prioritize stricter options where legally sustainable.

Ending: Staff asked for direction on thresholds (percentage of sales that trigger a tobacco/vape use category, separation distances, employee requirements and sign limits) and said they will provide draft language and research on peer cities before the Planning & Zoning hearing.