Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mississippi 667 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission continues contentious Mississippi Street cannabis lounge to March 19 after heavy public turnout
Summary
Faced with dozens of speakers both for and against a proposed cannabis retail outlet with on‑site smoking at 667 Mississippi Street, the Planning Commission continued the discretionary‑review hearing to March 19 and directed the applicant to provide renderings, negotiate hours and consumption conditions, and engage neighborhood groups.
The Planning Commission voted 4–1 on Feb. 6 to continue a highly contested discretionary‑review application for a cannabis retail store with on‑site consumption at 667 Mississippi Street to March 19, citing the need for more neighborhood outreach, renderings illustrating the proposed storefront, and negotiations over hours and any smoking lounge.
Michael Christiansen (Planning Department) framed the application as the conversion of a 4,200‑sq‑ft industrial building into a roughly 1,000‑sq‑ft retail outlet with a 300‑sq‑ft on‑site smoking and vaporizing lounge. The department found the site meets planning-code requirements for principally permitted cannabis retail uses; opponents countered that the location is exceptional and extraordinary because it sits on a largely residential street, is close to daycare centers and elementary schools, and would create an unprecedented concentration of consumption lounges in a small area.
During several hours of testimony, neighbors presented petitions (146 signatures cited by staff), photos, and arguments about neighborhood character, traffic, parking, safety (including cash‑business robbery concerns) and impacts on children. DR requesters asked the commission to deny the change of use as not compatible with the predominantly residential context. The project sponsor and supporters emphasized equity program participation, economic opportunity, and prior compliance in other neighborhoods.
Commissioners discussed the planning code buffer rules (the local code specifies a 600‑foot buffer to K–12 schools but not daycares), the operational difficulties presented by mixed uses, and whether the commission should add conditions limiting hours or consumption. Several commissioners said they would prefer to see a negotiated agreement with the neighborhood on hours and consumption rather than unilaterally imposing conditions; others said the commission could condition approval if exceptional circumstances justified it.
After debate the commission voted to continue the matter to March 19 with directions to the applicant: produce renderings showing final storefront design, conduct further outreach with neighborhood groups (including merchants and community boosters), and negotiate hours of operation and whether to pursue or limit Type C consumption. The motion passed 4–1 with Commission President Koppel voting no.
