One of the focal points of the meeting was the proposed amendment to the residential parking ordinance. The amendment aimed to clarify existing regulations by explicitly stating that vehicles must be parked on approved surfaces, such as driveways or parking pads. This change was intended to resolve enforcement challenges caused by inconsistent language across various code sections. The amendment also proposed adding a section to the nuisance code, explicitly prohibiting the parking and storage of vehicles on private property unless on a prepared surface. This clarification targeted public health concerns, as vehicles parked on unpaved surfaces could lead to weed growth and potential rodent harborage.

The commission also addressed the enforcement of parking regulations. It was noted that enforcement was primarily complaint-based, relying on reports from residents rather than proactive inspections. A member raised concerns about the prevalence of unlicensed or expired vehicles in the community, which often exceeded available parking on fixed surfaces. The commission considered a more proactive enforcement strategy but acknowledged the resource requirements and the need for consistent application to avoid perceptions of favoritism.

The meeting’s other major discussion revolved around adapting local cannabis regulations following the legalization of cannabis use and cultivation at the state level. The commission debated which components of the state’s model ordinance to incorporate into local rules. A key topic was the zoning of cannabis cultivation businesses, which the commission proposed to restrict to the I2 industrial zone due to its compatibility with manufacturing and processing activities. Concerns arose that limiting cannabis operations to the I2 zone, primarily encompassing oil refinery areas, could inadvertently exclude these businesses from the city, raising fairness issues.

The commission also considered buffer zones for cannabis businesses, which, under state law, could extend up to 1,000 feet from schools and 500 feet from daycare centers, residential treatment facilities, and parks. These buffer zones prompted discussions about their potential impact on downtown zoning, as strict buffers could eliminate significant areas from being available for cannabis businesses. Participants suggested starting with recommended buffer distances and adjusting them as needed based on community responses.

The commission debated whether to apply a 500-foot buffer between cannabis businesses and parks, particularly one park lacking traditional recreational amenities. Concerns were raised about the rationale for imposing such buffers when similar restrictions were not applied to other businesses selling intoxicating products. The commission ultimately decided to proceed with the recommended buffers, with the understanding that they could be revisited.

Following these discussions, the commission moved to forward their recommendations on the parking ordinance amendments and cannabis business regulations to the city council for further consideration. The meeting concluded with the introduction of new business matters, including pending applications for an oil refinery conditional use permit, a code amendment for a residential treatment center, and a concept plan for a new single-family housing development.