The Borberg PUD, a proposed housing development, drew attention during the meeting. Local residents expressed a range of concerns about the project’s scale and its compatibility with the existing neighborhood. Gwen Lens, a resident from 3038 Avenue, voiced her apprehension over the increased traffic the development might bring to Third Street, an area already burdened by ongoing construction. She pointed out the risks posed by narrow roads and the absence of curbs. Linda Bower, another resident, critiqued the transparency of the public comment process at a recent Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, highlighting the lack of adequate notice and access to the development plans. She argued for a delay in the council’s decision, emphasizing the need for more community engagement and expressing concerns about the project’s density and its potential to set a precedent that could alter the neighborhood’s character.

Other residents echoed these sentiments. Tala Markson, who has lived in the area since 1999, raised alarms about potential damage to homes due to construction and the subsequent impact on property values. Dave Walter, residing at 215 6th Avenue West, strongly opposed the project. He was particularly worried about the anticipated increase in traffic and the change in the neighborhood’s quiet atmosphere.

Conversely, Jason Hill, an executive director of a local organization, presented a supportive viewpoint, acknowledging the challenges but emphasizing the necessity of increasing housing density to justify infrastructure costs. Hill estimated these costs could reach up to one million dollars, thereby necessitating a higher number of units to make the development financially viable. Despite the divided opinions, the council did not provide direct responses during the open forum, choosing instead to take the residents’ concerns under advisement.

In addition to the housing project, the council also focused on the regulation of cannabis licenses within the city. The discussion centered around the local government’s authority to impose additional licensing requirements beyond state statutes. A proposed draft ordinance suggested a limit of two cannabis licenses per geographic region, though it remained uncertain how much influence local ordinances would have over the state’s licensing process. Concerns were raised about potential competition for licenses in a lottery system and the implications for local businesses, especially if external entities secured licenses without any intention of operating locally.

The council also debated buffer zones around cannabis establishments, with a proposed 500-foot buffer from youth-oriented uses, and discussed local control over operational hours for licensed establishments. There was a consensus on the need for clear local penalties to address gaps left by state regulations. The council aimed to gather public input and understand county commissioners’ perspectives before finalizing their stance on the ordinance.

The meeting also touched on broader topics, such as the establishment of a tree board and updates on community development initiatives. A proposal was made to appoint two citizens and a city council member to the tree board. Updates from the Economic Development Authority highlighted the approval of grants for local businesses and the transfer of property to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority to facilitate single-family home construction by Habitat for Humanity.