The meeting opened with public comments, where Audrey Johnson, a resident and former planning commission member, spoke in favor of the proposed apartment building. Johnson highlighted the importance of providing diverse housing options, especially for young adults returning to the area and for older residents looking to downsize. She argued that the new development could serve as a buffer between residential and commercial areas and stressed that without suitable housing, young people might choose to leave the community. Her remarks underscored a shared concern among many community members about the lack of housing options catering to different age groups.

Following public comments, the council shifted focus to the main agenda item: amending the city’s comprehensive plan to rezone the property on Ash Street Northeast from B3 Central Business District to a planned unit development. This amendment would permit the proposed mixed-use development, which includes both apartment units and single-family lots. City Administrator Joel Ericson recapped concerns from previous discussions, including fears about crime, traffic, and property values. However, he also acknowledged that some residents support the project, believing it could stimulate local businesses.

One council member raised the issue of whether the development could include a 55-plus age restriction. The member noted that constituents had expressed interest in maintenance-free living for older residents. However, there were reservations about whether imposing such a restriction might limit the development’s marketability. City Administrator Ericson confirmed that while the amendment would not guarantee the project’s approval, it would allow for further exploration of the proposed development’s potential.

The conversation also addressed the possibility of accepting Section 8 housing vouchers if the apartment building did not fill as anticipated. Council members discussed the stigma associated with Section 8 housing, emphasizing the need to view tenants as individuals vetted by housing authorities, rather than through negative stereotypes. This aspect of the conversation highlighted ongoing community concerns about the demographic and socio-economic impacts of the development.

Further discussions revolved around the potential economic benefits of the project. Amcon Development, the general contractor for the project, expressed interest in sourcing local tradesmen for construction tasks, including concrete work, landscaping, and irrigation installation. There was a clear desire to engage local businesses for ongoing maintenance and support, which could provide a boost to the local economy.

Zoning classifications and the implications of transitioning to a planned unit development were also key points of discussion. Some council members expressed apprehension about moving too swiftly without fully understanding the zoning implications. The importance of maintaining control over potential developments was emphasized, with concerns raised about unrestricted commercial use or high-density residential options that might not align with community interests. A council member articulated that without the PUD, the city could lose its ability to enforce protections and maintain oversight over what types of developments could occur on the land.

Ultimately, the council voted to approve the resolution amending the comprehensive plan, acknowledging the urgency due to the developer’s contractual obligations. The council plans to initiate the bidding process and begin construction in the spring, with a six-month timeline set for project initiation. The motion to move forward with the zoning amendment was carried with no recorded opposition.