Okay. Good evening everyone. Call the
planning commission meeting to order. Is
Monday, December 1st at 6 o'clock. We'll
do a roll call. Steve
>> here.
>> Bailey
>> here.
>> Kate
>> here.
>> Mike
>> here. Okay.
>> Thank you. Uh
I'll look for a motion to approve the
planning commission minutes from
November 3rd.
>> Make the motion. Second. Second.
>> Okay, we have a motion, second to
approve plan commission minutes. Is
there any discussion on the motion? Not
all those in favor say I.
>> Opposed? Okay. Next item on the agenda
is facade improvement program
recommendation of financing preferred
projects to the city council. Matt,
>> thank you, mayor, and commission
members. So, um, last meeting we went
over the the applicants. Um,
we just have an overview up here. I
won't walk it through again, but we
asked you all to score them. We got six
of you. Uh, applications were turned
back in. I'll dive into or the scoring
sheets, I should say, were turned back
in of the seven um, plan commission
members. So, uh, 115 Orange Street.
Again, this project was installed LP
site on stuckle face of building uh with
the board and batten installing new
windows and doors and painting the
building. Total project cost was just
over 26,000 and they were asking for
just over 13,000 as a 50% match. They
had [clears throat] estimated the start
of their project on February 1st with an
end date of May 31st. Um so with the
scoring um that was turnin for 115
Orange Street out of a 0 to 40 scale,
the average from the plan commissioners
was 32.8. eight. Uh the comments that we
received from you was uh the project
adds to improving the downtown. The
owner has already done uh ready to start
possible good bang for the money and add
new business to the downtown. Hard to
give the building a historic look. Um
the opportunity for improvements using
tax dollars in this programs will have a
larger larger impact on Main Street
considering the business owners that
have applied this time. As we look ahead
to the other opportunity the taxpayers
will offer the business owners of our
downtown, I would encourage
reapplication.
Uh 139 and 141 Broad Street, uh
replacement of the upper level windows
throughout the um both of the buildings.
Uh the windows quote that we did receive
was too full cuz the applicant is doing
the work themselves. So it doesn't
include contract labor um was from Home
Depot and full windows that those
windows came in pieces. the full windows
and the custom size that had the arches
came from Renewal by Anderson. As a
result, to keep more of the historic
look, the applicant was requesting um
the Renewal by Anderson windows. Um
total project cost is 42,419 for the for
the replacement for a matching grant of
$21,29.50.
Uh based on your scores, the average
score was 32.2 for this uh project. Uh
the commissioner comments uh were will
improve the look of the building. good
investment. Keeps the downtown
historical look and is starting this
year would like to see all the window
openings with arches to have the arch
windows for the historical look. Uh and would be amazing
to keep and maintain the tall curve
glass windows on this building.
And then for 144 Broad Street, uh this
project replaces windows brick on north
side of the building with LP smart
sighting. Replaces the main street
awning with new with new siding tuck
pointing west and south siding of brick.
Two quotes to receive for the work. Uh,
one of the phases that is being pushed
to a later port with sidewalk
alterations. Uh, with this sidewalk
being removed in the LP siding on the
northwest side of the pro of the
building, total project cost was $17,62.
So, they requesting the full 50,000 or
40 or 43% of the total project. So, uh,
with that, the total score across the
commissioners was 31. Uh commissioner
[clears throat] comments was sounds like
a great project as the building is in
rough shape. Not going to start until
spring of 2020 2026 should be moved to
2026 program. Uh don't like the covering
up removing of the historic brick look
that's on the side facing Orange Street.
Uh and project is great because it gives
the building a fullscale facelift and
seems to be the best value for taxpayers
as property owners are putting in more
than half the cost.
So scoring overview uh 100 or 115 Orange
Street scored at 32.8 8 139 and 141
Broad Street scored at 32.2 and 144
Broad Street scored at 31. Um as we
mentioned 2024 program has 50,000 uh the
top two score projects total 34,239.50
with 21,29.50
going to 139141 Broad Street and then
13,30 going to 115 Orange Street. Uh if
those two projects were approved that
would leave a remaining balance of
15,760.50
50 cents to roll over to either 2026 or
other future projects in future years.
So, uh, with that, um, recommendation
would be due to lack of funding, ask the
property owners of 144 Broad Street to
apply to the 2026 facade improvement
program with final applicants being
approved in April of 2026. We do already
have another application that has come
in for the 2026 pro pro project.
Although it still has some missing
pieces, but um those are due to the end
of February of 2026
>> from the same group. From the same
>> No, this is a different one.
>> Oh.
>> Um so there would be two applicants that
would be going at least for now,
possibly more for the 2026 project. Uh,
and then the re recommendation is
consider recommending council approving
the projects for 115 Orange Street and
139 and 141 Broad Street for a total
cost of $34,239.50.
However, it is up to plan commission if
they would like to alter or make changes
or any of the options are at your
disposal. So, I'll turn it over to you
guys for comments and questions.
>> I'm in agreement with the scoring that
we have in the priority. Um, so then we
you just want a motion for the two and
then to roll over the 15,000 to 2026 or
just future projects.
>> I would just say future projects. So
that gives you flexibility of if and
when you want to use it. I would we
don't really need a recommendation I
guess for the first part. I can just
when I talk to them I'll ask them if
they would like to get their
application. And I guess the one the one
couple comments we did receive regarding
this project was not only because it's
not scheduled to start to the spring,
but the other one was the brick um
facade on the Orange Street side if
that's something they
>> that would be a bummer if they cover
that. But
>> right, so right now they're proposing
doing LP sighting on that side, removing
the brick.
I mean, that one needs it the most. So,
hopefully the 2026 application, we can
re-review it because that building is
definitely in rough shape and it's on
Main Street, so be nice. That's ours.
>> I agree with that.
>> So, are we going to make a motion to
approve it the way for uh
>> the two top ones with the rolling over
the 15760?
>> I'll make the motion.
>> I'll second it. I have a motion, a
second to uh approve the projects for
115 Orange Street and 139 131 Broad
Street total cost 34 239
and remainder go to future projects. Any
discussion on the motion?
If not, all those in favor say I.
>> I opposed motion.
Thank you, ma'am.
Next item on the agenda is comprehensive
plan updates
part A, chapter 8, land uses and
planning for future cur.
>> I'm going to turn it over to Josh right
away. Josh, do you want me to keep this
map up or do you want me to go up to the
chapter the draft?
>> I think the map first.
>> Okay. Okay.
» All right. Let's see what he's got. So
due to the setup, what I'm going to do
is um I've got two big maps. They kind
of share, but this just this is just a
zoomed in version of your packet. So
it's just easier to look at
that as well.
Um, but I I know we touched on a lot of
this last time, but I thought it's it's
just worth going over to make sure we
all understand what it is we're we're
looking at, what uses we're designating
because, um, I can guarantee you that
this is going to be probably the most
used map in your plan. Um, ultimately,
it's going to help decide what resonings
you approve and what what districts you
allow them to go into. So, um, just
wanted to start with, you know, we'll go
through one by one. We didn't have the
time to do it last time, but um and the
other thing I included in your packet,
it was the town of Clifton and Town of
Oakrove comprehensive plans. So, we
don't have to follow those necessarily,
but I just wanted you to see what they
were planning. And some of those I don't even know I don't recall the
dates on those. I think those are all
kind of um
yeah, those are all at least the
Clifton one is older. I don't have the
date on the Oakrove one, but I'm
guessing that one's a little bit older,
too. um maybe outdated even. So um I
think it's one of the requirements when
we get done with this plan is we have to
share the plan with the other adjacent
municipalities so they'll be able to see
what is planned for from the city side
of things. Ultimately your control is
very limited besides extr territorial
plat review without extr territorial
zoning. Uh and plat review really you
don't get to dictate what the use is.
You're only looking at the the
subdivision part of it. So, um, if you
look at the first one, it's on the north
side. Uh, and I know these were probably
the ones that we looked at the most last
time, but I'll zoom in here.
So, that whole west side of 35 really or
F is identified as residential. We did
have a little sliver here that was as
residential. I don't know if that's
right. Probably not. Um, but just wanted
to this is the map that we have. So, I
didn't want to make changes from what we
talked about last time.
>> I think it would make sense to have that
be the whole thing be um what we have a
commercial.
>> So, number two is is a mix
>> industrial commercial.
>> Commercial, residential is the number
two.
>> Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay.
>> That's a mix there. There's a little
sliver
about like what's going to go there. A
gas station or something. So, it should
be
>> So, it should be residential then. So it
should be part of that number two.
[snorts]
All right. And then number two up north of the highway and east of F.
We're we're good with commercial
residential mix of commercial and
residential at the intersection. Um and
that just again that gives you some
flexibility. Doesn't tie you into one or
the other and it gives you room to
develop either. The only one I'm
wondering about just for a discussion
standpoint, so where we have the number
one if that one would make sense to have
that also maybe be the multifamily
residential, but I don't know. I was
just going to throw that out there
just because of where it is. So you'd
have number [clears throat]
three.
So underneath three is four and four is
the I got to keep referencing this
commercial. where we're like what I
thought of immediately when I saw the
three and the four next to like how we
have it is kind of Woodberry. You get
like the [clears throat] strip malls and
then you get like the apartment
buildings like right next to it.
>> So with two being
the industrial commercial
>> well two would be residential commercial
>> uh on the number two
>> two would be resident commercial
residential. So that's east of F and
north of 35.
>> Okay. Okay. Okay. So, all right. I'm
seeing the colors just wrong. Um,
>> I'll try to zoom in.
>> No, no worries. I I got it on here. So,
then the only thing I'm wondering is if
um one should maybe be either
multif family residential or residential
commercial just because of like how that
intersects right there. But I'm just
throwing that out as a discussion point.
>> Yeah. Great.
>> I'm not like set on it. I just wanted to
throw that out cuz it seems like it
would make sense cuz it's kind of a busy
area.
>> Mhm.
>> One includes all of this, right?
>> I'm saying if we just if you only look
at where the number one is, if we were
to take that and either make it the
orange, which is the multi- family
residential or this.
>> So, kind of how the map would work is
the under the colors are the underlying
area and then the numbers
>> kind of specify the uses and the
narrative a little bit more defined. So
yeah, now I'm really talking about the
square that the numbers in right now
essentially. So that was the only thing
I was wondering is in that box right
there if that should be residential
commercial or if it should also be
>> multi- family residential
and do we have a
so when we have it as residential
commercial can that also count as the
multif family residential
>> typically you want to identify it so you
so what we have in here is the densities
so we have high density
And the ranges of density, low density,
2 to three units, medium density, 3 to
eight units per acre, and then high
density is 9 plus units per acre. So,
it's kind of we don't really say multif
family, but in order to get high density
or even medium density, you're going to
have some multifamily.
That was the only thing I was wondering
is if that would make sense for
>> that they have it for new apartments or
condos.
Just cuz if you look at where number
five is, which is where we are right
now, right?
>> No, it's
tractor. Is that tractor square?
>> No, that's not.
>> It's outside the city yet. So, we're
just north of the city limits here.
>> Okay.
It's cornfield past [clears throat]
river.
>> I'm underground. Just kidding.
>> Whatever the blue is
>> cuz Okay. So, if that's future, then
really all we have is like the Mary
the town homes on 10 and then what we
have around here. So, that's where I'm
thinking like if based on the survey
results that we had, if we wanted to
reserve another section where that first
number one box is, just the box
to have that be um something with higher
density. I don't know.
>> Multi family. Yeah, that makes sense.
Big apartment complex buffer on the
highway. Yeah, that was kind of what I
was thinking because if you work in
Hudson, if you work in River Falls, if
you guys are in the cities,
[clears throat] you're right at that
intersection. So, I don't know what
anybody
>> So, we could do like a single family,
multifamily mix like the hatching and
then kind of do a medium density.
>> Yeah,
that's yeah, just because of how that
intersects there. But again, I don't
know what others thought. And again,
this is this may develop in 20 years, it
may not, you know, but I mean, in 10
years, you're going to be updating this
plan again. So, this is out there a ways
from,
>> you know,
but it's I mean, this is why we're
talking about it because this is
ultimately the growth direction. So,
>> yeah. And those other neighborhoods, so
up to like 640, I mean, those are kind
of tucked
>> back in there. And so I think if you had
just in that first
box along the highway where the number
one circle is, it's not going to be like
totally in their backyard essentially.
Like there's tree coverage that's over
there along. Is that cedar? No. What is
it? Cedar. Uh
>> you mean cedar St. Croy?
>> Yeah. But there's multiple trees in
there.
>> But where that one is that's you're
talking right in the middle of farmland.
>> That's the farmland. But so then there's
really a break between
>> well there's about
say [clears throat] 200 yards and then
you go down where there used to be the
apple orchard back in there and it's all
trees in the backside.
And same thing where that number one is
if you go
>> I don't know two 300 yards again and you
start hitting the river part and it's
got trees again.
>> I think the only thing that would be
tricky is if you look at the roads like
so you have 640th that's going back. So,
I'm not sure how cuz those lots I'm
guessing in the gray that are existing
already.
>> Those lots butt up to that. So, we'd
obviously have to bring another
>> road in or I'm not sure where it would
go.
>> I don't know what the terrain is over
there, but
>> it's pretty it's fairly flat.
>> Small flat.
>> Fairly flat.
>> I think you'd have to have a drive off
of this to build into here cuz I think
that's private. Yeah, more than likely
because of the size of this area, you'd
have to have a at le a road network to
get to this 40 if you're going to
develop it. And then typically what you
see is, you know, the higher speed
traffic, you're going to have the higher
density and then a lower density as you
go forward.
>> I like the idea of like where you could
have mixed like [clears throat] single
family homes and then also if you have
like row homes or like a higher density
stuff and then you could have apartments
basically across the street.
>> So those did really well in Rosemount.
Yep.
>> Really, really well.
And uh I think man you had a bunch of
those in Cottage Grove, didn't you? Row
homes and then the Yeah. And those did
pretty well.
>> Rosemics exploding down there. Didn't
matter what kind of home. They're just
nuts in the last yards either. So a lot
of people are. So, we're just talking
just this first square would be where we
have that mix of
>> That's thinking because then the back
two squares you could break into lots
which would align with the lots that are
already butdding up against it and make
it kind of sectioned off and
>> no makes sense. Everybody else kind of
agree with that general
>> good idea.
>> So,
>> and then change that little piece into
>> where the number two is.
back going to the
>> we'll catch that sliver here that's
residential. We'll make that into
>> this commercial residential area.
>> I did I caught it. [clears throat]
>> So number three and we've just got
mainly it's medium high density single
family and multif family. So it's kind
of similar to what we'd have in number
one now but we've got it
all on the southeast
side of this intersection here. Is that
still pretty?
>> I mean, we we'll find out in 10 years or
better.
>> Yeah. Yep.
>> It's an idea for now.
>> Yeah.
>> And number four, we just have as
commercial.
We also kind of have this sliver here of
residential,
a little bit bigger sliver, but I didn't
know if we wanted to this would more
than likely be commercial or
>> Yeah, I think you'd make it the same as
the four. Okay, that's what makes sense
to me.
All right,
got another
>> and the one below it. So, six is the
industrial commercial, right?
>> Yeah, six is just north of the
industrial park now,
which makes sense. But we have five yet
across the highway which we have as
commercial residential and then this
larger lot chunk. But this isn't as bad
of a sliver because it's connected to
this other residential to the north.
>> Okay.
>> I was just kind of surprised though that
you aren't planning to go down 10 at all
basically compared to what we have
already.
>> Well, we're not quite. Yeah. I mean, we
we'll get there. If we need to go out
further, we certainly can. Well, I just
was kind of surprised he didn't have
part of that as the game plan too with
the industrial park right there.
>> Isn't that what seven and eight is?
>> That's the industrial park, but I'm just
saying there's no residential bon
eight's residential. Seven would be
>> continuation of the industrial park.
>> 50.
>> Is that the Sears?
>> Yeah, that's Sears.
>> Sears. Yeah.
So, I guess to go back, are we good with
five and six then? Other than
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Okay. All right.
So, now we're on to seven
north of 10 east of the industrial park.
>> Yep.
>> That's still within this. Now that now
we're getting into the city limits
and [clears throat] we have that area as
commercial industrial.
>> Mhm.
>> Makes sense.
>> Great.
>> Okay. And then eight is now south of 10.
Now, are you are you talking about going
further east of what we have?
>> No, I just thought you would have it
east about equal amount that you're
going up to the north.
>> Yeah, we can do that. I mean, we
certainly
>> cuz I I would assume that's going to be
with the hills and whatever. It's kind
of more residential type look going to
be down there anyway,
>> I would think. Anyway.
>> Mhm. Now, yeah, the town of Oak Creek
doesn't quite have it. They have more
>> reserved by Riley Tommy and
>> yeah run right right up to the Raleighs
which is about here and then after that
is uh Denny uh Filkins and his brother
Doug's land. So it would go all the way
down to almost
>> you mean past the
>> past uh Mike's Riley's place and
>> and past the uh
gravel pit.
>> No, it would be just getting to the
gravel pit.
There's a couple houses that some of the
Riley's have. They're up in the woods
already. [clears throat]
>> So, how far do you want the eight to go?
I mean, do you want to go past the city
limits eastern boundary or
>> I was just thinking that just thought
that you would have all this going to
the north that you would have something
going to the east at the same time off
the main drag. So, I guess it could go
all the way down to almost to the end of
your block
>> maybe to the next square.
>> Next square. So up to here like to this
line.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
So the next 40 essentially,
>> right?
» Cuz I mean what your got to mention
there that's 20 years plus.
>> Oh yeah.
>> And the one thing we didn't touch on
last and actually Matt is the one that
made me aware of this is this possible
legislation about future land use
mapping and having every five years the
density that you're going to allow. And
uh it's still not very clear to me how
they want us to do that. So I mean we
still have some time before we adopt the
comprehensive plan. So we may be
revisiting this before if they if they
do I don't I don't think they've passed
it yet. Um if they do end up passing it
>> [snorts]
>> um there's going to be some difficulty
with it because it's confusing. But
there there's some requirement that you
have to have every the density
allocation every 5 years that you're
going to project for future growth and
it has to you have to give a density. So
we we are covering that with the
density. We don't have the 5year growth
projections but we we can we can add
that later but certainly we've got
enough more than enough acreage to
handle future development in the next 20
years plus. So
um so yeah we'll extend that number
eight.
>> Yeah. The only thing I'm wondering is if
um so right below the eight you
obviously have a property line where if
you were to take just the square and
split it is on the
side closer to 10 if you'd also maybe
want to have that be
multi.
>> Oh
and then your back portion would be your
like butdding up to the park
>> nice single family residential homes.
>> Mhm. That sounds
>> because this is like feedback I feel
like we just keep getting is like that
like more apartments where we're people
out. So
>> that to me seems like it would make
sense. And then they'd be facing an
industrial commercial park. So I'm like
if you're going to buy a single family
home
>> No, that makes So you're saying like
half of this 40 the north half of this
these 240s essentially would be
>> Yeah. at least match it up with where
that commercial industrial part goes. So
then that would be like multi- family
apartments that are facing that and then
the back side of it could be the single
family that butts up against
>> the the park and whatnot
>> this much.
>> Yeah.
>> Cuz I if I was going to do a single
family home, I'm like I don't want to
stare at a commercial park.
>> Well, you don't probably want on Highway
10 either. So,
>> so that's where I'm thinking again if we do that we stick with kind of like
apartments or commercial. I feel like
it'll do better.
>> Yeah, that makes sense. And and yeah. Um
so we'll we'll split that top 40 in
half.
>> It doesn't need to be like an exact top
40 if we were to replat it, right? You
know.
>> Yep. Exactly. all the we're not going to
go exactly on property lines or some
>> I don't know like if you were to
actually take that and go like what that
density number is it might not match
>> right so you might actually want
>> no I'm just saying that's where we
should
>> Okay
go across like
>> we'll find we'll find a good what makes
make sense
>> yeah
I'm guessing it's going to there
>> so nine where's my cursor here nine we
have a park
>> for ball fields parks, athletic fields.
>> Yeah.
>> That's helping the most development.
>> Nine is
>> Yeah.
>> What's 10? Okay.
>> 10 is an expansion of the school
property. It's parks and rec
parks. No, institutional.
» So, it's part of the school district
>> as a school wanting to put the running
switch 9 and 10. The nine should be
institutional, 10 should be
>> cuz that's your national banks park uh
fields there isn't
>> the fields. So it's like the field or
the park or the school then the fields
and then kind of like a parking thing.
>> I would love if we flip-flop those cuz
then you actually get your entrance and
>> I think that's your access in.
>> So the school propertyy's up here. So,
we're going to make this into
institutional and then this would be
park.
>> That's what I would do
>> cuz we've been trying to get access to
the backside.
>> Okay.
» Street.
>> So, do we Yeah, do athletic fields are
still where nine are. So, right.
>> So, we're just changing that first part
right
>> but then there's like a little
>> there's a street part eventually. So the
net will butt up against uh
>> or not.
» And then 11, we just have low density
residential. Kind of matching up what's
there. Uh 12, same thing, single family,
low density residential.
13, single family, low low density
residential. And that again, as we're
getting away from the highways, you're
kind of expanding, extending off your
existing subdivisions. So 14 we have
parks and recre a park for parks and
recreation and 15 again is kind of
infill from existing subdivision that's
there.
16 we have commercial commercial
businesses serving the area. I think
that's just as a storage sheds right
now. I don't know if there's other
developable space on there, but
>> there's something else.
>> Okay.
>> So,
19 is that the landmark
land that was just acquired.
>> Yep. Yes, it is.
>> So, we have to have as residential cuz
uh the house is in there. I'm guessing
there's one house that's
>> 19 is just off
>> on the other side of Landmark. So that's
still where like Kim Christ owns partial
land.
>> Got it.
>> Oh, okay.
>> Wait, sorry. No, that you No, you're
right. It is that Marcus.
>> Yeah.
>> The Kim Hold on. Yeah. So, the house is
still there, though. So, it's got to be
park and recre. Uh,
>> where's the the house?
>> Millie and St.
I didn't think we went that far. Is the
>> 19.
>> Oh, 19. Okay. 18.
Okay. Kim's house is here.
>> Yeah,
>> Kim's house is here. So, this you I
would actually say that 19 would be park
only.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah, cuz there's
>> if there's no house in there.
>> There's no house
>> because there's a lot of rules that they
got to play by for that landmark thing
for acquiring that land. I don't think a
house can go in there.
>> Okay. And that's all outside the city
limits, right? So, that's
>> right.
>> Okay. Is that Matt? Any changing that to
parks make sense?
The only I mean most of his landmark the
one portion that's still is owned by Mr.
Christensen is 18 acres.
>> I mean the one concern that I have as
we're looking forward to like our sewer
treatment plant
>> we have no space.
>> Got it. Well
>> I'm not saying it has to go there but
>> where the cows are.
>> Oh the bottom section that work for the
plant to be down in that bowl. You'd
want it to be as low as possible so
everything flow to it.
>> And that's in 19 right now.
>> This 18 acres that's just off the
landmark. You can kind of see the
parcel.
>> It's like a Is that the little section
that's like
>> No, just the one that's Yeah. Right.
>> Yeah. Where they just kind
» Yeah, you can you control the mouse
there.
>> See how this this line is the parcel
line right here. So this 18 acres is not
owned by Landmark. It's still owned by
Mr. Christensen.
Do we want to take that out of this
parks and wreck? Because right now we
have it as residential and parks which
if it's going to be waste water would be
>> I'm not Yeah, I don't want to like cause
any because that's not anything that's
been discussed. But I'm just saying
>> for now.
>> Wouldn't you remove it for now then?
>> Yeah, change it.
>> So,
>> right.
>> For sure.
>> The only thing Yeah.
>> Didn't we get past the railroad though?
The little two bumpers. Didn't those go
with landmark though?
>> So it's just
>> on the one side of the railroad
» like on the river side. Didn't
[clears throat] both of those go with
landmark property? I thought they did.
>> There's a property that landmark got
south of the railroad.
>> Yeah,
>> that little peninsula there.
>> Yeah, that little
>> over there.
Oh.
all the kids are coming down here
and fishing. That's funny.
I would almost think you'd want to
remove it if we're going to even think
about doing a wastewater treatment plant
there.
>> Yeah, I don't think it fits as a park
and housing. Um,
but I get not wanting to ruffle feathers
at this point without having
>> Yeah, I don't I'm not saying that's
don't want to make it seem like that's a
thing that's happening or anything. I'm
just saying as you're exploring options
>> for long-term growth within the city.
>> Can we just make it gray?
>> Yeah.
>> Just a gray area.
>> Gray area. Yeah. Great.
>> Well, cuz if we don't know, right? If
it's like really undeciding, we got to
come back and look at densities.
>> You're going to You'd probably have to
No matter what you do, you might be
wrong. So, you might you're going to
have to update your comp plan.
>> Well, why don't we just put it parks and
recck um institutional government?
>> Okay. Just at 18 acres.
>> Yeah.
>> So, not all of 19, just a little portion
of it.
>> Yeah. Just the southern portion.
>> Yeah. Okay. Where that blindness is.
>> And then the rest of the 19 would still
be parks and wreck and residential or
just get rid of residential.
>> I think it would just end because the
landmarks ruled for now buying that
property.
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> Or however they acquired it. I can't
remember.
» Like I know the property they own in
May. I mean it's going to be a natural
area for
» okay
18 we were finally this is all load or
17
>> cemetery 18
>> 18 is
>> cemetery
>> institutional expansion of the cemetery
>> and 20 we have as institutional
expansion of the wastewater treatment
between
» what falls underneath mixed use again.
>> Well, it depends on how we have it in
the narrative. So, we have mixed use
which can be either commercial,
residential, it could be industrial,
commercial, it could be residential,
commercial
>> cuz we have that for I think the condos
are falling underneath that. Yeah. Is
that 21? Is that mixed use then?
>> Oh, for mixed use. Yeah. Um commercial.
So that in this case we're using it as
kind of mixeduse buildings. So
commercial on the lower level,
residential up above.
>> I'm going to throw another thing out
there then. Uh since that is potentially
an option is if you go back to the one
and um three.
>> Yep.
>> Is if you want to have that option like
in Woodbury where they have the first
floor that's the stores and then they
have the apartment buildings above. if
we'd have to have that as mixed use.
>> I like that actually.
>> Okay.
>> Um
>> cuz then you can do something like that.
We should do that,
>> too.
>> As long as there's no more Dollar
Generals or Dollar Storage.
>> Yeah, storage unit.
>> Well, have a storage unit underneath the
potential.
>> I think that would I don't know. They
would
>> I think that would be a
>> But I think more of a small
>> It doesn't have to be mixed use, right?
Like it could just end up being
>> or Jimmy Johns like apartment building
or it Yeah. Whatever whatever we decide
in this narrative is what we can.
>> So you can give yourself some
flexibility. I mean that's what we're
doing here is by having a narrative. A
lot of some future land use maps are
strictly here's your residential, here's
your commercial, here's your industrial,
and that's all they look at.
>> I feel like that's a prime intersection
to do that [clears throat] on. Um and
then the only other one I'm wondering
about maybe not. I was thinking about
over here on this eight.
>> I don't but I don't think so. I think
that one should just be multi.
>> Yeah.
>> So, I would just say on that corner if
we could have that be mixed use.
>> Okay.
>> I do like that too with the box that has
the one on it right now. And then
>> Oh, you want one to be that way or
three?
>> One and three.
>> Yeah. So, we have the one box that we're
going to change on the left side of the
highway.
>> So, if that one was mixed juice and then
three was mixed juice. I Yeah, I think
so, too.
>> Right.
>> You would almost have to give yourself
another number then, wouldn't you?
>> We We'll be updating the numbers.
There's We've We've had some splits and
some
>> I'm using just locating stuff on the map
right now. I'm not using it as like
>> No, that's fine. But
>> yeah, we're going to have to add some
numbers, I think.
>> Sorry, Josh. To go back to 19. I forgot
that 20. We were looking at We ended up
going with 20 as the expansion of the
>> Yeah, that's just as low as 19. So maybe
all of 19 should just be parks and wreck
and not any single family.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah, we had we did remove residential,
but we were adding institutional.
>> Yeah, I say get rid of that since it's
the thing I was thinking about is
actually
>> So get rid of that.
>> Yeah. Okay.
>> So just remove get rid of the non
landmark area or keep it all the keep it
this way. Exact. Just get rid of
residential. Yeah,
>> that's outside the city limits if
they're looking at that. So in circles
yet?
>> No, this is good. That's all.
>> So he's treating the plan.
>> Why? Yeah,
>> Matt saying he's thinking here as long
as I can.
>> Yeah,
>> you're saying where the number 20 is on
the map. That's where you're thinking of
the future. That's where we ended up
putting unless you guys have I guess
issues with that. But the idea was that
it was more
>> is that where the current is that where
we have the
>> it would buffer where the public works
facility is and also where Johnson
construction is.
>> That'd be convenient to have it right
there.
>> Yeah.
» Got to find my cursor.
All right. So, back to 21. Oops.
>> Okay. 21. 21's the
>> So 21 is on on a river.
» Just that's what your downtown is is
typically mixeduse style. So
>> commercial buildings.
>> Yeah. Commercial and residential on top.
>> Yeah.
» Then 22
up on top.
>> The only other thing I'm wondering.
>> Maybe not. So, next to the mixed use on
the north side where it's green where
there's a park,
>> then there's also a
>> what number?
>> Uh, 21.
>> All right.
>> Sorry, I'm jumping.
>> No, you're fine.
>> So,
go
>> park here.
>> Yeah. So, you got the park there.
>> Mhm.
>> If any of that needs to be
mixed,
>> that's where
>> I know.
>> Okay. I don't that's why I'm wondering
if for us though or if it's Anyways, I'm
just wondering if that needs to be mixed
use because if you look at like uh
the Bill and Rosie stuff is it's mixed
use.
>> That's the only if it's actually park or
if it's
good.
>> Thanks.
>> Sorry, say that again.
with the plans that we have been talking
about for years with that if it is a
park technically or if it needs to be
slash blue or slashmixed use with it or
>> I think parks and would fit
>> as long as it's public space and open
>> what if we want if you want to ever in
the future charge for overnight docking
>> transit dock as long as they're public
docks so it's still
>> cool okay
>> I don't think
Okay, that was my only question really
>> cuz it it wouldn't trigger a res I'm
assuming it wouldn't trigger reszoning
so it's not
>> Yeah,
>> should be fine.
>> Okay.
>> All right. 22. We've got um this is
again commercial residential opportunity
for redevelopment opportunity.
>> 22.
>> That must be uh
>> hotel. the hotel and Flanders and gas
station.
» We have it.
» I'll be surprised if it goes
residential.
>> It's industrial and commercial.
>> It is
>> 22.
>> 2022 is cuz that's where the like you
said the hotel and Flanders and
>> the gas station is right in that corner.
>> It's like pink and brown though, isn't
it? I don't know, mate.
>> Pink and orange.
>> It's pink and orange. And then the
I don't remember. Langel's uh apartments
are on the orange part of it just across
the street.
» So that's why there's a mix there.
>> And we didn't do it mixed use because we
had
>> Yeah.
>> So
>> I don't have any questions.
>> Number good there with 22. Number 23,
just multif family
residential/commercial.
Um, it's really more of a redevelopment
opportunity, redevelopment plan
opportunity.
>> Is that where the industrial
used to be?
>> Yeah.
>> In the yard and whatever that other
building is.
>> Caught on fire.
>> Yeah.
>> Haven't fixed it.
>> It's been just kind of an oddity. You
know, it's an industrial park in the
middle of a residential area. Well, at
the time it was away from everything
when it was built,
>> right? No, that makes sense. Yep.
Um, and then we have 24 here, which I
don't have on my sheet for some reason,
so I don't know what it is, but I know
>> that's 445 Court Street that we have
been looking at for like assisted
living.
It just says the opportunity for
>> uh that's where you tease
>> or pants or whatever. What is it? The
old
>> used to be the old ventilator.
>> That's where that is.
Yeah,
>> it it's kind of tight to the road, but
that's
are below it.
>> Oh, sorry. It's supposed to be further
north,
>> isn't it? I was like, wait a minute.
>> Oh, this orange that bigger orange one.
>> Yeah, it's
>> it's a little big, but not terrible.
>> And then isn't the blue and the So, are
the government Isn't that the
swap stuff or the water runoff stuff?
institutional governmental yet is blue.
>> So what should number 24 say?
So, this right here should be commercial
>> 24,
>> but 24 should be technically pointing up
to this.
>> There's a house on that block of 24,
too, right? The smoke shop and then the
house. Yeah.
>> Used to be.
>> Yeah.
>> So, this is is that a redevelopment site
then? the smoke shop and just above it
used to be LB2
years ago when he he's the one that
built this
>> and then I don't know who's there now
but
» okay there any other areas that we
didn't touch on that you feel we should
look at or consider
feel like we've
>> I think covered a lot it really good.
» You know what else you do with that?
» Good. Well, we'll we'll update that map
and like I said, we may be revisiting
some of the land use stuff again. Um,
>> thanks, Josh.
>> Yeah. Um, I guess you you have How long
is your update, Matt, for the courtyard
thing or the
>> This is like a couple minutes. So, we'll
just touch on I don't know that we went
through these last time. I think we
didn't quite get to the goals,
objectives, and policies for the land
use chapter. Um,
so this is these goals I think are kind
of written more aspirationally rather
than just this is our goal. Um, so the
city of Prescott will promote
supportable growth and development and
develop strategies to support energy and
food independence, enhance the
environmental quality, encourage diverse
housing, provide transportation options,
and support a diverse economy to advance
the health, safety, and well-being of
its residents.
Try objectives. Increase housing
diversity and efficiency. Promote
alternative energy options, promote
small market farms and the local food
economy, increase transportation
options, promote a diver diversified
local economy, and create a healthy
community.
» Bailey, you want to get rid of the
alternative energy options?
>> Yeah. [clears throat]
>> I mean, it's really not driven by us.
It's driven at a a state level a lot of
the time. and then you know managed by
the utility companies. The only other
one is the
increased transportation options. That's
not I mean we looked at it a long time
ago even before I think I got on
council.
And I think at the time we didn't move
forward with it then. So it was about
bringing the buses over and having a bus
route.
>> I mean it could it could mean you know
you've got your golf carts. So it could
mean electric cars,
>> sidewalk,
>> sidewalks, trails, other walkability.
>> Okay.
>> But you're right. Yeah. Like you we're
not looking at kind of a transit system
probably anytime soon.
>> Yeah.
>> Well, we can't have buses for kids to go
out of school. Yeah. Pretty hard to
prove that we need buses for everybody
else.
>> Stay over on that side.
>> All right. So, some of the Oh, jeez.
policies. We have coordinate,
collaborate, and market to residential
developers, nonprofits, and government
agencies to provide housing options such
as senior housing, senior campus
housing, eco village concepts, low to
moderate income housing, or accessory
housing to meet the needs of all
residents.
» I mean, there's so many things in there
that I'm just like, it's just real
wordy, you know?
>> Uh, we're doing a lot of things in
there. senior housing and campus
housing. I don't Is that the same thing?
Basically,
>> I think like campus style housing and
sometimes Yeah. I mean, you could have
that with senior housing.
>> Yeah.
>> Um we we could break it up into to make
it more palatable.
>> When was this written? Just out of just
pure curiosity like what year was the
last time this thing was edited?
>> 2014.
2015.
>> Okay.
>> Was it?
>> Yeah. 2015. This year we're under 10
year. So
>> we can we can
>> build concept. I don't know where we're
really trying to push that right now.
That's up to developers. I mean we would
have to either have that
>> encourage it.
>> You encourage. We don't have anything in
zoning on it to say go do an eco village
in these areas. I mean
>> it's open for an option.
>> Yeah.
>> Mhm.
>> Um
yeah, that that to me was just kind of
an odd one, but
I can work look at rewarding it somehow.
Number two, identify locations within
the city for redevelopment or infill
development for residential dwellings.
And that could really be for beyond
residential as well. So um I think
probably residential and commercial
collaborate with surrounding surrounding
towns to identify and preserve prime
farmland that can be used for various
size agricultural enterprises to promote
food self-sufficiency, security and
entrepreneurial opportunity. So
um I think in the previous plan there
was a little more focus on kind of more
agricultural protection and things like
that. If that's still of interest, this
one makes sense.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
Number four, calculate the amount of
land that would be required to feed the
population of the community. Yeah.
[clears throat]
>> Number five, rev revise the city's
parkland dedication requirements to
include the land set aside for small
entrepreneurial farming that can be
rented out.
» Is that redundant of three
>> a little bit or no?
>> It's a little bit more detail on that or
little
Um, I don't think it's redundant. I
think what I would probably do is maybe
use a word like consider because I don't
know that that's to say revise is kind
of implying that you're going to do it.
Um,
>> yeah.
>> So,
>> kind of seems more like community
gardening almost.
>> Yeah.
>> For five that is.
>> Yep. Agreed.
» I mean I mean I don't think it needs to
change. You think you can leave it if
people if we have a park area where
someone's like, "Hey, can we put in some
plants in the neighborhood?" wants to
manage it.
>> Sure.
» Manage it [clears throat]
>> at the food shelf.
>> Yeah.
>> There's more wheats than there was food
there.
>> Didn't really set it up.
>> Yeah. I think it this should be more passive because it talks about, you
know, um requirements to include land
set aside. I mean, I think you could
have options for that if that's part of
your parkland dedication to do like a
community garden or something, but to
mandate it, I don't think is what you
want to do.
>> Uh, yeah. Consider.
>> Yeah.
>> Number six, require planning any the
planning and evaluation of all
transportation options when designing
street reconstruction projects and
building new streets.
» Um,
>> hey, we just did number seven.
Promote land use mixed land use patterns
that do not conflict with promote mixed
land use. Yeah, we are doing that. Um
mixed land use patterns that do not
create land use conflicts, complent
adjacent uses and promote community
wellness.
I guess in um coordinate with utility
area utility providers to plan and
implement local renewable energy systems
and micro grids for emergency services
which are then broadened to
neighborhoods, commercial and industrial
areas of the city.
» I mean I'm mixing like emergency with
» I mean we're not really coordinating
with them. I mean, they kind of come and
tell us, right, if we're going to do
development, we're like, "Hey, Excel."
They're like, "Hey, we have this
option." But again, I mean, a lot of
this utility stuff, I feel like you can
do things at your local home. If you
want to throw some solar panels on your
roof, go for it.
>> Mhm. But when you're talking major
utility, it's a little hard for us to
>> Well, it's only if the city would have
their own solar panel farm someplace.
That's pretty much what they're saying.
>> Not saying we should, but I'm saying
that's what they're talking here.
>> Bad bad idea.
>> Do you want to get rid of this one?
>> I think so.
>> I think it's a little more It's There's
It's not very clear. So I don't know
what we would do with that if
>> I mean the only thing that's coming into
my mind the only thing that stuck out to
me at all was the micro grids for
emergency services. It's not micro grids
though. It's basically an emergency
communication but that's pretty much
done through the state now I feel like.
Um but there is like local stuff like
when the Ohio issue happened and the
train derailed people didn't know
>> right away to shelter in place and
there's stuff like that. We do run
hazmat on that railroad. That has been
my thing that I've just been like
focused on. So, we sit on the emergency
management committee. So, I don't think
that's the right way to do that one.
>> Yeah.
>> But like I think there should be some
level of communication, but I don't
think it's here.
>> It's probably
>> I don't think it's a micro grid.
>> Yeah, probably either in the next
chapter or utilities and community
facilities.
>> Issue something on a ham radio if you
are ham radio certified.
Otherwise, I
» we'll clear we'll clean it up a little
bit and then we probably can move it to
a different chapter.
Support mixeduse development in the
downtown to create a mix of residential
and commercial businesses in a safe
walkable setting.
Consult the city's wildhead protection
ordinance when evaluating redevelopment
and future development projects to
ensure the protection of the city's
aquafer
and support the development of eco and
agro tourism capacity and business
services.
Two more, I guess. Um,
>> you want to leave that in there for
grants?
>> Yeah. Mhm. Develop metrics to track the
city self-sufficiency objectives.
>> What?
>> Delete it.
>> Huh? Delete it.
>> Delete it. We're not
What are do we track it today? Are we
making
>> Well, I think in the community utilities
and community facilities, we have
something similar that talks about kind
of uh tracking different, you know,
equipment usage and maintenance things
and other I forget what we called it,
but we did
>> this is like self-sufficiency.
>> Yeah. I don't know if it really applies
to land use.
>> No, I would agree. So I will get rid of
that one and consider developing a
statutory redevelopment plan for the
industrial area between Hope Street,
Canton Street, Henry Street, and St.
Croy Street. So that's I think number 23
that we were looking at.
>> So
very good. So we will not get to the
intergovernmental cooperation, but you
have that. Um I don't know if we'll
update it, but we'll probably resend it
out for January's meeting.
be a good one to look at.
>> What's that?
>> It's the intergovernmental one. So, like
working with those that would be a good
one to look at.
>> Yeah, we'll talk about that next time.
>> Okay. All right. Thanks, Josh.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Okay. Next item is other business update
on assisted living facility at 445 Court
Street.
>> So, we had a submission for the 445
Court Street. We approved this concept
plan. I think it was
September.
Sorry, my dates are but um the
developers come forward and said they
want to make some changes specifically
to parking. Um so
it's looking like the initial um review
will come to plan commission next month.
One thing that we have been discussing
with our city attorney is he is
recommending that all PUDs go forward
going forward should have a public
hearing. So basically the next meeting
we'd have you review it and approve a
public hearing assuming everything is to
your standards and then February would
be the public hearing for approval for
that for consideration. So we'd be
bringing it to review for next month and
then February bring it to public
hearing.
>> You want to cut down the number of
parking spots.
>> What's that?
>> They want to cut down the number of
parking spots. uh they're looking at uh
the revisions is putting some of the
basement level turning that into
actually like a underground parking.
>> So that's something we had discussed um
as well as part of the concept plan. So
>> okay.
>> So that would cut cut down their number
of units then too, wouldn't it?
>> No, there wouldn't be any
[clears throat] Oh,
>> there wasn't any in basement. Oh, okay.
It be it would be just that was just for
like storage and for their kitchen and
all that stuff.
>> Okay.
Then next meeting is Monday,
January 5th at 6 o'clock. Any other
business? Motion
>> to second.
>> Second.
>> A motion second to adjurnn. All in favor
say I. Opposed. Okay, we're turn