[4:38] Okay. Good evening everyone. Call the
[4:40] planning commission meeting to order. Is
[4:43] Monday, December 1st at 6 o'clock. We'll
[4:45] do a roll call. Steve
[4:47] >> here.
[4:48] >> Bailey
[4:48] >> here.
[4:49] >> Kate
[4:49] >> here.
[4:50] >> Mike
[4:50] >> here. Okay.
[4:51] >> Thank you. Uh
[4:54] I'll look for a motion to approve the
[4:55] planning commission minutes from
[4:57] November 3rd.
[4:58] >> Make the motion. Second. Second.
[4:59] >> Okay, we have a motion, second to
[5:01] approve plan commission minutes. Is
[5:04] there any discussion on the motion? Not
[5:07] all those in favor say I.
[5:10] >> Opposed? Okay. Next item on the agenda
[5:13] is facade improvement program
[5:16] recommendation of financing preferred
[5:18] projects to the city council. Matt,
[5:21] >> thank you, mayor, and commission
[5:23] members. So, um, last meeting we went
[5:26] over the the applicants. Um,
[5:30] we just have an overview up here. I
[5:31] won't walk it through again, but we
[5:32] asked you all to score them. We got six
[5:35] of you. Uh, applications were turned
[5:37] back in. I'll dive into or the scoring
[5:40] sheets, I should say, were turned back
[5:41] in of the seven um, plan commission
[5:44] members. So, uh, 115 Orange Street.
[5:46] Again, this project was installed LP
[5:47] site on stuckle face of building uh with
[5:50] the board and batten installing new
[5:51] windows and doors and painting the
[5:52] building. Total project cost was just
[5:54] over 26,000 and they were asking for
[5:57] just over 13,000 as a 50% match. They
[6:00] had [clears throat] estimated the start
[6:01] of their project on February 1st with an
[6:04] end date of May 31st. Um so with the
[6:06] scoring um that was turnin for 115
[6:08] Orange Street out of a 0 to 40 scale,
[6:12] the average from the plan commissioners
[6:14] was 32.8. eight. Uh the comments that we
[6:17] received from you was uh the project
[6:19] adds to improving the downtown. The
[6:21] owner has already done uh ready to start
[6:24] possible good bang for the money and add
[6:26] new business to the downtown. Hard to
[6:28] give the building a historic look. Um
[6:30] the opportunity for improvements using
[6:32] tax dollars in this programs will have a
[6:34] larger larger impact on Main Street
[6:36] considering the business owners that
[6:37] have applied this time. As we look ahead
[6:39] to the other opportunity the taxpayers
[6:41] will offer the business owners of our
[6:43] downtown, I would encourage
[6:44] reapplication.
[6:47] Uh 139 and 141 Broad Street, uh
[6:49] replacement of the upper level windows
[6:51] throughout the um both of the buildings.
[6:53] Uh the windows quote that we did receive
[6:55] was too full cuz the applicant is doing
[6:58] the work themselves. So it doesn't
[6:59] include contract labor um was from Home
[7:01] Depot and full windows that those
[7:04] windows came in pieces. the full windows
[7:05] and the custom size that had the arches
[7:07] came from Renewal by Anderson. As a
[7:09] result, to keep more of the historic
[7:11] look, the applicant was requesting um
[7:13] the Renewal by Anderson windows. Um
[7:15] total project cost is 42,419 for the for
[7:18] the replacement for a matching grant of
[7:20] $21,29.50.
[7:23] Uh based on your scores, the average
[7:25] score was 32.2 for this uh project. Uh
[7:29] the commissioner comments uh were will
[7:31] improve the look of the building. good
[7:32] investment. Keeps the downtown
[7:34] historical look and is starting this
[7:36] year would like to see all the window
[7:38] openings with arches to have the arch
[7:39] windows for the historical look. Uh and would be amazing
[7:43] to keep and maintain the tall curve
[7:44] glass windows on this building.
[7:48] And then for 144 Broad Street, uh this
[7:51] project replaces windows brick on north
[7:53] side of the building with LP smart
[7:55] sighting. Replaces the main street
[7:56] awning with new with new siding tuck
[7:59] pointing west and south siding of brick.
[8:01] Two quotes to receive for the work. Uh,
[8:03] one of the phases that is being pushed
[8:05] to a later port with sidewalk
[8:06] alterations. Uh, with this sidewalk
[8:09] being removed in the LP siding on the
[8:10] northwest side of the pro of the
[8:12] building, total project cost was $17,62.
[8:16] So, they requesting the full 50,000 or
[8:19] 40 or 43% of the total project. So, uh,
[8:22] with that, the total score across the
[8:25] commissioners was 31. Uh commissioner
[8:27] [clears throat] comments was sounds like
[8:28] a great project as the building is in
[8:30] rough shape. Not going to start until
[8:32] spring of 2020 2026 should be moved to
[8:35] 2026 program. Uh don't like the covering
[8:38] up removing of the historic brick look
[8:40] that's on the side facing Orange Street.
[8:43] Uh and project is great because it gives
[8:44] the building a fullscale facelift and
[8:46] seems to be the best value for taxpayers
[8:48] as property owners are putting in more
[8:49] than half the cost.
[8:52] So scoring overview uh 100 or 115 Orange
[8:55] Street scored at 32.8 8 139 and 141
[8:58] Broad Street scored at 32.2 and 144
[9:01] Broad Street scored at 31. Um as we
[9:04] mentioned 2024 program has 50,000 uh the
[9:07] top two score projects total 34,239.50
[9:12] with 21,29.50
[9:15] going to 139141 Broad Street and then
[9:18] 13,30 going to 115 Orange Street. Uh if
[9:21] those two projects were approved that
[9:22] would leave a remaining balance of
[9:24] 15,760.50
[9:25] 50 cents to roll over to either 2026 or
[9:28] other future projects in future years.
[9:30] So, uh, with that, um, recommendation
[9:35] would be due to lack of funding, ask the
[9:37] property owners of 144 Broad Street to
[9:38] apply to the 2026 facade improvement
[9:40] program with final applicants being
[9:42] approved in April of 2026. We do already
[9:46] have another application that has come
[9:47] in for the 2026 pro pro project.
[9:50] Although it still has some missing
[9:51] pieces, but um those are due to the end
[9:53] of February of 2026
[9:56] >> from the same group. From the same
[9:58] >> No, this is a different one.
[9:59] >> Oh.
[10:01] >> Um so there would be two applicants that
[10:03] would be going at least for now,
[10:04] possibly more for the 2026 project. Uh,
[10:08] and then the re recommendation is
[10:09] consider recommending council approving
[10:11] the projects for 115 Orange Street and
[10:13] 139 and 141 Broad Street for a total
[10:15] cost of $34,239.50.
[10:18] However, it is up to plan commission if
[10:21] they would like to alter or make changes
[10:22] or any of the options are at your
[10:27] disposal. So, I'll turn it over to you
[10:28] guys for comments and questions.
[10:30] >> I'm in agreement with the scoring that
[10:32] we have in the priority. Um, so then we
[10:35] you just want a motion for the two and
[10:37] then to roll over the 15,000 to 2026 or
[10:40] just future projects.
[10:42] >> I would just say future projects. So
[10:43] that gives you flexibility of if and
[10:45] when you want to use it. I would we
[10:47] don't really need a recommendation I
[10:48] guess for the first part. I can just
[10:50] when I talk to them I'll ask them if
[10:51] they would like to get their
[10:53] application. And I guess the one the one
[10:54] couple comments we did receive regarding
[10:57] this project was not only because it's
[10:59] not scheduled to start to the spring,
[11:01] but the other one was the brick um
[11:03] facade on the Orange Street side if
[11:05] that's something they
[11:06] >> that would be a bummer if they cover
[11:08] that. But
[11:09] >> right, so right now they're proposing
[11:12] doing LP sighting on that side, removing
[11:14] the brick.
[11:21] I mean, that one needs it the most. So,
[11:24] hopefully the 2026 application, we can
[11:27] re-review it because that building is
[11:29] definitely in rough shape and it's on
[11:31] Main Street, so be nice. That's ours.
[11:33] >> I agree with that.
[11:37] >> So, are we going to make a motion to
[11:38] approve it the way for uh
[11:42] >> the two top ones with the rolling over
[11:45] the 15760?
[11:47] >> I'll make the motion.
[11:48] >> I'll second it. I have a motion, a
[11:50] second to uh approve the projects for
[11:54] 115 Orange Street and 139 131 Broad
[11:57] Street total cost 34 239
[12:01] and remainder go to future projects. Any
[12:04] discussion on the motion?
[12:07] If not, all those in favor say I.
[12:09] >> I opposed motion.
[12:12] Thank you, ma'am.
[12:15] Next item on the agenda is comprehensive
[12:18] plan updates
[12:20] part A, chapter 8, land uses and
[12:22] planning for future cur.
[12:26] >> I'm going to turn it over to Josh right
[12:28] away. Josh, do you want me to keep this
[12:29] map up or do you want me to go up to the
[12:32] chapter the draft?
[12:32] >> I think the map first.
[12:34] >> Okay. Okay.
[12:39] » All right. Let's see what he's got. So
[12:40] due to the setup, what I'm going to do
[12:41] is um I've got two big maps. They kind
[12:45] of share, but this just this is just a
[12:47] zoomed in version of your packet. So
[12:48] it's just easier to look at
[13:04] that as well.
[13:06] Um, but I I know we touched on a lot of
[13:09] this last time, but I thought it's it's
[13:10] just worth going over to make sure we
[13:12] all understand what it is we're we're
[13:14] looking at, what uses we're designating
[13:17] because, um, I can guarantee you that
[13:20] this is going to be probably the most
[13:21] used map in your plan. Um, ultimately,
[13:24] it's going to help decide what resonings
[13:26] you approve and what what districts you
[13:28] allow them to go into. So, um, just
[13:31] wanted to start with, you know, we'll go
[13:34] through one by one. We didn't have the
[13:35] time to do it last time, but um and the
[13:38] other thing I included in your packet,
[13:39] it was the town of Clifton and Town of
[13:41] Oakrove comprehensive plans. So, we
[13:44] don't have to follow those necessarily,
[13:45] but I just wanted you to see what they
[13:47] were planning. And some of those I don't even know I don't recall the
[13:50] dates on those. I think those are all
[13:52] kind of um
[13:55] yeah, those are all at least the
[13:58] Clifton one is older. I don't have the
[14:00] date on the Oakrove one, but I'm
[14:02] guessing that one's a little bit older,
[14:04] too. um maybe outdated even. So um I
[14:07] think it's one of the requirements when
[14:09] we get done with this plan is we have to
[14:11] share the plan with the other adjacent
[14:12] municipalities so they'll be able to see
[14:14] what is planned for from the city side
[14:16] of things. Ultimately your control is
[14:18] very limited besides extr territorial
[14:20] plat review without extr territorial
[14:22] zoning. Uh and plat review really you
[14:24] don't get to dictate what the use is.
[14:25] You're only looking at the the
[14:27] subdivision part of it. So, um, if you
[14:30] look at the first one, it's on the north
[14:32] side. Uh, and I know these were probably
[14:35] the ones that we looked at the most last
[14:36] time, but I'll zoom in here.
[14:41] So, that whole west side of 35 really or
[14:45] F is identified as residential. We did
[14:48] have a little sliver here that was as
[14:50] residential. I don't know if that's
[14:52] right. Probably not. Um, but just wanted
[14:56] to this is the map that we have. So, I
[14:58] didn't want to make changes from what we
[15:00] talked about last time.
[15:01] >> I think it would make sense to have that
[15:03] be the whole thing be um what we have a
[15:06] commercial.
[15:07] >> So, number two is is a mix
[15:09] >> industrial commercial.
[15:11] >> Commercial, residential is the number
[15:12] two.
[15:13] >> Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay.
[15:15] >> That's a mix there. There's a little
[15:16] sliver
[15:18] about like what's going to go there. A
[15:20] gas station or something. So, it should
[15:21] be
[15:21] >> So, it should be residential then. So it
[15:23] should be part of that number two.
[15:28] [snorts]
[15:32] All right. And then number two up north of the highway and east of F.
[15:36] We're we're good with commercial
[15:38] residential mix of commercial and
[15:40] residential at the intersection. Um and
[15:42] that just again that gives you some
[15:44] flexibility. Doesn't tie you into one or
[15:46] the other and it gives you room to
[15:48] develop either. The only one I'm
[15:50] wondering about just for a discussion
[15:53] standpoint, so where we have the number
[15:55] one if that one would make sense to have
[15:57] that also maybe be the multifamily
[16:00] residential, but I don't know. I was
[16:02] just going to throw that out there
[16:04] just because of where it is. So you'd
[16:06] have number [clears throat]
[16:09] three.
[16:12] So underneath three is four and four is
[16:15] the I got to keep referencing this
[16:16] commercial. where we're like what I
[16:19] thought of immediately when I saw the
[16:20] three and the four next to like how we
[16:22] have it is kind of Woodberry. You get
[16:24] like the [clears throat] strip malls and
[16:25] then you get like the apartment
[16:26] buildings like right next to it.
[16:28] >> So with two being
[16:32] the industrial commercial
[16:35] >> well two would be residential commercial
[16:38] >> uh on the number two
[16:39] >> two would be resident commercial
[16:41] residential. So that's east of F and
[16:42] north of 35.
[16:45] >> Okay. Okay. Okay. So, all right. I'm
[16:47] seeing the colors just wrong. Um,
[16:48] >> I'll try to zoom in.
[16:49] >> No, no worries. I I got it on here. So,
[16:52] then the only thing I'm wondering is if
[16:56] um one should maybe be either
[17:02] multif family residential or residential
[17:04] commercial just because of like how that
[17:06] intersects right there. But I'm just
[17:07] throwing that out as a discussion point.
[17:10] >> Yeah. Great.
[17:11] >> I'm not like set on it. I just wanted to
[17:12] throw that out cuz it seems like it
[17:14] would make sense cuz it's kind of a busy
[17:16] area.
[17:17] >> Mhm.
[17:18] >> One includes all of this, right?
[17:20] >> I'm saying if we just if you only look
[17:22] at where the number one is, if we were
[17:24] to take that and either make it the
[17:26] orange, which is the multi- family
[17:29] residential or this.
[17:31] >> So, kind of how the map would work is
[17:32] the under the colors are the underlying
[17:34] area and then the numbers
[17:37] >> kind of specify the uses and the
[17:38] narrative a little bit more defined. So
[17:41] yeah, now I'm really talking about the
[17:42] square that the numbers in right now
[17:44] essentially. So that was the only thing
[17:46] I was wondering is in that box right
[17:49] there if that should be residential
[17:51] commercial or if it should also be
[17:54] >> multi- family residential
[17:59] and do we have a
[18:03] so when we have it as residential
[18:05] commercial can that also count as the
[18:06] multif family residential
[18:08] >> typically you want to identify it so you
[18:10] so what we have in here is the densities
[18:13] so we have high density
[18:15] And the ranges of density, low density,
[18:17] 2 to three units, medium density, 3 to
[18:19] eight units per acre, and then high
[18:20] density is 9 plus units per acre. So,
[18:23] it's kind of we don't really say multif
[18:25] family, but in order to get high density
[18:27] or even medium density, you're going to
[18:28] have some multifamily.
[18:31] That was the only thing I was wondering
[18:32] is if that would make sense for
[18:36] >> that they have it for new apartments or
[18:39] condos.
[18:41] Just cuz if you look at where number
[18:44] five is, which is where we are right
[18:47] now, right?
[18:48] >> No, it's
[18:51] tractor. Is that tractor square?
[18:53] >> No, that's not.
[18:53] >> It's outside the city yet. So, we're
[18:55] just north of the city limits here.
[18:58] >> Okay.
[18:59] It's cornfield past [clears throat]
[19:03] river.
[19:03] >> I'm underground. Just kidding.
[19:04] >> Whatever the blue is
[19:06] >> cuz Okay. So, if that's future, then
[19:09] really all we have is like the Mary
[19:12] the town homes on 10 and then what we
[19:16] have around here. So, that's where I'm
[19:18] thinking like if based on the survey
[19:21] results that we had, if we wanted to
[19:22] reserve another section where that first
[19:26] number one box is, just the box
[19:29] to have that be um something with higher
[19:34] density. I don't know.
[19:35] >> Multi family. Yeah, that makes sense.
[19:37] Big apartment complex buffer on the
[19:39] highway. Yeah, that was kind of what I
[19:41] was thinking because if you work in
[19:43] Hudson, if you work in River Falls, if
[19:45] you guys are in the cities,
[19:46] [clears throat] you're right at that
[19:47] intersection. So, I don't know what
[19:49] anybody
[19:50] >> So, we could do like a single family,
[19:51] multifamily mix like the hatching and
[19:54] then kind of do a medium density.
[19:56] >> Yeah,
[19:59] that's yeah, just because of how that
[20:00] intersects there. But again, I don't
[20:02] know what others thought. And again,
[20:04] this is this may develop in 20 years, it
[20:06] may not, you know, but I mean, in 10
[20:08] years, you're going to be updating this
[20:09] plan again. So, this is out there a ways
[20:11] from,
[20:12] >> you know,
[20:14] but it's I mean, this is why we're
[20:16] talking about it because this is
[20:17] ultimately the growth direction. So,
[20:20] >> yeah. And those other neighborhoods, so
[20:23] up to like 640, I mean, those are kind
[20:25] of tucked
[20:26] >> back in there. And so I think if you had
[20:29] just in that first
[20:31] box along the highway where the number
[20:33] one circle is, it's not going to be like
[20:37] totally in their backyard essentially.
[20:39] Like there's tree coverage that's over
[20:42] there along. Is that cedar? No. What is
[20:43] it? Cedar. Uh
[20:44] >> you mean cedar St. Croy?
[20:46] >> Yeah. But there's multiple trees in
[20:48] there.
[20:48] >> But where that one is that's you're
[20:49] talking right in the middle of farmland.
[20:51] >> That's the farmland. But so then there's
[20:53] really a break between
[20:55] >> well there's about
[20:57] say [clears throat] 200 yards and then
[20:59] you go down where there used to be the
[21:00] apple orchard back in there and it's all
[21:02] trees in the backside.
[21:05] And same thing where that number one is
[21:07] if you go
[21:08] >> I don't know two 300 yards again and you
[21:11] start hitting the river part and it's
[21:13] got trees again.
[21:14] >> I think the only thing that would be
[21:15] tricky is if you look at the roads like
[21:17] so you have 640th that's going back. So,
[21:21] I'm not sure how cuz those lots I'm
[21:24] guessing in the gray that are existing
[21:27] already.
[21:28] >> Those lots butt up to that. So, we'd
[21:30] obviously have to bring another
[21:33] >> road in or I'm not sure where it would
[21:34] go.
[21:35] >> I don't know what the terrain is over
[21:36] there, but
[21:38] >> it's pretty it's fairly flat.
[21:39] >> Small flat.
[21:40] >> Fairly flat.
[21:41] >> I think you'd have to have a drive off
[21:42] of this to build into here cuz I think
[21:45] that's private. Yeah, more than likely
[21:48] because of the size of this area, you'd
[21:50] have to have a at le a road network to
[21:52] get to this 40 if you're going to
[21:53] develop it. And then typically what you
[21:56] see is, you know, the higher speed
[21:58] traffic, you're going to have the higher
[21:59] density and then a lower density as you
[22:02] go forward.
[22:03] >> I like the idea of like where you could
[22:04] have mixed like [clears throat] single
[22:05] family homes and then also if you have
[22:07] like row homes or like a higher density
[22:09] stuff and then you could have apartments
[22:10] basically across the street.
[22:12] >> So those did really well in Rosemount.
[22:15] Yep.
[22:15] >> Really, really well.
[22:17] And uh I think man you had a bunch of
[22:19] those in Cottage Grove, didn't you? Row
[22:21] homes and then the Yeah. And those did
[22:23] pretty well.
[22:25] >> Rosemics exploding down there. Didn't
[22:27] matter what kind of home. They're just
[22:30] nuts in the last yards either. So a lot
[22:33] of people are. So, we're just talking
[22:34] just this first square would be where we
[22:36] have that mix of
[22:36] >> That's thinking because then the back
[22:39] two squares you could break into lots
[22:41] which would align with the lots that are
[22:44] already butdding up against it and make
[22:46] it kind of sectioned off and
[22:49] >> no makes sense. Everybody else kind of
[22:51] agree with that general
[22:53] >> good idea.
[22:55] >> So,
[22:55] >> and then change that little piece into
[22:59] >> where the number two is.
[23:01] back going to the
[23:02] >> we'll catch that sliver here that's
[23:04] residential. We'll make that into
[23:06] >> this commercial residential area.
[23:09] >> I did I caught it. [clears throat]
[23:12] >> So number three and we've just got
[23:14] mainly it's medium high density single
[23:16] family and multif family. So it's kind
[23:19] of similar to what we'd have in number
[23:20] one now but we've got it
[23:23] all on the southeast
[23:27] side of this intersection here. Is that
[23:30] still pretty?
[23:31] >> I mean, we we'll find out in 10 years or
[23:33] better.
[23:34] >> Yeah. Yep.
[23:36] >> It's an idea for now.
[23:37] >> Yeah.
[23:38] >> And number four, we just have as
[23:40] commercial.
[23:42] We also kind of have this sliver here of
[23:45] residential,
[23:47] a little bit bigger sliver, but I didn't
[23:49] know if we wanted to this would more
[23:51] than likely be commercial or
[23:53] >> Yeah, I think you'd make it the same as
[23:56] the four. Okay, that's what makes sense
[23:58] to me.
[24:04] All right,
[24:07] got another
[24:07] >> and the one below it. So, six is the
[24:09] industrial commercial, right?
[24:11] >> Yeah, six is just north of the
[24:14] industrial park now,
[24:16] which makes sense. But we have five yet
[24:19] across the highway which we have as
[24:21] commercial residential and then this
[24:25] larger lot chunk. But this isn't as bad
[24:27] of a sliver because it's connected to
[24:28] this other residential to the north.
[24:32] >> Okay.
[24:33] >> I was just kind of surprised though that
[24:35] you aren't planning to go down 10 at all
[24:38] basically compared to what we have
[24:40] already.
[24:43] >> Well, we're not quite. Yeah. I mean, we
[24:44] we'll get there. If we need to go out
[24:45] further, we certainly can. Well, I just
[24:48] was kind of surprised he didn't have
[24:49] part of that as the game plan too with
[24:53] the industrial park right there.
[24:55] >> Isn't that what seven and eight is?
[24:57] >> That's the industrial park, but I'm just
[24:58] saying there's no residential bon
[25:00] eight's residential. Seven would be
[25:03] >> continuation of the industrial park.
[25:05] >> 50.
[25:06] >> Is that the Sears?
[25:08] >> Yeah, that's Sears.
[25:09] >> Sears. Yeah.
[25:12] So, I guess to go back, are we good with
[25:14] five and six then? Other than
[25:16] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[25:17] >> Okay. All right.
[25:19] So, now we're on to seven
[25:22] north of 10 east of the industrial park.
[25:26] >> Yep.
[25:27] >> That's still within this. Now that now
[25:28] we're getting into the city limits
[25:32] and [clears throat] we have that area as
[25:33] commercial industrial.
[25:34] >> Mhm.
[25:36] >> Makes sense.
[25:39] >> Great.
[25:39] >> Okay. And then eight is now south of 10.
[25:42] Now, are you are you talking about going
[25:44] further east of what we have?
[25:46] >> No, I just thought you would have it
[25:48] east about equal amount that you're
[25:51] going up to the north.
[25:53] >> Yeah, we can do that. I mean, we
[25:54] certainly
[25:55] >> cuz I I would assume that's going to be
[25:59] with the hills and whatever. It's kind
[26:00] of more residential type look going to
[26:02] be down there anyway,
[26:04] >> I would think. Anyway.
[26:05] >> Mhm. Now, yeah, the town of Oak Creek
[26:07] doesn't quite have it. They have more
[26:09] >> reserved by Riley Tommy and
[26:12] >> yeah run right right up to the Raleighs
[26:14] which is about here and then after that
[26:16] is uh Denny uh Filkins and his brother
[26:20] Doug's land. So it would go all the way
[26:22] down to almost
[26:23] >> you mean past the
[26:24] >> past uh Mike's Riley's place and
[26:28] >> and past the uh
[26:31] gravel pit.
[26:32] >> No, it would be just getting to the
[26:34] gravel pit.
[26:35] There's a couple houses that some of the
[26:38] Riley's have. They're up in the woods
[26:40] already. [clears throat]
[26:41] >> So, how far do you want the eight to go?
[26:43] I mean, do you want to go past the city
[26:44] limits eastern boundary or
[26:47] >> I was just thinking that just thought
[26:49] that you would have all this going to
[26:51] the north that you would have something
[26:52] going to the east at the same time off
[26:55] the main drag. So, I guess it could go
[26:58] all the way down to almost to the end of
[27:00] your block
[27:02] >> maybe to the next square.
[27:04] >> Next square. So up to here like to this
[27:06] line.
[27:07] >> Yeah.
[27:08] >> Okay.
[27:10] So the next 40 essentially,
[27:12] >> right?
[27:16] » Cuz I mean what your got to mention
[27:18] there that's 20 years plus.
[27:21] >> Oh yeah.
[27:22] >> And the one thing we didn't touch on
[27:23] last and actually Matt is the one that
[27:25] made me aware of this is this possible
[27:27] legislation about future land use
[27:29] mapping and having every five years the
[27:32] density that you're going to allow. And
[27:34] uh it's still not very clear to me how
[27:35] they want us to do that. So I mean we
[27:37] still have some time before we adopt the
[27:40] comprehensive plan. So we may be
[27:41] revisiting this before if they if they
[27:44] do I don't I don't think they've passed
[27:45] it yet. Um if they do end up passing it
[27:49] >> [snorts]
[27:49] >> um there's going to be some difficulty
[27:51] with it because it's confusing. But
[27:53] there there's some requirement that you
[27:56] have to have every the density
[27:58] allocation every 5 years that you're
[27:59] going to project for future growth and
[28:01] it has to you have to give a density. So
[28:03] we we are covering that with the
[28:05] density. We don't have the 5year growth
[28:06] projections but we we can we can add
[28:08] that later but certainly we've got
[28:10] enough more than enough acreage to
[28:11] handle future development in the next 20
[28:13] years plus. So
[28:16] um so yeah we'll extend that number
[28:18] eight.
[28:18] >> Yeah. The only thing I'm wondering is if
[28:21] um so right below the eight you
[28:23] obviously have a property line where if
[28:24] you were to take just the square and
[28:26] split it is on the
[28:30] side closer to 10 if you'd also maybe
[28:33] want to have that be
[28:35] multi.
[28:37] >> Oh
[28:38] and then your back portion would be your
[28:42] like butdding up to the park
[28:44] >> nice single family residential homes.
[28:47] >> Mhm. That sounds
[28:48] >> because this is like feedback I feel
[28:50] like we just keep getting is like that
[28:54] like more apartments where we're people
[28:57] out. So
[28:58] >> that to me seems like it would make
[29:00] sense. And then they'd be facing an
[29:03] industrial commercial park. So I'm like
[29:07] if you're going to buy a single family
[29:09] home
[29:10] >> No, that makes So you're saying like
[29:12] half of this 40 the north half of this
[29:14] these 240s essentially would be
[29:16] >> Yeah. at least match it up with where
[29:18] that commercial industrial part goes. So
[29:20] then that would be like multi- family
[29:23] apartments that are facing that and then
[29:25] the back side of it could be the single
[29:28] family that butts up against
[29:30] >> the the park and whatnot
[29:32] >> this much.
[29:33] >> Yeah.
[29:36] >> Cuz I if I was going to do a single
[29:38] family home, I'm like I don't want to
[29:39] stare at a commercial park.
[29:40] >> Well, you don't probably want on Highway
[29:42] 10 either. So,
[29:43] >> so that's where I'm thinking again if we do that we stick with kind of like
[29:47] apartments or commercial. I feel like
[29:49] it'll do better.
[29:50] >> Yeah, that makes sense. And and yeah. Um
[29:54] so we'll we'll split that top 40 in
[29:57] half.
[29:57] >> It doesn't need to be like an exact top
[29:59] 40 if we were to replat it, right? You
[30:01] know.
[30:01] >> Yep. Exactly. all the we're not going to
[30:04] go exactly on property lines or some
[30:06] >> I don't know like if you were to
[30:08] actually take that and go like what that
[30:10] density number is it might not match
[30:13] >> right so you might actually want
[30:14] >> no I'm just saying that's where we
[30:16] should
[30:16] >> Okay
[30:18] go across like
[30:18] >> we'll find we'll find a good what makes
[30:20] make sense
[30:21] >> yeah
[30:23] I'm guessing it's going to there
[30:27] >> so nine where's my cursor here nine we
[30:30] have a park
[30:31] >> for ball fields parks, athletic fields.
[30:33] >> Yeah.
[30:34] >> That's helping the most development.
[30:37] >> Nine is
[30:38] >> Yeah.
[30:39] >> What's 10? Okay.
[30:40] >> 10 is an expansion of the school
[30:42] property. It's parks and rec
[30:44] parks. No, institutional.
[30:51] » So, it's part of the school district
[30:53] >> as a school wanting to put the running
[30:56] switch 9 and 10. The nine should be
[30:58] institutional, 10 should be
[31:00] >> cuz that's your national banks park uh
[31:05] fields there isn't
[31:06] >> the fields. So it's like the field or
[31:08] the park or the school then the fields
[31:11] and then kind of like a parking thing.
[31:14] >> I would love if we flip-flop those cuz
[31:16] then you actually get your entrance and
[31:17] >> I think that's your access in.
[31:20] >> So the school propertyy's up here. So,
[31:22] we're going to make this into
[31:23] institutional and then this would be
[31:24] park.
[31:27] >> That's what I would do
[31:29] >> cuz we've been trying to get access to
[31:31] the backside.
[31:33] >> Okay.
[31:38] » Street.
[31:38] >> So, do we Yeah, do athletic fields are
[31:40] still where nine are. So, right.
[31:42] >> So, we're just changing that first part
[31:44] right
[31:44] >> but then there's like a little
[31:46] >> there's a street part eventually. So the
[31:50] net will butt up against uh
[31:53] >> or not.
[31:59] » And then 11, we just have low density
[32:01] residential. Kind of matching up what's
[32:03] there. Uh 12, same thing, single family,
[32:06] low density residential.
[32:09] 13, single family, low low density
[32:12] residential. And that again, as we're
[32:13] getting away from the highways, you're
[32:14] kind of expanding, extending off your
[32:16] existing subdivisions. So 14 we have
[32:20] parks and recre a park for parks and
[32:23] recreation and 15 again is kind of
[32:25] infill from existing subdivision that's
[32:28] there.
[32:31] 16 we have commercial commercial
[32:34] businesses serving the area. I think
[32:36] that's just as a storage sheds right
[32:38] now. I don't know if there's other
[32:39] developable space on there, but
[32:42] >> there's something else.
[32:45] >> Okay.
[32:47] >> So,
[32:49] 19 is that the landmark
[32:53] land that was just acquired.
[32:56] >> Yep. Yes, it is.
[32:57] >> So, we have to have as residential cuz
[32:59] uh the house is in there. I'm guessing
[33:01] there's one house that's
[33:03] >> 19 is just off
[33:05] >> on the other side of Landmark. So that's
[33:07] still where like Kim Christ owns partial
[33:10] land.
[33:11] >> Got it.
[33:12] >> Oh, okay.
[33:13] >> Wait, sorry. No, that you No, you're
[33:14] right. It is that Marcus.
[33:16] >> Yeah.
[33:16] >> The Kim Hold on. Yeah. So, the house is
[33:18] still there, though. So, it's got to be
[33:20] park and recre. Uh,
[33:22] >> where's the the house?
[33:24] >> Millie and St.
[33:27] I didn't think we went that far. Is the
[33:30] >> 19.
[33:31] >> Oh, 19. Okay. 18.
[33:35] Okay. Kim's house is here.
[33:37] >> Yeah,
[33:37] >> Kim's house is here. So, this you I
[33:40] would actually say that 19 would be park
[33:43] only.
[33:44] >> Okay.
[33:44] >> Yeah, cuz there's
[33:45] >> if there's no house in there.
[33:47] >> There's no house
[33:47] >> because there's a lot of rules that they
[33:49] got to play by for that landmark thing
[33:52] for acquiring that land. I don't think a
[33:53] house can go in there.
[33:55] >> Okay. And that's all outside the city
[33:56] limits, right? So, that's
[33:58] >> right.
[33:58] >> Okay. Is that Matt? Any changing that to
[34:02] parks make sense?
[34:05] The only I mean most of his landmark the
[34:07] one portion that's still is owned by Mr.
[34:10] Christensen is 18 acres.
[34:13] >> I mean the one concern that I have as
[34:16] we're looking forward to like our sewer
[34:18] treatment plant
[34:19] >> we have no space.
[34:20] >> Got it. Well
[34:21] >> I'm not saying it has to go there but
[34:23] >> where the cows are.
[34:26] >> Oh the bottom section that work for the
[34:29] plant to be down in that bowl. You'd
[34:31] want it to be as low as possible so
[34:32] everything flow to it.
[34:34] >> And that's in 19 right now.
[34:37] >> This 18 acres that's just off the
[34:39] landmark. You can kind of see the
[34:40] parcel.
[34:41] >> It's like a Is that the little section
[34:42] that's like
[34:43] >> No, just the one that's Yeah. Right.
[34:44] >> Yeah. Where they just kind
[34:50] » Yeah, you can you control the mouse
[34:51] there.
[34:51] >> See how this this line is the parcel
[34:53] line right here. So this 18 acres is not
[34:55] owned by Landmark. It's still owned by
[34:57] Mr. Christensen.
[34:59] Do we want to take that out of this
[35:00] parks and wreck? Because right now we
[35:02] have it as residential and parks which
[35:04] if it's going to be waste water would be
[35:06] >> I'm not Yeah, I don't want to like cause
[35:08] any because that's not anything that's
[35:09] been discussed. But I'm just saying
[35:11] >> for now.
[35:12] >> Wouldn't you remove it for now then?
[35:15] >> Yeah, change it.
[35:16] >> So,
[35:17] >> right.
[35:20] >> For sure.
[35:21] >> The only thing Yeah.
[35:22] >> Didn't we get past the railroad though?
[35:25] The little two bumpers. Didn't those go
[35:27] with landmark though?
[35:29] >> So it's just
[35:31] >> on the one side of the railroad
[35:36] » like on the river side. Didn't
[35:37] [clears throat] both of those go with
[35:39] landmark property? I thought they did.
[35:42] >> There's a property that landmark got
[35:44] south of the railroad.
[35:45] >> Yeah,
[35:46] >> that little peninsula there.
[35:47] >> Yeah, that little
[35:50] >> over there.
[35:50] Oh.
[35:55] all the kids are coming down here
[35:56] and fishing. That's funny.
[36:00] I would almost think you'd want to
[36:01] remove it if we're going to even think
[36:02] about doing a wastewater treatment plant
[36:04] there.
[36:06] >> Yeah, I don't think it fits as a park
[36:07] and housing. Um,
[36:10] but I get not wanting to ruffle feathers
[36:12] at this point without having
[36:14] >> Yeah, I don't I'm not saying that's
[36:17] don't want to make it seem like that's a
[36:18] thing that's happening or anything. I'm
[36:20] just saying as you're exploring options
[36:22] >> for long-term growth within the city.
[36:24] >> Can we just make it gray?
[36:28] >> Yeah.
[36:29] >> Just a gray area.
[36:30] >> Gray area. Yeah. Great.
[36:31] >> Well, cuz if we don't know, right? If
[36:33] it's like really undeciding, we got to
[36:35] come back and look at densities.
[36:36] >> You're going to You'd probably have to
[36:38] No matter what you do, you might be
[36:39] wrong. So, you might you're going to
[36:40] have to update your comp plan.
[36:42] >> Well, why don't we just put it parks and
[36:43] recck um institutional government?
[36:48] >> Okay. Just at 18 acres.
[36:51] >> Yeah.
[36:52] >> So, not all of 19, just a little portion
[36:54] of it.
[36:54] >> Yeah. Just the southern portion.
[36:56] >> Yeah. Okay. Where that blindness is.
[36:59] >> And then the rest of the 19 would still
[37:02] be parks and wreck and residential or
[37:03] just get rid of residential.
[37:04] >> I think it would just end because the
[37:06] landmarks ruled for now buying that
[37:09] property.
[37:09] >> Okay. Yeah.
[37:10] >> Or however they acquired it. I can't
[37:12] remember.
[37:15] » Like I know the property they own in
[37:16] May. I mean it's going to be a natural
[37:18] area for
[37:27] » okay
[37:28] 18 we were finally this is all load or
[37:30] 17
[37:31] >> cemetery 18
[37:33] >> 18 is
[37:34] >> cemetery
[37:34] >> institutional expansion of the cemetery
[37:38] >> and 20 we have as institutional
[37:41] expansion of the wastewater treatment
[37:49] between
[37:55] » what falls underneath mixed use again.
[37:59] >> Well, it depends on how we have it in
[38:00] the narrative. So, we have mixed use
[38:01] which can be either commercial,
[38:03] residential, it could be industrial,
[38:04] commercial, it could be residential,
[38:07] commercial
[38:07] >> cuz we have that for I think the condos
[38:10] are falling underneath that. Yeah. Is
[38:11] that 21? Is that mixed use then?
[38:14] >> Oh, for mixed use. Yeah. Um commercial.
[38:16] So that in this case we're using it as
[38:19] kind of mixeduse buildings. So
[38:21] commercial on the lower level,
[38:23] residential up above.
[38:25] >> I'm going to throw another thing out
[38:26] there then. Uh since that is potentially
[38:28] an option is if you go back to the one
[38:31] and um three.
[38:33] >> Yep.
[38:34] >> Is if you want to have that option like
[38:36] in Woodbury where they have the first
[38:38] floor that's the stores and then they
[38:39] have the apartment buildings above. if
[38:40] we'd have to have that as mixed use.
[38:42] >> I like that actually.
[38:44] >> Okay.
[38:45] >> Um
[38:47] >> cuz then you can do something like that.
[38:50] We should do that,
[38:51] >> too.
[38:52] >> As long as there's no more Dollar
[38:54] Generals or Dollar Storage.
[38:56] >> Yeah, storage unit.
[38:57] >> Well, have a storage unit underneath the
[39:00] potential.
[39:00] >> I think that would I don't know. They
[39:02] would
[39:03] >> I think that would be a
[39:05] >> But I think more of a small
[39:07] >> It doesn't have to be mixed use, right?
[39:10] Like it could just end up being
[39:11] >> or Jimmy Johns like apartment building
[39:13] or it Yeah. Whatever whatever we decide
[39:16] in this narrative is what we can.
[39:18] >> So you can give yourself some
[39:19] flexibility. I mean that's what we're
[39:21] doing here is by having a narrative. A
[39:23] lot of some future land use maps are
[39:25] strictly here's your residential, here's
[39:26] your commercial, here's your industrial,
[39:28] and that's all they look at.
[39:29] >> I feel like that's a prime intersection
[39:31] to do that [clears throat] on. Um and
[39:33] then the only other one I'm wondering
[39:35] about maybe not. I was thinking about
[39:37] over here on this eight.
[39:39] >> I don't but I don't think so. I think
[39:41] that one should just be multi.
[39:43] >> Yeah.
[39:43] >> So, I would just say on that corner if
[39:45] we could have that be mixed use.
[39:47] >> Okay.
[39:47] >> I do like that too with the box that has
[39:51] the one on it right now. And then
[39:53] >> Oh, you want one to be that way or
[39:54] three?
[39:55] >> One and three.
[39:56] >> Yeah. So, we have the one box that we're
[39:58] going to change on the left side of the
[40:00] highway.
[40:01] >> So, if that one was mixed juice and then
[40:04] three was mixed juice. I Yeah, I think
[40:06] so, too.
[40:06] >> Right.
[40:07] >> You would almost have to give yourself
[40:08] another number then, wouldn't you?
[40:09] >> We We'll be updating the numbers.
[40:11] There's We've We've had some splits and
[40:13] some
[40:14] >> I'm using just locating stuff on the map
[40:15] right now. I'm not using it as like
[40:17] >> No, that's fine. But
[40:19] >> yeah, we're going to have to add some
[40:20] numbers, I think.
[40:21] >> Sorry, Josh. To go back to 19. I forgot
[40:24] that 20. We were looking at We ended up
[40:26] going with 20 as the expansion of the
[40:29] >> Yeah, that's just as low as 19. So maybe
[40:31] all of 19 should just be parks and wreck
[40:33] and not any single family.
[40:37] >> Okay.
[40:40] >> Yeah, we had we did remove residential,
[40:42] but we were adding institutional.
[40:44] >> Yeah, I say get rid of that since it's
[40:46] the thing I was thinking about is
[40:47] actually
[40:48] >> So get rid of that.
[40:49] >> Yeah. Okay.
[40:50] >> So just remove get rid of the non
[40:53] landmark area or keep it all the keep it
[40:55] this way. Exact. Just get rid of
[40:56] residential. Yeah,
[40:57] >> that's outside the city limits if
[41:00] they're looking at that. So in circles
[41:02] yet?
[41:03] >> No, this is good. That's all.
[41:05] >> So he's treating the plan.
[41:06] >> Why? Yeah,
[41:07] >> Matt saying he's thinking here as long
[41:09] as I can.
[41:10] >> Yeah,
[41:11] >> you're saying where the number 20 is on
[41:13] the map. That's where you're thinking of
[41:15] the future. That's where we ended up
[41:16] putting unless you guys have I guess
[41:18] issues with that. But the idea was that
[41:20] it was more
[41:21] >> is that where the current is that where
[41:23] we have the
[41:24] >> it would buffer where the public works
[41:26] facility is and also where Johnson
[41:28] construction is.
[41:29] >> That'd be convenient to have it right
[41:30] there.
[41:33] >> Yeah.
[41:36] » Got to find my cursor.
[41:38] All right. So, back to 21. Oops.
[41:43] >> Okay. 21. 21's the
[41:46] >> So 21 is on on a river.
[41:51] » Just that's what your downtown is is
[41:53] typically mixeduse style. So
[41:55] >> commercial buildings.
[41:56] >> Yeah. Commercial and residential on top.
[41:59] >> Yeah.
[42:02] » Then 22
[42:07] up on top.
[42:08] >> The only other thing I'm wondering.
[42:12] >> Maybe not. So, next to the mixed use on
[42:16] the north side where it's green where
[42:18] there's a park,
[42:19] >> then there's also a
[42:20] >> what number?
[42:21] >> Uh, 21.
[42:22] >> All right.
[42:24] >> Sorry, I'm jumping.
[42:25] >> No, you're fine.
[42:26] >> So,
[42:28] go
[42:30] >> park here.
[42:31] >> Yeah. So, you got the park there.
[42:34] >> Mhm.
[42:35] >> If any of that needs to be
[42:37] mixed,
[42:39] >> that's where
[42:40] >> I know.
[42:41] >> Okay. I don't that's why I'm wondering
[42:43] if for us though or if it's Anyways, I'm
[42:48] just wondering if that needs to be mixed
[42:50] use because if you look at like uh
[42:54] the Bill and Rosie stuff is it's mixed
[42:56] use.
[42:58] >> That's the only if it's actually park or
[43:00] if it's
[43:02] good.
[43:02] >> Thanks.
[43:05] >> Sorry, say that again.
[43:07] with the plans that we have been talking
[43:10] about for years with that if it is a
[43:14] park technically or if it needs to be
[43:18] slash blue or slashmixed use with it or
[43:22] >> I think parks and would fit
[43:25] >> as long as it's public space and open
[43:27] >> what if we want if you want to ever in
[43:30] the future charge for overnight docking
[43:32] >> transit dock as long as they're public
[43:33] docks so it's still
[43:35] >> cool okay
[43:36] >> I don't think
[43:38] Okay, that was my only question really
[43:42] >> cuz it it wouldn't trigger a res I'm
[43:44] assuming it wouldn't trigger reszoning
[43:45] so it's not
[43:47] >> Yeah,
[43:47] >> should be fine.
[43:48] >> Okay.
[43:50] >> All right. 22. We've got um this is
[43:54] again commercial residential opportunity
[43:56] for redevelopment opportunity.
[43:59] >> 22.
[44:00] >> That must be uh
[44:02] >> hotel. the hotel and Flanders and gas
[44:05] station.
[44:08] » We have it.
[44:14] » I'll be surprised if it goes
[44:15] residential.
[44:18] >> It's industrial and commercial.
[44:20] >> It is
[44:21] >> 22.
[44:22] >> 2022 is cuz that's where the like you
[44:24] said the hotel and Flanders and
[44:27] >> the gas station is right in that corner.
[44:30] >> It's like pink and brown though, isn't
[44:31] it? I don't know, mate.
[44:32] >> Pink and orange.
[44:34] >> It's pink and orange. And then the
[44:37] I don't remember. Langel's uh apartments
[44:39] are on the orange part of it just across
[44:42] the street.
[44:48] » So that's why there's a mix there.
[44:50] >> And we didn't do it mixed use because we
[44:52] had
[44:54] >> Yeah.
[44:54] >> So
[44:56] >> I don't have any questions.
[44:57] >> Number good there with 22. Number 23,
[45:01] just multif family
[45:02] residential/commercial.
[45:04] Um, it's really more of a redevelopment
[45:06] opportunity, redevelopment plan
[45:07] opportunity.
[45:08] >> Is that where the industrial
[45:11] used to be?
[45:14] >> Yeah.
[45:14] >> In the yard and whatever that other
[45:16] building is.
[45:18] >> Caught on fire.
[45:20] >> Yeah.
[45:20] >> Haven't fixed it.
[45:22] >> It's been just kind of an oddity. You
[45:26] know, it's an industrial park in the
[45:27] middle of a residential area. Well, at
[45:29] the time it was away from everything
[45:31] when it was built,
[45:31] >> right? No, that makes sense. Yep.
[45:35] Um, and then we have 24 here, which I
[45:37] don't have on my sheet for some reason,
[45:39] so I don't know what it is, but I know
[45:41] >> that's 445 Court Street that we have
[45:43] been looking at for like assisted
[45:45] living.
[45:47] It just says the opportunity for
[45:49] >> uh that's where you tease
[45:52] >> or pants or whatever. What is it? The
[45:54] old
[45:54] >> used to be the old ventilator.
[45:56] >> That's where that is.
[45:59] Yeah,
[45:59] >> it it's kind of tight to the road, but
[46:02] that's
[46:04] are below it.
[46:04] >> Oh, sorry. It's supposed to be further
[46:06] north,
[46:07] >> isn't it? I was like, wait a minute.
[46:09] >> Oh, this orange that bigger orange one.
[46:12] >> Yeah, it's
[46:13] >> it's a little big, but not terrible.
[46:17] >> And then isn't the blue and the So, are
[46:20] the government Isn't that the
[46:23] swap stuff or the water runoff stuff?
[46:27] institutional governmental yet is blue.
[46:30] >> So what should number 24 say?
[46:34] So, this right here should be commercial
[46:36] >> 24,
[46:36] >> but 24 should be technically pointing up
[46:38] to this.
[46:40] >> There's a house on that block of 24,
[46:42] too, right? The smoke shop and then the
[46:44] house. Yeah.
[46:46] >> Used to be.
[46:48] >> Yeah.
[46:49] >> So, this is is that a redevelopment site
[46:51] then? the smoke shop and just above it
[46:53] used to be LB2
[46:55] years ago when he he's the one that
[46:57] built this
[46:59] >> and then I don't know who's there now
[47:01] but
[47:09] » okay there any other areas that we
[47:13] didn't touch on that you feel we should
[47:16] look at or consider
[47:18] feel like we've
[47:19] >> I think covered a lot it really good.
[47:25] » You know what else you do with that?
[47:32] » Good. Well, we'll we'll update that map
[47:34] and like I said, we may be revisiting
[47:36] some of the land use stuff again. Um,
[47:39] >> thanks, Josh.
[47:41] >> Yeah. Um, I guess you you have How long
[47:44] is your update, Matt, for the courtyard
[47:47] thing or the
[47:48] >> This is like a couple minutes. So, we'll
[47:50] just touch on I don't know that we went
[47:52] through these last time. I think we
[47:54] didn't quite get to the goals,
[47:55] objectives, and policies for the land
[47:56] use chapter. Um,
[47:59] so this is these goals I think are kind
[48:01] of written more aspirationally rather
[48:03] than just this is our goal. Um, so the
[48:07] city of Prescott will promote
[48:09] supportable growth and development and
[48:11] develop strategies to support energy and
[48:12] food independence, enhance the
[48:14] environmental quality, encourage diverse
[48:17] housing, provide transportation options,
[48:18] and support a diverse economy to advance
[48:20] the health, safety, and well-being of
[48:22] its residents.
[48:27] Try objectives. Increase housing
[48:29] diversity and efficiency. Promote
[48:32] alternative energy options, promote
[48:34] small market farms and the local food
[48:36] economy, increase transportation
[48:38] options, promote a diver diversified
[48:41] local economy, and create a healthy
[48:43] community.
[48:46] » Bailey, you want to get rid of the
[48:47] alternative energy options?
[48:49] >> Yeah. [clears throat]
[48:51] >> I mean, it's really not driven by us.
[48:53] It's driven at a a state level a lot of
[48:56] the time. and then you know managed by
[48:58] the utility companies. The only other
[49:00] one is the
[49:03] increased transportation options. That's
[49:05] not I mean we looked at it a long time
[49:07] ago even before I think I got on
[49:09] council.
[49:10] And I think at the time we didn't move
[49:13] forward with it then. So it was about
[49:15] bringing the buses over and having a bus
[49:18] route.
[49:20] >> I mean it could it could mean you know
[49:21] you've got your golf carts. So it could
[49:24] mean electric cars,
[49:25] >> sidewalk,
[49:26] >> sidewalks, trails, other walkability.
[49:28] >> Okay.
[49:31] >> But you're right. Yeah. Like you we're
[49:32] not looking at kind of a transit system
[49:35] probably anytime soon.
[49:36] >> Yeah.
[49:36] >> Well, we can't have buses for kids to go
[49:38] out of school. Yeah. Pretty hard to
[49:40] prove that we need buses for everybody
[49:41] else.
[49:42] >> Stay over on that side.
[49:44] >> All right. So, some of the Oh, jeez.
[49:48] policies. We have coordinate,
[49:49] collaborate, and market to residential
[49:51] developers, nonprofits, and government
[49:53] agencies to provide housing options such
[49:55] as senior housing, senior campus
[49:57] housing, eco village concepts, low to
[49:59] moderate income housing, or accessory
[50:01] housing to meet the needs of all
[50:02] residents.
[50:07] » I mean, there's so many things in there
[50:09] that I'm just like, it's just real
[50:10] wordy, you know?
[50:12] >> Uh, we're doing a lot of things in
[50:15] there. senior housing and campus
[50:18] housing. I don't Is that the same thing?
[50:20] Basically,
[50:20] >> I think like campus style housing and
[50:22] sometimes Yeah. I mean, you could have
[50:24] that with senior housing.
[50:25] >> Yeah.
[50:26] >> Um we we could break it up into to make
[50:29] it more palatable.
[50:31] >> When was this written? Just out of just
[50:33] pure curiosity like what year was the
[50:34] last time this thing was edited?
[50:36] >> 2014.
[50:38] 2015.
[50:40] >> Okay.
[50:40] >> Was it?
[50:41] >> Yeah. 2015. This year we're under 10
[50:44] year. So
[50:46] >> we can we can
[50:47] >> build concept. I don't know where we're
[50:49] really trying to push that right now.
[50:50] That's up to developers. I mean we would
[50:53] have to either have that
[50:54] >> encourage it.
[50:55] >> You encourage. We don't have anything in
[50:57] zoning on it to say go do an eco village
[51:00] in these areas. I mean
[51:03] >> it's open for an option.
[51:05] >> Yeah.
[51:05] >> Mhm.
[51:07] >> Um
[51:10] yeah, that that to me was just kind of
[51:12] an odd one, but
[51:14] I can work look at rewarding it somehow.
[51:20] Number two, identify locations within
[51:22] the city for redevelopment or infill
[51:23] development for residential dwellings.
[51:26] And that could really be for beyond
[51:27] residential as well. So um I think
[51:30] probably residential and commercial
[51:35] collaborate with surrounding surrounding
[51:36] towns to identify and preserve prime
[51:38] farmland that can be used for various
[51:39] size agricultural enterprises to promote
[51:41] food self-sufficiency, security and
[51:43] entrepreneurial opportunity. So
[51:47] um I think in the previous plan there
[51:49] was a little more focus on kind of more
[51:51] agricultural protection and things like
[51:53] that. If that's still of interest, this
[51:55] one makes sense.
[51:57] >> Yes.
[51:57] >> Okay.
[51:59] Number four, calculate the amount of
[52:01] land that would be required to feed the
[52:02] population of the community. Yeah.
[52:08] [clears throat]
[52:09] >> Number five, rev revise the city's
[52:11] parkland dedication requirements to
[52:12] include the land set aside for small
[52:14] entrepreneurial farming that can be
[52:15] rented out.
[52:19] » Is that redundant of three
[52:23] >> a little bit or no?
[52:24] >> It's a little bit more detail on that or
[52:26] little
[52:28] Um, I don't think it's redundant. I
[52:30] think what I would probably do is maybe
[52:32] use a word like consider because I don't
[52:34] know that that's to say revise is kind
[52:37] of implying that you're going to do it.
[52:39] Um,
[52:39] >> yeah.
[52:40] >> So,
[52:41] >> kind of seems more like community
[52:42] gardening almost.
[52:44] >> Yeah.
[52:46] >> For five that is.
[52:47] >> Yep. Agreed.
[52:52] » I mean I mean I don't think it needs to
[52:54] change. You think you can leave it if
[52:55] people if we have a park area where
[52:57] someone's like, "Hey, can we put in some
[53:00] plants in the neighborhood?" wants to
[53:02] manage it.
[53:03] >> Sure.
[53:08] » Manage it [clears throat]
[53:08] >> at the food shelf.
[53:10] >> Yeah.
[53:11] >> There's more wheats than there was food
[53:12] there.
[53:12] >> Didn't really set it up.
[53:14] >> Yeah. I think it this should be more passive because it talks about, you
[53:19] know, um requirements to include land
[53:22] set aside. I mean, I think you could
[53:24] have options for that if that's part of
[53:26] your parkland dedication to do like a
[53:28] community garden or something, but to
[53:30] mandate it, I don't think is what you
[53:31] want to do.
[53:32] >> Uh, yeah. Consider.
[53:34] >> Yeah.
[53:37] >> Number six, require planning any the
[53:40] planning and evaluation of all
[53:41] transportation options when designing
[53:43] street reconstruction projects and
[53:45] building new streets.
[53:48] » Um,
[53:49] >> hey, we just did number seven.
[53:51] Promote land use mixed land use patterns
[53:53] that do not conflict with promote mixed
[53:55] land use. Yeah, we are doing that. Um
[53:57] mixed land use patterns that do not
[53:59] create land use conflicts, complent
[54:01] adjacent uses and promote community
[54:03] wellness.
[54:10] I guess in um coordinate with utility
[54:13] area utility providers to plan and
[54:15] implement local renewable energy systems
[54:16] and micro grids for emergency services
[54:19] which are then broadened to
[54:21] neighborhoods, commercial and industrial
[54:23] areas of the city.
[54:26] » I mean I'm mixing like emergency with
[54:34] » I mean we're not really coordinating
[54:36] with them. I mean, they kind of come and
[54:39] tell us, right, if we're going to do
[54:40] development, we're like, "Hey, Excel."
[54:43] They're like, "Hey, we have this
[54:44] option." But again, I mean, a lot of
[54:47] this utility stuff, I feel like you can
[54:49] do things at your local home. If you
[54:50] want to throw some solar panels on your
[54:52] roof, go for it.
[54:53] >> Mhm. But when you're talking major
[54:56] utility, it's a little hard for us to
[55:00] >> Well, it's only if the city would have
[55:02] their own solar panel farm someplace.
[55:07] That's pretty much what they're saying.
[55:09] >> Not saying we should, but I'm saying
[55:11] that's what they're talking here.
[55:13] >> Bad bad idea.
[55:14] >> Do you want to get rid of this one?
[55:17] >> I think so.
[55:19] >> I think it's a little more It's There's
[55:21] It's not very clear. So I don't know
[55:23] what we would do with that if
[55:26] >> I mean the only thing that's coming into
[55:28] my mind the only thing that stuck out to
[55:29] me at all was the micro grids for
[55:32] emergency services. It's not micro grids
[55:34] though. It's basically an emergency
[55:36] communication but that's pretty much
[55:37] done through the state now I feel like.
[55:40] Um but there is like local stuff like
[55:43] when the Ohio issue happened and the
[55:46] train derailed people didn't know
[55:48] >> right away to shelter in place and
[55:49] there's stuff like that. We do run
[55:51] hazmat on that railroad. That has been
[55:53] my thing that I've just been like
[55:56] focused on. So, we sit on the emergency
[55:57] management committee. So, I don't think
[55:59] that's the right way to do that one.
[56:02] >> Yeah.
[56:02] >> But like I think there should be some
[56:06] level of communication, but I don't
[56:08] think it's here.
[56:10] >> It's probably
[56:10] >> I don't think it's a micro grid.
[56:12] >> Yeah, probably either in the next
[56:14] chapter or utilities and community
[56:15] facilities.
[56:16] >> Issue something on a ham radio if you
[56:18] are ham radio certified.
[56:22] Otherwise, I
[56:26] » we'll clear we'll clean it up a little
[56:27] bit and then we probably can move it to
[56:29] a different chapter.
[56:32] Support mixeduse development in the
[56:33] downtown to create a mix of residential
[56:35] and commercial businesses in a safe
[56:37] walkable setting.
[56:39] Consult the city's wildhead protection
[56:40] ordinance when evaluating redevelopment
[56:42] and future development projects to
[56:43] ensure the protection of the city's
[56:45] aquafer
[56:47] and support the development of eco and
[56:49] agro tourism capacity and business
[56:51] services.
[56:54] Two more, I guess. Um,
[56:56] >> you want to leave that in there for
[56:57] grants?
[56:58] >> Yeah. Mhm. Develop metrics to track the
[57:01] city self-sufficiency objectives.
[57:05] >> What?
[57:05] >> Delete it.
[57:06] >> Huh? Delete it.
[57:07] >> Delete it. We're not
[57:09] What are do we track it today? Are we
[57:11] making
[57:11] >> Well, I think in the community utilities
[57:13] and community facilities, we have
[57:15] something similar that talks about kind
[57:16] of uh tracking different, you know,
[57:19] equipment usage and maintenance things
[57:21] and other I forget what we called it,
[57:24] but we did
[57:25] >> this is like self-sufficiency.
[57:27] >> Yeah. I don't know if it really applies
[57:29] to land use.
[57:29] >> No, I would agree. So I will get rid of
[57:32] that one and consider developing a
[57:35] statutory redevelopment plan for the
[57:36] industrial area between Hope Street,
[57:38] Canton Street, Henry Street, and St.
[57:39] Croy Street. So that's I think number 23
[57:42] that we were looking at.
[57:44] >> So
[57:50] very good. So we will not get to the
[57:53] intergovernmental cooperation, but you
[57:54] have that. Um I don't know if we'll
[57:57] update it, but we'll probably resend it
[57:58] out for January's meeting.
[58:02] be a good one to look at.
[58:03] >> What's that?
[58:04] >> It's the intergovernmental one. So, like
[58:05] working with those that would be a good
[58:08] one to look at.
[58:09] >> Yeah, we'll talk about that next time.
[58:11] >> Okay. All right. Thanks, Josh.
[58:13] >> Thank you very much.
[58:15] >> Okay. Next item is other business update
[58:18] on assisted living facility at 445 Court
[58:22] Street.
[58:24] >> So, we had a submission for the 445
[58:26] Court Street. We approved this concept
[58:28] plan. I think it was
[58:30] September.
[58:32] Sorry, my dates are but um the
[58:36] developers come forward and said they
[58:37] want to make some changes specifically
[58:38] to parking. Um so
[58:42] it's looking like the initial um review
[58:45] will come to plan commission next month.
[58:47] One thing that we have been discussing
[58:48] with our city attorney is he is
[58:51] recommending that all PUDs go forward
[58:54] going forward should have a public
[58:55] hearing. So basically the next meeting
[58:58] we'd have you review it and approve a
[59:00] public hearing assuming everything is to
[59:03] your standards and then February would
[59:05] be the public hearing for approval for
[59:07] that for consideration. So we'd be
[59:10] bringing it to review for next month and
[59:12] then February bring it to public
[59:14] hearing.
[59:14] >> You want to cut down the number of
[59:15] parking spots.
[59:17] >> What's that?
[59:17] >> They want to cut down the number of
[59:18] parking spots. uh they're looking at uh
[59:20] the revisions is putting some of the
[59:22] basement level turning that into
[59:24] actually like a underground parking.
[59:26] >> So that's something we had discussed um
[59:29] as well as part of the concept plan. So
[59:31] >> okay.
[59:33] >> So that would cut cut down their number
[59:35] of units then too, wouldn't it?
[59:37] >> No, there wouldn't be any
[59:38] [clears throat] Oh,
[59:39] >> there wasn't any in basement. Oh, okay.
[59:40] It be it would be just that was just for
[59:42] like storage and for their kitchen and
[59:45] all that stuff.
[59:46] >> Okay.
[59:50] Then next meeting is Monday,
[59:53] January 5th at 6 o'clock. Any other
[59:57] business? Motion
[59:58] >> to second.
[59:59] >> Second.
[1:00:00] >> A motion second to adjurnn. All in favor
[1:00:02] say I. Opposed. Okay, we're turn