[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

Prescott Planning Commission, December 1, 2025

Transcript