Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning. My name is Don Michaelman and I want to welcome you to the November 13, 2025 public hearing of the city of Prescat Planning Commission. Um before we start would ask that people check their phones and see if they're on mute or vibrate or whatever you'd like to have them on. Please uh like to have the commission members introduce themsel and start off with Susan. Good morning. I'm Susan Graeme. Good morning Tom Davis.

Good morning Jim Whiting. Tom Riley. Morning, Tom Hutcherson. Good morning, Jim Kacheski.

There you go, Jim. This is a public open public hearing and is being videotaped by the city. The proceedings are being televised by representatives of the public media, the public, local cable and/or radio stations and may also be rebroadcast. The number of commission commissioners present is seven. It will require a majority vote of those present to pass a motion. Members of the public when called upon are required to state their name and address and for the record so that we may know who is speaking and be able to contact them at a later date if necessary. Would like to welcome Mayor Good attending council members Contel and Gambboji on that. We will validate your parking afterwards if that's okay. Uh before we start, Alex, would you like to introduce our new intern?

Uh yes, I would love to. We have Susanna Bond here with us. She's our new um assistant planner and uh she'll be working with us here for all of our boards and commission meetings. So you'll see her around. Ah, thank you. First thing on the agenda is the minutes from the 20 September 25th, 2025 planning and zoning commission meeting. Are there any corrections? If no corrections, is there a motion concerning the minutes? Mr. Chairman, Tom Tom Riley here. I move to approve the minutes as presented. We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? Jim Kazooi. I'll second it.

All right. A motion and second. Any further discussion? If not, Jacob, would you want to call the role? Commissioner Whiting, approve. Commissioner Kloski, approve. Commissioner Hutcherson, approve. Commissioner Graham, approve. Commissioner Davis, approve. Vice Chair Riley, approve. Chair Michael, approve. Next on the agenda is LDC25-00001 revisions to the city of Prescat land development code consistent with ARS9-500.49. Alex,

thank you very much. Good morning all commissioners. Welcome. Uh thanks for having me. My name is Alex Braramlet. I'm the planning manager with community development and we're here this morning to discuss the adopted revisions to Arizona Revised Statutes 9-500.49 uh which has impacts to our land development code and those are the changes we're going to be running through today. So just to start out to provide some framework um the House Bill 2447 is what um changed Arizona ARS I'm just going to go 9500.49 49. Um, and we're going to just focus on the top part. The legislation in total is only a page, but we're going to focus on just the first half of it this morning. It's what impacts our land development code. And so under section A is notwithstanding any other law, the legislative body of a city or town. It went from may to shall where this used to be um optional, now it's being a requirement. By ordinance, do the following. There's two things. Firstly, authorize administrative personnel to review and approve site plans, development plans, land divisions, lot line adjustments, lot ties, preliminary plat, final plat amendments without a public hearing. And the second piece is to authorize administrative personnel to review and approve design review plans based on objective standards without a public hearing. So, we're just going to focus on section A1 first. And that is again the full thing. Notwithstanding any other law, the legislative body of a city or town now shall by ordinance do the following. Authorize administrative personnel to review and approve site plans, development plans, land divisions, lot ties, lot line adjustments, preliminary plots, final plots, and plot amendments without a public hearing. So based on this change, um these are all the sections in our land development code that have been updated to comply

with the statute. Um it's attached in the packet. I'm happy to run through anything particular. My plan is to just these are the overall sections that are being impacted. Then I'm going to highlight a couple key elements and provide an example and then we can kind of go into discussion from there and I can pull it up and we can chat through further. Um so bigger picture article 7 the subdivision lands split design standards has been updated. Article eight the review bodies has been updated. Article 9 administration and procedures has been updated and article 11 the definitions. So article um 8 section 823b is the reviewing bodies for planning and zoning commission the powers and duties and things that you can recommend. So this is um current LDC with the striketh through. So with this new legislative change, we've eliminated preliminary plots, final plots, site plan review, and then the waiverss of standards of article 7 from needing to go forward to planning and zoning to make the recommended recommendation ultimately to city council. Our land development code section, there's a table showing things that need a public hearing. Um, and so the first thing that is strike through is PA master plan. It's been added a little bit later, but just a quick plug. Anything that needs a planned area development or P A is still going to go through the normal process. It's a a deviation from our normal standards. And so that will still need planning and zoning commission to review and recommend a motion to ultimately city council since they are going to be deviating from our normal standards. Um, so that's in there still, but we've removed site plans and subdivisions needing a public hearing. So here's one sample of the changes that we've made. Again, I can pull it up and we can walk through more if that's helpful. Uh, this is the preliminary

plot procedures section in the land development code towards the end. Um currently it talks about the community development director and that they are reviewing the preliminary plat application based on the technical review committee which is the various different departments that are reviewing the preliminary plat fire engineering etc. Um and we're making that staff report. This is the current process that then goes to planning and zoning commission where you all review and make the recommendation and then the final step is city council. So this is the current language we have and here's a sample of the changes that we have made to comply with the legislation. So we've updated the community development director section so that they are still reviewing the preliminary plot application recommendation from the technical review committee. Again all of the different departments reviewing their various elements of the plat and um they are preparing an approval an approval with conditions or a denial of the plat application the final stage. Um and we're eliminating to comply the um planning and zoning and city council as part of the step for in this case a preliminary plot. So it was just a sample. I can pull up more. I wanted to just pause and talk about any other changes, questions on specifically A1. Um and then once we're good to go, we'll dive into A2 and talk about the next things.

Any questions for Alex? Yeah. Um yeah, Alex, a couple things. Um can can you tell us what the underlying rationale for the state legislature to make this change? Why why did they do this? I because they can um you know my I don't know it used to be may so optional as in you can have administrative. So based on it turnurning to shall and making it mandatory seems like they want these different elements to be reviewed administratively. The why I I do not know.

The the second one and maybe this is a a legal question. It it seems to me that the planning and zoning commission represents the public. So we are here representing the public at large. And it it feels like this is a a hit to transparency. It seems like we've eliminated the the public from a lot of the the nitty-gritty of what's going on. And I'm wondering if that was considered. I don't I don't know the history of this. My sense is there was probably an angry constituent down in the valley who lobbyed his or her uh uh legislative uh representative to come up with this. Uh to the extent I think you're making a statement, you're really asking a question. Um sure. Seems like that. Um regardless, you've got a state body that's telling you what the new rules and regulations are. Um, and here we are.

Yeah. So, that that begs the question why we're here.

You have other Tom? Yeah, I have a question. Um, maybe this is upcoming in the next part that we're going to talk about, but the relationship between the House bill and the uh Arizona Revised Statute and how the the uh historic portion mixes into this. I'm not quite understanding the legal language behind that. It doesn't seem to make sense to me, but perhaps somebody here smarter than me, which is everybody, can help me with that. Historic language meaning specific to historic like preservation or the history of the language.

Well, is not so much the history of the language the relationship and how this is how House Bill 2928 impacts. And one of the things in there is that in the House bill, it says that this section does not apply to any of the following including uh historicals areas of historical stuff and different things like that. But this house bill is not part of the ARS, the revised statute. Yes, it it is. And it impacts more um section A2. So, I'm going to back up here. A is the overarching section that went from May to SHA. There's then two subsections. Firstly being that administratively we're looking at plat etc. The second one being that administratively we're reviewing design review plans with objective standards without a public hearing. So, the second one is going to play more into that um his exclusion of the historic preservation and um I'll get there in just a moment if if we can we can dive into section two if that's okay.

I can be patient. Okay. Thanks. There any other questions on kind of this first portion with related to all things plat? Um Mr. Chairman, I have I have a question clarification really, Alex, and I'm referring to u um with my notes here. Um section 9.10.6D master plan. How does that master plan is is that a pre pre-approved master plan by this body or is it something that the staff requires as sort of an accessory to the application?

So it it depends there the master plan is largely going to be associated with the planned area development. if there is a PAD that is again kind of leaning towards the deviation of our standards and that is what's going to still go through the P&Z and council process and then once the PAD is approved with a master plan when we get preliminary plots in and the final plots if they're in conformance they're going to be going through the administrative process. So that's what I thought that this is this master plan referred to earlier in the text uh is the same as that which would be submitted with a pad. Correct.

Okay. Feeling good to continue on.

Good. Okay. Uh so back again to House Bill 2447 again. Just we're looking at the first the the upper portion of the text. Um but we're going to focus on A2 this time. Again, it switched from May to shall authorize administrative personnel to review and approve design review plans based on objective standards without a public hearing. Here it is just in the text. Um, again, we're just focusing on design review plans based on objective standards without a public hearing. To your point, Mr. Riley, the first thing that you think about is when you're looking at objective standards and design review plans, a lot of what we review in terms of design review is within historic preservation. So, House Bill 2928 also was established. The green text is new and I'll show it to you as as a whole in just a moment. But it's saying that this section all of a that we're going over um does not apply to any of the following land and area that is designated a district of historical significance. Anything that's on a national register of historic places and designated historic by a local government. So in total, this is looking at all 9-500.49. So again, A, it's at the top subsection 1 and two are those that's where we're really focusing. And then um House Bill 2928 plays in down at D saying that all of the above is exempt. Um the historic preservation is exempt from this. So when we're thinking about design review plans, it's not looking at anything historic preservation related. That's going to stay through its entire normal process. Um, at that point we then looked at our code and thought, what do we look at that requires a design review that maybe doesn't have quite objective standards and needs a public hearing. And the uh only thing we found in our current code is the uh existing um special use permit SUP requirements

specifically triggered within the downtown business district. Um, so this is not impacting normal SUP processes that you're going to see. a cell tower will still come through planning and zoning. It's just there are only um some there's criteria in the um non-residential districts for downtown business that trigger an SUP. Um and that's that's what we're looking at. So, here is the LDC text. Again, it's under non-residential districts. So the downtown business zoning district is where SUPs can be triggered based on the size of a structure, the expansion of a structure, and then the cost. If the value increases over 50%, they need a special use permit. Our current code requires them at that point to go to um Prescuit Preservation Commission, then to Planning and Zoning Commission, and then to city council. So again, this is the only process we found that has design review with not quite objective standards that triggers a public hearing. Um, so we are proposing to eliminate the need for a special use permit in the downtown business zoning district. Continuing on with the LDC, these are the compatibility review guidelines that we're looking at when that SUP was triggered and just for any projects in the downtown business zoning district. So, the criteria are going to stay. We updated them to be more objective. The state provided some guidelines on how to do that. So, we're still reviewing these through our building permit process. It just won't trigger the the PPC, PNZ, and city council public hearings so that we can comply with the statute. And then, just to make sure we were being consistent, the um 9.9 is a special use permits section in LDC and there are only two small changes. is uh the first being applicability. It references the need um the special use permits in downtown business needing PPC and and all of the those elements that

we've removed. So, we deleted that. And then the other section is 994. Um E was review for PPC for specifically projects in downtown business. Since we removed that, we just updated that section. But the rest of the SUP section is not being modified. Tom, do you have a question? So, if I'm if I'm understanding you correctly, the special use permit that was um applied for for the old territorial courthouse, uh that would not that would have been handled by staff and not by that wouldn't come in front of us anymore.

It would have still gone through the historic preservation PPC for the design review, but it it did that and then it did an SUP, which also then needed PPC, P&Z, and council, and then building permits. So that SCP section that gets brought through you all would would not have occurred. So the design review will what you're saying then is that in historic district design review will still be handled through the preservation commission. Yes. Okay. Isn't that a public hearing?

Yes. But that's what House Bill 2928 is exempting. So here's the whole N 950049. So A is where it's saying um we shall do these things and require authorized administrative personnel to review and approve design plans without a public hearing. Then D was added in with House Bill 2928 exempting historic preservation essentially from A2 and other things. So it's saying we have to authorize administrative personnel to review and approve design review plans except for in historic districts. So, so

the design review portion of it is the only thing that the commission would take a preservation commission would take a look at. We wouldn't see that and the council wouldn't see that. Is that correct?

Correct. So, the old city hall project as an example, they started with PPC to review for because they were in the courthouse plaza local preservation district that required them to get PPC approval. all exempt from they have to do that no matter what. What our current process is is that then they get the PPC approval, then they needed to get the SUP approval, which went back through PPC for courtesy review, then to planning and zoning commission, then to city council, and then now they're in the the building permit days process. So, if this were in effect at that time, they would still get that PPC approval and then they just would not have needed the SUP to go back through.

Clear as mud. Um, no, I understand what I understand what you're saying. I guess I'm just trying to follow the logic through it and I need to abandon logic when I'm looking at legislation. So, you know, so there there's that portion of it. So the well what about the hotel now the hotel on whiskey row that what has to go through right now by our current standards would go through an SU correct but now if once this is adopted if they wait they don't have to do that correct

also with that hotel the preservation commission said no you know and council said yay um but good for council By the way, uh the question comes in then is that if the in that kind of a situation where the preservation commission says no, is that it? I mean, is it

the appeal the appeal process that's built into the review of a preservation decision like the the hotel will continue to exist. So, you can you can appeal the denial back to the council for a final determination. That's how the hotel came to the council. Had had the preservation commission approved it, right? It would have been done. Uh it didn't. There is a right to an appeal. That appeal was made. So that appeal will continue to to remain. But there's no automatic review from the council from a preservation commission meeting unless there's an appeal.

H that gives them quite a bit of power, doesn't it? For example, with the old city hall, the PPC approved it and it it didn't go to council for design review and then the SUP was brought through. But the actual design component of it with PPC was approved and that that is our normal process in a local district. If you have a project, you bring it to PPC. If they approve, you move on. Um the the hotel on West Growth certainly had more layers. So, but normally it it just gets approved or denied. And I don't know if they really typically deny other than this unique circumstance, which does add some confusion, but typically they just it ends at PPC.

So, if I'm understanding it correctly, if the preservation commission says no to something and the SU the uh the SUP well says no to the design criteria, staff or administration can't overrule that. Is that correct? Yes. So when they say no, it's no. And the only alternative that somebody would have then is to go back through the appeal process. Right.

Okay. So what happens if we don't if council ultimately says no, we're not going to do this. What is the ramifications of telling the state legislature no? Well, to my uh understanding, this is to um approve an ordinance and the ordinance itself will change the text in our land development code as was shown on exhibit A. If it's not approved, I I do believe then the LDC just text doesn't change, but we still need to comply with the state statute. But Matt can So, in other words, we have to I'm gonna let Matt answer that one.

Well, yeah. I mean, if you then you'll you'll just be non-compliance. Um and then whatever enforcement mechanisms come into that come into that. You know, our recommendation would be that you know, you follow the law whether or not the council chooses not to adopt these tax code amendments or not that get us compliant. Um I'm not seeing sort of a charter argument that overrules the state statute. Um, so I think this is kind of one of those matters of statewide concern statutes um that all towns and cities are dealing with right now trying to figure out how to how to get compliant and it's it's kind of the law.

Thank you. Are there other questions about Yeah, Alex, just a your view on this. Is this a a efficiency improvement for the community development department?

I think it's going to go through our normal process. We're already reviewing it. When a a pre-plot, for example, is submitted, we it's through our portal. All the departments that need to review their workflows are opened. We're reviewing it. So, it it will process-wise be relatively the same um just in terms of everyone's reviewing and approving and then we'll have extra steps at the end to um have our checks and balances in place to make sure everything is good to go um given that it's not going to PNC and council anymore. So, basically that means that we're cutting out the nimi portion.

In other words, the public doesn't have the opportunity to have input. So I can't come in here and just about it because I want to about it. I have a question. Yeah,

Jim Kluiski. So based on section D which exempts his anything of historical significance, there's nothing we can change in our land development code that might give us a little bit more power under that section D if that's exempt from the bill. Um I'm trying to think of how do you like in what regard of changing LDC because that is just really specific to the historic preservation piece just making it so that the the administrative approval does not apply to that um which is already our current process in bringing it to PPC. So,

so then what we're saying is that section D really applies to the preservation society commission as far as they can make those decisions, but we still can't do anything that within our land development code or city ordinances. We can't do anything to gain a little bit more control.

There's Yeah. No, there's no exception of in terms of like a a plot should go except for in the case of a a planned area development where they're asking for a relaxation of our code that is still where we'll bring it through to you all. Um further if there's a development agreement, there's other larger things at play that will that will be part of it as well. But a typical standard yeah pre-plot or final plot um it's just it's going to be administrative. It seems to me that the whole thing here is not so much that we get to review it cuz you know so what u seven of us or the council and everything doesn't get to review some of these things. Uh the the big issue here is that the public doesn't need to be made aware of these things that they're going on. So that's not going to happen any longer. And I'm I'm thinking that that's both a blessing and a curse uh quite frankly. But it seems to me that by I guess I'm wondering the public probably doesn't know about this yet. And I'm thinking the STDs, you know, those those kinds of political action groups are going to jump up and down. And I mean, you're basically taking the not you of course, but the state is basically taking the rug out from underneath them in terms of having to inform my neighbor that there's going to be a subdivision going next to me. What about those kinds of things? I mean, typically with a subdivision or something like that, we have something in the code where you have to notify zoning changes and things like that where you have to notify people within a certain distance of that particular property. That's not going away, is it?

Well, in terms of the zoning change, any kind of text or map amendment that is ex that's not part of this at all. Um, it's still going to be I'll go back here. Hang on. Oh, so um just to kind of recap on on this portion for for planning and zoning that the SU the normal kind of SUP process is is staying the same. Zoning map and text amendments will still be brought through uh PNZ and council any general plan, area plan or neighborhood plans will still be brought through and P A. So all of those will still be current process, normal process and not be changing.

So with a reszone, we'll still be notifying to the criteria we have set and requirements in that capacity. This is going to make life interesting. Thank you. There any other

u Mr. Chairman, I have a question just um coming to mind with this discussion is that um is is there a a violation of the of the of the law whereas um a or do we want to have uh this discretion of having the community development director refer this to the planning commission? I a let's say there's a complex final plat or preliminary plat or site plan review. Is it significant enough where um the community development worker has the discretion to move this up to a public hearing?

I want me to address that was in violation of the law. Yes. So all the big projects, the big issues you're concerned about will still go through the normal process. As Alex said, resonings, master plan, or through development agreement or through a PAD, those big issues continue to go through the normal process. It's the things you see there, final plats, preliminary plats, site plan reviews. And I know Alex didn't say this because she doesn't want to seem like it's coming from her. Not. But clearly the legislator's intent is to reduce public input because there's a a perception that housing prices of affordable housing are all being reduced by the nimism that he said. So this is clearly the intent of the ordinance or of the statute. And so we're just in a situation where we've been ordered to do this and and so we do what the state says. Does that answer your question? Joe, te tell me again what was the intent of this legislation.

The intent is to increase the availability of housing. Yeah. Make it easier to build. Make it easier to build. Oh, and just for the record, Alex, I didn't think you came up with this. Thank you. All right. That that is what I had to cover. So I'm I want to make sure everyone feels

Hello members Jim, Tom, Tom, Don, Jim, Tom, and Susan. Um I, you know, I just wanted to encourage you all to uh by the way, Connie can tell me, city council. Um and Tom, I'm sure you're aware of this. We have a very large lobbying group in the state of Arizona. It's called Arizona Homebuilders. Uh we've been going down to the legislature. I've been kind of tuning in and off and on on this very uh subject. Uh write a letter. You have to write. We've got Quan Wyn, Selena Bliss, and Fincham. Write letters of opposition. You you're on a legitimate commission. Um Scottsdale's getting involved in this. Many neighborhoods are getting to getting together uh to try to overturn this or at least modify it. Weigh in on it. You have every right to do that. So, contact your legislators and let them know and Arizona homebuilders, let them know how it affects us here. Thank you. I guess I'm I'm not so sure it's not a bad it's not a good thing, you know. I think I said it's both a blessing and a curse, but uh I'm not so sure. I'd like to see how this plays out for a little while just to see what happens, you know. and uh you know watching watching some of these groups come off the rails be kind of interesting. So that's given that if are you ready for a motion?

Any other questions for Alex? If not is there a motion? Mr. Chairman, I move to recommend approval of the revisions to the city's land development code consistent with Arizona Revised Statutes 9-5000-49 as shown in exhibit A. We have a motion. Is there a second? Uh James Whiting second.

We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I have one item on this. I think the part of this that bothers me the most is the state legislature seems to have the thought that they should tell the cities and counties what they should do and that we aren't smart enough to make our own decisions. Now, the legislature gets its hackles up when the federal government tells them what to do, but they feel they can tell us what to do. So that's just my personal thing. And Jacob, would you call the role? Commissioner Whiting,

approve. Commissioner Klauski, approve. Commissioner Hutcherson, I disapprove. Commissioner Graham, reluctantly approve. Commissioner Davis, approve. Vice Chair Riley approve. Chair Michaelman. I'm forced to approve. You know, just for the note, I want to tell you, Commission, Mr. Chairman, nothing has changed. The Arizona legislature has been telling cities and towns what to do since the Arizona legislature was in first enforced. This has this has changed. There's nothing new about this.

It doesn't mean we have to like it. We never have. Before we adjourn, uh I believe this is Mayor Good and Councilman Kantomy's last session with us and I see smiles on her face. I don't know why, but yeah. But I personally want to thank you for your time and effort that you have put in and your positions over the years here on that. I know it's not an easy thing and I now understand that you can now have your phone published in the public on that to get phone calls, but thank you for your service on that. meeting Sure.