Preservation Commission - Regular Meeting

e e e e

e e e e

e e e e

e e e my name is Don michaelan and I'd like to have my fellow Commissioners and introduce himself uh before we start the meeting here Susan you want to start good morning I'm Susan Graham and it's great to see you all here good morning Tom Davis good morning Tom Riley good morning Jim Whiting Joe you don't have to introduce yourself um before we start if you would check your phones to make sure they're either turned off or un silent would appreciate that uh this is the welcome you to the January 30th 2025 public hearing of the city of presca Planning Commission on that um this is a open public hearing and is being videotaped by the city proceedings are being televised by representatives

of the public media the public local cable Andor radio stations and may also be rebroadcast the number of commission Commissioners present is five 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 for the record so that we may know who is speaking and be able to contact them in a later date if necessary also would like to have the commission members uh mention their name when they talk to because it's going to be a little more difficult understanding who's who here okay first item on the agenda is the approval of the January 9th 2025 Planning and Zoning commission meeting minutes are there any corrections to the minutes if no correction is there a motion so moved Tom Riley moves for Tom Riley sorry that's right supposed to say it Jim Whiting second we have a motion in a second any further discussion if not Jacob commissioner Whiting uh I was absent that meeting so I'm going to abstain from the vote commissioner Graham approved commissioner Davis approved Vice chair Riley approved chair michaelan approved next item is presentation and discussion and approval regarding the future land use map in the general Plan update Tammy thank you good morning thank you good morning commission chairman members of the commission Tammy D Community planner um thank you for working with us today um for the public so they know the reason why we're having this meeting in this room today is

because per state law for General plans as we're reopt it or updating it we do have to have two Planning and Zoning commission meetings which this is our second one of for public hearings and they have to be at separate locations so thank you for everyone for working with us and we think this is going to go pretty smoothly today so um for housekeeping if anyone needs to the restrooms are in the back up the stairs to the left so okay so we brought this forward to you again this this map has been discussed many times by the general um General plan committee for our Planning and Zoning commission this is our most probably most important thing that we look at uh for zoning purposes so as rezoning cases come before us we look at this map is it in compliance with the the future land use map and then we have triggers that say whether it be a minor plan Amendment and a major plan Amendment which is in the the document itself which we'll go over later after in the next item so but we were asked to bring this forward there's been some there were some changes we made kind of at the last minute um so we were brought before us we had some areas on the map that were designated as open space um which was a violation of state law so per ARS 961 94610 6 regarding land use map basically what it says is that we cannot designate anybody's property private property or state land as open space and we cannot uh designate for uh anything other than one dwelling unit or more per acre so um it came to our attention before that we had some areas that were probably mislabeled and so we fixed it but then there's still some question about about the land use mount in in different designations so this is our current current sorry current future use land

use map so we have commercial commercial employment and as a reminder this is not zoning so this is a totally different map than well it kind of matches our zoning map but it is a it's not a zoning map so this is land use designations which is spelled out on page 66 in the general plan which is an explanation of the different land use destinations I want to throw that out so we have commercial commercial employment low to medium density which is 1 to 7 dwelling units per acre medium to high density which is 8 to 32 mixed use open space and Recreation so what we did with before we had had a designation that was very low density but the way we had it was less than one dwelling unit per acre so that was a violation of state law so as staff we kind of looked at the map so what we did was we just got rid of the very low density and just change those all to the low of medium density for 1 to seven dwelling units per acre and then we've gotten some questions about that you know maybe we can bring back the very low density residential and just have it as one dwelling unit per acre or one to two or whatever this body decides to designate it as very low density was actually defined in the general plan um under the land use designations as the very low density residential category is intended for large lot single family housing in rural s in a rural setting development in these areas will consist mainly of detached single family homes on 2 acre lots or larger the basic character of development is rural so at the time when this was it mostly The Ranch Land up north behind us great place to be talking about this so the area we are looking at is the north Prescot area that is the our

growth area that's where we see growth possibly happening happening besides infill development down in the other areas of town but this area is also checkerboarded with state land and deep well ranch ranch land and so and these are the two biggest land owners within the city of presc or adjacent to the city of presc so this is the area we're kind of looking at if we look along Williamson Valley Road which is all out in this in the county you know some of it is 35,000 which is 86 Acres so one dwelling unit per acre some of these are R1 L70 which is 1.65 acres and I think there's some two acres up in here this area in the county is zoned RCU 2A RCU is a a holding Zone in the county for either to be developed under the two acre zoning or for future plans to come in and rezone it so this is the area we're really looking at is around the airport and the North Area there are some other areas in town we would look at if we change it to bring back the very low density and we'll look at whether this would apply to that too so this the comments you did receive that from from the state land department they were concerned you know they are landh holders within the state they have beneficiaries that they um have to make sure that their properties they're they're vested and that they have adequate land uses Associated and they've been very active this these last few years with General plans around around the state to make sure that they're um property rights are maintained so this was in your packet you know they don't consent to anything less than one dwelling unit per acre basically is what it says and they like agree that the low to medium density designation was acceptable and you also did get a letter

from Deep Well Ranch um that was sent to you this week that was basically saying the same thing that you know they don't consent to anything less than one dwelling unit per acre and that they agreed that the load to medium density designation was acceptable and what they would like to see it maintained so our question before you today is should we bring back the very low density designation and whether one dwelling unit or one to two dwelling units or what you feel might be appropriate for those areas and that concludes my presentation I'm free to answer any questions questions for staff personally I favor having the low density beam one dwell per acre and then the next one being two to seven dwellings per acre but that's my personal thoughts any other thoughts on that yeah Tom Davis I think I mentioned I think to um my email to Tammy earlier this week was that um I agree kind of with the same interpretation I think uh allowing one unit to the acre U and moving to 2 to 7 I mean we see these categories um and they're in my my mind are treated like up to up to 7 to the acre up to 32 to the acre Etc and that allows for some interpretation through the zoning process um so I I have no qual about uh U just putting in a designation of of of you know one to the acre and then going from 2 to S I think that's that's a proper solution any other comments uh Jim Whiting um with I don't disagree with what you

were saying Tom but um isn't that supposed to be uh not less than one per acre or is it just up two we would just have one dwelling unit per acre okay that'll be your max now I understand that would be the that would be the well I don't remember exactly how you quoted it but it sounds like it was left some question mark sorry well that's my intent that that would that's that would be the Max uh it's like the other categories like I said uh low medium is 7 to the acre high medium high is 32 to the acre that's the max max would be one to the acre okay in that category thank you I have a question if that was going to be something that we looked at Tom Riley if that if that's going to be something that we looked at how does the land use map change so if we look at the North preset area um a lot of this would be changed to possibly very low density one dwelling unit per acre and then uh to the the left I mean to the right of the airport area over in this area would be the same uh we would change that also to very low density and then there's some areas south of that state trest land uh that's used for I think the church Turkey Trail goes through there and there's a wash that would also be designated as very low density so all the the pale yellow would change from 1 to seven dwelling units per acre down to one dwelling unit per acre if you did what you were saying correct correct well that's most of this is two acre in the county um already developed uh two acres like I said these are I think this is uh was 2 acre there was

some r1l 70 which is 1.65 this I think was 35,000 density in the county which is uh one one unit per acre but then we have this mixed use here so we have this transition area between this low density here and then the mixed use here higher density mixed use of Deep Well Ranch and this is State trust land that they asked for that to be mixed used to be consistent with the adjacent area so the area directly Tom Riley still the area directly below where your arrow is right now what is that those are that's pinion Oaks how big are those 18 density 18,000 squ foot Lots so that would be half three four dwelling in breaker and this is uh the new uh subdivision coming in under the same type zoning so that color is not correct then it given if it stays the the way that it's designated right now which is 1 to seven dwelling units per acre the color is correct if it changes then that's the land use map has to change along with that is that correct yeah we have to change this land use map if we add that density designation I don't know it seems like a pretty broad brush to me I'm I'm not in favor of doing that and we do have uh Representatives that are here to speak on this too I bet

yeah this is a city boundary we wouldn't change these because they're already under entitlements so we can't change that so it would be anything over this red which is this the city boundary line so this is all out in the county right now so this would be annexed and come in probably under development agreement with other Provisions in place more than life Tom Riley still now if that is all the things that have the designation in there the pale yellow that's not within the corporate limits of the city correct correct it's for future projects coming forward okay so for future projects coming forward when that land comes in which is currently zoned uh R2L rc2 RC 2 acre mhm it has to Comm in it's 2 acre it will and so then the city would have the opportunity to change that zone they have to bring it into 2 acre zoning which is very low density then the city would have to go through a zoning change process in order to be able to make whatever designation the land owners want in that particular area is that correct correct so regardless of the only thing reason we're doing this is that if we keep it the zoning that it is if we keep it the designation that it is now land outside the city then when they bring it in There's an opportunity of not having to go through a majored plan Amendment to have to change the zoning I mean that's basically it right correct so that's the it comes in it comes in at two acre and then they have to change somebody would have to change the zoning in order to be able to create some other kind of zoning and the only issue that we have here then is whether or not we're going to make them go through a general plan major Amendment or a minor Amendment correct so the process really isn't much different is it no matter what we do with this land that process isn't going to change a whole bunch no I mean if it comes if we have it keep it as it is under one to seven dwelling units if they come in under

with seven dwelling units per acre it's allowed the the resoning request is that then it matches the land use map there's no map change no General plan Amendment okay so if if you could for Tammy just for purposes of the audience and everybody else if you could tell us what the differen is what what is a major plan Amendment caused to happen as opposed to just a minor plan Amendment sure so with a major plan Amendment the additional requirements besides just our basic rezoning process is it has a 60-day public comment period and then it needs a super majority vote from city council whereas a minor plan amendment is done administratively it it runs with the resoning request but it doesn't require the 60-day public comment period or the super majority vote by city council okay thank you you're welcome any other questions or comments you need a motion from us don't you we have members of the public who wish to speak on this item you got to let the public speak Don sorry first speaker will be Jenna James good morning Jenna James representing deep well Ranch uh this is new a little bit new to us the proposal that the ultra low density designation be brought back into the general plan uh at in the original draft we weren't opposed to uh the city keeping the ultr low density we were just opposed to being included in that designation because it was a violation of state law um not necessarily opposed to uh today's proposal um there is

another provision of state law that does govern General plans uh that is I can look that up it's 94 61.0 five and that says that similarly situated Parcels cannot be have different land use designations uh so as long as all of the parcels in this general area that are either state land or privately owned are in that same category of one dwelling unit per acre we not opposed however if you're going to say well this one is owned by someone else and there it's not going to be one dwelling unit per acre then we are opposed to that because that's a violation of state law you can't use ownership uh as a reason to have different land use designations they need to be geographically or otherwise substantially different in order to have a different land use designation and we don't believe that the other Parcels similarly situated around the airport are substantially different enough for them to receive a differently induced designation I I am welcome Happy to answer any questions if you have them appears no questions thank you next speaker is Steph pulk chairman Commissioners my name is Steven pulk uh 125 uh North Granite Street presc Arizona Bo petrid Law Firm attorney for deep boil Ranch I'll try not to repeat what Jenna said or or Miss dwit thought those were really nicely presented uh so just want to summarize the the first one is I think Tammy correctly presented today the state law says minimum of one

dwelling unit per acre so if you do that then you're complying with 9- 46106 so that's the minimum is one uh but I do want to talk a little bit about just from this is a future land use map and so you're trying to plan for the future here and and you want to consider this in the context of the entirety of the the of the general plant and that we talk about things like water conservation and future growth and how do we plan for that growth and and responsible growth allows for higher density than this minimum of one dwelling unit per acre so uh to recap uh when the general plan committee went through this initially over on the east side and uh properties near the airport they had that at that 2 to S dwelling unit per acre I think that you know properly allowed for a little bit more future land use growth and then deep well Ranch itself was really just targeted only as this ultra low density and so I really do think you should consider that in terms of the more responsible thing is allowing or at least planning to allow for for future density if growth does occur there um you know when you talk about a one one dwelling unit per acre at that point financially you're talking about putting your own well on the property doing your own septic on the property uh so from a water conservation that that does um that's kind of the least responsible way to do development uh the kind of the better cluster development where you have sewer infrastructure and you can get the recharges is really the more responsible way so I do want to encourage you to think about the whole picture of the general plan when thinking about what this future land use map talks about uh and then I want to return to commissioner Riley's point which is again this is not you're not making a zoning decision today this property is in the county and it's RCU 2A that's the agricultural designation

right now uh if and when it were to get annexed into the city it comes in with that it's called a zoning equip equivalency so state law says it has to come in at the same zoning it is in the county so it comes into city of presc also as 2 acre minimum residential lot sizes then we would have to go through the normal rezoning process where you get public Outreach public comment Planning and Zoning commission gets to hear on it and make a decision then and so really the key difference and why we're talking about the future land use map is um if you pick this one dwelling unit per acre as the future that does trigger that'll trigger a requirement to do a um this a major Amendment to the general plan and again that that would require super majority so I really I think I we shouldn't be tying our hands on that and and plan for the future so that's you know allowing that that slightly higher density like the uh like the original map had on the east side of the airport the Arizona EC development properties so I'd encourage you when you look at the map right in front of you here with all yellow that makes sense I don't know if you had the opportunity to at that the prior version that had really just targeted just the Deep ball Ranch property and state land property for the 1 acre minimums then it it you can see it looks a bit arbitrary um there's there's no real significant difference and so we're asking don't discriminate against deep well Ranch on the basis of just because we own the property in the middle and it's easy to Target us um so certainly two things today I want to conclude with uh we want to be treated the same as the other undeveloped land out there and number two really take a look at I think the 2 to7 dwelling units per acre is for purposes of future land use map and uh within the whole context of the general plan I think that's really the better designation um I'm available for any questions thank you thank you Mr chairman I have a question I mean um so let's say we keep

it as staff recommended and it's uh two it's you know one 1 to 7 to the acre in that category that that that establishes for the city uh a land use policy for this entire area of a maximum of 7 to the8 wouldn't that be in your best interest to keep that 7 to the acre category versus a one or two yeah absolutely commissioner Davis yeah yeah so the the 1 to S gives that greater flexibility and again it's the future plan right it wouldn't preclude us from doing lower density if we want to develop that way in the future but it's certainly in our best interest in the interest of of North Prescot to allow for that future growth to go with that one to S other questions thank you sir thank you uh next speaker is Ralph hes uh good morning uh my name is Ralph H I live in Prescot um as I mentioned in the previous meeting I disagree with the interpretation of the statute that's presented by uh Council and staff um in your packet you have my long dissertation of my rationale for why I disagree with that interpretation um once once you decide that you're not going to uh designate private property or state land trust as open space my interpretation is statute does not require you to have at least one dwelling unit uh per acre so but um I'm not going to rehash all that you have my rationale on that um my point is I would prefer that you end up making

decisions regarding the land use map based on planning decisions rather than misinterpretation of that statute and it sounds like you're going to put in the the uh very low density uh designation with a minor U change so I support that thank you thank you sir the no more speakers okay discussion Tom I don't know why we would change what staff has recommended I'm not seeing a rationale for doing that and I think from a plan you know that they're the professional planners number one so you know I think that they probably know a little bit more than maybe most of us do about planning things and that's their recommendation I for one would like to see us go with the designation of the 1 to7 dwelling units per acre low low density 1 to7 dwelling units per acre as recommended by the staff and the reason for that is that it allows as Mr pul pointed out it it allows us to it allows staff to take a look at the developments as an on an individual basis and it allows them to take a look at the use utilization of water sewer and different thing different things coming in and we we don't necessarily have to put that into a uh into a major plan Amendment so good planning shouldn't have to go through all that big process that we're going to go through with the major plan Amendment so I for one would like to see us move forward with the more in my opinion the more versatile solution which is the one that staff is putting forward other comments yeah I I'll I see your point about the process of the general plan Amendment which I I'm not this is Tom Davis sorry um I agree with you about the process of

the general plan Amendment it may be owners um however when I see that area designated up to seven units to the acre that's giving a essentially some entitlement of a growth to that extent which may be detrimental to the infrastructure future infrastructure of the of of the city so my point is that giving a giving areas that are outside the city that are possibly being annexed to the city I'm concerned about the infrastructure supporting up to seven units to the acre in any any form so um my concern is that we do the best we can to limit that area until a Planning Development proposal comes in that can we can evaluate objectively and Tom Riley and you you're right about that I understand what where you're coming from on that one of the issues comes in though is that when it comes in it comes in is very very very low density it comes in a two two acres for one dwelling unit now from that point the the land owner no matter who they are has to be able they need to come in and they need to design the plat that they want and they need to bring it forward and it has to go through the Z zoning process has to go through the zoning changes as it is right now so I guess the question comes in is are we going to say that if they come in with anything more than one dwelling unit per acre if they want to do something more than one dwelling unit per acre are we going to put them through the hoop Loops of having to go through a general plan Amendment and I think that that's silly I mean they have to go through the process and it's a public process they

have to go through the process anyway Tammy thank you chairman you know this another thing that this map is used for is for future planning so as the Water Resources depart Water Resources depart department is doing their future Al land use planning for their long range Water Management plan they're going to use this map to help create that so if they have it show that it's up to seven dwelling units per acre they can kind of plan future you know allocations based on that so that's why when we extended our boundaries a little bit from before so that Stringfield in the future they want to be annexed it's in our boundary this time um unlike last time but then we out to where we see where Chino valleys come down to Outer Loop Road we've hit that boundary we're hit on the right side on the east side we're hit by Prescot Valley we can't grow that way anymore we can't grow to the West anymore you got County then you have Forest to the South there's a couple large Parcels down there but most of it's been developed and you hit forest service so the north is where we're planning for our future planning in the water allocation the regional Water Management plan we'll look at this map and look at the density that we have kind of planned for that area and then they're going to plan according to that that might help with with your your comments about the future planning in infrastructure because we are going to plan our infrastructure going northward so um again Tammy thank you um my some of my previous written comments regarding water relate to this and so my point is that this establishes land use policy for the

city and Zoning implements that land use policy and my my my concern is that we have a huge swath of land that's presently very low density right now and we're going to allow up to S and let's see what happens um so I'm I'm still concerned about the aspect of just you know if we had another category 1 to three or whatever the case may be I'd be a little more comfortable and that's that's something you do if if you want to bring back the very low density you can have it one one to three whatever you think and then the other one will be you know four to seven or or whatever I'm I'm just still concerned about establishing basically what we're doing here is we're establishing it up to almost like an entitlement to 7 joint per acre for the but this is not zoning remember this is not Z I know it's not zoning but it establishes land use policy that zoning can Implement right ites it's not the other way around Z zoning doesn't govern the land use long range long land use policy of the city the general plan does and that's my concern so Tom Riley Mr Davis you it sounds like what you're saying is that the up to seven units uh if they were to develop that up to seven units there's just too many people is that correct well I'm just saying that we we probably don't have the the information or we don't have the infrastructure or the information right now that what do you mean by infrastructure infrastructure the stuff

that we we depend upon roadways sewer lines water lines water access yeah yeah well doesn't the developer no matter what they do no matter what the density the developers is required to put those in anyway there that's that's that's that's the way our our code works I don't disagree with you I don't disagree with you but we're establishing a land long-term land use policy of up to 7 to the acre that's and so you think that that is just that just allows us to have too many people up there no I don't I don't I don't I don't see the justification moving that property that if if if that was already subdivided plats were already approved by the county be a different story but I it's to me it's just a extremely broad brush um and if if I was the land owner on the other side I'd be very happy with what we're doing with up to 70 acre for all that great open space I'd be very happy so if we if we designate that for Less population up there less people being in that area which is the Crux of your concern uh then at that point the planning whatever with not just planning staff here but water resources and everything else and public works all the they start planning for the lower density if if the capacity there infrastructure supports it a general plan Amendment for that area is appropriate again you and I are probably not going to agree on this but I I don't see where when you use the word infrastructure you're talking about all the things that the developers required to do whether it's one dwelling unit per acre or it's 50 dwelling units per acre so the infrastructure is not is not there now because it's vacant land but if you're not going to make it vacant land then they're required to do all that work so I guess you know Bacon Land

yes of course there's no infrastructure out there right now right but to base your decision on what's not there just it just seems to me to be somewhat myopic I I I think we're basically saying maybe the same thing but I'm saying in the opposite I'd rather see I'd rather see better justification before we give a car launch to that high of a density for this area again you don't want too many people out there that's your interpretation Tammy I have a couple questions for you you had mentioned that there would be a review I think by state water on based on what we're looking at here that if we had like up to seven units per acre they would take that into effect on water in the future uh yes chairman so and the City of presca starting to do our long range Water Management plan um which is a strategy and a goal in the general plan um so what they are looking at what they use they use our future land use map to help plan for the growth areas and appropriate for what may be coming in in that area we understand that adjacent to the existing deep well ranch we're going to have Master plans that come in or they're going to incorporate into the deep well Ranch master plan and be a higher density in probably a mixed use that's more than likely what's going to happen from a planning perspective probably past 10 years you know I mean first we have to see hopefully deep well Ranch get built out first before we see that but um it could happen at any time we don't know what's going to happen we don't our crystal balls aren't working um but we want to make sure we're

planning appropriately and when we do at Future land uses all our departments are going to be looking at that as we start looking at this area and see as things start happening out there but the Water Management plan they are going to look at our future land use map where we kind of see maybe where our boundaries can go and plan appropriate and make sure that we're planning it appropriately for those areas what kind of effect would it be on the water use plan if we had 1 to S versus one in your opinion that's a fluid subject um oh bad pun um you know that's that's a difficult you know right now we're waiting for a decision and order from the state we don't know when we're going to get that to help answer your question that you had before there's we have no no idea when they're go the state is going to say your decision in order and this is what you're allocated in the future we have no idea there's so many water if you look at the legislation this year and every year there water is a huge concern in the state and so it's being looked at very heavily by the state and the and the amas whether they're acting appropriately or not or allocated appropriately or what we're doing up here to comply with the AMA requirements so we just want to make sure we're addressing it so in the future in the next 10 years if we see growth happen out here we don't know what's going to happen anything can happen we can have another disaster somewhere else and people start flooding over here I'm not saying I I don't encourage that but um but we want to make sure we're planning appropriately for this area this is our growth Area North preset we know that we don't know when it's going to happen but we just want to make sure that we have everything in our toolbox that we can plan appropriately and if

you have it at one dwelling unit per acre that's what we're going to plan for even though in the back of our minds we kind of know it's going to be higher but we don't have any idea what it would come in as at least with seven dwelling units it could allow us could allow us to plan more appropriately when a property owner wants to have their land uh brought into the city whether it's one or 1 to 7 they're going to have to present what their plans are and that will come in front of planning and zoning and city council and so forth correct correct so when we Annex the property we bring it in and we have per state state law we have to designate it under a similar zoning so all that's RCU 2A out in the county so we would come it would come in under RE 2 acre 90% of the time we're going to see a master plan out here we're going to see a master plan we're going have development agreements what they're going to have to do for infrastructure for that area and and so forth then they're going have to present a zoning map change usually the zoning map changes go with the annexations that's usually how we process those so you're going to see the master plan the the vision for that area and make sure that it's all appropriate for that area as part of a rezoning request the question is going to be is it going to be a minor plan Amendment or a major plan Amendment and we have those triggers our new chart that we created that's in the master plan of what triggers a major or minor plan Amendment from that category okay now our general plan is going to be for the next 10 years the chances of this property we're looking at most of it is not going to be developed in the next 10 years part of it probably could but the majority of it

is not that's my guess you am I wrong or possible or what my you know like I said we don't know what can happen we there could be a natur anything can happen you know but I mean I'm I'm guessing that too but like I said my crystal ball is not working for next 10 years okay any other questions for Tammy while she's up here Jim whing I I agree that the city should plan for a worst case scenario because especially as it relates to the water since that is probably the biggest question mark of development because without the water you're not going to get the development so if the state is part of that planning process I think the should be dealing with the highest possibility in order to put us in a in a position to really know what to do when those projects come up okay any other comments if not is hey Don Terry sapio resident presc I didn't F out of form uh what this really boils down to and we went round and round and round with this in the general plan committee the chairman of the general plan committee is how onerous do you want to make development in the city of presca and whether something should be a a major plan Amendment or a minor plan Amendment if you trigger the major plan Amendment and the the one acre designation would would essentially trigger the major plan

Amendment every time somebody wants to reone it requires a super majority of the city council to approve the resoning and we have 48,000 residents that vote for the seven members of the city council including the mayor and when you re start requiring super majorities you are swaying the vote in favor of one side or the other and by requiring a super majority you are swaying the vote in favor of the no voters and I think everybody in the city has voted for the seven members of the city council and they all deserve equal say but when you require a super majority vote you are giving a greater than equal say to the no voters because you have to have a super for majority of the yes voters to say to approve the resoning but you only need a minority of the no voters to stop the resoning so I think In fairness we should lean toward the 1 to7 instead of the one and then the 2 to7 because it it gives everybody a fair and equal chance of represent ation on the city council when they come to vote and not swaying the vote in favor of the no voters thank you Terry Jacob is that it do we have anybody else no that that would be it okay any further discussion or should we work on a motion I have one question and it has to

do with the way that this what we're asked to vote on is worded it says uh let's see with or without the very low designation well I think the point is that we make a decision are we going to include it or not include it one way or the other and so whoever makes the motion regardless of what the number well if we wanted if we want to have it without the very low designation then we make the motion is such that without we do not include the very low density option if you make the motion without that then the low density option stays in if you want one to seven without if you want one it's with am I right thank you okay is there a motion don't make a motion I recommending move to approve the future land use map without the very low density designation we have a motion is there a second Jim Whiting second we have a motion second any further discussion Jacob commissioner Whiting approve commissioner Graham approve commissioner Davis no Vice chair Riley approve chair michaelan I want to make a comment before I vote I like the idea of coming in at one dwelling per acre but also see the advantage of having the 1 to 7 for future planning and handling future annexations so I vote Yes there you have it next before we get to the next item here

uh we're going to be dealing with the general plan we have several members of the General plan Committee in the audience if you would raise your hand because you all went through a lot of stuff and I know this hurt personally to do this and I want to thank you for your time and effort on that also we have three Commissioners who were worked on the general plan either part of the general plan or the total General plan so there's some knowledge already within the Planning and Zoning commission concerning the general plan hammy thank you chairman members of the commission yes this was a very long process and we appreciate everyone that participated so it wasn't just the general plan committee it was the citizens of presc and the staff and that work for the city of presc through the whole process we had public attending all our meetings giving input providing written comments and we integrated all that into the draft that you see today so we never took anybody's comments out of line we we try to address it as much as we can and incorporate it the best that we can to get to where we are today so um and also just so the public knows this was not written by me I did not write this plan um a lot most of it was updated it was updated by City staff from those departments so when we started this process um when the general plan committee was formed we also had a general plan Review Committee that consisted of City staff from every Department that I met with every month that usually was the Wednesday after our general plan committee to let them know this is where we are in the process this is what I need from you and then when we started updating and that was all done by staff from those departments we had representation from the fire department from the police department from Water

Resources traffic public works from all our departments and they all provided input from their perspectives as the ones that will be implementing this plan so I wanted to just kind of throw that out that this was actually a city plan it was written by City staff that are the ones that are planning for what we need what we need in the future as we move forward because we're moving forward we don't want to go backwards we always want to go forward so um what is a general plan you know the general plan is a public document that guides future land use decisions zoning rezoning and new developments must be consistent and conformed to the city's adopt the general plan which we just went over to land use map needs to be consistent with that or it triggers other processes what is agen plan do I think this is very important it guides future decisions about growth while balancing Economic Development and City resources it's a road map you know describing the destination the path to reach and creates goals and strategies based on the community input you know we did had three open houses we had surveys out there we had other ways of getting public comment to get to this point what does it not do prevent all future growth and development within the city we can't stop that people have private property rights and Arizona is very very stringent on protecting those private property rights change existing entitlements without further action we can't go into existing Master plans or existing entitlements and change it commit City resources or preempt decisions of the current or future city council which is a concern compel a private property owner to develop a par particular use or type of building or influence applications that already under under review so in our re introduction we have

what is the general plan so now we're going to get into the Crux of the plan to ask you guys what comments you have so we have what is a general plan we have a vision how the plans laid out um background for our history existing conditions and Trends about populations and demographics and our population changes over the last 10 years um were there any questions in regards to the introduction section nope no y okay so now we get into the meat of the document so we created these livability goals to five different categories that all the required and additional categories that we put in are all spread out through all this so we have resiliency and sustainability we felt that was very important if anything happens we want to make sure we're resilient and as we grow we want make sure we're sustainable those are very key and has various input of what those can mean so um we try to address that as best as possible community connected is more of the regional look at things like circulation digital connectivity Wildlife corridors was very big in this discussions as well as open space um great places in neighborhoods that's where we kind of go back into the Crux of our neighborhood economic competitiv and prosperity and then Community quality which most of that it was a volunteer that we've had in the last General plans and we included in this one so under resiliency sustainability we have the in land use intro the fire department environmental planning water resources and climate and energy we did have some questions that came in for these sections the first one it was a member of the public that asked about the comprehensive Community risk assessment was last updated um in

2019 so we did reach out to the fire department and asked them and it was in actually in the community the general plan that it would be looked at and updated in late 24 we had a lot of things that happened in late 24 that but we had already written the draft so as we're moving forward we're trying to update this so the updated risk assessment was completed in late 24 and adopted by the council in November so we'll update the plan there was some language that was sugest suggested from the um police chief in regards to that and we will update that to make sure that that's up to date for the latest and greatest another thing was a there was no mention of the new sales prop 478 passed in November 2024 when we wrote this who knew we were going to have something like this come up you know so um there are there's only one thing item that the police chief asked us to update in regards to the um the relevant issues that was the Strat the seven Strate strategic issues that's in their strategic plan that's a lot of words um only number five sustainable funding that he wanted to be updated to change it to address with the new sales tax so he gave Pro provided some language to update it and we'll upd that that that update that as it moves forward to city council are there any questions about that so far nope okay another one was about water you know about buildout which we've been talking about you know um we don't have the decision and Order um from the state yet in regards if if our stuff has gotten reproved or what we're getting approved for we have no idea when that come that's going to come forward but the city is beginning their phase of creating a long-term Water Management plan that would uh address the water uses and management as we move

forward um and then we also have the approved water policy that um designates how we provide water or allocate water for new projects coming forward so that's stuff that's already in place and then as we get the decision order and start building up that'll be another document for water so um we right now what we have is most current information we have um in regards to Future water supply um there was another question that came from the public at the last meeting about has there been no update since 2010 on water from Big Chino no there hasn't it's all been in litigation um page 36 did say that there would be a big Chino uh groundwater flow model would be completed in late 2024 I have reached out to Water Resources for any updates to this section um they didn't have anything in regards to this there was a couple other minor tweaks in it but there has not been anything done since 2010 for the big Chino water um it's still in studies and negotiations and lawsuits and whatever else it's in but um what we have in the plan is the most up to- dat at this point okay that's that was last for resiliency and sustainability were there any other questions from the commission you guys are making this really easy on me today give it time I'm sure um community connected this is transportation planning open space Wildlife corridors and digital connectivity um we did receive a comment about um about transit public transit um that serves a downtown right now so presca Valley is the only one that took advantage of any federal money for

trying to create a Transit they have a microtransit that goes from presca Valley it's now coming over to presca and this is all overseen by simpo so simpo is doing all the regional planning for a regional transit system which is still in the process of being worked on with their long-term um transportation plan so right now what we have in the plan is the most to date in regards to Transit and it'll be future studied by simpo and hopefully expanded to um a bigger transit system maybe in the future so so I think this is one of my comments right and so um that's Tom Davis um I think it's all great that the transportation transit system is is folded into the general plan uh especially on a regional basis and it's a wonderful job my concern is like we we T talked in other hearings before is we've limited Downtown parking and is there a more let's say micro just Prescot alone study of uh aiding in the transit of people to frequent downtown more often easier Etc because of the lack of parking that is being looked at um I did read recently there's a new study that simbo is doing in regards to presc downtown about parking W finding signage and stuff and things like that and probably maybe having right now I think there's only one Transit one micrus that's used for that the one transit system we have yeah so and it they do have they did expand it to downtown now whether Federal funding will ever happen or come forward that we take more advantage of to expand that system that's something simpo

studying right now it's all under separate studies gotcha but I I think that's a concern for the merchants downtown and the people that that frequent downtown and so they are doing a parking study to look at the parking capacity and such and what we have downtown which has been needed okay and that was all for community connected that I had you know we we uh expanded Wildlife corridors gave it his own section we know that's that's being studied by simpo right now on a regional level of open space connectivity Wildlife corridors and and all that U as one of their other subset studies they're doing so um we are a participant in simpo um the city of preset um so we are always involved in all those discussions okay next is great places and neighborhoods which is land use and growth areas planting heart hierarchy future land use designations and map historic preservation Recreation pedestrian and bicycle circulation dark sky community and Tree City USA so the dark sky community and Tree City USA that was in our survey that was done in 2023 and a majority of the public which was about 400 people part participated in that and we had it open for about a year um a majority of people supported becoming a dark sky Community most people thought we were a dark sky Community the only thing that we don't regulate under our lighting ordinance is single family residential for industrial commercial multifam they are required to be dark sky compliant in regards to their lighting all down lit um any LEDs there was a certain uh temperature of lighting that we allow the only thing that's not regulated single family

residential and that's something that if it's moved forward which we've had tourism come to us about doing this and other community groups to help us um that would have to go through a CO a code amendment to amendment to Our Land Development code and go through a public hearing process and then a lot of Outreach to the community of what we need to do we also would work with the dark sky Association to what what areas we should kind of look at and give they give recommendations for certain are areas as they come visit your community Tree City USA was another one um that came up and people were pretty favorable it was a a majority of people supported becoming a tree City and like I said at other meetings we have a tree person on Public Works staff who's looking into this and they said that they're moving forward with coming that designation so that's something that's already in the process in regards to funding for it that'll be all in the public work on their their budget but um in my understanding the last I talked to him that they didn't they didn't have any concerns in moving forward with that so there's just a couple things they'd have to do but but that goes through a different department and through a different process um the comment we got was we got transition areas which we got the land use map that had that you know transition and uses that exist today low density residential to Highway commercial we do have Provisions in Our Land Development code um because you know remember the the the general plan is the 30,000 foot view of the city then we have other plans like the commercial Corridor overlay District which that's the one that that's already in our in our Land Development code that gives additional criteria so when we have commercial next to residential we already have uh criteria in place that

they have to um provide additional buffer additional setbacks and things like that we already have that in place that we looked at as projects come through mostly when in our commercial Corridor districts so we already have things in place to look at that transition between commercial and residential that we Implement as projects come forward um I I think um this is Tom Davis again um u i it's a very good point and I I know in the land of vent MCO when we view rezonings one of the one of the criteria in a resoning is the compatibility with the neighborhood issue and I'm not sure if that's you know to this body uh collectively including me if that's really at the Forefront of some of these decisions we're making uh and I just thought should there be some kind of mention of that in a broader T of how we deal with transitions um the last Marina project was an interesting case in that regard uh we have situations kind of our we we've we've inherited in a way as the city of where we have like very high density next to very low density residential and that type of stuff and so is that important I don't know I mean I don't know if it's to the rest of the commission is that important but it seems to me like we have some islands let's lack of a better term in in the in the in the land use plan that's that's proposed that could create issues for for either land owner either the land owner who is the applicant or the land owner who is the adjacent and so I'm just raising that issue is that important to us should it be mentioned you as a as a policy issue or just let's leave it in the Land Development clo which I'm happy with and we can deal with it at that time but that's an issue

I think that we all have to recognize is going to be down the road and if we see an area that like in town that's going through a lot of Redevelopment we do have specific area plans and we have neighborhood plans for certain areas that we do look at most of them are outdated they're like 20 years old little outdated for preset and we after this process is all done and said that's our next step we're going to be looking at our commercial corridors we're going to be looking at our neighborhood plans what needs to be updated which ones are out of date and that we need to get rid of and which ones need to be updated for what's what we see now current trends in the growth in that area or uh possible um Trends we're seeing in certain areas I guess that we G kind of say but that would be looked at a more micro scale and then each of the projects as they come forward are looked at on a caseby casee basis because that's when we see does it is it compatible is it not compatible right so right good any other questions about that okay and that was all for great places and neighborhoods is there any other questions or comments about that chapter oh yeah okay deot Ranch master plan um there was a question so that's more okay General plan 30,000 foot view deep R master plan is the boots on the ground so whatever we approve in here doesn't affect that master plan it can't so that's already in place so that's that's a separate document that we look at as projects come through through so for that one we say yes it's in compliance with the deep wall MCH master plan or no it's not if it wasn't we wouldn't be bringing it forward but

usually projects which is mostly uh subdivisions that you see um we say yes it's in compliance with the Deep Well master plan based on that plan and what we get from that the administrator so that's more of the more micro look at it yeah it's it's but it's an exhibit in the the general plan yeah that's for regional connectivity so where the map from Deep Well Ranch master plan is it's under community connected with a circulation so deep well Ranch master plan that was a regional connector it's creating a regional connector same with uh deep well I mean Granite Dells and then AED those are all creating Regional connectors that that's why it was in that portion of the plan no okay economic competitiv and prosperity land use Economic Development tourism sustaining a business friendly environment ensuring a strong tax base quality jobs growth and cost of development Workforce housing and our regional airport uh I had no questions that came in about this is there anything anybody would like to say about this chapter any comments questions it's going way faster than I thought okay so Community quality was mostly voluntary sections that were not required by Arizona revised statutes but some of them are if we hit 50,000 would be required to come in if it was a 50,000 so we we're looking ahead but our police department is very important just like our fire department we do have a school district here we still have kids here um the library is very important and in fact when uh at the end of this process we had a new library director come in and she her first week were like

here's the general plan section on Library do you have any input so and she gave lots of input and kind of rewrote it for what her vision was we the community center we have information of that because that is very important in our community we have youth programs because like I said we do still have youth here um art culture events and museums that is a big part of preset we have a lot of art and culture we have our museums because part of plan preset is planning the future preserving the past so we want to make sure that we um always showcase that and healthc care you know we don't have any goals or strategies regards to health care because it's not under our purview you know that's kind of Market driven but we understand there is a issue with Healthcare and we did try to make sure that's in our general plan that that's something that needs to be addressed are there any questions about any of that okay next major plan Amendment since since you did not change the map this stays the same so when we created so if you look at the last General plan and what triggers a major plan Amendment we never saw a major plan Amendment within the city of presc it was pretty broad it required large areas and adjacent to very developed areas but since all our annexations and such came in in the out outskirts areas as we're growing it never triggered it so in working with the general plan committee and with uh public input some people brought us some ideas of things to look at and so we took those ideas and we looked at we had a map of what all the vacant Parcels in the city of preset and their acreages that kind of see what do we have still available how will changes what can it possibly change

to how will it impact the existing neighborhoods so we created this chart these are all our land use designations open space Recreation low to medium density medium to high density mixed use commercial commercial employment so if you're down zoning it's just a minor amendment that runs with your rezoning case if you're which we really don't see that happening but um but if you're increasing the density or doing a major change we have uh acreages that trigger those and that this was very highly discussed in our general plan committee meeting and this is what we ended up with so any change from an area that's designated as open space or Recreation would be a major plan Amendment we want to protect our open space and what's designated res Recreation then if you go to low to medium density um 10 or 20 acres depending on what it was they were changing it to you know and how it could impact areas for areas that we have vacant and then so forth but this was very highly discussed with our um General plan committee and this is what we came up with and that everyone agreed to so are there any questions in regards to this chart this is Tom Davis I I thought this was an excellent solution the way way you did this thank you very much thank you okay and then implementation this is still work in progress until we get a draft and with all the goals and strategies but this is something we're creating a spreadsheet so we can keep track of it you know that's something that wasn't done before it was talked about but no one no one did it so we'll have all the goals go and strategies who's responsible like if it's public works with Council funding or whatever it would require timeline is

is a shortterm is it a midterm door midterm goal or a long-term goal and when it's completed or even when it's started we have a lot of goals and strategies that are in the general plan that already been are already in the works so we can add those hey started um so um this is something that's still work in progress and most General plan when you see they have an implementation it's a work in progress at the end even the ones have been adopted so um we'll we keep working on this as we keep updating the plan and that's all I have for you today well are there any questions for Tammy thank you Tammy Jacob do we have anybody from the audience wants to speak yes we have quite a few uh first speaker is Robert chog Robert shag I live at 3040 Pine Drive I've been a resident of Prescot since 2000 uh I'm speaking in favor of the um non-discrimination language uh everybody's Hometown one one of the key words here in this phrase is home home means that all residents feel safe and protected in a good home you can find pictures and statements that makes a house a home there is food that allows individuals to grow at their own pace the non-discrimination language is the food for that growth the non-discrimination language addresses the growth and safety of marginalized communities in Prescot

non-discrimination language represents a culture we desire in our community it is not meant to stop discrimination but by having this language and writing it helps should there be an incident of discrimination in the future in the then the city has the language that points to the culture we aspire to to create this is Forward Thinking everybody equals all such as in all men are created equal everybody's Hometown this is what everybody's Hometown should look like thank you very much thank you sir next speaker is Greg Murray my name is Greg Marie and I could you bring the mic up a little more please don't break it though I already did is that better my name is Greg Murray and I live at 5164 Porter Creek Drive In in Prescot I'd like to thank uh the city staff and the general plan Review Committee and the Planning and Zoning uh commission for taking such care with the general plan I think it's a really nice document and um but especially for accepting public input uh to make it as useful as possible over the next 10 years I am concerned however that some of the comments made in public meetings amount to misinformation intended to undermine the scientific basis for parts of the general plan mostly those concern the reality of climate change and its consequences for us and for others into the future today I'd like to briefly address just three claims made by a citizen over the last month or so at a review uh that General um plan Review

Committee and planning and zoning commission meetings first it was claimed that and I'm quoting here uh every 10 years we've been told that disastrous events are just around the corner that we need immediate action and that New York and California are going to be underwater and then that quote for six decades we've been fed a regular diet of climate change predictions that never happened but the predictions of coastal flooding are based on topography and measured rates of sea level rise all over the world in New York City sea level has risen by about 12 in since 1900 and because the rate of sea level rise is itself increasing the level is projected to increase by as much as 5.4 feet more uh by 2100 or even more depending on the climate um uh the the rate at which we reduce uh uh greenhouse gas emissions again those Trends have been measured carefully for about 140 years now and the models projecting into the future are in good agreement with the actual observations the effects of sea level rise might not be readily apparent here in Prescot Arizona but I can assure you that my relatives who lost their home in Fort Meers Florida consider them both profound and catastrophic the same citizen went on to claim that sea level had not changed since 1620 because Plymouth Rock was at the same water level now as when the pilgrims landed no doubt this probably came from social media uh viral posts uh that have been circulating around for some time now but it has been debunked again and again Plymouth Rock has been split put back together and moved several times since 1774 that's the historical record and yes it is underwater at high tide finally the commenter uh denied the

reality of climate Changed by pointing out that the maximum um temperature recorded in 1900 and 2023 were nearly the same here in presc at 103 versus 104 degrees Fahrenheit excuse me but that's just cherry picking of the worst kind one could as easily point out that in 1913 the temperature never reached 100° even once I looked into the data myself to see that so the publicly available records show that the average temperature in presca has increased by over 3 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900 and were're projected to have up to 50 days per year over 100 degrees by 2100 depending on how quickly we reduce greenhouse gas emissions because this is such an important issue I've addressed those bogus claims about climate change and more detail and writing with proper references um to the data sources and and uh analysis techniques and I'm happy to share it with anybody who has an interest um i' I've got paper copies here and and uh and if anybody would like one um please uh please tell me and I'll give it to you but thank you for hearing me out thank you sir Jacob next speaker is Jim helbling yeah I'm Jim helbling I live at 2411 bir away in pron I'm here representing the Martin Luther King peace and Justice committee as committee lead I felt the need to respond to comments that were made at the last Planning and Zoning meeting regarding the non-discrimination statement in the general plan since one of those comments was focused on the legal ramifications of including the statement in the plan Robert shog and I met with City attorney

Joe Young yesterday to get his opinion on potential City liability Mr Young assured us that including the statement does not leave the city open to liability claims the statement simply tells its readers that Prescot values people of varying backgrounds and wants to include them in City Planning another comment made at the last meeting stated that the plan is a land use document and as such it is not the place for woke statements such as the one proposed by our committee but if land use is the primary purpose of the plan and shouldn't the use of that land be open to all residents of Prescot without the threat of discrimination or harassment there are people in the city Who currently do not feel that is the case so our statement reassures them that the city does does value them and does not condone acts of discrimination or harassment toward them and if there's any question that the underrepresented residents experience discrimination or harassment one only needs to read the emailed comments sent in during the public comment period relative to non-discrimination in the plan statement in the plan I counted 14 separate incidents of discrimination and racial or overt racial racism documented in those comments including one comment that listed four separate incidents that occurred during the last half of last year I have them here if you would like to read them removing the non-discrimination statement would imply that you think these comments are irrelevant please keep the non-discrimination statement in the plan to give these people hope that presca does aspire to be everybody's Hometown

thank you thank you sir next speaker is Patrick Grady good morning I'm Patrick Grady I reside at 943 West Rosser Street I too want to applaud the work of staff on this General plan as well as the work of the general plan Review Committee but as one of the previous speakers pointed out there there have been some other concerns raised in previous public comments regarding the purpose of the general plan and seeming to feel that the general plan and I quote um is how to manage land to generate money and support development infrastructure and growth that really is not an accurate description of what general plans are intended by law um to do in fact they incorporate numerous elements to factor into the city's plan for the future which I think City staff and the general plan Review Committee have done so well it's simply a lot more than just development and growth there's no mention of money these plans by law are to contain Community goals and policies on more than land use including to name a few environmental planning open space the natural environment neighborhood reservation Transportation sustainability and resiliency one of the chapters in our proposed General plan in 2015 our general plan for presca also included Economic Development and Community quality of life there was no objection at that time General plans are intended by state legislature to give communities the

responsibility to guide their own development in ways that provide for the best sustainable future for our citizens a very few speakers have even suggested that they're prepared to vote against the general plan if some of the components that they disagree with are not included even if they also law other portions of this draft general plan let's not go there that is very divisive rather let's work together for the long-term interest of our community recognizing that there has been substantial um and actually I think outstanding citizen engagement in the process today thank you thank you sir next speaker is Ralph hes I don't next speaker Ralph an attorney has no further comment okay Jacob Michelle HR hello and thank you my name is Michelle HR and I live at 801 Downer Trail in presat um you know and after speaking at the last meeting several people approached me and said that um the only enforceable part of this plan is land use really uh you worked two years on it uh into this plan and it's going to be on the ballot probably in August for the residents to vote on um yet most of it is not enforcable this plan includes the dark

sky regulations that will impact tone owners a vision zero plan that prioritize prioritizes equity for cars cyclists and pedestrians the tree City designation that could impose new uh restrictions on property owners and costly climate in initiatives that offer no real benefits to Residents and um I'd like to address a comment I do believe in climate change when I was in high school I was taught that there was five ice ages and it was only 20,000 years ago that Manhattan was under a mile thick um piece of ice I do and I'm really glad it changed because otherwise we wouldn't be here so these initiatives would cost taxpayers money for marketing titles while while turning our city into a what I think is a kind of giant HOA and according to Tammy at this meeting in last is a lot of these initiatives are already underway and in motion before any voting has gone to them uh this is why I'm adamant about removing these unenforceable initiatives in a land uses uh document with its vague language last September my water was shut off and a man came up not from the city and put a tag on my door telling me that a smart meter had just been put on my house and and my water usage could now be monitored 24/7 well when APS installed the smart meter on my home I told them to they remove it and they did but when I called the city preset water department they told me they could come and remove it but they'd shut off my water they also informed me that this was approved and voted on in the 2015 land usage General plan and I should have showed my objections then but just like now 99 % of the residents I talk to don't even know what's in the general plan but when they watch their once Charming City turn into California they'll start calling the

city council only to be told the city voted on it and speaking of California maybe a firewise designation would be more appropriate seeing the resident homeowners insurance is now being doubled or cancelled because of the increase of our fire rating that's why I joined the team and helped got 478 past so just to remind you Prescot is over $150 million in debt and climbing and we're losing $2 million of dollars a year in rental taxes yet we're spending money our money on symbolic titles that most represent residents don't really care about in conclusion this General plan is really seems like an omnimusic and everything else should be put to the voters separately and I've been saying that with every comments that I've been making um and my comments on using land to create Revenue that's just good business sense and so that's why I've been advocating it when I've come and talked before you before so I thank you for your time and I hope you consider my comments thank you thank you ma'am Jacob next speaker is an brechwald I'm very short um I'm M berwald I live in uh Deep Well Branch we moved there in August from Williamson Valley I've been in the area 20 years been very active um I did speak at the last meeting and um mine was the concerned about the legality of the in uh in the introduction on what I

call human behavior um so to to clear up my opinion on that certainly I have being a woman and being a professional woman and a pretty determined one and independent um given my age I've had lots of years of discrimination and harassment and some of a pretty significant some of it even physical not and it hasn't it has improved greatly over the years and except two years ago I was told I couldn't uh walk on my neighbors driveway because we had a flag pole with a flag and that meant we were pretty bad people so it is a part of human nature it is a very despicable part of human nature and I think there are many Avenues including Federal local laws that are punishment if you get too carried away in it there is a system we've developed I don't think it's part of a a plan that is supposed to be for land usage and part of my Rebellion against it is not because I've never been discriminated against and I don't think it exists I do believe it exists and I know it but I think there are a lot of other avenues that could be quite more productive to deal with it in terms of establishing social ways to attack that problem so I and I personally fear that we could end up with uh some organization within the city government that would be monitoring human behavior and there could be fines if you're doing this or that or you could suffer some other consequences and

that don't think is the proper place for it um so that's just my output on that the other part I'm really uncomfortable with is when again it's monitoring behavior that we have when we live in a community and that is I think there's a Great Divide over climate change there are people who really believe that we have a serious impact and that we can change that impact the other side believes that that is nonsense and the human beings cannot change Mother Nature or the enormity of clim what we call climate change um I know that that's a disagreement it's a very dividing one and again I don't think it's part of this purpose of a city plan which is what are we going to do with the community we've got in terms of housing transportation um the roadways and managing the traffic flows getting transportation in those are all very large and expensive things that have to be done in their infrastructure I think on this on the other ends where the one of the things we don't want to do is antagonize The Divide already in our envi in our society on climate change and I know it's a big divide I think we can attack again that from other areas but not out of this city plan that has an important P purpose that's critical to the community um so that's that's my feeling on that I I fear that when you put things that are terribly dividing into a physical plan you open a Pander

Pandora's box and it can be used as an excuse to have one side attack the other side and diminish the efficiency of a city plan planning infrastructure thank you thank you ma'am Jacob next speaker is Jenna James good morning Jenna James I live at 1755 Commonwealth Street in presc um my comments are actually about the anti discrimination paragraph in the introduction um prior to your last meeting on January 9th I took a look at the comments that were received by the planning department that were attached to the uh packet for that meeting um honestly based on public discourse and things I had seen reported in the paper I thought that uh the comments were going to lean very much a certain way uh and reading through the 17 pages of comments that the planning department received I was actually very surprised um I expected page after page uh of comments showing support for removing that provision but in fact seven seven total comments out of the hundreds that were received suggested that it should be revised or removed over a hundred suggested that provision or that paragraph is important to the members of our community and I think that we really need to uh maybe not make a mountain out of a mole hill and just let people show that they have a dedication towards common deed and there's nothing wrong with having it be an aspirational statement in our general plan that that is the type of community we wish to have thank you thank you ma'am Jacob next speaker is Linda

Nichols good morning my name is Linda Nichols I live at 22 87 Sequoia Drive in Prescot I have been in presc for 14 years but I've been a very very active Citizen and um I love this city I wanted to thank the commiss the Committees and the and the planning and zoning committee and the staff for all the work they've put into this in my career I was in high-tech and we did a lot of that kind of work and I know what goes into it it's something that you almost learned to have as your baby you want it to stay the same but I ask that this group will look at changes because that's what we're here for this is a public um a public place to give our comments and I do see a little bit of heels dug in and I would like to just remind us that that's what we're here to do um I want to also thank and Tammy brought this up that you guys did look at the comments I made last time about fire and police being so outdated 15 10 15 20 years out dated in this plan that's going to be here for 10 years so I thank you for looking at that and for bringing in uh Chief der to make some significant changes I was the co-chair of 478 and it did pass and I really think it has to be in there because it made a lot of difference the other thing I want to say is just looking at the introduction page which many have mentioned here today it says on one paragraph that it's a land use document and then the paragraph just below there talks about Dei and woke discrimination I respect Robert I think it's Matt and the other gentlemen with what they believe in I I'm not opposed

to what they believe in necessarily but it this is a land useed document and like some of the other people have said it's just riddled with Dei and woke I've even heard that 50 pages could be removed if you remove that information it tell me in what world land use is Dei and woke information it does not belong in this document and and that's just my take on it it's not that I'm against it it's not that I don't think it's important some people even say it might cause division um I would just like to see this be a land used document I work at the chamber one day a week as a volunteer I've been there N9 years and I know that people look at these things coming into our city and that is a very oneway leaning um concept and it gives people a certain impression I don't know that we want to give people a certain impression of our city that isn't um more comprehensive so that's how I think it should why it should be coming out um it takes up an enormous amount of space in the document now when when we bring this up to people they go oh it's not legally binding it doesn't matter well that's how people get their foot in the door and that's how people start making it so and if it's not legally binding why is it in there you know what what does it need to be in there for um it isn't related to land use so it takes up a lot of space I also think taking out these Pages would cut costs if you print this for the public by quite a bit um it would make the reading easier and more relevant and it's uh it wouldn't send this one-sided cultural message and I just think I wouldn't want the other side having their message in there as

well you know it just doesn't belong there so um I I think this is still a work in progress and I think that if people would really look at this practically and what it's going to be used for and what it's intended for they would see that this is not the place for those things I don't disagree with them I'm not trying to make that point I'm just saying they don't belong in this document thank you thank you ma'am next speaker is Joanne Ellers hello I'm Joanne olers representing save the Dells today I'm at 2911 granite Gardens Drive and preset and um I wanted to address um some of the wording in the uh version 14 of the general plan I want to thank Tammy uh for working with me on some of the inconsistencies I found in the labeling of um depending on where you look Granite Dell's Regional Park and preserve um glass for Dell's preserve um other iterations of those names of the particular recreational areas and open space lands that um needed some help and so I uh talked to Tammy out outside I say of meetings and I heard from her that she and staff have come up with some very creative solutions for that wording because it's it is tricky um the the regional park um is in flux the uh Prescot Valley people are still determining what how they're um their a partnership in that is going to be uh designated or named and so um I wanted just to thank them for coming up with something that sounds really reasonable and also to thank um the Tammy and staff and others for working with us on the

the wildlife Corridor wording we really wanted to um support including those the language that brought uh Wildlife connectivity into the general planet in a stronger way and that is all I have for today thank you thank you ma'am last speaker is Council Man Ted gambogi if I may my talk is a little bit more directed to the audience so I'm going to turn around and and look at them and you know the late great uh you saw a basketball coach John Wooden once said if you fail to plan you plan to fail I met John Wood and he's just a just a tremendous man if Ted gboi were to add on to that it would be if you fail to execute you've just wasted a plan now I think there's some reality in an attempt to bring the temperature down on this General plan first of all it is not legally binding secondly before I was on Council I was a chair of the general Plan before they got a better chair and and Terry sapio and I've been on the Planning Commission with Tom Riley and and Don michaelan I can't think of an element in the 2015 General plan that we implemented but I can cite two examples of elements in the 2015 General plan that came before the Planning Commission and were approved that didn't get implemented by Council so uh don't spend so much time getting worked up with the elements of the General plan find those elements in the general plan that you support then work

to have them implemented within the city to uh quote Robert it is everybody's Hometown and I beg you to come together as a community to find ways that you can support the plan and then find elements within the plan that you will champion and get executed thank you all very much thank you Ted and that was our last speaker okay any further comments or discussion concerning item C this is GPA 22 day 001 if not is there a motion Mr chairman I I I I make a motion to move and recommend approval of draft 2025 General plan with the updates discussed we have a motion is there a second second motion second any further discussion Jacob commissioner Whiting approve commissioner Graham approve commissioner Davis approved Vice chair Riley approve chair Michael man approve Mr chairman before we go on I think we all commend staff particularly Tammy uh the general plan committee for all the hard work they've done and it's it's really it's been really remarkable process having been on the general plan committee for the what three years that we did this it was an effort and there was a lot of good discussion and I think

the plan that was put forth was a good plan there so next item then is LDC 24-3 propose amendment to the Land Development code for State Statute compliance regarding application completeness good morning chair good morning Commissioners Chelsea Walton community development director for the city of presca and this is a little bit of a more boring item so I can imagine people will be clearing out um State legis thank you all for being here by the way Chelsea I think the reason they're leaving they know the bar is not going to be open that's correct it is after all only 10:48 in the morning um so this item is coming time we've already wasted I apologize sir so this item is coming before you because the legislative session last year um imposed some requirements of local mun municipalities to update certain sections of the code uh their Municipal zoning code um in addition to a lot of other deadlines that they put on us throughout the year so um what for the public that's still here uh the acronyms on on this title slide proposed Land Development code update relative to application completeness so the changes required by the statute and again this is in the the full text of the both the statute language as well as our um our markup of our recurrent code is in your packets but in a nutshell this uh the changes are are three things uh that the municipality needs to determine initial completeness within 30 days and resubmittal completeness within 15 days

um also that we communicate comprehensive list of deficiencies to applicants and then denial of applications when resubmittals are incomplete and then uh finally determining the approval or denial of the applications within 180 days so those are the main um requirements of the statute in a nutshell um and as you can see in the red lines the strikethroughs and the additions we were largely meeting that so the text of the Land Development code was updated to just capture the items that maybe weren't clear and match the statutory language more closely we also included a statutory citation um in case there's any questions by applicants to refer them back to what the the statute actually says so with that I'm I'm open for questions but the recommendation is to move and recommend approval of this amendment to the Land Development code any questions for staff um Tom Davis just a clarification Chelsea the yes sir the city has 15 days to determine whether or not the application is complete if the submitt is incomplete the application is denied obviously within that 15 days there's a cure correct I mean right right it doesn't say that here but I mean it's just to make clarifi clarify so I mean I would I would refer back to the um communication back to the applicant so our team is actually really good Jake processes all of our zoning applications and he usually gets to it within like 3 to five days um and that's being generous he's usually Johnny on the spot about it um but what we do is once we recognize the deficiency we send them an email and we say look we can't process your application until we get this

necessary information back from you it's not complete so if um if we send that response saying hey your application is incomplete it's really in the ball is in their court at that point and I would say they have 15 days per statute to get back to us or we're going to deem it incomplete based on the text okay that's well understand thank you yes is that 15 days from when you send the email or from when they first submitted it I would say it's 15 days from when um the the incomplete application information is sent into us and again this is this is email correspondence obviously we're not going to tell them uh your application is denied because um because you didn't call us back right away I mean we work with people this is just being in conformance with the statutory language okay and if someone calls us on day 16 and says hey um I was out of town or I've had technology trouble we're going to work with people okay other questions Mr sta thank you is there a motion Mr chairman Tom Riley move to recommend approval of amendment to the Land Development code sections 9.15 as presented we have a motion is there a second Susan Graham I'll second motion second any further discussion if not Jacob commissioner Whiting approve commissioner Graham approved commissioner Davis approved Vice chair Riley approved chair michaelan approve any updates if not I want to thank the audience that is still here for

attending we always want to have input from the public we may not always agree but we want to have that input on that so again thank you for attending meeting is adjourned ouch for