Prescott unanimously tables downtown parking code amendment, cites historic demolition risk

Abstain. Commissioner Whiting, approved. Commissioner Graham, approve. Commissioner Klauski, abstain. I wasn't at the meeting. Vice Chair Riley, approve. Chair Michael, approve. [clears throat] I believe we have a majority approving then. Yes. Okay. Next on the agenda is LDC25-00002, amendment to the city of Prescat Land Development Code, article 4, section 4.9.4B, to update the parking requirements within the downtown business DTB zoning district. The applicant is the city of Prescat.

Uh Tammy, you're up. Thank you. Good morning, chairman, members of the commission. Tammy Dwit, community planner. [snorts] So before you is a request for a change in our land development code. This only pertains to the downtown business district, which you've seen a couple of projects come through over the last year, a couple of special use permits.

Um so because of those type of projects coming through, um we've been asked to amend our code and to um try to address some of the parking concerns that came from those meetings. So, like I said, this is only affecting the down the zoning district because the zoning district, the downtown business tells you what you can do downtown.

And then in our downtown business, because of the anticipation when they did the the zoning code back in 2001 and became effective in 2004, they were in the process of getting funding and such for the parking garage. Um, it wasn't built in. So, we did have this commentary in there that basically this doesn't come into effect the waiver of parking until the parking garage is complete.

As we can see in the picture, we do have the parking garage downtown which provided the additional parking at the time that was anticipated needed for our downtown business district. So with that, they created the criteria to wave some of the parking criteria downtown. One, because they had the parking garage, and two, it's it's a way of preserving historic buildings. So, as part of this request, we'll be taking out this commentary because it's no longer needed.

We have the parking garage, so this note is no longer needed. So, this will be deleted. [snorts] And in regards to the section of the code, it's section um LDC494, which is district standards, guidelines, and procedures. And then B is um actually C is parking and loading. So this is the only section that's being suggested the change.

[snorts] So at the time they were um so pre-1968 buildings are still exempt from this portion of the code for buildings prior to 1968 to help preserve our historic buildings that they are not requiring additional parking required for those buildings. This is mostly for new buildings or new uses in our downtown business district. Um I I see you were given the map of the entertainment district. This is an overlay district that just pertains to uh liquor licenses.

So, the entertainment district was created to um allow businesses within the downtown business district because of its location close to churches and schools. They weren't able to um apply for business liquor licenses without this entertainment district created. So the entertainment district outline that you were given is a little different than our downtown business, but this is only pertains to liquor licenses and not to development criteria.

So the only thing that we're changing is in our land development code under uh the downtown business district for parking since that's the only section in our zoning code that has um additional um criteria for businesses. So, the idea is that we're going to be taking out the the section that says other hospitality related uses in the retail. Um, if you look at section 115e, 3A and 3C, the retail does stay in there, stay in there.

Under that section, it says retail service and business categories. But if you look at the sentence as a whole, for uses in buildings constructed from 1968 to present, retail stores, restaurants, and service and business categories there, that was the intent, but we could put the retail back in if you like.

Um, but then they're also adding the sentence, "Notwithstanding the foregoing, all uses which require overnight parking, including hotel, resort, and similar uses shall comply with the city's parking requirements as described in section 6.2 off- streetet parking. So right now uses that are like hotel and motel uses they are not required to have additional parking but apartments anything for long-term stays right now does require to have additional parking for newer buildings.

So this doesn't change that for apartments. Anything been still constructed prior to 1968 is still exempt. Any new uses that have any overnight parking requirements that are basically for overnight stay that is going to be required to have parking which that actually the only affects is hotels motel right now because apartments already have to have parking for new uses and that's really all the changes that we have for you today.

We'll be happy to discuss it and any questions that you have and I think I addressed all the questions I got but if not we can happy to have a discussion. Tom, did you have questions? Yeah, I do. Tammy, thank you. That was a very good presentation. Um, so what's prompted this has been the fact that there have been several projects in the downtown area that are not required to have parking that are going to create perhaps parking issues. and there's been a few of them of late.

Will any of those that are in the current pipeline, will they be affected by this ordinance? From what I've been told, no. Those have already been approved through a public process. So, those are are exempt from this requirement. Would a legal agree with that? That's correct. Okay. So, the projects that are in the pipeline right now will not be affected. Correct. Okay. Um, why 1968? That's the way it's been written in the code.

I'm not sure why the 68 that could have been a change in design criteria when we started seeing changes in the building because our first zoning code was actually adopted in 1951. Um 68 is 69 is when the state required uh zoning throughout the state was in 69. So maybe there there was a trigger somewhere around there, but this was already in our code from when they updated it and created the downtown business district. Okay.

The original reason for having the waiver in there after the parking garage was put in place, uh that waiver was not codified by ordinance. Correct. It's just a comment or was it codified by ordinance? It it was in our zoning code. So because of this commentary that once the parking garage was finished then that that this parking waiver re would be implemented but in the meantime until that parking garage was done every business had to have required parking. Okay.

And the reason for so the reasons for the garage coming in basically did away with had the waiver then come in place where all the parking wasn't required. Okay. And the reason for having not having the parking required was to be able to preserve a lot of the buildings downtown, a lot of the older buildings and what have you. Correct. Correct. So by taking this waiver out, that that opportunity no longer exists.

Well, the pre68 buildings are still if you look in this section right here, this section that within shall not be required for permitted uses within buildings constructed prior to 1968. That doesn't change. No, I know that. But what I'm saying is that if I if I have a if I wanted to take down a retail store downtown in a historic building and put in a hotel or an apartment complex, I could be tearing down adjacent buildings in order to be able to have parking in those areas. Correct. Okay.

So, the reason for doing the parking garage [snorts] u was to be able to prevent that from happening. By us taking this out, that no longer prevents that from happening. I mean, well, the apartments right now under the current code right now are still required to have parking. Anything for long-term occupancy for overnight occupancy, apartments, those type of things, those right now require parking unless it's a pre-1968 building with we saw with the building on Cortez.

Um, any new building, apartment buildings right now are required to have parking. So, if I wanted to take a pre-1968 building and put a hotel in that building, would I be required to have parking? No. According to this, that's exempt. So, even if I change the use, correct? Okay. That's not real clear in this, and I think it probably should be. It's an allowed Well, it says um for permitted uses within buildings constructed prior to 1968.

So, as long as it's an allowed use in the building, then it's ex then and it's a pre-1968, they don't have to acquire additional parking. Okay, that thank you for that. So basically, if the zoning allows a use in a building that pre-1968, I'm not required to do parking as long as my the zoning is there for me to be able complex or hotel or something like that. But post 1968, I have to put in parking.

Yes, that doesn't preclude me from tearing down older buildings to be able to accommodate that new parking, which was the thing we tried to avoid by building the parking garage in the first place. I get what you I get where we're trying to go with this and I'm not opposed to the idea of it, but what I do think is that it's a it it I don't think it's as refined as it really should be at this point.

Uh my concern is that the reason for us waving the parking to begin with hasn't really changed and we're going to be waving the not going to be waving the parking at this point. And I think that that could have a dilitterious effect on maintaining the historic character of the downtown. It could. So I'm wondering if there's isn't any some way that we could go back with this and take a look at it and try to refine it just a little bit so that we can address some of these issues.

um you know making it tighter or somehow getting in there that I can't tear down the I can't tear down the palace in order to be able to put it in a parking lot for an apartment building. I'm going to be putting it in mats. How can you refine it? I don't know. I don't know how that could be fine. But the issue the issue is still out there, you know, and it's not going away.

And so somehow there's I'm wondering if maybe we go back take another look at this and try to figure out a way that we can not have the huge parking requirements on the street overnight parking and and still help preserve the downtown in some of the historic buildings.

And I don't know if there's a way that we can say, you know, make some kind of an ordinance in there that says you if you're going to take down a historic building uh for parking lots, you know, that's a no no and we don't want you to do that. That kind of thing, you know, pave paradise and put up a parking lot, that sort of thing. That's that's the concern that I have about this.

And I'm thinking that the way that this is suggested at this point right now could be tightened just a little bit in order to be able to avoid that issue. Okay. That's what I'm saying. Thank you, Alex Brlet, planning manager. I appreciate the the comments, Commissioner. And um I just want to point out that we are still planning to update our land development code, do a complete overhaul within the next two years.

And so this I think was just a kind of interim solution given the influx of new hotels we have seen in downtown. Um, so it could just serve as a placeholder until we do actually do the the full update in which we'll be really looking at it more holistically in terms of the whole approach.

Um, and I wanted to also point out in the meantime too, we still have our courthouse plaza um the local preservation district which also has um things embedded in it to try and prevent demoing a building to to create a parking lot and things of that nature. So, um there there's some other kind of components at play and just wanted to yeah keep in mind that the full overhaul is still going to happen and we'll certainly be looking at parking as as a part of that.

So, right now our protection is a preservation commission, not anything out of land development code to keep someone tearing a building down just to have parking. Really specifically just for these types of uses. Um are we going to see another new hotel in the next couple years? I I don't know. We've had quite a few recently. So, um it's really just to kind of prevent some kind of significant change in the meantime.

But yeah, we do have the the preservation local preservation district as well that can help kind of um be a stop gate for that. And then it's really just going to be the other uses as Tammy pointed out pre68 all permitted uses um they don't require the parking. And then if you are doing a new building, the um elements defined in section 11 still are part of that. It's just specifically exempting those overnight parking uses.

You're talking about redoing the land development code and I know that that's on your agenda over the next couple of years. My concern is that by putting this in as a stop gap um doesn't really it it open it opens up for a small period of time, you know, a potential problem. So my cons my suggestion might be is that if we could put our very competent heads together on something like this. Is there any way that we can come up with what might have been come up with with the entire overhaul?

Let's put that in place now instead of this intim thing which could present problems over the next couple years. That would be my concern. Maybe we could just think about it a little bit more. I mean you people are all very smart, you know. Maybe we could take a look at this and think of some way to be able to uh preserve. Jim Klinski here. I'd like to comment on that, too.

Um, since we're making an amendment, why can't we add language that says buildings prior to 1968 cannot be demolished for the purpose of parking facilities? That could be considered a taking and um that would be a violation of state law. We can relax codes. It's really hard to make it more stringent like that and that takes private property rights. Mr. Chairman, I have I have a comment. I I I tend to agree with Mr. Mr. Riley.

Um um I um raised a concern with Tammy earlier in the week about um what would this look like and how it would affect and I I think one of the things that I envision is that you know what we're doing is is there's a possible redevelopment of a single parcel for let's say hotel uses. It it either looks like they have to satisfy the parking requirement in LOF with an al fee or they have to construct the parking either underneath the building etc.

I mean then then there's these unintended consequences down the road. So, I do I do agree this needs to be explored more and um I'm not sure exactly what the solution is, but uh I I I totally see the um the down the road um consequences of let's say an interim step to a a real solution. Is there any way, because I'm also very concerned about the parking, but I also agree with Mr. Riley.

Is there any way that the existing garage can be expanded or is there any place a new garage could be constructed with new projects coming in required to pay a fee to help construct that building, that building garage? It's something we can look at. We can we can investigate that. That'd be something to have to come from council. Another possibility might you might consider is that um you may have off-site parking.

Um instead of having on-site parking, you know, you might consider like uh the Hyia has a parking lot across the street for some of its rooms. you know, those kinds of things and those kinds of solutions might be able to be incorporated into this so that we can at least ameliate some of the concerns that we might have. And we have provisions in our code to allow for that. They can apply if they have a property within so a distance, they can have the off- streetet parking.

We have that in our parking code already, that allowance. Okay. Uh James, why do I I have a couple of questions. Um one, as far as the when we talked about uh whether the change to this, you know, how that fits into projects that are already in the pipeline, what determines projects that are in the pipeline, like what kind of date and what kind of uh process are they in at that point?

Well, the only projects that would be affected that are have come forward was the city hall redevelopment and that's already in the permitting phase. So, they're already exempt and under a DA. Um, the Whiskey Row Hotel has already gone through the SU process. Wait, no, sorry. It went through preservation and then got approval for the design. So, that one's already in the pipeline. So, that one's not affected by this.

And then the Cortez property you guys saw an SUP for that is exempt from the parking because it's a pre-1968 building. Okay. I have one more question on this overlay here. There's some handwriting on this and I don't know where that came from, but when it talks about provide off- streetet parking on their property, I think that's pretty vague on where their property is. I mean, their property could be a that they could use for parking could be a mile.

This isn't the the downtown business district zoning boundary. This is the entertainment district overlay, which is only reflects the liquor licenses. It doesn't affect the the what we're discussing today. Okay. Where did this where did this it was handed out to you and it was given to staff to hand out. Yeah, that's uh from Mayor Rousing. I believe she filled out a speaker request card and can address that. Okay. Thank you. Other questions, Tammy?

Why are we going to limit this to new buildings? I foresee a potential loophole here. If someone buys a building over 1968 older, then they get by without having to do anything. While someone who does something new has to have this. Why aren't older buildings required to if they're making a change? You know, if you converted into apartments and it was a retail store, shouldn't they have to have parking, too? Well, and that's something that we're discussing today.

But the the pre-1968 was to preserve the historic buildings. I believe at the time frame, I'm going to guess is that the 68 was what was considered historic. Maybe that was the date from Shipo or something that that buildings from six older 16 1968 are historic and the newer ones may not meet the historic criteria, especially spelled out into our historic preservation master plan for their downtown area. That that was already that was approved in 98 and then the code update was after that.

So this could have came from the historic preservation master plan too for the dates. So what we're saying here is we'll let you not have to have parking if you do an older building versus put a new building in. And if you look at a lot the downtown business and our historic buildings, most of our his most of our historic buildings took up the whole property because they're long skinny lots downtown.

That's how they were platted and created and they're all but each other and they usually take up most of the property. So there is no area on site except maybe for like maybe two or three parking spaces. But what we are seeing too is as they are updating the building to meet new codes for the new use, other things are coming into play that push that parking out.

So like they have to put in fire hydrants or they have to put in you know emergency egress which is affecting um the development of where parking areas can go to and that's kind of what we're seeing right now. But the intent was to preserve our historic buildings so they are not torn down to for a parking lot because that's what was happening in the early 2000s. I I have another question James Whiting.

Um, if if you take a pre-1968 building and let's say I own that building and I want to change its use from, I don't know, maybe it's retail or maybe it's a bar or something like that, but I want to make it a hotel. Okay. How much change has to happen to that building before that 1968 exemption is no longer valid? Well, it's still a 1968 building. and they may have to do improvements to interior improvements, but as long as they aren't changing the facade. Other questions? One other comment.

I I really really strongly believe that the long-term solution to this is to either expand the existing garage or find another spot to build an second garage and require fees from any projects being developed in any of the buildings that are going to require overnight parking for them to um contribute to the cost of a new garage or expanding the existing garage and and this is an option for the commission.

You can defer this action for us to research it more if and to try to just work with legal to try to come up with some other language or proposal to bring forward to address this. And one other thing, the [clears throat] point that the chairman brought up about if I take an old building, I can do it, but uh if the property is next door, if I build a new building, I can't do it. There's something in there about the ethic of fairness that I think needs to be addressed as well.

And I don't know if that could come back and bite us or not. You know, I'd hate to put us in a position where we could get sued for almost a taking like you had mentioned and something like that. So, I really think that this just needs to be reviewed. Don't throw it out, but by the same token, take it back, put a little bit more of your considerable knowledge to it, and let's see what we can come up with that's even better than what we have.

The only thing this really affects from our current code now to what's being proposed are new hotels because apartments currently, if it's new, has to have parking.

So the only thing that this is really affecting are is a new hotel which would be either a redevelopment of an existing building or the only building really vacant space would be the corner of Monizuma and next to the chamber of commerce you know we have that vacant lot there it could affect development of that but unless it's anything other than a hotel or apartment. I I understand that but I still think that the concerns are there. Mhm.

No, I I I I understand your concerns and we can work with legal to try to figure out if there's other language that we can look at or look at other jurisdictions. We do see this happening a lot in historic districts where they what they're most jurisdictions we see are doing is put building parking garages with the redevelopment and having parking garages when they start taking away parking.

So you and that's that Commissioner Graham is right that that you know probably is a good sol good good idea down the road but that's not going to solve the immediate problem and let's just hope that there aren't a bunch of hotels in the waiting outside to walk in the door you know coming in downtown. So at any rate though cleaning this thing up I think is going to be in everybody's best interest. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, one more question.

Going back to the um the fee aspect and it's great mentioned um is there's an inloop parking fee provision here. Um what is that? Do you how much is that? Does that pay that would that pay for a real constructed parking space? Um the last fee I was told was $10,000 per space. I believe I had it written down somewhere and I don't know where I put it, but that I remember George before he left that was the number that was given to me. It's like $10,000 of space for the lose and fe.

But we'll research that to get you an exact number. That's the number I'm coming [clears throat] to my head, but that doesn't Yeah, I've slept. That [laughter] that brings me like I I believe and I just by by my experience in the past um is that $10,000 would not cover the construction of a parking garage. It would be a space on land probably.

But anyway, um that here neither here nor there, but that's that's something that needs to be explored to follow up on what kind of a fee impact again the what is the consequences of adopting a fee that would solve this problem. Okay. And that's something we can look at with with legal. Any other questions? And just a comment, the Inloo fee, you know, I pay $10,000 and I don't have to do this thing.

Isn't that kind of like the medieval process of indulgences where people used to pay other people to go to church for them? I don't think we need religion in this one, Tom. We got enough. Anybody from the public would like to speak? Yes, we have Mayor Rousing who filled out a speaker request form. Good morning and happy new year to everyone. Uh, I want to thank you for uh tackling this problem.

Looks like we've got a lot of questions and some more work to do, but I think our goal here is to close the loophole uh where overnight parking apparently was not addressed in the original uh ordinance properly because if we don't close these loopholes, uh we're just going to have what I would call parking chaos downtown. Um, first of all, I want to uh let you know that I'm not speaking as the mayor. I'm speaking as a private citizen here today.

Uh I've taken a special interest in this because uh the Rousing family has a property that's in this district and uh I remember when the entertainment district was formed and uh the Rusing property was not included and I went and got the uh Rooing property uh included in the map which is the one that I put out to you.

Uh it's too bad we don't have a map of the uh downtown business district that we're talking about because we've got the downtown business district map, we got the historic district map, and now we have the entertainment district map. And at the time, uh maybe I'm confused. I remember distinctly that when that entertainment district was formed, it wasn't about liquor licenses.

It was about uh relaxing or being more flexible with the parking restrictions to um allow property owners a wider variety of uses for their property by relaxing the parking requirements. And then another purpose was to encourage people to have more uh pedestrian traffic downtown so people could park anywhere uh not just in the parking garage but park someplace and then visit various uh different businesses in their travels.

So the goal was to decrease vacancies downtown and create a more vibrant downtown. and the parking was uh waved after the garage was built. So, it's basically been a success in my opinion, but unfortunately overnight parking was not addressed and a situation has now been created where 50 plus cars uh will need spaces in our parking garage for overnight parking and also daytime parking. So, we need to address this loophole. I support updating the ordinance to close it and uh I agree.

I think we should delete the 1986 or 1968 uh year and just make uh everyone have to comply with this because that would just create another loophole. And I think we should expand it to include or at least do some research and make sure that that entertainment district was just applying to liquor licenses and uh because as I remember it definitely uh excluded uh requiring parking on site. So thank you very much and I appreciate all your hard work. Thank you mayor.

It sounds like we have a consensus to review this. Do we need a motion to do that or just state that? Yeah. Yeah. We'll need a motion and a vote. Okay. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we table LDC25-00002 to address some of the concerns that we talked about. Tom Davis, I'll I'll second. We have a motion in a second. Any further discussion? Jacob, would you call roll? Commissioner Davis, I. Commissioner Kluski, yes. Commissioner Graham, approve. Commissioner Whiting, I approve that.

Vice Chair Riley, approve. Chair Michael, approve. Passes 6. Any updates, Tammy? Um, Alex, we will. The first update is that their Jan our January 29th PNZ meeting has been cancelled. I don't think we'll have this ready for that. So, um but we'll let you know when um we have items for another meeting. Okay. Now, now Okay. So, um you all remember last time I was up here in November, we were talking about the house bill changes um with administrative approval for plat processes.

That then carried on to December 9th meeting with city council. And at that time, the council expressed interest um given that a lot of the plat process wasn't going to go through planning and zoning and city council to try and figure out a way to maintain transparency with the public. And so one of the items that was talked about is doing an update at planning and zoning for some of those projects that we're reviewing. So I have I have an update for you.

Um it can you pull up the word document please? So here are three of them that are cued and ready for approval that we're going to be sending it out. Um this is new for all of us. So we can do it a couple different ways. Um there's a revisional plat off of Yavapai Drive between two different lots in block B of Pinerest. There's a revision of plot off of Copper Vista between um the Prima Vera School and then a property to the north.

And then a final plot for Granite Del's Estates phases 6A, 6B, 6C, and 6D. So I have um those plots cued. I can show you if you would like. We will um in the next planning and zoning meeting on the agenda under updates, we'll actually have this on there and we'll list them out. So when it's published, all the addresses and the record numbers will be available on the website and as part of the packet. Um and so we're just kind of learning as we go.

So if you have questions about them, I'm happy to go through them. Or when you put them as part of the packet, will there be any visuals so we can get an idea what it is or is it strictly going to be something like this? I'm open to what works well for everyone. So, I can include a list. I can include um some of the plat I'm open to feedback. Personally, I like to see the plats myself. Okay.

On that, even though we're not really involved, but it's just, you know, seeing this, you know, it's nice, but it doesn't really tell you what's occurring. Absolutely. I don't know if other commission members want to see it, too, or not. I agree. Can do. Do you want to look at them now? I have the plats cued so I can we can easily pull them up if we want to take a look. Now, yes, for all the good it will do.

[laughter] Um, it can you please pull up the if needed RVP25-014 it can it can it's Darren he's got this there it is thanks Darren uh so what we have here is all right. And so next time I'll probably plug in my computer, too, so I can actually I'm gonna I'm gonna do that now. Um Darren, am I allowed to just plug in my laptop and share my screen? [snorts] That might be easier. Hang on. Right. That's my laptop. Where's my Where's Aha. Okay. So, here we are.

There is kind of a lot going on with the easements, but the big picture is there's a residence here and um they're older structures. You can see there's a structure here and there's another structure here. And um the the lot line was going here before, so they're relocating it and they're jogging it in to kind of avoid going around these other. It's really just a cleanup um trying to get the property line not over existing structures.

So the resulting parcels is 6A and then 6B are these structures here including this larger portion of the lot. So that's the first one off of Yavapai Drive. And are there questions before we look at the other one? Feeling good. Okay, this is the second one. The large parcel here is the Prima Vera. Um I think it's just a daycare but the school they are acquiring this uh triangle portion from the property to the north. So the property to the north is in the copper Vista subdivision.

Um Primma Vera is in an un unsubdivided parcel. So we did a revision of plot to modify the subdivision line and include this with the school. Um so pretty minor on that one. And here is the Granite Dela estates phases 6A. Let me show you the phase map first. So this is the phased map. And up here on the northeastern portion we have um what it's not in a row. I don't know why it says 6A is here. 6B is here. 6 C is over here. And 6D. So there's four phases. they're plotting them all together.

Um, so that's the phase plan and here's the actual final plot that they have. Um, it's not showing the phase lines, but it's all four of those. And it was deemed to be in substantial conformance with the preliminary plot in the master plan for the phase development. So staff uh is moving that one through the approval process as well. Are there any questions on any of those? Mr. Chairman, I have just one question real quick.

Is that um the phasing plan that you showed is consistent with the master plan and and they're asking for something different than what the master plan calls for? No, the No, they're not. They are just so the No, wrong way. The phasing plan is six phases. They broke it out in six 6A, 6B, 6 C, and 6D. So, they could have come in and plotted just 6A, but they decided to plot all four of those. Um, so it's the same. They're just plotting multiple of the the phases at one time.

So, this is more of a fine tuning of the master plan. No. So, the master plan was established creating um the large Well, let me zoom out and show you. This is the whole fun thing. Um and then they've come in over the years. I don't know how many years, but and have done a final preliminary plot and final plot for different phases at different times. So, from this point, they would have come in with a preliminary plot and then they're coming in now with the final plot.

they're ready to get these lots on the ground, start building, so they're ready to to push it through. It's the final every um lot needs to be final platted um in order to be recorded and sold off and built on. So, right now it's just the maps would just show one large parcel area. So, this is going to be with the approval process. We're going to afterwards they go to the recorder's office.

They get it all platted out and then their lots on the ground and then they can start the development process. Question Jim Kluski. Um, is was this the original Mike Fans property that he submitted the master plan many years back? I believe if I remember that cuz I was going to be kind of part of that. I thought they were limiting that master plan to 500 and some odd total units for the entire project. Seems like the number of units on this map way exceeds that.

Was it changed at some point in time? This is an amendment from 2017. Um changes since then though I'm not familiar with offhand. I don't Yeah, thank you. It was well before 217 when I was talking to him about what he was originally planning to do. So amendment after So, for clarification purposes, it has nothing to do with the things that are up here right now.

At what point, based on the new state law, just so that we're all clear on this, um, if this had been coming through as a zoning change, a request for change zoning from agricultural to the subdivision, that would come before the planning and zoning commission and have a public hearing with it. All resonings, correct, will be coming through P&Z and then council.

If they had the zoning in place and they come up with a master plan for whatever it is, 100, 200, 500 homes, whatever that would be, would that master plan come before the planning and zoning commission and the city council? It depends. So, the planned area developments, those still in our code require PNZ and council. Um, if it's a development agreement, that is a contract with the city. So, that goes through as well.

Um, if they're just, you know, if it's 20 acres and they're doing a 10 lot subdivision, it go can they can go from preliminary. They're not needing a development agreement. They don't need a planned area development. That's when it will just go administrative through um through staff. Now, to choose to go through a planned area development is something that is done by the the owner, the project's owner. that owner needs to agree with the city that a PA a is the best way to move things forward.

Is that correct? So the owner basically the city doesn't dictate and say thou shalt have a pad here. A pad is largely going to be flexing our baseline zoning regulations. So um yeah, they they if it kind of it it's both at play. We're not going to dictate and say they have to, but based on what they're proposing and what their ultimate goals are, they may or may not need one. It just it there's a lot of variables that will trigger one being needed or not. Okay.

So something like this probably would have come up to us anyway because it is a PA a. Right. Right. And a PAD is in the developers best interest because they can get sometimes reduce their development costs by doing things a little bit differently, creating open space and things like that around there. So, we're probably going to see things like this still come through the public and be transparent in that regard. Correct.

It's quite likely the larger projects will either need the development agreement or a planned area development, in which case it goes through the PNZ council process. Thank you. Any other comments? I think it'll be [laughter] hand Mayor. Um, thank you. I I would have filled out a card, but I didn't know this was going to be a topic. Um yeah. Um Prop 2447 made a lot of changes.

So my question is um do you know if there was any increase in increase in units from the original uh plat and if so would that have come before us? Yes.

the resolution that was adopted at that that 129 meeting um wouldn't even previously had if there when we're when staff's reviewing to see a final plot if it's in substantial conformance one of the criteria is there's no increase in dwelling units there can be a decrease um but if there's an increase in what was originally approved that's a trigger to say no you need to go back through and we don't approve those administratively with the final plat okay thank you and then Alex um I've been out in that area uh It's pretty hilly.

And was there a uh a the hillside grading ordinance? Was it waved for this uh plat? Do you know? Um so at the time when they do the the whole big looking at the whole site itself is when if there were hillside triggers and needed that's the time they would have assessed it and looked at what percentage is the slopes how much and they're going to that is all addressed kind of at the really big picture level and and looked at at that time. Yeah. Okay.

So it might have just been waved previously with the original uh plat. Yeah. Oh, okay. All righty. Thank you very much. Absolutely. Thanks, Alex. Yes. I like the presentation of the visual part and I think if we have that in our packets, it could be beneficial for us to see. Okay. On that if you don't mind. Can do. Okay. Anything else? Anything else? Nothing from me. No. Okay. We are ajourned.