My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC - Agendas - City Council - REGULAR - 7/23/2013
>
City Clerk
>
Permanent Records
>
Permanent
>
CC - Agendas - City Council - REGULAR - 7/23/2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2020 11:47:58 AM
Creation date
11/12/2018 11:27:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC - Agendas
Department
City Clerk
Sub
Clerk Records
Content
Agendas
Committee Status
Current
Document Type
City Council
Meeting Type
REGULAR
Meeting Date
7/23/2013
Retention
Permanent
Retention Type
Permanent
Security
Public
Scanner
Conversion
Scan Date
7/25/2013
Record Series
GS1016, #10260
Supplemental fields
Conversion Number
2857801
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
129
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Prescott City Council <br /> Workshop — July 2, 2013 Page 5 <br /> Mr. Paladini summarized the two proposed alternatives. <br /> Daniel Mattson, Prescott resident, said he is worried this is going to come back and bite <br /> the City. He supports an informal review so the public knows what the differences are. <br /> He asked for a cursory statement. He said a cost benefit analysis should be done. He <br /> is concerned that workforce housing is not proposed in the first Phase. He feels the <br /> Council should make that a requirement. <br /> Mayor Kuykendall explained the reasons he supports the project. Creating rooftops will <br /> help the City. The Mayor said workforce housing is important to the Council and they <br /> have been talking about this for some time. <br /> Lindsay Bell, Prescott resident, addressed the emphasis on the annexation policy for <br /> the past few years. She noted that it was on land suited for commercial development as <br /> opposed to residential. She said there should be some justification for the residential <br /> rezoning. In terms of changes to the Airport plans, she did not see anything regarding <br /> the noise attenuations. She urged Council to look at Alternative 1 regarding the Water <br /> Service Agreement. She would be hesitant to allocate half of the water portfolio to a <br /> single development at this time. She said the City is on the cusp of major annexations, <br /> and water should not be tied up. <br /> • Mayor Kuykendall asked if she thought it would be the end of Prescott, once the water <br /> is used. She said there are many techniques to be considered to assure water <br /> availability for current and future residents. She mentioned increasing recharge and <br /> rainwater harvesting. <br /> Judith Merrill, Prescott resident, said she is impressed with questions being asked. She <br /> questioned why the rezoning is connected to the addition of 600 lots and why there <br /> could not be more open space in the area. She said she did not know what the benefit <br /> to the City would be to add 600 lots. She noted that houses have to be balanced with <br /> industry. If the Peavine Trail is lined with small lots, the trail will not be anything like it <br /> currently is. She said it is an asset to the City and some of the open space should be <br /> along the Peavine Trail. The doubling of the number of cars going across the at-grade <br /> crossing on the Peavine Trail is worrisome to her. <br /> Mr. Guice, Community Development Director, said the crossing at the Peavine Trail had <br /> been addressed. <br /> Leslie Hoy, Prescott resident, commented as a member of the Proposition 400 <br /> Committee. She is disappointed that Council is considering the rezoning over a holiday <br /> week and noted that more people would be at the meeting if they were not on vacation. <br /> She emailed George Worley about the cost benefit analysis and was told that this is not <br /> required. She emailed all Council and did not hear back from anyone. She said <br /> residential land use cost the taxpayer's 15 - 50 percent more than any income produced <br /> by the City's coffers. She said that she did not know how it would be good for the City if <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.