>> NO, WE DO NOT. I WOULD LIKE TO
[1. CALL TO ORDER NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the Commission and to the general public that, at this work session, the Commission may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the Commission’s attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).]
[00:00:04]
CALL THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2024 TO ORDER.NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AND TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT AT THIS WORK SESSION, THE COMMISSION MAY VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH WILL NOT BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
AND WE WOULD GO INTO OPEN SESSION FOR LEGAL ADVICE AND DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMISSION'S ATTORNEY ON ANY ITEMS LISTED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA PURSUANT TO ARS 38431.03 A3.
>> IAN SHARP IS EXCUSED. MARY NORTON.
>> WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
AT THIS TIME, ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY SUBJECT WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION THAT IS NOT SCHEDULED BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY? DUE TO OPEN MEETING LAWS, THE COMMISSION CANNOT DISCUSS OR ACT ON ITEMS PRESENTED DURING THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING ON THE AGENDA.
TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE WAIT FOR ME TO CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE TIME THE ITEM IS HEARD.
IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? HEARING AND SEEING NONE, I WILL MOVE ON TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING ON WEDNESDAY,
[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on Wednesday, March 27, 2024.]
MARCH 27TH, 2024.IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN?
>> I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS WRITTEN FROM MARCH 27.
>> MARY HAS MOVED TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> AND CJ HAS SECONDED TO THAT.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES FROM MARCH 27TH, 2004, SAY AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED AS WRITTEN.
AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC HEARING
[A. Public Hearing: PZ-24-00013: Pine Canyon Lot 344, Single-Family HOH A Conditional Use Permit request from Hugh McMahon on behalf of Two Hawks Design and Development to allow a Single-Family High Occupancy Housing Development in the Single-Family Residential (R1) Zone at 2911 South Solitaires Canyon Drive in the Estates at Pine Canyon Unit 5 subdivision. The proposal is for a 5,165 square foot new-build single-family residence with 5 bedrooms, 5.5 bathrooms and a 1,042 square foot attached garage on approximately 0.76 acres. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: In accordance with the findings presented in this report, Staff recommends approval of PZ-24-00013 with the following condition: 1) The development of the site shall substantially conform to the plans as presented with the Conditional Use Permit application.]
PZ 2400013 PINE CANYON 3404 SINGLE FAMILY HOH.>> THAT'S ON. CAN YOU HEAR ME? AWESOME. SO GOOD EVENING, VICE CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS DUSTIN STIFFLER, I'M THE ASSOCIATE PLANNER HERE AT THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.
THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THAT'S LOCATED AT 2911 SOUTH SOLITAIRES CANYON DRIVE.
AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO ATTENDING THE MEETING TODAY IN PERSON AS WELL.
AS MENTIONED, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2911 SOUTH SOLITAIRES CANYON DRIVE, AND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE PINE CANYON AREA SPECIFICALLY WITHIN THE ESTATES AT PINE CANYON UNIT 5 SUBDIVISION.
THE PROPOSAL IS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING THAT CONSISTS OF FIVE BEDROOMS AND 5.5 BATHROOMS, AND DUE TO THE NUMBER OF BATHROOMS OR ZONING CODE CALLS IT SANITATION FACILITIES, THE FIVE BATHROOM THRESHOLD HAS BEEN MET AND THE PROJECT IS CONSIDERED TO BE A SINGLE FAMILY HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
AND THAT REQUIRES A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WHICH IS THE REASON YOU'RE SEEING THIS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OR R1, AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ZONED THE SAME.
BEFORE YOU IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT.
IT IS A TWO STORY 5,160 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
AND THEN WE HAVE THE PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS FOR THIS RESIDENCE AS WELL.
ON THE LEFT, YOU'LL SEE THE BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN, AND THEN THE SECOND LEVEL WHERE THE FIRST FLOOR IS ON THE RIGHT.
AGAIN, THIS WILL INCLUDE 5.5 BATHROOMS AND FIVE FULL BEDROOMS.
[00:05:03]
IN ORDER FOR STAFF TO RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, A NUMBER OF FINDINGS MUST BE MET.THE FIRST BEING THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ZONING CODE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE SPECIFIC ZONE.
SO AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OR R1 ZONE, AND IT IS A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED, AND BECAUSE OF ITS HIGH OCCUPANCY DEVELOPMENT, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO BE DEVELOPED AS SUCH.
SO BY PURSUING THIS CUP OR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITHIN THIS ZONING DISTRICT, THIS FIRST FINDING IS MET.
THE SECOND FINDING IS THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE AS DEFINED BY THE FOUR CRITERIA LISTED ON THE SCREEN BEFORE YOU.
AND SO IF THIS PROPOSED PROJECT IS DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODES, STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS, THE PROJECT SHOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY OR WELFARE.
AND THUS, THIS FINDING IS MET AS WELL.
THE THIRD FINDING IS A LITTLE MORE MULTIFACETED.
THE THIRD FINDING BEING THAT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DEVELOPMENT ARE REASONABLY COMPATIBLE WITH USES PERMITTED IN THE SURROUNDING AREA PER THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, WHICH I WILL DISCUSS IN THE FOLLOWING SLIDES.
THE FIRST CRITERIA BEING ACCESS TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION.
ACCESS TO THE SITE IS PROVIDED THROUGH OR VIA SOUTH SOLITAIRES CANYON DRIVE.
A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IS NOT REQUIRED OF SINGLE PRIVATE RESIDENCES.
BUT WITH THAT, A SINGLE FAMILY HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.
AND THAT IS ONE OFF STREET PARKING SPACE PER BEDROOM.
SO THIS PROJECT HAVING FIVE BEDROOMS, THE DEVELOPMENT WILL ADEQUATELY PROVIDE THE FIVE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES ON SITE.
THE NEXT WOULD BE ADEQUACY OF THE SITE OPEN SPACE AND RESOURCE PROTECTION.
A RESOURCE PROTECTION PLAN WAS PROVIDED WITH THE PLATTING OF THIS SUBDIVISION.
FURTHERMORE, THE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT WILL BE PERMITTED ONLY WITHIN THE APPROVED BUILDING ENVELOPE, AND TREE REMOVAL WILL ONLY OCCUR WITHIN THAT APPROVED ENVELOPE AS WELL.
WE HAVE NOISE LIGHT VISUAL AND OTHER POLLUTANTS.
IT'S NOT ANTICIPATED THAT THIS USE OR THE PROPOSED USES FOR THIS SITE WILL CREATE ANY NOISE VISUAL OR OTHER POLLUTANTS OR ANY ADDITIONAL VISUAL OR OTHER POLLUTANTS IN THIS AREA.
THE SITE IS ALSO WELL MAINTAINED AS WELL.
AND THE STYLING AND SIGHTING OF STRUCTURES IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, COLORS AND MATERIALS PROPOSED FOR THIS PROJECT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENCES WITHIN THE PINE CANYON COMMUNITY.
WE THEN HAVE LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WITHIN THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.
THIS SITE PROPOSES TO CONNECT TO THE EXISTING SEWER AND WATER UTILITIES OR SERVICES WITHIN THE PINE CANYON COMMUNITY, AND NO ADDITIONAL OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THIS USE.
SIGNAGE AND OUTDOOR LIGHTING, THERE'S NO SIGNAGE TO BE PROPOSED WITH THIS USE, AND ANY NEW OUTDOOR LIGHTING MUST COMPLY WITH CURRENT CODE FOR THIS RESIDENCE.
DEDICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF STREETS, NO DEDICATION OR DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC STREETS IS REQUIRED.
ALL THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WAS DEDICATED AT THE TIME OF PLATTING THIS SUBDIVISION.
AND FURTHERMORE, NO ADDITIONAL OR NO IMPACTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME ON SITE.
THERE ARE TWO ADDITIONAL FINDINGS, HERITAGE PRESERVATION AND TRANSIT, BOTH OF WHICH DO NOT APPLY TO SINGLE FAMILY HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS.
WE THEN HAVE THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN, WHICH IS AN ELEMENT OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS.
SO WITH THAT, THE APPLICANT NOTIFIED PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OF THEIR INTENT TO REQUEST THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
THIS NOTIFICATION WAS PROVIDED VIA MAILER IN LIEU OF A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING THAT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN PERSON OR VIRTUAL.
AND ADDITIONALLY, THE NOTIFICATION OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING WAS ALSO MAILED AND SIGNED ON THE PROPERTY AS WELL.
[00:10:05]
AS OF TODAY, WE'VE RECEIVED ONLY ONE RESPONSE TO THE IN LIEU MAILER, WITH THE RESPONDENT STATING THAT THEY WERE IN FULL SUPPORT OF THE CUP.AND ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT RECEIVED ONE QUESTION FROM A CITIZEN WISHING TO UNDERSTAND MORE OF HOW A SINGLE FAMILY HOME CAN BE CONSIDERED HIGH OCCUPANCY, WHICH THE APPLICANT EXPLAINED THE CURRENT ZONING CODE AND HOW THAT IS DEFINED IN THE CODE AND HOW THIS HOME WILL MEET THAT DEFINITION.
SO WITH THE FINDINGS, STAFF RECOMMENDS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PC 2400013 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
AND AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN IT TO QUESTIONS FOR MYSELF OR THE APPLICANT.
>> SO DO YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO THE LAST SLIDE. THANK YOU.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? ANY COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? DUSTIN, THANK YOU FOR A GREAT PRESENTATION.
>> AND ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC?
>> I'LL JUST MAKE A COMMENT. I THINK WE'VE SEEN THIS APPLICANT COME BEFORE US BEFORE. WELCOME BACK.
THANK YOU FOR GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS.
I KNOW THIS IS NOT THE INTENTION FOR THIS TYPE OF CATCH, BUT THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
>> IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? DOES SOMEBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> MOVE TO APPROVE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.
>> YOU WOULD READ DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE AND THE PERMIT NUMBER.
>> INCLUDE THE PART ABOUT THE FINDINGS.
>> IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS, I RECOMMEND THAT WE APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PZ2400013 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE SHALL SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORM TO THE PLANS AS PRESENTED BY THE CUP.
AGAIN, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NO DISCUSSION, I'M GOING TO GO INTO THE VOTE.
>> ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES.
THANK YOU, DUSTIN, AND THANK YOU TO THE APPLICANT.
THAT LEADS US TO GENERAL BUSINESS.
UNDER GENERAL BUSINESS, WE HAVE JUNIPER POINT PARCEL 2, PRELIMINARY PLAT PZ2200192-01.
[A. Juniper Point Parcel 2 Preliminary Plat PZ-22-00192-01 JP325, LLC requests Preliminary Plat approval for Juniper Point, Parcel 2, located at 2000 John Wesley Powell Boulevard, a single-family subdivision of 62 lots on 17.54 (gross) or 11.36 (net) acres in the RR (Rural Residential) Zone utilizing the Planned Residential Development (PRD) option. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission, in accordance with the findings presented in this report, forward the Preliminary Plat to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, given the conditions outlined in the Staff Report. ]
WE HAVE A STAFF MEMBER MAKING A PRESENTATION.>> WE DO. THANK YOU SO MUCH, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS WESLEY WELCH. I'M A PLANNER.
TODAY, I'M GOING TO PRESENT THE JUNIPER POINT PARCEL 2 PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR YOU.
JUST A LITTLE OVERVIEW OF THE REQUEST.
IT'S FROM JP 325 LLC FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR PARCEL 2 LOCATED AT 2000 JOHN WESLEY POWELL.
IT'LL BE A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION WITH 62 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 17.54 ACRES IN THE RR ZONE.
STAFF APPROVED THE PRELIMINARY PLAT ON MARCH 15TH, 2024, AND WE'RE BRINGING IT TO YOU TODAY.
THIS IS GOING TO BE OVER ON JWP RIGHT BEFORE IT ENDS.
NORTH OF IT IS GOING TO BE, IF YOU LOOK RIGHT HERE, WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING RIGHT IN THIS AREA.
WE HAVE PINE CANYON DOWN TO THE SOUTH, AND THEN WE HAVE VACANT UNDEVELOPED LAND TO THE NORTH, AND COCONINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE OVER THIS WAY.
IT'S A 325-ACRE SITE, IS THE WHOLE JUNIPER POINT DEVELOPMENT AREA.
JUNIPER POINT PARCEL 1 HAS 38 LOTS AND INCLUDES 105.08 ACRES ON ITS PLAT.
PARCEL 2 FALLS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE JUNIPER POINT PARCEL 1 PLAT.
17.54 ACRES IS PART OF THE 105 ACRES FROM THE PARCEL 1 SUBDIVISION.
IT'S ALL GOING TO BE ZONED RR, 62 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
IT DOES HAVE THE RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY.
STEEP SLOPE AND FOREST RESOURCES ARE SET ASIDE TO BE PROTECTED.
THE SITE IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS WITH LAND OVER THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT SITE, AS YOU'LL SEE A LITTLE LATER ON.
HERE'S THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR YOU.
THIS WAS INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
I'LL LEAVE IT UP FOR A FEW SECONDS JUST SO YOU CAN LOOK AT IT.
DOWN HERE TO THE SOUTH OR TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS, THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE WEST,
[00:15:01]
IS GOING TO BE PARCEL 1 AT JUNIPER POINT, COME IN ON ROCK POINT, AND THIS WILL BE THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT HERE.THIS IS DEVELOPED WITH THE PRD, THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ALLOWS YOU TO CLUSTER WHILE YOU SAVE A LARGE SWATH OF OPEN SPACE.
THE DENSITY IS 3.53 UNITS PER ACRE WHEN YOU CALCULATE IT, BUT THE PRD ALLOWS FOR A CLUSTERING OF THE DENSITY.
THAT MAXIMUM DENSITY FOR THE RR ZONE IS ONE UNIT PER ACRE, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE WITH EXTRA ACREAGE THAT'S SET ASIDE IN THE FUTURE.
THAT'S PART OF TRACT G IN THE JUNIPER POINT PARCEL 1 SUBDIVISION, AND WE CAN LOOK AT THAT IF YOU'D LIKE TO.
FOR THE LOT DESIGN, THE PRD ALLOWS FOR SMALLER LOTS.
THE RR ZONE HAS A LOT SIZE OF ONE ACRE.
THESE ARE GOING TO BE MUCH SMALLER THAN THAT.
THE LOTS UTILIZE THE T3N.2 TRANSECT ZONE STANDARDS, SO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE AND COTTAGES, THE FRONTAGE TYPES ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PORCHES, AND IT ALLOWS FOR REDUCED SETBACKS.
HERE'S THE RESOURCE BANK FOR JUNIPER POINT.
THIS IS FOR THE OVERALL JUNIPER POINT SOUTH AREA.
I'LL LEAVE IT UP RIGHT HERE FOR YOU JUST TO TAKE A PEEK AT IT.
OVER HERE, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THIS IS JUNIPER POINT PARCEL 2 ITSELF, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE THE OVERALL SITE.
YOU CAN SEE OVER HERE RIGHT NOW, AS IT WILL BE DEVELOPED IN THE FUTURE, THESE RESOURCES ARE GOING TO SLOWLY BE SAVED AND PRESERVED AS THEY'RE TAKING FROM THE OTHER SIDE OVER HERE.
THE OTHER RELEVANT STANDARDS FOR THE ZONING CODE THAT IT NEEDS TO MEET IS THAT IT MEETS THE HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES.
THERE WAS A CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDY DATED APRIL 2006, WAS ACCEPTED BY THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION OFFICER.
PARKS, OPEN SPACE, PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE FACILITIES.
THERE'S THAT BOW AND ARROW WASH TRAIL THAT THEY'LL CONNECT TO, AND THAT'LL BE SHOWN MORE ON PARCEL 3.
THIS PLAT CONTAINS TRACKS THAT ARE SET ASIDE FOR OPEN SPACE AND CIVIC SPACE.
THEY'RE NOT PERFECTLY CALIBRATED, BUT WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT FIXED ON THE FINAL PLAT BY INCREASING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
MEETS ALL THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS.
WE HAD ENGINEERING, WATER SERVICE, STORM WATER.
THEY WERE ALL REVIEWING THIS PLAT.
MET ALL OF THEIR STANDARDS FOR TRAFFIC.
THERE'S A MASTER TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS THAT'S STILL UNDER REVIEW FOR THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT SITE.
HOWEVER, TRAFFIC STATEMENT WAS PROVIDED FOR PARCELS 1-3 AND WAS APPROVED.
WATER AND WASTEWATER. THEY'LL BE ADDING A NEW EIGHT-INCH AND TWELVE INCH WATER LINE, A NEW EIGHT-INCH SEWER LINE.
FOR STORM WATER, THERE WAS A PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT FOR PHASE 1, WHICH IS PARCELS 1-3, THAT WAS PREPARED MARCH 7TH, 2023 AND REVIEWED BY STAFF.
THIRD FINDING IS FOR SUBDIVISION STANDARDS.
IT'S GOING TO BE PRELIMINARY PLAT PROCEDURES, APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS, AND THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE PUBLIC SYSTEMS ANALYSIS.
ALSO, IT MEETS THE LOT DESIGN, STREET DESIGN, EASEMENT DESIGN, AND BLOCK DESIGN STANDARDS.
I'M HAPPY TO GO INTO THOSE FURTHER IF YOU'D LIKE.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, BASED ON THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, FORWARDS THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THAT THE FINAL PLAT SHALL ADJUST THE PLAT BOUNDARIES TO INCLUDE THE REMAINDER OF JUNIPER POINT PARCEL 1 TRACT G, AND THAT THE FINAL PLAT AND ENGINEERING PLAN SHALL ADJUST THE PLAT BOUNDARIES TO INCLUDE ALL AREAS THAT ARE BEING UTILIZED FOR THE RESOURCE PROTECTION CALCULATIONS.
NOW, MARY DID CONTACT ME EARLIER THIS WEEK WANTING A LITTLE MORE ON THE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN.
I DO HAVE THE PAGES OF THAT OVER HERE.
THEN IF FOR SOME REASON WE CAN'T ZOOM OR NEED TO LOOK CLOSER, I HAVE IT PULLED UP HERE AS WELL.
I CAN JUST GIVE YOU A BRIEF RUNDOWN OF IT.
THIS IS GOING TO BE THE TITLE PAGE.
IT'S REALLY THIS AREA THAT'S ONE, TWO, AND THREE THAT'S REALLY FOCUSED ON IN THE MASTER PLAN.
THE OTHER AREAS, JUNIPER POINT SOUTH, JUNIPER POINT 95, ARE RESERVED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
I'LL JUST BRIEFLY SHOW YOU THOSE, AND THEN I'M HAPPY TO OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.
>> CLOSE ENOUGH. EVERYONE SAYS LESLIE.
>> WESLEY FOR YOUR OVERVIEW AND YOUR WORK ON THIS.
DO COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YES.
>> I'VE GOT A FEW. PERFECT. CAN YOU RE-EXPLAIN HOW THE RESOURCE PROTECTION IS BEING SHARED AND REALLOCATED A LITTLE MORE?
>> WITH THE PRD, YOU CAN DO THAT CLUSTERING AS I WAS TALKING ABOUT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TOUCH SCREEN OR NOT.
LET ME PULL UP THE MASTER PLAN ITSELF SO WE CAN DO A LITTLE ZOOMING IN.
[00:20:06]
IT'S UTILIZED LIKE A RESOURCE BANK.THIS IS GOING TO BE MORE OF YOUR SLOPES.
RIGHT NOW YOU CAN SEE THERE'S ALL OF THOSE TREE RESOURCES ON THE OTHER SIDE.
THEY'RE NOT GOING SUPER DEEP INTO THAT RIGHT NOW AS THEY'LL BE IDENTIFIED WITH LATER DEVELOPMENT.
THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY IDENTIFIED ON THE PLAT RIGHT NOW, THE FINAL PLAT IS GOING TO HAVE THAT BOUNDARY FIXED SO THAT WAY THEY CAN PULL THOSE RESOURCES.
>> SO THE YELLOW, ORANGE, AND RED AREAS ARE THOSE IDENTIFIED AS UNDEVELOPABLE BECAUSE THEY EXCEED THE SLOPE?
THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT TYPES OF SLOPE AND THERE'S PRESERVATION RATES BASED ON THE PERCENTAGE, I THINK IT'S LIKE 17-25, 25-35, AND THEN 35 PLUS.
SEVENTEEN TO 25, YOU CAN DISTURB A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THAT SLOPE, 25, 35, A LITTLE LESS PERCENTAGE, ANYTHING OVER 35 IS NOT TO BE DISTURBED.
>> THOSE THREE YOU JUST REFERENCED REFER TO RED, ORANGE, AND YELLOW?
>> SO THE RED WOULD NOT BE TOUCHED AT ALL?
>> SO THE OVERALL PARCEL OUTLINE THAT YOU'VE GOT INDICATED THERE, THAT'S THE 160, HOW MUCH WAS IT?
>> THIS PARCEL RIGHT HERE, LET ME GO BACK TO THE PRESENTATION.
IT MIGHT BE ACTUALLY EASIER TO SEE RIGHT HERE.
THIS PARCEL RIGHT HERE, THERE'S TWO PARCELS RIGHT NOW ON JUNIPER POINT, THIS WAS ALL WHAT WAS INCLUDED ON JUNIPER POINT PARCEL 1, THAT'S THE 108 ACRES.
IT'S THIS LINE RIGHT HERE, AND THEN YOU TAKE OUT THIS LITTLE SHARK BITE.
THEY CALL IT A SHARK BITE, I DON'T KNOW WHY.
IT'S RIGHT THERE. THAT'S THE 108.
THE BOW AND ARROW WASH, LET ME GET THAT.
LOOK IN HERE, SO THIS IS THE WASH RIGHT HERE.
EVERYTHING SOUTH OF THIS IS GOING TO BE JUNIPER POINT SOUTH.
THAT'S THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT AREA THAT WE'RE PULLING THE RESOURCES FROM.
>> WHAT'S ON SCREEN RIGHT NOW, THAT PERIMETER, HOW MANY ACRES IS THAT OVERALL?
>> LET ME SAY IT'S ABOUT 225, 235.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION, SO ON THE LEFT PART OF THE SCREEN IS THE PLAT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY?
>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE YELLOW IS.
>> THE YELLOW IS ACTUALLY MATCHES OVER HERE, THIS IS THE SLOPES, THE DIFFERENT SLOPE CATEGORIES.
THE GREEN IS GOING TO BE DISTURBED TREE CANOPY.
>> SO THAT'S GOING TO BE DISTURBED?
>> CORRECT. THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PRESERVE, I BELIEVE, 50% OF YOUR TREE CANOPY.
IT'S GOING TO BE PRESERVED OVER HERE.
THEY'RE GOING BEYOND THE 50% JUST IN HERE, BUT BECAUSE THEY'RE CLUSTERING AND SETTING ASIDE THE LAND THAT WON'T BE DEVELOPED ON THE OTHER SIDE, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE PULLING THOSE RESOURCES FROM.
>> EXPLAIN THAT AGAIN, THE GREEN THAT WE SEE THERE, ARE THOSE GOING TO BE REMOVED OR THOSE ARE GOING TO BE WHAT STAYS?
>> ALL OF THAT IN GREEN IS GOING TO BE REMOVED?
>> DOES THAT REMOVE ALL THE VEGETATION IN THAT AREA?
>> NOT ALL OF IT, A CHUNK OF IT.
IT'S OVER WHAT THE RESOURCE PROTECTION REQUIREMENT IS, BUT THAT'S BEING PRESERVED ON THE OTHER SIDE.
THE OVERALL SITE WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE, WILL HAVE THAT 50% OF TREE CANOPY PRESERVED.
>> SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PRESERVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THEY'RE BUILDING THAT?
>> MOST OF THAT WILL BE REMOVED?
>> DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH PERCENT IS STAYING?
>> ON THIS SPECIFICALLY, ON THIS SIDE, I WANT TO SAY IT'S MAYBE 10, IT'S A SMALLER PERCENTAGE, MAYBE 10%, FIVE.
>> I KNOW THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT BEFORE ABOUT HOW WE WANT TO START PRESERVING THE OVERLAY, NOT NECESSARILY ON THE PROPERTIES THEMSELVES.
NOT THAT I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED AND DECIDED.
MARY, YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR A DISCUSSION?
>> YEAH, IT JUST ADDS INTO THIS.
THIS IS WHAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT OR TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.
THAT WHOLE AREA OVER THERE IS PART G, BUT IT'S ALSO INDICATED AS JUNIPER POINT PHASE 2, SO THAT WILL BE ALL DEVELOPED, ARE YOU JUST SAYING THAT THERE WILL BE GREATER THAN A 50% RESOURCE PROTECTION OVER THERE WHEN THEY GET THERE?
>> IT WON'T. IT WILL BE DEVELOPED THAT SIDE.
THE ENTIRE SITE ITSELF IS NOT GOING TO BE DEVELOPED, BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN SAVING TREES OVER HERE TO DEVELOP ON THE OTHER SIDE.
[00:25:01]
THAT 50% OF TREES THAT THEY SHOULD BE SAVING HERE IS GETTING CLUSTERED OVER HERE.THERE WILL BE LARGE AREAS OF OPEN SPACE THAT AREN'T DEVELOPED AT ALL, AND SO THAT THE WHOLE SITE MEETS THE 50% REQUIREMENT.
>> IN ESSENCE, WHAT'S LEFTOVER OF G OVER THERE OF JUNIPER POINT PHASE 2 WILL END UP WITH A HIGHER THAN 50% IN THAT AREA?
>> IS THAT WHERE THE TAKE IS GOING TO BE?
>> THAT WILL BE THE OPEN SPACE IS WHERE THEY'RE CLUSTERING ALL THE?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD.
YES. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ANYBODY ELSE?
>> [INAUDIBLE] TAKE ON RESOURCES.
>> MINE'S NOT ON RESOURCES IF WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON, SO MORE TO THE CIVIC SPACE IDEA.
IS THIS GOING TO KEEP DEVELOPING IN LITTLE CHUNKS WITH THE SMALLEST CIVIC SPACE AREAS AT A TIME, OR WITHIN THE MASTER PLAN, IS THERE A LARGER CIVIC SPACE/ACTIVE PARK OF SORTS TO SERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD?
>> THE MASTER PLAN IS ONLY FOR THE 1, 2, AND 3.
OVER HERE ON THE MASTER PLAN, IT'S JUST PRESERVED FOR FUTURE.
I'M NOT SURE IF CAPSTONE WANTS TO SPEAK TO THAT.
SAP WILL MAKE SURE IT'S SAVED, BUT I'M UNSURE IF WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THAT RIGHT NOW FOR PARCEL 2.
OR MAYBE WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLARIFY A LITTLE MORE?
>> THE CIVIC SPACES ON THE PLAT WE ARE LOOKING AT, DON'T ACTUALLY PROVIDE MUCH CIVIC USE OPPORTUNITY IN MY OPINION, WHICH IS OKAY AT THIS SCALE, BUT I'M WONDERING, IN THE MASTER PLAN, IS THERE GOING TO BE AN ACTIVE PARK OR SOME SORT OF THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY USABLE IN THAT TYPE OF SENSE? OR IS THIS DEVELOPMENT MODE WHERE IT'S A LITTLE TINY BIT AT A TIME? SKIRT THAT.
>> A PARK IS NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN.
SO REALLY THIS WHOLE SIDE IS LEFT OPEN IN THE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION RIGHT NOW.
>> YES. I'LL GO IN THE DIRECTION OF THE CIVIC SPACE AND OPEN SPACE.
ONLY BECAUSE WE WENT THROUGH SUCH A LONG EXERCISE ABOUT OPEN SPACE, WOULD THIS ACTUALLY BE COMMON SPACE? BECAUSE SINCE I SERVE ON OPEN SPACE TOO, AND I HEAR OPEN SPACE I GET ALL EXCITED, AND THIS IS NOT WHAT THAT IS, CORRECT?
>> I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
WE SHOULD BE CALLING THIS ACTUALLY COMMON SPACE.
I KNOW THIS IS IN BETWEEN STANDARDS.
MY OTHER QUESTION ALONG THAT THOUGHT WAS, WHEN DID THIS APPLICATION COME THROUGH? THEY WERE ALLOWED TO BUILD UNDER THE OLD STANDARDS, WAS THAT JUST A GIMME OR DID THEY COME IN TO THE OLD STANDARDS?
>> IT'S THE PRELIMINARY PLAT CAME IN BEFORE THE NEW STANDARDS WERE ADOPTED.
>> ON THE CIVIC AND OPEN SPACE, ON THE PLAT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, THERE'S WHAT WE CALL THE NEW LOAN TREE, AND THE OPEN SPACE AND THE CIVIC SPACE LINES THAT ARE THERE IS THAT FOR THE FOOTS BECAUSE THERE IS A FOOT THAT'S INDICATED ON THE OPEN SPACE STRATEGIC PLAN MAP THAT WOULD BE A FOOT'S TRAIL FROM J. W. POWELL TO CCC, AND I WAS WONDERING IF THAT'S WHAT THE INTENTION WAS FOR THAT.
>> I BELIEVE THAT THE CROSS-SECTION OF THE NEW LOAN TREE ALIGNMENT INCLUDES A WIDER SIDEWALK THAT FUNCTIONS AS A FOOT GOING UP, SO YES, THAT INCLUDES THAT FOOT.
AGAIN, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE AT THIS POINT THE BIG MASTER PLAN, BUT I BELIEVE THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ADDITIONAL FOOTS IN THIS AREA, LIKE ALONG THE WASH.
>> REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN, IS IT BEING REVISED? IS THAT ONE THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2022 REALLY NOT HOLDING? IS IT BEING PIECE-MEALED OUT? IS THAT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS AS FAR AS THE LACK OF INFORMATION? I BELIEVE THAT AT THE TIME THAT THE DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT
[00:30:07]
WAS A BIG JUMP TO TRY AND DO ALL THE IMPACT ANALYSES NECESSARY FOR THE ENTIRE AREA.THE DECISION WAS MADE TO ONLY SUBMIT FOR THAT LITTLE CORNER, THESE PARCELS ONE, TWO, AND THREE.
I BELIEVE THE INTENTION NOW STAFFS BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT TO DEVELOP A MORE COMPREHENSIVE DESIGN.
I DON'T NECESSARILY, I THINK THAT WE'LL SEE ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN, BUT IT WILL BE LOOKED AT IN A MORE.
>> DO THE SPECIFICS THEN COME WITHIN, YOU REFERRED TO A SOUTH SECTION PLAN, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THERE WOULD LATER BE A NORTH SECTION PLAN.
>> OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING IS THE DEVELOPERS HERE AND CAN MAYBE ANSWER SOME OF THESE, BUT OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING IS THAT MORE OR LESS WE'RE LOOKING AT BY RIGHT RESIDENTIAL IN THE SOUTHERN AREA AND THAT THAT NORTHERN 95 ACRES, WE'RE LOOKING AT A POSSIBLE REZONE TO GET HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, SOME MIXED-USE, MORE OF AN ACTIVITY CENTER IN THAT AREA.
>> THEN THESE WILL ALL BE DEVELOPED BASICALLY WITH THE PRD STANDARD DOWN AT THE SOUTH END OF THE MASTER PLAN IN GENERAL.
>> THAT SEEMS TO BE THE PATTERN THAT'S HAPPENING.
IN SOME WAYS, IT'S PREFERRED BECAUSE IT GETS US THOSE SMALLER LOTS.
THEN BUT THE NEXT ONE, THE THIRD ONE THAT COMES IN WILL HAVE TO MEET OUR NEW PRD STANDARDS.
THEY'LL BE A LITTLE BREAK FROM WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING AND WE'LL MOVE INTO THE NEW PRD STANDARDS.
>> DOES THIS SECTION OF TREE ACTUALLY GET BUILT DURING THIS BUILD-OUT OF THIS PHASE?
>> I BELIEVE THAT THIS PHASE REQUIRES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PORTION OF THAT ROAD BECAUSE SECONDARY ACCESS IS REQUIRED.
I BELIEVE THEY'LL BE ARE YOU NODDING A TEMPORARY ACCESS THROUGH THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, THAT'LL SERVE AS EMERGENCY ONLY UNTIL THE REST OF THE REST OF THE ROAD IS DEVELOPED? HERE WE GO. NOW YOU'LL GET THE ANSWERS.
>> OKAY. WE'VE NOW THE APPLICANT.
YES. DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION?
>> I DON'T. BUT MY NAME IS CHARITY LEE.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY FOR THE EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT.
THAT WOULD BE PART OF PARCEL 3 PLAT THAT WILL BE COMING TO YOU, AND WE ARE CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS WITH THAT WITH THE CITY.
WE HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT IN REVIEW.
YOU'LL SEE AN EXTENSION OF WHAT WE CALL A NEW TREE ROAD FURTHER TO THE NORTH.
WE'RE ACTUALLY NOW CALLING THAT JUNIPER POINT BOULEVARD.
ON FUTURE PLATES, THAT'S THE TERM THE ROAD NAME THAT WE'LL BE USING INSTEAD OF NEW LONE TREE ROAD, WHICH IS CONFUSING.
AND WE WERE DOING THE SAME THING.
NEW LONE TREE ROAD. BUT WE'LL BE CALLING IT JUNIPER POINT BOULEVARD IN THE FUTURE.
AS FAR AS MASTER PLANNING, WE ARE LOOKING AT THE REMAINING PORTION OF JUNIPER POINT SOUTH AS WE'RE CALLING IT.
AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE SUBMITTED A CONCEPT PLATE FOR THE JUNIERPOINT OR BLOCK PLAT.
WE STILL NEED TO EVALUATE THAT SITE FURTHER ON WHAT WE PLAN TO DO.
IT'S A CHALLENGE TO MASTER OR PLAN SOMETHING FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD OCCUR OVER 10 YEARS.
AS WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH PARCELS ONE THROUGH THREE, THOSE HAVE BEEN TAKEN DOWN IN SMALLER SECTIONS.
BUT I THINK OVERALL, IT PROBABLY WOULD BENEFIT CAPSTONE TO LOOK AT MORE OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THAT IS IN PROGRESS, AND LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
I KNOW THERE WERE THERE WERE QUITE A FEW.
>> DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WHILE MARY'S LOOKING THROUGH HER? YEAH. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? BOB?
>> YEAH, I HAD A QUESTION NOT RELATED TO THIS EXACT DISCUSSION.
[00:35:01]
I WAS MORE INTERESTED IN THE WATER AND SEWER TIE-IN, AND IF THAT WAS PART OF A MASTER RECONNECT TO TIE IN FOURTH STREET CORRIDOR DOWN THROUGH JUNIPER OR JW PO RATHER.IF THAT WAS PART OF THE CITY'S MASTER PLAN OR IF THE DEVELOPER PUT INTO SOME OF THIS TO GET THESE CONNECTIONS.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF ANYBODY COULD SPEAK TO THAT.
>> JOHN, DO YOU WANT TO JUMP IN ON AS FAR AS THE WATER GOES? I MEAN, FOR MY UNDERSTANDING, WE'RE TIED INTO PARCEL WIN.
>> IF YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
>> SURE. JOHN SUTHERLAND, I'M WITH CAPSTONE HOMES, 3605 SOUTH FLAGSTAFF RANCH ROAD.
SO THE J. W. POWELL EXTENSION FROM ITS CURRENT END TO FOURTH STREET IS AN ONGOING DISCUSSION WITH COUNSEL, STAFF, AND VARIOUS LAND OWNERS, INCLUDING CAPSTONE AND THEIR PARTNERS.
THAT OBVIOUSLY INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE ROUTING, BUT UTILITIES, EVERYTHING ELSE.
THAT'S CURRENTLY IN DISCUSSION.
FOR THIS PARCEL HERE, THE SEWER ACTUALLY TIES INTO PARCEL 1 THAT'S ALREADY BEEN CONNECTED TO THE SEWER LINE DOWN IN THE BOWEN ARE WASH. THEN THERE'S WATER CONNECTIONS TO PARCEL 1 ALSO AND THEN A NEW WATER LINE CONNECTION TO JP AND FUTURE LOAN TREE AS WELL.
THIS PARCEL CAN STAND ALONE AS FAR AS UTILITIES ARE CONCERNED FOR THE INSTALLATION.
THE JWP, FUTURE OF THAT, THE EXTENSION OF IT IS PART OF A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION.
THIS ONE IS DESIGNED TO STAND ALONE OR SEPARATELY FROM THAT. YOU'RE WELCOME.
>> I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE BECAUSE IT'S SO CLOSE BY.
HAVE YOU HAD ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM? NOT THAT THEY HAVE ANY IMPACT ON YOUR IDEAS, BUT MAYBE THEY HAVE SOME OTHER IDEAS OR SOMETHING.
CHARITY'S HAD MORE CURRENT DISCUSSIONS THAN I HAVE, BUT WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO THEM AND NAU AS WELL.
SHE CAN FILL YOU IN ON THE LATEST.
>> YEAH. OUR CURRENT CONVERSATIONS HAVE BEEN CENTERED AROUND THE EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT THAT WE'RE REQUESTING.
WE HAVE GOTTEN TO A POINT WHERE THEY'VE AGREED.
THEY'RE NOW ROUTING THAT AGREEMENT.
ADDITIONAL CONVERSATIONS THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND BE INVOLVED IN THAT ALIGNMENT AS IT GOES THROUGH COUNCIL REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
WE'LL BE WORKING CLOSELY WITH THEM, AND THAT'S ALL, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, ON PARCEL 3 PLAT.
SO WE RECENTLY SUBMITTED, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED COMMENTS BACK FROM THE CITY, BUT ONCE WE DO, WE'LL BE WORKING TOGETHER AND SHARING THAT INFORMATION WITH CCC AND NAU.
THEY'RE AWARE OF WHAT WE'RE PLANNING.
>> SO JUST FOR ME WITH THE POINTER, CAN YOU SHOW WHERE THAT WOULD BE THE EMERGENCY?
>> IT'S NOT SHOWN ON THIS PLATE BECAUSE IT'S PART OF PARCEL 3 PLAT TO COME.
WHAT CAN YOU GO BACK AND SHOW THE OVERALL? ACTUALLY, IT MIGHT BE EASIER.
THE ROW IS GOING TO BE COMING UP AND IT'S GOING TO BE ACTUALLY CAN WE GO BACK TO WHERE YOU HAVE THE RESOURCE MAP? THE ACCESS ROAD IS GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE, IT'S ACTUALLY SHOWN AN INCORRECT ALIGNMENT RIGHT THERE.
IT'S SOMEWHAT IN THIS VICINITY, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A LITTLE FURTHER NORTH, AND THE ALIGNMENT HAS CHANGED SOMEWHAT.
SO IT'S GENERALLY IN THIS VICINITY HERE.
>> MY QUESTION IS, HOW MUCH OF THAT? YOU TURN ONTO THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE, AND THEN HOW FAR WOULD YOU GO TO GET TO THAT ACCESS ROAD, OR THE EMERGENCY ROAD?
>> YOU'RE PROBABLY MAYBE A MILE OR SO OFF THE ROAD RIGHT NOW.
>> SO YOU WOULD TURN INTO THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND GO A MILE UP THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE ROAD? I'M CONFUSED HERE.
>> THIS ROAD IS ONLY FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS FOR PARCEL 3, SO IT'S NOT AN ACCESS ROAD FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT CCC OFF OF THE CURRENT LONE TREE ROAD, YOU WOULD GO INTO THE CAMPUS AND THAT ROAD WOULD BE IN THE BACK OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
[00:40:02]
>> IT'S GOING TO DROP OFF THE BACK SIDE.
>> IT'D BE ON THE VERY FAR EAST.
>> SO YOU WOULD GO UP THE WHOLE ROAD TO HAVE THAT EMERGENCY ACCESS, BUT IT WOULD ONLY BE EMERGENCY ACCESS, IT'S NOT THE INITIAL ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. IN THE FUTURE, MAYBE YOU WOULD TURN INTO THAT, BUT FOR OUR PURPOSES ONLY, WE WERE ONLY ASKING FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS.
>> HOW OFTEN DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE USED?
>> IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY, NEVER.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S A REQUIREMENT BECAUSE OF THE ADDITIONAL UNITS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD.
UNTIL WE HAVE ADDITIONAL ROAD NETWORK, WHICH IS PROPOSED POSSIBLY THROUGH THIS 95 ACRES, IF WE WERE REZONING THAT, WE WOULD NEED ADDITIONAL ACCESS TO BUILD FURTHER UNITS FOR JUNIPER POINT PARCEL 3.
>> MY ASSESSMENT OF THIS IS THAT, SO THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE IS ON LAND THAT'S NAU LAND, RIGHT?
>> IS THAT WHY YOU'RE IN DISCUSSION WITH NAU AS WELL? THAT TO HAVE THAT ACCESS, DO THEY BOTH HAVE TO APPROVE THAT?
>> THE LAND IS OWNED BY ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS.
OUR NEGOTIATIONS HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY WITH NAU IN COOPERATION WITH CCC.
SO THEY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED, THEY ARE INVOLVED AND ALSO APPROVING, OR HAVING, I WOULD SAY APPROVAL.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE ACTUALLY SIGNING THE AGREEMENT TO AGREE TO GRANT THE EASEMENT IN THE FUTURE.
NAU WOULD SIGN ON BEHALF OF ABOR.
>> I JUST HAD A QUESTION OR STATEMENT, SORT OF, AND MAYBE MORE SO FOR WESLEY.
FIRST OF ALL, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA, I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET IN PINNACLE PINES, SO I WALK BOW AND ARROW TRAIL, I WALK UP J. W. POWELL, I'VE WALKED THEIR SITE.
I'M VERY FAMILIAR, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY WITH A LOT OF TOPOGRAPHY WITH VALLEYS AND RIDGES AND NATURAL RESOURCES.
I'M SURE IT'S PROBABLY A DIFFICULT PLOT TO WORK WITH AND BUILD ON.
HAVING SAID THAT, WHEN I WAS LOOKING IN SOME OF THE STANDARDS, AND IT SAYS, THE BUILDABLE AREA IS SUPPOSED TO BE AWAY FROM CREST OF RIDGE LINES, BUT THAT STREETS ARE ON TOP OF RIDGES.
CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR US ON HOW THAT WORKS? I JUST WONDERED IF THEY'VE RUN INTO PROBLEMS AS THEY'VE BUILT PARCEL 1, AND CHALLENGES ON WHAT HAS WORKED OR CHANGING AS THEY MOVE FORWARD.
>> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK THE IDEA IS TO BUILD WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND, DON'T JUST CUT INTO WHERE IT'S STEEP AND START BUILDING.
WHETHER THAT'S GOING TO BE FEASIBLE ALL THE TIME I THINK REALLY DEPENDS ON IT.
I THINK THEY'RE BUILDING AS BEST THEY CAN, STAYING AWAY FROM THE CREST LINE AND THE RIDGES.
BUT I FEEL LIKE THAT'S MORE LIKE A GUIDE, I THINK THAT THE IDEA IS TO BUILD WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND.
HAVE YOU WORKED MORE WITH THAT?
>> I KNOW ONE OF THE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS TALKS ABOUT ROADS BEING LOCATED ON RIDGE LINES, I THINK THE IDEA'S SO THAT FROM AFAR, YOU'RE NOT SEEING BUILDINGS UP ON TOP OF THE RIDGE THAT THE ROAD SEEMS TO BE LESS VISUALLY INTRUSIVE IN THAT WAY AND WOULD ALLOW FOR A MORE EQUALLY BALANCED CUT-FILL SITUATION, AND THEN THE STRUCTURES, THE BUILDINGS WOULD BE PLACED, NOT ON THE RIDGE, BUT ON THE SIDES.
YES, IDEALLY, THAT WOULD STEP DOWN WITH ANY SLOPES MINIMIZING, AGAIN, THAT CUT-FILL SITUATION.
THAT HELPS EXPLAIN THE CONCEPT AND TO VISUALIZE IT.
MY ONLY LAST COMMENT WOULD JUST BE, AS THIS MASTER PLAN IS REDRAWN OR RE-ENVISIONED, I WOULD JUST BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE BOW AND ARROW TRAIL AND THAT CONNECTIVITY AND THE PRESERVATION OF THOSE AREAS, FOOT CONNECTIVITY AND PLUGGING FOR ANY OPEN SPACE OR NATURAL SPACE THAT CAN BE REMAINING TO CONTINUE TO ENJOY THE AREA.
I KNOW WE RAN INTO THIS WHEN WE HAD A CASE WITH REGARD TO ANOTHER APPLICANT WITH TIMBER SKY, AND IT'S JUST ALWAYS REALLY HELPFUL TO SEE THE ENTIRE PLAN AND HAVE THERE BE A PLAN.
[00:45:03]
I'M SURE IT'S EASIER FOR ALL OF YOU, AND IT PROBABLY WILL AS IT GOES FORWARD TO COUNSEL, SO I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT. THANKS.>> THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING.
YOU'LL BE SEEING A LOT MORE COMING OUT.
>> NOW, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT, SO THE ROADS ARE ON THE RIDGE LINE AND THE HOMES ARE GOING TO BE DOWN BELOW, AND WHAT TYPE OF A FLOOD PROBLEM MIGHT EXIST FOR THOSE HOMES? I LIVE LOWER THAN MY STREET, AND WE ALWAYS WORRY ABOUT FLOODING.
>> I THINK THERE'S THREE DETENTION BASINS ON SITE.
IT'S BEEN REVIEWED BY STORMWATER, I'M NOT A STORMWATER EXPERT.
I KNOW THAT THEY'VE SIGNED OFF ON IT.
I KNOW THAT THEY REVIEWED IT AND IT'S MET ALL OF THEIR STANDARDS.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE FOR STAFF OR FOR THE APPLICANT? IS THERE ANY PUBLIC WHO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE DOES SOMEBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? CJ, YOU NAILED IT LAST TIME, COME.
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT PLAN FOR JUNIPER POINT PARCEL 2, LOCATED AT 2000 JOHN WESLEY POWELL BOULEVARD, A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION OF 62 LOTS ON 17.5 GROSS ACRES, THAT'S ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL, UTILIZING THE PLAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION.
WE RECOMMEND, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS PRESENTED, THAT WE MOVE THIS FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, GIVEN THE CONDITIONS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION?
>> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO ASK FOR ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.
HEARING NONE, I'LL GO INTO THE VOTE.
>> DID YOU HEAR THAT FOR THE RECORD, ALICE?
>> SORRY, I THINK MY MIC IS OFF.
IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT'S ON.
THE LIGHT IS ON BUT THE [INAUDIBLE]
>> YOU'RE REACHING THE LIMITS OF MY TECHNOLOGY ABILITIES.
>> IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE MY MIC IS WORKING.
>> TAKE YOUR TIME TRYING TO FIGURE THIS OUT BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO [INAUDIBLE].
>> NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO B,
[B. Land Availability and Suitability Study and Code Analysis Project (LASS+CAP) Project Update and Discussion Discussion item only]
LAND AVAILABILITY AND SUITABILITY STUDY AND CODE ANALYSIS PROJECT FOR AN UPDATE AND DISCUSSION.>> YES. THANK YOU. JUST GIVE ME ONE SECOND.
>> WE'LL TAKE THE TIME FOR YOU TO BRING THAT UP.
>> IT MAY BE GOT DELETED FROM THE LAST PRESENTATION.
I JUST NEEDED YOU TO BE RIGHT THERE. THANK YOU.
>> [LAUGHTER] YEAH. [LAUGHTER] IT'S LIKE HAVING IT COME.
[00:50:03]
>> GOOD EVENING, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CHAIR.
I'M MICHELLE MCNULTY. I'M THE PLANNING DIRECTOR.
AS PROMISED TO SOME OF YOU, THERE'S SOME NEW FACES, BUT TO YOU THAT OUR VETERANS, I PROMISED YOU I'D BE BACK WITH AN UPDATE ON THIS PROJECT.
SO THIS IS AN UPDATE ON THE LAND AVAILABILITY, SUITABILITY STUDY, AND CODE ANALYSIS PROJECT.
IT IS A TEAM, AND I'LL TALK ABOUT WHO THAT INTERNAL TEAM IS IN A MINUTE, BUT WE'RE WORKING INTERNALLY WITH A GROUP OF CONSULTANTS.
>> JUST IGNORE THIS SLIDE. [LAUGHTER]
>> OKAY. I'VE TRIED TO PUT ABOUT 500 PAGES WORTH OF INFORMATION INTO 48 SLIDES, SO I'M GOING TO DO MY BEST TO BE HIGH LEVEL BUT DETAILED, SO PLEASE, AT THE END, FEEL FREE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS.
SO THIS IS A MULTIPRONGED INITIATIVE TO ADDRESS CRITICAL LONG TERM PLANNING AND RESILIENCE NEEDS.
IT'S A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN PLANNING, HOUSING, SUSTAINABILITY, AND MOUNTAIN LINE.
BOTH A FINANCIAL PARTNERSHIP, AS WELL AS AN ACTUAL, GETTING-THE-WORK-DONE PARTNERSHIP.
BUT IT'S VERY HIGHLY COORDINATED WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS AND DIVISIONS AND SECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
ESSENTIALLY, ANYBODY THAT TOUCHES A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IS PART OF THIS PROJECT.
IT'S DOING A LOT OF GREAT THINGS, BUT WHAT I THINK IT'S REALLY DOING IS PROVIDING A MUCH NEEDED BASE FOR HIGH-LEVEL COORDINATION BETWEEN VARIOUS CITY DIVISIONS.
SO THE LAND AVAILABILITY SUITABILITY STUDY IS REALLY FOCUSING ON WHAT LAND IS AVAILABLE IN FLAGSTAFF AND ITS DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AND THOSE BARRIERS.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BARRIERS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THOSE THINGS THAT ARE REGULATED BY CODE.
I ALSO JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WHEN WE'RE SAYING BARRIERS, WE DON'T MEAN THAT IN A NEGATIVE.
WE ALSO LOOK AT THOSE AS OPPORTUNITIES.
THE CODE ANALYSIS PROJECT IS CONDUCTING AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF ALL DEVELOPMENT CODE AND PROCESSES THROUGH THE LENS OF THE CITY COUNCILS COMMITMENTS TO ADDRESS HOUSING AND CLIMATE.
IT'S AN ANALYSIS OF WHAT'S WORKING AND WHAT'S NOT, AND IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IT'S ALSO LOOKING AT WHAT IS WORKING BECAUSE CODE HAS A LOT OF GREAT THINGS IN IT, AND WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE THAT.
THROUGHOUT THIS ANALYSIS PROCESS, WE'RE LOOKING AT ALREADY APPROVED EXISTING PROJECTS SO THAT WE CAN TEST THEORY AGAINST APPROVED PROJECTS.
SO THE FIRST THING I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS THE LAST.
WHY ARE WE DOING IT? THERE'S LIMITED LAND LEFT TO DEVELOP, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF NEEDS.
SO WHILE THIS IS FOCUSING ON HOUSING, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT AS A COMMUNITY, WE NEED LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES, COMMERCIAL, OPEN SPACE, ALL THE THINGS THAT MAKE A COMMUNITY.
IT ALSO IS PROVIDING THE CONTEXT FOR RECOMMENDING RIGHT-SIZED CODE AMENDMENTS.
AS I START TO TALK ABOUT THE CODE ANALYSIS, YOU'LL START TO UNDERSTAND THAT CONNECTION.
THIS IS ALSO GOING TO BE INFORMING THE REGIONAL PLAN PROCESS.
I'D LIKE TO ADD THAT THE REGIONAL PLAN PROCESS IS INFORMING THIS PROCESS AS WELL.
THEY'RE BOTH VERY HIGHLY COORDINATED PROJECTS.
SO THE HIGH LEVEL ON THE LAND AVAILABILITY SUITABILITY IS JUST LOOKED AT.
FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO JUST TALK ABOUT THE STUDY AREA.
IT WAS ALL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, AND IT INCLUDED PARTS OF AREAS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY, BUT WITHIN THAT METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA IN OUR URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY.
SO WE LOOKED AT LANDS THAT WERE APPROPRIATELY ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.
WE DID AN INVENTORY OF WHAT WAS VACANT AND WHAT WAS UNDER UTILIZED.
UNDER UTILIZED WAS DEFINED AS A PROPERTY THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ON IT WERE 10% OR LESS THAN THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE LAND.
THEN FROM THAT INVENTORY, WE DID AN OPPORTUNITY SITE.
SO KIND OF DRILL IT DOWN TO 50 SITES THAT REALLY LOOKED LIKE THEY WOULD BE GOING FORTH FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEAR FUTURE, AND THAT COULD BE BECAUSE THEY'RE PRIME FOR DEVELOPMENT.
YEAH, THEY'RE PRIME FOR DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S BEING BUILT IN THE AREA, THEY HAVE THE ZONING IN PLACE, OTHER THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING NEAR THOSE PROJECTS THAT WOULD TELL US THAT THOSE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE KIND OF COMING UP FOR DEVELOPMENT.
SO THERE'S THAT PROJECT BOUNDARY.
FROM A VACANT LAND STANDPOINT,
[00:55:01]
WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 8,125 ACRES OF LAND SPREAD OVER 2,200 PARCELS.APPROXIMATELY 7,000 ACRES OF THOSE ARE UNENCUMBERED.
THAT MEANS THEY DON'T HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS.
STEEP SLOPES REPRESENTED THE GREATEST ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ON SITES.
I DO WANT TO SAY THIS, WHEN I TALK ABOUT THE STEEP SLOPES, ONE THING THAT WE REGULATE THAT REALLY WASN'T ACCOUNTED FOR IS THE TREE RESOURCES.
THAT'S BECAUSE IT WOULD BE TOO HARD TO LOOK GLOBALLY AT ALL OF THESE SITES AND UNDERSTAND REALLY HOW MANY TREES ARE ON THERE.
BUT WE DO KNOW THAT TREE RESOURCES TYPICALLY FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, YOU HAVE TO SAVE 50%.
SO THAT KIND OF TELLS US THAT WE WOULD ABOUT HALF WHAT THAT NUMBER IS REALLY COMING OUT AT.
ABOUT 6,700 ACRES ARE VACANT LAND OR RESIDENTIALLY ZONED.
I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE THOUGH ABOUT HOW THEY'RE RESIDENTIALLY ZONED.
THEN THERE'S ABOUT 5,400 ACRES OF UNDER UTILIZED LAND ACROSS 1,800 PROPERTIES, AND ABOUT JUST SHY OF 5,000 OF THOSE ARE UNENCUMBERED BY ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS.
THERE WAS A LINK IN YOUR STAFF REPORT TO THE REPORTS, SO YOU CAN GET A BETTER VIEW OF THESE PROPERTIES, BUT IN GENERAL, THE GRAPHIC TO THE LEFT IS JUST ALL OF THE OPPORTUNITY SITES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA.
THEN YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SOME IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.
THERE IS A DOWNTOWN ACTION AND VISION PLAN THAT IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL CATALYTIC SITES.
SO THE ONES THAT ARE IN BLUE ARE ALL POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITY SITES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.
THOSE THAT ARE BORDERED IN RED ARE THOSE THAT WERE DEFINED IN THAT PLAN AS BEING CATALYTIC.
SO THE GENERAL CONCLUSION, ABOUT 36 OF THE 51 SITES ARE COMMERCIALLY ZONED.
WE DO ALLOW MIXED USE IN OUR COMMERCIAL, SO IT IS A RESIDENTIAL ZONING.
ABOUT 2,500 OF THE ACRES ARE RURAL OR A STATE RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
SO I THINK YOU GUYS ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT, BUT THOSE ARE OUR ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW ONE UNIT PER ONE ACRE.
THE GREATEST POTENTIAL FOR HOUSING YIELD IS IN LARGER TRACTS REQUIRING REZONING AND SIGNIFICANT INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING AND INVESTMENT.
NOW I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE CODE ANALYSIS PROJECT.
BUT THE FIRST PART OF THAT IS GOING TO START TO REALLY DRAW THE CONNECTION BETWEEN WHAT WE FOUND IN THE LAST AND WHAT WE'RE FINDING IN THE CODE ANALYSIS.
WHY ARE WE DOING THE CAP? THE DEVELOPMENT CODES ARE THE KEY TOOLS FOR ACHIEVING OUR HOUSING AND CLIMATE GOALS? WE HAVE BOLD ACTIONS.
WE HAVE BOLD CALLED FOR ACTION, BUT OUR CODES AREN'T REALLY FUNCTIONING AS THE TOOL TO ACHIEVE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO IMPLEMENT.
SO YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE VARIOUS CODES THAT TOUCH A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
THEY'VE BEEN WRITTEN OVER A SERIES OF DECADES UNDER DIFFERENT CONDITIONS WITH DIFFERENT PRIORITIES, AND NOT ALL OF THEM HAVE BEEN UPDATED REGULARLY.
SO WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT, OF ALL THE THINGS THAT TOUCH A DEVELOPMENT, ARE THEY ACTUALLY WORKING TO ACHIEVE THESE TWO GOALS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE? I JUST REALLY LIKE THIS GRAPHIC THAT KIND OF, I THINK, DISTILLS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE.
THE CODE ANALYSIS PROJECT, I'LL STATE THE LAST, IS REALLY KIND OF A ONE-AND-DONE.
IT'S KIND OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE USE FOR THE REST OF THE ANALYSIS.
THE CODE ANALYSIS PROJECT IS BEING BROKEN DOWN INTO THREE DIFFERENT PARTS WITH THE DIAGNOSTIC BEING FIRST, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M HERE TO UPDATE YOU ON, AND THAT'S JUST TO IDENTIFY AND EVALUATE THE BARRIERS, OPPORTUNITIES, AND CONFLICTS.
AS WE FINALIZE THIS REPORT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO DEVELOPING CONCEPTS AND APPROACHES FOR CODE UPDATES.
THEN AS WE DO A SERIES OF OUTREACH, THEN WE WILL FINE TUNE THAT INTO RECOMMENDED SPECIFIC CODE UPDATES AND TEST THOSE IMPACTS OF WHAT THOSE CODE CHANGES MAY BE.
I WANT TO REMIND THIS GROUP THAT THAT LAST STEP DOESN'T CHANGE CODE.
THAT JUST TELLS US WHAT WE NEED TO START WORKING ON, AND THAT'S WHEN WE REALLY START TO DIG IN AND HAVE TO DO A LOT OF WORK.
AS WE UPDATE THE ZONING CODE, THERE'S A PUBLIC PROCESS THAT WE HAVE TO FOLLOW, AND SO THEN WE WOULD FOLLOW THAT PROCESS AS WE UPDATE ANY OF THOSE CODES.
SO THIS IS A VERY ITERATIVE PROCESS, WHICH IS ALSO WHY WE BROKE IT INTO THREE DIFFERENT PARTS.
SO IF THERE WERE SMALL CHANGES THAT WE CAN MAKE ALONG THE WAY, THAT WE CAN KEEP WORKING TOWARDS IMPROVING OUR CODE AND NOT WAIT UNTIL THIS IS COMPLETELY FINISHED AND THEN TRY TO GET EVERYTHING AT ONCE.
[01:00:02]
SO REALLY, THE METHODOLOGY IS DISTILLING THE POLICIES AND GOALS AND TO CLEAR OUTCOMES OF THE PLANS THAT REALLY FOCUS ON HOUSING AND CLIMATE.SO THAT'S OUR HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING SPECIFIC PLAN, THE 10-YEAR HOUSING PLAN.
OF COURSE, THE FLAGSTAFF REGIONAL PLAN, OUR CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN, THE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN, AND FLAGSTAFF IN MOTION, WHICH IS MOUNTAIN LINES TRANSIT PLAN.
THEN REALLY DISTILLING DOWN, OF THESE DIFFERENT PLANS, WHAT ARE THE REALLY THE KEY OUTCOMES THAT ARE IMPACTED BY CODE? THIS IS JUST TO SHOW YOU HOW MANY DIFFERENT PIECES AND PARTS OF CODES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
IT'S PRETTY MUCH AS I SAID, ANYTHING THAT TOUCHES CODE.
JUST ALSO REALLY LOOKING AT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVE, AS WELL AS OUR RESIDENTIAL SUSTAINABLE BUILDING INCENTIVES.
WE'RE REVIEWING OUR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS AS PART OF THIS.
A LOT OF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE TERM IDS OR INNER DEPARTMENT STAFF MEETING, AND THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT OR CHANGE IN USE IS GOING TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE LOOK AT THAT, AS WELL AS OUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.
AGAIN, THAT POLICY FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THEN THE MOUNTAIN LINE DESIGN GUIDELINES.
IN ADDITION TO REVIEWING ALL THESE CODES, UNDERSTANDING OUR PROCESS AND PLAN DOCUMENTS, THE CONSULTANT TEAM MET WITH CITY STAFF TO ALSO UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES IN PRACTICALITY IN THE RAILROAD.
THERE WAS A MEETING WITH DEVELOPMENT STAKEHOLDERS, SOLICITING FEEDBACK FROM PEOPLE WHO USE OUR CODE.
LOCAL DEVELOPERS, ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS, AND REGARDING THE BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE AND SUSTAINABLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AGAIN, LOOKING AT ACTUAL CASES AND LOOKING AT DEVELOPMENT SITES AND UNIT MODELING.
SOME OF THE KEY FINDINGS, STARTING WITH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION CODES.
THIS REALLY STARTS TO PULL TOGETHER THE CONTEXT.
THIS HELPED US UNDERSTAND WHERE ARE THE BUILDABLE LANDS AND WHAT ZONES HAVE THE MOST CAPACITY FOR NEW HOUSING.
AS STATED, A LARGE MAJORITY OF THIS IS IN OUR RURAL RESIDENTIAL OR ESTATE, WHICH MEANS THAT IN ORDER TO GET DENSITY, AND WHAT WE TYPICALLY SEE IS PEOPLE ARE GOING TO REZONE OUT OF THAT CATEGORY.
THAT TELLS US WE HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR REZONE PROCESS AND OUR SUBDIVISION PROCESS.
A LOT OF THE LAND IS ALSO IN OUR R1 ZONING, AND THEN GOING IN SOME OF WHERE WE HAVE OUR OTHER BIG POPULATIONS OF WHERE HOUSING WILL BE FROM A ZONING DISTRICT STANDPOINT.
WITH WHERE WE FOUND THE OPPORTUNITY IN THE BUILDABLE SITES, WE ALSO COMPARE THAT TO WHERE THE REGIONAL PLAN TELLS US WE WANT TO GROW.
THE REGIONAL PLAN REALLY TALKS ABOUT ENCOURAGING INFILL DEVELOPMENT.
A LOT OF THOSE AREAS THAT ARE CALLING FOR REDEVELOPMENT ARE TYPICALLY ZONED, EITHER COMMERCIAL OR MEDIUM TO HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
AGAIN, IT'S TELLING US THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THOSE THREE ZONING DESIGNATIONS TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE DENSITY IS BEING MET AND HOW THEY'RE ACHIEVING OUR GOALS.
BUT THE INFILL ALSO HAS TO BE BALANCED WITH OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW HOUSING AND SUPPLY AND GREENFIELD SITES.
AGAIN, THAT'S MORE OF THAT REAL RESIDENTIAL AND ESTATE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
AGAIN, LOOKING AT, HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT THE REZONING AND SUBDIVISION PROCESS KEEPS PACE WITH HOUSING NEEDS? BUT ALSO WHEN REZONING OCCURS, HOW WILL THE DEVELOPMENT MEET HOUSING AND CLIMATE GOALS? ANOTHER IMPORTANT THING THAT WE WANT TO CONSIDER AS WE DO THIS IS OUR POPULATIONS WHO ARE VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT.
THE CONSULTANT TEAM LOOKED AS A COMMUNITY PROFILE, WHERE WE'RE SEEING DIFFERENT STAGES OF DISPLACEMENT.
THAT WAS DISPLACEMENT RISK EVALUATED USING DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING DATA.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S BEEN PROVEN TO OFFSET DISPLACEMENT, IS HOUSING PRODUCTION.
IT'S NEEDED BOTH INSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT, AS WELL AS AREAS OUTSIDE.
THAT'S BECAUSE WE NEED A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES.
IF WE'RE ONLY PROVIDING HOUSING IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE VULNERABLE DISPLACEMENT, THEN WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO ACCELERATE DISPLACEMENT BECAUSE WE'RE PUTTING MORE PRESSURE IF ALL OF THE LAND AND ALL OF THE FOCUS IS GOING IN THOSE AREAS, AND WE'RE NOT OPENING UP OTHER TYPES OF HOUSING FOR OTHER PEOPLE WHO MIGHT WANT TO LOOKING TO UPSIZE THEIR HOME OR MOVE OUT OF THOSE COMMUNITIES.
[01:05:06]
AGAIN, IF LOWER-DENSITY ZONES DON'T KEEP PACE WITH DEMAND, THIS WILL SHIFT DEMAND TO THE HIGHER-DENSITY ZONES IN THOSE VULNERABLE AREAS.THEN AGAIN, SO TO MITIGATE DISPLACEMENT, FOCUSING ON REDUCING THE BARRIERS TO HOUSING PRODUCTION AND DIVERSITY IN ALL ZONE DISTRICTS.
JUST AN OVERVIEW OF THE MAJOR BARRIERS AND ISSUES.
FROM A CITY-WIDE STANDPOINT, WE HEARD THAT BOTH INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY, THAT ZONING MP AMENDMENT AND SUB-REVIEW PROCESSES ARE DETERRING DEVELOPMENT AND SLOWING THE PACE OF HOUSING PRODUCTION.
BOTH THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SUSTAINABLE BUILDING INCENTIVES ARE NOT ECONOMICALLY COMPELLING TO UNDERCUT AND UNDERCUT OTHER PROVISIONS.
THE RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY IS NOT OPTIMIZED TO BALANCE BOTH HOUSING NEEDS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS.
PARKING IS A CRITICAL BARRIER TO HOUSING AFFORDABILITY, AS WELL AS DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY AND CLIMATE GOALS FOR HIGHER-DENSITY HOUSING AND TRANSIT-SERVED AREAS.
THEN HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING REQUIRING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND OTHER SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE A CRITICAL BARRIER TO HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING.
FROM A ZONE-SPECIFIC ISSUES, THOUGH R1 IT'S A LOW-DENSITY, AND RESTRICTION ON HOUSING TYPES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE HOUSING AND CLIMATE GOALS, FOR OUR MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, HIGHER DENSITY ALLOWANCE IS NEEDED TO ENCOURAGE SMALLER, MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
THEN WITH COMMERCIAL ZONES, IT COULD PROVIDE FOR HIGHER DENSITIES THAT SUPPORT THE GOALS, BUT PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND HOA REGULATIONS LIMIT THAT POTENTIAL.
I'M GOING TO TALK MORE ABOUT THESE THINGS IN THE FOLLOWING SLIDES.
FROM A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AND SUBDIVISION, WITH ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS, THEY'RE GOING TO TYPICALLY REQUIRE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT CAN SOMETIMES BE VERY COMPLEX AND IT LIMITS THE FLEXIBILITY BOTH IN THE DESIGN OF THE CURRENT PROPERTY BUT IF THE PROJECT THAT COMES FORWARD FOR THE REZONE ISN'T ABLE TO PENCIL OUT OR THEY HAVE TO SELL THAT PROPERTY, THEN IT LIMITS IT FOR THE NEXT DEVELOPER AND IT COULD DETER REZONING.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS ALSO FOCUS ADDRESSING ON CITY-WIDE ISSUES, AND THAT'S REALLY DIFFICULT FOR ONE SITE TO MEET ALL THOSE CHALLENGES THAT ARE A CITY-WIDE NEED.
ALSO, LOOKING AT OUR PLANNING PROCESS, THAT THE CONCEPT PLAT PHASE OF SUBDIVISION ADDS AN UNNECESSARY COST AND DELAY.
IT IS VERY TYPICAL IN OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT YOU JUST GO FROM PRIMARY PLAT TO FINAL PLAT AND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF EACH OF ALL THE SUBDIVISIONS ADDS UNNECESSARY UNCERTAINTY COST AND DELAY.
TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE R1, R1N.
CODA HAS A MAX DENSITY OF SIX UNITS PER ACRE.
THE DEVELOPMENT OR OUR CONSULTANT TEAM DID MODELING OF VARIOUS DIFFERENT SITES.
THEY CAN ONLY ACHIEVE 4.7 UNITS PER ACRE BECAUSE OF OTHER PROVISIONS IN OUR CODE THAT ARE GETTING IN OUR WAY OF ACHIEVING EVEN THE MAX DENSITY IN THAT ZONING DESIGNATION.
PART OF THE CHALLENGE IS OUR MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND MINIMUM STREET WITH STANDARDS, WHICH IS REALLY IMPACTING THE ABILITY TO GET THAT DENSITY.
IT'S FEASIBLE TO DELIVER AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO MODERATE-INCOME FAMILIES AT AN R1 DENSITY.
WHEN YOU CAN ONLY HAVE LESS HOUSES ON THE SAME SIZE LOT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE BIGGER HOUSES SO THAT YOU CAN RECOUP COST OF THAT.
IT'S GOING TO DRIVE UP THE COST OF THAT HOUSE.
ITS RESTRICTIVE USE IS ALSO DISCOURAGING MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING, WHICH IS THAT IT'S NOT THE AFFORDABLE HUD OR VITECH PROJECT HOUSING, AND IT'S NOT THE ONE-ACRE LARGER HOME THAT YOU HAVE TO BE IN A CERTAIN INCOME.
IT'S THAT THE REST OF US THAT LIVE AND WORK HERE THAT ARE JUST TRYING TO GET INTO THE HOUSING MARKET.
THAT'S THAT MISSING MIDDLE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IT'S ALSO INCONSISTENT WITH OUR CITY'S CLIMATE GOALS.
WE CAN'T EVEN GET THE SIX PER ACRE, IN ORDER TO HAVE TRANSIT-SUPPORTIVE DENSITY, WE NEED BETWEEN EIGHT AND 15 UNITS PER ACRE TO ACHIEVE THAT.
WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE ACTUALLY START TO INCREASE THAT DENSITY TO EVEN GET THE MINIMUM TO SUPPORT TRANSIT SERVING THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.
THE MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES ARE ALLOWED, BUT THE MAX DENSITY ENCOURAGES LARGER, MORE EXPENSIVE UNITS.
[01:10:05]
THE MODEL TO THE RIGHT IS WHAT WE'RE TYPICALLY SEEING BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY DO 14 PER ACRE, SO YOU'RE GOING TO USE THAT WHOLE SITE.AGAIN, YOU'RE GOING TO DO A BIGGER UNIT, WHICH IS GOING TO COST MORE.
SMALLER STACK FLATS COULD BE MORE AFFORDABLE, BUT THE LOW MAX DENSITY MAKES THEM INEFFICIENT FOR THE SITE.
AGAIN, THE RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY.
IT REQUIRES A LARGE SHARE OF RESOURCES TO BE PRESERVED ON EACH SITE.
IT DOESN'T ALLOW FOREST AND SLOPE RESOURCE AREAS TO BE CONTIGUOUS, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU CAN'T COUNT THE TREES OR ONLY A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THE TREES THAT ARE ON THE SLOPE ARE ALLOWED TO BE COUNTED TOWARDS THAT RESOURCE PROTECTION.
WE'RE ALSO SEEING THAT IT MAY INCREASE FIRE RISK DUE TO THE PROXIMITY OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES TO FOREST RESOURCES.
THERE'S THAT CONVERSATION ABOUT GROUPING THEM AWAY FROM THE HOMES, AND SOME OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH GETTING THEM AWAY FROM THE HOMES FROM AN INSURANCE STANDPOINT AND JUST A HEALTH LIFE SAFETY.
THIS IS A GOOD GRAPHIC THAT SHOWS, THIS IS A ONE-ACRE SITE OF WHEN YOU TAKE THE RESOURCES ASIDE, WHAT YOU'RE REALLY LEFT WITH WITH DEVELOPING.
AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO START TO ENCOURAGE LARGER UNITS WHICH HAVE A LARGER PRICE TAG ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.
AGAIN, IT'S LIMITING THAT DENSITY BELOW THE BASE ZONE IN ADDITION TO REQUIRING PRESERVATION AREAS.
MAX DENSITY IS 14, IF YOU'RE IN AN RPO OVERLAY, THAT IT'S GOING TO LIMIT YOU TO ABOUT NINE.
THE COMMERCIAL ZONES, ALSO SOME CHALLENGES TO GETTING HIGH DENSITY HOUSING.
WE HAVE A LOW MAXIMUM DENSITY, 29 UNITS IS A CRITICAL BARRIER TO LOWER COST HOUSING AND ENCOURAGES INEFFICIENT LAND USE.
THEN REQUIRING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS ISN'T ALWAYS THE MOST EFFECTIVE APPROACH FOR BALANCING THAT DESIRE FOR COMMERCIAL USES IN OUR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
MULTI-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURES ARE COSTLY AND THEY'RE REALLY INFEASIBLE ON SMALLER SITES, WHICH MEANS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SURFACE PARKING, WHICH TAKES UP SPACE ON THE PROPERTY THAT COULD BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS.
LOWER COST PARKING SOLUTIONS ARE INFEASIBLE AT HIGHER DENSITIES.
YOU HAVE HIGHER GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS DUE TO EMBODIED CARBON AND CONCRETE PARKING STRUCTURES.
IN AND OF THEMSELVES, THEY'RE NOT A CARBON FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT.
RECENT RESEARCH HAS FOUND THAT HIGH PARKING REQUIREMENTS MAY DIRECTLY ENCOURAGE HIGHER VEHICLE OWNERSHIP.
THIS WAS A MODEL PROJECT THAT SHOWS, IF THEY WERE TO DO A HIGH DENSITY WITH A PARKING GARAGE, EVEN AT 780 SQUARE FOOT UNIT WOULD STILL COME OUT AT ABOUT 3,800 FOR RENT.
A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING REGULATIONS, THE CUP PROCESS JUST RAISES UNCERTAINTY AND RISK OF DENIAL WHICH DETERS INVESTMENT.
IT DILUTES THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SUSTAINABLE INCENTIVES, NULLIFIES THE BENEFITS OF THE TRANSECT ZONE, AND SOME STANDARDS ADD UNNECESSARY COST COMPLEXITY AND EQUITY CONCERNS FOR MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING.
THEY ALSO MODELED OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES AND REALLY SHOWED THAT THE COST OF PROVIDING AFFORDABLE UNITS OUTWEIGH THE BENEFITS.
THE FINANCIAL RETURN IS JUST LOWER ON PROJECT THAT USE THE INCENTIVES, EVEN DESPITE THE HIGHER DENSITIES.
WE SEE THAT IN PRACTICE AS WE ARE NOT SEEING A LOT OF PEOPLE TAKE THESE INCENTIVES.
THERE'S OTHER PATHWAYS THAT WE HAVE TO ACHIEVING THE SIMILAR BENEFITS, SO IT LESSENS THAT NEED TO TAKE THE INCENTIVE.
THEN HERE ARE JUST SOME RATE OF RETURNS ON VARIOUS DENSITIES WITH DIFFERENT AFFORDABILITY LEVELS.
FOR SUSTAINABLE BUILDING REALLY FEATURES SUCH AS WATER RESOURCE PROTECTION AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING MAYBE MORE APPROPRIATE TO REQUIRE FOR MOST DEVELOPMENTS.
ALL ELECTRIC BUILDINGS ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE CITY'S CARBON NEUTRALITY GOALS, BUT MANY DEVELOPERS CONTINUE TO BUILD DUAL FUEL OR ELECTRIC GAS PROJECTS.
AGAIN, THAT DENSITY BONUS IS NOT A COMPELLING INCENTIVE FOR MANY PROJECTS BECAUSE IT'S EITHER TOO LOW OR NOT ACHIEVABLE BY COMPLYING WITH OTHER STANDARDS.
ADDRESSING THESE BALANCES, THOUGH, DO REQUIRE RECONCILING TENSIONS WITH OTHER CITY POLICIES AND GOALS.
WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE SIGHT OF OUR COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND DESIGN, INFRASTRUCTURE,
[01:15:04]
SUFFICIENCY AND FUNDING, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, PARKING MANAGEMENT, RESOURCE PROTECTION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DO THIS AT THE COST OF THESE, BUT HOW DO WE BALANCE THESE TENSIONS? THAT WILL BE PART OF THE STRATEGIES FOR RECONCILING THESE WILL BE EVALUATED WITH THE CODE CONCEPTS AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT.
SOME HIGH LEVEL KEY FINDINGS ON ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS AND FIRE ACCESS CODES.
SOME ELEMENTS OF THE CURRENT WATER SEWER IMPACT ANALYSIS OR WSIA AND TIAS OR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ARE OFTEN PREMATURE IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, REQUIRING VERY SIGNIFICANT AT-RISK INVESTMENT.
THERE IS AN OVER RELIANCE ON INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS TO FUND TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE VERSUS A MORE RELIABLE FUNDING MECHANISM SUCH AS AN IMPACT FEE.
THERE'S A DESIRE TO ALLOW NARROW STREETS AND ALTERNATIVE LAND SIDEWALK AND PLANTER DESIGN STRIPS.
BUT IT'S NOTED THAT THIS IS DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE.
THIS IS MORE COMING FROM THE USER END OF THIS, BUT IT'S DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE THE CITY APPROVALS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO ACHIEVE A MORE NARROW STREET.
AGAIN, THE WSIA PROCESS, IT'S COSTLY AND REQUIRED FOR ALMOST ALL DEVELOPMENTS AND SOME AREAS OF THE CITY, EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE MAY HAVE KNOWN ISSUES.
OLD AND UNDERSIZED MAINS IN DOWNTOWN ARE ONE AND THE POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPERS TO BE REQUIRED TO TAKE ON BROADER IMPROVEMENTS REALLY DISCOURAGES INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT THAT WE PROBABLY WANT TO SEE MOSTLY IN OUR DOWNTOWN.
THIS WAS A SIDE NOTE THAT OUR CONSULTANT NOTED TO US IS THAT WE'RE USING ASSUMPTIONS FROM 1980, AND SO WE MAY WANT TO REVISIT THOSE AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE STILL RELEVANT TODAY.
FROM A TRANSPORTATION AND ACCESS STANDPOINT, OUR STREET CROSS SECTIONS ARE WIDE, THEY'RE COMPLEX, AND STAKEHOLDERS HAVE NOTED THEM TO BE HIGHLY PRESCRIPTIVE.
AGAIN, IT'S HARD TO ACHIEVE A MODIFICATION.
WE DESIGN OUR STREETS TO ALLOW PARKING ON BOTH SIDES.
HOWEVER, YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY USE THAT PARKING ABOUT FIVE MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR BECAUSE OF OUR WINTER PARKING ORDINANCE.
AS WE LOOK AT REDUCING OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT CHANGING THAT POLICY BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, IT'S REALLY HARD TO SAY, YOU CAN USE THAT OFFSITE PARKING TO MEET YOUR NEEDS WHEN THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE AVAILABLE FOR ALMOST HALF THE YEAR.
SETBACKS ON ALLEYS CONFLICT WITH THE BENEFITS OF ALLEYS PROMOTING BUILDING FORWARD PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED NEIGHBORHOODS.
THE SETBACKS ARE ACTUALLY WIDER THAN NEEDED BUT NOT WIDE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE PARKING.
THEN DRIVEWAY STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY ARE THE SAME AS THEY ARE FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, TRIGGERING LARGE DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREAS THAT ARE POSSIBLY OVERBUILT FOR THREE OR FOUR UNITS.
I FEEL LIKE WE'RE REALLY PICKING ON THE TIAS, AND I FELT REALLY SELF-CONSCIOUS ABOUT THIS WHEN I WAS PRESENTING TO THE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.
BUT WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS THAT DEVELOPERS TEND TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS TO ACTUALLY AVOID TRIGGERING TIA STANDARDS IF THERE'S KNOWN OFF SITE LIABILITIES, AND THAT JUST REDUCES OUR HOUSING SUPPLY, AND THERE'S CONCERN ABOUT EQUITY AMONGST DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
AGAIN, HAVING A STANDARDIZED IMPACT FEE COULD HELP RESOLVE THAT.
BUILDING CODES REALLY HAVE A MINOR ROLE IN THE CURRENT ESCALATION AND CONSTRUCTION COST.
RESEARCH REALLY SUPPORTS THAT THE CURRENT DRIVERS OF HIGHER COSTS ARE TIED TO LABOR, SUPPLY CHAIN DISRUPTIONS, HIGHER FINANCING COSTS, AND DEMAND.
ADAPTIVE REUSE IS VERY COMPLEX AND HIGHLY VARIABLE THAT IS, VARY PROJECT BY PROJECT.
THEY TRIGGER A MULTITUDE OF CODES THAT TYPICALLY CHALLENGE PROJECTS VIABILITY.
SUSTAINABILITY, THERE'S A MISALIGNMENT BETWEEN STAKEHOLDERS AND CITY GOALS.
SUSTAINABILITY IS SEEN BY THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AS A NICE TO HAVE, EXPENSIVE, NON-CRITICAL FEATURE.
WE REALLY NEED TO WORK ON EDUCATION ON ACTUAL COST AND BENEFIT TO INFORM THIS NARRATIVE.
CARBON AND NEUTRALITY, WE NEED TO ELEVATE BUILDING PERFORMANCE BEYOND JUST CODE THROUGH ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY, AND WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THERE IS NO CAP PATH TO CARBON NEUTRALITY WITHOUT RENEWABLE ENERGY, AND POLICIES NEED TO ALIGN WITH CHANGES IN THE MARKET, SUCH AS GRID DECARBONIZATION.
THEN AGAIN, ON THE INCENTIVES,
[01:20:01]
THE CITY HOUSING AND SUSTAINABILITY INCENTIVES ARE NOT ENTICING TO OVERCOME THE FINANCIAL BARRIERS, AND THIS IS REALLY GOING TO REQUIRE A SUITE OF LOCAL STATE AND FEDERAL AND POSSIBLY EVEN UTILITY INCENTIVES.THIS MADE A LOT MORE SENSE ON MARCH 6TH WHEN WE WERE STARTING THIS PROCESS, BUT I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT SIDE TO TELL YOU WHERE WE'VE BEEN.
IT ALSO ILLUSTRATES THE PATH THAT WE WILL TAKE AT EACH ITERATION OF THE CODE ANALYSIS PROJECT.
WE DO HAVE AN INTERNAL STEERING COMMITTEE MADE UP OF ALL THE DIFFERENT DIVISIONS AND SECTIONS THAT WILL BE AFFECTED BY ANY OF THESE CODE CHANGES, AS WELL AS OUR CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.
WE'VE GONE TO THE SUSTAINABILITY, HOUSING, TRANSPORTATION, AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AS WELL AS TAKING THESE TO COUNCIL AT EACH STEP OF THE WAY.
BECAUSE THE APRIL 10TH MEETING WAS CANCELED, WE'RE GETTING HERE AFTER WE WENT TO COUNCIL, BUT WE'VE ALSO EXTENDED FINALIZING THE REPORTS SO THAT WE COULD HAVE TIME TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK AS WELL.
BUT IN THE FUTURE, WE WILL TRY TO GET TO YOU GUYS BEFORE WE GET TO COUNCIL.
SORRY FOR DOING THAT IN REVERSE ORDER.
THEN THIS WHOLE PROJECT CONTINUES TO WORK IN TANDEM WITH THE REGIONAL PLAN.
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THEY'RE IN LOCKSTEP AND THAT THEY'RE BOTH INFORMING EACH OTHER. THAT IS IT.
>> LET'S SEE IF THIS WORKS, SO IT DOES FOR NOW. I'M GOING TO LEAVE IT ON.
I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION, BUT I WONDER, SAY A FEW THINGS FIRST, I GUESS.
THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS ALL TOGETHER, AND I THINK STAFF HAS WORKED ON THIS REALLY HARD.
I THANK THE STAFF FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU'VE PUT INTO IT.
I'VE LIVED HERE FOR A LONG TIME.
I'VE LIVED HERE FOR, LIKE, 48 YEARS.
>> I SAID THAT CAN'T BE POSSIBLE.
I MOVED HERE WHEN I WAS 17. HOW DO I SAY THIS? IT'S JUST INTERESTING TO SEE HOW DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY HAVE BEEN BUILT OVER TIME.
I'VE LIVED IN SOME OF THOSE AREAS.
I LIVED IN WHAT I WOULD SAY WAS MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHEN I BOUGHT MY FIRST HOUSE, IT WAS A DUPLEX.
THE PROPERTY IS SHARED BY TWO DIFFERENT.
ANYHOW, AND ACTUALLY, I ENJOYED THAT.
WHEN I LOOK AT SOME OF THESE OTHER BUILDINGS THAT I SEE THAT LOOK MORE LIKE CONDOS, I WONDER ABOUT THAT BECAUSE TO ME, A CONDO, NO MATTER, I GUESS, MY INCOME, WOULD NOT BE A DESIRABLE PLACE TO LIVE, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO SELL THAT IN ORDER TO MOVE UP.
THERE ARE THESE DIFFERENT PLAYING THINGS.
I KNOW I'VE TALKED TO ALEX BEFORE ABOUT, WHEN GREENLAW TOWNHOMES WERE BUILT, AND THOSE ARE PRIVATE STREETS.
THERE'S A LOT OF UNITS ON THAT ACREAGE, AND I SEE THAT AS MORE DESIRABLE THAN A CONDO BUILDING.
I THINK THERE'S JUST MULTIPLE WAYS TO LOOK AT THINGS AND SEE WHAT'S DESIRABLE.
JUST AS A LONG TIME FLAGSTAFF RESIDENT AND EVEN SHORT TIME FLAGSTAFF RESIDENTS ALL SAY WHAT? DON'T WHAT?
>> WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, AND WHEN I THINK OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, WHEN THIS GETS OUT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE SAYING, WELL, WE'RE PHOENIXING FLAGSTAFF.
HOW DO YOU LOOK AT THAT WITH WHAT THE GOALS ARE FOR SUSTAINABILITY AND HOUSING AND EXPLAIN THAT TO THE COMMUNITY IN TERMS THAT THEY CAN UNDERSTAND BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT PARTS OF THIS, I LOOK AT, THIS IS GOING TO BE AND MAYBE IT'S NOT.
MAYBE I'VE TALKED ABOUT HOW EVEN WHERE MY DAUGHTER LIVE, WHERE THERE WERE TOWN HOMES, BUT THEY SHARED DRIVEWAYS.
THERE WERE SIX UNITS ON A SMALL AREA, AND THEY SHARED DRIVEWAYS AND THEN IT WAS SAID, WELL, THEN WHO REMOVES THE SNOW?? BUT I THINK THOSE ARE PRIVATE STREETS IN PHOENIX.
AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT PRIVATIZATION OF STREETS BECAUSE THAT WAS DONE AWAY WITH IN THE CODE, IF I'M CORRECT.
THERE ARE NO PRIVATIZATIONS, BUT IF WE WERE TO DO PROJECTS LIKE THAT,
[01:25:01]
AND THERE WERE PRIVATIZATIONS OF THE STREETS.I GUESS THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THEY HAVE TO PAY AN HOA TO THEN REMOVE THAT SNOW, IS THAT?
>> THAT'S TYPICALLY HOW I BELIEVE THAT WORKS.
>> I'M JUST PUTTING SOME THINGS OUT THERE.
IT'S NOT THAT I PREFER ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, BUT IT'S JUST THAT I DON'T SEE THOSE CONDO UNITS AS DESIRABLE.
IT MAY NOT BE DESIRABLE BY THE COMMUNITY.
IT MAY NOT BE DESIRABLE BY WHO'S WANTING TO PURCHASE THOSE.
I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE AND THEN I'LL OPEN IT UP.
>> MAYBE IT WILL BECOME MORE CLEAR WHEN WE GET INTO DEVELOPING THE CONCEPTS, BUT I HOPE THAT THIS HASN'T COME ACROSS THAT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DEVELOP MULTIFAMILY.
THAT IS ONE COMPONENT, WHETHER THEY'RE MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS, MULTIFAMILY THROUGH CONDONIZATION, BUT WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT INCENTIVIZING AND ENCOURAGING SMALLER LOTS WITH SMALLER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
IT'S ABOUT CREATING A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES FOR THE INTEREST OF EVERYBODY THAT MIGHT PREFER ONE THING OVER THE OTHER.
DEFINITELY, I DON'T WANT YOU TO WALK AWAY THINKING WE'RE TRYING TO JUST DO ALL CONDO DEVELOPMENT WITH THIS PROJECT.
>> WELL, AND IF I CAN CHIME IN, TOO, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT A CONDOMINIUM IS JUST A TYPE OF OWNERSHIP WHERE YOU DON'T OWN THE LAND.
YOU CAN CONDO, AN OFFICE BUILDING, YOU CAN CONDO MULTIFAMILY.
YOU COULD TAKE TOWN HOMES AND CREATE CONDOS FOR EACH OF THOSE TOWN HOMES.
ALL IT MEANS IS THAT, THAT BUILDING ISN'T ON ITS OWN LOT.
>> WHEN I LOOK AT MY DAUGHTER, WHEN SHE OWNED A TOWN HOME, SHE DIDN'T OWN THE LAND.
SHE ONLY OWNED THE HOUSE AND THEN A PATIO.
>> THERE ARE BENEFITS TO THAT BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE YOU'RE NOT CREATING LOTS OR PARCELS, THEN YOU REMOVE THAT REQUIREMENT THAT YOU NEED TO FRONT A PUBLIC STREET OR A STREET BUILT TO PUBLIC STANDARDS BECAUSE CURRENTLY, EVEN A PRIVATE STREET HAS TO MEET PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS.
WHEREAS IF YOU'RE CONDOING SOMETHING LIKE A TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT.
IF YOU DID THAT AS CONDOS INSTEAD OF CREATING PARCELS, THEN YOUR ROADS, I'M AIR QUOTING, COULD BE ESSENTIALLY DRIVEWAYS AND BUILT TO PERHAPS A DIFFERENT STANDARD THAN IF THEY WERE A PUBLIC ROAD OR A PRIVATE ROAD.
THERE'S A LOT OF LOW MOVING PARTS AND PIECES THAT I KNOW STAFF IS DEFINITELY AWARE OF AND TRYING TO WORK WITHIN. WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
>> THEN I GUESS SOME OF THE QUESTION, I GUESS, WHEN WE DELVE INTO THIS DEEPER OR YOU DELVE INTO IT DEEPER, ARE SIDEWALKS REQUIRED AROUND ALL UNITS? I KNOW SUNNYSIDE HAS BEEN TRYING TO BUILD SIDEWALKS BECAUSE THEY WERE BUILT IN A DIFFERENT TIME AND ZONE, AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THEY WERE PART OF FLAGSTAFF WHEN SUNNYSIDE WAS BUILT.
IT WAS PROBABLY INCORPORATED LATER INTO FLAGSTAFF.
I KNOW THAT IN OTHER AREAS THEY ALLOW BUILDING WITHOUT SIDEWALKS.
DOES THAT MAKE IT MORE AFFORDABLE?
>> THOSE ARE ALL THE THINGS THAT AS WE DIVE INTO WHERE ARE THE BARRIERS.
THEN HOW DO WE START TO REMOVE THOSE BARRIERS? AGAIN, THAT BALANCE OF ALL THE DIFFERENT TENSIONS, BUT YES.
THOSE ARE EXACTLY THE TYPES OF THINGS AS WE START TO LOOK AT HOW DO WE OVERCOME THE BARRIERS.
THOSE WILL BE THE TYPES OF IDEAS THAT ARE PUT IN THAT CONCEPT LIST THAT WE THEN BRING OUT AND SAY THESE ARE THE THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE TOUGH CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE WANT AND THEN HOW THEY ADD COSTS.
WE'RE GOING TO BE FACED WITH PRIORITIZING OUR PRIORITIES.
>> WELL, THAT'S WHY WHEN I SAY, DON'T PHOENIX FLAGSTAFF IS GOING TO BE A BIG ISSUE, TO PEOPLE.
DOES THE STAFF TAKE ANY TRIPS TOGETHER TO DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES TO SEE HOW DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES DO THIS? BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA.
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA.
WE DO NOT, AND IT'S MOSTLY BECAUSE OF FUNDING RESTRAINTS.
I THINK AS PLANNERS, WHEN WE TRAVEL, WE TEND TO WALK AROUND AND GET LOST IN
[01:30:03]
AREAS AND TAKE PICTURES AND WE BRING THEM BACK AND WE SHARE.BUT IF YOU WANT TO PUT FORWARD TO COUNCIL IN THIS BUDGET CYCLE, THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHOULD GO ON A GROUP STUDY.
>> WE WILL TOTALLY SUPPORT THAT.
>> BUT THAT IS GOOD POINTS. I THINK THAT'S ALSO WITH THE CONSULTANT TEAM, WE HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF THEM BEING IN A DIFFERENT COMMUNITY AND ALSO LOOKING AT DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES AND HOW THEY ARE ADDRESSING THIS.
BOZEMAN IS A HUGE COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF SIMILAR CHALLENGES WITH THEIR LOCATION, THEIR PROXIMITY TO A NATIONAL PARK.
THEY'RE ALSO SEEING THE SAME FLUX OF SECOND HOME OWNERSHIP, THE SAME LAND CONSTRAINTS THAT WE DO.
WE ARE LOOKING AT A LOT OF OTHER COMMUNITIES AS WELL TO HELP US FRAME THIS.
>> BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER IS TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT A GOOD AMOUNT OF DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES SO THAT WHEN YOU DO PRESENT THIS TO THE PUBLIC.
YOU CAN SHOW THEM PICTURES, NOT DRAWINGS, BUT PICTURES OF HOW SOME OF THAT DEVELOPMENT WOULD LOOK SO THAT THEY'RE NOT JUST LOOKING AT THE DRAWINGS AND TRYING TO CONCEPTUALIZE THAT IN PERSON.
>> YOU WILL SEE A LOT MORE OF THAT AS WE COME FORWARD WITH THE CONCEPT REVIEW, AND THAT IS PART OF THE PLAN.
ANOTHER THING YOU'LL SEE IS A MODELING, A PROTOTYPE MODEL, WHERE AND I THINK I SHOW THIS TO YOU GUYS AT THE INTRODUCTION.
BUT IT'S HAS A LITTLE GRAPH THAT SHOWS, IF WE ADJUST THESE CODES, HOW DOES THAT INCREASE THE DENSITY AND HOW DOES IT DECREASE THE COST? YOU'LL BE SEEING A LOT MORE TOOLS LIKE THAT, THAT ACTUALLY SHOW THE FINANCIAL IMPACT AS WELL AS THE DENSITY IMPACT OF THE CODE CHANGES SO THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY PROOFING UP AND NOT JUST SAYING, HEY, IF WE REDUCE THIS BY, X AMOUNT.
THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GET.
NO, WE'RE ACTUALLY RUNNING THOSE MODELS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING IT RIGHT AS WELL AND SO WE CAN DEMONSTRATE TO THE COMMUNITY WHAT WE'RE REALLY GETTING FOR THESE CHANGES.
>> OTHER DISCUSSION? MARY? I'M NOT TURNING OFF MY MICROPHONE.
>> SORRY, IS THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED? THE SNAPPING.
>> IT'S MY TURN TO BE CRACKLY.
[LAUGHTER] MAYBE I WASN'T PUSHING THE BUTTON DOWN FURTHER. I DON'T KNOW.
I ACTUALLY WATCHED THIS PRESENTATION WHEN THEY DID IT AT CITY COUNCIL WITH ALL THE CONSULTANTS, AND I HAD EMAILED MICHELLE WITH SOME OF MY QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS, WHICH HAVE EVOLVED INTO FURTHER THINGS.
BUT THE WHOLE IDEA OF WHAT'S WORKING AND WHAT'S NOT AND WHERE ARE THE LOOPHOLES, I GUESS.
WHAT CONCERNS ME MOST, I THINK WHERE MY ATTENTION GOES IS ON THE GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENTS, AND THAT THOSE ARE THE RR AND ER ZONE AND JUST LIKE THE CASE WE SAW BEFORE THIS, THEY CAN BE DEVELOPED WITH A PRD AND NO NEED FOR A REZONE, THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF WEIGHT GIVEN TO WELL, EVERYTHING WOULD HAVE TO BE REZONED.
IT WOULD, OF COURSE, IF IT WAS COMMERCIAL, RETAIL AND MAYBE THE HIGH DENSITY TYPES.
BUT FOR JUST RESIDENTIAL, ALL OF THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED WITHOUT EVEN A REZONE BY JUST DOING A PRD, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT KIND OF INFLUENCE AND CONTROL TO STEER IT, EVEN THOUGH THE PRD STANDARDS HAVE BEEN UPDATED TO TRY TO PUSH THEM ALONG THE WAY.
THAT LITTLE LOOPHOLE, CONCERNS ME BECAUSE THE FOCUS HERE IS ON CODE CHANGES AND HOW TO MAKE REZONINGS BETTER, EASIER, WHICH IS GOOD BECAUSE DEVELOPERS TYPICALLY WANT TO AVOID A REZONE BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE ASKED FOR THINGS.
THEY AVOID IT LIKE THE PLAGUE.
THE SAME THING WITH THE TIA THAT YOU MENTIONED IS, AT SOME POINT, ALL THIS DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS AROUND AN INTERSECTION AND NOBODY ACTUALLY TRIGGERS AND THEN THE INTERSECTION DOESN'T GET IMPROVED OR THE FUNDING IS NOT THERE, OR IT FALLS TO THE CITY TO TAKE IT ON LATER.
THOSE ARE THE LITTLE CAVEATS THAT I SEE.
YES, TOTALLY IN SUPPORT OF HOW DO WE GET BUILDERS TO
[01:35:04]
BUILD SMALLER SQUARE FOOTAGE ON SMALLER LOTS BECAUSE, EVEN WHEN THERE IS A SMALL LOT, AND NOT TO PICK ON THE ONE THE CASE THAT WE JUST SAW.BUT THOSE ARE LIKE 5,000 SQUARE LOTS.
BUT THAT PRODUCT THAT THEY'RE BUILDING THERE IS 1,800-3,300 SQUARE FEET FOR OVER $1 MILLION.
THAT'S NOT FOR FLAGSTAFF FIRES AND IF YOU POKE AROUND AND SEE WHO WAS BOUGHT INTO THAT FIRST PHASE, MOST OF THEM DON'T LIVE HERE.
THERE'S NO RESTRICTIONS ON THE SHORT TERM RENTALS FOR THE CASINOS THAT WERE ENCOURAGED AND DESIGNED INTO THAT PRODUCT.
THEN WE'VE ALSO SEEN PRODUCT COME BEFORE US THAT'S THE SMALLER, CUTE ENTRY LEVEL BUNGALOWS, OR SO WE THINK, NO GARAGE, IT'S 450,000.
THEY'RE MARKETED AS A CUTE LITTLE VACATION HOME AND A SHORT-TERM RENTAL.
HOW DO WE GET EVERYBODY ON THE SAME GOAL AND PAGE? WHAT'S UNIQUE AND WHAT I SEE HERE IS A VERY UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY IS THE DEVELOPERS AND THE BUILDERS THAT ARE HERE, THEY'RE HERE.
THEY'RE NOT FROM OUT OF STATE PRIMARILY.
THEY'RE NOT EVEN NECESSARILY OUT OF PHOENIX.
THEY'RE HERE, AND THEY CONTINUALLY BUILD HERE, THEY LIVE, AND THEY WORK, AND THEY BUILD HERE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN GET EVERYBODY, PLAYING TOGETHER.
SOMETIMES I FEEL LIKE THE CITY AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROBABLY ALL HAVE GROWN UP PLAYING SIMCITY AND THAT'S YOUR THING.
THEY HAVEN'T, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD WHAT THEY WANT TO BUILD AND THERE'S A DISCONNECT.
I KNOW I GET FURTHER DOWN THE LINE, PROBABLY THAN THIS LAS AND CAP.
MY CONCERN IS THAT SO MUCH OF THIS ACREAGE IS ALREADY OWNED.
THERE'S ALREADY PLANS ON IT OR PLANS, BY THE DEVELOPERS ON WHAT THEY WANT TO BUILD THERE THAT EVEN THIS PROCESS AND CO-CHANGES MAY NOT DO ENOUGH TO CATCH IT SO THAT WE HAVE SOME INFLUENCE ON WHAT'S BUILT AND WHAT'S REALLY NEEDED.
I MEAN, WE KNOW WHAT'S NEEDED. HOW DO WE GET IT? HOW DO WE GET EVERYBODY TO BUY IN AND BUILD IT? I'M TRYING TO THINK THERE WAS SOME OTHER THINGS.
OH, THIS IS STREET SITUATION, I LIVE IN A COMMUNITY WITHIN HOA THAT HAS PRIVATE STREETS WITH PUBLIC ACCESS, AND IT BECOMES VERY EXPENSIVE TO, SNOW REMOVAL, RESURFACING, CARING FOR THOSE STREETS.
THEREFORE, YOUR HOA FEES GO UP, WHICH ALSO AFFECTS AFFORDABILITY FROM ANOTHER SIDE.
IT'S NOT JUST THE PRICE OF THE HOME WHEN YOU'RE GETTING IN ON IT.
I WON'T EVEN GO DOWN THE ROAD OF LOT PREMIUMS BECAUSE, YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
AS FAR AS THE HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING, IT WAS PUT INTO PLACE FOR A REASON.
EVEN ON OUR FIRST CASE, WE SAW HOW UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES HAPPEN WHERE AN ESTATE HOME IN A GOLF COURSE COMMUNITY GETS CAUGHT UP INTO HOH.
BUT I THINK THERE'S STILL A VALID REASON TO HAVE IT AND WHETHER IT NEEDS TO BE TWEAKED.
THAT'S SOMETHING TO BE SAID AND THEN, LASTLY, I JUST WANTED TO SHARE, I ALWAYS TELL THE OPEN SPACE, WHAT'S GOING ON THAT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO THEM.
ONE OF OUR OPEN SPACE COMMISSIONERS LISTENED IN ON THE CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION OF THIS, AND HER FEELING WAS, DON'T FORGET ABOUT OPEN SPACE.
DON'T FORGET ABOUT OUR NATURAL RESOURCES.
IT IS WHY WE ALL LIVE HERE AND IF WE JUST FILL IT ALL UP AND BUILD SKY HIGH, IT WOULDN'T BE THE SAME.
>> CAN I SAY SOMETHING REALLY QUICKLY? I TALKED ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AT THE TABLE WITH THE STEERING COMMITTEE THAT HAVE CODE.
PROS IS ACTUALLY AT THE TABLE AS WELL, AND THANK YOU FOR HIGHLIGHTING THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO END UP IN AN OPEN SPACE EMERGENCY EITHER.
WE ARE ACTUALLY WORKING REALLY CLOSELY WITH THEM TO FIGURE OUT, HOW COULD WE TWEAK CERTAIN PARTS OF CODE, EVEN LIKE RESOURCE PROTECTION THAT SERVED TWO PURPOSES, THAT BOTH SERVED PRESERVING RESOURCES, AS WELL AS GETTING OPEN SPACE FOR NEIGHBORHOODS.
EVEN IF IT'S THAT COMMON OPEN SPACE, BUT WE ARE LOOKING AT CREATIVE SOLUTIONS WITH THEM.
[01:40:04]
REBECCA ASKED US TO COME AND DO A PRESENTATION TO THEM, AND SO WE'LL BE IN FRONT OF OPEN SPACE JUST TO LET THEM KNOW THAT WE ARE DOING THIS.WE DON'T WANT YOU TO FEEL LIKE AN AFTERTHOUGHT.
>> WELL, FIRST OFF, I JUST THINK THE STAFF IS AMAZING.
YOU'VE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB OF HIRING PEOPLE, AND I'M VERY IMPRESSED BY EVERYBODY.
>> I GUESS MY OBSERVATION MORE THAN ANYTHING IS HAVING BEEN BORN IN PHOENIX AND WATCHED THAT WHOLE DEVELOPMENT THAT I THINK IT'S INEVITABLE THE WORKFORCE IS GOING TO MOVE OUT OF FLAGSTAFF.
I THINK, BILL, JUST ACKNOWLEDGING THAT, THAT IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, AND SO FIGURING OUT WAYS TO GET THOSE PEOPLE INTO TOWN FROM DONEY PARK OR FROM WILLIAMSON FOR PLACES FOR THEM TO PARK.
I KNOW THAT'S LOOKING FURTHER DOWN AND WE'RE DOING A REALLY GOOD JOB OF TRYING TO DO THE INFILL AND HAVE PEOPLE STAY HERE.
BUT I THINK IN THE INTERIM, THAT'S JUST WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE. I LIKED WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SECOND HOMES.
I THINK THAT'S ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT A LOT OF RESOURCES GO TOWARDS THAT.
THEN THE OTHER THING AND I DON'T WANT TO LET THE ALLIGATOR LOOSE IN THE ROOM, BUT IT'S THE HOSPITAL.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PLANS ARE.
IT LOOKED LIKE THEY'RE MOVING, ACCORDING TO WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IN THE WEBSITE.
I'M JUST WONDERING IF THAT'S INCLUDED IN SOME OF THAT SPACE FOR DEVELOPMENT OR IF ANY DECISIONS HAVE BEEN VOICED BY ANYONE, OR WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, 'CAUSE THEY'VE CERTAINLY SAID ON THEIR WEBSITE, THEY'RE MOVING. THAT'S MY INPUT.
>> CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? WHEN YOU SAY THAT AREA, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE LAND THEY ACQUIRED FOR HOUSING OR FOR THE NEW RELOCATION OR THE EXISTING LOCATION, IF WE LOOKED AT THAT?
>> I KNOW AS MUCH AS EVERY OTHER PERSON WHO WASN'T ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHO READ THE PAPERS, WHICH IS NOT A LOT.
ALL I'M GOING BY IS WHAT THEY'VE SAID ON THEIR WEBSITE BECAUSE I WENT AND LOOKED AT IT, AND THAT'S THE INFORMATION I GOT.
>> WE DID INCLUDE THE PROPERTY THAT THEY PURCHASED OUT BY FORT TUTHILL IN THE INVENTORY.
WITHOUT THE HOSPITAL RELOCATING THERE, THAT DOESN'T RISE UP AS LIKE A SITE WE SEE IS DEVELOPING IN THE NEXT FIVE OR 10 YEARS.
I DO BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL DO SOMETHING.
WE HAVE NOT BEEN TOLD WHAT THEIR PLAN IS, AND IF THEY PLAN ON RELOCATING, THEY'RE LOOKING AT PROVIDING A SURGERY CENTER AND DOING OTHER THINGS TO HELP IN THE INTERIM, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'RE MOVING EITHER.
>> JUST TO THINK ABOUT WHAT CJ SAID, AND I TEACH A GERONTOLOGY CLASS, AND I ASKED THE STUDENTS TO THINK, WHEN YOU'RE 75, WHAT ARE THINGS GOING TO BE LIKE? I ASKED THEM TO THINK ABOUT TRANSPORTATION.
THEN I ALWAYS SAY, MY THOUGHT WOULD HAVE BEEN THAT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GOOD IF ARIZONA WOULD HAVE BUILT A TRACK WHERE WE COULD ALL DRIVE OUR CARS, GET ON A TRACK, I'D GO 100 MILES AN HOUR, WE COULD GET TO PHOENIX IN NO TIME.
WE REDUCE EMISSION BECAUSE I'M THINKING IT'S AN ELECTRIC TRACK THAT WE DRIVE OUR CARS ON, AND THEN IT WOULD REDUCE ACCIDENTS, IT WOULD REDUCE ALL THOSE THINGS.
IF WE COULD DEVELOP SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO THESE SMALLER AREAS OUTSIDE OF FLAGSTAFF WHERE MAYBE PEOPLE WOULD BE RELOCATING, BUT I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU, WHEN I FIRST BOUGHT A HOUSE, KACHINA VILLAGE, DONEY PARK, TIMBERLINE, THOSE WERE AFFORDABLE AREAS.
THEY ARE NOT AFFORDABLE ANYMORE.
THEY ARE JUST AS EXPENSIVE AS FLAGSTAFF.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THAT, UNLESS YOU GO OUT FURTHER TO WILLIAMS TO COTTONWOOD, TO THE VERDE VALLEY AREA, IT'S NOT EVEN AFFORDABLE TO LIVE IN THE OUTSKIRTS OF FLAGSTAFF ANYMORE.
I KNOW THAT AT OUR LAST MEETING, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS THIS COMMITTEE THAT WAS WORKING WITH THE COUNTY, BUT IT'S ALMOST LIKE GOT A DOVETAIL WITH WHAT THE COUNTY IS DOING
[01:45:04]
BECAUSE THE COUNTY USED TO BE AFFORDABLE AND IT'S NOT AFFORDABLE ANYMORE.>> I THINK YOU MIGHT BE TALKING ABOUT THE REGIONAL PLAN BECAUSE THAT IS THE CITY AND COUNTY AND WORKING TOGETHER, AND FOR THAT EXACT REASON, UNDERSTANDING THAT WHILE THE COUNTY AND THE CITY ARE INTERDEPENDENT.
IF YOU LIVE IN THE COUNTY, YOU'RE STILL PROBABLY USING FLAGSTAFF FOR ALL OF YOUR EVERYDAY SERVICES.
IN SOME WAYS, THE CITY IS RELIANT ON THOSE AREAS, MAYBE NOT AS MUCH AS ONE TIME WAS TRUE, BUT TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR OTHER HOUSING OPTIONS.
WE ARE WORKING WITH THAT GROUP IN THAT WE'RE ALL UNDER ONE ROOF, BUT ALSO WE ARE LITERALLY EVERY MONTH, WE'RE HIGHLY COORDINATED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING THAT FROM THE REGIONAL PLAN PERSPECTIVE, AND THAT DOES INCLUDE COUNTY.
WE EVEN LOOKED AT COUNTY PROPERTIES FOR THAT REASON TO UNDERSTAND WHAT [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'LL SAY, I WAS A PERSON THAT WENT OUT TO THE COUNTY TO GET SERVICES BECAUSE I WAS HAVING PHYSICAL THERAPY, AND THE HOSPITAL HAS A LOCATION OUT IN THE COUNTY.
I WAS GOING FROM THE CITY TO THE COUNTY, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, WHICH IS USUALLY THE WAY IT WORKS IS THAT THE COUNTY PEOPLE COME INTO THE CITY AND WE DON'T GO OUT INTO THE COUNTY AS OFTEN, BUT I WAS.
BUT I THINK IT'S ALL INCLUSIVE BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, THE COUNTY USED TO BE AFFORDABLE.
SHOULD WE BE HAVING A PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING WITH THEM AND TALK TO THEM ABOUT THOSE THINGS BECAUSE THEY HAVE BIG PARCELS OUT THERE.
THEY DON'T INFILL, THEY'RE NOT DOING THINGS THAT ARE MAKING IT AFFORDABLE, AND IT WOULD REALLY HELP IF THEY WERE WORKING WITH THE CITY TO MAKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
>> I CAN TELL YOU THAT I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA.
I THINK THAT THIS PROJECT IS STARTING TO OPEN THE DOORS WHERE WE ARE STARTING TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT POTENTIALS FOR PARTNERSHIPS.
I THINK THROUGH THE REGIONAL PLANNING PROCESS, YOU ACTUALLY WILL BE HAVING SOME JOINT MEETINGS WITH THE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND I WILL LET SARAH [INAUDIBLE] KNOW THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE HOT TOPIC, SO THAT SHE STARTS TO AGENDADIZE WHAT THOSE MEETINGS LOOK LIKE THAT THAT CAN BE PART OF IT IF IT'S NOT ALREADY.
BUT I APPRECIATE THE POINT. THANK YOU.
>> IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS?
>> SURE. I'LL TALK FOR A LITTLE BIT.
I THINK EVERYTHING'S MOVING TOWARDS THE PROGRESS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
TO BUILD ON SOME OF THE GREEN FILL AND INFILL IDEAS WITHIN THERE, I THINK MOVING TOWARDS WHAT YOU GUYS ARE THINKING ABOUT IN GENERAL AND THAT LAST PLATE WAS AN EXAMPLE OF YOU HAVE REASON, YOU HAVE JUSTIFICATION TO PICK ON TIAS IF YOU WANT TO BECAUSE THAT WHOLE APPROACH IS TO AVOID TIA PRESCRIPTIONS ON THAT.
I THINK IT'S MOVING THAT WAY AND GETTING INTO THOSE LOTS THAT ARE NOT MOVING THE NEEDLE ON AFFORDABILITY.
NOT TO SAY ANYTHING BAD ABOUT THAT PROJECT. IT'LL BE A GOOD PROJECT.
IT IS WHAT IT IS, BUT IT'S NOT THAT MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING, AND IT COULD HAVE BEEN.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT AND EVENTUALLY IT'LL BE ONE ACRE AVERAGE LOTS BECAUSE THEY'LL LEAVE THE OTHER STUFF ALONE AND THAT WON'T MOVE THE NEEDLE ON AFFORDABILITY OR THE MISSING MIDDLE.
THEN CONNECTED TO THAT, THERE WAS SOME STUFF IN THERE I SAW ON THE OUT VERSUS INFILL AND THE ADJACENT WITHIN URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY, THAT KIND OF OUT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S SEEN ENOUGH DIFFERENT FROM THE OUT THAT WILL BE A RESULT IF WE DON'T DEVELOP THAT, WHICH BECOMES WINSLOW.
THIS ISN'T JUST AN AFFORDABILITY.
NOW WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY AND THE TRANSPORTATION COSTS THAT GO ALONG WITH THAT KIND OF FORCED OUT VERSUS ADJACENT OUT VERSUS FORCING THAT ACTUAL LEAP FROG OUT TO THE NEXT AREA.
>> THANK YOU. TO YOUR POINT, I THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE REGIONAL PLAN IS REALLY HITTING ON TOO,
[01:50:02]
THAT IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE EVERYBODY LIVING OUT, AND THERE'S NO PATH TO CARBON NEUTRALITY [LAUGHTER] WHEN EVERYBODY IS LIVING ON THE OUTSKIRTS.ONE OF OUR CHALLENGES TOO WITH THIS IS JUST OUR POPULATION GROWTH.
WE'RE A GROWING CITY. WE'RE A TWINER.
WE'RE NOT REALLY LIKE A LITTLE TOWN ANYMORE, BUT WE'RE NOT A BIG CITY, AND SO CERTAIN DENSITIES ALLOW FOR SERVICES AND THE CONNECTIVITY AND DIFFERENT THINGS.
WE WANT TO KEEP THE POPULATION THAT WE CAN HERE TO HELP SUPPORT THINGS LIKE TRANSIT AND OTHER THINGS.
I KNOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST THE SUSTAINABILITY OF PEOPLE MOVING OUT, BUT IT'S VERY INTERRELATED TO A LOT OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'RE HAVING.
>> I WAS THINKING OF THAT TOO WITH TRANSIT, WITH MOUNTAIN LINE, AND IT DOESN'T REALLY SERVE OUT IN THE COUNTY AREAS AND THE COUNTY DOESN'T PUT INTO MOUNTAIN LINE, AND REALLY IT WOULD HELP IF THERE WERE BUSES THAT WENT OUT TO THE COUNTY AREAS THAT BROUGHT PEOPLE INTO THE CITY.
>> I JUST WANTED TO REVISIT ON SUSTAINABILITY AS FAR AS BUILDING SUSTAINABLE JUST TO STRESS, TO NOT WATER IT DOWN.
THERE WAS A RECENT ARTICLE PUT OUT BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS THAT 91% OF BUILDERS BUILD TO A GREEN STANDARD.
WE SHOULD EXPECT NOTHING LESS THAN THAT.
THE PROBLEM IS IT CAN BE SOMEWHAT OF AN EXTRA COST, ALTHOUGH SO MUCH OF THE MATERIALS AND OPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE AS GREEN CERTIFIED, BUT THERE WAS A TIME WHEN THE BUILDERS HERE WERE COMPLETELY ON BOARD WITH ALL OF THAT.
THE PROBLEM WAS IT DIDN'T RESULT IN APPEALING TO THE BUYER.
THE BUYER REALLY DIDN'T CARE IN THE END.
THERE WERE OTHER OPTIONS AND FEATURES AND PRICE THAT WERE A FACTOR TO THEM.
IT LOST ITS FAVOR WITH THE BUILDING COMMUNITY AS FAR AS INCLUDING THOSE KINDS OF FEATURES.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD LESSEN THAT IN ANY WAY, THOSE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THEY ABSOLUTELY SHOULD BE PART OF ANY KIND OF NEW BUILDING.
IT'S JUST IT COMES DOWN TO THEIR COST AND THEIR PROFIT AND WHETHER MARKETING THAT THEY HAVE THOSE TYPES OF SUSTAINABLE FEATURES MATTER TO THE BUYER.
I WAS INVOLVED IN MARKETING WITH SUSTAINABLE HOMES THROUGHOUT, WELL, I'D SAY MY WHOLE CAREER, BUT THAT WASN'T EVEN A THING WAY BACK WHEN I GOT INTO NEW HOME MARKETING.
>> I THINK YOUR POINT IS CLEAR, THOUGH, THAT TO NOT WATER DOWN.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE INFORMATION, NOT FOR STOPPING.
[LAUGHTER] ANYBODY ELSE? BOB OR MEGAN, ANY COMMENTS?
>> I WAS CURIOUS IN TERMS OF ACTUALLY CHANGING THE CODE.
WHAT'S GOING TO DICTATE THE HIERARCHY OF PIECEMEALING THAT CHANGE OVER TIME BECAUSE YOU SAID RATHER THAN WAITING AND THEN DOING IT ALL AT ONCE.
HOW IS THE CITY GOING TO DECIDE WHAT CODES ARE GOING TO BE CHANGED FIRST?
>> IT'LL BE PART OF THE LARGER CONVERSATION WITH EVERYONE.
RIGHT NOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PAGES THE EXCEL SPREADSHEET WAS WHEN I GOT HERE, BUT STAFF KNOWS WHERE THERE ARE JUST THE THINGS IN CODE THAT ARE BARRIERS.
THEY'RE JUST SMALL THINGS THAT WE KNOW ARE UNINTENDED.
WE LOOK AT THOSE AS THE SMALL TWEAKS THAT WE DON'T NEED A FULL PANEL OF ANALYSIS TO TELL US WE HAVE TO CHANGE THEM.
THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE KNOW ARE JUST GOOD CHANGES.
THERE'S BEEN OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN HIGHLIGHTED OR MAYBE EVEN REINFORCED THROUGH JUST THIS DIAGNOSIS PROCESS THAT WE'RE STARTING TO SAY, WE GOT TO BRING THAT FORWARD.
YOU'RE NEWER TO THE COMMISSION.
A LOT OF THE OTHER FOLKS WHO HAVE BEEN HERE, THEY SEE TIFFANY AND TOL OUR ZONING CODE MANAGER HERE QUITE FREQUENTLY BRINGING THOSE TYPES OF CODE CHANGES THROUGH.
BUT THERE IS, I THINK, THROUGH THAT CODE, THE CONCEPT, THIS NEXT STEP.
IT GOT LIVELY EVEN JUST TALKING ABOUT BARRIERS.
WE KNOW WE'RE IN FOR A VERY LIVELY DISCUSSION WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT HOW TO ADDRESS IT.
THAT'S WHY THERE'S SUCH THESE ITERATIVE PROCESS
[01:55:02]
AND SO MANY PEOPLE WE'RE REACHING OUT TO US.IT WON'T JUST BE OUR DECISION FROM A PLANNING STAFF LEVEL OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PRIORITIZE.
WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE A COMMUNITY CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT DO WE NEED TO PRIORITIZE? WHAT ARE THE PRIORITIES AS A COMMUNITY? THEN, ESSENTIALLY, WE'LL LOOK FOR COUNSEL THROUGH ALL THAT FEEDBACK THAT'S GIVEN TO DIRECT US OF WHICH ONES THEY REALLY WANT TO SEE TAKEN FORWARD.
THERE MIGHT BE SOME THAT WE START TAKING FORWARD AT THE CONCEPT LEVEL.
ONCE WE GET THERE, WE MIGHT SAY, THOSE ARE GOOD, AND WE CAN DO THAT QUICKLY.
THERE MIGHT BE SOME OTHER ONES THAT NEED A LOT MORE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE BALANCE OF THE DIFFERENT THINGS.
THAT PRIORITIZATION OF OUR PRIORITIES WILL COME FROM THE GROUP CONVERSATION, AND THEN ULTIMATELY THE DIRECTION WE RECEIVE FROM COUNCIL.
>> I JUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.
WAS THERE ANYTHING THAT CAME BACK FROM THE COUNCIL THAT SURPRISED YOU?
>> NO. THEY'RE BEING VERY CLEAR TO PEOPLE ESPECIALLY THE RESOURCE PROTECTION OF LATE.
WE KNOW THAT'S ONE THAT PEOPLE HOLD DEAR, AND WE HAVE TO BE VERY CLEAR.
WE'RE NOT SAYING GET RID OF IT, WE'RE JUST SAYING REFINE IT TO MAKE SURE IT CAN ACHIEVE.
BUT NO, I DON'T THINK THERE HAS BEEN ANYTHING THAT WE'VE HEARD THAT'S BEEN A TOTAL SURPRISE.
I THINK IT'S BEEN MOSTLY A LOT OF VALIDATION.
THAT'S GOOD THAT WE HAVE OUR FINGER ON THE PULSE OF WHERE WE DO KNOW.
WE DON'T KNOW WHY THE INCENTIVES AREN'T WORKING, BUT WE KNEW THEY WEREN'T WORKING BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN'T TAKING THEM.
BUT WHEN YOU START TO LOOK AT THE ANALYSIS THAT YOU CAN'T EVEN GET THE MAXIMUM DENSITY THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED, IF IT'S A DENSITY BONUS, THEN WHY WOULD YOU EVER TAKE IT? IT'S HELPING US UNDERSTAND WHY SOME OF THESE THINGS AREN'T WORKING AND AT LEAST GIVING STAFF SOME AREAS THAT WE CAN START DRILLING DOWN TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE MAKE THESE LUCRATIVE.
>> UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> I ONLY EXPECT THAT, CARLTON.
>> GOOD. TALKING ABOUT THE BUILDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE UPFRONT AND BACK TO THE TIA STUFF OF WHOEVER BREAKS THE STRAW THAT BREAKS THE BACK HAS TO PAY FOR IT ALL VERSUS THE INFRASTRUCTURE UPFRONT, BUT CAN BE SO EXPENSIVE AND UPFRONT, AND I'M GLAD TO SEE WE'RE LOOKING INTO THAT OPTION.
GLAD THOSE TYPE OF OPTIONS ARE BEING EVALUATED.
THEN ALONG THOSE LINES, IS CONCURRENT PREEMPTIVE UP ZONING BEING EVALUATED THAT WOULD THEN USE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE RIGHT AWAY WITHOUT ALL THAT NEGOTIATION? IF WE DECIDE, IF IT'S IN LINE WITH WHAT THE REGIONAL PLAN, LONG RANGE DIRECTION, WHAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE CAN PROVIDE.
WHY ARE WE ADDING EXTRA STEPS? LET'S MAKE THE ZONING BE WHAT THE VISION IS ALREADY. IS IT?
>> I'M GOING TO SAY EVERYTHING'S ON THE TABLE.
I THINK AS FAR AS THAT CONVERSATION HAS GONE, DEFINITELY WE'VE LOOKED AT TO THE POINT ABOUT PEOPLE THAT AREN'T INCENTIVIZED TO UP ZONE.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S AN OPTION.
DO WE JUST PRE-EMPTIVELY UP ONE? DO WE CHANGE THE MAXIMUM DENSITY IN THE R1 TO A HIGHER DENSITY? THOSE ARE DEFINITELY THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BY DOING THAT, WE DON'T UNINTENTIONALLY WATER DOWN SOMETHING ELSE.
BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES THAT DENSITY IS HOW WE CAN NEGOTIATE, WE CANNOT REQUIRE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WE'RE REALLY LIMITED ON WHAT WE CAN RESTRICT FROM SHORT-TERM RENTAL.
WHEN YOU ASK, LIKE THE CALL TO ACTION, I JUST GOT TO GET THIS IN THERE.
IT MIGHT BE GOING AND TALKING TO LOBBY LOBBYING STATE LEGISLATURES BECAUSE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH ARE NOT CITY IMPOSED.
BUT TO YOUR POINT, ALL THOSE THINGS ARE BEING TALKED ABOUT, AND DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? HOW COULD WE DO THAT? EXCEPT FOR THE PART WE HAVEN'T TIED IT TO THEN IF WE DID DO THAT UP ZONE, HOW WOULD WE TIE THAT TO THAT INFRASTRUCTURE? I THINK THAT'S A GREAT POINT, AND I DEFINITELY WANT TO BRING THAT UP TO THE GROUP.
BUT THEN WE REALLY DO START TALKING ABOUT BIG FUNDS.
BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST THE RIGHT AWAY, I WOULD LIKELY BE THE WATER AND SEWER AS WELL TO MEET THAT CAPACITY.
I GUESS THAT KIND OF GOES BACK TO YOU, WHAT ARE THE PRIORITIES? LIKE WHAT ARE WE WILLING TO DO AND WHAT ARE WE ABLE TO DO? WHAT CAN THE COMMUNITY, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S STOMACH, BUT I MEAN, WHEN I SAY STOMACH, IT'S NOT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T THINK THESE ARE THE RIGHT DECISIONS.
BUT WE'VE ALL TALKED ABOUT THE HIGH COST AND HOW MUCH MORE IT'S BECOME COSTLY.
EVEN IF WE PAY FOR THAT, THAT MEANS EVERYBODY PAYS FOR THAT, SO THAT DEVELOPER MIGHT NOT PAY FOR THOSE UPGRADES, BUT WE AS A COMMUNITY, IN SOME WAY,
[02:00:02]
EITHER IT'S PROPERTY TAX, SALES TAX, WE WILL PAY FOR IT.SOME COMMUNITIES, OKLAHOMA CITY IS A GREAT EXAMPLE, SAID, WE WANT CERTAIN THINGS, WE WANT CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS, AND WE WILL TAX OURSELVES TO GET THOSE.
THEY EARMARKED THE TAX FOR VERY SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS.
THEY HAD THE REINVESTMENT CONSTRUCTED, AND THEN THEY SAID, WE'RE DONE WITH THAT TAX, AND THEN THE COMMUNITY SAID THAT WAS SO SUCCESSFUL, WE WANT A COUPLE MORE THINGS.
I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF OPTIONS TO EXPLORE IT, BUT THERE WILL BE A COST TO ALL OF US, AND SO THAT'S JUST PART OF THE CONVERSATION.
BUT I LIKE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT THOUGHT PROCESS OF HOW DO WE START TO RELIEVE THAT BARRIER.
>> STARTED A LITTLE MORE INCREMENTAL.
I DON'T WANT TO BE SEEN AS SAYING, LET'S PREEMPTIVELY BUILD EVERY ARTERIAL SETUP FOR EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD.
DEFINITELY, MORE OF THAT INCREMENTAL APPROACH THAT'S MORE OF A PAY YOUR WAY, NOT A STRAW THAT BREAKS YOUR BACK.
IT'S EQUALLY, NOT THE BURDEN ON EXISTING, BUT AN EQUAL BURDEN ON INCREMENTAL STEP AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
>> I THINK THE OTHER THING THAT WE'RE EXPLORING, TOO, AND JUST A LOT OF COMMUNITIES DO IS WE REALLY NEED TO BE TYING OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN MORE TO OUR REGIONAL PLAN.
THAT WAY, WE'RE PRIORITIZING INVESTMENT WHERE WE DO WANT TO SEE CERTAIN THINGS OCCURRING IN A CERTAIN TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE CAN START TO LOOK AT THIS, AND SO I JUST SAY THAT YOU'VE BROUGHT UP ONE WAY, AND I THINK LIKE I SAID, EVERYTHING'S ON THE TABLE, WE'RE WILLING TO EXPLORE ALL OF THE DIFFERENT WAYS OF TACKLING THIS.
>> FOR INSTANCE, WHEN STATE LAND GETS PURCHASED, THE DEFAULT IS RR, RIGHT? IS THAT ALL STATE LAND?
>> I DON'T WANT TO SAY FOR SURE, ALL, BUT I'M THINKING IF NOT ALL THE MAJORITY IS RR.
>> I ALWAYS THOUGHT, WHY IS IT RR TO BEGIN WITH.
>> I THINK A LOT THAT STATE LAND IS ALREADY RR.
LIKE, IT'S I ALREADY HAS A ZONING TO IT.
THEN WHEN IT'S PURCHASED, ZONING, IT'S NOT THAT IT'S ASSIGNED A ZONING.
THAT HAPPENS MORE WITH ANNEXATIONS.
>> I THINK THOUGH, IF MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION, BUT THE LAND IN FLAGSTAFF THAT IS OWNED BY STATE LAND IS CURRENTLY ZONED RR.
>> I THINK THE QUESTION WAS, WHY IS THAT?
>> A FUNCTION OF THE STATE, AND IT WAS NOT A FUNCTION OF THE CITY, LIKE THE DEFAULTS ONCE IT BECOMES OKAY.
>> I MEAN, OUTSIDE OF THE CITY, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.
BUT I KNOW WITHIN THE CITY, IT'S ALREADY ZONE THAT IT DOESN'T DEFAULT.
IT JUST MEANS THAT WHEN SOMEBODY PURCHASES IT.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THAT PROCESS IS THE DEVELOPERS SAY, THIS IS WHAT I INTEND TO DO, AND THE STATE LAND IS LIKE, THAT'S COOL.
WE WANT TO GET THE HIGHEST BASICALLY THE HIGHEST DOLLAR FOR THAT, BUT IT'S ON THEM TO THEN UP ZONE IT AND GET THAT ZONING TO ACHIEVE WHATEVER PROJECT THEY'VE SOLD.
BUT THE HISTORY OF THAT, I DON'T THINK IT WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF THE CITY.
I THINK IT MIGHT BE, I KNOW THAT ESTATE RESIDENTIAL IS MORE LIKE A KIND OF I DON'T WANT TO SAY HOLDING, BUT MORE LIKE IT WAS THE INTENT OR THE THOUGHT WOULD BE THAT IT WOULD BE A HOLDING ZONE AND THAT PEOPLE WOULD UP ZONE THOSE.
I DON'T KNOW IF RURAL RESIDENTIAL HAS THE SAME KIND OF THOUGHT.
>> IT'S FUNNY 'CAUSE I WAS THINKING THAT WAS RURAL RESIDENTIAL.
I THINK IT'S BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T EXPECT THAT PEOPLE WOULD JUST DEVELOP THEM AS THAT UNDERLYING ZONING AND THAT IT WAS MORE OF A HOLDING ZONE.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? THANK YOU SO MUCH, RACHAEL.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE GREAT PRESENTATION AND THANK THE STAFF FOR ALL THE WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING ON THIS?
>> BECAUSE WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
>> THEN WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO GENERAL BUSINESS AND IT'S APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
[A. Appointment of Chair and Vice Chair]
I DON'T KNOW HOW WE GO ABOUT DOING THAT, ALEX.>> IF ANYONE WANTS TO NOMINATE SOMEONE TO BE CHAIR, WE COULD DO THEM ONE AT A TIME.
DO YOU CHAIR AND THEN DO VICE CHAIR.
>> I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
>> CAROL, ARE YOU INTERESTED IN CONTINUING TO SERVICE CHAIR TO THE END OF YOUR TERM SO THAT I WOULD NOMINATE YOU?
[02:05:01]
>> I COULD DO THAT TO THE END OF MY TERM.
I THINK MY TERM ENDS IN DECEMBER, BUT IT COULD GO FORWARD IF THERE'S NOBODY.
I MEAN, THIS YEAR, I'M FINE WITH THAT.
>> SO THERE'S BEEN A NOMINATION FOR ME TO BE CHAIR IN A SECOND.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO NOMINATE ANYBODY ELSE? THEN ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE?
>> I'M ABSTAINING. I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN ABSTAIN.
IS THERE A NOMINATION FOR VICE CHAIR? I WILL OPEN UP THAT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE MARY NORTON FOR VICE CHAIR.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR? MARY, WOULD YOU ACCEPT TO BE VICE CHAIR?
>> I WILL BE GIVING YOU BACKUP.
>> WHEN I'M GONE, WHICH I MIGHT BE GONE SOMETIMES THIS SUMMER, SO JUST LETTING YOU KNOW.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? HEARING NONE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF MARY NORTON BEING VICE CHAIR SAY AYE?
>> ANYBODY OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION, MARY, WELCOME AS VICE CHAIR.
THEN WE'LL GO ON TO MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS 2 FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS.
>> I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR ALEX.
ANY TIMELINE ON WHEN THERE WOULD BE AN UPDATED DEVELOPMENT STATUS REPORT.
>> WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO THAT QUARTERLY.
THE LAST ONE WAS A LITTLE LATE, SO IT SHOULD BE COMING SOON.
I'VE BEEN RELYING ON MY OUTLOOK TO SEND ME REMINDERS, AND I HAVEN'T GOTTEN ONE YET, SO I'LL DOUBLE CHECK.
>> AS I WAS LOOKING AT THE JUNIPER POINT STUFF, BUT IT WAS OFF DECEMBER, AND I REALIZED, WELL, MAYBE THINGS HAVE CHANGED, WHICH THEY PROBABLY HAVE.
>> ALEX, I JUST HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
ARE YOU WITHOUT AN ADMIN AGAIN?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT WAS QUICK.
THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SITTING THERE BY YOURSELF TAKING?
>> IN MINUTES. WELL, I HOPE YOU GET SOMEBODY IN THAT OFFICE REALLY SOON.
>> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO AND FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS?
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY I CAN'T BELIEVE IAN WASN'T HERE, AND NO ONE NOMINATED HIM.
>> THERE YOU GO. DARN, WE SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF THAT.
>> IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, THEN WE CAN ADJOURN AT 6:09.
THANK YOU, EVERYONE FOR PARTICIPATING TODAY.
>> THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.