May 08, 2024 Planning and Zoning

TEST. OKAY.

[00:00:03]

[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).]

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, AND WE'D GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR LEGAL ADVICE AND DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMISSION'S ATTORNEY ON ANY ITEM ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA PURSUANT TO ARS 38-430 1.0 3A3.

I'M GOING TO DO ROLL CALL.

[2. ROLL CALL NOTE: One or more Commission Members may be in attendance telephonically or by other technological means. CAROLE MANDINO, CHAIR BOB HARRIS, III CARLTON JOHNSON CJ LUCKE MARY NORTON, VICE CHAIR IAN SHARP MEGAN WELLER ]

OKAY. 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 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 AT THIS POINT? HEARING AND SEEING NONE.

I WILL MOVE ON TO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24TH, 2024.

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on Wednesday, April 24, 2024]

SECOND. OKAY, SO IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

ARE THERE ANY.

NO. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE, AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED AS WRITTEN UNDER GENERAL BUSINESS.

[A. Ghost Tree II at Pine Canyon PZ-21-00155-07 TLC PC Land Investors, LLC requests Preliminary Plat approval for Ghost Tree at Pine Canyon located at 3201 South Clubhouse Circle, a 12-unit single-family home subdivision on 7.87 acres in the Single-Family Residential (R1) Zone. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission, in accordance with the findings presented in this report, foward the Preliminary Plat to the City Council with a recommendation of approval, given the following conditions: The Preliminary Plat is granted a reduction of 1.5% from the preservation requirement of 70% for the 17-24.99% slope resources based on the request provided.]

PERFECT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.

SO, MY NAME IS WESLEY WELCH, THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT.

AND I'M HERE TO PRESENT GHOST TREE TWO PRELIMINARY PLOT FOR YOU.

SO, A LITTLE OVERVIEW.

THIS IS FROM TLC, PC LAND INVESTORS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR GHOST TREE TWO.

IT'S A SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION WITH 12 SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOTS ON 7.87 ACRES.

THIS WAS APPROVED ON APRIL 8TH, 2024.

HERE'S A QUICK VICINITY MAP FOR YOU.

IT'S GOING TO BE LOCATED IN PINE CANYON.

IT'S GOING TO BE RIGHT OFF J.W.

POWELL BOULEVARD, JUST NORTH OF THE PINE CANYON ENTRANCE.

A LITTLE BACKGROUND.

THE FINAL PLAT FOR GHOST TREE TWO WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 3RD, 2023.

THERE WERE A FEW MINOR ERRORS, AND IT WENT TO GO GET RECORDED WITH A LETTER OF CORRECTIONS, AND THE RECORDER SAID, WHY DON'T WE JUST FIX IT ALL UP, CLEAN IT ALL UP AND WE'LL RECORD THE NEW PLAT WITHOUT THE LETTER OF CORRECTIONS.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR TODAY.

R1 ZONE RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY.

HERE'S THE PLAT.

IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN. THE STAFF REPORT, I'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT REAL QUICK, AND I CAN COME BACK TO IT IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

SO, THERE'S THREE FINDINGS THAT IT HAS TO MEET THE ZONING CODES.

THE FIRST ONE, TITLE TEN, IT MEETS THE R-1 ZONE STANDARDS OF GROWTH DENSITY OF TWO UNITS PER ACRE.

THAT'S THE MINIMUM.

THE LOT DESIGN. IT MEETS THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, WIDTH AND DEPTH REQUIREMENTS.

AND THEN THE SETBACKS.

THERE ARE INDIVIDUAL BUILDING ENVELOPES ON EACH SITE INSTEAD OF ADHERING TO THE CLASSIC SETBACKS FOR THE R-1 ZONE.

SO FOR THE RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS, HERE'S A QUICK LITTLE SUMMARY OF THEIR TABLES.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY HAVE TO SAVE 50% OF THE REQUIRED TREE RESOURCES.

WE HAVE 50.47 FOR STEEP SLOPES.

IT'S BROKEN INTO THREE CATEGORIES 17 THROUGH 24.99, 25 THROUGH 34.99, AND ANYTHING OVER 35.

EVERYTHING OVER 35 IS REQUIRED TO BE PRESERVED.

FOR THE 17 TO 24, THERE'S A 70% REQUIRED PROTECTION RATE.

WE ARE DOING 68.5, AND THEN FOR THE 25 TO 30 4 TO 80%, WE HAVE 84.37.

I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT THEY DID SAVE THE EXCESS SLOPE IN THE 25 TO 34.99 THAT WAS CONVERTED TO TREE POINTS, AND THAT WAS ADDED TO THEIR POINTS.

SO, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED SLOPE RESOURCES OF THE 17% TO THE 24.99% CATEGORY OF 1.5%

[00:05:06]

THE DIRECTOR WANTED TO JUST PLACE IT ALL ON ONE PLAT, SO WHEN YOU GUYS APPROVE IT, IF YOU'D LIKE TO APPROVE IT WITH THE REDUCTION, WE'RE GOING TO DO IT THAT WAY.

SO THEN WHEN WE'RE GOING TO THE COMMISSION, THERE ARE FOUR ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED FOR THE COMMISSION TO GRANT THE REDUCTION.

THE THREE AND FOUR ARE RELATED MORE TO TREES.

THEY DON'T APPLY TO THIS AS MUCH, BUT THERE'S ONE AND TWO, WHICH ARE THE PRIORITY AREAS WHY THEY CANNOT BE RETAINED AND THAT THERE ARE NO REASONABLE METHODS OR TECHNIQUES TO IMPLEMENT THE RESOURCE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS OF THIS DIVISION.

LINDSAY SHOULD BE REPRESENTING.

THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE A LETTER GIVING THEIR REASONING FOR WHY THEY'RE REQUESTING THIS REDUCTION.

THEY HAD TO CHANGE SOME OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPES BASED ON SIDE LOADED GARAGES VERSUS FRONT LOADED GARAGES.

THIS IS GOING TO MAKE THE DRIVEWAYS A LOT LESS STEEP AND PROVIDE MORE SAFETY FOR THE RESIDENTS.

HERE'S THE RESOURCE PROTECTION PLAN.

SO, I HAVE THIS ONE RIGHT HERE.

AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE ONE THAT KIND OF OVERLAYS THE TWO DIFFERENT BUILDING ENVELOPES.

THE RED IS GOING TO BE THE ORIGINAL BUILDING ENVELOPE AND THE GREEN WILL BE THE NEW BUILDING ENVELOPES.

SO, THERE'S MINOR CHANGES HERE AND THERE.

YOU CAN LOOK AT IT A LITTLE CLOSER.

AND THEN I CAN COME BACK TO THIS IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT ANYTHING SPECIFIC, SO IT MEETS THE OTHER RELEVANT STANDARDS.

THE PLAT WAS REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER, AND PINE CANYON DEVELOPMENT AS A WHOLE HAS VARIOUS TEN-FOOT-WIDE PAVED FOOT TRAILS THAT GO THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT. ENGINEERING STANDARDS.

PUBLIC SYSTEMS ANALYSIS WAS CONDUCTED.

COMPLIANCE IS CONFIRMED WITH THE CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS FOR ACCESS AND TRAFFIC.

TEA WAS PREPARED AND APPROVED FOR THE ENTIRE PINE CANYON DEVELOPMENT, AND THIS WILL JUST BE A PRIVATE STREET WITH CUL-DE-SACS TO PROVIDE DIRECT ACCESS TO THE LOTS.

THERE WILL BE A NEW WATER LINE THAT CONNECTS TO THE EXISTING WATER MAIN.

SAME WITH THE SEWER. THE WATER MAIN IS GOING TO RUN ALONG CLUBHOUSE CIRCLE.

STORMWATER ANALYSIS PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED FOR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT, AND THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE SEVERAL LEAD BASINS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION AND THEN JUST OUTSIDE ON THE GOLF COURSE HOLE NEARBY.

SO, THE THIRD REQUIRED FINDING IS THAT IT MEETS THE SUBDIVISION AND LAND SPLIT REGULATIONS.

SO, IT MET ALL OF OUR PRELIMINARY PLAT PROCEDURES, THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AND THE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS.

SO, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, BASED ON THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TWO CITY COUNCIL, WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL, WITH THE CONDITION THAT IT'S GRANTED A REDUCTION OF 1.5% FROM THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT OF 70% FOR THE 17% THROUGH 24.99% SLOPE RESOURCES BASED ON THE REQUEST PROVIDED.

SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

WE CAN GO BACK. I KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT ALSO HAS A PRESENTATION.

WE CAN EITHER DO QUESTIONS NOW OR, LINDSAY, IF YOU WANT TO GIVE YOUR PRESENTATION AND WE CAN DO ALL QUESTIONS.

YEAH. LET ME ASK IF ANYBODY HAS ANY PRESENTATION OR QUESTIONS.

QUESTIONS. FOR STAFF.

I DO, BUT I PROBABLY WOULD RATHER HEAR THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION TO YOU.

THEY MIGHT BE ANSWERED THERE.

ALL RIGHT, SO IF WE CAN THANK YOU, WESLEY, FOR A GREAT PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. I THINK YOU TALK REALLY QUICKLY.

YOU COULD BE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE ON THE RADIO WITH IT.

OKAY. SO, THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT.

AND IF WE CAN HAVE THE PRESENTATION BY PINE CANYON.

WELL, CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR YOUR RECORD, LINDSEY CHUBB WITH THE LAW FIRM OF GAMMAGE AND BURNHAM, 40 NORTH CENTRAL PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 85004I LOVE GOING AFTER WESLEY BECAUSE NORMALLY I'M THE ONE THAT TALKS TOO QUICKLY.

AND SO, WESLEY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE WE CAN HAVE A TALKING CONTEST.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS IS ALWAYS THE FUNNIEST.

MISS , CAN YOU JUST TALK SLOWER? YES. OKAY. GOT IT.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.

SOME OF WHAT I AM GOING TO SAY IS REPETITIVE OF WHAT WESLEY SAID.

THIS IS ACTUALLY A RELATIVELY SIMPLE REQUEST.

AGAIN, THIS IS A PLAT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.

AND SO IT'S THE BUILDING ENVELOPE MODIFICATIONS THAT HAVE CAUSED FOR THIS 1.5% REDUCTION.

THE NICE THING, AND I'LL GET INTO IT AS WE WERE ABLE TO SAVE A TREE WHEN WE DID THE BUILDING ENVELOPE MODIFICATIONS.

BUT AGAIN THIS IS A PRE PLAT.

SO AGAIN THERE IS AN APPROVED PLAT.

THIS IS TRACT 23 OF PINE CANYON.

AND WITH THE APPROVED PLAT, WE JUST HAVE DRIVEWAYS THAT WE THOUGHT WERE JUST TOO STEEP.

AND SO, WHEN WE REALLY GOT INTO THE FIELD AND WE WERE GETTING INTO CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, WE HAD SOME CONCERNS WITH IT.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE BACK HERE IN FRONT OF YOU.

AND, YOU KNOW, YOU NORMALLY DON'T SEE ME FOR A PLAT, RIGHT? PLATS ARE DOES A LAND USE MAKE SENSE? DO WE HAVE WATER? DO WE HAVE SEWER? I'M HERE PRIMARILY TO DISCUSS JUST THAT REDUCTION IN THE ONE PORTION OF THE RESOURCE PROTECTION.

AND I WILL HAVE TO GIVE YOU CREDIT.

FLAGSTAFF YOU HAVE.

THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST COMPLICATED THINGS IN ANY ORDINANCE IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA.

[00:10:03]

AGAIN, PINE CANYON, 660-ACRE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY HAS A GOLF COURSE, A PUBLIC OR, SORRY, A PRIVATE CLUBHOUSE AND RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES.

THIS IS AN OVERALL, OUR VIEW OF THE ENTIRE PINE CANYON, BUT SPECIFICALLY GHOST TREE AT PINE CANYON IS OUTLINED HERE IN BLUE.

SO, AGAIN, OUR ZONING IS OUR ONE RPO MINIMUM DENSITY OF 12 UNITS.

AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE STORY BECAUSE IN TERMS OF TRYING TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM, WE LOOKED AT MANY DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS, INCLUDING REDUCING THE DENSITY TO BE ABLE TO SAVE THE RESOURCES.

AND WE COULDN'T DO THAT.

SO, THIS IS A ZONING CATEGORY AGAIN UNIQUE TO FLAGSTAFF.

YOU GUYS HAVE YOUR MINIMUM DENSITIES AS WELL AS YOUR MAXIMUMS. SO AGAIN, YOU'VE GOT THE THREE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF RESOURCE PROTECTION.

THE 50% OF FOREST, 70% OF THE, LET'S CALL THEM MEDIUM SIZED SLOPES, AND THEN THE 80% OF THE HIGHER SLOPES.

AND THIS IF YOU I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU DID A SITE VISIT.

A THIRD OF THIS PROPERTY IS UNDEVELOPABLE JUST BECAUSE OF THE SLOPES.

SO UNIQUE AND VERY COOL PROPERTY BUT HAS SOME DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES.

SO AGAIN, THE CITY MAY APPROVE A REDUCTION IN RESOURCE PROTECTION IF WE IF WE MEET THE STANDARDS, AND ALSO IF IT'S TWO, IF THE AREAS WILL BE TOO SMALL TO BE REASONABLY USED.

AND THERE ARE OTHER DESIGN PROBLEMS THAT CAN'T BE RESOLVED THROUGH OTHER SITE LAYOUTS.

SO, WHAT DID WE DO? WE DID WE ACTUALLY WHEN WE DESIGNED THIS SITE AND WHEN THE FIRST PLAT WAS APPROVED, WE DID HAVE VERY SPECIFIC BUILDING ENVELOPES.

ALL OF THESE HOMES ARE CUSTOM DESIGNED FOR THESE 12 LOTS IN ORDER TO SAVE THE GREATEST NUMBER OF RESOURCES THE SITE-SPECIFIC ARCHITECTURE, AGAIN, TO ACCOMMODATE THIS, THE STEEP SLOPES.

SO HOW DID WHAT DID WE DO BEFORE WE CAME HERE TO YOU? WE ASKED FOR BUILDING MODIFICATIONS AND THAT WE COULDN'T GET.

WE ASKED FOR SOME ENGINEERING VARIANCES.

WE ACTUALLY WANTED NARROWER STREETS WITHOUT SIDEWALKS.

NOT ONLY DO WE THINK THAT FITS WITHIN THE ESTHETIC OF PINE CANYON, BUT THAT WAS DENIED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

SO, WE HAVE GREATER WIDTHS.

IF WE COULD HAVE NARROWED OUR STREET, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN OKAY.

AND WE ASKED FOR A VARIANCE FOR MINIMUM DENSITY, AND WE COULDN'T DO THAT.

SO, WE THINK WE GOT TO THE BEST SOLUTION POSSIBLE WITH THIS 1.5% VARIANCE.

SO, WESLEY SHOWED YOU THE ORIGINAL PLAT.

AGAIN, THE LOTS ARE THE SAME.

YOU KNOW, THE RIGHT OF WAY IS THE SAME.

WATER SEWER ACCESS IS THE SAME, USE IS THE SAME, SAME NUMBER OF LOTS.

WE'RE JUST MODIFYING THE BUILDING ENVELOPES.

AND WESLEY PULLED UP THE SAME ONE AGAIN.

AS YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE ON HERE, THE AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M SAYING IT RIGHT.

IT'S AGAIN IT'S HARD TO SEE THAT RED ARE THE OLD.

BUILDING ENVELOPES AND GREEN ARE THE NEW ONES.

AND AGAIN, MOSTLY IT HAS TO DO WITH THE FRONT-LOADED GARAGES.

THE SIDE LOADED GARAGES WERE JUST STEEPER.

AND SO WHEN WE COULD DO THE FRONT-LOADED GARAGES IT WAS SAFER FOR FUTURE RESIDENTS.

AND FRANKLY, WE'RE VERY HAPPY THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

WE COULD SAVE A TREE ON THE SITE, WHICH WAS GOOD.

SO AGAIN, YOUR POINT SYSTEM, WE NEED 50% ON TREES.

WE'RE AT 50.5.

FOR THE STEEP SLOPE MEDIUM, WE NEED 70%.

WE'RE AT 68.5.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE REQUESTING THE DEVIATION.

AS FAR AS STEEP SLOPE THE 25 TO 3480% IS REQUIRED AND WE HAVE 84%.

SO, I DO REALLY YOU KNOW, I HATE TO USE THE WORDS DE MINIMIS OR, YOU KNOW, IT IS A CHANGE.

I KNOW SLOPE AND TREES ARE VERY IMPORTANT, BUT IT IS A VERY MINOR MODIFICATION IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE 12 LOTS THAT WE NEED TO GET HERE.

SO IN CONCLUSION, THE PROPOSED PLAT DOES MEET THE MINIMUM DENSITY REQUIREMENTS AND ALL OTHER CODE REQUIREMENTS.

THE 1.5 REDUCTION IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN.

GOSH, I MEAN, IF I'VE EVER SEEN A UNIQUE SITE OR UNIQUE TOPOGRAPHY, IT'S THIS PARCEL HERE IN PINE CANYON.

WE WERE ABLE TO SAVE AN ADDITIONAL TREE AS A RESULT OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPES.

THE APPLICANT DID EXHAUST ALL REMEDIES AND DOES HAVE CUSTOM DESIGN TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON RESOURCES.

AND WE'RE HERE WITH A STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.

AS STATED, YOU KNOW, AT 5% OR LOWER CAN BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR.

HOWEVER, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR THOUGHT AS LONG AS WE'RE COMING THROUGH WITH THE PLAT, THAT THAT WE PUT IT HERE SO IT CAN ALL BE LUMPED TOGETHER.

SO, WITH THAT, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL OF NOT ONLY THE PLAT, BUT WITH THAT 1.5% REDUCTION.

AND BETWEEN WESLEY AND I AND I DIDN'T INTRODUCE CHLOE PLAISANCE IS HERE WITH ME WITH GAMAGE AND BURNHAM.

[00:15:04]

OKAY. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT? MARY. I DO REMEMBER THIS COMING THROUGH.

I HAD TO GO BACK IN MY NOTES, AND WE APPROVED THE FIRST 1ST MAY OF 2022 HERE.

SO, IT WAS OVER TWO YEARS AGO.

SO, I DO REMEMBER THIS.

AND BEING THAT I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

I DRIVE BY IT BECAUSE IT'S THE ACCESS IS OUTSIDE OF THE GATES OF PINE CANYON.

SO, I'VE BEEN WATCHING THE GRADING GO ON, THE STREETS ARE IN AND ALL THAT THAT HAS HAPPENED YOU KNOW, OVER THE LAST YEAR.

PLUS, I HAVE SOME PROCESS QUESTIONS FIRST ABOUT HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT.

SO DID THE FIRST PLAT NOT EVER GET RECORDED? IS THAT WHY IT'S NOW A SECOND PLAT, OR DID IT JUST NEEDED TO BE REVISED, OR WERE THE REVISIONS SO MUCH THAT IT ACTUALLY DID WARRANT RENAMING IT NUMBER TWO? THROUGH THE CHAIR. COMMISSIONER NORTON.

GREAT QUESTION.

FINAL PLAT WAS RECORDED OR WAS IN FINAL PLAT RECORDATION AND THERE WERE ERRORS WITH IT.

AND SO THERE WERE SOME ERRORS IN TERMS OF JUST SCRIVENER'S ERRORS.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT WAS RECORDED, BUT WHEN IT WAS SENT TO THE COUNTY GIS FOR THEIR MAPPING, THEY COULDN'T.

THERE WASN'T ENOUGH INFORMATION ON LIKE THE PARCEL LINES FOR THEM TO ACTUALLY MAP IT.

SO INITIALLY WE THOUGHT, WELL, WE COULD HANDLE THIS AS A SCRIVENER'S ERROR AND JUST HAVE THE ENGINEER PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON THESE PARCEL LINES. BUT IT.

IT BECAME.

THE COUNTY FELT A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE DOING THAT.

AND THEN THE APPLICANT REALLY WANTED TO ADJUST THE DRIVEWAYS AND THE BUILDING ENVELOPES, AND IT WAS LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT? IT'S CLEANER. RATHER THAN DO THESE TWO SEPARATE PROCESSES, ONE THAT THE COUNTY DIDN'T FEEL ALL THAT COMFORTABLE WITH, WE'LL JUST WE'LL START OVER. SO, WE'RE BACK.

YEAH. SO, COMMISSIONER, WE ARE STARTING FROM SCRATCH.

BUT THERE IS AN APPROVED PLAT, BUT THE COUNTY COULDN'T RECORD IT BECAUSE JUST SOME, SOME OMISSIONS FROM THE FROM THE ENGINEER.

NOT MALICIOUS, JUST WAS LACKING A FEW THINGS HERE AND THERE AND WHERE THE ISSUES WERE WITH REGARD TO THE DRIVEWAYS AND RELOCATING AND CHANGING THE BUILDING ENVELOPE, ARE THOSE SPECIFIC TO ONLY CERTAIN LOTS OR ALL 12? SO, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS, I WOULD SAY THEY ARE THERE R1, 2, 3.

LET'S SAY THERE ARE THREE LOTS THAT THE DRIVEWAY REALLY SHIFTED.

SO, IF YOU LOOK ON LOT FOUR ON A LOT ONE AND LOT 12, YOU KNOW, IF YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GREEN AND THE RED, THE DRIVEWAY DID COMPLETELY CHANGE BECAUSE WE WERE GOING THROUGH THIS EXERCISE.

WE MADE MINOR LITTLE TWEAKS.

WE FIGURED IF WE'RE OPENING IT UP ANYWAY, WE'LL SHIFT A LITTLE RIGHT, A LITTLE LEFT ON SOME OF THE OTHER LOTS, BUT IT'S PRIMARILY REQUIRED FOR THE NEW PLACEMENT OF THREE DRIVEWAYS OF 12.

SO, IS THAT WHERE THE 1.5% COMES FROM IS JUST ON THREE LOTS? THROUGH THE CHAIR, COMMISSIONER NORTON? MORE OR LESS. YES.

I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, AND I DID NOT MATH.

YOU KNOW, YOU SHOULDN'T ASK LAWYERS TO DO MATH, BUT MORE OR LESS, YES.

THE OTHER THE OTHER CHANGES ARE VERY, VERY SMALL.

WAS IT CONSIDERED THAT MAYBE ON THOSE THREE LOTS, A DIFFERENT FLOOR PLAN THAT REQUIRED A SMALLER BUILDING ENVELOPE BE DEVELOPED FOR THOSE TO MAKE IT FIT? I KNOW THERE'S ONLY TWO FLOOR PLANS AND THEY'RE LARGE HOMES.

THEY'RE LIKE 42 TO 50, 300FT².

WAS THERE ANY, WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, AN OPTION THAT WAS DISCUSSED DOWNSIZING THOSE COUPLE OF LOTS THAT IT JUST WAS STARTING TO INFRINGE ON THE NATURAL RESOURCES.

YET THROUGH THE CHAIR, COMMISSIONER NORTON, AGAIN, GOOD QUESTION.

IT HAS MORE TO DO WITH WHERE THE DRIVEWAY PLACEMENT WAS.

SO, THE BUILDING, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR THE HOMES DIDN'T MAKE THAT BIG OF A DIFFERENCE.

IT'S JUST THE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, LOT NUMBER FOUR LOT NUMBER ONE AND LOT NUMBER 12 WHERE WE HAD THOSE DRIVEWAYS GOING THAT NECESSITATED THE CHANGE.

SO, THEN WE THOUGHT WE'D CLEAN UP A COUPLE OTHER THINGS WHILE WE WERE AT IT.

WE PROBABLY COULD HAVE DONE AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE IF IT WAS JUST 1 OR 2.

BUT THEN AGAIN, THE CULMINATION OF THE SCRIVENER'S ERROR AND NEEDING TO CLEAN THINGS UP, THE THREE DRIVEWAYS, THAT WOULD REQUIRE A 1.5% REDUCTION THAT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR WOULD DO.

AND IF WE ADMINISTRATIVELY JUST CHANGED A COUPLE OF THE LOTS, IT WOULDN'T LEAVE US WITH A CLEAN PLAT.

SO. SO WE COULD HAVE DONE PROBABLY THREE DIFFERENT STEPS TO GET US WHERE WE WANTED TO GO.

[00:20:03]

BUT THIS IS STARTING FROM SCRATCH WITH THE PLAT PROCESS.

IT HAS EVERYTHING ALL IN ONE PLACE.

SO, WE TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY JUST TO CLEAN UP SOME OTHER BUILDING ENVELOPES BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE ON HERE, THEY'RE SO DARN SPECIFIC.

I DO REMEMBER THAT.

I REMEMBER WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, HOW VERY SPECIFIC THE FLOOR PLANS WERE DESIGNED TO THE EXACT BUILDING ENVELOPES.

I THINK THIS IS, AND THIS IS MORE OF A MAYBE A PROCESS QUESTION FOR STAFF.

SO, WHEN, YOU KNOW, LIKE WHEN THE REGIONAL PLAN SAYS, YOU KNOW, CONSERVE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY BY BUILDING TO GRADE RATHER THAN GRADING TO BUILD OR OUR ZONING CODE READS THAT THE STEEPEST SLOPE SHALL BE GIVEN THE HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR PROTECTION.

AND THERE'S NO MITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN THE CODE THAT TALK ABOUT SLOPE RESOURCES.

THERE'RE ALL KINDS OF MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR TREE RESOURCES, BUT NOTHING FOR SLOPE.

DOES THAT EVEN ALLOW SLOPE TO BE REVISED AND DOWNGRADED? LIKE WE'RE BEING ASKED? SO, THE CODE DOES TALK ABOUT THESE.

THERE'RE TWO DIFFERENT PROCESSES FOR REQUESTING MODIFICATIONS TO THE PERCENTAGES OF RESOURCES.

SO, ONE IS GOING THROUGH THE DIRECTOR AND THAT ALLOWS UP TO 5%.

THE OTHER IS GOING THROUGH THE COMMISSION AND THAT ALLOWS UP TO 10% MODIFICATION.

THERE ARE FINDINGS ASSOCIATED WITH IT THAT.

THAT. YOU USE YOUR JUDGMENT TO DECIDE IF IF IT'S BEING MET OR NOT.

IF YOU CAN ALLOW THAT.

I, I GUESS FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.

IT'S HARD WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT LIKE MITIGATING.

I USUALLY THINK OF MITIGATING KIND OF AFTER THE FACT.

THAT'S WHEN I GET CALLED OUT TO THE SCENE AND SOME BACKHOE HAS DONE SOMETHING UNSPEAKABLE, AND NOW WE NEED TO FIX IT.

RIGHT. AND IT IS CHALLENGING.

AND I HAVE ASKED MYSELF, YOU KNOW, HOW DO YOU MITIGATE SLOPE? YOU JUST PUT THE DIRT BACK IN THAT SLOPE, RIGHT? LIKE IT IS.

I GUESS I WOULD AGREE THAT IT'S AN AREA, THE CODE THAT'S MAYBE NOT AS CLEAR AS STAFF WOULD ALWAYS LIKE.

AND IDEALLY, WE DON'T WANT TO BE MITIGATING AS FAR AS LIKE POST CONSTRUCTION, WE WANT THINGS DONE CORRECTLY.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THEM PUT UP THE FENCING AND PROTECT THE SLOPES AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

I HAVE WORKED WITH CONTRACTORS AGAIN AFTER THE FACT TO SORT OF RESEED AREAS, PUT IT BACK SO IT BASICALLY LOOKS MORE OR LESS LIKE IT DID PRIOR TO WHATEVER HAPPENED.

THE CODE DOES TALK ABOUT MITIGATING RESOURCES, AND IT DOESN'T DESIGNATE TREES AT DIFFERENTLY FROM SLOPE.

BUT A LOT OF THE MITIGATION SUGGESTED ARE TIED TO TREES AND TIED TO LANDSCAPING.

I THINK YOU COULD STILL MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT.

YEAH. IF YOU IF YOU'RE.

IMPACTING SLOPE MORE THAN YOU SHOULD.

YOU COULD MITIGATE THAT WITH ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING WITH ADDITIONAL TREE PROTECTION.

THE OTHER THING I THINK WESLEY BROUGHT UP IN HIS REPORT WAS TALKING ABOUT, THEY'RE ACTUALLY PROTECTING MORE THAN THE MINIMUM FOR THE REALLY STEEP SLOPE, AND IT'S ONLY THIS SORT OF MEDIUM, STEEP SLOPE THAT'S BEING IMPACTED.

BUT THE CODE DOESN'T LET US CREDIT ONE WITH THE OTHER.

IT SEEMS TO ME KIND OF LOGICAL THAT THAT THE STEEPER SLOPE WOULD BE BETTER TO SAY THAN THE LESS STEEP, AND THAT MAY BE. MAYBE BY SAVING MORE OF IT.

THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING.

THAT WOULD HELP MITIGATE THE LOSS OF THAT KIND OF MEDIUM SLOPE.

NOW I'M JUST RAMBLING.

WELL, I APPRECIATE IT.

AND I JUST I THINK I'M ALSO ASKING, LIKE, HAS THERE BEEN OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE YOU'VE HAD THIS SORT OF TRADE OFF, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU ALLOW FOR LESSER SLOPE BECAUSE THERE'S YOU FOR WHATEVER REASONS, OR MORE TREES OR A DIFFERENT SECTION OF SLOPE WAS PRESERVED.

SO FAR IN MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH THE CITY, THIS IS THE FIRST REQUEST THAT HAS COME TO PLANNING AND ZONING ASKING FOR THIS

[00:25:08]

AND SO I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF WE START SEEING MORE OF THIS MOVING FORWARD.

AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S WE'RE ONLY TALKING 1.5%, BUT YET IT STARTS TO SET UP POSSIBLY A PRECEDENCE.

OR, YOU KNOW, IT'S CHALLENGING HOW THE CODE IS WRITTEN ABOUT HOW TO HANDLE THIS.

AND THAT'S WHERE I'M, YOU KNOW, HAD SO MANY PROCESS QUESTIONS.

YES. WE HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE.

SO, YOU GOT TO DRAW THE LINE AND THEN ANYTHING OVER, YOU KNOW, .25 PERCENT, YOU KNOW, TECHNICALLY, WOULD WE TAKE THAT TO YOU? SO YEAH, IT'S.

SURE, IF I COULD JUST ALEX AND I WERE ON THE SAME PAGE.

I WAS. COMMISSIONER NORTON.

WHAT I WAS GOING TO ADD IS WE ARE 84% ON THE STEEPER SLOPE.

AND SO, I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE CONSIDERATION IS THAT WE WERE WE WERE TRYING WE THE PLAN WAS TO DIG INTO THAT STEEP SLOPE IN ORDER TO MEET ALL OF OUR ALL OF THE THREE DIFFERENT CRITERIA.

AND SO, BY HAVING A 1.5 REDUCTION IN THE MEDIUM SLOPE, WE HAVE AN EXTRA 4% PROTECTION IN THE IN THE STEEPER SLOPE.

SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK IN TERMS OF YOUR DECISION, HOPEFULLY THAT WOULD ACCOUNT FOR IT THAT WE'RE SAVING IN OTHER PLACES.

AND I KNOW YOU KIND OF GET TO DOUBLE DIP WITH REGARD BECAUSE THAT WAS FOR SOME TREES TO MAKE UP SOME TREE DIFFERENCES.

SO THAT'S YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT THAT, THAT YES, IT'S THERE, BUT IT ALSO COUNTED FOR SOMETHING ELSE THAT GOT LESSER THAN THE STANDARD. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? FOR THE STAFF OR THE PRESENTER? YEAH, PROBABLY MORE FOR STAFF.

THE OVERALL PINE CANYON PLAT WHEN IT WAS PLAT.

I ASSUME THIS WAS A BLOCK CARVED OUT OF IT, SO IT WAS A BLOCK PLAT.

WERE THERE ANY ASSUMPTIONS ON RESOURCES RELATED TO THAT? LIKE WERE RESOURCES MET FOR PINE CANYON AS A WHOLE? IS THERE A TRACT THAT ESSENTIALLY BANKS RESOURCES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR THIS SITE, OR WAS EVERY BLOCK INTENDED TO MEET THE RESOURCES BY ITSELF? I BELIEVE THAT EACH DEVELOPED BLOCK WOULD MEET THE RESOURCES ON THEIR OWN.

MOST OF THE PARCELS IN PINE CANYON USE BUILDING ENVELOPES.

AND SO, THE IDEA BEING THAT YOU CAN ONLY BUILD IN A LIMITED AREA AND WHAT'S LEFT OUTSIDE OF IT IS COUNTED TOWARDS YOUR RESOURCES. SO, THERE'S NOT THERE'S NOT BANKING.

WITHIN PINE CANYON THAT I'M AWARE OF.

I HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET AND IT WAS 2000, I THINK, WHEN IT ORIGINALLY.

IT'S BEEN A WHILE, AND I DON'T NO ONE'S BEEN USING A BANK.

I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY BANK.

YEAH. YEAH.

OKAY. THANKS.

AND ANOTHER ONE A LITTLE LESS ON THE RESOURCES.

SO, IT WAS TWO, TWO UNITS AN ACRE MINIMUM.

YES, BUT IT'S AN EIGHT-ACRE SITE.

YES. SO, THERE IS SO THERE'S A TRACT E ON THIS PLAT.

AND YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO SEE THIS PROBABLY IN LIKE ANOTHER COUPLE OF MONTHS THAT HAS THREE MORE UNITS.

SO, IT'S ACTUALLY 15 ON THE OVERALL PLOT.

ONCE YOU GET THOSE THREE MORE UNITS ON TRACK D AND THEN THAT'S GOING TO GET YOU, IT GETS YOU TO A LITTLE UNDER TWO AND THEN WE ROUND UP.

OKAY, THANKS. THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION.

I WAS CONFUSED WITH WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH TRACT E.

IT HAD SOME OF THE FLATTEST LAND AND IT WAS NOT SHOWING NOTHING.

OKAY. SO, I'M GOING TO VOTE TO APPROVE THIS.

BUT I AM GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT BECAUSE I THINK PHILOSOPHICALLY, WHEN I LOOK AT THE WEBSITE FOR PINE CANYON, IT SAYS EXPLORE OUR RETREATS FROM A CUSTOM HOME TO AN ELEGANT CABIN TO A LOCK AND LEAVE CONDOMINIUM AND START COUNTING DOWN TO COOL SUMMER AFTERNOONS.

WHICH TO ME MEANS THAT POTENTIALLY WE'RE MARKETING FOR A SECOND HOME.

AND SO PHILOSOPHICALLY, I THINK AS WE GO FORWARD WITH THE STRATEGIC PLANS THAT OBVIOUSLY THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, THIS HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN A WAY THAT FLAGSTAFF HAS BEEN VIEWED AS A SECOND HOME COMMUNITY.

BUT I HOPE THAT CHANGES.

[00:30:02]

I DON'T THINK MOST PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE COULD AFFORD TO LIVE IN PINE CANYONS.

SO YES, I THINK THEY ARE MARKETED AS, YOU KNOW, SECOND HOMES.

THERE ARE A FEW INDIVIDUALS THAT I'M AWARE OF BECAUSE I KNOW THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF KNOW LIVED OUT THERE AND SOME OTHER PEOPLE.

THE GUY WHO OWNS THE BOWLING ALLEY LIVES OUT THERE.

BUT OTHER THAN A FEW PEOPLE IN FLAGSTAFF, I THINK THEY'RE PROBABLY MOSTLY SECOND HOMES.

ALTHOUGH I DID WANDER INTO SOMEBODY'S HOME ONE DAY AND SHE LET ME RIGHT IN THE DOOR AND.

SHE DIDN'T KNOW WHO AND I WAS AT THE WRONG HOUSE.

AND ANYHOW, I THINK SHE WAS A FULL-TIME HOMEOWNER AS WELL.

BUT THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMENT.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

SO YEAH.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY.

YES. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF ON WHY THEY COULDN'T GET A VARIANCE FOR THE REDUCTION IN THE MINIMUM DENSITY.

THAT'S A GOOD TIP.

DO YOU REMEMBER? YEAH. YEAH, SURE.

THROUGH THE CHAIR, COMMISSIONER WELLER.

SO, YOU ACTUALLY CAN'T GET A VARIANCE ON DENSITY? WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO REZONE IT.

AND THAT WASN'T GOING TO BE SUPPORTED IN TERMS OF, AGAIN.

RIGHT. WE NEED A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPES.

AND I'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF YOU FOR, YOU KNOW, HABITAT BY THE WAY, WE'VE GOT A GROUNDBREAKING FOR THE THREE ACRES OF TINY HOMES IN IN TIMBER SKY WHICH IS COMING UP, [INAUDIBLE], WHICH IS THE 221 ACRE, YOU KNOW, 60% AMI OR LESS, WITH SOME BEAUTIFUL HOMES IN THE BALANCE OF TIMBER SKY.

RIGHT. YOU NEED ALL TYPES OF HOUSING UNITS.

WE DID NOT.

STAFF DIDN'T WANT TO SUPPORT.

AND, I MEAN, WE CAN COME FORWARD WITH WHATEVER APPLICATION WE WANT, BUT WE DIDN'T.

WE COULDN'T DO AN ADMINISTRATIVE OR ANY TYPE OF VARIANCE FOR THE DENSITY, THE VARIANCES THAT WE DID ASK FOR IN TERMS OF STREET WIDTH AND STREET AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS.

WE THOSE WERE DENIED BECAUSE OF FIRE AND HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES.

SO, ALL THOSE WERE MEANT TO SAY IS, COMMISSIONER, WE HAVE EXHAUSTED.

I MEAN, AS YOU CAN SAY, IF YOU'VE SEEN IT, WE ARE GRADING STREETS.

WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO PUTTING IN HOMES AND WE'VE EXHAUSTED ANY OPTION TO GET THERE.

I THINK IN WORKING WITH STAFF AND ALL THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, THIS WAS KIND OF THE THE LEAST.

THIS WAS THE BEST PATH TO ACHIEVE THE MINIMUM DENSITY, COUPLED WITH THE SLOPE AND THE RESOURCES THAT ARE OUT THERE.

HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION IF I CAN ADD A LITTLE COMMENTARY.

I THINK ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT WHEN PINE CANYON FIRST CAME IN FOR THE REASON WAY, WAY BACK WHEN.

THAT EVEN BACK THEN IT WAS A STRUGGLE TO MEET THAT MINIMUM DENSITY AND PINE CANYON.

THERE WERE CERTAIN AGREEMENTS MADE AT THE TIME FOR PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET NEAR PINNACLE PINES THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED MUCH DENSER.

THERE WAS PROPERTY THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE CITY TO DEVELOP WELL, EVENTUALLY ENDED UP WITH THE CITY, BUT TO DO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

SO, I THINK WHEN WE LOOK AT PINE CANYON, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A MORE HOLISTIC VIEW THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO HIT DENSITY ON EVERY, EVERY BLOCK, EVERY SUBDIVISION.

BUT THE GOAL WAS TO TRY AND GET THAT MINIMUM DENSITY OVER THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT.

I ALSO THINK IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT I THINK IT WAS THE LAST TIME WHEN MICHELLE CAME AND TALKED ABOUT THE LAND AVAILABILITY AND SUITABILITY STUDY AND THE CODE ANALYSIS THAT'S BEING DONE.

ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING THINGS TO ME PERSONALLY WAS THAT WHEN THEY DID THAT CODE ANALYSIS, THEY WERE SAYING THAT BASED ON OUR STANDARDS, THAT IT'S ACTUALLY MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO HIT MINIMUM DENSITY IN SOME OF THESE LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONES.

SO, SO JUST LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, R1 WITH THAT MINIMUM TWO UNITS AN ACRE, WHEN YOU GET INTO HOW BIG THE LOTS, HOW BIG THE PARCELS HAVE TO BE, HOW BIG THE ROAD HAS TO BE, YOU'RE SUDDENLY REACHING A POINT WHERE THERE'S NO WAY TO ACHIEVE IT. SO HOPEFULLY MOVING FORWARD, WE HAVE SUPPORT TO CHANGE SOME OF THOSE STANDARDS TO GET US MORE DENSITY. SO THAT EVERYTHING IS MORE IN SYNC, THAT WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW.

TRYING TO DO ONE THING WITH ONE HAND AND DOING THE EXACT OPPOSITE WITH THE OTHER, AND THE CODE.

SO. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, TOPICS OR QUESTIONS.

[00:35:03]

I WOULD LET ME DO A MOTION.

YEAH. OKAY. LET'S SEE.

WE ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS IN THIS REPORT, THAT WILL FORWARD THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, GIVEN THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.

A REDUCTION OF 1.5% FROM THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT OF 70% FOR THE 17 TO 24.99 SLOPE RESOURCES BASED ON THE REQUEST PROVIDED.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, BUT JUST I JUST KIND OF WANT TO MAKE A NOTE THAT I, I THINK THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT SUBJECT, AND I, YOU KNOW, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRECEDENCE THAT IT MAY START.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE PROBABLY YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY APPROVE THIS.

I JUST WANT DON'T WANT IT TO GO NOT NOTICE THAT THIS WAS A BIGGER DECISION THAN MAYBE IT LOOKED LIKE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ONLY 1.5%.

SO JUST A STATEMENT DULY NOTED.

AND THAT MAY CHANGE GOING FORWARD IN THE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S PLANS FOR THIS TO CHANGE IN THE FUTURE.

BUT I DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, TO BE DETERMINED.

WE'RE STILL IN THAT EARLY INFORMATION COLLECTING, AND THEN WE'LL BE TAKING DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL AND ANY FUTURE CODE CHANGES.

SO, IT'LL BE A PROCESS AND YOU'LL ALL BE INVOLVED.

SO YEAH.

AND IT AND IT SOUNDED LIKE THAT WHEN YOU WERE SAYING THAT SOMETIMES IT'S MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DO THINGS AND WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT PINE CANYON, BUT WITH SOME OTHER AREAS OF TOWN, AND WE TRY TO KEEP THE COSTS OF THE BUILDING DOWN SO THAT WE COULD HAVE SOME AFFORDABLE OR REASONABLE HOUSING OPTIONS.

THERE MAY NEED TO BE CHANGES TO THE, YOU KNOW, TO THE PLAN.

SO, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR ON THE MOTION SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OH, BOB, DID YOU SAY I.

YES, I DID OKAY.

THANK YOU. ANY OPPOSED HEARING? NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU, WESLEY.

AND THANK YOU, LINDSAY, FOR YOUR PRESENTATIONS.

THANK YOU. AND NOW WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE REGIONAL PLAN.

[B. Regional Plan Preferred Scenario and Growth Concept Outreach STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion only]

OUTREACH. AND THANKS.

HELLO, EVERYONE.

I HAVE THIS PULLED UP. SO, I'M GOING TO PROVIDE TODAY.

MY NAME IS SARAH DECTER. I'M THE COMPREHENSIVE AND NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING MANAGER FOR THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

TODAY I'M GOING TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A RATHER LONG, I'LL BE VERY HONEST PRESENTATION ON WHERE WE ARE WITH THE PREFERRED SCENARIO AND GROWTH CONCEPT WITH THE REGIONAL PLAN PROCESS.

THESE ARE THE TWO PRELIMINARY STEPS TO CREATING A NEW FUTURE GROWTH ILLUSTRATION.

SO, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE WORK IS THAT HAS GONE INTO THIS, AND WHAT KIND OF CHANGES TO THE CURRENT FUTURE GROWTH ILLUSTRATION ARE BEING PROPOSED, AND RIGHT NOW ARE ACTUALLY OUT FOR AN ONLINE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND IN PERSON ENGAGEMENT ON THURSDAY AND SATURDAY OF THIS WEEK.

SO, THIS PRESENTATION, I WILL TRY AND DO IT A LITTLE FASTER.

OUR CONSULTANT ALEX STEINBERGER FROM CASCADIA PARTNERS DID A FULL TWO-HOUR PRESENTATION ON THIS FOR THE REGIONAL PLAN COMMITTEE.

I'M GOING TO ABBREVIATE THAT QUITE A BIT, BUT IT WILL STILL BE KIND OF LONG.

BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO GO INTO ALL THE DETAILS THAT ALEX, WHO'S ALSO THE MODELER HE AND RACHEL COTTON ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY DID THE MODELING BEHIND A LOT OF THIS WORK.

THEN I SUGGEST YOU FIND THAT VIDEO ON THE CITY'S YOUTUBE PAGE, AND YOU CAN GET THE FULL TWO HOURS.

SO, WE'RE FIRST GOING TO TALK ABOUT JUST THE PROCESS OVERVIEW.

AND I KNOW WE WENT OVER THIS A LITTLE BIT IN MARCH, BUT I'LL GIVE YOU A REFRESHER ON IT.

THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT THAT'S BEEN PROGRESSIVELY MORE DETAILED AND COMPLEX AROUND SCENARIO PLANNING.

AND PARTICULARLY WE HAVE DONE BROAD OPEN-ENDED THINGS LIKE THE VISIONING WORKSHOPS, MORE DETAILED PIECES LIKE THE FACE THE FUTURE WORKSHOPS,

[00:40:07]

WE DID FOLLOW UP SURVEYS ON HOW TO RANK AND PRIORITIZE GROWTH PRINCIPLES.

AND THEN WE DID A STEP CALLED SCENARIO CHOOSING WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY GOT TO PICK THE SCENARIO, THEY FELT THAT THEY BEST MATCHED WITH, AND THEN ALSO GOT TO CONSIDER IF THAT WAS ACTUALLY THE SCENARIO OR THE FUTURE THAT THEY WANTED FOR THE COMMUNITY.

AND OVER TIME, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE BEEN PROGRESSIVELY ADDING PARTICIPANTS TO THESE PROCESSES.

YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN SOMETIMES WHEN PEOPLE LOOK AT THAT 550, THEY THINK 550 OUT OF 70,000 ISN'T A LOT.

BUT WHEN I SHOW THAT TO THE COMMUNICATIONS STAFF AT THE CITY AND COUNTY, THEY THINK FOR SOMETHING AS INCREDIBLY WONKY AS FUTURE GROWTH AND THE REGIONAL PLAN, THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD TURNOUT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE LEVEL OF DETAIL WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO GET FROM THOSE THINGS.

SO, IT'S A PRETTY BROAD CROSS-SECTION.

IT DEFINITELY WOULD BE STATISTICALLY VALID IF WE WERE TRYING TO KIND OF RUN ACROSS THOSE METRICS WITH THIS PROCESS, BUT IT'S BEEN MORE OPEN ENDED THAN THAT.

SO, WE ALSO HAVE GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND IN MOVING INTO HAVING COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS THAT REALLY TARGETED HARD TO REACH POPULATIONS.

AND WE IDENTIFIED THESE BY CREATING A WHOLE STAKEHOLDER NETWORK AND THEN TALKING ABOUT WHO IS GOING TO COME TO THIS PROCESS, EVEN IF WE IF THEY JUST GET A POSTCARD, THEY WILL SHOW UP VERSUS WHO WILL GET THIS POSTCARD.

AND NEVER THINK THIS IS A TABLE OR A PLACE THEY BELONG IN TERMS OF PARTICIPATION.

AND THAT'S HOW THESE GROUPS WERE SELECTED.

AND THIS EFFORT OF HAVING WHAT WE CALL CBOS OR COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS BE AMBASSADORS AND PROCESS LEADS IN THE REGIONAL PLAN WAS HELPFUL IN BOTH BROADENING THE GENERATIONAL REACH OF THE REGIONAL PLAN PROCESS AND ALSO THE REACH INTO DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS AND COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE LOWER PARTICIPATION IN THE LAST FEW PLANNING EFFORTS, PARTICULARLY THE SUNNYSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH HAD VERY LOW PARTICIPATION IN THE LAST FEW PLANNING EFFORTS THAT THE CITY HAS HAD.

SO, OVER THE FACE OF THE FUTURE WORKSHOPS, IF YOU'LL RECALL, THESE ARE THE ONES WHERE PEOPLE CAME.

THEY WERE KIND OF PUT IN THE SCENARIO PLANNING SEAT WHERE THEY GOT A HIGH, MEDIUM AND LOW ON DIFFERENT CRITERIA, AND THAT SET UP THE NUMBER OF RESOURCES AND ASSETS THEY WERE ABLE TO LAY OUT ON THE MAP.

AND WE SAID, WHAT IF WE GET THIS FUTURE? HOW WOULD YOU MAKE THE DECISIONS ABOUT FLAGSTAFF FUTURE GROWTH? AND FROM THAT, WE CREATED A SET OF GROWTH IDEAS AND PRINCIPLES THAT WERE THEN FURTHER TESTED USING ONLINE PARTICIPATION.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE SURPRISED TO SEE THAT THE TOP GROWTH PRINCIPLES ARE THAT PEOPLE WANT TRAFFIC CONGESTION MITIGATED, MINIMIZING WATER USE, AND HAVING WATER CONSERVATION, PROTECTION OF OUR HIGHLY HIGH ECOLOGICAL VALUE AREAS, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND LIMITING THE EXPANSION OF THE WUI.

WE ALSO HAD A SET OF GROWTH IDEAS THAT WE THEN TESTED AS WELL AND EVENTUALLY INCORPORATED INTO OUR FOUR SCENARIOS.

SO THE FOUR SCENARIOS WERE THE BUSINESS AS USUAL SCENARIO, WHICH IS WE ACTUALLY CREATED BEFORE A LOT OF THIS OUTREACH.

IT WAS BASICALLY PLAYING OUT.

WHAT HAPPENS IF WE NEVER DO ANOTHER REZONING AND WE DON'T CHANGE OUR ZONING ENTITLEMENTS, AND WE JUST KEEP BUILDING IN THE SAME PATTERN WE HAVE BEEN BUILDING IN FOR THE LAST 10 TO 20 YEARS. AND THEN WE BUILT ON TOP OF THAT.

THAT'S BASICALLY OUR BASIS FOR COMPARISON OR OUR NO ACTION SCENARIO.

THE OTHER THREE SCENARIOS WERE BUILT FROM THOSE FACE THE FUTURE WORKSHOP FEEDBACK.

AND THEN WE ARE NOW AT THE PHASE WHERE THE COMMITTEE HAS LOOKED AT AND REVIEWED A PREFERRED SCENARIO AND ENDORSED IT.

IF YOU DON'T. IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SCENARIO, CHOOSING OPEN HOUSE, WHICH WAS BOTH ONLINE AND IN PERSON, WE HAD A WHOLE HOST OF MATERIALS THAT PEOPLE GOT TO REVIEW ABOUT THOSE FOUR SCENARIOS.

AND THERE WAS SOME PRETTY INTERESTING THINGS.

THE OUTREACH WAS BROKEN INTO THREE PARTS.

BASICALLY, THE FIRST PART WAS KIND OF A VALUE SURVEY WHERE WE TOOK THE VALUES AND TRADE OFFS YOU RESPONDED TO, AND WE MATCHED YOU TO A SCENARIO AND SAID THIS WOULD BE THE SCENARIO THAT BEST MATCHES YOUR INITIAL FEELINGS OR ATTITUDES OR BELIEFS ABOUT THE COMMUNITY.

THEN WE SHOWED THE PARTICIPANTS INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE OUTCOMES OF PROCEEDING IN THAT DIRECTION CAUSE IN THE COMMUNITY.

AND THEN WE GAVE THEM A CHANCE TO SAY, GIVEN THIS NEW INFORMATION, WOULD YOU PICK A DIFFERENT SCENARIO THAN YOU INITIALLY MATCHED WITH? AND SO WHEN WE ASKED PEOPLE WHAT THEIR PRIORITIES WERE, IT VERY MUCH ALIGNED WITH THOSE INITIAL GROWTH PRINCIPLES AFFORDABLE HOUSING, REDUCTION OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS, WALKING AND BIKING ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC MITIGATION.

SO THESE ARE A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC, BUT THEY FIT IN THAT ALIGNMENT.

WE ALSO ASKED THEM SOME MORE PLANNER Y QUESTIONS I LIKE TO THINK OF LIKE, DO YOU LIKE MIDDLE HOUSING? DO YOU LIKE DENSER HOUSING? LIKE, WE STARTED TO GET THIS IDEA OF WHAT WHAT SHOULD HOUSING LOOK LIKE IN THE COMMUNITY? AND PEOPLE LARGELY WANTED TO SEE MORE TOWNHOMES, DUPLEXES, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND COMPACT SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING.

[00:45:09]

AND THEN THEY WERE KIND OF SHOWN THEIR FIRST SCENARIO CHOOSING OUTPUT.

IT'S VERY INTERESTING TO SEE THAT THE FIRST CHOICE FOR MANY PEOPLE.

WAS THE, THE SCENARIO THAT WAS OFTEN BUSINESS AS USUAL.

BUT BY THE TIME WE GOT TO THE END OF THE PROCESS AND THEY LOOKED AT ALL THIS MATERIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD INFILL AND URBAN CENTERS AND CORRIDORS WERE THE FIRST AND SECOND CHOICE FOR MOST PARTICIPANTS, AND NEIGHBORHOOD INFILL WAS THE SECOND CHOICE FOR MOST PARTICIPANTS WHO DIDN'T CHOOSE IT AS THE FIRST ONE.

AND THAT KIND OF SET US IN THE DIRECTION OF BUILDING A PREFERRED SCENARIO.

SO THE PREFERRED SCENARIO INCORPORATED ALL OF THESE PIECES, THOSE GROWTH PRINCIPLES, SCENARIO PLANNING AND THE PRIORITY SURVEY AND INTEGRATED THEM INTO A PREFERRED SCENARIO.

WE ALSO TOOK A LOOK AT ALL OF THESE SINGLE ISSUE OR SMALLER AREA PLANS, DEPENDING ON WHAT THEIR TOPIC WAS, AND INCORPORATED AS MUCH OF THOSE AS WE COULD.

AND THEN WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE TEN YEAR HOUSING PLAN, PRODUCTION OF HOUSING, AND WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO ACHIEVE SOME OF THE DENSITIES AND UNIT REQUIREMENTS OF THE TEN YEAR HOUSING PLAN.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, WE REALLY START GETTING CLOSER TO WHAT THE TEN YEAR HOUSING PLAN HAS IN TERMS OF PROVIDING THE NUMBER OF UNITS BY INCREASING THESE HIGHER AND MID DENSITY HOUSING OPTIONS.

SO THIS IS JUST A COMPARISON.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PREFERRED SCENARIO, WHICH IS E OVER HERE, OFF TO THE RIGHT IS KIND OF A MIX OF SCENARIO C AND SCENARIO D.

AND IT ACTUALLY DOES INCLUDE ELEMENTS OF A AND B AS WELL.

IT'S IT IS A BLEND OF WHAT'S AVAILABLE, BUT IT LEANS MORE STRONGLY TOWARDS C AND D.

SO HERE IS SORT OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AT A NOT QUITE PARTIAL SCALE, BUT THESE HEXAGONS INDICATE A DENSITY OF HOUSING AND DENSITY OF EMPLOYMENT.

SO IF IT IS THE DARKEST BLUE COLOR, IT HAS A HIGH DENSITY OF POPULATION AND A HIGH EMPLOYMENT DENSITY, WHICH YOU CAN SEE IS LARGELY IN THIS PREFERRED SCENARIO DOWNTOWN, WHICH RIGHT NOW IS HIGH EMPLOYMENT AND LOWER POPULATION THAN MANY DOWNTOWNS.

WE'VE HAD SEVERAL STUDIES THAT HAVE SHOWN THAT WE ARE UNDER HOUSED IN OUR DOWNTOWN AREA, MILTON, WHICH HAS A LOT OF HOUSING AND COMMERCIAL, BUT NOT AS MUCH EMPLOYMENT, HAS SOME EMPLOYMENT THAT'S BEING ADDED WITHIN THIS AREA AND FOURTH STREET AS WELL.

SO THESE ARE THE KINDS OF CHANGES.

NOW YOU'LL SEE THESE LIGHTER YELLOW COLORS MEANS THERE IS NEW POPULATION ADDED BUT IT'S AT A LOWER DENSITY.

SO THIS IS ROUGHLY WHAT IT IT PROVIDES IN TERMS OF THE PREFERRED SCENARIOS DISTRIBUTION OF NEW UNITS AND NEW AND NEW A NEW JOBS AS WELL. WHAT'S OVERLAID ON HERE IS THE TRANSIT MAP.

SO THE THE CONSULTANT DID TRY AND PUT AS MUCH OF THE DENSITY AS THEY COULD ALONG OUR EXISTING TRANSIT LINES IN ORDER TO RESPOND TO THE NEED TO SEE LOWER TRAFFIC CONGESTION. ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO DO THAT IS TO LOWER THE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED PEOPLE NEED, AND TO GET THEM CLOSE JOBS WITH MORE MOBILITY CHOICES.

WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE AREAS OF THE COUNTY AND THEIR THEIR PLANNING EFFORTS.

BELMONT HAS HAD A RECENT UPDATE TO THEIR AREA PLAN, AND WE LARGELY USE THEIR AREA PLAN TO UPDATE THE PREFERRED SCENARIO IN THIS PART OF THE COMMUNITY.

AND WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE WATER SERVICES MASTER PLAN.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE KNOW IS THAT IF WITH IT IS VERY LIKELY, GIVEN OUR POPULATION GROWTH, THAT WE WILL NEED TO BRING ONLINE A NEW WATER SOURCE, WHETHER THAT IS ADVANCED RECLAMATION OR ADVANCED WATER TREATMENT, AS THEY'RE CALLING IT NOW, WHICH WAS NOT A POSSIBILITY TEN YEARS AGO.

OR IT'S BRINGING ON A NEW SOURCE LIKE RED GAP RANCH.

WE HAVE A MUCH MORE CONSERVATIVE POPULATION GROWTH ASSESSMENT WITH OUR WATER SERVICES DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE PREPARED IN CASE OUR GROWTH EXCEEDS OUR PROJECTIONS. AND WE LOOKED AT HOW THE SCENARIOS PERFORMED AGAINST THE GOALS OF THAT MASTER PLAN.

AND WHAT YOU CAN SEE IS THAT THE REGIONAL WATER DEMAND, EVEN WITH GROWING POPULATION, CAN VARY BASED ON THE KIND OF DEVELOPMENT WE BUILD IN THE COMMUNITY.

SO WE SHOW THAT OPTION C, D AND THE PREFERRED SCENARIO ALL HAVE THE ALL HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF REDUCING BOTH PER CAPITA WATER DEMAND AND TOTAL WATER DEMAND OVER A BUSINESS AS USUAL SCENARIO.

SO LAND USE AND WATER CONSUMPTION CAN BE VERY TIGHTLY TIED AND CAN HELP US ACHIEVE A HIGHER CONSERVATION GOAL THAN SIMPLY HAVING SOME OF THE MORE PROGRAMMATIC METHODS THAT ARE IN OUR CURRENT WATER CONSERVATION PLAN.

FOR CARBON NEUTRALITY.

AND THIS IS ONE THAT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, I CAN PAUSE HERE.

[00:50:04]

COCONINO COUNTY HAS A CLIMATE ACTION PROG PROGRAMS, BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE A UNIFIED GOAL TO ACHIEVE CARBON NEUTRALITY.

AND SO IN WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THEM, WE CURRENTLY ARE MODELING NOT JUST THE FOOTPRINT OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, BUT THE REGION MORE WIDELY.

WE ARE WORKING TO FIGURE OUT WAYS THAT THE PREFERRED SCENARIO CAN, OR WHATEVER SCENARIO IS CHOSEN CAN HELP US MOVE TOWARDS OUR CARBON NEUTRALITY GOALS ACROSS THE REGION NONETHELESS.

SO ONE OF THE KEY THINGS WE DID IN THIS MODELING WAS WE KIND OF DID SOME ADDITIONAL TESTING WITH CARBON NEUTRALITY.

WE COMPARED THAT THE PREFERRED SCENARIO AND THE EXISTING SCENARIO.

IF WE JUST USE THE STANDARD MODEL ASSUMPTIONS, THEN WE SEE THAT GROWTH INCREASES OUR CARBON FOOTPRINT.

WE THEN ADDED ON SOME ADDITIONAL MEASURES BASED ON APS'S GOALS FOR THE GRID OF BEING CARBON NEUTRAL BY 2050 AND THE WAY WHICH THEY SEE THEY WOULD, THEY ARE CHOOSING TO PROGRESS WITH THAT, AS WELL AS INCREASED BUILDING EFFICIENCY MEASURES AND VEHICLE ELECTRIFICATION PROJECTIONS FOR BOTH THE FOR THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY AND FOR THE STATE.

AND SO WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT THE WE'RE JUST NOT GROWING FAST ENOUGH IN SOME WAYS TO TURN OVER THE BUILDING EFFICIENCY MEASURES BY THEMSELVES.

SO A LOT OF THE ENERGY CHAPTER AND WHAT'S REQUIRED IN THE ENERGY CHAPTER OF THE PLAN SAYS YOU SHOULD TALK ABOUT HOW TO MAKE BUILDINGS MORE EFFICIENT, WHICH IS GREAT, BUT YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY BE BUILDING NEW BUILDINGS AND RETROFITTING BUILDINGS FAST ENOUGH TO APPLY THOSE.

IT'S NOT LIKE WE ADOPT A BUILDING CODE AND SUDDENLY EVERYONE HAS TO BRING THEIR BUILDINGS UP TO CODE.

THEY BRING THEIR BUILDINGS UP TO CODE WHEN THEY'RE CHANGING THEIR USE, WHEN THEY'RE APPLYING FOR NEW PERMITS, WHEN THEY'RE DEMOING AND DOING NEW CONSTRUCTION.

AND EVEN WITH A WITH OUR HIGHEST RATE OF CHANGE, WE JUST DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT WE WOULD BE TURNING OVER BUILDINGS FAST ENOUGH BY 2045 FOR BUILDING EFFICIENCY MEASURES ALONE TO BE A VERY SUFFICIENT WAY TO MEET CARBON NEUTRALITY.

BUT THE THE VEHICLE ELECTRIFICATION AND THE LOW CARBON GRID FUTURE THAT APS IS PREDICTING DO REALLY START TO MOVE US IN THIS DIRECTION.

AND SO LAND USE IS NOT REALLY SUFFICIENT, AND THE BUILDING TURNOVER IS NOT REALLY SUFFICIENT TO GET US TO CARBON NEUTRALITY WITHOUT BIG INCENTIVES MOVING, INCENTIVIZING PEOPLE, TURNING OVER BUILDINGS IN A FASTER RATE, WHICH OF COURSE MAKES A LOT OF WORK FOR PLANNERS AND BUILDING OFFICIALS TO DO IN THE COMMUNITY.

AND GETTING THROUGH A LOT OF THE CHARGING STATION NEEDS AND ADDING THOSE FEATURES TO THE COMMUNITY THAT CAN HELP ACCELERATE SOME OF THESE OTHER THINGS.

BUT THE NATIONAL AND STATE TRENDS ARE VERY IMPORTANT, AND WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO PROGRESS IF WE ARE GOING TO ACHIEVE CARBON NEUTRALITY.

AND THAT'S KIND OF ONE OF THE FINDINGS IS LAND USE.

WHEN YOU READ LIKE THE UN REPORTS ON CARBON NEUTRALITY, IT WILL TELL YOU LAND USE IS LIKE ONE OF THE TOP ISSUES, BUT IT'S ALSO ONE OF THE SLOWEST TO CHANGE.

AND SO THIS WAS JUST A WAY OF US TESTING, LIKE WHERE SHOULD WE REALLY BE FOCUSING? AND REALLY WHAT THIS SHOWS US IS THAT BUILDING EFFICIENCY MEASURES ARE GREAT.

WE WILL NEED THEM TRANSPORTATION AND GETTING THE AND SUPPORTING THE THINGS THAT HELP US ELECTRIFY VEHICLES WILL ACTUALLY PROBABLY BE A BIGGER IMPACT AND HELP ACCELERATE THE PROCESS.

SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE.

BUT WHAT WE'RE SHOWING IS THAT WE ACTUALLY WENT THROUGH BOTH THE CITY AND COUNTY ZONING CODE, AND OUR BUILD OUT ANALYSIS WAS CALIBRATED TO OUR ZONING AND TO WHAT IS ACTUALLY IN OUR EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS.

SO WE DID LOOK AT THAT AND TRY TO MAXIMIZE WHAT COULD BE DONE IN EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS ACROSS THE MODEL.

WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE AND STAFF HAD A LITTLE VIRTUAL EXERCISE WE DID WHERE WE LOOKED NOT ONLY AT LIKE THE DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE THAT YOU CAN FIND ON THE CITY WEBSITE, BUT WE SAID, WHAT OF THESE PLANS IS VERY FIRM AND THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, AND WE SHOULDN'T ASSUME ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED, WHICH ONES ARE EARLY ENOUGH IN THE PROCESS THAT THINGS COULD CHANGE, OR WE KNOW THERE'S SOMEONE INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING THEM, BUT THEY HAVEN'T BROUGHT FORWARD A PROPOSAL AND WHICH ONES ARE NOT LIKELY TO CHANGE OR VERY LIKELY TO STAY THE SAME.

SO WE HAD THE NO GO ZONE.

THERE'S VERY UNLIKELY TO BE ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT OR DIFFERENT ONES.

RESPECT THE PIPELINE THEY'RE LIKELY TO DEVELOP IN A SPECIFIC WAY OR GREEN.

IT'S TOTALLY ON THE TABLE.

AND WE WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT MIGHT BE PROPOSED THERE.

SO WE CAN USE OUR PLANNER IMAGINATIONS.

SO THAT'S KIND OF HOW WE BUILT THIS SCENARIO NOW IN TESTING THE BUSINESS AS USUAL SCENARIO.

AND THIS IS KIND OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IN THAT SAME PERSONALIZED WAY WE.

[00:55:05]

BUILDING SCENARIO.

BE REALLY FOCUSED ON GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT AND GETTING THE EDGES FILLED OUT A LITTLE MORE DENSELY.

SEE WAS FOCUSED ON BRINGING THINGS ALONG OUR MAJOR ARTERIALS AND URBAN CORRIDORS.

ANDY WAS INCLUDED THE CORRIDORS, BUT ALSO PROVIDED FOR MORE NEIGHBORHOOD INFILL IN QUITE A FEW LOCATIONS.

SO THIS IS KIND OF JUST THE YOU CAN SEE THE LITTLE DOT DIFFERENCES OF HOW WE KIND OF APPROACH THE SCENARIOS.

NOW THE PREFERRED SCENARIO, AS YOU CAN SEE, IF YOU LOOK AT NEIGHBORHOOD INFILL, WHICH YOU'LL YOU'LL REMEMBER WAS THE HIGHEST RANKING SCENARIO FROM THE SCENARIO CHOOSING EXERCISE SCENARIO.

THE PREFERRED SCENARIO IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

IT OFFERS A LITTLE MORE.

INFILL AND NOT AS MUCH OF THE EDGE, BUT IT ALSO HAS A LITTLE MORE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EAST SIDE OF FLAGSTAFF, WHICH WE HEARD THAT EAST FLAGSTAFF HAS A NEED AND A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND INFILL.

SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PREFERRED SCENARIO IN TERMS OF PERFORMANCE COMPARED TO THE OTHER SCENARIOS, BY COMBINING THE BEST OF THE SCENARIOS, WE WERE ABLE TO GET A LITTLE BIT BETTER PERFORMANCE IN TERMS OF HOUSING COST.

GOT IT WAS ALMOST THE BEST HOUSING COST IMPROVEMENT.

AND THESE ONE PERCENTS ARE PROBABLY NOT TOTALLY NEGLIGIBLE, BUT CLOSE.

THEY ALSO HAD MORE ATTACHED HOUSING UNITS IN THAT SCENARIO.

SO IT'S VARIED A LITTLE MORE TOWARDS SCENARIO D, BUT THERE ARE APARTMENTS AND CONDOS IN IT AS WELL.

BUT WHAT REALLY WAS KEY IS THAT IT DOES LIKE SCENARIO C AND D, AS IT DOES BRING MORE WORKERS LIVING IN THE REGION.

IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT OUR COMMUTING DATA, BECAUSE FLAGSTAFF ISN'T JUST UNAFFORDABLE FROM THE COST OF HOUSING PERSPECTIVE.

WHEN WE LOOK AT AFFORDABILITY PLUS TRANSPORTATION COST DATA, WE WEIGH OUT, OUT, OUT EXPENSE PEER CITIES.

BECAUSE WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT THE COST OF TRANSPORTATION AS WELL, THERE'S FEWER ALTERNATIVES ONCE YOU GET OUTSIDE THE REGION.

ALL THE TRANSIT RIGHT NOW IS PROVIDED WITHIN FLAGSTAFF.

AND SO EVERYBODY WHO MOVES FURTHER AWAY IS GOING TO MORE BE MORE LIKELY TO DRIVE A SINGLE OCCUPANCY VEHICLE TO AND FROM THEIR WORK.

AND THAT IS ACTUALLY IS AGAINST A LOT OF THE POLICIES WE'VE EVEN HAD IN OUR CURRENT PLAN.

AND IT HURTS OUR CARBON NEUTRALITY GOALS.

IT ALSO IS JUST A QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE OF HAVING TO AS SOMEONE WHO'S HAD TO COMMUTE AN HOUR EACH DIRECTION, I WAS VERY EAGER TO MOVE AWAY FROM THAT SITUATION. IN MY 20S, AS I WAS LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT PHASE OF LIFE.

AND SO IT WILL AFFECT OUR WORKFORCE RETENTION.

IT WILL AFFECT OUR SCHOOLS AND THEIR ABILITY TO SERVE THE CHILDREN IN OUR COMMUNITY.

AND IT WILL ALSO HAVE A BIG IMPACT ON TRAFFIC.

SO TRAFFIC WILL GET MUCH WORSE IN THIS SCENARIO.

COMMUTING DISTANCE WILL WILL GET LONGER AND THAT WILL NOT IMPROVE.

MANY OF THE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE PLAN THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT.

SO ACHIEVING THIS 20% LESS EXPENSIVE THAN TODAY REQUIRES NOT ONLY DOING WHAT'S IN THE TEN YEAR HOUSING PLAN, BUT ALSO ORGANIZING IT AND BUILDING THE INCENTIVES THAT IT'S NOT JUST GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT WHERE THOSE NEW HOUSING UNITS ARE GOING, BUT THAT IT'S INFILL WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE THE REDUCTION IN DAILY AUTO TRIPS WAS THE MOST FOR THE PREFERRED SCENARIO.

SO BY COMBINING ALL OF THESE THINGS, WE WERE ABLE TO GET DAILY AUTO TRIPS REDUCED BY 4.7% COMPARED TO TODAY.

THAT'S PRETTY IMPRESSIVE CONSIDERING THAT IT IS INCLUSIVE OF THE NEW THE NEW RESIDENTS, SO WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF REDUCING TRAFFIC CONGESTION BY FOLLOWING THESE PATTERNS AND INCENTIVIZING THIS INFILL DEVELOPMENT.

WE ALSO CAN REDUCE THE COST OF NEW STREETS.

I THINK YOU'VE HEARD THAT WIDER STREETS ARE THE NEWER STANDARD.

THOSE INCREASE THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT.

IT DECREASES THE AREA THAT CAN BE DEVELOPED WITHIN A NEW COMMUNITY.

USING OUR EXISTING STREETS IS THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO BUILD NEW HOUSING AND THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE WAY TO BUILD NEW HOUSING.

SO I THINK THAT IS RELATED METRIC.

AND ALSO IT INCREASES THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS WHO LIVE NEAR PARKS AND TRAILS.

NOW WE DO HAVE IT KIND OF VARIES BY ALTERNATIVE, BUT WE DO HAVE PRETTY GOOD COVERAGE FOR NEW RESIDENTS HAVING PARKS AND TRAILS.

AND WHAT THIS DOES TELL US TOO, IS WE CAN HAVE POLICIES THAT HELP CREATE NEW PARKS IN OUR INFILL AREAS IF WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS AFFORDABILITY STRATEGICALLY.

[01:00:02]

AND OUR VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED.

AND COMBINED WITH THE BUILDING EFFICIENCY METRICS THAT WE HAVE INCLUDED GETS US QUITE A BIT REDUCED ON HOUSEHOLD LEVEL EMISSIONS.

SO THE PREFERRED SCENARIO TRIED TO TAKE THE BEST OF ALL OF THE FOUR PREVIOUS SCENARIOS AND FIND WAYS TO MEET THESE BIG COMMUNITY GROWTH PRINCIPLES.

IT LARGELY IS GOING TO MEAN CHANGES IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS IF THIS IS THE OUTCOMES WE WANT THE BUILDING NEW GREENFIELD AND AND, AND BASICALLY RELYING ON GREENFIELD NEIGHBORHOODS TO MEET OUR CARBON NEUTRALITY AND AFFORDABILITY NEEDS JUST DOESN'T PLAY OUT IN THE MODEL SUCCESSFULLY.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED COSTS OF NEW CONSTRUCTION OVER INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT AT THE SAME TIME.

WE'VE STARTED THE CONVERSATION ACTUALLY THIS WEEK WITH THE COMMITTEE ON MAKING SURE THAT IF THIS IS THE PATH WE'RE PROCEEDING ON, THAT WE ARE BUILDING IN EXPECTATIONS ABOUT GENTRIFICATION AND DISPLACEMENT IN THE PLAN MORE EXPLICITLY THAN WE DID IN THE 2030 PLAN.

BECAUSE WE NEED TO BROADEN THE AREAS WHERE WE CAN BRING IN NEW HOUSING UNITS ON EXISTING LOTS.

WE ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S NOT DONE IN SUCH A WAY WHERE IT LEADS TO FULL DISPLACEMENT.

IT'D BE MORE SUSTAINABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN.

PEOPLE CAN STAY IN THE COMMUNITY AND GROW THEIR RESILIENCE AND THE NUMBER OF HOUSES THAT CAN BE PROVIDED.

SO QUESTIONS ON THOSE FIRST COUPLE THINGS.

ISN'T IT? YEAH. GO AHEAD.

SO I THINK I THINK THE ONE THING THAT I MISSED IN A LOT OF THIS, AND I HEARD YOU MENTION IT ONCE, WAS SCHOOLS, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH PLANNING AND GROWTH SCENARIOS CAN, CAN PLAY WITH THIS IDEA OF WHERE WE PUT SCHOOLS, THE SIZE OF SCHOOLS AND ALL THAT.

BUT I FEEL LIKE THAT IS AS SOMEBODY WITH KIDS AND THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE I DEAL WITH, THAT IS A FAR MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT MOST OF MY PEERS DEAL WITH THAN THE IDEAS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS WHICH ARE IMPORTANT.

I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR MORE ABOUT HOW THESE PLANS LOOKED AT WHERE KIDS GO TO SCHOOLS, AND HOW THOSE SCHOOL SIZES ARE DICTATED.

WELL, FUSD HAS THEIR OWN PLANNING EFFORT UNDERWAY FOR SCHOOL SITING.

THEIR ASSUMPTIONS ARE BASICALLY BUSINESS AS USUAL.

THEY ARE. THEY ARE ASSUMING WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE.

THEY JUST DON'T HAVE A PREFERRED SCENARIO TO COMPARE TO.

SO THEY ARE TRYING TO DECREASE.

THE WAY THEY MAKE THOSE DECISIONS IS THEY'RE TRYING TO REALLY ONE OF THE KEY THINGS IS MINIMIZE THEIR TRANSPORTATION COSTS.

SO THEY ARE LOOKING AT KIND OF THE GEOGRAPHIC DATA OF WHERE ARE STUDENTS LIVING AND HOW DO WE GET THEM TO SCHOOL WITH THE LEAST MILES FOR OUR BUSSES AS POSSIBLE.

AS FLAGSTAFF IS BECOMING MORE EXPENSIVE, WE ARE SEEING HOUSEHOLD HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN OR HOUSEHOLDS THAT ARE CONSIDERED FAMILIES AND NOT JUST UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS LIVING TOGETHER GO DOWN, AND THAT MEANS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS RATIONALLY RESPONDING TO THAT CHANGE IN DEMOGRAPHICS AND STARTING TO LOOK AT SHOULD SCHOOLS MOVE OUT TO WHERE THE STUDENTS ARE.

AND I THINK THAT THAT IS A THE CONSEQUENCE OF THEY WILL FOLLOW WHERE THE DATA LEADS THEM, BECAUSE THEY ARE TRYING TO DEAL WITH THEIR CURRENT OPERATIONAL COSTS WHEN THEY ARE DOING SCHOOL PLANNING.

BUT THERE IS A CHANCE WITH ESPECIALLY THE PREFERRED SCENARIO OR SCENARIO D THAT WE COULD BRING MORE STUDENTS AND FAMILIES PLACES TO LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY.

AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WOULD, OF COURSE, RESPOND BY MAKING SURE THE SCHOOLS ARE LOCATED WHERE THEY CAN REACH THE KIDS THAT THEY NEED TO BRING INTO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

OR IMAGINE THAT THEY JUST GET RID OF MIDDLE SCHOOLS AND HAVE THOSE KIDS GO TO THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS, AND THEN THEY'RE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT HAVING TO TAKE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

BUT THAT'S NOT BUSINESS AS USUAL FOR THEM, AND THEY PROBABLY COULD AFFORD THOSE CLASSROOMS TO BE IN THOSE SCHOOLS.

IT'D PROBABLY SERVE THE.

FLAGSTAFF MUCH BETTER IF THEY DID AWAY WITH MIDDLE SCHOOL PERSONALLY.

BUT. WELL, I MEAN, I THINK THAT THE DEMOGRAPHIC DISPERSION ISSUE IS STILL REALLY REAL, WHETHER YOU'RE DRIVING KIDS INTO MIDDLE SCHOOL OR DRIVING THEM INTO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, MOST I MEAN, I HAVE AN 11-YEAR-OLD, MOST OF THE CHILDREN SHE GOES TO SCHOOL WITH LIVE OUTSIDE OF FLAGSTAFF, OR THEY LIVE ON THE FAR EDGE OF FLAGSTAFF AND THEY LIVE IN DHONI PARK.

THEY LIVE IN CASINO.

SHE HAS PLENTY OF FRIENDS THAT LIVE IN BELMONT.

WHAT PEOPLE MY AGE TELL ME IS THAT WAS VERY RARE 20 OR 30 YEARS AGO.

[01:05:03]

IT IS AN INCREASE TO THEIR TRANSPORTATION COSTS THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO RESPOND TO WITH THEIR CURRENT SCHOOL SITING EFFORTS.

AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WILL REVERSE VERY QUICKLY.

BUT IT IS A CONCERN.

YOU KNOW, FLAGSTAFF HAS ALWAYS BEEN A VERY YOUNG COMMUNITY.

OUR MEDIAN AGE HAS BEEN IN THE 20S, WHERE PLACES LIKE PRESCOTT HAVE MEDIAN AGES.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, THE HIGH 50S.

BUT OUR DEMOGRAPHICS ALREADY BETWEEN 2010 AND 2020 SHOW WE ARE AGING, WHICH IS LARGELY BECAUSE CHILDREN, FEWER CHILDREN LIVE IN FLAGSTAFF AS A PERCENTAGE OF OUR HOUSEHOLDS THAN THEY DID TEN YEARS AGO.

AND YOU HAD ANOTHER QUESTION.

NO, I'LL LET SOMEONE ELSE.

OKAY. I WAS JUST GOING TO TAG ON TO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SCHOOLS.

SO, AND THIS IS I'M SO GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP BECAUSE WHEN, WHEN I WAS LISTENING TO THE J.W.

POWELL, WHAT WAS MAYBE GOING TO BE A FULL SPECIFIC PLAN, BUT IT HAS BEEN DOWNGRADED A LITTLE BIT.

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT REPORTED TO THE CITY THAT THEY DIDN'T SEE THE NEED FOR A SCHOOL THROUGH THE J.W.

POWELL CORRIDOR AND ALL OF THOSE THOUSANDS OF HOMES.

SO, EITHER THEY'RE ASSUMING THAT THOSE ARE GOING TO BE SECOND HOMES OR VACATION HOMES, AND THAT THERE AREN'T GOING TO BE FAMILIES LIVING THERE, BUT THEY'RE NOT SETTING ASIDE.

POTENTIALLY LAND OR EARMARKING WHERE A SCHOOL SHOULD GO.

YOU KNOW, SO IT'S LIKE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY SAY, OH YES, WE'RE GETTING SOME FAMILIES AGAIN.

WE HAVE A NEED FOR A SCHOOL, BUT IT WILL HAVE BEEN TOO LATE.

THERE WON'T BE ANY LAND LEFT TO BUILD A SCHOOL IN THE AREA THAT ALL THESE PEOPLE MOVED TO.

AMONG NEW HOUSING.

AND SO, I WAS WONDERING, LIKE, I REALIZE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY INFLUENCE, I GUESS, ON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ON HOW THEY'RE PROVIDING YOU THEIR INFORMATION, EXCEPT TO KNOW THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT IT DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU ARE.

HOW DO YOU HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THAT IN A REGIONAL PLAN THAT SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SCHOOLS? I MEAN, ONE OF THE WAYS THAT WE ARE AND I'M WE'RE STILL DRAFTING THIS PART OF THE REGIONAL PLAN, BUT I THINK WE ARE GOING TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE ABOUT WHERE PUBLIC FACILITIES ARE LOCATED BECAUSE IT IS AN UNKNOWN.

IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE ACHIEVE A PREFERRED SCENARIO.

I THINK WE WOULD HAVE MORE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN LIVING IN FLAGSTAFF, WHICH WOULD HELP THE SCHOOL DISTRICT REDUCE THEIR TRANSPORTATION COSTS, BUT THAT IS A 20 YEAR BET IN THE FUTURE, AND WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A LOT OF DECISIONS DIFFERENTLY THAN WE DO TODAY IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THAT.

AND SO THEY ARE VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN WHAT WE THINK IS POSSIBLE THROUGH THE SCENARIO PLANNING AND THE GROWTH PROCESS.

AND I THINK THEY'RE WAITING TO SEE.

THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN I HEARD THAT, I THOUGHT, WELL, MAYBE THEY WERE LOOKING AT IT IN MORE OF A SHORT TERM DATA GATHERING RATHER THAN LONG TERM.

AND WE'RE STILL POST PANDEMIC.

WE'RE STILL DEALING WITH VOUCHERS, THINGS LIKE THAT THAT HAVE PROBABLY HAVE BEEN THE CAUSE OF REDUCED ENROLLMENT.

BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO ALWAYS BE THE CASE POTENTIALLY.

SO, YOU KNOW, I JUST, YOU KNOW, WONDER IF THEY'RE NOT LOOKING AS LONG TERM AS THE CITY AND THE COUNTY ARE IN THIS PROCESS.

I THINK I THINK THE BIGGER ISSUE IS THE EXODUS OF CHILDREN FROM THE REGION, LIKE, AND NOT THAT THEY'RE NOT LIVING HERE, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF A, IF A CHILD'S FAMILY MOVES TO WILLIAMS OR WINSLOW AND THEY'RE WORKING IN FLAGSTAFF, THEIR KID GOES TO SCHOOL IN WILLIAMS OR WINSLOW, THEY DON'T GO TO FUSD.

AND I THINK THAT IT'S MORE ALONG THE LINES OF THAT THAN AREAS THAT MAY POTENTIALLY BE GREENFIELD SITES OR NOT.

YOU KNOW, THEY ARE THAT MEANS THEY ARE SEEING A TOTAL REDUCTION.

AND THAT IS WHAT THEIR DEMOGRAPHICS SHOW IS.

THEY DON'T SHOW, YOU KNOW, FLAGSTAFF'S GROWTH RATES ARE LOW, MEDIUM AND HIGH.

FROM THE STATE DEMOGRAPHER SHOW WE COULD HAVE A DECLINING POPULATION BY 2038 BECAUSE OUR BIRTH RATE IS NOT KEEPING UP.

AND THAT IS LARGELY BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO ARE CHILDBEARING AGE OR FAMILIES ARE NOT LIVING IN FLAGSTAFF BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT.

SO, THIS IS A REALLY THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE IS AT THE HEART OF MANY OF THESE ISSUES.

THEY DON'T GET SOLVED WITHOUT SOLVING AFFORDABILITY.

DO WE HAVE ANY COMPUTER DATA THAT GOES INTO THE PLAN? WE OF COURSE HAVE THE CENSUS COMMUTE TO WORK DATA, WHICH WE DO LOOK AT.

AND IT DOES SHOW WE ARE ALREADY SEEING INCREASES IN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE COMMUTING FROM OUTSIDE THE REGION.

A METRO PLAN HAS ALSO IN THE PAST USED STREETLIGHT DATA, WHICH IS THE DATA THAT IS COMING OFF OF YOUR CELL PHONE WHEN YOUR LOCATION IS ON, AND IT GETS ANONYMIZED AND THEN STREETLIGHT TURNS IT INTO TRAFFIC DATA.

AND THAT SHOWS A SIMILAR OUTCOME THAT DAILY COMMUTES IN AND OUT OF FLAGSTAFF HAVE GONE UP.

WHEN I MOVED HERE IN 2010, IT WAS VERY COMMON THAT PEOPLE COMMUTED DOWN TO SEDONA BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T LIVE THERE.

[01:10:03]

SO, WE'VE SEEN THIS SHIFT HAS HAPPENED.

WE CAN CHOOSE TO STAY ON THAT PATH, OR WE CAN FIND WAYS TO MAKE SURE THERE'S WORKFORCE HOUSING IN THE COMMUNITY.

WHICH IS THE TEN-YEAR AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN, SAYS MEANS WE NEED NOT ONLY TO MEET OUR DEMAND FOR HOUSING AS IT GROWS, BUT TO INCREASE WHAT WE'RE PRODUCING BY 20%.

WE'VE PROBABLY HAD SOME OF OUR RECENT GROWTH HAS BEEN STYMIED BY HOUSING AFFORDABILITY.

WE WOULD HAVE HAD MORE PEOPLE MOVE TO FLAGSTAFF, BUT THEY COULDN'T AFFORD A PLACE TO LIVE HERE.

I'LL GO BACK TO THE SCHOOL ISSUE JUST A LITTLE BIT HERE, TOO.

SO, FUSD ISN'T THE ONLY ACT IN TOWN, SO I THINK I'D LOVE TO SEE A PLAN GET PUT INTO PLACE THAT WORKS WITH FUSD, BUT ALSO REALIZES THERE'S CHARTER SCHOOLS, THERE'S OTHER SCHOOLS, AND IDENTIFY THE LOCATIONS WHERE THOSE SCHOOLS CAN BE.

AND BECAUSE WHAT I'M HEARING IS FUSD IS MORE REACTIONARY.

WE'RE WAY BEHIND. AND I AGREE WITH MARY AND SOME OF THESE SITUATIONS WHERE WE'VE SET IN AND HAD A REZONING COME IN OR WHATNOT, I'VE FOUND MYSELF SURPRISED THAT FUSD WASN'T AT THE TABLE SAYING, HEY, SET SOMETHING ASIDE FOR US, BECAUSE I SPENT A LOT OF TIME LIVING IN PIMA COUNTY, IN TUCSON, AND A LOT OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS THAT A CONDITION OF DEVELOPMENT WAS YOU YOU FOUND A WAY TO GET A SCHOOL IN HERE OR GIVE SOME MONEY TO A SCHOOL.

AND IT SURPRISES ME THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

WELL, THAT DOES HAPPEN IN LIKE, CHANDLER AND GILBERT AND PLACES THAT ARE GROWING BY 400% A DECADE.

EASY. THEY NEED SCHOOLS.

THEY NEED THEM NOW. THEY NEED THEM IN THE NEXT NEIGHBORHOOD AND IN THE NEXT NEIGHBORHOOD.

OUR DEMOGRAPHICS DON'T SUPPORT THAT CURRENTLY.

AND SO I THINK THEY'RE BEING VERY RATIONAL.

IN ADDITION, WHEN IT COMES TO CHARTER SCHOOLS AND OTHER SCHOOLS AS A LAND USE, WE'RE HEAVILY PREEMPTED BY THE STATE.

SO I CAN'T REALLY PUT IN THE REGIONAL PLAN, LIKE HERE'S WHERE SCHOOLS SHOULD GO, BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE REGULATORY AUTHORITY OVER THEM EXCEPT FOR BUILDING SAFETY AND TRAFFIC SAFETY AND SOME OF THOSE OTHER THINGS.

SO WE CAN'T REALLY INFLUENCE THAT WITH THIS DOCUMENT.

AND THAT KIND OF MAKES IT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE.

EVEN THOUGH WE WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND SCHOOL IMPACTS.

IT'S VERY LIMITED TO LIKE UNDERSTANDING HOW IT FITS WITH FUSD, GIVEN THE WHAT THE LEGISLATURE ALLOWS US TO REQUIRE OR NOT.

YEAH, PREEMPTION IS AN ONGOING ISSUE.

AND I DO TRY TO BE REALLY TRANSPARENT ABOUT IT IN THE REGIONAL PLAN AND NOT WRITE A BUNCH OF THINGS IN THE DRAFT THAT WE CAN'T ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH.

SO, THIS ISSUE OF NOT REQUIRING LAND FOR SCHOOLS TO BE SET ASIDE IS A LIMITATION OF THE STATE OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

IS THAT HOW I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT? NO, IT'S THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE WON'T LET US SAY, HERE'S WHERE SCHOOLS SHOULD GO, BECAUSE SCHOOLS HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOCATE ANYWHERE, THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO.

WE CANNOT LIMIT THE LOCATION OF SCHOOLS TO CERTAIN AREAS USING THE REGIONAL PLAN.

THE OPPOSITE.

OKAY. THAT IS WHAT I INTENDED.

AND AND I AGREE, LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS LIVING IN CALIFORNIA FOR, EXCEPT FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS AND DEALING WITH MASTER PLANS, I MEAN, WHEN A MASTER PLAN CAME FORWARD, IT CONTAINED A SCHOOL AND, YOU KNOW, AND PARKS AND EVERYTHING WAS COMPLETE.

AND WE DON'T SEE THAT HERE, YOU KNOW.

IT'S. YEAH, IT'S JUST FOR, YOU KNOW, POCKETS OF DEVELOPMENT.

I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE CARBON NEUTRALITY.

SO BEING THAT IT'S MULTIFACETED ON HOW WE GET TO WHERE WE WANT TO BE AND THAT IT IS DIFFICULT.

AND I REMEMBER A LOT OF THE DISCUSSION DURING THE HOSPITAL CASE, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS WHETHER THE HOSPITAL WAS GOING TO BE CARBON NEUTRAL AND, AND HOW DO WE ACHIEVE THAT HERE WHEN WE DON'T REQUIRE NEW DEVELOPMENTS TO BE CARBON NEUTRAL AND WE HAVE OLDER DEVELOPMENTS.

AND OKAY, SO THERE'S THAT BALANCE.

AND THEN THERE'S OBVIOUSLY THE CARS AND ELECTRIFYING CARS AND SUCH.

THIS. YOU KNOW, END GOAL OF BALANCING IT ALL.

IT SOUNDS LIKE WE CANNOT ACTUALLY ACHIEVE CARBON NEUTRALITY FOR THE YEAR THAT WE INITIALLY SET OUT.

AND IS THAT GOING TO.

BE REVISED OR CHANGED.

THE CARBON NEUTRALITY GOAL AND THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN ASSUMES THAT THERE WILL BE PURCHASING OF CARBON CREDITS OR REMOVAL CREDITS ON TOP, BUT TO BE CARBON NEUTRAL BY 2030.

WE DID NOT LOOK AT QUANTIFYING THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT A RELEVANT PIECE TO THE REGIONAL PLAN.

THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN HAS INFORMATION ON THAT.

SO, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT IT WON'T BE PASSIVELY DONE.

THERE WILL STILL BE THE NEED TO BUY CARBON CREDITS AND TO ADDRESS THAT PORTION OF THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN.

[01:15:04]

WHAT THIS SHOWS US IS THAT LAND USE CHANGES ALONE WON'T BE SUFFICIENT, BUT THE MORE WE MAKE OF THEM, THE MORE LIKELY WE ARE TO BE ABLE TO SUSTAIN CARBON NEUTRALITY.

THE WHOLE GOAL, AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM SUSTAINABILITY STAFF, IS THAT THEY WANT TO, OVER TIME, TAPER DOWN THE AMOUNT OF CARBON CREDITS THAT ARE BEING PURCHASED BY THE CITY ON A REGULAR BASIS.

AND THIS MIGHT NOT BE A QUESTION SPECIFIC TO YOU OR THIS PLAN, BUT DO THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE CARBON SEQUESTERING OF TREES? AND LIKE IF WE START, YOU KNOW, LESSENING OUR NATURAL RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS AND WE'RE, YOU KNOW, LOSING THE LARGER TREES THAT OPERATE THAT DO THAT FOR US, DO THEY DO THEY TALK ABOUT THAT IMBALANCE? I'M NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST, SO I YEAH, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A LONG FORESTRY EXPLANATION OF WHY THAT'S NOT EXACTLY THE WAY IT WORKS. BUT WE DO TALK ABOUT BIO SEQUESTRATION AND STORAGE OF CARBON, AND WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT IN THE REGIONAL PLAN.

THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE MODELING FOR THE PREFERRED SCENARIO.

THE PREFERRED SCENARIO IS LOOKING AT A NARROWER SET OF CRITERIA.

BUT IS BIO-SEQUESTRATION A LAND USE ISSUE? YES. ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT WILL WORK? YES. BUT IT'S NOT THAT ALWAYS PRESERVING THE TREE ON THE SITE IS THE BEST WAY TO SEQUESTER CARBON.

SOMETIMES REMOVING THE TREE AND HAVING IT BE CARBON STORAGE OR TURNING IT INTO BIOCHAR IS A BETTER WAY TO DO THAT.

AND THAT IS MUCH MORE TECHNICAL FORESTRY TALK THAT I'D HAVE TO BRING SOMEONE IN TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, BUT IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS KEEPING TREES IN PLACE IS THE MOST SUSTAINABLE CARBON SEQUESTRATION STRATEGY IN ALL CASES.

OKAY, THANKS.

AND IF IT CATCHES ON FIRE, IT UNDOES ALL OF THAT.

SO, I THINK THE NUMBER ONE GOAL NEEDS TO BE THAT HEALTHY FOREST THAT WE'RE NOT CREATING A SITUATION WHERE WE'RE ENDANGERING OUR ENTIRE CITY BECAUSE OF, BECAUSE OF THE TREES INVOLVED.

I ALSO THINK AS FAR AS MEETING THOSE, THE CARBON NEUTRALITY GOALS AND SUSTAINABILITY, PERSONALLY, I LOOK AT THE REGIONAL PLAN AS LET'S AT LEAST NOT BE A HINDRANCE, RIGHT? LIKE LET'S COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT AT LEAST CAN SUPPORT THOSE GOALS.

AND ACKNOWLEDGING THIS ALONE WON'T SOLVE EVERYTHING, BUT AT LEAST WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT PUTTING UP ROADBLOCKS TO THAT.

I THINK THAT'S REALLY KEY.

IS THAT? IT'S JUST SHOWING LIKE, CAN WE JUST DO IT BY JUST BUILDING APARTMENTS, OR CAN WE DO IT BY JUST GETTING EVERYONE OUT OF CARS AND ALL OF THOSE ALONE IS NOT SUFFICIENT.

WE HAVE TO DO MORE IN BETWEEN THOSE THINGS.

SO NOT ALL CARBON SOLUTIONS WILL BE LAND USE SOLUTIONS, BUT THE LAND USE SYSTEM CAN ASSIST IN GETTING THERE.

AND I THINK I'M REALLY GLAD YOU POINTED THAT OUT, ALEX, BECAUSE I WAS JUST TODAY ON A CALL WITH THE US FOREST SERVICE, AND WE WERE LOOKING AT THE REGIONAL DATA.

AND WHERE IS THE HIGH-RISK WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE IS ALL OF FLAGSTAFF.

THERE IS NO PART OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF THAT IS NOT DRAWN INTO THE MAP OF HIGH-RISK WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE, AND THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE PRESERVED SO MANY TREES.

WE'VE BEEN SO GOOD AT IT, AND MAYBE WE'RE DOING IT FOR MORE ANTHROPOMORPHIC REASONS THAN ECOLOGICAL REASONS.

WE ARE BASICALLY BUILT AN INTERLOCKING TREE CANOPY THAT CAN CARRY FIRE THROUGH OUR COMMUNITY, AND THAT IS THE WORST CARBON SEQUESTRATION GOAL, BECAUSE IT WILL JUST RELEASE ALL THE CARBON THAT OUR FOREST HAS BEEN SEQUESTERING.

IT'LL HINDER OUR SOILS AND KEEP THEM IF THEY BURN SO THAT THEY ARE, YOU KNOW, HYDROPHOBIC AFTER A FIRE COMES THROUGH, WHICH WE'VE SEEN HAPPEN IN EVERY FIRE WE'VE HAD IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, THEN THOSE SOILS WON'T STORE CARBON IN THE FUTURE EITHER.

SO, FIRE AND WILDLAND FIRE CARRYING THROUGH THE CITY IS NOT JUST WOULD NOT JUST HARM ALL THE BUILDINGS AND THE PEOPLE AND THE, YOU KNOW, THE APPEARANCE OF OUR COMMUNITY, IT COULD ALSO BE A HUGE SETBACK FOR OUR CARBON NEUTRALITY GOALS.

THANK YOU FOR.

REMINDING US OF THAT.

YEAH, WE AREN'T CUTTING ENOUGH TREES, IS WHAT THE FORESTRY STAFF WOULD TELL YOU.

IN OTHER WORDS, HUGGING YOUR TREES IS NOT THE VERY BEST THING TO DO.

WELL, I MEAN, IT DEPENDS ON YOUR ECOSYSTEM.

NOT IN OUR ECOSYSTEM.

YEAH. SO, IT MY ONLY OTHER COMMENT WAS I WAS REALLY GLAD TO SEE ON THE DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE THE RED, YELLOW GREEN BECAUSE

[01:20:04]

SO THAT'S, I THINK, HOPEFUL.

CJ. THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAVE.

IT'S MORE INFORMATION FOR ME AS YOU GO ALONG.

AND, YOU KNOW, WHEREVER I LIVED IN PHOENIX OR SAN DIEGO, THEY ALWAYS TALKED ABOUT MIXED USE, AND I DON'T SEE MIXED USE AS A LABEL.

I'LL GET BACK TO THIS. OKAY.

SO THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION IS I SEE THE DARKEST BLUE IS ESSENTIALLY MIXED USE THAT NAVY COLOR BECAUSE IT IS THE HIGH POPULATION AND HIGH EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE SAME GEOGRAPHY.

AND HOW YOU ORGANIZE MIXED USE.

YOU KNOW, ALEX HAS PROBABLY BROUGHT THIS UP BEFORE.

SOMETIMES YOU MIX IT VERTICALLY, YOU HAVE COMMERCIAL OR OFFICES AND THEN HOUSING, AND SOMETIMES YOU MIX IT HORIZONTALLY, COMMERCIAL IN THE FRONT AND HOUSING IN THE BACK.

AND. THIS MIGHT EVEN BE MORE COMPLEX JUST BECAUSE THE SCALE IS MUCH LARGER THAN A SINGLE SITE.

IT'S INTERESTING TOO, BECAUSE WHEN THE CURRENT REGIONAL PLAN, ON OCCASION WE'LL TALK ABOUT MIXED USE, BUT IT'S LOOKING AT MIXED USE AND SORT OF A NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE, WHEREAS THE ZONING CODE IS VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT.

IN ORDER TO TECHNICALLY BE MIXED USE, YOU HAVE TO BE ON THE SAME PARCEL.

SO, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THOSE TWO USES, NOT NECESSARILY IN THE SAME BUILDING, ALTHOUGH THAT'S AN OPTION, BUT AT THE VERY LEAST ON THE SAME PARCEL.

SO THAT. THAT JUST ADDS MORE FLAVOR.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

AND I DON'T WANT TO IGNORE BOB.

BOB, DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? AND HEARING.

NO, I DID NOT.

THANKS. OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO. SO NOW YOU'RE UP TO SPEED ON HOW WE GOT TO THE PREFERRED SCENARIO.

WHAT WE'RE DOING THIS WEEK IS ASKING FOR FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY ON THIS INTERMEDIATE STEP CALLED THE GROWTH CONCEPT.

WE'RE TALKING TO THEM ABOUT HOW THE LOCATION OF CENTERS, CORRIDORS AND NEIGHBORHOODS COULD BE CHANGED.

WE'RE ASKING THEM ABOUT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THOSE PLACES, AND EVENTUALLY THIS WILL LEAD TO A A REVISED FUTURE GROWTH.

ILLUSTRATION. THIS, OF COURSE, IS AGAIN TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT PLANS THAT KIND OF THE NEXT LEVEL THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT.

AND SO, THE GROWTH CONCEPT THAT WE HAVE, WE ARE INITIALLY FLOATING IN THIS LEVEL OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IS THAT WE GREATLY EXPAND THE DEFINITION OF URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD TO ALLOW FOR MORE MIXED USE AND DENSITY IN NEIGHBORHOOD SCALE APPLICATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CENTRAL PORTION OF FLAGSTAFF ALL THE WAY TO FOURTH STREET.

AND THAT WILL GET US AWAY FROM HAVING SUBURBAN ACTIVITIES NECESSARILY DOMINATE THOSE LANDSCAPES.

SO REALLY TRYING TO THINK ABOUT THAT CENTRAL HUB OF WHERE ALL OF OUR TRANSIT LINKS GO, WHERE WE HAVE THE HIGHEST DENSITY OF BIKE AND WALKING PATHS AND TRYING TO BRING THOSE INTO THE CENTER OF THE CITY, WE WOULD STILL WE ALSO WOULD BE REMOVING A LOT OF THE ACTIVITY CENTERS THAT ARE OUT IN THE PERIPHERY OF THE COMMUNITY. THE MODELING WE'VE DONE AT THIS TIME KIND OF CONTRADICTS WHAT WE DID IN 2012, WHICH SAID LIKE, OH, WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THERE'S AN ACTIVITY CENTER IN EVERY NEW PART OF THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BUILD UP DENSITY IN THOSE LOCATIONS, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE SHORT COMMUTING DISTANCE.

BUT WHAT WE FOUND IS THE AREAS LARGELY WHERE DEVELOPING BY RIGHT, THEY WERE DEVELOPING AT LOWER DENSITIES THAN WE ANTICIPATED.

THERE REALLY HASN'T BEEN A GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT IN THE LAST TEN YEARS THAT PERFORMED AS WELL AS THAT REGIONAL PLAN MODEL HAD HOPED THAT IT WOULD.

AND ULTIMATELY THAT MEANS WE WERE INCREASING VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED AND NOT SUPPORTING ACTIVITY CENTERS.

SO, WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO THE PLACE WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE ACTIVITY CENTERS THAT ARE REALLY FUNCTIONAL AND SHORTENING THOSE TRIPS AND GIVING MORE MOBILITY OPTIONS.

SO ZOOMING IN THIS IS KIND OF WHAT IT INITIALLY LOOKS LIKE.

AND EVENTUALLY THIS WILL BECOME A PARCEL SPECIFIC MAP.

WE HAVE SOME DRAFTS OF THAT WE'RE STARTING TO WORK ON INTERNALLY, AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE'RE COLLECTING SOME FEEDBACK ON THIS MATERIAL.

JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU THAT.

WE WOULD GO FROM HAVING 27 OR 27, I THINK ACTIVITY CENTERS.

THIS IS WRONG. THERE'S 27 OF THEM.

WE WOULD GO TO HAVING ONLY 14.

SO, WE'RE KIND OF CUTTING WHAT WE CALL AN ACTIVITY CENTER BY HALF.

BUT WE ARE CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF IT SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY INCLUDE MORE AREAS THAT ARE KIND OF CLOSE BUT MAYBE

[01:25:01]

I KIND OF I KIND OF ALWAYS POINT TO THE ONE AT PONDEROSA PARKWAY AND ROUTE 66, WHICH IS RIGHT HERE, WHERE REALLY THAT'S KIND OF A DUMBBELL ACTIVITY CENTER BECAUSE OF THE TRAIN AND THE ROADS.

THERE'S LIKE A LIKE A SPOT IN THE NORTH WHERE YOU CAN GET A GOOD NOTE.

AND THEN THERE'S LIKE A RELATED SPOT IN THE NORTH, LIKE A TWIN STAR ON THE SOUTH, THAT WHERE YOU CAN ALSO HAVE A NICE STRONG NODE AND THEY CAN WORK TOGETHER TO BE AN ACTIVITY CENTER BECAUSE PEOPLE WALK ALONG THAT TO MAKE THOSE TWO CONNECTIONS.

SO, WE ALSO ARE GOING TO ALLOW FOR SOME MORE FLEXIBILITY ON WHAT AREAS GET DEFINED AS AN ACTIVITY CENTER.

SO THIS IS JUST FOR COMPARISON.

THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE, WHAT WE ARE CURRENTLY PROPOSING AS THE GROWTH CONCEPT, WHICH COULD BECOME THE FUTURE GROWTH ILLUSTRATION VERSUS WHAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY.

AND YOU WILL NOTICE THERE'S NOTHING OUT IN THE JOHN WESLEY POWELL AREA.

I THINK WE WILL GO BACK AND REVISE TO ADD SOME AT LEAST ONE ACTIVITY CENTER OUT HERE.

WE'RE JUST STILL IN THE PROCESS OF HAVING THOSE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS, SO WE'RE NOT READY TO SHOW ANY YET.

AND THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE EARLIER MAP, THAT PORTION OF THE COMMUNITIES KIND OF GRAYED OUT, WE'RE TRYING TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE IN THAT AREA REALLY LOOKS LIKE, SO WE CAN SET THOSE EXPECTATIONS REALISTICALLY.

SO. WHEN WE LOOK AT NEIGHBORHOODS, THE BIG CHANGE IS TO HAVE MORE OF THE CENTRAL FLAGSTAFF NEIGHBORHOODS IDENTIFIED AS URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS. AND THIS IS INTERESTING.

I WAS LOOKING AT OUR 1971 GROWTH ILLUSTRATION, WHICH WAS FOR 1990, AND THAT WAS LIKE THE GROWTH PLAN 1990.

AND IT DIDN'T HAVE THE WORD SUBURBAN ON IT ANYWHERE.

IT HAD URBAN FLAGSTAFF AND AN URBAN TRANSITION, WHICH WAS ESSENTIALLY URBAN TRANSITION WAS PONDEROSA TRAILS AND PINE CANYON AND COUNTRY CLUB.

BUT IT DIDN'T TALK ABOUT SUBURBAN AT ALL.

AND SO, I THINK WE ARE MORE CONDENSED THAN THAT 1971 MAPS CONSIDERATION OF WHAT'S URBAN IN THE COMMUNITY.

BUT MAYBE MOVING ON TO A DEFINITION THAT IS MORE ENCOMPASSING.

HERE'S A COMPARISON OF WHAT THE CURRENT URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS LOOK LIKE FOR THE CITY VERSUS WHAT THEY COULD BE.

AND WE ALSO HAVEN'T OVERLAID ANY PARKS OR RECREATION OR OPEN SPACE LAND USES ON THIS YET, BECAUSE WE ARE SOMEWHAT LIMITED IN WHAT WE CAN ADD.

THE ONLY THINGS WE'RE ALLOWED TO SHOW AS A GREEN FOR PARKS OPEN SPACE ON THIS MAP ARE ONES THAT WE HAVE WRITTEN PROPERTY OWNER PERMISSION TO DO SO, OR THAT ARE OWNED BY A PUBLIC AGENCY.

SO, JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE DRAWING A GREEN BLOB ON ANYBODY'S PRIVATE PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH WE EXPECT THAT THERE WILL BE SOME OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION AS PART OF A LOT OF NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO WHAT WE HAVE ONLINE RIGHT NOW IS A STORY MAP THAT IF YOU GO TO THE REGIONAL PLAN WEB PAGE, IT'LL TAKE YOU TO THE GROWTH CONCEPT OPEN HOUSE. AND THEN YOU CAN SCROLL THROUGH THESE DIFFERENT PARTS OF INFORMATION THAT WE'VE SHARED TONIGHT, AND THEN TAKE A QUIZ THAT IS LARGELY A VISUAL PREFERENCE SURVEY. SO TAKE THE GROWTH CONCEPT SURVEYS THAT TAB ALL THE WAY TO THE RIGHT.

WHEN YOU GO IN AND TAKE THAT SURVEY, IT SHOWS YOU IMAGES OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF CITIES LOOKS ESSENTIALLY BUILDING TYPES AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT YOU CAN SAY, I LIKE THESE ONES WHEN I THINK OF THE TERM SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD OR URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD BETTER THAN I LIKE THESE ONES.

THAT IS LARGELY A CHECK IN WITH THE COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE ALL KIND OF THINKING OF THE SAME PLACE IN OUR HEAD WHEN WE'RE USING THAT TERMINOLOGY.

AND THEN STAFF WILL, OF COURSE, WRITE UP MORE DESCRIPTIONS AND CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON THIS FEEDBACK.

THE OTHER INTERESTING THING THAT I DIDN'T HAVE IN THE SLIDES THAT WE'VE ADDED HERE IS THE CONCEPT OF HAVING A NEIGHBORHOOD NODE.

NEIGHBORHOOD NODES ARE A CONCEPT WE BORROWED FROM MILWAUKIE, OREGON, WHICH IN THEIR PLAN HAS THE IDEA THAT THERE MIGHT BE A PLACE WITHIN A NEIGHBORHOOD, WHETHER IT'S PARKS AND SCHOOLS OR SMALL COMMERCIAL LIKE A CIRCLE K ON LAKE MARY ROAD.

BUT IT'S DESIGNED TO ALLOW FOR POP UP ACTIVITIES AND FLEXIBILITY IN HOW THOSE SMALLER COMMERCIAL SPACES ARE USED.

I THINK WE CAN THINK OF QUITE A FEW PLACES IN FLAGSTAFF THAT ALREADY FUNCTION THAT WAY.

THE AREA AROUND FOX GLEN PARK, THE AREA ON LAKE, SOME AREAS ALONG LAKE MARY ROAD, A FEW PLACES ALONG WEST ROUTE 66.

THEY'RE NOT REALLY AN ACTIVITY CENTER, BUT THEY PROVIDE SOME SPACES THAT LET SMALL BUSINESS STARTUPS HAPPEN, AND PEOPLE AND SOME ENTREPRENEURSHIP THAT SERVES THE NEIGHBORHOOD MIGHT BE A DAYCARE, MIGHT BE A SCHOOL.

SO THOSE ARE KIND OF WHAT PEOPLE ARE BEING ASKED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON ONLINE TODAY.

HERE IS A GRAPHIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD NODE FROM THE MILWAUKIE, OREGON GENERAL PLAN.

AS YOU CAN SEE, IT SHOWS THAT THERE COULD BE SHORT TERM DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT IT IDENTIFIES AS A NODE.

[01:30:05]

SO, WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS CONCEPT AS MAYBE A NEW ONE TO ADD TO THE PLAN AND ARE LOOKING FOR A LITTLE FEEDBACK ON IF IT'S A GOOD FIT.

SO, THE FUTURE GROWTH ILLUSTRATIONS.

DEVELOPMENT IS ONE OF THE KEY PARTS OF WHY WE EVEN DID A PREFERRED SCENARIO, AND WHY WE'VE TAKEN THIS OUT TO THE PUBLIC.

BUT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PERMANENT TRANSIT NETWORK.

AND STAYING COORDINATED WITH MOUNTAIN LINES PLANS IN THOSE EFFORTS.

ONE OF THE KEY THINGS IN THIS FINDING THAT OUR CONSULTANT GAVE US IS THAT WE ARE REALLY GOING TO HAVE TO BE DEVELOPING POLICIES THAT TALKING ABOUT MANAGING AND MONETIZING ON STREET PARKING IN A BROADER AREA OF THE COMMUNITY TO BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THESE GOALS.

THEY ALSO HAVE POINTED OUT THAT OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE ALMOST TWICE AS MUCH AS OTHER CITIES THAT ARE ACHIEVING THESE KINDS OF OUTCOMES. SO WE ARE DEFINITELY ASKING FOR MORE PARKING THAN WOULD ALLOW US TO ACHIEVE THESE GOALS RIGHT NOW.

THEY ALSO HAVE POINTED OUT THAT WE ARE OUTSIDE THE NORM IN TERMS OF OUR SEASONAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

SO REQUIRING THAT FROM NOVEMBER TO APRIL, PEOPLE NOT BE ABLE TO PARK OVERNIGHT ON THE STREET IS NOT NORMAL, EVEN FOR COMMUNITIES WITH SIMILAR SNOW LOADS. THEY MANAGE THEIR OVERNIGHT PARKING AND STORM OR SNOW REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS DIFFERENTLY.

THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT, IN ADDITION TO THIS DRAWING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE CONSIDER IN THE PLAN TO GO FORWARD AND ACHIEVE WHAT WE'RE KIND OF TRYING TO ENVISION ON THE MAP.

SO THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS WAS ABOUT WINTER PARKING, AS OPPOSED TO SUMMER PARKING AND WINTER BICYCLE USAGE. WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE SOME PROBLEMS WITH THAT.

WITH HOW WE'VE DEALT WITH THAT IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

SO, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S PLANNED LIKE DIFFERENT TYPES OF LANES? AND WE CURRENTLY HAVE, AND YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH HOW THE SNOW REMOVAL PUTS ALL THE SNOW INTO THE BIKE LANE AND THE BIKES CAN'T USE THOSE LANES EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE THOSE PYLONS THERE.

AND, AND THAT ACTUALLY.

YOU KNOW, THEN SNOW REMOVAL IS HARDER FOR THOSE LANES BECAUSE OF THE PYLONS AND SO THE REGIONAL PLAN THE CHAIRMAN.

DINO IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO DIVE INTO THE LEVEL OF DETAIL LIKE HOW WE SHOULD BE MANAGING STREETS, BUT IT IS GOING TO PUT TOGETHER A STRATEGY.

WE WILL NEED TO PUT TOGETHER A STRATEGY IF THIS IS THE VISION WE WANT TO ACHIEVE.

ON RECOGNIZING THAT THAT HAS TO BE REVISITED AND REVISITED WITH THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING FOR OUR PARKING TO BE USED MORE EFFICIENTLY AND TO BE AVAILABLE YEAR-ROUND AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN, GIVEN SNOW OPERATIONS NOW IN TERMS OF CLEARING STREETS AND DESIGN.

THE REGIONAL PLAN WILL ALSO LIKELY SUPPORT A STREETS MASTER PLAN, WHICH IS REALLY THE RIGHT LEVEL OF PLAN TO MAKE THOSE OPERATIONAL DISCUSSIONS HAPPEN.

BUT HOPEFULLY THE REGIONAL PLAN SETS THE RIGHT GOALS SO THAT WHEN WE'RE DOING THAT, WE'RE NOT DOING THINGS JUST THE WAY WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE THEM, BUT REALLY SETTING PRIORITIES THAT HELP MOVE US TO THE NEXT SET OF POLICIES THAT SERVE THIS KIND OF FUTURE VISION IN THE COMMUNITY.

WE TALKED ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD NODES AND COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS.

BUT ANOTHER KEY THING, AND THIS IS ONE THAT I TRULY DO LIKE HAVE LOVED DOING NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING AND FLAGSTAFF WE HAVE IN THE LAST 15 YEARS, DONE SOME GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS AND REALLY HELPED SERVE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT NEEDED THAT LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING AND INVESTMENT TO GET AT THE COMPLEXITY OF THOSE PLACES.

BUT WHAT THE CONSULTANT ACTUALLY SAID IS WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET ENOUGH OF FLAGSTAFF ISSUES LOOKED AT CAREFULLY IF WE CONTINUE ON THAT METHOD.

AND SO, WHILE WE'RE WRAPPING UP THE NEXT FEW NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS THAT WE STILL DO NEED TO DO, TIED TO NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED DISINVESTMENT AND NEED THAT ADDITIONAL LAYER, WE SHOULD BE MOVING TOWARDS DOING SECTOR PLANNING.

THE JOHN WESLEY POWELL BOULEVARD STUDY AND PLAN THAT I KNOW HAS BEEN MORPHING OVER TIME WOULD BE A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A SECTOR PLAN.

WE PROBABLY WOULD NEED ONE FOR WOODY MOUNTAIN ROAD AND WEST ROUTE 66.

SOME OF THOSE BIGGER AREAS GETTING BIGGER THAN JUST ONE NEIGHBORHOOD BUT ENCOMPASSING MANY NEIGHBORHOODS IN A SECTOR PLAN WOULD BE A METHOD WE COULD USE TO THINK ABOUT OUR MID-LEVEL GEOGRAPHIC PLANNING GOING FORWARD.

SO THAT'S JUST A PROPOSAL THAT OUR CONSULTANT BROUGHT TO US PLANNING STAFF.

STILL LOOKING AT THAT, TOO, AND THINKING OF HOW THAT WOULD BE REIMAGINING THE PROGRAM AND WHAT IT COULD MEAN AND WHAT WE COULD ACHIEVE WITH IT.

[01:35:03]

GO AHEAD. SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT A SECTOR PLAN IS AND THE SPECIFIC PLAN THAT WAS THE INTENTION FOR J.W.

POWELL CORRIDOR. YEAH, I THINK A SPECIFIC PLAN HAS A MEANING IN THE STATE STATUTE AND OUR TITLE 11.

THAT REALLY IS KIND OF A PREDEVELOPMENT OR PRE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN.

A SECTOR PLAN WOULD REALLY LOOK AT MORE BROADLY THE NEEDS FOR PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE GAPS IN SERVICE, WHAT KIND OF CHARACTER WE MIGHT SEE IN A PART OF THE COMMUNITY.

THERE WAS ACTUALLY AN ATTEMPT TO DO THAT IN THE EARLY 2000, OF CREATING CHARACTER DISTRICTS WITHIN THE CITY AND HAVING THOSE KIND OF BE THE BASELINE FOR SECTOR PLANNING. WE DIDN'T CALL IT THAT AT THE TIME, BUT IT WAS SOMEWHAT SIMILAR.

IT SAID, LIKE, HERE'S THE LOOK AND FEEL OF THIS PART OF THE COMMUNITY AND HERE'S SOME CLEAR NEEDS IDENTIFIED FOR IT.

AND WE KIND OF WE DIDN'T GO THAT WAY.

WE DID SOME DEVELOPMENT OF THAT AS AN IDEA, BUT WE DIDN'T END UP IMPLEMENTING IT AT THAT TIME.

SO WE WE'VE DABBLED IN IT A LITTLE BIT.

BUT WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW IN JOHN WESLEY POWELL BOULEVARD IS MUCH MORE A SECTOR PLAN.

IT'S PICKING A COUPLE BIG ISSUES, BUT IT'S NOT QUITE ENOUGH DETAIL FOR PRE-DEVELOPMENT WORK ESSENTIALLY, OR PRE REDEVELOPMENT WORK. AND DO YOU HAVE COLLABORATION AND COOPERATION FROM THOSE PRIVATE LANDOWNERS? I MEAN ESPECIALLY IN AN AREA LIKE THAT THAT IS ALL PRIVATELY OWNED AND THAT HAS SOME DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN, YOU KNOW, HERE AND THERE OR IS ALREADY BEING DEVELOPED.

YOU KNOW, ARE THEY ARE THEY AT THE TABLE WITH YOU? ARE THEY COLLABORATING AND ACCEPTING OF THAT? ARE YOU FACING CHALLENGES? I MEAN, PERSONALLY AS IN MY ROLE, I HAVEN'T BEEN AS INVOLVED IN THE JOHN WESLEY POWELL STUDY SINCE THE REGIONAL PLAN PICKED UP.

MICHELLE MCNULTY MAY BE IN A BETTER POSITION TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS, BUT I DO KNOW SHE'S MEETING REGULARLY WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND GETTING THEIR FEEDBACK.

AND THEY WE ARE ALSO TAKING THESE QUESTIONS AND THE PRESENTATIONS WE'RE DOING ON THE REGIONAL PLAN TO THEM, SO THEY CAN THINK ABOUT HOW WHAT THEY ARE WORKING ON WITH MICHELLE AND DAVID PETERSON IS GOING TO BE RELATED INTO THIS BIGGER DOCUMENT THAT THE WHOLE COMMUNITY IS GOING TO BE ENGAGED ON.

OKAY. THAT WAS ALWAYS MY CONCERN, REALLY, EVEN I THINK BEFORE I WAS ON THIS COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, AS I WATCHED THE J.W.

POWELL AREA START TO LOOK TOWARD PLANS OF BEING DEVELOPED, THAT THERE WAS POTENTIALLY A DISCONNECT FOR WHAT THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN IN THAT LAST EXPANSIVE REGION TO BE DEVELOPED AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY BUY A PARCEL OR A LARGE PLOT OF LAND, THEY ALREADY KNOW, THEY ALREADY HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO WITH IT.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE IT'S CREATING SOME DISCONNECT.

AND I WOULD SURE LIKE TO SEE THOSE COLLABORATIONS AND COOPERATIONS IMPROVE.

AND SO, THE LAST COUPLE THINGS IN THE REGIONAL PLAN FRAMEWORK THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT AND OTHER POLICY TO CONSIDERATIONS, IS THAT THE CONSULTANT DEFINITELY WOULD LIKE US TO LOOK AT MORE VARIETY OF MOVING AWAY FROM SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES AND CREATING ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE MORE EASILY PERMITTED IN THE CITY, SUCH AS ADUS, WHICH WE DO ALREADY ALLOW MIDDLE HOUSING AND APARTMENTS. SO, THIS COULD MEAN CHANGES TO THE EXISTING ZONING CODE CATEGORIES THAT MIGHT BE PROPOSED IN THE FUTURE AS THE RESULT OF THIS PLAN. ANOTHER PIECE IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD THE REGIONAL PLANS FRAMEWORK AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, SO THAT IT IS CROSS-REFERENCED CLEARLY WITH OUR EXISTING ZONING CATEGORIES AND MAKE THAT A PORTION OF THE PLAN THAT CAN BE EASILY UPDATED IF WE COME UP WITH NEW CATEGORIES OR RECOMBINE THEM IN CERTAIN WAYS.

FROM TRANSPORTATION, THERE IS A NEED TO ALIGN OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING TO SUPPORT THE DENSIFICATION OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO, JOHN WESLEY POWELL BOULEVARD IS KIND OF AN EXCEPTION TO THAT, OF COURSE, BECAUSE WE'RE FUNDING A NEW ROAD IN A GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT THAT'S NEEDED FOR SECONDARY FIRE ACCESS. BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF PLACES WITHIN THE CITY, AND EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE INFILL COULD BE BETTER SUPPORTED BY IMPROVING THE INFRASTRUCTURE INSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND WE'VE SEEN PHOENIX AND TUCSON HAVE BEEN DOING A LOT OF THIS.

THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD EXAMPLES IN ARIZONA OF HOW NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE ACHIEVED THIS AND FROM OTHER PLACES AS WELL.

IN FACT, A LOT OF STAFF RIGHT NOW ARE AT THE NACTO CONFERENCE IN MIAMI TRYING TO GET MORE UP TO SPEED ON A LOT OF THESE ALTERNATIVE DESIGNS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE COULD BE CONSIDERING.

WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE MEETING THE MINIMUM DENSITIES TO GET TRANSIT SUPPORTIVE LAND USES.

[01:40:02]

THE TRANSIT PROVIDER LOCALLY, MOUNTAIN LION, HAS SAID THAT THEY DO WELL IF THEY CAN GET SEVEN DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH A LOT OF OUR SINGLE-FAMILY ZONES HAVE FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AS THE MINIMUM OR ONE, AND THAT TEN DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE IS EVEN BETTER.

AND THEY REALLY START TO SEE RIDERSHIP WORK BETTER IN THOSE SCENARIOS.

SO, THINKING ABOUT WHERE OUR FLAWS ARE AND WHAT KIND OF SITE EFFICIENCY, WE CAN ACHIEVE TO GET DEVELOPMENT THAT'S MORE IN THOSE DENSITIES, CAN REALLY SUPPORT OUR TRANSIT SYSTEM AS WELL.

WE ALSO NEED TO LOOK AT HOW WE'RE FINANCING DUE TO AFFORDABILITY.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT IS GOING TO BE SUPPORTED BY LOCAL FUNDS AND WHAT IS GOING TO BE SUPPORTED BY DEVELOPER FUNDS.

WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SNOW ROUTES NEEDING A LOOK.

AND THEN ALSO CONSIDERING POLICY CHANGE OR INVESTMENT IN MITIGATION, IN DISPLACEMENT MITIGATION PROGRAMING AND GENTRIFICATION MITIGATION PROGRAMING.

SO, HELPING PEOPLE STAY IN THEIR HOUSES, KEEP THEIR HOUSES OF A GOOD QUALITY AND HAVE LESS PRESSURE TO MOVE.

WE ALSO WANT TO CONSIDER HOW THAT IS BEING DISTRIBUTED IN THE COMMUNITY.

IF WE DON'T DO MORE TO OPEN UP NEIGHBORHOODS TO NEW INFILL HOUSING THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY, THEN IT NATURALLY, THE MARKET SHIFTS THAT KIND OF REDEVELOPMENT TO THE CHEAPEST LAND IN THE COMMUNITY, WHICH GREATLY INCREASES OUR DISPLACEMENT RISK WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT NEW DEVELOPMENT.

SO THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT LAST NIGHT THE COMMITTEE WAS TALKING ABOUT AND HOW TO EMPHASIZE THAT IN OUR POLICIES.

SO, WE'RE MOVING FROM HAVING THIS MORE DIVERSE SET OF PLANNING CATEGORIES WHERE WE HAD THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE REGIONAL ACTIVITY CENTERS.

THERE WERE URBAN, SUBURBAN AND RURAL, AND WE ARE GOING TO TRY AND SIMPLIFY THAT.

HOWEVER, WE'RE ALSO STILL LOOKING AT.

IS THIS TOO SIMPLE? THERE'S SOME RIGHT SIZING THAT CAN BE DONE, SO THE FEEDBACK WE'RE GETTING RIGHT NOW IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO HELPING US THINK THROUGH THE FRAMEWORK OF WHAT CATEGORIES WILL THERE BE IN THE NEW PLAN AND WHAT WILL THEY MEAN? HOW WILL WE DESCRIBE THEM IN A WAY THAT HELPS ACHIEVE THIS BIGGER VISION? AND THE OUTCOMES THAT THE PREFERRED SCENARIO SHOWED US COULD BE ACHIEVED? WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TO GO FROM OUR MORE GENERALIZED FUTURE GROWTH ILLUSTRATION AND IN SOME CASES, HAVING TWO POTENTIAL GROWTH CATEGORIES ON THE SAME PIECE OF LAND, WHICH WAS THE CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE PART OF THE CURRENT PLAN, AND MOVING TO SOMETHING THAT'S MUCH MORE PARCEL SPECIFIC.

SO WHAT YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT IS THE ANCHORAGE LAND USE PLAN FOR ANCHORAGE, ALASKA.

AND WE EXPECT THAT THE NEW FUTURE GROWTH ILLUSTRATION WILL LOOK MUCH MORE LIKE THIS.

THE CHALLENGE WITH THAT IS UNDERSTANDING HOW WE CAN DO THAT WHILE OFFERING SOME FLEXIBILITY IN GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT.

SO WHAT I EXPECT AFTER THIS ROUND OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IS THAT WE ARE VERY QUICKLY GOING TO GET TO WORK ON CREATING CHARACTER STATEMENTS IN OUR CURRENT PLAN.

THOSE ARE CALLED THE TABLE OF CHARACTERISTICS, BUT WE'RE TAKING A FRESH LOOK AT ALL OF THAT AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT'S MOST RELEVANT AND IS RECALIBRATED TO ALL OF THESE OTHER FINDINGS THAT WE'VE MADE.

AND THEN ALSO HAVE A TABLE THAT SHOWS HOW DIFFERENT AREAS, SPECIFIC PLANS AND DIFFERENT ZONING CODE CATEGORIES INTERFACE WITH THE CATEGORIES IN THE REGIONAL PLAN.

SO THAT'S OUR HOPE IN GETTING ALL OF THIS MATERIAL ORGANIZED AND REINTEGRATED INTO WHAT COULD BE A NEW PLAN, WITH A NARROWER SET OF POLICIES AND A CLEARER SET OF PRIORITIES. ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVEN'T ASKED YET.

SO, I WAS LISTENING IN ON THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE'S MEETING LAST NIGHT, AND THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY.

AND THERE'S ONLY, LIKE, A WEEK'S WORTH OF TIME FOR THE COMMUNITY TO VOTE ON THIS PART.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. DO WE AS, LIKE, MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, NEED TO.

WEIGH IN ON THAT.

SHARE IT. CAN YOU SEND US A LINK? YES. DIRECTLY.

SO, WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE CITY WEB PAGE.

SO THAT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL.

LIKE, I CAN'T GO TOMORROW NIGHT.

I MIGHT BE ABLE TO GO ON SATURDAY, BUT.

YEAH. YES.

PLEASE. PLEASE HELP SHARE IT.

WE'VE SENT IT OUT IN THE NEWSLETTER.

WE'VE POSTED IT TO THE CITY'S FACEBOOK PAGE.

SO, IF YOU GO TO OUR CITY GOVERNMENT FACEBOOK PAGE, YOU CAN FIND IT AND RESHARE IT.

AND I THINK WE'RE WE'VE SENT IT OUT A FEW OTHER WAYS AND THERE'S SOME OTHER FOLKS SHARING IT, SO PLEASE SHARE THIS INFORMATION.

[01:45:02]

I KNOW WITH SCENARIO CHOOSING WE GAVE PEOPLE LIKE 60 DAYS.

IT WAS A REALLY LONG ENGAGEMENT PERIOD.

BUT WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF CRAFTING THESE THINGS RIGHT NOW.

SO THIS IS REALLY MORE OF A I CALL IT LIKE A FLASH ENGAGEMENT.

LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO CHECK IN REALLY QUICK AND KEEP WORKING.

AND THAT'S REALLY WHERE WE ARE.

I THINK EVEN FOR THOSE OF US THAT ARE FOLLOWING IT, I, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WE WERE AT ANOTHER STAGE OF ENGAGEMENT.

YOU KNOW, I WAS THINKING, OH, IT'S THEY'RE STILL TAKING SCENARIO PLANNING INPUT.

AND I DIDN'T REALIZE TILL LAST NIGHT THAT THERE WAS A BRAND NEW STAGE OF ENGAGEMENT FOR RIGHT NOW.

SO. YEAH, AND WE'VE BEEN OUT TO SOME COMMUNITY EVENTS IN THE LAST FEW WEEKS TOO.

WE HAD TWO LOCATIONS.

WE WERE AVAILABLE DURING ART WALK, WHICH THANK GOODNESS, IT WAS LIKE NICE WEATHER IN MAY.

AND SO WE HAD A REALLY GOOD ART WALK TURNOUT.

I THINK WE LIKE HAND SHOOK WITH ALMOST 200 PEOPLE BETWEEN THE TWO LOCATIONS WE WERE AT.

AND THEN ALSO JUST, YOU KNOW, OUR PARTNERS AND ALL OF THOSE CBOS HAVE BEEN SENDING THIS OUT NOW TO THEIR COMMUNITY MEMBERS.

I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON THE GROWTH CONCEPTS.

I'LL START WITH THE ACTIVITY CENTERS IN THE GREEN FIELDS.

WHAT KIND OF CARROTS OR INCENTIVES WOULD WE HAVE? TO GET NEW DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE, TO INCORPORATE THOSE KIND OF IDEAS VERSUS A SEA OF SAMENESS THAT HAS NO CENTER FOR MIXES OF USES OR COMMUNITY.

RIGHT. I THINK THAT WE THE WHAT WE HAVE HEARD FROM THOSE WHO HAVE GREENFIELD PROPERTIES AND WHAT IS PRETTY TYPICAL ACCORDING TO THE CONSULTANT WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH, IS WE NEED TO BASICALLY ALLOW BY RIGHT, A GREATER VARIETY OF HOUSING OPTIONS AND CHOICES AND DENSITIES IN OUR GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT.

WE'VE HAD A STRATEGY FOR A LONG TIME OF TREATING RURAL RESIDENTIAL AS A HOLDING DISTRICT AND SAYING, WELL, UPZONE THINGS AS THINGS ARE PROPOSED, BUT THAT IS NOT BECAUSE OF THE THE GREAT COSTS OF PUTTING IN NEW INFRASTRUCTURE.

THAT'S NOT A VERY EFFECTIVE STRATEGY, AND YOU CAN'T REALLY INCENTIVIZE YOUR WAY OUT OF THAT.

YOU HAVE TO START ALLOWING A GREATER VARIETY OF DETACHED OR ATTACHED HOUSING, MIDDLE HOUSING BY RIGHT IN YOUR BASICALLY WHAT WE CURRENTLY CALL RURAL RESIDENTIAL.

AND WE MIGHT HAVE TO REIMAGINE AS A DIFFERENT ZONING TITLE IN THE FUTURE IF WE LIKE GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENTS TO CONSIDER THOSE THINGS.

AND THEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD NODE CONCEPT IS ANOTHER ONE THAT IF WE COULD INTRODUCE THAT, WE COULD ALLOW IT IN THE GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT AREAS. AND THEN THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR SOME COMMERCIAL, BUT IT WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE IN SCALE WITH THE NUMBER OF ROOFTOPS WE'VE SEEN.

WOULD THAT BE PREEMPTIVE ZONING FOR COMMERCIAL NODES TOO? SO YOU HAVE YOU MENTIONED A GREATER VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES? HOW WOULD THAT WORK FOR THE CORE OF AN ACTIVITY CENTER? THAT WOULD BE THOSE WALKABLE AMENITIES.

THOSE WOULD BE ALREADY ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL.

AND WE WOULD THE CITY AND COMMUNITY WOULD DECIDE WHERE THOSE GO.

WELL, I MEAN, WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY SCALE MIXED USE CENTER ANYMORE IN THE GREENFIELD AREAS.

PRIMARILY, WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT IS ALLOWING FOR SMALLER COMMERCIAL.

WE KIND OF HAVE THAT SUBURBAN COMMERCIAL CATEGORY.

IT'S USED VERY SPARINGLY, AND MAYBE, MAYBE IT'S A LITTLE TOO SMALL SCALE FOR WHAT WE'RE THINKING OF AS A NEIGHBORHOOD NODE.

BUT THAT'S THE KIND OF ZONE WE COULD EVOLVE INTO BEING A NEIGHBORHOOD NODE.

OR WE COULD ALLOW THE CONCEPT OF WHAT IS ALLOWED IN SUBURBAN COMMERCIAL TO JUST BE ALLOWED IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

THOSE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS WE COULD APPROACH IT.

WE HAVEN'T ARRIVED AT AN ANSWER TO THAT YET, BUT THERE ARE EXAMPLES FROM OTHER CITIES THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT THAT COULD MAKE IT MORE ATTAINABLE.

FOR ME. I THINK THE BIG CHALLENGE THAT I SEE IS THAT DEVELOPERS WORKING IN THESE GREEN FIELD AREAS TEND TO DEVELOP BY. RIGHT.

SO. ALMOST DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WE SHOW IN THE REGIONAL PLAN OR IN A SPECIFIC PLAN, UNLESS THEY'RE GOING TO REZONE IT.

THEIR ATTITUDE IS THAT IT DOESN'T REALLY APPLY.

FOR ME, THE GIANT THING IS WHAT SARAH TOUCHED UPON IS THE NEED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND I BELIEVE THAT IF THE INFRASTRUCTURE WAS IN PLACE THAT WE HAD THE ROADS, WE HAD THE SEWER, WE HAD THE WATER, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS THAT THAT WOULD NATURALLY LEND ITSELF TO A DENSER, MORE URBAN TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.

BUT WHEN YOU JUST HAVE THESE PLAIN GREEN FIELDS WITH.

[01:50:04]

IT IT TENDS NOT TO DEVELOP IN THE WAY THAT.

YOU KNOW, THE URBAN PLANNERS WOULD LOVE TO SEE.

AND I THINK THAT'S PART OF TOO, WHEN SARAH WAS TALKING ABOUT THOSE POLICIES THAT I THINK STAFF IS VERY INTERESTED IN THE CONCEPT OF, OF HOW DO WE PLAY WITH THESE CAPITAL ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND, AND, CAN WE CAN WE TIE THE REGIONAL PLAN TO SOME OF THOSE, LIKE BIGGER CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT ARE HAPPENING? SO. OKAY.

IS. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH. TO BUILD ON THAT.

SO WITH THE NODES.

WHAT WHAT I WOULD.

SEE HAPPENING IS THESE AREAS, THESE GREENFIELD AREAS GET BUILT TO A FINISHED STATE AS THEY COME.

AND THAT WILL NOT INCLUDE THIS TYPE OF FLEXIBLE CORNER THAT CAN EVOLVE OVER TIME.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING AT ITS FINISHED STATE, MOST LIKELY JUST SOME SORT OF HOUSING.

SO WHETHER THAT.

INTENSITY IS WHATEVER IT IS.

IF WE BUILD IN FLEXIBILITY THEN YEAH, THAT THAT COULD HELP THEIR PRO FORMA TO HAVE HIGHER DENSITIES THERE.

BUT WHATEVER IT IS, I DON'T I DON'T SEE AN UNFINISHED BUILDING OR A FLEXIBLE BUILDING GOING IN THESE TYPE OF THINGS THAT CAN EVOLVE OVER TIME.

IT'LL BE IT'LL BE ONE THING OR ANOTHER.

SO THEN THAT THAT THAT FEELS LIKE A.

ALMOST LESS OF A CARROT TO GET THESE LITTLE WALKABLE AMENITIES THAN FORCING AN ACTIVITY CENTER.

MAYBE MORE OF A CON COMMENT TO JUST MULL OVER.

THANK YOU. AND MARY, YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR A COMMENT? I JUST WANTED TO ADD ON TO THAT, BECAUSE I THINK WE HAD A SIMILAR CONVERSATION WHEN MICHELLE WAS HERE ABOUT UPZONING AND THE THE ISSUES WITH, YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR ZONES.

AND I THINK BECAUSE PROBABLY IN AN EFFORT TO ENCOURAGE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, THERE'S OUR THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ALLOWS SO MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF THINGS AND, AND THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT IT'S CREATED, YOU KNOW, A LACK OF OVERSIGHT FOR TO HAVE ANY INFLUENCE ON WHAT WE NEED.

YOU KNOW, WHAT WE NEED.

I ALMOST WISH THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE, LET'S SAY, WHEN STATE LAND COMES OFF AND IT'S, IT'S SOLD TO AN INDIVIDUAL THAT THAT RR IS NOT THEIR DEFAULT ZONING. BECAUSE WE'VE LOST THE CONTROL BY HAVING SO MUCH AVAILABLE TO THEM TO BUILD BY.

RIGHT. SO WE'RE LOSING TO BE ABLE TO, TO ENCOURAGE HIGHER DENSITY.

IN THE RR ZONE WITHOUT REZONING.

YOU KNOW, WE ALMOST WANT THEM TO REZONE AND MAKE REZONING APPEALING IN SOME WAY SO THAT THEY WILL CONSIDER OTHER THINGS THAN JUST PRESS, YOU KNOW, SPORADICALLY IN THOSE LOTS.

DOES THAT I DON'T KNOW, I SEE IT AS A REVERSE ISSUE, LIKE WE'VE ALMOST CREATED OUR OWN PROBLEM BY ALLOWING SO MANY DIFFERENT AREAS OF DEVELOPMENT IN AN RR ZONE.

I, I THINK I CAN SEE THAT.

I THINK THAT BUT AGAIN, I ARIZONA IS SUCH A PROPERTY RIGHTS STATE THAT.

THERE'S A POINT WHERE OUR HANDS ARE TIED.

I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S HAPPENED SOMEWHAT RECENTLY IS THAT.

I'M GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SURE I'M SAYING THIS RIGHT, SO SARAH WILL CORRECT ME.

BUT IT USED TO BE THAT WE HAD MINOR PLAN AMENDMENTS AND MAJOR PLAN AMENDMENTS AND MAJOR PLAN AMENDMENTS.

THIS IS PLAN REGIONAL PLAN AMENDMENTS.

MAJOR REGIONAL PLAN AMENDMENTS COULD ONLY HAPPEN ONE TIME A YEAR.

SO AS A DEVELOPER, DEVELOPERS ARE LIKE, NO, THANK YOU LIKE THAT.

IT TOTALLY MESSED UP THEIR PERFORMANCE.

SO THE STATE LAW SOMEWHAT RECENTLY CHANGED.

I FEEL LIKE IT WAS RECENT ANYWAY.

AND SO NOW WE'RE NOT TIED TO THAT SAME CALENDAR DEADLINE.

SO I THINK THAT HELPS AS FAR AS IF SOMEONE WERE TO COME IN AND SAY, I WANT TO CREATE AN ACTIVITY CENTER IN THIS GREENFIELD AREA. IT'S AN ACTUALLY AN EASIER PROCESS FOR THEM, AND THERE'S MORE FLEXIBILITY AS FAR AS TIMING WISE.

SO THAT.

MIGHT NOT HELP, BUT IT DOESN'T HURT.

SO THERE'S THAT, I DO.

I THINK THAT'S TRUE. I THINK THAT THE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAJOR AND MINOR PLAN AMENDMENT, THERE ARE STILL DIFFERENCES LIKE DIFFERENT ANALYZES.

[01:55:06]

SO WHEN WE IDENTIFY MAJOR AND MINOR PLAN AMENDMENT CATEGORIES, IF WE SAY IT'S MAJOR TO ADD A NEW ACTIVITY CENTER, IT WON'T LEAD TO UNNECESSARY PROJECT DELAYS TO MAKE THAT REQUEST.

HOWEVER, WHAT I WOULD SAY ABOUT EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS IS THE ISSUE WE HAVE IS UNDERPERFORMANCE, AND WE HAVE MANY TIMES WHERE THERE ARE DENSITIES THAT ARE CONSIDERED.

AND BECAUSE OF HIGH PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND HIGH RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS AND LARGE ROAD REQUIREMENTS, THE DENSITIES THAT THE DEVELOPMENT ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AREN'T ACHIEVED IN THE FINAL.

AND SO I THINK WE SEE THAT OFTEN ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT IT'S NOT THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL IF EVERYTHING THAT IS DEVELOPED, RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPS THAT WAY, THEN WE HAVE THE BUSINESS AS USUAL SCENARIO AND WE ARE 50% LESS AFFORDABLE.

WE HAVE MUCH HIGHER VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED.

AND SO I DO THINK THAT THAT'S PART OF WHY ADDING DIVERSITY AND DENSITY TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL COULD BE AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION AS A STRATEGY.

BUT REALLY THE KEY IS, IS THAT WE NEED TO BE INVESTING IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S INTERNAL TO THE CITY NEIGHBORHOODS IN A WAY THAT LETS US ALLOW FOR NEW UNITS TO BE ADDED.

THAT ALSO REQUIRES, THOUGH, CLEANING UP SOME OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND REFINING THEM IN THE ZONING CODE SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY ACHIEVE HIGHER DENSITIES ON SMALLER LOTS INTERNAL TO EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND WHERE WOULD THOSE FUNDS COME FROM? I MEAN, BECAUSE I MEAN, GENERALLY, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO BE IT'S EITHER PROPERTY TAX, YOU KNOW, STATE TAX OR IMPACT FEES.

AND, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S KIND OF HOW IT'S ALL PAID FOR.

IT'S GOT TO COME OUT OF SOMEWHERE.

AND I KNOW LIKE EVEN IN CALIFORNIA, YOU KNOW, THEIR DEVELOPERS ARE CHALLENGING IMPACT FEES THERE.

SO WHAT WOULD BE WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF ARIZONA? WHAT WOULD BE OUR SOLUTION? I MEAN, IS THERE MONEY AVAILABLE AT THE CAPITAL PROJECT LEVEL TO BUILD OUR OWN INFRASTRUCTURE? MY GUESS IS NO, BUT I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW THAT I WANT TO OFFICIALLY ANSWER THAT.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES AS FAR AS GRANTS.

AND WE GET SORT OF WE PARTNER WITH OTHER AGENCIES TO COMPLETE PROJECTS.

I DO THINK FLAGSTAFF HAS BEEN RATHER DEPENDENT ON DEVELOPMENT TO GET A LOT OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE BUILT, AND I'M NOT SURE.

PERSONALLY, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S NECESSARILY THE HEALTHIEST RELATIONSHIP TO HAVE.

SO. I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY TO, YOU KNOW, AND WE'RE NOT THE FINANCIAL EXPERTS.

RICK TARDER, OF COURSE, GOES INTO GREAT DETAIL OF THIS.

IF YOU'RE EVER EXCITED ENOUGH TO JOIN CITY COUNCIL FOR 2- OR 3-DAY BUDGET RETREAT WHICH SOMETIMES STAFF WE REALLY ARE AND WE ENJOY THAT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF IT CAN BE LEVERAGING, YOU KNOW, WE.

RIGHT. I WAS TALKING TO SOME FOLKS ABOUT HOW WE WRITE THE REGIONAL PLAN, AND WE WRITE IT TO MEET ALL THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.

WE WRITE IT TO INSPIRE A VISION OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE.

WE WRITE IT TO HELP THE ZONING CODE AND BUILDING CODES AND ENGINEERING CODES BE UPDATED IN THE MANNER WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

WE ALSO WRITE IT SO WE CAN CITE IT FOR GRANT FUNDING.

AND SO THE REGIONAL PLAN CAN BE A PLACE TO CREATE LEVERAGE FOR THE KIND OF MONEY WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST.

AND A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT IS THE SOUTH SIDE PLAN, WHICH OF COURSE IS A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN.

IDENTIFYING. AND CARLTON WORKED ON THIS QUITE EXTENSIVELY.

DIFFERENT STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH SAFETY FOR BICYCLES AND PEDESTRIANS ON BUTLER AVENUE.

AND SO WE DID THE TACTICAL PROJECT OF PUTTING DOWN THE BUMPERS.

AND THEN THE BUMPERS ARE GETTING BROKEN ALL THE TIME, AND WE'RE STILL HAVING BICYCLE ACCIDENTS EVEN WITH THE BUMPERS.

AND SO THEN THAT GAVE US THE DATA WE NEEDED AND A PLAN TO KIND OF ANCHOR TO.

AND WE GOT $9.6 MILLION TO DO THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE KIND OF ALWAYS WANTED TO DO.

BUT BECAUSE WE THOUGHT ABOUT THEM STRATEGICALLY AND WE HAD A GOOD OUTLINE OF HOW WE WANTED TO ACHIEVE THEM, AND WE COULD PROVE THAT THE LOW COST METHOD WAS NOT GOING TO ACTUALLY ACHIEVE THE RESULTS WE WANTED.

YOU GO ASK FOR MORE MONEY.

YOU CAN ALSO HAVE A GREATER VISION OF HOW WE WANT TO MAKE OUR OUTCOMES HAPPEN AND FUND THOSE WITH THE VOTERS.

[02:00:07]

SO DO WE WRITE A PLAN? SO THE NEXT TIME THAT COMES AROUND, WE TAKE A HARDER LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, NO.

THE SIDEWALKS ARE AN ESSENTIAL PART OF A COMPLETE STREET, AND THE CITY WANTS TO PAY FOR THOSE.

IT IS MUCH HARDER, AS ALEX WILL TELL YOU, TO HAVE A FUNCTIONAL SIDEWALK WHEN WE EXPECT EVERY LITTLE FRONTAGE TO COMPLETE IT.

WE END UP WITH REALLY DISJOINTED INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND THAT'S A COST TOO.

SO, WHEN YOU'RE REDEVELOPING A PARCEL AND YOU HIT A CERTAIN THRESHOLD, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO PAY FOR A NEW SIDEWALK OR A WIDER SIDEWALK OR ANY OF THOSE THINGS, RATHER THAN THE CITY COMING IN AND DOING IT ALL AT ONCE.

IT'S ACTUALLY CHEAPER FOR THE CITY TO DO IT ALL AT ONCE THAN TO DO LITTLE PROJECTS ALL AROUND.

SO, THERE'S MORE EFFICIENCIES FOR THAT.

SO, SOME OF THAT CAN BE A BETTER INVESTMENT FOR THE CITY.

AND GENERALLY, THOSE THINGS OF HAVING SIDEWALKS IN FRONT OF YOUR PROPERTY, HAVING GOOD INFRASTRUCTURE IN FRONT OF YOUR PROPERTY INCREASES YOUR PROPERTY VALUE, RIGHT? WHICH MEANS YOU CAN LEVERAGE YOUR PROPERTY TO INVEST IN IT MORE.

SO, IT DOES COME BACK AROUND, EVEN THOUGH IT IS ANOTHER CONSIDERATION ON THOSE THAT KIND OF INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.

BUT YEAH, IT'S.

THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF DOES, AND I THINK WE THINK IT'S STATUS QUO BECAUSE IT'S THE WAY WE HAVE DONE IT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS.

BUT OTHER CITIES HAVE OTHER METHODS OF DOING SOME OF THOSE THINGS.

EVEN IN ARIZONA, WHERE WE CAN BE MORE EFFICIENT AND COST EFFECTIVE IF WE'RE WILLING TO CONSIDER OTHER WAYS OF APPROACHING IT.

ALL RIGHT.

OH. I'M SORRY.

CJ, YOU WERE LOOKING AT ME.

OKAY. GO AHEAD.

CAN WE GO TO THE MAP THAT SHOWED ALL THE URBAN AREA? THIS ONE? YEAH.

IS THAT. IS THAT AMOUNT OF AREA ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE SCENARIOS? IS THAT THE SAME AREA THAT THAT GETS MODELED IN THE SCENARIOS AS A KIND OF A, AT A LINEAR THRESHOLD OF SORTS.

LET ME LET ME DO SOMETHING.

HOLD ON. I'M GOING TO HIDE SOME SLIDES SO I CAN.

DO THE LIKE SWITCHING BETWEEN THEM.

HOLD ON. OKAY.

OKAY. SO, THERE'S THE PREFERRED SCENARIO AND THERE'S THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO, THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AREA IS ROUGHLY HERE.

AND THEN ALL THROUGH THIS KIND OF DARKER BLUE AREA, IT'S PRETTY CLOSE.

THEY LEFT OUT.

THEY LEFT OUT MCMILLAN MESA, WHICH OF COURSE WILL BE GREEN ON THE MAP.

WE JUST HAVEN'T PUT THE GREEN ON IT YET.

SO, IF YOU CARVED OUT THE MCMILLAN MESA PIECE RIGHT HERE, IT WOULD BE PRETTY CLOSE.

SO, IT'S BASICALLY THE EASTERN END IS FOURTH STREET ON THE OTHER.

YEAH, OKAY.

YEAH, MCMILLAN MESA WAS A BIG PART OF WHAT I WAS GETTING AT WITH THIS QUESTIONING.

I DIDN'T WANT I DIDN'T WANT THE SCENARIOS TO BE POINTING TOWARDS THESE GREAT OUTCOMES THAT ARE INFEASIBLE BECAUSE A THIRD OF THIS PURPLE IS STEEP HILLS, PROTECTED OPEN SPACE, OR LOCKED INTO HISTORIC PRESERVATION AREAS, OR SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING. THAT WOULD BE QUITE A CHALLENGE TO TO CHANGE UNLESS THAT THAT IS MOVING FORWARD.

SO, THE FAR WESTERN PART WAS THE LAST PART I'M GETTING AT OF TOWNSITE AND COCONINO ESTATES, IF THAT'S UNLESS WE'RE LOOKING AT ACTUALLY UPZONING THOSE PROACTIVELY OF SORTS.

WELL, I THINK WE WOULD BE LOOKING.

I THINK THAT THE PLAN, GIVEN WHAT WE'RE FINDING, WOULD SUPPORT FINDING WAYS TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY IN EXISTING ZONES.

AND INCREASE THE VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES YOU COULD BUILD IN THEM.

SO, LETTING PEOPLE TEAR DOWN A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OR REMODEL IT TO BE A DUPLEX WITHOUT NEEDING A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT.

I ACTUALLY THINK THAT OUR CODE ALLOWS FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING IN DIFFERENT ZONES.

ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I SEE IS ONCE YOU HIT THREE UNITS, YOU'RE CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY, AND THAT TENDS TO TRIGGER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH IS A CAN BE A LARGE EXPENSE IN A PROJECT.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE THINKING ABOUT TOO.

RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHY IF WE WERE IF THE CITY WERE PAYING FOR OR HAD A CAPITAL PROGRAM THAT WAS DOING MORE TO CREATE THOSE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, IT WOULD REMOVE THAT BURDEN

[02:05:06]

THAT'S THE CONVERSATION I WAS STARTING WITH THE WESTERN COMMENT.

THANKS. YEP.

YEAH. AND PARKS AND OPEN SPACE WILL BE DRAWN INTO THIS.

OF COURSE. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WE'RE LAYERING.

WE'RE BUILDING THE LAYERS BACK UP.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SARAH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT WAS A VERY INFORMATIVE.

PRESENTATION. SO, THANK YOU.

THANKS FOR GIVING ME SO MUCH OF YOUR TIME.

YEAH. IS THERE ANY MISCELLANEOUS TO AND FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS?

[6. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO/FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS]

I WON'T DO IT HERE AT THIS MEETING.

MAYBE THE NEXT MEETING I WOULD LOVE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT, LIKE, IT'S THERE'S A LOT LESS DEVELOPMENT PLANS ON THE NEWLY REVISED ONE.

SO PROBABLY A LOT OF THINGS HAVE BEEN DROPPED OFF OR REVISED.

I WOULD LIKE TO JUST LEARN ABOUT THE PROCESS OF HOW THAT GOT UPDATED.

SO, AND I CAN I THINK I CAN ANSWER THAT HERE JUST REALLY QUICKLY.

THE DEVELOPMENT STATUS REPORT.

IT WENT THROUGH.

THERE WERE SOME ROCKY TIMES THERE, AND WE WEREN'T MAYBE DOING OUR BEST AT KEEPING THAT UPDATED.

WE'RE DOING BETTER NOW.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT.

THERE WAS A PERIOD WHERE I WAS ASKED TO KEEP PROJECTS ON THERE.

BUT ESSENTIALLY IT REACHES A POINT WHERE A SITE PLAN IS ONLY GOOD FOR A SITE PLAN.

APPROVAL IS ONLY GOOD FOR SO LONG.

AND SO I ACTUALLY THIS LAST ROUND I WENT THROUGH AND STARTED PICKING OUT PROJECTS THAT THE SITE PLAN HAD EXPIRED.

THEY COULD VERY WELL COME BACK TO LIFE AND COME BACK ON THAT LIST, BUT I FELT LIKE IN ITS CURRENT FORM, IT'S PROBABLY MORE HELPFUL AND MORE ACCURATE, AND IT'S EASIER TO SEE WHAT THE NEW THINGS ARE.

THEN HAVING A GIANT LONG LIST, INCLUDING PROJECTS THAT IT'S BEEN YEARS, AND WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN A RESUBMITTAL KIND OF THING.

SO, THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER OR FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS.

HEARING NONE.

I AM ADJOURNING THE MEETING AT 6:08 P.M.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU.

BOB.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.