[00:00:02]
OKAY. I THINK I HAVE US ALL UNMUTED.
AND IT'S AFTER 4:00 AND I SEE BOB'S JOINED US REMOTELY.
SO IAN HAS KINDLY AGREED TO CHAIR TODAY'S MEETING.
AND, SIR, WHENEVER YOU'RE READY, GET STARTED.
[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).]
ALL RIGHT. I'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.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 ATTORNEY.
FOR LEGAL ADVICE ON ANY ITEM LISTED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA PURSUANT TO AHS 38-4 31.0 3A3 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 ]
CAROLE. MANDINO IS EXCUSED.PRESENT. MARY NORTON IS EXCUSED.
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 ON THAT DAY DUE TO OPEN MEETING LAWS, THE COMMISSION CANNOT DISCUSS OR ACT ON ITEMS PRESENTED DURING THIS PORTION OF THE AGENDA.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? I SEE NONE.
SEEING NONE. WE'LL MOVE ON TO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Wednesday, May 8, 2024.]
MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.I'LL SECOND. MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
[5. PUBLIC HEARING PZ-2400011: Pine Canyon Lot 381, Single-Family HOH A Conditional Use Permit request from Hugh McMahon on behalf of Two Hawks Design and Development to allow a Single-Family High Occupancy Housing Development in the Single-Family Residential (R1) Zone at 3682 S Woodland Hills Drive in the Estates at Pine Canyon Pine Run subdivision. The proposal is for a 5,165 square foot new-build single-family residence with 5 bedrooms, 5.5 bathrooms and a 1,294 square foot attached garage on approximately 0.58 acres. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends continuing this item to the June 12, 2024 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting.]
THE FIRST ITEM WE HAVE IS PZ 24 00011.IS THAT ON? CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS, I'M DUSTIN STIFFLER, THE ASSOCIATE PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.
TO REQUEST THE CONTINUANCE OF THE ITEM.
PZ 2400011 TO THE JUNE 12TH, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
THE REASON FOR THIS REQUEST IS FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS.
THE STATE MANDATES THAT WE RUN A NEWSPAPER AD AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
FOR THIS ITEM AND FOR THIS AFTERNOON'S MEETING.
AND SO TO MEET THAT STATE MANDATE OF AT LEAST 15 DAYS.
WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS CONTINUANCE.
WHICH WILL BE IN SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE JUNE 12TH MEETING.
SO WITH THAT, STAFF, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION CONTINUES THIS ITEM TO THE JUNE 12TH, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? I USED TO HAVE A GYM IN FRONT OF ME.
WE CONTINUE THIS TO THE JUNE 12TH.
PLANNED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? SAY AYE.
[A. PZ-23-00027-01: Preliminary replat of lots 23-24 and Tract E of the "Final Plat for Coconino Ridge at Pine Canyon" 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.]
NEXT ITEM. GENERAL BUSINESS PZ 23-0002701.PRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOTS 23 TO 24 AND TRACT E OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR COCONINO RIDGE AT PINE CANYON.
GOOD AFTERNOON. COMMISSION. MY NAME IS BEN MEJIA.
I'M A PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.
[00:05:03]
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, TODAY, WE HAVE SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN YOU MIGHT BE USED TO IN SEEING PRELIMINARY PLATS.THIS IS A REPLAT REQUEST FILED BY COCONINO RIDGE AT PINE CANYON LLC AND TLC, PC LAND INVESTORS, LLC TO MODIFY AN EXISTING PLAT EXISTING SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS COCONINO RIDGE AT PINE CANYON.
THE REQUEST IS TO MODIFY SPECIFICALLY TRACT E OF THE COCONINO RIDGE TO ALLOW FOR PRIVATE STREETS AND IN SO DOING MODIFYING LOTS 23 AND 24 TO EXPAND TRACT E.
SO THE THE IMPACTED LOTS ARE 2460 AND 2473 SOUTH PINYON JAY DRIVE.
AS WELL AS TRACT D IN THE MIDDLE.
THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION CONTAINS 31 SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOTS ON 19.2 ACRES IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE, AND IS ALSO WITHIN THE RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY.
AND TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THE LOCATION OF THIS.
THIS IS IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PINE CANYON, AND IT'S SURROUNDED BY TO THE NORTH JUNIPER POINT IN THE RR ZONE, AS WELL AS WHAT'S MORE VISIBLE IN THE VICINITY MAP THE CITY OWNED PARCEL, WHICH IS IN THE MH ZONE AS WELL AS TO THE SOUTH AND WEST ANOTHER PINE CANYON DEVELOPMENT.
OR. SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS DEER CREEK CROSSING UNIT ONE, AND TO THE EAST THERE'S THE UNDEVELOPED 126 ACRE PARCEL OF WHAT WAS FORMERLY KNOWN AS STATE TRUST LAND 405 IN THE RR ZONE, AS WELL AS KIND OF FARTHER TO THE SOUTH NATIONAL FOREST IN THE ZONE.
TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND OF THE EXISTING SUBDIVISION.
THIS WAS RECORDED IN 2017 AS COCONINO RIDGE AT PINE CANYON, WITH 32 LOTS IN THE R1 ZONE. SINCE THAT RECORDATION, ONE OF THE LOTS WAS SPLIT INTO SOME ADJOINING LOTS, AND NOW THERE'S A TOTAL OF 31 WITHIN THAT. WITHIN THE WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE PLAT AND TRACT E WAS RESERVED AT THAT TIME AS PRIVATE OPEN SPACE, PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT AND PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
SO THIS IS THEIR REQUEST IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRETY OF COCONINO RIDGE AT PINE CANYON.
NO OTHER MODIFICATIONS TO ANY OF THE LOTS OUTSIDE OF 23 AND 24 ARE PROPOSED.
JUST TO KIND OF ZOOM IN ON EXISTING CONDITIONS.
TRUSTEE WAS ORIGINALLY A WIDTH OF 30FT, AND LOTS 23 AND 24 WERE APPROXIMATELY 17,000FT² LOTS.
AND THE COCONINO RIDGE AT PINE CANYON, RESOURCE CALCULATION OR TREE PRESERVATION RATE WAS 52.7%.
SO AS STATED BEFORE, WE'RE EXPANDING TRACT E TO 61FT WIDTH AND WE ARE RESERVING TRACT E FOR PRIVATE ROADS, REMOVING THE OPEN SPACE RESERVATION.
BUT THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT WILL REMAIN.
THE LOTS 23 AND 24 ARE BEING REDUCED SLIGHTLY.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE APPROXIMATELY 14,000FT².
AND THE THE NEW TREE PRESERVATION RATE WOULD BE 50.3.
SO A MINOR REDUCTION, BUT IT IS STILL ABOVE THE 50% REQUIREMENT.
NOW, THIS REPLATING ACTION IN ITSELF DOESN'T REALLY MAKE MUCH CHANGE REGARDING THE THE GREATER COCONINO RIDGE PLAT CONDITIONS OR MEETING THE STANDARDS OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
THIS ACTION IS NOT MAKING ANY CHANGE TO THE DENSITY OF THE COCONINO RIDGE AT PINE CANYON PLAT.
LOTS ARE DESIGNED TO MEET RESOURCE PROTECTION USING SPECIFIC BUILDING ENVELOPES.
IN THIS CASE, THEY ARE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE SETBACKS FOR THE ZONE.
AND THE LOT SIZES EXCEED THE 6000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM FOR THE ZONE.
AND THE DIMENSIONS EXCEED THE MINIMUM OF 65FT BY 100FT.
[00:10:03]
THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 84FT WIDE BY 135FT DEEP.AND AS STATED BEFORE, THE SETBACKS ARE IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR R-1 ZONE.
CULTURAL RESOURCE WAS CLEARED WITH THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL OF THE COCONINO RIDGE AND PINE CANYON PLAT.
NOTHING PROPOSED HERE IS MODIFIES THAT TO TO REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL REVIEW FOR CULTURAL RESOURCES.
AND WHILE THERE'S NO PARKS OR OPEN SPACE PROPOSED WITH THIS PLAT OR WITH THE ORIGINAL PLAT, PINE CANYON IS A HIGHLY AMENITIZED OUTDOOR DEVELOPMENT AREA.
AND THAT INCLUDES A FOOT TRAIL THAT RUNS ALONG THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN BOUNDARIES OF THIS PLAT ON THE OTHER SIDE ON DEER CREEK CROSSING. PUBLIC SYSTEMS ANALYSIS WAS CONDUCTED TO CONFIRM PRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE WITH ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND WILL BE CONFIRMED AND VERIFIED IN THE NEXT STEP.
WHICH CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS.
NO TIA WAS REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS ACTION.
THERE WAS A TIA THAT WAS COMPLETED FOR THE ENTIRE PINE CANYON DEVELOPMENT AREA.
THE LOTS ARE ALREADY SERVED BY WATER AND WASTEWATER, SO THERE'S NO CHANGES TO THAT.
THIS REQUEST DOES MEET PRELIMINARY PLAT PROCEDURES, APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS MINIMUM REQUIRED SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS WHICH WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDES. AS WELL AS LOT DESIGN, STREET DESIGN, EASEMENT DESIGN, AND BLOCK DESIGN.
SO WITH THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, BASED ON THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, FORWARDS THIS PRELIMINARY PLOT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL.
THE MICROPHONE DOESN'T SEEM TO WORK ALL THE TIME.
THANK YOU. ANY QUESTION FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? I'M CURIOUS WHERE THE 61FT.
RIGHT. SO TO EXPAND TRACT D THEY DID REDUCE THOSE ADJACENT LOTS OF 23 AND 24.
SO THOSE DID GET REDUCED IN WIDTH TO ALLOW FOR AN INCREASED TRACT.
WELL, I GUESS THE, MY QUESTION IS THE RESULTANT 61FT EASEMENT THAT GOES THROUGH THERE.
WHAT'S THAT CONNECTED WITH? THE EASEMENT ISN'T CHANGING.
I'M CONFUSED. TRACT E IS CHANGING IN DIMENSION.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT, COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT QUESTION.
ONE? YEAH. THAT TRACT D WIDENED TO 61FT, I BELIEVE.
CORRECT. AND WHERE IS THAT 61FT? WHAT'S THAT CONNECTED TO? SO TO THE EAST, IT'S CONNECTING TO THE STL 405 PIECE OR 126 ACRE.
WHAT WAS I BELIEVE IT'S CALLED A TAKEDOWN.
SOUNDS AGGRESSIVE, BUT I THINK IT'S JUST WHEN THEY, THEY BUY SOME LAND, BUT THEY THERE'S NO CURRENTLY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THAT LOCATION, BUT IT IS PROPOSED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
I I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY REZONING PROPOSAL FOR THAT.
WHAT WAS THE IMPETUS FOR THIS? THEN WHAT? WHAT CAUSED THIS WAS THIS.
PINE CANYON'S OWN IDEA TO CONNECT FURTHER EAST, OR WAS THIS STAFF LED TO INCREASE CONNECTIVITY? THERE MIGHT BE SOME HISTORY THAT THE APPLICANT CAN SHARE AS TO THE RATIONALE FOR THAT, BUT I UNDERSTAND IT TO BE TO CONNECT TO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST OF THIS SITE.
LINDSAY, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? CHAIR, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO TO ADD ANY COLOR? YES. GO AHEAD.
SORRY. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, LINDSAY SCHUBE WITH GAMAGE AND BURNHAM.
I HAD SO MUCH FUN LAST TIME, SO I APOLOGIZE.
I'M NOT THERE IN PERSON, BUT HERE VIRTUALLY TO SPEAK TO YOU.
YES. THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH IS STL 405, NEEDS SECONDARY ACCESS.
AND SO THERE WAS ALWAYS A CONTEMPLATION THAT PERHAPS THERE WOULD BE SECONDARY ACCESS HERE.
AND PINE CANYON, IT CAN ACCOMMODATE FOR THAT.
SO THAT'S THE NECESSITY FOR THE PLAT REQUEST HERE TODAY.
[00:15:07]
OKAY. THANKS. SO KIND OF A PRIVATE BETWEEN TWO PRIVATE PARTIES.CORRECT. SO IT'S BACK TO THE 61FT ROADWAY CROSS SECTION WOULD BE 57FT FOR SOME SORT OF LOCAL.
SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY IT'S WIDER THAN NECESSARY.
I THINK IN PART, IT'S STILL A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT.
SO WE HAVE DRAINAGE THE UTILITIES IN THERE, AS WELL AS THE RIGHT OF WAY.
BUT OUR ENGINEER SAID THAT'S HOW MUCH WE NEEDED.
SO I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THAT RR ZONING, BECAUSE I KNOW IN THE REGIONAL PLAN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT MAKING THAT A DEFAULT WHEN THOSE LANDS ARE BOUGHT.
AND SO YOU WERE SAYING RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO PLANS OR ANYTHING.
YEAH, THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH IS I DON'T THINK IT'S ANY SURPRISE.
IT'S THE SAME PROPERTY OWNER AS PINE CANYON THAT OWNS THE ADJACENT STORY.
IT'S ACTUALLY A DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNERSHIP GROUP.
SYMMETRY PROPERTIES, WHICH IS THE OWNER OF PINE CANYON, IS PART OF THAT OWNERSHIP GROUP.
HOPEFULLY THERE WILL BE SOME REZONE REQUESTS THAT COME IN THE STL 405.
IT'S A VERY CREATIVE NAME FOR THE ENTITY STATE TRUST LAND 405 ACRES.
SO NOT A VERY CREATIVE NAME, BUT THERE ARE 405 ACRES.
THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM IS LOOKING AT DOING SOME, SOME MORE INTERESTING THINGS AND JUST DEVELOPING BY.
RIGHT. BUT THE FIRST PHASE, UNFORTUNATELY, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE PAID FOR.
SO THE FIRST PHASE, WE'RE JUST DEVELOPING SOME LOTS BY RIGHT WITH THE EXISTING ZONING.
BUT WE SO THE EXACT ADJACENT PROPERTY, THERE IS NO, NO REZONE REQUEST.
HOPEFULLY ON THE BALANCE OF 405.
WE CAN DO SOME MORE INTERESTING THINGS.
SO WE'RE WORKING WITH STAFF ON THOSE.
ANY OTHER QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONERS? I THINK WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND.
I SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.
HI. THIS MICROPHONE IS CUTTING IN AND OUT A LOT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH.
[7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO/FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS]
ITEM SEVEN, MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TWO AND FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS.DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING? I JUST HAD ONE COMMENT.
WHEN I WENT AND WAS TALKING ABOUT THE REGIONAL PLAN AT THE MEETING, ONE OF THE THINGS THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT ARE THESE CORRIDORS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO BUILD OUT AT SOME POINT.
AND SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT IT ON THE RADAR MAYBE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL THAT IF WE KNOW SOMETHING IS GOING TO GO TO FOUR LANES EVENTUALLY, LIKE ESPECIALLY THE LOCKETT PART AND THE CEDAR BY SAFEWAY.
HAVE WE EVER LOOKED AT BUYING THE PROPERTIES WHEN THEY'RE FOR SALE AND HOLDING ON TO THEM INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH THE WHOLE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCESS? BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF PROPERTIES FOR SALE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF THE FLOODING AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT ARE ALONG CEDAR.
[00:20:03]
SO THAT'S ALL, JUST A COMMENT.SO, ALEX, I THINK WE CAN ADJOURN RIGHT? YES WE MAY.
WELCOME.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.