Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[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 City Council and to the general public that, at this regular meeting, the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the City’s attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).]

[00:00:02]

WELCOME EVERYBODY TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING OF WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2021. I NOTICED IN THE CALL TO ORDER THERE IS A NOTICE TO OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. APPARENTLY, SAYS CITY COUNCIL, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING HERE IS THAT THE COMMISSION COULD VOTE TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MEETING, WHICH WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. CAN WE HAVE THE ROLL CALL? YES, AND DAVID, I'LL, THAT'S A NEW THAT OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION IS KIND OF A NEW ADDITION THAT I'M GOING TO START INCLUDING ON OUR AGENDA, AND I'LL UPDATE THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CORRECT.

DO I NEED TO READ IT IN FULL? I'M SURE WE COULD READ THAT IF YOU WANT, JUST SWITCH OUT CITY COUNCIL WITH THE THING.

OK, BACKING UP TO ITEM ONE CALL TO ORDER NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO ARS SECTION 38-431.02.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT AT THIS REGULAR MEETING, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH WILL NOT BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC FOR LEGAL ADVICE AND DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY'S ATTORNEYS FOR LEGAL ADVICE ON ANY ITEM LISTED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA PURSUANT TO ARS SECTION 38-431.03 A [INAUDIBLE]. OK. MAY WE HAVE THE ROLL CALL PLEASE.

[2. Roll Call NOTE: One or more Commission Members may be in attendance telephonically or by other technological means. DAVID ZIMMERMAN, CHAIR MARIE JONES, VICE CHAIR RICARDO GUTHRIE CAROLE MANDINO DR. ALEX MARTINEZ DR. ERIC NOLAN LLOYD PAUL ]

YES. AND BEAR WITH ME, BECKY, IS NOT HERE, SO I'M GOING TO DO MY BEST.

PRESENT. MARIE JONES.

PRESENT.

RICARDO GUTHRIE.

PRESENT. CAROLE MANDINO.

PRESENT.

ALEX MARTINEZ IS EXCUSED.

ERIC NOLAN.

PRESENT. AND LLOYD PAUL.

PRESENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MOVING ON TO ITEM THREE 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 THIS DAY.

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 THE CHAIR TO CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE TIME THE ITEM IS HEARD.

IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? SEEING AND HEARING NONE, I GUESS I WILL AGAIN MAKE MY USUAL REQUEST THAT IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT OR A QUESTION, IF YOU CAN USE THE RAISE YOUR HAND FEATURE, THEN I'M ABLE TO SEE THAT YOU'RE YOU'RE WAITING AND CAN CALL ON PEOPLE IN THE ORDER WHICH THEY THEY RAISE THEIR HANDS. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.

AND OUR ITEM FIVE IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

WE HAVE TWO TODAY.

THE FIRST ONE IS PZ-21-00184 BURCH HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. DAVID, CAN WE GO BACK AND APPROVE THE MINUTES FIRST? OH, I'M SORRY, I SKIPPED OVER THAT.

YES, WE CAN. I'M SORRY.

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes from the meeting on August 25, 2021.]

HOPEFULLY, EVERYONE HAS HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 25, 2021 MEETING. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS OR OTHER COMMENTS ON THOSE? THIS IS COMMISSIONER MANDINO.

I MOVE, WE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF AUGUST 25TH, 2021.

OK. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

DO I HEAR A SECOND? THIS IS COMMISSIONER NOLAN, I'LL SECOND THAT.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM COMMISSIONER MANDINO, A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER NOLAN.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE SIGNIFY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED?

[00:05:06]

ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

[A. PZ-21-00184 Burch HOHD. A Conditional Use Permit request from applicant Brandon Gowen on behalf of property owners Brian and Beverly Burch to establish a Single Family High Occupancy Housing Development (HOHD). The HOHD will consist of a 9,403 sq. ft. single family residential unit containing 7 bedrooms and 5 sanitation facilities (bathrooms) on approximately 3.76 acres at 4840 East Gandalf Lane in the Rural Residential (RR) Zoning District. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: In accordance with the findings presented in the attached report, staff recommends approval of PZ-21-00184 with conditions.]

OK, GOING BACK TO OUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING, THE BURCH HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FROM THE APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS. AND I'M NOT GOING TO READ THE WHOLE THE WHOLE THING, BUT DO WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT? WE DO.

[INAUDIBLE] THIS IS, CHRIS ROBINSON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER, AND I'LL BE PRESENTING THE STAFF REPORT FOR PRESENTATION FOR THIS ITEM.

SO THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, SINGLE FAMILY, THE ITEM NUMBER'S PZ-21-00184.

SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THIS USE AT 484 EAST GANDALF LANE IN THE FOREST RIDGE SUBDIVISION ZONED RR.

THEY ARE PROPOSING A SEVEN BEDROOM, FIVE BATHROOM, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON THREE POINT SEVENTY SIX ACRES.

SO THIS REQUEST IS BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TODAY.

THESE BECAUSE THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING SPECIFIC PLAN IN FEBRUARY 2018.

THIS WAS DEVELOPED IN RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY DIALOG ABOUT HIGH INTENSITY MID RISE DEVELOPMENTS NEAR HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS SUCH AS THE SOUTH SIDE THAT PRIMARILY CATERED TO COLLEGE STUDENTS.

AFTER THE SPECIFIC PLAN WAS ADOPTED, CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED CITY STAFF ON OCTOBER 8TH, 2019 TO ADDRESS SMALLER DEVELOPMENTS THAT MIGHT ALSO BE CONSIDERED HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING, INCLUDING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS.

ON NOVEMBER 17TH, 2020, CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED CHANGES TO THE ZONING CODE TO REFLECT A HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING REGULATIONS.

THEY WENT INTO EFFECT ON MARCH 21ST OF THIS YEAR, AND THESE ZONING CODE UPDATES DEFINED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS THAT WERE CONSIDERED HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING AS SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS, WITH SEVEN OR MORE BEDROOMS AND FIVE OR MORE SANITATION FACILITIES, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS FULL BATHROOMS WITH A SHOWER, SINK AND A TOILET.

THE ZONING UPDATES REQUIRED THAT HOH DEVELOPMENTS OBTAIN A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT COULD BE ISSUED, AND AS SUCH, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS BEFORE THE COMMISSION TODAY. A BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE SUBDIVISION.

IT'S 14 LOTS IN EIGHTY FIVE POINT FIVE NINE ACRES ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL.

THE INTENT OF WHICH WAS TO BE LARGE ESTATE STYLE HOMES ON LARGE LOTS.

SOME OF THE HOMES WHICH THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUILT.

IF THEY WERE BUILT WHEN THE HOH REGULATIONS WERE IN PLACE, THEY WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS THE CURRENT APPLICATION.

THE SUBDIVISION IS WITHIN A RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY.

SO EACH LOT HAS A DESIGNATED BUILDING ENVELOPE, AS YOU CAN SEE, TO HELP THE SUBDIVISION MEET THE RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS THAT THEY WERE SUBJECT TO, AND IT IS OUTSIDE OF AN ACTIVITY CENTER AND PEDESTRIAN SHED, PER THE REGIONAL PLAN PLAT.

THE PROPOSED SITE'S THE THREE POINT SEVEN SIX ACRES, AS I SAID, THE PROPOSED DWELLING UNIT'S 9400 AT THREE SQUARE FEET WITH SEVEN BEDROOMS AND FIVE BATHROOMS, TWO STORIES AND THE BUILDING PERMIT IS CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST. AND THESE ARE JUST PROPOSED ELEVATIONS.

FOR REFERENCE, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AREN'T SUBJECT TO ANY ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS OR BUILDING MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS.

THESE ARE JUST FOR COMMISSION OR AS REFERENCE.

SO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO PROVIDE A PROCESS FOR REVIEWING USES AND ACTIVITIES THAT ARE PERMITTED IN AN APPLICABLE ZONE, BUT THEY REQUIRE MORE DISCRETION AND REVIEW AND POSSIBLE IMPOSITIONS OF CONDITIONS TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE.

WHEN REVIEWING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST.

THE COMMISSIONERS REVIEW IT AGAINST THREE FINDINGS, THE FIRST OF WHICH BEING THE CONDITIONAL USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ZONING CODE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE ZONE IN WHICH THE SITE IS LOCATED.

THE SECOND FINDING BEING THAT GRANTING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.

THE THIRD FINDING IS THAT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE ARE REASONABLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THEN THERE ARE SUBSECTIONS OF THAT FINDING NUMBER THREE, WHICH INCLUDE ACCESS, TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION, ADEQUACY OF SITE AND OPEN SPACE PROVISIONS, NOISE, LIGHT, VISUAL AND OTHER POLLUTANTS.

PROPOSED STYLE AND SITING OF THE STRUCTURE.

[00:10:02]

RELATIONSHIP TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.

LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING PROVISIONS.

IMPACT ON PUBLIC UTILITIES, SIGNAGE, OUTDOOR LIGHTING.

DEDICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF STREETS.

AND IMPACT ON HISTORICAL, PREHISTORIC OR NATURAL RESOURCES.

HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ALSO HAVE ADDITIONAL FINDINGS THAT THE COMMISSIONERS WILL CONSIDER.

FINDING FOUR IS FOR PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO DIVISION 10-30.30.

THAT THE CITY'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER HAS MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HAS NO ADVERSE EFFECT.

IF SOMEBODY SEEMS LIKE THEY HAVE A MICROPHONE ON IF THEY COULD MUTE, THERE'S A BIT OF ECHO. YES.

FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ATTENDING THE MEETING, UNLESS YOU'RE SPEAKING, IF YOU COULD MUTE YOUR MICROPHONES, THAT'LL CUT DOWN ON THE BACKGROUND NOISE.

THANK YOU. OK, I THINK WE'RE GOOD.

I'LL REPEAT FINDING FOUR.

IT'S FOR PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO THE DIVISION 10-30.30 THAT THE CITY'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HAS NO ADVERSE EFFECT AND HAS APPROPRIATELY MITIGATED ITS EFFECT ON HISTORIC CULTURAL RESOURCE AND THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR HOH DEVELOPMENT IS THAT ADEQUATE TRANSPORT SERVICES AVAILABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT SITES CONTAINING FOUR OR MORE DWELLING UNITS AND THEN ADEQUATE TRANSIT SERVICE HAS A SPECIFIC CRITERIA TO IT BEING LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 1320 FEET TO A PERMANENT TRANSIT STOP.

SO. FOR THIS PROPOSED HOH SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE FIRST FINDING, THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE ALLOWS HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS WITH THE GRANTING OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND THE PROPOSED PROJECT, WHICH IS A LARGE ESTATE STYLE HOME, IS IN STEP WITH THE CHARACTER AND PURPOSE OF THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE BEING A PREDOMINANTLY LARGE LOT, SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ZONE.

THE SECOND FINDING OF THE CONDITIONAL USE BEING NOT DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE, AS LONG AS THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS, WHICH CITY STAFF WILL BE CHECKING DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS OF THEIR BUILDING PERMIT.

THE PROJECT SHOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. FOR THE THIRD FINDING, CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE REASONABLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE USES PERMITTED IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

FOR THOSE SUBSECTIONS FOR ACCESS, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION, ACCESS TO THE SITE WOULD BE PROVIDED VIA EAST GANDALF LANE, WHICH IS A LOCAL STREET FOR THE SUBDIVISION.

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS ISN'T REQUIRED FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES, AS THE ONLY TRAFFIC THAT THE RESIDENTS WOULD SEE WOULD BE FROM THE HOME'S OCCUPANTS AND NOT FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC. IN SINGLE-FAMILY, HIGH CAPACITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ONE OFF STREET PARKING SPACE PER BEDROOM.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSING SEVEN BEDROOMS AND SEVEN PARKING SPACES ARE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION.

FOR ADEQUACY OF SITE AND RESOURCE PROVISIONS, AS I SAID BEFORE THE SUBDIVISION, AS PART OF THE RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY, AND AS SUCH, THEY HAVE SPECIFIC BUILDING ENVELOPES FOR EACH LOT TO HELP CONFORM TO THE RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS.

THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS LIMITED ITS DEVELOPMENT AND DISTURBANCE WITHIN THAT BUILDING THE ENVELOPE, WHICH HELPS IT MEET THE MINIMUM RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND THE OVERLAY ZONE.

THE EXCEPTION THAT THIS WOULD BE THE DRIVEWAY.

HOWEVER, IT'S TYPICAL WITH PLATS SUCH AS THIS THAT HAVE UNIQUE BUILDING ENVELOPES THAT A DRIVEWAY NORMALLY IS WITH OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPE AND INVOLVES DISTURBANCE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPE.

THE APPLICANT HAS, IN THEIR BUILDING PLANS, SHOWN THAT THEY HAVE MITIGATED THAT DISTURBANCE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPE WITH THIS DRIVEWAY AND HAS NOT DISTURBED ANY RESOURCES PROTECTED BY THE RESOURCE OVERLAY ZONE WITH THAT DRIVEWAY OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. FOR NOISE, LIGHTS, VISUALS AND OTHER POLLUTANTS IS NOT ANTICIPATED THAT THE PROPOSED USE WOULD INTRODUCE ANY NOISE, VISUAL OR OTHER POLLUTANTS INTO THIS AREA. OTHER THAN THOSE EXPECTED WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, NOTHING ABOVE OR BEYOND ANY OTHER DEVELOPED HOMES, SIMILAR IN THE SUBDIVISION.

FOR STYLE AND SITING OF THE STRUCTURE, THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED BUILDING ENVELOPE AND IT EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS, AND IT'S DEVELOPED WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION THAT ARE DEVELOPED LOTS THAT ALSO HAVE LARGE ESTATES STYLE HOMES SIMILAR TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, SO IT IS NOT OUT OF THE CHARACTER OF THE SUBDIVISION.

FOR LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ANY ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN THE FLAGSTAFF ZONING CODE.

IMPACT ON PUBLIC UTILITIES, THE DEVELOPMENT WILL CONNECT TO EXISTING CITY SEWER AND WATER

[00:15:06]

SERVICES ALIGNS WITH ALREADY IN THE SUBDIVISION, AND NO NEW OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

THE SIGNAGE AND OUTDOOR LIGHTING, NO SIGNAGE OR OUTDOOR LIGHTING HAS BEEN CONTEMPLATED WITH THIS APPLICATION OR PROPOSAL OF THE APPLICATION BUT ANY SIGN SIGNAGE OR OUTDOOR LIGHTING WOULD REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMITS, RESPECTIVELY.

ALTHOUGH SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS DO NOT REQUIRE SEPARATE OUTDOOR LIGHTING PERMITS, THEY'RE STILL HELD TO CERTAIN OUTDOOR LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE MADE NOTE OF WITH THEIR BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.

THEY HAVE CONDITIONS THAT THEY ARE MADE AWARE OF, THAT TELL THEM THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY SHOULD MEET WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENT.

DEDICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF STREETS, DEDICATION OF STREETS ARE NOT REQUIRED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, AND ALL PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEDICATED WITH THE SUBDIVISION PLAT. IMPACT ON RESOURCES, THE SITE IS NOT LISTED ON ANY HISTORICAL REGISTRIES, NOR DOES IT HAVE ANY HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE, AND AS MENTIONED BEFORE IT'S LOCATED WITHIN THE RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE IN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MEETS ALL OF THE RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR THE SUBDIVISION, SO IT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSES ALL RESOURCE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED UPON IT.

AS FOR THE ADDITIONAL HOH REQUIREMENTS, THEY DO NOT APPLY TO THIS DEVELOPMENT AS THE PROPERTY IS NOT SUBJECT TO DIVISION 10-30.30 OF THE FLAGSTAFF ZONING CODE, AND THEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS FEWER THAN FOUR UNITS AND IT'S NOT SUBJECT TO THE ADEQUATE TRANSIT SERVICE FINDING. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR THIS CUP REQUEST FOR HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST STAFF HAS LOOKED INTO THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS AS THEY ARE NOT AS HIGH, HIGH STAKES AS SOME OTHER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTS THAT MIGHT COME IN BEFORE THIS COMMISSION AND STAFF HAS AMENDED THE PUBLIC PARTITION PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN.

WHEREAS NORMALLY AN IN-PERSON OR VIRTUAL NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WOULD BE REQUIRED, STAFF HAS ADVISED THE APPLICANT TO SEND A MAILER IN LIEU OF IT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A 300 FOOT RADIUS OF THE LOT TO NOTIFY THEM THAT THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE AND TO MAKE COMMENTS. THAT MAILER WAS SENT OUT ON JULY 28TH AND NO COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF THAT MAILER BY THE APPLICANT AS OF THE DATE OF THIS PRESENTATION AND THEN PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF THE APPLICATION WAS MADE ON AUGUST 23RD, 2021, WITH A MAILING NOTICE AND THE SIGNAGE AS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING CODE.

AND AS OF THE DATE OF THIS PRESENTATION, STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC FROM THOSE PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONS AND HAS RECEIVED ONE INQUIRY FOR THE APPLICATION MATERIALS FROM A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.

BUT NO COMMENTS WERE A PART OF THAT INQUIRY.

AS SUCH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PZ-21-00184 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, ONE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE SHALL SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORM TO THE PLANS, AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION, AND TWO THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLAGSTAFF POLICE DEPARTMENT'S CRIME FREE MULTI HOUSING PROGRAM AS REQUIRED FOR ALL HOH DEVELOPMENTS UNLESS THEY ARE EXEMPTED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S REPRESENTATIVE.

THAT ENDS MY PRESENTATION, SO IF ANY QUESTIONS ARE HAD BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER MANDINO.

YES, JUST THE 300 FEET BOUNDARY, HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE THEN NOTIFIED? HOW MANY NEIGHBORS? 300 FEET? YEAH. THAT 300 FEET NOTIFICATION, HOW MANY NEIGHBORS WERE NOTIFIED? IF YOU GIVE ME A SECOND TO CHECK THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, I CAN GIVE A TOTAL FROM THE NOTIFICATION LIST THE APPLICANT SENT IN.

SO GIVE ME ONE SECOND.

IT LOOKS LIKE A TOTAL OF NINE APPLICANTS, PER THE APPLICANTS NOTIFICATION LIST THEY SENT IN. THIS SEEMS LIKE A LOW NUMBER, BUT GIVEN THE LARGE SIZE OF THE SUBDIVISION LOTS

[00:20:09]

IS ABOUT RIGHT. OKAY, THANK YOU.

THAT'S THAT'S MORE THAN I THOUGHT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THAT 300 FEET.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. YOU'RE WELCOME.

COMMISSIONER NOLAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE I WAS I ASKED STAFF EARLIER, YOU KNOW, REGARDING THIS PROJECT THAT THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT'S COMING TO P&Z AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THIS IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT.

SO THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A HOME THAT WOULD BE BUILT IF IT HAD SIX BEDROOMS OR FOUR BATHROOMS. IT WOULD NOT BE COMING TO P&Z, BUT BECAUSE IT BREACHES OR BROCHURES A CERTAIN THRESHOLD, THAT'S WHY IT'S COMING TO P&Z, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, YES.

OKAY, AND AT THE SEVEN BEDROOMS AND FIVE BATHROOMS, I'VE STATED THIS IN OTHER ARGUMENTS FOR OTHER PROJECTS THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE DETRIMENT TO PUBLIC WELFARE WHEN IT COMES TO OUR INFRASTRUCTURE WITH REGARD TO WASTE MANAGEMENT AND WITH THE PROJECT LIKE THIS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S SEVEN BEDROOMS AS OPPOSED TO, SAY, SIX.

THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY INDICATIVE THAT THAT WOULD MEAN MORE PEOPLE CORRECT.

THIS COULD BE A ROOM THAT COULD BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE.

THAT IS CORRECT. YES.

OKAY. THAT'S THE CLARITY I NEEDED.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONER JONES? THANK YOU. I HAVE A KIND OF I RECALL LISTENING TO THE CONVERSATION THAT COUNCIL HAD WHEN THEY CAME UP WITH THIS IDEA OF HAVING A BEDROOM TO BATHROOM RATIO.

AND IT REALLY WAS, AS I RECALL, AND YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ON THIS, IT HAD TO DO WITH THE IDEA THAT PEOPLE COULD HAVE A HIGH BEDROOM TO BATHROOM RATIO AND BE RENTING THEM OUT AS SINGLE UNITS.

YOU KNOW, LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, STUDENT HOUSING, BUT REALLY ANY OTHER KIND OF SINGLE UNITS.

AND SO THEY WERE LOOKING FOR A WAY TO, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT DOABLE FOR PEOPLE WHO WERE JUST BUILDING A BIG FAMILY HOME VERSUS PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE BUILDING A HOUSE STYLE APARTMENT COMPLEX, SORT OF.

SO IT'S PRETTY CLEAR TO ME THAT THIS IS IS A FAMILY HOME.

BUT SO MY QUESTION IS REALLY KIND OF MORE GENERAL THAN THIS.

IF IF THIS HOME WERE REALLY ANY, ANY OTHER, THE HOMES IN THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU SAID WOULD WOULD ALL HAVE TRIGGERED THIS SAME CUP PROCESS HAD THEY BEEN BUILT EARLIER.

IF SOMEONE, IF THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE, WERE TO DECIDE TO RENT THEM OUT AS SINGLE UNITS, IS, DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY KIND OF WAY TO KIND OF ADDRESS WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CUP WAS REALLY ABOUT IN THE HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING WAS ABOUT, IS MY QUESTION VERY CLEAR? THIS IS FOR STAFF.

SO IF I COULD REPEAT YOUR, ALEX I'LL LET YOU.

IT SEEMS LIKE YOU WERE GOING TO ANSWER, SO I'LL LET YOU.

I WAS GOING TO LET CHRIS OFF THE HOOK SINCE I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT HE WAS ACTUALLY WITH US WHEN WE WENT THROUGH A LOT OF THAT.

I WAS NOT. NO.

SO I WAS GOING TO LET YOU TAKE THIS.

YES. SO I'M NOT SURE I EXACTLY UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.

I THINK A LOT OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM WHEN WE ADOPTED HOH WAS THE CITY HAVING TO OVERSEE LEASES AND LEASE STRUCTURES.

SO IT BECAME MUCH MORE WELL LET'S LET'S JUST LOOK AT THE PHYSICAL NATURE OF THE BUILDING INSTEAD. SO I MEAN, CERTAINLY, I THINK, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE CAN RENT OUT ROOMS IN THEIR HOUSES. SO DOES ANSWER THE QUESTION? BUT I MEAN, I THINK THE BACKGROUND YOU GAVE ON HOH AND AND OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THAT INTENT WAS SOUNDED RIGHT ON TO ME.

OK. YEAH, I JUST WONDERING THE QUESTION THAT'S ARISING MY MIND, AND IT'S IT'S LESS TO DO WITH THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, SO I WON'T GO NUTS ON IT.

BUT IT WAS JUST THE IDEA THAT TRIGGERING THE IDEA BEHIND TRIGGERING THE HOH WAS TO, YOU

[00:25:05]

KNOW, HAVE A DISCRETIONARY EYE TOWARDS WHAT COULD WHAT COULD BECOME, YOU KNOW, A DIFFERENT KIND OF USE OF IT, LIKE A RENTAL USE, MULTIPLE RENTAL USE.

BUT I THINK THAT WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, ONCE A HOUSE IS BUILT, PEOPLE CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO WITH IT, AND THERE'S NOT TOO MUCH THE CITY CAN DO ABOUT IT. SO I'M ACCEPTING THAT.

BUT YEAH, I MEAN, RENTING IS, YOU KNOW, RENTING IS NOT A DIFFERENT LAND USE.

SO IT WOULD JUST BE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE IS THE USE, THE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT OR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOH DEVELOPMENT IS THE USE.

I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF SOME OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT WE'VE HEARD ABOUT LARGER HOUSES THAT GET RENT OUT, THAT RENT OUT BEDROOMS TO MULTIPLE PEOPLE IS THAT THESE MULTIPLE PEOPLE TEND TO EACH HAVE THEIR OWN CAR AS AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, SOME FAMILIES WHERE YOU MIGHT SHARE VEHICLES OR HAVE PEOPLE BELOW THE AGE OF 16 WHO AREN'T DRIVING.

SO YOU KNOW, THAT REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE ENOUGH PARKING FOR ALL THE BEDROOMS IN THE HOUSE IS ONE OF THE WAYS STAFF WAS TRYING TO MITIGATE THE IMPACTS OF THAT POTENTIAL. YES.

OK. WELL, THANKS FOR TALKING THROUGH THAT.

I THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THIS THIS HOUSE IS VERY PRETTY OBVIOUSLY A FAMILY HOUSE, SO IT'S NOT REALLY AN ISSUE, BUT I JUST THOUGHT I'D KIND OF GO THROUGH THAT WITH YOU.

SO THANKS FOR CLARIFYING.

SURE THING. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER NOLAN.

THANK YOU, AND IF I CAN JUST FOLLOW UP ON THAT, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER JONES WAS RAISING IS GOOD, NOT JUST FOR THIS PROJECT, BUT FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS THAT WOULD BE IN A SIMILAR SCENARIO.

IS IT WITHIN AN APPROPRIATE REALM TO ASK WHAT THE INTENTION IS OF THE SINGLE FAMILY? LIKE IS THE DEVELOPER HERE THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT OR THE PROPERTY OWNERS? LET ME ASK THAT QUESTION TO STAFF, IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT TONIGHT? I DON'T SEE THE NAME OF THE APPLICANT I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH WITHIN THE MEETING ATTENDANCE, ALTHOUGH, OH, I DO.

I SEE BRANDON'S NAME.

SO HE IS HERE. OK, SO I'M JUST GOING TO TABLE YOUR YOUR COMMENT FOR JUST A SECOND ERIC.

SURE, WE CAN GO ON TO HEARING FROM THE THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

OK. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION OR ADDRESS COMMISSIONER NOLAN'S PREVIOUS QUESTION? OH, HI, THERE, CAN YOU GUYS HEAR ME? YES. OK, GREAT.

YEAH. COMMISSIONER NOLAN, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.

APPRECIATE YOU GUYS HEARING OUR CASE, THIS IS BRANDON GOWAN WITH LGD DESIGN GROUP OUT OF PHOENIX. AND OUR CLIENT LIVES IN PHOENIX, BUT ALSO HAS A HOME IN FLAGSTAFF, THE HOME THAT THEY HAVE IN FLAGSTAFF. THEY'RE JUST OUTGROWING IT.

THEY HAVE A HUGE FAMILY, SEVERAL KIDS WITH THEIR KIDS, SO THEY COME UP TO FLAG A LOT AND LIVE UP THERE AROUND THE YEAR.

SO THAT'S WHAT THIS WAS.

THIS IS MORE OF A LARGER SIZE HOME THAT CAN ACCOMMODATE THEIR GROWING FAMILY.

OK, THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

[00:30:11]

DAVID, ARE YOU STILL THERE? WE'RE HAVING A LONG, AWKWARD SILENCE RIGHT NOW.

I WONDER IF WE LOST DAVID.

DAVID? YEAH, I FEEL LIKE I PANICKED LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, LIKE I THINK I DROPPED OUT OF THE MEETING, BUT NO WE'RE STILL GOING.

LET'S JUST GIVE DAVID A SECOND.

I STILL SEE HIS NAME IN THE PARTICIPANT LIST, BUT HIS MIC IS OFF.

HE'S MUTED.

WELL, MAYBE UNTIL DAVID COMES BACK, MARIE, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO TO TAKE OVER? SURE. THANK YOU.

DAVID, JUST JUMP IN WHEN YOU'RE WHEN YOU'RE BACK, I GUESS.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR FROM THE COMMISSION, FROM THE ON FOR STAFF OR FOR THE APPLICANT? I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS RAISED.

SO LET'S SEE IF THERE ARE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THAT.

ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE? PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IF SO.

LET'S SEE. OK, I CAN'T SEE ANYTHING, SO DO WE COMMISSIONER JONES, THANK YOU. I HAD TO JUMP OUT TO TAKE A VERY QUICK PHONE CALL.

I AM BACK, BUT THANK YOU FOR.

THANK YOU FOR KEEPING THINGS MOVING.

SURE, YOU HEARD THAT THOUGH.

SO THERE WERE NO MORE QUESTIONS AND THERE WERE NO MORE.

THERE WAS NO PUBLIC COMMENT.

YES. OK, SO YOU ARE CORRECT.

IF SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS PARTICULAR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST, PAYING ATTENTION TO THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS.

THAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO DO IT.

THIS IS COMMISSIONER PAUL, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PZ-21-00184 BURCH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FROM APPLICANT BRANDON GOWEN ON ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY OWNERS BRIAN AND BEVERLY BURCH.

DO WE NEED THE REST OF THE DETAIL OR IS THAT SUFFICIENT? I WOULD SUGGEST THAT PURSUANT TO THE FINDING.

EXCUSE ME, SORRY PURSUANT TO THE FINDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS PRESENTED IN THE REPORT WITH CONDITIONS.

AND IF YOU COULD CITE THE THE TWO CONDITIONS.

YOU HAVE THEM IN FRONT OF YOU.

SORRY, SCROLLING JUST ONE SECOND HERE.

SECTION FOUR RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF REPORT HAS RIGHT THERE.

OK, CONDITION ONE BEING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE SHALL SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORM TO THE PLANS, AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION AND CONDITION TWO THE PROPERTY OWNERS SHALL MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH FLAGSTAFF POLICE DEPARTMENT'S CRIME FREE MULTI-UNIT HOUSING PROGRAM UNLESS EXEMPTED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S REPRESENTATIVE.

WONDERFUL, YES.

WE HAVE A MOTION, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? THIS IS COMMISSIONER MANDINO.

I WILL SECOND THE MOTION.

OK, WE HAVE WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND.

THERE'S ANY COMMENTS ON IT.

WE MAY GO TO A VOTE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

PLEASE SIGNIFY AYE.

[00:35:01]

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO THE APPLICANT AND STAFF FOR THAT.

WE WILL CONTINUE ON TO OUR NEXT PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.

WHICH WILL TAKE ME JUST ONE SECOND TO GET.

OUR SECOND ITEM B UNDER PUBLIC HEARINGS IS P

[B. PZ-19-00022-05 Cedar Medical A Conditional Use Permit request from Apricus Health to use approximately 17,000 square feet of a forthcoming 44,702 square foot office building located at 1895 N Jasper Drive for a Hospital use. The parcel, APN 101-46-012B, is zoned Research and Development (RD) and is located within the McMillan Mesa Village Specific Plan development area “F”. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: In accordance with the findings presented in this report, staff recommends approval of PZ-19-00022-05 with conditions. ]

Z-19-00022-05 CEDAR MEDICAL, AND THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FROM APRICUS HEALTH TO USE APPROXIMATELY SEVENTEEN THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF A FORTHCOMING FORTY FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED TWO SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON NORTH JASPER DRIVE FOR HOSPITAL USE. AND IF WE HAVE A STAFF REPORT, WE COULD HEAR IT NOW.

YES. GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN, VICE CHAIR, COMMISSION, PATRICK ST.

CLAIR, PLANNING DEVELOPMENT MANAGER.

THIS ITEM WAS BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON 8/25/2021 AND WAS CONTINUED TO THIS MEETING.

I CAN PROVIDE THE FULL PRESENTATION THAT I DID LAST MEETING.

I CAN PROVIDE AN ABBREVIATED PRESENTATION.

I CAN MOVE IT TO AN APPLICANT PRESENTATION OR COMMISSION COMMENTS.

I'M OPEN ON THAT PROCESS.

I'VE READ THE STAFF REPORT AND REVIEWED.

I THINK WHAT WAS DONE AT THE LAST MEETING.

I WOULD BE HAPPY WITH JUST A QUICK SUMMATION OF.

THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, PERHAPS, AND THE ANY CONDITIONS.

ALL RIGHT, LET ME LET ME GET TO MY PRESENTATION HERE, AND I WILL.

TO GET THAT SHARED.

UH OH WHERE'D YOU GO? SO IS THAT SHARING WITH YOU? I DON'T THINK THAT SHARING WITH YOU GUYS? NOT SEEING IT YET. I THINK THAT SHARING WITH YOU GUYS.

YES. ALRIGHT.

OK. LET ME MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION AND JUST GET DOWN TO FINDINGS.

IF IF WE NEED TO GO BACKWARDS OR AND I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL, SORRY, THIS THING MOVED QUICK ON ME, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL SLIDES IF NECESSARY FOR THINGS.

SO BUT. SO SORRY.

THERE WE GO. SO.

THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ONLY AFTER MAKING THREE FINDINGS, THE FIRST OF THESE IS TO DETERMINE IF THE CONDITIONAL USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ZONING CODE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE PARCEL ZONE.

REGARDING FINDING ONE, THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING HAS RECEIVED SITE PLAN APPROVAL, A MINOR MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS SHOWING THE HOSPITAL USE, AMBULANCE DROP OFF AND SERVICE DRIVE.

HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE STAFF WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE APPROVED. THE HOSPITAL USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ZONE TO PROVIDE A MIX OF PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES WITHIN THE CAMPUS PARK OR LIKE PARK LIKE SETTING.

AS IS THE SITUATION WITH THIS PROPOSAL, THE HOSPITAL USES 38 PERCENT OF THE ENTIRE BUILDING AND DOES NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING FLOOR OR SITE PLAN. THE HOSPITAL USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED SURROUNDING USES AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, HAVE SEEN A VARIETY OF MEDICAL USES LOCATED WITHIN MCMILLAN MESA.

AND THESE MEDICAL USES DO NOT APPEAR IN CONFLICT WITH NEIGHBORING SCHOOL AND RESIDENTIAL USES. THE HOSPITAL USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES AND GOALS OF THE ZONING CODE AND THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ZONE AND THE MCMILLAN MESA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE PARCEL. THE SECOND FINDING TO BE MADE IS THAT GRANTING THE CONDITIONAL USE WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE.

REGARDING FINDING TWO THE APPROVED SITE PLAN, FLOOR PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND LANDSCAPE PLAN CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE.

THE CIVIL DRAWINGS AND BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING ARE ALSO REVIEWED AND APPROVED.

ANY CHANGES REQUIRED TO THE APPROVED CIVIL DRAWING AND BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIONS BASED ON APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WILL BE SUBJECT TO RESUBMIT AND APPROVAL TO DO SO AND BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.

[00:40:01]

NEARBY USES SIMILAR TO THE HOSPITAL DO NOT APPEAR TO BE DETRIMENTAL, AND AS THE HOSPITAL IS LIMITED IN SCALE AND INTENSITY, IT PROPOSES NO UNDUE NUISANCE OR HAZARD.

THE HOSPITAL USE WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE.

THE LAST SIGNING REQUIRED IS TO DETERMINE IF THE CUP AND PROPOSED USE ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE TYPES OF USES PERMITTED IN THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF ZONING CODE SECTION 10 240 050 E3.

THE POINTS OF WHICH ARE LISTED ON THIS SLIDE REGARDING FINDING THREE.

THE HOSPITAL USE IS MINIMAL IMPACT ON SITE ACCESS, PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ON SITE.

THE DEVELOPMENT PROVIDES ADEQUATE VEHICLE PARKING AND EXCEEDS THE REQUIRED BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND TRAFFIC GENERATED BY A HOSPITAL USE WILL NOT AFFECT TRAFFIC ALREADY ANTICIPATED BY THE MCMILLAN MESA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS.

THE SITE PLANS SHOW CIVIC SPACE AREAS IN EXCESS OF MINIMUM REQUIRED BY THE ZONING CODE AND IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE HOSPITAL USE.

THE BUILDING MEETS THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ZONE AND MCMILLAN MESA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN.

AND ESSENTIALLY, I DON'T WANT TO READ THE REST OF THAT PARAGRAPH, IF YOU DON'T MIND, BUT IT'S THE SAME ONE I HAD LAST TIME.

IT MEETS THE REST OF THOSE POINTS, AND WITH THAT, I THINK I'LL STOP.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SORRY, IF THAT GOT A LITTLE LONG, I APOLOGIZE.

NO, NO. JUST DIDN'T WANT TO BE ANY DIFFERENT AND I REALIZE KIND OF GOING.

JUST WANNA KEEP EVERYONE FOCUSED ON THE FINDINGS.

YES, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AS WE MOVE FORWARD, I JUST WANTED A QUICK REVIEW OF THOSE.

WERE THERE ANY CONDITIONS FROM STAFF? THERE ARE CONDITIONS.

YES. SO STAFF RECOMMENDS A PLANNING CONDITION.

PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVE THE FINAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION.

WITH THESE CONDITIONS, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE CONFORM WITH THE PLANS PRESENTED WITH THE CUP WITH SITE PLAN AS APPROVED BY THE IDS ON APRIL 16, WITH A MINOR MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AS APPROVED ON AUGUST 4, BOTH 2021.

ANY ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL REVIEW BY THE IDS TEAM UNLESS WARRANTED BY TRAFFIC OR OTHER SAFETY ISSUES.

AMBULANCE SIRENS FOR THE HOSPITAL USE WILL NOT BE ACTIVATED UNTIL THE INTERSECTIONS OF GEMINI ROAD AND FOREST AVENUE.

OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YES, SIR. BEFORE WE GO ON TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? HEARING NONE IF THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT AND WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT, WE ARE READY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I DO HAVE A PRESENTATION, MIKE [INAUDIBLE] OF MY OFFICE WILL BRING IT UP.

CHAIR ZIMMERMAN AND VICE CHAIR MARIE JONES, COMMISSION FOR YOUR RECORD, MY NAME IS LINDSEY [INAUDIBLE] WITH THE LAW FIRM OF GAMMAGE AND BURNHAM, 40 NORTH CENTRAL IN PHOENIX, ARIZONA.

I'M GOING TO TURN OFF MY CAMERA, BUT WANTED TO SAY HELLO.

WE ARE HERE FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOSPITAL WITH A MINIMUM WITH APPROXIMATELY SIX TO EIGHT BEDS, NO MORE THAN EIGHT BEDS IS THE SPECIFIC REQUEST.

I'M GOING TO KEEP MY PRESENTATION BRIEF AS WE HEARD IT LAST TIME.

CHAIR ZIMMERMAN, WE MISSED YOU.

BUT BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU READ THE STAFF REPORT, BUT I WANT TO HIT ON A COUPLE OF THE THINGS THAT THAT THAT WE SPOKE ABOUT LAST HEARING.

ONE WE ALL GOT TRIPPED UP ON THE TERM MICRO HOSPITAL.

MICRO HOSPITAL IS AN INDUSTRY TERM, BUT IT'S JUST A SMALL HOSPITAL.

THAT SAID, FOR THE REST OF THE EVENING AND MOVING FORWARD, I WILL USE THE TERM HOSPITAL BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING FROM A ZONING ORDINANCE PERSPECTIVE AND HOW WE'LL BE LICENSED IN THE FUTURE FROM THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF OF HEALTH SERVICES.

SO TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOSPITAL.

IT'S JUST SMALL BECAUSE IT IS SIX TO EIGHT BEDS.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. NO, THIS IS NOT THE MR. [INAUDIBLE], YOU'RE GOING TO PULL UP ANOTHER PROGRAM IN ANOTHER PRESENTATION.

APOLOGIES ALL. LOVE THE TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES OF THE HERE WE GO. NOW YOU GET TO SEE THEIR INNER WORKINGS OF THE GAMMAGE AND BURNHAM SERVER.

WE'LL GIVE US ONE SECOND HERE.

THAT'S FINE. I DO WANT TO SAY I MISS I DO MISS BEING IN PERSON.

[00:45:05]

I PREFER PUTTING IN A FLASH DRIVE AND SEEING ALL OF YOUR LOVELY FACES, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A DRIVE UP TO 17 FOR ME.

OH, OK, HERE WE GO.

PERFECT. SO WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF OUR REQUEST THIS EVENING? OUR PURPOSE IS TO MAKE MEDICAL CARE AFFORDABLE, ACCESSIBLE, CONVENIENT AND TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY.

THE REQUEST AND IF YOU ARE TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION THIS EVENING, IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF YOUR COMMUNITY, SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO TOUCH ON THAT WE HEARD LAST WEEK WAS A LACK OF NOTICE.

THAT SIMPLY WASN'T TRUE.

WE MAILED NOTICE LETTERS ON JUNE 11TH.

WE POSTED THE SITE AND WE MAINTAINED A PROJECT WEBSITE.

WE HELD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON JUNE 28TH, WHERE ONLY TWO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ATTENDED. THEN, AROUND TWO WEEKS BEFORE OUR P&Z HEARING, THE FIRST P&Z HEARING, WE HEARD FROM THE HOSPITAL'S REAL ESTATE MANAGER.

WE CALLED HIM BACK AND HE SAID THAT HE WOULD CALL US BACK.

HE WASN'T PREPARED TO SPEAK AT THAT MOMENT.

WE NEVER HEARD BACK FROM HIM.

THEN COME THE AUGUST 25TH P&Z HEARING, AT WHICH THE HOSPITAL CLAIMED THEY DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY NOTICE. WE COMMITTED, WE CONTINUED LAST HEARING AND WE COMMITTED THAT WE WOULD FOLLOW UP WITH THE HOSPITAL. WE'VE HAD TWO MEETINGS SEPTEMBER 1ST WITH COLLEEN [INAUDIBLE] AND SEPTEMBER 7TH, WHICH IS YESTERDAY WITH JOSH TINGLE.

WE EVEN OFFERED TO MEET WITH THEM OVER THE WEEKEND, WHICH WAS LABOR DAY.

NOT THAT I WOULDN'T LOVE TO SPEND LABOR DAY WITH ALL OF YOU UP IN FLAGSTAFF, BUT TO TAKE TIME AWAY FROM OUR FAMILY, BUT THEY COULDN'T MEET WITH US UNTIL YESTERDAY.

OF ALL THE I WISH WE COULD SAY THAT WE RESOLVED OUR ISSUES, BUT WE DIDN'T.

SO I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR SOME OF THEM TONIGHT.

BUT ALL OF THE CONCERNS WE HEARD WERE OPERATIONAL IN NATURE.

THEY ARE NOT RELATED TO THE LAND USE DECISION IN FRONT OF YOU.

I HAVE TO ADMIT WE'RE ALL SCRATCHING OUR HEADS AS TO WHY THE 250 PLUS BED HOSPITAL IS SO CONCERNED WITH OUR SIX TO EIGHT BED HOSPITAL.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

AS MENTIONED FOR PURPOSES OF ZONING AND THE ZONING CODE AND HOW YOU DEFINE HOSPITAL, THE BIG DIFFERENCE IS OVERNIGHT CARE.

THAT IS WHAT NECESSITATES THE CUP, NOT LICENSING, NOT STATE ACCREDITATION, NOT ANYTHING YOU MAY ELSE YOU MAY HEAR TONIGHT.

THIS IS A LAND USE DECISION.

AND AS FAR AS YOUR CODE IS CONCERNED, IF WE WANT TO KEEP SOMEONE IN OUR MEDICAL OFFICE, IN OUR IN OUR HOSPITAL FOR MORE THAN 23 HOURS, WE MUST GET A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOSPITAL. THAT'S THE LAND USE DECISION THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT.

MCMILLAN MESA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR RESEARCH AND OFFICE USES. THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH THAT PLAN.

AGAIN, WE HAVE A FORTY FOUR THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE, WHICH WE'VE HEARD THAT THE HOSPITAL IS FINE WITH, AND IT'S ONLY 17000 SQUARE FEET OF THAT THAT WE ARE PROPOSING FOR THE HOSPITAL IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO KEEP PATIENTS FOR MORE THAN 24 HOURS.

WE WILL MEET ALL THE NEEDS AND ALL THE ADDITIONAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS OF A HOSPITAL, AND I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE CITY HAS ALREADY APPROVED TWO OTHER CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR MEDICAL USES RIGHT NEXT DOOR.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK IS VERY CONFUSING HERE.

AGAIN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOSPITAL.

WE WANT TO LET PEOPLE STAY MORE THAN 23 HOURS, BUT WE HAVE MORE STEPS IN THE REGULATORY PROCESS TO REVIEW THE OPERATIONAL ASPECTS OF THE HOSPITAL, INCLUDING THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES AND THE FEDERAL AND JOINT COMMISSION.

AND FRANKLY, I CAN COMPARE THIS.

THERE AREN'T A LOT OF LAND USE DECISIONS THAT WE HAVE THAT HAVE THIS DUAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK. MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES ARE ONE OF THEM.

IN SOME JURISDICTIONS.

YOU HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL TO LOOK AT THE LAND, USE THE LOCATION, THE REAL ESTATE, THE SENSITIVE USES THAT MAY BE AROUND IT.

IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS, SUCH AS PHOENIX, YOU HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TO ISSUE A USE PERMIT.

AGAIN, LOOKING AT THE LOCATION AND THE PROXIMITY, THEN YOU HAVE IT THE DUAL REGULATORY REVIEW. JUST AS WITH A HOSPITAL, THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES THAT WILL LOOK

[00:50:04]

OUT THE LAYOUT OF THE DISPENSARY, THE SAFETY AND THE SECURITY, THE TESTING OF PESTICIDES, THE LABELING.

THOSE ARE NEVER CONVERSATIONS THAT WE WOULD HAVE AT THE LAND USE LEVEL, AT AT THE CITY, AT THE LOCAL ORDINANCE LEVEL.

I MAKE THAT COMPARISON TONIGHT ONLY BECAUSE THIS HOSPITAL DOES HAVE TWO MORE REGULATORY LAYERS THAT IT WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH AFTER WE GET THROUGH THE LAND USE DECISION WITH THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

PATRICK DID A LOVELY JOB, BUT HERE ARE THE THREE FINDINGS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS TO FIND. ARE WE CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE ZONING CODE AND PURPOSE OF THE R&D ZONE? THE R&D ZONE IS INTENDED FOR THIS USE.

IT'S DESIGNATED AS, AND I QUOTE A MIX OF PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES, RESEARCH AND TESTING INSTITUTIONS, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, GREEN TECHNOLOGY AND OFFICES.

HOSPITALS ARE AN ALLOWED USE.

FINDING NUMBER TWO WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE.

THE APPROVAL WILL NOT CAUSE ANY PROPERTY DAMAGE.

THE CITY HAS ALREADY APPROVED TWO.

YOU SEE MY FINGERS AGAIN.

I WISH WE WERE IN PERSON TWO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR MEDICAL RELATED USES IN THIS SPECIFIC AREA.

THE ADDITIONAL THE ADDITION OF A THIRD SMALL SCALE HOSPITAL WITH NO MORE THAN EIGHT BEDS WILL NOT CHANGE THOSE CONDITIONS.

TRAFFIC IS SOMETHING YOU LOOK AT IN CONDITION NUMBER TWO.

SIX TO EIGHT BEDS IS NOT GOING TO CAUSE A SPIKE IN TRAFFIC.

YOUR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING STAFF ARE THE BEST.

THEY'RE CERTAINLY ONE OF THE MOST DIFFICULT.

REED OR JEFF IF YOU'RE LISTENING IN ALL OF THE STATE.

THEY LOOK OUT FOR THE CITY AND THE COMMUNITY'S BEST INTEREST.

THEY HAVE REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION AND ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

THE FINDING NUMBER THREE WILL BE COMPATIBLE.

THAT THIS USE PROPOSAL WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH PERMITTED USES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

THERE IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE ACCESS TO ACCOMMODATE NO MORE THAN EIGHT HOSPITAL BEDS.

THE SITE MEETS OPEN SPACE PROVISIONS.

IN FACT, WE'RE PROVIDING NEARLY DOUBLE.

THE SITE DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO NOISE, LIGHT OR VISUAL POLLUTANTS.

THIS SITE COMPLIES WITH THE ZONING AND LIGHTING CODE IN EVERY WAY.

AND KEEP IN MIND, JUST ACROSS THE STREET, THE CITY APPROVED A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 50000 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL, SO A HOSPITAL NEARLY THREE TIMES THE SIZE OF THIS PROPOSAL.

THE ARCHITECTURE COLOR MATERIALS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THOSE OF THE SURROUNDING MEDICAL USES, AND AGAIN, THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY YOUR CITY STAFF.

ZONING CODE AND ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES.

AND WE COMPLY AND PLANNING.

I'LL THROW YOU IN THERE, TOO.

YOU ARE SOME OF THE TOUGHEST IN THE STATE AS WELL.

THE LANDSCAPING COMPLIES AND WERE COMPATIBLE WITH ADJOINING USES.

AND FINALLY, NO IMPACT ON PUBLIC UTILITIES.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AFTER A FULL IDS REVIEW.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

AS MENTIONED, WHEN YOU LOOK AT COMPATIBILITY IN OUR UPPER LEFT HAND CORNER AS GUARDIAN, THEY OPERATE THE AMBULANCE DISPATCH SERVICE TWO STORIES SIX AMBULANCE BAYS.

LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER IS A NORTHERN ARIZONA REHABILITATION FACILITY.

BOTH OF THESE FACILITIES HAVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND NORTHERN ARIZONA HEALTH CARE OPERATES GUARDIAN AND I THINK HAS A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE REHABILITATION FACILITY.

TO THE IMMEDIATE SOUTH IS THE HIGHGATE CONGRESSIONAL CARE WITH A THREE STORY MEDICAL FACILITY. AND FINALLY, TO THE SOUTHEAST IS A NEW MEDICAL USE UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

AS YOU ALL KNOW, I WORK ON PROJECTS ALL OVER TOWN FROM SKY COTTAGES, THE TISSUE PLANT IN BUTLER, AS WELL AS INFILL DEVELOPMENT DOWNTOWN.

I CAN'T THINK OF A MORE APPROPRIATE LOCATION IN FLAGSTAFF FOR A SMALL HOSPITAL WITH SIX TO EIGHT BEDS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

ONE ASSERTION COMMISSIONERS THAT WAS MADE AT THE PREVIOUS HEARING IS THAT WE RECKLESSLY AGREED TO A STIPULATION REGARDING THE LOCAL AMBULANCE PROVIDER WITHOUT THEIR CONSULTATION, THE STIPULATION REGARDING LIGHTS AND SIRENS THAT PATRICK JUST READ TO YOU WAS MIRRORED AFTER A STIPULATION THAT GUARDIAN AND FLAGSTAFF MEDICAL CENTER AGREED TO IN THEIR AUGUST 14TH, 2013 APPROVAL.

I FIND IT IRONIC THAT THEY TOOK ISSUE WITH IT WITH OUR CASE WHEN PLANNING STAFF SIMPLY USED IT, USE THEIR STIPULATION AS A TEMPLATE FOR US.

I WOULD NEVER QUESTION THE OPERATIONS OF GUARDIAN AMBULANCE, AND I'M CERTAIN THAT THEY FOLLOW ALL LOCAL ORDINANCES AND STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS TO SAFELY TRANSPORT THEIR PATIENTS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

AN IMPORTANT PART ABOUT THIS STIPULATION, AS PATRICK JUST READ, UNLESS WARRANTED BY

[00:55:02]

TRAFFIC OR OTHER SAFETY ISSUES.

AGAIN, I WILL NOT SPEAK FOR GUARDIAN, BUT I AM SURE THAT THEY WILL FOLLOW ALL LOCAL LAWS AND TO SAY THAT SIRENS HEADED TO A SIX TO EIGHT HOSPITAL WITH NO SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS A BIT OF A RIDICULOUS ASSERTION.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS AN EXPANSION OF PUBLIC HEALTH IN THE MIDDLE OF AN INTERNATIONAL PANDEMIC.

I THINK WE ALL HOPED IT WOULD BE OVER BY NOW, BUT IT'S NOT.

STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS LAND USE DECISION.

WE HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT.

WE ARE NOT HERE TO DEBATE PRIVATE AGREEMENTS AND CONTRACTS, NOR ARE WE HERE TO FLUSH OUT OPERATIONAL QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS.

YOU MAY HEAR SOME OF THOSE THIS EVENING.

IN MEETING WITH THE HOSPITAL, THEY SAID THEIR PRIMARY CONCERN IS THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY. WE COULDN'T AGREE MORE.

THERE ARE UNMET NEEDS IN THE COMMUNITY TODAY AND WE ARE HERE TO FILL THAT GAP.

WE WANT EVERY CITIZEN OF FLAGSTAFF TO GET THE BEST CARE IN THE BEST TIME.

THIS AFTERNOON, I READ SOME OF THE 15 LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION FROM LOCAL SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, PHYSICIANS.

SOME OF THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT WERE ON BEHALF OF MORE THAN JUST THAT PERSON AND RESIDENTS, AND ALL THE LETTERS SHARE THE SAME THEME.

THEY SUPPORT ANOTHER HOSPITAL IN FLAGSTAFF.

I QUOTE ANOTHER HOSPITAL WILL ENHANCE LOCAL HEALTH CARE BY ALLOWING FOR THE HEALTH CARE SERVICES IN A HIGHLY EFFICIENT AND HIGH QUALITY MANNER.

AND AGAIN, THE LOCATION OF THIS PROPOSED HOSPITAL COULD NOT BE BETTER.

IT IS COMPATIBLE AND APPROPRIATE WITH THE NEIGHBORING MEDICAL LAND USES THE EXISTING TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AS DETERMINED BY YOUR TRANSPORTATION STAFF AND THE LACK OF SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AROUND THIS PROPERTY.

HEALTH CARE, ESPECIALLY OVER THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF, NEEDS TO BE ACCESSIBLE AND AFFORDABLE, AND I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE ON THAT.

THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE.

WITH THAT CHAIR ZIMMERMAN, COMMISSIONERS, I STAND FOR QUESTIONS.

ACTUALLY, I'M SITTING. I JUST STAY SAY STANDING STILL BECAUSE NORMALLY I'M AT A PODIUM.

I'M SITTING FOR QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT FROM COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER JONES. THANK YOU, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION, SO YOU'D MENTIONED LINDSEY, ABOUT, YOU KNOW, BEING IN THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC, CERTAINLY ON ALL OF OUR MINDS.

SO IF SOMEBODY CAME IN IN DISTRESS WITH COVID, THIS FACILITY WOULD BE ABLE TO TO HANDLE THAT THAT PERSON FOR AS LONG AS NECESSARY.

CHAIR ZIMMERMAN, COMMISSIONER JONES, AGAIN, WE WANT TO STICK TO THE LAND USE ELEMENTS, BUT I BUT I CAN TELL YOU I KNOW MORE OPERATIONALLY NOW.

YES, THIS HOSPITAL IS A HOSPITAL.

IT WILL HAVE EMERGENCY ROOM DOCTORS AND IT WILL BE ABLE TO HANDLE ANYONE WHO WALKS THROUGH THE DOOR. OK, THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THAT.

I DO APPRECIATE THAT IT'S A LAND USE ISSUE, ACTUALLY.

AND LET ME LET ME PIVOT OVER TO PATRICK FOR A SECOND.

SO UNDER THE ALLOWED USES WITH A CUP, IS HOSPITAL SPECIFICALLY LISTED OR ARE WE CONSIDERING THIS UNDER MEDICAL MEDICAL FACILITY? SO LET ME.

TO SHARE WITH YOU REAL QUICKLY.

I'LL GET MY.

MADE A COUPLE EXTRA SLIDES JUST TO GO OVER THIS REAL QUICK SO THANK YOU FOR ASKING THE QUESTION. SO IF YOU GUYS CAN SEE THIS AND YOU CAN SEE ALL THE REST OF THE STUFF DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, BUT. SO THIS IS TABLE 10 20 30 05 B IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONE ALLOWED USES.

THIS IS R&D.

HOSPITAL UNDER SERVICES.

WHAT IS A USE PERMIT? SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE R&D ZONE PERMITTED USE IS HOSPITAL PERMITTED IN R&D, THE R&D ZONE APPROVE USE APPROVE CUP.

SO AND THEN THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF A HOSPITAL IN OUR ZONING CODE.

SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHY THEY'RE HERE.

IS THAT IS THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, OR DID I? YES, YES, IT DOES. THANK YOU.

OK. OK, THANK YOU.

[01:00:08]

ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER NOLAN.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THIS WILL BE FOR THE APPLICANT, A QUESTION THAT CAME UP IN ONE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WAS SENT TO US AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT I WAS TRYING TO ALSO DETERMINE FOR MYSELF WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN.

SO THIS WILL BE FOR AN AMBULANCE BAY.

CORRECT? CORRECT. IS THIS.

IS THERE A CANOPY OVER THIS? SO IN SNOWY MONTHS, YOU DON'T HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE TRANSPORTING OVER SNOW OR POTENTIALLY ICE? CORRECT.

CHAIR ZIMMERMAN, COMMISSIONER NOLAN.

AND BY THE WAY, I DIDN'T HIT YOUR WASTE QUESTIONS TONIGHT.

I THOUGHT I THE LAST TIME.

YOU GOT IT, LAST TIME. I APPRECIATE THAT.

BUT YEAH. YES, THERE ABSOLUTELY IS A CANOPY THERE, THE CANOPY ON THE SITE PLAN.

WE DO PARTNER WITH WITH 10 OTHER HOSPITALS, SMALLER SCALE HOSPITALS SUCH AS THIS.

AND SO WE ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE OPERATIONS AGAIN AS WE GO THROUGH THE NEXT STAGE.

THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES AND THE FEDERAL AND THE JOINT COMMISSION WILL LOOK AT THIS. THERE IS.

THERE IS A COVER ON THERE AND IF WE HAVE TO MAKE ANY CHANGES THROUGH THOSE APPROVALS, WE WILL AND WE'LL WORK ON A MINOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION.

BUT WE DO HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER HOSPITALS THAT ARE SMALL IN SCALE LIKE THIS, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS ADEQUATE.

OK, SO THAT'LL PROTECT AGAINST THAT.

AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION JUST TO GAIN CLARITY, BECAUSE WITH THE LIGHTS AND SIRENS, I HEARD SOMETHING IN THE PRESENTATION AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WILL BE THE CASE. SO IF THERE ARE ANY LIGHTS AND SIRENS, IT WOULD BE IT WOULD START AND STOP AT THE INTERSECTION OF GEMINI AND FOREST, CORRECT? SO CHAIR ZIMMERMAN, COMMISSIONER NOLAN, WE CAN'T COMMIT TO HOW THERE'S ONE AMBULANCE PROVIDER RIGHT NOW IN TOWN.

WE KNOW THAT THEY WILL OPERATE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW AND THE SAFETY OF THE SAFETY OF THE PATIENT. THERE IS A STIPULATION ON THEIR APPROVAL THAT REQUESTS THAT THEY DON'T PUT THEM ON UNTIL THEY GET TO THAT INTERSECTION.

THAT IS THE SAME STIPULATION THAT WE HAVE AGREED TO BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME ONE THAT GUARDIAN HAS ON THEIRS.

WE, YES, I THINK THAT IS THE GOAL.

I THINK WE ARE. I'M AWARE OF OF MULTIPLE FRIENDS OF MINE IN FLAGSTAFF WHO HAVE HAD AMBULANCE TRANSPORT WITHOUT ANY SIRENS.

I CAN THINK OF THREE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD OF FRIENDS OF MINE, WHO HAVE EITHER THEIR SPOUSES OR CHILDREN HAVE HAD A REASON AND THEY HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED SIREN FREE.

SO BUT I CAN'T COMMIT FOR GUARDIAN AS TO WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO.

WE AGREED TO THAT STIPULATION BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME ONE THEY HAVE ON THEIR PROPERTY.

OK. AND ONE LAST THING THAT ALSO CAME TO MIND AS WELL WITH THE DESIGN OF THE PARKING LOT.

DO YOU SEE THERE BEING TRAFFIC ISSUES AND AMBULANCES COMING IN AND OUT OF THERE AND OTHER PATIENTS WHO MIGHT BE NAVIGATING? CHAIR ZIMMERMAN, COMMISSIONER NOLAN, NO THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY YOUR TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT, YOUR TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

I WILL SAY REED AND JEFF ARE TWO OF THE TOUGHEST.

WE DO NOT SEE, THIS AS A SIX TO EIGHT BED FACILITY.

AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF I HAD A CLIENT WHO HAD AN EMERGENCY ISSUE IN MESA AND THE FIRST RESPONDERS IN MESA HAD TO COME.

AND AS WE ALL KNOW, AND I'VE JUST EXPERIENCED A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, THE FIRST RESPONDERS TRIAGE ON ON SITE, THEY FIGURE OUT THE BEST PLACE FOR TO TAKE THEM.

SO AGAIN, WE'LL TRUST THE AMBULANCE PROVIDER IN THAT SITUATION, BUT WE BELIEVE THERE IS ADEQUATE PARKING MANEUVERING AND HAS BEEN APPROVED BY YOUR TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

EXCUSE ME. ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE APPLICANTS? OK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH MS. [INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU CHAIR ZIMMERMAN.

SO AT THIS TIME, I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE HEARING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

THAT SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED EITHER, BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY GOTTEN COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO CITY STAFF.

IF THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE TONIGHT WHO WISH TO MAKE A COMMENT, I'M GOING TO ASK THAT YOU USE THE RAISE YOUR HAND FEATURE.

I WILL TRY AND GET YOU IN THE ORDER, WHICH YOU RAISE YOUR HAND.

[01:05:01]

I WOULD AGAIN CAUTION THAT EVERYONE IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES FOR COMMENTS.

I ASSUME SOMEONE FROM CITY STAFF WILL KEEP AN EYE ON ON THAT.

LET US KNOW IF SOMEONE'S RUNNING LONG.

AND AGAIN, PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE COMMISSION IS HERE LOOKING AT THE FINDINGS AND LOOKING AT THE CONDITIONS.

SO LET'S GET STARTED.

MR. MARTINEZ.

HELLO, MY NAME IS VINCE MARTINEZ, I'M THE DIRECTOR AT GUARDIAN MEDICAL TRANSPORT.

YOU KNOW, I JUST CONTINUE TO WORRY ABOUT THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN THE MCMILLAN AREA UP HERE. WE REALLY NEED TO ACCESS THAT PONDEROSA PARKWAY ROUTE 66 AREA.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S NEEDED UP HERE BEFORE WE PUT ANY MORE PROJECTS IN PLACE.

YOU KNOW, WE DID AN ANALYSIS.

WE RESPONDED TO OVER 450 CALLS IN THE MCMILLAN MESA AREA OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS AND WE'RE ESTIMATING ABOUT 1100 CALLS A YEAR WITH HIGH DENSITY IN RESIDENTIAL WHEN THE STATE VETERANS HOME OPENS UP AND THEY'RE FULLY FUNCTIONING.

AND THESE METRICS ARE BASED ON SIMILAR REQUESTS FOR EMERGENT NON-EMERGENT REQUESTS BY OTHER FACILITIES IN THE FLAGSTAFF AREA, SO UNSURE HOW TO ESTIMATE THE TRANSPORT REQUESTS FROM APRICUS HOSPITAL.

BUT IT WOULD DEFINITELY ADD TO THE PROJECTED HIGH NUMBER OF EMERGENT AND NON-EMERGENT RESPONSES TO THE AREA.

AND AS FOR THE SIRENS, YOU KNOW, IT'S BUSY AND LOUD IN THIS AREA.

YOU KNOW, 2013 WAS EIGHT YEARS AGO, AND AT THE TIME WE WERE THE ONLY PEOPLE UP HERE.

WE ARE NOT. AND RIGHT NOW, WE'LL UTILIZE SIRENS ALL THE WAY UP AND DOWN JASPER DRIVE DIRECTLY TO AND FROM APRICUS HOSPITAL, AS WELL AS LONG GEMINI ROAD, YOU KNOW, IN REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENT MADE EARLIER.

AMBULANCES CAN ONLY RESPOND LIGHTS AND SIREN OR NO LIGHTS AND SIREN.

THERE'S NO IN BETWEEN. YOU CAN'T REALLY RUN.

YOU CANNOT RUN LIGHTS ONLY IT'S JUST NOT ALLOWED.

I DO HAVE SAFETY CONCERNS ABOUT THIS NEW HOSPITAL FACILITY.

I DO NOT APPROVE THE AMBULANCE PATH TO THE PARKING LOT SIDE OF THE APRICUS HOSPITAL.

THERE IS NO DEDICATED AMBULANCE DRIVEWAY TO THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT AMBULANCE ENTRANCE.

OUR AMBULANCE CREWS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DRIVE IN AN ACTIVE PARKING LOT AROUND MULTIPLE BLIND CORNERS, WITH CARS BACKING OUT OF PARKING SPACES AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS.

THIS IS THE REAL SAFETY CONCERN, AND YOU KNOW THE AMBULANCES WOULD BE REQUIRED TO UNLOAD THE PATIENT IN THE PARKING LOT.

THAT'S WHAT THE DRAWING SHOWS.

THIS IS A REAL SAFETY CONCERN.

IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT SITE DRAWING, YOU'LL SEE A CANOPY OVER THE ED ENTRANCE, BUT IT'S NOT A CANOPY THAT AN AMBULANCE CAN DRIVE THROUGH OR UNDER.

IS THIS SOME SORT OF BACKUP CANOPY? BECAUSE THAT IN ITSELF IS ANOTHER SAFETY ISSUES.

AMBULANCES SIMPLY DO NOT BACK UP ANYMORE.

THESE AMBULANCES DO NOT HAVE ANY OVERHEAD AND [INAUDIBLE] PROTECTION.

THEY REALLY DON'T. IS IT MADE FOR ONE, TWO AMBULANCES? WOULD WE BE UNLOADING PATIENTS IN THE RAIN AND THE SNOW? I MEAN, THIS REALLY IS A SAFETY CONCERN THAT REALLY NEEDS TO BE VETTED OUT.

YOU KNOW, THE REHAB HOSPITAL IN NORTHERN ARIZONA ASPIRE TRANSITIONAL CARE AND THE STATE VETERANS HOME. THEY HAVE EASY ACCESS DRIVEWAYS AND THEY HAVE SAFE UNLOADING AND LOADING AREAS WITH OVERHEAD CANOPY PROTECTIONS FOR THE AMBULANCE, THE PARAMEDIC CREW AND THE PATIENT. SO I WOULD ASK THAT THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF SEND IT BACK TO ZONING, CONSIDER THESE REAL SAFETY FACTORS AND REQUIRE THE APRICUS HOSPITAL TO HAVE A DEDICATED DRIVEWAY THAT IS STREET SIDE THAT IS SAFE FROM PRIVATE VEHICLES WITH ADEQUATE LIGHTING AND AN OVERHEAD CANOPY TO PROTECT THE PATIENT AND THE PARAMEDICS IN WEATHER, SOMETHING THAT THE AMBULANCE CAN DRIVE THROUGH.

YOU KNOW, I'M WONDERING HOW THE APRICUS HOSPITAL ED WILL CARE FOR THE HOMELESS INTOXICANT PATIENTS THAT DO NOT HAVE INSURANCE BUT REQUEST TO BE TRANSPORTED THERE.

IS THAT GOING TO BE PART OF THEIR PATIENT CARE? WOULD THAT WHAT WOULD THAT PROCESS EVEN LOOK LIKE? WILL THERE BE HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES FROM PATIENTS WHO REQUEST TO BE TRANSPORTED? EXCUSE ME, THAT'S BEEN THREE MINUTES.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

KEVIN KAHN.

HELLO, THIS IS KEVIN KAHN, 1200 NORTH BEAVER.

I'M A EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN AND HAVE BEEN IN THIS COMMUNITY FOR ABOUT 19, MAYBE CLOSE TO 20 YEARS NOW. THIS IS A VERY DIFFERENT PRESENTATION THIS EVENING THAN THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS PERFORMED A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND THAT THIS WAS TABLED UNTIL TONIGHT.

YOU KNOW, WE HEARD A LOT OF THINGS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN ADDRESSED IN TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION THAT WERE BROUGHT UP LAST TIME.

THE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE ANTICIPATING ONE OR POSSIBLY TWO AMBULANCE VISITS PER MONTH AT THEIR FACILITY.

IF THIS IS GOING TO BE AN EMERGENCY RECEIVING FACILITY, THEY'RE GOING TO BE RECEIVING, YOU KNOW, THE CLOSEST TRANSPORT PATIENTS UNLESS THERE'S A COMPELLING REASON OTHERWISE LIKE A LEVEL ONE TRAUMA STATUS, GETTING A CAR ACCIDENT PATIENT INSTEAD OF GOING TO THEM.

[01:10:05]

I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY OF THOSE THINGS THAT THEY BROUGHT UP THEMSELVES LAST LAST TIME THIS WAS PRESENTED.

THEY HAVEN'T RESOLVED ANY OF THOSE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS FROM A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WITH TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION, AND I FIND THAT VERY CONCERNING.

IT SEEMS LIKE LIKE THIS IS STILL NOT A THOUGHT OUT PROCESS, AND THAT'S THE REMAIN OR THAT'S THE CONCLUSION OF MY COMMENTS TONIGHT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

A MR. OR MS. [INAUDIBLE].

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS, FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.

MY NAME IS DR. MARK [INAUDIBLE], AND I'M ONE OF THE CARDIAC SURGEONS WHO WORKS IN FLAGSTAFF. MY ADDRESS IS SEVEN SIXTY THREE EAST FLAT ROCK RIDGE ROAD.

I HAVE SEVERAL CONCERNS OVER THE STATEMENTS MADE DURING THE LAST HEARING REGARDING THIS PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

THE SPECIFIC STATEMENT MADE BY THE APRICUS REPRESENTATIVE MS. [INAUDIBLE] ABOUT ABOUT THE PROPOSED FACILITY BEING ABLE TO PERFORM OPEN HEART SURGERIES IS INACCURATE AND MISLEADING TO THE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMISSION.

THE ABILITY TO DO THESE TO PERFORM THESE PROCEDURES HAS SEVERAL REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING THE NEED FOR AN INTENSIVE CARE UNIT, SPECIALIZED NURSING, SPECIALIZED OPERATING ROOMS THAT INCLUDE HEART LUNG MACHINES.

THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE CAPITAL INVESTMENT, WHICH IS NOT FEASIBLE TO A SIX TO EIGHT BED HOSPITAL AS PROPOSED TONIGHT.

ANY STATEMENT REGARDING THE ABILITY, ABILITY AND INTENTION TO PERFORM SUCH SUCH PROCEDURES, ESPECIALLY ON AN EMERGENCY BASIS, IT SEEMS INGENUOUS AND NEEDS TO BE VETTED BEFORE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION OF A PROJECT LIKE THIS.

IN ADDITION, APRICUS HAS NO CARDIAC SURGEONS IN THEIR NETWORK, AND OUR CARDIAC SURGERY GROUP HAS NEVER BEEN APPROACHED BY ANY MEMBER OF THIS OF THIS GROUP.

SUCH A STATEMENT LEADS SUCH A REASON FOR THIS PROJECT LEADS ONE TO CONSIDER THE REASONS BEHIND IT. THERE ARE CERTAIN PROCEDURES THAT ARE PERFORMED IN CARDIAC CATHETERIZATION LABS THAT ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR OUTPATIENT BASED LABS.

THESE TEND TO BE MORE COMPLEX AND CARRY A HIGHER COMPLICATION RISKS TO THE PATIENT, TO THE PATIENTS TO WHICH THEY'RE BEING PERFORMED.

THESE PROCEDURES ARE TYPICALLY PERFORMED IN ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL, WHERE CARDIAC SURGERY IS AVAILABLE. THE IDEA OF PERFORMING THESE PROCEDURES AND TRANSFERRING COMPLICATIONS TO ANOTHER FACILITY IS UNWISE DUE TO THE DANGER IN WHICH IT PLACES THE PATIENTS.

THERE ARE OTHER PROCEDURES WHICH MEDICARE AND MEDICAID WILL NOT APPROVE OF BEING DONE IN AN OUTPATIENT CARDIAC CATHETERIZATION LAB, HAVING THE TITLE OF HOSPITAL IN ORDER TO PERFORM PROCEDURES SOLELY BUT NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO CARE FOR WELL KNOWN COMPLICATIONS WHILE WORK AROUND GOVERNMENT. GOVERNMENT INSURANCE RULES CARRIES ITS OWN ETHICAL CHALLENGES AS WELL.

I GREATLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE MY CONCERNS OVER THE PLANS FOR THIS PROPOSED FACILITY. PLEASE NOTE, I AM NOT OPPOSED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OUTPATIENT CARDIAC CATHETERIZATION LAB, WHICH I SUSPECT IS THE INTENT OF THIS, ESPECIALLY IF THE POPULATION OF FLAGSTAFF NEEDS IT.

SUCH FACILITIES, HOWEVER, NEED TO OPERATE IN A WAY THAT IS SAFE FOR THE PATIENTS OF FLAGSTAFF. AND THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

JEN KHAN.

HI, MY NAME IS DR.

JENNIFER KAHN. I AM MARRIED TO KEVIN KAHN, WHO SPOKE BRIEFLY EARLIER.

I LIVE HERE IN FLAGSTAFF AT 262 [INAUDIBLE] LANE.

I HAVE BEEN A BASIS PARENT, BASIS IS THE SCHOOL THAT IS RIGHT DOWN THE STREET FROM THIS CONSTRUCTION SITE.

MY KIDS WENT THERE FOR FOR NINE YEARS, SO I DROVE TO AND FROM THAT SCHOOL FOR A VERY LONG TIME. I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA AND THE TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA.

GEMINI HAS BEEN ILL EQUIPPED TO HANDLE THE THE CAR LOAD AND PEOPLE DRIVING THROUGH THERE FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

I CAN'T IMAGINE INCREASING THE THE LOAD ON GEMINI, ESPECIALLY WITH THE MEDIAN DOWN THAT ROAD. ALL IT TAKES IS ONE CAR TO BREAK DOWN AND AND THEN DOESN'T MATTER WHAT TIME OF DAY IT IS IF SCHOOL IS LETTING OUT OR NOT.

NO ONE CAN GET THROUGH.

SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SAFETY, YOU KNOW, AND AND THE ROAD LOADS IN THAT AREA.

THAT ASIDE, I'M ALSO CONCERNED WITH THIS BEING AN EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT IN THIS TIGHT LITTLE AREA THAT'S REALLY NOT SET UP FOR A LOT OF TRAFFIC.

THE SMALL HOSPITAL PART I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH.

I'M NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF NORTHERN ARIZONA HEALTH CARE.

I DON'T I DON'T HAVE ANY ANY CLAIM THERE.

I AM CONCERNED ABOUT AN EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT AND THE TRAFFIC THAT AN ED WOULD GENERATE.

[01:15:04]

I'M CONCERNED THAT A PATIENT WOULD GO TO THAT FACILITY THINKING THAT THEY WERE GOING TO AN EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT THAT COULD HANDLE ANYTHING BECAUSE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ADMIT A PEDIATRIC PATIENT TO THEIR EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT AND THEN TRANSFER THEM ON IF THEY DON'T HAVE INPATIENT BEDS AVAILABLE FOR A PEDIATRIC PATIENT.

THEY THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF ALL COMERS THAT THAT WALK THROUGH THEIR DOORS.

THAT'S THAT'S WHERE MY SAFETY CONCERN LIES.

AND I GUESS I'LL I'LL STOP TALKING THERE.

I'M JUST CONCERNED ON MANY FRONTS REGARDING PLACING AN EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT IN THIS VERY SMALL LITTLE AREA UP ON CEDAR HILL.

THANK YOU, DR.

KHAN. WE HAVE RACHEL LEVITAN.

YES, HI, THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS RACHEL LEVITAN.

I AM AN EMERGENCY MEDICINE PHYSICIAN HERE IN TOWN.

I AM ALSO THE CHIEF OF STAFF AT FLAGSTAFF MEDICAL CENTER.

AND I'M SORRY, MY ADDRESS 19 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO STREET.

I HAVE LIVED IN FLAGSTAFF GREW UP HERE AND I HAVE SOME SPECIFIC CONCERNS THAT THE APPLICANT REFERRED TO IN HER DISCUSSION REGARDING SAFETY AND AFFORDABILITY FOR THE HEALTH CARE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY.

FIRST OF ALL, SHE REFERRED TO A 50000 SQUARE FOOT UNIT HOSPITAL THAT'S ALREADY THERE.

I BELIEVE SHE'S REFERRING TO THE REHAB HOSPITAL THAT DOES NOT MEET THE SAME DEFINITION OF HOSPITAL AS WHAT I BELIEVE IS BEING PROPOSED HERE.

SO I FEEL LIKE THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING.

SHE MENTIONED MEETING THE HEALTH CARE NEEDS BEING ACCESSIBLE AND AFFORDABLE AND HAVING WORKED IN OTHER CITIES AND OTHER PLACES.

YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE A SMALL EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT THAT IS NOT EQUIPPED TO MANAGE ICU LEVEL PATIENTS OR PATIENTS OUTSIDE OF A VERY SMALL WINDOW, THEY END UP GETTING TRANSPORTED. THAT PATIENT IS THEN LOOKING AT A SECOND FACILITY FEE, A SECOND EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT FEE, POSSIBLY A SEVERAL THOUSAND DOLLARS TRANSFER FEE.

AND THAT DOES NOT.

THAT ACTUALLY DRIVES UP THE COST OF CARE FOR OUR COMMUNITY, AS WELL AS DELAYS THEIR CHANCE TO GETTING TO DEFINITIVE CARE AND STABILIZATION IN IN CERTAIN CASES.

SO I APPRECIATE THE CHANCE TO TALK.

THOSE ARE MY SOME OF MY CONCERNS WITH THIS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NEXT, I SEE SUSAN [INAUDIBLE].

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY NAME IS SUSAN [INAUDIBLE].

I'M A PEDIATRIC INTENSIVE CARE SPECIALIST IN FLAGSTAFF.

I LIVE. I'M AT A 1200 NORTH BEAVER STREET IS MY ADDRESS.

I AM NOT AN EMPLOYED EMPLOYEE OF NORTHERN ARIZONA HEALTH CARE, BUT I DO WORK AT FLAGSTAFF MEDICAL CENTER. MY JOB THERE IS IS THE MEDICAL DIRECTOR OF THE PEDIATRIC ICU.

MY JOB FOR THIS COMMUNITY IS TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR CHILDREN SURVIVE.

I HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERN THAT THERE IS A HOSPITAL, A FACILITY BEING DESIGNATING ITSELF AS A HOSPITAL, BEING BUILT ON MCMILLAN MESA, MAINLY FOR THE FACT THAT THAT MEANS THAT THE FOUR YEAR OLD WITH CARDIORESPIRATORY COLLAPSE SECONDARY TO GROUP A STREP SEPSIS THAT LIVES IN THE AREA EAST OF THIS FACILITY, WILL SHOW UP AT THIS EMERGENCY ROOM.

AND I QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL BE ABLE TO RESUSCITATE THIS CHILD IN THE TIME THAT THEY NEED WITH THE ATTENTION THAT THEY NEED.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MS. [INAUDIBLE] SAID THAT THEY WANT TO PROVIDE THE BEST CARE IN THE BEST TIME.

AND WHEN YOU HAVE A FOUR YEAR OLD IN COMPLETE CARDIORESPIRATORY COLLAPSE, THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE TO REACH ITS DEFINITIVE CARE.

WHEN THOSE PATIENTS SHOW UP IN OUR EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT AT FLAGSTAFF MEDICAL CENTER, THEY IMMEDIATELY HAVE PEDIATRIC TRAINED NURSES, PEDIATRIC TRAINED NURSE PRACTITIONERS AND A PEDIATRIC INTENSIVIST AT THEIR SIDE.

IN ADDITION TO OUR VERY WELL TRAINED EMERGENCY ROOM STAFF.

WE CAN ALSO SUPPLANT THAT PATIENT WITH THE TWO MONTH OLD WHO HAS HAD CARDIOVASCULAR COLLAPSE BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN UNDIAGNOSED, ANOMALOUS LEFT CORNER ARTERY RESULTING FROM COMING FROM THE PULMONARY ARTERY.

WE'VE SEEN ALL THESE PATIENTS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS AND WE'VE RESUSCITATED THEM AND THEY HAVE WALKED OUT OF THE HOSPITAL.

I QUESTION THAT THIS FACILITY BEING BUILT UP ON THE MESA, IT WILL BE ABLE TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN OF FLAGSTAFF WITH THE SAME SKILL AND AN ABILITY THAT FLAGSTAFF MEDICAL CENTER IS DEDICATED ITSELF TO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[01:20:02]

I APOLOGIZE IF I MISPRONOUNCED YOUR NAME.

DEREK [INAUDIBLE].

DR. [INAUDIBLE]. OK.

MAYBE HE'LL, MAYBE.

I'M THERE. HOLD ON, I'M BACK, CAN YOU? OK. YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN. I ASSUME THAT YOU CAN.

MY NAME IS DEREK [INAUDIBLE].

I'M A PHYSICIAN IN FLAGSTAFF, I DO WORK FOR THE HOSPITAL, I'M AN INTERNAL MEDICINE DOCTOR AND A HOSPITALIST, AS IS MY WIFE.

WE'VE LIVED HERE AND WORKED AT FLAGSTAFF MEDICAL CENTER FOR 12 YEARS, SO I'LL GO BACK TO ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER AND NEEDING A NEW HEALTH CARE FACILITY TO HELP WITH THE TREATMENT OF PATIENTS IN TOWN DURING THE MIDST OF A GLOBAL PANDEMIC.

SO I WOULD REALLY WANT TO DO A DEEP DIVE AND TO FIGURE OUT HOW A HOSPITAL WITH EIGHT BEDS WITH SHORT STAY STATUS WOULD BE ABLE TO CARE FOR COVID PATIENTS AFTER WHAT WE'VE SEEN THIS PAST YEAR. SO MY WIFE AND I, AS HAVE MANY OF THE PEOPLE ON THIS CALL, TAKEN CARE OF DOZENS, IF NOT HUNDREDS, OF COVID PATIENTS IN THIS LAST YEAR AND ALL OF US WHO HAVE DONE SO KNOW THAT THOSE PATIENTS REQUIRE MULTIPLE LENGTH DAY STAYS IN THE HOSPITAL WITH ADVANCED EQUIPMENT SUCH AS VENTILATORS, BIPAP.

THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT WE DO TO MECHANICALLY VENTILATE PEOPLE WHO ARE QUITE ILL.

THEY REQUIRE SPECIALTY CARE FROM MULTIPLE DIFFERENT SET OF SPECIALISTS THAT MAY NEED TO BE CONSULTED DURING THE HOSPITAL STAY.

AND WHEN I HEAR THAT THIS HOSPITAL IS ABLE TO TAKE ALL COMERS AND ANY TYPE OF ILLNESS, I VERY MUCH QUESTION THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO CARE FOR PATIENTS LIKE THIS.

I ALSO TAKE CARE OF PATIENTS FROM THE RANGE OF ALCOHOL WITHDRAWAL TO GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDS TO HEART ATTACKS.

AND I ALSO WONDER WHETHER THEY WOULD REALLY BE ABLE TO CARE FOR THOSE TYPES OF PATIENTS WHO COME IN WITH GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDS, KNOWING THAT OUR GASTROENTEROLOGY GROUP IS NOT GOING TO WORK AT THAT HOSPITAL.

HAVING SPOKEN WITH THEM YESTERDAY, AND I FEEL BACK TO DR.

LEVITAN'S POINT, WE WOULD RUN INTO A SITUATION WHERE MULTIPLE PATIENTS SHOW UP AT THIS EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT TO BE TREATED, ONLY TO FIND THAT THE FACILITY CANNOT TAKE CARE OF THEM BOTH FROM A PHYSICIAN STANDPOINT OR A FACILITY OR EQUIPMENT STANDPOINT.

AND FIND THOSE PATIENTS ALL THEN BEING RUSHED OVER TO FMC, INCURRING MORE FEES ON THE PATIENT AND DELAYING THEIR CARE.

SO THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE EVERYONE TO HEAR.

THANKS. THANK YOU.

JOSHUA TINGLE.

HI EVERYONE. JOSH TINGLE, 1200 NORTH BEAVER.

SIMILAR CONCERNS TO WHAT WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME AND ECHO A LOT OF THE COMMENTS THAT YOU HEARD TONIGHT ABOUT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE AFFORDABILITY AS THEY ASSERT IN THEIR PRESENTATION FOR US.

AGAIN, WE ARE COMPLETELY SUPPORTIVE OF THE MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AS WELL AS THE ASC.

EVERY OTHER ASC IN TOWN IS ABLE TO CARE FOR THOSE PATIENTS WITHOUT HAVING, AS MS. [INAUDIBLE], 23 PLUS HOUR HOUR STAYS AS DR.

MARK [INAUDIBLE] TALK TO YOU ABOUT IS REALLY UNSAFE TO PROVIDE THAT TYPE OF CARE IN THAT TYPE OF SETTING WITHOUT THE ADVANCED CARE THAT'S NEEDED FOR THE PATIENTS AND OUR RESIDENTS OF FLAGSTAFF.

AGAIN, THE ASSERTION THAT THERE'S ALREADY A 50000 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL NEXT TO THEM THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED, THAT'S ACTUALLY A REHABILITATION HOSPITAL, WHICH IS EXTREMELY DIFFERENT THAN AN EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT, AS DR.

KHAN, BOTH DR. KHANS AND DR.

LEVITAN SPOKE ABOUT.

AND WE ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE OVERALL SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY.

AND THEN FINALLY, JUST FOR MY FINAL POINT, I WOULD JUST REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT IT WAS APPROVED ON THE ASSERTION THAT MS. [INAUDIBLE] AGAIN HIT TONIGHT THAT THERE WOULD BE ONE TO TWO AMBULANCES IN THIS FACILITY PER MONTH PER THEIR ESTIMATE.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS APPLICATION WAS REALLY BROUGHT FORWARD ON.

AND WE WOULD ASK THAT THAT GO BACK AND BE LOOKED AT BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW.

WE THINK THAT IS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF AMBULANCE TRAFFIC THAT WOULD BE IN THAT FACILITY, WHICH WOULD MOST LIKELY REQUIRE A DEDICATED AMBULANCE DRIVE FOR US TO PROVIDE THE MOST OUTSTANDING CARE FROM A GUARDIAN MEDICAL PERSPECTIVE, AS WELL AS LOOKING AT THE OVERALL HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE COMMUNITY.

GIVEN WHAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS SAID, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I AM NOT SEEING ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME.

IF THERE IS ANY.

HERE'S YOUR LAST LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

OK. LET'S GIVE ME A MOMENT HERE.

[01:25:04]

ARE THERE ANY FINAL QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION FOR EITHER THE APPLICANT OR THE STAFF PRIOR TO CALLING FOR SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION.

CHAIR ZIMMERMAN, I DO HAVE A COUPLE CLOSING COMMENTS IF YOU HAVE A MOMENT, IF THE COMMISSION WILL ALLOW THEM.

YEAH. I THINK WE WILL.

IS THAT OK, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GO NOW OR WAIT FOR THE QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? LET ME JUST ASK COMMISSIONER JONES, COMMISSIONER JONES, DO YOU WANT TO HOLD YOUR QUESTION OR COMMENT UNTIL? SURE. THE APPLICANT SPEAKS.

[INAUDIBLE] I CAN WAIT.

I CAN WAIT AS WELL.

PERFECT. OK, WELL, CHAIR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONERS NOLAN AND JONES, I WILL MAKE THIS BRIEF. THIS IS A LAND USE ISSUE.

THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, IF APPROVED TONIGHT BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, WILL ONLY ALLOW OVERNIGHT CARE.

THAT IS THE EXACT SAME CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT THAT WAS GRANTED TO THE REHAB HOSPITAL, WHICH EVERYONE IS SAYING IS SO DIFFERENT.

SO AGAIN, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, IF GRANTED BY THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF THIS EVENING, ALLOWS US MORE THAN 23 HOURS CARE, WHICH THE REHAB HOSPITAL NEXT TO US HAS.

AS FAR AS.

BUT FURTHER ACCREDITATIONS.

EMERGENCY ROOM, OPERATIONAL ISSUES THAT I THAT I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO.

THAT IS STATE LICENSING FROM THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES, AS WELL AS THE JOINT COMMISSION. WE WILL, THOUGH WE UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF QUALITY CARE.

THIS HOSPITAL WILL BE STAFFED BY QUALITY EMERGENCY ROOM DOCTORS AND WE WILL PROVIDE QUALITY EMERGENCY ROOM CARE TO PATIENTS.

BUT THAT'S NOT A CRITERIA OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

THIS WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES AND THE JOINT COMMISSION. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY THAT MY CLIENT IS A CARDIO DOCTOR AND IS AWARE OF ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SAFE PROCEDURES.

BUT AS FAR AS THE THE THE CONCERNS, THE ONLY LAND USE CONCERN I'VE HEARD IS TRAFFIC AND IT HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY REVIEWED BY YOUR STAFF AND HAS BEEN FOUND TO MEET THE TRANSPORTATION FRAMEWORK THAT YOU HAVE ADEQUATELY PROVIDES THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR WHAT WE'RE PROVIDING.

AND FRANKLY, IF WE WERE TO LEAVE THIS AS A MEDICAL USE ONLY, IT WOULD CREATE MORE TRAFFIC THAN WITH THE ADDITION AGAIN, JUST OF THE 17000 SQUARE FOOT HOSPITAL WITH EIGHT BEDS.

SO AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE GENERATED COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE OF THE SURROUNDING LAND USES, WITH THE ADDITION OF EIGHT HOSPITAL BEDS AS OPPOSED TO THE APPROVED MEDICAL USE THAT'S ON SITE TODAY.

SO THOSE ARE I THINK I HIT THE HIGH NOTES.

BUT BUT COMMISSIONERS, IF I MISS SOMETHING THAT YOU'D LIKE ME TO ADDRESS, I SIT FOR QUESTIONS. THANK YOU MS. [INAUDIBLE]. COMMISSIONER JONES, YOU HAD A COMMENT.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

YOU DIDN'T, YOU DIDN'T MENTION IT.

THE SHORTER PRESENTATION THIS TIME, BUT THEN THE LAST PRESENTATION YOU TALKED ABOUT LIMITING HAVING A LIMIT OF ONE OR TWO VISITS, AMBULANCE VISITS PER WEEK OR SOME SOMEWHERE ALONG THOSE LINES. AND I'M WONDERING, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO LIMIT THOSE? CHAIRMAN ZIMMERMAN, COMMISSIONER JONES GREAT QUESTION.

I DID NOT SAY WE WERE GOING TO LIMIT IT.

I SAID IN OUR EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER SMALL HOSPITALS THAT WE ARE PARTNERS WITH.

THAT'S OUR EXPERIENCE.

WE WILL, BUT I WILL TELL YOU, WE WILL HAVE AN EMERGENCY ROOM STAFFED WITH EMERGENCY ROOM DOCTORS AND WE'LL TAKE WE'LL BE WELL EQUIPPED FOR A QUALITY OF CARE THAT WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES FOR ANYONE THAT WALKS THROUGH OUR DOOR.

SO YOU WOULD EXPECT IN THIS HOSPITAL TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ANY KIND OF EMERGENCY THAT THAT CAME ALONG? CHAIR ZIMMERMAN, COMMISSIONER JONES, YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

YES, THIS WILL BE STAFFED WITH THE SAME, THE SAME ETHICAL ACCREDITED DOCTOR THAT YOU WOULD SEE AT ANY HOSPITAL, WHETHER YOU COME TO THE HOSPITAL, THE 101 IN [INAUDIBLE] DOWN

[01:30:02]

HERE IN PHOENIX OR UP THERE, WE WILL BE ABLE TO HANDLE ANYONE THAT WALKS THROUGH THE DOOR AGAIN, NOT A LAND USE QUESTION, BUT HAPPY TO ANSWER IT.

COMMISSIONER NOLAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND THANK YOU, MS. [INAUDIBLE] AS WELL FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AND ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS.

I GUESS MINE IS JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A STATEMENT SO I CAN LAY OUT THE REASONING BEHIND THE THE WAY I'M TILTING ON THIS.

THE THINGS THAT I FIRST WANT TO ADDRESS IS THE AMBULANCE CANOPY DOES NOT COVER THE AMBULANCE AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET AT EARLIER BECAUSE PART OF THE SITE PLAN LOOKS LIKE IT'S A 12 FOOT CLEARING, WHICH I'M ASSUMING AN AMBULANCE COULD GET UNDER. BUT THEN I'M LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT PART OF THE SITE PLAN, AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE AN AMBULANCE WOULD BE GOING UNDER THERE.

SO WOULD THE CANOPY BE COVERING THE AMBULANCE? CHAIR ZIMMERMAN, COUNCILMAN NOLAN, YES, THE THE CANOPY WILL COVER THE AMBULANCE.

OK, SO ANY SORT OF TRANSPORTING IF IT'S SNOWING, WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT PEOPLE POTENTIALLY SLIPPING OR FALLING ON ICE.

I KNOW SOMEBODY WHO WAS AN EMT AND THEY, WHILE SERVICING BY PICKING SOMEBODY UP, SLIPPED ON ICE AND RUPTURED THEIR SPINAL CORD AND HAD A FUSE.

SOME OF THEIR BONES BACK THERE AND HAS NOW HAD BACK ISSUES FOR 30 YEARS.

SO I THAT RESONATES FOR ME.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR THAT WHEN I'M LOOKING AT PART OF THE SITE PLAN AND IT POINTS OUT AN AMBULANCE PATH, THEN IT SAYS AMBULANCE CANOPY AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THEY ALIGN.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR ON THIS.

SO IF THE AMBULANCE PULLS UP, UNLOADING AND LOADING WILL BE COVERED BY A CANOPY? CORRECT, CHAIR ZIMMERMAN, COMMISSIONER NOLAN.

IT IS A STATE REQUIREMENT.

WE WILL GO ABOVE AND BEYOND TO ENSURE SAFETY AND MAKE SURE THAT THE LOADING AREA IS COVERED SAFE AND FREE OF ICE.

THAT WILL GO THROUGH THE JOINT REVIEW THE JOINT JOINT COMMISSION TO TO CHECK ALL THOSE REVIEW AND SAFETY PROCEDURES.

OKAY, THANK YOU. THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO POINT OUT ARE TWO THINGS REALLY IS THAT FOR ME, I WANT TO THANK ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

I HAVE LISTENED TO ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS.

I'VE ALSO READ YOUR EMAILS ON THIS AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.

I THINK THE ONLY REASON WHY I TILT TOWARDS APPROVING THIS IS FOR TWO ESSENTIAL REASONS.

ONE IS THAT THE HOSPITAL IS PLANNING ON MOVING AND IT'S NOT EXACTLY MOVING DOWN THE STREET. IT'LL BE OUT NEAR FORT TUTHILL, SO I'M CONCERNED THAT THERE WON'T BE ENOUGH SERVICES IN ITS ABSENCE.

AND THEN THE SECOND IS BECAUSE WE ARE STILL GOING THROUGH A PANDEMIC AND WITH THE RULES SORT OF CHANGING. WHEN THE PANDEMIC FIRST BROKE OUT IN THE SENSE THAT THERE WERE NO RULES, WE WERE JUST FIGHTING TO GET WHATEVER BEDS AND SERVICES WE COULD POSSIBLY SCROUNGE UP. I JUST LOOK AT THIS AS AN ESSENTIAL NEED AS FAR AS THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT COULD POTENTIALLY FILL IN A VOID ONCE THE HOSPITAL MOVES.

SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU.

I THINK WE'RE HAVING ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE AWKWARD MOMENTS.

YEAH, I DO SEE DAVID'S HAND UP, WHICH IS KIND OF INTERESTING.

MAYBE THAT'S A HAND UP LIKE HOLD UP MUTING AND UNMUTING AND MUTING AND UNMUTING AND RAISING AND LOWERING HANDS.

I APOLOGIZE. I JUST GUESS I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE REGULATORY STRUCTURE THOSE OUTSIDE OF.

PLANNING AND ZONING, AND IT IS OUTSIDE OF.

WHAT THE CITY MAY BE LOOKING AT HERE.

YOU KNOW, WE HEAR A LOT OF COMMENTS FROM LOCAL MEDICAL COMMUNITIES EXPRESSING THEIR CONCERNS, AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT IN A POSITION TO EVALUATE MEDICAL CARE.

YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT WHAT I DO.

I'M AN ARCHEOLOGIST, YOU KNOW, MY PATIENTS ARE ALREADY GONE.

[01:35:01]

BUT IF THERE WERE REAL CONCERNS, I GUESS, FOLKS.

AS SOME OF THE DOCTORS COUNTED ON WHO ULTIMATELY IS R5ESPONSIBLE FOR PATIENT OUTCOMES AND PATIENT CARE.

CHAIR ZIMMERMAN, IF YOU WANT ME TO TAKE A STAB AT THAT AGAIN, IF WE ARE TO GET APPROVED TONIGHT FOR THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THE ONLY THING IT ALLOWS IS 23 MORE THAN 23 HOUR STAYS AT OUR LOCATION.

RIGHT. WE NEED WE WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH SCRUTINY FROM [INAUDIBLE] SERVICES AND THE JOINT COMMISSION. IF THERE ARE ISSUES WITH ANY HOSPITAL.

THERE ARE ACTUALLY ABOUT A HEALTH CARE PRACTICE HERE.

THERE'S, AS WE ALL KNOW, THERE ARE LAWYERS AND PROCESSES FOR THAT.

YOU WOULD NEVER GO TO THE CITY FOR A CONCERN WITH WITH HOW THE OPERATION OF YOUR DOCTOR.

WE HAVE OTHER THERE ARE OTHER ACCREDITATIONS THAT THAT THAT YOU GO TO.

WE DID HAVE WE DID HEAR CONCERNS FROM SOME MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS TODAY.

BUT I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT IF YOU LOOK IN YOUR PACKET, THEY'RE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM OTHER MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS IN YOUR COMMUNITY WHO THINK THIS WOULD BE A BENEFIT.

THE REASON I ASK THE QUESTION IS JUST TO.

PUT AT REST ANY CONCERNS THAT I MIGHT HAVE OF APPROVING SOMETHING.

WHEN THERE'S NO.

WHEN THERE'S NO BACKUP, RIGHT, LIKE I DON'T WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE QUALITY OF CARE, I DON'T WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING A DECISION THAT ULTIMATELY COULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND WHATEVER.

NO, CHAIR ZIMMERMAN.

I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BASICALLY THIS PROCESS.

THERE'S A LOT MORE ON THE CARE SIDE OF THINGS THAT'S GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE THAT'S GOT ITS OWN LIST OF OVERSIGHT AND PLAYERS AND, YOU KNOW, CHECKS AND BALANCES AND THINGS.

SO WE CAN FOCUS ON THE ON THE LAND USE ISSUE.

CORRECT. THE DECISION BEFORE YOU TODAY IS THE LAND USE ISSUE.

PUBLIC HEALTH IS REGULATED TO THE NTH DEGREE IN THE SAME WAY THAT A DISPENSARY, IF YOU'RE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SIGNS OFF ON A LOCATION FOR A DISPENSARY AND THEN SOMETHING GOES WRONG IN TERMS OF THE OPERATION OF THE DISPENSARY.

THAT IS AN ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES ISSUE.

IT'S NOT A CITY ISSUE, IT'S THE REGULATION OF THIS HOSPITAL, THE DOCTORS, THE OPERATIONS.

THAT IS NOT A CITY APPROVAL.

YOUR APPROVAL TODAY IS A LAND USE DECISION.

OK. JUST WANTED.

JUST WANTED TO GET CLARIFICATION ON THAT.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? AND I SEE COMMISSIONER JONES.

THANK YOU. I THINK SINCE OUR OUR NEXT STEP IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE VOTING ON THIS, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS.

THIS IS A LAND USE ISSUE.

BUT THE FINDINGS THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE INCLUDE WHETHER OR NOT THIS USE IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE.

THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT ONE, AND THAT'S THE ONE I'M STRUGGLING WITH.

I DO NOT. I CAN SEE VERY CLEARLY THAT THIS IS A USE THAT IS ALLOWED WITH WITH A USE PERMIT IN THIS LOCATION, WHETHER IT'S A PRIVATE HOSPITAL OR A PUBLIC HOSPITAL.

AND, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF OUR FEELINGS ABOUT THAT, IT IS ALLOWED.

BUT IT IS THAT THAT FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC HEALTH THAT I'M REALLY STRUGGLING WITH AND I FEEL THAT YOU KNOW I NEED TO.

IT DISTURBS ME THAT THERE SEEM TO BE SO MUCH CONCERN ABOUT ABOUT THE EXPECTATIONS THAT THIS FACILITY MAY BE CREATING IN THE COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF WHAT IT CAN REALLY OFFER.

AND SO BASED ON THAT FINDING, I'M GOING TO JUST ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION AND TO DENY THIS APPLICATION.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD NOW BEFORE WE SAY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, WE SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE

[01:40:08]

SOMEBODY PUT FORWARD A MOTION.

AND IF NOBODY WANTS TO DO IT, I THINK I COULD, IF YOU'LL GIVE ME JUST A.

JUST A MOMENT.

OK, IN YOU GO BACK HERE IN THE MATTER OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FROM APRICUS HEALTH FOR A HOSPITAL WITHIN A MEDICAL OFFICE LOCATED AT 1895 NORTH JASPER DRIVE ON PARCEL APN 101-46-012 THE REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A HOSPITAL.

IT HAS THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ZONING CODE, THE NOT DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE, AND THE CONDITION CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE AS PROPOSED ARE IN ACCORDANCE AND REASONABLY COMPATIBLE WITH USES PERMITTED IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR APRICUS HEALTH IN THE MATTER OF PZ-19-0022-05 NOTING THE FINDINGS AND.

THE CONDITIONS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE SHALL SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORM TO THE PLANS, AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION, WITH THE SITE PLAN AS APPROVED BY THE INTER DIVISIONAL STAFF ON APRIL 16, 2021, AND WITH THE MINOR MODIFICATION TO DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AS APPROVED ON AUGUST 4TH, 2021. ALL ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS OF THE APPROVED SITE PLAN SHALL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL REVIEW BY THE IDS TEAM AND CONDITION TWO UNLESS WARRANTED BY TRAFFIC.

OTHER SAFETY ISSUES AMBULANCE SIRENS FOR THE HOSPITAL USE WILL NOT BE ACTIVATED UNTIL THE INTERSECTION OF GEMINI ROAD AND FOREST AVENUE.

THIS IS COMMISSIONER MANDINO.

I WOULD SECOND THAT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITS PZ-19-00022-05 . SO NOTED ON THE CORRECTION ON THE CASE NUMBER, THANK YOU.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION, WE HAVE A SECOND.

IS THERE ANY? REQUEST THAT ANYONE WANT TO.

WELL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

SAY AYE.

AYE. AND THOSE OPPOSED.

NAY.

THE MOTION PASSES TO GRANT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

THANK YOU EVERYONE.

THANK YOU CHAIR, THANK YOU COMMISSION.

HAVE A LOVELY EVENING. THANK YOU.

SEE HERE.

SORRY, YOU HAVE TO KIND OF SKIP BACK AND FORTH HERE.

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SIX MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO OR FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS.

[6. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO/FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS]

HOW ARE YOU? ANYONE HAVE ANY MISCELLANY TO TO SHARE? NO. HI, THIS IS THIS IS ALEX.

I THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSION HAS AGREED TO DO DIGITAL PACKETS IF YOU'RE STILL HOLDING ON TO PAPER PACKETS.

CONSIDER DIGITAL WAVE OF THE FUTURE.

BUT AT ANY TIME, IF YOU WANT SOMETHING ON PAPER, EITHER YOU CAN PRINT OR IF YOU WANT TO SHOOT ME AN EMAIL, I CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY TO PRINT IT AND GET YOU COPIES IF YOU NEED.

BUT THANK YOU, I THINK.

DIGITAL, JUST BE GREAT FOR ALL OF US.

ESPECIALLY FOR TIFFANY, WHO HAS TO GET AROUND DRIVE ALL OVER TOWN, DELIVERING THEM.

[01:45:03]

YES. WE TEND TO SPLIT IT UP.

I GET TO SEND PEOPLE HOME A LITTLE EARLY IF THEY DELIVER A PACKET.

BUT YEAH, TIFFANY'S BEEN KNOWN TO DELIVER THEM ON SATURDAYS.

SO.

AND CHAIRMAN, SINCE THIS IS MISCELLANEOUS, I HAVE SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO JUST KIND OF BRING UP. YEAH.

SO AS I'VE STATED BEFORE, REGARDING OUR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING UP WITH THIS AND I EMAILED OUR CITY MANAGER, COUNCIL AND PUBLIC WORKS TODAY ON REVIEWING OUR ENGINEERING STANDARDS REGARDING SOLID WASTE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THOSE STANDARDS.

SO I JUST WANTED TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT I HAVEN'T BEEN SORT OF, YOU KNOW, EXCUSE ME, PASSIVELY VOTING THINGS DOWN.

I'VE BEEN REALLY TRYING TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE AND AT SOME POINT WE MAY HAVE SOMETHING COME TO P&Z. I'M NOT SURE JUST YET BECAUSE WE'RE STILL IN THE EARLY STAGES OF THIS, BUT I'M JUST LOOKING FOR ANY WAYS THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY IMPROVE OUR CITY CODES IN THIS CAPACITY.

THAT'S EXCELLENT. YEAH, THANKS FOR PUTTING IN THE PUTTING IN THE WORK.

YEAH, GLAD TO. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER MISCELLANY? AND IF THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS, WE CAN STAND ADJOURNED.

THANKS, EVERYONE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, EVERYONE HAVE A GREAT NIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. SEE YOU NEXT TIME.

BYE BYE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.