[00:00:01] HELLO, EVERYBODY. IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE'VE MET VIRTUALLY. SO I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CITY OF FLAGSTAFF MEETING [1. Call to Order] FOR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OF JANUARY 2022, AND IT IS 4:02 PM MAY WE HAVE THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE. DAVID ZIMMERMAN? [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 DR. RICARDO GUTHRIE CAROLE MANDINO DR. ALEX MARTINEZ DR. ERIC NOLAN LLOYD PAUL ] PRESENT. MARIA JONES? PRESENT. ERIC NOLAN? PRESENT. LLOYD PAUL? PRESENT. CAROLE MANDINO? PRESENT. ALEX MARTINEZ AND RICARDO GUTHRIE ARE BOTH EXCUSED. ERIC, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT BRINGS US TO OUR PUBLIC COMMENT, AND I'D LIKE TO READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT 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 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. THERE ARE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. KERRY, I'M HEARING NONE. [4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes from the meeting on December 8, 2021.] WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR THE MEETING ON DECEMBER 8TH, 2021. THIS IS COMMISSIONER MANDINO, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE MEETING ON DECEMBER 8TH, 2021. THIS IS COMMISSIONER NOLAN, I SECOND. OK, WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER MANDINO, A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER NOLAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. WASN'T THERE? OK, SO MOVED, AND I GUESS I'LL JUST MAKE MY USUAL STATEMENT AGAIN THAT THE BEST WAY FOR ME TO TO SEE YOU IS IF YOU USE THE LITTLE RAISE YOUR HAND FUNCTION AS WE GO THROUGH THE MEETING, THAT'S EASIER FOR ME THAN NOT TO OVERLOOK ANYONE AND ALSO SEE THE ORDER IN WHICH PEOPLE ARE RAISING THEIR HANDS. OK, THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM FIVE, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON PZ-20-00063, [A. PZ-20-00063: McMillan Mesa Natural Area: A request by the City of Flagstaff for a Concept Zoning Map Amendment of approximately 299.68 acres, distributed across 10 parcels generally located at 1900 North Gemini Drive, from the Rural Residential (RR), Public Facilities (PF), and Research and Development (RD) zones with a Resource Protection Overlay (RPO) to the Public Open Space (POS) zone with a RPO. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission, in accordance with the findings presented in this report, forward the Concept Zoning Map Amendment to the City Council with a recommendation to approve with the following condition: 1. A Resource Protection Overlay (RPO) shall be applied to all areas contained in this rezoning request.] THE MCMILLAN MESA NATURAL AREA. SO WE HAVE A REQUEST BY THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF FOR A CONCEPT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT. WHICH HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS, I THINK, FOR SOME TIME, AND I BELIEVE STAFF HAS A PRESENTATION FOR US. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ZIMMERMAN, YES, GENEVIEVE GUTHRIE, SENIOR PLANNER IN THE CURRENT PLANNING SECTION, AND I DO HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THIS CONCEPT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE MCMILLAN MESA NATURAL AREA. GREAT. I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. ALL RIGHT, SO LET ME GET THIS TO. THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. SO A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERVIEW OF THIS REQUEST. SO IT IS FROM THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF OPEN SPACE PROGRAM AND THE REQUEST IS FOR 299.68 ACRES AT 1900 NORTH GEMINI ROAD TO BE ZONED FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY AND RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ZONES TO THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ZONE. SO THE AREA IS CURRENTLY OPEN SPACE. IT'S UNDEVELOPED LAND. THERE'S TEN PARCELS INCLUDED IN THE REQUEST AND THE PARCELS DO CONTAIN EXISTING FLAGSTAFF URBAN TRAIL SYSTEM AS WELL AS UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE. SO THE REASONS BEHIND THIS REQUEST IS FOR THE MCMILLAN MESA NATURAL AREA TO BE MANAGED BY THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF OPEN SPACE PROGRAM AS LEGALLY DESIGNATED. OPEN SPACE AND THE PURPOSES ARE FOR OPEN SPACE AND PASSIVE RECREATION, SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY USES ALLOWED IN THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ZONE. SO THIS SHOWS WHERE THE PARCELS ARE LOCATED, SO THERE ARE ALL THE PARCELS IN THE LIGHT GREEN COLOR THAT WE CAN SEE ON MY SCREEN. IT SHOWS THAT THIS AREA IS LOCATED BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH, PRIMARILY SOUTH, A LITTLE BIT NORTH OF FOREST AND CEDAR AVENUE. AND IT DOES NOT INCLUDE BUFFALO PARK OR THE USGS OR ANY SET INCUBATORS OR ANY OF THOSE AREAS, BUT YEAH, INCLUDES ALL OF THE LIGHT GREEN PARCELS THAT WE CAN SEE HERE. [00:05:05] AND THIS IS A ZONING VICINITY MAPS. SO YOU CAN JUST SEE AROUND THE MCMILLAN MESA NATURAL AREA. THERE'S A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL ZONES, SOME COMMERCIAL ZONES IN SUNNY SIDE. ALSO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, ZONING, A SINGLE FAMILY, MULTIFAMILY HOUSING KIND OF AN ALL ON ALL SIDES OF THE MCMILLAN MESA NATURAL AREA, EXCEPT FOR THE NORTH. THAT'S PUBLIC OPEN SPACE UP HERE, AND THAT'S WHERE BUFFALO PARK IS. SO AS CHAIR ZIMMERMAN MENTIONED, THIS HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR A WHILE, THIS IS THE THIRD STEP IN THREE KIND OF MAJOR STEPS TO HAVE THIS AREA BE OPEN SPACE. SO THE FIRST STEP WAS PROPOSITION FOR 13. SO THAT WAS FROM NOVEMBER 8TH, 2016, 86 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED, VOTED IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSITION, WHICH RESTRICTED THE USE OF THIS AREA TO PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND PASSIVE RECREATION. SO IT BASICALLY CREATED THE MCMILLAN MESA NATURAL AREA. AND AGAIN, ALL OF THESE APPROXIMATELY 300 ACRES ARE OWNED BY THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF. HOWEVER, THE PROPOSITION DID NOT CHANGE THE REGIONAL PLAN LAND USES OR THE ZONING. SO THAT WAS STEP ONE. STEP TWO WAS A CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MAJOR REGIONAL PLAN AMENDMENT. SO THAT'S TO THE 2030 REGIONAL PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED ON OCTOBER 16TH, 2018. AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT WAS TO MAKE THE AREA CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSITION 413. SO IT UPDATED THE FUTURE GROWTH ILLUSTRATIONS. THOSE ARE MAPS 21 AND 22. I CHANGED IT FROM THE PREVIOUS LAND USES, WHICH WERE A MIX OF HOUSING, EMPLOYMENT, A SPECIAL DISTRICT AREA IN WHITE WHICH IS NOT ASSIGNED TO LAND USE, BUT BASICALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING THAT IT HAD AT THE TIME. SO IT CHANGED ALL OF THOSE. THOSE TYPE OF LAND USES TWO PARKS AND OPEN SPACE. THIS AMENDMENT ALSO UPDATED MAP 25, WHICH WAS THE ROAD NETWORK ILLUSTRATION TO MAKE THE ROAD NETWORK CONSISTENT WITH THE MCMILLAN MESA NATURAL AREA. SO IT REMOVED THE PONDEROSA PARKWAY CONNECTION ROAD THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY SHOWN IN THE REGIONAL PLAN PRIOR TO THIS AMENDMENT. SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS THIS REZONING, SO THE THIRD HAVE THREE STEPS, IS TO MAKE THE MCMILLAN MESA ZONING CONSISTENT WITH BOTH PROPOSITION 413 AS WELL AS THE REGIONAL PLAN. SO IT'S JUST AN OVERVIEW OF THAT 2018 REGIONAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SO IT DESIGNATED THIS AREA AS PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, WHICH WE CAN SEE IN GREEN IN IT, REMOVE THE PONDEROSA PARKWAY CONNECTION, WHICH WOULD HAVE WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY SHOWN, BISECTING THE MCMILLAN MESA NATURAL AREA. SO AGAIN, THIS REQUEST COVERS 10 PARCELS, OVER APPROXIMATELY 300 ACRES. TWO OF THE PARCELS IT'S ONLY INCLUDING PART OF THE PARCEL. ONE OF THOSE PARCELS INCLUDES BUFFALO PARK USGS, NACET NORTH OF FOREST. A LOT OF THOSE PARTS ARE ON PART OF A PARCEL THAT'S INCLUDED IN THIS REZONING, BUT THAT AREA OF THE PARCEL IS NOT INCLUDED. ALL THE PARCELS HAVE A RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY, EITHER ON ALL OF THE PARCEL OR PART OF THE PARCEL. AGAIN, THERE ARE SOME EXISTING FOOT TRAILS AND UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT NO NEW DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED, SO NO PUBLIC SYSTEMS ANALYZES WERE REQUIRED. THEN AGAIN, THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ZONE ONLY PERMITS TWO USES SO OPEN SPACE AND PASSIVE RECREATION. AND THEN THIS TABLE JUST SUMMARIZES HOW THE ZONING MAP WILL CHANGE IF THIS IS APPROVED. SO CHANGE IN IN PUBLIC FACILITY RURAL RESIDENTIAL RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT ZONE, THOSE ACRES GOING TO THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ZONE. SO THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS, SO I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THIS IS A CONCEPT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, WHICH ALLOWS APPLICANTS TO SUBMIT BASICALLY A CONCEPT PLAN AND PURSUE DEVELOPMENT AFTER REZONING. OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT IN THIS CASE. SO THEY DID THE CONCEPT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, AND THAT WAS THE MOST APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR THIS CASE. THE OTHER OPTION IS DIRECT ORDINANCE, THE SITE PLAN, BUT THAT WOULD REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH AGAIN, THIS ONE DOES NOT SO JUST TO KIND OF DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THOSE TWO APPLICATIONS. SO AGAIN, THIS IS A CONCEPT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT. SO THERE ARE THREE FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS. THE FIRST IS THAT THE AMENDMENT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ANY APPLICABLE SPECIFIC PLANS. SO THAT'S THE REGIONAL PLAN AND ANY SPECIFIC PLANS THAT APPLY TO THE AREA. SO I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY THERE WAS THAT 2018 REGIONAL PLAN UPDATE THAT CHANGED THE LAND USE DESIGNATION IN THE REGIONAL PLAN TO PARK IN OPEN SPACE SO PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ZONE IS CONSISTENT WITH THIS LAND USE. ALSO MENTION IT REMOVED THAT ROAD THAT WOULD HAVE CUT THROUGH. SO AS PART OF THE APPLICATION, THE OPEN SPACE PROGRAM IDENTIFIED THIRTY TWO GOALS AND [00:10:01] POLICIES IN THE REGIONAL PLAN THAT SUPPORT THE REZONING. SO THEY'RE IN SEVERAL CATEGORIES AND THAT ENVIRONMENT OPEN SPACE, COMMUNITY, CHARACTER GROWTH, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NEIGHBORHOODS, RECREATION, TRANSPORTATION AND WATER RESOURCES. THE APPLICATION ALSO IDENTIFIED EIGHT REGIONAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES THAT DO NOT SUPPORT THE REZONING, SO THEY WERE IN GROWTH AREAS, LAND USE, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TRANSPORTATION. THIS IS BECAUSE OF IT. RESULTS WOULD RESULT IN A REDUCTION IN EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING, OPTIONS. HOWEVER, BUT THESE ISSUES WERE DISCUSSED AS PART OF THAT 2018 REGIONAL PLAN AMENDMENT. AND AS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION, IT WAS IDENTIFIED THAT WHEN THE REGIONAL PLAN IS UPDATED AND THAT'S GOING TO START THIS YEAR, IT WILL IDENTIFY LAND FOR HOUSING AND BUSINESS PARKS TO OFFSET THE THE CHANGE IN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS IN THE REGIONAL PLAN. SO A LOT OF THESE ISSUES WERE ALREADY DISCUSSED AND IDENTIFIED AS PART OF THAT 2018 REGIONAL PLAN UPDATE. I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY THAT THE FIRST FINDING FOR APPROVAL TALKS ABOUT CONSISTENCY WITH THE REGIONAL PLAN, AS WELL AS ANY SPECIFIC PLANS. SO FIVE OF THE 10 PARCELS ARE COVERED BY THE MCMILLAN MESA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN AND THREE OF THOSE FIVE PARCELS, IF THE ZONING IS CHANGED TO PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, THEY'LL BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT PLAN BECAUSE ONE OF THE PARCELS IS DESIGNATED AS A SCHOOL OR PARK. THE OTHER TWO ARE FOOTE'S TRAIL CONNECTORS THAT BISECT AREAS THAT ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THAT PLAN, WITH THE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, MEDIUM DENSITY, RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING. HOWEVER, TWO OF THE PARCELS ARE DESIGNATED AS A BUSINESS PARK IN THE PLAN, AND THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ZONING IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THAT LAND USE DESIGNATION. HOWEVER, THESE ISSUES WERE ALSO DISCUSSED AS PART OF THE REGIONAL PLAN AMENDMENT BECAUSE PROP. 413, AS WELL AS THE AMENDMENT, IDENTIFY THE PARCELS AS PARKS OR OPEN SPACE, AND THEY'RE ALREADY LIMITED IN THEIR FUTURE USE AND SALE BY PROP. 413 DECIDED THAT THAT PLAN DID NOT NEED TO BE TO BE UPDATED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REGIONAL PLAN. OK, SO THE SECOND FINDING IS THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE OR WELFARE OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF AND THAT IT WILL ADD TO THE PUBLIC GOOD. SO STAFF DOES BELIEVE THAT THIS PROJECT WILL NO ONE NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC? AND NUMBER TWO, THAT IT WILL ADD TO THE PUBLIC GOOD. SO A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT THE APPLICANT DISCUSSED IN THEIR NARRATIVE WAS THAT IT WILL BE PROTECTING A MONTANE GRASSLAND, WHICH IS AN AT RISK ECOSYSTEM IN FLAGSTAFF BE THE CITY'S SECOND LARGEST PARK AND BE MANAGED BY THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF. OPEN SPACE IS LEGALLY DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE. WE'LL ALSO PRESERVE VIEWS ALONG THE FOREST AND CEDAR AVENUE CORRIDOR AND WILL PROVIDE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS WITH ACCESS TO EXERCISE OPPORTUNITIES AS WELL AS ACCESS TO THE OUTDOORS. IT WILL PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUTDOOR EDUCATION FOR ALL THE LOCAL SCHOOLS IN THE MCMILLAN MESA NATURAL AREA KIND OF SURROUNDINGS, AND THEN IT WILL PROVIDE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS VIA THE EXISTING TRAIL SYSTEM ON THE MESA. THE THIRD FINDING IS THAT THE SITE MUST BE SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IF THERE IS ANY IN TERMS OF DESIGN, LOCATION, SHAPE, SIZE AND OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS, AS WELL AS EMERGENCY SERVICES AND UTILITIES, AND THAT IT WILL NOT BID PROPOSED OR ANTICIPATED USES OR DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT ENDANGER, JEOPARDIZE OR OTHERWISE CONSTITUTE A HAZARD TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN THE VICINITY WHERE THEIR PROPERTY IS LOCATED. SO AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, NO DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED AT THIS TIME. BUT THIS CONCEPT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DID GO THROUGH THE INNER DIVISION STAFF REVIEW, WHO REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND CONCLUDED THAT THE SITE WAS SUITABLE TO BE SET ASIDE FOR OPEN SPACE AND PASSIVE RECREATION. AND THIS REVIEW WAS BASED ON ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND REQUIREMENTS. FINALLY, THERE'S A BUNCH OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION THAT'S REQUIRED FOR A CONCEPT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, SO THE FIRST STEP IS A VIRTUAL NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, AND THOSE WERE HELD IN DECEMBER OF 2020 AND JANUARY OF 2021 THAT'S REQUIRED FOR CONCEPT ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS. THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF OPEN SPACE PROGRAM ALSO INITIATED A 60 DAY PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ON THE FLAGSTAFF COMMUNITY FORUM. AND THAT'S NOT REQUIRED BY CODE, SO THAT GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND IN TERMS OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS AND RECEIVED A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON THIS REZONING REQUEST. AND THE FEEDBACK FROM THE FORUM, AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS, IS ALL IN THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT THAT WAS PREPARED AND IS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA IN THIS ITEM. AND FINALLY, THE PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE NOTICED FOR P AND Z, AS WELL AS COUNCIL PER CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS. SO FINALLY, STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE PROPOSED CONCEPT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT DOES CONFORM [00:15:05] WITH THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS FOR THE CONCEPT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP FOR TWO HUNDRED AND NINETY NINE POINT SIX ACRES FROM THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ZONES TO THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ZONE WITH JUST ONE CONDITION. AND THAT SORT OF RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY SHALL BE APPLIED TO ALL AREAS CONTAINED IN THIS REZONING REQUEST. THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE FOR MY PRESENTATION, BUT THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF OPEN SPACE PROGRAM REPRESENTATIVES ARE HERE AS WELL, SO I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MANDINO? YES, MY ONLY QUESTION IS WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF PASSIVE RECREATION? GOOD QUESTION, LET ME PULL IT UP IN THE ZONING CODE. BASICALLY, IT'S, YOU KNOW, WALKING ON TRAILS AND KIND OF MINIMAL IMPACTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT. BUT LET ME GO AHEAD AND JUST PULL THAT UP REAL QUICK IN THE ZONING CODE SO I CAN GIVE YOU AN ACCURATE ANSWER. YOU CAN'T RIDE YOUR DIRT BIKE OUT THERE. YEAH, IT'S BASICALLY, YEAH, AND MAYBE ROBERT WALLACE ON IN OR SOMEONE ELSE FROM OPEN SPACE PROGRAM PROBABLY IS A BETTER PERSON TO ANSWER THAT THAN I AM AS WELL. SO, ROBERT, DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT WHILE I JUST LOOK AT THE ZONING CODE REAL QUICK? SURE, IT'S GOING TO BE. YEAH, WE INTERPRET PASSIVE RECREATION AS WALKING, BIKING, EQUESTRIAN USE ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE SUBSTANTIAL, SPECIFIED INFRASTRUCTURE THAT ONLY WOULD PERTAIN TO THAT ONE PARTICULAR TYPE OF ACTIVITY. SO A GOOD COMPARISON WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, FOR A PARK WOULD BE A BALL FIELD OR A PLAYGROUND COMPARED TO LIKE A WALKING TRAIL OR OPEN SPACE. THANK YOU, AND I WANTED TO THANK THE STAFF FOR THIS EXTENSIVE REPORT. I APPRECIATE IT. YOU'RE WELCOME. AND COMMISSIONER MANDINO, I DO HAVE THAT DEFINITION OF ZONING CODE IF YOU'RE INTERESTED, BUT BASICALLY. NO, I THINK THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTION. OK, GREAT. HONESTLY, I WAS JOKING WHEN I SAID, YOU COULDN'T RIDE YOUR DIRT BIKE OUT THERE, BUT WHAT IN THE DEFINITION OF PASSIVE RECREATION WOULD PREVENT THAT? SO THE DEFINITION IN THE ZONING CODE SAYS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE USE OF RECREATIONAL MOTORIZED VEHICLES, EXCEPT WHEN AUTHORIZED BY LAW PERMIT OR LICENSE GRANTED BY THE CITY, STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. OK, SO I THINK THAT'S THAT SHOULD ANSWER THAT. YEAH, WHEN ROBERT SAID HORSES, I THOUGHT, WELL, THERE'S THAT. WHAT'S THE DISTINCTION, SO. OK, OK. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION FOR THE STAFF? I DON'T SEE ANY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER STAFF PRESENTATIONS OR ANY OTHER WORDS FROM OPEN SPACE OR RECREATION? HEARING NONE. I WOULD, THIS IS COMMISSIONER MANDINO, I WOULD BE MORE THAN PLEASED TO PUT FORWARD IF THAT'S WHERE WE ARE ACTUALLY, OH, WE HAVE TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. YEAH, IT'S GOING TO MAKE THIS OPEN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. WE DID RECEIVE EMAILS WHICH WERE FORWARDED TO US, ALL OF WHICH WERE IN SUPPORT. BUT IS THERE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC ATTENDING THE MEETING THAT HAS ANY COMMENTS? REGARDING THIS PUBLIC HEARING. UM, WE HAVE ONE NOTE FROM KATIE SAYING SHE APPROVES. SO, OH, SO THIS IS COMMISSIONER MANDINO AGAIN. MM HMM. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACCEPT PZ20-00063 MCMILLAN MESA NATURAL AREA TO TO AMEND THE [00:20:04] CONCEPT ZONING MAP FOR THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF OF THE APPROXIMATELY 299.68 ACRES FROM THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ZONES WITH A RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY TO THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ZONE WITH AN RPO WITH THE ONE THING I THINK OF WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY. IF YOU WANT TO INCLUDE IT THERE THAT WE'RE GOING TO PASS THIS TEST AT COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL. YES, TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH MAYBE ADD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS. THANK YOU. THAT'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS. THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR. PERFECT. THIS IS COMMISSIONER PAUL, I WILL SECOND THAT. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. I THINK I HEARD YOU, ERIC, I THINK I SPOKE OVER YOU. YOU WERE. YES, I. OK. CORRECT. CORRECT. OK. WELL, THEN THE MOTION, THE MOTION PASSES, THANK YOU, EVERYONE. I THINK THIS IS REALLY EXCELLENT WORK. AND THAT MOVES THE ITEM NUMBER SIX GENERAL BUSINESS, WHICH BRINGS US TO [A. PZ-20-00216-02 Fimbrez Subdivision Property owner, Ben Fimbrez, requests Preliminary Plat approval for Fimbrez Estates located at 1300 W Lower Coconino Avenue, a six-lot, single-family subdivision on 10.04 acres in the Estate Residential (ER) Zone within the Resource Protection Overlay (RPO). STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission, in accordance with the required findings presented in this report, forward the Preliminary Plat to the City Council with a recommendation of approval with the following conditions: That a minimum front setback of 15 feet be required for front loaded garages and a minimum of 10 feet be required for side-loaded garages. Provide dedication language for a public trail or FUTS on Tract A with the Final Plat. ] PZ20-00216-02 THE HOUSE IS RIGHT FORTINBRAS SUBDIVISION. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR SOME HOUSING. IN THE STATE RESIDENTIAL ZONE ON LOWER COOK [INAUDIBLE] AVENUE, AND WE HAVE A PRESENTATION THAT APPEARS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS TONY ANTLE, TONIGHT I'M HERE TO PRESENT TO YOU A PRELIMINARY PLOT REQUEST FOR A SIX LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON 10.04 ACRES IN THE ESTATE RESIDENTIAL ZONE. IT IS LOCATED AT 3300 WEST LOWER COCONINO AVENUE. HERE WE GO. SO THE REQUEST IS FROM BEN FABRIS, WHO IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. IT IS A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION WITH SIX SINGLE FAMILY HOME. LOTS AND STAFF APPROVED THE PRELIMINARY PLOT FOR THIS APPLICATION ON DECEMBER 20TH, 2021. SO RIGHT HERE IS THE VICINITY MAP, JUST TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY IS A PORTION OF LOWELL OBSERVATORY. OF COURSE, LOWELL OBSERVATORY IS A MUCH LARGER LAND ACREAGE WITH MULTIPLE ZONING CATEGORIES, BUT THE PIECE THAT'S JUST NORTH OF THIS SITE IS IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE. TO THE SOUTH IS THE RAILROAD TO THE WEST. YOU HAVE THE FLAGSTAFF RANCH SUBDIVISION TO VERY SIMILAR SIZED SUBDIVISION. IT, HOWEVER, IS IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND THEN TO THE EAST. YOU HAVE PORTIONS OF THE FLAGSTAFF TOWNSITE SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS A MUCH OLDER SUBDIVISION THAT IS LOCATED IN THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE OR THE R-1N ZONE. WE LIKE TO CALL IT. IN 2010, THE PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY RESUMED FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO A STATE RESIDENTIAL TO SUPPORT THE SIX LOT SUBDIVISION. THE REZONING WAS COMPLETED UNDER THE PREVIOUS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND IT ALSO INCLUDED A MINOR REGIONAL PLAN AMENDMENT AT THE TIME. UNDER THE PREVIOUS REGIONAL PLAN, THE APPLICANT, HOWEVER, DID NOT MOVE FORWARD TO COMPLETE THE SUBDIVISION UNTIL 2020. HERE IS YOUR SIX LOT SUBDIVISION, YOU CAN. THIS IS A VERY STEEPLY SLOPE PROPERTY, SO LOWER COCONINO CURRENTLY ENDS IN A CUL-DU-SAC OVER TO THE EAST OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY FROM THEIR LOWER COCONINO CONTINUES ON, AND IT CURRENTLY EXISTS TODAY BECAUSE IT IS THE ACCESS TO THAT FLAGSTAFF MESA SUBDIVISION TO THE WEST. THAT ROAD IS A PRIVATE ROAD. IT'S NOT OWNED BY THE CITY. IT DOES, HOWEVER, HAVE ALLOWANCES FOR ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC. I DO BELIEVE THERE IS A SIGN, THOUGH, THAT SAYS PRIVATE ROAD NO ACCESS, BUT IT IS. [00:25:04] THERE ARE NOTES WHERE THAT ROAD IS ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. THE EACH OF THESE LOTS HAS A VERY SPECIFIC BUILDING ENVELOPE. EACH OF THESE MATCHED VERY CLOSELY WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED WITH THE ZONING APPLICATION. THE BUILDING ENVELOPES ARE VERY CLOSE TO THE EXISTING ESTATE RESIDENTIAL ZONING REQUIREMENTS, EXCEPT FOR PRIMARILY THE FRONT SET BACK ON THESE LOTS. AGAIN, BECAUSE THE LOTS ARE SO STEEPLY SLOPE GOING UP AWAY FROM LOWER COCONINO, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO HAVE A MUCH CLOSER FRONT SET BACK IN ORDER TO NOT HAVE TO GRADE FURTHER INTO THAT HILLSIDE SLOPE. AND AGAIN, THIS DOES MATCH WITH WHAT THE CONCEPT PLAN WAS IN 2010. SO YOU CAN SEE HERE THERE ARE SOME LOT LAYOUTS AND SOME SETBACKS SHOWN. AND I'LL GO OVER AT THE END OF THIS PRESENTATION WHAT IS STAFF RECOMMENDING. OTHER FINDINGS. THE FIRST FINDING IS, IS THAT THE SUBDIVISION IS A COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING CODE. SO IN TERMS OF DENSITY, THE AIR ZONE HAS A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF ONE UNIT PER ACRE IF THERE IS NO MINIMUM DENSITY IN THE ZONING CATEGORY. SO THIS SUBDIVISION PROPOSES FIVE NINE UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH COMPLIES THE LOT DESIGN AND RESOURCE PROTECTION. SO THE LOTS ARE DESIGNED TO MEET RESOURCE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS USING SPECIFIC BUILDING ENVELOPES, WHICH THE ZONING CODE SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THOSE ALTERNATE SETBACKS, ESPECIALLY ON SITES WITH DIFFICULT RESOURCE PROTECTION ISSUES. ALL OF THE LOT SIZES MEET THE MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT OF ONE ACRE. ALL LOTS MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MINIMUM LOT WITHIN DEPTH OF THE AIR ZONE. AND AGAIN, ALTERNATIVE SETBACKS ARE PROPOSED. IN TERMS OF RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS, STAFF WORK WITH THE APPLICANT HARMONIZE BETWEEN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS THE CODE THAT WAS IN PLACE AT THE TIME, THE ZONING WAS APPROVED AND THE CONCEPT PLAT WAS APPROVED AND THE CURRENT STANDARDS TODAY. EITHER WAY, IT WORKS OUT MEETING BOTH. SO YOU CAN REST ASSURED THAT THE REQUIRED RESOURCES WILL BE MAINTAINED IN TERMS OF CANOPY TREE CANOPY. THEY'RE REQUIRED TO PRESERVE 50 PERCENT. THE MAJORITY OF THE TREE CANOPY ON THE SITE ALSO IS OVERLAID ON TOP OF SLOPE. SO THERE'S ONLY REALLY ONE LITTLE SMALL AREA, THOUGH THAT DOESN'T HAVE THAT TREE, THAT THERE ARE TREES WHERE THERE'S NO SLOPE. SO OVERALL, THERE'S MORE THAN 50 PERCENT OF THE SLOPE IS PROTECTED. SO IN TERMS OF STEEP SLOPES, THAT'S WHERE THIS PROPERTY PRIMARILY FALLS. YOU CAN SEE THAT HERE'S WHERE WE VARY A LITTLE BIT. THE REQUIRED PROTECTION IS LOWER, PER THE LDC. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAN IT IS PER THE CURRENT ZONING CODE. HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED PROTECTION STILL MEETS THOSE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EXISTING CODE. HERE IS HOW THAT LAYS OUT, YOU CAN SEE THAT ALL OF ALL OF THE AREA IN GREEN IS THAT SLOPE AREA. YOU CAN SEE THE DISTURBANCES WILL BE LIMITED TO THE BUILDING ENVELOPES, SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S STILL A CANOPY OF TREES THAT WILL BE PRESERVED ON SITE. AND AGAIN, THOSE BUILDING ENVELOPES BEING PUSHED CLOSER TOWARDS COCONINO WILL DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF CUT THAT'S NECESSARY IN ORDER TO BUILD A HOME ON THOSE LOTS. THEY ALSO WITH BY PUSHING THEM CLOSER FORWARD, IT ALSO IMPACTS MORE OF A MANMADE SLOPE THAN NATURAL EXISTING SLOPE, SO REQUIRED FINDING NUMBER ONE WE'RE STILL ON IN TERMS OF HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES. A CULTURAL RESOURCE LETTER REPORT WAS COMPLETED AND CLEARANCE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION. NO MITIGATION IN REGARDS TO RESOURCES REQUIRED ON THE SITE. IN REGARDS TO PARKS, OPEN SPACE, PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES. THE SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN A HALF A MILE OF THE OLD TOWN SPRINGS PARK. HOWEVER, THAT PARK IS LESS THAN AN ACRE OF LAND, BUT WITH ONLY SIX LOTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION, IT WAS NOT DEEMED EVEN AT THE TIME OF THE REZONING. THAT ADDITIONAL PARK RESOURCES WOULD BE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THESE SIX ADDITIONAL LOTS IN REGARDS TO BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES. BECAUSE THE LARGE BECAUSE OF THE LARGE LOT SIZE AND THE STREET THE STREET STANDARD USED AGAIN HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSTRUCTED. THAT STREET DOES NOT INCLUDE SIDEWALKS AND IT DOES NOT INCLUDE BIKE LANES. [00:30:02] BUT WITH A LIMITED NUMBER OF LOTS AND THE PRIVATE STREET SECTION, IT'S NOT ANTICIPATED THAT THAT TRAFFIC WILL BE SO SIGNIFICANT THAT WOULD IMPEDE OR CREATE DANGEROUS OR HAZARDOUS SITUATIONS FOR BIKES AND PEDS IN THIS AREA. HOWEVER, STAFF WAS WAS KEEN ON MAKING SURE THAT PUBLIC ACCESS IS MAINTAINED AS THIS LOW AS THIS ROAD PROVIDES ACCESS TO OPEN SPACES OR NOT NECESSARILY OPEN SPACES, BUT FOOTE'S TRAILS LOCATED ON THE OBSERVATORY PROPERTY. SO THE NEXT FINDING IS, IS THAT IT COMPLIES AND MEETS WITH THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS. SO BECAUSE THIS IS A SIX LOT SUBDIVISION, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF IMPACT ANALYSIS REQUIRED. A TIA WAS NOT REQUIRED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND THE ACCESS TO THE SUBDIVISION IS AN EXISTING ROAD SECTION FOR WATER AND SEWER. THERE IS A NEW LOOPED WATER LINE THAT IS REQUIRED THAT WAS CALLED OUT AT THE TIME. THIS PROPERTY WAS ZONED IN 2010, AND THE APPLICANT WILL STILL HAVE TO COMPLETE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE. THERE IS AN EXISTING EIGHT INCH SEWER LINE, AND EACH LOT THEN WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE ITS INDIVIDUAL TAP TO THAT LINE. IN TERMS OF STORM WATER REQUIRED, IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE DETENTION FACILITIES TO LIMIT THE POST DEVELOPED FLOW RATES, BUT A FINAL DRAINAGE REPORT WILL BE REVIEWED WITH THE FINAL PLAT THAT CIVIL PLAN SET. AND ALL OF THOSE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE DEALT WITH AS WE MOVE THIS PLAT FORWARD. FINDING NUMBER THREE IS THAT COMPLIES WITH THE SUBDIVISION AND LAND SPLIT REGULATIONS. SO WE FOLLOWED ALL OF THE REQUIRED PRELIMINARY PROCEDURES. THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MET. THOSE INCLUDE LOT DESIGN, STREET DESIGN, EASEMENT DESIGN AND BLOCK DESIGN. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, STAFF HAS FOUND CONCURRENCE WITH ALL OF THE FINDINGS FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF MOVE THIS ITEM FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, AND THERE ARE TWO. THE FIRST ONE THAT A MINIMUM FRONT SET BACK OF 15 FEET BE REQUIRED FOR FRONT LOADED GARAGES AND A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET BE REQUIRED FOR SIDELOADED GARAGES. SO THE PRELIMINARY PLAT RIGHT NOW ONLY SHOWS 10 FEET. BUT AFTER STAFF WORKED WITH DEVELOPMENT, ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT WITH THE EXISTING STREET SECTION THAT FOR FRONT LOADED GARAGES 15 FEET WAS REALLY NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT VEHICLES WOULD NOT OVERHANG ON TO THE EXISTING STREET. BUT AGAIN, THOSE SIDELOADED GARAGES COULD ABSOLUTELY MOVE TO THE FAR FOR THIS PORTION OF THE LOT. AND LASTLY, THAT THE FINAL PLAT PROVIDE DEDICATION LANGUAGE FOR PUBLIC TRAILS OR FOOTE'S ON TRACK DAY WITHIN THE FINAL PLAT. ESSENTIALLY, AGAIN, THAT'S MAINTAINING THAT PUBLIC ACCESS ACROSS THE SITE SO THAT FOOTE'S TRAILS UP ABOVE ON WOLVES OR HIS PROPERTY CAN STILL BE ACCESSED. AND WITH THAT, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER THEM AND THE APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE AS WELL. HI, ERIC, I SEE YOU HAVE A HAND UP. DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD WITH YOUR QUESTION? SURE, I DON'T KNOW WHERE CAROLE ZIMMERMAN WENT, BUT YEAH, SO I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. ONE IS, IS THERE BECAUSE IT'S ON THOSE SLOPES RIGHT THERE? ARE THERE ANY BUILDING SAFETY CONCERNS OR DRAINAGE CONCERNS THAT MAY ARISE? I KNOW WE HAVE SOME AREAS THAT FLOODS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT MIGHT BE AN ISSUE, BUT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE DRAINAGE ON THAT SLOPE. SURE. SO WE DID COMPLETE A PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE REPORT, SO AND THERE'S AN EXISTING 20 FOOT WIDE PAID ROADWAY AT THE BASE, AND THERE IS AN EXISTING DITCH THAT RUNS ALONG THE NORTH SIDE, WHICH CONVEYS THE ON SITE STORM RUNOFF TO EXISTING CATCH BASINS AND STORM DRAIN PIPES. THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS WILL INCLUDE SOME DETENTION FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT ALREADY EXISTS WILL BE ABLE TO ACCEPT THE RUNOFF FROM THESE LOTS AS THEY'RE [00:35:07] DEVELOPED. DOES THAT HELP ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? NONE OF THESE LOTS ARE LOCATED WITHIN A DESIGNATED FLOODPLAIN. RIGHT, I JUST WASN'T SURE IF THERE WAS ANY LIKE A CREVICE ON THAT ROAD BECAUSE I'VE ONLY TRAVELED THAT ROAD LIKE A COUPLE OF TIMES, SO I WASN'T SURE HOW THE RUNOFF WOULD WORK. BUT YES, THAT DOESN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION. AND THEN ALSO, I GUESS I JUST HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING ACCESS TO THAT. SO IT'S ONLY THE ONE ROAD THAT COMES IN AND OUT. THAT'S CORRECT. OK. AND YOU SAID EARLIER THAT A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WASN'T NEEDED. THAT'S CORRECT. OK. AND CAN YOU MAYBE JUST ELABORATE ON WHY IT WASN'T NEEDED? SURE, WITH SIX LOTS, THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC EXPECTED FROM SIX RESIDENTIAL LOTS DOES NOT TRIGGER THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS FOR A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. IF THE CONCERN IS IN REGARDS TO FIRE OR SECONDARY EMERGENCY ACCESS, THIS WAS ALSO REVIEWED BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WHO DETERMINED THAT SIX ADDITIONAL LOTS IN THIS AREA WOULD NOT NECESSITATE THE NEED FOR A SECONDARY EMERGENCY ACCESS. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, COMMISSIONER PAUL? THANKS. YEAH, MY ONLY QUESTION WAS I'M SEEING IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT ON STREET PARKING IS NOT ALLOWED FOR ON THE STREET CURRENTLY AND I ASSUME WOULD NOT BE AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE SIX LOTS. MY QUESTION WAS JUST HAS IT BEEN CONSIDERED OR STUDIED IF THE 15 FOOT SETBACK AS REQUIRED WOULD BE ADEQUATE BASICALLY TO TO TO THE PARKING NEED CREATED BY SIX PROPERTIES GOING IN IN THIS LOCATION? WELL, THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER PAUL, THE. SO ONE THING I NEGLECTED TO COVER IS ON SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES THAT ARE NOT DEEMED HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING. TWO PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED IN ADDITION ON THESE LOTS BECAUSE THERE'S NO ON STREET PARKING. THEY WILL PROVIDE TWO ADDITIONAL GUEST PARKING SPACES, SO THERE WILL BE WHAT WOULD YOU, WHAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY INTEND FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME ITSELF? AND THEN IN ANOTHER TWO FOUR GUEST PARKING OR ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL PARKING. SO ON SITE, IT'S BEING SET UP TO ACCOMMODATE FOR EXPECTING TWO IN THE GARAGE AND TWO IN SOME FORM OF DRIVEWAY. FANTASTIC, THAT WAS MY QUESTION IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IN THEIR INITIAL REVIEW FOR ACCESS, I GUESS WAS OBVIOUSLY AWARE OF THAT AND EVERYTHING AS WELL AT THAT POINT. THAT'S CORRECT. WONDERFUL ONLY CONCERN. THANKS SO MUCH. SO I HAVE A QUESTION THAT JUST GOES BACK TO THE PUBLIC ACCESS. IS THERE STILL A SIGN? AT THE ENTRANCE WHERE COCONINO AVENUE ENDS AND THE QUOTE UNQUOTE PRIVATE ROAD BEGINS, BASICALLY RESTRICTING TELLING PEOPLE IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD AND KEEP OUT. I DON'T REMEMBER ABOUT THE KEEP OUT PART, I KNOW I MEAN, I'M I GUESS I'M BAD, I RIDE MY BICYCLE UP THIS HILL. I SAID, I ASK THAT BECAUSE I DID RIDE MY BICYCLE ONCE AND I GOT CHASED OUT. YOU KNOW, THEY DEFINITELY HAVE BEEN ISSUES. THERE DEFINITELY HAVE BEEN ISSUES IN THE PAST. WE'VE DEFINITELY HAD SOME ISSUES WHERE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS CONTACTED US. YOU KNOW, CHAIR ZIMMERMAN, I NEED TO CHECK ON THAT SIGN AND PROBABLY IT'S A GOOD CONVERSATION POINT TO HAVE WITH THE APPLICANT. YEAH, OK. I HAVE A PLAN FOR THAT. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NOLAN IS THE APPLICANT HERE, AND WOULD THEY LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL? FOR THE COMMISSION, SORRY. SO THAT THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT \PRESENT TONIGHT. ALICIA STOUFFER'S YES, SHE'S HERE. THERE SHE IS. SORRY ABOUT THAT. YES, THIS IS ALICIA STOUFFER WITH ENGINEERING. I'M REPRESENTING BEN TIMBRES. WE'RE JUST LOOKING FORWARD TO DEVELOPING THIS PARCEL AND PROVIDING SOME RESIDENTIAL UNITS [00:40:01] NEAR DOWNTOWN. SO I WOULD BE CONCERNED THAT. ANY SIGNAGE THAT BASICALLY IDENTIFIES THAT, YOU KNOW, AS A PRIVATE ROAD THAT MIGHT LEAD THE PUBLIC TO BELIEVE THAT. ARE THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED ACCESS THROUGH, THERE WOULD BE WOULD BE A PROBLEM. SURE. CURRENTLY, THAT ROAD IS WELL, LIKE WE WAS BUILT AND MAINTAINED BY THE FLAGSTAFF MESA SUBDIVISION, SO DON'T ASSUME ANY SIGNAGE SITS THERE WAS PUT UP BY THEN. IT'S NOT THE INTENT OF THIS SUBDIVISION. TO KEEP IT AS ANY SORT OF KEEP OUT SIGNAGE. OK. I THINK I WOULD PROBABLY, IF IT'S ALLOWABLE, ASK THE CITY STAFF TO TAKE IT OUT THAT THEY SHOULD CHECK AND POSSIBLY REMOVE ANY SIGNAGE. THAT IS A. UM. SORT OF OFFICIAL CITY SIGNAGE. CHAIR ZIMMERMAN, I COMMIT TO LOOKING INTO THE SIGNAGE AND HAVING A I'M SURE ALICIA AND I CAN FIGURE IT OUT. OK, THANKS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. STOUFFERS FROM THE COMMISSION? I DON'T HEAR ANY. UM, IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT HAS ANY COMMENTS ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? YEAH. WE HAVE ONE COMMENT IN THE CHAT BOX REGARDING WHY ALL THE DEVELOPMENT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER? COMMENTS. QUESTIONS. OK. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO? MAKE A MOTION IN REGARDS TO THIS ITEM. YEAH, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THIS IS COMMISSIONER JONES, I WILL MOVE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FORWARD THIS CASE PZ20-00216-02 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIRED FINDINGS PRESENTED IN THE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE LISTED. THIS IS COMMISSIONER MANDINO, I'LL SECOND THAT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY LAST THOUGHTS? NO? ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. OK. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. THAT BRINGS US TO MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO AND FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS. [7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO/FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS] IF WE HAVE ANY MISCELLANEOUS? COMMISSIONER NOLAN? THANK YOU. THIS IS, I GUESS, A COUPLE ITEMS MORE FOR STAFF. SO THE FIRST ONE IS A FEW. GO AHEAD. NO, THE FIRST ONE IS ON THE P AND Z WEBSITE PAGE. I'VE HAD A COUPLE OF PEOPLE ASK ME ABOUT THIS NOW, BUT THE VIEW MOST RECENT AGENDAS IS KIND OF HIDDEN ON THE PAGE. IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN MAYBE BRING IT UP MORE TOWARDS THE TOP AND MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE VISIBLE? YEAH. I MEAN, I CAN'T I DON'T HAVE THAT TECHNICAL ABILITY, BUT I KNOW THE PEOPLE DO ASK. OK, WELL, LIKE I SAID, A FEW FOLKS HAVE MENTIONED TO ME THAT WHEN THEY TRY TO FIND OUR P AND Z AGENDAS, THAT THEY'RE GETTING LOST IN THE MATRIX. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN JUST BE A LITTLE BIT MORE VISIBLE IN OUR WEB PAGE. [INAUDIBLE]. OK. SORRY. [00:45:02] GREAT IDEA. YES. WELL, IT'S INTERESTING WHEN YOU CLICK ON THAT LINK ON THE AGENDA, I NOTICED THE OTHER DAY WHEN I DID IT. IT TAKES YOU TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. AND THEN IF YOU SCROLL DOWN AND SAYS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, AND IF YOU CLICK ON THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS LIKE. ALL THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ARE THERE, EXCEPT P&Z, THERE'S NO LINK TO P&Z. SO. I HAD TO GO TO BASICALLY FIND THE THE PACKET FOR THE MEETING, I WENT INTO THE. HERITAGE PRESERVATION, HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, AND THEN IT SAID VIEW AGENDAS, UPCOMING MEETINGS, AND I CLICKED ON THAT AND THAT TOOK ME TO A TABLE WITH ALL THE COMMISSIONS. PACKETS AND I COULD FIND THE P&Z PACKET THERE. SO. I'M NOT SURE THIS IS LIKE HAS BEEN A PROBLEM FOR ME THAT FOR A WHILE THERE, THERE WAS A LINK ON THE TOP OF THE AGENDA THAT SAID BASICALLY DOWNLOAD THE AGENDA PACKET. BECAUSE I ASK THAT THEY NOT BE DELIVERED TO ME IN PAPER FORM ANYMORE WHEN I CAN JUST DOWNLOAD THE APP. UM, BUT I DON'T SEE THAT ANYWHERE ON THIS AGENDA. IS IT THERE? I'M SORRY, IS THE LINK ON THE AGENDA YOU'RE ASKING? YEAH. SO, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO MY. THE EMAILS THAT GET SENT OUT, IT'S LIKE, HERE'S THE AGENDA, HERE'S THE PAST AGENDA. AND THERE USED TO BE A LINK ON THERE THAT WOULD BASICALLY SAY, LIKE WHEN YOU WENT TO THE RIGHT PLACE, IT WOULD SAY YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE ENTIRE MEETING PACKET. ALL THE PLATS, ALL THE ALL THE OTHER THINGS. AND I DON'T SEE IT ON THE AGENDA THAT I'M LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, I SEE THE LINK TO THE. STREAMING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND MICROSOFT TEAMS MEETING AND THE EMAIL FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND I USED TO BE THERE, USED TO BE AWAKE, GOT SET OUT, YOU KNOW, CLICK THIS LINK AND IT WOULD TAKE YOU TO THE AGENDA. AND AT THE BOTTOM OF THE AGENDA WERE HOT LINKS THAT SAID, YOU KNOW, STAFF PRESENTATION, YOU KNOW, INITIAL PLAT VARIOUS. THAT'S STILL THERE. IT'S STILL THERE. WHAT I DO IS, WELL, I ALWAYS GO. I HAPPEN TO KNOW THAT IF YOU GO TO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU IF YOU LOOK AT IT, GO TO THE MAIN WEBSITE AND YOU LOOK UNDER GOVERNMENT, YOU SEE AGENDAS AND MINUTES. AND SO I JUST GO THERE AND THEN I CLICK ON THE AGENDAS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO KNOW THAT PLANNING AND ZONING IS ALSO LISTED THERE. AND YEAH, ONCE YOU CLICK ON THE AGENDA, IT STILL HAS THE HOT LINKS THERE AT THE BOTTOM. IT'S NOT ON THE ONE THAT ALEX SENDS TO US OR TAMMY SENDS TO US, BUT IT'S ON THE IT'S ON THE ONE THAT'S ON THE WEBSITE, BUT THERE'S NO THERE'S NO WAY TO DOWNLOAD IT ALL AT ONE TIME. YOU JUST HAVE TO DOWNLOAD WHAT YOU WANT. I DON'T KNOW, I DOUBT MORE THAN THE ENTIRE [INAUDIBLE]. NOLAN. OK, I NEVER SAW, I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING THAT. SEEMS LIKE THERE'S MULTIPLE WAYS TO GET TO IT. I JUST ALWAYS EVERY TIME I DO THIS, I ALWAYS HAVE TO LIKE, SORT OF REINVENT THE WAY TO GET TO THAT SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS AND AGENDAS. SO, YEAH, I DON'T THINK THERE'S THERE'S LIKE A TWO STEP PROCESS, YOU KNOW, UNDER GOVERNMENT TO AGENDAS AND THEN IT WOULD BE GOOD IF IT WOULD SAY AGENDAS FOR REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORK SESSIONS AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONS BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S IN THAT LIST OF AGENDAS. SO OF COURSE, EVERYTHING'S LISTED ON THERE. NOW THAT I THINK OF IT, I SEE INDIGENOUS COMMISSION, I SEE HERITAGE PRESERVATION. SO YEAH, WHICH IS FINE. I MEAN, WE'RE GONE NOW. THE THIRD ITEM DOWN, I SEE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JANUARY 12TH. I CLICK ON IT. DOWNLOAD PDF PACKET. THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. IT'S ON THE TOP OF THAT ONE. YEAH. YEAH. SORRY, SORRY, SORRY NOT TO PILE ON THE WEBSITE DESIGN, BUT I THINK I BOTHERED EVERYONE ON STAFF ABOUT THIS A FEW WEEKS AS WELL WITH THE TRANSITION. SO MAYBE JUST SOME CLEAR HEADINGS, I AGREE WOULD BE EASIER. I THINK WE'RE ALL AFTER THIS DISCUSSION IN GOOD SHAPE TO FIND HIM FROM NOW ON. BUT I CAN SEE HOW MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, ESPECIALLY THAT DON'T DO THIS EVERY COUPLE OF WEEKS, MIGHT BE PRETTY CONFUSED. [00:50:02] THAT'S TRUE. I DO IT EVERY COUPLE OF WEEKS. I'M STILL CONFUSED. I COULD NEVER REMEMBER WHERE I SAW IT. I THOUGHT IT WAS ON THE THING. THE EMAIL WENT OUT, BUT ALL RIGHT. AND CHAIR ZIMMERMAN. I ALSO HAVE ONE MORE THING. THAT'S OK. SURE. AND I'M NOT SURE ALEX IF YOU WOULD BE THE PERSON TO ANSWER THIS, OR IF TIFFANY WOULD NORMALLY UNDER THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, THERE'S SOMETHING ESSENTIALLY ABOUT IS THIS PROJECT DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC WELFARE? AND I WAS JUST WONDERING, SINCE IT WASN'T ON THIS RECENT LOWER COCONINO STAFF REPORT, IS THIS IS THIS NEW OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WAS JUST LEFT OUT? NO, THE FINDINGS ARE DIFFERENT BASED ON THE APPLICATION YOU'RE REVIEWING. SO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HAS ITS OWN FINDINGS. A REZONING HAS ITS OWN FINDINGS, AND A SUBDIVISION PLAT HAS ITS OWN FOR A SUBDIVISION PLAT. THE ONLY FINDINGS THERE ARE IS FINDING CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING CODE, WITH THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND WITH THE SUBDIVISION CODE. SO A SUBDIVISION PLAT IS NOT A DISCRETIONARY ITEM. IT IS MORE OF A MINISTERIAL ACT, SO IT IS BASICALLY SOMEBODY UTILIZING THEIR EXISTING ZONING. SO THE FINDINGS ARE MUCH DIFFERENT. OK. THAT'S WHERE I GOT CONFUSED, BECAUSE A WHILE BACK WHEN WE DID ANOTHER PRELIMINARY PLAT, I THOUGHT THAT WAS ONE OF THE FINDINGS IN THERE AND I CAN GO BACK AND DOUBLE CHECK THAT. BUT WITH THOSE POTENTIALLY HAVE DIFFERENT FINDINGS, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE BOTH PRELIM PLATS, THEY SHOULDN'T, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE ARE ALL USING THE SAME REPORT TEMPLATE. OK. OK. I MIGHT BE REMEMBERING THAT WRONG THEN. THANKS FOR THE CLARITY. ANYTHING ELSE FROM. TO OR FROM COMMISSIONERS? NO, NOTHING FOR ME. BUT YOU'RE ABOUT TO SAY SOMETHING, SO APPARENTLY I WAS INFORMED THAT THAT I'M I'M ON BORROWED TIME HERE. APPARENTLY MY MY COMMISSION HAS EXPIRED. BUT I'LL CONTINUE TO BE HERE UNTIL THE COUNCIL APPROVES A NEW A REPLACEMENT. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT'S GOING TO BE. DOES ANYONE KNOW IF THE COUNCIL HAS THAT ON THEIR AGENDA? YEAH. AND I THIS IS COMMISSIONER MANDINO AND I REAPPLIED BACK IN OCTOBER AND STILL HAVEN'T HEARD BACK. HI, THIS IS ALEX. THOSE APPOINTMENTS WILL GO BEFORE COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 1ST. AND ALEX, SINCE MY NAME IS ALSO ON THIS LIST, ARE THEY LOOKING TO FILL THREE SPOTS? YES, I BELIEVE SO. OK. YES. BUT I'M CONCLUDING MY SECOND TERM, SO I'M NOT ELIGIBLE TO REAPPLY. CORRECT. SO AT LEAST THEY HAVE TO LIKE FILL A WHOLE NEW SEAT. AS OPPOSED TO REAPPOINT EXISTING COMMISSION MEMBERS, SO THAT'S ON FOUR FEBRUARY. THAT'S CORRECT, FEBRUARY 1ST, I BELIEVE IT'S ON THE WORKING CALENDAR. OK. I DIDN'T CHECK, I JUST WANTED TO ASK. SO, ALL RIGHT, SO OUR NEXT MEETING WOULD BE. TWO WEEKS FROM TODAY. WHICH WOULD BE THE 26TH. IS THAT CORRECT? I BELIEVE SO. I BELIEVE SO, TOO, AND YOU'RE ALLOWED TO KEEP SERVING UNTIL YOUR REPLACEMENT IS READY TO REPLACE YOU. SO AS YOU MAY RECALL, WAY BACK WHEN YOU HAD TO DO THE TRAINING AND SIGN CERTAIN STUFF, SO I'LL COORDINATE WITH ANY OF YOU AS NECESSARY. SO I JUST REMEMBER KIND OF STUMBLING OUT IN FRONT OF LIKE THE OVERFLOW CROWD FOR THE HUB. AND JUST THINKING THAT IT WAS EVERY WEEK WAS EVERY TWO WEEKS WAS GOING TO BE SUPER EXCITING. FOR EIGHT HOURS. I DON'T RECALL ANY TRAINING BEFORE THAT. [00:55:01] OKAY, THAT SOUNDS GOOD. YEAH, THAT WAS THAT WAS TRAINING BY FIRE, THAT REALLY WAS THAT WAS REALLY INTERESTING. I FELT LIKE, WOW, WHAT DID I SIGN UP FOR HERE? BUT YEAH, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. WE'RE ALL LIKE RUSH TO GET OUT THE DOOR. SO. AND I THOUGHT I WOULD JUST LET IT BE KNOWN THAT I AM ON WINDING DOWN HERE. THIS IS COMMISSIONER MANDINO AGAIN, AND I'VE APPRECIATED YOU TAKING THE HELM AND BEING THE CHAIRPERSON, SO THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT FOR THESE YEARS. YEAH, THAT WAS PRETTY TERRIFYING WHEN YOU TRIED TO FILL MARGO'S SHOES. YOU KNOW, YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB. SOMETIMES IT TAKES THE COUNCIL A LONG TIME TO APPOINT PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY WANT, LIKE IF THEY HAVE THREE OPENINGS, THEY WANT MORE THAN THREE APPLICANTS. THEY WANT AN ACTUAL CHOICE. AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S HAPPENED BEFORE. SO JUST SAYING COULD BE SUMMERTIME BEFORE ANYTHING HAPPENS. THE FIRST TIME I LIKE THE FIRST TIME I APPLIED THE PLANNING AND ZONING, I HAD TO LIKE, HAVE AN IN-PERSON INTERVIEW WITH VICE MAYOR BARRETT'S. CELIA, WE HAD MEET HER IN A COFFEE SHOP AND LIKE, YOU KNOW, DO AN INTERVIEW BEFORE SHE WOULD, YOU KNOW, GIVE ME AN UP OR DOWN VOTE ABOUT THE COUNCIL. THAT'S OK, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THEY SHOULD BE DELIBERATIVE AND TAKE THEIR TIME. YEAH, I THINK I WAS CONTACTED BY VIA EMAIL FROM SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS, SO. HMM. THERE YOU GO. SO, ALL RIGHT, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO OR FROM THE COMMISSION? OK. HEARING NONE, I BELIEVE WE CAN STAND ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.