[1. Call to Order NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the Commission and to the general public that, at this regular meeting, the 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 A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).]

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

CAN I HAVE THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE? I CAN'T HEAR YOU. DID YOU CALL MY NAME? PRESENT.

YEAH, IT'S VERY QUIET, TAMMY.

SO THIS IS COMMISSIONER MANDINO, AND I'M HERE.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? THAT'S A LITTLE. I CAN BARELY HEAR YOU, BUT IT'S BETTER THAN IT WAS BEFORE.

BOB HARRIS. HERE.

MARY NORTON.

HERE. LLOYD PAUL.

PRESENT. CAROLE MANDINO.

HERE. ALEX MARTINEZ.

[KNOCKING] RICARDO GUTHRIE.

THANK YOU. OKAY, WE'RE READY.

LET'S SEE, FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

AT THIS TIME, ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY SUBJECT WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION.

THAT IS NOT SCHEDULED TODAY DUE TO OPEN MEETING LAWS, THE COMMISSION CANNOT DISCUSS OR ACT ON ITEMS PRESENTED DURING THIS PORTION OF THE AGENDA TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON.

SO DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? AND SEEING NONE.

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on Wednesday, September 14, 2022.]

THE NEXT ITEM IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING.

THIS IS COMMISSIONER MANDINO.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING, WHICH WAS SEPTEMBER 14TH, 2022. THIS IS MARY NORTON.

I'LL SECOND THAT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION? THEN ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED.

AND THAT THAT MOTION PASSES.

[A. PZ-22-00129- First Sun Trust HOHD A Conditional Use Permit request from applicant Salcito Homes on behalf of property owner First Sun Trust to establish a Single Family High Occupancy Housing Development (HOHD). The HOHD will consist of a 7,509 sq. ft. single family residential unit containing 5 bedrooms and 5 sanitation facilities (bathrooms) on approximately 0.71 acres at 3883 S Clubhouse Circle in the Single-Family Residential (R1) Zoning District. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: In accordance with the findings presented in the attached report, staff recommends approval of PZ-22-00129 with the following conditions: 1. The development of the site shall substantially conform to the plans as presented with the Conditional Use Permit application. 2. The property owner shall maintain compliance with the Flagstaff Police Department’s Crime Free Multi-Housing Program, unless exempted by the Police Department’s representative.]

NOW WE'RE INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION AND WE HAVE THE FIRST ITEM IS THE FIRST SUNTRUST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST.

WE HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THAT.

YES. JUST A MOMENT.

I SAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

MIC] HOPEFULLY YOU CAN HEAR . MY NAME IS BEN MEJIA. I'M A PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

BEFORE TONIGHT, WE HAVE A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, SINGLE FAMILY, FILED BY SALCITO CUSTOM HOMES ON BEHALF OF FIRST SUNTRUST.

THE PROPOSAL IS LOCATED AT 3883 SOUTH CLUBHOUSE CIRCLE.

THIS IS IN THE PINE CANYON AREA.

THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PERMITTED LAST YEAR AS A FIVE BEDROOM, FOUR SANITATION FACILITY, SINGLE FAMILY, AND THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE REQUESTED A FIFTH SANITATION FACILITY WHICH TRIGGERS THE REQUIREMENT FOR IT TO MEET HIGHER QUALITY HOUSING FOR SINGLE FAMILY. AS ORIGINALLY PERMITTED, IT IS A TWO STORY STRUCTURE WITH A SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 7409 SQUARE FEET ON A ROUGHLY 30,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT.

AND THE PROPOSAL WOULD MAKE THIS A FIVE BEDROOM, FIVE FULL BATHROOM OR FULL SANITATION FACILITY UNIT. THERE ARE FIVE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR THIS USE TO CONSIDER FOR THIS CONDITIONAL USE.

[00:05:09]

THE FIRST IS THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF THE ZONE, WHICH IS OUR ONE SINGLE FAMILY.

THE SECOND IS THAT IT IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE.

THE THIRD IS THAT IT'S REASONABLY COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES.

GO INTO THOSE IN FURTHER DETAIL HERE.

AND AS THE LOT HAS ALREADY BEEN PERMITTED AND DEVELOPED, OR AT LEAST DEVELOPMENT IS UNDERWAY, ACCESS TO THE SITE IS ALREADY SECURED AND IT'S ACCESSED BY SOUTH CLUBHOUSE CIRCLE, WHICH IS AN APPROVED PRIVATE ROADWAY.

THERE IS NO TIA REQUIREMENT FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.

SO NONE OF THIS WAS DONE FOR THIS PROPOSAL, ALTHOUGH THERE IS A CHANGE TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AS IT MOVES INTO SINGLE FAMILY HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING, WHICH IS THAT IT NEEDS PARKING PER ONE PARKING SPACE PER BEDROOM AND THE SITE HAS ADEQUATE SPACE TO MEET THAT PARKING REQUIREMENT FIVE SPACES.

THE PROPOSAL IS NOT TO EXPAND THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT.

SO IT WILL STAY WITHIN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE AND THERE IS NO ANTICIPATED IMPACTS WITH REGARDS TO NOISE, LIGHT, VISUAL OR OTHER POLLUTANTS WITH THE USE BEING IN LINE WITH TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL USE.

THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE IS CONSISTENT WITH NEIGHBORING USES, AND THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.

AND THE SITE IS ALREADY SERVED FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES AND THE USE IS NOT GOING TO REQUIRE A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE WATER AND SEWER SERVICE.

THERE'S ALSO NO SIGNAGE BEING PROPOSED WITH THIS OR IMPACT THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED WITH OUTDOOR LIGHTING AND ANY CHANGE WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT CODE.

THERE ARE NO RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATIONS PROPOSED WITH THIS USE, AND THERE'S NO IMPACT TO CULTURAL RESOURCES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED.

NOW AS A HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING THERE ARE TWO ADDITIONAL FINDINGS THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER AND NEITHER OF WHICH ARE APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. ONE THAT HERITAGE PRESERVATION CONSIDERATION BE MADE.

IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT IN THIS CASE AS IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE INSERT PRESERVATION ZONE.

AND THEN THE SECOND ADDITIONAL FINDING IS THAT THERE BE ADEQUATE TRANSIT SERVICE PROVIDED.

AND IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PROPOSAL OF FOUR OR MORE UNITS, IT DOES NOT TRIGGER THAT REQUIREMENT.

NOW, AS FOR THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN, THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOTIFIED PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE.

THERE WAS ONE RESPONSE TO THIS, AND THE APPLICANT HAS ADDRESSED THEIR CONCERNS AND I'VE REACHED OUT TO THAT PERSON AND THEY FOUND THAT THEY HAVE NO CONCERNS WITH THIS PROPOSAL.

SO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PZ-22-00129 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE SHALL SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORM TO THE PLANS AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION AND THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLAGSTAFF POLICE DEPARTMENT'S CRIME FREE MULTI HOUSING PROGRAM UNLESS EXEMPTED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S REPRESENTATIVE.

AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

[00:10:04]

THANKS, BEN. DO THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY'D LIKE TO SPEAK? SO WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING TO THIS PRESENTATION OR MAKE ANY COMMENTS? HI, MY NAME IS JEN.

I'M WITH SALCITO CUSTOM HOMES.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD.

I THINK THAT BEN SUMMARIZED EVERYTHING VERY NICELY, SO LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

MARY. SO.

YES, COMMISSIONER NORTON, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? JUST A COMMENT.

YOU KNOW, JUST WHILE IT'S UNLIKELY THAT THIS WAS THE INTENDED OUTCOME TO HAVE A CUSTOM HOME SUCH AS THIS FALL UNDER HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING, I KNOW IT CREATES A BIT OF A HASSLE FOR THE OWNER TO HAVE TO SEEK A CUP.

I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M A FIRM PROPONENT AND GRATEFUL FOR THE STAFF AND THE COUNCIL THAT DID PUT THESE GUARDRAILS IN PLACE FOR HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING, ALTHOUGH THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS TYPE OF HOME IS ABOUT.

SO I JUST WANTED TO THANK THE APPLICANT FOR BEARING WITH THE PROCESS AND THANK YOU FOR STAFF FOR ALSO THE PRESENTATION AND IN BRINGING THEM TO THIS POINT.

SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS.

THANKS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

IS THIS SIZE HOME PRETTY COMPATIBLE WITH THE OTHER HOUSES THAT ARE IN THE AREA? JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, I KNOW THAT IT FITS THE ZONING, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.

IT DOES APPEAR TO BE OF SIMILAR SIZE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? QUESTIONS BY THE COMMISSIONERS BEFORE WE ASK FOR A MOTION? IF NOT, THEN WE ARE READY FOR A MOTION FOR REGARDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

ANYONE WANTS TO DIVE IN.

THIS IS COMMISSIONER NORTON.

I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PZ-22-00129 ACCORDING TO THE FINDINGS.

THANK YOU. I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION.

THIS IS COMMISSIONER MANDINO.

THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

IN THAT CASE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE OPPOSED.

AND THAT MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THE NEXT ITEM IS A WORK SESSION TO DISCUSS AN ELEMENT OF THE ZONING CODE REGARDING

[A. PZ-21-00021: A work session with the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss an amendment to Section 10-90.40.030 of the Zoning Code, the Rural Floodplain Map, to change the Rural Floodplain designation to Urban Floodplain on eight parcels (APNs 101-01-020A, 020B, 101-28-005G, 005H, 005K, 013A, 013B, and 013D) of land located between W Forest Avenue, N San Francisco Street, N Turquoise Drive, and North Switzer Canyon Drive. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: The work session with the Planning and Zoning Commission is required as a “Citizen Review Session” in compliance with Section 10-20.50.040 (Procedures) of the Zoning Code and applicable state law. The purpose of the work session is for staff and the applicant to present an overview of the proposed amendment, to allow interested residents to present their ideas, suggestions and concerns, and for the Commission to ask questions, seek clarification, and discuss the amendment, as well as offer alternate suggestions and ideas. No action will be taken by the Commission at this work session. After the work session, staff and the applicant will incorporate any comments from the public and the Commission into the proposed amendments. The amendment will then be presented to the Commission at a public hearing for consideration and action. Once a recommendation is received, a public hearing will be scheduled with the City Council. The anticipated timeline for the amendments is as follows: October 12, 2022 – Planning Commission Public Hearing November 1, 2022–City Council Public Hearing (1st Reading of Ordinance) November 15, 2022– Potential City Council Hearing (2nd Reading of Ordinance/Adoption)]

THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN MAP.

SO WE'RE READY FOR A PRESENTATION ON THAT.

TRYING TO GET MY COMPUTER TO WORK WITH ME.

CAN YOU ALL SEE MY PRESENTATION SO FAR? YES. AND THEN I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW IN MY OFFICE, I ALSO HAVE.

UH-OH, NOW I CAN'T SEE YOU.

OH, THERE.

IN MY OFFICE I ALSO HAVE WITH ME DOUG SLOVER, SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER WITH STORM WATER AND CHASE MCLEOD, THE PROJECT MANAGER WITH STORM WATER AS WELL.

SO IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC STORM WATER QUESTIONS, I HAVE THOSE EXPERTS HERE WITH ME, AND THEY'VE BEEN HELPING ME PREP FOR THIS AS I'M NOT THE STORM WATER EXPERT.

I PRETEND TO BE AN EXPERT AT ZONING CODES.

SO WITH THAT, I WILL START WITH THIS PRESENTATION.

SO. THE WAY I HAVE THIS SETUP.

IT DOESN'T WANT TO WORK, SO DON'T MIND ME WHILE I STOP SHARING FOR A MINUTE AND START THIS ALL OVER AGAIN.

PLEASE HOLD.

[00:15:24]

OK. SO I REALLY HOPE THIS WORKS THIS TIME.

SO THIS IS A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT, BUT IT IS AMENDMENT TO THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN MAP LOCATED IN THE ZONING CODE.

IT'S ACTUALLY ONE OF THE APPENDIX ITEMS WITHIN THE ZONING CODE.

SO THIS STARTED AS A PROPERTY OWNER INITIATED REQUEST AND HAS SINCE EXPANDED A LITTLE BIT, WHICH I WILL EXPLAIN.

SO AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT AMENDING SECTION 1090.40.030 OF THE ZONING CODE TO CHANGE THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN DESIGNATION TO THE URBAN FLOODPLAIN DESIGNATION, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS FOR PROPERTY AND ALL I HAVE IS AN APN.

THERE ISN'T AN OFFICIAL ASSIGNED ADDRESS TO THIS PARCEL YET, BUT I'LL SHOW YOU WHERE IT IS ON A MAP AND IT IS A 3.35 ACRE PARCEL.

AFTER REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION, STAFF SUGGESTS THAT IF THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN IS MODIFIED AS REQUESTED FOR THE SUBJECT PARCEL, THAT THE REMAINING ADJACENT PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS RURAL FLOODPLAIN ALSO BE MODIFIED.

AND HERE ARE THE ATTACHED ADDITIONAL APNS.

AND AGAIN, I'LL SHOW YOU A MAP.

STAFF DID NOTICE THIS REQUEST TO INCLUDE ALL PARCELS JUST IN CASE THIS GOES THIS DIRECTION.

ARE YOU THERE, TIFFANY? I'M SORRY. WHEN DID I, HAVE YOU HEARD ME AT ALL? JUST WE MISSED, I THINK, THE LAST PART.

YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD NOTIFY ALL THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS I BELIEVE.

YES. I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WENT ON MUTE.

I APOLOGIZE. LOTS OF TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.

I THINK IT'S BECAUSE I HAVE PEOPLE WATCHING ME IN MY OFFICE AND IT MAKES ME NERVOUS.

YEAH. SO THIS PROPERTY IS IN THE RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH THE RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY INCLUDES BOTH, IDENTIFIES FLOOD PLAINS, BOTH URBAN AND RURAL AS THE HIGHEST PRIORITY RESOURCE TO BE PROTECTED ON SITE. THE ZONING CODE INCLUDES SPECIFIC PROVISIONS ON THE AMOUNT OF FOREST AND SLOPE RESOURCES THAT CAN BE DISTURBED ON A SITE WITHIN A RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY. NO SPECIFIC PRESERVATION RATES, HOWEVER, ARE PROVIDED FOR URBAN OR RURAL FLOOD PLAINS, EXCEPT THE DESCRIPTIONS, EXCEPT FOR IN THE DESCRIPTIONS.

AND I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THESE REALLY QUICKLY.

SO HERE'S THE FIRST ONE, AND THIS IS KIND OF GOING TO BE A MOUTHFUL.

AND SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS AND YOU WANT TO INTERJECT NOW OR LATER, THAT'S FINE.

BUT AN URBAN FLOODPLAIN ARE ALL WATERCOURSES AND ASSOCIATED FLOODPLAINS NOT DEFINED AS RURAL.

URBAN FLOODPLAINS ARE TYPICALLY LOCATED IN URBANIZED AREAS AND HAVE TYPICALLY BEEN ALTERED FROM THEIR NATURAL STATE BY GENERALIZATION.

URBAN FLOODPLAINS MAY BE ALTERED TO ADDRESS CONVEYANCE AND EROSION CONCERNS, PROVIDED THAT ALL NECESSARY REQUIRED REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S STORMWATER REGULATIONS, AS ADMINISTERED BY THE STORMWATER MANAGER, ARE ADDRESSED.

HOWEVER, CERTAIN URBAN FLOODPLAINS THAT HAVE CHARACTERISTICS CONDUCIVE TO WATER QUALITY, WILDLIFE HABITAT AND STREAM ECOLOGY SHOULD BE PRESERVED.

PROPOSALS FOR ANY DISTURBANCE OF THESE WATERCOURSES SHALL BE REVIEWED BY THE STORMWATER MANAGER AND MUST ADDRESS THESE ATTRIBUTES AND PROVIDE FOR MITIGATION IF NECESSARY.

UNDERGROUNDING OF URBAN FLOODPLAINS IS STRONGLY DISCOURAGED AND A JUSTIFICATION MUST BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO ANY APPROVAL OF UNDERGROUNDING.

SO WHEN WE DEAL WITH PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN A FLOODPLAIN, OF WHICH THERE ARE SEVERAL, AND WE GO THROUGH THOSE STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS OF HOW THEY HAVE TO DEVELOP, THERE ARE VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.

THOSE ARE GENERALLY ALL THAT URBAN FLOODPLAIN DESIGNATION IN THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

SO DEVELOPMENT IS PERMITTED IN IN THAT URBAN FLOODPLAIN CATEGORY.

SO AS WE MOVE TO THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN CATEGORY, YOU CAN SEE RURAL FLOODPLAINS ARE NATURAL, UNDISTURBED, OPEN SPACES THAT ARE UNSUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES DUE TO PERIODIC FLOOD INUNDATION AND THE NEED TO PRESERVE THE STREAM CORRIDOR FOR BENEFICIAL USES, SUCH AS THE PRESERVATION OF IMPORTANT ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES.

RURAL FLOODPLAINS ARE DELINEATED ON THE MAP THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED HERE AND DEFINED AS AREAS DELINEATED 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN THAT CANNOT BE DISTURBED OR DEVELOPED

[00:20:07]

EXCEPT FOR ROADWAY AND UTILITY CROSSINGS.

RURAL FLOODPLAINS CANNOT BE ALTERED THROUGH A FLOODPLAIN MAP AMENDMENT OR REVISION AND MUST REMAIN UNDISTURBED.

FOR EXAMPLE, 100% PROTECTION.

THE EXTENSION OF RURAL FLOODPLAINS BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE DELINEATED FLOOD PLAINS, BOTH UPSTREAM AND LATERALLY, MAY BE REQUIRED BASED ON MORE CURRENT OR EXTENDED FLOODPLAIN STUDIES. IN THIS CASE, THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN HAS ALREADY BEEN DESIGNATED.

SO WE'RE NOT WORRIED ABOUT THOSE ADDITIONAL STUDIES BECAUSE WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO ADD TO THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENT, OTHER STUDIES OR DOCUMENTS RELATED TO HYDROLOGY, HYDRAULIC STREAM OR GEOMORPHOLOGY, WILDLIFE HABITAT OR WILDLIFE CORRIDORS.

AND SOME OF THIS WORK, YOU'LL SEE, HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN REGARDS TO THIS APPLICATION.

SO IN THIS CASE, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN MATCHES THE FEMA DELINEATED FLOODPLAIN.

WITHIN THAT FLOODPLAIN YOU HAVE A FLOODWAY AND YOU HAVE A FLOOD FRINGE.

SO THE FLOOD FRINGE IS EVERYTHING OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODWAY, THE FLOODWAY IS THE AREA OF HIGHEST HAZARD.

IF THIS WERE URBAN FLOODPLAIN, THE THE FLOODWAY WOULD ALWAYS BE PRESERVED.

FLOODWAYS BEING THE AREA OF HIGHEST HAZARD OR THE AREAS WHERE YOU EXPECT TO SEE VELOCITY OF FLOW.

THOSE ARE AREAS THAT GENERALLY ALWAYS REMAIN DISTURBED, WHETHER THEY'RE URBAN OR RURAL.

IN THIS CASE, IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT, WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THAT FLOOD FRINGE AREA.

SO I'LL TRY TO EXPLAIN OR SHOW THIS LATER ON AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS APPLICATION.

SO HERE IS THE CURRENT RURAL FLOODPLAIN MAP.

YOU CAN SEE IN THAT BRIGHT GREEN COLOR THIS STRETCH.

FOREST IS AT THE TOP.

YOU HAVE TURQUOISE AND THEN YOU HAVE SWITZER.

AND THEN DOWN HERE, THIS IS SAN FRANCISCO.

IT'S KIND OF THIS TRIANGULAR SHAPE.

IT'S SORT OF A SELF ENCLOSED ISLAND SURROUNDED BY ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR LEVEL ROADWAYS.

SO THAT THIS RURAL FLOODPLAIN, YOU CAN SEE, CONNECTS WITH URBAN FLOODPLAIN TO THE SOUTH AND URBAN FLOODPLAIN TO THE NORTH.

SO WHAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD DO WHAT THIS TEXT AMENDMENT ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE IS THIS, BASICALLY MAKING THE ENTIRE SECTION BLUE TO MATCH WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE NORTH END AS WELL AS ON THE SOUTH END.

SO I WANTED TO SHOW YOU WHAT THE APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE.

SO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS ZONED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

LIKE I PREVIOUSLY STATED, THIS PROPERTY IS IN RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY, SO THEY NOT ONLY HAVE THE FLOODPLAIN TO CONTEND WITH, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE SOME SLOPES ON THE PROPERTY THAT THEY NEED TO WORK WITH.

THESE SLOPES, HOWEVER, ARE MOST LIKELY TO BE MANMADE SLOPES.

THEY ARE ACTUALLY A RESULT OF THE ROAD CREATION.

THAT'S THESE VERY STEEP SLOPES HERE.

AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY SORT OF SMOOTHS OUT WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED.

SO THERE MIGHT BE SOME SLOPES THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH IN TERMS OF RESOURCE.

I HAVEN'T DONE THAT FULL ANALYSIS.

THE SITE IS HEAVILY TREED WITH PONDEROSA PINE AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT REMOVING A LOT OF TREES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA AND THEN LEAVING A VERY LARGE AREA AS UNDEVELOPED.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP THIS ON THE LOWER END OF THE DENSITY SPECTRUM IN TERMS OF HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THEY ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO JUST ACHIEVE THE MINIMUM DENSITY REQUIRED.

IN THIS CASE, IT'S TEN UNITS PER ACRE, SO IT'S 34 UNITS.

THESE UNITS ARE PER THEIR CONCEPT PLAN.

AND THIS HASN'T BEEN VETTED AND ISN'T ACTUALLY THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION.

BUT JUST FOR YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE ARE TWO BEDROOM UNITS.

THEY ARE THREE STORIES, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS PICTURE, BECAUSE THEY'RE SITTING UP ON A GARAGE.

WHEN STRUCTURES ARE LOCATED IN A FLOOD FRINGE, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO BE ELEVATED ONE FOOT ABOVE THE 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION.

AND SO THAT GARAGE MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR THOSE STRUCTURES TO ADEQUATELY BE ELEVATED AND MEET THE STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS.

SO THIS IS ONE OF THE EASIER WAYS TO DO THIS.

GENERALLY, THEY'LL HAVE TO PROVIDE FLOW THROUGH VENTS OR SOME KIND OF ALLOWANCE ON THE BOTTOM FLOOR TO ALLOW WATER TO PASS THROUGH IF IF WATER DOES GET TO THIS LEVEL.

SO YOU CAN SEE THAT A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY DOES STAY PRESERVED.

IN THEIR CONCEPT PLAN NARRATIVE, THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY PROPOSES TO DEDICATE THIS LAND TO THE CITY.

AND RIGHT NOW I HAVE REACHED OUT TO THE STORMWATER TEAM.

THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN TAKING THIS LAND, BUT I'VE ALSO REACHED OUT TO OUR PROSE TEAM, WHICH IS PUBLIC OR PARKS AND REC OPEN SPACE

[00:25:05]

EVENTS DIVISION TO SEE IF THEIR GROUP IS WILLING TO TAKE THIS PROPERTY.

THEY NEED TO TAKE THIS TO THE OPEN SPACES COMMISSION AND WE'LL BE GETTING A REPORT BACK.

BUT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO SEE THAT THIS AREA COULD BE PRESERVED AS OPEN SPACE.

IF IT'S NOT DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY OR DEDICATED TO THE CITY.

AND THAT COULD INCLUDE, YOU KNOW, AN OPEN SPACE EASEMENT OR SOME KIND OF NOTATION ON THIS PARCEL THAT WOULD LIMIT IT TO BASICALLY THE FLOODPLAIN AREA THAT IT IS AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, INCLUDING THESE TREES.

WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU IS, IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS PUSHED CLOSER TO SWITZER CANYON WITH THAT SLOPE, THIS PROJECT SITS DOWN MUCH LOWER THAN SWITZER CANYON, SO LIKELY WON'T BE VISIBLE FROM THE FOLKS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SWITZER CANYON.

IT ABSOLUTELY WILL BE VISIBLE FROM THE FOLKS THAT ARE LOCATED ACROSS THE WAY ON TURQUOISE DRIVE, BUT THERE IS AT LEAST A BUFFER OF ABOUT 250 FEET, WHICH IS A FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL BUFFER ON A DEVELOPMENT SITE.

SO THAT IS THE PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN.

AND I'M TRYING TO KEEP THIS HIGH LEVEL BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SPOIL THE WHOLE STORY AND BORE YOU AGAIN IN TWO WEEKS WHEN WE ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING REPORT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE TONIGHT FOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.

IF YOU FEEL LIKE YOU'VE GOT ENOUGH PRELIMINARY INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT, IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WE CAN PROVIDE OR EXPERTISE THAT'S NECESSARY TO HELP YOU MAKE THIS DETERMINATION, WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS REALLY STILL AN URBAN OR RURAL FLOODPLAIN.

SO I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE UPCOMING SCHEDULE.

THIS WILL BE COMING TO YOU FOR THAT PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 12TH.

THEN WE'LL BE GOING TO CITY COUNCIL.

THEY WILL HAVE TWO READS BECAUSE THIS IS AN ORDINANCE, FIRST BEING ON NOVEMBER 1ST, SECOND BEING ON NOVEMBER 15TH.

SO. AND REMEMBER THAT EVERY ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT DOES HAVE TO BE VETTED THROUGH THESE THREE PARTICULAR FINDINGS.

I HAVE NOT SUSSED OUT THESE FINDINGS YET FOR YOU IN YOUR CURRENT MEMO AS PART OF THIS WORK SESSION, BUT IT WILL BE PART OF YOUR PUBLIC HEARING STAFF SUMMARY, HOW THIS APPLICATION EITHER DOES OR DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THESE PARTICULAR FINDINGS.

AND LASTLY TONIGHT, WHAT I HOPE TO BE ABLE TO GET FROM YOU IS SHOULD THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF CONSIDER AMENDING THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN MAP FOR THE SUBJECT AND OR ADJACENT PARCELS AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT AND STAFF? DOES THE COMMISSION HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT ABOUT THEIR REQUEST? DOES THE COMMISSION WISH TO SEE AREAS NOT NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION TO BE PRESERVED AS DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE? AND THEN JUST AS A COMMENT, STAFF WILL PROVIDE THAT DETAILED REPORT FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.

STAFF HAS RECEIVED SEVERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THE APPLICANT HELD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND THE DETAILS OF THAT PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT I'LL PROVIDE AS PART OF THAT PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE EVERYTHING NEEDS TO OFFICIALLY GET PUT ON THE RECORD.

BUT I WILL LET YOU KNOW THAT OF ALL OF THE COMMENTS I'VE RECEIVED TO DATE, I'VE ALSO HAD LOTS OF PEOPLE JUST REACH OUT FOR LOTS OF QUESTIONS.

PEOPLE WHO WANT THE APPLICATION HAVE TRIED TO DISSEMINATE AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE ABOUT THIS APPLICATION.

BUT OVERALL, OF THE COMMENTS RECEIVED, THEY'VE NOT BEEN POSITIVE, SO THEY'RE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THIS REQUEST.

MOST PEOPLE ARE VERY ATTACHED TO THIS AS OPEN SPACE.

THEY SEE IT AS, I MEAN I DRIVE BY HERE ON A REGULAR BASIS.

I KNOW THE BEAUTY OF THE AREA.

IT'S DEFINITELY A SPECIAL LOCATION.

THERE ARE ANIMALS IN THIS AREA.

FREQUENTLY WE ALL SEE DEER.

IF YOU LIVE ANYWHERE NEAR THESE NEIGHBORHOODS, WE ALL SEE DEER FREQUENT THESE AREAS ALONG WITH SMALLER MAMMALS.

SO THERE'S DEFINITELY A LOT OF CONCERN AND THERE GENERALLY IS CONCERN WHEN THERE'S CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT OCCURRING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO IT'S NOT UNEXPECTED.

AND I THINK WE WANT TO TRY TO BE AS RESPECTFUL AS WE CAN BE TO THOSE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO WITH THAT, IF THERE'S QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS, BE HAPPY TO TAKE THEM.

I'M GOING TO STOP SHARING BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE MEETING.

THERE WE GO. OKAY.

THANK YOU. I SEE BOTH MARY AND CAROL, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHO CAME IN FIRST.

DO YOU GUYS KNOW? I DON'T KNOW.

MARY. MARY RAISED HER HAND FIRST.

OF COURSE. OKAY.

I DID WANT TO ASK SOME MORE BACKGROUND INFORMATION.

HOW LONG IS THIS? I'VE GOT KIND OF A LIST OF QUESTIONS, AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'LL BE YOU, TIFFANY, OR THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE'LL NEED TO ANSWER.

BUT ANYWAY, HOW LONG HAS THE PROPERTY BEEN OWNED BY THE CURRENT OWNER? THAT I DON'T KNOW.

STEVE, ARE YOU PRESENT?

[00:30:01]

DO YOU KNOW HOW LONG THE CURRENT OWNERS OWN THE PROPERTY? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I'M PRESENT.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.

YES, I KNOW IT HAS BEEN A LITTLE OVER TWO YEARS.

I DO NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC DATE, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT TWO YEARS.

OKAY. AND THEN WHEN DID THIS RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY GET PLACED ON ALL OF THESE PARCELS? WAS THAT IN 1999? YES. OKAY.

SO THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY KNOWINGLY THAT IT WAS A RURAL FLOODPLAIN DESIGNATION.

YES. OKAY.

WHEN WAS THE YMCA BUILT AND WHAT WAS ITS FLOODPLAIN DESIGNATION AT THE TIME? IT WAS RURAL FLOODPLAIN AT THE TIME.

I CAN'T REMEMBER THE YEAR.

IT'S BEEN PROBABLY ABOUT 13.

ALEX, DO YOU REMEMBER? LET'S SEE.

THAT WAS MAYBE 2005? OKAY. I'M MAKING A WILD GUESS.

DIDN'T YOU HELP DESIGN THAT BUILDING? YES, I DID. ALL RIGHT, SO THERE WE GO.

WE HAVE THE ARCHITECT FROM THAT BUILDING, 2005.

SO DID THAT PARCEL HAVE TO HAVE ITS DESIGNATION CHANGED TO URBAN AT THE TIME? SO IT DID NOT HAVE ITS DESIGNATION CHANGE TO URBAN.

IT REMAINS IN THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN.

YOU CAN SEE ACTUALLY WHERE A VAST MAJORITY OF THE PORTION OF THEIR PARCEL THAT IS IN THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN HAS ACTUALLY BEEN GIVEN TO THE CITY AS RIGHT OF WAY.

I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHY IT'S RIGHT OF WAY, BECAUSE THERE'S ANOTHER PARCEL UP NORTH THAT WE OWN AS WELL.

BUT THERE'S STILL A PORTION OF THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN THAT IS ON THEIR PROPERTY.

IT IS WHERE THEIR DETENTION BASIN IS CURRENTLY LOCATED.

OKAY, SO THEIR ENTIRE PROPERTY, IT WASN'T RURAL FLOODPLAIN, JUST A PORTION OF IT? WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND THAT'S TRUE FOR MOST OF THESE PARCELS.

IT HAPPENS TO BE QUITE LARGER ON THE THREE PARCELS TO THE SOUTH OF THE YMCA.

OKAY. AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, I DO DRIVE BY THE SITE SEVERAL TIMES A WEEK.

AND YESTERDAY I PULLED INTO THE YMCA AND PARKED AT THAT SORT OF LITTLE STEP OUT AT THE PARKING LOT THAT OVERLOOKS THE PROPERTY.

AND THAT, I ASSUME, WOULD BE THE ACCESS POINT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND THEN THE FUTURE COMMUNITY.

SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE SOME OF MY QUESTIONS HAVE COME FROM.

AND THEN ARE THERE OTHER INSTANCES OF PARCELS SUCH AS THIS BEING CHANGED FROM AN ORIGINAL RURAL FLOODPLAIN DESIGNATION TO URBAN FLOODPLAIN DESIGNATION? YES, ACTUALLY, COMMISSIONER NORTON, THERE IS A PARCEL OF LAND NOT FAR FROM A CASE THAT WE HAD.

IT'S BASICALLY AT THE CORNER OF LAKE MARY ROAD AND HIGH COUNTRY TRAIL.

IT IS A VACANT PARCEL OF LAND THAT IS IN THE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE.

IT STILL HAS YET TO BE DEVELOPED, BUT IT WAS REMOVED FROM THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO.

OKAY. MAYBE TWO YEARS AGO.

OKAY. AND THEN HOW LONG AGO WERE THE WATER AND SEWER LINES RUN DOWN THIS WHOLE WASH? I MEAN, I KNOW THAT I READ IN YOUR DESCRIPTION THAT THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN DESIGNATION ALLOWS FOR UTILITY USES.

SO I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT'S WERE THESE LINES RAN.

HOW LONG AGO WERE THOSE DONE? YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE THAT DATE, MARY, SO LET ME GET THAT FOR YOU.

I'LL MAKE SURE THAT I FOLLOW UP AT THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH THAT.

OKAY. BECAUSE I WAS WONDERING, I KNOW THERE'S THE DISCUSSION OF WHEN THOSE LINES WERE RUN THAT IT DISTURBED THE 100% NATURALNESS OF THE AREA.

AND THAT'S WHY THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT IT NO LONGER IS RURAL, BUT I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THAT WAS JUST A SITE CLEANUP ISSUE AT THE TIME, YOU KNOW.

IT'S DEFINITELY ALONG THOSE LINES.

SO WHAT YOU SEE FROM, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT EXACTLY TRIGGERED THE THE DAMAGE TO THIS CHANNEL.

SO, I MEAN, AND IT'S DEFINITELY CONSTRUCTION RELATED.

SO YOU'VE GOT ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION THAT'S HAPPENED.

BUT THERE ARE ACTUALLY PLACES WHERE YOU CAN SEE THAT THE CHANNEL HAS ACTUALLY BEEN MOVED FROM ITS ORIGINAL LOCATION.

AND THERE ARE LARGE BATCHES OF VERY HEAVY ROCK RIP RAP THAT HAVE BEEN USED, SOME VERY HEAVY BURNING THAT WAS DONE WITH THE

[00:35:04]

UTILITY LINES.

SO SIRI ON MY WATCH JUST DECIDED TO SPEAK UP, BUT SO I CAN DO MORE RESEARCH WITH OUR UTILITIES DIVISION TO SEE IF THERE'S A REMEMBRANCE OF WHAT CAUSED THOSE SORT OF ISSUES ON THE SITE.

WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY THAT I'VE ATTACHED THAT'S DATED FROM BACK IN 2003 AND THIS APPLICATION, THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THAT WAS ABOUT RESTORATION.

RIGHT. I MEAN, THE PHOTOS THAT WERE PROVIDED, WHICH ARE VERY HELPFUL, YOU KNOW.

YES, THERE OBVIOUSLY WAS SOME DISRUPTION TO THE THE ORIGINAL NATURALNESS OF THE AREA.

BUT IT WAS ALSO OBVIOUSLY AS OVERGROWN AND SORT OF RETURN TO SOME FORM OF A NATURAL STATE IN SOME WAYS.

SO THAT'S WHY MY INTERPRETATION AND MY IMPRESSION OF THE CHANGES TO THE AREA OF THE WASH, AS SEEN, JUST DON'T SEEM TO BE ENOUGH TO NO LONGER BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THIS AS A RURAL FLOODPLAIN AND BUMP IT TO URBAN, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT THIS CLASSIFICATION OF RESOURCE PROTECTION IS THE HIGHEST PRIORITY AND THE MOST SENSITIVE ON ANY SITE. SO THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I'M, YOU KNOW, BEEN THINKING ABOUT.

AND, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THIS SITE IS VERY DIFFICULT TO BUILD ON, IT'S TIGHT, HAS LIMITED ACCESS.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T ALWAYS HAVE A LOT OF CONFIDENCE THAT WHAT WILL BE LEFT OF THE OPEN SPACE ISN'T GOING TO BE DISTURBED OR POTENTIALLY DESTROYED DURING THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND RESTORATION IT TAKES TIME FOR THOSE RESEEDING AND REPLANTING TO ESTABLISH TO LEAVE THE THE WASH AND THE STREAM BED IN A DECENT STATE.

SO THOSE ARE SOME OF MY CONCERNS WITH THAT.

ON THE OTHER HAND I KNOW THE CONVERSATION NEEDS TO ALSO TURN TO THE HOUSING CRISIS AND THE TEN YEAR HOUSING PLAN.

AND THIS IS 34 NEW UNITS OF THE TYPE OF PRODUCT THAT'S MOST NEEDED, ONE IN TWO BEDROOM HOMES FOR FLAGSTAFF SMALLER SIZED FAMILIES, WHICH IS WHAT THE TEN YEAR HOUSING PLAN IDENTIFIED.

SO OBVIOUSLY, HOUSING IS OUR HOTTEST TOPIC.

AND THERE'S ALWAYS THE CONSIDERATION OF YOU KNOW, AT WHAT SACRIFICE.

SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK ABOUT IF THIS PROJECT WERE TO PROCEED, PARTICULARLY IF IT WERE FOR PURCHASE HOMES, NOT FOR RENT, THAT IT WOULD BE REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THERE WOULD BE RESTRICTIONS IN THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS, YOU KNOW, REGARDING SHORT TERM RENTALS, YOU KNOW, TARGETING THE FAMILIES THAT WOULD NEED TO HAVE A CHANCE TO BUY THESE HOMES AND NOT BE SURPASSED BY INVESTORS WHO INTEND TO USE THEM AS SHORT TERM RENTALS.

AND IF THERE WAS EVER THE OPPORTUNITY, YOU KNOW, TO LIMIT, YOU KNOW, TO PRIMARY RESIDENCE FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS, THAT'S EVEN BETTER.

SO, YOU KNOW, IF THIS WERE TO PROCEED, WE WOULD JUST NEED TO BE REALLY SURE THAT THESE 34 UNITS ARE ACTUALLY HELPING THE HOUSING PROBLEM. SO THOSE ARE SOME OF MY THOUGHTS ON THIS.

COMMISSIONER NORTON, I APPRECIATE THAT.

AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR STORMWATER TEAM, I DO HAVE THEM HERE.

THEY REALLY ARE THE EXPERTS AND THEY'RE MOST FAMILIAR WITH THIS AND I'LL MAKE SURE THAT THEY GIVE YOU A FULL REPORT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE STATUS OF THIS CHANNEL. BECAUSE IT'S REALLY HARD, RIGHT? LIKE THE EYE LOOKS AT IT AND THINKS, THIS IS BEAUTIFUL, IT'S GORGEOUS.

YOU'VE GOT THIS LITTLE STREAM CORRIDOR MEANDERING THROUGH PINE TREES.

BUT WHAT THE EXPERT WILL TELL YOU IS, IS THAT IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN DRAMATICALLY ALTERED.

AND SO I'LL MAKE SURE THAT I HAVE THEM PRESENT.

THE SECOND THING I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT IS THIS IS NOT YOUR TYPICAL ENTITLEMENT CASE.

SO I DO WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT A REZONING.

AND WHILE I AM SHARING THE CONCEPT PLAN WITH YOU, IT IS NOT PART OF THE REQUEST THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU.

I UNDERSTAND. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT.

I JUST, THIS IS A BIG ASK AND THIS IS A TRADEOFF.

THERE'S NOT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AFFILIATED WITH THIS.

I WON'T BE HAVING THOSE NEGOTIATIONS, BUT I'M HAPPY TO REACH OUT TO OUR LEGAL TEAM JUST TO SEE WHAT THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH SUGGESTING.

OKAY. OKAY.

THANK YOU. CAROL.

YES, THIS IS COMMISSIONER MANDINO, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO ENVISION THIS IN MY

[00:40:03]

MIND. SO EXACTLY IT'S NORTH OF, SO PLEASE HELP ME IF I'M WRONG.

IT IS NORTH OF THE YMCA.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S IN BETWEEN THOSE APARTMENTS THAT ARE ON SWITZER CANYON LEADING UP TO COLUMBUS AND COMING DOWN. AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE, IT'S TURQUOISE DRIVE.

IS THAT RIGHT? CAN YOU HEAR ME? I KEEP TRYING TO MESS WITH THE PRESENTATION, TRYING TO BRING IT UP, AND THEN IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY.

BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT ALL MY MAPS AND I'M JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THIS.

LIKE WHEN THIS WATER GETS CHANNELED, MY CONCERN IS THAT NOT JUST THE YMCA, BUT DOWN FURTHER IS THE OLIVIA WHITE HOSPICE HOUSE.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CHANNELING OF WATER DOES TO THOSE TWO FACILITIES IF IT DOESN'T GET CHANNELED EXACTLY CORRECTLY.

I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO SEE EITHER OF THOSE , I GUESS YOU WOULD CALL THEM BOTH BUSINESSES, FLOODED.

COMMISSIONER MANDINO, I'M SORRY IF I WASN'T CLEAR.

THERE ACTUALLY IS NO CHANNELIZATION OF THE EXISTING FLOODPLAIN AS IT EXISTS NOW PROPOSED.

SO NOTHING IS PROPOSED TO ALTER WHAT'S THERE NOW.

OKAY, BUT WHAT? GO AHEAD. NO.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ON THEIR SITE, SO ABOUT 1.96 ACRES OF THEIR THREE ACRE SITE IS FLOODPLAIN.

RIGHT. SO WE TALKED ABOUT FLOODWAY.

AND NEXT TIME, I DEFINITELY KNOW I'M BRINGING THE FLOODWAY MAP AND I'M SHOWING YOU THE FLOOD FRINGE.

SO AGAIN, WE DON'T ALLOW DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODWAY.

FLOODWAY IS THE CHANNEL ITSELF.

T HE FLOOD FRINGE IS A MUCH LARGER AREA.

SO ON THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL, OUT OF 3.3 ACRES, IT'S A LITTLE MORE THAN HALF OF THIS PARCEL.

SO WHAT THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO DO IS UTILIZE ABOUT 0.36 ACRES OF THAT FLOOD FRINGE AREA.

SO STILL ABOUT 1.36 ACRES LOOKS LIKE IT'LL BE PRESERVED ON SITE UNTOUCHED.

THE TREES WON'T BE ALTERED.

THE FLOODPLAIN SHOULD NEVER BE TOUCHED, SHOULDN'T ACTUALLY EVEN BE ALTERED DURING CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION WILL HAPPEN ON THE EXACT OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. BUT THE OLIVIA WHITE, SO THE TWO HOUSES OR THE TWO LOTS TO THE SOUTH, THEY'VE ACTUALLY SIGNED IN ON THIS REQUEST AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE INCLUDED. BOTH OF THOSE LOTS ARE ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND THEY'RE VACANT.

THE OLIVIA WHITE HOSPICE HOUSE, THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, IT PROBABLY HAS ONE OF THE MORE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN ITSELF.

THE BUILDING IS ACTUALLY LOCATED IN THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN.

SO YES, THAT IS A RISK FOR THEM.

BUT THIS DEVELOPMENT, IF IT'S DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STORMWATER REGULATION, SHOULD NOT INCREASE THAT RISK THAT ALREADY EXISTS FOR THEM.

BUT IT WON'T DIMINISH THE RISK EITHER? NO, IT WON'T DIMINISH THE RISK BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS ACTUALLY LOCATED IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

AND THERE'S NO WAY FOR THEM TO, WHILE THEY'RE DEVELOPING THIS AREA, TO HELP DIMINISH THE RISK OF THE OLIVIA WHITE? AND HOW DID IT GET BUILT IN A FLOODPLAIN? SO I DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY OF ALL OF THAT AS WELL.

I WOULD TELL YOU THAT IF THE PROPERTY STAYS IN THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN, THERE IS NO WORK THAT CAN BE DONE IN THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN TO ASSIST OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS. OKAY.

SO IF THERE IS RESTORATION THAT CAN OCCUR, THAT CAN MAKE THE SITUATION BETTER FOR OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS, THAT CAN ONLY BE DONE IF IT'S MADE IN URBAN FLOODPLAIN.

SO RURAL FLOODPLAIN WOULD LIMIT ANY WORK IN THIS AREA.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

AND THEN WE'RE.

SO. I'M JUST.

I'M LOOKING AT ALL THE PICTURES.

I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE, AND I THINK ON THE FIGURE 4A, THE AERIAL PHOTO. IT'S JUST SHOWING THE CHANNEL, IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S NOT SHOWING WHICH TREES WOULD BE REMOVED FOR THIS.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.

WHERE WOULD THE REMOVAL OF TREES BE, IS THAT MORE TOWARD SWITZER CANYON OR MORE TOWARD THE TURQUOISE SIDE?

[00:45:09]

IT'S TOWARDS SWITZER CANYON.

SO ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS PUSHED UP TOWARDS SWITZER CANYON, AWAY FROM THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN.

AND THE THE HEAVY SECTION OF TREES WOULD BE IN THAT 250 FOOT BUFFER FROM TWO FROM TURQUOISE.

AND THEN THAT'S, AND IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS CORRECTLY, IT'S KIND OF DOWN BELOW.

THERE'S SOME DOCTOR OFFICES AND THEN THERE'S AN APARTMENT BUILDING BACK THERE, AND THIS WOULD BE BELOW THAT.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THOSE WERE MY QUESTIONS.

AND I AGREE. I ALSO WANT TO AGREE WITH THE POINTS THAT MARY MADE AT THE END ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AND EVERYTHING THAT SHE SUGGESTED, I ALSO AGREE WITH.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A QUESTION TIFFANY ABOUT THE OBJECTIONS THAT YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF THE FLOODPLAIN FROM RURAL TO URBAN HAS TO DO WITH HOW THAT AREA, HOW THAT PROPERTY CAN THEN BE DEVELOPED? IS THAT A GOOD YES, I WOULD SAY THAT'S THE PRIMARY ISSUE.

I THINK PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS COMPLIES WITH THE REGIONAL PLAN.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S SOMETHING THAT READS LIKE A FULL PRESERVATION OF PRIVATE LAND.

I THINK IT'S EXACTLY THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BUT I FEEL GRATEFUL THAT WE AT LEAST HAVE SOME IDEA OF A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE SITE SO WE CAN GIVE SOME LEVEL OF COMFORT, EVEN IF IT'S NOT THE COMFORT THAT PEOPLE WOULD PREFER.

OKAY. AND IF IT WERE TO REMAIN A RURAL FLOODPLAIN, IS THERE A SENSE, I KNOW IT'S PRETTY HARD FOR YOU TO JUST COME UP WITH SOMETHING, BUT IS THERE A SENSE WE CAN HAVE OF WHAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT'S PROPOSED WITH THE URBAN? I DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER, BUT I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT.

AND STEVE, I DON'T MEAN TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY FEELINGS ABOUT WHAT COULD WORK OR NOT WORK.

WELL, THAT'S FINE.

COULD I HEAR THAT QUESTION ONE MORE TIME? I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE IF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOW THAT PROPERTY CAN BE DEVELOPED, WHETHER WE HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT'S PROPOSED FOR THE URBAN FLOODPLAIN, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN? IN OTHER WORDS, THE DIFFERENCE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, BECAUSE IF THE OBJECTIONS PRIMARILY HAVE TO DO WITH NOT SO MUCH THE DESIGNATION OF THE FLOODPLAIN ITSELF, BUT WHAT THAT ALLOWS, THEN THEN I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A SENSE OF OF WHAT THAT MIGHT BE.

YEAH, I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.

COMPLETELY VALID QUESTION.

IT'S TOUGH TO ANSWER BECAUSE REALLY WE WOULD BE LEANING HEAVILY ON THE ENGINEERING TEAM FOR THAT.

THIS PARCEL HAS DEFINITELY PRESENTED A LOT OF CHALLENGES WHEN LOOKING AT GETTING IT DEVELOPED FOR HIGH DENSITY TO MEET THE ZONING CODE.

SO I WISH I HAD A BETTER, YOU KNOW, RATHER MORE SPECIFIC ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, BUT I WOULD REALLY HAVE TO GET WITH OUR ENGINEERING TEAM ON THAT.

WE'RE REALLY, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO ANSWER AT THIS TIME.

I NEED TO INTERRUPT FOR JUST A SECOND.

I'M SORRY, BUT STEVE, CAN YOU JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? OH, YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. MY NAME IS STEVEN HOLLOWAY, AND MY ADDRESS IS 3365 NORTH MONTE VISTA.

THAT'S IN ZIP CODE 86004.

THANK YOU. AND JUST FOR ANYBODY IN THE FUTURE THAT'S SPEAKING, THAT'S NOT STAFF, JUST NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

THANKS. AND STEVE, YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THIS PROPERTY, HOW YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THIS.

SO I REPRESENT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO ASK IF THERE ARE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME.

ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WANTING TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS.

OKAY. I GUESS WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE OTHER HEARING IN ORDER TO HEAR.

MARY, I SEE YOUR HAND AGAIN.

MR. NORTON. YES, THANKS.

[00:50:02]

JUST AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION.

SO IT SOUNDS LIKE, I APPRECIATE YOUR QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT BECAUSE I SEE WHERE YOU WERE GOING WITH IT.

IT'S LIKE, WELL, WHAT COULD BE DEVELOPED IF IT REMAINED RURAL? BUT IT ALSO SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT TO BE ABLE TO BUILD MUCH OF ANYTHING IF IT'S ZONED FOR HIGH DENSITY.

TIFFANY, IS THAT CONFLICT CORRECT? WELL, I MEAN, IT MIGHT CHANGE THE.

SO HERE'S THE THING, RIGHT.

BECAUSE DEVELOPMENT CAN TAKE LOTS OF FORMS. AND RIGHT NOW THIS DEVELOPMENT IS TAKING A FORM THAT'S MORE COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

BUT, OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO BUILD A SMALLER FOOTPRINT BUILDING THAT GOES TALLER.

SO, YOU KNOW, A HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HAS A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 60 FEET.

SO THERE'S ALWAYS THAT ABILITY TO GO UP RATHER THAN EXPAND OUT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S NECESSARILY A BETTER OPTION OR IF THAT'S WHAT YOU KNOW, BUT THEN THAT WOULD BE 100% BUY, RIGHT. SO I DON'T KNOW.

IT'S TRYING TO WORK WITH AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S A COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT.

BUT YEAH, I MEAN I THINK THEY COULD PROBABLY BUILD UP BUT IN THE STAFF REPORT, THAT SUMMARY THAT COMES NEXT, YOU'LL SEE THERE'S, YOU KNOW, MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DENSITIES.

HERE WE'RE ONLY TRYING TO ACHIEVE THE MINIMUM.

SO IF THEY WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THE MINIMUM, THEY ONLY WANTED TO GO WITH THIS BUILDING STYLE THAT THEY HAVE NOW.

MOST LIKELY WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT EITHER DOING A MODIFICATION OR A VARIANCE TO THE CURRENT CODE STANDARDS IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM DENSITY.

IF THAT WAS THE CASE.

BUT AGAIN, I THINK THERE'S ALWAYS ALTERNATIVE DESIGN PARAMETERS.

SO AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW WITH A RURAL DESIGNATION, THERE IS A PORTION THAT THEY CAN BUILD ON, NOT SOMETHING OF THE PROJECT THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, BUT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN BUILD ON THAT FALLS INTO THE CORRECT, INTO THE DENSITY OR INTO THE ZONING AS IT STANDS.

YES, THERE IS.

IT'S JUST PART OF THAT SITE HAS GOT THAT REALLY STEEP SLOPE FROM THE ROAD FROM SWITZER CANYON.

BUT YEAH, NO, THEY ABSOLUTELY HAVE DEVELOPABLE PIECE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALSO TIFFANY.

OOPS. MY QUESTION JUST FLEW OUT OF MY HEAD.

MAYBE IT'LL COME BACK.

ANY OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE COMMENTS TO MAKE ON THIS OR QUESTIONS? AND STEVE, WE HEARD FROM YOU AS, I MEAN, IT'S NOT REALLY A MATTER OF AN APPLICANT AT THIS POINT TIFFANY, RIGHT? IT'S THE CITY BRINGING THIS REQUEST FOR THIS WORK SESSION FORWARD, RIGHT? WELL, I MEAN, IT'S BOTH OF US, SO I MEAN, THAT'S PART OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS IF WE, YOU CAN SEE THAT IF WE CHANGE THE DESIGNATION ON ONE PARCEL, WE REALLY NEED TO CHANGE IT ON THE REMAINDER BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THE SAME SITUATION ON ALL OF THIS AND THROUGHOUT ALL OF THIS SECTION.

SO THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, WHEN WORKING WITH STORM WATER DIVISION, IT WAS REALLY FELT THAT I SHOULD GO AFTER THE WHOLE CHANNEL. SO I DEFINITELY REACHED OUT TO EVERY PROPERTY OWNER AND I WILL COME BACK WITH WHAT THE CONCLUSIONS WERE OF THAT.

I HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT, SO NAH OWNS TWO OF THE PROPERTIES.

YMCA OWNS ONE, THE APPLICANT OWNS ONE, AND THERE'S A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER THAT OWNS THE TWO TO THE SOUTH AND THE NORTHLAND HOSPICE.

I HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THE TWO VACANT PARCELS TO THE SOUTH.

SO REALLY ANYBODY WHO HAS A VACANT PARCEL SIGNED IN ON THIS APPLICATION.

AND WHEN WE HEAR THIS, THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, HOW IS THAT COMING TO US? IT'S NOT AS A REZONING.

WHAT IS IT COMING IN AS? THIS IS A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT.

SO WE ARE AMENDING A MAP IN THE ZONING CODE.

OKAY. I KNOW, IT'S SUPER CONFUSING.

IT'S CONFUSING FOR ME AS WELL.

AND COMMISSIONER NORTON.

THANKS.

JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR. SO THIS ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT, THIS BASICALLY WILL CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THE ENTIRE SWITZER CANYON TO URBAN.

AND OBVIOUSLY OPENING UP THE POSSIBILITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT AND MUCH GREATER DEVELOPMENT.

[00:55:08]

CORRECT? SO, HOW DO I SAY THIS? SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE TWO PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH ARE THE MOST IMPACTED BY THE RURAL FLOODPLAIN.

THE PROPERTY IS TO THE NORTH.

SO THAT ACCESS ROAD THAT YOU CROSSED INTO TO GET INTO THE YMCA PROPERTY, THAT'S ACTUALLY ON NORTHERN ARIZONA HEALTHCARE'S PROPERTY AND THAT PROPERTY IS ZONED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND IS VACANT.

OF COURSE, YOU'LL SEE THAT OF THEIR PARCELS TO THE NORTH THAT THEY OWN, ONE IS VACANT.

IT'S ZONED HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL AND THE OTHER HAS BEEN DEVELOPED.

THE CITY ALSO OWNS A LARGE PORTION OF THE FLOODPLAIN THAT RUNS THROUGH NAH'S MOST NORTHERN PIECE, BUT THE SECTION ON THE NORTHERN END IS MUCH NARROWER.

IT IMPACTS THE SITE LESS, AND ESPECIALLY WITH NAH'S PIECE, I WOULD SAY IT'S MORE EASILY DEVELOPED BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY ALREADY HAVE THE CROSSING PUT IN, WHICH IS THE HARDEST PART OF ALL OF THIS.

THANK YOU.

OKAY. TIFFANY, DO YOU HAVE WHAT YOU NEED FROM US OR IS THERE SOMETHING MORE SPECIFIC THAT YOU'D LIKE TO? I THINK I HAVE REALLY GOOD DIRECTION.

SO I'M GOING TO COME BACK.

I'M GOING TO MULL OVER THE QUESTIONS YOU'VE ASKED TODAY, GO THROUGH MY FINAL PUBLIC HEARING REPORT, AND I'M GOING TO HAVE SOME MORE INFORMATIVE SLIDES, THINGS THAT ARE MORE DETAILED TO THE PARCEL ZONING.

I'LL INCLUDE FLOODWAY.

ALSO, I'LL GET SOME DATES ON WHEN THOSE WATER AND SEWER LINES CAME IN AND MAYBE WHEN SOME OF THESE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS HAPPENED AND HOW LONG AGO THESE THINGS TOOK PLACE.

AND THEN I'M GOING TO TALK TO LEGAL ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO IN TERMS OF ADDING REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS TO THE EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS ON SITE.

AND THEN I'M GOING TO REDO THIS PRESENTATION AND THROW IT ALL BACK TO YOU.

DOES THAT SOUND GOOD? YEAH, THAT SOUNDS GREAT.

AND I WANT TO THANK THE COMMISSIONERS FOR YOUR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.

I FOUND THOSE VERY HELPFUL, PERSONALLY.

SO, THAT'S IT.

WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON TO, LET'S SEE.

OUR LAST ITEM IS A REQUEST FOR A WORK SESSION REGARDING OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS.

[B. PZ-19-00248: Request for a work session with the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss the City’s proposed amendment to the Zoning Code to modify the existing Outdoor Lighting Standards (Division 10-50.070). STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: The work session with the Planning and Zoning Commission is required as a “Citizen Review Session” in compliance with Section 10-20.50.040 (Procedures) of the Zoning Code and applicable state law. The purpose of the work session is for staff to present an overview of the proposed amendment, to allow interested residents to provide their ideas, suggestions, and concerns, and for the Commission to ask questions, seek clarification, and discuss the amendment, as well as offer alternate suggestions and ideas. The Commission will take no action at this work session. After the work session, staff will revise the proposed amendment. The amendment will then be presented to the Commission at a public hearing for consideration and action. Once a recommendation is received, a public hearing will be scheduled with the City Council. The anticipated timeline for the amendments is as follows: October 4, 2022 - City Council Work Session October 12, 2022 – Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing November 1, 2022 –City Council Public Hearing (1st Reading of Ordinance) November 15, 2022 – Potential City Council Public Hearing (2nd Reading of Ordinance/Adoption)]

SO WHAT DO WE NEED TO HEAR ABOUT THAT? I'M WORKING ON IT.

I'M TRYING TO SHUFFLE.

APOLOGIES. SO HERE WE GO.

SO YOU CAN SEE MY SCREEN.

WE'LL GO PRESENT.

I SO MUCH PREFER DOING THIS FROM MY SECONDARY COMPUTER, MY LITTLE TABLET, BUT IT DECIDED TO QUIT ON ME TODAY.

SO I'M DOING THIS FROM MY DESKTOP AND IT'S VERY CONFUSING, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR MY SNAFUS.

THIS PARTICULAR WORK SESSION IS FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE DIVISION 10-50.070, OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS.

AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE CASE NUMBER, THIS DOES GO BACK A FEW YEARS.

THIS HAS BEEN WORKED ON LONG BEFORE I BECAME THE ZONING CODE MANAGER.

THERE'S BEEN A TEAM OF FOLKS THAT HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS, GETTING IT ACROSS THE FINISH LINE.

SO I'M VERY GRATEFUL TO BE HERE TODAY TO SHARE WITH YOU A LARGE, EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF WORK AND TIME THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE PUT IN TO UPDATE OUR OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS.