Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU.

[00:00:01]

SO I'LL CALL THE ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11TH, 2023, TO ORDER.

[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).]

AND 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. MARIE JONES, CHAIR CAROLE MANDINO, VICE CHAIR DR. RICARDO GUTHRIE MARY NORTON DR. ALEX MARTINEZ BOB HARRIS, III ]

AND I'LL ASK ANYBODY WHO'S ATTENDING THE MEETING TO PLEASE TURN YOUR CAMERA OFF FOR NOW.

AND THIS IS THE PUBLIC COMMENT TIME.

SO AT THIS TIME ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY SUBJECT WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION THAT IS NOT SCHEDULED FOR TODAY DUE TO OPEN MEETING LAWS, THE COMMISSION CANNOT DISCUSS OR ACT ON ITEMS PRESENTED DURING THIS PORTION OF THE AGENDA.

IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? AND NOT SEEING ANY.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

BUT FIRST, MIKE [INAUDIBLE] I WONDER IF YOU WOULD MIND TURNING YOUR CAMERA OFF.

FOR NOW. I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT.

NO PROBLEM. THAT BETTER? YES. THANK YOU.

WE'RE READY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING.

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

ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES OR CHANGES SUGGESTED? AND IF NOT, WOULD SOMEBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT? I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2022 MEETING.

I WILL SECOND THOSE.

WE HAD A SECOND.

SO ANY MORE DISCUSSION? SORRY. WHO WAS THE SECOND? I FELT LIKE MARY AND CAROL BOTH JUMPED AT THE SAME TIME.

WE DID, BUT I DIDN'T FINISH.

SO CAROL CAN. CAROL CAN BE THE SECOND.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL RIGHT.

I. ALL THOSE OPPOSED.

SO THAT PASSES, AND NOW WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE AGENDA.

[A. PZ-20-00164-08: Flagstaff Rehab Campus A Conditional Use Permit request from Flagland LLC to establish an approximately 1,824 square-foot barn and a minimum 30,000 square-foot fenced pasture area to be used as an Equestrian Recreational Facility. The subject properties are located at 7000 North Highway 89 (APNs 301-50-005G and 113-17-011A). The APN 113-17-011A parcel has Highway Commercial (HC) zoning, while the APN 301-50-005G parcel has split HC/Rural Residential (RR) zoning. The Equestrian Recreational Facility is proposed on the 1.09-acre acre portion with RR zoning. Both parcels have a Resource Protection Overlay (RPO). Equestrian Recreational Facility is a permitted use in the RR zone with a Conditional Use Permit. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: In accordance with the findings presented in this report, staff recommends approval of PZ-20-00164-08 with the following conditions: The development of the site shall substantially conform to the plans as presented with the Conditional Use Permit application, and with the Site Plan as approved by the Inter-Division Staff on September 13, 2022. Substantive modifications to the approved Site Plan (PZ-20-00164-06) shall require additional review by the IDS team. Anything greater than a minor modification as determined by staff will require a modification to the CUP and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Equestrian Recreational Facility may house no more than one horse per 10,000 square feet of fenced pasture area in compliance with City Code, up to four horses maximum on the 1.09 acre site.]

THE FLAGSTAFF REHAB CAMPUS.

READY FOR A PRESENTATION? YES, I WILL BE MAKING THAT PRESENTATION TODAY.

LET ME FIGURE OUT, I'LL SHARE THIS WHOLE, SIT TIGHT.

OKAY. THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR THE FLAGSTAFF REHAB CAMPUS.

AND I'M ALEXANDRA PUCCIARELLI, THE CURRENT PLANNING MANAGER.

I'LL BEG A LITTLE FORGIVENESS, PLEASE.

THIS IS GENEVIEVE PEARTHREE'S PROJECT, AND SHE IS OUT OF THE OFFICE.

AND SO I'M COVERING THIS FOR HER.

THIS IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OR CUP REQUEST FROM FLAGLAND LLC TO ALLOW AN EQUESTRIAN RECREATIONAL FACILITY ON APPROXIMATELY A LITTLE OVER AN ACRE OF THEIR PART OF THEIR PROPERTY THAT'S ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL.

IT'S PART OF A LARGER DEVELOPMENT SITE THAT ACTUALLY CAME THROUGH P AND Z AS WELL AS COUNCIL, THE ANNEXED PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT SITE, AS WELL AS REZONED THIS AREA SPECIFICALLY TO BE RURAL RESIDENTIAL, TO ALLOW THIS EQUESTRIAN FACILITY THAT IS KIND OF AN ACCESSORY USE TO THE

[00:05:08]

REHAB CAMPUS.

SO THIS FACILITY INCLUDES AN 1800 SQUARE FOOT BARN, A LITTLE OVER 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF FENCED PASTURE AREA.

THIS DEVELOPMENT SITE IS LOCATED.

IT'S OUT PAST THE MALL ON NORTH HIGHWAY 89.

AND LIKE I SAID, IT'S MOSTLY HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONING.

AND THEN PART OF IT WAS REZONE TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO ALLOW THIS TO ALLOW THE HORSES.

AND THEN BOTH PARCELS HAVE THE RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY.

SO HERE'S A LITTLE KIND OF AREA MAP SHOWING THE LARGER DEVELOPMENT SITE, AS WELL AS THIS KIND OF NORTH CORNER IN THE BACK. THAT'S THE AREA REQUESTING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

AS I ALLUDED TO THIS, THE OVERALL CAMPUS INCLUDES 174 BED MENTAL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT CAMPUS.

SO PARCEL ONE INCLUDES THIS DETOX AND RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTER, AS WELL AS THIS EQUESTRIAN FACILITY THAT WILL BE USED BY THE TREATMENT CENTER AS PART OF THEIR REHABILITATION.

PARCEL TWO IS A SOBER LIVING FACILITY AND THEN THREE AND FOUR, WHICH WILL THESE PARCELS ALL STILL NEED TO BE CREATED.

BUT PARCEL THREE AND FOUR ARE FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

HERE WE SEE A CLOSE UP OF THAT EQUESTRIAN RECREATIONAL FACILITY.

SO THE BARN LOCATED IN THE CENTER, INDIVIDUAL STALLS AND AND SORT OF OUTDOOR FENCED AREAS FOR THE HORSES, AS WELL AS THIS PASTURE AREA THAT'S HATCHED IN GRAY FOR THE HORSES USE.

HERE WE HAVE ELEVATIONS OF THAT PROPOSED BARN.

AND THE COLORS ARE INDICATED UP AT THE TOP LEFT THERE.

THE APPLICANT HELD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ON NOVEMBER 16TH.

THERE WERE THREE ATTENDEES.

THEY REQUESTED TO WAIVE A SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND THAT WAS APPROVED.

THE PACKET INCLUDED THEIR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REPORT, AND THEN THIS HEARING WAS NOTICED.

EXCUSE ME, AS WE DO ALL OF OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

THERE WAS AN AD IN THE PAPER.

LETTERS TO PROPERTY OWNERS ADJACENT TO THE SITE AND A SIGN POSTED ON THE SITE.

TO DATE, I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ITEM.

AND KEEP IN MIND, TOO, THAT BECAUSE BECAUSE THE LARGER PROJECT WENT THROUGH THE ANNEXATION AND THE REZONE THERE ARE ALSO NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS AND PUBLIC HEARINGS RELATED TO THOSE REQUESTS WHICH GOT APPROVED PREVIOUSLY.

SO FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, WE NEED TO ASSURE THAT THREE FINDINGS ARE BEING MET.

FINDING NUMBER ONE IS THAT THE CONDITIONAL USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ZONE, THE ZONING CODE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE ZONE IN WHICH THE SITE IS LOCATED.

THE INTENT OF THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL RR ZONE INCLUDES AGRICULTURAL USES SUCH AS EQUESTRIAN FACILITIES AND THAT HELP PRESERVE THE AREA'S RURAL CHARACTER.

THE RR ZONE DOES ALLOW THESE EQUESTRIAN RECREATIONAL FACILITIES WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

THE BARN, THE PASTURE AND THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALSO SERVES AS A TRANSITION BETWEEN THE TREATMENT CAMPUS KIND OF TO THE SOUTHWEST AND THE FOREST SERVICE LAND TO THE EAST, AS WELL AS SOME COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH.

STAFF BELIEVES FINDING ONE IS MET AND THAT THE EQUESTRIAN RECREATIONAL FACILITY MEETS THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE RR ZONE.

FINDING NUMBER TWO IS THAT GRANTING THE CONDITIONAL USE WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE.

THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN MAKING THIS FINDING SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO A, PROPERTY DAMAGE OR NUISANCE ARISING FROM NOISE,

[00:10:06]

SMOKE, ODOR, DUST, VIBRATION OR ILLUMINATION.

B, HAZARD TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY FROM POSSIBLE EXPLOSION, CONTAMINATION, FIRE OR FLOOD AND C, IMPACT ON SURROUNDING AREAS ARISING FROM UNUSUAL VOLUME OR CHARACTER OF TRAFFIC.

AND AS WE STATED BEFORE, LIVE LARGE LIVESTOCK, SORRY, INCLUDING HORSES ARE ALLOWED IN RR AND ESTATE RESIDENTIAL ER ZONES.

THE EQUESTRIAN FACILITY IS LOCATED ONLY ON THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ZONED RR.

THERE IS ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT WE APPLY TO ANIMAL KEEPING FOR RESIDENTIAL USE THAT WE'VE APPLIED TO THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT AS SORT OF GUIDELINES.

SOME OF THESE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE THAT SHELTERS FOR LARGE LIVESTOCK MUST BE 75 FEET MINIMUM FROM ANY DWELLING UNIT AND TEN FEET MINIMUM FROM ANY PROPERTY LINE.

THIS PROJECT EXCEEDS THOSE MINIMUMS. THE BARNS 170 FEET FROM THE CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND 70 FEET FROM THE NEAREST PROPERTY LINE.

THAT SAME CODE REQUIRES 10,000 SQUARE FEET, MINIMUM OF PASTURE PER HORSE.

AND THIS PROJECT ALSO EXCEEDS THAT THEY HAVE OVER 30,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM THREE HORSES.

WE HAVE INCLUDED IN THE CONDITION.

STAFF WOULD SUPPORT UP TO FOUR HORSES.

AS LONG AS THE APPLICANT CAN CONFIGURE THE PASTURE IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY HAVE 40,000 SQUARE FEET.

STAFF WANT TO LEAVE THAT OPEN AS AN OPTION FOR THEM.

OF STAFF BELIEVES FINDING NUMBER TWO IS BEING MET AS LONG AS THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CODES, STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS, THE PROJECT SHOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE.

AND THE LAST.

SORRY. I SEE RICARDO IN THE LOBBY, SO I'M LETTING HIM IN.

OKAY, SO THE FINAL FINDING IS FINDING THREE.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE AS PROPOSED AND AS IT MAY BE CONDITIONED, ARE REASONABLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE TYPES AND USES PERMITTED IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED ONLY WHEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS CONSIDERED AND ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THE FOLLOWING TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

AND THERE ARE NINE SOURCE SUBCATEGORIES.

I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH ONE BY ONE FOR FINDING THREE.

SO NUMBER ONE IS ACCESS, TRAFFIC, PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE AND VEHICULAR CIRCULATION.

CITY STAFF APPROVED A TRAFFIC STATEMENT ON SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2021, FOR THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT SITE.

THIS EQUESTRIAN FACILITY IS PART OF THE LARGER TREATMENT CAMPUS AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PARKING AND WILL NOT BE CREATING ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC.

THIS IS JUST FOR THE USE OF THAT TREATMENT CAMPUS.

NUMBER TWO, THE ADEQUACY OF THE SITE AND OPEN SPACE PROVISIONS.

THERE'S NO OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT SPECIFIC TO THE R AND R'S, THE RR ZONE, BUT THE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE AND THE TREATMENT CAMPUS WAS REQUIRED TO SET ASIDE 15% OF THE SITE AREA OF OPEN SPACE, AND THE APPLICANT IS EXCEEDING THAT 15%. I THINK THEY'RE AT 19.

BY NOISE, LIGHT, VISUAL AND OTHER POLLUTANTS.

IT'S NOT ANTICIPATED THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL CREATE ANY NOISE, VISUAL, OTHER POLLUTANTS INTO THE AREA, AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S OUTDOOR LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS.

AND WE'LL SEE THAT APPLICATION WHEN THEY SUBMIT FOR BUILDING PERMIT.

AND BY WE, I MEAN STAFF.

MISSION NUMBER FOUR, THE STYLE AND SITING OF STRUCTURES AND RELATIONSHIP TO SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.

[00:15:01]

THERE'S A 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER AS WELL AS OPEN SPACE AREAS THAT SEPARATE THE EQUESTRIAN FACILITY AND THE LARGER TREATMENT CAMPUS FROM ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT, AS WELL AS THE FOREST SERVICE LANDS TO THE EAST.

THE BARN IS SINGLE STORY AND MEETS THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS.

AS FAR AS THE EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS, THE FORM OF THE BUILDING, THE HORSE STALLS ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF THE ARE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF THE BARN, AWAY FROM THE ADJACENT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTHWEST.

I BELIEVE IT'S MARY'S CAFE AND THERE'S A GAS STATION.

AND THAT WAS A REQUEST THAT CAME AT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WAS TO RELOCATE THEM TO THE SOUTH.

AND AS I STATED BEFORE, THE BARN IS OVER 70 FEET AWAY FROM THE NEAREST PROPERTY LINE.

NUMBER FIVE IS LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING.

THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS AREA ARE BEING MET.

PER CODE YOU IT CAN BE MET WITH NEW PLANTED LANDSCAPING, BUT YOU CAN ALSO GET CREDIT FOR EXISTING TREES THAT FALL WITHIN THAT LANDSCAPE BUFFER AREA.

SO IN THIS AREA WE HAVE A COMBINATION OF BOTH SOME NEW PLANTINGS, SOME EXISTING PONDEROSA PINE TREES THAT WILL MEET THOSE CONDITIONS.

THERE'S NO SCREENING REQUIRED OF THIS SITE.

IMPACTS ON PUBLIC UTILITIES.

CITY STAFF COMPLETED THE WATER SEWER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THIS SITE.

OCTOBER 26, 2021.

A RESULT OF THAT REPORT WAS THAT NO OFFSITE WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WERE REQUIRED.

THE APPLICANT WILL JUST BE PROVIDING WATER TO THEIR SITE AS WELL AS EXTENDING IT ALONG THEIR FRONTAGE.

NUMBER SEVEN SIGNAGE AND OUTDOOR LIGHTING.

SIGNAGE BY IS GENERALLY REVIEWED THROUGH A SEPARATE PERMANENT SIGN PERMIT AND THEY'LL BE REQUIRED TO MEET CITY CODE AS PART OF THAT REVIEW. AND THEN THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE THAT GETS REVIEWED WITH BUILDING PERMIT.

EIGHT, DEDICATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF STREETS.

THE DEVELOPMENT WILL DEDICATE THE NECESSARY RIGHT OF WAY ALONG HERE.

THIS IS HIGHWAY 89, WHICH IS ADOT'S JURISDICTION.

THEY'LL BE DEDICATING ADDITIONAL RIGHT AWAY AS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE A RIGHT HAND TURN LANES AS WELL AS FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS. AS PART OF THE PREVIOUS APPROVALS, THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PUT IN A FIVE FOOT PARKWAY IN A SIX FOOT SIDEWALK AND THEN THE RIGHT HAND TURN LANES.

NO ADDITIONAL DEDICATION IS REQUIRED FOR THE EQUESTRIAN FACILITY.

AND NINE IMPACTS ON HISTORIC, NATURAL OR PREHISTORIC RESOURCES.

THE DEVELOPMENT SITE EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED TREE PROTECTION.

THEY'RE PROPOSING TO SAVE 46% OF TREES ACROSS THE ENTIRE TREATMENT CAMPUS.

TYPICALLY IN THE HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONE, WE WOULD ONLY REQUIRE 30%.

SO IT'S ABOVE THAT.

BUT THAT ALSO TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THIS PIECE OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL.

KIND OF UPS THE.

BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT AS A WHOLE I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO TOO MANY DETAILS.

THEY'RE EXCEEDING THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF CODE.

ALSO, AS PART OF THAT PREVIOUS REVIEW, A CULTURAL RESOURCE LETTER REPORT WAS COMPLETED FOR THE ENTIRE SITE AND THAT WAS APPROVED BY STAFF.

SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

AND I KNOW THOSE OF YOU WHO GOT PAPER PACKETS.

THIS CHANGED BETWEEN WHEN YOU INITIALLY GOT THE PACKET AND THEN THE UPDATE.

SO THIS IS THE MOST CURRENT CONDITIONS THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS PRESENTED IN THE ATTACHED REPORT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

PZ20-00164-08 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.

ONE, THE DEVELOPMENT SITE SHALL SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORM TO THE PLANS AS PRESENTED WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION AND WITH THE SITE PLAN AS APPROVED BY IDS ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 SUBSTANTIVE MODIFICATIONS TO THE APPROVED

[00:20:10]

SITE PLAN SHALL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL REVIEW BY THE IDS TEAM, AND ANYTHING GREATER THAN A MINOR MODIFICATION, AS DETERMINED BY STAFF, WILL REQUIRE A MODIFICATION TO THE CUP APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION.

AND NUMBER TWO, THE EQUESTRIAN RECREATIONAL FACILITY MAY HOUSE NO MORE THAN ONE HORSE PER 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF FENCED PASTURE AREA IN COMPLIANCE WITH CITY CODE AND UP TO FOUR HORSES MAXIMUM ON THE 1.09 ACRE SITE.

AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

I KNOW THAT THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY HANDS RAISED FROM THE COMMISSIONERS YET, SO I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

IS THERE SOMEONE REPRESENTING..

ALEXANDRIA? THIS IS MIKE ZIFFRAGE, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU FOR.

INCLUDING US IN THIS MEETING SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO MOVE DOWN A POSITIVE PATH OF GETTING OUR GETTING OUR FACILITY BUILT FOR EVERYBODY IN THE FLAGSTAFF AREA.

I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS.

I THINK WE'VE WORKED VERY DILIGENTLY WITH EVERYONE TO MAKE SURE THIS GETS ACCOMPLISHED.

AND WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE'RE ABLE TO INCORPORATE EVERY PART OF OUR TREATMENT PROGRAM.

JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND AGAIN, FROM 2022.

AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A VERY LARGE TREATMENT CENTER IN THE TUCSON MARKETPLACE.

AND AND WE SUCCESSFULLY TREATED OVER A 4000 CLIENTS THERE LAST YEAR, AND WE'RE STARTING TO NOW SEE PEOPLE COME THROUGH THE PROGRAM THAT ARE ACTUALLY BEEN UP IN THE FLAGSTAFF AREA LIVING.

AND SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A TREATMENT FACILITY UP THERE YET, THEY'VE BEEN BIGGER IN WEIGHT.

WE'VE BEEN MEANDERING THEM DOWN TO OUR PROGRAM IN THE TUCSON MARKET.

BUT. BUT I'M OPEN HERE TO ASK ANY ANSWER, ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

BUT OUR PROGRAM IS STILL WE'RE VERY EXCITED ABOUT BEING THERE AND TRYING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND BE A GOOD PARTNER WITH THE PEOPLE IN FLAGSTAFF.

THANK YOU, MR. [INAUDIBLE] COMMISSIONER MANDINO.

YES. CAN YOU HEAR ME VERY WELL.

YES. YES.

OKAY. SO I DON'T NEED TO SHOUT.

OH, SOUNDS GOOD. OKAY, GREAT.

SO I JUST I HAVE A QUESTION AS THIS GOES AS I'M TRYING TO READ THIS.

THE OPEN SPACE.

AND I'M ASSUMING THAT'S PART OF THE HORSE PASTURE, LIKE BY THE DINING AND EVERYTHING THAT BACKS UP TO, AM I LOOKING AT THIS CORRECTLY, DODGE AVENUE WHERE THERE'S SOME HOMES AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE HOMEOWNERS, THOSE HOMEOWNERS WERE CONTACTED AND THOSE HOMEOWNERS DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM, THAT THE FENCE WILL BE HIGH ENOUGH THAT I JUST COULD IMAGINE DOGS BARKING ALL THE TIME.

THAT'S THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION.

IS THAT A QUESTION YOU DO? YOU'RE ASKING ME, COMMISSIONER, BECAUSE WE DON'T WE DON'T BACK UP TO ANY RESIDENTS.

WE HAVE THE WE HAVE THE NATIONAL FOREST BEHIND US.

AND IN THE FRONT OF US IS MARY'S CAFE.

AND WE'VE GOT A GREAT RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM AND THEY'RE EXCITED.

SO I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY HOMEOWNERS BEHIND US.

OKAY. ALEX, CAN YOU.

CAN YOU. I'M LOOKING AT MY PRINTOUT AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT.

WE HAVE TRAILS IN THAT GOES ALONG THE, I'LL SAY THE SOUTH, SOUTH OR THE WEST END OF THE ..

YEAH, CAN YOU SEE WHAT I PULLED OFF THAT SLIDE? SO? SO, YES.

SO THIS REQUEST, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST IS JUST THIS AREA IN BLUE.

SO MIKE'S CORRECT WHEN HE'S TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THERE'S COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THEIR NORTH AND THEIR WEST, AND THEN THERE'S THE FOREST

[00:25:08]

SERVICE TO THE EAST.

THE DEVELOPMENT SITE AS A WHOLE, HOWEVER, IS ADJACENT TO THESE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ALONG THIS RETREAT CIRCLE.

THERE'S SOME DOWN HERE ALONG TRAILS END THAT ARE NEARBY.

OKAY. THEY WERE ALL CONTACTED ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT.

IT DID GO THROUGH THAT WHOLE ANNEXATION PROCESS AND THE REZONING PROCESS WHERE I THINK THERE WAS MORE INITIAL CONVERSATIONS WITH NEIGHBORS AND DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM.

WHAT'S NICE ABOUT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT? LET ME SEE IF IT'S THE NEXT.

YEAH, THIS NEXT SLIDE SHOWS, YOU KNOW, THERE REALLY THIS WHOLE BACK CORNER IS UNDEVELOPED AS OPEN SPACE, WHICH IS NICE BECAUSE IT'S ADJACENT TO THESE HOMEOWNERS THAT ARE NOW ALONG THE ALONG THIS EDGE.

RIGHT. AS WELL.

OOPS, I THINK I WENT TOO FAR.

AND THEN THERE'S THIS AREA HERE WON'T REALLY GET DEVELOPED BECAUSE THERE'S EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENTS ALONG HERE. SO THE IMPACT TO THESE PROPERTIES DOWN HERE AT THE SOUTH IS IS PRETTY MINIMAL.

BUT AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, THIS.

WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY IS MORE I'M TRYING TO FOCUS IT ON JUST THIS CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST, WHICH IS UP HERE IN THAT NORTHEAST. SO DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? SO THE HORSES WILL NOT BE ALLOWED OUTSIDE OF THAT AREA, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

BUT MAYBE MIKE CAN TALK TO SORT OF THAT PROGRAM AND HOW THEY SEE THOSE HORSES BEING USED.

YEAH, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS..

THEY WON'T BE LEAVING THAT 1.9 ACRES THERE.

THAT'S THAT'S THE THAT'S THE AREA.

THEY WON'T BE OUT ON THE PROPERTY OR ANYWHERE IN THE OPEN SPACE OR 99.9% OF THE TIME THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN THEIR STALLS OR IN A TURNOUT WITHIN THAT'S CONNECTED TO THE STALL.

SO THEY WANT NEED TO BE GRAZING OUT IN PASTURES AND THINGS.

SO. OKAY, THAT'S MY QUESTION.

YOU. YEAH. THERE WON'T BE ANY ISSUES WITH THAT.

YEAH. OKAY.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER NORTON.

THANKS. JUST HAD REALLY MORE OF A COMMENT.

I WASN'T ON THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME THIS ANNEXATION AND REZONING CAME THROUGH, BUT I DO REMEMBER THE CASE COMING BEFORE YOU AND GOING TO CITY COUNCIL AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS PARCEL WAS INTENDED FOR THE THE PURPOSE OF THIS ADDED BENEFIT OF EQUINE THERAPY TO THE CAMPUS.

SO I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH GRANTING THIS.

UP AND I'M REALLY MY ONLY COMMENT WAS IS THAT I APPRECIATED THE ACCOMMODATIONS YOU PROVIDED FOR THE NEIGHBORING CAFE BY LOCATING THE STALLS TO THE TO THE EAST AND PROVIDING THE BUFFER LANDSCAPING.

AND I REALLY LIKE THE TRADITIONAL BARN ELEVATION AND THE NATURAL COLOR PALETTE THAT WAS SELECTED FOR IT.

SO IF THERE'S ANY OTHER IF THERE'S NOT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'D BE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION.

OKAY, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

I DON'T SEE ANY OF THIS RIGHT NOW.

GO AHEAD. OKAY. YES.

I MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE CUP FOR PZ-20-00164-08, ACCORDING TO THE FINDINGS.

AND WITH THE CONDITIONS AND WITH THE CONDITIONS PRESENTED.

COMMISSIONER ALEX MARTINEZ, I LIKE TO THINK OF THAT MOTION.

GREAT. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS BEFORE WE VOTE? OKAY. DON'T SEE ANY.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED.

AND THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION ON THAT.

THANK YOU. OUR NEXT, NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS JUST A NOT A PUBLIC ITEM, BUT IT IS A REQUEST FOR A WORK SESSION FOR ZONING CASE.

[A. Case No. PZ-22-00220: Request for a work session with the Planning and Zoning Commission to discuss the City's proposed amendment to the Zoning Code to allow the use of Manufacturing/Processing - Heavy in the Light Industrial Zone with a Conditional Use Permit. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: This will be presented as a work session. No action required from the Commission. ]

FOR A ZONING ITEM OF ZONING CODE AND WE'RE READY TO HEAR ABOUT THAT.

[00:30:06]

OH, SORRY, I WAS MUTED.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO I GOT THIS PULLED UP AND EVERYONE SEE THE SCREEN.

YES. PERFECT.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

SO MY NAME IS WESLEY WELCH.

I'M AN ASSOCIATE PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, AND I'M GOING TO BRING FOR A WORK SESSION TODAY.

TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE USE OF MANUFACTURING PROCESSING HEAVY IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE WITH THE CUP.

SO LET'S GET STARTED RIGHT HERE.

SO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ALLOWED THE USE THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT.

WE WANT TO ALLOW A GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN THE USE OF OUR INDUSTRIAL ZONE LANDS.

INDUSTRIAL LAND AND DEVELOPMENT IS VITAL FOR OUR CITY.

AND SO WE WANT TO JUST HAVE A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY WHEN IT COMES TO WHERE THEY CAN LOCATE.

THERE'S NOT A LOT OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONED LAND, SO WE JUST WANTED TO ADD ANOTHER OPTION.

SO HERE'S AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.

IT'S GOING TO MODIFY THIS TABLE.

10-4030.05.0B FOR THE ALLOWED USES YOU SEE RIGHT HERE, MANUFACTURING PROCESSING HEAVY.

IT WAS ORIGINALLY NOT PERMITTED WHATSOEVER, AND NOW WE WOULD BE ALLOWING IT WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

THAT'S THE ONLY TEXT CHANGE THAT WE HAVE.

SO THESE ARE THE THREE FINDINGS THAT IT NEEDS TO MEET.

I JUST WANTED TO PUT THOSE UP THERE FOR EVERYONE TO LOOK AT THEM AND KEEP THEM IN MIND AS WE BEGIN A DISCUSSION IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT.

COMMISSIONER NORTON.

YES, THANK YOU. I JUST HAD.

TWO QUESTIONS ON THE USE TABLE.

COULD YOU JUST PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT THE P TWO AND THE P THREE IS? I KNOW IT DOESN'T RELATE TO THIS ONE PARTICULAR LIGHT ITEM THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND.

OH, YEAH, THAT THAT MEANT THOSE ARE DIFFERENT FOOTNOTES, SO I CAN PULL THOSE FOOTNOTES UP REALLY QUICKLY IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO.

LET ME GET THERE REAL QUICK.

ALL RIGHT, I'LL PULL THIS OVER.

SO THIS IS THE TABLE. SO THERE'S DIFFERENT FOOTNOTES, AS YOU CAN SEE.

AND SO TWO IS ABOUT OUTDOOR STORAGE SHALL BE SCREENED AND THREE HAS TO DO WITH A BUFFER RADIUS FOR EXISTING RESIDENTIAL USES.

GREAT. THANK YOU.

OF COURSE. AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION COMMENT I WAS READING IN THE STAFF REPORT, YOU KNOW, I CAN APPRECIATE WANTING TO BE ACCOMMODATING TO ONE OF OUR CURRENT BUSINESSES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY TO TO RETAIN THEM HERE AND KEEP THEM WITHIN CITY LIMITS.

IT SEEMED LIKE THIS IS COMING FORWARD BECAUSE OF SOMEBODY'S REQUEST TO FIND A PLACE TO MOVE TO.

I WAS JUST WONDERING, JUST AS AS AN EXAMPLE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN NAME THE BUSINESS OR THEIR BUSINESS TYPE, BUT I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD JUST SHARE LIKE WHAT THE BUSINESS TYPE IS THAT WANTS TO MOVE AND WHERE THEY MIGHT GO SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, BY EXAMPLE WHAT THE RAMIFICATIONS ARE WHEN SOMETHING THAT'S HEAVY INDUSTRIAL MOVES INTO AN AREA THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ZONED FOR ONLY LIGHT.

YES, OF COURSE.

TIFFANI HAS BEEN WORKING A LITTLE BIT WITH THE COMPANY.

TIFFANI, DO YOU MIND COMING IN AND TALKING ABOUT THAT? NO, NOT AT ALL.

SO, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE RECENTLY HAVE BEEN WORKING ON, COMMISSIONER NORTON, IS THE LONE TREE OVERPASS. AND IN THAT PROCESS, WE WILL NEED TO PURCHASE CERTAIN PROPERTIES WHICH INCLUDE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL USES.

SO THE USE IN QUESTION THAT WE NEED TO RELOCATE IS CURRENTLY NOW A LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE AND THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE.

IT IS A BATCH PLANT.

THAT BATCH PLANT IS SIGNIFICANTLY IMPORTANT TO FLAGSTAFF.

WITHOUT IT, IT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE COST OF ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY.

THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY JUST THE ONLY REASON FOR THIS REQUEST.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT WE DON'T HAVE A PROPOSED LOCATION AT THIS TIME, BUT WE THIS WILL ALLOW US A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY.

I'M NOT SURE IF YOU REMEMBER THE LAST HEAVY INDUSTRIAL REZONING WE DID.

WE ONLY HAVE BUT A HANDFUL OF PARCELS IN THAT ZONE.

AND SO THAT MAKES IT REALLY RESTRICTIVE AND WILL NEED US TO GO THROUGH A LOT MORE SIGNIFICANT PROCESS IN ORDER TO ALLOW THE MOVEMENT OF THAT USE.

IN THIS PROCESS, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WILL HAVE OVERSIGHT OF WHAT THAT LOCATION IS AND HOW IT WOULD FIT IN WITH THE SURROUNDING USES.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO OBVIOUSLY, WHEN THEY MOVE OR WHEN THEY PROPOSE TO MOVE, A CUP WOULD COME BEFORE US AT THAT TIME TO.

[00:35:04]

TO DISCUSS IT EVEN FURTHER.

THAT'S ON A CASE BY CASE.

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY? I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER HANDS RAISED.

THIS IS NOT A WE HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM AND NO ACTION IS REQUIRED.

THIS IS MAINLY AN INFORMATION SESSION FOR US FOR FOR THE NEXT HEARING.

CORRECT? YES.

OKAY. I'M NOT SURE.

DO WE CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IF IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM? YES, I THINK I THINK IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC HAS COMMENTS, WE COULD ENTERTAIN THOSE AT THIS POINT AS WELL.

OKAY, GREAT. I'LL ASK FOR THOSE NOW.

AND ALSO, I WANT TO APOLOGIZE BECAUSE IN THE LAST ITEM, I NEGLECTED TO CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

SO I HOPE I DIDN'T LEAVE ANYBODY OUT.

PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I DID.

BUT IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS? IF SO, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND OR.

OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY.

SO SINCE THERE'S NO ACTION CALLED FOR, I THINK WE'RE READY TO MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM UNDER GENERAL BUSINESS, WHICH IS ANOTHER

[B. Case No. PZ-22-00180: 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 term duplex (Section 10-80.20.040). STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: This will be presented as a work session. No action from Commission will be taken on this item.]

REQUEST FOR WORK SESSION FOR ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE.

GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSION.

CAN YOU HEAR ME? AND CAN YOU SEE MY SCREEN? YES AND YES.

PERFECT. MY NAME IS BEN MEJIA.

I'M A PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

WE HAVE A SECOND DISCUSSION ITEM FOR YOU TO CONSIDER TODAY.

THIS TIME, A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF DUPLEX.

TO BE SPECIFIC TO TWO ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS.

SO IN A 2020 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, THERE WAS A MODIFICATION TO THE DEFINITION OF DUPLEX TO INCLUDE WHAT WAS CONSIDERED A DETACHED DUPLEX.

AND THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON ONE LINE WOULD BE CONSIDERED A DETACHED DUPLEX.

AND THE THIS UNFORTUNATELY DIDN'T COME WITH ANY MODIFICATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CODE AND CREATED SOME INCONSISTENCIES THAT WE'RE HOPING TO ADDRESS WITH THIS MODIFICATION NOW.

SO THIS PROPOSAL IS TO REDEFINE THE TERM DUPLEX TO BE MORE IN LINE WITH HOW IT WAS PRIOR TO THAT 2020 AMENDMENT.

AND THAT WOULD CONNECT BACK TO THE REST OF THE CODE AND REESTABLISH THE INTERNAL CONSISTENCY THROUGHOUT THAT ZONING CODE.

AND THE FOLLOWING SLIDE, I HAVE THE PROPOSAL.

SO THE DEFINITION, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE ARE REMOVING ANY MENTION OF ATTACHED OR DETACHED BECAUSE NOW IT WILL ONLY BE INHERENTLY ATTACHED TO STRUCTURES AND THEN WE'LL SEE THAT A DUPLEX WOULD BE FRONT AND BACK, SIDE AND SIDE TO SIDE OR STACKED.

SO THAT WOULD BE HOW WE WOULD DEFINE DUPLEX.

AND FOR THIS AMENDMENT HERE, THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FINDING ONE WOULD BE THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH AND CONFORMS TO THE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ANY APPLICABLE SPECIFIC PLAN.

NUMBER TWO, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE OR WELFARE OF THE CITY.

AND THREE, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INTERNALLY CONSISTENT WITH OTHER APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THIS ZONING CODE.

SO AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A WORK SESSION DISCUSSION ITEM.

SO WE'RE NOT GOING INTO THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR THE FINDINGS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO THE COMMISSION TO HEAR ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR IF YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING TO MAKE A VOTE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND I'LL DO MY BEST TO PROVIDE THAT.

[00:40:04]

OH, THANKS, BEN. COMMISSIONER HARRIS.

YES, I JUST DID HAVE ONE QUESTION.

WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ATTACHED DUPLEX AND AN ATTACHED ADU? HOW THOSE MIGHT DIFFER? RIGHT. WELL, COMMISSIONER HARRIS, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADU AND A DWELLING WOULD BE GENERALLY THAT MAYBE YOU WOULD NEED TO MEET ADU STANDARDS IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED AN ADU.

SO IT'S NOT INHERENTLY THAT IT'S A SPECIFIC SIZE, BUT IT WOULD BE IT WOULD FOLLOW THOSE STANDARDS.

AND ALSO IT DOES NOT COUNT TOWARDS THE THE DWELLING OR THE DENSITY COUNT.

SO THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AN ADU AND A DWELLING.

AND THAT'S HOW WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT THAT.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YEAH, I KNOW THIS DOESN'T COMPLETELY RELATE.

I WAS JUST KIND OF CURIOUS IF THERE WAS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO HOW ONE MIGHT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CLASSIFICATION OR THE USE.

RIGHT. AND I MEAN, IN TERMS OF CREATING A DWELLING, YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO TELL VISUALLY, BUT MAYBE YOU IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED NATIVE, YOU WOULD NEED TO MEET TWO SPECIFIC STANDARDS AND IT WOULD ALSO THE COVENANT AND BE CONSIDERED AND PROCESSED AS AN IDEA.

OKAY. THANK YOU. HELLO.

THANK YOU. CAN I HAVE A QUICK FOLLOW UP TO COMMISSIONER HARRIS'S QUESTION? SO IF SOMEBODY WAS WANTING TO ADD A UNIT ONTO THEIR PROPERTY, IT WOULD BE VERY CLEAR TO THEM WHICH THEY WOULD BE REQUESTING.

IT'S TO PERMIT EITHER A APPROVE, EITHER A ADU OR A OR A DUPLEX.

IS THAT WOULD YOU SAY THAT'S TRUE THEN? THAT CLARIFICATION WOULD BE NEEDED IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS.

AN ADU WOULD BE A POSSIBILITY WHERE YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE A DUPLEX.

SO THOSE DENSITY CALCULATIONS ARE WOULD NEED TO BE MET FOR IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A DUPLEX, IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO SINGLE, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON A SINGLE ON A LOT, THEN THE SAME WE WOULD NEED TO MEET THAT DENSITY CALCULATION WHERE THAT WOULDN'T APPLY TO AN ADU.

OKAY. THANK YOU. WE WOULD NEED THEM TO CLARIFY.

I APOLOGIZE. OKAY.

I'M JUST GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ASK ANOTHER QUESTION.

COMMISSIONER NORTON, I SEE YOU THERE, TOO.

BUT I REMEMBER THIS ZONING CODE ITEM COMING IN, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER WHY IT WAS CHANGED AT THE TIME.

I WAS JUST WONDERING IF YOU CAN GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY AND ALSO IF YOU CAN GIVE AN EXAMPLE OR YOU MENTIONED INCONSISTENCIES YOU ARE RUNNING INTO BECAUSE OF THAT NOT BEING DEFINED. AND I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OF THAT.

ABSOLUTELY SO. SO, UNFORTUNATELY, I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE REASON WHY THIS AMENDMENT OF THE 2020 AMENDMENT WAS MADE TO THE TO THE DUPLEX.

IT WAS INCLUDED IN QUITE A LARGE SERIES OF AMENDMENTS OR A SUITE OF AMENDMENTS IN ONE ORDINANCE.

AND I WASN'T ABLE TO KIND OF FIGURE OUT THE EXACT INTENT BEHIND THE CHANGE OF THE DUPLEX DEFINITION.

BUT WE CAN SPEAK TO THE INCONSISTENCIES CREATED WHERE IN PARTS OF THE ZONING CODE, PERHAPS A SPECIFIC CASE WOULD BE IN THE PARKING PORTION OF THE CODE WHERE WE STILL REFERENCE TO SINGLE FAMILIES ON A LOT.

SO IT SAYS ONE.

FOR THE SECOND SINGLE FAMILY ON THE LOT, WHICH IF YOU'VE CHANGED THE DEFINITION FOR THAT TO BE CONSIDERED A DUPLEX, A SPECIFICALLY DETACHED DUPLEX, THEN THEN THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AMENDED AS WELL.

DOES THAT GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT? I THINK SO. MORE.

AND YOU AND YOU FOUND THAT IT JUST MADE MORE SENSE TO GO BACK TO HAVING THE KIND OF TRADITIONAL DUPLEX AS ATTACHED UNIT RATHER THAN TRYING TO ADJUST THE, YOU KNOW, FURTHER ADD ON TO THAT PREVIOUS CHANGE SOUNDS LIKE.

RIGHT AND SO THAT.

SO RATHER THAN KIND OF DOUBLING DOWN ON THE CONCEPT OF A DETACHED DUPLEX THE RESTORATION OF THE

[00:45:01]

DEFINITION DOES JUST IS A LITTLE BIT MORE LOGICAL THERE THERE ARE SOME OTHER CHANGES OR RATHER.

MAKING THIS MODIFICATION HAS A RESULT OF HOW WE READ THE CODE IN REGARDS TO A SECOND SINGLE FAMILY ON THE LOT THAT WHERE WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR A DUPLEX WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR A TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOT PROPOSAL, LOOKING FOR A SHORTER WAY OF SAYING, BUT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WOULD FALL BACK IN LINE WITH HOW WE WOULD LOOK AT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A SECOND SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

AND THAT'S HOW WE WOULD VIEW IT IN THE CODE.

OKAY, THAT'S GREAT.

AND THEN ONE MORE QUICK QUESTION.

DO WE SEE A LOT OF KIND OF DUPLEXES COMING THROUGH IN FLAGSTAFF? I'M SORRY. YOU SAID DUPLEX.

DO YOU MEAN, I GUESS THE DETACHED DUPLEX OR.

. WELL, I GUESS I'M CURIOUS ABOUT BOTH IF I ALWAYS THINK DUPLEXES ARE ARE JUST GREAT.

BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF PEOPLE WERE SORT OF BUILDING THEM SO MUCH ANYMORE.

I'M WONDERING IF YOU SEE A LOT OF THEM COME THROUGH OR VERY MANY OR ANY.

RIGHT AND I DON'T HAVE A LIKE A WHATEVER 10,000 FOOT VIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN FLAGSTAFF, UNFORTUNATELY.

BUT WE HAVE SEEN CERTAINLY SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE ABOUT ABOUT SEVEN MONTHS, I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN THREE OR FOUR DETACHED DUPLEX OR SECOND SINGLE FAMILY ON LOT PROPOSALS SO THAT IT'S NOT DONE BUT IT MIGHT NOT BE THE MOST COMMON DEVELOPMENT TYPE.

YEAH, THAT'S MY IMPRESSION.

IT SEEMS LIKE KIND OF AN OLDER MODEL, BUT A COOL ONE.

ANYWAY, I'LL MOVE TO COMMISSIONER NORTON.

YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I DO IT AND IT KIND OF TAGS ON TO EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAD ASKED, WHICH IS WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR, WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE BACKGROUND DETAILS ON WHY THIS WAS CHANGED IN 2020 AND WHAT THE PROBLEMS IT CREATED WITH REGARD TO WHAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REPORT WAS ABOUT ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUEST PARKING.

SO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE YOU CAN I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT ALSO IN THAT SAME LIGHT, LIKE IN THE TEN YEAR HOUSING REPORT, YOU KNOW, THE DUPLEXES AND THAT TYPE OF PRODUCT WAS SORT OF THE MISSING MIDDLE THAT WAS IDENTIFIED THAT WE NEEDED MORE OF.

AND I WONDER IF THIS REVERTING BACK TO THIS DEFINITION, DOES THAT HELP THAT SITUATION? DOES IT HINDER IT? I READ A LOT ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUES, OBVIOUSLY, THAT ARE EVERYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY.

AND FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S A DEVELOPER UP IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST THAT IS PROMOTING AND A REAL PROPONENT FOR BUILDING TWO HOMES ON ONE LOT AND NOT IN A NOT NECESSARILY AN ADU SITUATION.

AND SO I JUST WONDER BY DEFINITION, WHEN WE KEEP CHANGING THESE DEFINITIONS, ARE WE ARE WE KEEPING ALL DOORS OPEN TO NEW TECHNOLOGY AND NEW DEFINITIONS IN BUILDING THAT STARTS TO SERVE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS? SO I GUESS TWOFOLD THERE.

YOU KNOW, DOES THIS HELP OUR EFFORTS FOR HOUSING? AND SECONDLY, MAYBE COULD YOU, IF POSSIBLE, EXPAND A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT HAPPENED WITH ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUEST PARKING ISSUES UNDER THIS OLDER DEFINITION? RIGHT. SO SO I WOULD SAY THAT IN PROVIDING THE ADDITIONAL FLEXIBILITY THAT'S CREATED BY BY THIS MODIFICATION, THAT YOU REMOVE SOME OF THE POTENTIAL HURDLES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARTICULAR STYLE, OF DEVELOPMENT OF HAVING A SECOND HOME ON A LOT.

AND. WELL, I CAN'T SAY THAT THAT WILL NECESSARILY SOLVE THE HOUSING CRISIS.

IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A SILVER BULLET.

I DON'T SEE THAT THAT WOULD BE A HARM.

AND I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE A HELPFUL TOOL TO HAVE IN THAT KIND OF ADDRESSING THAT CRISIS.

OKAY. I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE LEAVING ALL OF OUR CODE AND DEFINITIONS OPEN TO BEING ACCEPTING OF NEW IDEAS AND TECHNOLOGIES, YOU KNOW, THAT ARE HAPPENING IN OTHER AREAS OF THE COUNTRY.

[00:50:01]

THAT MIGHT ALSO WORK FOR US HERE IN FLAGSTAFF.

THANKS. I THINK THE SORT OF ANSWERED MY QUESTION, BUT I APPRECIATE YOU EXPANDING ON IT.

AND YOU I BELIEVE YOU ALSO HAD A SECOND QUESTION.

AND FORGIVE ME, I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS.

BUT YOU MIGHT ASK. YEAH, SURE.

IT WAS MORE, I GUESS, A LITTLE, IF POSSIBLE, A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON THE ISSUES THAT AROSE.

YOU SPECIFICALLY WAS MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THERE WERE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND GUEST PARKING ISSUES THAT CAME UP UNDER THIS CHANGE THAT BECAME PROBLEMATIC. IS THERE ANY FURTHER EXPLANATION OR EXAMPLES OF HOW THAT CREATED A PROBLEM? SURE. YEAH. SO IN THE 2020 MODIFICATION OF THIS DEFINITION.

IT BECAME THE TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON ONE LOT, BECAME A DUPLEX, AND THERE WERE REQUIRED TO MEET THE SAME STANDARDS THAT A DUPLEX WOULD AND IN THAT ARE THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS.

SO THE MATERIALS AND DESIGN ELEMENTS OF THE BUILDING WOULD BE THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET WHICH WOULDN'T ISN'T REQUIRED FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

SO WE'D BE ADDING THAT REQUIREMENT OR WE HAVE BEEN ADDING THAT REQUIREMENT TO WHAT IS CURRENTLY A DETACHED DUPLEX PROPOSAL AND SIMILARLY WITH THE PARKING.

SO IF UNDER THE UNDER THE DEFINITION OF A DETACHED DUPLEX, YOU WOULD HAVE TO PARK IT AS A DUPLEX, WHICH DOES INCLUDE GUEST PARKING.

SO IT TYPICALLY REQUIRES AN ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE THAT WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED IF YOU LOOK AT IT AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

SO IT WAS INCREASING THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN STANDARDS AND INCREASING THE PARKING NEEDS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF A DETACHED DUPLEX. RIGHT.

SO YOU WERE YOU WERE MEETING OR YOU WOULD BE MEETING DUPLEX STANDARDS WITH YOUR PROPOSAL OF A SECOND SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? THERE ARE NO. IS THERE ANYTHING FROM THE PUBLIC WITH THE PUBLIC TO MAKE ANY COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING.

AND THERE IS NO ACTION REQUIRED FROM US AT THIS TIME.

WE'LL SEE THIS AGAIN AS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.

AND SO THAT WAS THE LAST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA.

[8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO/FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS]

DO WE HAVE ANYTHING TO OR FROM THE COMMISSION? NO HANDS. OH, I MEANT TO RAISE MY HAND, BUT I UNMUTED.

I HAVE SOMETHING.

UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO SPEAK.

GO. GO FOR IT.

UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS JANUARY 3RD.

STAFF WENT BEFORE COUNCIL TO GET TWO NEW APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

WE GOT ONE NEW APPOINTMENT.

UM, I THINK IT'S MICHELLE.

I'M NOT.

I THOUGHT SHE HAD JOINED EARLIER.

ANYWAY, WE GOT ONE NEW COMMISSIONER WHO FINISHED THE REQUIRED TRAINING FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE EARLIER THIS WEEK AND WILL MOST LIKELY BE JOINING US AT OUR NEXT MEETING.

SO THAT'S VERY EXCITING.

WE DID NOT GET A SECOND PERSON APPOINTED YET.

COUNCIL ASKED THAT THEY THEY GET THEY GATHER SOME MORE APPLICATIONS.

SO COMMISSIONER ALEX MARTINEZ HAS AGREED TO CONTINUE ATTENDING MEETINGS UNTIL THAT POSITION IS FILLED.

SO I JUST WANT TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW THE STATUS OF THAT COMMISSIONER.

I SPOKE WITH COMMISSIONER LLOYD PAUL.

WHO HIS.

HIS TERM HAS EXPIRED AND HE ASKED THAT I PLEASE PASS ALONG HIS WELL WISHES TO THE COMMISSION AND THAT HE REALLY ENJOYED HIMSELF.

SO AND I JUST WANT TO PUBLICLY THANK HIM FOR FOR HIS SERVICE.

HE DID SUCH A GREAT JOB.

[00:55:01]

SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

SO, ALEX, MY ONLY COMMENT WOULD BE I NEVER MET LLOYD IN PERSON.

I KNOW. SO ARE WE EVER GOING TO GET BACK TO IN-PERSON MEETINGS? I HOPE SO.

RIGHT NOW, THE DIRECTION I'VE BEEN GIVEN IS THAT IF WE ARE GOING TO MEET IN PERSON, WE NEED TO PROVIDE A VIRTUAL OPTION.

THAT CAN BE A BIG ASK OF STAFF BECAUSE IT'S IT'S ESSENTIALLY RUNNING TWO MEETINGS SIMULTANEOUSLY.

FOR EXAMPLE, TODAY IT'S JUST ME, BECKY, BECKY, LUCKY BECKY GOT TO GO ON VACATION.

SO BUT I'M WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

I DEFINITELY ENJOY BEING ABLE TO MEET IN PERSON AND I THINK A LOT OF TIMES IT, I FEEL LIKE THERE'S PERHAPS MORE DYNAMIC CONVERSATIONS WHEN WE'RE ALL IN THE SAME ROOM WITH THE APPLICANTS, WITH THE PUBLIC.

SO WE'LL SEE.

HOPEFULLY, HOPEFULLY WE CAN MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION.

AND I KNOW I'VE BEEN PROMISING SOME SORT OF SOCIAL GATHERING FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

THIS IS WHY IT TOOK ME LIKE THREE YEARS TO HAVE A HOUSEWARMING PARTY WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOUSE.

SO BEAR WITH ME.

ALEX, THIS IS MARY NORTON.

I WAS SPEAKING WITH ROBERT WALLACE FOR OPEN SPACES TODAY, AND HE MENTIONED THAT YOU AND MICHELLE ARE PROBABLY JOINING US IN OPEN SPACES MEETING FOR FEBRUARY TO TALK ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANKS FOR SIGNING UP FOR THAT.

AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING YOU EXPLAIN THE PROCESS TO TO THAT COMMISSION.

GREAT. THANK YOU.

WELL, THANKS FOR THAT.

AND I GUESS THAT CONCLUDES OUR MEETING.

SO WE WILL ADJOURN.

THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING AND THANK YOU FOR THE GOOD QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.

THANK YOU ALL.

THANK YOU, EVERYONE.

HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. THANKS, EVERYONE.

[INAUDIBLE] YOU IN TWO WEEKS?

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.