[1. CALL TO ORDER NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the Commission and to the general public that, at this work session, the Commission may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the Commission’s attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).]

PURSUANT TO ARS38-43102 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION AND TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC THAT AT THIS WORK SESSION THE COMMISSION MAY VOTE TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH WILL NOT BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

WE'D GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR LEGAL ADVICE AND DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMISSION'S ATTORNEYS ON ANY ITEM LISTED ON THE ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA. PURSUANT TO ARS38-431.03A3.

[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 MARCHELL CAMP DR. RICARDO GUTHRIE BOB HARRIS, III MARY NORTON IAN SHARP ]

AT THIS TIME WE CAN DO ROLL CALL.

OKAY. AT THIS TIME ANY MEMBER.

[3. PUBLIC COMMENT At this time, any member of the public may address the Commission on any subject within their jurisdiction that is not scheduled before the Commission on that day. Due to Open Meeting Laws, the Commission cannot discuss or act on items presented during this portion of the agenda. 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.]

SO THIS IS THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

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

THAT IS NOT SCHEDULED BEFORE THE COMMISSION 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 AN AGENDA ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE WAIT FOR ME TO CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE TIME THE ITEM IS HEARD.

IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANYTHING THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY? HEARING AND SEEING NONE.

I WILL MOVE ON TO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 23RD, 2023.

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on Wednesday, August 23, 2023.]

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER OR AUGUST 23RD.

I'LL SECOND IT. SO IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

ANY DISCUSSION.

OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES.

[A. Capstone Homes requests Preliminary Plat approval for Timber Sky - Block 5 located at 3345 W McAllister Ranch Rd, a 101-lot single-family subdivision on 17.84 acres in the MR (Medium-Density Residential) Zone. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission, in accordance with the findings presented in this report, forward the Preliminary Plat to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. ]

WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARING.

ITEM A IS FOR CAPSTONE HOMES REQUESTS A PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR TIMBER SKY BLOCK FIVE LOCATED AT 3345 WEST MCALLISTER RANCH ROAD.

IT'S A 101 LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION ON 17.84 ACRES IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE.

THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS BEN MEJIA.

I'M A PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TODAY WE DO HAVE A PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST.

ACTUALLY, WE HAVE TWO IN A ROW, BUT WE'LL BE PRESENTING THEM SEPARATELY, BUT FOR THIS ONE WE HAVE PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST FOR TIMBER SKY BLOCK FIVE FILED BY CAPSTONE HOMES AT 3345 WEST MCALLISTER RANCH ROAD.

THE PROPOSAL IS FOR A SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION TO CREATE 101 SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOTS ON 17.84 ACRES IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE.

THIS IS ALSO WITHIN THE RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY.

STAFF APPROVED THE PRELIMINARY PLAT AND IDS ON AUGUST 10TH.

THE LOCATION IS SITUATED AT THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF TIMBER SKY DEVELOPMENT AREA.

TO THE NORTH IS BLOCK SEVEN B, WHICH IS IN THE R-1 ZONE.

AS WELL AS A PORTION OF 3B, WHICH IS IN THE MR ZONE TO THE SOUTH IS INTERSTATE 40.

TO THE WEST IS BLOCK SIX, WHICH WE'LL BE DISCUSSING AT THE NEXT ITEM, AND TO THE EAST IS BLOCK FOUR IN THE R-1 ZONE.

TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, THIS IS A PROCESS THAT STARTED IN 2016 WITH THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AND ANNEXATION AND WITH A RANGE, A PROPOSED RANGE OF 910 UNITS TO 1300 UNITS, AND THIS IS.

[00:05:08]

BETWEEN BLOCKS FIVE AND SIX.

THIS WILL BE KIND OF CULMINATING PHASES TWO AND THREE FOR THE SUBDIVISIONS.

THIS IS A PROPOSAL TO BRING 101 LOTS.

SINGLE FAMILY LOTS TO THE MARKET WITH CONNECTION PROPOSED FROM MCALLISTER RANCH ROAD.

WE HAVE BUILDING ENVELOPES USED FOR RESOURCE PROTECTION AND TRACTS HOLDING CORNER LOTS TO PREVENT THE REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL SETBACKS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE REQUIRED FOR CORNER LOTS.

THIS IS FAIRLY TYPICAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREA.

WE ALSO HAVE A RANGE OF LOTS PROPOSED.

THIS IS SOME ARE AROUND 4500FT², RANGING TO 10,500FT².

THIS IS A PRD OR A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH ALLOWS FOR MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE LOT, SIZE AND DIMENSIONS. THE TYPICAL DIMENSIONS ARE 50 TO 90 OR 50FT BY 90FT, AND AS WE STATED EARLIER, THE PRD USE TYPE IS GOING TO BE T4N.2, AND SO THE PROPOSAL CONFORMS TO THAT TRANSECT ZONE.

THIS IS IN THE RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY.

THE REQUIRED RESOURCE PROTECTION FOR TIMBER SKY IS 47.5 FOR THIS PROPOSAL.

THEY'RE MEETING 54% ON THIS BLOCK, AND THE PROPOSAL DOES CONFORM LARGELY SUBSTANTIALLY WITH THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE AND UTILIZES T4N.2 STANDARDS.

THERE IS ONE AREA THAT WE SHOULD ADDRESS, WHICH IS THE DENSITY.

THE RANGE OF A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE IS 6 TO 9 ACRES UNITS PER ACRE AND THE PROPOSAL WILL BRING 5.66 UNITS PER ACRE.

THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE TIMBER SKY DEVELOPMENT AREA DOES ALLOW FOR THE TRANSFER OF DENSITY AND SO THAT DEFICIT WOULD NEED TO BE MADE UP ELSEWHERE IN THE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA, AND THE LOTS ARE DESIGNED ONCE AGAIN WITH BUILDING ENVELOPES TO MEET THOSE RESOURCE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS.

I REALIZE THAT I GAVE YOU SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A LITTLE EARLIER, SO I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT WE ALSO HAVE HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCE WHICH WERE CLEARED WHEN THIS ORIGINALLY CAME IN FOR THE LARGER DEVELOPMENT AREA.

SO NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ARE MADE FOR THIS BLOCK IN PARTICULAR, AND THE OPEN SPACE AND AMENITY AREAS WERE PROVIDED ELSEWHERE IN THE TIMBER SKY DEVELOPMENT LARGELY ON [INAUDIBLE] TRACTS THAT PROVIDES THE COMMUNITY CENTER AND PICNIC AREAS.

SIDEWALKS ARE PROVIDED THROUGHOUT THE SUBDIVISION.

WE HAVE CONFORMANCE WITH THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS.

SINCE THIS IS A LARGER SITE, THE TIA WAS DONE WITH THE ORIGINAL REZONING AND NO ADDITIONAL TIA WAS REQUIRED FOR THIS SUBDIVISION.

ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPOSAL IS MEETING THE EIGHT INCH WATERLINE AND SEWER LINE REQUIREMENTS.

THEY ARE ALSO PROVIDING ON-LOT LIDS, ALTHOUGH THERE IS A DETENTION MET REGIONALLY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AREA.

THIS PROPOSAL MEETS THE PRELIMINARY PLOT PROCEDURES AND APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS MINIMUM SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE LOT STREET EASEMENT AND BLOCK DESIGN.

STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE, SUBDIVISION CODE AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION FORWARD THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT TO COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, AND WE ALSO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. OKAY.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? YES. SO, BEN, ON THE DENSITY WHEN IT COMES IN A LITTLE LOWER AND I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, I THINK A YEAR AGO, I THINK IT WAS ALSO A

[00:10:03]

CAPSTONE PLAT, AND THERE'S ONLY A FEW PARCELS LEFT IN TIMBER SKY.

WHERE IS THAT DENSITY GOING TO BE MADE UP? I KNOW. I THINK THE ANSWER TO MY QUESTION LAST YEAR WAS STAFF KEEPS TRACK OF WHERE THE DENSITY IS.

WHERE DOES WHERE DO YOU THINK THAT'LL END UP BEING MADE UP? WELL, I CAN'T SAY DEFINITIVELY, BUT I WILL SAY THAT WE ARE TRACKING THE DENSITY AND IF BLOCKS ONE AND TWO DEVELOP AS PROPOSED, WE WILL ACTUALLY HAVE A SMALL SURPLUS, SO TO SPEAK, FOR THE DENSITY MOVING INTO PHASE FOUR.

THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I DID. I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT.

THE LID BIO-RETENTION STORMWATER THOSE LITTLE SQUARES ON THE PLAT.

THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER SEEN THOSE.

CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THOSE? MY ABILITY TO EXPLAIN THE LIDS ARE FAIRLY LIMITED, BUT IT IS SOMEWHAT TYPICAL FOR THE TIMBER SKY DEVELOPMENT AREA TO PROVIDE ON-LOT LIDS.

PERHAPS THE APPLICANT CAN GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THOSE.

DO YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THEM? NO, I JUST KIND OF WONDERED HOW THEY WORKED AND I'D NEVER SEEN THOSE BEFORE, AND I NOTICED THE OTHER PLOT THAT IS IN THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM DOESN'T HAVE THOSE.

SO I JUST WONDERED IF THAT WAS DUE TO THE SOIL TYPE OR THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THAT PARTICULAR BLOCK, OR JUST MORE CURIOUS AS TO HOW THAT HOW THAT WORKED AND IF AND HOW THOSE AND I SAW THAT IT WAS PUT INTO THE DA THAT THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION HAS TO MAINTAIN THOSE, AND I WONDERED HOW THE LOGISTICS OF THAT WORKED AS WELL.

YEAH. THANK YOU. I CAN SEE IF THE APPLICANT MIGHT HAVE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SHED LIGHT ON THAT.

JOHN YOU KNOW, I ALWAYS HAVE QUESTIONS.

JOHN SUTHERLAND.

I'M WITH CAPSTONE HOMES REPRESENTING THE OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY TODAY.

YEAH, THE ON LOT LID IS REALLY DESIGNED AS A PART OF THE OVERALL DRAINAGE.

SO THERE ARE LET'S SAY SMALLER BASINS WITHIN THESE PARCELS, WITHIN TIMBER SKY.

WE'VE HAD THEM IN, I THINK EVERY PARCEL OR EVERY BLOCK THAT WE'VE DONE IN TIMBER SKY SEVEN B, THREE B, FOUR, NOW FIVE AND SIX. THEY ARE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ON THE LOTS THEMSELVES AND THEY WILL BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS, NOT THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

WHEREAS THE BASINS THAT YOU SEE IN THE CHANNEL ON THE KIND OF THE WEST EDGE OF PARCELS OR PHASES ONE AND TWO, THAT IS HOA MAINTAINED.

SO THOSE BASINS ARE PRETTY SMALL.

THEY'RE DESIGNED AS LIKE A I DON'T WANT TO SAY A SUPPLEMENT, BUT PART OF THE OVERALL DRAINAGE SYSTEM NORMALLY LOCATED ON THE DOWNHILL SIDE OF THE LOT TO KIND OF COLLECT THE RAINWATER, THAT KIND OF HITS THE LOT.

SO IS IT LIKE A LITTLE DRAIN IN THE BACK, THE BACK CORNER OF THE LOT? YEAH, I GUESS YOU COULD DESCRIBE IT AS A MINI DETENTION BASIN.

SO INSTEAD OF A LARGE ONE THAT YOU SEE IN MOST COMMUNITIES.

YOU'LL SEE THESE IN KIND OF A BACKYARD, MAYBE NOT EVEN RECOGNIZING THEM AFTER A WHILE THAT THEY ARE FOR DETENTION PURPOSES.

SO ARE THOSE ON EVERY LOT OR JUST SOME LOTS? I WANT TO SAY THEY'RE ON EVERY LOT.

YEAH, I THINK THAT WAS THE WAY IT WAS DESIGNED INITIALLY THAT THEY WOULD GO ON EVERY LOT AND THERE ARE SPECIFIC DEPTH AND SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE.

SO I WORK AS A CIVIL ENGINEER AND I KNOW A LOT OF TIMES AGENCIES DON'T LIKE TO SEE THAT, AND THE REASON IS IT'S HARD TO ENFORCE TEN YEARS FROM NOW.

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MAINTAIN THAT? SO I'M CURIOUS, DOES THE HOA HAVE THAT RESPONSIBILITY AND GOING IN THERE AND MAKING SURE THAT THOSE ARE MAINTAINED? NO, IT'S TOTALLY ON THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE BUYER OF THAT LOT AND IT IS DISCLOSED OR TALKED ABOUT IN THE PUBLIC REPORT DOCUMENTS THAT WE GIVE TO BUYERS.

THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

YEAH, THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION, TOO.

SO 20 YEARS FROM NOW, A NEW HOMEOWNER BUYS THE LOT AND DOESN'T CLEARLY READ THAT.

HOW IS IT? HOW DO YOU MAINTAIN IT? AND WHAT HAPPENS IF A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T? YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY ON THAT COMES, BUT IT WOULD BE PART OF THE DESIGN AND THE LOCATION OF THOSE ON THE LOT WILL ULTIMATELY BE DETERMINED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT.

SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S GRAPHICALLY SHOWN HERE, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY EXACTLY WHERE IT'S GOING TO WIND UP.

SO I GUESS THAT IS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION THAT'S ALLOWED ON THAT LOT AS WELL AS THEIR HOUSE AND EVERYTHING ELSE, RIGHT?

[00:15:08]

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MEANS THAT IT COMES BACK TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

IF SOMETHING OCCURS, THAT LID IS NOT MAINTAINED IN THE LONG TERM.

YEAH, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE MY WORRY THAT IF THERE WERE A LOT OF HOMEOWNERS THAT DIDN'T MAINTAIN IT, WHAT HAPPENS? IN CASE OF A FLOOD.

YEAH, IT'S KIND OF THE IT FALLS INTO SORT OF THE SAME CATEGORY AS SOME OTHER DRAINAGE, LET'S SAY THAT OCCURS. SO YOU MIGHT HAVE THE STORMWATER THAT GOES FROM ONE LOT TO ANOTHER JUST BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY.

SO THERE IS NO LANGUAGE THERE.

AGAIN, IN THE PUBLIC REPORTS AND ALL THAT ABOUT SOMEBODY CAN'T DAM THAT UP EITHER.

SO IT'S KIND OF PART OF THAT OVERALL DRAINAGE REQUIREMENT OF A HOMEOWNER THAT BUYS A LOT THAT THEY CAN'T CHANGE THAT WITHOUT GETTING PRIOR APPROVAL, OF COURSE, BUT IS IT POSSIBLE THAT SOMEBODY WOULD? YES. I MEAN, WHO KNOWS WHAT PEOPLE MIGHT DO, BUT WE TRY TO TAKE THE STEPS UP FRONT TO SAY THIS IS AS MUCH A PART OF YOUR HOME, YOUR LOT AS ANYTHING ELSE THAT IS LIKE YOUR DRIVEWAY.

YOU CAN'T JUST KIND OF CHANGE THAT.

IT'S PART OF YOUR DRAINAGE SYSTEM FOR YOUR HOME, FOR THE COMMUNITY IN GENERAL.

SO WHY GO THAT WAY INSTEAD OF HAVING A COMMUNITY, SOME OTHER--WHY CAN'T I THINK OF THE--DRAINAGE? RIGHT. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION, AND THAT DECISION WAS DONE WELL BEFORE CAPSTONE EVEN BOUGHT INTO TIMBER SKY . I THINK IT WAS PART OF THE ORIGINAL DRAINAGE IDEA FOR THE OVERALL COMMUNITY.

LIKE I SAID, YOU'LL SEE THAT IN OTHER PARCELS WITHIN TIMBER SKY, EXISTING PARCELS WITH HOMES ON THEM PROPOSED AND THEN WE HAVE SOME UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS WELL, AND I THINK IT WAS WHEN THEY LOOKED AT THE DRAINAGE, THEY SAID, OKAY, WE HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO SOME OF THIS ON THE LOTS BECAUSE IF IT WASN'T, THERE WOULD BE LARGER SWATHS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE BIGGER DETENTION BASINS.

SO I THINK IT WAS JUST A DIFFERENCE IN DESIGN PHILOSOPHY FROM THE CIVIL ENGINEERING LEVEL THAT ORIGINALLY OCCURRED ON TIMBER SKY.

YEAH, AND MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE IS WHAT YOU'RE DOING, BUT.

THEN I WORRY ABOUT LONG TERM EFFECT BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THE BIG DRAINAGE DITCHES LIKE ON CEDAR OR FOREST, WHATEVER IT IS AT THAT POINT.

THOSE ARE LIKE.

THE UGLIEST THING IN THE WORLD.

SO I APPRECIATE THAT YOU'RE DOING THIS.

I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GOING TO BE.

SURE, SOME OF THESE WILL BE, LET'S SAY, EVEN HIDDEN BEHIND FENCES OR LET'S SAY LANDSCAPING THAT'S AROUND THEM.

YOU MAY NOT EVEN SEE THEM, WHEREAS THE BIGGER DETENTION BASINS, OBVIOUSLY YOU DO.

ALL RIGHT, MARY, YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

I JUST HAD ANOTHER QUESTION.

IS THIS THE SAME PRODUCT THAT YOU'RE BUILDING AT ADORA THAT YOU CAME TO US LAST YEAR ON? IT'S GOING TO BE.

YES, SIMILAR TO PARCEL THREE B.

IT'S THAT LOT SIZE WHICH WE HAVEN'T.

WE HAVEN'T STARTED BUILDING HOMES ON THREE B YET.

WE'VE BROKEN GROUND ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT THERE.

SO WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SEWER UTILITY INSTALLATION.

SO THAT'S THIS WILL BE KIND OF A CARRYOVER.

THE NEXT STEP AFTER THREE B.

THREE B IS ONLY 39 LOTS.

SO WITH ANY LUCK, WE'LL SELL THROUGH THAT QUICKLY AND BE ABLE TO SAME SAME FLOOR PLANS.

I REMEMBER WHEN YOU WERE HERE LAST YEAR AND THE PRODUCT HADN'T REALLY BEEN FINE TUNED AS FAR AS GARAGES AND IS THERE A DRIVEWAY, PARKING AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND HAS THAT BEEN DETERMINED? YEAH, I WOULD SAY WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THAT.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING WE COULD REALLY PRESENT TO YOU RIGHT NOW, BUT WE'RE GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

ALSO WITH BLOCK SIX THAT YOU'LL SEE HERE IN A MINUTE.

SAME THING. WE'RE KIND OF WORKING THROUGH IT.

WE HAVE A ROUGH IDEA, AND I THINK GENERALLY, YES, YOU COULD SAY IT WILL LOOK SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU'VE SEEN CAPSTONE BUILD IN TIMBER SKY ALREADY.

I WOULD I WOULD MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT MOST OF THESE ARE GOING TO BE TWO STORY HOMES, BUT WILL THERE BE SOME ONE STORY SCATTERED? IT'S JUST THE LOT SIZE.

YEAH. I MEAN, WE'LL HAVE A COMBINATION OF BOTH.

I CAN'T REALLY TELL YOU WHAT THE MIX WOULD BE AT THIS TIME TWO STORY VERSUS A SINGLE STORY, BUT WE WILL OFFER BOTH.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

SO ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS? MARIE. OKAY.

[00:20:01]

DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION FOR US AT ALL? OH, I BELIEVE MARIE HAS A COMMENT.

OH, I THOUGHT SHE WAVED LIKE NO.

OH, NO. OKAY, GO AHEAD.

NEVER MIND. IT'S MUTED.

THANK YOU. I THOUGHT YOU WERE.

NEVER MIND. ALL GOOD.

OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION AT THIS TIME? I DON'T. I YOU KNOW, TO ME THIS IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD KIND OF THE NEXT STEP.

WE'VE ALL KIND OF SEEN THE OVERALL PRE-PLAT FOR TIMBER SKY.

SO THIS IS PRETTY MUCH IN CONFORMANCE WITH THAT.

OKAY, AND IS THERE ANY...

SO THIS IS THE TIME THAT I WOULD ASK FOR COMMUNITY.

IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT HAS ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? HEARING NONE.

DOES SOMEBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? I CAN GO TO A MOTION, RIGHT? YEAH. SO SINCE THERE WAS NO PUBLIC COMMENT, SO.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION.

I MOVE THAT WE.

THAT WE MOVE THIS FORWARD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS.

THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR CAPSTONE HOMES TIMBER SKY BLOCK FIVE.

IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT.

OKAY. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AMONGST COMMISSIONERS OR ANY QUESTIONS? MORE QUESTIONS.

HEARING NONE. I'LL TAKE A VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR. SAY AYE.

AYE.I.

OPPOSED. THE MOTION PASSES AND DID WE HAVE A NEW COMMISSIONER THAT JOINED US? YES. BOB IS ONLINE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

[B. Capstone Homes requests Preliminary Plat approval for Timber Sky - Block 6 located at 3501 W McAllister Ranch Rd, a 51-lot single-family subdivision on 12.3 acres in the Single-Family Residential (R1) Zone. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission, in accordance with the findings presented in this report, forward the Preliminary Plat to the City Council with a recommendation of approval.]

NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM B, CAPSTONE HOMES REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR TIMBER SKY.

I WANT TO SAY CELL BLOCK SIX, BUT IT'S ONLY BLOCK SIX LOCATED AT 3501 WEST MCALLISTER RANCH ROAD.

IT'S A 51 LOT SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION OF 12.3 ACRES AND A SINGLE FAMILY FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE.

THANK YOU. SORRY.

I GOT THE WRONG NOTES OUT.

SORRY. AS YOU'VE ALREADY MENTIONED OR WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED, THIS IS THE SECOND PRELIMINARY PLOT FROM CAPSTONE HOMES.

DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE ONE WE JUST DISCUSSED.

THIS IS PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR TIMBER SKY BLOCK SIX, LOCATED AT 3501 WEST MCALLISTER RANCH ROAD.

THIS IS TO PROVIDE 51 SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOTS ON 12.3 ACRES IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE.

JUST AS BEFORE, THIS IS ALSO IN THE RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE AND STAFF APPROVED THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT ON AUGUST 10TH.

LOCATED JUST TO THE WEST OF BLOCK FIVE.

WE'RE LOOKING AT A SITE THAT IS BOUNDED TO THE NORTH BY TRACT B IN THE R-1 ZONE TO THE WEST BY TRACT C IN THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ZONE TO THE EAST BY BLOCK FIVE IN THE MR ZONE AND TO THE SOUTH BY INTERSTATE 40.

I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE BACKGROUND IT IS THE SAME AS WE HAD PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED FOR BLOCK FIVE, BUT THIS IS A PROPOSAL TO BRING 51 SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOTS.

TAKING ACCESS FROM MCALLISTER RANCH ROAD.

WE HAVE SEVERAL TRACKS ACTUALLY PROVIDING SOME ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE AS WELL AS TRACT A PROVIDING DRAINAGE.

THIS IS IN THE RESEARCH PROTECTION OVERLAY ZONE AND DOES REQUIRE RESOURCE PROTECTION.

THIS REQUIREMENT WOULD BE 47.5%.

ON THIS PROJECT THEY ARE ACTUALLY ONLY PROVIDING 46.8%, AND SO THE DEFICIT OF THE REQUIRED PRESERVATION DOES NEED TO BE MET ELSEWHERE IN THE TIMBER SKY DEVELOPMENT AREA.

THIS CONFORMS WITH THE ZONING STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL AND THREE AND TWO ZONE.

[00:25:06]

THE DENSITY PROPOSED IS 4.06 UNITS PER ACRE, AND THE RANGE ALLOWABLE FOR THE R-1 ZONE IS 2 TO 5 UNITS PER ACRE.

THE LOTS ARE DESIGNED TO MEET RESOURCE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS USING BUILDING ENVELOPES.

THEY ARE PLANNING OR THEY ARE APPLYING PRD STANDARDS FOR T THREE AND TWO, WHICH DOES GIVE THEM THE FLEXIBILITY TO CREATE SMALLER LOT SIZES AND USE LESS RESTRICTIVE SETBACKS ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS.

THE RANGE OF SIZES ARE APPROXIMATELY 6500FT² TO 14,000FT² AND THE TYPICAL LOT DIMENSIONS ARE 55FT BY 115FT, AND AGAIN THIS IS UTILIZING THE SETBACKS FOR T THREE AND TWO.

ONCE AGAIN, WE'VE ALREADY REVIEWED THE CULTURAL RESOURCE OF THE AREA WITH THE LARGER TIMBER SKY DEVELOPMENT AREA, AND OPEN SPACE AND AMENITIES HAVE ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED ELSEWHERE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AREA.

SIDEWALKS ARE PROVIDED AND THERE IS CONNECTION BETWEEN 5 AND 6.

OR BLOCKS, FIVE AND SIX.

THIS DOES MEET ENGINEERING STANDARDS, AND WILL CONFORM WITH CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS AS PROPOSED IN THIS SUBDIVISION, OR JUST AS WE DISCUSSED FOR BLOCK FIVE, THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL TIA FOR THIS SITE AND THEY ARE UTILIZING EIGHT INCH LINES FOR WATER AND SEWER.

THERE IS, AS WE DISCUSSED ON THE OTHER ONE, THERE IS ACTUALLY NO ID, BUT THERE IS AN ID FOR DETENTION PROVIDED WITH TRACT A AND REGIONALLY.

IT DOES MEET PRELIMINARY PROCEDURES AND APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS IDENTIFIED IN THE PUBLIC SYSTEMS ANALYSIS, WHICH INCLUDE LOT DESIGN, STREET DESIGN, EASEMENT DESIGN AND BLOCK DESIGN.

STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSAL MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE, SUBDIVISION CODE AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION FORWARD THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT TO COUNCIL WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.

THANK YOU FOR BOTH OF THESE PRESENTATIONS AND YOU DID A GREAT JOB, AND I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE FLOOR FOR QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

OKAY. JUST A COMMENT.

IT WAS REALLY NICE TO SEE THE EXTRA TRACKS AND THE PRESERVATION OF THE NATURAL PONDEROSAS IN THERE THAT THIS BLOCK ALLOWED.

I KNOW THERE WASN'T REALLY MUCH TO PRESERVE ON THE OTHER BLOCK, AND I SAW THAT THERE WAS A TREE IN EVERY FRONT YARD, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE PRESERVATION WAS.

SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY I NOTICED AND IT WAS NICE TO SEE.

SO THE ONLY COMMENT AND I SHOULD HAVE MADE IT ON THE LAST ONE WAS THAT MY HOPE IS THAT THESE AREN'T THESE ARE GOING TO BE.

I DON'T WANT TO SAY AFFORDABLE HOMES, BUT MORE MEDIAN AFFORDABLE HOMES FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THAT'S MY ONLY COMMENT.

SO THAT'S MY HOPE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? I HAVE I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE MY HAND.

IT'S JUST A FOLLOW UP ON THE TREE QUESTION.

I WAS WONDERING FROM THE APPLICANT HOW PRECISE AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME ARE THE TREE REMOVAL DESIGNATIONS? I WONDER JUST BECAUSE AS I'M LOOKING OVER THERE AND I WONDER, WELL, ARE THERE A FEW TREES HERE THAT COULD REMAIN OR I DON'T KNOW HOW HOW THE HOMES WILL BE FILLING THE LOT BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT HOW PRECISE THOSE ARE AT THIS POINT.

SO, I MEAN, THERE'S THE POSSIBILITY FOR CHANGES TO BE MADE TO THE RESOURCE PROTECTION PLAN, BUT LARGELY, THIS SHOULD BE IN CONFORMANCE WHEN IT COMES IN FOR FINAL RESOURCE PROTECTION WITH THE CIVIL PLAN SET AND FINAL PLOT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

[00:30:01]

OKAY. IS THERE A PRESENTATION FROM CAPSTONE? OKAY. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? PUBLIC. HEARING? NONE. I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR A MOTION.

I HAVE A MOTION, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF FINDINGS, RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR ITEM.

LET'S SEE. I HAVE TO FIND THE ITEM.

SORRY. I'M LOOKING FOR THE ITEM NUMBER.

SHOULD HAVE HAD THAT UP. I HAVE TOO MANY SCREENS UP HERE.

HOLD ON, HOLD ON.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT HAS AN EXACT ITEM NUMBER.

THAT MIGHT BE WHY YOU'RE NOT FINDING IT.

WELL, THE CASE NUMBER JUST WANTED PZ230008901 THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF'S FINDINGS.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THE MOTION? SECOND. IT'S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER COMMISSION DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE AND SEEING NONE.

I'M GOING TO MOVE TO THE VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE? AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? HEARING NO OPPOSITION.

THE MOTION HAS CARRIED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM C PLAN INTERPRETATION FOR REGION PLAN GOAL T SEVEN.

[C. Plan Interpretation for Regional Plan Goal T.7 STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide comments and endorse the proposed interpretation to be added to the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 website.]

HELLO, COMMISSION.

I'M GOING TO PULL UP MY PRESENTATION.

MARIE, ARE YOU ON MUTE? IF YOU COULD MUTE.

I'M GETTING SOME FEEDBACK, SO THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, MADAM CHAIR, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS MICHELLE MCNULTY.

I'M THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

I AM DOING THIS PRESENTATION TODAY ON BEHALF OF SARAH DECHTER, OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING MANAGER, WHO IS IN A CONFERENCE TODAY.

SO I WILL DO MY BEST TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE, BUT I ALSO HAVE MEMBERS OF MOUNTAIN LINE WITH ME THAT CAN ALSO PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION AFTER THE PRESENTATION.

THESE ARE PRETTY WORDY SLIDES, BUT THERE'S ONLY FIVE, SO IT WON'T BE VERY LONG.

SO THE FLAGSTAFF REGIONAL PLAN HAS SEVERAL POLICIES AND GOALS THAT SPEAK TO TRANSIT.

I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE AND IN DETAIL, BUT IN GENERAL IT'S TO PROVIDE A HIGH QUALITY, SAFE, CONVENIENT, ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WHERE FEASIBLE TO SERVE AS AN ATTRACTIVE ALTERNATIVE TO SINGLE OCCUPANT VEHICLES, AND THEN IT GOES ON TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE COOPERATE WITH OUR TRANSIT PROVIDERS AND SUPPORTING DIFFERENT LINES AND ACCOMMODATIONS.

RECENTLY MOUNTAIN LINE PASSED THEIR FLAGSTAFF IN MOTION THEIR FIVE YEAR PLANNING.