Oct 25, 2023 Planning and Zoning

[00:00:01]

WE'LL CALL THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 25TH, 2023, TO INTERSESSION AND

[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).]

[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 ]

CALL].

THANK YOU. NEXT, IT'S TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

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

TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE WAIT FOR ME TO CALL THE PUBLIC COMMENT THE TIME THAT ITEM IS HEARD.

IS THERE ANYBODY WHO HAS A PUBLIC COMMENT? OKAY. THERE'S NONE.

[4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the minutes from the regular meeting on Wednesday, October 11, 2023.]

I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11TH, 2023.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? IF NOT, THEN ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED? NAY. SORRY.

I'LL CUT YOU OFF THERE.

SORRY. OKAY, SO THAT PASSES.

[A. Public Hearing: Text Amendment - Open Space Terminology (PZ-23-00130) Modifying existing and adding new definitions “Common Space” and “Private Space”. Changing terminology within the Flagstaff Zoning Code to the following – “Common Space” and “Private Space”. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Hold the Public Hearing Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission, in accordance with this report, find that the required findings of the Zoning Code have been met, and that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council for approval of the Zoning Code Text Amendment. ]

WE HAVE AN ITEM THAT WE HEARD AT OUR LAST MEETING, WHICH IS A TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING OPEN SPACE TERMINOLOGY IN THE CODE.

SO WE WILL BE VOTING ON THAT TODAY.

SO WE'RE READY FOR PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. I THANK YOU.

CHAIR, VICE CHAIR AND COMMISSION.

GOOD EVENING. COMMISSION. MY NAME IS BETH.

AND HANG ON, ONE OF THE PLANNERS WITH THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

TONIGHT, THE ITEM BEFORE YOU FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IS THE OPEN SPACE TERMINOLOGY TEXT AMENDMENT, WHICH YOU SAW TWO WEEKS AGO FOR WORK SESSION.

ALL RIGHT. SO, JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THIS TEXT AMENDMENT AND WHY YOU'RE SEEING THIS FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT.

SO, CURRENTLY THE FLAGSTAFF ZONING CODE HAS THREE TERMS FOR OPEN SPACE.

AND THEY ARE OPEN SPACE COMMON OPEN SPACE AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE.

AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, THE THREE TERMS ARE CURRENTLY USED INTERCHANGEABLY, AND THERE'S A LACK OF CONSISTENCY IN HOW THEY'RE BEING USED IN THE FLAGSTAFF ZONING CODE.

SO, TONIGHT WE ARE PROPOSING TO MODIFY THE EXISTING TERMINOLOGY.

AND WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING TO CHANGE SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS OF TWO OF THE TERMS. THE NEXT SLIDE WILL GO INTO DETAIL ON HOW THOSE DEFINITIONS ARE CHANGING.

BUT FOR THE TIME BEING COMMON OPEN SPACE WILL BE CHANGING TO COMMON SPACE.

AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE WILL BE CHANGING TO PRIVATE SPACE.

AND ONCE THE CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE TERMINOLOGY AND THE DEFINITIONS, WILL GO THROUGH THE FLAGSTAFF ZONING CODE AND UPDATE THE CODE WITH THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY. SO, AS MENTIONED IN CONTINUING THE OVERVIEW, COMMON SPACE AND PRIVATE SPACE, BOTH OF THEM ARE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

AND PART OF THE DISCUSSION THAT CAME UP TWO WEEKS AGO WAS THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE DEFINITION BE A LITTLE BIT CLEARER IN THAT ASPECT. SO, FOR COMMON SPACE, WE'RE ADDING WITHIN A DEVELOPMENT OR SUBDIVISION.

AND THEN FOR PRIVATE SPACE WE'RE ADDING PER DWELLING UNIT WITHIN A DEVELOPMENT OR SUBDIVISION.

SO REALLY HONING IN ON THE FACT THAT THESE TWO DEFINITIONS ARE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

SO, BEFORE YOU IS A TABLE THAT MAY NOT BE UNFAMILIAR.

YOU SAW IT TWO WEEKS AGO AT THE WORK SESSION, AND THIS TABLE BREAKS DOWN THE DEFINITIONS.

SO, I'D LIKE TO MENTION REALLY QUICKLY, THOUGH, THAT THESE THREE TERMS THAT YOU ARE SEEING ON THE SCREEN ARE THE CURRENT TERMS THAT ARE BEING USED.

SO THEY'RE NOT THE NEW ONES.

AND THE SECTIONS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE TABLE ARE PULLED FROM THE CURRENT DEFINITIONS AS WELL.

SO A LITTLE BIT OF A REFRESHER FOR AREA SPECIFICATION.

OPEN SPACE IS UNDEVELOPED SPACE OR AREA FOR COMMON OPEN SPACE THAT IS OPEN SPACE WITHIN A DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S SHARED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE IS WITH EACH UNIT WITHIN A DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S PRIVATELY OWNED BY EACH OWNER FOR PURPOSE.

THE PURPOSE OF OPEN SPACE IS TO MAINTAIN OR ENHANCE THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL OR SCENIC RESOURCES FOR COMMON OPEN SPACE.

[00:05:05]

THE PURPOSE OF THAT AND IT ACTUALLY LISTS OUT EXAMPLES OUTDOOR YARD AREAS, PATIOS, DECKS AND BALCONIES.

REALLY IT'S FOR PERSONAL USE OF THE PRIVATE OWNER PRIVATE OWNER.

AS FOR PURVIEW, OPEN SPACE FALLS TO PROS AND COMMON OPEN SPACE AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE FALLS TO THE PURVIEW OF PLANNING AND ZONING.

SO WE'LL BRIEFLY SKIM THROUGH THE EXAMPLES THAT I HAD ON SLIDES TWO WEEKS AGO.

AGAIN, THESE ARE USING THE CURRENT DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY.

SO HERE'S OPEN COMMON OPEN SPACE.

AND THEN HERE'S PRIVATE OPEN SPACE.

IN OPEN SPACE.

SO AGAIN, WHAT WE TYPICALLY THINK OF WHEN WE THINK OF OPEN SPACE.

OKAY, SO IN ORDER FOR STAFF TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS, THE FINDINGS NEED TO BE MET.

SO, THE FIRST OF WHICH IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH AND CONFORMS TO THE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE GENERAL PLAN, AND ANY APPLICABLE SPECIFIC PLAN TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE OR WELFARE OF THE CITY.

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

SO FOR THE FIRST FINDING, THE NATURE OF THIS TEXT AMENDMENT IS MOSTLY CLERICAL.

AS MENTIONED, WE ARE IMPLEMENTING CONSISTENCY IN HOW THESE THREE TERMS ARE USED THROUGHOUT THE FLAGSTAFF ZONING CODE, SO THIS FINDING ACTUALLY DOES NOT APPLY. FOR THE SECOND FINDING.

THE AMENDMENT PROVISIONS ARE NOT ANTICIPATED TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE OR WELFARE OF THE CITY.

AGAIN, THIS TEXT AMENDMENT IS CLERICAL IN NATURE.

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

SO, THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT DOES NOT COME INTO CONFLICT WITH OTHER ZONING CODE PROVISIONS AND ACTUALLY ADDS CONSISTENCY THROUGHOUT THE FLAGSTAFF ZONING CODE. SO, THIS FINDING IS BEING MET.

SO, IT'S IMPORTANT TO MENTION THAT THIS OPEN SPACE TERMINOLOGY TEXT AMENDMENT WAS BROUGHT TO PROSE BEFORE COMING TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON JUNE 26TH.

THIS TEXT MEMO WAS BROUGHT TO PROSE AS AN INFORMATIONAL ITEM, AND THEN BROUGHT AGAIN TO PROSE ON SEPTEMBER 25TH.

AND AT THIS MEETING, THEY ACTUALLY RESPONDED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE A NEW DEFINITION ADDED TO THE FLAGSTAFF ZONING CODE.

AND THAT DEFINITION IS LEGALLY DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE.

NOW, IN A VERY THOROUGH DISCUSSION TWO WEEKS AGO, STAFF AND THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDING THIS AND WHAT THAT MIGHT IMPLICATE.

AND AS A RESULT, STAFF HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE TWO NEW DEFINITIONS AND HOW WE'RE CHANGING THEM ACTUALLY ADDRESSES THIS ISSUE.

IT ADDS CONSISTENCY TO THE CODE.

IT CLEARLY DEFINES COMMON SPACE AND PRIVATE SPACE AS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND THE NEED TO ADD LEGALLY DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE AS A RESULT IS NOT NEEDED WITH CHANGING THE DEFINITIONS.

SO TO DATE, STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THIS TEXT AMENDMENT, AND ON OCTOBER 19TH, 2023, STAFF HELD AN OPEN HOUSE TO DISCUSS THIS TEXT AMENDMENT, AND DURING THE OPEN HOUSE THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION TO THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.

AND WITH THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT, MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT.

AND THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.

WE'LL OPEN IT TO QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT.

ANY ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS FOR STAFF.

JUST WANTED TO SEE.

SO, I NOTICED YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY REFERENCE TO OPEN SPACES REQUEST AND YOUR ANSWER TO THAT.

AND THEN AT OUR OPEN SPACES MEETING THIS WEEK IN OUR PACKET, THERE WAS ALSO WE WERE COPIED ON A LETTER FROM A COMMISSIONER WHITE TO TIFFANY. DOES THAT BECOME PART OF PUBLIC RESPONSE AND TO THIS.

I'M SURE YOU KNOW HE'S ACTUALLY NOT SPECIFICALLY ASKING ABOUT THIS.

[00:10:01]

SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GOT THE RESPONSE TO.

AND THEN HE AND I MET LAST WEEK AS WELL, SO THAT I COULD GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT HE WAS LOOKING FOR IN ESSENTIALLY IN PREVIOUS TIMES, THE CITY, AS PART OF OUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WE WOULD NEGOTIATE WITH PROPERTY OWNERS AND OBTAIN PIECES OF LAND AS OPEN SPACE.

AND THOSE WOULD BE THERE'S LITTLE SMALL NUGGETS OF LAND THAT THE CITY OWNS ALL OVER THAT WERE ACQUIRED FROM DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE DESIGNATED AS OPEN SPACE.

FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF DECADES, WE HAVE NOT BEEN DOING THAT.

WE'VE NOT BEEN ACQUIRING THOSE PARCELS OF LAND.

AND SO, PART OF NAT'S QUESTIONS GO TO HOW THOSE LANDS ARE PROTECTED AND MAINTAINED VERSUS WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY.

SO WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY IS MUCH DIFFERENT.

THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WHERE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT.

BASICALLY IT JUST COMES DOWN TO MAINTENANCE AND RESOURCES.

THERE'S ONLY SO MANY PIECES OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY.

AND SO, WHAT NAT AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT IS AS THE OPEN SPACES COMMISSION CAN REALLY START TO DEVELOP, WHAT ARE THE IMPORTANT PIECES OF LAND THAT GIVES US A BETTER OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH DEVELOPERS ON CURRENT PLANNING PLACES AS THEY COME IN TO TRY TO ACQUIRE THOSE PIECES OR PORTIONS OF THOSE PIECES OF LAND. AND WE'RE NEVER GOING TO WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET AN OBSERVATORY MESA FROM A DEVELOPER, RIGHT? WE WE ACQUIRE THOSE.

BUT IF THERE'S PIECES OF LAND THAT ARE IMPORTANT OR EXPANDING THE BUFFER AROUND A FOOT TRAIL, THAT'S IMPORTANT.

GETTING THAT INFORMATION FOR FOR US ON HOW TO FOCUS, ACQUIRING OPEN SPACE WITH POTENTIALLY WITHIN A DEVELOPMENT AND HOW MAYBE THE CITY MIGHT WANT TO ACQUIRE SOME OF THOSE LANDS. IT'S JUST BEEN A GENERAL POLICY THAT WE'VE NOT BEEN ACQUIRING THESE SMALLER PIECES, BUT MAYBE THERE ARE SOME SMALLER PIECES WE DO WANT TO ACQUIRE FOR CERTAIN REASONS.

BUT I THINK WITH THE PLANNING PROCESS, WITH THE OPEN SPACES COMMISSION, WE CAN WORK THROUGH ANOTHER FUTURE AMENDMENT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO ACQUIRE, HOW TO CONNECT THOSE OPEN SPACE PARCELS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

BUT I DEFINITELY GOT A BETTER UNDERSTANDING FROM THAT.

I'M REALLY GLAD TO HEAR THAT YOU GUYS GOT TO MEET AND AND THAT NOW THAT'S KIND OF BECOME PUBLIC RECORD THAT, YOU KNOW, YOUR CONVERSATION AND HIS HIS NOTE.

BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF OUR CONCERNS ABOUT WHEN YOU'RE JUST LOOKING AT INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENTS, ESPECIALLY DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN LIKE MAYBE A BIG MASTER PLAN, IT BECOMES A BIT OF A PUZZLE PIECE.

YOU KNOW, YOU NEED A LITTLE HERE AND A LITTLE THERE OUT OF EACH DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE SOMETHING WORTHWHILE THAT COULD BE DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE.

SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR MAKING SURE THAT LETTER GETS ATTACHED TO THE CITY COUNCIL REPORT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

OKAY IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS.

I HAD A QUESTION.

OH, SORRY. SORRY. I HAD A QUESTION.

I HAD A QUESTION ON THE DASH 23-00223.

PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

AND I GUESS I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY WE'RE STRIKING OUT.

AND MAYBE Y'ALL CAN EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THOSE ATTACHMENTS ARE VERSUS BECAUSE THE PRESENTATION THAT YOU GAVE IS BASICALLY JUST VERBIAGE.

AND YET ALL OF THESE ATTACHMENTS ARE STRIKING OUT THINGS SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, A 5% REDUCTION OF ONSITE FOREST, YOU KNOW, IS PERMITTED WHEN ON SITE DESIGN, YOU KNOW, LIKE THAT.

THAT SEEMS LIKE KIND OF DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT AS FAR AS VERBIAGE CHANGE, THAT IS OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

SO, THAT'S PART OF OUR GOTCHA.

YEAH OKAY.

THAT MAKES SENSE OKAY.

SO, THIS IS JUST THE FIRST ONE.

ALL RIGHT I WILL STOP NOW OKAY.

ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE COMMISSION.

ANY PUBLIC COMMENT I DON'T SEE ANYBODY OUT THERE, BUT.

OKAY WITH THAT? I JUST WANT TO SAY I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ONLINE EITHER.

OH. THANK YOU. I DIDN'T THINK TO LOOK.

I WILL MAKE A MOTION.

SO, YOU CAN USE THE THING ON THAT BOARD.

I'M LOOKING AT IS THIS GOT A FOR THE TEXT AMENDMENT FOR OPEN SPACE TERMINOLOGY PC 23-00130 THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REPORT AND THE FINDINGS, WE FORWARD WE FORWARD APPROVAL FROM PNC TO CITY COUNCIL.

FOR. I THINK I MESSED THIS UP, BUT FOR THE TEXT MINUTE CODE FOR THE TEXT AMENDMENT ZONING CODE.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

OKAY. I THINK YOU GOT ALL THE PARTS IN THERE.

[00:15:02]

I'M TRYING TO WRITE IT DOWN AND LISTEN AT THE SAME TIME.

VERY WORDY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WELL, THEN WE'RE READY TO VOTE ON THAT MOTION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED.

AND NOW OPPOSE THAT.

MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU. AND CAN I CONFIRM WHO DID THE SECOND? THANK YOU. OKAY.

[A. Discussion: Case No PZ-22-00223: Request for a work session with the Planning & Zoning Commission to discuss the City’s proposed amendment to the Zoning Code to modify the existing Planned Residential Development requirements. Case No. PZ-23-00135: Request for a work session with the Planning & Zoning Commission to discuss the City’s proposed amendment to the Zoning Code to modify the standards for Neighborhood & Regional Meeting Facilities. Case No. PZ-23-00136: Request for a work session with the Planning & Zoning Commission to discuss the City’s proposed amendment to the Zoning Code to add single-family, duplex, and multiple-family dwellings as permitted uses in Public Facility (PF) Zone. Case No. PZ-23-00137: Request for a work session with the Planning & Zoning Commission to discuss the City’s proposed amendment to the Zoning Code to change the minimum parcel size in the MH zone from 5 acres to 4,000 square feet as well as add minimum lot width and depth standards. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of the work session is for staff to present an overview of the proposed amendments, to allow interested members of the public to provide their ideas, suggestions, and concerns, and for the Commission to ask questions, seek clarification, and discuss the amendment, as well as offer alternative suggestions and ideas. The Commission will take no action at this work session. After the work session, staff will revise the proposed amendments if necessary. The amendments will then be presented to the Commission at a public hearing for consideration and action.]

IT'S NOT A PUBLIC.

OUR MEETING. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS, TIFFANY ANTLE.

I'M HERE TODAY TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF FOUR PROPOSED ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS.

WE'LL DO THIS ALL-IN-ONE WORK SESSION.

ALTHOUGH WHEN THESE ITEMS COME TO YOU FOR PUBLIC HEARING, THEY'LL EACH INDIVIDUALLY BE THEIR OWN ITEM.

IT'S EASIER TO SET A RECORD AND UNDERSTAND HOW WE MAKE CHANGES WHEN WE SORT OF SILO THESE ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS.

SO THAT'S GOING TO BE KIND OF OUR STRATEGY GOING FORWARD IS TO MAKE TRY TO MAKE THEM AS SUBJECT SPECIFIC AS POSSIBLE, SO THAT IF THERE ARE ANY ISSUES THAT ARISE OR 207 CLAIMS, WE HAVE A BETTER WAY OF DEALING OR MANAGING THEM.

SO, I'M GOING TO START WITH THE EASIEST ONE OF THESE.

FIRST, I'M GOING TO WORK TOWARDS THE HARDEST.

SO THE FIRST ONE UP IS NEIGHBORHOOD AND REGIONAL MEETING FACILITIES.

SO WE ARE PROPOSING TO MODIFY OUR SPECIFIC TO USES SECTION ON MEETING FACILITIES, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY IDENTIFIED AS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE.

THEY ARE THEN FURTHER BROKEN DOWN AND CLASSIFIED IN THE CODE AS NEIGHBORHOOD AND REGIONAL SCALE FACILITIES.

THIS AMENDMENT SORT OF DERIVES FROM WORKING WITH NIH ON THEIR DEVELOPMENT SITE.

THEY HAD ORIGINALLY WANTED TO INCLUDE A CONVENTION OR CONFERENCE TYPE CENTER FACILITY, AND WE DON'T HAVE A LAND USE THAT COVERS THAT, AS YOU'LL SEE IN A MINUTE, OUR DEFINITION OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING FACILITIES AND THEIR COMBINED.

IT'S ONE DEFINITION FOR THESE TWO DIFFERENT FACILITIES.

AND IT'S SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES CONFERENCE FACILITIES.

IN LOOKING AT THE STANDARDS, IT'S REALLY SORT OF CLEAR.

ONE IS MEANT TO BE SORT OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD CIVIC SPACE AMENITY FACILITY WHERE THE REGIONAL MEETING FACILITY IS REALLY MORE OF A COMMERCIAL TYPE USE, EVENT CENTER.

SO, WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO IS SORT OF CLARIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE FACILITIES IN THE ZONING CATEGORIES, AND THEN ALSO GIVE THEM EACH THEIR OWN DEFINITION TO MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO PUT THEM IN THEIR OWN DEFINITIONS.

WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU RIGHT NOW IS, IS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING FACILITIES ARE PERMITTED IN ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES, SO LONG AS THEY'RE LESS THAN 250 SEATS AND THEY DO NOT SELL ALCOHOL.

IF THEY SURPASS ANY ONE OF THOSE STANDARDS, THEN THEY'RE ALLOWED BY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

SO THOSE TWO STANDARDS REALLY DIDN'T SEEM TO SORT OF REITERATE WHAT THESE USES IN TERMS OF NEIGHBORHOOD OR REGIONAL REALLY MEANT TO BE.

SO, WE'RE CLARIFYING THAT.

AND THEN WE DID WORK WITH OUR ECONOMIC VITALITY TEAM.

YOU KNOW THERE'S DEFINITELY A NEED FOR THIS USE IN THE FUTURE.

THEY COULD SEE ADDITIONAL MEETING FACILITIES OR CONFERENCE CENTERS WANTING TO COME TO FLAGSTAFF.

SO WITH THAT, HERE ARE THE TWO NEW DEFINITIONS.

YOU CAN SEE THAT MEETING FACILITIES WOULD BE FOR PUBLIC OR PRIVATE MEETINGS NOT OPERATED FOR PROFIT.

SO IT'S VERY SPECIFIC THAT ONE IS MORE OF A COMMUNITY, A CIVIC TYPE AMENITY, WHERE THE OTHER REGIONAL FACILITY, WHICH IS PERMITTED IN ALL OF THE COMMERCIAL ZONES, IS OWNED AND OPERATED BY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ENTITY INTENDED PRIMARILY FOR CONDUCTING ASSEMBLY, INCLUDING TRADE SHOWS, CIVIC EVENTS, CHARITABLE EVENTS, CONFERENCES, CONVENTIONS, SEMINARS, RECEPTIONS, MEETINGS, PARTIES WITH OR WITHOUT THE PROVISION OF FOOD.

I CAN TELL YOU THE LONG HISTORY ON THIS USE.

THIS IS THE USE CATEGORY THAT WE USED TO PUT CHURCHES IN, AND WE RECENTLY WENT THROUGH AND REALIZED THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING FACILITIES WEREN'T ALLOWED IN ALL ZONING CATEGORIES, SO THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED IN INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES.

AND WE DID HAVE A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION THAT WANTED TO GO IN AN INDUSTRIAL FACILITY.

WHEN RESEARCHING THE RELIGIOUS LAND USE PROTECTION ACT AND THE ARIZONA STATE LAWS IN REGARDS TO PROTECTIONS FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, WE WENT BACK AND

[00:20:09]

I THINK THAT'S WHY THAT SEATING LIMIT WAS THE 250 OF IT WAS OVER 250.

IT WAS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

GO AHEAD. SO I HAVE A QUESTION.

WHILE. IT WON'T PERTAIN TO THEM.

BUT WE HAVE A COUPLE OF FACILITIES LIKE THE ELKS LODGE OR THE WHY CAN'T.

I THINK OF WHAT IT'S CALLED RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET HERE? WOULD THEY, IF, LET'S SAY THEY WANTED TO BUILD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT ONE TO BUILD IT WOULD COME UNDER THIS PROVISION.

NOW, MOST LIKELY TWO OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE DEFINITELY I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THIS ONE OVER HERE.

IT MIGHT BE COMMERCIALLY ZONED, BUT THE ELKS IS DEFINITELY IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.

BUT IT IS A NON PROFIT.

SO YEAH THEY DO.

THEY WOULD FALL UNDER MEETING FACILITIES.

THEY ARE IN EXISTING LEGAL USE.

I HAVEN'T CHECKED WITH THEIR ZONING IS SO I THINK IT'S RESIDENTIAL.

BUT MURDOCK CENTER IS A PERFECTLY GOOD EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT WOULD FALL UNDER NEIGHBORHOOD REGIONAL FACILITY.

BUT LIKE WHAT YOU WOULD SEE ON NIU'S CAMPUS, THEIR CONFERENCE CENTER, THAT WOULD BE A REGIONAL MEETING FACILITY.

WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF THOSE IN TOWN.

MOST OF WHAT WE HAVE IS ON THE NIU CAMPUS.

BUT I COULD SEE IN THE FUTURE, AS AREAS EXPAND OR GROW, WE COULD SEE THAT MORE.

THE ONLY PLACE NOW THAT WE ALLOW ANY TYPE OF CONFERENCE OR CONVENTION MEETING ROOMS IS IN AFFILIATION WITH A HOTEL.

SO LITTLE AMERICA IS ALSO A PERFECTLY GOOD EXAMPLE OF WHAT YOU WOULD SEE AS A SORT OF CONFERENCE FACILITY.

THAT WOULD BE REGIONAL.

WELL, THEY ACTUALLY FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF HOTEL, AND IT'S ACTUALLY PERMITTED USE UNDER HOTEL.

OKAY. BUT IF YOU WANTED TO DO A CONFERENCE CENTER SEPARATE FROM A HOTEL, THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO DO IT.

OKAY, BUT YEAH, BUT LIKE THE ELKS LODGE, LET'S JUST SAY THE.

LIONS CLUB WANTS TO BUILD A CENTER AND THEN THEY WOULD GO UNDER DEPENDING ON WHERE THEY.

IF IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER.

IT COULD BE UNDER THE NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER DEFINITION.

OR IF THEY DECIDED WE WANT TO HAVE THIS BIG OLD REGIONAL CONFERENCE CENTER, THEN IT WOULD GO UNDER THAT.

SO THAT'S I'M JUST TRYING TO AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING FACILITIES ARE ALSO ALLOWED IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONES AS WELL.

SO IT'S JUST THAT THE COMMERCIAL EVENT CENTERS WOULDN'T REALLY BE ALLOWED IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

SO AGAIN, WE HAD THIS ONE USE DESCRIPTION THAT WAS PERMITTED IN BOTH RESIDENTIAL ZONES AND COMMERCIAL ZONES.

AND SO IT SORT OF CONFLICTED WITH ITSELF.

SO THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT.

THIS AGAIN IS A WORK SESSION.

SO, ANY QUESTIONS FEEDBACK, SUGGESTIONS.

EVEN AFTER TODAY YOU WANT TO JUST GO HOME AND ABSORB IT.

AFTER THE CONVERSATION YOU HAVE SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS.

PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

THIS IS ONE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE TO PUBLIC HEARING WITH YOU ALL IN TWO WEEKS ON NOVEMBER 8TH.

I'M HAPPY TO DELAY FOR ANY REASON IF NECESSARY, OR IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEND MORE TIME ON IT.

YEAH. AND SCHOOLS WOULD FALL UNDER EDUCATIONAL EVEN IF THEY RENT OUT THEIR AUDITORIUMS. THAT'S CORRECT. THEY FALL UNDER A DIFFERENT CATEGORY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, SO THE NEXT ONE.

IS THE MODIFICATION TO THE PUBLIC AND OPEN SPACES ZONES.

THE ALLOWED USE TABLE TO ADD RESIDENTIAL USES.

THIS WOULD PERMIT DUPLEX DWELLINGS, MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS BOTH ATTACHED SINGLE AND DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS BY RIGHT IN THE PUBLIC FACILITY ZONE.

IT WOULD UTILIZE THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING DENSITY, LOT COVERAGE, BUILDING HEIGHT, AND SETBACKS.

SO THOSE ARE THE PROBABLY THE MOST DENSE AND LARGEST OF ALL OF THE STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

THIS AMENDMENT SPECIFICALLY IS FOLLOWING UP A RESOLUTION THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED LAST YEAR.

THE RESOLUTION BASICALLY STATES THAT THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL REQUIRE A CITY OWNED BUILDING OR PROPERTY IS BEING VACATED BY THE CITY THAT THE HOUSING SECTION FIRST HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE THE PROPERTY.

SO BASICALLY, IT'S GIVING THE HOUSING DIVISION THE FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL ON THOSE CITY OWNED LANDS.

A LOT OF CITY OWNED LANDS ARE IN THE PUBLIC FACILITY ZONE.

[00:25:03]

THESE ARE ONLY THE CITY OWNED PUBLIC FACILITY ZONES, SO THERE ARE CURRENTLY 181 PARCELS.

THE CITY DOES OWN APPROXIMATELY 40% OF THOSE.

NOW WHO OWNS A LARGE AMOUNT AS WELL, BUT NOW IS NOT SUBJECT TO OUR ZONING CODE.

THEY DO HAVE ZONING ON THEM, JUST LIKE WE PUT ZONING ON THE FOREST SERVICE, BUT THEY DON'T COMPLY WITH OUR ZONING.

FSD IS THE NEXT IS THE THIRD LARGEST, WITH 9% OF THE PARCELS WITHIN THE ZONE, AND THEN ANOTHER 12% ARE OWNED BY MISCELLANEOUS GOVERNMENT OR QUASI GOVERNMENT JURISDICTION.

JURISDICTION. QUASI PUBLIC AGENCIES.

APS MUSEUMS. COUNTY. UNISOURCE.

LOWELL. AND THEN THE REMAINING 10% OF THOSE ARE PRIVATELY OWNED.

WHY? THIS IS IMPORTANT.

AND I'M GOING TO PULL UP THIS AMENDMENT.

REALLY QUICKLY. IS, I WANT TO SHOW YOU ALL OF THE THINGS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN THE ZONE.

THE ONE THAT SPARKS THE GREATEST CONCERN IS THIS IS THE ZONING CATEGORY THAT INCLUDES PARKS.

SO THE FIRST IDEA THAT COMES TO MIND IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO REDEVELOP ALL OF THE PARKS AND FLAGSTAFF WITH HOUSING, AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

JUST BECAUSE A USE IS PERMITTED IN THE ZONE DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT ZONE WILL BE DEVELOPED IN ANY SPECIFIC LOCATION.

THE IDEA HERE BEHIND THIS AMENDMENT IS, IS THAT IF THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD DECIDE THAT A PARCEL IS RIPE FOR HOUSING AFTER THEY'VE DECIDED THAT IT'S NOT VIABLE FOR ANY OTHER CITY USE, AND IT DOES GO TO THE HOUSING DIVISION.

PER THAT RESOLUTION, REZONING OF PROPERTY CAN TAKE UPWARDS OF A YEAR.

IF HOUSING FINDS A DEVELOPER, THEY WORK WITH THEM, THEY GET FUNDING, THEY EVEN GET LATEC FUNDING.

ALL OF THOSE FUNDING SOURCES HAVE VERY HAVE VERY TIGHT TIMEFRAMES.

WE KNOW AS PLANNING STAFF, WE'VE HAD TO HUSTLE IN THE PAST TO GET PROPERTIES REZONED, AND WE'VE MISSED DEADLINES AND WE MISSED TIMEFRAMES BECAUSE THE REZONING PROCESS DEFINITELY TAKES UPWARDS TO A YEAR, EVEN FOR WHAT SEEMS TO BE SOMETIMES SIMPLE PROJECTS, JUST THE TIME FRAME AND THE LENGTH OF GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS.

SO THE IDEA HERE IS, IS THAT THEY WOULD BECOME PERMITTED USES.

OF COURSE, THE CITY FOR THE MOST PART WOULD HAVE THAT CONTROL.

THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THAT CONTROL OVER WHAT PROPERTIES MAY OR MAY NOT BE USED FOR HOUSING.

THE OTHER THE OTHER IDEA HERE IS, IS THAT WE DO HAVE A LOT OF LAND THAT ARE DESIGNATED FOR FUTURE PARKS, WHICH ALSO CAUSES SOME CONCERNS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT YET DEVELOPED AS PARKS.

SO THERE'S A CONCERN THAT THAT MAKES THEM VULNERABLE.

BUT I THINK THE IDEA HERE, TOO, IS, IS THAT WE COULD BE OPEN TO PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.

I CAN REMEMBER SEVERAL YEARS AGO BEING APPROACHED BY A DEVELOPER WHO WANTED TO WORK WITH US TO CREATE PUBLIC PARK FACILITIES.

A LARGE PORTION OF THEIR PROPERTY WAS IN A FLOODPLAIN.

A LOT OF FLOODPLAINS GET DEVELOPED WITH PARKS, ESPECIALLY SPORTS FIELDS.

IT'S A PRETTY GOOD USE FOR THEM.

SO THERE COULD BE OPPORTUNITIES LIKE THAT WHERE MAYBE WE'RE WORKING WITH A PRIVATE DEVELOPER AND WE END UP WITH PARK FACILITIES OR GRADING OR WORK THAT MOVES US TOWARDS OUR ULTIMATE GOAL OF HAVING THOSE REGIONAL PARK FACILITIES.

WHO KNOWS? I MEAN, THE OPTIONS ARE LIMITLESS.

BUT AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE STEPS TOWARDS ALL OF THE LITTLE THINGS WE CAN INCREMENTALLY DO TO ADD HOUSING INTO THE STOCK.

YEAH. SO I'M JUST GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC WITH MY QUESTIONS.

SO FOR INSTANCE I LIVE IN SWISS MANOR.

THERE ARE.

THERE'S A HOA IN SWISS MANOR THAT'S ONLY LIKE TWO BLOCKS LONG.

THEY OWN A COUPLE OF PARCELS OF LAND IN A CUL DE SAC.

SO IF THEY WERE TO GIVE UP.

SO THIS IS MY SPECIFIC QUESTION.

IF THEY WERE THE HOA DISSOLVES, YOU KNOW, THEY GIVE UP THOSE PARCELS OF LAND.

THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL COULD SAY, YEAH, WE COULD BUILD ON THOSE PROPERTIES.

NO, THAT'S NOT THE EXAMPLE.

WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS CITY OWNED LAND.

SO THE CITY HAS PASSED A RESOLUTION.

NOR DO I THINK THAT THOSE PARCELS ARE IN THE PUBLIC FACILITY ZONE.

OKAY. WHAT WOULD MOST LIKELY HAPPEN? WHAT WE DO SEE HAPPEN MOST OFTEN IN HOA FEES IS WHEN HOA FEES GO DEFUNCT, AND THEY DO HAVE PRIVATELY HELD OPEN SPACE.

THEY SOMETIMES COME UP FOR TAX SALE BECAUSE THE HOA IS NO LONGER COLLECTING FEES AND DUES.

THEY DON'T PAY THE TAXES ON THOSE PARCELS, AND THEY COME UP FOR SALE.

THEY ARE VULNERABLE BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL ZONING.

SO THAT THAT'S NOT A GOOD EXAMPLE.

SO I'M JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THIS.

CAN YOU GIVE A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE THEN LIKE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND WHERE YOU'RE WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IT?

[00:30:06]

THAT'S JUST A GENERALIZED MAP SHOWING YOU.

I MEAN, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ZONE INCLUDES THE AIRPORT.

IT DOESN'T JUST INCLUDE LANDS THAT ARE PARKS.

I KNOW THAT THAT'S THE PRIMARY CONCERN THAT FOLKS ARE GOING TO VOCALIZE IS THAT THIS MAKES OUR PARKS VULNERABLE.

BUT THERE'S LOTS OF CITY OWNED AND OTHER OWNED LANDS THAT ARE IN PUBLIC FACILITIES, SEWER TREATMENT PLANTS, IN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ZONE.

WE HAVE WATER TANKS IN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ZONE, WE HAVE GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS IN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ZONE.

WE HAVE A LIBRARY IN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ZONE.

SO, IT'S A VAST ARRAY OF CITY OWNED PROPERTIES.

BUT I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF SOME PROPERTIES WE'VE LOOKED AT.

WE'VE EVEN DRAWN OUT CONCEPT PLANS FOR THE POTENTIAL TO USE THEM AS HOUSING.

AND HOPEFULLY I DON'T MAKE ANYBODY IRRITATED WHEN I DO THIS BECAUSE.

A LOT OF TIMES FOLKS DON'T ALWAYS, ESPECIALLY WHEN A LAND HAS, WHEN LAND HAS BEEN VACANT AND HAS BEEN VACANT FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.

AND DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED, IT GENERALLY CAUSES UNEASE.

THAT'S NOT THE POINT HERE IS TO CAUSE UNEASE, BUT WE DEFINITELY NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT LAND RESOURCES WE HAVE AND WHAT THEY CAN BE AVAILABLE FOR IN TERMS OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY.

I MEAN, THE THE HOUSING VALUES ARE SO HIGH AT THIS POINT THAT I COULD SEE THE CITY ITSELF NEEDING TO SOMEDAY PROBABLY INVEST ITSELF IN EMPLOYEE HOUSING.

AND THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL SPECULATION.

I COULDN'T AFFORD A $700,000, 1800 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE.

SO I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU REALLY QUICKLY.

WELL, I'M ALSO I'M MARRIED AND I HAVE TWO INCOMES, BUT NOT EVERYBODY IS IS IN THOSE SITUATIONS.

SO I'M SURE YOU ALL HAVE HEARD TOO ABOUT LIKE THE OLD PUBLIC WORKS YARD, FOR EXAMPLE, THORPE PARK, FOR EXAMPLE, IS IN THE ZONE, THE OLD PUBLIC WORKS YARD. BURKE'S YARD IS IN THE ZONE.

THERE HAD BEEN RUMBLINGS IN THE PAST ABOUT HOUSING AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.

THERE IS AN ORDINANCE AND THERE ARE ORDINANCES ON MANY OF THESE PARCELS THAT THE CITY OWNS.

THEY'RE DEED RESTRICTED IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER THAT SAYS WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T BE USED FOR.

THOSE ALL STILL REMAIN IN PLACE.

SO, THE NUMBER THAT WE HAVE THAT WOULD EVEN BE AVAILABLE DWINDLES QUITE SUBSTANTIALLY.

I CAN REALLY ONLY THINK OF TWO OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THAT HAVE REALLY BEEN THOUGHT OF FOR HOUSING.

BUT HEY, IF THIS SMALL AMENDMENT MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO ADD SIX UNITS HERE OR TEN UNITS THERE, WHY NOT? SO, OOPS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I DID.

WHY DID I DO THAT? WHY DID MY MAP GO BLUE? I LIKE.

WHAT DID I DO? I'M NOT ALLOWED TO TALK AND CLICK AT THE SAME TIME.

IT'S A SPECIAL SKILL.

OKAY. AND I THINK I'M GOING TO FIGURE OUT THIS.

OKAY. BUT YOU SEE THORPE PARK, RIGHT? YOU ALSO SEE THIS AIR ZONE PARCEL.

THIS IS CITY HOUSING.

THIS IS THIS IS PUBLIC HOUSING HERE.

THERE IS A PIECE OF THIS PARCEL.

NOW, THERE IS A SOCCER FIELD THAT WE ALL KNOW PARKS DOES NOT ON TOUCH, BUT THERE IS A PORTION OF THIS PARCEL BACK HERE THAT COULD BE A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF THIS EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S AN EXAMPLE, RIGHT.

GOING THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS COULD BE DIFFICULT.

AGAIN, IT DOES BACK UP TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

SO I'M EXPECTING THERE WOULD BE SOME LEVEL OF CONCERN THERE RIGHT WITH THE EXPANSION OF DEVELOPMENT.

THE OTHER LOCATION THAT I CAN THINK OF IS SORT OF BRANDON OFF OF LAKE MARY ROAD.

LET'S SEE HOW FAST I FIND IT.

DO. IT'S ADJACENT.

THERE'S A COMMUNITY GARDEN THERE NOW.

IT'S IT'S ADJACENT TO NOW.

IT DOES FALL IN THE ZONE.

I THINK WE'VE HAD A CONCEPT PLAN FOR 5 OR 6 LITTLE BUNGALOWS ON IT.

WHAT HOUSING WOULD TELL YOU AS PART OF THIS STORY IS, IS THAT WHEN THIS PUBLIC FACILITY ZONE WAS BEING CREATED AND ALL OF THESE PARCELS WERE BEING PLACED IN THE ZONE IN 2011, THAT WHILE THERE ARE LANDS THAT ARE DESIGNATED FOR PARKS, THERE HAD BEEN LANDS THAT WERE DESIGNATED FOR HOUSING AND THEY ALL ENDED UP IN THE ZONING

[00:35:02]

AND IT DOESN'T REALLY ALLOW FOR THESE RESIDENTIAL TYPE USES.

BUT WEIRDLY ENOUGH, LET ME SHOW YOU WHAT IS ALLOWED IN THESE ZONES ALREADY.

SO UNDER RESIDENTIAL IT ALLOWS EMPLOYEE HOUSING.

EMPLOYEE HOUSING ISN'T GREAT BECAUSE IT IMPLIES THAT IT'S HOUSING ON THE ACTUAL WORK SITE.

SO FOR LIKE EMPLOYEE HOUSING HERE, IT'D HAVE TO BE IN OUR PARKING LOT KIND OF A THING, RIGHT? SO IT DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK IN EVERY SITUATION.

WE THOUGHT ABOUT MAYBE TRYING TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING, BUT IT GOT MESSY FAST.

THEN THERE ARE INSTITUTIONAL RESIDENTIAL USES.

CONGREGATE CARE FACILITIES ARE PERMITTED USE.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THIS ONE USE IS A PERMITTED USE.

THEN YOU HAVE A WHOLE LIST OF INSTITUTIONAL RESIDENTIAL USES THAT ARE CONDITIONAL USES.

WE ALSO ALLOW HOMELESS SHELTERS THROUGH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THESE ZONES AS WELL.

OKAY, SO THERE ARE ALREADY RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS WITHIN THESE ZONING CATEGORIES.

IT HASN'T MADE ANY OF OUR EXISTING PARK FACILITIES VULNERABLE.

IT HASN'T. WE'VE NOT CONVERTED ANY OF THOSE THINGS.

AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS FOR THE MOST PART, ARE PROBABLY NEEDS WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY AS WELL.

SO I JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE.

I ACTUALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHY NURSING HOME IS UNDER A HOMELESS SHELTER.

I THINK IT'S JUST AN ERROR IN THIS TABLE.

NOT THAT THERE'S ERRORS IN OUR ZONING CODE.

YES. DID YOU TAKE THIS TO PROS AS WELL, TOO? SO THAT'S PART OF THE STORY.

THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT WILL NOT BE COMING TO YOU ON NOVEMBER 8TH.

MY GOAL HAD BEEN TO GET TO THE PARKS AND REC COMMISSION PRIOR TO COMING TO YOU.

THEIR MEETING WAS CANCELED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A QUORUM, SO I WON'T GET BEFORE THEM UNTIL NOW, NOVEMBER 20TH, AND THEY'RE PRETTY SURE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A QUORUM.

SO GREAT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION.

OF COURSE, I'VE MET WITH PRO STAFF, AND WE'VE HAD THE CONVERSATION OF WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE, AND WE'VE SORT OF VETTED THROUGH THEIR CONCERNS.

I'VE BEEN ABLE TO GET THEM ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

SO, YEAH, I MEAN, A LOT OF THIS HINGES ON HEARING FROM THE PARKS AND REC COMMISSION AND GETTING THEIR INPUT AND FEEDBACK.

I DID TAKE THIS TO CITY COUNCIL LAST NIGHT.

IT'S JUST THE TIMING OF WORK SESSIONS.

IT GOT MIXED REVIEWS.

SO WE'LL WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

THIS MIGHT EVOLVE AS IT COMES BACK TO YOU, BUT I WANTED TO GET IT IN FRONT OF YOU, GIVE YOU THE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT.

YOU KNOW, IF IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, IF THERE'S MORE INFORMATION YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE PUBLIC FACILITY ZONES, THAT'S SOMETHING I CAN PROVIDE TO YOU ALL BEFORE YOU MAKE A DECISION. WAS IT CONSIDERED TO JUST ADD THE LAYER OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INSTEAD OF MAKING A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT SO THAT THERE WAS A PUBLIC PROCESS BEFORE SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAPPENED? SO, YOU KNOW, ABSOLUTELY, WE COULD DO THAT.

AND I'M HOLDING THAT IN MY BACK POCKET IF IF THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT WE CAN MAKE THIS PALATABLE.

BUT I WOULD TELL YOU, IT PUTS YOU ALL IN A REALLY HARD SPOT TO MAKE A DECISION ON SOMETHING.

BECAUSE THE FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL, REMEMBER, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS STILL A PERMITTED USE.

YOU JUST NEED TO MITIGATE WHATEVER POTENTIAL IMPACTS THAT MAY HAVE.

AND IT COULD BE PERFECTLY REASONABLE BECAUSE THESE PARCELS ARE SO DIFFERENT AND DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.

I MEAN, WE COULD HAVE A PARCEL THAT'S NEXT TO AN INDUSTRIAL SITE, FOR EXAMPLE, AND MAYBE THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL MITIGATION WE WANT TO DO, OR MAYBE THE SITE JUST REALLY ISN'T RIGHT FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU, THOUGH, IS THOSE FINDINGS WILL BE A LITTLE BIT TOUGH TO DEAL WITH.

IT DOES DELAY A PROJECT.

IT COULD DELAY ANYWHERE FROM 6 TO 9 MONTHS, BUT IT WOULD BE QUICKER THAN A REZONE.

ABSOLUTELY WOULD BE QUICKER THAN A REZONE COULD BE.

OKAY. AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION IS I'M THINKING OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S OVER BY COUNTRY CLUB, WHERE THERE'S THE IDEA FOR A REGIONAL PARK. AT SOME POINT, I WOULD HATE TO SEE SOMETHING LIKE THAT JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT DEVELOPED AND THERE HAVEN'T BEEN THE FUNDS TO DO SO TO BE AT RISK.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AS WE TALK ABOUT IN PROSE AND AN OPEN SPACE AND, AND WE'VE STARTED TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A CONVERSATION BETWEEN OPEN SPACE COMMISSION AND PARKS AND REC THAT THERE'S JUST A, WE'RE IN NEED OF PARKS.

SURE. SO, DO YOU NOTICE THAT THAT DOES NOT SHOW UP ON THIS MAP? YES. WHY? BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE ZONE.

HOW IS THAT ZONED? AND I CAN'T REMEMBER OFF THE, IT IS CITY OWNED.

I CAN'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

IT'S. THE ONE, THE BIG PIECE OF LAND BEHIND CONTINENTAL LOFTS.

IT'S NOT CURRENTLY ZONED.

[00:40:02]

THE DEVELOPABLE AREA.

I MEAN, WE BARELY HAVE SPACE FOR A BATHROOM OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN.

THERE'S NOT A LOT OF DEVELOPABLE AREA ON THERE.

I DON'T. I MEAN, WHEN I TALK ABOUT THAT CREATIVITY OF LIKE WORKING, FINDING A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, IT WAS ACTUALLY ACROSS THE WAY ON PRIVATE LAND.

WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT, MAYBE ADDING SOME SPORTS FIELDS IN BECAUSE IT WAS ALSO IMPACTED BY FLOODPLAIN.

I DON'T I THINK THE CHANCES ARE RARE.

BUT AGAIN, I MEAN, ALL OF THOSE DECISIONS ARE CITY COUNCIL'S DECISION.

AND I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING TO RECOGNIZE THAT IF CITY COUNCIL GAVE US THE DIRECTION TO REZONE A PROPERTY, WE'RE STILL GOING AND DOING THAT, RIGHT.

SO IF THERE WAS REALLY THIS DESIRABILITY AND INTEREST, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE US IN FRONT OF YOU PROCESSING THAT CASE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

I HAVE THE ANSWER? YES. I THINK IT'S COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL.

THERE'S SOME THAT LOOKS TO BE ANSWERED AND SOME MAYBE RR YEAH.

SO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL RESIDENTIAL, IT'S AN ODD MIX.

I WAS LIKE, I THINK IT'S COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, BUT IT'S SHE'S GOT IT.

SO YOU STARTED THIS OFF BY SAYING THAT.

SOME PEOPLE MAY BE NERVOUS BECAUSE THE CITY PARKS ON LAND ARE INCLUDED IN THIS.

IS THERE ANY PROVISION THAT YOU CAN WRITE IN THERE THAT? YOU KNOW, I CAN'T PREDICT THE FUTURE AND I CAN'T PREDICT HOW MUCH THE IS GOING TO BE USED.

LET'S SAY A PARK.

LET'S LET'S EVEN JUST SAY THORPE PARK.

JUST THROW IT IN THERE AND SOMEHOW THE CITY IS NOT ABLE TO.

GET LIABILITY INSURANCE TO COVER THORPE PARK.

I'M JUST GOING TO. I'M THINKING OF THE PARK WHERE THE KIDS PLAY AND EVERYTHING.

IS THERE A PROVISION THAT PARKS COULD HAVE A HARDER TIME? THAT IT COULD BE A I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE BECAUSE I THINK YOU'D HAVE THE SAME LEVEL OF CONCERN IF WE STARTED REDEVELOPING SEWER TREATMENT PLANTS WITH HOUSING, TOO, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE NEED SEWER TREATMENT PLANTS JUST THE SAME AS WE NEED PARKS.

I MEAN, WE DON'T HANG OUT AT SEWER TREATMENT PLANTS, BUT THEY ARE JUST IMPORTANT TO OUR COMMUNITY.

SO, HERE'S WHAT I JUST WANT TO EMPOWER YOU WITH IS JUST BY ALLOWING A USE IN THE ZONE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE WILL BE THAT DEVELOPMENT IN THAT ZONE.

AND AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, IF YOU WANTED TO GO BUILD, IF CITY COUNCIL SAID TODAY, WE WANT TO ALLOW A CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY, AGAIN, THAT'S A PERMITTED USE IN THAT ZONE. OR IF THEY WANTED TO POTENTIALLY USE IT FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING, A PERMITTED USE IN THE ZONE, OF COURSE YOU'D HAVE IT.

IT'D BE TRICKY WITH THE DEFINITION, BUT I DON'T THINK ANY OF THOSE THINGS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN.

I THINK THERE ALREADY ARE SOME BIZARRE USES ALLOWED IN THE ZONE, AND IT HASN'T REALLY SPILLED OVER.

I HAVE NEVER REALLY BEEN INVOLVED IN A IN IN CONVERSATION WHERE CITY COUNCIL HAS WANTED TO CONVERT A PARK TO DEVELOPMENT.

HOWEVER, WHEN WE DID THE RFP ALEX YOU DID THE REZONING WASN'T THE PARCEL IN SUNNYSIDE BECAUSE IT WAS A LEFTOVER PIECE OF A PARK.

DID I THINK IT? NO. I CAN'T RECALL.

I CAN'T RECALL EITHER, BUT IT WAS.

IT WAS A LEFTOVER PIECE OF LAND.

PART OF IT HAD A COMMUNITY GARDEN ON IT.

THEY SQUINCHED OVER THE COMMUNITY GARDEN AND WE TOOK THIS LEFTOVER CORNER.

SO, THERE'S A SKATE PARK IN SUNNYSIDE OFF OF ISABEL, AND WE TOOK A PORTION OF THAT, AND WE DID REZONE IT.

BUT AGAIN, WE WENT THROUGH THAT HURDLE.

WE JUMPED THROUGH THOSE LOOPS.

AND I MEAN, I THINK THESE ARE THE PLACES WE'RE THINKING ABOUT.

THEY'RE SMALL.

THEY'RE NOT, I DON'T SEE THE CITY TAKING AN INVESTMENT IN, SAY, BUFFALO PARK.

AND WHAT I SAID LAST NIGHT AT COUNCIL WAS IF YOU TRY TO PUT HOUSING IN BUFFALO PARK, 5000 PEOPLE WOULD BE STANDING AT THIS DAIS, ME INCLUDED.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE POINT, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE AT THE DISCRETION OF CITY COUNCIL AGAIN.

SO, I MEAN, IF GOING THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS IS THE PREFERRED PROCESS, THEN WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME BASIS THAT IT TAKES TIME SO THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS AWARE THAT IT'LL TAKE TIME. THAT ANNEX AREA IN THORPE PARK, WHERE I REMEMBER AND I'M SORRY, I CAN'T REMEMBER HOW EVERYTHING WENT.

AND I DIDN'T GO TO A LOT OF THOSE MEETINGS, BUT SOME OF THE PLANS INCLUDED HOUSING.

WAS THAT BECAUSE WAS WHEN THERE WERE SOME CONCEPTS PUT FORWARD, WEREN'T THERE SOME CONCEPTS THAT DID SHOW?

[00:45:01]

AND SO PART OF DOING THAT, THEY WERE LOOKING AT THE SALE OF THE OLD PUBLIC WORKS YARD.

ONLY THEN IT CAME TO LIGHT HOW IT WAS ACQUIRED AND THE ORDINANCE ON IT.

SO YEAH, THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION IN THE PAST ABOUT IS THIS POSSIBLE TO ADD SOME RESIDENTIAL UNITS HERE? I THINK I THINK WHERE WE COME FROM IN THE CITY, THAT'S A BIG ISSUE FOR US.

HOUSING HAS ALWAYS BEEN A BIG ISSUE.

WE NOW HAVE A HOUSING CRISIS.

IT'S EVEN MORE IMPORTANT WE FOCUS ON IT A LOT.

THE CURRENT CONCEPT PLANS FOR THAT, FOR THAT LOCATION DO NOT INCLUDE HOUSING.

I KNOW THEY DON'T NOW, BUT THERE WAS A I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER WHAT CAUSED THAT TO SORT OF FALL OFF THE RADAR WAS THAT IT DIDN'T FALL OFF THE RADAR, THAT WE WERE TAKING THE COMMUNITIES, WE WERE TAKING THE COMMUNITY'S INPUT.

WE HEARD FROM THEM. THEY DON'T WANT HOUSING AT THAT LOCATION.

AND SO THE PLAN DOES NOT INCLUDE HOUSING.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION, BUT.

IT'S CITY OWNED LAND.

IS THERE A WAY TO SAY THAT IT COULD HAVE TO BE LOW INCOME PROPERTY? SO NO, I MEAN, I DON'T THINK WE AGAIN, WE CAN'T PUT REQUIREMENTS FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSING IN THE ZONING CODE.

IT'S NOT ALLOWED BY STATE LAW AND EVEN AND I WILL TELL YOU, TOO, THAT I THINK AT ONE POINT IN TIME, ETH USD WAS LOOKING AT ADDING SOME HOUSING TO A PARTICULAR SITE AS EMPLOYEE HOUSING THEMSELVES.

AND THAT'S ALSO I MEAN, WE LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE CITY PROPERTIES, BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO A REAL POSSIBILITY FOR, FOR USD TO I THINK AS FLAGSTAFF BECOMES EVER MORE EXPENSIVE TO LIVE IN, THAT MORE EMPLOYERS MAY BE LOOKING AT EMPLOYEE HOUSING.

AND SO, AGAIN, THOSE OTHER AGENCIES MAY WANT TO LOOK INTO THAT AS WELL.

THESE ARE JUST HYPOTHETICAL GUESSES TRYING TO MAKE SMALL INCREMENTAL APPROACHES TOWARDS THE IDEA.

SO SOMETHING TO RUMINATE OVER.

I'LL COME BACK TO YOU WHEN I GO TO THE PARKS AND REC COMMISSION AND, AND GET THEIR INPUT AND FEEDBACK AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

BUT ESSENTIALLY, THE COMMENT I'VE RECEIVED SO FAR HAS BEEN A CONCERN OVER THE FORMER PUBLIC WORKS YARD.

AND IT'S ONE COMMENT THAT I'VE RECEIVED AND IF I CAN.

AND AS USUAL, TIFFANY'S RIGHT.

SO WE REZONED FROM PFF TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

THAT PORTION WHERE THE SKATE PARK IS.

SO ON THESE CITY PROPERTIES.

AND IF THEY BECAME, THEY WERE GOING TO BE USED FOR SOME OF THESE OTHER RESIDENTIAL USES OR IF THIS WERE TO GO THROUGH.

THAT MEANS THE CITY WOULD BE SELLING THE PROPERTY TO THESE DEVELOPERS OR CONTINUE TO OWN IT AS THE LANDOWNER WHILE THEY WERE DEVELOPED FOR THIS USE.

NOT NECESSARILY. I MEAN, THE CITY DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO DISPENSE WITH LANDS, BUT WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU IS IN THE PAST WE'VE DONE WE'VE PUT OUT AN RFP FOR OUR LANDS.

WE OWNED THEM LONG TERM IN PERPETUITY.

IT'S LIKE A LONG-TERM LEASE THAT THEY END UP GETTING.

SO, WE CONTINUE TO OWN THE LAND FOR 99 100 YEARS, BUT THEY HAVE THAT ABILITY TO USE IT.

BUT THERE'S JUST DIFFERENT TOOLS.

JUST WONDERING IF THAT WOULD CREATE SOMEWHAT OF A FAIL SAFE FOR THE USE, YOU KNOW? DOES IT GO TO COUNCIL? IF SOMEBODY BRINGS A PROJECT FORWARD.

EVERYBODY WANTS A FAILSAFE.

AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THERE ARE NO TRUE FAIL SAFES.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE ZONING CODE IS INTENDED TO DO, BECAUSE THE ZONING CODE CAN ALWAYS BE CHANGED.

ITS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE.

IT CAN ALWAYS CHANGE, JUST LIKE REZONINGS CAN CHANGE.

THIS IS JUST ANOTHER POTENTIAL TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX TO ADD TOWARDS GETTING TOWARDS.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO REALLY START TO MOVE THE NEEDLE TOWARDS CARBON NEUTRALITY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

SO, WE'RE LOOKING FOR ALL THE PLACES WE CAN MOVE THE NEEDLE.

AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM. AND THAT WAS MY COMMENT ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I GUESS LOW-INCOME HOUSING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING I'M USING.

SO THERE'S DIFFERENTIALS, RIGHT? I MEAN, LOW INCOME HOUSING, WE TRY TO SERVE CERTAIN AMIS, BUT THERE'S A NEED THROUGHOUT THE SPECTRUM.

RIGHT. IT'S, I MEAN, YOU MAY MAKE MORE THAN 80% OF THE AMI AND STILL NOT BE ABLE TO AFFORD HOUSING IN THIS COMMUNITY.

AND SO WORKFORCE HOUSING IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

I THINK LAST NIGHT IF YOU WATCHED ANY OF CITY COUNCIL, THERE'S ALWAYS THAT STRUGGLE OF, YOU KNOW.

HOW DO WE I MEAN, WHAT IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING? WHO IS IT SERVING? IT CAN SERVE THE WHOLE GAMUT.

[00:50:01]

THAT'S ALSO STILL NEED HOUSING BECAUSE IT'S UNAFFORDABLE.

IT DIDN'T USED TO BE THAT WAY, BUT IT'S THAT WAY CURRENTLY.

IT DIDN'T. IT DIDN'T FEEL THAT WAY.

ALWAYS. BUT.

I NEVER THOUGHT I WOULD SPEND A QUARTER OF $1 MILLION ON A HOUSE, AND NOW I THINK A QUARTER OF $1 MILLION ON A HOUSE IS A STEAL, RIGHT? OKAY. SO THINK ON THIS ONE.

COME UP WITH YOUR GOOD THOUGHTS.

MARY HAS ALREADY FOUND WHAT'S IN MY HIDING POCKET.

I'M GOING TO TRY TO GO FOR THE GOLD.

I'VE GOT THE BRONZE HIDDEN IN MY POCKET, SO WE'LL SEE WHERE WE GET TO.

RIGHT. AND AGAIN, GIVE ME YOUR FEEDBACK AS YOU GO ALONG IF YOU WAKE UP.

I ALWAYS WAKE UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AND GO, OH, WHAT ABOUT? SO JUST LET ME KNOW WHAT YOU THINK.

THIS ONE'S GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT LONGER ANYWAY.

SO, WE CAN GO ON THAT ONE.

ALL RIGHT. SO, THE NEXT ONE THIS IS THE SUPER EASY ONE.

MANUFACTURED HOME LOT STANDARDS.

CURRENTLY IN OUR ZONING CODE, THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR MANUFACTURED HOME LOT IS FIVE ACRES.

AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, WE HAVE LOTS OF MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISIONS ALREADY EXIST IN FLAGSTAFF.

WE DON'T LIVE TOO FAR AWAY FROM THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION.

MOBILE HAVEN HAS LOTS THAT ARE IN THE 4 TO 4500 SQUARE FOOT RANGE.

RAILROAD SPRINGS ALSO COMES TO MIND.

THERE ARE ACTUALLY SEVERAL SUBDIVISIONS ON THE EAST SIDE OF FLAGG.

THERE AREN'T A TON OF PROPERTIES LEFT THAT ARE UNDEVELOPED IN THE ZONE, BUT THERE ARE DEFINITELY SOME BIGGER PIECES OUT IN AROUND THESE SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE IN THE MH ZONE THAT HAVE SOME POTENTIAL FOR INFILL.

SO, WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR ZONING CODE AND YOU LOOK AT THESE FIVE ACRES, THAT FIVE ACRES WAS SPECIFIC TO MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS.

IT WAS NOT SPECIFIC TO THE SUBDIVISIONS.

SUBDIVISIONS WERE HANDLED UNDER THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WE'LL GET TO THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NEXT.

THAT'S THE TOOL FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PERMITTED 4000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.

SO WE'RE JUST GOING BACK TO THE 4000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, WHICH WOULD THEN BE IN ALIGNMENT WITH OTHER RESIDENTIAL ZONING CATEGORIES, WHICH BASICALLY ARE IN THE 6000 SQUARE FOOT RANGE FOR LOT SIZE.

WE ARE CREATING A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AND DEPTH WHICH MATCHES THAT 4000.

SO, 40-FOOT LOT WIDTH.

OF COURSE, WHEN YOU DO A SUBDIVISION, YOU DO HAVE THAT ABILITY TO ALTER LOT WIDTHS AND SETBACKS BASED ON YOUR TOPOGRAPHY AND YOUR SPECIFIC NEEDS.

SO THE COUNCIL HAS THAT ABILITY TO CREATE INDIVIDUAL STANDARDS IF NECESSARY.

THE OTHER PART OF THIS IS TALKING ABOUT MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS.

WHY THE FIVE ACRES MANUFACTURED HOME ZONE HAS A MINIMUM DENSITY, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER ZONING DISTRICT.

WHEN A MANUFACTURED HOME PARK IS THE EQUIVALENT OF DOING AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, BUT WITH MANUFACTURED HOMES.

SO YOU JUST HAVE MULTIPLE UNITS ON ONE PARCEL OF LAND, YOU'RE RENTING A SPACE YOU COULD OWN YOUR OWN HOME, YOU COULD RENT THE HOME.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE'RE REQUIRING FIVE ACRES, AND THERE REALLY IS NO REAL GOOD REASON FOR IT WHEN THE DENSITY PROVISION SHOULD SET THAT PARAMETER.

OUR MOST RECENT MOBILE HOME PARK OR IT'S NOT MOBILE HOME PARK, OUR MOST RECENT MANUFACTURED HOME PARK IS NOT ADVERTISED AS MANUFACTURED HOME PARK.

IT'S ADVERTISED AS A TINY HOME VILLAGE.

IT'S ON TWO AND A HALF ACRES.

SO, IT'S DEFINITELY DOABLE.

IT'S POSSIBLE THERE COULD BE THREE UNIT MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS.

IT'S A POSSIBILITY.

SO I'M NOT SURE IF ANYBODY HAS A BIG WORRY ABOUT THIS ONE.

SO QUESTION. SO WHERE THERE ARE MH ZONES THAT HAVE BEEN SMALLER THAN FIVE ACRES, HAVE THEY JUST BECOME UNDEVELOPABLE OR DO THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOME SPECIAL PROCESS? LIKE YOU SAID, THE TINY HOME VILLAGE WAS LESS THAN FIVE, SO THEY WERE ABLE TO GET THROUGH AND BE APPROVED.

WE TREATED THEM AS A LEGAL, NONCONFORMING PARCEL.

THEY WERE ALREADY EXISTING.

THEY WERE NOT ASKING FOR US TO CREATE THE LOTS OR CREATE THE PARCEL OF LAND.

IT ALSO DEDICATED LAND FOR ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY.

AND THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY IT BECAME EVEN SMALLER.

SO WE DON'T TAKE THAT BECAUSE WE DO GROSS DENSITY.

WE DON'T COUNT THAT AGAINST THE PROPERTY WHEN A PROPERTY GIVES UP RIGHT OF WAY.

BUT SAYING THAT THE SAYING THAT SOME OF THOSE MAYBE YOU HAVE AN ACRE LOT, AND YOU WANT TO HAVE FOUR UNITS ON THAT LOT, I MEAN, WHY WOULD WE PROHIBIT IT? OKAY.

SO, IT CREATES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME INFILL FOR SOME TINY HOMES OR MOBILE HOMES OR WHATEVER.

OKAY. YEP. AND SINGLE-FAMILY SITE-BUILT HOMES ARE ALSO ALLOWED IN THE ZONE.

BUT MOST OF THE TIME IT'S MANUFACTURED OUR TINY HOMES CONSIDERED.

[00:55:05]

THEY CAN BE MODULAR OR FACTORY BUILT, OR THEY COULD BE AN RV TRAVEL TRAILER.

AND ON 4000FT².

WHAT WOULD BE THE LOT SIZE THEN? SO? SO A MINIMUM OF MINIMUM OF 4000FT².

HOW MANY HOW MANY UNITS COULD YOU FIT WITH A LOT SIZE.

IS THAT VARIABLE OR ONE UNIT? OH, THAT'S JUST ONE UNIT.

YEAH. THE DENSITY OF THE ZONE WOULDN'T ALLOW YOU TO HAVE MORE THAN ONE UNIT ON A 4000 SQUARE FOOT LOT.

SO, IF THERE'S, IF IT'S, IF SOMEBODY BECAUSE MARY JUST SAID SOMETHING.

IF SOMEBODY IF SOMEBODY HAS AN ACRE OF LAND, LET'S SAY.

BUT IT'S RURAL, RESIDENTIAL.

THEY COULDN'T BE PUTTING FOUR HOMES THERE, COULD THEY? OR COULD THEY? THEY CAN'T PUT MANUFACTURED HOMES THERE BECAUSE MANUFACTURED HOMES ARE ONLY PERMITTED IN THE MANUFACTURED HOME ZONE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. IF YOU WANTED TO PUT FOR SITE-BUILT HOMES, YOU CAN'T DO IT ON AN ACRE.

BUT IF YOU HAD FOUR ACRES, YOU COULD.

THE MINIMUM DENSITY FOR RR IS ONE UNIT PER ACRE, SO IF YOU HAD FOUR ACRES, YOU COULD HAVE FOUR HOUSES.

BUT THEN IT'S GOING TO KICK YOU INTO MULTIFAMILY, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT IN SIDEWALKS.

THEN IT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

THERE'S LOTS OF OTHER THINGS THAT MAKE IT NOT DOABLE, BUT.

THE SHORTER ANSWER IS YES, YOU COULD DO IT.

YOU GET WITH THIS ONE? YOU READY FOR THE HARD ONE? YEAH. SO, IS THERE EVER A PROBLEM WHERE, LIKE, THERE'S SOME SLIVER OF AN MH ZONE AND SOMEBODY IS GOING TO GO PUT, LIKE YOU SAID, A TRAVEL TRAILER? IS THAT BECOME PROBLEMATIC? TRAVEL TRAILERS AREN'T ALLOWED ON THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS.

THERE IS A PROVISION THAT ALLOWS TRAVEL TRAILERS WITHIN MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS AND ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE.

SO IT'S NOT YOU KNOW WHAT? I'M WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IDEA THAT IT COULD BE DISRUPTIVE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE NEIGHBORS OR WHATEVER, IF THAT WAS ALLOWED.

OKAY. SO SO WHAT IS JUST CURIOUSLY, WHAT'S BLACK BART'S? BLACK BART'S IS AN RV PARK.

OKAY. LIKE THE CAR? YES. OKAY, SO THAT'S NOT A MANUFACTURED HOME.

BUT PEOPLE DO KNOW IT COULD HAVE SOME OLD.

IT'S BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME.

IT COULD DEFINITELY HAVE SOME OLD LEGAL NONCONFORMING RIGHT MOBILE HOMES IN THERE.

WE DEFINITELY FIND THAT FROM TIME TO TIME IN RV PARKS.

RIGHT. BUT IT'S AN RV PARK.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY.

RIGHT. YOU'RE JUST LIKE, WHY DO YOU KNOW ALL OF THESE CRAZY THINGS? IF YOU EVER WANT ME TO TELL YOU A STORY ABOUT WHAT'S A MOBILE HOME, MANUFACTURED HOME, A TRAVEL TRAILER RV.

LIKE, I CAN BORE YOU ALL DAY LONG WITH THIS.

REMEMBER THAT I WORKED FOR THE COUNTY FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THE HARD ONE.

THIS IS THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

YOU ARE MOST FAMILIAR WITH THESE WHEN YOU SEE SUBDIVISION PLANS COMING FORWARD.

TIMBER SKY IS A GOOD EXAMPLE.

ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE FORM BASED OR WHAT THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DOES IS IT CURRENTLY REQUIRES THAT A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE TRANSECT ZONES BY APPLYING RELEVANT BUILDING PLACEMENT AND FORM STANDARDS, BUILDING HEIGHT SETBACKS, ET CETERA.

AND THAT'S PULLED DIRECTLY OUT OF THE CODE.

THE CODE SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIES BUILDING HEIGHT SETBACKS, ET CETERA.

AND REQUIRE THE USE OF SPECIFIC BUILDING TYPES AS PERMITTED BASED ON THE CONVENTIONAL ZONING CATEGORY.

FOR THE MOST PART, WE MAKE THOSE BUILDING TYPES OF WORK, BUT THEY'RE DIFFICULT.

SOME OF THE TRANSECT ZONE STANDARDS ARE VERY URBANESQUE STANDARDS.

SO, A LOT OF TIMES YOU'RE SEEING THESE APPLIED TO NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME SUBDIVISIONS.

THERE IS ANOTHER PLACE WHERE THE PRD IS USED WHERE YOU DON'T SEE IT.

AND THAT IS, THERE ARE CERTAIN USES IN CERTAIN ZONES THAT REQUIRE CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL ZONES THAT REQUIRE YOU TO USE THE FORM-BASED CODE STANDARD. THE ONE THAT COMES MOST FREQUENT TO MY MIND IS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY, OR THE HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE REQUIRE THAT YOU USE THE TRANSECT STANDARDS.

I'M GOING TO GET INTO THIS FURTHER, SO GO WITH ME.

THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

SO, THIS AMENDMENT IS PROPOSING TO DETACH THESE STANDARDS FROM THE TRANSIT ZONE.

AND REQUIRE THAT ALL PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL USES UTILIZE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE CONVENTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THEY'RE LOCATED.

SO IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE MASTER AIR ZONE, NOW YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD IT, MEETING THE MASTER OF THE AIR ZONE STANDARDS AGAIN, WE'LL GET TO THIS.

THE PRD WOULD ONLY BE UTILIZED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW SUBDIVISIONS TO ALLOW ALTERNATIVE LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, LOT DEPTH, LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS. WHEN ADDITIONAL DESIGN ELEMENTS IN COMMON SPACE AREAS ARE PROVIDED, PRDS ARE REQUIRED TO DO THAT.

[01:00:06]

THE PROPOSED DESIGN ELEMENTS ARE ELECTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AND ARE MEANT TO REPRESENT THE FEATURES OF THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN, SO THEY'RE BASICALLY STEALING THE IDEAS AND PRINCIPLES BEHIND WHAT THE FORM BASED CODE IS TRYING TO GENERATE, BUT IT CREATES A MENU OF OPTIONS THAT A DEVELOPER CAN CHOOSE FROM.

IT GIVES SOME FLEXIBILITY, ESPECIALLY WHERE SITES ARE TIGHT, WHERE WE CAN'T REALLY GET THE GRID NETWORKS THAT WE NEED TO CREATE THAT URBAN FABRIC.

SO, THERE ARE SOME OTHER HOUSE CLEANING AMENDMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS.

SO, TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THIS AMENDMENT.

I KNOW THE NEXT SLIDE UP.

I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS ONE.

THIS IS COMMISSIONER CAMP.

THIS IS WHERE YOU WERE ASKING WHY THIS CHANGE? BIG. SURE.

LET'S DO THAT.

BOOP. YEAH, BECAUSE I, I'M TRYING TO GO FAST.

SHE'S TALKING AND PRESSING BUTTONS AT THE SAME TIME AGAIN.

IT SHOULD BE PROHIBITED.

ALL RIGHT. RIGHT NOW THE ZONING CODE.

THERE ARE THREE INSTANCES IN WHICH YOU A DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO PROVIDE COMMON SPACE.

IF YOU'RE USING THE PLAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

IF YOU'RE DEVELOPING MULTIFAMILY IN EITHER THE MASTER OR THE HR ZONES.

OKAY. THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE TO DO THAT 15% COMMON SPACE.

IF YOUR DEVELOPMENT IS THEN ALSO OVER 50 DWELLING UNITS, YOU HAVE TO DO 5% CIVIC SPACE ON TOP OF IT.

THERE IS A PROVISION SOMEWHERE ELSE HIDDEN IN THE CODE THAT WE DON'T USE, AND IT IS HIDDEN UNDER SITE PLANNING DESIGN STANDARDS AND DOESN'T REALLY APPLY TO THESE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS.

SO IT OFTEN GOT LOST.

IT STATED AND YOU WILL SEE THIS IN THE OPEN SPACE TEXT AMENDMENT.

IT SPECIFICALLY STATES, AND I CAN BRING UP THE SECTION OF CODE FOR YOU THAT WHEN CIVIC SPACE AND RESIDENTIAL AND COMMON SPACE ARE REQUIRED, THEY'RE ALLOWED TO OVERLAP.

SO IN LIGHT OF THAT, WE'RE ACTUALLY PROPOSING TO REMOVE THE CIVIC SPACE REQUIREMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

WE'RE GOING TO MAKE CIVIC SPACE COMPLETELY RELATED TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND COMMON SPACE RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. EARLY ON, I REACHED OUT TO STAKEHOLDERS, TO DEVELOPERS WHO ARE USING THIS TOOL.

I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I WASN'T GOING TO JUST WRITE A TEXT AMENDMENT THAT WAS GOING TO PROMPTLY END UP IN PROP 207 CLAIMS. RIGHT. YOU KNOW, I COULDN'T REALLY HEAD IN THE DIRECTION.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, I'M SORT OF DISMANTLING SOMETHING AND PUTTING IT BACK TOGETHER, AND IT ALL DOES SORT OF THE SAME THING.

BUT THIS IS THE ONE BIG SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE.

WHEN MEETING WITH STAKEHOLDERS.

THIS WAS THE ONE COMMENT THAT I GOT THE MOST FEEDBACK ON FROM DEVELOPERS, WHICH WAS YOU WANT US TO DO COMMON SPACE, YOU WANT US TO DO CIVIC SPACE.

CIVIC SPACE HAS TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

SO IMAGINE YOUR APARTMENT COMPLEX, YOUR DEVELOPER HAS A POOL AS YOUR COMMON SPACE, OR AND THEY OVERLAP THE CIVIC SPACE WITH IT.

AND IT HAS TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

IT'S SORT OF ODD.

OR YOU'RE A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION THAT OWNS A PIECE OF LAND THAT'S TECHNICALLY CIVIC SPACE, AND YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, AND YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE LIABILITY INSURANCE ON IT.

IT BECOMES REALLY DIFFICULT WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

WHEN YOU READ THE CIVIC SPACE STANDARDS AND WHAT THEY'RE MEANT TO BE, IT TALKS ABOUT IT BEING THE SPACE BETWEEN THE PARKING LOT AND THE BUILDING ENTRANCE.

IT'S ABOUT HAVING AREAS BUILT INTO COMMERCIAL AREAS THAT ARE ALSO SORT OF PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED AMENITIES.

THAT'S REALLY WHAT THAT CIVIC SPACE IS CALLING FOR.

NOW THERE IS A WHOLE SECTION IN THE CODE ABOUT CIVIC SPACE THAT'S RELEVANT TO THE TRANSECT ZONES.

THEY DON'T GO ANYWHERE.

IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING.

THEY DON'T APPLY.

THERE'S NO WAY FOR US TO REQUIRE THOSE SPACES BECAUSE.

THAT WE'RE NOT USING.

THOSE ONLY APPLY WITHIN THE TRANSECT ZONE.

WE HAVE THE TRANSECT ZONES ALREADY ORIENTED IN THE DOWNTOWN.

SO WHEN SOMEBODY OPTS INTO THAT CODE, THERE'S NO WAY TO GET THEM TO CREATE A WHOLE NEW DOWNTOWN CIVIC SPACE.

SORT OF THIS INTERESTING CONUNDRUM.

ANYWAY, THIS IS THIS IS HERE FOR YOU TO SEE.

I WILL TALK ABOUT REALLY QUICKLY.

COMMISSIONER KEMP'S CONCERN ABOUT THE CROSS OUT.

[01:05:01]

SORRY. I HAVE TO GO BACK AND FORTH.

ON THIS TEXT AMENDMENT.

SO, THE PROPOSAL STRIKES OUT A LOT OF LANGUAGE.

BASICALLY, NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM.

SO, IT'S NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT PROVIDE THAT 5%.

THE REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS WITH 50 DWELLING UNITS OR MORE IS REMOVED.

AND THEN THE DEVELOPMENT SITES THAT PROVIDE CIVIC SPACES ARE ALLOWED THE FOLLOWING A 5% REDUCTION OF ONSITE FOREST AND OR SLOPE RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS AS REQUIRED BY DIVISION ONE 5090 WHEN ON SITE DESIGN CONFORMS TO THE FLAGSTAFF AREA, OPEN SPACES AND GREENWAYS PLAN.

LET ME TELL YOU HOW OLD THIS PLAN IS.

THIS PLAN IS FROM 1990.

IT IS NOT USABLE IN ANY WAY.

I THINK ALEX AND I HAVE SCRATCHED OUR HEADS MULTIPLE TIMES ON WHAT THIS IS AND HOW WE COULD EVEN USE IT.

IT DOESN'T APPLY TO ANY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WE'VE EVER USED.

THIS PROVISION IS COMPLETELY NOT USABLE.

THAT PLAN STILL REMAINS IN PLACE, BUT I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S A DOCUMENT.

I MEAN, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT MOST PLANNERS HAVE IT ON THEIR SHELF.

I DO, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S USED FREQUENTLY.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU'RE PROBABLY EVEN GOING TO FIND ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.

IT TALKS ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

IT'S A GREAT DOCUMENT.

IT WAS DONE WITH THE FOREST SERVICE.

I LOVE IT, LIKE IT, LIKE IT'S TOP NOTCH PLANNING.

BUT THERE'S IF YOU READ THE DOCUMENT, THERE'S NO WAY TO ACTUALLY USE IT AND APPLY IT TO A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT CASE.

THIS NEXT ONE IS A 2.5% REDUCTION ON SITE FOREST OR SLOPE RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS IS PERMITTED WHEN RESOURCES ARE CONSOLIDATED WITH ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

WE ACTUALLY TOOK THIS AND MADE IT A DESIGN ELEMENT OF A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

SO WHEN YOU CAN PUT YOUR RESOURCES INTO OPEN SPACE AREAS, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WILL GET YOU POINTS TOWARDS MAKING YOU A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

SO THIS IDEA IS STILL MAINTAINED.

IT'S JUST PUT SOMEWHERE ELSE AND THEN A 5% REDUCTION IS REQUIRED IN REQUIRED ON SITE LANDSCAPING IS PERMITTED WHEN PUBLIC SPACE IS PROVIDED ON SITE. THIS IS ANOTHER TOUGH ONE.

WHAT'S A 5% REDUCTION? WE DON'T KNOW. WE CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT.

IN TERMS OF LANDSCAPING.

YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE FOUNDATION LANDSCAPING.

YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE BUFFER LANDSCAPING.

YOU'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE PARKING, LANDSCAPING.

SO, IS IT 5% OF ALL OF THE LANDSCAPING ON THE SITE, OR IS IT 5% OF ONE OF THE REQUIRED LANDS? WE DON'T KNOW. WE CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT.

THESE ARE SORT OF HIDDEN LITTLE FACETS IN THE CODE THAT ACTUALLY NOBODY IS EVEN ASKED TO USE.

THEY'RE SORT OF ANTIQUATED.

THERE'RE OTHER WAYS FOR US TO WORK WITH LANDSCAPING STANDARDS.

IT HASN'T THEY AREN'T THEY AREN'T WORKING TOOLS NOW IN THE CODE FOR US AS CURRENT PLANNERS.

AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE'RE PROPOSING TO ELIMINATE THEM.

ALL RIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE PRESENTATION AND I'M GOING TO MAKE IT BIG AGAIN.

AND I'M GOING TO FLIP THROUGH ALL THE SLIDES.

IT WAS. I COULDN'T PASTE THE TEXT AMENDMENT ACTUALLY IN THE PRESENTATION.

IT'S TOO HARD. OKAY.

SO, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT CIVIC SPACE AND HOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REMOVING THAT OUT OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS.

THE NEXT ONE IS REALLY GETS INTO THAT.

I'M TRYING TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF HOW WE'RE USING THE PRD THAT YOU DON'T SEE, PRD THAT YOU DON'T SEE IS 100% ADMINISTRATIVE TOOL.

THE CODE CURRENTLY REQUIRES THAT CO-HOUSING UNITS, WHICH WE DON'T DO A LOT OF IN THE R-1 ZONE.

DUPLEX AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE RR, THE ER AND THE R-1 ZONES AND SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND LIVE WORK UNITS IN THE R AND R ZONES REQUIRE THE USE OF THE PRD STANDARDS, WHICH IN TURN REQUIRES THE USE OF TRANSECT ZONE STANDARDS.

SO WHAT DOES THIS LOOK LIKE? I HAVE A 70 200 SQUARE FOOT LOT IN SUNNYSIDE, AND THE MASTER ZONE OWNER WANTS TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.

INSTEAD OF USING THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THEY'RE GOING TO USE T FOUR AND TWO.

DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE STANDARDS? OKAY, SO SETBACKS? NOT SO BAD. SETBACKS.

DON'T WORRY ME.

I MEAN, YOU'RE GOING BETWEEN A FIVE FOOT AND A THREE-FOOT SETBACK.

THE REAR SETBACK DRAMATICALLY CHANGES.

WHAT CHANGES ON HERE? BUILDING HEIGHT AND LOT COVERAGE.

SO BUILDING HEIGHT GOES FROM 35FT TO 52FT.

AND LOT COVERAGE GOES FROM 40FT TO 80FT.

[01:10:01]

THIS IS SOMETHING WE'RE NERVOUS ABOUT.

THE OWNER WOULD ALSO NEED TO FOLLOW THE STANDARDS OF A LISTED BUILDING TYPE.

I TRY NOT TO, I DON'T, I'M TRYING NOT TO CALL IT, IN WHICH CASE WOULD ALLOW EITHER A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE OR SINGLE FAMILY COTTAGE.

THESE STANDARDS WOULD THEN ALSO SPECIFY THE ALLOWED FRONTAGE TYPES.

SO WE BASICALLY TRY TO MUSH SOMETHING INTO THE FABRIC OF EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.

THAT'S DIFFERENT.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE CONCERNED BECAUSE IT CHANGES SORT OF THE UNIFORMITY OF WHAT THAT ZONING DISTRICT IS.

I LOVE THIS IDEA OF WANTING TO SPREAD THE TRANSECT ZONES EVERYWHERE, BUT THIS REALLY PROBABLY WASN'T THE TOOL, AND ADMINISTRATIVELY MAKES IT REALLY DIFFICULT.

BY TYING THE PRD STANDARDS ONLY TO SUBDIVISIONS, THEY'RE NO LONGER ADMINISTRATIVE.

IT GOES THROUGH YOU AND IT GOES THROUGH CITY COUNCIL.

THEY ARE NOT DISCRETIONARY, BUT THEY ARE MINISTERIAL AND THEY'RE NOT 100% ADMINISTRATIVE.

SO, THERE'S A COMFORT LEVEL THAT THERE IS A REVIEW AGENCY AND THAT WE AS STAFF ARE NOT MAKING ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS ON CHANGING THE CODE STANDARDS.

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE. THIS IS A HORRIBLE EXAMPLE BECAUSE I ACTUALLY REALLY LOVE THIS PROJECT.

THIS IS A HOUSING SOLUTIONS PROJECT IN SUNNYSIDE, BUT THE REASON THAT I SHOW IT TO YOU IS BECAUSE IT WAS A PRD AND YOU CAN SEE THAT, OOPS, YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENTIAL FROM WHERE THE EXISTING HOUSES ARE LOCATED TO WHERE THIS NEW STRUCTURE IS.

AND AGAIN, THE LOT COVERAGE ALLOWANCE IS SO MUCH DRAMATICALLY MORE.

THIS IS. AND THIS IS A TRIPLEX.

THE ONLY FORM THAT ALLOWS TRIPLEX REALLY IS A STACKED TRIPLEX, WHICH MEANS GOING ALL THE WAY UP THREE STORIES.

IN THIS CASE, WE WORKED WITH A DEVELOPER TO DO A FRONT TO BACK TRIPLEX, WHICH DIDN'T REALLY EXIST.

WE DEFINITELY BLENDED TOOLS TO MAKE THIS MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS IS OUR GOAL. THIS IS WHAT WE DO.

BUT AGAIN, WE'RE ALWAYS WALKING A FINE LINE.

THIS IS 100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT.

SO I MEAN I DO LOVE THIS PROJECT.

I THINK IT'S GREAT. IT IS GOOD INFILL, BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT THE STANDARDS ARE DIFFERENT AND THEY RESULT IN DIFFERENT PRODUCTS, ESPECIALLY AS INFILL AND IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO WHAT ELSE ARE WE CHANGING? WE ARE MODIFYING THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE TABLE TO MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR WHEN A PRD IS REQUIRED.

RIGHT NOW IN THE RESIDENTIAL TABLES UNDER ALLOWED, IT'LL SAY IT'S PERMITTED.

IT'S A USE PERMIT OR IT'S A PRD IN THE COMMERCIAL TABLES.

IT'LL SAY IT'S PERMITTED.

IT'S A USE PERMIT. AND THEN PLAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS A LISTED LAND USE.

SO OUR TABLES DON'T MATCH.

SO WE'RE FIXING THAT.

IT'S VERY CLEAR NOW THAT A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF CREATING A SUBDIVISION FOR CREATING ALTERNATIVE LOT DESIGNS.

ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS IS THE PLANNING PRINCIPLE BEHIND THIS IS CALLED A CONSERVATION BASED SUBDIVISION DESIGN.

YOU'RE GETTING OPEN SPACE AND YOU'RE CLUSTERING DEVELOPMENT.

THE GOAL HERE IS TO TRY TO CLUSTER THAT DEVELOPMENT AROUND THE PRESERVABLE OR NICER AMENITIES OF THE SITE.

RIGHT. SO, THIS COULD BE YOUR TREE RESOURCES.

WE'RE TRYING TO GET BACK TO THAT IDEA OF STILL TRYING TO KEEP THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT ALSO GETTING TO THAT RESOURCE PROTECTION.

RIGHT? SO, WE'RE ALWAYS TRYING TO BALANCE ALL OF THESE STANDARDS.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE ALSO TRYING TO GET TO A MINIMUM DENSITY.

WE'RE NOT ALWAYS HITTING OUR MINIMUM DENSITIES ON THESE SINGLE FAMILY LOT SUBDIVISIONS.

SO TIMBER SKY HAS BEEN BALANCING DENSITIES BACK AND FORTH ON THEIR MASTER PIECES.

THEY'RE NOT MEETING THE MINIMUM DENSITY.

THEY'RE BALANCING IT ACROSS THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.

THEY'RE DEFINITELY MEETING IT IN THEIR R-1, BUT THEY'RE NOT MEETING IT ON THE MASTER.

SO WE ARE DELETING THE SECTION THAT STATES ONLY ONE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING OR UNIT OR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS ALLOWED PER LOT OR PARCEL, BECAUSE THAT'S A CONFLICT.

WE CURRENTLY ALLOW MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THAT PARTICULAR ZONING CATEGORY.

WE DID ADD A FOOTNOTE.

I WANT TO I DO WANT TO MAKE THIS CLEAR.

WE DID ADD A FOOTNOTE FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL ESTATE, RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONE.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO MULTIFAMILY, YOU'RE LIMITED TO SINGLE UNIT OR DUPLEX UNITS.

NOTHING LARGER BECAUSE THAT'S ONLY WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS NOW.

OKAY. UM, WE DO MODIFY THAT COMMON OPEN SPACE IS REQUIRED SPECIFICALLY FOR MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS WITHIN THE

[01:15:03]

AND WE ALSO ADDRESS THE THE USE TABLE, THE COMMERCIAL USE TABLE.

AND THEN LASTLY WE'RE DELETING THE CLUSTER DWELLING.

CLUSTER DWELLING IS THE SAME THING AS THE PRD.

ONLY THE STANDARDS ARE FAR MORE RESTRICTIVE.

SO, NOBODY'S USED IT IN OVER A DECADE.

WE'RE JUST REMOVING IT BECAUSE THE PRD IS A MUCH MORE LIBERAL TOOL.

AND THAT ZONING CODE, I CAN BARELY CARRY IT MYSELF WITHOUT DROPPING IT ON THE FLOOR ON A REGULAR BASIS.

SO THE SKINNIER IT CAN GET, THE BETTER WE WILL BE MODIFYING THE PLAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO UPDATE THE COMMON SPACE REQUIREMENTS.

AND HERE'S THE BULK, HERE'S THE MEAT.

HERE'S WHAT YOU'VE GOT TO DO IN ORDER TO QUALIFY TO GET REDUCED SETBACKS.

AND WE DO SET MINIMUMS. IT'S NOT A FREE FOR ALL.

IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO DO ZERO SETBACKS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

WE DO SET MINIMUMS IN EACH ZONING CATEGORY AND THERE'S A TABLE THERE FOR YOU TO SEE.

BUT THE MEAT OF IT IS, IS THAT YOU HAVE TO COME UP WITH A MENU OF ITEMS THAT COME TO A SUM TOTAL OF FIVE POINTS.

THESE ELECTED DESIGN ELEMENTS ARE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SUBDIVIDER WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO INCLUDE THAT LANGUAGE, AND THE PLANNING DIRECTOR REALLY IS THE ONE THAT GETS TO DETERMINE THAT COMPLIANCE.

AND WE DEFINITELY HAVE TO HAVE A PLAN OR AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE FOR HOW THESE DESIGN ELEMENTS GET IMPLEMENTED.

THEY'RE NOT ALL SUPER EASY, BUT THE IDEA IS, IS IF THEY'RE NOT REGULATED BY THE PLAT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE REGULATED THROUGH A SEPARATE AGREEMENT.

SO HERE THEY ARE.

THERE ARE TWO HERE THAT ONE ADDRESSES AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ONE ADDRESSES CARBON NEUTRALITY.

THE FIRST IS SUBDIVISIONS THAT INCLUDE AT LEAST 10% FIVE POINTS.

YOU'RE GIVEN YOUR YOU'VE GOT THE PRD STANDARDS.

THAT WAS ALREADY THE CASE PREVIOUSLY.

SO IF YOU WERE AFFORDABLE BEFORE YOU WERE GOOD TO GO 100% RESIDENTIAL UNITS, YOU GET THREE POINTS ARE ALL ELECTRIC.

IT'S THREE POINTS BECAUSE WE ALSO HAVE OTHER INCENTIVES BUILT IN FOR THESE PARTICULAR TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS.

I DID, OF COURSE, WORK WITH HOUSING AND SUSTAINABILITY IN THE DRAFTING OF THESE.

SO THEY'VE REVIEWED THEM.

THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE. THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE POINT COUNT GIVEN TO THEM.

THE STREET NETWORK THAT INCLUDES ALLEYS.

THIS IS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL CAUSE OF A GRID NETWORK.

I'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET ONE DEVELOPER TO DO ALLEYS IN THE WHOLE TIME I'VE WORKED HERE.

THE ONLY PLACE I KNOW THAT'S NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT'S DONE IT IS PRESIDIO, AND IT'S REALLY NOT THAT NEW, EVEN THOUGH IT'S KIND OF NEW.

BUT THAT'S A HEAVY POINT, ONE, BECAUSE IT'S A REALLY EXPENSIVE FEATURE TO ADD INTO A DEVELOPMENT.

THE AVERAGE DWELLING UNITS ARE NO LONGER NO LARGER THAN 1800 SQUARE FEET.

SMALL HOMES DON'T ALWAYS EQUATE TO CHEAPER HOMES, BUT IT'S WORTH TRYING TO GET HOMES THAT ARE WITHIN A CLOSER RANGE TO AFFORDABLE.

SO, THE IDEA HERE IS THAT WE'RE NOT JUST GETTING ALL LARGE HOMES ON SMALL LOTS.

A STREET NETWORK THAT CONNECTS AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE GREATEST EXTENT FEASIBLE, WITH NO CUL DE SACS.

THIS IS HOW YOU BUILD A GREAT PEDESTRIAN NETWORK FOR BIKES AND PEDS.

THIS IS WHAT WE DEFINITELY WANT TO SEE OUR CORE NEIGHBORHOODS DO.

WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE BLOCKS OVER 600FT IN LENGTH.

SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC CALMING DESIGN FEATURES SELECTED FROM THE ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS.

SO WE ALREADY ALLOW A SLEW OF THESE.

OF COURSE, THEY'D HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER, BUT INCLUDING THEM WOULD GET YOU TWO POINTS.

DETACHED GARAGE IS LOCATED BEHIND THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.

AGAIN, THIS IS A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN COMPONENT.

THE MORE YOU MOVE THOSE GARAGES AWAY FROM THE FRONT FACADE, THE LESS BAD INTERACTION THERE ARE WITH BIKES AND PEDS.

IF YOU'RE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT GARAGE OFF OF AN ALLEY RATHER THAN THE PRIMARY DRIVE, AGAIN, YOU'RE CUTTING DOWN THE LIKELIHOOD THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE VEHICLES GOING ACROSS THOSE SIDEWALKS.

ALL RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION INCLUDE A MINIMUM 80 SQUARE FOOT FRONT ENTRY FEATURE THAT'S PART OF THE DESIGN.

ELEMENTS OF THE BUILDING'S RIGHT NOW THAT UTILIZE THE FORM BASED CODE IS THOSE FRONT ENTRY FEATURES.

THE SUBDIVISION INCORPORATES A COMBINATION OF SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX OR MULTIFAMILY UNITS, SO WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE SUBDIVISIONS THAT HAVE MORE.

THIS IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET THE MISSING MIDDLE RIGHT.

SO, WE WANT TO SEE SUBDIVISIONS THAT PREPLAN AND INCLUDE IT IN ADVANCE.

IT'S NOT A SHOCK TO PEOPLE AFTER THE FACT WHEN NEW MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS WANT TO COME IN.

YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE BUYING INTO, AND IT'S JUST GREATER OPPORTUNITY FOR HOUSING THROUGHOUT THE PROVISION OF RECREATIONAL AMENITIES WITHIN A PARK OR COMMON SPACE AREA, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DOG PARKS, PICNIC AREAS AND SPORTS COURTS.

AT LEAST 50% OF THE REQUIRED RESOURCES ARE WITHIN COMMON SPACE AREAS.

A LOT OF TIMES THESE GET LEFT ON THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS.

IT BECOMES PRETTY PROBLEMATIC FOR HOMEOWNERS.

THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY CAN'T CUT DOWN A TREE FRONT.

[01:20:01]

AGAIN, THAT'S REALLY A TRANSECT STANDARD.

ATTACHED STREET FACING GARAGES LESS THAN 50% OF THE WIDTH OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.

THAT'S ANOTHER TRANSECT SUBDIVISION CORNERS AND SETBACK STANDARDS THAT DO NOT PROHIBIT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.

THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE FOUND IS, IS THAT WE'RE ALLOWING THEM, BUT HOAS HAVE EXCLUDED THEM.

A MINIMUM OF 15% OF ALL SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING LOTS INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS TO HAVE AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND SUBDIVISION EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM DENSITY OF THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT BY AT LEAST ONE WHOLE UNIT PER ACRE.

SO, CAN YOU GO BACK ONE? KIND OF. I NEED TO JUST UNDERSTAND THAT I DIDN'T TAKE IT IN.

A MINIMUM OF 15% OF ALL SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING LOTS INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

SO, WE WOULD HAVE AN AGREEMENT THAT THEY WOULD IDENTIFY THE LOTS THAT WOULD INCLUDE A HOUSE AND SOME TYPE OF ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WITH THEM.

UM, THE MORE YOU HAVE, THE MORE POINTS YOU GET.

SUBDIVISION EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM DENSITY OF THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT BY AT LEAST ONE WHOLE UNIT PER ACRE.

SO, IF IT'S TWO UNITS PER ACRE AND YOU GET TWO THREE, YOU GET A POINT.

SUBDIVISION INCLUDES ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENTS, INCLUDING OUTDOOR SEATING AREAS OR LARGER LANDSCAPING AREAS.

SO, WE TRY TO HAVE JUST ENOUGH, BUT NOT TOO MUCH.

THIS IS SORT OF THE CORE PRINCIPLE.

IT DEFINITELY GIVES DEVELOPERS MORE FLEXIBILITY AND FREEDOM TO CHOOSE WHAT'S GOING TO WORK BEST FOR THEIR SITE.

BUT YOU CAN SEE UNDERNEATH THE CORE OF ALL OF THESE, AND YOU'LL SEE IT WHEN WE GET TO THE REGIONAL PLAN ANALYSIS ON THIS.

WHEN YOU SEE THIS, A PUBLIC HEARING IS IS WE'RE TRYING TO PULL THE CORE ITEMS FROM OUR REGIONAL PLAN, OUR GOALS AND POLICIES.

THEY DEFINITELY HIT ON A LOT OF THESE FEATURES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING INTO NEIGHBORHOODS.

A LOT OF OUR SUBDIVISIONS ARE EXTREMELY LOW DENSITY.

THEY HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY OVER TIME, AND THIS IS ONE OF THE PLACES WHERE WE PROBABLY NEED TO PUSH TO TRY TO GET A BIT MORE DENSITY OUT OF THESE UNITS.

SO A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THE ADUS.

IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT THOSE ADUS WOULD BE OR DO.

THE HOAS DECIDE WHAT THE ADU USE WOULD BE USED FOR, FOR INSTANCE.

LONG TERM RENTALS VERSUS.

AIRBNBS. SO WE ALREADY HAVE THOSE PROVISIONS BUILT INTO OUR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT CODE.

WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY YOU CAN'T HAVE SHORT TERM RENTALS, BUT WE DEFINITELY HAVE BUILT IN AN INCENTIVE FOR HOMEOWNERS TO NOT SHORT TERM RENTAL WILL ACTUALLY LET YOU RENT BOTH UNITS INDIVIDUALLY IF YOU AGREE TO NOT SHORT TERM RENTAL.

THOSE WE HAVEN'T BEEN CHALLENGED ON THAT TO DATE, WHICH HAS BEEN PRETTY GOOD.

IT'S BEEN IN THE CODE SOLIDLY ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF, AND THERE'S BEEN PRETTY QUIET.

SO THAT'S GOOD. BUT THESE ADUS WOULD BE SPECIFIC TO HOMES.

SO, A HOMEOWNER WOULD BUY THAT, AND THEY WOULD BE IN CONTROL OF THAT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

TWO MORE QUESTIONS.

ONE IS ABOUT THE GARAGES.

COULD THEY BE WHAT ARE THEY CALLED? I CAN'T THINK OF WHAT THEY'RE CALLED RIGHT NOW.

LIKE IF YOU HAD A.

LIKE TO ME, IT'S SHOTGUN CARPORTS.

NO, A TANDEM, THANK YOU.

A TANDEM GARAGE BECAUSE OF THE.

THE FRONTAGE THAT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE, RATHER THAN MAYBE A DUAL.

OR YOU HAVE ONE PART TANDEM, ONE PART YOU HAVE A TWO.

IT'S ABSOLUTELY PERMISSIBLE.

AND THEN ON ALLEYWAYS, WHO KEEPS UP THE ALLEYWAYS IS THAT CITY? IF THEY'RE DEDICATED, IF THEY ARE DEDICATED TO THE CITY, THEN THE CITY DOES MAINTAIN THEM.

ALLEYS ARE NOT ON OUR PRIORITY LIST.

THEY DO GET MAINTAINED LAST.

SO PRIMARY STREET CORRIDORS GET MAINTAINED FIRST.

SO, IF SOMEBODY HAD IF A BUILDER DECIDES THEY'RE BUILDING THE GARAGE OFF THE ALLEYWAY, THEN THEY HAVE TO PERHAPS LOOK AT HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DO SNOW REMOVAL.

IF THEY'RE PRIVATE ROADS, THEY WOULD WORRY ABOUT THE SNOW REMOVAL.

IF THEY ARE PUBLIC, IT BECOMES THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY.

BUT AGAIN, ALLEYS FALL IN TERMS OF PRIORITY LEVELS, RIGHT? SO, WE PRIORITIZE EVEN REGULAR STREETS.

SO, YOU'VE GOT THE ARTERIALS, THEN YOU'VE GOT THE COLLECTORS, THEN YOU'VE GOT BUS ROUTES.

NOT EVERYBODY GETS THEIR RESIDENTIAL STREET DONE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

BUT YES, ALLEYS GET DONE LATER THAN IT COULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF AN INCONVENIENCE.

SO YEAH.

SO, PEOPLE JUST NEED TO BE AWARE OF THAT WHEN THEY WERE TO PURCHASE THE HOME.

SURE. YEAH.

WE HAVE EXISTING SITUATIONS LIKE THAT NOW.

THESE ARE ALL REALLY GREAT OPTIONS.

I JUST WISH THAT THEY HAD TO MEET MORE THAN FIVE POINTS.

[01:25:01]

WELL, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT.

I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR IS FEEDBACK.

I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF REALLY GOOD KNOW, I REALLY LIKE A LOT OF THESE THINGS.

AND I THINK FIVE ISN'T ENOUGH TO ASK OF A DEVELOPER.

I ALSO WANTED TO ASK ABOUT THE AVERAGE 1800 SQUARE FOOT FLOOR PLAN SIZE.

IS THAT BASED ON THE PLANS THAT ARE OFFERED OR THE THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENTS.

SO IT WOULD BE THE AVERAGE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO AVERAGE DWELLING UNITS, SO WITHIN THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.

SO IF THERE'S 50 THEN YOUR AVERAGE UNIT IS NOT OVER 1800 SQUARE FEET.

SO IT'S GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO POTENTIALLY HAVE SOME SMALLER UNITS AND SOME LARGER UNITS TO HAVE THAT REAL GOOD MIX.

TIMBER SKY WAS PRETTY SUCCESSFUL WITH DOING 18 1800 AND BELOW UNITS AND HAVING SINGLE STOREY HOMES.

WHAT MY CONCERN WAS IS SOMETIMES A BUILDER COMES FORWARD WITH SEVERAL PLANS, BUT THEY ONLY BUILD A COUPLE OF THE SMALL ONES, YOU KNOW, AND A LOT OF THE LARGER ONES AND, YOU KNOW, OKAY, SO IT WOULD BE ACROSS ALL THE HOMES THAT ARE BUILT THAT WOULD HAVE TO AVERAGE OUT TO 1800 SQUARE FEET.

OKAY. THAT'S BETTER.

THANKS. OKAY. AND THEN IN THE FUTURE ON THAT 1800 SQUARE FOOT AVERAGE, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO ADD ON TO THEIR HOME.

THERE. THAT'S ALLOWABLE BECAUSE IT'S NOT UNDER THE.

YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK THE IDEA HERE IS, IS THAT PEOPLE ARE PROBABLY EVENTUALLY GOING TO ADD ON TO THEIR HOMES, BUT AT LEAST WE'RE STARTING IN A PLACE WHERE WE'RE NOT SORT OF I MEAN, THE IDEA HERE TOO, IS, IS THAT WE ARE CREATING SMALLER LOTS IN GENERAL, AND SO WE'RE TRYING NOT TO OVERCROWD THEM TOO HARD WITH JUST A SMALL LOT WITH A GIANT HOME AND STILL MAKING HOUSING COSTS UNAPPROACHABLE.

BECAUSE SOME OF OUR NEWER DEVELOPMENTS MEAN THOSE STARTING HOMES IN PODS ARE COMING IN AT $1 MILLION NOW.

AND AND AS I SHARED BEFORE, IN WHERE MY KIDS LIVE AND HENDERSON AND IN PEORIA, THEY HAVE REALLY SMALL LOTS BUT A BIG HOME.

THEY HAVE BIG HOMES ON THEIR SMALL LOTS, LIKE ONES 2500 ONES, 2800.

YOU KNOW, IT MADE THEM MORE AFFORDABLE.

YEAH. EVEN THERE AND THERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY HAVE SMALLER HOMES TOO.

SO AND REMEMBER, THE DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE TO CHOOSE THIS OPTION, RIGHT? SO, THEY MAY NOT CHOOSE THIS OPTION.

THEY MAY CHOOSE TO GO.

YOU KNOW WE TRY TO PUT MORE POINTS ON THE THINGS WE WERE MOST ATTRACTED TO OR THE THINGS WE THOUGHT WERE MORE DIFFICULT FOR A DEVELOPER TO DO.

OR COULD BE MORE COSTLY FOR THEM.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE WERE GOING.

I AGREE WITH YOU. THERE'S A LOT OF REALLY GREAT THINGS IN HERE THAT WE'D LIKE TO DO, BUT MAYBE SIT DOWN WITH THE NUMBERS AND PICK OUT THE 4 OR 5 THAT YOU'D WANT TO SEE, YOU KNOW, TYPICAL TO A DEVELOPMENT AND SAY, YOU KNOW, COME BACK AND TELL ME LIKE, FIVE ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH.

I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THE BAR SO HIGH THAT IT JUST IT COLLAPSES IN UPON ITSELF.

AND THOSE I MEAN, THEY'RE, THEY'RE WATCHING EVERY LITTLE STEP THAT I TAKE ON THIS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE IT STILL WORKS FOR THE PRODUCTS THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE IN LINE.

DOES THIS IS, THIS STRIKES ME AS THIS WHOLE AMENDMENT, PROBABLY JUST AS KIND OF A WAY TO TAKE WHAT WERE THE IDEAS BEHIND THE TRANSECT ZONE AND THEN SORT OF BUILD THEM INTO THE ZONING CODE MORE RATHER THAN HAVE THAT WHOLE WEIRD TRANSIT ZONE THING THAT NOBODY UNDERSTANDS.

IT'S A START.

YEAH. SO YEAH, THAT'S WHAT THIS KIND OF MAKES ME THINK IS IT'S A WAY TO SORT OF NORMALIZE THAT OR SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST THE WAY WE THINK NOW.

IS THIS A WAY FOR BUILDERS TO CHOOSE AND THEN THEY CAN.

I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OF WHEN I HEAR BUILDERS SAY THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO MEET, AND IT GETS SO COSTLY THAT THIS IS A WAY TO BE MORE COST EFFECTIVE TO THEM.

SO, SOME OF THESE THINGS COULD BE MORE COST EFFECTIVE.

THEY'RE ALSO VERY DESIRABLE.

THEY ADD A LOT OF THESE FEATURES REALLY ADD TO A DEVELOPMENT OVERALL.

I MEAN THEY'RE THEY'RE DESIRABLE AMENITIES.

I MEAN, THESE ARE STILL HOME BUILDERS THAT ARE WANTING TO SELL HOMES AND MAKE A PROFIT.

AND SO MOST OF THESE SUBDIVISIONS COME WITH A LOT OF SOME OF THESE AMENITIES, NOT ALL OF THEM.

BUT I THINK THE IDEA HERE IS GIVING CHOICES BECAUSE EVERY SITE MIGHT NOT WORK PERFECTLY.

AND WE'VE STRUGGLED WITH SOME OF THE FORM-BASED CODE STANDARDS.

SO, I'LL TELL YOU THAT I'VE STRUGGLED THE MOST, AND IT MADE ME WANT TO CRY A TIME OR TWO.

[01:30:02]

WHEN YOU USE THE FORM-BASED CODE REQUIREMENTS, IT HAS A FRONT FACADE REQUIREMENT AND 50% OF THE WIDTH OF THE HOUSE.

THE LIVABLE PORTION OF THE HOUSE HAS TO BE WITHIN THAT FRONT FACADE ZONE, WHICH IS GENERALLY BETWEEN 5 AND 12FT.

WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE'S A TREE THERE? THEN I HAVE TO CUT DOWN TREES IN ORDER TO MAKE THE HOUSE FIT.

THEN I'M NOT MEETING THE RESOURCES.

IT GIVES ME NO WIGGLE ROOM TO WORK A HOUSE AROUND A TREE BECAUSE.

SO THAT THAT FRONT FACADE REQUIREMENT WAS JUST SUPER ONEROUS AND SUPER DIFFICULT.

SO DID WE MOVE AROUND A TIME OR TWO ON A LOT? SURE. I'VE DONE THAT.

BUT IT'S HARD, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU LOOK AT THESE STANDARDS AND YOU TRY TO.

I'M A LITTLE BIT OF A GIRL.

I'LL TRY TO MAKE THINGS WORK ALL DAY LONG, BUT WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO'VE GOT TO READ THE CODE AND SAY, AND THEY'RE MAYBE NOT WANTING TO TAKE ALL OF THOSE RISKS ON THEMSELVES.

WE'VE GOT TO MAKE THIS A WORKABLE TOOL FOR STAFF TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH DEVELOPER AND NOT FEEL LIKE WE'RE BEING SO OBSTINATE THAT WE'RE NOT WILLING TO WORK AROUND A TREE RESOURCE. YOU KNOW, SOMETHING ELSE WE'VE DECIDED IS REALLY IMPORTANT, OR TO SET A HOUSE APPROPRIATELY ON A LOT BECAUSE WE WANTED IT AS CLOSE TO THE STREET AS POSSIBLE.

SO IT JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S LAND, IT'S NOT ALL PERFECTLY FLAT OUT THERE.

IT'S HARD TO GET TO IT.

I'D LIKE TO THINK THAT SOME OF THESE IDEAS WOULD HELP A DEVELOPER DESIGN A PLAT THAT UTILIZES THE LAND BETTER. WHAT? BOTHERS ME SOMETIMES IS WHEN I SEE THE DENSITY COME IN AND THE DENSITY IS LOW ON WHAT IS ALLOWED, AND I KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CHARGE A LOT OF MONEY FOR A LARGE LOT THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING BUT THE ONE HOUSE ON IT.

SO, IF THIS CAUSES THEM TO THINK A LITTLE MORE CREATIVELY, CREATIVELY ON HOW THEY DESIGN THEIR COMMUNITIES AND UTILIZE THE LAND BETTER, GET THE DENSITY HIGHER, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT THING.

AND I THINK MAYBE BY INCREASING THE POINTS, YOU MIGHT CAUSE THEM TO THINK A LITTLE FURTHER INTO THAT.

I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT JUST SO I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU SAID.

THAT SOMETIMES THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DOUBLE DIP BETWEEN COMMON SPACE AND CIVIL CIVIC SPACE.

IT'LL COUNT IN BOTH SPACES.

WE'VE NOT BEEN DOING IT.

WE'VE BEEN REQUIRING THEM TO PROVIDE BOTH.

SO WHERE THE PROVISION IS IN THE CODE, IT'S IT DOESN'T ALWAYS APPLY TO THESE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS.

IT'S FOUND UNDER THE SITE.

SITE PLANNING DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH DO NOT APPLY TO SUBDIVISIONS.

BUT IT IS REALLY IT KIND OF GAVE ME THIS INKLING THAT IT WAS REALLY CLEAR THAT THEY'D NEVER REALLY MEANT THEM TO COMPLETELY OVERLAP, SO THAT A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WAS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 20%, BUT IT BUT WHERE IT IS, IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT I NEED IT TO APPLY TO.

SO, IT'S AN INTERESTING LITTLE CONFLICT.

IT OFTEN SEEMED LIKE THE ONLY THING THAT THEY COULD COME UP WITH FOR CIVIC SPACE WAS A DOG PARK.

YEAH, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONLY THING THAT THEY COULD LET THE PUBLIC IN ON FOOTE'S TRAILS.

YEAH. BECOME ANOTHER BIG ONE IN TIMBER SKY.

THEY ACTUALLY PUT IN A PICKLEBALL COURT AND IT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, BUT THERE'S NOT PARKING FACILITIES REALLY FOR IT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I MEAN, WE DEFINITELY HAD A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT KIND OF ALSO PUT IN A PUBLIC PICKLEBALL COURT.

BUT WAIT, I WANT TO USE SOMEBODY'S POOL, RIGHT? YOU MAY WANT TO USE SOMEBODY'S POOL.

IT JUST IT DOES REALLY BECOME DIFFICULT TO TO LAYER ON.

AND I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO BE MORE REASONABLE AND TO PRIORITIZE WHAT THIS COMMUNITY IS LOOKING FOR.

WE WANT IT ALL RIGHT.

WE WANT CHEAP HOMES. WE WANT ALL THE TREES ON BEAUTIFUL LAND.

WE WANT OPEN SPACE.

WE CAN DO IT. AND I'M WONDERING IF MAYBE THIS IS A PRETTY LONG LIST, IF MAYBE THEY WERE DIVIDED INTO CATEGORIES, YOU KNOW, OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY OR PLAT OR WHATEVER.

AND THEN THERE WERE POINTS AT EACH CATEGORY.

MAYBE THAT WOULD GET US A FEW MORE THINGS THAT WE WOULD WANT.

WE CAN DO THAT.

ALEX JUST THOUGHT THAT WAS ALEX'S SUGGESTION AS WELL.

SO, I MEAN, IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE INTERESTED IN, YOU KNOW, I CAN WORK ON THAT.

DIVIDING THESE.

THIS LONG LIST INTO CATEGORIES.

SOME ARE BASED ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

SOME ARE BASED ON. SO YOU'RE PULLING AT LEAST A COUPLE POINTS FROM EACH CATEGORY SO YOU'RE NOT FULLY BASED.

LET ME WORK ON AN ALTERNATIVE FOR YOU.

AND AND I CAN COME BACK WITH THAT ON IN NOVEMBER.

AND WHAT WOULD BE THE MECHANISM FOR RAISING THE NUMBER OF POINTS NEEDED?

[01:35:01]

THAT PRODUCT THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE IN MIND IS NOT GOING TO WORK BECAUSE WE'LL GET IT.

SO, LIKE WE DON'T WANT TO SAY, OH, YOU HAVE TO MEET TEN, BUT MAYBE SIX.

I MEAN, I COULD SEE RAISING IT ONE POINT, BUT NOT EXACTLY.

I MEAN, SO THINK ABOUT IT.

I MEAN, IF YOU WERE A DEVELOPER, WHICH TOOL WOULD YOU GO? OR IF YOU WANTED TO LIVE IN THE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH TOOL WOULD YOU WANT AND WHAT'S THE REALISTIC POINT VALUE? THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THOUGHT PROCESSES.

I KNOW MAYBE DO IT WITH BOTH, BUT I WILL TRY TO ALSO GROUP THESE UNDER CATEGORIES SO YOU CAN AND TRY TO WRITE IT IN SUCH A WAY AS LIKE PICKING FROM CERTAIN CATEGORIES THE WAY ALEX WANTED ME TO DO IT ORIGINALLY.

YOU ARE? I THINK YOU HAD A GOOD EXCUSE OF WHY I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE I COULD SMUSH IT INTO CATEGORIES, BUT THESE HAVE REALLY MORPHED OVER TIME.

THEY'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH LOTS OF DIFFERENT FOLKS, AND THE LIST THAT I STARTED WITH HAS DRAMATICALLY CHANGED FROM WHAT'S HERE TODAY.

SO. SO I HAVE A QUESTION.

SO WHEN I WAS AFTER OUR LAST MEETING AND I WAS ASKING A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

JUST FOR ME.

WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT.

WE DON'T ALLOW.

PRIVATELY OWNED STREETS IN THE CITY ANYMORE.

WE DO ALLOW PRIVATELY OWNED.

STREETS, BUT WE REQUIRE THEM TO MEET PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS, SO THERE IS NO FINANCIAL BENEFIT FOR YOU.

MAINTAINING YOUR OWN STREETS.

WHEN YOU'VE ALREADY MET THE CITY STANDARD, YOU DEDICATE THEM SO.

SO. MEANING LIKE THE DESIGN OF THE STREET.

SO THE WIDTH OF IT.

THE SIDEWALK. SIDEWALK.

THE PARKWAY HAS TO MEET CITY STANDARDS.

YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH YOUR OWN.

I'M GOING TO HAVE THIS REALLY SKINNY STREET AND ONLY HAVE SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE.

SO, THE EXAMPLE FROM THE PAST WAS GREENLAW TOWNHOMES, IS THAT RIGHT? RIGHT. SO, THEY DON'T I DON'T KNOW.

I HAVEN'T DRIVEN THROUGH THERE IN AGES, BUT DO THEY NOT HAVE SIDEWALKS THERE? I KNOW THEY'RE SKINNY SOME OF THEIR STREETS INTERNAL.

NO THEY DON'T. AND SO A LOT OF THE OLDER TOWN, YOU KNOW HONESTLY WE HAVE YOU HAVEN'T SEEN A LOT OF TOWNHOMES DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE A LOT OF THOSE REASONS NOT ENTIRELY, BUT I THINK THE DEVELOPMENT YOU LIVE IN HAS ALTERNATIVE STREET STANDARDS.

AND YOU'RE PRIVATE, YOU HAVE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS ON THEM, BUT THEY'RE PRIVATE.

SO THAT'S ANOTHER LITTLE FUN THING WE DO ON PRIVATE STREETS IS WE'LL PUT PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS OVER THEM.

BUT WE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, THERE'S REASONS FOR THAT TOO.

SO SO SOMEBODY COULD OWN A OR HAVE A PRIVATE STREET.

WHAT WOULD BE.

THE ONLY REASON TO DO IT IN THE PAST WAS TO BUILD AN ALTERNATIVE STREET SECTION, BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T WANT TO BUILD THE CITY STREET SECTION.

SO, GENERALLY THEY'RE LIKE PINE CANYON, FOR EXAMPLE.

THEY DON'T MEET OUR STREET SECTION, THEY DON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS, THEY DON'T PARKWAYS.

THEY DON'T WALK, APPARENTLY.

OR THEY DO WALK IN THE STREET, SO.

OR THERE'S NOT ENOUGH CARS IN THERE ANYWAY.

YOU JUST WALK ON THE STREET.

BUT THAT WAS THE BENEFIT TO DOING.

THAT'S THE ONLY REASON YOU'D WANT TO DO A PRIVATE STREET IS TO PUT IN AN ALTERNATIVE STREET STANDARD, AND WE DON'T ALLOW THOSE ANYMORE.

SO, THERE IT IS TO YOUR BENEFIT TO DEDICATE THOSE STREETS TO THE PUBLIC.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THIS WAS LONG AND HARD AND I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

IT WAS GREAT FEEDBACK, BUT PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTINUE TO GIVE ME FEEDBACK.

EMAIL ME, CALL ME, WHATEVER.

THIS IS WHAT I DO ALL DAY LONG NOW.

YEAH. THANK YOU. THAT WAS A GREAT PRESENTATION EXPLANATION.

REALLY APPRECIATE IT. I WAS READING THROUGH IT.

I THOUGHT, OH MY GOD, IT'S A LOT.

AND I'M PROBABLY GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO THIS TO YOU WHERE I'M GOING TO BRING LOTS OF SMALL AMENDMENTS ALL AT ONCE.

ONE, BECAUSE I'M CHEAP AND I CAN ADVERTISE THEM ALL TOGETHER.

SO, THERE YOU GO.

FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE.

YES. I'M SORRY. I'M FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE.

YES. THERE YOU GO.

SO, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

I KNOW THAT WAS A LOT. THANKS.

APPRECIATE IT. THANKS. OKAY.

THAT'S THAT WAS THE LAST ITEM IN OUR AGENDA.

SO, WE JUST HAVE TO FROM.

[7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO/FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS]

SO, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT TO EVERYONE THAT IN DECEMBER, MARIE'S TIME WITH US IS COMING TO AN END.

AND WE'VE HAD DR.

[01:40:03]

HAS RESIGNED FROM THE COMMISSION, SO WE WILL HAVE TWO OPENINGS COMING UP.

PLEASE FRIENDS, FAMILIES, MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY.

PUT THE WORD OUT.

I BELIEVE IT GOT POSTED ON THE CITY'S FACEBOOK PAGE.

THEY CAN REACH OUT TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE TO GET AN APPLICATION IN.

THE MORE APPLICATIONS WE HAVE, THE BETTER.

I THINK GIVING COUNCIL MORE OPTIONS IS ALWAYS GOOD.

SO, THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

SO, MARIE, YOU'VE ALREADY SERVED TWO TERMS I HAVE.

SORRY TO LOSE YOU.

I THINK IT WAS TWO TERMS, PLUS SHE FILLED IN.

YEAH. SO, SHE'S BEEN HERE A WHILE, WHICH IS WHY SHE'S SO GREAT.

I'LL CHECK ON YOURS.

OH. OKAY.

WE'LL GO DAY BY DAY HERE.

ONE THING AT A TIME.

ANYTHING ELSE. THERE'S NOTHING ELSE.

WE'RE ADJOURNED. GREAT.

THANK YOU. THANKS.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.