Jan 10, 2024 Planning and Zoning

[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).]

[00:00:03]

I'D LIKE TO CALL THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10TH, 2024, TO ORDER.

UM, NOTICE OF RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO ARS 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 ATTORNEY.

FOR LEGAL ADVICE ON ANY ITEM LISTED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA.

PURSUANT TO THE ARS 38-431.03A3.

SO, I'D LIKE TO WELCOME MARK YARNELL AS A NEW EMPLOYEE AND WELCOME.

AND I'LL HAND OFF THE ROLL CALL TO YOU.

[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 BOB HARRIS, III MARY NORTON IAN SHARP VACANT ]

HAPPY TO BE HERE.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND KICK OFF WITH ROLL CALL .

SUBJECT WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION OR OUR 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 THAT ON AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE WAIT FOR ME TO CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE TIME THE ITEM IS HEARD.

DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS POINT? HEARING AND SEEING NONE.

I AM GOING ON TO MOVE ON TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

[A. PZ-23-00136: City’s request for a Zoning Code Text Amendment to add single-family dwellings, duplex dwellings, and multiple-family dwellings as permitted uses in the Public Facility (PF) zone. STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: 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.]

THANK YOU SO MUCH, CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS.

TIFFANY. AND ZONING CODE MANAGER.

TONIGHT, I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE ZONING CODE AMENDMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ZONE.

WE DID HAVE A WORK SESSION ON THIS EARLIER THIS YEAR.

WE DID A BIT MORE WORK, BUT NOT REALLY CHANGING ANYTHING.

IT WENT OUT AND DID A LITTLE BIT MORE PUBLIC OUTREACH AND THEN ATTENDED THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AS WELL.

SO, WE'LL FOLLOW UP WITH THE AMENDMENT IS PROPOSED TO MODIFY TABLE 10403060B OF THE PUBLIC AND OPEN SPACE ZONES.

SO, THIS IS THE ALLOWED USES TO PERMIT SPECIFICALLY DUPLEX DWELLINGS, MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS, ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS AND DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ONLY, THOUGH WITHIN THE PUBLIC FACILITY ZONE UTILIZING THE HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING DENSITY, LOT COVERAGE, BUILDING HEIGHT, AND SETBACKS.

I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THIS IS SOMETHING I DIDN'T COVER IN THE WORK SESSION.

THAT, ALREADY BUILT INTO THE CODE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT ANY CHANGE OF USE WITHIN THE PUBLIC FACILITY ZONE HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PROCESS RIGHT NOW CONSISTS OF TWO MEETINGS.

ONE CAN BE WAIVED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR IF IT'S DEEMED NECESSARY.

BUT RIGHT NOW, SINCE THERE ARE NO HOUSING PROJECTS IN THE PUBLIC FACILITY ZONE, ANY PROPOSAL TO PUT HOUSING OR ONE OF THESE PROPOSED USES WOULD AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGER THAT REQUIREMENT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.

ADDITIONALLY, THE SOME OF THE IMPETUS, THERE'S TWO MAJOR IMPETUSES FOR THIS PARTICULAR TEXT AMENDMENT.

ONE OF THOSE IS A RECENTLY ADOPTED RESOLUTION THAT STATES THAT THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL REQUIRE, IF A CITY OWNED BUILDING OR PROPERTY IS BEING VACATED BY THE CITY, THAT THE HOUSING SECTION FIRST HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE THE PROPERTY AS A POTENTIAL AS A HOUSING SOURCE, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S IT. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THAT WE INTEND TO SELL OFF THESE LANDS OR ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES, BUT PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES AND THE LIKE FOR POTENTIAL HOUSING. UH, JUST AS A REFRESH IN TERMS OF WHAT THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ZONE IS

[00:05:04]

SO, THERE ARE CURRENTLY 181 PARCELS WITHIN THE PUBLIC FACILITY ZONE.

THE CITY DOES OWN JUST OVER 40% OF THOSE PARCELS.

SO, THE VAST MAJORITY, WHICH YOU CAN SEE HERE INCLUDES THINGS LIKE THE AIRPORT, WHICH WOULD NEVER BE DEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL BUT ALSO INCLUDES THINGS LIKE ADJACENT LANDS AROUND BUFFALO PARK INCLUDES A BIG SECTION OF THORPE PARK INCLUDES BUSHMASTER PARK.

SO, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF CITY OWNED PARKS WITHIN THIS ZONING CATEGORY.

AGAIN, THE INTENTION HERE IS NOT TO REDEVELOP EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS FOR HOUSING.

UM, IT WOULD BE MORE LOOKING TOWARDS LANDS THAT ARE UNDERUTILIZED ALREADY.

I WOULD SAY OF THE PARKS WE HAVE, THEY'RE PRETTY MAGNIFICENT.

AND OF COURSE, REBECCA SAYERS IS ONLINE.

I SEE THAT BUT WE HAVE SOME REALLY GREAT PARKS.

WE ALSO HAVE LANDS THAT ARE SET ASIDE FOR FUTURE PARKS, AND THOSE ARE VERY CLEARLY DENOTED.

I THINK THAT OUR PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT IS VERY INVOLVED.

THEY ARE PART OF OUR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS.

AND SO THEY'RE CONSTANTLY AWARE OF WHERE DEVELOPMENT IS HAPPENING IN THIS COMMUNITY.

BUT OF THOSE VERY LARGE LANDS THAT ARE SLATED FOR FUTURE PARKS, I MEAN, WHO KNOWS WHAT THE FUTURE BRINGS? THERE COULD ALWAYS BE THAT POTENTIAL FOR MAYBE A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP.

WE DON'T KNOW. BUT BEING OPEN TO THAT CERTAINLY COULD HELP TRY TO ALLEVIATE OR SQUEEZE IN A FEW MORE HOUSING UNITS WHERE THEY WEREN'T PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED OF ALL OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES, OWN LANDS, THERE ARE MAYBE ABOUT 1 OR 2 OF THESE PIECES THAT ARE PROBABLY APPROPRIATE FOR HOUSING.

AND THERE HAVE BEEN SOME THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN LAID OUT PROPOSALS.

THEY'RE PRETTY LOW-DENSITY HOUSING.

THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS THE MOST DESIRABLE PIECES OF LAND.

I MEAN, NOTHING IN FLAGSTAFF IS PERFECT ANYMORE, RIGHT? SO THERE REALLY ISN'T THAT GREAT FLAT LOT THAT HAS EVERYTHING THAT IT NEEDS, INCLUDING ROADS AND SEWER AND WATER BUT THERE ARE SOME SMALLER PARCELS WHERE PLANS HAVE BEEN SORT OF VETTED AND ADDRESSED OVER THE YEARS.

I THINK THAT WHEN THE ZONING CODE WAS ADOPTED IN 2011, THERE WAS JUST THIS PUSH TO PUT CITY OWNED PROPERTY IN THAT PUBLIC FACILITY ZONE, AND SOME OF THOSE INTENTIONS GOT LOST BY THE WAYSIDE WHEN RESIDENTIAL WAS NO LONGER REALLY A PERMITTED USE IN THAT ZONE.

SO AGAIN, TENSION HERE IS NOT TO REALLY REDEVELOP PARKS OR TO IMPEDE OUR PROCESS OF PARKS, BECAUSE I WILL TELL YOU, THERE'S ALSO A PARKS CRISIS AS WELL IN OUR COMMUNITY.

AND THEN THE OTHER POINT TO MENTION IN HERE, A LARGE PORTION OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES, OWN PARCELS ARE OWNED BY NIU AS WELL, WHICH THEY FALL OUTSIDE OF OUR ZONING REQUIREMENTS.

THEY, WE PUT ZONING ON LOTS OF PARCELS.

WE DON'T TECHNICALLY HAVE ZONING AUTHORITY OVER.

SO, UM, YOU KNOW, TAKE THAT FOR WHAT IT IS.

ALSO, FUSD, THEY OWN 9% OF THOSE PARCELS.

IN THE PAST, FUSD HAS APPROACHED US ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDING HOUSINGS TO SOME OF THEIR SITES.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE STARTING TO REDEVELOP SCHOOLS AND THERE'S POTENTIAL THERE, ESPECIALLY, AS WE ALL KNOW, THE COST OF LIVING IN FLAGSTAFF IS VERY HIGH.

THE LIKELIHOOD OF WANTING TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING, OR WAYS TO RECRUIT AND RETAIN TEACHERS IN OUR COMMUNITY OR OTHER EMPLOYEES THAT COULD BE AN ASSET, I BELIEVE IN PRESCOTT, THE PRESCOTT SCHOOL DISTRICT IS IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING SOMETHING SIMILAR THAT WAS MENTIONED TO ME RECENTLY.

SO, THERE'S JUST THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES THERE ON THESE LIMITED LANDS.

FOR THE MOST PART, MOST OF THESE LANDS ARE HELD BY GOVERNMENT OR QUASI GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LIKE APS OR MUSEUMS. THE COUNTY AS WELL, UNISOURCE LOWELL OBSERVATORY.

YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THESE PARCELS AREN'T LIKELY TO COME IN FOR DEVELOPMENT OR BE SOLD OFF FOR DEVELOPMENT.

AND A LOT OF THESE LANDS ARE ALSO PRIVATELY OR SEPARATELY DEED RESTRICTED.

EVEN A LOT OF THE LANDS THAT COME TO THE CITY THAT WE HOLD ARE DEED RESTRICTED FOR, FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AS WELL.

SO, ALL OF THOSE THINGS WOULD REMAIN IN PLACE.

ANY OF THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS WOULD HAVE TO BE ABANDONED.

WE ALL KNOW HOW FUN AND DIFFICULT THAT WOULD BE TO CHANGE IN ORDER TO SEE REDEVELOPMENT OCCUR ON MANY OF THOSE LOCATIONS.

[00:10:01]

AND THE FINDINGS IN THE FIRST FINDING IS ABOUT BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN AND ANY APPLICABLE SPECIFIC PLAN, AS WELL AS THE AMENDMENT NOT BEING DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE OR WELFARE, AND THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INTERNALLY CONSISTENT WITH OTHER APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE.

SO, THE OTHER LARGE IMPETUS FOR THIS TEXT AMENDMENT IS THAT THERE IS A SPECIFIC STRATEGY IN THE HOUSING PLAN THAT CALLS FOR EXPLORING ADDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS AN ALLOWED USE IN THE PUBLIC FACILITY ZONE.

IT'S PRETTY SPECIFIC, AS I HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

WHY ARE YOU NOT ONLY PERMITTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING? SO, LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NOT A LAND USE CATEGORY.

RESIDENTIAL USES ARE A LAND USE CATEGORY.

THE FIRST STEP TO ALLOWING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL USES ON CITY OWNED PROPERTY.

IF THE CITY WERE TO GO FOR AN RFP, WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER, OR CONSIDER EVEN SELLING LAND THROUGH AUCTION, THEY CAN ALWAYS RESTRICT THAT PROPERTY OR THE SALE OF THAT PROPERTY AND PUT THE SAME DEED.

RESTRICTIONS SAY IT NEEDS TO BE THIS, THESE UNITS NEED TO BE OF THIS TYPE AND VARIETY.

THE UNITS NEED TO SERVE THIS AMI.

BUT AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SELLING BODY, THE POLITICAL BODY, WHICH WOULD BE CITY COUNCIL.

SO, IF THE INTENTION HERE FOR CITY PROPERTY IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, I THINK IT WOULD BE UNLIKELY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD RECOMMEND OR APPROVE A PROJECT THAT WOULDN'T BE FALLING WITHIN THAT CATEGORY.

ZONING DOES HAVE THAT PROFOUND IMPACT ON HOUSING LOCATION AND TYPE, AND IT DEFINITELY IMPACTS COST AND AFFORDABILITY.

SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE CAN'T IN A NORMAL SITUATION ON ANOTHER DEVELOPER OR ANOTHER ENTITY, WE CAN'T FORCE THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEIR UNITS BE AFFORDABLE. SO, SAY FUSD COMES IN AND THEY WANT TO ADD HOUSING.

I DO WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR.

WE CAN'T FORCE THEM TO MAKE THOSE UNITS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT I SEE IT UNLIKELY THAT A GOVERNMENT OR QUASI-GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY IS GOING TO COME IN AND USE A COMMUNITY GOOD THAT DOESN'T SERVE WHAT THE NEEDS ARE OF THE COMMUNITY.

RIGHT? I BELIEVE THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME GOOD PUBLIC CONVERSATIONS AND FEEDBACK.

AND AGAIN, REMEMBER THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS REQUIRED, WHETHER IT'S THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF OR WHETHER IT'S FUSD.

THE EXISTING REGIONAL PLAN DOES SUPPORT THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT WITH THE FOLLOWING POLICIES, INCLUDING PROVIDING A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND REGION, INCLUDING PURCHASE AND RENTAL OPTIONS.

AND MOST OF THESE SITUATIONS, I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE RENTAL OPTIONS RATHER THAN OWNERSHIP OPTIONS, BECAUSE I THINK MOST OF THESE LANDHOLDERS ARE GOING TO WANT TO OWN THAT LAND. THEY MAY DO LONG TERM LEASES WITH DEVELOPERS SO THAT FINANCING IS MORE AFFORDABLE.

IN THE PAST, THAT'S WHAT THE CITY HAS DONE.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT I KNOW WHY THE HOUSING DIVISION INCLUDED THIS PROVISION.

YEARS AGO, WE DID HAVE SOME PROPERTIES.

WE WERE WE HAD PUT OUT FOR AN RFP TO WORK WITH AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPER TO MAKE THOSE PROPERTIES WORK THAT WERE SELECTED BY COUNCIL.

PLANNING STAFF HAD TO GO IN AND GET THOSE PARCELS REZONED.

AS WE ALL KNOW, REZONING IS A FUN, FUN PROCESS AND IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME.

SO, I THINK THE WAY THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT THIS AMENDMENT IS IT'S A LOT ABOUT CUTTING RED TAPE.

AND IT DOES REQUIRE YOU TO PUT A LOT OF TRUST AND FAITH IN YOUR CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE DECISIONS ON WHAT THE BEST USE OF CITY OWNED LAND IS.

WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU ABOUT THOSE PROJECTS IS IT DID TAKE US A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET THOSE PROPERTIES REZONED.

THEY WERE REALLY TOUGH BECAUSE WE HAD TO DO THEM CONCEPTUALLY.

SO, YOU'RE GOING OUT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU'RE TRYING TO SELL THEM AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

YOU DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THAT HOUSING PRODUCT IS.

NOBODY LIKES YOU AT THAT MEETING.

NOBODY. THEY WERE TOUGH MEETINGS WE ALL DID WITH THE HOUSING DIVISION, WITH CURRENT PLANNING STAFF.

WE DID. WE DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF PUBLIC SHOW UP AT THE REZONING, ACTUAL PUBLIC HEARINGS.

BUT WE HEARD QUITE A BIT AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS ON THOSE PROJECTS.

THEY WERE ALL RELATIVELY SMALL.

SOME WERE BETWEEN LIKE 11 UNITS AND 13 UNITS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, ANY CHANGE, ESPECIALLY IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS, IS JUST TOUGH.

IT'S HARD.

CHANGE IS HARD.

SO, THE IDEA HERE IS WE DON'T WANT TO DISCOURAGE OUR NEIGHBORS IN TERMS OF PROVIDING US FEEDBACK ON HOW WE CAN MAKE THESE PROJECTS BETTER, BECAUSE I THINK NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS PROVIDE A LOT OF HELPFUL INSIGHT INTO HOW WE CAN MAKE PROJECTS BETTER, EVEN THOSE THAT ARE PERMITTED BY.

RIGHT. AND GENERALLY, WE'RE WORKING WITH DEVELOPERS.

[00:15:01]

LOW-COST MEANING OTHER THAN REDUCING NUMBER OF UNITS TO HELP APPEASE A NEIGHBOR.

SO, WITH THAT SAID, WOULD THIS AMENDMENT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, HEALTH, SAFETY, CONVENIENCE OR WELFARE? AND THE GENERAL OPINION IS, NO, THAT IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, IF WE STARTED REDEVELOPING EVERY PARK IN THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, I MIGHT DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT, BUT THAT CLEARLY IS NOT THE INTENTION HERE.

THE INTENTION IS TO FIND THOSE SMALL LITTLE NUGGETS OF, WHEN THEY'RE AVAILABLE, CUT THE RED TAPE SO THAT WE CAN GET TO THOSE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FASTER.

THESE ARE GENERALLY LEAN AND MEAN TYPE OF PROJECTS.

THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT THE HUB.

THEY'RE NOT LARGE-SCALE, HIGH-DENSITY HOUSING.

THESE ARE GOING TO BE SMALL OR 1013-UNIT PROJECTS.

SO, THE IDEA HERE IS GET THEM TO MARKET FASTER.

USE THE FUNDING SOURCES THAT ARE AVAILABLE THAT USUALLY REQUIRE US TO TURN THINGS AROUND PRETTY QUICKLY.

SO, THERE YOU GO.

THAT'S THE FINDING IN THE NUTSHELL.

AND THEN THE LAST ONE, IT'S INTERNALLY CONSISTENT.

THERE'S NO OTHER PLACE THAT I HAD TO WORK THROUGH IN THE CODE TO MAKE ANY CHANGES WAS PROBABLY ONE OF THE SIMPLEST, EASIEST EDITORIAL CHANGES IN THE CODE TO DATE.

WITH THAT, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

I DEFINITELY HAVE RECEIVED PUBLIC COMMENT.

SO, LET ME BACK UP ON THAT.

SO, IN TERMS OF PUBLIC COMMENT, NAT IS SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE AND HE AND I ALWAYS HAVE FUN, LIVELY DEBATES.

YOU KNOW, WHAT I BROUGHT UP ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAS CERTAINLY BROUGHT UP BY HIM AND I THINK HE SHARES CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BY OTHERS.

THE FEAR IS THAT WE'LL GO FOR PROPERTIES THAT AREN'T SLATED FOR THAT.

THEY'LL BE USED FOR HOUSING WHEN THEY HAVEN'T BEEN SLATED FOR HOUSING, OR THEY'RE DEED RESTRICTED TO OTHER USES.

AND AGAIN, NOT THE INTENTION HERE.

SO, I THINK OVERALL I'VE HEARD FROM THREE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM SINCE I LAST MET WITH YOU.

I WAS ABLE TO GO TO THE PARKS AND REC COMMISSION.

I HAD TO SAY THEY'RE ONE OF THE MOST WELCOMING OPEN COMMISSIONS.

I THOUGHT I WAS GOING TO KIND OF WALK INTO IT A LITTLE BIT.

I DID NOT. THEY WERE SO ENGAGED IN THE CONVERSATION, AND THEY WERE ACTUALLY VERY SUPPORTIVE.

THEY FEEL THAT THEIR PROPERTIES ARE VERY WELL SORT OF IDENTIFIED.

THEY'RE EITHER EXISTING OR THEY'RE IDENTIFIED FOR FUTURE USES AND THAT THOSE ARE WELL KNOWN FACTS.

SO, THEY WEREN'T OVERALL FEELING THREATENED THAT THIS WAS A PROPOSAL TO COME AND TAKE OVER LANDS THAT ARE DESIGNATED FOR FUTURE PARKS.

THAT'S A GENERAL READ THAT I GOT FROM THAT COMMISSION, BUT OVERALL, VERY INTRIGUED, ASKED A LOT OF GREAT QUESTIONS.

MORE SO THAN OTHER COMMISSIONS THAT I ATTENDED.

THANK YOU. TIFFANY.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS? MARY. I ALWAYS HAVE QUESTIONS.

I JUST WANTED TO.

REITERATE, EMPLOYEE HOUSING IS ALREADY A USE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE YOU GAVE THE EXAMPLE OF FUSD A FEW TIMES, BUT THAT REALLY IS ALREADY ALLOWED. IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

YES, EMPLOYEE HOUSING IS ALLOWED.

IT IS SPECIFICALLY DEFINED AS FOR THOSE THAT ARE WORKING ON SITE.

SO, I COULD SEE WHERE FUSD COULD PUT EMPLOYEE HOUSING ON ONE PARTICULAR LOCATION BECAUSE IT HAS THE BEST RESOURCES TO SUPPORT HOUSING, BUT IT MIGHT WORK FOR EMPLOYEES OF ANOTHER LOCATION OR ANOTHER SITE.

SAME THING WITH THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

THE WAY OUR DEFINITION IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN IS THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO BE DIRECTLY EMPLOYED ON THE SITE THAT YOU'RE LIVING.

I, IN CONCERT WITH OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR, WE SAT AND TALKED ABOUT THIS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE COULD AMEND THE DEFINITION OF EMPLOYEE HOUSING. THE MORE I WENT DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE, THE BIGGER IT GOT, AND THE HARDER IT WAS TO CONTROL AND WRANGLE THROUGH WHAT IS VIABLE IN A ZONING CODE TO DO.

UM, AND THE EASIEST ROUTE TO GO WAS IN ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL USES AS A WHOLE IN THE PUBLIC FACILITY ZONE, RATHER THAN TRYING TO SAY, WELL, EMPLOYEES OF, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT SECTORS, YOU KNOW, COULD AND THEN AGAIN, I THINK WE JUST START TO LIMIT WHAT HOUSING CAN BE USED FOR.

I CAN SEE UNINTENTIONAL CONSEQUENCES OF JUST TRYING TO CHANGE EMPLOYEE HOUSING.

OKAY. AND THEN, UM.

THANK YOU.

AS FAR AS THE COMMUNITY MEETING, WHAT IS THIS? WOULD BE LIKE A TYPICAL COMMUNITY MEETING, LIKE WHEN THERE'S A REZONING.

[00:20:04]

TO GIVE YOU. GIVE US WHAT WE WOULD NEED.

YES. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

YOU KNOW, THE PROCESS FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS IT IS FOR A REZONING OR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

BY STATE LAW, NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS AND NOTIFICATIONS ARE AT THAT 300 FOOT.

WE ALWAYS EXPAND THAT.

WE EXPAND IT PRAGMATICALLY TO THE POINT OF SOMETIMES GETTING A LOT OF FEEDBACK OF, WOW, YOU MADE THAT THAT, THAT BOUNDARY FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.

PRETTY BIG.

SO, WE WHAT WE TRY TO DO IS LOOK AT THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY AND AS A WHOLE AND REALLY ASSESS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ITS ADJACENCIES AND ITS SURROUNDS AND UNDERSTAND, EVEN THOUGH YOU MIGHT NOT BE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THAT POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THERE'S LIKELY SOME FORM OF IMPACT, EITHER FROM ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC OR SOMETHING ELSE.

WE TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT BROADER BOUNDARY IS INCLUDED.

UM, ESPECIALLY IF THERE WERE CITY PROPERTIES, WE WOULD EVEN GO PROBABLY ABOVE AND BEYOND EVEN MORE BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT MORE OUTREACH THAT WE CAN DO AS THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF. WE HAVE SOCIAL MEDIA AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE DO AS WELL.

LIKELY TO, IF COUNCIL WAS DIRECTING THE USE OF ANY CITY PROPERTIES, THERE WOULD ALSO BE LIABLE TO BE CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSIONS AS WELL AND APPROVAL OF WHATEVER CONTRACTS OR IF THEY'RE GOING TO SELL OR HOWEVER IT IS THEY WANT TO GO THROUGH.

THOSE ARE USUALLY ALSO VERY PUBLIC PROCESSES.

SO YEAH, THAT'S GENERALLY THE PROCESS.

WE TRY TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND.

WE KNOW THAT IT WORKS IN OUR BENEFIT AS WELL FOR THE FOR THE 40% THAT THE CITY OWNS.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE, I'M SURE THERE WOULD BE PLENTY OF OVERSIGHT AND HOPEFULLY THERE WOULD BE THE EVALUATION OF IF A PIECE OF PROPERTY WASN'T BEING UTILIZED BEFORE IT WAS SOLD, THAT ALSO THERE'S A PARK SHORTAGE, AS YOU MENTIONED.

I MEAN, COULDN'T SOMETHING BE TURNED INTO A PARK? YOU KNOW, I WOULD HOPE THAT THAT USE WOULD BE EVALUATED BEFORE THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD.

AND BUT AS FAR AS, LIKE WHEN ANOTHER ZONED PROPERTY WOULD GET SOLD, I MEAN, IF WE HAD THIS ZONING IN PLACE, SOMEBODY COULD BUY IT. AND JUST BY.

RIGHT, BUILD HOUSING ON IT.

IT COULD BE. YOU KNOW, I REALIZE IT'LL BE A HIGH DENSITY, BUT IT COULD BE A HIGH END, LUXURY, HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT MIGHT BE IN AN INAPPROPRIATE AREA THAT WE'D HAVE.

NO, YOU, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, WOULD HAVE NO OVERSIGHT OVER.

COULD THAT HAPPEN? WELL, I MEAN, WE HAVE OVERSIGHT OVER IT IN TERMS OF COMPLYING WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND CODES AND ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS.

YES, WE MIGHT LOSE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT GUARANTEE NO MATTER WHAT.

RIGHT. EVEN IF IT WAS A REZONING CASE, WE CANNOT REQUIRE THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPONENT.

SO AGAIN, IT JUST COMES DOWN TO A NEGOTIATION WITH ANY DEVELOPER.

SURE. DO WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A HOOK WHEN WE'VE GOT A DISCRETIONARY CASE AS OPPOSED TO A BUY, RIGHT.

CERTAINLY. BUT AS OF LATE, MOST OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS THAT I'VE SEEN IN THIS COMMUNITY HAVE BEEN BY RIGHT AND NOT DISCRETIONARY.

SO, THERE'S HOPE.

WE HAVE LOTS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPERS WHO ARE OUT THERE ACTIVELY SEEKING PROPERTY, JUST LIKE THE LUXURY HOME BUYERS AS WELL.

SO, THERE'S A LIKELY GOOD CHANCE THAT IS LIKELY AS WE'RE GOING TO GET LUXURY.

WE MIGHT ALSO LUCK OUT AND GET AFFORDABLE.

AND THEN I DID HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS WRITTEN DOWN HERE.

UM. SO, I KNOW OFTENTIMES YOU REFER TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE INTENTION OF THIS IS AND WHAT THE INTENTION OF YOUR DEPARTMENT IS. BUT IN YEARS TO COME, IF STAFF CHANGES, THE TIDES CHANGE.

ARE PUTTING SOMETHING OUT THERE.

ARE WE NOT REALLY KIND OF LOSING SOME CONTROL? I'M CONCERNED ABOUT LOSING THE OVERSIGHT, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH A REZONING OR THROUGH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, INSTEAD OF JUST CHANGING THE CODE TO ALLOW ALL THIS HOUSING POSSIBILITIES IN A PUBLIC FACILITY ZONE AND GIVING UP PUBLIC FACILITIES ZONED PROPERTY, THAT'S WHERE I AM STRUGGLING. I KNOW WHEN WE HAD THE WORK SESSION, WE TALKED ABOUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE OPTION OF DOING THIS AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT INSTEAD OF AS A COMPLETE

[00:25:02]

RIGHT? 40% IS THE CITY.

SO, YOU FEEL PRETTY CONFIDENT ABOUT THE CITY BEING IN CONTROL DOING AND FOLLOWING THEIR OWN MISSION.

FOR NOW, I UNDERSTAND I'VE BEEN THROUGH LOTS OF DIFFERENT POLITICAL BODIES, ALWAYS THE SKEPTIC AND I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT I, AND I THINK ANY CHANGE OFTEN TAKES A LEAP.

I DON'T THINK ANY CODE AMENDMENT YOU'RE EVER GOING TO SEE IS GOING TO BE THE PERFECT, BUT DON'T LOSE SIGHT OF THE GOOD TO OBTAIN THE PERFECT.

RIGHT? THAT'S KIND OF MY MOTTO.

YOU KNOW, THE 80% RULE.

YOU KNOW, THERE COULD BE, I'M NOT GOING TO LIE TO YOU.

THERE COULD ABSOLUTELY BE A PROJECT THAT IS EXACTLY LIKE YOU SAY.

MAYBE FUSD NEEDS TO SELL OFF A PROPERTY TO FUND SOME OTHER IMPROVEMENTS SOMEWHERE ELSE, AND IT ENDS UP IN A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.

IT'S STILL ADDING UNITS IN A TOWN THAT IS STRAPPED FOR UNITS.

SO, WHILE THE HOUSING PLAN IS HOPING TO OBTAIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, IT'S ALSO STILL SEEKING TO GET ADDITIONAL UNITS RIGHT.

AND THINGS THAT I DON'T THINK OF AS LUXURY.

I MEAN, I'VE LOOKED AT THE RENTAL MARKET.

IT'S ALL LUXURY AT THIS POINT.

YEAH. BUT IF WE LOOK AT THE NUMBERS, RIGHT, 40% OF THE CITY, ABOUT 30% IS NOW.

SO, TOGETHER THAT'S 70% OF THE 181 PARCELS THROW IN, ANOTHER 10% IS F USD.

THAT'S AT 8,020%.

THAT'S LEFT OF 181.

I DON'T SOMEBODY WANT TO DO THE MATH FOR ME.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A HUGE NUMBER OF PARCELS.

THE RISK IS LOW.

SO IS DOES THIS CHANGE IF THE RISK IS LOW AND IT REALLY ONLY AFFECTS A SMALL NUMBER OF PARCELS, IS THIS CHANGE WORTH IT.

SO, I BELIEVE OUR HOUSING DIVISION THINKS THAT THIS POLICY IS WORTH IT.

I THINK CITY COUNCIL THINKS SO AS WELL, SINCE THEY ADOPTED THIS POLICY IN THE STRATEGY.

RIGHT. SO THOSE POLICIES AND STRATEGIES THAT THEY ADOPT SET MY WORK PROGRAM AND THOSE BECOME MY PRIORITY ITEMS. I BELIEVE HOUSING GAVE AN UPDATE TO COUNCIL LAST NIGHT ON THE ITEM AS WELL.

THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHANGE WAS ALSO ON THEIR WORK PLAN AS WELL THAT WE ADOPTED LAST MONTH.

SO, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THAT STAFF FEELS THAT IT'S MEANINGFUL, EVEN IF IT ONLY RESULTS IN ONE PROJECT.

ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? IAN? SO, TIFFANY, YOU ALWAYS ANSWER MY QUESTIONS AS I'M WRITING THEM DOWN.

SO, I ALWAYS FEEL SILLY, BUT I THINK YOU HIT IT ON THE HEAD.

IT COMES DOWN TO TRUST, YOU KNOW? DO WE TRUST OUR COUNCIL? AND I THINK IN THE END, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE GOT TO DO.

I'M CURIOUS WHERE THIS IDEA CAME FROM.

WHO HATCHED IT? WHERE DID IT COME FROM? SURE. IN CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR HOUSING DIRECTOR, IT'S SORT OF THAT PREHISTORY OF THIS ZONING CODE.

SO PREVIOUS TO THIS PARTICULAR ZONING CODE, WE HAD NO JOKE, LIKE 100 DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS.

AND NOW WE HAVE TEN.

SO, WHEN WE COLLAPSED, ALL OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS WE COMBINED A LOT OF THINGS THAT INTO SMALLER INTO FEWER ZONES, ESSENTIALLY.

SO, WE COLLAPSED.

WE TRIED BECAUSE OF PROP 207 AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

THEY TRIED VERY HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT NOTHING GOT LEFT OUT, THAT WHAT WAS PERMITTED BEFORE REMAINED PERMITTED.

SOME ZONES BENEFITED WITH A FEW MORE USES THAN THEY PREVIOUSLY HAD.

SOME ZONES LOST OUT ON USES THEY PREVIOUSLY HAD.

PUBLIC FACILITIES ARE ONE OF THOSE.

SO, HOUSING HAS ALWAYS WANTED THIS TO BE A PERMITTED USE IN THOSE, BECAUSE OUR CITY OWNED PARCELS FALL WITHIN THE ZONING CATEGORY, THEY HAVE ALWAYS WANTED THIS TO BE A PERMITTED USE.

SO, TO ADD TO THAT, WAS IT A PERMITTED USE BEFORE EVERYTHING WAS COLLAPSED? SO THAT WOULD TAKE ME A LOT MORE WORK TO GO BACK AND SORT OF REANALYZE WHAT THE ZONING WAS AND ALL OF THE DISTRICTS THAT GOT COLLAPSED.

JUST THINGS GOT LOST IN TRANSLATION IN TERMS OF BUT WE HAVE DEFINITELY LOOKED AT PF ZONED PARCELS FOR HOUSING MULTIPLE TIMES.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS? NO. THEN I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

SO, HEARING NO QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

[00:30:01]

I'M JUST GOING TO ADD IN MY DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW.

I'M GOING TO BE A NO ON THIS BECAUSE OF I DON'T BELIEVE IN LETTING GO THIS OVERSIGHT, BASED ON NOT SUPPORTING FINDING TWO.

SO HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION CHOOSES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A MOTION.

THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING TO FALL.

ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION OR SHALL I MAKE THE MOTION? OKAY. OKAY, BUT I CAN MAKE THE MOTION.

I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT HERE'S ONLY BECAUSE I BROUGHT THIS UP AT THIS MEETING, AS WELL AS THE WORK SESSION ABOUT IT BEING WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

WOULD WE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE ON THE FENCE, ARE WE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION WITHIN OUR MOTION? TIFFANY. I POPPED UP A SLIDE JUST IN CASE.

YOU KNOW, I WANTED TO JUST REITERATE THE PURPOSE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

AND I THINK PART OF WHAT I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS CUTTING RED TAPE.

SO, IF WE GO THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROCESS, IT DOESN'T CUT THE RED TAPE.

IT MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT LESS, BUT NOT A LOT.

SO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS ARE LIKE SEMI DISCRETIONARY, RIGHT.

THEY'RE NOT AS DISCRETIONARY AS A REZONE.

IF YOU MEET THE FINDINGS WHEN YOU'RE WHEN YOU ARE CONDITIONAL USE, YOU ARE REALLY A PERMITTED USE IN THE ZONE BUT MIGHT REQUIRE MORE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW.

SO THAT'S THE QUESTION YOU NEED TO ASK YOURSELF.

WHAT DO YOU GAIN FROM A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT? WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING TO MITIGATE IN TERMS OF THAT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT? YOU KNOW, WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU IS, IS THAT MORE AND MORE AS PLANNERS, WE ARE SEEING PRESSURE FROM WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD A HOUSING CRISIS. RIGHT.

BUT THE HOUSING CRISIS IS MUCH MORE VISIBLE AND PRESENT IN OTHER AREAS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA AND ACROSS THE NATION.

RIGHT? SO, WE ARE DEFINITELY SEEING MUCH MORE PRESSURE FROM THE LEGISLATURE AND TO MAKE HOUSING EASIER TO DO.

WHEN WE CAN'T DO THAT, THE STATE'S GOING TO START TO OVERRIDE OUR LOCAL AUTHORITY.

SO EVEN MEASURES THAT WE SAW LAST YEAR, THEY TALKED ABOUT REMOVING OUR ABILITY TO REQUIRE PARKING ON RESIDENTIAL USES.

HAVING UNLIMITED BUILDING HEIGHTS, ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL USES LIKE CHANGING DENSITY STANDARDS.

THEY WERE PRETTY. I MEAN, GRANTED, IT DIDN'T.

IT DIDN'T MAKE IT ACROSS THE FINISH LINE, BUT THOSE ARE CROPPING UP MORE AND MORE.

AND THE LEGISLATURE IS STARTING TO TRY TO INTERVENE BECAUSE MORE AND MORE, THE ANSWER FROM HOME BUILDERS IS THAT ZONING IS THE PROBLEM.

SO, I JUST THROW THAT OUT THERE FOR YOU.

I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO YOU HAVE TO VOTE YOUR HEART.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND BUT I THINK THE WHOLE PRINCIPLE BEHIND THIS STRATEGY IS TO CUT THE RED TAPE AND MAKE IT EASIER TO DO THOSE DEVELOPMENTS.

AND I DON'T THINK THE INTENTION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GETS US THERE.

AND SO, I'M TRYING TO I'M TRYING TO STICK WITH THE, THE STRATEGY AS WAS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL.

SO, TIFFANY, CAN I ASK YOU TO GO BACK INTO THE PRESENTATION? IN THE MATERIALS THAT WE WERE SENT, WE HAD A PRELIMINARY OPPORTUNITY SITE LIST.

AND THEY'RE NUMBERED.

WHAT? SO, THEY'RE NUMBERED, AND SOME ARE LISTED AS CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

SOME ARE LISTED AS.

I THINK THAT'S THE NEXT CASE.

OH, SORRY.

SORRY. THERE IS THAT AS WELL, WHICH IS YOUR NEXT PRESENTATION? AS FAR AS THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND I DO REMEMBER US HAVING PAST DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND HOW THEY REALLY ARE KIND OF HARD TO VOTE DOWN BECAUSE IT IS A PERMITTED USE.

AND IT BECOMES SO SUBJECTIVE AND IS SUBJECT TO OVERRIDE FURTHER ALONG THE WAY.

WHICH IS WHY I WAS STILL GOING TO BE A NO.

BUT I WAS OFFERING UP THE CUP AS A COMPROMISE.

SO, AND HERE'S WHAT I WOULD TELL YOU AS STAFF IS I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

I MEAN, RIGHT NOW I'VE GOT A STRATEGY THAT'S BEEN ADOPTED BY COUNCIL, AND I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE BEST WAY TO GO AT THIS POINT.

[00:35:02]

SO, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? OR CAN I? I WILL MOVE THAT FOR PG 23-00136 THAT WE RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF TO CHANGE THE CODE TO INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL OR SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS, DUPLEX DWELLINGS, AND MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS AS PERMITTED USES IN THE ZONE.

CAN YOU CITE FINDINGS? ACCORDING TO FINDING NUMBER TWO.

NOT IN SUPPORT OF FINDING NUMBER TWO.

BECAUSE OF THE LOSS OF OVERSIGHT.

OH, OKAY.

BEFORE WE VOTE, I'D LIKE THAT READ BACK AND THEN WE CAN GET A SECOND FOR THAT.

IF YOU CAN READ THAT BACK.

THE I CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THAT.

SO, OKAY.

COMMISSIONER NORTON IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PG 2300136.

ACCORDING TO FINDING NUMBER TWO AND THE LOSS OF OVERSIGHT.

AND IS THAT DENIAL TO GO TO COUNCIL? IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.

OKAY. RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL WHEN IT GETS THEIR RECOMMENDED DENIAL FOR COUNSEL.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION.

HEARING. NO SECOND THAT MOTION FAILS.

WOULD SOMEBODY LIKE TO ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION? I WILL DO THAT.

SO, I FELL OFF THE FENCE.

I MOVE THAT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL OF ZONING CODE.

TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO PG 23-00136.

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS.

THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT AMENDMENT OR TO THAT MOTION? I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

OKAY. SO THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING. NO DISCUSSION.

I'LL GO TO THE VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. BASED ON FINDING TWO.

MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU.

WE WILL MOVE ON TO GENERAL BUSINESS.

[A. Discussion: Update on the Land Availability and Suitability Study and Code Analysis Project STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: For discussion only.]

OKAY. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.

I'M MICHELLE MCNULTY, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF.

AND I'M HERE JUST TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON THE CODE.

SORRY. THE LAND AVAILABILITY, SUITABILITY AND CODE ANALYSIS PROJECT, AS WE AFFECTIONATELY REFER TO AS THE LAST CAP.

AND I HAVE SAVED MY PRESENTATION IN PDF AND SO BEAR WITH ME IF THERE'S SOME TECHNICAL CHALLENGES.

SO, I'M GOING TO BREAK THE PRESENTATION INTO TWO PARTS AND TALK FIRST ABOUT THE LAND AVAILABILITY AND SUITABILITY STUDY.

I DO WANT TO KIND OF PREFACE THIS WITH THIS IS AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PROJECT, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE LAST TIME YOU SEE ME.

SO, JUST KEEP IN MIND THIS IS A VERY HIGH OVERVIEW.

SO, THIS MAP REPRESENTS THE STUDY AREA OF ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT WE LOOKED AT.

IT INCLUDES MOST ALL THE CITY BOUNDARIES AND PART OF SOME OF THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARIES.

SO, I THINK ALL OF YOU ARE AWARE THAT WE KIND OF HAVE THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION, WHICH IS METRO PLAN, AND WE HAVE LIKE THIS LARGER REGION THAT THE REGIONAL PLAN COVERS.

SOME OF THAT INCLUDES THE REGIONAL AREA GROWTH BOUNDARY AND SOME INCLUDES THE CITY BOUNDARIES.

AND SO, WE WERE REALLY KIND OF WE DIDN'T TAKE THE WHOLE AREA, BUT WE DID TAKE AREAS THAT WERE ALONG THAT WERE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY, INCORPORATED AREAS, BUT KIND OF WHERE THE REGIONAL PLAN CALLS OUT ACTIVITY CENTERS THAT MAYBE MAKE SENSE, WHERE WE WOULD SEE GROWTH.

THIS KIND OF THE FIRST INITIAL STAGES WAS JUST A VERY HIGH-LEVEL PROCESS ESTABLISHING, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE PRELIMINARY BUILDABLE LAND INVENTORY APPLYING, YOU KNOW, JUST LOOKING AT ALL THE DIFFERENT AVAILABLE PROPERTIES, APPLYING SCREENING CRITERIA FOR BUILDABLE AREAS AND THEN FURTHER REFINING THIS INTO OPPORTUNITY SITES.

OPPORTUNITY SITES WAS PROBABLY YOU KNOW, I THINK PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH OPPORTUNITY ZONES.

THIS IS NOT RELATED TO THAT.

JUST BEFORE I EVEN GO FURTHER, THE OPPORTUNITY SITES ARE REALLY JUST SITES THAT BECAUSE OF VARIOUS INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADES

[00:40:08]

BUT FOR AND TRYING TO IDENTIFY WHAT IS THAT.

BUT FOR THAT'S A BARRIER TO THAT TO HELP KIND OF EVALUATE THROUGH THE CODE ANALYSIS PROCESS WHERE WE CAN MAKE CHANGES TO HELP REMOVE SOME OF THOSE WHEN APPROPRIATE.

SO, THIS INFORMATION IS FROM NOVEMBER, AND IT WAS COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE CONSULTANT TEAM COMING TO TOWN AND KIND OF GETTING BOOTS ON THE GROUND.

UM, SO THESE ARE PRELIMINARY NUMBERS, AND THEY WILL BE REFINED THE NEXT TIME YOU SEE US.

BUT IN GENERAL, PRETTY MUCH THE LAND AREA THAT WE HAVE LEFT IS 6785 ACRES FOR DEVELOPMENT.

SO, AND THEN THIS IS A BREAKDOWN OF THE VARIOUS ZONING DESIGNATIONS AND KIND OF WHAT'S BEEN DETERMINED AS BUILDABLE WITHIN THOSE, THOSE ACREAGES. FURTHER BROKEN DOWN BY PARCEL SIZE SO THAT WE COULD UNDERSTAND THE RANGES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHICH HELPS US UNDERSTAND WHAT WOULD BE RIGHT FOR INFILL DEVELOPMENT VERSUS A GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT.

AND THEN WE LOOKED AT KIND OF THE REGULATORY BARRIERS TO KIND OF DEFINING THAT UNBUILDABLE AREA.

AND THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE, WE'RE KIND OF RESTRAINED THROUGH THE RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY WITH OUR FLOODPLAIN SLOPES, TREES, WHICH WE DON'T REALLY GET INTO THE TREES ON THIS ONE STREAM BUFFERS AND WETLANDS.

JUST TO KIND OF IDENTIFY OF THE LAND WE HAVE AVAILABLE, WHAT WOULD BE MORE OF A CHALLENGE THROUGH A REGULATORY PROCESS TO ACTUALLY DEVELOP? AND SO HERE'S KIND OF A MAP REALLY FOCUSING ON RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE REALLY HAVE THE MOST FLEXIBILITY FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF OF WHAT'S LEFT. AGAIN, THIS IS PART OF THAT PRELIMINARY.

SO, IT DOESN'T ENCOMPASS ALL OF THEM.

WE'VE ACTUALLY ADDED SOME SITES BASED ON THE CONSULTANT TEAM BEING HERE, SITTING DOWN WITH TECHNICAL STAFF, HOUSING, UH, THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER WATER SEWER SERVICES TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL OF OTHER SITES.

AND THROUGH THOSE CONVERSATIONS WE ALSO REMOVE SOME SITES.

SO, THIS MAP WILL CHANGE.

AND THEN THROUGH THAT KIND OF IDENTIFYING, AS I MENTIONED, THOSE PRELIMINARY OPPORTUNITY SITES, CURRENTLY, WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF TAKING EACH OF THESE PARCELS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED, I THINK ORIGINALLY, THEY CAME OUT WITH 24.

WE ARE NOW AT ABOUT 50, AND THAT'S WHAT WE ORIGINALLY HAD TRIED, HAD AIMED FOR IN THE CONTRACT WITH THE CON OR THE CONSULTANT TEAM.

UM, AND SO THEN TAKING EACH OF THOSE SITES AND GETTING UTILITY MAPS AND A LOT OF OTHER DATA PULLED TO THEM.

AND FURTHER KIND OF IDENTIFYING WHAT THOSE BARRIERS ARE.

SO, THE NEXT STEPS ARE GOING TO BE REFINING THE OPPORTUNITY SITES, COMPLETING AN INFRASTRUCTURE GAP ASSESSMENT OF THE OPPORTUNITY SITES.

SO, UNDERSTANDING YOU KNOW WHAT IS MISSING TO HELPING THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THOSE.

AND THEN ALSO LOOKING AT CONSIDERING AND INCORPORATING THAT CONSTRAINT DATA INTO THE CODE RECOMMENDATIONS PART OF THAT.

THE OTHER THING THAT'S NOT LISTED OUT IN HERE IS WE ARE LOOKING AT KIND OF A REGIONAL COST SAVINGS OPPORTUNITIES.

AND SO THE CONSULTANT TEAM WILL BE BRINGING FORWARD SOME, SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON WAYS THAT WE COULD BRING INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND, IN SOME CASES, JUST INFRASTRUCTURE INTO SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES.

I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE CODE ANALYSIS PROJECT BEFORE I DO ANY QUESTIONS.

OF. YES, COMMISSIONER NORTON.

YEAH, THANKS. SO, ON THAT MAP, I WAS CONCERNED THAT 24, THE BIG PIECE THAT'S CURRENTLY LABELED AS STATE TRUST THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THAT LABELED CORRECTLY.

IT'S BEEN OWNED BY SYMMETRY WHEN IT WAS SOLD THREE YEARS AGO.

SO, IT'S ACTUALLY THAT'S PARTIALLY TRUE.

THEY DON'T OWN THE ENTIRE 405.

THEY ACTUALLY OWN A PORTION OF IT.

WHAT THEY HAVE WHAT THEY.

AS OF I THINK LAST YEAR REALLY PURCHASED WAS THE RIGHT TO PURCHASE THE 405 ACRES IN CHUNKS.

SO, IT'S LIKE THEY CALL THEM TAKEDOWNS AND THEY'RE LIKE 100 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, 100 ACRE TAKEDOWNS.

SO, THEY DO CURRENTLY OWN OUTRIGHT 100 ACRES OF THAT SITE, BUT THE STATE LAND ACTUALLY OWNS THE REMAINDER OF IT.

SO, YOU KNOW, ON THE STATE LAND TRUST SITE, WHERE IT SAYS THAT IT SOLD 405 ACRES FOR $10.5 MILLION BACK AT THAT TIME.

[00:45:09]

I CAN JUST TELL YOU THAT I HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS THAT THEY ONLY OWN 100 ACRES, AND THAT MY UNDERSTANDING PER THAT DOCUMENT IS THEY HAVE THE FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL TO PURCHASE THE REST ADDITIONAL ACREAGE OVER A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME.

BUT WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE LAND IS SOME OF IT'S AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE BY OTHERS.

IT'S NOT AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE BY OTHERS.

THEY HAVE PURCHASED THE RIGHT FOR FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL.

SO, AND THEY, I BELIEVE, WITH ALL GOOD INTENT THAT THEY DO INTEND TO PURCHASE THE REST.

THEY HAVE COME IN WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR OTHER PORTIONS OF THAT.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS I THINK IT'S LIKE A FINANCE MECHANISM.

YOU BUY THE FIRST HUNDRED ACRES, YOU DEVELOP IT, YOU GET THE PROFIT FROM THAT, YOU BUY THE NEXT HUNDRED.

SO, I DO BELIEVE THEY WILL EVENTUALLY OWN ALL OF THAT.

THEY JUST DON'T CURRENTLY OWN THE ENTIRE 405 ACRES.

THANK YOU. OKAY, SO THEN THE CODE ANALYSIS PROJECT, I THINK, THESE GRAPHICS ARE REALLY AMAZING AND KIND OF TELL THE STORY OF THE DREAM THAT IS, AND THEN THE REALITY THAT WE ALL FACE.

BUT THE WHOLE PURPOSE AND GOALS OF THIS IS TO REALLY DEVELOP CODES AND KEY, YOU KNOW, RECOGNIZING THAT DEVELOPMENT CODES ARE A KEY TOOL FOR ACHIEVING HOUSING AND CLIMATE GOALS. AND WHEN I SAY DEVELOPMENT CODES, I, YOU KNOW, JUST WANT TO STRESS, WE'RE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT ZONING CODE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT TOUCHES DEVELOPMENT, WHICH INCLUDES ENGINEERING STANDARDS, FIRE STANDARDS WATER SEWER POLICIES, THE PROCESS THAT GOES ALONG WITH IT. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A LOT OF PLANS AND POLICIES THAT REALLY CALL FOR BOLD AND URGENT ACTION.

WE ALL HAVE A VISION OF WHAT WE WANT TO HAVE IN OUR COMMUNITY, BUT THE CODES DON'T FUNCTION IN THAT MANNER.

AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE BAD CODES.

IT'S JUST, THEY'VE ALL BEEN WRITTEN AT DIFFERENT TIMES UNDER DIFFERENT POLICIES AND INITIATIVES, AND THEY'RE NOT REALLY WHAT WE'RE FINDING IS THEY'RE NOT REALLY WORKING IN HARMONY TO ACHIEVING OUR CITY'S GOALS.

SO, THIS IS REALLY THE INTENT IS TO REALLY WILL DOWN AND FIND OUT, OKAY, WE HAVE THESE PLANS, AND WE HAVE THESE ACTIONS EMERGENCIES THAT THE COUNCIL HAS DETERMINED.

LET'S REALLY LOOK AT WHAT THOSE PLANS ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE AND MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE DEVELOPMENT CODES ARE IN LINE AND WORKING IN UNISON TO ACTUALLY ACHIEVE THESE GOALS. IT'S ALSO A HOLISTIC ANALYSIS TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IS NEEDED TO, TO WORK WITH THE CODE.

SO, IT WILL BE FED BY INFORMATION FROM THAT LAND AVAILABILITY, SUITABILITY, AS WELL AS A DEEP DIVE INTO ACTUALLY REVIEWING OF ALL THE CODES.

THEY'RE ALSO LOOKING AT EXISTING PROJECTS TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN LOOK AT THINGS IN CODE AND THINK THAT THESE ARE OUR PROBLEM, BUT WE REALLY NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHEN WE LOOK AT THE ACTUAL PROJECT, WHAT REALLY STOPPED THAT FROM ACHIEVING MAXIMUM DENSITY? WHAT REALLY WERE THE BARRIERS TO THAT, SO THAT WE'RE MAKING RIGHT CODE CHOICES THAT ARE FOR FLAGSTAFF ISSUES AND NOT JUST GOOD PLANNING PRACTICE AND WHAT WE READ IN OUR NATIONAL MAGAZINES.

SO, I KIND OF TALKED ABOUT DISTILLING DOWN THE DIFFERENT GOALS OF THE HOUSING PLAN, THE CARBON NEUTRALITY PLAN.

ULTIMATELY, THESE ARE ALL ELEMENTS OF OUR REGIONAL PLAN.

AND THEN KIND OF WHAT ARE THESE GOALS? DEVELOPING A POLICY FRAMEWORK IN SOME WAYS, ACTUALLY PRIORITIZING OUR PRIORITIES.

AND THEN LOOKING AT HOW THE CODE CAN IMPLEMENT THESE GOALS.

I WON'T GO OVER THIS SLIDE, BUT THIS IS JUST TO REITERATE WHAT I SAID ABOUT WE'RE NOT JUST TALKING ABOUT ZONING CODE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF DIFFERENT CODES THAT TOUCH DEVELOPMENT.

SORRY. I PROMISED YOU YOU'D SEE ME AGAIN.

AND THIS IS KIND OF THE OUTLINE.

SO WE'RE DOING THIS DIAGNOSIS.

WE'LL BE FINISHING UP THE LAND AVAILABILITY SUITABILITY AND THEN HAVE THE DIAGNOSIS REPORT.

WE'LL BE BACK. I THINK WE'VE FINE TUNED THIS, THAT WE WILL PROBABLY BE HERE IN MARCH TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON WHAT THOSE TWO DELIVERABLES ACTUALLY CAME WITH.

SO THAT WILL INCLUDE THAT REFINED MAP ON THE DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITY SITES AS WELL, WITH THE KIND OF AN OVERVIEW CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH OUR CODE AND WHERE THERE MIGHT BE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES.

THEN THE NEXT PHASE OF THE PROJECT MOVES ON TO DEVELOPING KIND OF FURTHER THE CONCEPTS OF WHAT THOSE CHANGES MIGHT LOOK LIKE.

AND THEN AGAIN, COMING BACK TO THIS COMMISSION AS WELL AS SEVERAL OTHERS AND COUNCIL, WE WANT TO KEEP DOING CHECK INS ALONG THE WAY SO THAT WE DON'T GET TOO FAR IN THE WRONG DIRECTION, THAT WE DON'T GET SUPPORT.

AND THEN THAT FINAL TIME THAT YOU SEE US WILL BE WITH THE REALLY FIRM RECOMMENDATIONS, AS YOU'LL SEE BY THE NUMBER OF TIMES THAT YOU'VE SEEN TIFFANY HERE WITH DIFFERENT CODE

[00:50:09]

WE'RE GOING TO YOU'RE GOING TO SEE US MAKING THOSE CHANGES AND PART OF COMING, BREAKING THIS PROJECT OUT INTO THE DIFFERENT PIECES SO WE CAN DO CHECK INS, ALSO ALLOWS US TO KEEP MOVING WITH OTHER CODE CHANGES ALONG THE WAY.

THIS IS JUST I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO THIS SLIDE FOR THE SAKE OF TIME, BUT THIS IS JUST ANOTHER GRAPHIC THAT KIND OF TALKS ABOUT THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING AND KIND OF HOW IT GETS TO THE DIFFERENT FINDINGS, SO THAT YOU HAVE A VISUAL ON THE APPROACH THAT WE'RE TAKING.

AND THEN SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS SUPER COOL AS PART OF ALL OF THIS THAT I THINK IS GOING TO BE HELPFUL FOR YOU ALL, IS THIS CONSULTANT TEAM IS ALSO WORKING IN MISSOULA, MONTANA, DOING A SIMILAR PROJECT, AND THEY'VE KIND OF DEVELOPED THIS PROTOTYPE MODEL THAT THIS IS LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT THESE LEVERS ARE, WHAT MISSOULA'S CODE CURRENTLY HAS FOR A SPECIFIC ZONING CLASSIFICATION.

AND WITH THOSE STANDARDS.

THIS IS A 32-UNIT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

BUT THEY START TO TWEAK THOSE LEVERS.

AND SO RIGHT NOW, SORRY, I SHOULD FINISH THIS SLIDE.

SO, WITH THAT, THAT KIND OF GIVES US AN IDEA OF WHAT THESE STANDARDS IN PLACE, THIS IS WHAT OUR DEVELOPMENT LOOKS LIKE.

AND THIS IS KIND OF ABOUT WHERE THE RANGE OF RENTAL WOULD BE FOR THAT.

THEY TWEAKED THOSE LEVERS, AND THEY CAN ACTUALLY CHANGE WHAT THAT FORM LOOKS LIKE AND GET THE SAME AMOUNT OF UNIT ON THE SAME SIZE SITE.

AND QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK THIS LOOKS A LOT BETTER.

I WANT TO POINT OUT THIS DIDN'T CHANGE STORIES.

THIS IS STILL A THREE-STOREY BUILDING.

AND THEY'RE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE EXACTLY WHAT THEY HAD TO CHANGE IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT VISUAL CHANGE TO THE BUILT FORM, AS WELL AS START TO DO PRO FORMA ON WHAT THAT TRANSLATES TO RENTAL COST.

I THINK A LOT OF US WOULD ARGUE THAT 2100 IS STILL PRETTY EXPENSIVE, BUT IT'S BETTER THAN THE TRAJECTORY THAT WE'RE GOING.

AND THEN AGAIN, I MENTIONED WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT ACTUAL CASES SO THAT WE'RE REVIEWING THESE AGAINST DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS THAT WE'VE SEEN TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CODE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE ANALYSIS THAT WE'RE DOING IS BEING TROOPED UP BY ACTUAL PRODUCT.

PART OF THIS IS WE DID HAVE A DEVELOPER FOCUS GROUP.

WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD TWO.

ONE WAS KIND OF MORE OF A DESIGN GROUP FOCUSED.

THE OTHER WAS MORE WITH PEOPLE DOING A LOT OF WORK IN FLAGSTAFF ON THE CONSTRUCTION COST SIDE OF THINGS.

OUR CONSULTANT TEAM MET WITH THEM, WITH STAFF NOT PRESENT SO THAT THEY COULD BE AS CANDID AS POSSIBLE.

I WOULD ARGUE THEY WOULD PROBABLY BE THAT CANDID IF WE WERE IN THE ROOM, BUT IT WAS NICE THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO DO IT IN FRONT OF US.

AND THAT LIST, I CAN PULL IT UP.

IT'S A LOT OF THE PEOPLE WHO YOU GUYS ARE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH CAPSTONE CEMETERY.

HOPE CONSTRUCTION, [INAUDIBLE] SQUARED, DAVID HAYWARD'S GROUP.

AND THEN FIRMS LIKE NORRIS DESIGN SWI, WHO WAS NOW A DURA PEAK ENGINEER.

SO, A LOT OF LOCAL FIRMS, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN PEOPLE FROM OUT OF TOWN IF THEY WERE FROM PHOENIX OR OUTSIDE OF THE FLAGSTAFF AREA.

THEY WERE STILL FIRMS THAT DO A LOT OF WORK IN FLAGSTAFF AND HAVE A GOOD WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF OUR CODE AND PROCESS.

SO BIG THING THAT KIND OF CAME OUT.

THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE PRELIMINARY STUFF THAT THEY CAME OUT.

AGAIN, NONE OF THIS IS LIKE FACTUAL.

THIS IS JUST ANECDOTAL.

ALTHOUGH I THINK THAT IT'S PROBABLY NOT OFF THE MARK.

A LOT OF CONCERN THAT WE HAVE TOO MANY DISCRETIONARY APPROVALS AND THAT TOO MANY THINGS HAVE TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHICH ADDS TIME AND UNPREDICTABILITY. THROUGH OUR OWN INTERNAL PROCESS, WE HAVE BOTH A CONCEPT PLAN AND A SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE FIND THAT THERE'S MAYBE REDUNDANCY IN THAT.

COULD THEY BE STREAMLINED? SO, WE ARE WORKING WITH OUR IDEAS GROUP TO KIND OF TEETER WHAT THAT MIGHT LIKE, FILTER OUT WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES. WE'RE NOT REALLY SEEING A LOT OF USE.

AND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THE INCENTIVE IS TO GET MORE DENSITY.

THE PROBLEM IS OUR DEVELOPERS CAN'T EVEN GET THE MAXIMUM DENSITY.

SO, THEY DON'T NEED THESE INCENTIVES.

SO, THE ONLY TIME WE'RE REALLY SEEING IT BE USED AND REZONING.

AND VERY FEW CASES.

SAME WITH THE SUSTAINABILITY INCENTIVES.

SO, THE CONSULTANT TEAM IS ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THOSE TWO THINGS AS WELL.

[00:55:02]

JUST THE NUMBER OF TREES FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS 50% ON EXISTING TREES ON SITE.

THAT HAS SOME CHALLENGES.

ENGINEERING DESIGN STANDARDS WITH OVERLY WIDE STREETS ACCESS REQUIREMENTS WITH FIRE SAFETY AGAIN MUCH WIDER STREETS, HIGH OCCUPANCY HOUSING, AND THEN MANY MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

AND THAT'S IT WITH MY PRESENTATION, I DO WANT TO NOTE, BECAUSE I DIDN'T SAY IT IN THE BEGINNING, THAT THIS IS NOT JUST PLANNING TAKING THIS.

WE'RE WORKING WITH HOUSING AND SUSTAINABILITY AS WELL AS MOUNTAIN LION.

AND WE'RE THE CORE LIKE PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAMS. HOWEVER, WE ARE WORKING WITH ABSOLUTELY EVERY SECTION AND DIVISION IN THE CITY, WHICH I THINK IS REALLY EXCITING BECAUSE WE ARE HAVING SOME REALLY HIGH-LEVEL CONVERSATIONS ABOUT GETTING ON THE SAME PAGE THAT I THINK ARE LONG OVERDUE AND HOPEFULLY VERY HELPFUL TO THE COMMUNITY.

THAT'S IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, MICHELLE.

AND DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, MARY.

THANK YOU.

I WAS WONDERING IF THERE YOU JUST TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE INTERNAL DISCUSSION.

SO, THERE WERE THESE FOCUS GROUPS OBVIOUSLY.

IS THERE SOME SORT OF SORT OF COUNTERBALANCE FOCUS GROUP THAT IS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, YES.

YOU KNOW, HOUSING AND SUSTAINABILITY, BUT MAYBE THE HOUSING COMMISSION AND THIS COMMISSION AND THE OPEN SPACES COMMISSION AND PEOPLE FROM THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THEIR CONCERNS, THEIR STAKEHOLDERS, TOO, IN THIS AND WHAT THEY, YOU KNOW, ENVISION AND FEEL IS IMPORTANT FOR THE CITY AS OPPOSED TO JUST TAKING, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE DEVELOPER AND BUILDERS ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT.

YEAH. AND THANK YOU FOR THAT 100%.

SO RIGHT NOW, THIS FIRST PHASE IS REALLY LIKE A DATA COLLECTION.

WE JUST REALLY NEEDED TO KIND OF GET DATA COLLECTED AND REALLY STICK WITH MORE TECHNICAL USER GROUPS.

BUT THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS BEEN THE PRIMARY CONVERSATION WITHIN OUR GROUP.

WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE AS PART OF THE CONSULTANT TEAM, RENEE REED, WHO IS A LOCAL PUBLIC OUTREACH SPECIALIST BECAUSE WE DO, WE ARE TRYING TO FORMULATE WE ARE GOING TO THESE DIFFERENT COMMISSIONS.

SO, TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, SUSTAINABILITY, HOUSING, PLANNING AND ZONING, WHICH OBVIOUSLY THE PUBLIC CAN COME SPEAK TO.

BUT TO YOUR POINT, WE ARE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ALL OF THIS IS ACTUALLY TELLING US AND THEN PUTTING THAT IN A WAY THAT WE CAN PRESENT IT TO THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE REALLY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT TRADEOFFS AT SOME POINT.

RIGHT? THERE'S WE HAVE THINGS THAT ARE IN TENSION THAT CAN WORK TOGETHER, BUT MAYBE THEY WORK TOGETHER BEST IF WE ACTUALLY PRIORITIZE A FEW THINGS SO THAT WE'RE ACHIEVING BIGGER GOALS, BUT WE DO NEED INPUT FROM EVERYBODY.

SO, WE ARE DEVELOPING THAT TO THIS DAY.

AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS, IS WE'RE VERY CLOSELY COORDINATED WITH THE REGIONAL PLAN.

SO, BOTH THIS IS ACTUALLY INFORMING PARTS OF THE REGIONAL PLAN AND WHAT THE PUBLIC OUTREACH FROM THE REGIONAL PLAN IS ACTUALLY INFORMING THIS.

SO, CASCADIA PARTNERS IS LEADING THE REGIONAL PLAN, THE SCENARIO PLANNING EFFORT.

THEY'RE ACTUALLY A SUBCONSULTANT TO DOW, WHO IS THE PRIMARY ON THIS, WHICH IS REALLY GREAT BECAUSE WE'RE KIND OF GETTING THAT CONTINUITY THROUGH THERE.

AND THEN WITH THE PLANNING SECTION ALL BEING UNDER ONE GROUP, YOU KNOW, WE INTERNALLY ARE ABLE TO KEEP COORDINATING.

AND THEN WE HAVE MONTHLY COORDINATION MEETINGS WITH THE TWO PROJECTS.

SO, WE'RE TRYING WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

BUT THROUGH THE OUTREACH, YEAH, YOU WILL START TO SEE MORE OF THIS CONVERSATION EVEN IN THAT REGIONAL PLAN CONVERSATION, BECAUSE THEY REALLY DO GO HAND IN HAND.

SO, LIKE THIS PRESENTATION HERE AND YOU KNOW, YES, SHE'LL PROBABLY BE BACK WITH US, BUT I MEAN, IS THIS OUR IS THIS OUR ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE YOU OUR FEEDBACK TO WHAT YOU'RE BEING GIVEN BY THESE CONSULTANTS OR IS THERE GOING TO BE SOMETHING MORE THAT WE COULD GET INVOLVED IN IS, I GUESS, MY QUESTION.

SO, LIKE MORE LIKE OF A WORKING GROUP.

YEAH. I MEAN, WHEN WHERE DOES THE COMMUNITY GET TO HAVE THEIR FOCUS GROUP INPUT.

YEAH. AND LIKE I SAID, SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE STILL DEVELOPING BECAUSE WE'RE, WE'RE RIGHT NOW WE'RE GATHERING ALL THIS INFORMATION AND I DON'T, THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY, YOU, AS COMMISSIONERS WERE BRINGING THIS TO YOU AS YOUR ROLE AS A COMMISSIONER AND LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK AS WE DO THIS, AS THAT ROLE.

UM, YOU, MARY NORTON, AS A COMMUNITY MEMBER, I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY? YES. I JUST DON'T KNOW YET WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

HOPEFULLY BY THE TIME WE COME BACK IN MARCH, WE'LL HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH INPUT TO GIVE RIGHT NOW, I GUESS, IS WHAT I'M SAYING, BECAUSE AS I WENT THROUGH THIS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PIECES THAT I'M GOING THAT

[01:00:02]

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE TIME TO DO THAT OR IF THERE'S ANOTHER FORUM TO DO THAT IN.

I WOULD SAY, UM.

HIGH LEVEL STUFF.

I WOULD WOULD LOVE TO GET BACK.

NOW, IF IT'S MORE OF THE DETAILS OF LIKE SOME OF THOSE MAPS THAT I IDENTIFIED AS BEING PRELIMINARY, I WOULD SAY, LET'S WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE THAT FIRST DELIVERABLE AND WE'RE BACK IN MARCH WITH THE DRAFT DIAGNOSIS.

THE THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BRING TO YOU ARE GOING TO BE IN DRAFT FORM TO INFORM HOW WE FINALIZE THEM.

SO, THAT WOULD BE FROM A COMMISSIONER STANDPOINT, THAT WOULD BE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE OPPORTUNITIES AT EACH POINT TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK.

BUT IF THERE IS SOME HIGH-LEVEL FEEDBACK ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD LIKE TO GIVE US, PLEASE DO SO.

I THINK YOU KNOW.

AS A SUMMARY.

YOU KNOW, I THINK WHAT SOME OF THESE, THESE MAPS ARE SHOWING IS OBVIOUSLY THE PRIME OPPORTUNITY SITES ARE ALONG THAT GW POWELL CORRIDOR, WHICH IS THE HOT TOPIC.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE MAJORITY OF THE DEVELOPABLE LAND IS REMAINING AND HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS.

AND I KNOW IT'S A FOCUS OF COUNCIL AND ALL OF YOU.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT WHEN OPEN SPACES GAVE THEIR PRESENTATION TO CITY COUNCIL LAST NIGHT.

YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S NO OPEN SPACES IN FOOTE'S CONNECTIVITY DOWN SOUTH OF THE 40, THE SOUTHWEST SECTION.

SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT JUST REALLY EMPHASIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF PUTTING THINGS INTO PLAY THAT WILL LEAD TO THE RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT AREA.

MY CONCERN ABOUT THE AND THANK YOU FOR SENDING ME THE LIST OF WHO WAS PART OF THE FOCUS GROUP.

MY CONCERN IS THAT IT WAS PRETTY MUCH ALL PEOPLE THAT ALREADY ARE LANDOWNERS AND DEVELOPERS THAT HAVE APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN RIGHT NOW, SO IT BECOMES SOMEWHAT SELF-SERVING.

AND I AM CONCERNED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE, THAT OUR INTERESTS ARE ALSO SPOKEN FOR.

UM, AS I WENT THROUGH WHAT SOME OF THOSE TAKEAWAYS WERE FROM THE FOCUS GROUP, AND THESE ARE REPETITIVE THINGS THAT ARE OFTEN BROUGHT UP, I WENT ON THE STATE, SOME OF THE STATE LEGISLATOR REPRESENTATIVES WERE HERE, I THINK, LAST SUMMER OR A YEAR AND A HALF AGO AND DID A LISTENING TOUR.

UM, AND SOME OF THE DEVELOPERS WERE THERE TO SPEAK TO THE LEGISLATORS THAT WERE HERE.

IT WAS UP AT THE UP AT THE INCUBATOR.

YEAH, YEAH.

YOU KNOW, THESE ARE THE SAME CONCERNS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO SEE US GIVE AWAY OVERSIGHT AND CHANGE CODE FOR THINGS THAT WE NEED TO MAINTAIN AND TO ENFORCE RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT I THINK WE STILL WE NEED OVERSIGHT IN THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND WE NEED THOSE TWO STEPS OF CONCEPT PLAN AND SITE PLAN.

YES, I'M SURE INTERNALLY YOU CAN FIGURE OUT WAYS TO MAKE THAT MORE EFFICIENT FOR EVERYBODY OR TO STOP SOME THINGS BEFORE THEY GET TOO FAR DOWN THE LINE.

IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ACCEPTABLE TO CITY COUNCIL OR THE PUBLIC THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES, I JUST WISH, I WISH BUILDERS WOULD BUILD A BETTER PRODUCT THAT WOULD FIT.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING BETTER SERVE THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO BUILD SUSTAINABLE HOMES.

IT'S JUST BEING ABOUT BEING A GOOD AND RESPONSIBLE BUILDER RIGHT NOW.

AND SO MUCH OF THEIR MATERIALS AND THEIR VENDORS AND THEIR METHODS.

EVERYBODY IS SUBSCRIBING TO SUSTAINABILITY.

I MEAN, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW IN THIS DAY AND TIME.

AND WHEN THEY DON'T WANT TO BUILD AND REACH TOWARDS SUSTAINABILITY INCENTIVES.

I DON'T HAVE ANY SYMPATHY FOR THAT.

SAME THING WITH THE RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS.

WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO THE PEOPLE OF FLAGSTAFF, THE SLOPES AND THE TREE PRESERVATION.

AND YES, THERE'S BETTER WAYS TO DO THAT MORE EFFICIENTLY, LIKE WHAT WE'VE SEEN WHEN TIFFANY HAS TALKED ABOUT CERTAIN DEVELOPMENTS AND ALEX, YOU KNOW, WHERE THEY'RE CLUSTERING. THE TREE PRESERVATION IS BETTER THAN THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE SITE.

SO YES, THERE'S WAYS TO DO THAT BETTER, BUT I DON'T WANT TO SEE I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD GO AWAY.

SAME THING WITH FIRE SAFETY.

BEFORE THIS MEETING WAS STARTED, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FIRE WISE, I'M THE FIRE WISE RESIDENT LEADER IN MY COMMUNITY.

SO, WE TALK ABOUT STREET WIDTHS AND ACCESSIBILITY AND HAVING THE FIRE STATION COME THROUGH.

[01:05:05]

AND PARKING.

I KNOW PARKING IS A HOT TOPIC FOR SO MANY PEOPLE THAT HAVE AN INTEREST IN DENSITY.

BUT LET'S NOT BUILD PROJECTS AND THEN WALK AWAY FROM THEM AND LEAVE IT LEFT WHERE NOBODY CAN PARK, AND SNOW CAN'T BE REMOVED AND PARKING OVER FILL SPILLS OUT ONTO THE STREETS AND THAT THE SNOW CAN'T BE REMOVED AND ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT COME WITH THAT.

SO, I WAS ACTUALLY DISAPPOINTED IN THESE KEY TAKEAWAYS.

AND THAT'S WHY I JUST FELT THAT THE OPPORTUNITY TO COUNTERBALANCE THAT INPUT WAS SO WAS GOING TO BE SO VERY IMPORTANT. AND I WOULD HOPE.

ALSO ON MY LAST NOTE IS THAT AS YOU LOOK AT THESE OPPORTUNITIES, THESE AREAS FOR DEVELOPMENT, THAT THERE'S ALSO WHERE ARE THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR OPEN SPACE WITHIN THAT? UM, BECAUSE THAT IS IMPORTANT AS WELL.

SO, I'LL GET OFF MY SOAPBOX NOW AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

NO, I APPRECIATE IT.

AND FOR THE SAKE OF TIME, I WON'T GO TOO MUCH.

BUT JUST ON A COUPLE POINTS, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT THE DEVELOPER FEEDBACK WAS JUST ONE.

IT WAS ANECDOTAL.

IT'S TAKEN WITH A GRAIN OF SALT.

AND IT'S JUST ONE POINT OF DATA THAT WE HAVE.

RIGHT. AND SO, THE OTHER THING I WANT TO JUST CLARIFY AND MAKE VERY CLEAR THIS PROJECT ISN'T ABOUT MAKING CODE GO AWAY.

THIS PROJECT IS ABOUT MAKING CODE THAT IS EFFECTIVE AND ACHIEVING WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AS A COMMUNITY.

SO YES, WE MAY SAY RESOURCE PROTECTION OVERLAY IS CHALLENGING, BUT CAN WE STILL SAVE OUR OR PROTECT RESOURCES BUT IN A DIFFERENT WAY? FOR INSTANCE, THE WAY THAT THE PRD, I THINK WAS JUST ADOPTED, IT GIVES YOU MORE POINTS FOR CLUSTERING.

SO THAT IS BOTH GOOD BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING A HIGHER VALUE TREE.

AND IT ALSO SUPPORTS WHAT FIRE IS TRYING TO DO WITH WILDLAND FIRES.

SO, I REALLY WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT'S MORE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS JUST MAKING SURE THAT THE CODES ARE ACTUALLY DOING WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AS A COMMUNITY, WHEN EVERYTHING IS WORKING AGAINST EACH OTHER OR NOT, IN UNISON.

I THINK THAT'S A REAL CHALLENGE TO GET A REALLY GOOD PRODUCT.

SO, I JUST I WANT TO REASSURE YOU.

AND THE OTHER THING IS, IS WE CAN'T UNILATERALLY CHANGE CODE.

WITH CODE. THERE IS AN INTENSE PROCESS.

WE WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THAT ANYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF THIS CIRCUMVENT ANY OF THE EXISTING PROCESS.

SO, THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF COMMUNITY CONVERSATION EACH TIME WE ACTUALLY LOOK AT MAKING ANY CHANGES.

SO, JUST I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DO THIS AS A WAY TO CIRCUMVENT ANY OF THAT.

AND. YEAH, AND THEN TO THE VALUES, LIKE WHEN I SAY THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH THE REGIONAL PLAN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THAT REGIONAL PLAN EFFORT REALLY IS GETTING TO THE HEART OF WHAT THIS COMMUNITY VALUES.

AND THAT IS REALLY HOW THAT STARTS TO INFORM THIS OTHER PROJECT THAT IS LOOKING AT KIND OF A SAME PROBLEM FROM A DIFFERENT WAY AND MAKING SURE THAT THOSE THINGS ARE ACTUALLY ALSO KIND OF BEING CONSIDERED INTO THAT CODE DIAGNOSIS OF WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACHIEVE.

SO, THANK YOU.

THANKS. THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THAT AND REITERATING THAT THAT WE'RE STILL STICKING TO OUR GUNS, BASICALLY, LIKE I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET SUPER SICK OF SEEING US WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BRING TO YOU.

LIKE, I FEEL FAIRLY CONFIDENT THAT I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE A LIAR OUT OF MYSELF, THAT THIS IS GOING TO RUN AWAY AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE AMPLE TIME TO FEED BACK.

SO, AND JUST ON A RELATED SUGGESTION, UM, IS THERE EVER THE OPPORTUNITY AND MAYBE THIS HAPPENS INTERNALLY AND I'M NOT AWARE OF TALKING TO THE, THE LOCAL, THE TYPICAL LOCAL BUILDERS THAT PARTICIPATE IN OUR COMMUNITY, UM, AND TRYING TO ENCOURAGE THE TYPE OF PRODUCT THAT WE ACTUALLY REALLY NEED.

YOU KNOW, I JUST BECAUSE FLAGSTAFF IS THAT KIND OF A, OF A MARKET WHERE ANYTHING SELLS.

SO, YOU KNOW, BUILDERS ARE ABLE TO BUILD PRETTY MUCH WHATEVER THEY ASPIRE TO AS OPPOSED TO REALLY HEARTFULLY TAKING WHAT THE MARKET RATE HOUSING.

THAT'S NEEDED HERE IS.

AND I JUST WONDERED IF THERE'S EVER THAT SORT OF INFLUENCE THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO HAVE THOSE KIND OF PARTNERSHIPS WITH, WITH THESE BUILDERS AND, AND DEVELOPERS AND BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO BE THERE HAS TO BE A QUALITY SORT OF ON EACH END AND WE NEED THEM AND THEY NEED

[01:10:04]

UM. GETTING THEIR INPUT AND THEIR BUY IN, I THINK GOES A LONG WAY.

AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE I MEAN.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE CODES AND IF THEY CAN LIVE WITH IT, AND I THINK WHEN THEY BETTER UNDERSTAND IT AND FEEL LIKE THEY'RE BROUGHT TO THE PROCESS, I DO THINK THAT OVER TIME THAT STARTS TO ENCOURAGE THAT CONVERSATION.

I THINK SOME OF THE CHALLENGES BUILDING MATERIALS AND KEEPING COSTS LOW.

I MEAN, I THINK THERE WILL BE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES.

AND I JUST THANK YOU FOR KIND OF POINTING THAT OUT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT, AS WE DO TALK ABOUT TRADEOFFS AND TENSIONS, THAT THAT CAN BE LIKE, OKAY, MAYBE WE CAN DO SOMETHING HERE, BUT WE NEED A HIGHER QUALITY BUILDING MATERIAL OR, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND AS WE SHAPE OUR FORM AND COMMUNITY, AND I THINK THE REGIONAL PLAN REALLY KIND OF HELPS SETS THAT TONE OF THIS IS WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS AND VALUES, AND THAT TRANSLATES TO CODE. SO, THE ANSWER IS YES.

I THINK IT'S HAPPENING MAYBE NOT IN A DIRECT CONVERSATION KIND OF WAY, BUT I THINK IT IS HAPPENING, AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR IT TO CONTINUE TO HAPPEN AND EVOLVE.

THANK YOU, MARY AND THANK YOU, MICHELLE.

BUT YOU KNOW, MARY BRINGS UP SOME REALLY GOOD POINTS AND I THINK IT'S WORTH IT TO TAKE IT TO HEART.

SO, THANK YOU.

NOTED. THANK YOU.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THIS TOPIC. HEARING NONE.

I WILL MOVE ON TO.

[6. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS TO/FROM COMMISSION MEMBERS]

ANYTHING. WE HAVE NOTHING ON OUR CHART EXCEPT THAT, AS YOU'LL SEE, MINUTES WILL COME AROUND THE NEXT TIME.

ALEX WILL BE HERE.

EVERYTHING WILL FEEL BETTER.

WE WERE SCARED AND LONELY WITHOUT HER.

ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NOTHING ELSE, WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 5:22.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.