Flagstaff · 2026-10-29 · case details pending

I'd like to call to order the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, October 28, 2026. And there's a notice of option to recess into executive session, and that's pursuant to ARS 38-431.02. That notice is hereby given to the members of the commission I will move into roll call. Carol Mandino, present. Mary Norton, present. Joshua Mayer is excused. Rebecca Coppa, present. Dean Sheehy, here. CJ Lukey, here.

I would just like to make a note that Chair Carol Mandino will be here until 5 o'clock, and then at that time Mary Norton will take the chair position. Thank you very much. So, right now we have an open call to the public, and at this time 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, the commission cannot discuss or act on items presented during this portion of the agenda.

To address the Commission on items that are on the agenda, please wait for the Chair to call for public comment at the time the item is heard. Are there any open public comments at this time? Hearing and seeing none, I will move on to approval of the minutes of the meeting that was held on October 14, 2026. Move to approve the minutes from October 14, 2026. As written. Second.

Okay, so it was motioned by Commissioner Norton and seconded by Commissioner Sheehy to approve the minutes of October 14, 2026. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries. So now we'll move into the public hearing. And the first item on the agenda is public hearing item PZ 2500159-02. And it is a request for a minor amendment to the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 by Symmetry Company. And I'll let Alex give her presentation.

Alexandra Pucciarelli, current planning manager with the State of Flagstaff. So my presentation is going to be on the screen there. So if we need to… Hey, this is better because I can see it from… Yeah, exactly. I don't know what you're right. All right. So our first item is STL 290 Minor Regional Plan. This is a request for a minor amendment to the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 by Symmetry Companies. There are three parts to this request.

There's the request to move the center of an activity center, S12, to the north on the maps where it's shown on the plan, to remove an activity center, S17, and to realign the road network to follow the John Wesley Powell Boulevard future extension. So this minor regional plan amendment request is connected to three other entitlement cases that include a new specific plan as well as two concept zoning map amendments. The property…the subject property, existing conditions.

The subject property is about 210 acres of undeveloped land It is this L piece of property that used to be owned by the state that is in the process of being purchased by the applicant So a little history Part of this is that that land was 405 acres It is slowly changed over time to have some buy development That development area 16 that we'll get to came in first. So part of that has affected the acreage.

There's some other acreage that the applicant is in partnership with their neighbors to the west to develop also by rights. So that was in the plan, was taken out of the plan. So this plan over the course of review has shifted a bit in acreage. So if you're seeing things like-I believe the TIA has a different number associated with it. So there's some other references to different acreage. Don't let that throw you. It's all this project. So- Claire, yes.

The 290, does that include that—I think it was 126 acres that were in 16? Is that part of the issue? It includes part of that, and I think it's covered in other places, but just to get out there now, there's some by-right residential development that has been platted, But there is also an amenity space that was included in this plan that covers the golf course, if there's a future clubhouse, things like that. So that is part of the plan, but the residential component is not part of the plan.

Great. So, the proposed development, and I'm going to try and be clear about what is proposed versus what is arranged or allowed uses. So, keep that in mind as we talk about this. There is a proposed use, but there are also uses that may be allowed as part of that specific So what is proposed is 785 dwelling units, 120 key travel accommodation use, that's what we call hotels in the zoning code, and an estimated 80,000 square feet of commercial space, as well as natural and recreational spaces.

So, that first request is to relocate the future Suburban Activity Center S-12. So, you can see on the image on the top right that S-12 is currently located down on that John Wesley Powell alignment. This request is to move it further north onto this collector roadway as part of the development. It would be including the parcel at development area 5 that is where they're proposing to do that travel accommodation or the applicant often refers to it as the lodge.

So it is along that proposed collector roadway and connects to John Wesley Powell, not just through that roadway, but through internal streets and the trail system proposed. Another request is to amend the road network. So again, the history in this area. Years ago, John Wesley Powell was designed to connect down through the south end of 4th Street through a neighborhood and come into this area from the east. That has changed over time. We have a different alignment now.

So, what is being proposed by the applicant actually aligns more More closely with what the John Wesley Powell Boulevard is proposed to actually be. I did talk about in my staff report how it gets a little choppy towards the north. There's not quite the same amount of connection.

But both the existing or sorry both the 2030 Regional Plan as well as our future 2045 plan show that area as an area to be studied where the road alignments are not fixed So I think that gives us a little more flexibility that this is still up in the air as far as alignments And that third request is to remove activity center S-17. The 2030 plan does show it as this neighborhood-scale future suburban activity center.

It feels a bit redundant looking at John Wesley Powell as this suburban corridor that would support commercial and higher density along the corridor to then also have an activity center. And the applicant, you know, is making arguments talking about the topography there and the resources in the area and how that makes that sort of concentrated development of density that much harder as opposed to being able to stretch that out along the corridor.

So the findings for a minor regional plan amendment is that it needs to meet the requirements of the general plan and the subdivision code. Goals and policies should be considered, that it's in conformance with the overall vision. I give you some quotes from our regional plan The plan, or the 2030 plan, that the Flagstaff Regional Plan establishes the vision for the future growth and development of Flagstaff in the surrounding area through goals and policies.

It reminds us that general plans are not static documents. They recognize growth as a dynamic process, which may require revisions to the plan as circumstances or changes for it. Again, the plan's vision. I think I should back up a little bit. When this application came in and was found complete, that's when we vested it that you are-we are reviewing this against a regional plan in place at the time. That was the 2030 plan. We have not And yet adopted the 2045.

So every time I'm referring to the regional plan, I'm talking about the 2030 regional plan. Don't mind. All right. So the 2030 plan talks about the greater Flagstaff community, embraces the region's extraordinary cultural and ecological setting on the Colorado Plateau, natural and built environments, encourage the advance of intellectual, environmental, social, and economic vitality for today's citizens and future generations.

So, in looking at the request number one to relocate S-12, suburban activity centers have a pattern of commercial uses as the primary acre with supporting residential around it. The The regional plan does consider the preservation of natural spaces.

There's goal LE4 that talks about balancing housing and employment land uses with the preservation and protection of our unique natural and cultural setting, as well as goal CC1, which states reflect and respect the region's natural setting and dramatic views in the built environment. The proposed zoning map amendments will allow for a target of 484 units within the pedestrian shed of the activity center, resulting in 7.19 units per acre.

If I can talk a little bit about this, I think it's important to realize that the development being proposed, The lodge, that travel accommodation, is not like the sort of traditional motel that you need to be able to see from the highway when you need a place to crash on your road trip.

This is more of a destination that trying to really take advantage in a good way take advantage of the natural setting the trees the slopes the canyons the waterways in this area So although activity centers are more commonly located directly on these major roadways the lodge is set back a little bit and doesn necessarily have that same pattern of extreme density in the center and then moving out from there It's almost like the lodge is the center and then the housing begins at the edges of that.

Plus number two, to amend map 25. The area to the north is mapped as identify road network solutions through future studies. So that's why I was talking about how there are some sort of cut off roadways, but I have confidence that your studies will identify that road network. The Regional Plan 2045 also has that same comment about a future connectivity study. It does align the map with the current John Wesley Powell Road alignment.

And because that John Wesley Powell is seen as a suburban corridor, I put in the definition of that suburban corridor as serving larger capacities of vehicles and people with more intense land uses and pedestrian safety as priority in the setting. These corridors will be wider with faster speed limits, although I think John Wesley Powell had a lower speed Street limit, agree to, 35, and emphasizes safe pedestrian and bicycle crossings.

Local roads access the suburban corridor through a hierarchy of functional road classifications, and shops and services are in buildings that front the street. And then Request 3, Delete S17. Again, By removing that activity center, we're essentially pushing intensity and density along the corridor rather than trying to cluster it around an activity center that is also located in a site that maybe is not ideal for traditional development.

So the Citizen Participation Plan, the applicant had three neighborhood meetings. They held those meetings—you'll see this slide or variations of it three more times—because they held those meetings to discuss all four of these applications. So they had three meetings. The first meeting had five people, the second meeting had four, the third meeting had two. There weren't questions or comments from the attendees. I inherited this project later in the game.

I have not seen any comments or received questions from the public. I've reached out to the applicant about if they've heard anything. It's been pretty close. So staff's recommendation is that the Planning and Zoning Commission should forward the minor regional planning on Redbridge bus, new city council with a recommendation for approval in accordance with the findings. To clarify, we're going to have two public hearings on this item, so we're not voting tonight. We'll vote at our next meeting.

Now please pause while I pull up my next presentation. I tried to have them all as one document and my computer did not enjoy that. It started getting quite warm. Okay. Okay. The STL 290 specific plan. So this is a request for the adoption of the STL 290 specific plan, a regulating document for approximately 290 acres of state trust land. I included this certificate of purchase just because getting APNs and addresses kind of lags behind this entitlement process.

But This is located northeast of Pine Canyon Estates along the plan John Wesley Powell Boulevard extension.

This, as I referred to earlier, the specific plan accompanies two concurrent concept zoning map amendment cases that we'll get to after this, proposing to rezone the property or some of the property from rural residential with the resource protection overlay to a combination of single family residential R1, medium density residential MR, suburban commercial SC, and highway commercial HC, all still with that resource protection overlay. We talked about this on the last one, the subject property.

The L now with a little bite out of the side there. All right. So the specific plan. The specific plan defines land use, zoning, infrastructure, and movement standards for approximately 290 acres of state trust land. There are 20 development areas that throughout my presentation I refer to as DAs, not to be confused with development agreements, but 20 development areas with proposed zoning classifications of RR, R1, MR, SC, and HC.

It also establishes designated open space, parks, and multimodal trail corridors. It outlines required water, sewer, drainage, and public service infrastructure and provides a phased approach for constructing roads, utilities, and amenities. So you can see over on the right side the overall plan showing all those development areas. We see the activity center and its proposed location along that collector. Question? Yes. This is where I wanted to get some clarification.

In the previous case, it was 210 acres. This specific plan is called 290. Is that 290 acres of all of the colored area, less the part that become Juniper Point? Maybe the easier question is how many acres are going to Juniper Point out of the original 405? I believe that's 60…66? 66 acres. Yes. That's the part that says not a part on it. Right. Yes. So, there are a few modifications that happen in this specific plan. There are modifications to the density requirements.

There are tables included in the specific plan that address density and development standards. One of the things it does is actually increase the The minimum density allowed in the RR zone. So, Flagstaff, I'm told, is somewhat unique in that we not only have maximum density, but we also control minimum density in a lot of zones. So, our zoning code gives a density range of between zero and one unit. Specific plan actually bumps that up to 0.8 to one unit per acre in that development area three.

It also increases the minimum density allowed in the R1 zone. Again, the zoning code allows for a range between two and six units an acre. The specific plan bumps it up to four to six units per acre in development areas two, four, six, and nine.

It also increases minimum density The zoning code allows between 6 and 14, and the specific plan requires a minimum of 12 units an acre in development areas 1 and 7 and between 11 and 14 units per acre in area 8 Another modification made by the specific plan are some of the land use permissions or that allowed uses table. It prohibits one unit residential development. You can think of that as single-family homes. It prohibits that use in development areas 1, 7, 8, 14, and 15.

It also allows the golf course and related facilities use without a conditional use permit in development area 16. Now we all heard that conditional use permit to allow a golf. What this does is now says, I think What I suspect, and I'll let the applicant explain when they're presenting, but right now, what we approved was just a golf course, and this would allow them to add a clubhouse for certain amenities to that golf course without having to come in and amend that conditional use permit.

Do you have a question, comment? C.J., you're muted. Oh, sorry. I didn't know that I was up. My question is about the golf course. Is it open open to the public, and does it use reclaimed water? So, we heard a conditional use permit on the Gulf Force, and it included a reclaimed water agreement with the city. So, yes, it does use reclaimed water as approved as part That's part of that discussion. As far as being open to the public, I'll let the applicant address that.

My understanding, how staff reviewed it, was as an amenity space for the residential development that was occurring alongside of it. Can I ask? Yes. This is on the subject of the golf course and the reclaimed water. And when I read in the narrative that was for the specific plan, so when that reclaimed water contract was redrawn, they saved 30 percent. But they're going to be asking for that 30 percent back in a new contract to water with reclaimed water the rest of this development.

Did I understand? What I'm understanding from the specific plan is that there will…they intend to request another agreement for reclaimed water from the city. I did not…I don't think that necessarily that is a finding to whether the specific plan is approved or not because it's not necessarily promising any sort of entitlement or saying by…by approving the specific plan. We are therefore also going to approve any reclaimed water requests. Yeah, I just wanted to bring it up.

It wasn't in your staff report, but it was in their narrative that that was a big deal, that they gave 30 percent back and coming back out. So just wanted to make that known. Thanks. So, modifications to height requirements. So, the specific plan allows greater height in a number of these development areas. The maximum building height in the RR zone is 35 feet. The specific plan would increase that to 48 feet in development area.

16, that is the The gulf course area, and it was identified as being needed to allow for a viewing tower. The maximum building height in-and I just want to clarify that development area 16, that increase in height is specifically for the track that includes the gulf course and any amenities. It does not include residential tracks-or logs, sorry.

The maximum building height in the R1 zone is 35 feet per the zoning code A specific plan would increase that to 48 feet in development areas 2 10 19 and up to 60 feet in development areas 4 14 and 15 The maximum building height in the MR zone is 35 feet per the zoning code, and the specific plan allows for up to 60 feet in development areas 1, 7, and 8. The maximum building height in the HC zone is 60 feet per the zoning code.

Additional height in HC is permitted per the zoning code with the conditional use permit. The specific plan would allow for an increase up to five stories or 75 feet, and that would be permitted. They They would not need the additional use permit. The maximum building height in the SC Zone is 35 feet per the zoning code, and a specific plan would allow up to four stories or 60. There are also modifications to setbacks.

The zoning code includes minimum setbacks requiring 20 feet setback for parking. We have interpreted that to mean parking structures, parking lots, parking areas, not your driveway. And this requirement is removed by the specific plan for development areas zoned RR, R1, and MR. The development area 16, again that by-right development that subdivision plat was already approved is not included in this. The specific plan increases the side setback in the R1 zone I wrote there.

Anyway, from three feet to five feet, except in development areas 14, 15, and 19, where the side setback is reduced to zero feet. Code, actually, the zoning code does allow for a zero-foot setback for attached single-family dwellings, what people most commonly call townhomes. And the specific plan decreases the side setback in the MR zone. Again, why am I…anyway, from three feet to zero feet. And code allows, again, for that zero-foot setback for single-family, attached single-family dwellings.

I do want to say that even if the setback is zero, you still have to meet, you know, fire code, building code for building separations. Part of the specific plan is the idea that the area will be developed as part of that planned residential development. There are a few modifications that the specific plan allows. We would apply those PRD standards site-wise rather than per phase or per parcel slash development area.

It would count open space collectively and meets the PRD points for community-scale amenities rather than parcel-specific features. So, we could award points for a community park as opposed to, you know, a bench alongside a trail somewhere. So, we get maybe less throughout, but I would hope higher quality, concentrated, And then, the other thing that the specific plan addresses is those subdivision standards that talk about block length and street connectivity.

The specific plan talks about how the street layout in the activity center does not meet the regional plan's desired pattern and block This mainly has to do with topography again and natural resources in order to come up with how the regional plan envisions development in this flat grid interconnected system It is very hard to actually implement in an area like Flagstaff So the street network in development areas 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 and 10 will most likely have cul and blocks that exceed that desired maximum of a block length because of these topographical constraints And the plan instead proposes alternate pedestrian connections to substitute for vehicular block requirements.

So, you may not have streets for cars that meet those block standards, but there will be pedestrian and bike connections that allow people to move, kind of shortcut between these roadways. So do we see that more circularly or like where I live there's a ton of cul-de-sacs because it backs to the forest. So, but they're all just like this, you know, kind of in a row and then up in another row? I don't think it's necessarily an issue with this requirement.

It's more when those cul-de-sacs become very, very long, and that if you were in one cul-de-sac and you wanted to visit your friend in the next cul-de-sac, you're walking all the way down to the end of your cul-de-sac down the road and back up your neighbor's cul-de-sac. So this would have those pedestrian connections between those roadways that would allow people to more easily move from one roadway to another. And just two questions I have.

Will it also, are they providing access to the forest so that people can walk in the forest? Yes. Yes. PRACIA CARDOVICS- Some places, and are there plans for urban trails in that area? Yes. PRACIA CARDOVICS- Okay. All of the above. PRACIA CARDOVICS- Okay. Thank you. Should I call it now? Sorry. Okay. Sorry. So, community services impact analysis. So, when we're looking at a specific plan, we look at public services impact analysis review.

This includes transportation, water and wastewater, and stormwater. Rather than go through all of that and all of it again, that is-that analysis is included with the concept zoning map amendments. But they are relevant to the specific plan. Specific plan also has more specific analyses that are required. So, the following analysis that I included in this presentation are just those additional impacts that we look at when adopting a specific plan. So, the first one is police and fire.

It's development. There's new homes. It increases demand for police services. There's added residential, commercial, and the lodging use. There's also an increase demand for traffic enforcement due to the new roadway connections. The Flagstaff Police Department is a serving agency. Its Its main station is located about 2.9 miles from the site.

Current police department performance indicates it can absorb the short-term increases in calls and references ongoing crime reduction success and community policing programs. So, overall, STL 290 is not expected to overburden at least services in the near term, but long-term growth will require continued coordination with the FPD, as any growth in Flagstaff will require it to increase. I have a question on that as well.

If the bond and the sales tax increase that are being voted upon next week don't pass, how does that… So this analysis was done prior to those bonds being at least on staff's radar, I think, like planning staff. So this is not necessarily dependent on those-on those bonds. We also have public safety development impact fee that we do collect. Okay. Thank you. This site is located in Fire District number 6.

It's within the response range of several stations, including station 4 that's approximately 3 miles away. Response times are within NFPA standards, suggesting existing service capacity is adequate for initial phases of development. Again, there will be an increase emergency medical calls, that wildland urban interface exposure. And similar to police, the result of the analysis was that it shouldn't strain things initially, but as it grows, we'll need to revisit it. School.

I believe there was an attachment of a letter from FUSD that talked about this. The project is projected to generate approximately 226 students at full build out. They'd be distributed among Kinsey Elementary School, the Mount Eldon Middle School, Peckstaff High School, all of which currently have adequate capacity due to district-wide declining enrollment trends.

The analysis notes that the…by putting more development on the south side of the city, it can help stabilize the district's distribution of schools and of enrollment, bringing it possibly into better balance but may necessitate future boundary adjustments. And I attach the letter from FUSD that states that they support the project and that they're ready to serve future students. Question about that. Yes.

Does this—when you come up with this—when When they come up with these recommendations, do they take into account also the additional students from like Janifer Point, Canyon Del Rio that will also feed into those same schools? And I mean, there's no parcels being reserved or set aside for school. They might be zoned where they could accept a school, but as everything gets built out, there could be no land left in the area to build a school.

And when I was following the JWPAL specific plan, which was never finished—I'm sure we'll get to that—in 2020, in that initial evaluation, there were going to be two elementary schools and a middle school in this—along the JWPAL corridor. And the new Kinsey school, they're not increasing their capacity, they're only adding pre-K. So I'm at a loss to how all these numbers will work and that there won't be a school on this whole south side, an additional school on this whole south of the 40.

So, when planning department or school district looks at this, I mean, probably Juniper Point didn't trigger a school or Canyon Del Rio or this, but collectively, they probably do. So, could you address how that gets figured? Can I piggyback on that, too? Sure. I could be wrong, but my understanding of the busing system is that they don't bus as many students as they used to. And so how far will students have to walk to Kinsey?

You know, they'll bust probably to MEMS because it's further away and flag high. But to Kinsey, with children, how far away are these homes from Kinsey Elementary School? So, the information that I was given was the letter from FUSD. I'm not sure how the school department came up with that result and they weighed into it.

Part of—you guys always beat me to the punch here—so part of what I was going to say when I was done with my presentation is because we get to have two hearings, is I would love at the end of this to hear—at the end of the meeting and the applicant's presentation to hear what additional information you might need for the next meeting so that I can make sure I have the staff here or Or I do additional research or ask people questions or the applicant can provide additional information about that So it sounds like this might be on that list of questions that we want to address at our next meeting.

Madam Chair, I just have one just comment. Generally, when I've worked on projects like this, find the school to have like their own fingers. So they start looking at these These things, where they can accommodate them in order to generate the letter that they sent. So maybe you could ask them for more clarification because they have to be well aware to accommodate new developments. So typically, in my experience, that's what they've done. They have their own internal planning.

They keep track of the subdivision plants. They keep track of who's pulling permits. Because those planners reach out to the city and planning staff and ask us what's online, what's coming next, what's been approved, how many units, what's their construction schedule. Maybe they could provide a little more clarification. Yeah, I'd like to see more clarification from the public school system. Okay. Do you want to say something? Yeah.

And if I can just add, you know, we've had multiple conversations throughout the John Musley PAL, even the specific area planning, the roof planning project. We recently met with my friends, I think it was, you know, a year ago in the context of the larger picture of what's happening in the planning area. And so this tracks with the exact information that they've given us.

Alex can get more clarification from them, but just to kind of somewhat address it tonight, I can let you know, We have had conversations with them about the whole entire area of all this is just looking at the specific site, and this is tracking what they're even saying about just the way that enrollment is going and where students and younger families are living right now. Yeah, and my biggest concern is of those young students, if they're having to walk to school, how far above?

And that's a different—yeah, I just wanted to talk about how far of a route is that. So, another issue that we look at is economic development. The applicant provided us information about this. The construction is projected to support an average of 1,600 jobs per year in Coconino County, including 1,026 direct construction jobs and a total annual labor income from construction activity estimated at approximately $87 million.

And the question of that, would most of the jobs for construction people be hired from within the community rather than from another community to build here? I don't know that that's something necessarily the developer knows at this point. That would be up to. Typically, you bid these things, and if you have a local contractor, they might use local subs. Hard to say, but maybe they can address that.

At full build out, the development is expected to generate roughly $6 million annually in recurring city revenue through property taxes, state shared revenues, sales taxes, DDB taxes, and franchise fees, in addition to a one-time construction sales tax payment of $12.3 million. The approximately Only 80,000 square feet of commercial development could generate an estimated 277 jobs. And the lodging operation, it's projected to produce 41 million annually in revenue.

The residential component, approximately 785 households, is anticipated to further stimulate the local economy through household spending on goods and services. Parks and Recreation. The development includes approximately 15 acres of publicly accessible, privately funded, neighborhood-scale parks located within walking distance of most residential units.

The internal system of multi-use trails would connect to the Arizona Trail, the John Ann Wesley Powell Boulevard trail corridor and other existing regional routes, improving overall recreational connectivity The project also has a preservation of natural open space areas So the findings The Planning and Zoning Commission shall find that the proposed STL-specific plan meets the requirements of the General Plan and the Subdivision Code. This is very similar to that minor plan amendment.

So the The minor plan amendment is required to be approved in order for the specific plan to be found in conformance with the regional plan. So that's one of many interconnected tentacles of these projects. The Regional Plan 2030 area types. So, this area in the 2030 plan is classified as future suburban neighborhood.

It's located within the city's urban growth boundary and is intended to accommodate new suburban residential neighborhoods supported by commercial services and multimodal transportation. A suburban neighborhood is characterized by primarily residential development at low to moderate densities. It serves as a transition between rural areas and more intense urban places.

It features a connected street pattern and access to parks and open space and local trail and sidewalk networks that support walking and biking. It's designed to function as a complete, livable community that relies on nearby activity centers and corridors for services, employment, and higher density housing opportunities. For place types, a suburban activity center is a mixed-use focal point within the suburban area type.

Plan to include a combination of commercial, employment, public facilities, and higher density residential uses organized in a compact walkable pattern. These centers are intended to serve surrounding neighborhoods by providing daily goods and services within short travel distances. Development within an activity center typically includes smaller block patterns, pedestrian-scale design, and multimodal access.

Housing densities are highest, closest to the center with transitions to lower density residential forms outward into the surrounding neighborhoods. A suburban corridor is a linear area along a major roadway that accommodates a mix of land uses oriented towards local and regional travel. They're intended to support multimodal transportation. They're often lined with commercial, mixed-use, or medium-density residential development.

It provides a structure for suburban growth by linking neighborhoods and activity centers and establishing predictable development intensity along designated transportation routes. streetscapes and access management elements are emphasized to balance mobility with place making and safety. So when we look at goals and policies in the plan, environmental planning and conservation, we're looking at these are just some of the goals and policies that I pulled out.

The applicant also They also did their own regional plan analysis. There is no shortage of goals and policies for you to consider. So, here, you know, achieving carbon neutrality for the Flagstaff community by 2030. A big part of achieving carbon neutrality is encouraging these walkable neighborhoods, having commercial elements near residential development.

We're looking at policies that encourage reduction of energy and material consumption, again, concentrating development in walkable areas, as well as investing in forest health, watershed protection measures.

Again, this development is really trying to work with topography and with those natural resources in the area, as well as this goal to protect, restore, and improve ecosystem for being able to plant and animal community diversity and preserving forests riparian areas wildlife routes and using native landscaping The specific plan has a whole section on landscaping and the philosophy of landscaping different areas of the facility. Looking at open space and recreation.

This project meets this goal, OS1. The region has a system of open lands, such as undeveloped natural areas, wildlife corridors, and habitat areas, trails, access Public lands and greenway, et cetera. Water resources. Satisfying current and future human water demands and the needs of the natural environment through sustainable and renewable water resources and strategic conservation measures.

The use of reclaimed water and rainwater harvesting wherever appropriate and practical, and incorporating pedestrian access, trails, watchable wildlife opportunities into natural water courses when practical. Community character. One of our policies is this idea of preserving the natural character of the region. The specific plan includes architectural design features and examples of various structures and what some of those features are. that we see repeated throughout Flagstaff.

Growth area and land use, designing new neighborhoods that body the characteristics of Flagstaff's favorite neighborhoods with a mix of use, a variety of housing types and densities, public spaces, and connectivity with, again, multi-modal trails and transportation. Also, increasing the variety of housing options and expanding opportunities for employment and neighborhood shopping within all suburban neighborhoods. Transportation. Improving mobility and access throughout the region.

The applicant has been a partner in the John Wesley Powell connection, that whole corridor. So, by constructing their portion of John Wesley Powell, we've used mobility throughout this area of Flagstaff. And increasing the availability and use of pedestrian infrastructure is including the foots in their development, maintaining that Arizona trail throughout the development, as well as their additional trail connections to the development.

Also talks about the cost of development, and part of that is the policy that requires new development to pay for a fair and rough proportional share of public facilities, services, and infrastructure. Housing, we're looking at policy in H16.

That new development, especially on the periphery, will contribute to completing neighborhoods, including connecting to other neighborhoods, It's providing parks, civic spaces, a variety of housing types, and also protecting sensitive natural and cultural features. The specific plan does restrict the development of single-family residential housing in five areas.

So, by doing that, they're showing a commitment to having at least some diversity in housing types by saying not everything can just be a single throughout the development. They do say that no affordable housing units are included in this proposal. I'm sure the applicant will discuss this, but the philosophy being that by using the lab density in the area, by developing housing any type and a variety of such, that that is helping The housing crisis. Lack of housing. Economic development.

One of our policies is to support and promote the diversification and specialization of the tourism sector with heritage, eco, and adventure tourism. I'm not sure about heritage and adventure, but this would definitely, to me, looks like eco-tourism. I'm sorry, because I have to leave. Yes. So, and I'm not going to be able to see the presentation. We can email you the link. Yes, thank you. You'll be able to watch. Okay. Step up. That's right. And then… You could rewatch the beginning of it.

Alex, as much as I love listening to you, probably forward to five o'clock. Anyhow, the last slide had one of my concerns was, you know, affordable housing. And my hope is that by having the different types of housing, that some of it is affordable without having to say that, you know, a certain percentage. And that's just my concern. And I can listen to your presentation because I'm sure it'll be included. So thank you, Anna. I'm going to go over for you.

Yes, and I need to tag on to her comment. Was there a discussion at all about—I mean, obviously, we're rezoning just into a zone. There's no guarantee of seeing all these different types of housing. We know that they can be accommodated, but not necessarily no guarantee that they're going to have that. Was there any discussion about where footage ranges? You know, minimum, maximums.

You know, would that have been a better way to hone in on the type of housing that Flagstaff, the live and work here would really be interested in? I just kind of wanted to bring it up and ask. And I don't know that I have an answer if that was ever discussed. I know it's currently part of the specific plan. And applicant. Thank you. Okay. So here's that citizen participation plan. A few additions specifically to specific plans.

Specific plans are required to have two Planning and Zoning Commission hearings. It was also required to have this 60-day review where certain government agencies are contacted, it's posted online, and we wait for comment. So, it was posted on June 12th. No comments were received.

So the recommendation from staff on the specific plan is that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward the specific plan for adoption requests to state council with a recommendation of approval Hold your ordinance for the vote. Excuse me, Alex, do we vote on this? There has to be a second hearing. That's what I thought. Our voting will happen next time. Next time. So this is another no vote today. As well as those zoning. Next one. Thank you.

So now we get to the concept zoning map amendments, and we have two of these applicants. So this is the first of the two. This request is for a concept zoning map amendment by symmetry companies to rezone approximately 139 acres from the rural residential zone with the resource protection overlay to the single residential R1 zone with So this is one of those points where I want to talk about entitlements.

The specific plan and the rezoning application talk about a target and what the developer envisions at this point happening. But I want to make sure that we're clear about overall entitlements of this development. So, if approved, these two zoning map amendments, in addition to the specific plan and the regional plan amendment, would allow between 605 and 1,312 units. Travel accommodations really of unlimited size. And I say this from a planning standpoint.

I would imagine if something got so large that it could trigger additional impact analyses. But again, to be clear, we don't require an applicant from a planning standpoint to limit the size of a hotel or how many rooms. As well as a range of commercial uses, and those are all listed on that table two of the specific plan. The applicant and I spent a long time on that table two, so it serves your attention.

Of those allowed dwelling units, between 298 and 386 units are prohibited from being single-family dwelling. Alex, is that a percentage of that range? Is that how you arrived at that? It's not a percentage. It is based on so that specific plan took certain development areas, said in that table two, you should pay attention to. In table two, it talks about allowed uses, and it prohibits single-family dwellings in certain development areas. And those development areas have a density range.

So I looked at the minimums in those five, I think, development areas and the maximum in those five development areas, and that is how I derived this range. Alex, would you say that the minimum development drives a product? Well, I understand the question. I know, but I… And I do want to say we also spent a lot of time with the activity center and talking about because activity centers require a certain density range in themselves.

So, again, that specific plan, when I'm talking about how it's bumping up minimum density, some of that has to do with making sure that we're meeting the required density within that activity center. So, when you see these minimums of 605 units of 298 non-single family dwelling, those numbers still meet those minimum density requirements of all the zones as well as that activity center. So, the development areas.

So, rezoning to R1 will be development areas 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 19. It totals about 139 acres, and it would keep that resource protection over. Those areas will accommodate between 315 and 721 dwelling units. Again, the target, what they're proposing, is about 443 units.

But again, I think it's important that we think about the range as As well as that intended target I circled all the little red circles The more time you spend with this the more of these things will just come to you and you be able to picture them in your head So density development areas 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19 will meet the density range of the R1 zone. That's per the zoning code.

And then development areas 2, 4, 6, and 9 are required by the specific plan to have that four to six units an acre. So, again, increasing that minimum density requirement. And then development areas 4, 6, 9, and 10 are located within that pedestrian shed of the S-12 activity center And contribute to that minimum required average density of six units per acre. I believe the target – based on the target number, the density in that activity center is over seven units.

So phasing, just thinking about like if these are rezoned, we see development on these. So phase one, the light beam includes development areas 14 and 15. And then phase three includes development areas 4, 6, 9, 10, and 11. Phase 4 includes development area 2, and Phase 5 includes development areas 17 and 19. Allowed uses. So, development areas 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 19 are allowed all residential uses that are permitted in the R1 zone. based on the zoning code.

Out of the development areas being rezoned R1, development areas 14 and 15, which is part of that Phase 1, single…that one-unit residential development or single-family homes is prohibited in those two areas. All of these—I won't go through all the numbers again—all of these development areas are allowed outdoor public uses as a commercial use. This is something that the applicant and I came up with to make sure that the parks are allowed use in these areas.

We didn't want to get to a situation where they're trying to develop a park and we're realizing, oh wait, we didn't account for that in our permitted uses. The concept zoning plan review, it to be complete on November 24th, 2025, almost a year ago. And if this rezoning is approved, the applicant will still need to submit for either site plan review or subdivision plat review prior to submitting for permits, both civil plans and building permits. So, we look at resource protection in re-zones.

The resource protection overlay zone on the subject site protects floodplains, steep slopes, and native trees. Typically, in the R1 zone, based on provisions in the zoning code now, requires 50 percent of the tree The applicant is electing to be part of our tree resource pilot program, which will have them working with city planning and fire staff to determine where areas of tree resources shall be protected.

The concept natural resource protection plan was submitted as part of this rezoning application. It shows general areas the applicant tends to maintain as undisturbed. If this is approved, the natural resource protection plan will be required, again, as part of any of those site plans These are preliminary plaques.

Again, thinking about this development, certain development areas the residential development areas will be part of that planned residential development That enables us to again look at this in a more holistic way that instead of saving a couple trees in random places we can save loss of trees and keep in mind fire safety in the area. Here's that plan. So, purple is areas envisioned to be developed, Not disturbed.

And you see all the green areas as places where the intent is to have all those resources protected. Common space and CIFIC space. The Flagstaff zoning code requires that a PRD provide a minimum of 15% of the development area to be common space. As I just talked about, the specific plan would allow this more holistic look at this. The plan does identify certain development areas that will use the PRD standards. It also calls out development areas that are planned to have these parks.

So there are four community parks proposed. I highlighted development area 19 because that is one of the development areas as being proposed to be rezoned to our work. A question for you. Yes. With regard to common space, civic space-well, maybe it's not civic space-but open space, how does the golf course from the lower section-is that counting on anything? That does not count towards the development included in the specific plan.

That was part of the previously approved subdivision in that development area, A16. So it doesn't count towards the- Okay. So we're getting sort of the whole bang for our buck in this area with the 15%. Yes. Thank you. We also look at pedestrian bicycle circulation systems. So, everything needs to meet city engineering standards. The proposed road network and trail plan has been provided to show how those internal site connections are intended.

Final determination of these connections will be be confirmed during that site plan slash subdivision application review. The Flagstaff Urban Trail system trails will be provided along John Wesley Powell Boulevard. And then, as I've mentioned, the Arizona Trail currently crosses the property. It'll be realigned as As the site develops, but it will also-the applicant will also be maintaining public access to that trail.

On the Foots Trail, in some of the fine print, it said that there would be a Foots Trail along the area. If I asked that correctly, but I didn't see the trail line on the map. I just wanted to make sure like where that connectivity goes as it goes north in the development. You know, I obviously see it on JWB-Pal. That's understandable, but I didn't quite see how it works further north. I'm assuming I'll be part of the applicant's privilege. Okay, thank you.

Addability and architectural design standards. Specific to R1 zoning, the specific plan does allow for increased height in overall in 13 of 20 development areas. As far as the R1 zoned, development areas 6, 9, 11, and 17 use maximum height of 35 feet allowed in the zoning code, while development areas 2, 10, and 19 have that increased maximum height of 48 feet, and development areas 4, 14, and 15 have a maximum height allowed of 60 feet.

The application, as I mentioned before, includes these architectural character images of proposed style, materials, and design elements being used. Also included in your packet as well as in the application are the sample residential building footprints and parking areas. So This element The document shows different types of envisioned development types as well as overall sort of layout design elements throughout the development. So this is a function of a concept zoning. Yes.

Since we've been learning a little bit more in detail what the difference is about that. This is a concept zoning map, so it's just showing where the buildings would be blocked out if they chose to build any of these different types of housing within that zone. And staff has proposed a condition that part of the rezoning would be developing in conformance with the sample residential building footprints in the areas.

I'd have to kind of stick with this layout, but again, it's still not a requirement that they, you know, build a triplex or a garden. It would not be a requirement that they build a certain building type. It's still just going to be medium density. What is allowed in the zone or what, more specifically, what is allowed in table two. And then any development would also need to be in conformance. Part of that concept zoning map amendment is looking at the impact analyses.

This is what I deferred to now on our specific plan. So one of the impact analyses that is required is the transportation impact analysis, which I'm constantly calling the traffic impact analysis. I feel like that is a faux pas on my part. So transportation. So city staff reviewed the STL 405, again, earlier times, different, slightly different acreage, but the master TIA that was sealed on September 15, 2026, city staff conditioned approval on specific improvements.

Part of that TIA was talking about at full…well, Well, it breaks it down into kind of phases of development, but looking at full build, the proposed development could generate 11,882 external trips over the course of a typical weekday, with 582 external trips during the a.m. peak hour and 950 external trips during the p.m. peak hour.

There's also a requirement that John Wesley Powell Boulevard needs to be connected to South 4th Street prior to the issuance of a building permit for any development within the specific plan area. This is recently-I was recently made aware of a slight modification to that. So it needs to connect to 4th Street. It does not need to connect in order to finish So, we can finish that by right development around the golf course in development area 16.

It also does not need to connect for that phase one development areas 14 and 15 in order to develop. But anything after that, so starting in phase two, phase 2B needs to have that connection completely. Clarification. So that just allows traffic to be able to go all the way through to 4th Street, but we don't have to…it's not conditioned on those other developments. There's usually two different pieces that feed into it.

One is your traffic…I'm sorry to say…transportation impact analysis, looking at how these trips are distributed. So, by having the option of going both west and east is a good thing. But it also-there's an element of fire safety involved, too, of how many dwelling units you can have with one direction versus two directions. So, it's a combination of both those things that then require that connection to be made.

All those improvements discussed in the TIA and in that memo that staff provided that was also attached talk about how the development agreement shall include required improvements timings and proportional shares We also completed a Water and Wastewater Impact Analysis, or WISA. That was completed on September 5th of 2023. And then in December of 2024, the applicant requested an extension, and Water Services approved that request for an extension in October of 2025.

The development proposes tapping into existing water infrastructure at five possible locations, and then off-site sewer extensions will be required to reach the existing public system. The development proposes to connect to the existing sewer infrastructure at seven locations. In the southern region of the development, an 8-inch sewer within John Wesley Powell Boulevard is proposed to extend through the new development. I went into the stormwater analysis a little bit more in the staff report.

And at this point in creating presentations, I was losing steam. So, drainage impact analysis was reviewed by city staff and approved. Honestly, at this scale and at this point in development, we're really – we know that generally they will deal with stormwater, and we will look at it in more detail as each of these development areas come in. All right. So, the findings. The first finding, we should probably have this memorized by now, right?

The proposed amendment must be found to be consistent with and in conformance with the goals and policies of the general plan and any applicable specific plans. So, this means in order for you to find that the concept zoning map amendment needs This finding, it's not just the general plan, it's the amended general plan as well as the specific plan being proposed. So the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 shows this area within the growth boundary. It's a suburban land use classification.

So that supports this mix of uses, neighborhood-scale development that balance housing, recreation, and employment opportunities. The request for a minor regional plan amendment where it needs to be approved in order to be found in compliance with the regional plan, and it also needs to be found in compliance with that specific plan. So applicable goals and policies. You may see some repetition here. So I pulled out some various goals and policies. We can go into any of these in more depth.

The staff report points out how certain things are being met. The applicant did their own regional plan analysis policies. But again, you know, environmental planning and conservation, absolutely. Open space, yes. Water resources.

This project helps to bring necessary infrastructure into this area for future The structure of the development, community character, again, all of the architectural design standards, the proposed building footprints, and then maintaining that the character of the region is not just those architectural elements but it's in balance with these natural elements as well.

Both areas and land use, developing these new neighborhoods that have a mix of uses and a variety of housing types, increasing the variety of housing options, and planning suburban development to include a variety of housing options.

Neighborhoods, housing, and urban conservation, make available a variety of housing types at different price points to provide housing opportunities for all economic sectors Again development areas to be zoned R1 two of those development areas do not permit single homes Together those allow a maximum of 53 non units The remainder of the units targeting 391 with a maximum of 668 could be developed as single-family units. That is not the current proposal, but consider.

It has been stated by staff that higher density uses improve efficiencies in infrastructure and support lower housing costs. Finding number two, we're looking at community benefits and the public good. So, if we rezone these areas from RR to R1, we are able to provide target 443 dwelling units, range 315 to 721 Dwelling units. The proposal-it does not propose to any affordable housing units, but suggests that the increase in number of units does help address Flagstaff's housing crisis.

The proposed development transforms currently undeveloped property within the urban growth boundary, which is the type of development we would like to see. And the development invests in public infrastructure, helping to deliver new roadway, trails, and utility infrastructure. Finding number three is that the site needs to be determined to be physically suitable, et cetera. Staff believes the proposed application meets this finding.

This was reviewed at IDS, and IDS based its conclusion on the review of all applicable codes and requirements as well as those impact analyses for the site. Development agreement. So, we have a draft development agreement that's been prepared. The primary purpose of the agreement is to set out roles and responsibilities in regard to the following, not limited to. So, this is my working list of items that we are negotiating.

One is forest resources and the participation of the city's forest resource pilot program, planned residential development design elements, the phasing of utilities, infrastructure, parks, common space, and trails, The off-site water and sewer infrastructure improvements as required by that WISA. The fact that the Arizona Trail shall remain open, accessible, and safely passable during construction. Here's where I updated the comment about John Wesley Powell connecting to 4th Street.

That needs to happen before issuance of any permit beyond development areas 14, 15, and 16. And off-site transportation infrastructure improvements. Currently, that would include construction of roundabouts, specifically at Lone Tree and John Wesley Powell and Lone Tree and Zuni, And looking at when that would be triggered, so currently looking at the 200th dwelling unit and then the 370th dwelling unit.

The developers also required to contribute their proportional share of offsite improvements or construct those improvements. This is all still under negotiation. And final points, I hope, will be presented to the Commission our second year. Question about that. Yes. The roundabouts off of Loan Tree. And in the TIA, it mentioned there was, you know, stages of 2008. And those were listed under 2028. So how does those negotiations and what they said needs to be done by 2028, how does that?

So, my understanding is that the transportation impact analysis was written with years as triggers. That doesn't always really work in the real world. And so we are working to translate years into number of dwelling units which would more realistically capture the impacts of that development I was very excited about that. It's just fun to add that. Which is ever sooner? That's the ideal. Commissioner Leakey has a question. Commissioner Lugin. Go ahead. Okay.

Does this also include fire station number seven in some of the calculations, or is that already taken off the board? No. The applicant would not be responsible for additional fire station. So I guess it I'm not sure it was ever on the board. We had those same neighborhood meetings. So this is a recommendation. This zoning map amendment does have conditions.

So, the conditions at this point are that the subject property must be developed in accordance with the approved STL 290 specific plan as amended and the building footprints and parking areas document. All other requirements of the zoning code and other city codes regulations shall be met by the proposed development. All terms, conditions, and restrictions detailed within the STL 290 development agreement as amended must be fully satisfied.

The subdivision of the development must align with the approved zoning boundaries.

And our favorite, in the event the property is rezoned and the developer fails to obtain final civil plan approval, then two years of the effective date of the rezoning ordinance, then the city may schedule May schedule a public hearing before the city council for the purpose of causing the zoning on the property to revert the zoning back to the former classification of rural residential per section 10-20.50.060 of the zoning code. Salas I pull up.

So as I mentioned, there are two rezoning requests. So this is the second one. This request is for a concept zoning map amendment. Rezone approximately 72.14 acres from rural residential The resource protection overlay, suburban commercial zone, highway commercial zone, and the MR zone, all with resource protection overlay. Similarly, I just want to point out those entitlements.

So, granted with this application, again, we're looking at this range of the number of dwelling units, the travel accommodation, and a range of commercial uses as listed in Table 2 of the specific plan. Again, of those allowed dwelling units, between 298 and 386 are prohibited from being small family dwellings. So the first part of the rezoning request is to rezone two development areas, 13 and 20, to the SC zone. Development area 13 is lovingly referred to in the as the commercial village.

You can see those highlighted. They're kind of that reddish pink color and have just both. So phases, development areas are created. They developed as part of phase 2B and development area 20 is in that final phase of phase 5. Allowed uses in these areas. in development areas 13 and 20 include general retail business, bars and taverns, mixed use, woodwork, restaurant or cafe, general services, indoor commercial recreation facilities, outdoor public uses, office, and public parking.

We also included certain accessory uses. So, So the idea being that you could not do a telecommunication facility on its own, but if you had one of the – like a general retail business or an indoor commercial recreation facilities, then one of these accessory uses would be allowed. Those include the stealth or attached telecommunication facility, a community garden, farmers market, or flea markets, which could be permitted with a temporary use permit.

Development Area 20 also includes additional primary uses of dry cleaning, a veterinary clinic, automobile service station and convenience store, libraries and museums. All residential uses that are allowed in the SC Zone by the zoning code could be allowed in these areas. The second part of the rezoning request is to rezone Development Area 5 to HC, the Highway Commercial Zone. Development Area 5 is the location of the proposed lodge. This is planned And to be part of phase three.

The allowed uses in development area five, the primary use is that travel accommodations. And again, these accessory uses would be allowed to come online in addition to that primary use of the travel accommodations. So, restaurant, bars and taverns, including outdoor public uses, general retail business uses, stealth, telecommunication facilities, community. There's no residential uses proposed in development.

The third part of this rezoning request is to rezone development areas 1, 7, and 8 to the MR zone. These are part of-sorry, 7 and 8 are part of phase 3, and then development area 1 would be part of phase 4. Allowed uses in these areas are all residential uses in the end-week. Sapped single-family house, one-unit residential development is prohibited. Outdoor public uses is the only allowed commercial use in these development areas.

The concept zoning plan review, this like the other request was deemed complete in November of 2025. And like the previous one, if approved, the applicant still needs to submit for either site plan review or subdivision review prior to any permits. Resource protection, common space and civic space, pedestrian bicycle circulation systems, all discussed in the previous zoning application, extremely similar, if not identical, for this request. Compatibility in architectural design standards.

Again, we're looking at that increased height allowance in the specific plan So development areas 13 and 20 those SC zoned parcels would increase the maximum height from 35 feet to 60 feet Development area 5 where the lodge is would increase the maximum height from 60 to 75 feet And Development Areas 1 7 and 8 the MR zoned parcels would increase the maximum height from 35 to 60 feet And the application also includes those same architectural character images of the proposed style, material, design elements.

Similarly, we have the same sample residential building footprints in parking areas being proposed. This second page includes a sample building footprint of the lodge, indicating that parking would be located both underground as well as surface lots, and then that SC zone in development area 13.

From the public systems impact analysis, the transportation impact analysis, the water-sewer impact analysis, and the drainage impact analysis are the same ones that we looked at for the previous concept zoning up amendment and are also relevant to that specific plan. Number one, it has to be consistent with and in conformance with the goals and policies of the general plan and any applicable specific plans. Just like the last one we're looking at, we're in the urban growth boundary.

It's a suburban land use. We need the minor regional plan amendment to be approved, and we need this to be found to be in compliance with their specific plan. Looking at applicable goals and policies, very similar. Again, same development.

So environmental planning, conservation, open space policies, water resources, community character, growth and land use, Again, we're looking at slight variations, you know, now that we are including the commercial zoned areas, medium density residential zoned areas. That does a lot more to encourage this diversity of uses and diversity of housing types that the regional plan would like to see. And economic development, we have our tourism sector.

Finding number two, community benefits and the public good. So the MR zone development areas aim to provide the target of 296 dwelling units. Again, we're looking at a range there between 280 and 333. These development areas prohibit single-family units. So, that emerges some diversity of housing type. Same issues with there's no proposed affordable housing units, but all housing units are good.

And then we're developing within the urban growth boundary and investing in public infrastructure, including the road, trails, and utilities. And then finding number three, that the site is physically suitable. Again, staff believes they've met this finding and we determined And that by reviewing this through IDS and looking at applicable codes and requirements, as well as those impact analyses. This is the same slide, unless I made a typo.

For the development agreement, looking at those elements that will be part of that agreement, Assuming the traffic impacts the same citizen participation And the recommendations So I want to say identical conditions So we looking at you know being in accordance with the approved plan as well as that building footprints and parking areas document other zoning codes ordinances and regulations meeting the terms and conditions of the development agreement Subdivision align with that approved zoning boundary and that we can always revert this back to the previous zoning.

Does the city run its own document or do you adopt what the applicant has provided that we got on all of our attachments? We would adopt what the applicant has provided. I had a question about, like on the maps, like the only areas that are being actually rezoned to medium density are one, seven, and eight. 14 and 15 are shown as medium density, but they're actually R1.

I understand that maybe the intent is that they want to do something more in line with medium density, but I just wanted to call attention to the zonings actually R1. Can you clarify? Yes. That's a great question because that map is color coding things but not according to the zone. It's color coding it based on various development types and the specific plan defines certain types of development like missing middle type 1 and missing middle type 2.

So those areas are being proposed to be developed with a certain housing type that happens to be the same housing type being proposed in other locations, but it is allowed in that zone, but it is not the zone itself. Does that make sense? Yes. I just- It's not a zoning map. So, I mean, will there be- It's not a zoning map. It is a post-development type. And I think for the purpose of the city's documents and what we all see, what council sees, that we should see a zoning map.

So that would be one of my things for your list. I think specific plans are purposely not zoning maps by state statute, correct? We could still, though, as part of the concept zoning map amendments, request a statement that's showing what things are being zoned to.

And I think that is why staff was trying to be very clear about what is being proposed versus what we are entitling, so that we're clear that, you know, This applicant with the current plan in this current market is proposing certain things, but we need to understand that there is some flexibility about what actually gets developed. And even when you look at the definition of those certain housing types, they list a wide range of housing types.

So… And I think it's like we're using all the current hot buzzwords, missing middle, you know, but it's still attached single family homes, you know, or multifamily. And I think that, you know, that we just want to be factual about what it is and what it isn't. So there was a way to clarify that. So there was a way to counsel. I think that I would- So any questions or comments or requests of me or-and we can follow up.

You can make additional requests after the applicant gives their presentation, but maybe I'm sorry. Stand by We have a question Okay it Jen Martin It looks like life chairs There two of you here And commissioners online Lindsay Shuby, and Burnham here on behalf of STL 405, STL 290, Capstone Homes. As we said, there's a variety of different entities that are involved in this development. And it has changed, right? And that was great. Alex pointed that out and started.

During the queue, they purchased this property in 2020. So this has been six years in the making. And it's been interesting looking at all the different analyses that have been presented at different times and different approval dates and all of that. So this has been a well thought out, worked on plan, but it has changed over the years.

Just a couple notes I'm going to hit from the beginning, and I am going, as I stated from the beginning, Alexandra Puterelli is the most detailed presenter of anywhere in the state of Arizona. I will hit on some of my notes. I will have some pictures, more pictures than Alex had on hers, but I will try not to repeat herself. One thing, Alex, in terms of the transportation impact analysis or the traffic impact analysis, it actually references both. I don't think you've been doing anything.

Traffic is more common. Yeah, they're both in there. But we're not going to talk from the audience because you're not allowed to do that. Also, Todd Saverson asked a question of Alex, as you guys were kind of discussing, building sizes, potentially square footage on residential units. The goal of the specific plan and to increase some of the minimum densities and to not allow single family development areas was to do just that, was to allow for a diversity of housing types.

We don't know exactly what's going to be out there and what the market is going to dictate, but by raising those minimums than what is allowed by code, that forces a different product type, right? It just does. You can't build single-family homes and you need a more dense product to be able to get the density required on those parcels. And as for the target, the reason that target is sitting where it is kind of in the middle is mostly slope. You notice that we kept the RPO on every parcel.

Trees, we can work with. Trees in the pilot program have been great. And Alex has said on the record, I think for a number of our projects now, working with the pilot program, we actually can protect readers' swaths of trees. So between the PRD option as well as the pilot program, we get to protect more substantial trees. It's the slope in this area, and that's what has us at our target number. If there are changes…I have not changed my slide. I apologize.

I'm just hitting a couple of the questions, but I'll get into the presentation here, Commissioner. Schools, really quickly. The superintendent who we are in contact with, yes, is aware of all the different developments, and he has tickled. He wants us to figure it in our five-year demand where they have all Juniper Point and Canyon Del Rio. They do have planners in the school district. We can bring additional correspondence, but we do have correspondence directly from the superintendent.

They're desperate for more development out there because they do fear the enrollment numbers going down. If you follow other school districts in the state, they're all closing. And so, while I appreciate and, you know, I've never had a kindergartner that could walk to school. And now I've got kids in university that I think they walk to school. I hope they go to class. But they are living on campus and theoretically they should be able to walk to school.

I've never had that kind of school opportunity for my kids, and while that would be ideal, I think the superintendent is really excited about the additional homes and the prospect of saving because they do see a five-year downward projection and are looking forward to more homes there. I think I hit some of the big ones, but we'll go through them. Oh, goodness. Hold on. No, not turn camera. Okay, we have four related requests.

I did split them up, but again, I'm going to go through them quickly because I think, Alex, I don't know how much more information there is to share. Again, we started with the original four requests. And you guys did see that. We gave you more history when we did, as outlined in phase one, currently in development, our buy right as well as the approved conditional use permit for golf. Chair Norton, to answer your question, that is, it's a private golf course. It is an expansion.

This is a Pine Canyon expansion. It is not counted in the open space for the balance of the project. This is a Pine Canyon expansion. And that's moving forward. But that also does include the development of John Wesley Powell, which opens up so much more development opportunities. Again, our phase one is in the southwest corner. And what we're here talking about today is the balance of the project. The original concept, and we really hit this when we spoke about the CUP, right?

So again, the bottom left, the Pine Canyon expansion, does kind of look similar to our original proposal. It's an executive course. So again, as we spoke about when we got the approval for that, far less water being used, far less turf. But the original proposal did have another championship golf course. It had larger estate lots and it had a mega resort on there. And it did not include the two commercial opportunities that we do now for the citizens of Flagstaff existing in future.

And it did not include the diversity of housing types. The new proposal is park trail focused with the community commercial and the lodge. So we have 20 development areas. We are proposing, again, approximately 785 homes. As Alex did point out, the zoning could allow for additional units. But I'll tell you, as far as the slope resources and what's out there today, we can't get any more out there. If there are any changes to those codes, we will revisit that.

But our target is based on both our transportation impact study, the WISA, as well as what the slope will allow. 80,000 square feet of commercial and 70 acres of parks, common open space, and preserved open space. I think that's really important, I think, when you have the ability to develop all these together. And with the specific plan, we're able to protect all of that. We have four parks that are open to the public and privately maintained. And then again, the 120 key family friendly lodge.

But again, as opposed to relying on a championship golf course, which was the original plan, it is now Arizona Trail park system and relying really, as Alex said, taking advantage of and a good way to and the beauty in the area. As Alex said, we're reviewed under the Regional Plan 2030, being that we've been in the queue for a long time. So there may be some questions about that.

I think you guys all follow the Regional Plan closely enough to know that because our application was in before, we are reviewing it under the We're reviewing it under the line B30. I don't feel like we really need to get into this in great detail because Alex did such a great job. But again, we're moving up S12, and that is to allow for the lodge and more density up there, just a little northeast of where it is now. We've all followed that process.

I think it is much better, the current alignment, having to get down multiple single-family homes. And so that's kind of a clean-up item because JWP is now in the area. And then again, the removal of activity area 17. The biggest issue with that is the topography in the area. And just, again, being able to find the balance of both commercial development, and that is all now permitted, the commercial development, because we have the John Wesley, the JWP corridor in front of it.

So, yeah, that allows for our commercial opportunities as well as some residential.

So these are the three Alex went into them in great detail so I can answer any questions but you know those are the three changes we asking for As far as the public outreach again we had three meetings 11 attendees We had a couple questions but no opposition per se We did over notice you know I think three hundred feet is required We did a thousand as well as the HOAs the Daily Sun the posting and we posted off of our property which we don normally do But again if we were to post on the property we have to be an avid hiker a trespasser to have seen our sign So, again, working with staff, again, we over-noticed in this way, which I think is great.

And Kevin got grief from me on the one night when we over-noticed something, and there were people who waited all night, and they're like, wait, I know what this is. It has nothing to do with me. And they were able to take themselves off. But we did over-notice in this situation, I do believe I do believe that this is consistent with the regional plan policies. Again, 3.8 miles of trails. Seven types of housing that are going to be permitted.

And Chair Norton, to your question, I mean, does it guarantee all those housing types and all those parcels? Not necessarily. But what we are asking for in the specific plan in terms of outlying those, you know, the different diversity of housing types and the height gives us more opportunity to get more density and to get more product type. So truly, all these are tools in a toolbox. We didn't have the new zoning category that you guys have now.

These were, you know, putting all the different tools in the toolbox. 80,000 square foot of neighborhood commercial, that is something I heard from multiple council members. Lindsay, don't just bring us a mega lodge for the people who are visiting. We want actually two commercial centers that can bring us a grocery store, that can bring us a vet, that can bring us all those things for people current and future, and that is what we did.

As far as the three regional plan amendments, we do believe that we meet the test. We believe we fit the side and keeps the framework of what the regional plan. I did not go through all the goals and policies, but as Alex said in our application there are many of them, And we also agree with the ones that Alex brought forward. So with that, respectfully, of the three regional plan. Before I move on to specific plan or rezone, any questions on the regional plan that I didn't hit?

City council meeting, that's a question that might not actually be for you. It might actually be for Alex. Because that regional plan, it felt with that entire corridor. And so besides the activity centers that fell within your parcels, there's also U6 that falls into the bottom of Juniper Point. I know just from watching what's on the calendar and such that there's probably maybe some changes to their plans and their specific plan there.

What I'm concerned about or what I think we want to see the whole picture of is as far as activity centers, there's a lot changing from that regional plan 2030 and even from what was envisioned if there had been a JW PAL specific plan. So, do you know if there's another type of activity center remaining along the corridor? Now we're just down to basically one, and it's off of JW Powell.

So, one thing I think it's nice to note is that these two activity centers being moved, needed, all entirely within this property. So we're manipulating this and not necessarily impacting other adjacent property owners. In the Regional Plan 2045, we no longer have activity centers like this. We do more area type and there are centers, either suburban centers or urban centers, that are mapped. So those are included as part of that 2045.

If you want additional information about the 2045 plan, I could provide that to you. But I really have to look at what plan is at place when the application comes in and make sure that we're meeting that.

So future rezonings will be looking at 2045 and we be not looking at activity centers We be looking at those area types as now Here maybe a related question that does stick within this parcel When you make that into a suburban corridor and you have removed an activity center off of JW Powell do you feel that a suburban corridor in this type of a case will serve the same purpose as an activity center that could They should have maybe been put at JW Powell and Ponte Verra.

So I believe that this, in the 2030 plan, that this roadway on the map traveling through a suburban area type was a suburban court. The 2030 plan maybe didn't do the best job of mapping all the corridor types and kind kind of coordinating that, but that's how in conversations with comprehensive planning we've looked at that corridor. So I don't know that we're necessarily changing the designation at all. We're just relying more on that designation at activity center S17.

I think also moving the activity center that we are, there's a lot of by right there. So it didn't matter whether the core was there or not, if you're developing by right, I think moving it allows for the density and the energy that you were trying to get from there. I think we left it where it was, and we're still proposing commercial along JWP because we can because of the commercial order.

So, I actually think it really does help fulfill the goals of not the one acre lots of the Vine Canyon expansion, but the higher density residential as well as the family lodge as well as the two commercial opportunities. Yeah, I mean, I would just re-emphasize that corridor allows – under the 2030 plan, the corridor would allow for higher density, these re-zones to high-density residential or highway commercial in the same way that the activity center would.

So by moving the activity center, you're We're almost now giving two opportunities for that increase instead of having them overlap in one. I guess my concern would be is along GWPAL, except for where the commercial pieces are, it all is either RRR1. So there's not really the density there, you know? But anyway, just a comment. Yes, I think that, I mean, I know I tend to look at it in the context of, so what can we develop there now by right? And are we closing the door?

Are we enabling other opportunities in the future? So by keeping that as this commercial corridor, who's to say that in 10 years, 20 years, we don't rezone it again to something even higher, redevelop it to actually increase density, and now we have a plan that supports that. I'm sure the last thing I'd add is along there. One of the biggest issues or benefits is the topography, right? Right? It's part of what makes Flagstaff so beautiful and, you know, are the trees and the topography.

And so it really has been a huge balancing act of trying to get the density. And I'll tell you, there's a little watermelon piece, but some of that residential development truly with the slope resources that need to be protected, we just can't get any more density. And so that's why I'm shifting things around. We really have tried to get the greatest amount of density on these parcels as we could. Okay, carrying on. Okay, specific plan. And again, I'm true to-I'm not a fibber.

I told you, I'm moving a little faster than Alex because I knew Alex would say all the words. So again, and these four do work in conjunction. At my third presentation, I do take both rezoning together. But as far as the specific plan, again, we are proposing five phases and 20 development areas with the target of 785 homes with the 80,000 square feet of commercial. Again, we have kept that RPO on every parcel.

The trees we're working with, it's the slopes that make things harder, yet at the same time, you know, it's what the code wants.

So we trying to truly have our cake and eat it too in this situation So it is a governing document for approximately 290 acres It provides a greater level of detail than the regional plan and allows us to cluster some of our development to allow for additional building heights right in the MR as Alex took you through And the reason for that is, again, we can't get any more density on those, but we want additional height so that we have more building types and more building types that are appropriate.

The allowed use table, again, table two, allows custom uses and as well as, right, the primary uses as well as the accessory uses, as Alex got into. Here is the illustrative document of the specific plan. And Chair, another question you had on there was the foots. We do have the foots along JWP. We also have the foots going up along Ponte Vero Boulevard. There is a pre-plat in for that right now. I show the foots on the west side of the street, so it's going in with the by-right development.

And then the foots is going to exit out into Bowen Arrow Wash. So the foots is going both north-south as well as east-west. So does it need to be shown on- if this is the map that's being submitted with it, does it need to be shown going up Pontevra? No, because we've taken Pontevra out of here. Pontevra is being developed with the Buy Right development. Pontevra is- Juniper Point. Okay, so Juniper Point will be responsible. On their pre-plat that is submitted. Oh, that's what I was looking for.

Thank you. Thank you. No, perfect. No, these are all very, very good questions. Again, the total shift, right, in this development from more high-end estate lots to a diversity of housing options with a focus on open space. We've got our four floors, as well as you see in all of these different bubbles, different opportunities for density, as well as the lodge, to commercial building. The Central Park. I think you guys are going to have a Central Park here.

North, Plaza, and East are the four names. Alex had the exact same exhibit. So again, taking us through the phasing of it. This is what we believe is a phasing. I don't think it's going to change, but as you know, sometimes things change. But this is the phasing. Then the phasing in both the development agreement and the specific plan. have very specific details and regulations that a certain amount of open space and Arizona trail will be constructed with each residential home.

Your staff was very, very good at arm wrestling us. We were going to do it anyway, but making sure that it's in all the documents, that you can't move forward with all the residential, that as we move forward with different phases, that the open space opportunities are there. As Alex said, there will be a temporary alignment There should be a trail as we're doing our construction, but there will always be an Arizona Trail that is open and safe to the public.

And we also do have, as I said, the Foots Trail, north-south, east-west, as well as a ton of trails inferior to the development. Again, without this specific plan, we wouldn't be able to dedicate 15 acres of public parks And 70 acres of common open space. On this slide, can you talk about the water features and the ponds that are the parks and the water? Absolutely. And, Chair Norton, so that's a good question. And I did have written down the reclaimed water.

I didn't bring any of our reclaimed water information because it's not part of this application. We can, and I'll be prepared to discuss it at the next hearing. I just think it's going to be an issue. Whenever you're talking water features in ponds and things like that, I think that we should address that. So, yeah, I appreciate that. So, not taking your attention on having a water feature, the open space is the open space.

Our goal of asking for additional reclaimed water resources, and on the record, the 30 percent that was given back, I'll come back and talk to you about reclaimed water, but I don't believe that there is a request for that. With additional homes and additional residential units, we will also have more reclaimed water. Our goal of giving back that 30% of the reclaimed water that we had is for that to go to the city and to go to anyone else who is on the list who needs the water.

Here, our goal is for riparian habitats, for What is the news that it means? Pinted Canyon. Pinted Canyon. Sorry, that was Todd Severson, who I was talking to in the back. Michelle McNulty is giving me a nod because I'm always going to say who I'm talking to. Our goal is to create, is to be able to keep the natural habitats. We spoke at the CUP hearing about the osprey nests that we have in Pine Canyon.

Any biodiversity that we are trying to recreate as our complete, right, 180 from what we were proposing before, rails, open space, habitats, those do require a little bit of reclaim. But our development is not contingent on reclaimed water. But none of this is contingent on us getting additional reclaimed water. Are we going to put in a request for some reclaimed water infrastructure in the future? Yes. If it doesn't get approved, the open space still stays where it is. Picture Canyon.

Picture Canyon. Picture Canyon. Chair, we are trying to recreate some of kind of the opportunity of Picture Canyon, what they have there. That's one of our goals. Again, not contingent on it. That answer questions? Yes. Thank you. Trail network. Again, when we were in the discussions of the John Wesley Powell of realignment, there was discussion about the Arizona Trail being relocated on some of our neighbor's property. Our neighbors said no, at least that we know of at this time.

So the alignment has always been on the Arizona Trail. We are realigning it on our property. We're very excited about it. It is now the cornerstone of our development. I just asked a question about that. So I always understood that the AZT was maybe going to be realigned along the re-owned flag. That's not happening. Is that what you're saying? Doesn't look like they're open. The other parcels are open to that?

Sure, they are not my clients, so I can't speak to it, but for what I understand, they said no. Are we open to, you know, building a trail and then they want to move the Arizona Trail and put it through there because that's a more appropriate place for it? Sure, we'll just have a nice wide trail in our development. We just wanted to make sure that the Arizona Trail was protected and that there was somewhere for it to go.

If it gets realigned, again, we'll just have a very intricate trail system that we're enthusiastic about. Thank you. We also have 3.8 miles off-street trails. Again, our trails, our trailheads, and the pedestrian connectivity is the most important part of this development. And I'll call you vice chair, and I'll say we're commissioners online. I think this is an interesting time also to address, and we can get into it as we talk about it. There is no affordable housing component to this.

Every development brings something different. You know, I have brought to you some reasons for 60% of CMI, affordable housing, that had a right turn lane. Right. Because that development brought something different to the community.

This development, I submit to you, is really focused on-and I'm just telling this is a good exhibit to discuss it-but not only the vehicular connectivity, right, that John Wesley Powell alignment that you see there in white with the enhanced crossings open up so much development and opportunity for this part of Flagstaff. In addition, our focus on multimodal of the foots, the Arizona Trail, our trail system, our park system.

This is what I submit to you is the beautiful thing about this development. That is our focus is we're spending a lot of money on transportation. John Wesley Powell, the quotes keep going. I have a question or a comment. Because I said as a liaison to the Open Spaces Commission, obviously one of our priorities is to always have an activity or access to the Forest Service land so that things don't get closed off. So I do appreciate those two accessibility points.

I just wonder what that might – maybe could you expand upon what that might look like? Will Will other people that drive into the area, will they be able to park down there to access the trails that end up going to Fisher Point and things like that?

That's an open space that frankly often felt ignored So that an important thing Just want to throw that out there and as you further your plans how important that is Chair Norton I appreciate that And truly hopefully the Open Space Committee feels appreciated and loved with this development as the entire focus is on multimodal connectivity as well as open space So yes, we've preserved those open space.

What exactly that looks like in terms of parking, I don't know, but it is absolutely important to us that the public has access to all of our trails. The greater public, not just the people that are living there. You know, if somebody drives along JW Powell, they have an area to access the forest through your development. Correct. That's what we're looking for. Arizona Trail will be open to the public and you can see it there as well as Foots Trail that goes east-west as well as north-south.

As well as our four parks and our integrated trail network. Housing variety, again, yes, we are targeting 785. That is 10% of the city's housing plan. We do, and Cherry, you hit it, there are buzzwords, missing middle and medium density, but truly with the increase of the minimum density and the parcel size, we will have a variety of housing types. With the current zoning, without a specific plan, they'd be all one to five acre lots, right? And that certainly doesn't solve any of the problems.

So with all of these four applications melding together, it is the greatest opportunity for the greatest number of homes. on this farm for five acres. And again, attainable by design with the different product types, sizes, all of those things that, you know, there's just different housing opportunities at different income levels.

The resigend landscape, again, preserving the Ponderosa Pine Forest, protecting the Rio de Flague watershed, extending trails and the foots, having some mountain town parks, and mountain modern design is our goal here. Again, leaning into Flagstaff, leaning into what we heard from the community, leaning into what we heard from your council, frankly, who told us to get rid of the other plan and to do this one. Arizona. Proper. Come back with something better, and this is what we came back with.

We've already hit on these, but I do believe we're in substantial conformance with the 2030 plan, assuming our regional plan amendment is approved. And again, not only homes, but tourism and economy. Alex hit on all those numbers and I could say there might be some adventure tourism in our hiking trails, but Alex wasn't sure about the adventure portion of it, but I'm sure there will be adventure up here. Again, as far as the goals, it implements the regional plan.

We have had enhanced public review, as Alex stated with this. Not only did we have our three neighborhood meetings, we had everything posted on the city website. We had our 60-day comment period and have notified far more than what was required by code and respectfully request approval. So any questions on the specific plan per se or anything else you'd like me to come back with at the next hearing? We have any questions online from any of the other commissioners? None for Rebecca Coppa.

None for me right now. Thank you. Can we just clarify, is it, oh, there was a street in San Francisco Peaks Parkway. Is that what became Bonnevera? Just wanted to clarify. I looked all over the maps for that. But that was just in the staff report. Any questions? Yeah, I think we would want to do public comment. Right now I don't have anything. Oh, you have one more. Oh, that's okay. I thought you were doing one. I put both into one, Sheriff of the A again, still. Sorry about that.

Still with the law firm of the Amateur Burnham, still here on behalf of Symmetry and State Trustline 401. We have two concept plan math amendments. I'm hitting them both at the same time. Again, there's the one that is our 139 acres from RR or PO to R1 or PO. And again, then the other one that has the S-C-H-C-M-R. Alex went into them in great detail. She even circled her little red circles, I think, are fabulous and probably more depictive than what we have here.

There are a few parcels that are not getting rezoned. Jared, you are correct on that. And that is, again, mostly because of the topography in the area.

But between the specific the regional plan amendments the specific plan and these two rezone cases It opens up again 443 target homes in the R1 zoning which is 139 acres Again without the rezone it would be 135 homes at best and we targeting four And that is taking into account all of the topography Yeah, second rezone case in 296 target homes units, as well as the 80,000 square feet of commercial and the family lodge. The R1 rezone area, again, 139 acres, 10 development areas.

R1 will allow four single family homes, but also other opportunities. We have increased some of our minimum densities there, and we'll have a phased delivery, but does allow for a multitude of housing types. The SCHC MR Rezones, that totals 72 acres, six development areas. Again, the goal there is the neighborhood commercial opportunities, the lodge, as well as some multi-family housing opportunities. So what does that look like, right?

We have both – we've got single-family homes, and we will – we'll have some single-family homes out there. We'll also have some middle housing, some duplexes, some condos, hopefully with some porches and balconies and a variety of facades. Commercial opportunities – again, two different commercial opportunities. The one right at the The traffic circle will probably be a little different in terms of more restaurant-based, those types of things.

The second commercial opportunity, more potentially a grocery store. And then the lodge, again, leaning into the character, we do have to go through the site plan and subdivision process. But as I've heard from Alex multiple times, although lesson Mark. Make it look like Flagstaff. So again, the goal is to leave to the character and the Rio de Flag, the topography in the area. Trails and roads. Again, we've got the John Wesley Powell JWP that will be built along the foots in phase one.

Not only does that open up our project for development, but the other parcels for our neighboring property owners. Arizona trail We have a hill realignment and the Ponte Vero Boulevard. Yes, chair was San Francisco Peaks, but now we're calling it Ponte Vero. One thing when projects are in the queue for six years, we have to change a few of them. But we will have Ponte Vero Boulevard and the Foots Trail, and that is moving forward with some of the bi-right development right now.

As I've already said, 70 acres of open space, mixed-use neighborhoods with an opportunity, 700. Opportunity for more homes. The target is 785 homes right now, and the opportunity of seven different housing types, 120 key family lodge to work with tourism and economic opportunities. Finding number one, consistent with the plans. Finding number two, serves the public good.

Alex went into this in much greater detail, but I believe there's a lot of public good in terms of transportation is the biggest one, miles of bike trails for both bikes and pedestrian connectivity, and parks that are open to the public, as well as the 80,000 square feet of neighbourhood commercial. Not only is it the commercial opportunities, but the economic benefit we hit on. Site is physically suitable? Yes.

I will say right now we are squeezing the greatest number of units we can with the topography and the slope as it is. It's a slope resource. We do not want to propose to take the RPO off of here. But with using the PRD options, the preservation of the open space, I do believe we're getting the best of all worlds. Staff recommends approval. This implements all of the goals that we have in the specific plan. I do believe all three findings are met.

All of our impact studies have been reviewed and approved. And respectfully request a lot of information. So I'm glad we all have two weeks to noodle on it and come back together. Questions from online? Any other questions? I just have one question.

The Planning Commission we been trying to look at ways to reduce the cost of housing And one of the things we briefly talked about last Planning Commission is like for example if a builder buys a lot they have no idea what the investment costs are They have no idea what the pre costs are because the developer usually bores those costs So, I was curious when you said that the plan was approved in November of 25, or you are deemed – your subital was deemed complete.

And what happened – we're trying to improve our processes. What happened in between? And maybe you might want to address that later, that we might be able to improve. I'm glad to see that your cases are all on the same page, because before we had them spread out, like six months you had to wait to refile and stuff like that. You could do the general plan amendment, that had to be separate. So I like it that, and plus I think it helps the public and everybody else. You see the whole project.

So I like that, and I think that hopefully has saved some processing time for developing this. So that might be something you want to address later, because we're just looking for ways to improve, because all that relates to the cost of housing. And Chair, Vice Chair, we were deemed complete in November of last year. We've been working on this. This hasn't been, this isn't an easy case, right? The structure that's required. There's a lot that goes into this both on our side and staff side.

I will say staff worked very, very hard in the fact that Alex has gotten up to speed and taken over for Ben because Ben knew this case exceptionally well. And so Alex has been working over the weekend to get up to speed to be able to give the detail and they wouldn't understand this project and the depth that it is. We were challenged to make it different. It has been very, very expensive. It all does go into the cost, right?

And that's part of what we talk about and how we're still, you know, everything, every different department needs lots of different things. We want a little bit of everything, but every cost increases the cost of housing, right? And that's just what's tricky. But at the same time, we're trying to balance all of it to the best we can. Thank you. I guess we'll open it up for public comment. Is anybody here to comment? Anybody online? Yeah? No public comment? Okay.

I guess we will close the public hearing for today and reopen it. Amy, and thank you both for the presentations. I also found it was helpful to have as much as it was overwhelming and helpful to have it all together. Thank you for sending it to us on Friday. A long weekend. Is there a comment? Before I close it out, go ahead. I wasn't sure if now's the right time just to-it's not really questions, it's more comments from me. Do you want those now or later?

Whichever you feel comfortable doing, sure. Okay. So I just want to thank the members on planning and zoning that have so much background because the questions you are asking are amazing and it's just great that we have such a depth of information. My biggest concern is the reclaimed water contracts.

I know you've heard me talk about these before, and I'm glad that they usually limit them to five years because what I see in the future is that we're going to hopefully use that reclaimed water to recharge Lower Lake Mary groundwater. So I'm hoping as we move forward as a city that that's our end goal and that we are looking at these developments with that in mind. The other thing is that whenever we have an extension of a golf course, my question is why does that always have to be private?

Is there a way to even have one day a week that's open to the public? So I know this was an extension of the Pine Canyon course, I think, but I'm interested to hear more about that and if there's any leeway for what could happen. The other thing is short term running. I know when Capstone did Juniper Point, they put into the CCRs that short-term rentals had to be allowed.

And so I just want to make sure that any future development in Flagstaff never has that caveat again, because an HOA should be able to decide what happens in that community. And finally, I would talk about Habitat for Humanity and their starter homes. I know that they are really good if you just give them land, they can build starter homes that'll meet that affordable housing need. They recently opened up 10 homes, they had 100 applications.

So we still have a need, we are still in a crisis, and I hope that will be something you will consider. I know it's a long shot. This also is a long shot always Trader Joe's. We know we need a commercial grocery store. They'd only want to locate on Milton, but if you have some Poland can get Trader Joe's, you'll be loved by us forever. And that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments, questions? I think I'm going to table any further comments of mine until the next time.

I kind of want to digest some more of what we you know kind of go through We just say if any of the commissioners want additional information or have questions if you want to email me and I can work with the applicant and make sure that we have for our next hearing. I was going to offer that. Yes. Any communication that you could send through Alex, we're happy to make sure that we bring you any information you need. Okay. I think that's it then.

If we don't have any further comments, I'll close the public hearing for tonight for all four of those cases, and then we'll table it to the next meeting. So- She mentioned as well. Yes. And to make sure everyone's aware, our next meeting is usually scheduled on the 11th, Wednesday, but that is Veterans Day. So we're rescheduling our meeting to that Thursday at 4 o'clock, and that will be at City Hall. Yes. Go back to City Hall for the next one.

6, was there any other miscellaneous items to and from commission members? And if there are further, then I will adjourn this at 6. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thank you.