Flagstaff advances High Occupancy Housing amendments, debates eliminating single-family conditional use permit requirement

Flagstaff Planning Commission Advances High Occupancy Housing Code Overhaul While Commissioners Question Single-Family Conditional Use Permit Process

At its August 14, 2025 meeting, the Flagstaff Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved amendments to the High Occupancy Housing zoning code and related single-family HOH development. The session revealed mounting frustration among commissioners—particularly Vice Chair Mary Norton, Christine Sheehy, and Ian Sharp—with the conditional use permit process for single-family large-bedroom homes, which they characterized as time-consuming, costly, and routinely approved. Staff is now directed to prepare alternative language eliminating the single-family HOH CUP requirement while maintaining parking standards, to be presented at the August 27 public hearing.

Key Speeches

"The number one comment I got back from staff was we need to do something about the conditional use permit for single family high occupancy housing. It is not included in this text amendment. Um and because I have a very specific purpose. So, you know, we're open to discussion and feedback." — Tiffany Fleishel, Planning Staff, presenting HOH amendments

"For what it's worth, I don't see much value in it. You know, just this last public hearing, I feel like every time we get those, it's just a rubber stamp. We just go through it. Everybody goes through the motions. A lot of money and time are spent. I'd be happy to get rid of the whole process." — Mary Norton, Vice Chair

"I would agree. You know, for those single family permits, it's just you, you know, we do ask some questions and neighbors I've neighbors have very low concerns. The only one I can think of was out in the in continental area that somebody had a concern about I think it was probably about parking. So, um, you know, if there's a required parking and if they're not going to meet that, then they have to come for a cup. But other than that, I think it's a it's a waste of time for the builder. It's a waste of time for the owner. It's a waste of time for us because I think we all realize that high occupancy housing wasn't it wasn't supposed to trigger that but it does trigger that." — Ian Sharp, Commissioner

"I think the proposal if we came back and you know I can prepare two different options for you all for the public hearing um would be to leave the land use high occupancy housing single family to leave the parking requirement but just simply to remove the conditional use permit." — Tiffany Fleishel, Planning Staff, responding to commission direction

Timeline

Conditional Use Permit PZ2500122 (Single-Family HOH, Woody Mountain Estates)

• Applicant presentation: Dustin Stifler (Associate Planner) presented the application for a five-bedroom/five-and-a-half-bath single-family residence at 3426 South Breton Drive, Woody Mountain Estates. The property was previously developed as the Wedge subdivision. Stifler noted this is the first single-family HOH conditional use permit outside the Pine Canyon area. The home meets the HOH definition because it exceeds five full bathrooms. Staff found all required findings satisfied: the use is consistent with rural residential zone objectives; no detrimental public health/safety/welfare impacts anticipated; parking requirements (five spaces required) met via two-car garage and driveway; site open space and resource protection plans compliant; no nuisance-level noise, light, visual impacts; architectural styling consistent with existing subdivision residences; and no new public streets or utility infrastructure required beyond existing city water and sewer service.

• Public notification: Applicant Charity Lee (Abbott Roen Investments LLC) stated she notified all Woody Mountain Estates property owners—exceeding the 300-foot minimum requirement—because many parcels within that radius were still developer-owned. One neighbor raised concerns about potential short-term rental conversion; Lee noted the HOA does not prohibit short-term rentals but acknowledged the concern reflects shared desire to maintain neighborhood quality.

• Council discussion: Vice Chair Norton questioned whether the property would be owner-occupied (Lee confirmed preliminary understanding it would be a primary residence but acknowledged uncertainty about future occupancy). Norton also asked about HOA mechanisms to prevent conversion to rental use or large-group occupancy; Lee noted the CCNRs contain no specific prohibition on short-term rentals. Commissioner CJ Luki noted, via chat and later verbally, that existing VBO (vacation rental) operations already exist in the subdivision, indicating the deed restrictions do not prevent short-term rental use.

• Vote: Unanimous approval (7-0). Motion made and seconded; no opposition stated.

High Occupancy Housing Code Amendment Discussion (General Business Item PZ250028)

• Staff presentation: Tiffany Fleishel, Planning Staff, delivered a comprehensive 45-minute presentation on proposed HOH zoning code amendments driven by the Draft Regional Plan 2045. The current code's density tables, bedroom-density standards, pedestrian-shed location requirements, and activity-center-based design rely heavily on regional plan activity-center designations. Regional Plan 2045 eliminates activity centers entirely, replacing them with urban centers, suburban centers, and rural centers. This renders current HOH code provisions unimplementable unless amended. Fleishel outlined specific changes:

  • Density tables: Simplification to remove differential between resource-protection-overlay (RPO) and non-RPO properties. Current code allows high-density residential up to 29 units/acre outside RPO but only 22 units/acre within RPO. Proposal: eliminate the RPO discount, set single maximum of 29 units/acre. Similar changes for other zones (e.g., medium density: 14 units/acre to 9 units/acre becomes uniform maximum).

  • Bedroom-to-density ratio modification: Change definition trigger from "or" to "and" for four-or-greater-unit HOH. Currently, projects exceeding either 29 dwelling units/acre OR 72.5 bedrooms/acre require HOH designation. Proposed change: both thresholds must be exceeded. Fleishel stated this change is not required by regional plan shift but is intended to restore functionality to transect-zone development, which has been dormant since HOH code adoption in 2020–2021. Transect zones historically allowed mixed-use development exceeding 29 units/acre based on building typology, but many qualifying projects fall below 72.5 bedrooms/acre because they include smaller (studio, one-, two-bedroom) units. The "and" change would allow those intermediate projects to proceed by right.

  • Elimination of alternative floor-plan requirements: Current code requires developers to submit two complete sets of building plans as a condition of approval, in case the city or market demands conversion of the use. Fleishel called this expensive and unnecessary, with no precedent in other land uses. No developer has exercised the alternative plan since adoption.

  • Removal of activity-center location requirement: HOH four-or-greater projects currently must be located within a pedestrian shed of a regional activity center. New code removes this restriction, allowing applications anywhere zoning permits. However, a new conformance analysis requirement replaces it: applicants must demonstrate consistency with the High Occupancy Housing Specific Plan (adopted 2019) and applicable specific plans, rather than relying solely on activity-center location. This gives the PNZ commission a substantive framework for evaluating appropriateness beyond standard CUP findings.

  • Building-footprint limitations: Current code limits HOH buildings to 5,000–22,000 square feet depending on whether they sit in a historic activity center. New code ties footprint limits to historic overlay zoning designation instead, affecting only projects in designated historic overlay districts.

  • Waste management and crime-free multi-housing updates: Simplified recycling language; replaced "crime-free multi-housing" training requirement (which has not occurred since pre-pandemic) with a "safety plan" reviewed by police department, emphasizing developer–police connection and property-manager coordination.

  • Mixed-use HOH location change: Replaced commercial-corridor designation (from regional plan) with arterial/collector-street corridor designation (from codified street classification).

Fleishel emphasized that the amendment does not substantively change the intent of the 2019 HOH Specific Plan but removes dependencies on regional plan components that no longer exist. She noted that since HOH code adoption in November 2020 (effective March 1, 2021), only single-family and duplex/triplex projects have applied for conditional use permits; no four-or-greater mixed-use or multifamily projects have come forward. She also disclosed approximately 200 Prop. 207 claims filed against the HOH designation, mostly involving single-family zoning districts where only single-family HOH could apply.

• Commissioner questions and discussion:

  • CJ Luki expressed concern that the amendments, combined with removal of activity-center geographic constraints, would enable HOH "rubber stamping" in any zone, citing community feedback he received that residents oppose concentration of five-bedroom/two-bathroom units targeting student populations. Fleishel responded that HOH has always been aimed at college-student housing and that the city cannot discriminate by population; housing is a community need independent of who occupies it. The amendment simply replaces defunct regional-plan references with codified standards.

  • Mary Norton questioned whether the amendment complies with both the 2030 General Plan and Draft 2045 Plan simultaneously. Fleishel confirmed alignment with both. Norton also raised the "chicken-and-egg" issue: which general plan governs findings of fact during the amendment's transition period? Fleishel deferred to Sarah Langley (General Plan Staff) but stated the amendment was designed to avoid conflicts with either version. Norton requested Fleishel's presentation slides for the record and asked for clarification at the next meeting (August 27) on whether HOH would be permitted in all new Regional Plan 2045 centers (urban, suburban, rural). Norton noted that the density caps in suburban and rural centers might differ from what the code assumes. Fleishel agreed to provide that comparison.

  • Ian Sharp raised an analogy to regional shopping-center conversions (citing an Arizona Republic article on mall redevelopment into mixed-use housing) and asked whether the amendments allow canyon Del Rio-type density or mall-conversion projects to incorporate HOH. Fleishel confirmed that this is forward-looking—the amendments are "the first step" in recognizing that the city's overall density caps (e.g., 29 units/acre ceiling outside HOH) are likely too low, and further code updates will address by-right density increases. She noted an upcoming Capital Improvement Plan and code-analysis project will tackle that.

  • Mary Norton raised the single-family HOH conditional use permit issue directly: commissioners have been "rubber stamping" these approvals, builders are burdened by cost and delay, and the requirement was an "unintended consequence" of the 2020 code. She asked whether staff could prepare options to eliminate the CUP requirement while retaining parking standards. Fleishel stated the single-family HOH bedroom-to-bathroom ratio trigger (currently 7 bedrooms OR 5 full bathrooms) was not changed in the amendment because no regional-plan change mandates it. However, Fleishel acknowledged staff's frustration with the process: "A lot of people…are very frustrated when they have to delay their project and spend the money to get a conditional use permit. It's tough." Fleishel noted that the only mechanism the city can control is parking, since occupancy and rental status are private choices. She proposed two options: (a) eliminate the CUP entirely, retaining only the parking requirement (e.g., one space per bedroom), or (b) streamline the process. However, state statute requires all CUPs to include public notice, 15-day notification, and a public hearing; streamlining is limited to eliminating site-plan review.

  • Christine Sheehy and Ian Sharp both stated they support eliminating the single-family HOH CUP entirely while maintaining parking standards. Sheehy noted that large-lot single-family homes (e.g., those on 1+ acre estates) inherently have parking space available; parking should be the control mechanism, not a discretionary permit.

• Commission direction: The commission unanimously directed Fleishel to prepare two alternative language options for single-family HOH (one removing the CUP, one modifying it) to be presented at the August 27 public hearing. The conformance-analysis approach to four-or-greater HOH received no opposition.

Canyon Del Rio Phase 2 Preliminary Block Plat (Item 6A, 6B)

• Applicant presentation: Alex (Planning Staff) presented the Canyon Del Rio Phase 2 preliminary block plat, a 119.6-acre subdivision with a maximum of 1,426 residential units, 200,000 square feet of commercial space, and 54 acres of open space. The plat subdivides the former "Tract Z" (reserved in Phase 1 plat) into four blocks (Q1, Q2, Q3; R2–R5) and five tracts (ZZ for drainage, A for open space/Rio de Flag floodplain, B for floodplain north of Herald Ranch Road, C for detention basin, and S for future development). The project includes right-of-way for John Wesley Powell Boulevard, a major new north-south corridor, and formalization of Harold Ranch Road right-of-way. The site is zoned R1 (single-family residential) and MR (medium-density residential).

  Staff found conformance with zoning code minimum parcel dimensions (final lots determined at subdivision stage), density requirements (blocks tied to a density table per a development agreement and settlement agreement allowing flexibility within a range), and natural-resource protection (100% floodplain preservation). The 54 acres of open space exceeds minimum requirements. The project proposes Foots Trail alignments and includes John Wesley Powell Boulevard with bike lanes, sidewalks, and a Foots underpass. A new traffic impact analysis was required because of site-plan changes and the desire to justify a lower roadway classification for portions of Q and OP. Off-site improvements include roundabout right-of-way reservations at certain John Wesley Powell intersections and a proportional cost-share for improvements at the Wetstone and Forest Street intersection—still under negotiation.

  Water and wastewater: The Water Impact Study Area (WISA) from 2015 anticipated 1,715 units (more than proposed) and identified no off-site water/wastewater improvements required for CDR. A development agreement provision calls for a cash-in-lieu payment for future water storage at the 400th dwelling-unit issuance and allows up to two well sites on tract land (to be developed entirely by the city at city cost, funded by water-capacity fees already paid by each meter).

  Stormwater: Preliminary 2013 drainage analysis and 2025 preliminary drainage report submitted. Low-impact development (LID) water-quality standards apply at a 0.5-inch threshold (lower than current 1-inch code requirement) per 2013 settlement agreement. Each block will provide on-site mitigation; Phase 2 also provides mitigation for some Phase 1 runoff (given downhill drainage toward Rio de Flag).

• Condition language: Staff recommended approval with conditions: (1) final plats conform to preliminary plat, phasing plan, and density table; (2) final plat meets all IDS and traffic-analysis conditions; (3) staff and applicant to finalize proportional cost-share terms for Wetstone/Forest Street improvements, with final condition language possibly revised or removed pending negotiation outcome.

• Commissioner questions:

  • Mary Norton asked why cost-share negotiations remain unresolved so late in the approval process. Alex explained that the traffic impact analysis was submitted mid-application, requiring additional IDS review that arrived "really late in the game." Because CDR is a large project with extensive prior negotiations on John Wesley Powell Boulevard alignment and development agreements, timing constraints caused the cost-share detail to slip. Alex acknowledged the typical concern that developer and city engineers often arrive at different cost estimates and that the city may need flexibility (e.g., allowing the developer to design and construct the improvement faster/cheaper, with the city funding its proportional share). Mary also asked about the status of the Butler 4th Street/Forest Street intersection improvement, which was supposed to precede CDR development. Steph Santana (Transportation Engineering) reported the Butler project is at 30% design, with a hold-up due to Little America's request to move a roundabout; the project is budgeted in the Capital Improvement Plan and will move to 60%, 90%, and 100% design "very soon."

  • Mary Norton (as liaison to the Open Spaces Commission) expressed disappointment that the 54 acres of open space are "primarily all reserved for floodplane" and do not include a regional or pocket park, despite Canyon Del Rio being a large master-plan community with opportunity for robust parks, trails, and wildlife corridors. She noted that the preliminary plat shows Foots Trail alignment but states trails are "subject to change as tracts are developed," which concerns her that trails become an afterthought. Alex responded that not only are Foots Trails planned across the site but individual development parcels will also include connectivity tie-ins; staff has "very clear ideas" of general alignment but avoids creating easements premature to block development to optimize alignment, terrain compatibility, and resource coordination. Steph Santana added that recent submittals show the Foots Trail is not located along the roadway for the majority of alignment—a positive outcome. Mary reiterated appreciation for trail planning but expressed ongoing disappointment that master-plan communities in her native Southern California typically include well-designed pocket parks from inception, whereas Flagstaff developers often defer such features.

  • CJ Luki asked what triggers development of the two proposed well sites and who bears costs. Alex noted that well-site development would be determined by water services staff analysis of productivity and city need; the easement allows city placement of wells, and the city would incur all development costs (funded by water-capacity fees paid by new meters, not cost-shared with the developer). Dave Mills (Development Engineer) confirmed that developers pay capacity fees per meter, which fund water production; the city cannot require developer cost-sharing for production, only for distribution or storage (which has been and can be done separately).

• Applicant response: Charity Lee (Capstone Homes, Canyon Del Rio developer) noted that the overall development preserves 54 acres of open space above required minimums and that individual subdivisions will also meet open-space requirements. She stated the project is thoughtfully planning a "natural corridor" trail network, acknowledging that topography and canyon terrain sometimes limit placement options and may require short road-adjacent segments; the intention is for residents to "enjoy nature" as part of what makes Canyon Del Rio special.

• Vote: Unanimous approval (7-0). Motion made by Mary Norton, seconded by CJ Luki, with no discussion or opposition. Commission directed that the preliminary block plat be forwarded to city council with a recommendation of approval with conditions.

Opposition

To High Occupancy Housing Code Amendments:

• Number of speakers against: One public commenter, Alicia Flurwin (744 North Locust Street), raised concerns during the HOH discussion.

• Main concerns:

  1. Amendments would enable HOH projects to be "rubber stamped" in "any available open space" without geographic constraints.
  2. Cited Stone Ridge condominium project (52+ units) proposed between residential homes on Locust Street and Foots Trail as example of inappropriate infill.
  3. Questioned whether Stone Ridge falls under new HOH designation (it does not; it is standard multifamily subdivision).
  4. Expressed frustration that project appears to require Foots Trail relocation to accommodate development footprint.
  5. Requested the Stone Ridge project be placed on a future meeting agenda for detailed discussion.
  6. Noted she had emailed staff a month prior requesting agenda placement but received no response; also had not received email clarification staff indicated was sent today.

• Most compelling argument: Flurwin's concern that removing activity-center geographic anchors from HOH code creates a precedent for high-density housing in incompatible locations (between single-family neighborhoods and recreational trails). She framed it as a "rubber stamp" risk.

• Organized groups: None identified.

Staff response: Tiffany Fleishel clarified that Stone Ridge is not an HOH project and does not fall under the code amendment; it is a standard multifamily subdivision. Alex (Planning Staff) noted Stone Ridge is structured as a PRD (planned residential development) that will go to city council, not PNZ, and is not yet at a stage requiring PNZ review. Staff indicated an email was sent to Flurwin today (presumably with details) and encouraged her to follow up with staff. Mary Norton suggested Flurwin work with staff on the Stone Ridge clarification rather than conflating it with HOH amendments.

Support

For High Occupancy Housing Code Amendments:

• Number of speakers in favor: None stood to speak explicitly in support, though no public opposition beyond Alicia Flurwin's concerns was voiced. The commission itself provided direction endorsing the amendments.

• Main supporting positions (from commission):

  1. Amendments are necessary because Regional Plan 2045 eliminates activity-center designations on which current code depends.
  2. Without amendment, code becomes unimplementable and creates legal exposure (ongoing Prop. 207 claims).
  3. Conformance-analysis framework (referencing HOH Specific Plan rather than activity centers) provides clearer review criteria for commissioners and applicants.
  4. Change from "or" to "and" for bedroom-density threshold helps restore functionality to transect zones and encourages housing diversity (studios, one- and two-bedroom units, not just five-bedroom student units).
  5. Simplification of density tables removes inequitable RPO discount and reduces complexity without substantively lowering density allowance (relying on other development standards as density limiters).

• Organized groups: None.

Project Details

Conditional Use Permit PZ2500122

• Case number: PZ2500122
• Applicant / developer: Charity Lee, on behalf of Abbott Roen Investments LLC
• Attorney: Not identified in transcript.
• Location / address: 3426 South Breton Drive, Flagstaff, AZ (Woody Mountain Estates subdivision, also known as the Wedge)
• APN: Not stated in transcript.
• Current zoning → Proposed zoning: Rural Residential (RR) zone; no zoning change requested. Conditional use permit allows single-family high-occupancy housing use within RR.
• Density / units / square footage: Single-family residence; 5 bedrooms, 5.5 bathrooms (5 full + 1 half); 3,655 square feet. Trigger for HOH designation: 5 full bathrooms exceeds the 5-full-bathroom threshold in code definition (7 bedrooms OR 5 full bathrooms).
• Changes from previous version: First single-family HOH conditional use permit outside Pine Canyon area; new development in previously-platted subdivision.

High Occupancy Housing Code Amendments (General Business PZ250028)

• Case number: Not assigned (general business discussion, not yet a formal text amendment application).

• Applicant / developer: City of Flagstaff Planning and Development Services.

• Attorney: Not identified.

• Location: Citywide application (affects all zones permitting HOH).

• Current provisions affected:

  • Density tables (with RPO differentials);
  • Bedroom-density standards (OR/AND trigger modification);
  • Activity-center location requirements (pedestrian-shed constraints);
  • Alternative floor-plan requirements;
  • Building-footprint limitations (5,000–22,000 sq ft based on historic activity centers);
  • Waste management and crime-free multi-housing requirements;
  • Mixed-use HOH location requirements (commercial corridor references).

• Proposed changes: Simplify density tables to remove RPO discount; modify four-or-greater HOH definition from "or" to "and" for bedroom/unit thresholds; remove alternative floor-plan mandate; remove activity-center location requirement (replace with HOH Specific Plan conformance analysis); tie building-footprint limits to historic overlay zoning; simplify waste management; replace crime-free housing with safety plan; reference arterial/collector corridors instead of commercial corridors.

Canyon Del Rio Phase 2 Preliminary Block Plat

• Case number: Not formally assigned; item 6A/6B on August 14 agenda.
• Applicant / developer: CDR Dev Corp LTD (note: transcript phonetically spelled as "CDR Dev Cop" in one instance).
• Attorney: Not identified.
• Location / address: 3200 East Butler Avenue, Flagstaff, AZ. Phase 2 extends north from Phase 1 (currently under development).
• APN: Not stated in transcript.
• Current zoning: R1 (Single-Family Residential) and MR (Medium-Density Residential).
• Proposed zoning: No zoning change; development within existing zones.
• Density / units / square footage: Maximum 1,426 residential units (final count by block and phase per density table in development agreement); 200,000 square feet commercial space; 54 acres open space (per four blocks Q1, Q2, Q3, R2–R5).
• Site size: 119.6 acres (Phase 2 parcel).
• Blocks and tracts: Four blocks (Q1, Q2, Q3, R2–R5); five tracts (ZZ for drainage, A for open space/floodplain, B for floodplain/utilities/wells, C for detention basin, S for future development); formal right-of-way for John Wesley Powell Boulevard and Harold Ranch Road.
• Changes from previous version: This is the first time Phase 2 plat has come to PNZ; Phase 1 was approved previously. New site plan reflects updated traffic analysis, Foots Trail realignments, and John Wesley Powell Boulevard integration.

Vote Breakdown

Conditional Use Permit PZ2500122:

• Final: 7-0 (unanimous approval).
• Yes: All present commissioners: Carol Mandino, Joshua Maher, Christine Sheehy, CJ Luki, Mary Norton, Ian Sharp, Megan Weller.
• No: None.
• Abstentions / absences: None.

Canyon Del Rio Phase 2 Preliminary Block Plat:

• Final: 7-0 (unanimous approval).
• Yes: All present commissioners: Carol Mandino, Joshua Maher, Christine Sheehy, CJ Luki, Mary Norton, Ian Sharp, Megan Weller.
• No: None.
• Abstentions / absences: None.

July 23 Minutes (amended):

• Final: Unanimous approval.
• Amended language: Clarified that additional conditions placed on Pine Haven development in prior meeting resulted from "clarifications and assurances of the applicant for recording as requested by staff" rather than being independently proposed by the commission.

Outcome & Next Steps

Conditional Use Permit PZ2500122: Approved unanimously with one condition: site development shall substantially conform to plans presented in the CUP application. The residence at 3426 South Breton Drive may now proceed to building permit and construction.

High Occupancy Housing Code Amendments: Commission provided direction to staff; no formal vote on amendment text taken at this meeting (general business discussion phase). Tiffany Fleishel is directed to prepare two alternative language options addressing single-family HOH CUP elimination:

• Option 1: Remove single-family HOH CUP requirement entirely; retain parking standard (minimum one space per bedroom).
• Option 2: Modify or streamline CUP process (details TBD).

Both options, along with the broader code amendment addressing density tables, bedroom-density thresholds, activity-center removal, building-footprint revision, and conformance-analysis framework, will be presented at a public hearing on August 27, 2025. Staff was also directed to clarify in a presentation whether HOH would be permitted in all new Regional Plan 2045 center designations (urban, suburban, rural) and, if so, at what density levels.

Canyon Del Rio Phase 2 Preliminary Block Plat: Approved unanimously with conditions. The plat will be forwarded to city council with a recommendation of approval, contingent on:

1. Final plat for each phase conforming to preliminary plat, phasing plan, and density table (sheets PH1-01 and PH1-02).
2. Final plat meeting all IDS and traffic-impact-analysis approval conditions (dated June 5 and July 10, 2025).
3. Condition pending: Staff and applicant to finalize proportional cost-share agreement for Wetstone and Forest Street intersection improvements; final language may be revised or removed based on negotiation outcome.

Timing: Butler 4th Street/Forest Street intersection project is at 30% design (capital plan budgeted) and will progress to 60%, 90%, 100% design pending Little America roundabout coordination. Canyon Del Rio Phase 2 development is moving forward; individual block subdivisions and final site plans will address remaining design details on Foots Trails, open space, and resource protection.

Controversies & Context

Single-Family HOH Conditional Use Permit "Rubber Stamp" Criticism

The most substantive debate at this meeting centered on whether the single-family high-occupancy housing conditional use permit requirement serves any meaningful purpose. The code adopted in November 2020 (effective March 1, 2021) defined single-family HOH as any single-family residence with seven or more bedrooms OR five or more full bathrooms. Applications trigger a full conditional use permit process—public notice, 15-day mail notification, a public hearing, and findings of fact—all required by state statute.

However, commissioners observed that these permits are routinely approved with no material changes or denials. Vice Chair Mary Norton stated: "For what it's worth, I don't see much value in it. You know, just this last public hearing, I feel like every time we get those, it's just a rubber stamp. We just go through it. Everybody goes through the motions. A lot of money and time are spent. I'd be happy to get rid of the whole process."

Ian Sharp echoed: "I think it's a it's a waste of time for the builder. It's a waste of time for the owner. It's a waste of time for us because I think we all realize that high occupancy housing wasn't it wasn't supposed to trigger that but it does trigger that."

Planning staff acknowledged this was an unintended consequence of the 2020 code. The original intent of the HOH land-use designation was to manage larger multifamily and mixed-use projects (four units and above) in specific locations (activity centers). Single-family large-bedroom homes were not contemplated. When the definition was adopted, the threshold triggered many estate homes, and because no alternative mechanism existed, a CUP became the default control. Since approval rates are high (nearly 100% in practice), the process is experienced by developers as a costly delay, not a meaningful review.

Tiffany Fleishel noted the feedback from city staff and recognized the burden on builders: "A lot of people…are very frustrated when they have to delay their project and spend the money to get a conditional use permit. It's tough."

Proposed Solution: Eliminate CUP, Retain Parking Standards

Commissioners directed staff to prepare language that would:

• Retain the single-family HOH land-use designation (so the city can still track and impose development-impact fees tied to higher occupancy).
• Retain the parking requirement: minimum one space per bedroom (which can be five, six, or more spaces for large homes).
• Remove the conditional use permit requirement entirely.

The rationale: parking is the one mechanism the city can effectively control (lot size and parking availability limit occupancy). Occupancy itself, rental status, and use type cannot be controlled by zoning code alone and are private choices. Parking standards serve as a proxy for density management without requiring discretionary approval.

Christine Sheehy stated: "I think it's a it's a waste of time for the builder. It's a waste of time for the owner. It's a waste of time for us because I think we all realize that high occupancy housing wasn't it wasn't supposed to trigger that but it does trigger that. So there would be to me it would be great if we could find a way around that problem."

Ian Sharp agreed: "Um, the other thing is with this high occupancy like the five bathroom, the five bed um when you look at what's happened with um these um short-term rentals, a lot of they're putting these in a lot of communities. Well, we can't control those either. So, we're kind of why bother?"

Fleishel acknowledged this direction and stated she would prepare two options for the public hearing: one removing the CUP entirely (subject to parking compliance) and possibly one modifying it. The final language will be debated at the August 27 public hearing.

Regional Plan 2045 Context

The broader HOH code amendment is a direct response to the impending Regional Plan 2045, which is expected to be adopted in the coming months (Fleishel stated the