[00:00:01]
CARRIE THAT'S PRESENT.EVERYBODY GOOD? EVERYBODY READY? NO, MAYOR.
WE WANNA BE OUT BEFORE 10 TONIGHT, RIGHT? NINE.
[1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/MOMENT OF SILENCE]
MEETING TO ORDER.PLEASE JOIN ME FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO, TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, AND A MOMENT OF SILENCE, IF YOU WILL.
[2. ROLL CALL]
DEPUTY CLERK.OH, WE HAVE BOTH OUR CLERKS HERE TODAY.
DEPUTY CLERK, CAN YOU PLEASE READ THE ROLL CALL? MAYOR BLO.
[3.a. AB 3067 Discussion/possible direction regarding housing projects and potential changes to the Land Development Code (LDC) and Development Incentives and Guidelines for Affordable Housing (DIGAH) to address housing issues.]
THREE, A AB 30 67 DISCUSSION POSSIBLE DIRECTION REGARDING A HOUSING PROJECTS AND POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, LDC AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AND GUIDELINES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO DIG UP TO ADDRESS HOUSING ISSUES.AND WE'RE GONNA GO WITH OUR HOUSING TEAM AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TEAM AND JUST THE OVERALL TEAM.
SO I DID HEAR WHEN YOU TALKING THAT WE HAVE TILL 10 O'CLOCK, SO WE'RE, YOU KNOW, GONNA SETTLE IN JUST FOR A LONG YEAH, NO, THAT'S FINE.
WELL, IT SIX EXPECT TO BE CLOSED TONIGHT.
SO, UM, SO THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.
WE'RE SOMEWHAT EXCITED TO BE HERE.
THIS IS A KIND OF A TOPIC THAT WE DISCUSS INTERNALLY AND WE THOUGHT THAT BEFORE WE GO TOO FAR AND GET TOO FAR INTO THE WEEDS ON SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH YOU ALL TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO NOT WASTE OUR TIME.
UM, AND SO HOPEFULLY THIS FOR TIME.
NO ONE WANTS TO WASTE TIME, SO HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE, UM, EDUCATIONAL AND MAYBE EVEN A LITTLE BIT FUN.
SHANNON IS NOT HERE TONIGHT UNFORTUNATELY.
UM, BUT CYNTHIA AND JEANNIE ARE HERE AS WELL.
UM, AND WE'RE, YOU ARE HERE TO LISTEN TO YOU, BUT, UM, BEFORE WE GET KIND OF STARTED INTO SOME OF THE HOUSING SPECIFIC THINGS, UM, AND WHAT WAS OUTLINED IN THE AGENDA, BILL, CYNTHIA AND JEANNIE DID WANT TO DEPRIVE A LITTLE, LITTLE, UM, CONTEXT FROM A COMMUNITY PLAN PERSPECTIVE.
IS THAT A GOOD AND A LITTLE BIT OF AN INTRODUCTION.
SO THEY ARE GOING TO DO, AND THEN, UM, GIVE SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO SOME OF THE MORE MEATY STUFF OF TONIGHT OR THIS AFTERNOON, NOT TONIGHT TO CLICK.
UH, SO WE ARE KIND OF CRASHING THIS PARTY HERE, JEANIE AND I, UM, SO I APOLOGIZE IF IT WAS A LAST MINUTE WE THREW THIS IN, BUT, UM, WE HEARD THAT, UM, SOME OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE PICTURES AND A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEXT.
AND I THOUGHT, WELL, I'VE GOT THE ANSWER TO THAT.
UM, AND YOU ALL PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THIS, BUT WHEN WE WERE WORKING ON OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE IN 2018, WE ACTUALLY CREATED TWO WEB PAGES AND THEY'RE STILL ON OUR WEBSITE UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, UM, TABS.
AND IT'S CALLED THE STORY BEHIND THE SCENERY.
AND SO RATHER THAN JUST SHOW YOU, UM, THOSE WEB PAGES, WE ALSO WANTED TO INTEGRATE, UM, GENIE WILL BE TALKING A LITTLE ABOUT HOUSING AND THEN I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT STORY BEHIND THE SCENERY.
UM, SO BEFORE WE JUMP IN OR I JUMP INTO MY PART, I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO JEANIE AND WE'LL JUST SORT OF TAKE TURNS AND IT'S A PRETTY SHORT LITTLE INTRO BEFORE CARRIE GETS INTO HERS.
THANK YOU MAYOR, VICE MAYOR COUNCIL, UH, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THIS DIALOGUE WITH YOU ABOUT HOUSING.
UH, AS WE HEARD, WE KNOW THAT CARRIE WILL FOLLOW WITH THE DETAILED, UH, PRESENTATION, BUT CYNTHIA AND I WILL BEGIN WITH A BRIEF INTRO TO FRAME TODAY'S DISCUSSION.
OUR GOAL IS NOT TO SIMPLY BUILD ENOUGH HOUSING UNITS TO FILL OUR HOUSING GAP.
[00:05:01]
GOAL AND THE GAP IS SIGNIFICANT.AT LAST COUNT, AS YOU KNOW, IT WAS ABOUT 1,260 UNITS SHORT OF MEETING OUR NEEDS.
BUT THE GOAL OF HOUSING IS REALLY LARGER THAN THAT.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HOUSING, WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT COMMUNITY.
AND A COMMUNITY ENCOMPASSES A RANGE OF DEMOGRAPHICS.
SO WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IS THAT A COMMUNITY HAS LIFECYCLE HOUSING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF RESIDENTS OF ALL AGES AND ALL FAMILY SIZE CONFIGURATIONS.
WHY? SO THAT YOUNG FAMILIES CAN LIVE IN A COMMUNITY, OLDER RESIDENTS CAN AGE IN PLACE, SINGLE PEOPLE CAN HAVE APPROPRIATE HOUSING FOR AVAILABLE FOR THEM.
SO HOUSING'S GOAL IS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR SEDONAS CITIZENS.
IT HAS A TRICKLE UP EFFECT INTO OUR ECONOMY AND OUR COMMUNITY AT LARGE.
AND THEREFORE THE GOAL OF HOUSING IS TO ACTUALLY TO BUILD COMMUNITY.
AND BECAUSE WE ARE SEDONA, TO BALANCE IT WITH THOUGHTFUL STEWARDSHIP OF THE LAND.
SO TONIGHT WE ARE HOPING TO DISCUSS WAYS IN WHICH WE MIGHT ACCOMPLISH THIS.
UH, WE WILL ASK FOR YOUR DIRECTION.
IT'S REALLY OUR HOPE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBLE WITHIN APPROPRIATE CONSTRAINTS, A PRESCRIBED STRUCTURE THAT IS FLEXIBLE IN A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WORLD OF COMPLEXITY.
SO, UM, THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT TONIGHT.
CYNTHIA WILL SHARE A BIT OF THE STORY BEHIND OUR CODE, HOW IT GOT TO BE THAT WAY, AND CARRIE, OR PLANNING MANAGER AND VERY CAPABLE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT ON ALL THINGS LDC WILL TAKE US THROUGH THE PRESENTATION.
BUT BASICALLY TONIGHT WE ARE HERE TO LISTEN.
WE ARE HERE TO GET YOUR VALUABLE FEEDBACK AND DIRECTION ON THE PROCESS OF ACTUALLY BUILDING HOUSING FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
OKAY, SO TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT ON OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, UM, IT ACTUALLY STARTED BEFORE INCORPORATION AND SOME OF YOU'VE PROBABLY ALREADY HEARD THIS, BUT WE DO KNOW THAT THERE'S QUITE A FEW PEOPLE THAT, THAT ARE RELATIVELY NEW TO TOWN THAT MAYBE HAVEN'T HEARD, HEARD THIS BACKGROUND INFORMATION, BUT IT STARTED BEFORE INCORPORATION, UM, WITH KEEP SEDONA BEAUTIFUL.
AND THIS PHOTO IS ONE OF THE ONES THAT THEY LIKE TO USE TO SHOW WHAT IT USED TO LOOK LIKE.
UM, BACK, I THINK THIS WAS IN THE SIXTIES OR SO, UM, BEFORE WE HAD A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO A PHOTO LIKE THIS SHOWS WHY WE ENDED UP WITH THE SIGN CODE THAT WE DO HAVE, WHICH HAS GONE THROUGH MANY ITERATIONS.
UM, BUT YOU NO LONGER SEE THE BILLBOARDS LIKE YOU DID BACK THEN.
SO AGAIN, THIS STATEMENT'S TAKEN FROM OUR COMMUNITY PLAN AND IT WAS CARRIED FORWARD FROM THE LAST COMMUNITY PLAN BACK TO THE, THE FIRST ONE I THINK WAS IN 90 92.
UM, BUT BASICALLY A UNIQUE SENSE OF PLACE AND STEWARDSHIP OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
IT'S REFLECTED IN THE DESIGN AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT.
UM, SO THAT HAS BEEN A GOAL, UM, BACK TO INCORPORATION.
AND SO IT HAS RESULTED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WE HAVE TODAY, WHICH SEDONA USED TO BE, AT LEAST WHEN I WAS IN SCHOOL FOR PLANNING, UM, WAS PRETTY UNIQUE AND WOULD COME UP IN PLANNING COURSES, UM, BECAUSE OF OUR UNIQUE CODE, UM, ESPECIALLY THE SIGN CODE, ET CETERA.
SO WHAT WE WANTED TO POINT OUT BEFORE WE GET INTO THE DISCUSSION IS A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHY OUR CODE IS THE WAY IT IS AND CARRIE WILL GET INTO SOME OF THIS, BUT THESE WILL JUST GIVE YOU, UM, A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT AS TO WHY.
UM, SO YOU'LL HEAR, HEAR THE TERMS BUILDING MASSING AND, AND, UM, CARRIE CAN EXPLAIN THAT IN MORE DETAIL, BUT I'LL JUST SHOW YOU A PHOTO.
UM, SO AGAIN, WE'RE WANTING TO FOCUS ON THE Y AND THIS PHOTO IS A GOOD EXAMPLE.
WE'VE GOT A HOTEL THAT WAS BUILT PRE INCORPORATION.
UM, YOU HAVE ONE THAT IS SHOWING BUILDING MASSING.
UM, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE BACKGROUND WITH A MOUNTAIN BEHIND IT, OKAY, THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS THERE.
ONE, TO TRY NOT TO BLOCK THE VIEW OF THE MOUNTAIN, BUT IT ALSO SORT OF MIMICS THE MOUNTAIN ITSELF.
AND THEN THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE ROOF LINE VARIATION.
UH, SAME HOTEL ON THE LEFT, ANOTHER HOTEL ON THE RIGHT IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF, UM, ROOF LINE VARIATION AND THE BUILDING MASSING.
AND AGAIN, KIND OF MIMICKING THE LANDSCAPE BEHIND IT.
[00:10:01]
A VISUAL FOR SOME OF THESE TERMS SO THAT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IT DOWN THE ROAD, YOU KIND OF HAVE THAT IN YOUR HEAD.JUST A QUICK QUESTION, CYNTHIA.
THE, ON THE PRIOR PRIOR PAGE, WHAT PROPERTY IS THAT? THE THE PRE 88 PROPERTY.
AND THE HYATT ON THE RIGHT OPINION POINT HYATT.
SO, UM, BUILDING HEIGHT, AGAIN, WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE THE REASONS BEHIND, UM, OUR HEIGHT LIMITATIONS? AND ORIGINALLY THEY WERE THINKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE THE VIEWS AND THEY WANTED OUR SENSE OF PLACE TO BE ABOUT THE RED ROCKS AND TO NOT BLOCK THE VIEWS.
UM, SO A COUPLE DIFFERENT EXAMPLES HERE.
ONE OF 'EM IS THE BEST WESTERN AND UPTOWN, UM, FROM THE STREET.
IT LOOKS LIKE A COUPLE STORIES HIGH.
IT'S ACTUALLY LIKE FIVE STORIES HIGH IF YOU'RE ON THE BACKSIDE.
SO AT THAT TIME THERE WERE NOT LIMITS AND THAT'S HOW THAT WAS BUILT.
UM, TODAY YOU COULDN'T BUILD THAT ONE UNDER OUR CURRENT CODE.
UM, AND THEN THE EXAMPLE ON THE RIGHT, REALLY WHAT THIS IS, UM, SUPPOSED TO SHOW IS KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE GROUND ON THAT HILLSIDE.
UM, YOU CAN SEE THE HOUSES GOING UP THE HILL.
AND AGAIN, OUR HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, ONE OF THE REASONS IS TO NOT BLOCK VIEWS.
AND THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE ALSO ABOUT HOW THE HOUSES ARE KIND OF FOLLOWING THE CONTOUR OF THE HILLSIDE.
SO AS YOU'RE GOING UP THE HILL, NONE OF THEM ARE LIKE STICKING UP, UM, ET CETERA.
BUT IT'S A KIND OF A GOOD ILLUSTRATION IF YOU CAN TELL FROM THAT PHOTO, UM, OF HOW THAT IS INTENDED TO WORK.
AND THEN I'M JUST GONNA SHIFT ON OVER TO CARRIE.
MY NOSE AREN'T SHOWING UP, SO LEMME MAKE SURE I TELL YOU OR SAY EVERYTHING THAT I THOUGHT THERE IN THE VERSION YOU SENT US.
SO YOU GUYS CAN, SO I DON'T NEED TO DO IT AT ALL.
JUST, JUST SIT HERE IN SILENCE FOR THE NEXT HALF AN HOUR.
DO YOU KNOW WHICH MODE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE IN? IT'S OKAY.
SO, HI, THANKS FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT OR THIS AFTERNOON.
SO IF YOU REMEMBER BACK TO THE LAST COUPLE ROUNDS OF CODE UPDATES WE'VE DONE, WE HAVE SAID EACH TIME THAT WE WANT TO COME BACK WITH A ROUND OF HOUSING SPECIFIC UPDATES.
WE'VE SAID THAT ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY TOO, BUT IT'S FOR THE FUTURE DISCUSSION.
UM, AND AS WE HAVE STARTED TO WORK ON SOME IDEAS, WE HAVE FOUND THAT WE ARE GETTING A LITTLE BIT STUCK IN WHICH DIRECTION TO GO AND HOW FAR TO PUSH SOME THINGS.
AND SO AGAIN, AS I SAID EARLIER, WE WANTED SOME DIRECTION BEFORE WE DIVE HEAD FIRST INTO SOME OF THESE CHANGES.
UM, AND THEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT, UM, THE TEAM YOU HAVE HERE, PLUS SHANNON IS KIND OF THE FIRST LINE OF CONTACT FOR POTENTIAL HOUSING DEVELOPERS.
UM, AND SO WE HAVE ALL THOSE INITIAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DEVELOPERS AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COMES UP BECAUSE THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE LEFT FOR DEVELOPMENT ARE GENERALLY DIFFICULT TO BUILD ON, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN BUILT ON TO THIS POINT FOR A REASON.
AND ESPECIALLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOUSING DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND I'M, AS I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE, HAVING DEALT WITH SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ISSUES, IT'S NOT CHEAP.
AND THE MARGINS OF, YOU KNOW, PROFIT MARGINS ARE ARE NOT LARGE.
AND SO THESE DEVELOPERS ARE WANTING TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF MODIFICATIONS THE CITY WOULD BE ACCEPTING OF WHERE THEY CAN MAYBE PUSH SOME BOUNDARIES.
AND WE NEED, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO GIVE THEM ACCURATE INFORMATION AS WE'RE SITTING THERE.
UM, SO, BUT UM, WE DO HAVE DEVELOPERS WHO MIGHT BE WILLING TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX TO PUSH THOSE BOUNDARIES, BUT WE NEED TO KNOW WHERE THOSE BOUNDARIES ARE.
UM, WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE THINK WE KNOW WHERE THE BOUNDARIES ARE AND THEN WE BRING SOMETHING ALL LIKE THROUGH THE PROCESS, GET TO YOU AND FIND OUT WE WERE SHOOTING AT THE WRONG TARGET.
UM, THAT'S A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY ON A LOT OF SIDES.
SO THOSE, UM, BETWEEN LDC CHANGES AND
[00:15:01]
THEN MAYBE SOME FRAMEWORK FOR HOW WE STRUCTURED OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH DEVELOPERS, UM, IS KIND OF WHERE WE'RE LOOKING TO GO TONIGHT THIS AFTERNOON.UM, SO AGAIN, THE GOAL GOAL OF TONIGHT, THIS AFTERNOON IS TO RECEIVE DIRECTION FROM COUNSEL ON VARIOUS ISSUES.
UM, AND THE STAFF THAT YOU HAVE IS MYSELF, CYNTHIA, STEVE IS OVER IN THE JURY BOX.
HE WILL BE TAKING NOTES AS WELL.
UM, JEANIE IS HERE REPRESENTING THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT AND UNFORTUNATELY SHANNON COULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT, BUT SHE'S PART OF THIS TEAM THAT, THAT WE WORK WITH.
UH, WE ALSO INVOLVE OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF A, A PROPERTY HAS A LARGE FLOOD PLAN OR SOMETHING, WE'LL BRING PUBLIC WORKS IN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE, UM, NOT IGNORING MAYBE A, A GRADING OR DRAINAGE ISSUE ON A PROPERTY AND MAKING SURE THAT ACCURATE INFORMATION IS, UM, PROVIDED.
AND SO WE ALSO JUST WANNA BE CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR ANY ANSWERS TONIGHT.
WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE THAT WE WILL SOLVE THE HOUSING PROBLEM IN THE NEXT TWO HOURS.
UM, THAT WE JUST, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
WE'RE LOOKING FOR OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT THESE ISSUES, UM, AND SO THAT WE CAN COME BACK IN THE FUTURE WITH CHANGES THAT MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS.
UM, AND THEN WE ALSO, UM, BEFORE WE KIND OF GET INTO SOME OF THE SPECIFICS, I DO WANNA MENTION THAT WE ARE IZED FOR A GENERAL DISCUSSION, NOT A SPECIFIC DISCUSSION.
SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE STAYING AWAY FROM, ESPECIALLY PROJECTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS.
UM, WE WILL HAVE SOME EXAMPLES OF WHAT HAS BEEN DONE ON PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
UM, BUT WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING PROJECTS THAT HAVE NOT GOTTEN THAT FINAL APPROVAL.
THAT'S, THAT WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE.
WE'LL STOP YOU AT THAT POINT, CARRIE, WHEN YOU SAY MM-HMM.
CAN YOU MENTION SOME PROJECTS THAT MAYBE DIDN'T MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE OF THE CODE? YES.
AND, UM, WE WILL SPECIFICS OF THAT WITHOUT GIVING NAMES OF ANY TYPE OF PROJECT.
YEAH, WE CAN TALK IN GENERALITIES.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT, UM, AND THEN ANYTHING THAT IS A PUBLIC RECORD, BUT, UM, PROJECTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED OR THAT ARE CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH THE P AND C REVIEW PROCESS, I'M PROCESS.
WE JUST WANNA PROJECTS OVER THE PAST MAYBE FIVE YEARS THAT NEVER MOVED FORWARD BECAUSE OF SOMETHING IN OUR CODE THAT WAS A HINDRANCE AND VERY HIGH LEVEL.
JUST MAYBE WHAT WHATEVER SPECIFIC, AND I'LL RELY ON KURT TO JUST LIKE, SHUT OFF MY MICROPHONE SOMEHOW.
IF I GO TOO FAR, HE'S JUST GONNA LOBBY WITH THE WHATEVER.
SO THERE JUST MIGHT BE THINGS WHERE IT'S LIKE, OH, HE IS LIKE, AH, LIKE LET'S, LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THAT.
WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT OKAY.
THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE GENERAL ISSUES, NOT SPECIFIC PROJECTS.
UM, SO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SO WE, THERE'S A COUPLE DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS THAT WE USE.
THE MAIN ONE BEING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THESE ARE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO PROJECTS IN THE CITY.
IT ALSO ESTABLISHES THE PROCESSES FOR REVIEW OF APPROVAL OF PROJECTS, INCLUDING HOW WE MODIFY, UM, CODE SECTIONS IF WARRANTED FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT.
UM, WE ALSO WANT TO MENTION THIS IS NOT THE BUILDING CODE.
UM, SOMETIMES PEOPLE, WE, OUR DEPARTMENT DOES ADMINISTER BOTH OF THEM, BUT THEY ARE DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS WITH DIFFERENT GOALS.
AND SO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS REALLY THE USE OF PROPERTIES AND THE FORM OF BUILDINGS WHERE THE BUILDING CODE IS, HOW THOSE THINGS ARE BUILT.
UM, AND SO THERE MIGHT BE THINGS TO BE LIKE, WELL THAT'S ACTUALLY A BUILDING CODE ISSUE.
UM, AND ULTIMATELY, UM, AS WE LOOK INTO UPDATING BUILDING CODES, SOME OF THESE ISSUES MIGHT COME UP THERE, BUT THERE IS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO.
UM, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WE HAVE CHANGED OR THAT COME UP OFTEN WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING HOUSING ISSUES.
UM, AND SO THINGS LIKE DENSITIES IN MIXED USE IN COMMERCIAL ZONES, ALLOWING DENSE, ESSENTIALLY ALLOWING PROJECTS TO GO OVER 12 UNITS PER ACRE IF THEY'RE ADDRESSING LOCAL HOUSING NEEDS.
ALLOWING DIFFERENT SIZE UNITS AND UNITS WITH RE INCOME RESTRICTIONS TO COUNT DIFFERENTLY IN OUR DENSITY CALCULATION.
UM, SOMETHING THAT COMES UP OFTEN IS THE KITCHENS AND GUEST HOUSES, UM, AROUND THE HOUSING ISSUE.
AND THEN JUST THERE'S BUILDING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.
WHAT BUILDINGS LOOK LIKE AS CYNTHIA KIND OF SHOWED IN THOSE PICTURES EARLIER.
WE HAVE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE DO AND DON'T ALLOW.
CARRIE, HOLD ONE PETE, JUST AT THE END OF THE PAGE, BUT I THINK YOU'RE PRETTY MUCH THERE.
EXCUSE ME, CARRIE, I I I'VE, I SAW THIS IN THE PACKET.
I'M LOOKING AT YOUR MIXED USE AND COMMERCIAL ZONE PERMIT.
RESIDENTIAL IS OVER 12 PER ACRE.
IF THE PROJECT ADDRESSES LOCAL HOUSING NEEDS, I, AND I'M CURIOUS WHAT THAT MEANS TO YOU.
'CAUSE AS I READ IT, IF IT'S A RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, IT'S A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, ISN'T IT? ISN'T IT ADDRESSING LOCAL HOUSING
[00:20:01]
THE COMMUNITY PLAN HAD A HARD CAP AT 12 UNITS PER ACRE.WE DID NOT ALLOW ANY PROJECTS THAT WENT ABOVE THAT.
AND IN 2017, THAT WAS WHEN THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL BILL CAME INTO EFFECT.
UM, AND THE DECISION WAS MADE BY THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME TO CHANGE THE COMMUNITY PLAN TO ONLY TO ALLOW THOSE HIGHER DENSITIES IF THE PROJECT WAS ADDRESSING LOCAL HOUSING NEEDS.
AND THAT WAS IN ESSENTIALLY HAS BEEN INTERPRETED AS MAKING SURE THAT THE UNITS THAT WE'RE ALLOWING UNDER THAT PROVISION DO NOT ALLOW FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
IS, IS, IS, IS THAT THE LIMIT? IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? IS THERE A PROJECT, SOMEONE COMING IN MORE THAN 12 FOR A, A, A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT THAT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE LOCAL HOUSING NEEDS?
IT WOULD ADDRESS LOCAL HOUSING NEEDS.
UM, THE LANGUAGE AGAIN THAT'S USED IN THE COMMUNITY PLAN IS ADDRESSING LOCAL HOUSING NEEDS.
UM, AND AGAIN, WE'VE INTERPRETED THAT AS IF YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO RESTRICT IT, TO REQUIRE IT TO BE LONG-TERM RENTALS.
IF THERE'S THE POTENTIAL FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS, EVEN IF IT IS A MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT, THAT IF, IF YOU'RE O LEAVING THE DOOR OPEN, THAT IT COULD BE SHORT-TERM RENTALS, THAT'S NOT ADDRESSING LOCAL HOUSING NEEDS.
SO YOUR DOOR DOESN'T SHUT OFF FOR ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN NO, GENERALLY THE, THE REQUIREMENT FOR LONG-TERM RENTALS IS THE BASELINE THAT WE TELL PEOPLE IF THEY WANNA INCLUDE ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS ABOUT AFFORDABILITY OR, UM, UM, FOR INSTANCE, OPINION LOSS HAS SOME PREFERENCES FOR LOCAL WORKFORCE AND THAT SORT OF THING.
BUT GENERALLY, THE BASELINE THAT WE HAVE CONVEYED TO DEVELOPERS UP UNTIL THIS POINT IS YOU HAVE TO DO LONG-TERM RENTALS IF YOU WANNA DO THIS.
JESSICA, DID YOU HAVE ONE? NO, IT WAS, IT WAS ANSWERED.
AND THEN THE OTHER DOCUMENT THAT WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS THE DIGA, WHICH STANDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AND GUIDELINES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
AND THAT WILL BE THE LAST TIME I SAY THAT WHOLE THING.
WE'RE JUST GONNA CALL IT THE DIGA.
UM, THIS IS THE CITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY.
IT IS NOT AN ADOPTED ORDINANCE, SO IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY ASSURANCES OF APPROVALS, BUT IT OUTLINES WHERE THE CITY IS WILLING TO MAKE CONCESSIONS AND WHAT THE CITY IS EXPECTING WHEN AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMES THROUGH.
UH, PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING REVIEWED UNDER THE DIGA ARE REVIEWED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
AND IT'S A, IT IS A NEGOTIATION, BUT IN GENERAL IT SET SOME, SOME STANDARDS AS A STARTING POINT FOR THAT.
UM, I DID WANNA POINT OUT, 'CAUSE THIS HAS COME UP A COUPLE TIMES, THIS IS A CITY DOCUMENT.
UM, APPARENTLY WE DID A REALLY GOOD JOB WITH THE ACRONYM WHERE PEOPLE THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAME FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
IF WE NEED TO CHANGE IT, IT'S, WE'RE NOT GOING THROUGH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DO THAT.
UM, SO JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
UM, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THE FED SAID THAT WE HAD TO DO.
IT'S SOMETHING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED, I BELIEVE IN ABOUT 2007.
UM, SO IT'S BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE.
AND REALLY, AGAIN, THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION IN THERE ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TALKING WITH SHANNON.
IT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED, IT NEEDS TO BE MODERNIZED.
UM, BUT KIND OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION TONIGHT IS THAT THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY TWO PROCESSES IN THE DIGA THAT ALLOW FOR CONSIDERATION OF MODIFICATION TO LDC REQUIREMENTS.
THE FIRST ONE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.
SO STEVE GETS TO MAKE THAT DECISION, BUT THERE IS A PUBLIC NOTIFICATION PROCESS.
THERE'S NO PUBLIC HEARING, SO IT'S A LITTLE SHORTER, BUT, UM, THAN HAVING TO GO THROUGH, UM, THIS BODY.
BUT IT'S VERY LIMITED IN WHAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO.
IT'S, UM, SOME VERY SMALL ALLOWANCES FOR LOT COVERAGE, HEIGHT AREA LOT DIMENSIONS.
AND I BELIEVE, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IN 17 YEARS, THAT ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN USED ONCE, UM, THE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY TRIPLEX IN UPTOWN, UM, NEEDED A LITTLE BIT, UM, OF SMALL SETBACKS AND SMALL HEIGHTS TO GET DONE.
BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THAT'S THE ONLY TIME THAT THAT PROCESS HAS BEEN USED IN 17 YEARS.
SO OBVIOUSLY WE NEED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES IF WE WANT THAT TO WORK.
HOWEVER, THE, THE DIGGA ALSO HAS A CLAUSE THAT SAYS CITY COUNCIL CAN WAIVE ANYTHING THEY WANT, WHICH IS VERY OPEN-ENDED.
UM, AND THAT HAS BEEN USED FOR SUNSET LOSS AND THE BILL IS ON SHELBY.
AND THAT'S SEEN THROUGH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS.
UM, AND THERE'S BEEN HIGH PARKING, BUILDING LENGTH AND DESIGN STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
CARRIE, ARE THERE, IS THERE ANY RECOURSE, UM, TO A COUNCIL DECISION TO MODIFY ACCORDING TO THE DIGA? SO IF, UH, IF NEIGHBORHOOD IS AGGRIEVED BY A DECISION COUNCIL
[00:25:01]
MAKES, IS THERE A RECOURSE TO THAT MIGHT NOT BE REELECTED, BUT BESIDES, BESIDES THEN INEVITABILITY, WHAT ELSE? A TYPICAL CARRY ANSWER.I DON'T, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WOULD BE, UH, I MEAN ANYONE CAN, UH, CAN A SPECIAL ACTION, A DECISION OF COUNCIL, BUT THEY'D HAVE TO SHOW THAT THE DECISION BY COUNCIL WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.
AND THAT'D BE HARD TO SHOW IN THIS CASE.
UM, THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE A REFERENDUM, BUT THAT WOULDN'T BE AVAILABLE 'CAUSE THAT WOULD BE, UM, AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO APPLY THE, THE DIGA, UH, WHERE THE DIGA COULD HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED BY REFERENDUM WOULD'VE BEEN IN THE INITIAL ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE DIGA AND THEN A 2 0 7 CLAIM.
SO, WELL ONE, ANYTIME WE, WE USE THESE, WE GENERALLY HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, SIGN A PROP 2 0 7 WAIVER, UM, AS IT'S GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS, THEY'RE, THEY'RE REQUESTING THESE IN THE FIRST PLACE, SO IT'S ONLY BENEFITING THEIR PROPERTY.
UM, AND IT DOES NOT, UH, A LAND USE LAW WOULD HAVE TO AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY COULD SHOW A FAIR MARKET DIMINUTION VALUE JUST BY PROVIDING A NEIGHBOR GETTING SOME SETBACK EXCEPTION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
UM, THERE IS A, AN APPEAL PROCESS FOR ANY DECISION STEVE MAKES.
SO THE ADMINISTRATOR PROCESS DOES HAVE AN APPEAL THROUGH IT.
SO CARRIE, IN, IN MY WORDS, WE'RE HERE TODAY TO LOOK AT BOTH THIS DIG A PROCESS AND THE FLEXIBILITY THAT'S IN HERE AND HOW COMFORTABLE WE ARE WITH USING THOSE FLEXIBILITIES, BUT ALSO NON DIGGA LDC, MAYBE SOME OF THIS FLEXIBILITY MIGHT BE ALSO OVER THERE.
SO MY FIRST BULLET POINT ON THIS SLIDE, UM, WITH THE COOL TABLE THAT POWERPOINT SUGGESTED I USE AS A PICTURE FOR THIS SLIDE, UM, IS THAT WE WANNA HAVE, SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE, IS THIS AN LDC CHANGE OR IS IT A DIGGA ALLOWANCE THAT WE WANT TO CONSIDER? SO, UM, THERE IS A, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A DIFFERENCE.
LDC, IT'S GOING TO APPLY TO ANYONE COMING IN DOING A MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT, WHERE IN THE DIGGA THERE IT IS A NEGOTIATION.
AND THEN IF YOU WANT IT TO GO IN THE DIGGA, IS IT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS OR SHOULD IT BE A COUNCIL DECISION? AND SO THERE'S KIND OF THOSE, THAT FRAMEWORK THAT WE'RE WORKING UNDER.
UM, SOMETHING ELSE THAT WE DIDN'T WANNA BRING UP THAT THERE IS THE DISCUSSION BETWEEN AFFORDABLE VERSUS AVAILABLE HOUSING.
SO WHEN WE SAY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, THAT IS A TECHNICAL TERM WHERE WE'RE SAYING IS THERE'S ACTUALLY A DEED RESTRICTION RESTRICTED IN THE AMOUNT OF RENT THAT CAN BE CHARGED BASED ON A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE INCOME OF THE, OF THE OCCUPANTS.
WHERE WHEN WE SAY AVAILABLE THAT IS GOING TO BE, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE LIKELY SOME LONG-TERM RENTAL RESTRICTIONS, BUT IT'S MARKET RATE.
UM, IT MIGHT BE AFFORDABLE JUST 'CAUSE IT'S A SMALLER UNIT OR AN OLDER UNIT.
SO IT'S CHEAPER, BUT IF THERE'S NO OFFICIAL AFFORDABILITY RESTRICTIONS ON IT, WE WOULD TERM THAT AS AN AVAILABLE UNIT, NOT AN AFFORDABLE UNIT.
AND THEN, UM, A COUPLE THINGS WE HAD ALSO MENTIONED THE AGENDA BILL, IS WE DISCUSSED THINGS WE WANNA KEEP IN MIND THAT, UM, KIND OF GOING BACK TO WHAT CYNTHIA SAID, EVERY CODE THAT WE HAVE HAD AN INITIAL PURPOSE FOR IT, UM, THERE WAS A REASON BEHIND ADOPTING THAT CODE.
NOT TO SAY THAT CODES CAN'T CHANGE, BUT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE, UM, POTENTIAL CHANGES, WE, THE KIND OF THE FRAMEWORK WOULD BE WHAT IS THE INITIAL PURPOSE? IS THAT PURPOSE STILL APPLICABLE? IS IT STILL SOMETHING THAT WE'RE, WE WANT TO DO? DOES THE CODE ACCOMPLISH THAT PURPOSE? AND IS THERE A LESS ONEROUS WAY TO STILL ACCOMPLISH THAT PURPOSE? IS KIND OF THE, THE THINKING THAT WE GO THROUGH THERE.
UM, APPLICABILITY IS ALSO A KEY THING BECAUSE IF YOU READ THROUGH THE CODE, WHICH I ASSUME ALL OF YOU HAVEN'T MEMORIZED
THERE'S SOME THAT ARE APPLICABLE IN DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS.
UM, AND SO IT MIGHT BE, SO A LOT OF THE, THE HIGHEST DESIGN STANDARDS ARE IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTIONS OF THE, SO IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO KEEP A CODE, A DESIGN STANDARD FOR COMMERCIAL, BUT WE MIGHT BE OKAY NOT HAVING IT APPLIED TO MULTIFAMILY.
UM, AND SO THERE'S, IF THERE'S A CODE SECTION WE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT, IT MIGHT NOT BE THAT WE STRIKE IT, IT MIGHT BE THAT WE CHANGE THE APPLICABILITY OF IT.
UM, AND THEN WE HEAR ALL THE SAME STORIES THAT YOU HEAR OR, UH, STORIES, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE RIGHT WORD, BUT ALL OF THE, THE FEEDBACK FROM PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT MAKES BUILDING EXPENSIVE IN SEDONA MM-HMM,
UM, AND WE JUST SAY THAT THERE IS OFTEN MULTIPLE THINGS THAT IMPACT A PROJECT.
AND SO FOCUSING ON ONE THING BECAUSE ONE PERSON SAID ONE THING, UM, NOT TO SAY THAT THOSE THINGS AREN'T VALID, BUT WE WANNA BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE PICTURE
[00:30:01]
ON THOSE AND NOT MAKE KNEEJERK REACTIONS.UM, AND THEN THE KIND OF MY, WELL MY SECOND TO LAST BULLET IS THERE, UM, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
AND THAT IS MAYBE NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GONNA FOCUS ON TONIGHT, BUT JUST TO KEEP IN MIND THAT IS WE GET DIRECTION FROM YOU AS WE COME BACK TO YOU IN THE FUTURE WITH POTENTIAL CHANGES.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WILL CONSIDER OR HELP YOU WORK THROUGH IN YOUR CONSIDERATION OF CHANGES.
UM, IF YOU HAVE A DESIRE TO CHANGE ONE SECTION, WE MIGHT THINK THROUGH THE CODE AND BE LIKE, HEY, IF YOU'RE GONNA CHANGE THIS, YOU ALSO NEED TO CHANGE THESE THREE OTHER THINGS TO MAKE THINGS NOT CONTRADICT EACH OTHER.
UM, BUT THAT WOULD JUST PROBABLY BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD COME BACK AT A FUTURE DISCUSSION.
AND AGAIN, WE'RE ONLY AGENDIZED FOR GENERAL DISCUSSIONS, NO SPECIFIC PROJECTS TO MEET.
UM, AND SO THESE ARE THE, UM, FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES, THESE ARE THE ITEMS THAT WE HAD BROUGHT UP IN THE AGENDA BILL REGARDING HEIGHT KITCHENS, KITCHENETTES EDS, UM, PARKING REQUIREMENTS, BUILDING MASSING DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.
UM, AND THEN OTHER, AND I DO HAVE A COUPLE PICTURES BEFORE WE, UM, AND AGAIN, IF YOU WANNA INTERRUPT ME, YOU CAN, BUT FOR HEIGHT, THESE ARE, UM, IMAGES THAT ARE FROM OUR SUNSET CFA PLAN.
UM, AND SO WHAT WE, AS YOU MAY YOU PROBABLY KNOW IN THE SUNSET CFA PLAN, IT ALLOWS FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.
AND SO WHAT WE HAD DONE THROUGH THAT CFA PLAN WAS HAD THESE, UM, DRAWINGS DONE SHOWING IN THESE YELLOW ARE LIKE THREE AND FOUR STORY BUILDINGS.
AND THEN THIS PICTURE OVER HERE, THE BUILDINGS ARE ACTUALLY STILL THERE, BUT THEY'RE, UM, COLORED GREEN ON THOSE ONES.
SO THIS WAS JUST SHOWING THAT, UM, USING THE RIGHT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, YOU CAN ACHIEVE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT WITHOUT NECESSARILY IMPACTING A VIEW SHED.
WE CAN GET BUILDINGS TO FIT INTO THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.
UM, IN THIS LOCATION IT WAS SHOWING IT'S NOT REALLY BLOCKING ANY SIGNIFICANT VIEWS.
UM, AND THIS IS, THESE ARE SOME OF THE EXHIBITS THAT WERE USED IN THAT CFA PLAN TO APPROVE THAT ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.
CARRIE, I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS YOUR COLORED GREEN COMMENT? UM, SO THESE PIC THESE PICTURES LOOK, BOTH HAVE THO THESE YELLOW BUILDINGS ARE GREEN IN THIS PICTURE.
YEAH, THEY STILL, YOU SEE IT WAS SO GOOD YOU COULDN'T SEE 'EM.
THIS IS FROM THE, THE SUNSET CFA PLAN AS WELL.
IT SHOWS ABOUT A FOUR STORY APARTMENT BUILDING BACK HERE.
AND IF YOU USE THE RIGHT COLORS, IT KIND OF FADES INTO THE BACKGROUND.
AND SO THAT'S ONE WAY THAT WE CAN POTENTIALLY ACHIEVE ADDITIONAL DENSITY, UM, IS TO LOOK, YOU KNOW, WE CAN GO UP, BUT WE CAN ALSO LOOK AT SOME DESIGN STANDARDS AND DARKER COLORS TO, TO NOT IMPACT FUSION SHEDS.
UM, AND WE HAVE A COUPLE EXAMPLES FROM APPROVED PROJECTS.
AND SO THIS IS ACTUALLY THE PROJECT THAT YOU CAN, THEY HAD THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR LAST NIGHT, CHEA, UM, THIS IS ONE OF THE WALLS OF THE BUILDING.
WE WENT FROM THIS AND AN INITIAL SUBMITTAL TO THIS IS THE FINAL APPROVAL THEY ADD TO ADD SOME WINDOWS TO THIS WALL AND ADD SOME ADDITIONAL, UM, BUMPOUTS TO MEET OUR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.
UM, AND SO THIS TRANSPARENCY REQUIRES WINDOWS ON THE STREET SIDE OF BUILDINGS AND THEN OUR UNRELIEVED BUILDING PLANES REQUIRE THOSE BUMPOUTS THINGS THAT CREATE SHADOW LINES.
UM, SAME, THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THE BUILDINGS ON THE CHEA PROJECT.
UM, YOU CAN SEE THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING HAS SOME PATIO STAIRCASES WINDOWS WHERE THE REAR OF THE BUILDING HAS A BLANK WALL.
SO, UM, THIS IS KIND OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UNRELIEVED BUILDING PLANES AND TRANSPARENCY, UM, TRYING TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS ON THE WALLS THAT FACE THE STREET.
UM, SAME THING, THIS IS THE JORDAN TOWN HOMES PROJECT IN UPTOWN WHERE THESE TOP DRAWINGS ARE WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED.
THE BOTTOM DRAWINGS ARE WHAT THEY GOT APPROVED.
SO YOU CAN SEE THEY ADDED SOME WINDOWS.
THEY ADDED SHED ROOFS OVER THOSE WINDOWS TO MAKE THEM MORE APPEALING FROM THE PUBLIC FACING SIDES OF THE BUILDING.
SO THIS IS, AGAIN, TRANSPARENCY AND LY BUILDING PLANES.
THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THROUGH OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
UM, AND THESE ARE NOT BUILDINGS IN SEDONA, JUST SURE.
BUT I DID WANNA BRING UP THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MASSING AND UNRELIEVED BUILDING PLANES.
SO MASSING ACTUALLY REQUIRES THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING TO BE STEPPED BACK AND FORTH.
AND SO YOU MIGHT HAVE, LIKE IN THIS BUILDING HERE, YOU HAVE THIS BUMP OUT HERE, BUMP OUT HERE, BUMP OUT HERE, THAT WOULD MEET MASSING REQUIREMENTS WHERE THE
[00:35:01]
UNRELIEVED BUILDING PLANE IS BREAKING UP THE ACTUAL WALL OF THE BUILDING.SO OVER HERE, THIS WALL MIGHT BE ALL ONE PLANE, BUT YOU HAVE BALCONIES PROJECTING OFF OF IT, CREATING THOSE, UM, SHADOW LINES AND THAT VISUAL RELIEF.
SO, UM, AGAIN, SO THAT'S MASSING VERSUS UNRE BUILDING PLANES, I GUESS IS, THEY'RE BOTH IN THE CODE.
THEY BOTH ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THAT BREAKING UP OF A BUILDING PLANE, BUT THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN THEIR APPLICATION.
AND I THINK THAT'S MY LAST SLIDE ON THIS SECTION.
SO WE'LL JUST GO BACK AND SO THIS WAS THE LIST OF THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO DISCUSS.
AND IF EVERYONE THINKS THAT YOU DON'T WANNA DISCUSS IT, THEN THIS COULD BE A VERY SHORT MEETING.
YES, BUT I'M, NO, NO, I JUST, WHERE WE GOING? I DON'T WANNA MISS YOU
SO YOU, YOU WANT QUESTIONS NOW? YEAH.
SO YEAH, SO BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO LIKE THE NEXT, SO THIS IS KIND OF THE MEAT OF THE LDC VERSUS DIGGA VERSUS OKAY.
ADMINISTRATIVE VERSUS, KATHY, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH.
SO THE SORT OF BIG QUESTION IS ALWAYS ONE WORD SUMS IT UP IS DENSITY.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, RELIEVING, YOU KNOW, BREAKING UP THE PLANE, RELIEVING THE LOOK OF THE DENSITY.
IT ALL COMES BACK TO THE DENSITY.
AND TO FRAME SOME OF OUR DISCUSSION, I I I, I JUST, I THINK THAT IS GOING TO FRAME A LOT OF OUR DISCUSSION.
SO I MEAN, DO, DO YOU HAVE INITIAL THOUGHTS ON THE DENSITY QUESTION THAT WE SHOULD HOLD IN MIND AS WE START THIS JOURNEY? JOURNEY? IT'S, UM, IT WILL BE A JOURNEY.
SO THE DENSITY QUESTION, SO AGAIN, GOING BACK TO 2017, UM, THE CITY SINCE INCORPORATION HAD LIMITED RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES TO 12 UNITS PER ACRE ACROSS THE CITY.
WHAT THAT RESULTED IN WAS NOT A LOT OF DENSITY BECAUSE 12 UNITS PER ACRE, IT'S HIGH FOR SEDONA, VERY LOW FOR OTHER PLACES.
AND WHAT IT RESULTED IN WAS, UM, PROJECTS THAT WOULD JUST BUILD BIGGER UNITS BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T BUILD MORE UNITS.
AND WITH THAT, THAT'S WHY WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ALLOWING DENSITIES HIGHER THAN 12.
THAT'S WHY WE SAID SMALLER UNITS DON'T COUNT AS A FULL UNIT TO TRY TO ENCOURAGE NOT JUST PEOPLE BUILDING BIG CONVOS PLACES.
UM, DENSITY IS GOING TO BE A STRUGGLE, I BELIEVE, IN THE CITY JUST BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE TRANSLATES IN MOST PEOPLE'S HEADS TO MORE TRAFFIC.
BUT THERE'S ALSO, IF WE WANNA GET PHILOSOPHICAL ABOUT CITY PLANNING MORE PEOPLE ALSO MAKES THINGS LIKE PUBLIC TRANSIT MORE FEASIBLE BECAUSE YOU HAVE MORE PEOPLE IN THE CITY WHO CAN GET AROUND ON THAT RATHER THAN DRIVING IN FROM OTHER PLACES.
UM, THE CITY IS LANDLOCKED BY FOREST SERVICE.
UM, AND SO DENSITY IS ONE WAY THAT WE CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE ISSUES.
UM, AND I DON'T HAVE NO IDEA IF I'M ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION SO YOU CAN JUST STOP ME IF YOU'RE LIKE, YOU'RE COMPLETELY GOING DOWN A RABBIT TRAIL.
WELL, THE DENSITY QUESTION IS A RABBIT HOLE.
AND SO THEN YOU GET INTO THINK, I MEAN, WE ULTIMATELY PARKING IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING UP, YOU KNOW, AND YOU'RE DOUBLING THE NUMBER OF UNITS, WELL, DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE ALSO WANT TO DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT PROPERTY REQUIRES? AND DOES THAT CANCEL OUT SOME OF THE DENSITY GAINS THAT WE GET BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE TO PARK MORE AND THAT WE JUST DON'T HAVE SPACE FOR THAT.
THE, UM, AND THEN I GUESS THE LE I HAD AN I AND THEN I GUESS PART OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE WITH DEVELOPERS THAT WE WOULD LIKE SOME FEEDBACK ON IS, AND MY MIND JUST WASN'T BLANK.
UM, SO THERE ARE PROJECTS THAT ARE FULLY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANT.
THEY MEET OUR HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, THEY MEET ALL OF THAT, AND THEY JUST WANNA GO UP TO 20 UNITS PER ACRE.
UM, OPINION LOFTS WOULD BE A PROJECT LIKE THAT, THAT IS, THEY DID NOT ASK FOR ANY EXCEPTIONS.
THEY JUST WANTED THE HIGHER DENSITY.
THERE ARE OTHER PROJECTS, UM, NONE HAVE BEEN APPROVED THAT WANT
[00:40:01]
TO GO TO AN EVEN HIGHER DENSITY.AND THEN THAT'S WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT EVEN MORE HEIGHT.
AND SO THEN IF WE'RE GONNA GO TO MORE HEIGHT DOES THING DO THINGS LIKE THE BUILDING MASSING AND THE BUILDING DESIGN, LIKE HOW MUCH OF THAT, LIKE IF YOU'RE DOING, LIKE, YOU'RE NOT, LIKE YOU'RE WILLING TO GO TO A HIGHER HEIGHT, BUT YOU WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING THE BUILDING DESIGN RIGHT.
SO IT DOESN'T, THERE'S NOT A GIANT WALL.
UM, I THINK THE ARABELLA HOTEL WHERE YOU PUT THAT WALL, THAT BLANK WALL UP 30, 40 FEET IN THE AIR, NOW IT'S MORE VISIBLE AND YOU CAN SEE IT.
SO, YOU KNOW, YOU GO TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, LIKE WE CAN GO HEIGHT, WE CAN GO MORE DENSITY, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE GET THE DESIGN RIGHT SO THAT IT FITS INTO THE NATURAL.
THIS IS ALSO THE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.
UM, I'VE ALWAYS CHOSEN TO LIVE IN, IN A HIGHER DENSITY COMMUNITIES.
IT'S A LIFESTYLE THAT WORKS FOR ME.
OTHER PEOPLE LIKE TO LIVE ON A FARM WITH, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF OPEN LAND AROUND THEM.
WHEN YOU TAKE A PROJECT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO 'CAUSE YOU WANT TO PROVIDE HOUSING AND HERE'S OPEN LAND, SO YOU WANNA PUT THAT HOUSING THERE, BUT IT'S OUTTA CHARACTER, YOU KNOW, WITH RIGHT.
AND HOW THE ZONING GOES INTO PLAY WITH THAT.
AND THAT'S WHERE OUR TO DISCUSSION HAS TO BE OF WHAT ZONING ALLOWANCES WOULD WE WANT TO MAKE FOR A PROJECT THAT'S GONNA PROVIDE HOUSING.
BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO BE REALLY SENSITIVE TO THAT.
PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE IN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT THEY WANT TO LIVE IN FOR VERY SPECIFIC REASONS, UM, AND HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO SO.
UM, SO I I I, BALANCING ALL THESE ISSUES IS NOT EASY FOR YOU GUYS.
YOU'RE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION FROM US, BUT IT'S NOT EASY FOR US EITHER.
THIS IS WHY FOR, AS FOR THE PUBLIC THAT'S LISTENING AS WELL TO KNOW THIS IS A WORK SESSION.
THERE ARE NO DECISIONS BEING MADE HERE TODAY.
THIS IS WHERE WE VET THE HARD IDEAS THAT WE NEED INFORMATION ABOUT IN ORDER TO TRY TO COME TO SOME POLICY GUIDANCE.
SO, I MEAN, GOING BACK TO THE SUNSET, CFA, THIS IS AN INDUSTRIAL ZONED PROPERTY THAT'S ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 89 A KIND OF TUCKED UP ON UNDER THE AIRPORT.
AND SO THE DISCUSSION WHEN THIS WAS GOING THROUGH AND CYNTHIA WAS MORE INVOLVED AND SHE CAN GIVE THE DETAILS IF, IF YOU WOULD LIKE, BUT IT WAS LIKE, THIS IS NOT GOING TO BLOCK ANYBODY'S VIEWS.
WE CAN DESIGN IT IN A WAY THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO, UM, HAVE A VISUAL IMPACT ON THE REST OF THE CITY.
AND IT'S A WAY THAT WE CAN GET MORE DENSITY.
AND SO SOME OF THE DIRECTION MIGHT, IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT SAYING LIKE, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO INCREASE DENSITY ACROSS THE CITY TO A HUNDRED UNITS PER ACRE.
IT'S OKAY IF YOU'RE, IF CITY COUNCIL IS SAYING, OKAY, WE SHOULD TARGET INDUSTRIAL AREAS AND COMMERCIAL AREAS OR THE AREAS NEXT TO THOSE, THE AREAS DEEPER INTO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, WE'RE NOT GONNA DO HIGHER DENSITY THERE.
AND SO DO WE, YOU KNOW, FOCUS AS WE TALK TO DEVELOPERS AND THEY COME IN WITH A PROJECT, UM, A PROPERTY THAT IS COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY ZONING, WE'RE GONNA SAY LIKE YOU, YOU DON'T GET THE SAME ALLOWANCES ON THAT PROPERTY AS YOU MIGHT GET IF YOU WERE AGAINST THE HIGHWAY.
AND THEN, AND YOU HAVE HEARD ME SPEAK ABOUT THIS FOR LAST SEVEN YEARS,
BUT UM, I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, SCARRED FROM AN EXPERIENCE THAT I HAD IN MY PROFESSIONAL LIFE BEFOREHAND, WHICH WAS SEEING CONFLICTING USES.
SO, YOU KNOW, AS YOU TRY TO DEVELOP IN THE COMMERCIAL AREA, UH, RESIDENTIAL USE, YOU THEN ARE CHANGING THAT CHARACTER AS WELL OF THE COMMERCIAL AREA, DRIVING SOME BUSINESSES OUT.
NUMBER TWO, YOU'VE THEN GOT RESIDENTS WHO WERE THERE SAYING THE NOISE FROM THAT BUSINESS BECAUSE OF THEIR COMMERCIAL GARBAGE CARTING OR BECAUSE OF THEIR HOURS OF OPERATION OR THEIR STYLE OF OPERATION OR WHATEVER CONFLICTS WITH MY RESIDENTIAL LIFESTYLE.
YOU WANTED ME TO LIVE HERE, YOU KNOW, BUT WE WANT THE BUSINESSES AS WELL.
SO I MEAN THERE'S JUST, IT'S CONFLICT AFTER CONFLICT AFTER CONFLICT, UH, THAT WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT AS WE CAN.
I JUST ASK, WE TRY TO STICK TO MORE QUESTIONS NOW.
OH, I THOUGHT IT WAS A WORK SESSION.
BUT IF WE HAVING MORE DIALOGUE, BUT WE ONLY HAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME, TWO TO THREE HOURS.
SO IF WE COULD JUST ALL OF US TRY TO GET HIM IN.
WELL, AND I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S ALSO GOOD.
I'M EQUALLY UNCLEAR THEN ABOUT WHAT KIND OF FACILITATED DISCUSSION ARE WE HAVING TO ACHIEVE WHAT OUTCOME.
BECAUSE I APPRECIATE COUNCILOR ELLA'S COMMENTS WHETHER THEY FIT IN OR NOT WITH WHAT NEEDS TO END UP HAPPENING.
APPRECIATE, DON'T KNOW, BUT I'M FINE WITH, YOU KNOW, IT'S REAL.
BUT WHAT'S OUR PROCESS? IF WE'RE ALL FINE WITH THAT? I'D JUST LIKE TO TRY TO KEEP THE MEETING WITHIN, YOU KNOW, TWO TO THREE HOURS IF WE CAN.
I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT IT, I THINK IT IS VALUABLE FOR US TO UNDERSTAND KIND OF YOUR, HOW YOU'RE GETTING YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS IN ORDER TO, HOW YOU'RE GETTING TO IT.
[00:45:01]
SOME OF THE, IT'S JUST WHEN WE, A LOT OF TIMES WE JUST GO ON AND WE GET TO THREE, THREE AND A HALF HOURS AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DONE.I AM CURIOUS IF COUNCILOR KINSELLA IT BEYOND THE CHALLENGE, WHICH I TOTALLY AGREE AND SEE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS THEN OF ANY, ANY IDEAS OF WHAT WE COULD DO? WHAT WAS THE LAST PART YOU SAID? ANY IDEAS OF WHAT, WHAT WORKS FOR YOU OR, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT? WELL, I KNOW WHERE I HAVE MY CONCERNS AND WHAT YEAH.
WHAT I HAVE STRUGGLE WITH ACCEPTING.
WHICH IS SOME OF, AS I SAID, CHANGE OF CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND ALSO I WANNA BE VERY PROTECTIVE OF THE BUSINESS DISTRICTS.
BUT WHAT WOULD YOU, THAT'S WHAT I WANNA BE INTERESTED IN SEEING CHANGE.
WHAT IS, DO YOU HAVE IDEAS OF WHAT WOULD INTEREST YOU? UM, N NOT YET.
'CAUSE I DON'T THINK WE VETTED IT ENOUGH AMONG OURSELVES.
AND PART OF THIS WAS THAT WE WEREN'T VETTING.
I MEAN, THERE WAS A, A SILENCE AND A VOID.
THERE'S NOBODY JUMPED IN TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE HAD, WE DON'T HAVE A CLEAR AGENDA OF LET'S DISCUSS THIS PART THEN THIS PART, THEN THIS PART.
SO WE'RE, THAT'S WHY I WAS SORT OF, WE'RE REALLY AT THE VERY BEGINNING.
AND IT'S WHEN, WHEN, LIKE CARRIE SAID, WE'RE NOT MAKING DECISIONS TODAY, IT'S, WE'RE GONNA BE DISCUSSING BUT YOUR CONCERNS.
I GUESS IIII THINK ANYTIME YOU BUILD ANYTHING DIFFERENT IN ANY AREA, IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER.
I THINK SAYING CHANGING THE CHARACTER MEANS YOU REALLY CAN'T EVER DO ANYTHING DIFFERENT ANYWHERE.
AND I THINK THAT WHILE I DO UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF NOT CHANGING THE CHARACTER, I THINK THINGS CHANGE IN LIFE.
UM, NEIGHBORHOODS CHANGE, THEY DEVELOP.
UM, THEY'RE NOT THERE FOR THE 50 PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE NOW.
THEY'RE THERE FOR LIKE FOREVER.
SO I THINK THAT WHILE EXPRESSING THE CHALLENGES IS ALWAYS USEFUL, I THINK WE REALLY, WE HAVE TO BE CLEAR IN OUR OWN MINDS WHETHER WE'RE WILLING TO CHANGE ANYTHING OR NOT.
SO I'LL PUT THAT OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.
UM, I'M NOT SURE THIS COUNCIL IS REALLY, ACTUALLY WILLING TO MAKE CHANGES TO GET THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE SAY WE WANT.
AND I THINK MAYBE I'M WRONG AND I'M, THERE MAY BE INSTANCES WHERE I COULD BE WRONG AND I GUESS WE HAVE TO GET TO THAT PLACE.
BUT THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CHALLENGES.
I MEAN, I AM, AS I HAVE SAID, I THINK ON 150 OCCASIONS, I AM A BIG PROPONENT OF CHANGING THE CHARACTER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AREAS TO ALLOW DUPLEXES AND TRIPLEXES THAT LOOK LIKE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
UM, DOES THAT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I THINK IT MEANS, DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY CHARACTER.
IF IT LOOKS LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, BUT THERE'S THREE FAMILIES THERE, WHAT IS THE CHARACTER? IS IT IT, LOOK, IS IT ITS OCCUPANCY? IS IT TRAFFIC? IS IT JUST CHANGE? AND SO WHILE I, I THINK BRIAN'S POINT IS ABSOLUTELY THE RIGHT ONE, WHICH YOU DID MAKE ONE, WHICH IS ONE, ONCE WE MOVE, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FROM DEFINING THE CHALLENGES TO WHAT WE ARE WILLING TO DO.
AND THIS I THINK IS AN ATTEMPT TO DO THAT SO THAT THEY AREN'T LEFT HANGING EVERY TIME THEY TALK TO A DEVELOPER.
WHAT THEY DON'T WANNA DO IS HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DEVELOPER BASED ON WHAT THEY THINK THEY HEARD HERE.
AND THEN WHEN THEY GET HERE, WE DON'T LIKE IT FOR ANY ONE OF A MILLION DIFFERENT REASONS.
WE MAY NOT LIKE THE, THE MASSING THAT THEY'VE COME TO AGREEMENT ABOUT.
I MEAN, SO I THINK, I THINK, I THINK WHAT CARRIE IS TRYING TO GET AT IS GOING TO BE VERY, VERY CHALLENGING FOR US TO ACCOMPLISH.
AND NUMBER ONE AND NUMBER TWO, TO HOLD TO WHEN WE GET A PROJECT IN THAT HAS BEEN NEGOTIATED OR BROUGHT FORWARD BASED ON WHAT WE SAY WE WANT TO OR TOMORROW OR THE NEXT DAY.
SO I, I, I DO AGREE THAT THERE ARE REAL CHALLENGES, BUT I, I DO THINK IF WE CAN'T FIND A WAY TO, TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT THESE PARTICULAR ISSUES, UM, ABOUT, I THINK KITCHENS AND KITCHEN NETS WILL BE EASIER.
BUT HEIGHT, I THINK, I THINK HEIGHT'S A BIG ISSUE.
UM, I'M WILLING TO GO HIGHER THAN PROBABLY MOST PEOPLE HERE ON COUNCIL.
AND CARRIE JUST SAID, I MEAN THE ISSUE IS WHERE ARE YOU WILLING TO GO HIGHER? SHE SAID, WE HAVE SAID IN THE PAST, ALONG 89 A I HAVE HEARD FROM RESIDENTS WHO LIVE BEHIND 89 A THAT THAT'S AN AFFRONT AGAINST
[00:50:01]
HUMANITY.SO I THINK WE REALLY HAVE TO TRY AND BE FAIRLY SPECIFIC WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THESE ISSUES SO THAT STAFF CAN GET DIRECTION.
SO, UH, JESSICA, TO CLARIFY, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT CHANGE MM-HMM.
YOU MENTIONED SEVERAL TYPES, BUT YOU HAVE SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE TALKING ABOUT CHANGE OF AN EMPTY LOT AND YOU'RE PUTTING A BUILDING THERE.
THEY WANNA CONT I WANT MY VIEWS THAT WE DON'T OWN THE VIEWS.
MOST PEOPLE DON'T WANT ANYTHING BUILT NEXT TO THEM.
AND I AM ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT ANY OF US MEAN BY CHANGE.
I JUST WANT BE NO, THAT'S, WELL THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE, BUT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY ON THIS COUNCIL NECESSARILY RESPONDS TO THAT PARTICULAR, I I JUST WANTED YOU TO CLARIFY.
UH, PETE, UH, BRIAN, DID YOU WANNA FOLLOW UP? 'CAUSE I KNOW KATHY AND, AND PETE DID I DO? I DO.
IS IT ON JESSICA'S COMMENT? IT'S ALL RELATED.
BUT BECAUSE I, PETE DID, PETE WAS FIRST, SO OKAY.
BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA GO AHEAD FIRST, FIRST PLEASE.
THANK YOU
I'M, I'M GONNA TOSS OUT SORT OF MY, I I'M GONNA TRY TO GET MORE TO THE, I I WOULD LIKE TO START FIRST, CARRIE, I WANNA START BY, I'VE SAT THROUGH NOT ONLY IN THE CITY BUT OTHER PLACES, CONVERSATIONS WHERE PEOPLE TRY TO EXPLAIN MASSING AND UNRELIEVED BUILDING PLANES.
AND THAT WAS A PRETTY GOOD JOB THAT SORT OF RANKS UP THERE IN MY MM-HMM.
SO I WANNA JUST PUT THAT OUT THERE.
I WANNA START BY TALKING ABOUT WHERE I WOULD LIKE TO PUSH AND FOR ME IT'S MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ON 89 A, IT'S MULTIFAMILY HOUSING BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT PAST DECISIONS BY OUR COMMUNITY AND COUNCILS IN THE PAST HAS JUST LIMITED US.
WE JUST DON'T HAVE NEARLY WHAT WE SHOULD.
AND, AND FOR ME THAT'S THE PRIORITY IS FIXING THIS.
OUR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING MIXTURE IN OUR TOWN IS ALMOST ALL BUILT OUT ANYHOW.
AND THOSE REALLY DON'T CHANGE OVER TIME.
AND SO THERE'S NOT MUCH IMPACT OF CHANGING THINGS IS, YOU KNOW, AM I WILLING TO TALK ABOUT DUPLEXES AND TRIPLEXES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS? I'M WILLING TO TALK ABOUT IT.
I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GONNA ACTUALLY HAVE MUCH IMPACT THERE.
I DON'T THINK IT, WE'LL SEE MUCH OF IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW, IT'S ON MY LIST.
BUT IT SITS BELOW DENSITY CONVERSATIONS ON 89 A FOR ME, PART OF HOW I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS IS, UH, IS WHEN I LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, I, I STARTED THINKING ABOUT THIS THREE BUCKETS OF, OF THINGS.
WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO ACTUALLY BUILD SOMETHING IN TOWN? AND THERE'S LAND ACQUISITION COSTS, THEN THERE'S THE WHOLE DESIGN COST, WHICH, AND FOR ME, DESIGN IS HOW MUCH MONEY YOU SPEND TO GET THROUGH THE CITY APPROVAL PROCESS.
ONCE YOU GET TO THAT, THEN THERE'S CONSTRUCTION COSTS, WHICH ALSO HAS SOME DESIGN IN IT BECAUSE WHAT YOU'VE DONE TO ACHIEVE THE PERMITS IS NOT ENOUGH TO HAVE BUILDING PLANS.
AND SO NOW YOU GOTTA SPEND SOME MORE MONEY ON BUILDING PLANS.
AND THEN THERE'S THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND STUFF.
FINANCING COSTS ARE IN THERE AS WELL.
AND I THOUGHT, IS THAT A SEPARATE BUCKET OR IS IT NOT? AND FOR ME THAT FINANCING COST FOR C GOES INTO THE CONSTRUCTION ELEMENT.
YEAH, YOU MIGHT FINANCE SOME OF THE DESIGN, ESPECIALLY OF A COMMERCIAL PROJECT, BUT REALLY YOUR FINANCING IS ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION COST.
SO IF I THINK OF THOSE THREE BUCKETS, LAND COST IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN INFLUENCE VERY MUCH.
AND THE CONSTRUCTION COST, SADLY,
AND IT'S A BIG BUCKET AS WELL.
BUT I'M NOT A DEVELOPER AND I SEE LUKE'S HERE AND MAX IS HERE, AND I'VE HAD SOME OF THESE CONVERSATIONS WITH MAX AND LUKE IN THE PAST ABOUT, OF THESE THREE BUCKETS, IF WHAT WE CAN DO WITH LDC AND OUR BUILDING CODES IS IN THAT DESIGN BUCKET OF COST, HOW BIG IS THAT BUCKET RELATIVE TO THOSE OTHER TWO BUCKETS? AND HOW MUCH INFLUENCE CAN WE REALLY HAVE IN THIS? WE COULD SPEND A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO CHANGE OUR CODES, BUT I'M WONDERING IF WE'RE INFLUENCING 20% OF THE OVERALL COST OR 50% OF THE OVERALL COST.
IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN SPEND A LOT OF TIME AND ACTUALLY GET A RESULT ON? OR IS LAND ACQUISITION AND BUILDING COSTS, JUST THE THINGS THAT DOMINATE HOW MUCH CHANGE WE'LL HAVE.
I'M NOT A DEVELOPER, I'VE NEVER TRIED TO FINANCE SOMETHING, SO I DON'T, I WOULD NOT BE THE AUTHORITY ON THAT.
UM, I THINK THE COST THAT, THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IS MORE THE, I GUESS IT WOULD PROBABLY BE THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS TO BUILD WHAT OUR CODE REQUIRES.
UM, SO ADDING THE ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING,
[00:55:01]
ADDING, UM, SO FOR EXAMPLE, OUR CODE REQUIRES THAT YOU USE REAL ROCK.UM, IT SAYS, WELL STEVE CAN APPROVE FAKE ROCK IF IT'S GOOD FAKE ROCK.
UM, AND HE STILL DOESN'T KNOW WHAT GOOD VERSUS BAD FAKE ROCK IS.
UM, BUT SO THINGS LIKE THAT, WHEREAS IF WE'RE REQUIRING THESE STEPS IN THE BUILDINGS, THEY CAN'T JUST COME UP AND PUT UP A WALL.
UM, THEY'RE HAVING TO, YOU KNOW, DO DIFFERENT FRAMING.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT UM, WE HEARD WHEN PINION LOFTS WENT THROUGH WAS THAT OUR HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS THAT KIND OF, THAT REQUIRE THE BUILDINGS TO STEP WITH THE LAND, WHICH IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CYNTHIA SHOWED IN HER PICTURE.
THOSE WERE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES.
IF YOU'RE TRYING TO DO A LARGER BUILDING AND YOU'RE TRYING TO STEP IT WITH THE LAND, YOU'RE DOING MULTIPLE FORMS AND MULTIPLE PORES OF CONCRETE RATHER THAN JUST A SINGLE LEVEL.
AND SO THAT MIGHT BE IF, BUT TO GET A FLAT LEVEL THE WAY WE MEASURE HEIGHTS, YOU'RE, YOU'RE PROBABLY GONNA BE OVER HEIGHT ON ONE SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
UM, YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO, TO GET THAT BECAUSE THE FLAT LOTS ARE, DON'T EXIST.
WELL, AND SO THERE'S THINGS, SO I, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S THE COST TO GO THROUGH OUR PROCESS, BUT IT'S THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS THAT ARE ADDED BECAUSE OF OUR DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.
AND I WOULD, I WOULD LOVE IF WE COULD SOMEHOW OVER TIME GET YEAH.
AND WE CAN, WE CAN REACH OUT TO A BETTER SENSE OF WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE AND WE CAN REACH OUT TO PEOPLE AND THAT CAN BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BRING BACK IN THE FUTURE.
UH, SO NOW HERE'S SOME, THESE WERE THINGS I WROTE DOWN DURING YOUR PRESENTATION.
IDEAS THAT ARE IN MY MIND AND BULLYING AROUND.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO CONNECT THEM JUST YET, BUT SOMEHOW IN THE, IN THE FOG OF MY MIND, THEY ARE CONNECTED.
BUT I WON'T BE TOO ELOQUENT ABOUT IT.
I DID WANNA MENTION STORIES VERSUS EVIDENCE, AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
I MEAN, ANYONE THAT TALKS TO US HAS GOT AN AGENDA AND THEY ONLY TELL US SOME THINGS.
AND SO WE ALL, WE ALL, AND WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT, RIGHT? AND, AND, AND WE, WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD WEIGH THAT.
BUT A LOT OF FOLKS TALK WITH YOU TOO, AND I THINK YOU HAVE DIFFERENT TYPE OF EVIDENCE THAN WE DO BECAUSE OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND THE LEVEL OF CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU WERE HAVING.
BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE THE STORIES FROM YOU THAT WERE VETTED FROM STAFF.
AND I THINK THERE'S SOME VALUE IN THAT SOMEHOW GETTING SOME FEEDBACK ABOUT PROJECTS THAT CAME AND FAILED IN THE PROCESS SOMEWHERE AND WHAT IT WAS THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WAS IT THIS, WAS IT THREE THINGS THAT WOULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE BARRIERS THAT CAME UP AND THEN GIVE US SOME IDEA OF WHERE WE CAN PUSH THINGS PERHAPS IN THE LDC OR THE BUILDING CODE, OUR PROCESS, WHATEVER IT IS.
SO I, I THINK THERE'S SOME, THERE'S SOMEHOW THE ABILITY TO GET THAT.
AND I KNOW STEVE AND I TALKED JUST TODAY, YOU KNOW, THE CONCEPTS OF THESE DEVELOPER ROUND TABLES THAT YOU HAVE WHERE PEOPLE COME IN AND THEY SHARE THEIR STORIES AND SOMETIMES IT'S A VERY DIRECT CONVERSATION WITH YOU GUYS AND SOMETIMES YOU PUT AN INDEPENDENT PARTY IN SO THEY'RE NOT AFRAID TO SHARE THEIR IDEAS AND BURN BRIDGES OR WHATEVER.
AND IT SEEMS THAT IT'S BEEN A LITTLE WHILE SINCE WE'VE DONE THAT.
BUT I THINK THERE'S GREAT VALUE IN, IN DOING THAT, THAT THEN CONNECTS TO THIS STORIES VERSUS EVIDENCE THING.
AND WE CAN REALLY SURFACE ISSUES.
UM, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COMES UP OFTEN, UM, WHEN PROJECTS POTENTIALLY FALL APART IS IT'S A, THE ONES THAT I'M THINKING OF RIGHT NOW, AND I WON'T MENTION SPECIFICS 'CAUSE I DON'T WANNA OFFEND SOMEBODY, BUT IT'S A COMBINATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD PUSHBACK ON A PROJECT.
SO IF, IF THERE'S A PROJECT THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR A ZONE CHANGE, THEY'RE ASKING FOR SOME KIND OF EXCEPTION WHERE IT'S NOT A GUARANTEE AND THEY'RE STARTING TO GET A LOT OF PUSHBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORS, THEY BECOME MORE AND MORE UNWILLING TO PUSH THROUGH THAT PROCESS BECAUSE THEY, THEY, THEY LOOK AT IT, IT'S A 50 50 CHANCE WHEN I GET TO COUNCIL OF COUNCIL'S GONNA HAVE TO DECIDE DO THEY WANT THIS PROJECT OR ARE THEY GONNA LISTEN TO THE ANGRY RESIDENTS? AND SO THE, THE MORE PUSHBACK THEY GET, THE MORE UNCERTAINTY BUILDS UP.
AND THEN THEY SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S NOT WORTH IT FOR ME TO PURSUE THIS.
I WILL JUST BACK OFF AND DO WHAT I'M ALLOWED TO DO ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THAT, THAT PHRASE THAT COMES TO MY MIND WHEN I THINK ABOUT ISSUES LIKE THAT IS, AND I DON'T KNOW HERE IN, IN OUR CITY WHETHER THERE'S NOT AS MUCH CERTAINTY OF PROCESS, NOT CERTAINTY OF OUTCOME, BUT CERTAINTY OF PROCESS THAT WE OFFER OUR DEVELOPERS AND THAT THEY CAN GET.
AND I DON'T NEED A, A COMMENT FROM YOU ON THIS PARTICULAR POINT, 'CAUSE I
[01:00:01]
WANT TO TRY TO CUT MY, UH, COMMENTS SHORT HERE.BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST ANOTHER IDEA OF, OF WHAT WE'RE DOING AND, AND WHAT WE CAN, WHEN WE TALKED, YOU TALKED EARLIER ABOUT ROOF LINE AND MASSING, AND I THINK THAT'S THE SEDONA LOOK, RIGHT? DRIVEN LARGELY BY SOME OF THOSE ELEMENTS.
AND THOSE ARE GOOD THINGS, BUT THEY DO ADD COST AND WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT, THAT THEY'RE THERE.
AND WHEN I START RANKING THINGS, IT'S LIKE, I, I'M KIND OF HAPPY ABOUT PRESERVING THIS SEDONA LOOK THAT WE'VE GOT.
SO WE NEED TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE LAYER ON THERE.
UM, BUT, UH, UM, SO YOU ASKED ABOUT WHERE THE BOUNDARIES AND MY ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION, WHERE THE BOUNDARIES WERE.
WELL, I THINK I COULD TELL YOU WHERE THE SOFT SPOTS THAT I HAVE, THEN I'M WILLING TO HAVE YOU EXPLORE MORE.
BUT AS WE DO THAT, WE'LL FIND THERE'S ANOTHER BOUNDARY OUT THERE SOMEWHERE.
THE, THE LIMIT, RIGHT? AND EVEN THOSE LIMITS CHANGE OVER TIME.
SO JUST TO CIRCLE BACK THEN, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, I I WOULD, I HAVE SOFT SPOTS HERE IN ALL OF THESE THINGS.
I AM WILLING TO TALK ABOUT HEIGHT AND DENSITY AND RIGHT.
ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU LISTED OUT HERE FOR ME.
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ON 89 A, I'M WILLING TO REALLY TALK ABOUT LIMITS AND WHAT WE CAN PUSH HERE.
UM, OTHER THAN THAT DUPLEX AND TRIPLEXES IN NEIGHBORHOODS, I'M WILLING TO HAVE SOME OF THAT CONVERSATION.
I'D RATHER HAVE THE FIRST CONVERSATION FIRST AND THEN GET TO THAT LATER.
UM, AND THEN WHAT ELSE? ADUS, RIGHT? ADUS IS A CONVERSATION THAT WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE, AND THAT'S KIND OF MORE IN THE CITY.
SO THAT KIND OF GETS BACK TO WHAT KATHY, YOU WERE SAYING IS KIND OF WHERE YOU FOCUS.
I, I DON'T WANNA SCARE OUR CURRENT RESIDENTS ABOUT THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS AND, AND WHAT WE'RE DOING.
THERE ISN'T THAT MANY OPEN LOTS LEFT WHERE SOMEONE'S GONNA BUILD A DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX, AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO KILL TOO MANY SPOTS.
BUT I WOULD RATHER US PUSH THE BOUNDARIES AND P**S PEOPLE OFF AND PUSH THE CONVERSATION ON THIS MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ON 89 A.
KATHY AND BRIAN, THEN THE VICE MAYOR, YOU KNOW, WE'RE USED TO, I GUESS, REACTING TO, UM, A PROPOSAL, YOU KNOW, AND THIS IS STARTING MORE FROM SCRATCH.
SO MY QUESTION TO YOU, CARRIE, IS WHAT MAKES SENSE PROCESS WISE TO GET INTO SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS? BECAUSE INSTEAD OF KEEPING IT, YOU KNOW, UP HERE AT THE MACRO LEVEL, AT SOME POINT THE CONVERSATION HAS TO GO MICRO.
WOULD IT MAKE SENSE TO GO THROUGH THE DIGA AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS TO SEE WHAT ARE THE INCENTIVES THAT WE FEEL HAVE BACKFIRED OR THAT HAVE BEEN TOO TOUGH TO LIVE WITH? OR THAT COULD BE, UH, MORE LIBERAL OR NEW IDEAS TO ADD IN? OR, YOU KNOW, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO DO SOME SORT OF A LINE BY LINE REVIEW? IS THAT, IF YES, WOULD THAT BE THE DOCUMENT TO START WITH, IN YOUR VIEW? SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE, I DON'T, WITHOUT SHANNON HERE, I DON'T WANNA GET INTO THE AFFORDABILITY AND HOW ALL THAT'S CALCULATED AND ALL THAT.
AND SHE WILL POTENTIALLY BE BRINGING BACK SOME CHANGES TO THAT.
UM, AS I MENTIONED ON THIS SLIDE, THE DIGA, UM, FOR WHAT WE CAN DO IS VERY LIMITED.
UM, AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING THESE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS COME TO COUNCIL.
UM, AND SO ULTIMATELY WE CAN TALK LINE BY LINE ABOUT THE CONCESSIONS, BUT IT'D BE A VERY SHORT CONVERSATION BECAUSE YOU CAN DO A LITTLE BIT MORE LOT COVERAGE, A LITTLE BIT MORE BUILDING HEIGHT, A LITTLE BIT SMALLER OF A LOT AREA.
SO IF YOU WANTED TO SPLIT A LOT, SO YOU COULD HAVE TWO UNITS INSTEAD, YOU CAN DO, AND THEN YOU CAN GET A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE, UM, IS, AND THEN OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S A VERY OPEN-ENDED, CITY COUNCIL CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.
CAN I JUST, I MEAN, THERE MIGHT BE THINGS WHERE IT'S LIKE YOU SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH STAFF HAVING A LITTLE MORE DISCRETION IN SOME OF THESE AREAS.
UM, WE CAN, WE'VE TAKEN SOME, UM, SOME LESSONS FROM SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE, WELL, THE TWO THAT HAVE COME TO CITY COUNCIL, UM, BOTH OF THEM HAD THE BUILDING LENGTH, UM, THING IN THERE THAT IF THAT'S GONNA BE COMING UP EVERY TIME, IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT'S LIKE, HEY, WE'RE NOT GONNA GO TO CITY COUNCIL FOR THAT.
THAT'S GONNA BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE, OR MAYBE IT'S JUST A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGE WHERE WE SAY MULTIFAMILY DOESN'T HAVE TO DO THAT.
UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THE, MAYBE A BROADER PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION TO ASK FIRST IS, DOES CITY COUNCIL WANT TO GIVE STAFF MORE AUTHORITY IN SOME OF THESE AREAS, OR DO YOU WANT TO SEE EVERYTHING UNDERSTANDING THAT, UM, IF WE BRING
[01:05:01]
ALL OF THESE THINGS TO YOU, IT'S GOING THAT THAT'S A LONGER PROCESS AND IT CREATES MORE UNCERTAINTY FOR THE DEVELOPER? WELL, FOR ME, IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHICH ITEM.THERE ARE SOME AREAS WHERE I THINK STAFF SHOULD HAVE MORE DISCRETION IN OTHERS, BUT I DON'T, I THINK THEIR ULTIMATE RESPONSIBILITY NEEDS TO BE ONE OF COUNCIL'S BECAUSE OTHERWISE THE CONVERSATION'S GONNA SAY STAFF LEADS OR, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL OR COUNCIL DOESN'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.
OR, I MEAN, IT JUST OPENS UP A HOST OF THINGS AND WE'RE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR POLICY.
AND IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, THOSE ARE EACH INDIVIDUALIZED POLICIES.
SO, SO I GUESS, I MEAN, EXAMPLE, I THINK AN EASY ONE WOULD BE HEIGHT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT STAFF IS COMFORTABLE DOING HEIGHT, YOU KNOW, AND BECAUSE IT IS CASE BY CASE BASED ON WHERE THE PROPERTY IS, UM, LOCATED, WHAT'S AROUND IT, WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE HEIGHT IS LOCATED, EVEN ON A PROPERTY CAN CHANGE BECAUSE IF IT'S FAR ENOUGH BACK FROM A PROPERTY LINE, IT MIGHT NOT REALLY HAVE AN IMPACT.
SO THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WHERE LIKE, IF WE HAVE DIRECTION FROM COUNSEL THAT YOU DO WANT TO SEE IT IN CERTAIN AREAS, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THROUGH THE DEVELOPERS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WANT THAT RESPONSIBILITY.
SO THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE SOMETHING THAT STAYS IN RIGHT IN.
WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA LET YOU KEEP THAT ONE.
UM, AND HEIGHT'S AN ISSUE BEEN, IT'S BEEN AN ISSUE FOR ME WHEN YOU, I'M CONCERNED WHEN YOU SAY A LITTLE BIT MORE AND YOU WENT DOWN THE LIST, OKAY, WHEN YOU GET TO A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR HEIGHT, I KNOW THIS, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, RIGHT? BECAUSE IS IT A FOOT TWO FEET? IS IT GONNA THREE STORY OR THREE STORY? OKAY.
SO, AND THAT COULD BE A, A BIG PUSH PUSHBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY.
SO AS AN EDUCATIONAL THING, WHAT THE DIGGA CURRENTLY ALLOWS STAFF TO DO, UM, AND WE CAN, HEIGHT IS COMPLICATED, BUT ESSENTIALLY THE CODE CURRENTLY ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT IF YOU DO A DARKER PAINT COLOR CORRECT.
OR MORE UNRELIEVED BUILDING PLANES.
UM, UNDERSTANDING THAT, YOU KNOW, THE UNRE BUILDING PLANES MAKES THINGS MORE EXPENSIVE TO BUILD.
THE DIGA ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT STAFF CAN APPROVE THOSE HEIGHT, LIKE BASICALLY UP TO THE SAME, I THINK LIKE A COUPLE FEET HIGHER THAN THAT.
BUT ESSENTIALLY IN THAT SAME BALLPARK WITHOUT REQUIRING THE UNRELIEVED BUILDING PLANES, RIGHT? UM, IT'S AN ADDITIONAL EIGHT FEET, BUT YOU CANNOT COMBINE IT WITH ALTERNATE STANDARDS.
SO UNDER THE STANDARD CODE, YOU START AT 22, YOU CAN GO UP TO 27.
IF YOU USE ALTERNATE STANDARDS, YOU COULD POTENTIALLY GO UP TO 32 IF YOU COMBINE A COUPLE OF ROOF ROOF SLOPE AND ALTERNATE STANDARDS AND ALL THAT, THE DIGA BASICALLY SAYS YOU CAN GO UP TO 30 FEET WITHOUT ANY OF THESE EXTRA DESIGN STANDARDS, UM, TO TRY TO CUT DOWN ON THE COST, THE EXTRA COST THAT THOSE STANDARDS REQUIRE.
AND WHEN YOU HAVE EIGHT, I, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ON 89 A, BUT I THINK AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT 89 A WE SHOULD START WITH, BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO A NEIGHBORHOOD, I KNOW SEVERAL NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE AN ACRE, AN ACRE OR TWO OF LOTS, LOT SPACE.
AND IF YOU WANT THOSE NEIGHBORS WHO'VE BEEN THERE FOR 20, 30 OR MORE YEARS TO BE MORE AGREEABLE TO SOMETHING, AND OF COURSE THEY'RE GONNA LOSE THEIR VIEWS THAT THEY THINK THEY OWN AND THEY DON'T, BUT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE THAT EMPTY LOT FILLED, AND THAT'S A CHANGE THAT THEY HAVE TO PUT UP WITH.
BUT WHEN YOU PUT SOMETHING THAT'S A THIRD STORY, COUNCILOR WILLIAMSON TAKE HER POINT, THAT'S A PROBLEM THAT'S NO LONGER A SENSE OF PLACE.
BUT IF YOU HAD SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT AND COUNCILOR WILLIAMSON'S IDEA OF DOING A DUPLEX AND MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, AND I'VE SEEN THEM MM-HMM,
SO I GUESS THROUGH THE DIGA, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GONNA GET A THIRD STORY.
UM, THE EXTRA HEIGHT, AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO ACCOUNT FOR POTENTIALLY A, A WEIRD, YOU KNOW, A SLOPE THAT DOESN'T ALLOW IT TO BE AS EASILY BUILT.
TO GET THAT THIRD STORY, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO MORE THAN THE DIGA ALLOWS, WHICH RIGHT NOW IS A COUNCIL DECISION.
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S APPROPRIATE TO KEEP IT AT THAT POINT.
OF COURSE, THROW IT BACK TO US.
UM, AND THEN JESSICA LOOKS LIKE SHE HAS A THOUGHT.
WELL, YOU KNOW, I JUST, I MEAN, WE PROCESS HERE.
YEAH, BRIAN HAS HIS HAND UP FOR A LONG TIME.
BEFORE I'VE HAD MY HAND UP FOR A LONG TIME.
UNDERSTAND WE GET TO SPEAK YES, ABSOLUTELY.
BUT THAT I'M NOT GONNA RECOGNIZE.
BUT NOW WE'RE JUST GOING BACK AND FORTH, FORTH.
I'M NOT GONNA RECOGNIZE JESSICA, I'M GONNA WAIT.
I DIDN'T SAY I WAS GONNA RECOGNIZE SHE WAS HE SPEAK I UN OH, PLEASE.
UH, SO, BUT I GUESS WHAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR IS IF COUNSEL IS OKAY WITH HEIGHT, UM, IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS, AND THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN CONVEY TO DEVELOPER'S, COUNSEL, WE'LL KEEP THAT DECISION.
[01:10:01]
SO WE'LL MOVE ALONG.KATHY, ARE YOU DONE? OKAY, BRIAN, THANK YOU, MAYOR.
SO I'M READING AN INTERESTING BOOK RIGHT NOW CALLED ARBITRARY LINES.
UH, I WOULD RECOMMEND EVERYBODY HAVE A LOOK AT IT.
THE BEACH WAS MORE INTERESTING THAN THE BOOK, SO, UH, I READ AS MUCH AS I COULD.
BUT, UM, IT'S A VERY, UH, CURRENT USEFUL LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF ZONING ON HOUSING IN THE COUNTRY.
AND COUNSELOR KINSELLA READING THROUGH THAT, I'M JUST LIKE, OH MY GOSH, HOW ARE WE GONNA, HOW, HOW ARE WE GONNA MAKE CHANGE IN SEDONA? VERY, VERY DIFFICULT FOR SURE.
AND I HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THE, YOU KNOW, MIRACLE SOLUTIONS PART OF THE BOOK, VERY MUCH LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT.
I I, WELL SUPPOSEDLY, LIKE IN THE LAST THREE CHAPTERS, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL THE PROBLEMS ARE SOLVED.
UM, BUT IT GETS AT THE POLITICAL, RACIAL, AND SOCIOECONOMIC BASIS FOR WHAT'S CREATED SO MANY OF THE HOUSING CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE.
UM, AND, AND INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, IT WAS GIVEN TO ME BY A MEMBER OF THE FREEDOM CAUCUS, WHICH IS AS UNEXPECTED AS COULD POSSIBLY BE.
UM, I'M WILLING TO DISCUSS EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THE DISCUSSION PAGE.
I THINK IT'S ALL RELEVANT FOR US TO LOOK AT.
I THINK THAT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO HAND US A, UH, BLANK SHEET OF PAPER AND SAY, WHAT DO YOU WANT? UM, WHAT COMES TO MIND FOR ME REPEATEDLY AS WE HAVE BEEN TALKING HERE, IS DURING THE COMMUNITY PLAN PROCESS, DURING THE PRIMARY HOUSING COMMUNITY MEETING, THE ONE AT WEST SEDONA SCHOOL, AS I RECALL, UM, THERE WAS A LOT OF EXAMPLES OF THESE ARE INNOVATIVE IDEAS OF WHAT COULD BE DONE TO DRIVE MORE HOUSING SOLUTIONS, BE IT DUPLEX, TRIPLEX IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
SO I THINK THAT BRINGING US STRONG MAN OR STRONG MEN THAT WE CAN REACT TO MIGHT END UP BEING MORE EFFECTIVE THAN SAYING, WELL, HEY, WHAT DO YOU, YOU KNOW, HAVING US TRY TO COME UP WITH A RULE FOR YIKES, RIGHT? I MEAN, IT'S SO FAR OUT OF OUR, OUT OF OUR WHEELHOUSE, RIGHT? I GUESS I GOT MORE HERE, BUT GO AHEAD.
IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE INTERESTED IN.
WE JUST DIDN'T WANNA SPEND A LOT OF TIME FIG FIGURING OUT A HEIGHT RULE AND THEN YOU GUYS TO TELL US WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN DOING ANY HEIGHT, BUT US HAVING, BUT WE NEED SOMETHING TO, TO, TO RESPOND TO OR TO REACT TO.
I THINK, LIKE, I DON'T THINK YOU WANT US JUST WITH A BLANK SHEET OF PAPER TELLING YOU THIS IS WHY WE THINK HEIGHT OR DENSITY OUGHT TO BE LIKE, I MEAN, SORRY, NO OFFENSE TO ANY OF US, BUT LIKE, THAT'S NOT OUR JOB, IT'S NOT OUR AREA OF EXPERTISE.
SO I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MORE TO REACT TO THAN TO JUST BE ASKED WHAT DO I WANT? UM, I AGREE WITH COUNCILOR FURMAN, THAT EMPHASIS ON 89 A IN PARTICULAR FOR MULTIFAMILY MAKES SENSE.
UM, ONE OF THE AREAS THAT I THINK WE ALSO NEED HELP AND EDUCATION ON IS AROUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TRANSLATING THE HOUSING NEED WE HAVE INTO MARKET AND THE VARIOUS TIERS OF A MI QUALIFICATION, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S WHEN, I THINK IT WAS WHEN THE LAST TIME THAT THE SADDLE ROCK PROJECT WAS IN FRONT OF US AND WE ALMOST STARTED GETTING INTO NEGOTIATION OVER A MI LEVELS IN THAT MEETING.
AND I'M LIKE, WAIT, WHOA, WHOA, WHOA.
LIKE WE HAVE NO BASIS FOR TRYING TO TELL THEM WE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT MIX OF THOSE SHOULD BE.
AGAIN, TRANSLATING THE OVERALL NEED, IF IT'S 1500 UNITS, OKAY, ROUGHLY WHAT'S THAT LOOK LIKE OF MARKET? YOU KNOW, 120%, A HUNDRED PERCENT, 80% A MI, WHAT'S THAT LOOK LIKE? I DON'T KNOW.
AND IF IT'S OUT THERE ALREADY AND I DON'T KNOW, AND THAT'S MY FAULT, THEN I'M SORRY.
UM, YOU KNOW, STUFF LIKE ADUS, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE US COME UP WITH OUR OWN VERSION OF A SOLAR CO-OP FOR ADUS, WHERE LITERALLY YOU CAN MAKE IT A, A TURNKEY SOLUTION.
YOU KNOW, HERE'S THREE DIFFERENT ADUS, YOU ORDER IT, IT GETS DELIVERED ON A FLATBED TRUCK, GETS CRANED OVER TO THE BACKSIDE OF YOUR HOUSE, BOOM, BOOM, BOOM, GET IT DONE.
LIKE, IT'S A WAY TO GET SOME HOUSING BUILT RELATIVELY QUICKLY IF YOU MAKE IT EASY.
AND THERE ARE OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE THAT HAVE DEFINED STANDARDS FOR TINY HOUSE AND THAT SORT OF THING, RIGHT? WHICH IS KIND OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN A SENSE, RIGHT? UM, SO THOSE ARE A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, JUMPING AROUND IN MY HEAD.
ALSO, I WOULD ADD, UH, ON MONDAY THIS WEEK I SAW RENDERINGS OF A PROPOSED PROJECT THAT SHOWED THE HEIGHT IMPACT FROM THE AFFECTED NEIGHBORHOOD.
[01:15:01]
SO ONE OTHER THING THAT JUST MAKES ME THINK ABOUT IS, IS HAVING THE EQUIVALENT RENDERINGS AVAILABLE ALONG 89 A OF, YOU KNOW, YOU PICK THE PARCEL, RIGHT? I MEAN, WE POPULARLY TALK ABOUT CERTAIN RETAIL PLAZAS THAT OUGHT TO BE OR COULD BE CANDIDATES FOR REDEVELOPMENT.OKAY, WELL WHAT'S IT LOOK LIKE TO HAVE A THREE STORY HEIGHT ON ONE OF THOSE PARCELS LIKE THAT? I MEAN, THAT WOULD HELP US BE ABLE TO GO, OKAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? LIKE THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE VIEW OF THUNDER MOUNTAIN.
SO NOW THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD SAY THAT DEVELOPERS WOULD BE ABLE TO KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY GOT A GOOD SHOT AT GOING THREE STORIES IN A PARTICULAR AREA.
SO I'M VARYING LEVELS OF DEPTH THAT I'M GETTING INTO HERE, OBVIOUSLY, SORRY IT'S ALL OVER THE PLACE, BUT IT'S PARTLY A RESPONSE TO WHAT I'VE HEARD SO FAR AND THOUGHTS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING AROUND IN MY HEAD.
BUT ULTIMATELY, YEAH, LET'S, LET'S LOOK AT ALL THIS STUFF.
BUT I THINK WE NEED, I NEED, I THINK WE NEED IDEAS TO REACT AGAINST THAT WE CAN KICK AROUND AS OPPOSED TO US COMING UP WITH THEM OURSELVES.
SO IN TERMS OF MY PRIORITIES, I WOULD SAY MY NUMBER ONE PRIORITIES ADUS USE, I'VE BEEN WAITING AND WAITING AND WAITING FOR US TO DEVELOP US ORDINANCE ON ADUS.
NOW THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS PASSED HB 2070, THEN WE KNOW WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO.
SO TODAY I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION SPECIFICALLY ON ADUS BEFORE WE LEAVE.
I'D LIKE TO GIVE DIRECTION TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO COME UP WITH AN ORDINANCE.
I DON'T KNOW IF I GET SUPPORT HERE, BUT THAT'S WHAT I, THAT'S A GOAL I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
I LIKE THE IDEA THAT KURT COMES UP WITH IT AS WELL.
I THINK THAT THAT IS A FAST SOLUTION.
IT'S LIKE IT COULD ACTUALLY GET DONE QUICKLY.
AND I THINK THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO THAT AND WE HAVE PREVENTED THEM BECAUSE OF THE KITCHEN ISSUE, YOU KNOW, FOR SOMEBODY TO ACTUALLY LIVE THERE.
UH, SO THAT'S MY REALLY MY HIGH HIGHEST PRIORITY.
I DO AGREE WITH MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ON 89 A, BUT I ALSO THINK WE'RE HAVING A DISCUSSION NOW ABOUT THINKING WHAT EXISTS IN SEDONA TODAY.
I'M THINKING 4 0 1 JORDAN IS COMING UP THINKING THAT THE WESTERN GATEWAY IS COMING UP.
I MEAN, AREN'T THESE STANDARDS GONNA APPLY ACROSS, I DON'T WANNA LIMIT OUR, OUR CONVERSATION TO A LOT HERE AND A LOT THERE.
UH, 'CAUSE I WOULD, I'M VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM, FROM THE AUDIENCE FROM MAX AND LUKE.
WHAT, BECAUSE I, I THINK HOME OWNERSHIP IS AN IMPORTANT THING AND HOW WE CAN MAKE, UH, SINGLE FAMILY OR DUPLEXES OR THAT PEOPLE COULD OWN ACTUALLY LESS EXPENSIVE TO BUILD IF WE HAVE STANDARDS THAT ARE CREATING.
AND THAT DESIGN, PETE, THAT, THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, CONSTRUCTION, AND I KNOW, 'CAUSE I'M GOING THROUGH THIS RIGHT NOW.
EVERY TIME YOU INCREASE THE DESIGN, THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS GO UP.
SO WHAT ARE THE WAYS IN WHICH WE CAN LOOK AT SOME SIMPLER STARTER HOUSES THAT PEOPLE COULD ACTUALLY BUY IN THIS TOWN AND THAT WE COULD MAKE THEM MORE AFFORDABLE BECAUSE OUR DESIGN STANDARDS ARE MORE RELAXED.
UH, SO THOSE ARE MY, SOME OF MY PRIORITIES.
I AGREE THAT THIS WHOLE LIST NEEDS TO HAVE A CONVERSATION.
UH, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO BE TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THIS, BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THE, WE CAN HAVE AN IMPACT IF WE ARE LOOKING FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD.
AND, UH, AND THAT'S, I I DON'T WANNA JUST DO THIS FOR THIS YEAR.
I WANT TO DO IT FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS OR 10 YEARS.
'CAUSE I DO THINK THAT WE CAN, WE TALKED ABOUT CREATING COMMUNITIES.
I LOVE THAT PHOTO OF THE COMMUNITIES THAT, UM, CYNTHIA AND JEANNIE SHOWED.
'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE DO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AS WELL AS, AGAIN, IN THE VACANT LAND WITH LARGER PARCELS THAT WE WILL BE LOOKING AT SHORTLY, THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMUNITY DESIGNS.
SO I I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THAT TOO.
CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? YOU MENTIONED STARTER HOMES.
UM, NOT NECESSARILY AS SINGLE FAMILY THOUGH, RIGHT? LIKE CONDOS WOULD BE OKAY.
JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YEAH, WE'RE
[01:20:01]
NOT RIGHT NARROWING DOWN THERE.YOU KNOW, IT GUY SPOKE LAST NIGHT ABOUT PRE-APPROVED PLANS.
IT WOULD BE, I MEAN, NOT EASY, BUT IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE REASONABLE TO, BUT THEN THAT IS SOMETHING THAT, I MEAN, WE COULD HAVE PRE-APPROVED PLANS.
IT DON'T HAVE TO BE GET APPROVAL FROM ANYBODY THAT IF THEY BUY THE PLANS AND THEY HAVE A LOT, THEY CAN JUST BUILD IT.
UM, AND THAT'S, AND IT WOULD BE, I MEAN, REASONABLE TO START WITH STARTER HOMES.
AND I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE COULD DO.
I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE ANYTHING.
I MEAN, I THINK THE COUNCIL WOULD BASICALLY, ONCE THAT WAS DONE, HAVE TO SORT OF BACK AWAY FROM SORT OF MICROMANAGING EVERY PART OF THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AFFORDABLE HOUSING MEANS AFFORDABLE CONSTRUCTION.
IT DOES, IT'S NEVER GONNA LOOK LIKE EVERYTHING IN SEDONA.
AND IF WE KEEP WANTING IT TO DO THAT, WE MIGHT AS WELL JUST STOP HAVING THESE MEETINGS AND MOVE ON TO SOMETHING ELSE.
SO I THINK THAT, I MEAN, I'M IN, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF, OF SOME LIMITED NUMBER OF, OF PRE-APPROVED STARTER HOME PLANS.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY WOULD DO IT, BUT I MEAN, SOME PEOPLE MANAGE TO BUY PROPERTIES.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK CAN BE DONE.
I GUESS THERE'S JUST A SPECIFIC, I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR BECAUSE AS EVERYBODY HAS SAID, WE HAVE NO BASIS FOR MAKING THESE DECISIONS.
BUT I I JUST HAVE A SIMPLE QUESTION.
THREE STORIES ON 89 A, IS IT OKAY FOR THEM TO TALK TO DEVELOPERS ABOUT THREE STORIES ON 89 A? BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA WANNA SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
WE'RE GONNA WANNA SEE WHAT THE NEIGHBORS SAY ABOUT IT.
WE, IT, IT, WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE, WE'RE REALLY NOT GOING WELL.
I'M NOT GOING TO ANSWER MY OWN QUESTION.
SO I, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT, I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE THE KIND OF DIRECTION THAT I THINK THEY WOULD BE LOOKING FOR.
AND MY SENSE IS THAT THIS COUNCIL'S NOT PARTICULARLY WILLING TO DO THAT.
UH, 'CAUSE WE WANT MUCH, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW.
BRIAN, ARE YOU WILLING TO DO IT? YES.
MELISSA, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
I MEAN, BUT IT, IT'S NOT A BLANKET.
WELL, YOU'VE GOTTA DO THE WORK, BUT CERTAINLY WILLING TO CONSIDER IT.
YOU, I, I DON'T, I I MEAN THREE STORIES IS NOT PATENTLY OFF THE TABLE FOR 89 A WELL, THINK WE HAVEN'T SAID GOTTA DO THE WORK.
THAT'S THE KIND OF FEEDBACK THEY'RE LOOKING FOR IS THREE.
IF IF THREE STORIES ON 89 A IS SOMETHING THEY WOULD, THAT THEY WOULD BE, SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED TO KIND OF CONSIDER GIVEN ALL THE DESIGN AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S REQUIRED.
IS THAT SOMETHING WE WOULD GIVE THEM AUTHORITY TO DO? THAT'S WHY I SUGGESTED HAVING RENDERINGS, RIGHT? THAT SHOW WHAT A 3D HEIGHT, A A THIRD FLOOR HEIGHT.
BUT IT, IT WOULD LOOK LIKE, SO, SO PEOPLE HAVE SOMETHING TO REACT TO.
BUT IT, IT, THE THE ACTUAL THING WILL NEVER LOOK LIKE THE RENDERING.
THEY COME IN DIFFERENT, THEY'LL COME IN WITH, WITH DIFFERENT SITES.
ANSWER HEIGHT QUESTION, YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT HEIGHT AS THE ISSUE.
AND A RENDERING WILL SHOW THE HEIGHT IMPACT IRRESPECTIVE OF MASSING, UNRELIEVED PLANES, ET CETERA.
THAT'S, THAT'S NOT THE POINT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT HEIGHT.
AND CAN WE, CAN WE LIVE WITH A HEIGHT? AND I'M SAYING WE SHOULD CERTAINLY LOOK AT IT.
THERE'S TOOLS AVAILABLE TO, SO IS THAT HOW YOU WOULD, IS THAT HOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED ON THE HEIGHT ISSUE ITSELF ALONG 89 A TO, TO HAVE SOME RENDERINGS THAT THE COUNCIL CAN LOOK AT WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY OTHER DESIGN CRITERIA? I THINK THAT'S A FAIRLY QUICK WAY OF DOING WAY TO START SOME FILTERING A WAY TO START.
BECAUSE IF ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S CUTTING OFF A VIEW FROM PARTICULAR PLACES, OKAY, WELL WE KNOW THAT'S GONNA BE A PROBLEM, RIGHT? BUT RIGHT NOW WE DON'T KNOW.
WELL, WE DO KNOW IT'LL CUT OFF THE VIEW FROM, FROM THE STREET.
DEPENDS WHERE YOU PUT THE BUILDING THOUGH.
WELL, IT DOES, BUT THEREIN LIES PART OF THE CHALLENGE AS WELL.
YOU PUT THE HAWING, BUT HOW DO YOU CONSIDER HEIGHT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MASS? SEE, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WE AREN'T GONNA BE WILLING TO, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA BE WILLING TO DO THAT.
UH, A QUICK ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS YES, ALMOND HEIGHT.
A MORE DETAILED ANSWER ABOUT THAT CARRIE, IS I WOULD LIKE, FOR ME, IT'S GOING BACK TO THE COMMENT ABOUT COMMENT I MADE ABOUT PROCESS CERTAINTY.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GIVE YOU STAFF THIS,
[01:25:01]
YOU THE GENERAL STAFF, A WAY TO BRING GOOD PROJECTS TO US.YOU, YOU HAVE AN ABILITY TO EVALUATE GOOD PROJECTS THAT'S PROBABLY MORE REFINED THAN WE DO.
YOU'VE SAT THROUGH THE, THE COMMUNITY PLAN PROCESS MULTIPLE TIMES.
YOU HAVE IDEAS, YOU KNOW, THE PROBLEMS THAT EXIST.
I WOULD LIKE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY FOR, TO ENCOURAGE STAFF TO BRING WHAT THEY THINK PROJECTS ARE GOOD.
IT DIDN'T MEET THE LDC, IT VIOLATED IN THIS AREA, BUT WE'RE BRINGING IT TO YOU ANYHOW BECAUSE MAYBE WE'VE GIVEN YOU SOME DIRECTION THAT WE'VE GOT SOME FLEXIBILITY ON THIS THING.
AND, AND FOR IN, IN A WAY FOR YOU NOT TO WORRY ABOUT A NO FROM US, RIGHT? IT'S NOT, IT, IT WOULDN'T BE A CRITICISM A NO, BUT GIVE YOU SOME BOLDNESS TO BRING, UH, PROJECTS THAT YOU THINK SORT OF HAVE FIT THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAVE.
SO THAT'S A, A MORE GENERAL CONVERSATION FOR ME.
I'M WILLING TO GO THREE STORIES ON, ON UH, ON 89 A.
I'D LOVE TO SEE RENDERINGS AS WE FIGURE OUT HOW TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION.
UH, I MIGHT EVEN BE WILLING TO GO MORE IN DIFFERENT AREAS, RIGHT? WE HAVE FIVE STORY BUILDING, LIKE YOU MENTIONED IN TOWN.
WE HAVE THAT IN TOWN AND WE TALK ABOUT THE CULTURAL PARK AND OUR ABILITY TO DO IT THERE I THINK ALSO EXISTS.
ALRIGHT, I'M GONNA TAKE MY TURN.
AS FAR AS THE CULTURAL PARK, WE DON'T KNOW, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY GONNA BLOCK ANYBODY'S VIEWS.
AND YOU ALSO HAVE THE DEPTH BELOW GRADE.
BUT I'VE HEARD FROM PEOPLE BEFORE THE PUBLIC WHERE THEY FEEL THAT DRIVING DOWN 89 A, YOU DON'T WANT THUNDER MOUNTAIN BLOCKED.
THEY DON'T WANT PEOPLE, PEOPLE DON'T WANNA SEE THEIR VIEWS BLOCKED DRIVING ON THE ROAD.
SO I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT, AND THAT'S A CONCERN TO ME.
WHAT WAS REALLY NICE, CARRIE, AND I HAVEN'T SEEN THOSE RENDERINGS OF, UH, THE, THE DEVELOPMENT BEFORE THAT WAS IN, THAT'S IN THIS PRESENTATION WHEN YOU CAN MAKE A THREE STORY BUILDING DISAPPEAR BECAUSE UP AGAINST THE MOUNTAIN, IT'S UP AGAINST AIRPORT MESA.
THAT'S A GOOD, YOU KNOW, GOOD PLACEMENT FOR IT ON 89 A I THINK WOULD, IT MIGHT BE A PROBLEM.
AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, WE COME UP WITH WHATEVER INFORMATION WE COME UP WITH ARE DESIGNED FOR THREE STORIES AND THEN YOU GO TO DEVELOP AND SAY THAT'S THIS IS A GOOD IDEA, COUNSELOR'S GONNA GO WITH IT.
AND THEN IT GETS STILL PICKED APART.
BUT WHAT I'D LIKE TO KNOW IS CYNTHIA MIGHT KNOW IF SHE HAS A MIC OR YOU BOTH, HOW MANY VACANT LOTS DO WE HAVE ON 89 A THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OTHER THAN THE, THE PROPERTY OWNED BY NAH, WHICH THEY'RE NOT GONNA DEVELOP, THEY'RE NOT GONNA SELL.
MAYBE IN THE FUTURE YOU DON'T KNOW.
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION.
ARE THERE REALLY ANY LOTS ON 89 A AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE HARMONY MOBILE PARK HAS JUST RECENTLY SOLD IN THE PAST MONTH THAT'S GONNA BE DEVELOPED BY SOMEBODY.
I'M NOT ASKING FOR ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE, ARE WE EVEN AWARE OF IT? SO I THINK IF I CAN INTERJECT VERY QUICKLY, UM, THERE MIGHT NOT, WE CAN, WE CAN GET INFORMATION ABOUT VACANT LOSS, BUT WE ALSO WOULD BE LOOKING AT POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT.
I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF POTENTIAL FOR THAT.
I WOULD ALSO SAY, JUST TO CLARIFY THAT WE WOULD NOT DO A BLANKET, YOU CAN GO TO THREE STORIES ON 89 A.
UM, AND IT'S KIND OF, WE HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION SLIDE COMING UP IF WE GET TO THAT POINT, AND HOPEFULLY WE DO WE'LL.
UM, BUT IT WOULD BE A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
AND IF THE EXPECTATION FROM COUNSEL IS THAT WE HAVE SOME RENDERINGS ABOUT HOW THAT WOULD LOOK FROM THE ROAD AND WHAT VIEWS THAT WOULD BLOCK COMPARED TO A STANDARD HEIGHT, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TAKE THAT TO A DISCUSSION WITH A DEVELOPER AND TELL 'EM THEY'RE, THEY'RE WILLING TO CONSIDER IT.
HERE'S THEIR EXPECTATION OF WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE IN ORDER TO CONSIDER IT.
BUT WHAT I'M HEARING YOU ASK TODAY, AND I, WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM DEVELOPERS IN THE PAST, THE PROCESS IS CHALLENGING.
YES, THEY GO TO YOU AND THEN IT'S A CHALLENGE BECAUSE IT'S GONNA MAY COME TO US.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE MAKING IT STREAMLINED.
WE'RE SUPPOSED, AT LEAST I HAVE THAT IN MY MIND TO TRY TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR YOU TO GIVE BETTER ANSWERS TO THE DEVELOPERS TO MOVE FORWARD FASTER.
SO AGAIN, WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT COUNSEL IS WILLING TO CONSIDER IF YOU HAVE GOOD VISUALS OF WHAT THE VIEW IMPACTS WOULD BE.
AND I THINK THAT IS, KNOWING THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO CONSIDER IT IS A GOOD, GOOD SPOT AND KNOWING WHAT YOU EXPECT AS PART OF YOUR REVIEW PROCESSES.
SO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION NOW? I THINK SO.
IF I COULD INTERJECT HERE, AND THAT IS A BIG PART OF WHY WE'RE HERE.
UH, THAT IS A BIG PART OF WHY WE'RE HERE.
WE AREN'T ASKING YOU TO TELL US TONIGHT HOW HIGH YOU FEEL THAT YOU
[01:30:01]
WOULD BE COMFORTABLE IN APPROVING.WE'RE LOOKING FOR WHAT ARE THE PRIORITIES THAT YOU WANT US TO KEY ON? UM, AND WHEN WE LOOK AT AND, AND SO THAT WE COME, WE CAN COME BACK WITH SOME OF THAT MEAT, UH, FOR YOU TO DECIDE.
UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF THE BIGGER THINGS HERE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS, UM, WHAT ARE THE PRIORITIES? WHERE, WHAT DIRECTIONS SHOULD WE, WE WE BE SPENDING OUR EFFORTS IN? UM, AND YES, WE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HEIGHT, WE TALKED ABOUT 89 A HERE, UH, QUITE A LOT.
AND WE HAVE ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE RENDERINGS, UH, THAT COUNCILOR FOLTZ WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT, UH, NOT ONLY ALONG 89 A, BUT IN THE FUTURE, UH, PART OF ONE OF THE CODE ALLOWANCES MIGHT BE THAT IF YOU DO WANT TO USE THIS, UH, SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR HEIGHT, WELL YOU HAVE TO PROVE, UH, THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO ADVERSELY AFFECT, UH, UM, YOUR VIEW SHEDS BY, BY USING, UH, THESE RENDERINGS OR OTHER MEANS THAT CAN, CAN HELP US.
UH, UH, SO YES, UM, HEIGHT, WE HAVE A VERY GOOD UNDERSTANDING NOW THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO WORK ON.
WE ALSO DO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS GOING TO BE A CASE BY CASE BASIS, AND WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO BUILD IN TOOLS TO PROVE THOSE CASE BY CASE BASIS.
COUNCILOR DUNN, SORT OF WHAT STEVE SAID.
SO WHAT, WHAT I'M REALLY HEARING IS WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE GUIDELINES, UM, THAT WE CAN GIVE TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OR WHOMEVER NEEDS IT THAT SAYS THESE THINGS ARE IMPORTANT TO US, DON'T COME TO US IF THEY'RE VIOLATED.
AND ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE DON'T BLOCK VIEW, SHED MAYBE DON'T BLOCK THE VIEW SHED AND IT'S A FIVE STORY BUILDING.
OKAY? SO THEN MAYBE YOU BRING THAT FIVE STORY BUILDING.
UM, IF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS BLOCKING VIEWS, AND THAT'S THE KEY IMPORTANT PIECE.
PROVE THAT YOU'RE NOT BLOCKING THE VIEW FOR NEIGHBORHOODS OR WHATEVER.
HOPEFULLY PEOPLE ARE NOT LOOKING AT THUNDER MOUNTAIN WHILE THEY'RE DRIVING.
I JUST WANNA POINT THAT OUT ON 89 A.
BUT, UM, THEN THERE'S OTHER THINGS WHERE I KNOW I AM NOT QUALIFIED TO GIVE YOU ANY DIRECTION WHATSOEVER.
I, I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT I'M THE PERSON TO SAY ANYTHING SPECIFIC ABOUT ROOF LINE VARIATION, TRANSPARENCY, MASSING, BUILDING MATERIALS.
I CAN SAY TO YOU IT SHOULDN'T STICK OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB.
UM, IT SHOULD FIT INTO THE SEDONA CHARACTER, WHATEVER THAT MEANS.
BUT THAT TO ME IS ABOUT AS FAR AS I THINK WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO FOR US TO GO INTO THE MICROMANAGEMENT DETAILS.
OH MY GOD, I CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT I WOULD BUILD.
I CAN, AND I'M SURE YOU DON'T WANNA LIVE THERE, THAT'S ALL I GOTTA SAY.
BUT I THINK WE NEED TO BE REALLY CAREFUL HERE AND GIVE YOU THE AUTHORITY TO DO THE THINGS THAT YOU KNOW HOW TO DO.
AND WE HAVE TO TRUST YOU TO BE ABLE TO DO THOSE THINGS ONCE WE'VE GIVEN YOU SOME GUIDELINES.
OBVIOUSLY ADUS, WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON ADUS BECAUSE IT COMPLETELY IMPACTS A LOT OF THINGS POTENTIALLY.
UM, AND WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD BE ENGAGED IN A CONVERSATION AROUND PARKING REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF CARS WE PUT ON THE ROAD, THE NUMBER OF CARS THAT HAVE TO BE HOUSED AT A PARTICULAR, YOU KNOW, FIVE STORY APARTMENT BUILDING TO, TO CARRIE'S EARLIER POINT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE NUMBER OF CARS THAT HAS TO BE HOUSED IN A TWO STORY APARTMENT BUILDING.
SO WE NEED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER OR NOT WE UNDERSTAND THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THOSE THINGS.
BUT THEN WE SHOULD JUST TURN IT OVER TO THEM ONCE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE GUIDELINES SHOULD BE.
WE JUST LET STAFF DO THE RIGHT THINGS AND THEN BRING THOSE TO US.
SO JESSICA OBVIOUSLY DISAGREES.
OKAY, SO I, I SPENT, BEFORE YOU GO, I WANNA REMIND YOU OF A STORY THAT YOU AND I WENT ON A SITE VISIT FOR SUNSET LOFTS.
DO YOU REMEMBER THE INCIDENT THAT WE HAD? MM-HMM.
IT WAS ALL APPROVED AND THE NEIGHBORS WANTED TO TALK TO US ABOUT THEIR, UH, VIEW SHED FOR A TWO STORY.
BASICALLY SUNSET LOFTS WAS A TWO STORY, BUT IT WAS DOWN BELOW, BUT IT WAS TECHNICALLY A TWO STORY WITH A A THREE STORY.
THAT LOSS IS TWO TWO AND AND IT, IT IS FULLY HEIGHT COMPLIANT, RIGHT? NO, NO, NO.
BUT THE RESIDENTS WERE SAYING YOU'RE BLOCKING OUR VIEWS.
SO THAT TERM BLOCKING THE VIEWS
[01:35:01]
IN THIS COMMUNITY IS VERY SUBJECTIVE.SO THEY WERE SAYING BECAUSE THEIR HOUSE, THEIR COMPLEX IS BUILT 1970 STANDARDS THAT, THAT FURTHER DOWN ON THE GROUND, THEY'RE NOT RAISED UP.
IT'S SOMETHING ABOUT THE FLOOD ZONE.
IT'S NOT PART OF THE FLOOD ZONE, BUT WE'LL GET A LOT OF PUSHBACK FOR THAT SUBJECTIVE OPINION OF BLOCKED VIEWS.
I, AND I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT WE HAVE TO BE WORRIED ABOUT THAT.
I'M NOT, I'M NOT DISAGREEING THAT IT'S SUBJECTIVE.
IT'S TO BRIAN'S POINT, WHY YOU HAVE THE RENDERINGS AND FOR, I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME PLACE WITH THE RENDERINGS AND THE IMPACT.
I MEAN THEY EVEN DID WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE, YOU KNOW, ALMOST LIKE A DRONE VIEW.
AND YOU HAD THE ABILITY TO SEE AS YOU STEPPED FURTHER AND FURTHER AWAY MM-HMM
SO IT'S NOT JUST A STREET VIEW, IT'S ACTUALLY A VIEW AS YOU MOVE.
SO IF YOU HAVE THOSE RENDERINGS AND YOU CAN SHOW THEM TO US AND WE CAN SAY, WELL IF YOU WANNA GO HAVE THE CONVERSATION NOW, MAYOR WITH THOSE PEOPLE AND YOU CAN SHOW THEM THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN, THEN YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING TO GO HAVE A CONVERSATION.
OTHERWISE, IT'S TWO SUBJECTIVE POINTS OF VIEW.
AND I WAS WITH BRIAN ON MONDAY.
THE VICE MAYOR WAS ALSO, UH, WE SAW THAT, UH, DEMONSTRATION.
SO I KNOW AND I REALLY THOUGHT IT WAS NICE.
ANYWAY, SO JUST TO WRAP UP THIS CONVERSATION.
OH, THE VICE MAYOR TO GO FIRST.
SO I THINK WHAT I WANNA ASK YOU ALL, CARRIE, STEVE, ARE YOU REJECTING PROJECTS RIGHT NOW? WHY? NO, BECAUSE YOU THINK WRAPPING UP BECAUSE THEY DON'T FIT AND YOU DON'T THINK COUNCIL WILL APPROVE, WILL APPROVE THEM.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD SAY REJECTING.
I THINK WE'RE GIVING AS PEOPLE COME IN AND THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY CAN DO AND HOW FAR THEY CAN PUSH THINGS WE'RE UM, I THINK THAT BASED ON THIS WE MIGHT TELL 'EM TO PUSH IT A LITTLE FURTHER.
THAT THAT'S MY MESSAGE TO YOU.
AND I, AND I GUESS I WOULD CLARIFY THAT RENDERINGS WE CAN, AND AGAIN, IT MIGHT BE THAT YOU JUST GET A BOX INSTEAD OF THE FULLY ARCHITECTURALLY DESIGNED THING JUST TO SEE WHAT, 'CAUSE AGAIN, THAT'S A QUESTION ON A FUTURE SLIDE.
UM, BUT IT WOULD ALSO, WE WOULD BE COMPARING IT TO HOW WOULD A VIEW BE BLOCKED WITH AN LDC COMPLIANT BUILDING VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.
IT WOULDN'T BE A VACANT TO A THREE STORY BUILDING.
WE HAD TWO STORY BUILDING VERSUS A THREE STORY BUILDING ESSENTIALLY.
SO, AND JUST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD BE VERY RESISTANT TO A FIVE STORY BUILDING ON 89 A OH YEAH.
WELL PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT.
BUT YOU KNOW, THERE IS 89 A IS NOT JUST IN WEST SEDONA.
BECAUSE I WAS THINKING ABOUT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF, IF THIS WOULD APPLY TO OTHER PLACES, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE UH, ROYAL BLA IN UPTOWN, THAT'S A THREE STORY BUILDING THAT LOOKS LIKE A TWO STORY BUILDING.
BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE LAND WORKS.
IN FACT, I DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE FOR YEARS THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY THREE STORIES.
'CAUSE YOU ONLY WHAT ABOUT THE BEST WESTERN? YES.
YEAH, IT'S ABOUT FIVE STORIES ACTUALLY.
YEAH, IT'S NOT THREE, IT'S FIVE STORIES.
IS IT, YOU DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE
WELL SEE, YOU DON'T, BECAUSE ON STREET SIDE IT'S TWO STORIES AND THAT'S THE WAY SUNSET LOSS IS GOING TO BE.
WHICH IS THAT, THAT'S A TOTALLY PERFECT SCENARIO FOR ME.
I THINK WE HAVE DIRECTION ON HEIGHT.
SO ARE YOU JUST CLOSING OUT YOUR PRESENTATION HEIGHT'S? THE FIRST BULLET POINT?
JUST WANNA, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE ONE PUBLIC COMMENT CARD, SO I JUST WANT TO, I DON'T WANNA STOP YOU.
UM, I THINK MAYBE WE'LL SKIP OVER THE KITCHENS 'CAUSE IT'S, I THINK THE A DU DISCUSSION.
WE'LL JUST GET THROUGH THE REST OF 'EM THEN MAYBE COME BACK TO THAT.
UM, PARKING REQUIREMENTS, UM, COVERED PARKING IN GARAGES.
GARAGES ARE REQUIRED FOR HOUSES THAT GO, THAT ARE OVER 1500 SQUARE FEET AND COVERED PARKING IS REQUIRED FOR, I THINK AS YOU PROBABLY ARE ALL FAMILIAR, BASED ON YOUR DISCUSSION FROM A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, FOR MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES HAVE TO PROVIDE HALF OF A COVERED SPACE PER UNIT OR ONE COVERED SPACE FOR EVERY TWO UNITS.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU SHOULD BE TALKING TO PEOPLE OR SELLING THEM, LIKE THIS IS WHAT THE EXPECTATION IS AND JUST BUILD THE COVERED PARKING
WELL, I THINK WE FOUND THAT WE ARE NOT AGREEABLE TO THOSE CHANGES.
[01:40:01]
THE REALISTIC WHAT, I MEAN, I'M TOTALLY AGREEABLE TO IT, BUT AS A COUNCIL, I, IT'S A, IT APPEARS THAT WHILE I, IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO BE ABLE TO CUT COSTS WHERE YOU CAN.AND I FIND THAT THE SMALLER THINGS ARE SMALL, BUT THEY ADD UP.
AND SO, UM, I EVERYBODY ELSE SHOULD, SHOULD CHIP IN ON THIS.
I JUST, I JUST DON'T, I MEAN, I THINK YOU HAVE BROUGHT US PROJECTS THAT YOU HAVE SIGNED OFF ON RECOMMENDED AND WE HAVE PICKED THEM APART AND HATE THEM.
SO I TOTALLY AGREE THAT YOU SHOULD GO FORWARD AND BRING US STUFF THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU THINK IS A GOOD PROJECT.
BUT I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S NO GUARANTEE.
I THINK YOU KNOW THAT AND I THINK YOU WOULD LIKE TO AVOID THAT IF YOU COULD, BUT YOU CAN'T AVOID IT.
SO THAT'S GONNA CONTINUE TO HAPPEN.
I THINK MY SENSE IS THAT WHAT COUNCILOR DUNN SAID IS 100% ACCURATE.
THAT OUR JOB AS COUNCIL SHOULD BE TO SET THE POLICY AND LET YOU AND STAFF AND PLOTTING AND ZONING DECIDE ON MASSING AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF THAT IS, IS NOT US.
BUT I THINK THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE, UM, THE OCCUPANTS OF COUNSEL WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU COME FORWARD WITH THOSE AND UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE WAY THAT THE COUNCIL'S GOING TO REACT.
UM, I THINK I ALSO WANT, I I GUESS I UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED WHEN, UM, CITIZENS SAY THEY DON'T WANT THUNDER MOUNTAIN BLOCKED AS THEY DRIVE DOWN.
BUT I, I THINK AS COUNCIL AT SOME POINT, IF WE HAVE THE RENDERINGS AND WE DETERMINE THAT, THAT IT'S GOOD, WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE POLITICAL WILL TO APPROVE IT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE DOWN DOWNHILL FROM SUNSET LOFTS WILL NEVER, EVER AGREE THAT THEIR VIEWS ARE NOT BLOCKED NO MATTER WHAT YOU SHOW THEM, I THINK YOU HAVE TO SHOW THEM SOMETHING BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU ARE JUST TALKING.
I THINK, BUT ONCE WE DO THAT, WE HAVE TO BE WILLING TO ACCEPT THE PEOPLE.
AND I KNOW THAT GIVEN WHAT WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH IN THIS CITY, THE LAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS AND, AND THE KIND OF RE REPERCUSSIONS HAVE OCCURRED, THE COUNCIL SHOULD VERY, VERY SERIOUSLY, I THINK CONSIDER WHETHER WE WANT TO GO DOWN THIS PATH GIVEN WHAT THE REACTION TO SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE BEEN DOING HAS BEEN.
AND I THINK WE HAVE TO BE WILLING TO MAKE THAT DECISION AND ACTUALLY SAY IT IF THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE THINK.
UM, I'M, WE ARE GIVING YOU ALL PUSH IT AND DO THAT AND ALL THE OTHER THING, WHICH I THINK IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
BUT IF YOU PUSH IT AND YOU COME BACK AND WE ARE GUN SHY, IT'S JUST WASTED THE DEVELOPER'S MONEY HAS MADE PEOPLE MORE INSECURE AND PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO PUT, PUT THEMSELVES THROUGH THAT.
SO I THINK, I THINK WE ALL HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SELF-KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WHAT WE ARE ACTUALLY WILLING, HOW FAR AHEAD THE CITY'S ACTUALLY WILLING TO PUT ITSELF IN THIS, IN THESE REGARDS.
COUNCILOR KINSELLA, THANK YOU.
I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE 89 A CORRIDOR AND THE VIEWS AND VIEWS ARE NOT PROTECTED UNDER ARIZONA STATE LAW.
BUT WHAT BROUGHT EVERYBODY TO SEDONA WAS YOU COME HERE AND YOU GO, WOW, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT THAT AND LOOK AT THOSE RED ROCKS AND LOOK AT WHAT THIS IS AND THE FEELING OF THIS AND THIS LITTLE, YOU KNOW, PLATEAUED VALLEY THAT WE HAVE.
UM, IT, IT, IT'S, IT, IT IS SEDONA.
UM, AND IF WE'RE GOING TO INTERFERE WITH THAT EXPERIENCE, UH, AT A SIGNIFICANT LEVEL, IT REALLY, THAT IS A WHOLESALE CHARACTER CHANGE THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT BEFORE.
THAT BEING SAID, I THINK THERE ARE LOTS, THERE ARE PLACES THAT CAN EACH ABSORB HIGHER DENSITY.
[01:45:01]
EXERCISE CARRY HOW MANY YEARS AGO, IF THREE YEARS AGO I THINK, WHERE WE LOOKED AT DIFFERENT, UM, AVAILABLE LOTS THAT WERE THERE AND THEN THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT AMONG THE DAIS AT THAT TIME, WELL I COULD SEE HIGHER DENSITY HERE ON THIS ONE, BUT SOMEONE ELSE, AND I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS P AND Z OR COUNCIL WOULD SAY, WELL, I SEE THAT ONE, BUT I DON'T SEE THAT ONE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE IT'S ALSO SUBJECTIVE.BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO IT OTHER THAN LOT BY LOT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU CAN MAKE A WHOLESALE RULE TO APPLY TO 89 A CORRIDOR, COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR THAT DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT CHANGE ON A, IN A MAGNITUDE THAT WOULD JUST BE, UM, FOR ME, UN I JUST COULDN'T ACCEPT IT.
I MEAN I THINK THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, CARRIE, YOU MENTIONED A FEW MINUTES AGO THAT YOU KNOW, EVEN WITH THIS INPUT ABOUT HEIGHT AND WITH RESPECT TO 89 A THAT YOU WOULD NOT FORESEE A BLANKET RULE THAT THREE STORIES.
SO I, I THINK THERE'S STILL, YOU KNOW, COUNSELOR ELLO, I THINK THERE'S STILL PLENTY OF PROTECTIONS ON THIS.
ONE THING I'VE HEARD A COUPLE TIMES IS THE IDEA OF PROTECTING VIEWS FROM YOUR RESIDENCE WHERE YOU LIVE.
BUT NOW I'VE ALSO HEARD PROTECTING YOUR VIEW WHILE YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD.
I THINK WE NEED TO EXPLORE THAT A LITTLE BIT.
UM, I'M, I THINK I'M FAR MORE SENSITIVE TO A VIEW IMPACT FROM THE PLACE YOU CALL HOME THAT YOU HAVE PAID FOR AND HAVE AN EXPECTATION AROUND VERSUS WHAT YOU SEE DRIVING DOWN 89 A 'CAUSE YOU KIND OF ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE YOUR EYES IN FRONT OF YOU ANYWAYS.
AND YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S THUNDER MOUNTAIN OR COFFEE POT ROCK, THOSE FORMATIONS STAND SO HIGH.
I'M KIND OF EXPECTING TO BE PLEASANTLY SURPRISED THAT WHEN WE SEE A FEW RENDERINGS THAT A THIRD STORY, A THREE STORY BUILDING IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS PROBABLY WILL NOT HAVE AN IMPACT.
BUT AGAIN, THERE'LL STILL BE A SUBJECTIVE QUESTION OF, OKAY, IF I'M USED TO SEEING THIS MUCH AND NOW I ONLY SEE THIS MUCH, WHAT, WHEN IS IT NO LONGER? OKAY, I HAVE NO IDEA.
RIGHT? VERY, VERY CHALLENGING.
AND, YOU KNOW, CONGRATULATIONS TO US.
I THINK WE GET TO, UM, BE THE ARBITERS OF THAT SUBJECTIVITY.
YOU ACTUALLY WERE BRINGING UP PARKING.
THAT'S WHERE I, THAT'S EXACTLY GARAGES AND ALL THAT.
AND I ACTUALLY DID WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT, WHICH IS I THINK THAT ONE'S TOUGH.
I MEAN, IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MULTIFAMILY AND WHEN WE GOT INTO IT LAST WEEK ABOUT NOT CREATING, YOU KNOW, HAVES AND HAVE NOTS THAT GEE, IF IT'S AFFORDABLE, THEN WE'RE NOT GONNA, WE WORRY ABOUT COVERED.
AND IF IT'S MARKET RATE, THEN WE DO.
I THINK THAT SETTING THAT ASIDE, JUST LOOKING AT, OKAY, IF THAT'S AN IMPEDIMENT TO GETTING PROJECTS BUILT, WHETHER IT'S MARKET RATE OR AFFORDABLE, THEN I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE FLEXIBLE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY DOING AWAY WITH THAT, WITH, WITHOUT IT, WITHOUT ANY, UM, PREJUDICE TOWARDS WHETHER IT'S AFFORDABLE OR NOT.
AND THEN GETTING INTO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO THIS IS WHERE I, I'M THINKING ABOUT LIKE UPTOWN AND YOU GET A SINGLE LOT WHERE, OKAY, NOW SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUILD A DUPLEX OR A TRIPLEX.
WHAT DO YOU DO FOR PARKING FOR THAT? THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT, I MEAN LIKE THAT ONE LIKE THAT I, I THAT I JUST DON'T EVEN HAVE A GREAT IDEA ABOUT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THAT COULD BE COMPLEX ALSO.
BUT AREN'T THERE ALSO A BUNCH OF HOUSES IN UPTOWN THAT DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE OFF STREET PARKING AS IT IS? SO MAYBE IT DOESN'T MATTER, BUT THEN MAYBE IT DEPENDS ON WHAT STREETS YOU'RE ON.
LIKE IT'S, I I THINK THE PARKING QUESTION'S CHALLENGING, PARTICULARLY FOR THE ONE-OFF LOTS IN THE DEVELOPED AREAS OF TOWN OFF OF 89 A SO THANK YOU KIM.
UH, VICE MAYOR, DO YOU STILL WANNA, OKAY.
WHAT, HOW MANY STORIES ARE THE, TRYING TO THINK OF THE NAME, THE, THE CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX THAT'S NEXT TO THE RESIDENCE INN PARK.
ONE AND TWO AND BUT SOME OF THEM ARE SET UP MORE, YOU KNOW, IN THE BACK ON THE HILL.
THEY, YOU KNOW, DID THEY JUST PUT THEM BASED ON THE, PLACED THEM BASED ON THE GRADE OF THE PROPERTY? SO AGAIN, UM, BRIEF HOW WE MEASURE HEIGHTS, RIGHT? WE MEASURE IT TO EXISTING GRADE.
SO THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE THIS, THE PICTURE CYNTHIA SHOWED WHERE THE HOUSE HAS JUST KIND OF FOLLOWED THE HILL UP BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL BEING MEASURED TO THE GROUND UNDERNEATH THE HOUSE.
[01:50:01]
AND SO IF EVERYTHING MEETS THE SAME HEIGHT STANDARDS, THE HOUSES, THE ROOF LINES OF THE HOUSES OR THE BUILDINGS ARE GONNA FOLLOW GENERALLY THE SAME CONTOURS OF THE LAND.SO IF THE GROUND IS 10 FEET HIGHER OVER HERE AND OVER HERE, YEAH.
THIS BUILDING IS GONNA APPEAR FROM ROOF LINE TO BE 10 FEET TALLER, EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT BY CODE MEASUREMENTS BE THE SAME HEIGHT.
'CAUSE I THINK THAT, THAT, THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S TALLER, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT'S HIGHER UP AND IT DOESN'T THINK THE ROAD IS CUT INTO.
AND, AND THE WAY THAT THEY'RE POSITIONED ON THE PROPERTY DOESN'T REALLY IMPACT VIEW SHEDS AT ALL.
SO FOR ME THAT'S, THEY WERE ATTRACTIVE IN THAT SENSE, ATTRACTIVE IN BEING MORE DENSE.
I MEAN I THINK THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS BUT THEY'RE, IT'S MORE DENSE AND WHERE IT SITS, IT AFFORDS SOME, SOME DIFFERENT HEIGHT LINES AND ROOF LINES AND, AND THAT IS ATTRACTIVE TO ME.
UH, AND DOESN'T, EVEN THOUGH IT'S HIGHER BECAUSE THE, THE, UH, LAND IS HIGHER.
WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU LOOK OUT THERE, YOU STILL SEE BEAUTIFUL, YOU KNOW, ON THE SOUTH SIDE BEAUTIFUL VIEWS.
OKAY, SO WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE HEIGHT? SO IN OTHER WORDS, THEY MIGHT NOT BE TWO STORIES, BUT THEIR HEIGHT WOULD ACCOMMODATE MULTIPLE STORIES AND IF IT WAS BUILT IN ANOTHER LOCATION.
SO THEY ALL, I MEAN THEY DIDN'T GET ANY HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS.
THEY ALL ARE, I THINK MOST OF, MOST OF THEM ARE UNDER THE 22 FOOT HIGH LIMITATION.
I DON'T, IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I LOOKED AT THOSE PLANS.
BUT YEAH, THEY, UM, BUT YEAH, I THINK LET'S GO, I DON'T, WHAT'S THE QUESTION?
YEAH, BUT I, I THINK MAYBE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY VICE MAYOR IS THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT BE THE SAME HEIGHTS DUE TO THE DIFFERENT ELEVATIONS OF THE LAND IN WHICH THEY SIT, YOU COULD ACTUALLY ENVISION THE HOUSE BACK THERE THAT'S HIGHER, UH, BEING A THREE STORY IF IT WAS ALL THE SAME LEVEL.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT, THANK YOU FOR REPHRASING
YES, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING.
WHY, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE BACKGROUND ON THE REQUIREMENT FOR COVERED PAR COVERED PARKING? UM, FOR MULTIFAMILY.
IT'S FOR WHY, WHY? YEAH, YOU, YOU SAID ORIGINALLY THAT THE REQUIREMENTS ALL CAME FROM SOMEWHERE.
WHY, WHERE DID THAT ONE COME FROM? UM, THE REQUIREMENT FOR COVERED PARKING HAS BEEN IN THE CODE SINCE IT WAS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED.
IT WAS, I WAS, I WAS NOT HERE AT THE TIME.
I WAS TOLD THAT IT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE LIVING IN APARTMENTS HAD ACCESS TO COVERED PARKING.
OUR DESIGN REVIEW MANUAL AT THE TIME ENCOURAGED COVERED PARKING TO PROTECT CARS FROM THE SUMMER SUN.
UM, WHEN WE REDID THE CODE IN 2018, IT DID COME UP THEN THERE WAS A DESIRE AT THAT.
SO SORRY, PRIOR TO 2018 IT REQUIRED ONE COVERED SPACE PER UNIT.
UM, AND SO A 30 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WOULD REQUIRE 30 COVERED PARKING SPACES.
WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE CODE UPDATE IN 2018, THERE WAS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT COVERED PARKING WAS A GOOD AMENITY, BUT MAYBE WE WERE REQUIRING TOO MUCH OF IT.
AND SO WE CUT THAT REQUIREMENT IN HALF IN 2018.
SO NOW A 30 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING WOULD REQUIRE 15.
WE ALSO HAVE A PROVISION IN THE CODE THAT PROPERTIES WITH 10 UNITS OR LESS DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE COVERED PARKING.
SO THERE'S NO SO HAVE ADJUSTED THAT OVER THE YEARS.
THAT'S SO INTERESTING BECAUSE THERE'S NO CONCERN ABOUT ACCESS TO COVERED PARKING OR CARS IF IT'S 10 OR LESS.
IT MAKES, YOU KNOW, MAKES NO SENSE.
SO I'M WONDERING PURSUANT TO COUNCILMAN S'S RAISING THE QUESTION WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR COVERED PARKING FOR EVERYONE.
UM, WE CAN, I THINK ONE THING THAT WE CAN DO, UM, AND UH, WE DIDN'T REALLY EDIT THE AGENDA BILL AFTER DISCUSSION A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.
SO, UM, UNDERSTANDING THAT CAME UP, WE CAN ALSO REACH OUT TO SOME OF THE EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDINGS, UM, WHO DO HAVE COVERED PARKING AND ASK THEM
[01:55:01]
ABOUT WHETHER THEIR, UM, RESIDENTS SEE IT AS AN AMENITY OR NOT.UM, THAT, THAT MIGHT BE SOME INTERESTING INFORMATION.
BUT I THINK THE, THE 10 UNITS OR LESS WAS, 'CAUSE THE PARKING LOTS WERE SMALL ENOUGH ANYWAY THAT THEY WERE PROVING PROVIDED WITH SOME SH SHADING BY THE BUILDING.
I DON'T, UH, THAT'S JUST, ANYWAY, SO ANYWAY, ANYWAY THAT HAS, THAT DID CHANGE IN 2018 AND WE'RE, IF THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL'S DIRECTION IS, WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK.
THE SECOND QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW WHAT COUNSEL'S DIRECTION IS.
I WOULD NOT MIND ELIMINATING THAT REQUIREMENT, BUT I WOULD, YOU KNOW, I I I AM, I AM NOT PERSUADED BY THE HAVE AND HAVE NOT ARGUMENT BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN OUR BUILDINGS ARE ALREADY HAVE NOTS.
THEY'RE LIVING IN THEIR CARS, THEY'RE LIVING WITH OTHER PEOPLE.
UM, THEY'LL BE HA I THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S, IT'S, SO ANYWAY, I WOULD BE WILLING TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR IN THE CASES OF, OF, UM, PROVIDING HOUSING AVAILABILITY OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
UM, WHAT IS THE BACKGROUND ON REQUIRING A GARAGE? UM, SO THAT WAS PROBABLY AROUND 20 19, 20 20.
WE HAD A LOT OF GARAGES BEING CONVERTED INTO LIVING SPACE.
UM, WE GOT, UM, A LOT OF COMPLAINTS FROM NEIGHBORS ABOUT, UM, JUST THE IMPACTS IT WAS HAVING TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, WITH THE GARAGE BEING CONVERTED AND NOW THAT GARAGE IS LIVING SPACE, SO YOU'RE INCREASING THE POTENTIAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN A BUILDING AND REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF PARKING.
WE'RE GETTING COMPLAINTS ABOUT HOW THAT PARKING WAS SPILLING OUT ONTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS, HOW MAYBE SOME OF THE STORAGE THAT WAS IN THE GARAGE IS NOW IN THE SIDE YARD AND IT'S CREATING A VISUAL IMPACT.
UM, AND SO WE WENT BACK AND WE LOOKED THROUGH A LOT OF OLD BUILDING PERMITS AND TALKED TO OUR BUILDING INSPECTOR WHO GOES OUT.
AND BASICALLY WHAT WE WERE FOUND AT THAT TIME WAS THAT ALL NEW HOUSES WERE BEING BUILT WITH GARAGES.
AND SO THE THOUGHT AT THE TIME WAS THAT BY REQUIRING A GARAGE WE COULD KIND OF STEM THE TIDE OF THE GARAGE CONVERSIONS, MAKE SURE THAT THESE, THE, THE VISUAL IMPACTS FROM THE STORAGE IN THE SIDE YARD, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU HAVE SOMEWHERE TO PUT A CAR OR STORAGE ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT HAVING THE CAR IMPACTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND SO THAT WAS ADOPTED I THINK IN 2019.
UM, WE GOT A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM SOME PEOPLE BETWEEN 2019 AND 2020 ABOUT THE IMPACTS IT WAS HAVING.
AND SO, UM, WE REDUCED THE GARAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALLER LOTS TO SO THAT THE LOTS WITHOUT AS MUCH SPACE ON THEM DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE A TWO CAR GARAGE.
THEY HAD TO HAVE A ONE CAR GARAGE.
BUT THAT'S THE BACKGROUND ON THAT.
DOES THAT ADD, I MEAN, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM SOMEBODY
I MEAN, I, I CARPORTS I DON'T, I MEAN, I HAVE A CARPORT.
I'M NOT AGAINST CARPORTS AND I, I I QUESTION REQUIRING TWO CAR GARAGES REALLY.
I MEAN, WHETHER, PARTICULARLY IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABILITY OR YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I, YOU KNOW, I GUESS IF YOU'RE, IF YOU HAVE A COUPLE MILLION DOLLARS TO SPEND ON A HOUSE, I'M SURE YOU'RE A TWO.
WHEN MY CANVASSING I SEE THREE AND FOUR CAR GARAGES IN, IN, IN SOME NEIGHBORHOODS, IT'S PRETTY ASTONISHING.
BUT, UM, I I, I REALLY, I QUESTIONED THE COST IMPACT OF GARAGES ON, ON AFFORDABILITY AND IT WOULDN'T A CARPORT BE ACCEPTABLE.
AND AS BRIAN SAID, NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER IN SOME WAYS THERE ARE NO GARAGES.
SO ARE WE, WE'RE NOT MAINTAINING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER WHEN WE REQUIRE GARAGES.
SO IT'S A, IT'S A CO COMPLEX AND KIND OF, IT CAN GET PRETTY SILLY AT TIMES, BUT I'VE REALLY, I REALLY WONDER ABOUT THE GARAGES.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT ANYBODY ELSE THINKS ON THIS DAY IS, SO WHEN WE'RE TALK, ARE THOSE THE TWO ISSUES THAT YOU WANTED ON PARKING? THOSE ARE THE TWO ISSUES THAT COME UP WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOUSING AND WHAT MAKES HOUSING MORE EXPENSIVE TO BUILDING.
I DON'T THINK THEY SHOULD BE, I THINK CARPORT SHOULD BE REQUIRED.
I DON'T THINK GARAGES SHOULD BE REQUIRED.
I'M HAPPY WITH, WITH NO, UM, NO COVERED PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING RIGHT BEFORE YOU GO, I'D LIKE TO OPINE IF
[02:00:01]
YOU DON'T MIND.UM, SO I, IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, WE'VE HAD HOUSING, UH, WHICH CARRY ADDRESS WHERE THEY TOOK THE, UH, TWO CAR GARAGE AND TURNED INTO VACATION RENTAL, AND PEOPLE WERE PARKING ON THE STREET UNTIL CODE ENFORCEMENT GOT INVOLVED.
AND, UH, NOW THE, THE OWNER IS BUILDING A ONE CAR GARAGE TO MAKE UP FOR THE DIFFERENCE.
I COULD SEE NOT REQUIRING A GARAGE ON A NEW STRUCTURE, IF THERE'S DRIVEWAYS LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE THE CARS FOR THE PEOPLE THAT WILL BE LIVING THERE.
I DON'T LIKE TO SEE THE OVERFLOW ONTO THE STREET.
TO ME, THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BECAUSE I'VE SEEN IT IN THE CHAPEL NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE PEOPLE ARE PARKING ON THE STREET.
SO AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING VERY SUBJECTIVE, BUT, UM, IT COULD BECOME A, A PROBLEM AS FAR AS PARKING SPACES OR COVERED PARKING.
I, I UNDERSTAND THE COVERED PARKING, BUT I REMEMBER FOR SUNSET LOFTS, AGAIN, WE TALKED ABOUT IT'S A PERFECT LOCATION FOR PUBLIC TRANSIT PEOPLE IN SUNSET LOSS.
WE HOPEFULLY WOULD ENCOURAGE, IF YOU DON'T HAVE A CAR, YOU MOVE THERE AND YOU COULD GET ON A BUS, UH, OR TAKE A MICRO TRANSIT TO GET TO WORK.
SO IF THE NUMBERS HAVE TO CHANGE THERE ALONG 89 A ON THAT CORRIDOR, THAT MAKES SENSE.
BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A DEVELOPMENT IN, UH, A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, MAYBE IT'S A QUARTER MILE OR MORE OFF OF 89 A AWAY FROM, WELL, MICROT TRANSIT WOULD HELP IF AS LONG AS THE PERSON'S GOING INTO STAYING IN THE CITY.
BUT IF THEY'RE TAKING, UH, BY CHANCE A BUS INTO COTTONWOOD, UH, THAT'S A LONG WALK TO MAKE BECAUSE THE PERSON DIDN'T HAVE A ONE, DIDN'T HAVE A CAR OR A PLACE TO EVEN PARK THEIR CAR.
SO IT'S JUST SOMETHING I WANT TO PUT ON YOUR RADAR.
CARRIE, IS THIS QUESTION REALLY DRIVEN AROUND MULTIFAMILY? FIRST AND FOREMOST? UM, COVERED PARKING IS MULTIFAMILY.
THE GARAGE REQUIREMENT IS SINGLE FAMILY.
AND SO AGAIN, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST HOUSING ISSUES IN GENERAL, WE'VE BEEN TOLD MULTIPLE TIMES THE GARAGE REQUIREMENT DOES MAKE IT MORE EXPENSIVE.
AND WITH, WITH FORMAL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT, DO THE, DOES THE DEVELOPER MORE OFTEN THAN NOT SELF PLAN DESIRE REQUIRE THE, THE CCNRS, WHATEVER, WIND UP REQUIRING THE GARAGES ANYWAYS? LIKE, DOES THAT, DOES, DOES THAT ACTUALLY DRIVE IT IN MOST NEIGHBORHOODS, AT LEAST THE NEWER ONES? I HAVE NO IDEA.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M ASKING? OR I DON'T KNOW IF ANY CCC OR ANY HOAS REQUIRE GARAGES.
I MEAN, LIKE, YOU KNOW, A QUESTION, A QUESTION LIKE, LUKE, YOU WERE IN HERE.
I CAN ASK HIM A QUESTION, RIGHT? UM, YOU WERE IN HERE I THINK A YEAR AGO OR SOMETHING FOR A SMALL PROJECT AT WEST CHAPEL ROAD AND 1 79, RIGHT? THOSE HOUSES ARE ALL GONNA HAVE GARAGES BY DESIGN.
RIGHT? LIKE, IT'S NOT EVEN A MATTER OF CODE REQUIRING IT IN THAT CASE, RIGHT? YEAH.
BUT YEAH, I MEAN, THAT'S A REQUIREMENT.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THOSE, IT SAYS IS IT A NEED OR WANT WITH THE GARAGES? BUT YEAH, MOST THERE'S HOAS EVEN HAVE MORE STRINGENT, UH, REQUIREMENTS THAN SOMETIMES THE CITY DOES.
AND, AND YEAH, THAT'S THE QUESTION I WAS TRYING TO ASK IS, IS DOES THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF REALLY DRIVE IT MORE THAN CITY CODE? SO AGAIN, THAT'S WHEN WE LOOKED AT, WHEN WE ADOPTED THE CODE, WE LOOKED AT A BUNCH OF SINGLE, AND THERE WERE, WE COULD NOT FIND AN EXAMPLE OF A HOUSE BEING BUILT WITHOUT A GARAGE.
SO, BUT WE DO GET MORE INQUIRIES NOW AS HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS HAVE INCREASED.
THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE, I THINK WOULD LIKE TO NOT HAVE TO BUILD.
UH, VICE MAYOR, AND THEN WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS GO TO THE PUBLIC.
IT'S ALREADY BEEN TWO HOURS AND WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE HERE WHO WISH TO SPEAK.
SO I'D LIKE TO BREAK INTO THE CONVERSATION BEFORE THEY LEAVE.
MY PERSPECTIVE ON GARAGE AND COVERED PARKING, I'M OKAY WITH ELIMINATING GARAGES WITH AND TO REDUCE THE COSTS AND PUTTING IN A CAR, A CARPORT.
I'M NOT OKAY WITH ELIMINATING COVERED PARKING.
THE REASON FOR MULTIFAMILY, AND IT'S BECAUSE IT'S HOT AND IT'S GETTING HOTTER AND I THINK IT'S A HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE, SO CARPORT, AT LEAST IT'S COVERED.
SO I, I'M OKAY WITH IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.
[02:05:01]
WITH THAT.YOU COMPLETED? YOU DONE? OKAY.
SO LET'S JUST TAKE A BREAK OR YOU STILL ON, YOU WANNA FINISH TALKING AND THEN WE'LL TAKE, GO TO THE PUBLIC.
I THINK I, I THINK WE'RE DONE WITH PARKING.
I THINK I'VE GOT SOME WHAT DIRECTION HAVE YOU GOTTEN? I
'CAUSE I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED TOO, SO I'M JUST GONNA MAKE SOMETHING UP AND BRING IT BACK TO YOU.
REMEMBER WHAT YOU TOLD ME TO DO? NO.
UM, I THINK THAT WE CAN LOOK AT THE REQUIREMENTS.
I THINK, UM, WE SH ARE, WE SHOULD GO AND TALK TO SOME OF THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS THAT HAVE COVERED PARKING TO UNDERSTAND IF THEIR RESIDENTS SEE IT AS A BENEFIT OR NOT.
UM, AND WE CAN, WE, WE CAN BRING BACK SOME MORE CURRENT DATA THAN THE 20 18 20 19 DATA THAT THE ORIGINAL CODE WAS BASED ON.
AND THEN WE CAN LET GIVE YOU SOME OPTIONS.
AND THEN, UM, WITH SOME MORE DATA AND A COUPLE DIFFERENT OPTIONS, CITY COUNCIL WOULD MAKE A DECISION ABOUT GARAGES AS WELL.
DOES THAT, I I, I MEAN, I DIDN'T HEAR LIKE A CLEAR CONSENSUS TO JUST ELIMINATE THE GARAGE, UM, BUT I THINK THAT I HEARD ENOUGH THAT DIRECTS ME INTO SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WE CAN GET TO YOU AND PROVIDE YOU WITH SOME OPTIONS THE NEXT TIME WE COME BACK.
WE LOVE THE GARAGE REQUIREMENT.
AND I GUESS THE LAST THING, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, THE MASSING, KIND OF WHAT I'VE HEARD IS THAT YOU DON'T WANT, UM, HOUSING PROJECTS TO STICK OUT LIKE A SORE THUMB THAT YOU WANT THEM TO FIT IN.
AND, UM, YOU, WE CAN, IF WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THEY DO THAT, THERE MIGHT BE SOME LEEWAY IN THE SPECIFICS AND WE CAN COME BACK AND MAYBE LOOK AT TWEAKING SOME OF THE, THE NUMBERS.
I THINK, UM, IN OUR EXPLORATION OF THE CODE, THERE MAY BE SOME REDUNDANT REQUIREMENTS THAT WE CAN, WE CAN LOOK AT SIMPLIFYING AND STREAMLINING.
ANYBODY WANNA GIVE A POINT ON THIS? NO.
UH, DARIUS, IF YOU WANNA STEP UP TO THE MIC, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, YOU HAVE A CLOCK ON THE WALL, START WITH YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE.
MY NAME IS DARIUS MA MOODY FLAGSTAFF, BORN AND RAISED.
UH, I'M ALSO A, AN ATTORNEY AT ASBY WATKINS AND DIESEL FLAGSTAFF, ALSO HERE IN SEDONA.
WE REPRESENT A DEVELOPER WHO HAS AN ONGOING PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TRYING TO GET APPROVED.
DON'T WORRY, I WON'T GO TO SPECIFICS.
I'M NOT HERE TO BE ON MY SOAPBOX.
WE'RE TRYING TO GET ON YOUR AGENDA WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO TO DO THAT.
UM, I'M MAINLY HERE JUST TO SUPPORT THAT WE SEE HOW, YOU KNOW, WE'VE WORKED WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, UH, ON THIS PROJECT.
THEY'VE BEEN EXTREMELY HELPFUL, THANK YOU TO CARRIE AND STEVE AND ALL THE OTHER MEMBERS, UM, OF THAT TEAM.
I NOTICED IN THE PACKET FOR THIS WORK SESSION THAT THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW MANY DEVELOPERS ARE NOT ABLE TO GET WHERE THEY NEED TO GET THROUGH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
UM, WE WERE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THE DIGA.
WE ARE, UM, WORKING ON A PROJECT FOR AFFORDABLE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ON 89 A.
WE'RE EXCITED TO BRING THAT TO YOU.
UM, BUT IT BECAME PRETTY APPARENT WITH THE HELP OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THAT WE WEREN'T GONNA BE ABLE TO GET THERE THROUGH THE DIGA.
SO NOW WE'RE WORKING WITH KURT, WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY TO GET A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.
AND SO, AGAIN, I'M NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE PROJECT IN SPECIFICS.
I'M JUST HERE TO SAY THAT WE SUPPORT LOOKING AT A REFORM OF DIGA, LOOKING AT GIVING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MORE TOOLS IN THEIR TOOLBOX.
THEY'VE BEEN EXTREMELY HELPFUL THROUGHOUT.
THEY'VE HAD PRE PRE-APPLICATION MEETINGS WITH US TO KIND OF SORT THROUGH SOME OF THE, THE HOOPS THAT WE NEED TO JUMP THROUGH TO GET THROUGH THIS.
UM, BUT THEY DID NOT SEEM TO HAVE THE TOOLS IN THEIR TOOL BELT TO, UH, MOVE THIS ALONG IN A STREAMLINED FASHION.
SO I'M SIMPLY HERE JUST TO SAY THIS HAS BEEN A GREAT CONVERSATION.
AND, AND WE DO SUPPORT FROM A DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE, GIVING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, MORE FLEXIBILITY AND MAYBE MODERNIZING THE DIGA SO THAT THERE IS MORE ABILITY FOR DEVELOPERS TO WORK DIRECTLY WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
ALTHOUGH WE ARE MORE THAN HAPPY AND VERY EXCITED TO COME BEFORE CITY COUNCIL SOON TO BRING OUR PROPOSAL FOR AFFORDABLE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING ON 89.
I'M GONNA SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
UM, THIS HAS BEEN A WONDERFUL DISCUSSION TO OBSERVE AND, UM, YEAH, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.
[02:10:01]
UH, LUKE SEPTON, UH, I THINK YOU KNOW THE, THE DRILL MINUTES.SO YEAH, A LITTLE BIT LESS, BUT A LITTLE BIT LESS.
BUT, UM, THANK YOU TO STAFF AND THE COUNCIL FOR HAVING THIS WORK SESSION.
IT'S GREAT TO BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THESE AND COME UP WITH SOME IDEAS.
I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER STEPS IS EITHER WITH THE HOUSING GROUP OR GET SOME OTHER DEVELOPERS OR PROFESSIONALS IN THERE THAT CAN HELP WITH SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AND MAYBE FIND SOME LOOPHOLES.
UM, I WORKED WITH DEVELOPERS ALL THE TIME.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME IN BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING BECAUSE OF NOT ONLY THE BUILDING COSTS, BECAUSE WHEN THEY ADOPTED THE 2018 CODE, UH, AUTOMATICALLY WE DID SEE A 20% INCREASE IN COST OF HOUSING.
UM, AND THEN WE HAD COVID AND NOW WE HAVE THE INFLATION, UM, AND CHAIN SUPPLIES.
EVERYTHING'S WORKING AGAINST US.
SO, UH, WE JUST, IT'S, IT'S A TOUGH THING TO DO.
SO, UM, UH, AND YOU KNOW, I BRING UP THE SHORT TERM, UM, THE, UM, PARKING AT THE CULTURAL PARK AND, YOU KNOW, I, I NEVER FAULT ANYBODY FOR TRYING.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE DOING, WAS TRYING TO HELP AND SOLVE HOUSING.
YOU KNOW, AND MY, MY QUESTION TO THAT IS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT'S DOING THEN WHAT THE CITY'S DOING OR WHAT SOMEBODY'S DOING, YOU NEED TO JUMP ON THE TEAM AND COME UP WITH SOME IDEAS THAT YOU, THAT WOULD WORK THERE INSTEAD OF WE GET TOO MUCH CRITICISM OF WHAT WE'RE DOING WRONG AND NOT ANY IDEAS OF HOW TO FIX THE PROBLEM.
UM, BUT THAT'S THE DEVELOPERS, I SEE THAT ON EVERY PROJECT WITH THE DEVELOPER.
I HAD A COUNCIL THAT WAS GOING TO VOTE FOR A MULTI-FAMILY REZONE.
WE HAD THE PROPERTY AND WE HAD A DEVELOPER READY TO DO IT.
UM, WHEN WE WENT TO THE PUBLIC MEETING, SO MANY PEOPLE SHOWED UP SAYING, YOU WERE GOING TO KILL THEM.
YOU'RE KILLING THE WILDLIFE, YOU'RE KILLING THE BIRDS, AND YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TAKING OUR WATER.
THE DEVELOPER SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? I DON'T NEED TO MAKE ENEMIES.
HE GOES, I CAN GO BACK TO PHOENIX WHERE PEOPLE LIKE ME AND I BUILD PROJECTS AND, AND I GET 'EM DONE QUICKLY.
UM, SO THAT LEADS TO BASICALLY THE RISK OF TRYING TO DO A DEVELOPMENT.
EVEN IF IT'S JUST HOUSING, YOU KNOW, A SUBDIVISION.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT IT IS, THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF RISK AND HOW CAN WE NULLIFY THAT OR AT LEAST REDUCE IT FOR THEM? YOU GUYS WERE TALKING ABOUT 89 A, THERE ARE SOME IDEAL PROPERTIES THAT I THINK WOULD MAKE FOR MULTIFAMILY.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MAYBE, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE COMMUNITY PLAN, YOU IDENTIFY OR YOU IDENTIFY THAT IF YOU'RE WITHIN SO MANY FEET OF 89 A AND YOU'RE NEXT TO A TRAFFIC LIGHT OR YOU'RE NEXT TO AN AREA THAT PROMOTES WALKING, THAT THAT'S AN AREA THAT YOU GUYS WOULD TAKE ON AND SAY, THIS IS WHERE WE WANT MULTIFAMILY AND WE'RE WILLING TO TAKE THAT POLITICAL HIT.
BUT NO, SO I'M NOT, SO, UM, CAN I JUST HAVE QUICK OKAY.
ANYWAYS, UM, JUST IDEAS TO EMPOWER THE STAFF, UM, TO LET THEM KNOW.
UM, AND, AND I WANT SEDONA TO BE THE EXAMPLE BECAUSE AS WE SEE WITH THE STATE STATES, THEY'RE STARTING TO MANDATE IT.
IF WE GET AHEAD OF IT AND GET IT FIXED, THEN WE WANT TO BE THE EXAMPLE TO THE REST OF THE COUNTRY.
AND I THINK YOU CAN DO SOME DUPLEXES IN COMMUNITIES.
GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.
UM, I LIVE ON BARE WALLO LANE IN SEDONA.
AND JUST LISTENING TO THE CONVERSATION HERE, I WORK AS AN ARCHITECT AND SO I DEAL WITH A LOT OF THESE ISSUES ALL THE TIME, ALTHOUGH NOT REALLY ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SIDE OF THINGS AS MUCH.
UM, JUST A FEW COMMENTS RANDOMLY ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.
I THINK THE WHOLE GARAGE REQUIREMENT THING IS MAINLY ADDRESSING CONVERSIONS TO SYNC TO NIGHTLY RENTALS.
ALMOST ANYONE WHO'S BUILDING A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS GONNA WANT A GARAGE.
I'VE NEVER HAD A CLIENT THAT DIDN'T WANT A GARAGE.
I THINK THE DEVELOPER'S GONNA WANT TO MAKE GARAGES IN GENERAL, UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO MULTIFAMILY OR DENSER DEVELOPMENTS.
AND AT THAT POINT, IT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT BAG.
AND I THINK I WOULD GO IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION AND TRY TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SPACES REQUIRED AND ENCOURAGE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO ONLY OWN ONE CAR, FAMILIES THAT ONLY OWN ONE CAR.
THOSE THAT DON'T EVEN OWN CARS TO STILL OFFER PLACES TO LIVE AND GET YOUR DENSITY THAT WAY.
[02:15:01]
BUT TO, TO ELIMINATE THE, THE GARAGE REQUIREMENT.I'VE HAD NUMEROUS CALLS FROM PEOPLE WANTING TO HIRE ME TO DO GARAGE CONVERSIONS, AND WE'VE NEVER, WE DON'T DO THAT.
BUT I UNDERSTAND THE, THE ISSUE AND THE MAIN REASON FOR THAT.
I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT ALONG 89 A THERE, YOU'RE GONNA FIND, THERE ARE LOTS OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE DEEP ENOUGH THAT YOU COULD EASILY GO THROUGH STORIES AND STILL SEE GRAY BACK AND ALL OF THAT.
THERE ARE EASY TOOLS TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
SO I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING YOU SHOULD CONSIDER OVERALL.
I'M HAPPY TO TALK IN GENERAL WITH ANY OF YOU MORE.
WE'VE, SOMETHING WE'VE THOUGHT ABOUT A LOT, UM, OVER THE YEARS.
AND I WOULD AGREE WITH LUKE THAT THERE ARE DEFINITELY AREAS WHERE YOU COULD DENSIFY, BUT YOU WANT TO DO IT BASED UPON WHAT THE TERRAIN IS LIKE, WHAT THE ADJACENT USES ARE LIKE.
AND WHEN YOU'RE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HEIGHT IN ADDITION TO BLOCKING VIEW SHEDS.
AND AGAIN, THE KEY IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT CURRENT ZONING WOULD ALLOW AND THE, THE DIFFERENCE.
IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, NOTHING IN THE DIFFERENCE, BUT THERE'S ALSO LIKE SOLAR ACCESS.
LIKE YOU DON'T WANT TO DO, YOU MIGHT PUT SOMETHING WAY BACK FROM 89 A AND THREE STORIES IS FINE FOR V SHED, BUT THE PERSON THAT LIVES RIGHT BEHIND IT MIGHT HAVE ALL OF THEIR SUNLIGHT BLOCKED IF THEY WERE RIGHT UP AGAINST IT.
SO YOU LOOK AT BOTH SIDES OF THAT.
ALL THAT SAID, YOU STILL HAVE PROBABLY A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY TO DO HIGHER THINGS.
AND, UM, THE AMOUNT OF ANOTHER POINT HERE, THE AMOUNT OF COST ENGENDERED BY HAVING TO DO MASSING AND DIFFERENT ROOF HEIGHTS AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS DOES ADD A PERCENTAGE.
I DON'T THINK IT'S OVER THE TOP, BUT IF YOU CAN OFFSET IT BY INCREASING DENSITY, IF YOU SAY IT'S GONNA COST ME 10% MORE ON THE PROJECT, BUT I CAN GET 15% MORE UNITS ON IT, MAYBE THAT'S A WORTHWHILE TRADE OFF.
WE'RE GONNA CLOSE, CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE DAIS AND TO STAFF.
SO I DID WANNA, BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE LAST MM-HMM.
I WANNA MAKE SURE WE GOT TO THAT.
UM, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DO HAVE THE NEW STATE LAW MM-HMM.
THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS, UM, IF KURT DECIDES WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT.
UM, BUT I THINK A COUPLE QUESTIONS THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR IS WHEN WE HAD THE 80, SO RIGHT NOW A PROPERTY CAN HAVE A HOUSE AND A GUEST HOUSE.
THE GUEST HOUSE CANNOT HAVE A FULL KITCHEN.
UM, WHEN WE HAD AN A DU ORDINANCE YEARS AGO THAT ALLOWED A HOUSE, A GUEST HOUSE, AND AN A DU, SO THREE SEPARATE HABITABLE STRUCTURES ON A PROPERTY.
AND SO I GUESS THE MAIN DIRECTION THAT WE POTENTIALLY WOULD WANT GOING FORWARD OR IN DRAFTING AN A D ORDINANCE, WOULD WE WANT TO GO TO THAT OR JUST CHANGE IT SO THAT THE, THE CURRENT ALLOWANCE OF A HOUSE AND A GUEST HOUSE, THE GUEST HOUSE COULD HAVE A FULL KITCHEN AND B, THAT A DU VERSUS ALLOWING A THIRD HABITABLE STRUCTURE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
KATHY? SO I HAVEN'T SEEN KITCHENS MAKING A REAL DIFFERENCE WHETHER A KITCHEN EXISTS OR NOT IN TERMS OF IF SOMEBODY'S INTENDING TO USE THE, UH, THE, UH, BUILDING AS, AS AN A DU, UH, AS A, UH, SHORT TERM RENTAL.
UM, IT, I THINK WE WERE RELUCTANT TO PUT IN KITCHENS IN ORDER TO TRY AND LIMIT THAT.
SO IT WOULD BE A TRADITIONAL GUEST HOUSE AS OPPOSED TO A AN SCR.
BUT IT HAS NOT MADE A DIFFERENCE IN THE MEANTIME.
I THINK IT'S LIMITED THE ABILITY FOR SOMEBODY TO HAVE AN A DU AS A LONG-TERM RENTAL TO LIVE THERE AND HAVE ALL THE AMENITIES THEY NEED TO HAVE A FULL LIFE, INCLUDING A KITCHEN.
SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF, OF, OF KITCHENS.
I'VE GIVEN THIS ACTUALLY A LOT OF THOUGHT AND I, IT'S ONE OF THE AREAS THAT I KNOW I'M NOT GONNA VACILLATE.
SO, UM, SO YEAH, I WOULD SUPPORT THAT WE ALLOW KITCHENS BECAUSE IT OPENS UP MORE PROPERTIES FOR RENTALS.
VICE MAYOR KATHY, UH, ON WHAT BASIS ARE YOU SAYING THAT IT'S MADE NO DIFFERENCE ANECDOTAL BASIS FROM CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD WITH STAFF? THANK YOU.
AND I, I GUESS I WOULD, AND AGAIN, I, WE DID CAUTION THE, DON'T JUST GO OFF OF ANECDOTES, BUT WE'RE GONNA GO OFF ANECDOTES HERE,
UM, AND SO WE HEAR IT FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE.
UM, SO IT'S LOTS OF ANECDOTES.
SO, WE'LL, WE'LL GO WITH THAT, PETE.
YEAH, I THINK PROBABLY LIKE KATHY
[02:20:01]
AND ME, OTHERS ON THE DS HERE, MY THINKING HAS EVOLVED TOO AROUND THE ADUS AND WE PUT UP THE GOOD FIGHT AND THE STATE HAS CONTINUALLY FRUSTRATED US IN THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THAT.AND IF WE START BUILDING ADUS AND ONE OUTTA 10 OF 'EM IS A LONG-TERM RENTAL, WELL THAT'S ONE OUT OF 10 THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT.
SO MY THINKING HAS EVOLVED THERE, AND I'M WILLING TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION AND SUPPORT SOMETHING.
UM, I WOULD RECOMMEND, HOWEVER, THAT WE STICK TO OUR GUNS AND INTERPRET THE STATE LAW THE WAY WE THINK THE STATE LAW WAS WRITTEN.
AND WE DO OUR A DU, UH, ORDINANCE BASED ON WHAT WE FEEL IS, IS IN OUR BEST INTEREST.
AND, YOU KNOW, BE BOLD ON THIS.
THIS IS THE NUMBER ONE TOPIC, ONE OF THE TWO NUMBER ONE TOPICS, UH, IN OUR COMMUNITY TRAFFIC AND SHORT TERM RENTALS.
UH, AND I SUGGEST THAT WE BE BOLD AND DO WHAT WE WANT TO DO AND WE'LL DEAL WITH THE STATE LATER.
ANYTHING ELSE? CARRIE? GO AHEAD.
IS THAT IT? I, I, FOR ADUS, UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO GIVE, I THINK SHE, SHE NEEDS MORE PEOPLE OKAY.
I, I, I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH PETE.
UM, I, I THINK PUTTING IN KITCHENS IS FINE AND IT HASN'T STOPPED US FROM PEOPLE PUTTING IN, UM, CONVECTION MICROWAVES, WHICH ALMOST ACTS LIKE A KITCHEN.
BUT I ALSO AGREE THAT WE NEED TO STICK TO OUR GUNS.
UM, AND WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION ONCE IN THE DIOCESE.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS WHEN WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION NOW, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO STICK TO OUR GUNS ABOUT WHAT ELSE GOES WITH THE A DU ORDINANCE.
I'M NOT HEARING ANY FERVENT OBJECTIONS, SO NO, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT ONE.
I, I ALSO AGREE BECAUSE I KNOW IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, A A FEW OF THE GUEST HOUSES THAT THEY DON'T HAVE STOVES.
SO, UH, BUT THEY ARE BEING USED AS GUEST HOUSES TOO.
THEY'RE NOT BEING USED AS LONG-TERM RENTALS AND CERTAINLY NOT BEING USED FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
BUT, UM, THE ONLY THING I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, AS LONG AS THEY HAVE PARKING, THAT IF THEY DO AN A DU ON THE PRE ON THE PROPERTY AND IT'S NOT FORCING THE CARS INTO THE STREET AND TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS.
SO CURRENTLY, I MEAN, PARKING AND KITCHENS ARE TWO, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
UM, PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILIES BASED ON THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IN A HOUSE, AND WE ACCOUNT THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IN A GUEST HOUSE WHEN COMING UP WITH THAT CALCULATION, THAT'S FINE.
BUT I, I AGREE WITH, UH, PETE, UH, IT'S A GREAT FIGHT.
WE CAN, YOU KNOW, IF WE GET ONE OUT OF 10, I WOULD RATHER HAVE 10 OUT OF 10 WITH ANY HOPE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT YOU TALKED TO THAT SAID THEY WANT TO DO LONG TERM, UH, EMPLOYEE HOUSING, THAT THEY ACTUALLY DO THAT.
SO I WANNA BE CLEAR WHAT WE'RE SAYING TO KURT, BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE YOU TO BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE.
SO WHAT DO YOU THINK WE SAID? I, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE, I ONLY HEARD ONE PARKING REQUIREMENT AND THEN WE'LL BRING IT BACK.
UM, I BELIEVE WE'LL ALSO BE INCLUDING IN THE OWNER HAS TO LIVE ON SITE THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED, BUT THAT'S NOW ALLOWED BY STATE LAW.
UM, SOME OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS IN THE PAST THAT MAY HAVE LIMITED THE NUMBER OF ADUS WITH SETBACKS.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO DISCUSS TODAY, CARRIE OR NOT, BUT IT'S, WE WILL BRING BACK AN ORDINANCE AND WE NEED TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT OF WHETHER THERE'S SOME APPETITE FOR A DIFFERENT SETBACK THAN THE STANDARD IN THOSE AREAS FOR AUS.
SO RIGHT NOW, ALL HABITABLE STRUCTURES HAVE TO MEET THE SAME SETBACKS AS THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
HOWEVER, WE DO ALLOW ONE NON-HABIT STRUCTURE TO HAVE A FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK.
UM, AND SO IF YOU WANTED TO BE A LITTLE MORE LENIENT, YOU COULD JUST CHANGE THAT TO ONE STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY FROM A, UM, A VISUAL IMPACT STANDPOINT, WHETHER IT'S A NON-HABIT GARAGE VERSUS A HABITABLE GUEST HOUSE WOULD NOT CHANGE THAT.
UM, BUT THAT IS THE CURRENTLY ANY HABITABLE STRUCTURE HAS TO MEET THE SETBACKS.
I'M AGAIN CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR AND WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO EXPERIENCE IF THAT WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT THEM.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT A STRUCTURE, I'M ASSUMING A NEW STRUCTURE, YOU'RE NOT GRANDFATHERING SOMETHING, RIGHT? IT'S GONNA BE A NEW STRUCTURE.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT? TO BUILD AN, UH, AN A DU OR CONVERTED? OR CONVERTED? MM-HMM.
IT'S A, IT'S A STRUCTURE, BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA PUT SOMETHING NEW AND
[02:25:01]
YOU'RE GONNA PUT IT FIVE FEET OR LESS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND MAYBE THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR'S H HOUSES ALSO WITHIN FIVE FEET, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME GRANDFATHERED HOUSES, UH, THAT I KNOW OF, YOU KNOW, UH, IN TOWN THAT ARE REALLY CLOSE TO THE, UH, PROPERTY LINE.SO IF THERE'S CONCERNS, WE CAN JUST KIND OF START SLOW AND JUST ALLOW KITCHENS AND GUEST HOUSES AND, AND SEE WHERE IT GOES FROM THERE.
AND WE CAN HAVE AN A D DISCUSSION, LIKE DEVICE VERSA.
YOU COULD COME BACK, REVISIT THE ORDINANCE ANNUALLY RIGHT.
AND LOOSEN THE REQUIREMENTS IF NEEDED.
BUT THEN IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING ALREADY BUILT, BRAND NEW, FIVE FEET, UH, FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND IT'S A PROBLEM.
SO WE WOULD START LEAVING IT AT 15, 20 AND THEN OH, FINE.
MAYBE GO TO 10 AND THEN MAYBE TO FIVE.
THANK YOU FOR, AND MAYBE YOU ONLY DO FIVE ON ONE LOT LINE, NOT BOTH THINGS, THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES.
THAT CLARIFIES IT FOR ME, KATHY.
THAT I, THAT THAT MADE A LOT OF SENSE WHAT YOU SAID, CARRIE, THAT ALLOWING, UM, ONLY THE, UH, SETBACK REDUCTION REQUIREMENT FOR ONE STRUCTURE, BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU ARE SETTING UP, YOU KNOW, LITTLE MINI COMPOUND THAT'S RIGHT ON TOP OF THE NEIGHBORS.
AND, BUT I, I, I THINK THAT IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT STRUCTURE GOES IN, IF, IF, IF THERE'S ONE THAT'S GONNA BE ALLOWED TO GO TO THE FIVE FOOT ANYWAY, WHEN MY, I, TO ME, I SUPPORTED WHAT YOU SAID.
IF THERE ARE TWO ON THE PROPERTY, TWO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, ONLY ONE OF THEM COULD DO THAT.
CARRIE, THE UNINHABITABLE STRUCTURE IS, DOES IT HAVE A SIZE LIMITATION? UH, IT HAS A HEIGHT LIMITATION OF 15 FEET, BUT NO SIZE LIMITATION.
IT HAS TO BE 10 FEET FROM ALL THE OTHER STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY.
SO YOU CAN'T DO LIKE YOUR FIVE FOOT SETBACK AND THEN LIKE A FOOT AWAY FROM THAT TO YOUR HOUSE.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME, SOME SEPARATION.
AND THERE'S A 15 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION, WHICH IS LOWER THAN THE MAIN HOUSE WOULD BE.
WHAT ABOUT A, WHAT ABOUT LIKE A GUEST UNIT THAT'S ATTACHED TO THE MAIN HOUSE BY A WALL? UH, IF THERE'S NO INTERNAL CONNECTION TO THE MAIN HOUSE, WE WOULD CONSIDER THAT THE HOUSE AND THE GUEST HOUSE.
SO WHICH OF CARRIE'S, UH, SUGGESTED, UH, ORDINANCE CONTENT TO WE WANT? SO IN OTHER WORDS, SHE SAID OUR OLD ORDINANCE HAD TWO ALLOWED FOR TWO STRUCTURES.
ARE WE WILLING TO DO THAT? I WAS THINKING ONE STRUCTURE, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM OTHER PEOPLE.
WELL, I, IF IT ALLOWED FOR TWO STRUCTURES, I, I WAS WILLING TO STICK WITH THAT, BUT ONLY IN BOTH ORDINANCE.
BUT ONLY ONE STRUCTURE COULD GET THE SETBACK, THE RELIEF ON THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
BUT WE WANNA GO BACK TO KITCHENS, I THINK.
RIGHT? I, I THINK THAT WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT YOU'RE OKAY WITH ALLOWING KITCHENS AND GUEST HOUSES.
UM, AND WE'LL PROBABLY START SLOW AND JUST DO THAT FOR THE, AND THEN WE CAN EVALUATE IT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AS IT'S ALWAYS EASIER TO GIVE A LITTLE MORE THAN TRY TO TAKE SOMETHING AWAY.
SO WE'LL PROBABLY JUST START WITH ALLOWING WITH THE BASICS AND THEN, UM, AFTER MAYBE A YEAR OR SO, WE WOULD COME BACK AND EVALUATE IT IF IT WERE TO PASS.
AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING TODAY.
MELISSA, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, BECAUSE NOW I'M A BIT CONFUSED.
IN THE OLD ORDINANCE, YOU COULD HAVE TWO ADU, ONE HABITABLE, ONE INHABITABLE.
SO WE HAVE NEVER LIMITED THE NUMBER OF STRUCTURES YOU CAN HAVE ON YOUR PROPERTY.
SO IF YOU WANNA PUT A BUNCH OF LITTLE SHEDS FOR STORAGE, WELL, WHAT IF I WANTED TO PUT GO FOR IT? UH, A LOT OF, SO WHAT WE HAVE TINY LIMITED HOMES ON MY LOT, SO YEAH.
SO WHAT WE HAVE LIMITED IS THE NUMBER OF HABITABLE STRUCTURES.
SO THE NUMBER OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE ALLOWING PEOPLE TO LIVE IN THEM.
UM, AND THAT HAS BEEN GENERALLY TWO.
SO YOU GET THE HOUSE, YOU GET YOUR HOUSE AND YOUR GUEST HOUSE.
SO YOU CAN'T JUST PUT 12 TINY HOUSES AND THERE'S DEFINITIONS FOR ALL OF THOSE.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A FULL BATHROOM AND THE KITCHEN AND ALL THAT.
AND SO WHEN WE HAD THE A DU ORDINANCE MANY YEARS AGO, THAT WAS REPEALED IN 2016, THAT ALLOWED FOR THE STANDARD HOUSE AND GUEST HOUSE PLUS ONE A DU.
SO DURING THAT TIME, IF YOU GOT THE A DU PERMIT, YOU'RE ALLOWED THREE HABITABLE STRUCTURES ON THE LOT.
WHEN WE REPEALED THAT, IT WENT BACK TO THE TWO HABITABLE STRUCTURES, WHICH WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
UM, AND SO IF WE JUST KIND OF WANNA START, START SLOW, UH, WE'D PROBABLY JUST AMEND THE CURRENT ALLOWANCES TO KEEP THE TWO, BUT ALLOW FOR A KIT, A FULL KITCHEN IN BOTH STRUCTURES.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, BECAUSE I WAS GETTING A LITTLE CONFUSED WITH ALL OF THE CONVERSATIONS.
[02:30:02]
THIS IN MY MIND WHERE NOW THE LAW ALLOWS THE, THE RESIDENT, THE OWNER HAS TO LIVE ON PROPERTY TO ALLOW THAT.IS THAT CORRECT? K DO I UNDERSTAND THAT THE OWNER HAS TO LIVE ON PROPERTY? IF THE NEW A DU IS GOING TO BE USED AS A SHORT TERM RENTAL, THAT'S THE YES.
THE REQUIREMENT WE CAN PUT IN THERE.
AND I WOULD WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, THAT ANY, WE'RE MAKING ANY CHANGES TO ANYTHING THAT THAT'S A PART OF IT.
WELL, THAT WAS THE COMPROMISE.
WHAT ONE MORE THAT WAS IN, IN THE CODE BEFORE WAS, UH, THE A DU WAS LIMITED ON SIZE BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE MAIN HOUSE.
NOW THAT'S USUALLY GONNA BE A FUNCTION OF JUST LOT COVERAGE ANYWAY.
SO YOU CAN'T PUT IN A BIGGER, A BIGGER A DU THAN THE MAIN HOUSE BECAUSE THERE'S NOT GENERALLY GONNA BE ROOM, BUT THERE THAT COULD COME UP.
IS THAT SOMETHING COUNCILS WOULD STILL LIKE TO SEE IN THERE? WHAT IS THE, WHAT'S OUR CURRENT CODE? CODE? THE CURRENT CODE LIMITS THE GUEST HOUSE, WHICH WOULD NOW BECOME THE A DU, UM, TO HALF THE SIZE OF THE MAIN HOUSE, OR 750 SQUARE FEET, WHICHEVER IS LARGER.
SO IF YOU HAVE A 2000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE, YOU CAN HAVE A 1000 SQUARE FOOT GUEST HOUSE.
IF YOU HAVE A 1200 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE, YOU CAN HAVE A 750 SQUARE FOOT GUEST HOUSE.
I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THAT LANGUAGE.
CAN I, CAN I JUST ASK A QUESTION, MELISSA? SURE.
UM, SO 750 SQUARE FEET THAT'S LARGER THAN WHAT YOU, I SAW IN THE DOCUMENT FOR A ONE BEDROOM, WHICH DOCUMENT IN, IN THE PACKET THE DIGA? YEAH.
YOU, YOU LISTED LIKE WHAT, WHAT A ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT WOULD BE, BUT THAT'S MULTIFAMILY, RIGHT? YEAH.
SO FOR THE DIGA, THERE'S SOME EQUIVALENCIES OF IF YOU'RE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO UNITS.
AND SO THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO THEY'RE, YOU'RE KEEPING THEM SEPARATE BY DEFINITION.
I, I THINK FROM WHAT I HEARD, I THINK I'M A LITTLE TROUBLED BY THE, WHICHEVER IS LARGER LANGUAGE IN THERE.
I THINK THAT TO ALLOW A SMALL A DU IF YOU'VE GOT A BIG HOUSE, YOU CAN'T BUILD A SMALL A DA NO, NO.
THEY CAN'T BE BIGGER THAN, CAN'T BE BIGGER THAN, WE DON'T FORCE YOU TO BUILD A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT A DU.
IF YOU HAVE A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE DOLL HOUSE, YOU CAN GO UP TO THAT.
SO, SO WE WOULD JUST TIME THE 80 D ORDINANCE TO COME BACK WHEN THE STATE LAW TAKES EFFECT, WHICH THE, THE LEGISLATURE'S NOT ADJOURNED YET.
SO IT'D PROBABLY BE IN OCTOBER AT THIS POINT, MAYBE EVEN NOVEMBER, DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH LONG THE LE THE LEGISLATURE GOES ON.
DOESN'T HAVE AN EMERGENCY CLAUSE AND IT DOES NOT.
SO THE LAST THING THAT WE WANTED TO GET SOME DIRECTION ON, UM, WAS KIND OF, AGAIN, GUIDING THESE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE WITH DEVELOPERS.
AND SO WE HAVE, WE, WE TALKED ABOUT ALL THE POTENTIAL ALLOWANCES AND THINGS THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO PUSH THEM ON.
UM, BUT TYPICALLY A LOT OF THESE PROJECTS ARE EITHER REQUESTING A ZONE CHANGE OR REQUESTING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE MODIFICATIONS.
AND THEY'RE, OR THEY'RE REQUESTING SOME CITY MONEY TO HELP FUND THE PROJECT.
UM, AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE STRUGGLED WITH IS HOW, SO IF THEY'RE PROPOSING LONG-TERM RENTAL RESTRICTIONS OR AFFORDABILITY RESTRICTIONS, WHAT IS THE BASELINE FOR WHAT CITY COUNCIL'S EXPECTATIONS FOR THOSE ARE? SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY COME IN AND SAID, WE WANT A ZONE CHANGE, UM, AND WE ARE WILLING TO GIVE A 10 YEAR RESTRICTION VERSUS A 30 YEAR RESTRICTION, UM, TYPICALLY WE HAVE GOTTEN 30 YEAR RESTRICTIONS, I BELIEVE IN TALKING WITH OUR HOUSING DEPARTMENT THAT THAT LINES UP WITH A LOT OF THE FEDERAL PROGRAMS AROUND HOUSING.
UM, BUT WE HAVE ACCEPTED IN SOME CASES, UM, WHERE THE CITY CONTRIBUTION HAS BEEN LESS OR THE ASK HAS BEEN LESS, THAT THEY WILL DO A 10 YEAR RESTRICTION.
AND SO WE JUST WANTED TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY DIRECTION ON KIND OF THE BASELINE FOR WHAT WE SHOULD BE PROPOSING TO DEVELOPERS WHO ARE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS SAYING, OKAY, IF YOU'RE GETTING AN EXTRA TWO FEET OF HEIGHT VERSUS AN EXTRA 20 FEET OF HEIGHT, IF YOU'RE GETTING A ZONE CHANGE VERSUS YOU'RE ALREADY ZONED FOR IT, IS THERE A
[02:35:01]
FOR FIVE YEARS.AND WE'RE LIKE, WELL, THAT'S MAYBE NOT QUITE LONG ENOUGH.
SO WE, WE JUST WANNA, AND KURT WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING.
'CAUSE MAYOR COUNTY, JUST FOR EXAMPLE, THE DIGA RECOMMENDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, A 50 YEAR RESTRICTION.
SO NOW WE'VE COME IN AND DONE 30 YEARS BEFORE, I THINK THE LONGEST, I MEAN, WE'VE NEVER DONE A, A 50 YEAR RESTRICTION FOR SOME OF THE HOTELS THAT HAVE COME THROUGH.
WE HAVE GOTTEN A RESTRICTION THAT READS THAT AS LONG AS THAT DEVELOPMENT IS A HOTEL, THIS DEED RESTRICTION WILL BE IN PLACE.
BUT WHEN WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD A YEAR IN A YEAR NUMBER IN THERE, I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER DONE MORE THAN 30.
BUT WE, SO IT'S DEFAULTED TO 30, EVEN THOUGH THE DIG HAS HAD 50, JUST A, A REALITY OF THE COST OF BUILDING THESE AND WHAT THE DEVELOPERS WERE WILLING TO GIVE THEM AND THE NEGOTIATION WITH THE CITY.
SO YEAH, THE QUESTION FROM CARRIE AND US IS WHETHER THAT'S WHERE COUNCIL STILL IS OR WHETHER THEY'RE WILLING TO SAY SOMETHING LESS, CAN CLARIFY FOR ME IF IT SAYS 50, BUT WE'VE GOT THAT.
WHY, WHY CAN'T, WHY WOULD WE NOT BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY DO 50, UH, 'CAUSE NO ONE'S BEEN WILLING TO BUILD IT WITH A 50 YEAR RESTRICTION.
AH, SO IT'S, AND THERE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE DIGA AND NO ONE HAS TO DO THAT.
AND IT'S, THAT'S WHERE IT COMES INTO NEGOTIATION.
THEY CAN GET SOME, SOME, UH, BUT THEY ARE WILLING AT 30.
WE'VE HAD A FEW, AT 30, WE'VE HAD A LOT MORE REQUESTS FOR LESS, BUT THOSE HAVE HAVEN'T PANNED OUT.
JESSICA, CAN I FINISH? OH, I THOUGHT YOU, I APOLOGIZE.
I, I'M JUST, I DON'T WANNA REMOVE AN INCENTIVE, SO I'M JUST, I'M JUST NEED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT LANGUAGE TO GET TO A PLACE OF COMFORT HERE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU GET MORE FOR 50 THAN YOU DO FOR 30, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THERE.
I WOULD NOT WANT TO REMOVE THE INCENTIVE TO GO LONGER.
UH, THAT SEEMS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO ME.
SO I JUST WANNA BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT LANGUAGE IF WE'RE CONTEMPLATING CHANGES TO REDUCE IT DOWN.
BUT IF NO ONE'S TAKING UP THE OFFER OF 50, RIGHT? RIGHT.
SO HERE, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD CHOOSE 30, BUT YOU CAN GET MORE AT 40, YOU COULD GET MORE CONCESSION AT 50.
I'M SAYING THAT THERE SHOULD STILL BE SOME INCENTIVE IN THERE TO TRY AND GET THE LONGER RESTRICTIONS TO PROTECT THE HOUSING STOCK FOR THE FUTURE.
PETE, CARRIE, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU? I'M TRYING TO, UM, SEE WHAT YOUR THOUGHT IS RELATIVE TO KATHY'S PROPOSAL.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT LONGER, I, I DON'T, LONGER RESTRICTIONS ARE GREAT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT IN 30 YEARS THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE FIGURED OUT THE HOUSING THING.
UM, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, IT'S, I MEAN, IF WE DID, THAT'D BE AWESOME.
UM, I THINK THE REALITY OF IT IS THAT NO ONE DOES 50.
AND SO IF THAT IS THE EXPECTATION, UM, AND AGAIN, IT GOES BACK TO THOSE INITIAL CONVERSATIONS.
AND IF THEY'RE READING THE DIG AND THEY'RE LIKE, LIKE THE CITY'S CITY WANTS ME TO DO 50 YEARS, LIKE, I'M NOT EVEN GONNA TRY THAT BECAUSE THAT IS SO OUTSIDE OF WHAT I'M WILLING TO DO.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE.
UM, JEANIE, UM, MIGHT HAVE MORE FEEDBACK ON THAT.
'CAUSE I THINK THAT THE HOUSING DEPARTMENT HAS MORE CONVERSATIONS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WANT TO, ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, IF CITY MONEY IS GOING TO A PROJECT, IF WE ARE GIVING THESE DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW, HEIGHT INCENTIVES AND SOME, UM, WE'RE GIVING ZONE CHANGES BECAUSE ZONE CHANGES ARE PERMANENT, WE'RE NOT GONNA GO BACK IN 30 YEARS AND REVOKE A ZONE CHANGE BECAUSE NOW THE AFFORDABILITY RESTRICTION IS GONE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO, YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, I, I THINK THAT WE HAVE KIND OF AN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S LIKE, WELL, IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR MORE, WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA REQUIRE MORE.
BUT AGAIN, IF THE STARTING PLACE IS 50 YEARS THAT I, I DON'T, WE'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO GET 50 YEARS APART FROM MAYBE A HOTEL THAT THAT WILL HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, WILL BE AROUND IN 50 YEARS BECAUSE THE, THE DEED RESTRICTION IS TIED TO THE OPERATION OF THE PROPERTY AS A HOTEL.
SO I THINK WHAT KATHY WAS TRYING TO PROPOSE IS THAT WE, WE MIGHT BE WILLING TO GO DOWN TO, WE CAN START AT 30, BUT DON'T DO TOO MUCH ELSE IN THE DIG.
BUT IF THEY DECIDE THAT THEY WANT MORE AND WE PUSH 'EM UP TO 40 OR, YOU KNOW, CLOSER TO 50 WOULD DO SORT OF MORE ELEMENTS IN THE DIG.
IS THAT KIND OF A FLEXIBILITY YOU COULD WORK WITH? I I, WELL AGAIN, WE'RE JUST, THE DIRECTION WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS, AND I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING RIGHT
[02:40:01]
NOW IS THAT GOING DOWN TO 30 YEARS, YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.SO IF, YOU KNOW, GOING DOWN TO 10 YEARS, LIKE THAT WOULD EVEN, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY BE RIGHT.
WE ARE TRYING TO SOLVE A HOUSING PROBLEM, YOU KNOW, FOR PEOPLE FOR A WHILE.
10 YEARS IS A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, VERY SHORT, 30 YEARS.
WE GOT SOME FEEDBACK ON, THEY TEND TO MAKE SOME PROJECTS MOVE OR AT LEAST A CONVERSATION HASN'T DIED.
THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD PLACE TO GO.
BUT I'M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY ACCEPT A 30 YEAR RESTRICTION, BUT THEY'RE ALSO ASKING FOR FIVE OR SIX OF THE OTHER PIECES OF CANDY IN THE DIGA.
BUT IF YOU GO TO 40, YOU GET, YOU KNOW, THREE PIECES OF, OF CANDY IS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE WORK, CAN YOU WORK AT THAT LEVEL? OR WHEN THEY, IF THE DIG IS THERE, THEY CAN ASK FOR THE WHOLE EVERYTHING IN THE DIG AND WE GOTTA GIVE IT TO 'EM IF THEY, WE DON'T HAVE TO GIVE ANYTHING IN THE DIGGA.
UM, AND I, I THINK IT'S ALWAYS SUBJECT TO COUNCIL APPROVAL.
UM, SO THAT'S WHERE IT GETS HARD FOR STAFF TO NEGOTIATE THESE AND WHY YOU DON'T SEE TOO MANY COME BEFORE COUNCIL.
SO, YOU KNOW, I I, I, I THINK WHAT I HEARD KATHY SAY, I'M WILLING TO START TO REDUCE 50 TO SOMEWHAT LOWER.
30 IS PROBABLY AS LOW AS I WANT TO GO AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT, BUT I, AS I SAID, I DON'T WANT US TO BE GIVEN AWAY THE WHOLE CANDY STORE AND 30 YEARS.
AND WE APPROVED A 10 YEAR RESTRICTION FOR THAT BECAUSE OTHER THAN THAT IT WAS ZONED FOR IT.
THEY JUST WANTED SOME HELP WITH THEIR, SO THE THOUGHT AT THAT TIME WAS A THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR FOR 10 YEAR SEEMED LIKE A REASONABLE ASK, LIKE GOING TO 30 YEARS FOR THAT.
WHEREAS THE, THE PROJECTS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, ASKING FOR ZONE CHANGE ARE MORE SIGNIFICANT.
LEDC WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT 30 YEARS FOR THOSE.
I CAN I CLARIFY MY CLARIFY BEFORE YOU CLARIFY TOO, A AGAIN, I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS I'M OKAY WITH GOING DOWN TO 30 AS LONG AS THEN IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE NEGOTIATION, PART OF THAT WOULD BE TO SAY, BUT YOU KNOW, COUNCIL WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE OPEN-MINDED TO OTHERS IF YOU WENT BEYOND 30 AND WENT TO 40 OR 50.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO, AND IT WOULD PROBABLY ALSO BE, IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR 12 EXCEPTIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WE MIGHT SAY LIKE, THAT'S RIGHT.
YOU MIGHT NEED TO GO TO A, TO A LONGER LENGTH.
SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT YOU ALREADY DO THAT AND I TOTALLY IN SUPPORT OF ALLOWING YOU TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
UM, I THINK THE 10, 10 YEARS IN THE SITUATION YOU MENTIONED MAKES SENSE.
ALTHOUGH MY INITIAL REACTION WAS 10 YEARS IS TOO SHORT.
I THINK, I MEAN, I THINK LETTING YOU, AND, AND THEN I GUESS YOU HAVE TO TRUST THAT WHEN YOU COME BACK TO US, WE WILL LISTEN TO YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONS AND, AND GO ALONG WITH IT TO SOME EXTENT.
I THINK THAT HAS TO BE THAT WAY.
I DO NOT WANT, I'M NOT, I AM NOT EXCITED ABOUT SPECIFYING TO EVERY DEGREE WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO A, B, C, AND D IN ORDER TO GET RIGHT.
I MEAN, THERE HAS TO BE SOME, SOME COMMON SENSE AND BECAUSE FRANKLY WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT, I WANT TO GET DEVELOPMENT AND IF WE HAVE TO GO FARTHER TO GET IT, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT.
BUT I, FOR ME, THE LENGTH OF RESTRICTION IS THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE.
UM, I WOULD RATHER PUT MORE MONEY IN THAN REDUCE THE LENGTH OF, OF THE, OF A RESTRICTION.
I MEAN, THAT'S SORT OF JUST THE WAY I'M THINKING BECAUSE WE WANT IT, WE WANT THIS FOR THE LONGEST TERM AS POSSIBLE.
UH, SO I WOULD, THAT'S FOR ME, THE NUMBER ONE GOAL IS LONG TERM AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS MORE NEGOTIABLE FOR ME.
BUT I'M NOT TIED TO 50 OR 30 OR ANYTHING.
I MEAN, I LIKE 30, BUT WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN A LOT OF 30.
WHAT MAKES SENSE, UM, TO YOU? UM, SO NOT RIGHT NOW.
WHEN YOU BRING US A PROJECT, WE'VE HAD PROJECTS BEFORE WHERE THINGS HAVE BEEN VARIABLE FROM WHAT WE EXPECTED.
AND WHEN THEY WERE EXPLAINED, IT MADE SENSE AND IT WAS ACCEPTABLE.
[02:45:01]
THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY IS THE LOGGED IS THE LENGTH.PETE, DID YOU ALSO WANT TO, I I, I WANNA MAKE SURE I DIDN'T MISS YOU.
BRIAN AND UH, HOLLY, THANK YOU MAYOR.
I LIKE 30 YEARS AS THE TARGET STARTING POINT AND, UH, LIKE COUNCILOR WILLIAMSON, I WOULD NOT PREFER TO SEE MULTIPLE TIERS.
AND YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANNA SEE A 10 BY 10 MATRIX OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT WE'RE SOMEHOW STARTING TO PIGEONHOLE OURSELVES INTO WHEN IT'S NOT AN ENTITLEMENT BASED RIGHT.
I'M, I'M OF THE SAME, UH, AS PETE AND BRIAN, SAME MINDSET.
IT FEELS TO ME LIKE 50 YEARS IS SO LONG THAT IT'S A DISINCENTIVE AND NOT AN INCENTIVE.
AND IF WE START LOWER, THEN WE CAN INCENTIVIZE THEM TO GO LONGER IF WE ADD MORE IN THERE.
SO THAT'S MY FEELING ABOUT IT.
IF NO ONE HAS EVER PICKED UP ON THAT AND IT'S POTENTIALLY CLOSE THE DOOR ON OPPORTUNITIES, I DON'T, I THINK WE HAVE TO BE REALLY FLEXIBLE ABOUT THAT.
BUT IN THE DIGA DOES IT, IT ACTUALLY SAYS 50 YEARS.
I THINK WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT.
YOU HAVE THAT DIRECTION? I THINK SO.
UH, SHOULD WE DO ONE HYPOTHETICAL? SURE.
CARRIE, TO, TO JUST TO SEE, UM, TO HELP, HELP GUIDE US, HELP GUIDE STAFF A LITTLE BIT, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
SO, UH, IF A DEVELOPER WAS PROPOSING 50 UNITS, UM, A 50 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING, UM, NICELY DONE.
LOOKS GOOD, EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.
UM, AND THEY'RE WILLING TO DO DE OR DE RESTRICT THE WHOLE PROPERTY TO NOT BE USED AS SHORT TERM RENTALS.
UH, 25 OF THE UNITS RESTRICTED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR 10 YEARS.
SO I'M PUSHING IT ON THE LOW END.
UM, AND THEY'RE REQUESTING A HEIGHT INCREASE TO THREE STORIES.
SAY THEY'RE ON THE 89 A AND A SETBACK REDUCTION MAYBE TO 18 FEET OR 17 FEET FROM THE 20 FEET.
SO THAT'S NOT A, THAT'S NOT, I I'M SEEING THAT SHAKING HEAD OVER HERE ALREADY.
NO, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S CONFUSING.
I MEAN, IT'S, I 2, 2, 2 CODE CHANGES.
THEY CAN ALREADY BUILD TWO, THEY WANT THREE AND SETBACKS.
THEY WANT TO, THEY, TO MAXIMIZE THE VALUE OF THE NUMBER OF, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING THEY CAN BUILD ON THE PROPERTY.
THEY WANNA GO TO 17 FEET INSTEAD OF 20, UM, 50 TOTAL UNITS.
THEY'LL DO HALF, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT THEY'RE ONLY WILLING TO WILLING TO RESTRICT IT FOR 10 YEARS.
TO ME, THAT'S ACTUALLY HALF AT, AT AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 25 OF 'EM, THAT'S FOR FREE.
NO CONTRIBUTION FROM THE CITY.
THAT, THAT, THAT'S A FAIRLY GOOD DEAL IS BETTER DEAL THAN WHAT'S COME TO US.
SO I THINK WHEN I THINK THINGS LIKE THAT, IF THAT WERE IN FRONT OF US TODAY, I WOULD BE OKAY.
IF IT WAS THE 10TH PROJECT OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS, I MIGHT HAVE MM-HMM.
STR ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THAT? YEAH, THEY, THEY WOULD HUNDRED.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S RE UM, THAT'S A REQUIREMENT.
WELL, ONE, THEY WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO ANYWAY, JUST FOR DEFINITION MORE THAN FOUR UNITS ON A PARCEL, THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO DO SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
UH, BUT ALL OF OUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AS COUNCILS REQUIRED AND EVERYTHING HAS A, A SHORT-TERM RENTAL.
BUT THEY'VE ACCEPTED THAT THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR THAT TO BE A WAIVER.
IN THIS THEORETICAL THEY WOULD.
THEY WOULD BE ACCEPTING A, SO THE DEPARTMENTS WOULD NEVER BE USED AS SHORT TERM RENTALS.
SO THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL RESTRICTION WOULD MUCH LONGER THAN THE AFFORDABILITY RESTRICTION.
WELL, IS IT FOREVER OR IS IT FOR A DEFINED PERIOD OF TIME? USUALLY WE DO SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 30 AND 50 FOR THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PIECE.
AND 10 YEARS ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND POSTS.
PARTLY THAT THE STATE WOULD GIVE US A ABILITY TO RESTRICT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS BEFORE WE DO IN THE FUTURE.
AND THEN THE, UH, OKAY, SO I HEARD A FEW, SO AT LEAST INTERESTED, UM, WOULD THE COUNCIL BE WILLING TO, UH, INCENTIVIZE IT OR HELP SUBSIDIZE IT IN ORDER TO GET A LONGER, UH, AFFORDABILITY PERIOD? AND I'M ASKING THIS 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK SHANNON'S HERE AND I THINK SHE WOULD BE ASKING THOSE.
I'D ENTERTAIN IT, IT WOULD DEPEND ON HOW MUCH WE HAVE TO INCENTIVIZE AND HOW MUCH LONGER THEY'RE GONNA GIVE US.
FIRST ACROSS THE POST VERSUS FIVE YEARS FROM NOW.
AND IS THAT GOING TO BE WORKFORCE HOUSING OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING? THE DIFFERENCE, I MEAN, THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT COME, HAVE TO COME INTO PLAY, BUT I'VE BEEN OPEN TO IT.
[02:50:01]
FEEDBACK ON THAT? NO, I THINK WE'VE, IT'S A BIG, MAYBE IT'S A BIG, MAYBE HURRY UP AND WAIT.UM, SO I GET THE LAST, SO WE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT, UM, OKAY, SO WE'RE JUST GONNA JUMP KIND OF TO THE, MY LAST BULLET POINT HERE.
UM, SOMETHING THAT COMES UP A LOT IS THE NUMBER OF UNITS VERSUS THE VARIETY OF UNITS.
AND SO WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS A PROJECT THAT HAS ALL STUDIOS VERSUS A MIX OF STUDIO ONE AND TWO BEDROOMS. UM, AS JEANIE AND SHANNON, OR I KEEP SAYING JEANIE AND CYNTHIA, WERE TALKING ABOUT, UM, A LOT OF THE GOALS IS TO CREATE COMMUNITY AND A PROJECT THAT IS ALL STUDIOS LIMITS YOUR CLIENTELE.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS, YOU MIGHT GET 50 TOTAL UNITS IF THEY'RE ALL STUDIOS IN THAT SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE, YOU MIGHT GET 35 TO 40 UNITS IF YOU MIX IN ONE AND TWO BEDROOMS, BUT YOU'RE SERVING A GREATER SWATH OF THE POPULATION.
AND SO IS THERE A PREFERENCE ON COUNCIL FOR MAXIMIZED NUMBER OF UNITS VERSUS GET A VARIETY OF UNITS? VARIETY? I WOULD LIKE TO GO WITH VARIETY ALSO, BUT IF WE GO FOR VARIETY MORE BEDROOMS, THAT'S THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CHILDREN, WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO ME FOR SCHOOLS.
BUT IF THEY, YOU KNOW, THINKING WAY OUTSIDE THE BOX, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE YOUNGER CHILDREN.
DO YOU HAVE A PLAY STRUCTURE? DO YOU HAVE A YARD OR NO YARD? BECAUSE THEY, THEY BUILT OUT TO THE MAXIMUM SIZE.
ASSUMING YOU CAN GET TO, LIKE, IF YOU'RE IN UPTOWN, UH, THERE'S NOT, YOU HAVE THE REGULAR, UH, BREW, YOU GOT THE BREWER ROAD, BUT IN THE CHAPEL THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO A PARK IN THE ANYWHERE ALONG THE 1 79 CORRIDOR.
SO, UM, BUT YEAH, SO I GUESS JUST THE QUESTION THAT WE'RE ASKING IS, AND I MEAN IF YES, MOST, MOST OF THE NEW APARTMENT COMPLEXES WE SEE, YOU KNOW, THAT THE TWO THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT, THEY HAVE SOME KIND OF COMMON AREA OUTSIDE AS WELL.
AND THEN, UH, PREFERENCE FOR VARIETY FOR HAVING YEAH.
I, I'D LIKE TO ASK MY COLLEAGUES TO RECONSIDER THAT.
AND I'M GONNA BE AT THE FIRST PASS THE POST ARGUMENT AGAIN.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MARKET DEMAND IS YET FOR SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS FAMILY FAMILIES.
I WOULD LIKE 'EM ALL, BUT I, EARLY IN THIS PROCESS, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE LESS RESTRICTIONS.
I WOULD LIKE THE MARKET, THE DEVELOPERS TO TELL US WHAT'S POPULAR.
IF WE GET ALL SMALL UNITS HERE AT THE START, MAYBE NEXT TWO YEARS FROM NOW, WE CAN CHANGE IT SOME.
BUT I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE FLEXIBILITY THAN MORE DEFINITION AT THE START OF THE PROCESS.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT WE WOULD HAVE ANY KIND OF REQUIREMENT.
IT'S JUST A QUESTION THAT WE GET ASKED A LOT AND WE, IT'S LIKE, YES, YOU CAN UP THE NUMBER, BUT THEN THAT SACRIFICES THE TWO BEDROOM UNITS.
AND, UM, BUT I THINK THERE'S ALSO A, IF YOU SEE A PROJECT COME TO YOU WITH A BUNCH OF TWO BEDROOM UNITS, YOU JUST, THE, THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS WILL BE LESS.
SO THAT IS SO, SO THANK YOU THAT STATED THAT WAY.
I, I WOULD EXPRESS MY DESIRE OF UNITS RATHER THAN, THAN PLEASE.
SO I GET THE WHOLE THING ON UNITS.
HOWEVER, WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD COMMUNITY HERE AND WE'RE TRYING TO BUILD YOU, YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO OVER TIME, NOT ONLY THAT, BUT YOU CAN CREATE A STRESSFUL SITUATION IN WHICH THE ONLY UNITS ARE AVAILABLE ARE STUDIOS.
SO I'M MOVING IN THERE WITH MY INFANT, AND SO NOW YOU'VE GOT A STRESSFUL SITUATION WHERE YOU'VE GOT TWO PEOPLE AND AN INFANT, TWO ADULTS AND AN INFANT.
THAT INFANT'S GROWING, THAT STUDIO IS GETTING CROWDED.
I, I THINK IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT.
AND I THINK WE NEED TO DECIDE WHAT WE WANT OUR COMMUNITY TO LOOK LIKE IN THE LONG RUN.
THOSE STUDIOS ARE GONNA BE THERE A LONG TIME AND NO ONE'S GONNA CONVERT THEM TO ONE BEDROOMS. SO I THINK YOU WANNA START OUT PLANNING FOR WHAT YOU WANT IN THE FUTURE, NOT WHAT YOU THINK YOU NEED.
AND SO I WOULD REALLY RATHER SEE SOME VARIETY THAT, THAT COMES IN.
WE ALSO DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR WORKFORCE POPULATION LOOKS LIKE, AND THAT'S PART OF OUR PROBLEM, RIGHT? WE CAN'T MAKE AN ASSUMPTION THEY'RE ALL SINGLE OR THEY'RE ALL, YOU KNOW, UH, TWO PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO LIVE TOGETHER, UM, AND, AND SHARE A STUDIO, WHICH IS A SMALL SPACE.
SO I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE VARIETY.
I'D LIKE FOR US TO PLAN FOR A COMMUNITY, UM, UH, AND OF, OF GROWING INDIVIDUALS WHO EVENTUALLY BE ABLE TO AFFORD A HOME, UH, IN SEDONA.
SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
I THINK WE, AND I THINK KIND OF THE LAST ONE WE KIND OF ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, BUT AS WE BRING PROJECTS
[02:55:01]
TO YOU, WE JUST WANTED A, A CLEAR EXPECT, A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT YOU'RE EXPECTING TO SEE WHEN YOU, UM, BRING A PROJECT.WE TALKED ABOUT VIEW SHED ANALYSIS AND RENDERINGS.
UM, ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND IS THAT, UM, IT WAS PEOPLE WERE COMING TO YOU ASKING FOR SOME OF THESE GREATER EXCEPTIONS.
UM, A LOT OF THESE THINGS COST MONEY.
UM, SO A VIEW SHED ANALYSIS MIGHT, UH, YOU KNOW, NOT HAVE ALL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS, BUT MY KNOW IS LIKE, HERE'S WHERE THE, HERE'S WHERE THE BUILDING'S GONNA BE.
UM, SO IS IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU REALLY, WE TALKED ABOUT THE VIEW SHED ANALYSIS, SOME OF THE RENDERINGS, BUT IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU THINK IS VERY VITAL TO YOU BEING ABLE TO MAKE SOME OF THESE DECISIONS, WE'D LIKE TO KNOW SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING THAT FROM THE APPLICANTS AS WE GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
I'M THINKING OF A PROJECT IN FRONT OF, IN PROCESS RIGHT NOW WHERE, UM, THERE'S THE POTENTIAL, I'M THINKING OF A FUTURE POTENTIAL PROJECT.
HOW ABOUT THAT, UH, WHERE, UM, A VARI, NOT A VARIANCE, BUT AN EXCEPTION TO THE CFA MIGHT BE REQUIRED.
AND SO NOW YOU'RE GETTING INTO COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND SO, UH, IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR YOU TO HAVE A GREATER SENSE OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS REQUIREMENT OR, YOU KNOW, JUST BEING ABLE TO ARTICULATE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, PARTICULARLY IF IT COMES INTO FORM OF HOUSING, RELATIVE TO EMPLOYMENT CREATED BY THE PROJECT.
AND WHETHER IT A NET HOUSING GAIN IS POTENTIALLY BEING CREATED.
VICE MAYOR, YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH.
AND SO IT'S, IT'S THAT VISUAL, JUST LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT THE OTHER DAY, THE VISUAL THAT WAS SHOWN YOU WERE THERE REALLY HELPED THE NEIGHBORS AND THEY WENT FROM BEING ANGRY AND HOSTILE.
I CAN'T SAY IT WENT SO FAR AS TO ACCEPT IT, BUT MORE TOWARDS ACCEPTANCE.
AND I'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER EXAMPLE ON THE OPPOSITE END, UH, THE, UH, THE MONT, RIGHT? THEY NEVER, THAT WAS GONNA BE VERY EXPENSIVE TO GIVE THE DESIGN, GIVE THE RENDERINGS.
AND THAT HURT THEM IN, IN A LOT OF WAYS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DIDN'T KNOW, THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE DENSITY.
BUT THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE GETTING.
'CAUSE THE ONLY THING THAT THEY SAW WAS BLOCKS OF, OF, OF, UH, WHERE THE, THE BUILDINGS ARE GONNA BE SORT OF LIKE, UH, COLLEGE DORMS. AND IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS, UH, REPHRASED TO.
AND SO THE PEOPLE WERE IN, UP IN ARMS ABOUT IT 'CAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE GETTING.
DOES THAT HELP YOU? THAT WE, I THINK SO.
IF THEY CAN DO, EVEN IF IT'S MAYBE NOT FULL RENDERINGS, IF, IF THEY COULD DO PARTIAL, IT WOULD BE TO THEIR BENEFIT.
NOW LOOK, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS A REAL HINDRANCE FOR A DESIGNER TO DO? WELL, I, THAT WOULD BE, MAX WOULD BE DOING THAT.
I MEAN, YOU CAN EASILY GET SOME LIKE, LIFE RIGHT RENDERINGS.
BUT I MEAN THAT WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE WHOLE RIGHT.
FOOTPRINTS AND EVERYTHING, BUT I REMEMBER FOR THE SAME MONT, THEY MAX PROVIDED A GREAT RENDERING OF SOMETHING.
IT WAS JUST BASICALLY LINE DRAWINGS AND IT LOOKED A THOUSAND PERCENT BETTER THAN WHAT THE DEVELOPER WAS PROPOSING THAT COULD HAVE HELPED.
SO, UM, YOU HAVE A COMMENT, MAX? YEAH.
[03:00:02]
MAX LECHER AGAIN? WELL, THESE DAYS USUALLY IT'S, IT'S COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGERY AND IT DOES TAKE TIME AND IT DOES DEFINITELY COST THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO CREATE NICE IMAGES.SO I THINK DEPENDING UPON THE BENEFIT THAT YOU'RE POTENTIALLY GETTING OUT OF IT, YOU WANT TO, YOU SORT OF WANNA BALANCE WHAT YOU'RE GONNA NEED.
IF A DEVELOPER'S REALLY ASKING FOR A LOT, THEN IT'S WORTH GOING FOR THAT.
I WOULD HESITATE JUST ON BASIC DESIGN REVIEW, RUN OF THE MILL STUFF TO REQUIRE A LOT OF THAT.
IF STAFF CAN EASILY SAY IT'S MEETING THE NEEDS, BECAUSE IT DOES ADD TO THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE DESIGN AND THE DEVELOPER.
SO IT, IT REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET OUT OF IT.
AND IN THESE CRITICAL AREAS WHERE YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING AT PUSHING THE LIMITS OR GOING FOR SOMETHING NEW, THREE STORIES IN AN AREA.
I, I AGREE IT'S DEFINITELY WORTH DOING.
BUT JUST IF, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE HAVING A HARD TIME YOURSELVES VISUALIZING SOMETHING AND IT'S GONNA COST THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS MORE TO DO IT, YOU KNOW? MM-HMM.
IT'S, I CAN SEE BOTH SIDES OF IT AND I, I WOULD SAY BE JUDICIOUS ABOUT WHERE YOU REQUIRE THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL.
BRIAN? YEAH, I THINK IN RESPONSE TO THAT, UH, TO WHAT MAX WAS JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, SO A REZONING A, A, UM, A CFA AMENDMENT, LIKE I THINK THAT'S IN THAT REALM WHERE WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO REQUIRE THAT OR EXPECT THAT IT'S A BIGGER DEAL, RIGHT? YEAH.
JESSICA? I THINK THE ISSUE IS FOR COMMERCIAL AND FOR, UM, PURE MARKET RATES, SIR, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AFFORDABLE RIGHT? OR SO, ONE OR TWO HOUSES VERSUS A COMPLEX LIKE THE MERRI NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT A, A DEVELOPMENT THAT EXPENSE TO MAKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OFF THE DEVELOPMENT THEY CAN BE EXPECTED TO, TO PONY UP IN THE BEGINNING.
AND BESIDES, THEY'RE NOT OUR PRIORITY.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A PRIORITY TOWARD, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE JUST GENERAL DEVELOPMENT.
BUT FOR AFFORDABLE, I THINK WE HAVE TO BE, I THINK WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL ADD A LOT TO THE COST.
AND WE HAVE TO, I'M NOT SURE THAT IT MAKES, MAKES SENSE TO SORT OF REQUIRE IT IN THAT, IN THAT, IN THAT INSTANCE.
BECAUSE BASICALLY I GUESS IT'S REALLY MEETS TWO OBJECTIVES.
ONE, TO SATISFY COUNSEL AND SECOND TO TRY AND, AND, AND SATISFY RESIDENTS, RIGHT? WHO, SOME OF WHOM CAN BE PERSUADED, RIGHT? VIA AN EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT.
BUT WE HAVE FOUND THAT THERE'S APPARENTLY ROOM IN SOME OF THOSE BUDGETS TO DO THAT.
AND THAT SHOULD BE DONE WHEN IT'S, WHEN IT, WHEN IT'S FEASIBLE.
ALRIGHT, ANY MORE QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? OKAY.
NEXT? OR ARE WE DONE? ARE WE DONE? DONE? ARE WE, YOU SURE? UM, I HESITATED TO PUT DIRECTION AS A BULLET POINT ON HERE BECAUSE OKAY.
I WAS HOPING WE WOULD GET THERE AND I THINK WE HAVE, UM, AND I WAS, ANOTHER GOAL WAS HOPING THAT THERE WOULD BE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS AND WHAT TO EXPECT.
YOU'RE NOT MORE CONFUSED NOW BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A FAILURE ON OUR PART C.
CARRIE, DID WE DISCUSS WHICH COMES FIRST? OH, THE DISCUSS.
WHAT, WHICH COMES FIRST? LET'S, LET'S, WE'LL GO.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL, IF I MAY JUST, UH, LET'S PRETEND THAT THEORETICALLY I PROVIDED YOU, UM, THAT SOUNDED LIKE THERE COULD BE SOME SUPPORT FOR, UM, AT, AT CITY COUNCIL.
WOULD YOU PREFER THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO COME TO CITY COUNCIL FIRST FOR APPROVAL? ONCE YOU APPROVE THE CHANGES, THEN IT GOES TO P AND Z AND THAT WHOLE PROCESS THEN COMES BACK FOR A, A FINAL APPROVAL, I GUESS? UM, OR IF IT WAS ONLY A DESIGN REVIEW, IT WOULDN'T COME BACK.
OR WOULD YOU PREFER THAT STAFF WORK OUT THE DETAILS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, UH, WITH, WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THEN TAKE THAT TO P AND Z FIRST AND THEN EVERYTHING, UH, I MEAN, UH, P AND Z'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE CONDITIONAL ANYWAYS, BUT IT'D BE CONDITIONAL UPON, UM, THE P THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BEING APPROVED BY COUNSEL.
AND HOW IS IT DONE? I'M SORRY.
NO, YEAH, IT'S, CARRIE MIGHT BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN IT BETTER.
SO CURRENTLY THE, THE PROCESS WE GO THROUGH IS THAT WE CONSIDER ANY EXCEPTIONS THAT THEY ARE REQUESTING FIRST AND THEN TAKE THE FULL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH P AND Z.
[03:05:01]
THAT'S WHERE YOU MIGHT NOT SEE A FULL, A FULLY FLESHED OUT ARCHITECTURAL PLAN BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT'S A LOT OF EXPENSE TO GO THROUGH WITHOUT THE ASSURANCES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO BUILD AT THE HEIGHT THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR, AT THE DENSITY YOU'RE ASKING FOR, AT THE SETBACKS YOU'RE ASKING FOR.UM, AND THAT IS GENERALLY HOW WE HAVE DONE VARIANCES AND ARE THERE MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROCESS.
SO WE WOULD TAKE, BRING, THE PROCESS RIGHT NOW IS TO BRING JUST THOSE ELEMENTS WHERE THEY'RE ASKING FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR APPROVAL AND THEN GO BACK THROUGH THE FULL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS WITH A CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT WE'RE USING, WHAT STANDARDS WE'RE USING TO REVIEW THE PROJECT AS OPPOSED TO COMING TO COUNSEL FIRST BEFORE.
SO THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE, AND WE'D HAVE TO MAKE A COUPLE CODE CHANGES TO DO THAT, WOULD BE TO TAKE THE WHOLE PROJECT THROUGH THE P AND ZA PRO PROCESS.
BUT THAT IS, IF COUNSEL ULTIMATELY DECIDES THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO APPROVE THOSE EXCEPTIONS, THAT'S A LOT OF WORK AND A LOT OF TIME AND EXPENSE TO GO THROUGH FOR A PROJECT THAT IS JUST NOT GONNA HAPPEN.
I THINK THE PROCESS SHOULD REMAIN AS IT IS.
I THINK IT MAKES NO SENSE TO HAVE THAT WHOLE PROCESS AND EXPENSE AND THEN COME HERE AND WE SAY, EH, NOT SO MUCH.
SO I, I WANT IT TO REMAIN AS IT IS.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED, I I DON'T THINK COUNCIL NEEDS ALL OF THE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS IN ORDER TO APPROVE THE EXCEPTIONS.
I THINK THAT I LIKE IT THE WAY IT IS.
I THINK IT LOGICALLY MAKES SENSE AND IS EFFICIENT.
AND MAYOR COUNSEL, I MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADD THAT THE, THE LAST TIME THAT THIS CAME THROUGH THE, THE SHELBY, UM, RIGHT VILLAS ON SHELBY, THAT, THAT WAS, WE CAN RECOGNIZE AT LEAST THAT WASN'T ENOUGH INFORMATION THAT YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE MORE THAN THAT.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD USUALLY WOULD HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE ANYWAY.
UM, SO IF THAT WAS THE ONLY CONCERN, SEE YOU AND FOR THAT PROJECT, WE DID NOT HAVE THE RENDERINGS.
AND WHAT WAS VERY INTERESTING AND THE DEVELOPER COULDN'T GET THE RENDERINGS ON TIME, BUT I SAW THE RENDERINGS THAT FRIDAY.
THOSE RENDERINGS ARE FABULOUS AND IT MADE, I THINK IT WOULD'VE HELPED US, UH, A LOT ON THE DAY IS HAD THEY, THE DEVELOPER HAD IT.
SO IF WE LEAVE THE PROCESS AS IT IS, WE CAN ALSO, WE CAN DEFINITELY AGAIN, CHANGE WHAT WE'RE ASKING THE DEVELOPER FOR AND COME, MAYBE NOT WITH A FULL PLAN, BUT MAYBE A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION THAN WE HAD ON THAT ONE.
KATHY, I'M GONNA TAKE THE OPPOSITE VIEW ON THIS BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S PLANNING AND ZONING AND I WANT THE BENEFIT OF THEIR COMMENTS.
THEY'RE THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY THIS COUNCIL FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF VETTING AND GIVING US ADVICE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION IN OUR DELIBERATIONS.
THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE THEIR, THE EYES AND EARS OF THE COMMUNITY AND THEY, THEIR REQUIREMENTS ARE DIFFERENT AREAS THAT THEY REPRESENT, SUCH AS WE HAVE AN ARCHITECT, AN ENGINEER, YOU KNOW, UM, I WANT THE BENEFIT OF THEIR COMMENTS.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE.
SO I, I THINK THAT, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THINGS GO THROUGH P AND Z BEFORE THEY COME TO US SO THAT THOSE COULD BE CONSIDERED VICE MAYOR.
WELL, I HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE.
I THINK P AND Z, THEY DO HAVE VALUE FOR SURE AND THEY DO HAVE, UH, ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL CAPABILITIES AND, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT POLICY.
SO I THINK THAT REALLY IS OUR PLACE WHETHER WE'RE GONNA ACCEPT THESE THINGS.
NOW, I DID HAVE SOME ISSUES WHEN THIS WAS BROUGHT TO US ON SHELBY ABOUT WHETHER, YOU KNOW, MASSING GOES BACK TO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO REALLY REVIEW AND I WOULD'VE LIKED P AND Z'S INPUT ON THAT.
BUT IN TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ITSELF, I JUST THINK GOING THROUGH THAT ENTIRE PROCESS BEFORE KNOWING WHETHER COUNSEL IS GONNA ACCEPT IT IS INEFFICIENT, EXPENSIVE, AND, UH, COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
AND, BUT I ALSO, BUT I FELT THAT THE, UM, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING COMPLETELY AND IT'S A CONUNDRUM.
IT'S, UH, A CONFOUNDING CONUNDRUM.
UM, BUT IT WAS, IT'S HARD TO PUT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN PERSPECTIVE UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT THE PROJECT IS GOING TO, HOW IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE REFLECTED IN THE PROJECT, WHICH IS PART OF THE DESIGN PROCESS AS WELL.
SO I, IT IT'S THE CHICKEN AND EGG.
[03:10:01]
I THINK I'D RATHER GO THROUGH THE, THE HAVE THE GO THROUGH THE P AND Z HOOP, UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPMENT PART OF IT, BUT THAT WE HAVE THE VALUE OF THE COMMONS ON THE DESIGN TO TAKE INTO PERSPECTIVE WITH WHAT WE ARE AGREEING TO WAIVE OR NOT WAIVE.'CAUSE WE'RE WAIVING OR NOT WAIVING IN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BASED ON WHAT SOMETHING'S GOING TO BE.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE ADVICE OR THE RENDERING OF THE END PROJECT.
SO I I, I THINK IT'S CUMBERSOME.
I GET THE DOWNSIDES, BUT I DO THINK PROCESS-WISE THAT IT, IT'S, I I STILL WOULD LIKE P AND ZS INPUT FIRST.
BUT WHICH IS WHAT, WHAT CAN WE DO TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS? HOW CAN, BECAUSE MAYBE WE CAN BE A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBLE IF WE COULD, IF WE KNOW WE'RE STREAMLINING THE PROCESS TO MOVE SOMETHING FASTER OR, UH, AT A BETTER PACE.
EITHER A DIFFERENCE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
COULD I ASK A QUESTION TO THAT? I, I'D LIKE HER TO ANSWER FIRST.
IF SHE'S THINKING ABOUT ANSWERING, AND I WANNA THROW THIS IN THE MIX WITH HER THOUGHTS, WHICH IS IT WHY? AND THIS IS PARTIALLY KURT, WHY COULDN'T, WHY CAN'T THERE BE JOINT MEETINGS OF P AND Z AND, AND COUNSEL ON A QUESTION LIKE THAT? THEY'RE RARE, RIGHT? THAT THAT COMES UP.
SO WHY COULDN'T WE BE ABLE TO DO THAT? AT LEAST SOME, SOME SORT OF BIFURCATION THAT WE'RE ON THE SAME, YOU KNOW, SIMULTANEOUS TRACKS.
THE PROBLEM IS ONE COMES BEFORE THE OTHER.
HOW DO, THAT'S THE PROBLEM TO SOLVE.
I THINK SOMETHING WE COULD LOOK INTO.
UM, IT'S HARD TO FIT THAT SCHEDULE AND I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT WOULD FIT.
AND, AND 14, WELL, 70 ELECTED OFFICIALS AND SEVEN APPOINTED OFFICIALS CAN BE KIND OF HARD FOR STAFF TO MANAGE AND IT WOULD BE ANOTHER POTENTIAL PUBLIC MEETING.
UM, DID IT USED TO HAPPEN? NO.
IN OUR HISTORY, I THINK IT DID.
I THINK ONCE A YEAR WE'VE HAD SOME JOINT MEETINGS.
IT WAS JUST A, IT WAS JUST A INFORMATIVE YEAH, IT'S MORE THEY, WE, I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER DONE THEM FOR A PROJECT.
WHY COULDN'T WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED SUBJECT TO PNZ? YEAH.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE APPROVE THE, THE POLICY PART AND THEN THEY APPROVE AND WE'RE WILLING TO DO THIS EXCEPTION IF PNZ THINKS IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
YEAH, YOU CAN APPROVE IT CONDITIONALLY UPON SUBSEQUENT P AND Z APPROVAL.
UM, YOU COULD ALSO JUST RESERVE IT DEPENDING ON IF IT WAS GONNA COME BACK FOR A FULL REASON OR NOT.
YOU COULD RESERVE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONDITION UPON APPROVAL OF THE REZONE, WHICH I, WHICH WE DO ANYWAY.
ALRIGHT, SO THAT I HAVE A QUESTION.
I MEAN THEN THAT MEANS THAT COUNSEL IS BASICALLY DELEGATING ITS AUTHORITY FOR POLICY DECISIONS TO P AND Z.
NO, NO, JUST THE OFFICE OBJECT.
NO, BUT YOU SAID SUBJECT TO THEIR APPROVAL OF THE POLICY DECISION, NOT THE POLICY.
I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT WAS, THAT WAS THE WAY THE OLD SYSTEM WORKS AND I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT WAS REALLY GREAT.
I MEAN, IT'S ALWAYS BASED ON THAT IF THEY TURN IT DOWN.
NO, I MEANT IF IF P AND Z WE APPROVE IT, IF P AND Z DOESN'T APPROVE IT, IT DOESN'T GO ANYWHERE ANYWAY.
THAT'S THE NO, YOU, YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT.
PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WE APPROVED EXCEPTIONS.
AND I'LL JUST USE MASSING 'CAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS.
PNC CAN'T, THEY DON'T HAVE AUTHORITY ABOVE US.
SO THAT, SO IF THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT IT, THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT AT THIS POINT 'CAUSE WE APPROVED IT.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THE BUILDING MASSING ELEMENT OR ASPECT OF THE APPROVAL WOULD THEN BE SUBJECT TO P AND Z AND THEY COULD COME BACK AND SAY, HERE'S THE VERY GOOD REASONS WHY YOU SHOULDN'T DO THIS.
AS LONG AS THE EXCEPTIONS ARE FACT P AND Z RELATED.
THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY, DOES THAT GIVE YOU CARRIE? YEAH, WE'LL, WE'LL HAVE TO, WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK IT OUT.
LOOK OUT HOW TO PUT THAT INTO THE ACTUAL CODE, BUT I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULD WORK OUT AND WE'LL DEFINITELY EXPLORE IT.
CARRIE WAS, WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? WHAT'S THAT? I WAS THERE, DID I MISS ANYTHING ELSE? UM, SO I'M, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.
UM, THE NEXT STEPS FOR THIS WHOLE PROCESS WOULD BE WE'D GO BACK AND PROBABLY DO SOME RESEARCH AND, YOU KNOW, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED AND COME UP WITH SOME IDEAS AND, UM,
[03:15:02]
HOUSING STAFF WILL BE WORKING ON CHANGES TO THE DIGGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF WILL BE WORKING ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.WE'LL ALL, YOU KNOW, AND, AND PROCESSES.
OUR OFFICES ARE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER.
UM, AND THEN WE'LL BE BACK SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE EITHER FOR ANOTHER WORK SESSION OR WITH THE CODE CHANGES.
CODE CHANGES DO HAVE TO GO TO P AND Z FIRST.
UM, AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING FROM HERE.
HOPEFULLY THIS WAS INFORMATIVE.
YOU PREDICTED IT FUN AND YOU WERE RIGHT.
UM, ANYTHING ELSE TO CARRY BEFORE WE WRAP UP THIS ITEM? OKAY, LET'S MOVE TO ITEM
[3.b. Discussion/possible action regarding ideas for future meetings/agenda items.]
D.UH, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING, UH, IDEAS FOR FUTURE MEETING AND AGENDA ITEMS IS YOU HAVE SOMETHING? ALRIGHT.
I JUST WANTED TO ASK ANNETTE, WE TALKED, UH, LAST NIGHT ABOUT, ABOUT UM, THE YAVAPAI COLLEGE, BUT WE ALSO HAD REQUESTED, UH, WHOA.
YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST AND YOU WON'T BE THE LAST
IT JUST SORT OF DISAPPEARED ABOUT NAH, NORTHERN ARIZONA HEALTHCARE.
SO DO YOU HAVE AN UPDATE? I DO NOT.
I HAVE REACHED OUT, BUT NO, I DON'T HAVE AN UPDATE YET, BUT AS SOON AS I KNOW I WILL PUT, UM, ON THE UPCOMING MEETING SCHEDULE I'LL EMAIL YOU.
AND ANYTHING ELSE? HEARING NOTHING.
YOU THANK GOD YOU'RE AN ENGINEER.