1 | Hidden Hollow Road Access Consideration through Observatory Mesa Natural Area |
||||||||||||||||||||
This request involves 7 privately owned parcels ranging in size from 6.36 acres to one 40-acre parcel, totaling 114 acres. The parcels related to the amendment request are oriented in the north/eastern quadrant of Section 6 on Observatory Mesa. The Right-of-Way (ROW) easement passed from the Arizona State Land Department to the City of Flagstaff upon acquisition. The ROW easement is currently a primitive dirt road 10-15 ft wide that provides legal access to the private parcels. For the property owners to move ahead with development, they must have access to their property that meets city fire access code standards. They are requesting an amendment to the easement that would allow them to improve the road to meet these standards. The road improvements would require codified width and grading that deviates from some parts of the existing road and the ROW easement. The proposed road surface is an aggregate base, course, unpaved surface. The expense of approximately $200,000 would be covered by the property owners. If the ROW easement is amended as proposed, current fire access standards would permit up to 30 dwelling units for development. The Commission’s discussion involved thoughts on access to the private property and how it may affect the Observatory Mesa Natural Area, especially as it relates to the intent of the voters and guiding documents for managing the Natural Area. Numerous questions and requests for additional information were presented. In summary, these included, but weren’t limited to, whether the parcels could be subdivided or combined and what the property owners’ development plans were, other access options that were considered, whether Hidden Hollow Rd was adequate to host more traffic, and how impacts on wildlife and recreation could be mitigated during the development process. The following members of the public made comments in favor of adjusting the easement, saying that other access options were not considered viable due to terrain or other neighborhoods refusing access, the road surface would be ABS rather than paving, that the requesting private property owners only wanted what current residents have (a quiet place to build their family’s home), the road would be private (maintained by the private property owners) but still allow hiking and biking access, and that the adjustment of the easement would be better for the preservation of the Natural Area than using the current legal access rights since it would require less infrastructure, unused acreage would be returned to the city, and they would restore disturbed areas:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||