The Flagstaff Planning and Zoning Commission voted to grant a conditional use permit for a nine‑hole private golf amenity at Pine Canyon, approving PZ24‑00124‑08 in accordance with staff findings and two conditions.

Staff planner Ben (Planning & Development Services) told the commission the project would place a 9‑hole pitch‑and‑putt course on a 20.86‑acre portion of a 126‑acre tract in the Rural Residential (RR) zone as a private amenity for a planned residential development. The proposal includes about 4 acres of turf, a multi‑use health and wellness path, ponds and streams, and no new buildings. Ben said the proposal preserves about 68–69% of forest canopy on the amenity tract, exceeding the 50% preservation target in the zoning code, and that final preservation will be evaluated at civil plan review.

The project relies on reclaimed water under an amended user agreement. Mac McNamara, engineering section, Water Services, said the amended agreement reduces Pine Canyon’s annual reclaimed‑water allotment from roughly 360,000,000 gallons to about 253,000,000 gallons per year and imposes a monthly cap not to exceed 27,000,000 gallons. McNamara told commissioners the amendment yields roughly 3,000,000 gallons per month in peak season that the city can reallocate to other users.

Applicant counsel Lindsay Schubee (Gamage and Burnham) and Symmetry Companies representative Todd Severson said Pine Canyon made voluntary irrigation improvements on its main course, removing about 10 acres of turf and achieving approximately 30% irrigation efficiency gains. They described the proposed amenity as a low‑impact, noncommercial pitch‑and‑putt designed to minimize grading, support biodiversity, be dark‑sky compliant, and participate in the Audubon sanctuary program. The applicant said the amenity will be managed through Pine Canyon’s existing clubhouse and membership system and that the course is not intended to expand to 18 holes.

Commissioners questioned whether golf courses have previously required conditional use permits and how the zoning interpretation that changed the requirement in 2011 was applied. Staff said a zoning interpretation posted on the city website clarifies that a golf course is a land use that requires a CUP; staff was not aware of other golf‑course CUPs since that interpretation. Commissioners pressed staff on reclaimed‑water capacity and the contract term; McNamara said the amended user agreement is a five‑year contract that is typically revisited on renewal.

Public comment focused on water policy. Nat White (resident) and Michelle James (executive director, Friends of Flagstaff Future) urged the commission to prioritize reclaimed water for public benefit, arguing that reclaimed water is scarce and should not be allocated for private amenities. Both speakers noted the city’s need to plan for future potable reuse and expressed concern that continued private allocations could leave the city exposed if reclaimed supplies become more valuable.

During deliberations commissioners voiced a range of views. Some said water‑allocation policy and long‑term reclaimed‑water strategy are policy matters for council and not the commission; others said approval would create an exclusionary private benefit from a resource produced by the broader community. The motion to grant the CUP was made and seconded; the commission recorded opposing votes and the motion carried.

The approval includes the two conditions identified in staff’s recommended finding report and requires that the development substantially conform to the plans submitted with the conditional use permit application. Staff also included a condition requiring the final natural resource protection plan submitted with civil engineering to demonstrate that disturbance of forest canopy remains in conformance with Flagstaff Zoning Code resource‑protection standards.

The commission’s action does not change the terms of the reclaimed‑water agreement recorded separately; McNamara said reclaimed user agreements are contractual and may require legal review or executive session to discuss contract details.

The commission moved on to other agenda items after the vote; the CUP decision is subject to any applicable appeal rights under city procedures.