WORK SESSION AGENDA
A M E N D E D
ATTENTION IN-PERSON AUDIENCES AT CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE The meetings will continue to be live streamed on the city's website (https://www.flagstaff.az.gov/1461/Streaming-City-Council-Meetings) PUBLIC COMMENT PROTOCOL The process for submitting a public comment has changed and public comments will no longer be read by staff during the Council Meetings. All public comments will be taken either telephonically or accepted as a written comment. Public comments may be submitted to publiccomment@flagstaffaz.gov If you wish to address the City Council with a public comment by phone you must submit the following information: First and Last Name Phone Number Agenda Item number you wish to speak on If any of this information is missing, you will not be called. We will attempt to call you only one time. We are unable to provide a time when you may be called. All comments submitted otherwise will be considered written comments and will be documented into the record as such. If you wish to email Mayor and Council directly you may do so at council@flagstaffaz.gov. AGENDA |
1. | Call to Order
NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that, at this work session, the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the City’s attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).
|
||||||||
2. | Pledge of Allegiance and Mission Statement MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the City of Flagstaff is to protect and enhance the quality of life for all.
|
||||||||
3. | ROLL CALL
|
||||||||
4. | Public Participation Public Participation enables the public to address the council about items that are not on the prepared agenda. Public Participation appears on the agenda twice, at the beginning and at the end of the work session. You may speak at one or the other, but not both. Anyone wishing to comment at the meeting is asked to fill out a speaker card and submit it to the recording clerk. When the item comes up on the agenda, your name will be called. You may address the Council up to three times throughout the meeting, including comments made during Public Participation. Please limit your remarks to three minutes per item to allow everyone to have an opportunity to speak. At the discretion of the Chair, ten or more persons present at the meeting and wishing to speak may appoint a representative who may have no more than fifteen minutes to speak. |
||||||||
5. | Review of Draft Agenda for the September 1, 2002 City Council Meeting
Citizens wishing to speak on agenda items not specifically called out by the City Council may submit a speaker card for their items of interest to the recording clerk.
|
||||||||
6. | Case No. PZ-19-00125 Updates to Zoning Code 2020 - High Occupancy Housing Specific Plan | ||||||||
7. | Case No. PZ-19-00123 Updates to Zoning Code 2019 – Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) | ||||||||
8. | Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment to Rezone Areas of the City to the Proposed Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) Zone | ||||||||
9. | Southside Community Specific Plan and associated minor Regional Plan map and text amendments (PZ-20-00001) | ||||||||
10. | Engineering Standards - Street Lighting and Traffic Signals | ||||||||
11. | Update on Downtown Visioning Plan | ||||||||
12. | Streets - Sweeping operations discussion | ||||||||
13. | Discussion: Restate that the City of Flagstaff is a “Golden Rule City” by pledging Resolution #2008-68 or updating the Resolution to the Council wishes. | ||||||||
14. | Public Participation | ||||||||
15. | Informational Items To/From Mayor, Council, and City Manager; future agenda item requests |
||||||||
16. | Adjournment | ||||||||
|
6.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Case No. PZ-19-00125 Updates to Zoning Code 2020 - High Occupancy Housing Specific Plan | |||||
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Hold a work session to allow the City Council and the public to ask questions, seek clarification, have discussions, offer comments, and provide direction on the proposed amendment. | |||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
The proposed amendment (Attachment 1) is intended to implement the High Occupancy Housing Specific Plan (HOH Plan) that was adopted by the City Council in February 2018. To implement the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the HOH Plan, multiple changes to the Zoning Code are being proposed. First and foremost, the amendment removes the Rooming and Boarding Land Use and adds the High Occupancy Housing Development (HOHD) and Mixed-Use High Occupancy Housing Development (MHOHD) related land uses to the Zoning Code as conditional uses. The proposed land uses address small-, medium-, and large-scale HOHDs and MHOHDs. In addition to the land uses, the amendment includes provisions related to vehicle and bicycle parking, a transit pass parking reduction program, locational criteria, density and bedrooms per acre allowances, Use Specific criteria, and Conditional Use Permit criteria. | |||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
I. City Council Questions: For your reference, below is a general overview of the questions on which staff is seeking the City Council’s comments and direction.
Please refer to the discussion in section V.A. of the report.
Please refer to the discussion in section V.C. of the report.
II. Introduction:In February 2018, the City Council adopted the citywide HOH Plan. The HOH Plan was developed in response to the community’s dialogue about previously proposed high-intensity mid-rise developments near historic neighborhoods that primarily catered to college students. The HOH Plan is intended to provide direction in the form of goals and policies to accommodate a variety of housing options in areas of the city that can support infill, redevelopment, and mixed-use activities. These goals and policies are intended to enhance and maintain the city’s character and guide future developments that would be considered High Occupancy Housing (HOH). It should be noted that the HOH Plan’s listed implementation strategies about the Zoning Code amendments (Pages 102, 103, 105, and 106 of the HOH Plan) “…may be accomplished through another method...” to achieve “…the goals and policies of the HOH Specific Plan and the Regional Plan” (Page 99 of the HOH Plan). After the adoption of the HOH Plan, staff received direction and affirmation from City Council on October 8, 2019, to address smaller developments that may also be considered as HOH. The smaller HOH developments that staff was directed to consider are single-family, two-unit (duplex), three-unit (triplex), and multiple-family developments that were not addressed in the HOH Plan. It should be noted that the HOH Plan did not scrutinize addressing smaller HOH developments. For context, the HOH Plan defines an HOH development as any development that has at least 30 units or 75 bedrooms per acre (Page 2 and 110 of the HOH Plan). When the HOH Plan was developed, the Plan primarily focused on large-scale developments. Developments that were included in the HOH Plan analysis were The HUB, The Standard, Village at Aspen Place, Fremont Station, etc. III. Overview of Proposed Amendment: To implement the goals, policies, and implementation strategies of the High Occupancy Housing Specific Plan, the proposed amendment (Attachment 1) includes multiple changes to the Zoning Code. New provisions are being added, and several existing regulations are being modified. The most significant of the modifications include the:
Summary of the Staff Revisions to the Zoning Code: The proposed amendment includes: 1. Residential Zones (Section 10-40.30.030):
11. Parking Standards (Division 10-50.80): Added Section 10-50.80.061, Transit Pass Parking Reduction Pilot Program, and related regulations. 12. Number of Motor Vehicle Parking Spaces Required (Section 10-50.80.040): Modified the existing parking requirements for single-family dwellings, added clarifications, and incorporated parking requirements for the HOHD and MHOHD. 13. Bicycle Parking (Section 10-50.80.050): Updated the existing requirements and added requirements for the HOHD and MHOHD, including design requirements. 14. Parking Adjustments (Section 10-50.80.060): Updated the existing requirements to include provisions for HOHDs and MHOHDs. Also, the parking study requirements have been updated to include requirement clarifications and when a request for a parking reduction requires the City Council approval. 15. Parking Standards (Division 10-50.80): Incorporated a provision for a Transit Pass Parking Reduction Pilot Program for HOHDs and MHOHDs. 16. Parking Spaces, Parking Lot Design and Layout (Section 10-50.80.080): Updated the existing requirements to limit the use of tandem parking spaces to single-family attached and detached dwelling units and duplex developments in the Non-Transect Residential Zones. 17. Specific to Building Types (Division 10-50.110): The following sections have been modified to remove the allowance for tandem parking: 10-50.110.080, 10-50.110.090, 10-50.110.100, 10-50.110.110, and 10-50.110.120. 18. Definition of Specialized Terms, Phrases, and Building Functions (Division 10-80.20): The following definitions have been added: High Occupancy Housing Development (HOHD); High Occupancy Housing Development, Single-Family; High Occupancy Housing Development, Two-units; High Occupancy Housing Development, Three-units; High Occupancy Housing Development, Four-units and Greater; Mixed-Use High Occupancy Housing Development (MHOHD); Ratio, Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit; and Ratio, Bedroom-to-Sanitation Facility. 19. Flagstaff Zoning Code, Appendices (Title 10): Added Appendix 1.4 Bicycle Parking Space Design Requirements. This appendix includes regulations and design requirements for bicycle parking spaces. IV. Summary of May 27, 2020, Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session Comments: At the May 27, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission requested City staff to return with the dwelling unit distribution for the Commons at the Sawmill. This request pertained to having a minimum number of studio/one-bedroom units and a maximum number of four bedrooms or more units. The dwelling unit distribution is:
At the June 11, 2020 City Council Work Session meeting, the City Council requested staff to:
A. Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Distribution To accommodate the City Council request, the proposed draft incorporates two provisions. The Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Distribution would regulate large-scale HOHDs and MHOHDs, and the Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Ratio would regulate medium- and small-scale HOHDs. Below are the provisions.
Example of the Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Distribution.
Studio units: 20 Three-bedroom units: 73
One-bedroom units: 150 Four-bedroom units: 60 Two-bedroom units: 103 Five-bedroom units: 3 Note. The Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Ratio in the example is approximately 2.08. It should be noted that the maximum Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Ratio that can be obtained with the Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Distribution requirement is approximately 2.72. Example of a medium-sized HOHD with a Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Ratio.
Three-bedroom units: 19
Five-bedroom units: 6
This example has a Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Ratio of approximately 3.48. The Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Ratio provides the property owner the most flexibility to distribute the bedrooms among the dwelling units and to address market conditions. Also, it allows small- and medium-sized HOHDs and MHOHDs to consist entirely of three-bedroom dwelling units, which would not be allowed with the Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Distribution. It should be noted that the Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Ratio allows a maximum of seven bedrooms in a two-unit HOHD or MHOHD, and a maximum of 11 bedrooms in a three-unit HOHD or MHOHD. Alternatively, it may be desirable to use the Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Ratio or the Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Distribution for all HOHDs and MHOHDs. If it is chosen to use the Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Ratio for all HOHDs and MHOHDs, the desired Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Distribution would not be a requirement. If it is chosen to use the Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Distribution for all HOHDs and MHOHDs, there are bedroom distribution challenges with smaller HOHDs and MHOHDs. The Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Distribution could cause smaller HOHDs or MHOHDs to have fewer bedrooms than the amount allowed for a development that would not be considered an HOHD or MHOHD. For example, if a property owner wants to develop a three-unit HOHD with 12 bedrooms, the Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Distribution would require two one-bedroom dwelling units and one unit would be allowed to have four bedrooms. The total allowed bedrooms would be six, which is less than the number of bedrooms allowed before the development would be required to obtain an HOHD or MHOHD Conditional Use Permit. The number of bedrooms allowed in a three-unit HOHD without an HOHD or MHOHD Conditional Use Permit is nine. If the Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Distribution is to be incorporated for small and medium HOHDs and MHOHDs, staff recommends using the Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Ratio for the two- and three-unit HOHDs and MHOHDs. The Bedroom-to-Dwelling Unit Ratio would allow a more practical distribution of bedrooms in these development types. B. Cost Implication of Requiring Alternative Floor Plans The City Council asked the staff to return with information regarding the cost implication of requiring alternative floor plans as part of the application for an HOHD or MHOHD. Staff spoke with Todd & Associates Inc, ORB Architecture, LLC, Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P., and Shepley Bulfinch Richardson & Abbott, Inc. These architectural firms have all submitted apartment designs to the City of Flagstaff. All of the individuals that staff spoke with indicated that the cost is minimal if the client requests the alternative designs as part of the initial design development. Three representatives indicated that a request for alternative floor plan configurations is not unusual, especially in the current financial market. C. Alternative Definition for a Single-Family Attached or Detached Dwelling Unit HOHD For discussion, the staff was requested to return to the City Council with an alternative definition for a single-family attached or detached dwelling unit that may be considered an HOHD. Members of the City Council expressed concerns that the proposed definition of a Single-Family HOHD may allow a single-family house on a lot over 10,000 square feet to be used as an HOHD. Below are two alternative definitions of a Single-Family HOHD:
Attachment 2 is a table distribution demonstrating how the above provisions would apply to a Single-Family HOHD.
Staff’s proposed definition of a Single-Family HOHD is provided below:
a. On a lot or parcel containing 10,000 square feet or less; and
b. Has a Bedroom-to-Sanitation Facility Ratio less than or equal to 1.2.
It should be noted that an applicant for a single-family dwelling unit on a platted lot is allowed to submit for a building permit without any prior review by City staff. Therefore, it will be possible that an applicant of a Single-Family HOHD may not be informed that they need to obtain a Conditional Use Permit until after they have submitted for permit review. Considerable consternation is feasible since the applicant will have invested time and money in construction documents that will not be approved if they do not obtain a Conditional Use Permit for a Single-Family HOHD. Also, the applicant may not be able to comply with the requirements of a Single-Family HOHD. In addition, the time necessary to submit and obtain a decision for a Single-Family HOHD Conditional Use Permit would be an additional delay. Furthermore, there will be an additional cost to the applicant to submit for a Conditional Use Permit and produce the required information. As it pertains to single-family dwelling units on unplatted lots, an applicant is required to submit a Concept Site Plan for staff review before submitting for a building permit. Therefore, an applicant may be notified of a Single-Family HOHD Conditional Use Permit requirement at that time. It should be noted that additional information that is currently not required to be submitted may be necessary for staff to decide if an HOHD Conditional Use Permit is required. Also, there will be an additional delay and cost associated with submitting and obtaining a Single-Family HOHD Conditional Use Permit decision. VI. Findings: At a future City Council meeting, the City Council will be requested to make the required findings specified in the Zoning Code and adopt the proposed amendment. For your reference and discussion purposes, the necessary findings are specified below.
Public input was received at the public meetings held on August 19, 2019, February 13 and 14, 2020, and through the City’s online Community Forum (https://www.opentownhall.com/portals/227/Issue_7685) (Attachment 3). Also, work sessions with the Planning and Zoning Commission were held on August 14, 2019 and May 27, 2020, and with the City Council on October 8, 2019 and June 11, 2020. In addition, staff received several comments regarding HOH developments from the Southside stakeholders’ group that was formed to assist in the development of the proposed Southside specific plan. These meetings were held over the past year. On August 12, 2020, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to continue its work session on the proposed amendment to the August 26, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Persons of interest on file with the Planning and Development Services section of the Community Development department were notified of the Planning and Zoning Commission work session via first class mail. Also, notification of the work session was published on the City’s Facebook web page and in the Arizona Daily Sun. VIII. Conclusion: As indicated above, the purpose of the work session is for staff to present an overview of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code and allow interested individuals, residents, and business owners to provide commentary. In addition, the work session allows the City Council to ask questions, seek clarification, have discussions, and offer comments on the proposed amendment. No formal recommendation or action by the City Council is to occur at the work session. Additional opportunities for discussion, public comment, and action by the Commission will occur at a future public hearing. The anticipated timeline for the amendment is as follows:
|
|||||
Attachments: | 1. Draft Zoning Code Amendment | ||
2. Single-Family High Occupancy Housing Development Concept Definition Distribution | |||
3. Public Comments | |||
Staff Presentation |
7.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Case No. PZ-19-00123 Updates to Zoning Code 2019 – Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) | |||||
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Hold a work session to allow the City Council and the public to ask questions, seek clarification, have discussions, offer comments, and provide direction on the proposed amendment. | |||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
The proposed amendment (Attachment 1) is to create a new zone called the Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) zone. Specific to this application, the High Occupancy Housing (HOH) Plan’s implementation strategies (see Chapters 4 and 5 of the HOH Plan) include lowering the building height in the Community Commercial (CC) zone from 60 feet to 45 feet (Strategies to be implemented by 2019, bullet 5, page 102). Rather than lowering the height standard in all of the CC Zone, staff identified neighborhood blocks where a reduced height standard would be appropriate. This new zone will be identical to the existing Community Commercial (CC) zone as it pertains to the allowed land uses and property development standards (setbacks, Floor Area Ratio, lot sizes, etc.), except that the allowed maximum building height would be limited to 45 feet. Using a separate zone to implement the above referenced HOH Plan strategy would enable the City Council to be precise with the locations where the Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) zone is placed while maintaining the existing Community Commercial (CC) zone in other areas within the city. | |||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
I. City Council Questions: For your reference, below is a general overview of the questions on which staff is seeking the City Council’s comments and direction.
In February 2018, the City Council adopted the citywide High Occupancy Housing Specific Plan (HOH Plan). The HOH Plan was developed in response to the community’s dialogue about the previously proposed high-intensity mid-rise developments near historic neighborhoods that primarily catered to college students. The HOH Plan is intended to provide direction in the form of goals, policies, and strategies to accommodate various housing options in areas of the city that can support infill, redevelopment, and mixed-use activities. The HOH Plan's goals, policies, and implementation strategies address a broad spectrum of topics (see Chapters 4 and 5 of the HOH Plan). Specific to this application, the HOH Plan’s implementation strategies include lowering the building height in the Community Commercial (CC) zone from 60 feet to 45 feet (Strategies to be implemented by 2019, bullet 5, page 102). III. Overview of Proposed Amendment: The proposed amendment is to create a new zone called the Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) zone. This new zone will be identical to the existing Community Commercial (CC) zone as it pertains to the allowed land uses and property development standards (setbacks, Floor Area Ratio, lot sizes, etc.), except that the allowed maximum building height would be limited to 45 feet. Attachment 1 is a draft of the proposed amendment. The concept to have a separate zone to address the HOH Plan implementation strategy to change the building height of the Community Commercial (CC) zone from 60 feet to 45 feet is a result of the comments received at the public open house meetings and Planning and Zoning Commission’s Work Session that occurred in August 2019 and the City Council Work Session that occurred in October 2019. In summary, instead of limiting the Community Commercial (CC) zone to a maximum building height of 45 feet, the comments received suggested restricting the locations where the 45-foot maximum building height would be applied. As a result of these comments, it became apparent that a separate zone would be an appropriate mechanism to implement the above-mentioned HOH Plan implementation strategy. A different zone would allow the option to rezone specific areas of the city to the Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) zone and maintain the existing Community Commercial (CC) zone in other areas. This approach would allow the City Council to determine which areas of the city with the Community Commercial (CC) zone should have a maximum building height of 45 feet and which areas should maintain the currently allowed maximum building height of 60 feet. IV. Findings: At a future City Council meeting, the City Council will be requested to make the required findings specified in the Zoning Code and adopt the proposed amendment. For your reference and discussion purposes, the necessary findings are specified below.
The August 25, 2020 City Council Work Session was advertised in the Arizona Daily Sun on July 25, 2020, which is 31 days before the scheduled meeting date. Also, persons of interest on file with the Planning and Development Services section of the Community Development department and property owners of lots and parcels that contain the Community Commercial (CC) zoning on file with the Coconino County Assessor’s Office were notified of the Planning and Zoning and City Council Work Sessions via first class mail. The virtual open house meetings for the proposed Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) zone were held on July 15, 2020, and July 20, 2020. As part of the discussion for the proposed Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) zone, rezoning the above-referenced neighborhoods was discussed. The virtual open house meetings were advertised in the Arizona Daily Sun on June 30, 2020, which is at least 15 days before the scheduled meeting dates. Also, persons of interest on file with the Planning and Development Services section of the Community Development department and property owners of lots and parcels that contain the Community Commercial (CC) zoning on file with the Coconino County Assessor’s Office were notified of the virtual open house meetings via first class mail. Persons on the HOH Plan and Regional Plan contact lists were also informed. In addition, the notification of the virtual open house meetings was posted on the City’s Facebook page. Eight people attended the open house meetings. In addition to the virtual open house meetings, a community survey was posted on the City’s Community Forum website regarding the proposed Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) zone and the areas that could be rezoned. The notice was sent to individuals registered with the City’s Community Forum website. Also, the option to provide public comments on the City’s Community Forum website was included in the notices indicated above. As of this memo's date, a total of 210 people, including emails, letters, meetings, and visits to the Flagstaff Community Forum topic web page, have participated. The public comments on the Community Forum web page were split up by general public comments and property owner comments. The property owners were provided a separate web page on the notices that they were mailed. The property owner web page was not publicly available. Several of the individuals that contacted staff for the one-on-one discussions identified themselves as property owners. It should be noted that the property owner responses have been low. In summary, approximately 83% of the general public that responded indicated that they support the 45-foot building height proposed for the Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) zone. The following is a summary of the property owner responses:
VI. Conclusion As indicated above, the purpose of the work session is for staff to present an overview of the Zoning Code's proposed amendment and allow interested individuals, residents, and business owners to provide comments. Also, the work session enables the City Council to ask questions, seek clarification, have discussions, offer feedback, and provide direction on the proposed amendment. No formal recommendation or action is to occur at the work session. Additional opportunities for discussion, public comment, and action by the City Council will occur at a future public hearing. The anticipated timeline for the amendment is as follows:
|
|||||
Attachments: | Draft Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) Zone | ||
Public Comments | |||
Presentation |
8.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Consideration of a Zoning Map Amendment to Rezone Areas of the City to the Proposed Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) Zone | |||||
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Hold a work session to allow the City Council and the public to ask questions, seek clarification, have discussions, offer comments and provide direction on the concept of a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone areas of the city to the proposed Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) zone. | |||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
To achieve the intent of the High Occupancy Housing (HOH) Plan’s implementation strategies (see Chapters 4 and 5 of the HOH Plan) to lower the Community Commercial (CC) zone’s allowed building height from 60 feet to 45 feet (Strategies to be implemented by 2019, bullet 5, page 102), the staff is seeking direction from the City Council on the concept of a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone areas of the North End, Southside, and Sunnyside neighborhoods from the Community Commercial (CC) zone to the proposed Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) zone. The proposed Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) zone allows a maximum building height of 45 feet. The Zoning Map Amendment will enable the City Council to be precise with the locations where the Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) zone is placed while maintaining the existing Community Commercial (CC) zone in specific areas. | |||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
I. City Council Questions For your reference, below is a general overview of the questions on which the staff is seeking the City Council’s comments and direction.
As a result of the comments received at the public open house meetings and Planning and Zoning Commission’s Work Session that took place in August 2019 and the City Council's Work Session that occurred in October 2019 related to changing the building height of the Community Commercial (CC) zone from 60 feet to 45 feet, a new zone is being proposed (Case No. PZ-19-00123 and High Occupancy Housing Specific Plan (HOH Plan), Strategies to be implemented by 2019, bullet 5, page 102.) The new zone, Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC), is proposed to be identical to the Community Commercial (CC) zone, except that the maximum building height allowed would be 45 feet. This approach is being proposed to enable the City Council the flexibility to determine which areas of the city with the Community Commercial (CC) zone should maintain the currently allowed maximum building height of 60 feet, and which areas should have a maximum building height of 45 feet. III. Discussion If the Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) zone is adopted to implement the above referenced HOH Plan strategy, it is contemplated that the City Council may initiate a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone certain properties that are currently zoned Community Commercial (CC). Staff is seeking the City Council’s input and direction regarding the locations that the proposed Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) zone could be applied. There are three primary areas of the city where the Community Commercial (CC) zone currently exists. These areas include the North End, Southside, and Sunnyside neighborhoods. Attachment 1 consists of the locations of the Community Commercial (CC) zone in these neighborhoods. Throughout the community outreach and public hearings for the HOH Plan, the above-referenced neighborhoods are the areas of the city that:
IV. Community Involvement The August 25, 2020 City Council Work Session was advertised in the Arizona Daily Sun on July 25, 2020, which is 31 days before the scheduled meeting date. Also, persons of interest on file with the Planning and Development Services section of the Community Development department and property owners of lots and parcels that contain the Community Commercial (CC) zoning on file with the Coconino County Assessor’s Office were notified of the Planning and Zoning and City Council Work Sessions via first class mail. The virtual open house meetings for the proposed Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) zone were held on July 15, 2020, and July 20, 2020. As part of the discussion for the proposed Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) zone, rezoning the above-referenced neighborhoods was discussed. The virtual open house meetings were advertised in the Arizona Daily Sun on June 30, 2020, which is at least 15 days before the scheduled meeting dates. Also, persons of interest on file with the Planning and Development Services section of the Community Development department and the property owners of lots and parcels that contain Community Commercial (CC) zoning on file with the Coconino County Assessor’s Office were notified of the virtual open house meetings via first class mail. Persons on the HOH Plan and Regional Plan contact lists were also sent notifications. In addition, the notification of the virtual open house meetings was posted on the City’s Facebook page. Eight people attended the open house meetings. In addition to the virtual open house meetings, a community survey was posted on the City’s Community Forum website regarding the proposed Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) zone and the areas that could be rezoned. The notice was sent to individuals registered with the City’s Community Forum website. Also, the option to provide public comments on the City’s Community Forum website was included in the notices indicated above. As of this memo's date, a total of 210 people, including emails, letters, meetings, and visits to the Flagstaff Community Forum topic web page, have participated. The public comments on the Community Forum web page were split up by general public comments and property owner comments. The property owners were provided a separate web page on the notices that they were mailed. The property owner web page was not publicly available and was separated by each of the above-referenced neighborhoods. Several individuals that contacted staff for the one-on-one discussions identified themselves as property owners. It should be noted that the property owner responses have been low. Additional public outreach may be warranted. In summary, approximately 83% of the general public that responded to the Community Forum topic supported applying the 45-foot building height in all of the above-referenced neighborhoods. Also, about 68% of the general public comments received did not support keeping the Community Commercial (CC) zone with the 60-foot building height adjacent to the commercial corridor streets. The following is a summary of the property owner responses:
V. Conclusion As indicated above, the staff is seeking direction from the City Council on the concept of a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone areas of the North End, Southside, and Sunnyside neighborhoods from the Community Commercial (CC) zone to the proposed Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) zone. Also, the work session enables the public and the City Council to ask questions, seek clarification, have discussions, and offer feedback on the proposed concept. Additional opportunities for discussion, public comment, and action by the City Council will occur at a future public hearing. |
|||||
Attachments: | 1. Community Commercial (CC) Zone Locations by Neighborhood | ||
2. Sunnyside Neighborhood Conceptual Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) Location Map | |||
Public Comments | |||
Presentation |
9.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Southside Community Specific Plan and associated minor Regional Plan map and text amendments (PZ-20-00001) | |||||
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Discussion only. | |||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
The Southside Community Specific Plan (Southside Plan) is a specific plan that is intended to become adopted policy for the City of Flagstaff. The Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 (Regional Plan) states, “The purpose of a specific plan is to provide a greater level of detail for a geographic area or element of the Regional Plan, and to provide for the systematic implementation of the Regional Plan” (Page III-8 based on Flagstaff City Code Section 11-10.30.010). City staff and the Southside Community Association have been co-leading the effort to develop a Southside Community Plan since June 2017. Over the last three years, the community has come together through surveys, informal gatherings, and public meetings to draft a plan for the consideration of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. This work session is an opportunity for the City Council to discuss the content of the amendment and specific plan and request any clarifications in advance of the public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, September 1, 2020. |
|||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
On Wednesday, July 22, 2020, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt:
The content of the Plan was developed with collaboration from a Stakeholder Group appointed by the Southside Community Association. This group reviewed issues, draft content and public comment and provided advice to the project team on how to address complex issues and clarify draft material. The group also reconvened after the 60-day public review to provide feedback on conflicting public comments and concerns. This process resulted in goals, policies, strategies and concepts that are focused on building community and embracing the heritage of the Southside. Some notable policies of the plan include:
|
|||||
Attachments: | Minor Regional Plan Amendment and Specific Plan narrative | ||
Work Session Powerpoint | |||
Southside Community Plan application | |||
Submittal Letter from Planning Director | |||
Southside Community Specific Plan, Volume 1: Goals, Policies and Strategies | |||
Southside Community Specific Plan, Volume 2: Concept Plan | |||
Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 Chapter IX Land Use replacement pages | |||
Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 Chapter XVI Plan Amendments replacement pages | |||
Summary of changes between the Draft and Final Plan | |||
Site and Area Analysis | |||
Public Participation Plan and Summary | |||
Public comments received during the 60 day public review | |||
Southside Community Plan – O’Leary FUTS Outreach Summary, February 2020 | |||
If Not Why Not Comment Evaluation | |||
Replacement Page Southside Plan Volume 1 | |||
PowerPoint from first Planning and Zoning Hearing | |||
PowerPoint for second Planning and Zoning Hearing |
10.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Engineering Standards - Street Lighting and Traffic Signals | |||||
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
This is a project update informational item, no formal action is requested. Several key points are highlighted in the presentation and attachments regarding changes to the Engineering Standards related to pedestrian lighting and residential lighting requirements for which staff is seeking input. Residential Lighting has been a standard element of a complete street in Flagstaff, this latest update to Lighting Standards proposes to eliminate residential lighting requirements for new construction. The exception is the lighting of residential street intersections with higher classification streets such as Collectors and Arterials will continue to be required. Pedestrian Lighting has been an optional element in Flagstaff and when installed was allowed to be full-spectrum 'white' light. An example is the pedestrian scale lighting in the Downtown area. With the proposed standard updates Pedestrian Lighting is still an option, but will be required to be Narrow Band Amber LED. |
|||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
This Work Session item will review the Engineering Standard Updates that result from the Street Lighting to Enhance Dark Skies (SLEDS) project to update the City's Street Lighting Standards, as well as a staff-led project to update the Traffic Signals, Signing, Pavement Markings, and Fiber Optic sections of the standards. The SLEDS Project’s primary objective is to find a solution to Flagstaff’s current street lighting replacement needs while balancing dark skies, safety, and maintenance/cost-effectiveness objectives. The SLEDS Project is the result of several years of discussions between the City and the local observatories (USNOFS and Lowell Observatory) and the Dark Skies Coalition that started in May 2012. At that time, the City found itself in a lighting predicament as Low Pressure Sodium (LPS), the preferred lighting source since 1989, was becoming increasingly more expensive to purchase, quality replacement parts were becoming more difficult to acquire and we were experiencing structural failures of the pole/mast arm connection due to the size and weight of the LPS fixture, especially in wind prone areas. In June 2015, Council approved an Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) with ADOT to secure funding for the SLEDS Project. The following from the SLEDS Request for Proposals summarizes the direction and goals of the project: “The City seeks cost-effective replacement technologies that (1) maintain or approximate current lighting levels and (2) do not adversely impact the City’s dark sky natural resource or the missions of the Lowell Observatory and the U.S. Naval Observatory. In consideration of cost-effectiveness, the City seeks to utilize existing light pole infrastructure." In September 2015, the Consultant Team, led by Monrad Engineering, was awarded a contract to conduct applied research in order to develop a replacement strategy for the City’s increasingly obsolete LPS streetlights with newer technology (LED). The SLEDS Project has been an opportunity for Flagstaff to demonstrate to other municipalities an innovative lighting solution for dark sky preservation with Light Emitting Diode (LED) technology that achieves municipal objectives for safety and cost-effectiveness and astronomical objectives for maintaining dark skies. Project Outline:
Traffic Signals, Signing, Marking and Fiber Optic Engineering Standards Updates: The updated Traffic Signal, Signing, Marking and Fiber Optic standards are a result of many years of technological advancements in traffic signal equipment specifications, updated ADA guidelines for Rights of Way and the City’s development of a fiber optic system master plan necessitating the need for fiber optic system development standards.
|
|||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
|
|||||
Attachments: | Summary of Street Lighting Updates | ||
Street Lighting Specifications | |||
Proposed Signing Marking FO Standards | |||
Summary of Signing Marking FO Standards | |||
Proposed Standard Details | |||
Engineering Standards Presentation | |||
Proposed Street Lighting Standards |
12.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Streets - Sweeping operations discussion | |||||
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Provide the City Council with an overview of the City's Street Sweeping Operations and discuss the program elements, delivery and expectations. The City Council has requested a discussion of potential strategies for cleaning up cinders in a more timely and efficient manner. | |||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
The Streets Section is responsible for the maintenance and overall condition of the community transportation infrastructure. This includes 700 lane miles of roadway, signalized intersections, adjacent bike routes and sidewalks. Sweeping is a critical element and valued program that provides for a clean and debris-free surface. Each season, varying factors create different types of debris and program adjustments occur often to respond quickly and efficiently. In addition to general trash, litter and dust, listed below are some typical examples of added elements. |
|||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
Power Point Presentation is included | |||||
Attachments: | Sweeping PP |
13.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Discussion: Restate that the City of Flagstaff is a “Golden Rule City” by pledging Resolution #2008-68 or updating the Resolution to the Council wishes. | |||||
DESIRED OUTCOME: | |||||
Discussion and Possible Direction | |||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
Councilmember Odegaard requested a Future Agenda Item Request to consider restating that the City of Flagstaff is a “Golden Rule City” by pledging Resolution #2008-68 or updating the Resolution to the Council wishes | |||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
Resolution 2008-68 is attached for reference. | |||||
Attachments: | Golden Rule City Resolution |