FINAL AGENDA
4:00 P.M. MEETING
Individual Items on the 4:00 p.m. meeting agenda may be postponed to the 6:00 p.m. meeting.
|
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 regular meeting, 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. | ROLL CALL
|
|||||||||
3. | PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MISSION STATEMENT
MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the City of Flagstaff is to protect and enhance the quality of life of its citizens. |
|||||||||
4. | APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS | |||||||||
A. | Consideration and Approval of Minutes: City Council Budget Work Session of February 10, 2014; Special Meeting (Executive Session) of February 18, 2014; Special Meeting (Legislative Prep) of February 18, 2014; Special Meeting of February 25, 2014; Work Session of February 25, 2014; Regular Meeting of March 4, 2014; Special Meeting (Executive Session) of March 11, 2014; and the Work Session of March 11, 2014. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Amend/approve the minutes of the City Council Budget Work Session of February 10, 2014; Special Meeting (Executive Session) of February 18, 2014; Special Meeting (Legislative Prep) of February 18, 2014; Special Meeting of February 25, 2014; Work Session of February 25, 2014; Regular Meeting of March 4, 2014; Special Meeting (Executive Session) of March 11, 2014; and the Work Session of March 11, 2014.
|
||||||||||
5. | PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public Participation enables the public to address the Council about an item that is not on the agenda (or is listed under Possible Future Agenda Items). Comments relating to items that are on the agenda will be taken at the time that the item is discussed. If you wish to address the Council at tonight's meeting, please complete a comment card and submit it to the recording clerk as soon as possible. Your name will be called when it is your turn to speak. 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 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. |
|||||||||
6. |
PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS |
|||||||||
7. | APPOINTMENTS 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 the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for the purpose of discussing or considering employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, demotion, dismissal, salaries, disciplining or resignation of a public officer, appointee, or employee of any public body...., pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(1). None |
|||||||||
8. | LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARINGS None |
|||||||||
9. | CONSENT ITEMS
All matters under Consent Agenda are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion approving the recommendations listed on the agenda. Unless otherwise indicated, expenditures approved by Council are budgeted items. |
|||||||||
A. | Consideration and Approval of Agreement Modification: USDA Forest Service (USFS) IGA # 11-CO-11030402-007 for the purposes of adding the language "annual" in Section II, Paragraph C, "annually" in Section III, Paragraph A, and adding the USFS contact information for Brian Poturalski to the original Agreement that was approved by City Council on 2/22/2011. (US Forest Service request for addition of technical changes - word addition and contact information) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
B. | Consideration and Approval of Contract: Cooperative Fire Rate Agreement (CFRA) with AZ State Forestry | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
10. | ROUTINE ITEMS | |||||||||
A. | Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-08: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, amending Flagstaff City Code, Title 4, Building Regulations, by adding a new Chapter 4-10, Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition and Amendments. (This change will streamline the process and simplify debt collection by the City when the cost of repairs or demolition is taken on by the City) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
At the March 18, 2014, Council Meeting:
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-08 by title only for the first time 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-08 by title only (if approved above) At the April 1, 2014, Council Meeting: 3) Read Ordinance No. 2014-08 by title only for the final time 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-08 by title only (if approved above) 5) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-08 |
||||||||||
B. | Consideration and Approval of Contract: Intergovernmental Agreement between City of Flagstaff and Coconino County for election services for the May 20, 2014, Special Election. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
RECESS
6:00 P.M. MEETING RECONVENE |
||||||||||
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 regular meeting, 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).
|
||||||||||
11. | ROLL CALL
|
|||||||||
12. | PUBLIC PARTICIPATION | |||||||||
13. | CARRY OVER ITEMS FROM THE 4:00 P.M. AGENDA |
|||||||||
14. | PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS None |
|||||||||
15. | REGULAR AGENDA | |||||||||
A. | Consideration and Approval of Contract: Landscape Maintenance Services for BBB-funded Beautification Areas | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Reject all proposals from RFP No. 2014-33
|
||||||||||
B. | Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-07 and Resolution No. 2014-10: Resolution No. 2014-10 Declaring the proposed amendments as a public record; and adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-07, Adopting Amendments to that certain document entitled “Division 8-03-002, Sidewalk Cafes, Sidewalk Vending Carts and Other Permitted Encroachments” (An ordinance deleting North Downtown Business District Encroachment Policy, and replacing it in its entirety with Sidewalk Cafes, Sidewalk Vending Carts, and Other Permitted Encroachments) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2014-10 by title only
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2014-10 (if approved above) 3) Read Ordinance No. 2014-07 for the first time by title only 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-07 for the first time by title only
At the April 1, 2014 Council Meeting:
5) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-10 6) Read Ordinance No. 2014-07 for the final time by title only 7) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-07 by title only (if approved above) 8) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-07. |
||||||||||
C. | Consideration and Approval of a Preliminary Plat: Request from Vintage Partners, LLC, on behalf of Sinclair Oil Corp. / Sun Valley Company, for the subdivision of approximately 95.5 acres into 12 parcels located at 1201 N Country Club Drive, within the Highway Commercial (HC), High Density Residential (HR), and Rural Residential (RR) zones. (Subdivision of approximately 95.5 acres into 12 parcels located at 1201 N. Country Club Drive) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat subject to conditions.
|
||||||||||
D. | Consideration and Approval of Preliminary Plat: A request from Miramonte Homes for Preliminary Plat approval for the Switzer Canyon Village Townhomes, a 48-unit residential townhouse subdivision on an 18.56-acre site located at 587 North Switzer Canyon Drive, within the Single-Family Residential (R1) zone. (Preliminary Plat for Switzer Canyon Village Townhomes located at 587 North Switzer Canyon Drive) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this request at their meeting on February 26, 2014 and recommends the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat.
|
||||||||||
E. | Consideration and Approval of Final Plat A request from Miramonte Homes for Final Plat approval for the Switzer Canyon Village Townhomes, a 48-unit residential townhome subdivision on an 18.56 acre site located at 587 North Switzer Canyon Drive in the Single-family Residential (R1) zone. The existing condominium plat is proposed to be abandoned and a new townhouse plat is proposed. (Final Plat for Switzer Canyon Village Townhomes at 587 North Switzer Canyon Drive) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Staff recommends approving the Final Plat subject to conditions, and authorizing the Mayor to sign the plat when notified by staff that all conditions have been met and documents are ready for recording.
|
||||||||||
16. | DISCUSSION ITEMS None |
|||||||||
17. | POSSIBLE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Verbal comments from the public on any item under this section must be given during Public Participation near the beginning of the meeting. Written comments may be submitted to the City Clerk. After discussion and upon agreement of three members of the Council, an item will be moved to a regularly-scheduled Council meeting. None |
|||||||||
18. | INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND REPORTS FROM COUNCIL AND STAFF, REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS | |||||||||
19. | ADJOURNMENT |
|||||||||
|
4.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Minutes: City Council Budget Work Session of February 10, 2014; Special Meeting (Executive Session) of February 18, 2014; Special Meeting (Legislative Prep) of February 18, 2014; Special Meeting of February 25, 2014; Work Session of February 25, 2014; Regular Meeting of March 4, 2014; Special Meeting (Executive Session) of March 11, 2014; and the Work Session of March 11, 2014. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Amend/approve the minutes of the City Council Budget Work Session of February 10, 2014; Special Meeting (Executive Session) of February 18, 2014; Special Meeting (Legislative Prep) of February 18, 2014; Special Meeting of February 25, 2014; Work Session of February 25, 2014; Regular Meeting of March 4, 2014; Special Meeting (Executive Session) of March 11, 2014; and the Work Session of March 11, 2014.
|
|||||
INFORMATION | |||||
Attached are copies of the minutes of the City Council Budget Work Session of February 10, 2014; Special Meeting (Executive Session) of February 18, 2014; Special Meeting (Legislative Prep) of February 18, 2014; Special Meeting of February 25, 2014; Work Session of February 25, 2014; Regular Meeting of March 4, 2014; Special Meeting (Executive Session) of March 11, 2014; and the Work Session of March 11, 2014. | |||||
Attachments: | 02.10.2014.BWS.Minutes | ||||
02.18.2014.CCSM.Minutes | |||||
02.18.2014.CCSMES.Minutes | |||||
02.25.2014.CCSM.Minutes | |||||
02.25.2014.CCWS.Minutes | |||||
03.04.2014.CCRM.Minutes | |||||
03.11.2014.CCSMES.Minutes | |||||
03.11.2014.CCWS.Minutes | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
9.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Agreement Modification: USDA Forest Service (USFS) IGA # 11-CO-11030402-007 for the purposes of adding the language "annual" in Section II, Paragraph C, "annually" in Section III, Paragraph A, and adding the USFS contact information for Brian Poturalski to the original Agreement that was approved by City Council on 2/22/2011. (US Forest Service request for addition of technical changes - word addition and contact information) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
Subsidiary Decision Points: This Agreement was approved by City Council on 2/22/2011. The administrative modifications that have been requested will not change the intended purpose of the Agreement. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Solid Waste-Cinder Lake Landfill has a budget of $95,069 used for litter cleanup activities. Of the $95,069, the Solid Waste Section provides $8,630 annually to the USFS as a condition of this Agreement for the work performed. |
|||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Council approved the original Agreement with the USFS on 2/22/2011. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
|
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The Solid Waste Division makes every effort to establish good relationships with neighboring property owners as a high priority. This Agreement is one key to maintaining this relational partnership with the USFS. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
Solid Waste-Cinder Lake Landfill has a budget of $95,069 used for litter cleanup activities. Of the $95,069 the Solid Waste Section provides $8,630 annually to the USFS as a condition of this Agreement. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Ensuring the proper disposal of illegally dumped waste, abandoned vehicles, and windblown litter on the Flagstaff Ranger District; Coconino National Forest adjacent to the CLL; assists in maintaining this pristine public resource for the community. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform. | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Attachments: | Adendum | ||||
Verbage | |||||
2011 IGA | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
9.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Cooperative Fire Rate Agreement (CFRA) with AZ State Forestry | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The CFRA is a long-standing Agreement between the City and AZ State Forestry, renewable every two years. The current CFRA will expire March 30, 2014. The CFRA allows the City to participate in inter-agency emergency response outside the City (when assistance is requested by the State/Federal government) and to recover 100% of all equipment and personnel costs associated with such responses. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
All incident response expenses are reimbursed to the City if the Agreement is in-place. None are reimbursed if the Agreement is not in-place. Incident frequency, size, and duration are episodic in nature: In CY 2013, nearly $740,000 was reimbursed to the City, while over the past five years, that amount has been in excess of $3 million. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
10. Develop an ongoing budget process – Reimbursement for all costs incurred on out-of-town emergencies, with some equipment revenue, above actual operating expenses, being returned to the General Fund. 11. Effective governance – budgetary accountability, no-cost training and experience for responders, assisting others in need, building and maintaining effective relationships with our partners. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Previous City Councils have approved the renewal of the CFRA when such action was required. Many members of the current Council were part of the previous approval process (Mar 2012). | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the renewal of the CFRA 2) Reject the CFRA |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The CFRA has existed between the City and AZ State Forestry since the mid 1980’s. The Agreement is renewed on a biennial basis. It is the mechanism by which City resources are requested by the State/Federal government and assigned to out-of-area emergency events, and by which the city is reimbursed 100% of all costs related to such events. | |||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The CFRA is a standard State-wide Agreement (format, conditions, terms, etc) between Fire Departments and AZ State Forestry. It covers local, regional, and national Incident Management Team (IMT) participation, engine, water-tender, City Crew 1, and Single-Resource assignments, including the use of other City personnel and equipment on fire and other all-risk assignments. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
Equipment rates remain the same as the 2012 Agreement. Personnel rates are not directly listed or included in the CFRA, but are reimbursed at the full actual burdened rate, to include any OT costs associated with any additional costs incurred to replace or act for those on assignment. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The entire community benefits from the skills, knowledge, and abilities gained and maintained while employees are assigned to large-scale complex incidents outside of our city: learning elsewhere allows those same employees to effectively engage here when faced with a similar type event. The relationships established and nurtured elsewhere with other agency partners pays dividends when we require help here. And finally, the positive cash-flow allows us an opportunity to purchase some equipment and supplies at no cost to the city tax-payer, helps off-set the cost of needed training that does cost, and also puts some funds into the City’s General Fund for other use. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
None |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the renewal of the CFRA, allowing continued engagement with other partners and 100% cost-recovery; or 2) Reject the CFRA, reducing the opportunity to acquire large-scale incident no-cost training and experience, restricting the development of inter-agency relationships, and eliminating a positive cash-flow source into the General Fund. | |||||
Attachments: | Agreement | ||||
Equipment List | |||||
General Provisions | |||||
$ Rates | |||||
Required Equipment | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-08: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, amending Flagstaff City Code, Title 4, Building Regulations, by adding a new Chapter 4-10, Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition and Amendments. (This change will streamline the process and simplify debt collection by the City when the cost of repairs or demolition is taken on by the City) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
At the March 18, 2014, Council Meeting:
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-08 by title only for the first time 2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-08 by title only (if approved above) At the April 1, 2014, Council Meeting: 3) Read Ordinance No. 2014-08 by title only for the final time 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-08 by title only (if approved above) 5) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-08 |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
This ordinance will amend Title 4, Building Regulations, by making certain technical, procedural and administrative changes to the Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Edition (“UHC”), previously adopted by the Flagstaff City Council, | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
See financial implications in additional information. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
11. Effective governance |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Not on these specific issues. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Do not adopt Ordinance No. 2014-08 2) Amend Ordinance No. 2014-08 |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
In the last year, staff has increasingly come to rely on the UHC as its principal tool for addressing substandard building complaints. In working closely with the UHC, staff has come to realize that certain technical and procedural changes are warranted in order to not only harmonize the UHC with those other international codes previously adopted by Council, but also to streamline and simplify the process for the collection of debts incurred by the City for the demolition or repair of substandard buildings. In regard to technical amendments, revised Section 701.1, Heating, provides a fairly typical example. Currently, Section 701.1 states that dwelling units shall be capable of maintaining a room temperature of 70 degrees Fahrenheit. The proposed revision amends that standard to 68 degrees Fahrenheit, a change that simply brings this requirement in line with the International Building Code. More significant than these clarifying changes, the proposed amendments modify Chapter 16, which principally governs the legislative body’s hearing of protests. Currently, UHC, Chapter 16, mandates that the legislative body, in this case the City Council, pass judgment upon the building official’s, and, by extension, the Building and Fire Code Board of Appeal’s, determinations, as well as the “correctness of the charge” for those costs incurred by the City in abating the substandard conditions. The proposed amendments make no changes to Chapter 12, Appeal, which govern an individual’s right to appeal the building official’s decision to the Board of Building and Fire, and specifically adds language, Section 1501.3 – Procurement, to the UHC requiring staff to follow the City’s procurement manual when hiring outside contractors for demolition or repair. As the two principal objectives of the legislative hearing set forth in Chapter 16, to pass upon the report of the building official and to satisfy itself with the correctness of the charge, are already substantially covered by the UHC and the proposed amendments, the need for such a burdensome additional hearing is all but negated. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
City Council has expressed a desire to see the City take proactive steps in remediating substandard properties. By adopting these amendments, City staff will be able to devote more of their time and energy to that task, and less to the time-consuming and cumbersome administrative tasks currently imposted by the UHC. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Involve The proposed ordinance and staff summary will be posted in accordance with law, and interested persons are invited to comment at the City Council meetings at which the ordinance will be under consideration. The Board of Building and Fire has reviewed the attached ordinance and is in favor of the proposed amendments. |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Attachments: | Ord. 2014-08 | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Intergovernmental Agreement between City of Flagstaff and Coconino County for election services for the May 20, 2014, Special Election. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The attached Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) outlines the roles of the City and County in the May 20, 2014, Special Mail Ballot Election for ratification of the Regional Plan. Changes to this IGA from agreements approved in the past are: 1) a new Dispute Resolution (Section 11) to address what process will be followed should questions arise about the conduct of the election; and 2) additional language regarding compliance with laws that allows for consultation with the Secretary of State to determine what procedures are appropriate and lawful for conducting elections. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
This election has been budgeted in the FY2014 Budget for $125,000. The services provided by the County are charged at $2.50 per registered voter. With approximately 31,000 registered voters, the County charges should be around $77,500. Additional expenses will be incurred with Election Operation Services for compilation, translation, and mailing of the associated Publicity Pamphlet. |
|||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
11. Effective governance. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
While the City Council has discussed the Regional Plan much of last year, it was on January 14, 2014, that the Flagstaff Area Regional Plan 2030: Place Matters was adopted and the Council called for the May 20, 2014, Special Election to ratify that action as required by State law. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the IGA as presented or 2) amend the IGA and return to Coconino County for further consideration. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
On January 14, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2014-02 calling for a Special Election on May 20, 2014, to ratify the action taken by the Council in adopting the Flagstaff Area Regional Plan 2030: Place Matters on that same date. This IGA outlines the responsibilities of the City and County with respect to this election. It also includes a new section (Section 11) to address dispute resolution, should the City receive complaints on the operation of the election. As you know, questions were raised about election procedures during the 2012 election, which were forwarded to the County. Some of those issues were addressed by the then-current County Recorder. After consultation with the Secretary of State's Office, the City Clerk, the current County Recorder, and the City Attorney believe that many of the remaining concerns raised have been addressed. We are confident that this election will proceed in accordance with State law. We have also set forth new provisions in the IGA to provide a process for resolving any future disputes. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower An election of this type provides the ultimate power to the voters of the City, in allowing them to ratify, or not, action taken by the Council in adopting the Flagstaff Area Regional Plan 2030: Place Matters in January of this year. |
|||||
Attachments: | IGA | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
15.A.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Landscape Maintenance Services for BBB-funded Beautification Areas | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Reject all proposals from RFP No. 2014-33
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Landscape maintenance of BBB Beautification Areas performed by Parks Division staff is more cost effective. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial Impact: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If the recommended action is the City Council's choice, the BBB Beautification Fund will save approximately $19,795 per year. The City will realize additional savings (un-quantified) as the associated 4.5 FTE (full-time equivalent) staff positions also serve other programs. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Effective governance - The City recognizes that attractive and well-maintained landscapes are important to the City’s image and sense of place, and thus, the economic vitality of the City. Thus maintenance of BBB-funded Beautification Areas performed by Parks Division staff effectively and efficiently uses revenues to support economic vitality. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1) Accept proposal received. 2) Reject all proposals and continue landscape maintenance of BBB-funded Beautification Areas by the Parks Division (Recommended). 3) Reject all proposals and re-issue the Request for Proposals seeking a lower cost of services. 4) Provide staff with alternative direction. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Background/History: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The City of Flagstaff Parks Division currently maintains approximately 50 acres of landscaped areas throughout the city on behalf of the BBB Beautification Program. Note that additional areas that are maintained by the Parks Division staff, such as parks, open space and streets, are separate (not a part of the BBB Beautification Program), were not included in this Request for Proposals, and are thus not addressed in this report. To more effectively manage the maintenance of BBB-funded Beautification Areas, Community Design & Redevelopment (CD&R) staff prepared a detailed inventory of all landscaping installed and maintained under the BBB Beautification Program. Individual areas were then evaluated according to health and visual quality, the potential need of capital reinvestment, the potential for alternative maintenance strategies, and any other special handling needs. In addition, the City's current maintenance practices were evaluated and modified to reflect the needs of individual projects, and detailed specifications were then written by CD&R staff for maintenance work of BBB-funded Beautification Areas. Per City Council direction in the FY14 budget process, CD&R staff sought competitive qualifications-based proposals for private maintenance of the BBB-funded Beautification Areas. Using the inventory work as a basis, approximately 28 acres of landscaping, and the written maintenance specifications were included in the scope of work. To potentially allow more than one contractor to be awarded some of the work, the 28 acres were broken down into three (3) areas based on geographic proximity and are listed as separate contract areas on the accompanying table. Proposers had the option of bidding on any or all of the three (3) areas. In response to the RFP, one (1) proposal was received from Morning Dew Landscape. The work of maintaining the remaining BBB-funded Beautification Areas, approximately 22 acres, would remain with the Parks Division until the special handling needs were addressed. For example, for those individual projects that are in need of capital reinvestment, once the reinvestment work is done, the maintenance could be added to the maintenance contract. Other areas, such as certain frontages of private properties, may not require future maintenance and would simply be removed from the inventory. Concurrent with the advertisement for bid of this work, Parks Division put together an Inter-departmental Service Request (ISR) cost to continue to perform the landscape maintenance. City departments can’t bid on City projects so the ISR method was selected as a way of obtaining a meaningful in-house number that could then be compared to private bids. Since the maintenance specifications differed from current practices, the Parks Division was provided with the same information and based their fee on the same scope of services included in the RFP. The fact that the Parks Division would be preparing a comparable number was noted in the RFP. This ISR cost and the proposal received are summarized in the following table:
Note that the costs in the table are for one year of maintenance. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Key Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Albeit slight, the basic costs are less if the maintenance is performed by the Parks Division staff. However, to accurately understand the cost of contracting for services, we must also consider the cost of administering the contract. CD&R staff estimated the necessary tasks and the hours necessary to complete them, and estimate that administering the contract will add about 5.5%. These tasks include some "contract" things such as gathering insurance and qualifications certificates, various contract paperwork, payment requests, performance inspections, seasonal shut-down and start-up, and annual reporting. There are also a number of administrative ("non-contract") expenses that occur whether the work is performed by the Parks Division or by an external contractor. These include quality control reviews, work coordination, monitoring irrigation usage, and looking for necessary upgrades and efficiencies. Because the expenses for "contracting" are not required when the work is performed by the Parks Division, the comparison table reflects different costs for each option - contracted work versus work performed by the Parks Division. Furthermore, the numbers provided by the Parks Division included some additional services that would be extra cost under a private contract. From time to time, Parks Division carries out special projects - supplemental maintenance, minor new plantings, and so forth, but importantly also including off-hours and emergency work. And, the Parks Division’s intimate knowledge of each landscape area’s special needs is based on hands-on experience as well as scientific knowledge. They have excelled at performing this work for decades and if chosen to continue the work there will be no ‘learning curve’ as may be required by an outside contractor. Also, the Parks Division already has on hand all the labor, equipment, vehicles, and materials necessary to perform the work. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
As a result of this exercise, inventorying and analyzing the areas being maintained, and developing new levels of service and maintenance specifications, the anticipated (and budgeted) funds for maintenance will be decreased by approximately $100,000. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The exercise of comparing internal costs to external costs is, in itself, a community benefit to assure the efficient use of public monies. In this case, the exercise validated that the existing maintenance strategy is appropriate. In addition, the work of preparing the inventory and maintenance specifications necessary for bidding yielded effective maintenance management tools that will serve both the BBB Beautification Program and Parks Division. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Involvement: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Involve |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1. Accept proposal received. This would increase revenues for a local business, potentially create a few jobs, negligibly increase tax revenues, and cost the City an additional $19,795 per year. 2. Reject all proposals and continue landscape maintenance of BBB-funded Beautification Areas by the Parks Division (Recommended). 3. Reject all proposals and re-issue the Request for Proposals seeking a lower cost of services. This option is not likely to yield substantially different results. 4. Provide staff with alternative direction. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Attachments: | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
15.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-07 and Resolution No. 2014-10: Resolution No. 2014-10 Declaring the proposed amendments as a public record; and adoption of Ordinance No. 2014-07, Adopting Amendments to that certain document entitled “Division 8-03-002, Sidewalk Cafes, Sidewalk Vending Carts and Other Permitted Encroachments” (An ordinance deleting North Downtown Business District Encroachment Policy, and replacing it in its entirety with Sidewalk Cafes, Sidewalk Vending Carts, and Other Permitted Encroachments) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2014-10 by title only
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2014-10 (if approved above) 3) Read Ordinance No. 2014-07 for the first time by title only 4) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-07 for the first time by title only
At the April 1, 2014 Council Meeting:
5) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-10 6) Read Ordinance No. 2014-07 for the final time by title only 7) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-07 by title only (if approved above) 8) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-07. |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The proposed amendments to City Code Division 8-03-002, Sidewalk Cafes, Sidewalk Vending Carts and Other Permitted Encroachments establish updated standards and review procedures for sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts in the downtown and other certain commercial zones. Subsidiary Decisions Points: A key policy decision will concern the establishment of a defensible procedure for calculating an appropriate lease rate that is fair and reasonable to business owners and that also reasonably compensates the City for the use, by private individuals, of City sidewalks. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The proposed amendments establish a new uniform fee for processing the application for a sidewalk café, vending cart, or other encroachment, as well as a uniform methodology for establishing a lease rate for the use of public sidewalks by a business owner for a sidewalk café or vending cart. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
11. Effective governance |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
At the October 8, 2013 Work Session, the Council reviewed and discussed suggested amendments to Division 8-03-002 developed by staff, received public comment, and provided staff with specific direction on an appropriate path forward. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Please refer to the Expanded Options and Alternatives below. | |||||
Background/History: | |||||
Sometime in the early 1970’s, the City Council adopted the North Downtown Business District Encroachment Policy as Division 8-03-002 of the Flagstaff City Code. This ordinance, which was updated in 1996 and 1997, established standards and procedures for the review and approval of commercial encroachments (including sidewalk cafes and vending carts) as well as for permitted encroachments by certain structures (including, for example, overhead encroachments, excavations, and basement access) and encroachments by other activities and objects such as construction, bicycle racks, newspaper vending machines, etc. Division 8-03-002 was specifically written to allow sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts in downtown Flagstaff only, and hence no such encroachments may be permitted in other areas of the City, including the Southside. Many existing Southside businesses have been frustrated because of their inability to establish sidewalk cafes in public right-of-way. Following Council discussion of this issue in October last year, staff from the City Attorney’s office and the Community Development Division has developed amendments to this Division. The draft ordinance incorporates ideas for simplifying and clarifying an approach for the review and issuance of permits for sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts in most commercial zones within the City. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Staff has completed amendments to Division 8-03-002 of the Flagstaff City Code. Currently this Division is called “North Downtown Business District Encroachment Policy”, and it will be renamed as “Sidewalk Cafes, Sidewalk Vending Carts, and Other Permitted Encroachments”. The amendments to this Division are based on some of the provisions in Division 8-03-002 which have been kept, as well as ideas from a variety of other cities, including Portland, OR, Seattle, WA, Salt Lake City, UT, Minneapolis, MN, and Redwood City, CA. In the narrative below, staff will describe the principal sections and provisions of the proposed draft ordinance. Reorganization of the Division. This Division has been reorganized so that, for example, the definitions and appeals sections have been consolidated and certain sections have been rearranged so that the document is more logically organized. The definitions are also arranged alphabetically.
Staff studied the methodology used by other US cities, including Seattle, WA and Corvallis, OR for establishing a defensible procedure for calculating an appropriate lease rate that is fair and reasonable to business owners and that reasonably compensates the City for the use by private individuals of its property. Staff recommends that a single aggregated lease rate should be applied City-wide rather than establish separate fees for different areas of the City. Staff created a matrix to analyze the property values of the parcels historically associated with applications for sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts (see attached). Twelve such parcels were identified, including Heritage Square. Preliminary analysis suggests that the lease rate for use of a City sidewalk would be about $15 per sq. ft.; i.e., $1,800 annually for a 120 sq. ft. sidewalk café operating area. This is derived by taking the average full cash value established by the Coconino County Assessor’s Office for the 12 properties in the downtown and Southside areas, and dividing this value by the area of the parcel. The resultant average land value ($60 per sq. ft.) may then be multiplied by the operating area in sq. ft. and a rate of return value of 25% (i.e. 0.25 over 4 years). Similarly, the cost to the proprietor of a vending cart based on a maximum operating area of 24 sq. ft. would be $360 per year. Note that if the rate of return was calculated over a longer period of time, the annual lease rate would be lower. For example, if the rate of return was calculated over 6 years at 16.67%, then the lease rate for a 120 sq. ft. sidewalk café would be $1,195.
The lease rate proposed above, or as ultimately adopted by the Council, will be applied to business owners who lease sidewalk space for outdoor cafes or vending carts, and will also be applied to business owners who lease portions of Heritage Square for outdoor dining areas. This lease rate will not apply in addition to any established lease amounts (e.g., for Cuvee 928 or Monsoon's), and it would only apply once any current lease agreements terminate.
|
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
As explained above, a key decision point for the Council will be the establishment of a defensible procedure for calculating an appropriate lease rate that is fair and reasonable to business owners and that also reasonably compensates the City for the use by private individuals of its property; i.e., sidewalks. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The current standards in Division 8-03-002, North Downtown Business District Encroachment Policy, have allowed for the establishment of sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts in the downtown area. Bars and restaurants who have taken advantage of these regulations to establish seating areas on the public sidewalk have reported that their sales have increased making their businesses more profitable. Owners of sidewalk vending carts have also reported similar results. While increased business activity is beneficial to individual business owners, it also results in increased sales tax revenues to the City. Perhaps more importantly, the character and ambiance of downtown is significantly enhanced by sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts, a fact that has been noted by many downtown businesses and the Downtown Business Association. The proposed amendments to Division 8-03-002 are intended to continue to allow sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts, so that the advantages described above may continue to be realized. However, other benefits result from these amendments, including the ability of business outside of the downtown area to also establish sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts; the regulations have been clarified to eliminate confusing or contradictory regulations; enhanced protections for pedestrian use of sidewalks have been included; requirements for barriers around sidewalk cafes have been improved to assure architectural compatibility with buildings and to comply with ADA regulations; and, a mechanism to ensure the City is fairly compensated for private use of public rights-of-way is established. Furthermore, the existing regulations for other permitted encroachments that allow, for example, for the placement of a dumpster in public right-of-way when there is no space for it on a construction site, have been clarified. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
INFORM, CONSULT, & INVOLVE - Prior to the October 8, 2013 Council work session, staff provided a letter to business owners in the downtown and Southside who have utilized a sidewalk café and vending cart, or who have expressed interest in applying for a permit for one. This letter was also provided to the Downtown Business Association (DBA) and the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce. On February 18, 2014 an updated letter was hand delivered to 16 business owners in the downtown and Southside neighborhood, as well as to the DBA and Chamber of Commerce so that they would be informed of the proposed amendments and upcoming hearings/meetings with the Council. City staff attended the DBA’s weekly meeting on February 24, 2014 to discuss the proposed amendments to Division 8-03-002. While the concept of permitting sidewalk cafes and sidewalk vending carts is supported by the DBA because, for example, they add to the ambiance and character of the downtown area, many members were concerned that the cost of the application fee and the permit fee was too high and that this would discourage businesses from applying for the permit. Staff explained why it was important and necessary to have a uniform fee for the use of public right-of-way by private businesses, and that ultimately the Council would decide on the amount of the fee (note the permit fee for a sidewalk café would apply to both Heritage Square and public sidewalks; however, no vending carts are permitted in Heritage Square). City staff also presented the proposed amendments to a number of City Commissions and Committees, as summarized below: Pedestrian Advisory Committee – December 12, 2013 and January 9, 2014. The Committee reviewed the proposed amendments to Division 8-03-002 and after some questions to staff and discussion the requirements for barriers around sidewalk cafes were supported, including the need for them to meet ADA standards. Further questions on potential obstructions, permitting requirements, and noise issues were answered by staff. Transportation Commission – February 5, 2014. The Transportation Commission listened to staff’s presentation on the sidewalk encroachment amendments, and moved to support the ordinance and recommended approval to the Council. The Commission reviewed the minutes of the Pedestrian Advisory Committee’s last meeting, and they concurred with each of their points. The Commission also discussed the requirements for vending carts and were concerned that they were onerous, specifically the 100% approval requirement. Staff mentioned that a similar discussion had already taken place with the Council last year, and that the Council had directed staff not to change the requirements and standards for vending carts. Disability Awareness Commission – February 25, 2014. After some discussion, during which staff answered questions, the Commission unanimously moved to support the proposed amendments to Division 8-03-002, and recommended their adoption by Council. The public hearing/first reading of the ordinance to adopt the proposed amendments to Division 8-03-002 has been scheduled for March 18, 2014 with the ordinance’s second reading and possible adoption now scheduled for April 1, 2014. The effective date will, therefore, be May 1, 2014. Owners of interested bars, restaurants, and sidewalk vending carts may apply for a Sidewalk Café and Sidewalk Vending Cart Permit on April 2nd, assuming Council adoption of the ordinance. However, permits will only be issued on April 30th in advance of the May 1st effective date. |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Attachments: | Ord. 2014-07 | ||||
Res. 2014-10.Amended | |||||
Analysis | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
15.C.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of a Preliminary Plat: Request from Vintage Partners, LLC, on behalf of Sinclair Oil Corp. / Sun Valley Company, for the subdivision of approximately 95.5 acres into 12 parcels located at 1201 N Country Club Drive, within the Highway Commercial (HC), High Density Residential (HR), and Rural Residential (RR) zones. (Subdivision of approximately 95.5 acres into 12 parcels located at 1201 N. Country Club Drive) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat subject to conditions.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The City Council will find, based on the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, that the proposed Preliminary Plat meets the requirements of the Zoning Code (City Code Title 10), the Subdivision Code (City Code Title 11), and the Engineering Design Standards and Specifications for New Infrastructure (City Code Title 13). | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
No financial liabilities are anticipated by the approval of this Preliminary Plat. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Repair Replace maintain infrastructure (streets & utilities) Retain, expand, and diversify economic base |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
No previous Council decision has been made related to this proposed development or the subject property. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
Vintage Partners, LLC (the “Developer”) is currently under contract with Sinclair Oil Corp. / Sun Valley Company to purchase 95.5 acres located south and east of the intersection of Interstate 40 and Country Club Drive (the “subject property”). The proposed plat subdivides the subject property into two units. Unit 1, containing Parcels 3 and 7 through 12, is generally located at the southeast corner of Country Club Drive and Interstate 40 to the east and south of the existing Mobile gas station. Unit 2, containing Parcels 1, 2, and 4 through 6, is generally located west of the intersection of Country Club Drive and Soliere Avenue. It is the anticipation of the Developer to develop all of Unit 1 and, Parcels 1and 2 with approximately 250,000 square feet of commercial space including a retail anchor, a potential 100-room hotel, and other retail tenants such as restaurants, fueling, bank, fast food drive through, and service uses. This concentration of commercial uses is partially achieved through the realignment of Soliere Avenue to the south creating a larger more developable pad (Parcel 1) between Soliere Avenue and Interstate 40/Country Club Drive. Additional information regarding this realignment can be found under the Traffic section of this report and in the proposed Preliminary Plat Narrative, a copy of which is attached to this report. Further, the Developer intends to develop Parcel 4 as a residential use. At this time, the specifics of that use have not been determined but, for the purposes of impact analysis preparation, the proposed dwelling unit count is 30. Parcel 5 contains the Rio de Flag and Parcel 6 is almost entirely consumed by slope, forest, and floodplain resources. It is the intention of the Developer to dedicate Parcel 5 to the city for use as open space, floodplain/drainage, and public utilities. Parcel 6 will be incorporated into the development of Parcel 4 to take advantage of those resource calculations. The zoning for the subject property is identified on City of Flagstaff Zoning Maps 10 and 11, a copy of which is included in the attached Planning and Zoning Commission staff report. The majority of the subject property is currently zoned Highway Commercial (HC), which allows all of the proposed nonresidential uses. A strip of High Density Residential (HR) zoning exists along the southern edge of the subject property within Parcel 4. When Parcel 4 is developed, a Zoning Map Amendment will be processed to change the existing HC and HR zoning to something more appropriate for the traditional residential development. This amendment will include Parcel 6. The subject property is currently bordered by residential uses to the south and west, by Interstate 40 to the north, and by a mix of commercial and residential uses to the east. To provide an appropriate buffer between existing residential uses and proposed commercial uses, commercial uses will be concentrated near the Interstate 40/Country Club Drive and Soliere Avenue/Country Club Drive intersections. Where commercial uses are adjacent to residential uses, adequate buffering in accordance with the Zoning Code will be ensured during site plan review. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
The existing zoning of the subject property allows for the proposed subdivision. No public hearings or public outreach are required as part of the subdivision plat review. | |||||
Attachments: | Planning Commission Staff Report | ||||
Attachments | |||||
Resource Plan | |||||
Landscape Plan | |||||
Preliminary Plat | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
15.D.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Preliminary Plat: A request from Miramonte Homes for Preliminary Plat approval for the Switzer Canyon Village Townhomes, a 48-unit residential townhouse subdivision on an 18.56-acre site located at 587 North Switzer Canyon Drive, within the Single-Family Residential (R1) zone. (Preliminary Plat for Switzer Canyon Village Townhomes located at 587 North Switzer Canyon Drive) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this request at their meeting on February 26, 2014 and recommends the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The City Council will find, based on the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, that the proposed Preliminary Plat meets the requirements of the Zoning Code (City Code Title 10), the Subdivision Code (City Code Title 11), and the Engineering Design Standards and Specifications for New Infrastructure (City Code Title 13). | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
No financial liabilities are anticipated by the approval of this Preliminary Plat. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Repair Replace maintain infrastructure (streets & utilities) Retain, expand, and diversify economic base |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
On May 17, 2005, the City Council approved a tentative plat intended for 96 condominium dwelling units, and authorized the Mayor to sign the final plat and City/Subdivider Agreement. In 2006, the subject site was recorded as a final plat intended for 96 condominium dwelling units. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the Preliminary Plat, with no conditions, as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 2) Approve the Preliminary Plat with new conditions. 3) Deny the Preliminary Plat based on non-compliance with the Zoning Code, the Subdivision Code, and/or the Engineering Design Standards and Specifications for New Infrastructure. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
In 2006, the subject site was recorded as a final plat intended for 96 condominium dwelling units. The infrastructure for the project has been installed as part of the condominium project. No buildings/ dwellings have been constructed. The new owner intends to abandon the condominium plat (Sheet 3) and re-plat the subdivision for the proposed townhomes and reduce the number of lots to 48. The applicant has provided an open space element as identified by the 7.52-acre, Tract "A" on the Preliminary Plat. In addition, a blanket easement to allow for future F.U.T.S. trail development by the City is being provided on Tract "A." Several development standards have changed since 2006, including a new Zoning Code, new driveway ordinance, new storm water standards, new engineering standards, new landscaping standards, and new building placement standards. As such, the applicant was required to go through the development review process beginning with a conceptual plat review. The plan for the townhome subdivision was adjusted accordingly. The proposed development of 48 dwelling units is within the density required by the Flagstaff Zoning Code (Section 10-40.30.030). The R1 density requirement is 2-5 gross units per acre within the Resource Protection Overlay; the proposed gross density is 2.59 units per acre. Single-family (attached) use is permitted in the R1 zone as a Planned Residential Development (PRD). Surrounding uses include single-family residential to the north and west; vacant land zoned R1 to the south; and commercial and industrial land zoned HC and R1 to the east as well as Switzer Canyon Drive. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
The existing zoning of the subject property allows for the proposed subdivision. No public hearings or public outreach are required as part of the subdivision plat review. | |||||
Attachments: | P&Z Draft Minutes | ||||
Planning Commission Staff Report | |||||
Color Rendering | |||||
Preliminary Plat | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
15.E.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Final Plat A request from Miramonte Homes for Final Plat approval for the Switzer Canyon Village Townhomes, a 48-unit residential townhome subdivision on an 18.56 acre site located at 587 North Switzer Canyon Drive in the Single-family Residential (R1) zone. The existing condominium plat is proposed to be abandoned and a new townhouse plat is proposed. (Final Plat for Switzer Canyon Village Townhomes at 587 North Switzer Canyon Drive) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Staff recommends approving the Final Plat subject to conditions, and authorizing the Mayor to sign the plat when notified by staff that all conditions have been met and documents are ready for recording.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
Title 11: General Plans and Subdivisions Section 11-20.70.030.F. indicates that approval of a final plat requires approval by the City Council provided the Council finds that the final plat meets the requirments of the zoning code and the engineering design standards and specifications. Subsidiary Decisions Points: This is the second of two related items. The first is the Preliminary Plat review. Normally, a Final Plat review would not be scheduled for review until such time the public improvement plans and bonding was completed. In this case, all of the improvements have been completed and the processing of the Preliminary and Final Plat is appropriate. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
No financial liabilities are anticipated by the approval of this Final Plat. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Repair Replace maintain infrastructure (streets & utilities) Retain, expand, and diversify economic base |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
On May 17, 2005, the City Council approved a tentative plat for the subject site intended for 96 condominium dwelling units, and authorized the Mayor to sign the final plat and City/Subdivider Agreement. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the final plat; 2) Deny the final plat. | |||||
Background/History: | |||||
In 2006, the subject site was recorded as a Final Plat intended for 96 condominium dwelling units. The infrastructure for the project has been installed as part of the condominium project. No buildings/ dwellings have been constructed. With this plat, the new owner intends to abandon the condominium plat and re-plat the subdivision for the proposed townhomes and reduce the number of lots to 48. | |||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The Preliminary Plat and the Final Plat are scheduled on the same agenda for the March 18, 2014 City Council meeting. The Preliminary Plat must be approved by City Council prior to Council approving the Final Plat. Having the Preliminary and Final Plat on the same agenda is not the typical process; however, due to the fact that the infrastructure for the project has already been installed, there is no requirement for public improvement plans, a performance bond, or a City/Subdivider agreement. The Inter-division Staff (IDS) has reviewed and approved the Final Plat subject to conditions. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
A blanket easement to allow for future F.U.T.S. (Flagstaff Urban Trail System) trail development by the City is being provided by the developer on Tract "A," a 7.52-acre open space tract. The open space tract is dedicated to the Homeowners Association. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
The platting process does not require a public hearing. However, the Preliminary Plat was reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission at a public meeting on February 26, 2014. |
|||||
Attachments: | Final Plat | ||||
Lot Sizes | |||||
Revised Conditions | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||