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 Regular Meeting of March 18, 2014; the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of March 25, 2014; and the Regular Meeting of April 1, 2014. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Amend/approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting of March 18, 2014; the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of March 25, 2014; and the Regular Meeting of April 1, 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). |
|||||||||
8. | LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARINGS | |||||||||
A. |
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: David Horne, “Milton Rd. Texaco", 1601 S. Milton Rd., Series 10 (beer and wine store), New License.
|
|||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Hold public hearing.
The City Council has the option to: 1) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for approval; 2) Forward the application to the State with no recommendation; or 3) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for denial based on the testimony received at the public hearing and/or other factors. |
||||||||||
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 Contract: Rose St. 2010 Bond Improvements Project. (Contract for improvements on Rose St.) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
2) Approve Change Order Authority to the City Manager in the amount of $132,785.00 (10% of contract amount, less allowance); 3) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents. |
||||||||||
B. | Consideration and Approval of Contract: Consultant Agreement: Development and Analysis of Operational Alternatives for the Milton Road Corridor (Grant funded) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Approve the agreement with Kimley Horn & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $99,972.12 with Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration funds passed-through from the Arizona Department of Transportation; and
2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents. |
||||||||||
C. | Consideration and Approval of Contract: FUTS Arizona Trail, Route 66 to McMillan Mesa Project. (Approve construction contract with Tri-Com Corporation for construction of FUTS Arizona Trail, Route 66 to McMillan Mesa Project) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
2) Authorize Change Order Authority to the City Manager in the amount of $20,500.00 (10% of the bid contract amount, less contract allowance) for unanticipated additional costs; and 3) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents. |
||||||||||
10. | ROUTINE ITEMS | |||||||||
A. | Consideration of Ordinance No. 2014-09: An ordinance prohibiting aggressive solicitation | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-09 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-09 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-09 |
||||||||||
B. | Consideration and Approval of Street Closure(s): Tenth Annual Route 66 Days Charity Car Show | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Approve the street closure at Aspen and Birch Avenues between Humphreys and San Francisco Streets on September 6, 2014 from 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.
|
||||||||||
C. | Consideration and Approval of Street Closure(s): Hopi Native Arts and Cultural Festival | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Approve the street closure at Aspen Ave between San Francisco Street and Leroux Street on September 27, 2014 at 6:00 a.m. through September 28, 2014 at 6:00 p.m.
|
||||||||||
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 Adoption of Resolution No. 2014-14: A resolution approving the City of Flagstaff 2014/2015 Annual Action Plan and authorizing its submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2014-14 by title only
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2014-14 (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-14 |
||||||||||
B. | Consideration and Approval of Preliminary Plat: Request from Mogollon Engineering and Surveying Inc., on behalf of True Life Communities PCAZ, for the subdivision of approximately 8.06 acres into 36 single-family residential townhome lots located at 3002 S. Clubhouse Circle, within the R1, Single-Family Residential Zone. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Approve the preliminary plat as recommended unanimously by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
|
||||||||||
C. | Consideration and Approval of Preliminary Plat: for Fountain Head United, LLC for Camryn Pines subdivision, a one-hundred and twenty-three lot, single-family, detached residential subdivision. The site is 59.1 acres in size and is located at 4501 South Beulah Boulevard. The site is zoned R1, Single-Family Residential zone. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Approve the preliminary plat as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
|
||||||||||
16. | DISCUSSION ITEMS | |||||||||
A. | Discussion: Direction to Staff regarding the Fourth Street Corridor Master Plan | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
None - Discussion Only. Review, discuss, and clarify as needed the direction provided to staff at the January 23, 2014 City Council mini-budget retreat.
|
||||||||||
B. | Discussion: Possible amendments to Division 10-20.50 (Sign Regulations) of the Flagstaff Zoning Code. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Staff will be seeking direction from the City Council on needed amendments to the City of Flagstaff’s sign regulations.
|
||||||||||
C. | Discussion: Proposed Development Fees for Public Safety (Impact fees for public safety) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Direct staff to prepare ordinance to adopt proposed fees for May hearings.
|
||||||||||
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 Regular Meeting of March 18, 2014; the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of March 25, 2014; and the Regular Meeting of April 1, 2014. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Amend/approve the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting of March 18, 2014; the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of March 25, 2014; and the Regular Meeting of April 1, 2014.
|
|||||
INFORMATION | |||||
Attached are copies of the minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting of March 18, 2014; the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of March 25, 2014; and the Regular Meeting of April 1, 2014. | |||||
Attachments: | 03.18.2014.CCRM.Minutes | ||||
03.25.2014.CCSMES.Minutes | |||||
04.01.2014.CCRM.Minutes | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
8.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: David Horne, “Milton Rd. Texaco", 1601 S. Milton Rd., Series 10 (beer and wine store), New License.
|
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Hold public hearing.
The City Council has the option to: 1) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for approval; 2) Forward the application to the State with no recommendation; or 3) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for denial based on the testimony received at the public hearing and/or other factors. |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
David Horne with Milton Rd. Texaco has submitted a liquor license application for a new Series 10 (beer and wine store) license. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
There is no budgetary impact to the City of Flagstaff as this is a recommendation to the State. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance - regulatory action. | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Not applicable. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Table the item if additional information or time is needed. 2) Make no recommendation. 3) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for approval. 4) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for denial, stating the reasons for such recommendation. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
An application for a new Series 10 (beer and wine store) liquor license was received from David Horne for Milton Rd. Texaco, 1601 S. Milton Rd. This is an existing business that wants to sell beer and wine. A background investigation performed by Sgt. Matt Wright of the Flagstaff Police Department resulted in a recommendation for approval. A background investigation performed by Tom Boughner, Code Compliance Manager, resulted in no active code violations being reported. Sales tax and licensing information was reviewed by Ranbir Cheema, Tax, Licensing & Revenue Manager, who stated that the business is in compliance with the tax and licensing requirements of the City. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Because the application is for a new license, consideration may be given to both the applicant's personal qualifications and the location. A Series 10 (beer and wine store) license allows a retail store to sell beer and wine (no other spirituous liquors), only in the original unbroken package, to be taken away from the premises of the retailer and consumed off the premises. The deadline for issuing a recommendation on this application is April 21, 2014. For a Series 10 (beer and wine store) license, the applicant is required to provide the distance between the applicant’s business and the nearest church or school for government; the State does not require a geological map or list of licenses in the vicinity for any license series. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
This business will contribute to the tax base of the community. We are not aware of any other relevant considerations. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The application was properly posted on March 18, 2014. No written protests have been received to date. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Table the item if additional information or time is needed. 2) Make no recommendation. 3) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for approval. 4) Forward the application to the State with a recommendation for denial, stating the reasons for such recommendation. |
|||||
Attachments: | Texaco - Letter to Applicant | ||||
Hearing Procedures | |||||
Series 10 Description | |||||
Texaco - Section 13 | |||||
Texaco - PD Memo | |||||
Texaco - Code Memo | |||||
Texaco - Tax Memo | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
9.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Rose St. 2010 Bond Improvements Project. (Contract for improvements on Rose St.) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
2) Approve Change Order Authority to the City Manager in the amount of $132,785.00 (10% of contract amount, less allowance); 3) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Award of the contract will authorize the construction of the Rose St. 2010 Bond Improvements project in accordance with the approved public improvement plans prepared by Turner Engineering, Inc. and Peak Engineering, Inc. Subsidiary Decisions Points: The project is scheduled in the Capital 5-year plan for Division 24 and is funded in the FY 14 authorized budget. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial Impact: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The project has a total project budget appropriation of $1,605,000 from the 2010 Street/Utility general obligation bond. The FY 14 budget is in the amount of $1,449,260 (acct. 403-09-421-3263-6). The bid solicitation was published on the City website and twice in the Daily Sun. Nine bids were received on March 5, 2014 at the office of the City Purchasing Agent. A summary of bids received is included under Expanded Financial Considerations on Page 2. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Repair, replace and maintain infrastructure (streets & utilities) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Council adopted the FY14 budget at a prior Council meeting. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
1) Approve the award as recommended; or, 2) Reject approval of the award. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Background/History: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
In November 2010, voters authorized up to $16.5 million in general obligation bonds to fund street and utility infrastructure replacements. Based upon condition ratings and age of the existing utilities and pavements, the Rose St. project has been identified for funding using a portion of the bond authorization. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Key Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The project will address street and utility work in Rose Street and Rose Avenue from Cedar Avenue to Fourth Street. The project will replace approximately 2,050 linear feet of sanitary sewer main, replace all sewer and water service lines, install new fire hydrants, construct a storm sewer system, construct new asphalt pavement with curb & gutter and new sidewalks. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below is a summary of the bids received:
*** Contractor recorded total amount incorrectly. This reflects the corrected total. The Rose St. 2010 Bond Improvement Project is the final project funded by the 2010 voter authorized general obligation bond for street and utility infrastructure replacement . The bond program will have completed twelve projects and spent an estimated $14.4 million dollars for construction of improvements and $2.6 million for soft costs. The Rose St. project has a current total budget appropriation of $1,605,000. If contingency funding is necessary, it is available from the following currently obligated funding; the $16.5 million 2010 Street/Utility Bond Improvements program, $400,000 of the Utility Aging Infrastructure budget and $100,000 from the Transportation Tax budget. Contract Allowance is established to accommodate costs for unanticipated items of work and is included in the contract amount. Change Order Authority establishes a dollar amount (10% of the contract amount, less allowance) and provides the City Manager, on behalf of the City Council, authority to amend the contract amount in response to unforeseen costs that are more than the contracted amount. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The community benefits of this project include:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Involvement: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Inform - On January 23, 2014, an email was sent to the Sunnyside Neighborhood Association providing an overview of the project scope and a working schedule. Contact information for the City's project manager was also included. Involve - In October 2013, Temporary Entry Permit requests with a letter describing the work and including City contact information were sent to all property owners impacted by the project. Empower - Voters authorized up $16.5 million in general obligation bonds in November 2010. The bonds are to fund street and utility infrastructure replacements. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
1) Approve the award as recommended. This would allow the project to be constructed in 2014. 2) Reject approval of the award. This option could delay the construction start and cause work to span two construction seasons, which would include a winter shutdown with temporary improvements in place and possibly increase project costs. The neighborhood would have a substantially longer duration of impact from construction activities. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Attachments: | Vicinity Map | ||||
Construction Contract | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
9.B.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Consultant Agreement: Development and Analysis of Operational Alternatives for the Milton Road Corridor (Grant funded) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Approve the agreement with Kimley Horn & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $99,972.12 with Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration funds passed-through from the Arizona Department of Transportation; and
2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents. |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
Milton Road is the main “entrance” to the City transitioning directly to and from Interstate 17. As a major arterial in a region with a poorly developed arterial/collector network, the roadway is required to serve many functions: multimodal corridor, general mobility, general access, gateway feature and more. Options for developing parallel arterials for congestion relief are increasingly expensive and difficult to phase, requiring a renewed focus on improving Milton Road operations. The purpose of this effort is to use micro-simulation modeling to examine and illustrate the performance of different combinations of access management treatments, transit service patterns, and various intersection configurations. Subsidiary Decisions Points: The project is supported by the FMPO Executive Board in the FMPO Work Program and Transportation Improvement Program. The project is supported by the Arizona Department of Transportation. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The cost is $99,972.12. Grant match valued at $14,951.92 will be provided through in-kind labor by City staff participating in the project. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Below are the Council goals relating to this item: 1. Repair Replace maintain infrastructure (streets & utilities) 5. Retain, expand, and diversify economic base 11. Effective governance (via potential for future partnerships with ADOT) |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
The FMPO participated with ADOT in the Flagstaff Urban Mobility Study of Milton Road in 2003-2004. The study was primarily funded by ADOT. The FMPO brought some money to the consulting contract to more fully evaluate multimodal alternatives and the Council approved that action. The Urban Mobility Study will be used as a basis for the alternatives evaluated in this beginning effort. Implementation of the original study was hampered by lack of direction on land use at the time which prevented decision on access, access management, and project specificity. FMPO staff working with City staff believe many of those issues are closer to resolution, due in part, to information contained in the Council adopted Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
Milton Road is a state highway and subject to state plans and policies. Regionally, it is addressed by the Flagstaff Regional Land Use and Transportation Plan (2001), the FMPO Regional Transportation Plan 2009 and is addressed in a draft update of the former, Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030. A more detailed ADOT study from 2004, The Flagstaff Urban Mobility Study, also speaks to general desired improvements. That study identified Lone Tree Road as an important alternative route. An economic downturn and significant increases in the cost of an interchange at I-40 have forestalled that option. NAIPTA, the local transit provider, recently envisioned significant improvements to Milton Road in their 5-Year and Long Range Transit Plan updates (2013). Finally, Northern Arizona University has a campus master plan that identifies policies, expansion plans and many key physical improvements. | |||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Partnership opportunities exist with the Arizona Department of Transportation through the highway safety program if projects are identified and have a positive cost-benefit ratio. Leveraging of federal funds through the Federal Transit Administration is possible if a viable transit corridor is identified. Four (4) firms submitted proposals for performing the consulting service. A five (5)-person evaluation committee independently reviewed each proposal and scored the firms on the following criteria: experience and qualifications, presented approach and schedule, and pricing fee. The scoring results are on the attached Scoring Tabulation document. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
Funding is available through Federal Transit Administration Section 5303 Metropolitan Transit Planning Funds in the amount of $47,000 (requires 20% match) and in Federal Highway Administration Surface Transportation Program funds of $53,000 (requires 5.7% match). Matching funds will be provided via in-kind labor from participating City staff. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
A robust analysis will help clarify potential prospective solutions (i.e, roundabouts for example) in addressing challenges in this corridor. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform - the general purpose of this exercise is to test several alternatives and measure their effectiveness in resolving safety, congestion, access and multimodal mobility issues. This information will be used for future consultation and collaboration with the public. The City applied for a grant to undertake that public effort. Failing receipt of the grant, the City will proceed with an outreach effort for a smaller section of the corridor, likely in the vicinity of the area of north of Butler Avenue. | |||||
Attachments: | KHA Contract | ||||
Scoring tabulation | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
9.C.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||||||||||||||||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: FUTS Arizona Trail, Route 66 to McMillan Mesa Project. (Approve construction contract with Tri-Com Corporation for construction of FUTS Arizona Trail, Route 66 to McMillan Mesa Project) | |||||||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||||||||||||||
2) Authorize Change Order Authority to the City Manager in the amount of $20,500.00 (10% of the bid contract amount, less contract allowance) for unanticipated additional costs; and 3) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||||||||||||||||||
Awarding the contract will authorize the construction of the FUTS Arizona Trail, Route 66 to McMillan Mesa project in accordance with the approved public improvements plans prepared by SWI, Inc. | |||||||||||||||||||||
Financial Impact: | |||||||||||||||||||||
The FUTS Arizona Trail, Route 66 to McMillan Mesa project is funded by the total budget appropriation of $283,438 for FY 14 from the Flagstaff Urban Trails Fund/BBB Fund (051-05-111-3003-5). | |||||||||||||||||||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||||||||||||||||||
Fund existing and consider expanded recreational services |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||||||||||||||||||
No previous Council decisions. | |||||||||||||||||||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||||||||
Approve the award as recommended Reject the bids and direct staff to re-advertise the project | |||||||||||||||||||||
Background/History: | |||||||||||||||||||||
The bid solicitations were published two times, March 2 and 9, 2014. Seven bids were received on March 27, 2014 at the office of the City Purchasing Agent. A summary of the bids received are:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Key Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||
The scope of the project includes approximately 3,500 linear feet of new trails compliant with the City's standards. The project will construct approximately 3,300 feet of an aggregate base course trail sections and about 200 feet of a concrete trail section. Included with the project are stormwater improvements, regulatory signs and striping. | |||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||
The work is a scheduled and funded Capital Improvement project. The FY 14 authorized budget of $283,438 for the FUTS Arizona Trail, Route 66 to McMillan Mesa account (051-05-111-3003-5) has adequate funding for construction of the improvements. The apparent low bid is 21.9% below the Engineer's Estimate. | |||||||||||||||||||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||
The project will complete a missing FUTS trail segment between the McMillan Mesa area and the Route 66 corridor. This trail is also part of the Arizona Trail, a National Scenic Trail that stretches for almost 800 miles across Arizona from Mexico to Utah. |
|||||||||||||||||||||
Community Involvement: | |||||||||||||||||||||
The project is an element of the Flagstaff Urban Trails System Plan and Regional Bikeways Plans. The project is programmed in the City Five Year Capital Plan. A FUTS easement has been acquired from the affected property owners that will allow for the construction of the project. | |||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||||||||
Approve the award to the apparent low bidder as recommended. Reject the bids and direct staff to re-advertise the project. The result would be a probable change in project costs (increase or decrease) and delay in project construction. May affect the FUTS easements that have been acquired for the project. | |||||||||||||||||||||
Attachments: | Construction Contract | ||||
Vicinity Map | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.A.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of Ordinance No. 2014-09: An ordinance prohibiting aggressive solicitation | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2014-09 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2014-09 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2014-09 |
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The Flagstaff Police Department with assistance from the Flagstaff City Attorney's Office is requesting the approval of Ordinance 2014-09, which would prohibit aggressive solicitation in Flagstaff. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
There is no financial impact to the City of Flagstaff by adopting this ordinance. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Effective governance by addressing public safety and constituent concerns. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Council has not made a prior decision on this issue. The prospect of developing an ordinance prohibiting aggressive solicitation was presented during Council work session on February 11, 2014. Council provided support in bringing a draft ordinance forward. First reading of the ordinance took place at the April 1, 2014, Council Meeting. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Adopt Ordinance 2014-09, making it unlawful to aggressively solicit in Flagstaff. 2) Amend Ordinance 2014-09 3) Do not adopt Ordinance 2014-09 |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
In August 2013, a local attorney and the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Flagstaff City Attorney and the Police Chief alleging the state statute prohibiting loitering to beg was unconstitutional. After legal review, it was determined in fact the statute found under ARS 13-2905 (A)(3) was believed to be a violation of free speech. Following recommendations by the City Attorney and Police Chief, the Flagstaff City Council approved a settlement whereby the Flagstaff Police Department would refrain immediately from taking enforcement action for loitering to beg. On October 11, 2013, the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission advised all law enforcement agencies in the state that the United States District Court had declared ARS 13-2905(A)(3) to be unconstitutional and void under the first and fourteenth amendments of the Constitution. The statute was declared unenforceable statewide. Each year, the Flagstaff Police Department receives numerous calls from concerned citizens who have been approached by individuals begging for assistance. In one recent 13 month period, the police department recorded 642 calls for service where the event code was classified as loitering. The event code for loitering and "vagrancy" is the same, so not all 642 calls received were specifically for loitering to beg, however during that same 13 month period, the Flagstaff Police Department made 141 arrests for panhandling under 13-2905A3 prior to the legal challenge of this statute. Statistics indicate a large number of citizens contact the police annually with concerns regarding this behavior. A number of these arrests involved activity described by the victim as "aggressive" at the time the panhandling occurred. A case review indicates it is apparent many subjects who panhandle tend to target females or the elderly resulting in many of these victims describing the contact as causing fear. In two separate case, children under the age of ten were solicited. The Flagstaff Police Department believes that citizen concerns regarding loitering to beg on private property can be addressed through a partnership with business owners. Officers can be granted authority to "trespass" subjects on private property at the business owner or managers direction. If a business owner believes loitering to beg is bad for business, authority may be granted allowing officers to trespass individuals involved in this conduct. Notice shall be given upon first contact, warning the individual this conduct is not allowed and the officer will trespass the individual from that property. Recent changes in state statue on trespassing now allows the officers to "trespass"at the direction of the business owner. Notice of trespass will be documented in our records system, accessible to officers in the field. Future or subsequent contacts with the same individual at that location could result in an arrest for trespass. Incidents occurring on school grounds can be enforced under the existing provision remaining in the State loitering statute. Private schools and churches are also private property, and as such, solicitation can be effectively addressed with the trespassing statute. With trespassing tools in place on private property, the challenge will be in addressing certain behaviors involving aggressive solicitation on public property. During legal review, it has been determined that several municipalities in the state of Arizona have enacted local ordinances to address aggressive solicitation. These ordinances have successfully addressed citizens concerns by prohibiting behavior or conduct, as opposed to the content of speech. The proposed ordinance on aggressive solicitation is attached. It contains many of the same elements of several of the ordinances reviewed from other municipalities. Several options are open for Council discussion, most notably distances listed prohibiting certain behavior in proximity to commercial institutions. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
A draft bill on Aggressive Solicitation is being proposed in the State House of Representatives. A copy of that bill is attached. Much of the same prohibitions appear in this draft legislation, but it is of course unknown at this time whether this bill will gain the support this legislative session. The issue of panhandling in Flagstaff is most definitely seasonal, with significant increases in calls for service and response to panhandling complaints experienced during spring and summer months. We expect calls for service regarding loitering incidents will begin to dramatically increase in late April. There are also concerns with the legality of prohibiting solicitation on medians. Currently there is an existing state law under A.R.S. Section 13-2906 "Obstructing a Highway or Other Public Thoroughfare", that applies if a person recklessly interferes with the passage of any highway by creating an unreasonable inconvenience or hazard. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has found that attempts to set prohibitions on day laborers who were soliciting work and obstructing traffic while doing so unconstitutional. Recently the U.S. District Court in Maine struck down a Portland, Maine City Ordinance prohibiting soliciting on medians. The Court first found that a median is a public forum for the purposes of the First Amendment free speech analysis. The Court then went on to state that because the City Council and Chief of Police in Portland interpreted the ordinance to allow persons to go on the median to place campaign signs, that the ordinance was unconstitutional as it was not reasonably related to the State's interest of safety concern. Therefore, if a local ordinance is considered prohibiting solicitation on medians, that ordinance would have to prohibit all activity on medians including the placement of signs in order to possibly be found constitutional. However given the 9th Circuit ruling previously mentioned, the possibility exists the courts may find any prohibition of solicitation on medians unconstitutional due to the existence of the more applicable A.R.S. section 13-2906, "Obstructing a Public Thoroughfare". |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Adoption of this ordinance will provide a tool for law enforcement when concerns are received by citizens regarding aggressive solicitation, or from business owners who have concerns about loitering in proximity of commercial institutions. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform: There have been several articles in the AZ Daily Sun in the past several months detailing the court decision regarding the repeal of ARS 2905(A)(3) and the impacts on enforcement of loitering to beg here locally. Specifically an article appeared in the Daily Sun on October 5, 2013, as well as an editorial by the Daily Sun on September 19, 2013. On January 11, 2013, the Daily Sun carried a headline story describing in detail the proposed state law banning aggressive solicitation. Consult: The Daily Sun also carried a small story prior to the work session on 2-11-2013 where City staff provided City Council with a power point presentation seeking direction on a proposed ordinance banning aggressive solicitation. Citizens had the opportunity at this work session o speak on this issue during public forum. One citizen showed at the work session and filled out a comment card in support of the proposed ordinance. No citizens spoke on this issue at that work session. |
|||||
Attachments: | House Bill on aggressive loitering | ||||
Power Point | |||||
Ord. 2014-09 | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.B.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Street Closure(s): Tenth Annual Route 66 Days Charity Car Show | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve the street closure at Aspen and Birch Avenues between Humphreys and San Francisco Streets on September 6, 2014 from 6:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
By allowing the 2014 Route 66 Days Charity Car Show as an exception to the Special Event Permit Regulations regarding the full closure of Aspen and Birch avenues, between Humphreys and San Francisco streets, the City is providing a safe alternative locations for an annual community event. There are no Subsidiary Decision Points. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Street Closures have the potential to change traffic patterns for local businesses. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
A sustainable community through economic vitality, environmental protection and social inclusion. Diversity of arts, culture and educational opportunities. Livability through good neighborhoods, affordable housing and varied recreational activities. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
The Route 66 Charity Car Show has been granted this exception for the last nine years. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Deny the request to close the proposed downtown streets. • Pro: Closure of streets in the north downtown area has the potential to negatively impact business in this area. By not allowing the closure, these north downtown businesses and residents could count on the ordinary flow of traffic and parking. • Con: This is a well attended community event that brings visitors into Flagstaff and positively affects many areas of the local economy, including hotel and restaurant sales. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The 2013 Flagstaff Route 66 Days Charity Car Show is organized by the local Route 66 Car Club. Now in its tenth year, the purpose of this event is to bring attention to the historic value of Route 66, bringing people to Flagstaff to celebrate its history through display of reconditioned and restored cars and other City attractions. The first event in 2005 started out with 88 cars and provided the framework for future events. The event has grown from 88 cars to over 450 cars. The Route 66 Days Charity Car Show is the premiere car show event north of Phoenix and has become a destination event for entrants from around the United States. The event has allowed the Route 66 Car Club to donate $185,000 to local charities over the last nine years. | |||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The current special event permit regulations do not allow for the full closure of one-way downtown streets. Deviations from the special event permit packet have been approved by City Council on a case-by-case basis. The Route 66 Days Charity Car Show has been granted this exception for the last nine years. Additional two-way street closures involved with this permit do not require City Council approval including Sitgreaves between Santa Fe and Birch Avenue; Aspen Avenue between Humphreys and Sitgreaves; Leroux Street between Route 66 and Birch Avenue. the flow of traffic will continue as normal on San Francisco Street, Beaver Street and Humphreys street. The Flagstaff Fire Department requires that there be a fire lane and access to all hydrant and water hook-ups on the streets. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
Street closures have the potential to change traffic patterns for local businesses. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The Route 66 Days Charity Car Show draws approximately 5,000-10,000 residents and visitors to the historic downtown area. It generates tourism and business for Flagstaff hotels and restaurants. Downtown Flagstaff provides a significant draw for the event due to the ambience and historical nature of the downtown area. Additionally, the close proximity of restaurants and shops are enjoyed by both entrants showing their cars for the day and spectators. Direct revenue from both entrants and vendors is significant as the even hosted 450 sold vehicle entries and 56 vendors in 2012. Approximately 85% of those entries were registered and in Flagstaff on Friday night in anticipation of Saturday’s show. Route 66 Days Charity Car Show has donated over$165,000 to local Flagstaff charities in the past seven years. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
The public participation goal of "inform" has been chosen. Numerous organizations and businesses participate in this event, including many f the downtown businesses. The April 'Downtown Newsletter' informed residents and local downtown businesses of the date and time that this agenda item will be presented to City Council. |
|||||
Attachments: | Traffic Control Plan | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.C.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Street Closure(s): Hopi Native Arts and Cultural Festival | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve the street closure at Aspen Ave between San Francisco Street and Leroux Street on September 27, 2014 at 6:00 a.m. through September 28, 2014 at 6:00 p.m.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
Subsidiary Decisions Points: By allowing the Hopi Native Arts and Cultural Festival as an exception to the special event permit regulations of partial street closures by allowing the full closure of Aspen Avenue between San Francisco Street and Leroux Street, the City is providing a safe location for a community event. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Street closures have the potential to change traffic patterns for local businesses. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Diversity of arts, culture and educational opportunities. | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Other special events have received this exception in the past. The Hopi Native Arts and Cultural Festival received this exception in 2013. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Approve or Deny the request to close the proposed downtown streets. • Pro: Closure of streets in the north downtown area has the potential to negatively impact business in this area. By not allowing the closure, these north downtown businesses and residents could count on the ordinary flow of traffic and parking. • Con: This is a well-attended community event that brings visitors into the downtown area. The street closure will allow the show to expand and grow. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The Hopi Native Arts and Cultural Festival is sponsored by the Hopi Tribe's Economic Development Corporation to provide an opportunity for Native American artisans to sell their arts and crafts. Additionally, this gives the Hopi Tribe an opportunity to share their life and culture through educating the public with art, dance and traditional foods. The market is in its fourth year and has annually drawn over 1000 residents and visitors into the downtown area. | |||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The current special event permit regulations do not allow for the full closure of one-way downtown streets. Deviations from the special event permit packet have been approved by City Council on a case-by-case basis. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
Street closures have the potential to change traffic patterns for local businesses. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The Hopi Native Arts and Cultural Festival draws approximately 1000 residents and visitors to the historic downtown area and may generate tourism and business for Flagstaff hotels and restaurants. The Hopi Native Arts and Cultural Festival provides and educational opportunity for residents and visitors through the sale and display of art, crafts and food. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
The public participation goal of collaborate has been chosen: The Hopi Tribe hopes to bring together the businesses and residents for a successful arts and craft festival. The April Downtown Newsletter informed residents and local downtown businesses of the date and time that this agenda item will be presented to City Council. Additionally, the Hopi Economic Development Corporation worked with surrounding businesses in 2013 and adjusted their site plan to allow for a more open layout. |
|||||
Attachments: | Site Plan | ||||
Traffic Control Plan | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
15.A.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2014-14: A resolution approving the City of Flagstaff 2014/2015 Annual Action Plan and authorizing its submission to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2014-14 by title only
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2014-14 (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2014-14 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
An Annual Action Plan (AA Plan) is a HUD-required document that specifies how the annual allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds will be spent. The submission of the AA Plan is required to maintain the City of Flagstaff’s annual entitlement allocation of CDBG and is due to HUD on May 15, 2014. Subsidiary Decisions Points: Staff is presenting Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding options to City Council at the April 8, 2014 agenda review for discussion and consideration. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial Impact: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The 2014/2015 CDBG allocation is $570,941, an increase of $5,169 from last year. In addition, the City of Flagstaff is able to combine program income and reallocated funds from previous years to increase the funds available for allocation. Total program income and reallocated funds will equal $44,527.73 for a grand total of $615,468.73 available for the 2014/15 allocation. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Effective Governance - The City of Flagstaff is considered an entitlement community and receives an annual allocation of CDBG funding. CDBG funds over the past 15 years have provided benefit to thousands of Flagstaff residents. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
No | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A) Approve Resolution No. 2014-14 and authorize its submission to HUD. B) Modify the AA Plan and authorize its submission to HUD at a later time. C) Not approve Resolution No. 2014-14, not submit the AA Plan to HUD and risk losing CDBG funding for 2014/2015 and possibly future allocations. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Background/History: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Every two years, staff comes to a Council Work Session to request guidance on Council CDBG Priorities and the overall CDBG process for the coming two years. On January 8, 2013 staff received Council guidance to conduct a formal public proposal process to assess the community need for CDBG funds. In addition, Council asked staff to research possible infrastructure options within target neighborhoods. In the 2014 CDBG process, nine external agency proposals were received along with two City of Flagstaff requests. Housing staff is responsible for determining whether a proposed activity is eligible, and for conducting a risk assessment of the project and applying agency. Federal funds require administrative knowledge and capacity to ensure compliant and timely expenditure of funds. Additionally, a committee comprised of three community representatives (one non-profit representative, one governmental representative, and one representative from a brokerage firm) and three City staff met to review the external proposals and rank them by consensus. Rankings are created primarily to serve as a risk and benefit assessment and are a crucial part of the staff recommendations forwarded to City Council. Below is a list of the proposals in ranking order. The proposals are divided between Housing and Public Service categories as they have two separate funding limits and different criteria. Internal City of Flagstaff proposals are presented to meet City Council priorities or other unmet needs in the community and are not ranked (NR) competitively with the other proposals as the City would administer these projects directly. A comprehensive Proposal Book that included each of the below proposals was distributed to Council the week of March 24, 2014.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Key Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
HUD requires that funded activities implement strategies from the Consolidated Plan. All recommended activities further this goal. Also important are project eligibility and viability. CDBG funds must be used to further the CDBG Primary Objective to develop viable urban communities by providing decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanded economic opportunities principally for low and moderate-income persons in Flagstaff (80% of the AMI = $47,600 currently for a family of four). HUD has two funding caps with regard to the use of CDBG funds. Public Service Activities are capped at 15% of the allocation and Program Administration is capped at 20% of the allocation. The rest of the available funding can be spent on Housing/Economic Development Activities. Staff is prepared to present and discuss the following recommendations with City Council at the April 8, 2014 agenda review. Public Service Funding Recommendation Federal CDBG regulations do not allow more than 15% of funds to be spent on Public Service Activities; $91,000 for Program Year 14/15. The top ranked agencies total a recommendation allocation of $88,911. As CDBG regulations prohibit going above the 15% cap, and $2,089 is not enough to fund an additional activity, staff is recommending to add the remaining balance into the Housing Activities recommendations, where there is no cap. Below are the funding recommendations for the Public Service Category:
Housing Funding Recommendation There is $404,557.73 ($402,468.73+$2,089) in CDBG funds available for Housing Activities. Below are the funding recommendations for the Housing Category:
Administration Recommendation CDBG administration and compliance are limited to 20% of the allocation.
Total Administration = $122,000
$39,966 = 7% Estimated City Indirect Rate $82,034 =13% Grant Compliance and Administration |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The attached Resolution 2014-14 is reflective of the recommendations listed above. The 2014/2015 CDBG recommendations are based on a total of $615,468.73 in available funding and an estimated City of Flagstaff indirect rate of 7%.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CDBG funds, leveraged with other private and public funds over the past 15 years, have resulted in benefits to thousands of Flagstaff residents. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Involvement: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Annual Action Plan process has two opportunities for Community Involvement. Involve - The public participation process is a requirement of the Plan and encourages public involvement. Collaborate - The ranking committee is an example of public participation at the collaboration level. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Attachments: | Res. 2014-14 | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
15.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Preliminary Plat: Request from Mogollon Engineering and Surveying Inc., on behalf of True Life Communities PCAZ, for the subdivision of approximately 8.06 acres into 36 single-family residential townhome lots located at 3002 S. Clubhouse Circle, within the R1, Single-Family Residential Zone. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve the preliminary plat as recommended unanimously by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
|
|||||
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: | |||||
Retain, expand, and diversify economic base. | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
In June of 2000, the City Council approved a rezoning request and development agreement allowing the development of Pine Canyon, which includes a mixture of condominium, estate twin houses (duplex units), estate homes, clubhouse and recreational facilities, maintenance and storage facilities, and an 18-hole private golf course with accessory facilities, located on approximately 660 acres. In 2006, the subject site was recorded as a final plat intended for 60 condominium dwelling units. Three buildings containing 12 dwelling units have been constructed and will remain as part of the original Mountain Vista Condominium at Pine Canyon subdivision. The property owner intends to abandon the remaining 48 condominium units within a total of 12 buildings, and re-plat the remainder of the subdivision for the proposed townhomes. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The applicant is seeking a preliminary plat approval for a 36-unit residential townhouse subdivision within the larger Pine Canyon development. Several development standards have changed since the property was originally subdivided for condominiums, including a new Zoning Code, new driveway ordinance, new storm water standards, new engineering standards, new landscaping standards, and new building placement standards. The applicant does not intend to change the design of the improved subdivision but simply intends to change the ownership type in light of recent lending restrictions. The subject site is zoned R1, Single-Family Residential. The proposed development of 36 dwelling units is within the density required by the Flagstaff Zoning Code (Section 10-40.30.030). The R1 density requirement is 2-5 units per acre within the Resource Protection Overlay; the proposed density is 4.46 units per acre. Single-family (attached) is a permitted use in the R1 zone as a Planned Residential Development (PRD). The Townhouse Building Type permits a minimum lot area of 1, 440 square feet (18' width x 80' depth). The lots within the White Pines Townhomes at Pine Canyon subdivision comply with the minimum lot area. The replat townhome project complies, to the maximum extent feasible, with the Townhouse Building Type standards (including open space, size/massing) and building form and placement standards such as setbacks and height. The infrastructure, such as utilities, roadways and private driveways, were installed several years ago as part of the previous planned condominium project. Prior to construction, design review guidelines applicable under the previous Land Development Code were applied and approved. the submitted preliminary plat site layout meets the guidelines that were applicable at the time of the original subdivision. The new proposed building elevations, meet to the greatest extent feasible, the new Architectural Design Standards for buildings established in the Zoning Code. |
|||||
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. The applicant did however, contact the existing condominium owners to inform them of the changes to the remainder of their subdivision. Only one response was received which was supportive of the re-plat to townhomes because the remaining undeveloped lots make it difficult to refinance. | |||||
Attachments: | Planning Commission Staff Report | ||||
Preliminary Plat | |||||
Elevations and Floor Plans | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
15.C.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Preliminary Plat: for Fountain Head United, LLC for Camryn Pines subdivision, a one-hundred and twenty-three lot, single-family, detached residential subdivision. The site is 59.1 acres in size and is located at 4501 South Beulah Boulevard. The site is zoned R1, Single-Family Residential zone. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve the preliminary plat as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The Planning and Zoning Commission shall base a recommendation(s), and the City Council shall find the proposed Preliminary Plat meets the requirements of the City of Flagstaff Zoning Code, Title 11, General Plans and Subdivisions and the City of Flagstaff, Engineering Design and Construction Standards and Specifications for New Infrastructure. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
No financial liabilities to the City are anticipated by the approval of this preliminary plat. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Retain, expand, and diversify economic base. | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
On June 10, 2008, the City Council approved a preliminary plat for this subdivision. That preliminary plat was never final platted. An extension of the preliminary plat approval was granted through August 11, 2011 at which time the final plat application was to be approved by the City Council. That final plat application was not submitted. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
This site is located adjacent to and southwest of the intersection of Beulah Boulevard and Mountain Dell Road. The entire site is zoned R1, Single-Family Residential, and will allow detached, single-family homes. The northern subdivision boundary is located adjacent to Mountain Dell Road and the Mountain Dell subdivision, which is located within a county island and outside of the City’s jurisdiction. Camryn Pines was a part of a Regional Land Use Plan amendment that was approved in 2005 and included roughly 1,000 acres known as Villaggio Montana. This development includes three parcels that are presently zoned R1, Residential District. The site consists of rolling forested topography; a 120-foot-wide Arizona Public Service easement bisects this site diagonally from the southwest to northeast. The easement supports above-ground, 69 kilo-watt electric transmission lines. Other than roads, detention facilities, and trails, no development is proposed to take place within the easement. The Flagstaff Fire Department administered a forest stewardship tree thinning on this site during the summer of 2006. The northwest corner of the property is impacted by the floodway and floodplain of the Sinclair Wash drainage as it nears the Mountain Dell subdivision. The floodplain noted as Tract N on the preliminary plat is 4.14 acres in size and is to be dedicated to the City of Flagstaff for administration and maintenance. The lots will be accessed internally from a system of public rights-of-way. Local and local narrow street sections will be provided by the developer. Dimensioned street sections are located on page two of the attached plat. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
The existing site zoning allows the proposed subdivision. No public hearings are required as part of a subdivision plat review. No members of the public commented on this plat at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. |
|||||
Attachments: | Camryn Pines P-plat | ||||
Camryn Pines P&Z report | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
16.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Discussion: Direction to Staff regarding the Fourth Street Corridor Master Plan | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
None - Discussion Only. Review, discuss, and clarify as needed the direction provided to staff at the January 23, 2014 City Council mini-budget retreat.
|
|||||
INFORMATION | |||||
The January 23, 2014 mini budget retreat presentation provided context for certain City Council finance-driven budget discussions with no inquiry to the City Council for decisions regarding the findings from the study, its conclusions, or its disposition. This report summarizes the retreat discussion. PROJECT HISTORY: Staff provided an overview of the Fourth Street Corridor Master Plan, summarized in time line format as follows:
SCOPE OF WORK:
The initial scope of work sought by the City Council included the goals of pedestrian safety and comfort, traffic issues, urban design and beautification, multi-modal transportation, and redevelopment of the public realm. The scope of work also included extensive community involvement and cost information and recommendations. Broad community outreach confirmed this scope of work - that Fourth Street should be "a place to be." STUDY FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
The solution proposed for the northern portion, removing driving lanes, is of concern to certain stakeholders. Understanding the costs and benefits of this choice warrants a special City Council discussion, of some length, so that traffic impacts, design qualities, and costs can be fully considered. Staff believes that the study suggests a fundamental policy question: Is Fourth Street "a place to be" first and an arterial road second, or, is it an arterial road first and "a place to be" second? Between these two priorities, the resulting character of this commercial district is quite different and the desired improvements are quite different.
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION: The Council heard the presentation and appreciated the need for a policy discussion, notably as it related to the proposed design solution for the northern part of Fourth Street. At the same time, the Council remained concerned about the immediate need for increased pedestrian safety, and recognized that there were portions of the plan that work whether or not the solution for the northern portion is implemented and that thus appeared agreeable to all concerned. While funding for improvements will be a discussion at the upcoming City Council Budget Retreat, the January 23rd discussion included funding considerations as follows:
The City Council provided two items of direction for staff:
Notably, these items make up a significant work plan to implement. And, the funding that the City Council discussed would be sufficient to accomplish much of this work.
CURRENT CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
This item is before the City Council to provide an opportunity to review, discuss, and clarify as needed the direction provided to staff at the January 23, 2014 City Council Mini-budget Retreat. It also allows an opportunity for citizens who are interested and have recently spoken before the City Council to understand what specific elements of the Fourth Street Corridor Master Plan are moving forward at this time (Summarized above under CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION for the CURRENT WORK PROGRAM). |
|||||
Attachments: | Master Plan - Annotated | ||||
January Retreat - Staff Memo | |||||
PowerPoint | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
16.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Discussion: Possible amendments to Division 10-20.50 (Sign Regulations) of the Flagstaff Zoning Code. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Staff will be seeking direction from the City Council on needed amendments to the City of Flagstaff’s sign regulations.
|
|||||
INFORMATION | |||||
On November 1, 2011 the Council, by unanimous vote, adopted the new Flagstaff Zoning Code. With a document as complex as the Zoning Code, and despite staff’s best efforts and attention to detail, it was realized that some standards or issues would be incomplete or incorrect. Over the past two years, City planning staff, as well as staff that work with the Zoning Code on a regular basis (i.e. from the engineering, traffic, stormwater, housing or legal sections/divisions), have documented sections of the Code where possible amendments would be required. Late last year Council adopted revisions to Division 10-20.50 (Amendments to the Zoning Code Text and the Zoning Map) as well as to Section 10-50.100.080.E of the Sign Regulations to allow for a sign for the Flagstaff Mall and Marketplace. In a work session on March 11, 2014, Council directed staff to proceed with needed amendments to the Sign Regulations (Division 10-50.100 of the Zoning Code) as soon as possible with work on all other amendments to follow later in the year. It was also agreed that Council would submit their primary concerns and issues with the Sign Regulations to staff by the end of March for inclusion in the staff summary for the April 15th meeting. The concerns and comments received from some of the Council are included in the attachment, provided below, as is an analysis of these comments to identify pros and cons, as well as an overview of staff’s ideas for amendments to the sign regulations. The purpose of the sign regulations copied from Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards) is also included in this attachment. Summary of the History of Sign Regulation in the City of Flagstaff: In the early 1960s and 1970s Flagstaff had an economy that was primarily tourist-based. At that time Route 66 (or Santa Fe Avenue as it was then called) drew travelers through the City, and thus hotels, motels, gas stations, and other businesses relied on large illuminated signs to attract attention, as well as billboards on the south side of Route 66. In later years as the interstate freeway system was completed around Flagstaff, local business owners fearing a loss of revenue from bypass traffic on I-40, utilized billboards along the interstate to attract attention and advertise their businesses. Flagstaff, therefore, became like many other cities and towns of that era, cluttered with competing signs that were in the eyes of some residents unappealing and distracting from Flagstaff’s natural beauty. Through the early 1980s a local resident led a spirited effort to reduce sign clutter as it was realized that despite I-40 and previous fears that local businesses would not be successful the local economy was still growing. As the observatory was also concerned for light pollution from the signs, amendments to the City’s first sign regulations were adopted to reduce the height and area of commercial signs. This first regulation created a large number of grandfathered signs, some of which still exist today. In the late 1980s and into the early 1990s over 30 billboards were located on land owned by the Burlington Santa Fe Railroad south of Route 66 between downtown and east Flagstaff. After much legal wrangling, the City prevailed in using the beautification portion of recently established BBB funds (1988) to purchase railroad right-of-way, and over a number of years, all of these billboards were eventually eliminated. Staff has gleaned some interesting facts from studying past City of Flagstaff zoning codes which include:
CONCLUSION At the April 15, 2014 work session, staff will be seeking agreement and direction from the Council on needed amendments to Division 10-50.100 (Sign Regulations) of the Zoning Code. The Sign Standards (Division 10-50.100) may be viewed on the Zoning Code webpage - www.flagstaff.az.gov/zoningcode. Scroll down to Chapter 10-50, and click on [Part 3] to view the sign regulations. After staff has completed draft amendments for future review and approval they would be presented to the public for their comment and input. Further public comment will be facilitated when the amendments are presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public meeting and a future public hearing for a recommendation of approval. Thereafter, the amendments will be presented to the Council for final approval. During this process it is possible that Flagstaff residents and/or the Planning and Zoning Commission may suggest additional amendments. |
|||||
Attachments: | Report on Sign Regulations | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
16.C.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Discussion: Proposed Development Fees for Public Safety (Impact fees for public safety) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Direct staff to prepare ordinance to adopt proposed fees for May hearings.
|
|||||
Policy Decision or Reason for Action: | |||||
The City is in process of completing the steps required by the State of Arizona to support continuation of the Public Safety development fee program. A public hearing on the proposed development fees supported by the February 7, 2014 TischlerBise report is required. Staff believes development fees provide a consistent and predictable expense for the constuction industry and predictable revenue for the City's public safety capital budget and debt retirement. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Development Fees collected will be used to help fund capital improvements and equipment necessary to meet the demand generated by new residential and non-residential growth. The alternative to development fees is to identify the impact of each project during the entitlement process and include public safety fees in a project development agreement, fund increased demand through General Fund revenues or decrease the level of service. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal: | |||||
Retain, expand, and diversify economic base Effective governance |
|||||
Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
The Flagstaff City Council first adopted Public Safety Development Fees in October 2008 and amended the program in 2011 to be consistent with State law. The current City Council held a public hearing on the Land Use Assumptions (LU) and Infrastructure Improvement Plan (IIP) on December 19, 2013, adopted the LU and IIP on February 18, 2014, and held the public hearing re fees on April 1, 2014. At the April 1, 2014, public hearing staff was directed to bring back options to the April 15, 2014, meeting and these will be provided in the Final Agenda packet for that meeting. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Direct staff to bring back an ordinance to adopt new fees. | |||||
Background/History: | |||||
Arizona Revised Statute 9-463.05, adopted during the 2011 legislative session, significantly amended development fee enabling legislation. Commonly known as SB1525, this legislation called for: 1. Amending existing development program changes by January 1, 2012. The City met this condition by adopting the amendment of the existing development program on December 6, 2011; and 2. Abandoning the existing development fee programs by August 1, 2014. To accomplish the abandonment and subsequent adoption by August 1, the City must follow a prescribed schedule allowing adequate time for public input and Council discussion. On February 18, 2014 the City Council adopted the Land Use Assumptions and Infrastructure Improvement Plan. The next step is to hold a public hearing on the fees and consider adopting the fees by Ordinance in May. In order to meet the 75-day waiting period required after fee adoption and before August 1, the second reading of the Ordinance will need to be considered at a Special Regular Meeting on May 13. At the February 18 meeting, City Council had questions about whether impact fees could be waived or reduced as an incentive for affordable housing units. City Council adopted an Incentive Policy for Affordable Housing in October 2009. The policy considers a number of incentives including fee waivers and deferments; expedited review; and regulatory incentives such as density bonuses, open space ratios, resource protection plans, and parking. Reimbursement of impact fees are included in the fee eligibility list found on page 11 of the Incentive Policy. The Housing Director has explained that impact fees can be reimbursed to the applicant directly after they have paid the impact fee, or the impact fee has been paid on behalf of the applicant. In both cases the fee is paid from an incentive fund in the Housing budget. So while the impact fee can be waived, the fund is kept whole by the payment from the incentive fund. The Incentive Policy for Affordable Housing can be viewed from the City's website at http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/DocumentCenter/View/42650 or by clicking on the Resources/Contacts tab on the Housing page. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Impact fees provide a base standard which allows for predictability and developers can plan for as they prepare development projects in our community. Should impact fees not be assessed, the same type of financial consideration will need to be attained as part of a project's impact analysis. This is typically achieved through a development agreement when the cost to mitigate project impacts is determined. While impact fees are paid at the time a building permit is issued, development agreements may specify payment prior to seeking building permits at the time a project's public improvements are required. | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
The Development Fee Report calculates Public Safety fees supported by projected growth over a ten-year period. However, the development fees must be re-examined every five years to assure the land use assumptions and proposed capital improvement program are representative of the experienced demand or require an update to meet the current community need. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Development fees assess new growth a proportionate share of the cost to provide the services needed to meet the additional calls for service. Alternatives to public safety impact fees are to identify the cost to provide services and negotiate the payment at the time of entitlement (zoning map amendment or subdivision), to fund the increased service demand through other General Fund revenues or to decrease the level of service. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform - Staff has prepared an informational memo on the current process, proposed fees, proposed 10- year capital program and 10-year projected revenues (attached to this summary). Staff has distributed this memo to the group of stakeholders which includes building industry organizations and neighborhood associations previously contacted about the land use and infrastructure plan. Consult - To date staff has presented the current fees to Northern Arizona Builders Association and the Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee. The information piece identifies the April 1, 2014 public hearing and encourages participation. Discussion at these meetings has not been supportive of the proposed increases. Comments have focused on why do the fees need to be increased?; the additional property and sales tax generated by new growth should be enough to pay for increased calls for service; has the City considered trying to reduce the demand (e.g., response to medical calls) rather than meet the increased demand?; how much is the City spending on consultants and staff time for the small amount of projected revenues? |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1. Hold the public hearing and direct staff to prepare an adoption Ordinance for the fees as proposed. 2. Hold the public hearing and direct staff to prepare an adoption Ordinance for revised lower fees. 3. Hold the public hearing and discontinue the Public Safety Development Fee program. |
|||||
Attachments: | TischlerBise Feb. Report | ||||
Public Outreach memo | |||||
Projected costs & revenues | |||||
Presentation | |||||
Fee Worksheet | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||