DRAFT 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 | |||||||||
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). |
|||||||||
A. | Consideration of Appointments: Heritage Preservation Commission. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Make one At Large appointment to a term expiring December 2016.
|
||||||||||
8. | LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARINGS | |||||||||
A. |
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Pamela Hentschel, “Flagstaff General Store", 5270 N. Hwy. 89, Series 10 (beer and wine store), New License.
|
|||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Hold the Public Hearing; absent any valid concerns received from the public hearing, staff recommends the Council forward a recommendation for approval to the State.
|
||||||||||
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: Lake Mary Well #2 Waterline Replacement. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
2) Approve Change Order Authority to the City Manager in the amount of $17,000 (10% of the contract amount, less allowance); 3) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents. |
||||||||||
10. | ROUTINE ITEMS | |||||||||
A. | Consideration and Approval of Contract: Construction Manager at Risk Construction Contract for Street Maintenance Program 2015 (Approve agreement with C and E Paving and Grading, LLC). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Approve the Construction Manager at Risk Construction Contract with C and E Paving and Grading, LLC in an amount not to exceed $3,424,179.29 for Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) #1 (Overlay projects and annual airport crack seal), and an amount not to exceed $2,779,486.39 GMP #2 (Chip Seal projects). |
||||||||||
B. |
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Consideration of authorizing the acceptance of revisions to the IGA with Coconino Community College (CCC) for resource sharing (Approve IGA with CCC for sharing resources) . |
|||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
C. | Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2015-01: An ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona amending Title 10 Section 20 of the City Code regarding Subdivision Assurances. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2015-01 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-01 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2015-01 |
||||||||||
D. | Consideration and Approval of Contract: Intergovernmental Agreement between City of Flagstaff and Coconino County for election services for the May 19, 2015, Special Election. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
E. | Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2015-05: A resolution abandoning the Emergency Access Easement on Lot A of the Final Plat of the Marketplace/Flagstaff Auto Park and authorizing the Mayor to execute any necessary documents. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2015-05 by title only.
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2015-05 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2015-05. |
||||||||||
F. | Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2015-06: A resolution abandoning the 1' No Access Easement on Lot 13 of the Falcon Ridge Subdivisionas shown on Sheet 2 of the Final Plat and authorizing the Mayor to execute any necessary documents. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2015-06 by title only.
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2015-06 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2015-06. |
||||||||||
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. 2015-02: A resolution of the Mayor and Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona adopting the Community Reinvestment Plan (Community Reinvestment Plan) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2015-02 by title only
2) Clerk reads Resolution No. 2015-02 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2015-02 |
||||||||||
B. | Consideration and Approval of Preliminary Plat PPPL2014-0006: Request for Preliminary Plat approval from Evergreen-Trax, LLC, for the subdivision of approximately 27.2 acres into 18 lots. The proposed commercial development, known as The Trax, is located at the southwest and southeast corners of Route 66 and Fourth Street within the Highway Commercial (HC) zone (conditional). (Subdivision of 27.2 acres into 18 lots located at the southwest and southeast corners of Route 66 and Fourth Street) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Approve the Preliminary Plat as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
|
||||||||||
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 | |||||||||
|
7.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of Appointments: Heritage Preservation Commission. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Make one At Large appointment to a term expiring December 2016.
|
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
The Heritage Preservation Commission advises the City Council on all matters relating to historic preservation, and reviews development projects in designated historic districts. It consists of seven citizen members; two citizens are professionals in the areas of architecture, history, architectural history, planning or archeology; two citizens shall be owners of locally designated historic properties or properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places; and three citizens shall be at-large from the general community. There is currently one at large seat available. It is important to fill vacancies on Boards and Commissions quickly so as to allow the Commission to continue meeting on a regular basis. There are two applications on file for consideration by the Council, they are as follows:
Charlie Webber (new applicant)
Lynne Corbin (new applicant)
COUNCIL INTERVIEW TEAM: Councilmember Oravits and Councilmember Brewster.
|
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
These are voluntary positions and there is no budgetary impact to the City of Flagstaff. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
There is no Council goal that specifically addresses appointments to Boards and Commissions; however, boards and commissions do provide input and recommendations based on City Council goals that may pertain to the board or commission work plan. | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Appointments were made at the meeting of January 6, 2015 meeting. Shortly after that meeting commissioner Sean Berry resigned from the commission creating the vacancy that is before the Council to be filled. Additionally, the City Council recently took action to reduce the number of commissioners on the Heritage Preservation Commission from nine members to seven.
|
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Appoint one Commissioner: By appointing a member at this time, the Heritage Preservation Commission will be at full membership, allowing the group to meet and provide recommendations to the City Council. 2) Table the action to allow for further discussion or expand the list of candidates. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The City's boards, commissions, and committees were created to foster public participation and input and to encourage Flagstaff citizens to take an active role in city government. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
INFORM: The vacancies are posted on the City's website and individual recruitment and mention of the opening by Commission members and City staff has occurred, informing others of this vacancy through word of mouth. | |||||
Attachments: | HPC Roster | ||||
HPC Authority | |||||
HPC Applicant Roster | |||||
HPC Applications | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
8.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Pamela Hentschel, “Flagstaff General Store", 5270 N. Hwy. 89, Series 10 (beer and wine store), New License.
|
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Hold the Public Hearing; absent any valid concerns received from the public hearing, staff recommends the Council forward a recommendation for approval to the State.
|
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
The liquor license process begins at the State level and applications are then forwarded to the respective municipality for posting of the property and holding a public hearing, after which the Council recommendation is forwarded back to the State. A Series 10 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 property has been posted as required, and the Police, Community Development and Sales Tax divisions have reviewed the application with no concerns noted. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
There is no budgetary impact to the City of Flagstaff as this is a recommendation to the State. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
Liquor licenses are a regulatory action and there is no Council goal that applies. | |||||
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 liquor license was received from Pamela Hentschel for Flagstaff General Store, 5270 N. Hwy. 89. 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. The deadline for issuing a recommendation on this application is February 27, 2015. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
This business will contribute to the tax base of the community. We are not aware of any other relevant considerations. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
The application was properly posted on February 10, 2015. No written protests have been received to date. | |||||
Attachments: | FGS - Letter to Applicant | ||||
Hearing Procedures | |||||
Series 10 Description | |||||
FGS - PD Memo | |||||
FGS - Code Memo | |||||
FGS - Tax Memo | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
9.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Lake Mary Well #2 Waterline Replacement. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2) Approve Change Order Authority to the City Manager in the amount of $17,000 (10% of the contract amount, less allowance); 3) Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Executive Summary: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Award of this contract will authorize construction of the Lake Mary Well #2 Waterline project in accordance with the approved public improvement plans prepared by WLB Group dated August 8, 2013. Project work will include installing a new waterline between Lake Mary Well number 2 (LMW2) and the Lower Lake Mary Pump Station. The existing waterline between LMW2 and the Lower Lake Mary Pump Station was installed in 1940, is above grade and exposed to freezing temperatures during the wintertime. This condition prevents the Utilities department from utilizing this well during the winter months. Project has been delayed two years in order to obtain Forest Service permit authorization and the relocation construction is in accordance with the stipulations in the Master Special Use Permit issued to the City of Flagstaff dated 10/6/2004 by the Coconino National Forest. All necessary Forest Service and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality construction permits have been obtained. This project is scheduled in the Utilities Capital 5-year plan, funded by Utility Rates and project funding was authorized by City Council in June 2013. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Financial Impact: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The total contract amount will be $417,448. The project has a total FY14 budget appropriation of $321,000 in account 202-08-370-3183-0-4271. The remaining $96,448 in funding to be taken from Utilities Water Production Operations budget, Lake Mary Well maintenance account number 202-08-301-1021-0-4229. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
COUNCIL GOALS:
2) Ensure Flagstaff has a long-term water supply for current and future needs 3) Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics
11) Ensure that we are as prepared as possible for extreme weather events
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Council adopted the FY14 budget at the June 2013 Council meeting and this appropriation was included in that budget. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1) Approve the award as recommended. Approval will allow the work to move forward in calendar 2015 or; 2) Reject approval of this award. This would delay the project. If rejection occurs, possible options include:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Background/History: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This project involves the replacement of a 12" Ductile Iron waterline from Lake Mary Well#2 to the Lower Lake Mary Pump Station. The existing line was installed in 1940, it is above ground and exposed to freezing temperatures during the winter. Existing line runs through a portion of Lower Lake Mary Dam. The new pipeline route will be shorter and provide for a connection from Lake Mary Well #1 as well. A photo of the existing line is attached to this staff summary. Installation of this line has been delayed since 2013 awaiting Forrest Service permit authorization. This relocation construction is in accordance with the stipulations in the Master Special Use Permit issued to the City of Flagstaff dated 10/6/2004 by the Coconino National Forest. All necessary Forest Service and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality construction permits have been obtained. Staff advertised bid solicitations for this project on 10/27/2014 through 12/3/2014. There were a total of 10 bids submitted, and staff determined McDonald Bros Construction to be the lowest responsive responsible bidder. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Key Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The City of Flagstaff Utility Department is planning to install a new waterline between Lake Mary Well number 2 (LMW2) and the Lower Lake Mary Pump Station. Project work will include replacement of 4800 feet of twelve inch water line from Lake Mary Well #2 along Crimson Road to Forest Service Road 296, ending at the Lower Lake Mary Pump Station. The existing waterline between LMW2 and the Lower Lake Mary Pump Station is above grade in one location and can only be used as a water supply during the warm summer months. The Utilities department has been planning replacement of this line since FY 2001. The anticipated timeline for construction is May 1-August 30, 2015. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below is a summary of the bids received.
The 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: Utilities staff has met with the Water Commission members and City Council through public Capital Improvement review and budget presentations on this project since 2001. Involve: Consultant and Utilities staff has met with Coconino National Forrest Service personnel numerous times during the permit review process. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Attachments: | Construction Contract | ||||
Lake Mary Well #2 Exposed Waterline | |||||
Vicinity Map | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.A.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||||||||||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Construction Manager at Risk Construction Contract for Street Maintenance Program 2015 (Approve agreement with C and E Paving and Grading, LLC). | |||||||||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||||||||||||
1) Approve the Construction Manager at Risk Construction Contract with C and E Paving and Grading, LLC in an amount not to exceed $3,424,179.29 for Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) #1 (Overlay projects and annual airport crack seal), and an amount not to exceed $2,779,486.39 GMP #2 (Chip Seal projects). |
|||||||||||||||
Executive Summary: | |||||||||||||||
Approval of this contract will allow the City to complete construction of the 2015 Street Maintenance Program. The Overlay portion of the program, which includes 16 streets (18.6 lane miles), is funded from the recently voter-approved Road Repair and Street Safety Initiative, which shows voters that we are keeping promises made during the campaign that we would begin projects right away. The Chip Seal portion of the program, which includes 126 streets (95.4 lane miles), is funded from the Street Maintenance Section's annual ongoing and one-time budget. This is the most chip sealing we have done in the last eight years. Last year we completed 18 lane miles of overlay and 20 lane miles of chip seal. This year's program is very extensive due to the voter-approved initiative and will impact many residents and businesses on the west side of town. We will do our best to inform the public and nearby residents and businesses of the areas we will be working in and mitigate as many impacts as possible during construction. The Overlay GMP is approximately $3.42 Million and the Chip Seal GMP is approximately $2.78 Million. If the contract is approved as presented, we anticipate starting construction in mid-March. Approval of the contract will further demonstrate Council's commitment to maintaining City infrastructure through the annual budgeting process as well as improving infrastructure through the first project utilizing funding approved by voters last November. |
|||||||||||||||
Financial Impact: | |||||||||||||||
Funding for the overlay portion of GMP #1 is to be provided by the 2014 voter approved sales tax increase in account 046-06-163-3321-6. We are also completing annual crack sealing at the airport which is budgeted in account 221-07-221-0884-0 in the amount of $21,000. The airport project is included in the total amount for GMP #1. Funding for GMP #2 is provided by the annual Street Maintenance Program and is funded in account 040-06-162-3073-6 in FY15. | |||||||||||||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||||||||||||
Council goals connected to these projects include:
3) Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics 11) Ensure that we are as prepared as possible for extreme weather events Regional Plan goals that apply include: Goal LU.7. Provide for public services and infrastructure. Goal LU.10. Increase the proportion of urban neighborhoods to achieve walkable, compact growth. Goal T.1. Improve mobility and access throughout the region. Goal T.2. Improve transportation safety and efficiency for all modes. Goal T.8. Establish a functional, safe, and aesthetic hierarchy of roads and streets. |
|||||||||||||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||||||||||||
Yes. Council previously approved the design phase services contract on November 18, 2014. | |||||||||||||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
Background/History: | |||||||||||||||
The City has established an annual program to maintain existing street pavements. This year, the program provides three major services: non-structural upgrades by overlay, ADA compliance and chip sealing. The overlay streets are selected after evaluation of the street condition using pavement management software owned by the City. One half of the City street pavements are evaluated and ranked each year. Each street pavement is assigned an overall condition index (OCI) based on the type and severity of the distress observed. A pavement that has no distress is given an OCI of 100. Each pavement distress such as cracking or roughness reduces the street’s OCI. The street pavements are ranked by OCI and the pavements exhibiting the most severe distress are programmed for resurfacing with asphaltic concrete overlays as budget allows. In recent years, the Arizona State Legislature has authorized the use of Alternative Project Delivery Methods (APDM) in lieu of the traditional Design-Bid-Build method of project delivery. These alternative methods allow a contracting agency the opportunity to select a construction team utilizing a Qualifications Based selection process to procure construction services from a firm deemed most qualified to perform the work. The enabling legislation also allows for provision of multiple Guaranteed Maximum Prices under a single procurement. On November 18, 2014, Council approved award of the Design Phase Services Contract for the 2015, 2016 and 2017 programs to C and E Paving and Grading, LLC. in the amount of $ 112,821. Design Phase Services including program and budget evaluation, project scheduling, design document reviews, constructability reviews, detailed cost estimating, and preparation of final construction documents have now been completed. Based upon the Design Phase Services, C and E Paving and Grading, LLC has provided a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) to complete construction of the annual improvement project. The GMP includes costs for construction, a CM at Risk contingency, construction fee, costs for General Conditions including bonds and insurance, and sales taxes. |
|||||||||||||||
Key Considerations: | |||||||||||||||
The goal of the Street Maintenance Program is to use the available funds in the most efficient manner to lengthen the service life of the City street pavements and avoid costly pavement reconstruction. The ADA improvements provide improved access for disabled citizens and visitors along existing streets and provide compliance with Federal requirements. Chip seal work provides a cost effective pavement preservation treatment to maintain newer pavements in a good condition. | |||||||||||||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||||||||||||
The goal of the Street Maintenance Program is to use the available funds in the most efficient manner to lengthen the service life of the City street pavements and avoid costly pavement reconstruction. The ADA improvements provide improved access for disabled citizens and visitors along existing streets and provide compliance with Federal requirements. Chip seal work provides a cost effective pavement preservation treatment to maintain newer pavements in a good condition.
FLAGSTAFF STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM 2015 FUNDING SUMMARY:
|
|||||||||||||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||||||||||||
The Street Maintenance Program provides surface treatments as required to preserve and maintain pavement condition on the 664 lane miles of asphalt City streets. The ADA improvements provide improved access for disabled citizens and visitors along existing streets and provide compliance with Federal requirements. Use of the Construction Manager at Risk method of project delivery eliminates the need for an advertisement/bid/award process and cuts approximately two months off the project development schedule. In addition, value engineering, constructability reviews and design input conducted as part of this service agreement have the potential to realize significant construction cost savings over the traditional design-bid-build delivery method. |
|||||||||||||||
Community Involvement: | |||||||||||||||
Inform - The Public Works Division will prepare weekly news releases that are distributed to the local media outlets describing the location of the street construction and any traffic restrictions planned for the week. The contractor will distribute written notices to all the adjacent businesses and residents in advance of the construction. In addition, site maps of the streets planned for construction activities will be provided on the City's website. | |||||||||||||||
Attachments: | GMP #1 | ||||
GMP #2 | |||||
Overlay Streets List | |||||
Overlay Map | |||||
Chip Seal Street List | |||||
Chip Seal Map | |||||
Construction Agreement CMAR | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Consideration of authorizing the acceptance of revisions to the IGA with Coconino Community College (CCC) for resource sharing (Approve IGA with CCC for sharing resources) . |
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
|
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
CCC and the City have an IGA which allows the sharing of resources such as the Flagstaff Fire Training Center and class room facilities at CCC. The IGA is amended to improve the sharing of resources between the City and the CCC Fire and EMS program. The revisions allow for a more efficient management of shared resources and reduced expenses. Additionally, CCC makes available to the Flagstaff Fire Department, and our mutual aid partners, a light and breathing air trailer in support of fire and emergency incidents in the Flagstaff region. Flagstaff Fire Department agrees to appropriately house the trailer. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
None. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS:
Invest in our employees and implement retention and attraction strategies Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics REGIONAL PLAN: Goal PF.3. Provide high-quality emergency response and public safety services including law enforcement, fire, medical, and ambulance transport service. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
City Council entered into this agreement on January 25, 2011. At the time of approval, the Fire Department and the College had a decade long practice of cooperation. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
City Council may elect to: Approve the proposed IGA Amend the proposed IGA Disapprove the IGA |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Choose which of the following that applies and REMOVE ALL OTHERS: Inform |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Attachments: | IGA COF/CCC | ||||
CCC Star Article | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.C.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2015-01: An ordinance of the Mayor and Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona amending Title 10 Section 20 of the City Code regarding Subdivision Assurances. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2015-01 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-01 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2015-01 |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
The City of Flagstaff, like many other Arizona cities, experienced problems with failed subdivisions during the Great Recession. This revision to the City Code will strengthen the City's ability to complete subdivision infrastructure when the City finds it to be in the citizen's best interests. Specifically, this ordinance will clarify that successors to original developers are required to post adequate subdivision assurances when they obtain title to the subdivision property. It will also provide increased flexibility for the City Engineer as to the types of acceptable assurances and the ability to increase the amount of the assurances in certain instances. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Adoption of this ordinance would have a positive financial impact, especially in bad financial times when subdivisions may fail. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOAL: |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Council discussed this possible revision to the City Code in a work session on January 27, 2015 and provided direction to the City Attorney's office during an executive session on September 30, 2014. First reading of the ordinance was held on February 17, 2015. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Council may adopt the recommended changes to protect the City fiscally when subdivisions fail. Council may reject the changes and determine that the community is better served by accepting some risk of failed subdivisions. Council may accept some of the proposed changes and reject others. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
Often during challenging financial times developers go bankrupt or sell their subdivision property to others due to financial problems. Sometimes the subdivisions are partially constructed when the property changes hands. Other times the subdivision is not at all constructed, but the roads in the subdivision are needed to connect to other properties. In these instances the City would be better protected by clear language in its Code that requires successor developers to post financial assurances to provide funds for completion of the subdivision infrastructure when the City determines that it is beneficial to complete or partially complete construction of the infrastructure. | |||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The proposed changes to the Code would not alter the City's discretion as to whether it will call upon the assurance if the developer does not perform. The City's discretion is indicated in Section 10-20.100.040 (C)(1) and in the City's Assurance of Performance Agreement. | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
The proposed amendment to the Code would also make several minor changes: 1. It would allow the City to enter into a Third Party Trust agreement in lieu of an agreement for assurances. The Third Party Trust agreement prevents a developer from selling the subdivision or a portion of the subdivision to anyone before the infrastructure is completed and accepted by the City. 2. It clarifies that the City may require assurances for private amenities included in subdivision plats such as clubhouses, pools, etc. 3. It clarifies that assurances are not required if the infrastructure has been constructed and accepted by the City Engineer. 4. It allows the City Engineer to require separate assurances for different types of infrastructure or to secure the site. 5. It allows the City Engineering to require larger assurances if estimates related to franchise utilities are underestimated. 6. It allows the City to hold a portion of the assurances until the one-year warranty period for the infrastructure expires. 7. It clarifies that the City may deduct its costs for administering an assurance form the proceeds if necessary. 8. It allows the City Engineer to increase the amount of the assurance due to change in circumstances when granting a time extension for completion of the infrastructure. |
|||||
Attachments: | Ord. 2015-01 | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.D.
| |||||||||||
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 19, 2015, Special Election. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
|
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
On January 6, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2014-43 calling for a special election to be held on May 19, 2015, to submit to the registered voters of Flagstaff the first set of proposed amendments to the City Charter. With the exception of Phoenix and Tucson, who perform their own elections, municipalities across the state contract for the operation of their elections, primarily with their respective county. While the City is responsible for many of the election activities such as preparation of the resolution, ballot language, public notices, and Information Pamphlet, the County prepares the ballot (with approval by the City), mails and receives the ballots, and counts the ballots on election day. The attached Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) outlines the roles of the City and County in this Special Mail Ballot Election. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
This election has been budgeted in the FY2015 Budget. 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 as well as the notification postcards. |
|||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOAL
8. Improve effectiveness of notification, communication, and engagement with residents, neighborhoods and businesses about City services, programs, policies, projects and developments |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
While the Special Election itself has been discussed multiple times, as further explained under Background/History on the next page, the Intergovernmental Agreement has not been discussed although it is very similar to previous agreements. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the IGA as presented or 2) amend the IGA and return to Coconino County for further consideration. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The City Council initially gave direction to conduct a comprehensive review of the City Charter through a City Manager-appointed resident committee. This committee met 10 times during 2014 and presented their recommendations to the City Manager in October. On October 28 and November 25, 2014, the City Council discussed these questions and directed staff to bring back in resolution form those questions which were determined had sufficient public input due to the housekeeping changes that were either clarifying (e.g., personnel-related items determined by City Manager such as personnel hires or rules to conform to our Council-Manager form of government, etc.) or of a technical nature (e.g., specifying certain actions are determined by ordinance, etc.) to be placed on the ballot for May 19, 2015. The remaining questions which focus more broadly on policies that Council believes should continue to be further reviewed and discussed with the public, will be taken to the residents of Flagstaff for additional input and will be considered for placement on a future ballot by the Council at a later time for ultimate citizen decision. |
|||||
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 amend the Charter. |
|||||
Attachments: | IGA | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.E.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2015-05: A resolution abandoning the Emergency Access Easement on Lot A of the Final Plat of the Marketplace/Flagstaff Auto Park and authorizing the Mayor to execute any necessary documents. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2015-05 by title only.
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2015-05 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2015-05. |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
Plateau Engineering submitted a request for the abandonment of a fifty foot (50’) Emergency Access Easement across parcel 113-82-051B on behalf of the owner. The easement appears on the Final Plat of the Marketplace/Flagstaff Auto Park which is recorded in the Coconino County Records as document 3430462. The easement crosses Tract A of the plat connecting Railhead Avenue with Marketplace Drive. It was originally required to provide a fire station located on Railhead Avenue with access to Marketplace Drive in order to ensure appropriate response times during the development of the area. Staff historical research has indicated that the easement was originally intended to be temporary, however the language on the plat does not provide for automatic abandonment and there has been no legal documentation of that fact. The fire station has since been sold and is no longer in public service. According to the Flagstaff Fire Department there is no further need for the easement and they are supportive of its abandonment through the required process. The easement is currently improved and is being used by private parties as a through road which is not generally an allowed use for an Emergency Access Easement. There were numerous discussions internally regarding potential of continued benefit from the easement. Letters were sent to all owners within 300’ of the easement and there were there signs posted announcing this meeting as well as an advertisement placed in the Arizona Daily Sun. There has been no response received from the public and no concerns expressed from staff. A presentation of the item was made to the Planning and Zoning Commission and they unanimously supported the proposed abandonment. (Resolution and supporting documents to be attached with the Final Agenda packet). |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
As the easement was intended to be temporary in nature and currently provides no financial value for the City of Flagstaff there are no significant financial impacts to the abandonment. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS: |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
There has been no previous City Council decision on this item, but the Planning and Zoning Commission has voted to recommend approval. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the abandonment of the Emergency Access Easement. Pros: Removes an easement currently not performing its intended purpose and of no use to the City and allows for better design and use of the parcel it crosses. Cons: Removes the rights the City has to use the easement should there ever be a need identified in the future. 2) Reject the abandonment as presented and offer to abandon it with conditions identified by Council. Pros: May accomplish the same function with more favorable terms. Cons: Would delay the abandonment and slow development of the parcel and any benefit in jobs and/or sales tax. 3) Reject the abandonment. Pros: Maintains City control of the easement in case there is any future need identified. Cons: It is not anticipated there will be any future need for the easement and the current situation limits the development of the parcel and reduces its ability to contribute economically. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
1) The easement is shown on the plat as an Emergency Access Easement. and was intended to be temporary and serve the fire station located on Railhead Avenue. 2) The Fire Station has been sold and is now owned by a private entity. The easement is no longer used by emergency vehicles, but is frequently used by private traffic which is not technically allowed. 3) The easement limits the development potential of the parcel without providing the City or the public a significant benefit. 4) The Planning and Zoning Commission support s the abandonment. 5) Abandonments are vetted internally to ensure the loss of control and rights will not present a problem in the future. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform Consult Involve Collaborate |
|||||
Attachments: | Easement plat | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.F.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2015-06: A resolution abandoning the 1' No Access Easement on Lot 13 of the Falcon Ridge Subdivisionas shown on Sheet 2 of the Final Plat and authorizing the Mayor to execute any necessary documents. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2015-06 by title only.
2) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2015-06 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2015-06. |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
The parcel owner submitted a request for the abandonment of a one foot (1’) No Access Easement across a portion of the southern boundary of parcel 107-23-013A. The easement appears on the Final Plat of the Falcon Ridge subdivision which is recorded in Case 4 Map 67 of the Coconino County Records. The easement is located along the border of the parcel which fronts Sparrow Avenue. Discussions with City of Flagstaff Traffic and Development Engineers and discussion with the City of Flagstaff Property and Development Team concluded that there is no apparent and compelling reason to maintain the easement. The plat does not make it clear who the intended beneficiary was nor what the intended benefit was. This type of easement is usually used to protect an urban trail or prevent access to a road where it would be inappropriate. In this case neither situation is relevant. Letters were sent to all owners within 300’ of the easement and signs posted on the property announced the Planning and Zoning meeting where this item was considered. In addition an advertisement was printed in the Arizona Daily Sun. There was one response received via telephone from the owner of a nearby property supporting the abandonment and no concerns expressed from staff. (Resolution and supporting documents to be attached to the Final Agenda packet). |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
There is no financial impact to the City in maintaining or abandoning the 1' no access easement. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS: |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
There has been no previous City Council decision this item however the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to support the proposed abandonment. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the abandonment of the No Access Easement. Pros: Removes an easement currently not performing a valuable purpose and of no use to the City and allows for better design and use of the parcel it encumbers. Cons: Removes the rights the City has to use the easement should there ever be a need identified in the future. 2) Reject the abandonment as presented and offer to abandon it with conditions identified by Council. Pros: May accomplish the same function with more favorable terms. Cons: Would delay the abandonment and slow development of the parcel. 3) Reject the abandonment. Pros: Maintains City control of the easement in case there is any future need identified. Cons: It is not anticipated there will be any future need for the easement and the current situation limits the development of the parcel and reduces its ability to contribute economically. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
1) The plat doesnot provide a beneficiary or reason for the easement. 2) Internal discussion and review by Community Development staff and Property and Development Team have not identified a benefit provided by the easement. 3) These easements are usually designed to protect FUTS trails or prevent driveway access to a specific road or near an intersection but those issues do not apply in this instance. 4) The Planning and Zoning Commission voted to support the abandonment. The only public comment received after mailing and posting the issue was in support of the abandonment. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform Consult Involve Collaborate |
|||||
Attachments: | Final Plat Falcon Ridge | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
15.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2015-02: A resolution of the Mayor and Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona adopting the Community Reinvestment Plan (Community Reinvestment Plan) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Resolution No. 2015-02 by title only
2) Clerk reads Resolution No. 2015-02 by title only (if approved above) 3) Adopt Resolution No. 2015-02 |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
The Community Reinvestment Plan presents an over-arching Community Reinvestment Policy as well as objectives and potential actions to implement the policy. The development of the plan involved talking to our customers, research of how other communities have approached this policy goal, a preliminary analysis (current activities, obvious fatal legal challenges, and potential effectiveness), discussion with all affected City Divisions and Sections, and discussion with the City Council over the course of four years. The adoption of this plan establishes the Community Reinvestment Policy as a formal policy of the City. While the objectives and possible implementation strategies included in the plan have survived the preliminary cut and merit further development, they remain “possibilities” that can be further evaluated and further shaped, including deletions, additions, and editing. A notable amount of work remains in developing the remaining possibilities. Staff will need to prepare specific actions, ordinances and other mechanisms, for future City Council consideration and possible adoption. The adoption of this plan thus provides direction to staff to include this work in their future budgeting and work programs. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
Just developing the implementation strategies has cost implications including staff time, or hiring consultants or additional staff. Other projects could experience delay as staff develops these strategies. More notably, the implementation strategies themselves have more significant costs associated with them. And, the more effective strategies have higher costs. Funding allocations by the City Council are necessary to develop the options and more will again be necessary in the future for implementation.
|
|||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS: 11. Effective governance REGIONAL PLAN: The Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 includes a series of goals and policies that support community reinvestment as an objective and course of action to achieve the goals and policies of the Plan. These include less direct goals such as preserving resources and open spaces, efficient infrastructure, energy efficiency, urban land-uses and development patterns, and multimodal commuting. However, the Plan also directly calls for compact development, investing in existing neighborhoods and urban areas, adaptive re-use, historic preservation, and promoting infill and redevelopment. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
At a Regular Meeting on January 6, 2015, the City Council provided the most recent direction that serves as the basis of this draft of the Community Reinvestment Policy. Per the direction provided, there have been no changes to the plan except that the previously deleted annotations have been modified to better fit the purpose and added back into the document. And, the "Empty Building Tax" (a possible implementation strategy) has been removed. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Adopt Plan. 2) Do not adopt plan and provide staff with direction for continued development of the plan. 3) Do not adopt plan. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
In 2010 at the direction of the City Council, the Community Design and Redevelopment Program initiated a community discussion about redevelopment and infill. The concept of "redevelopment and infill" was later expanded to "reinvestment" to be more inclusive of different types of redevelopment and to avoid cultural and legal connotations of the word "redevelopment". The City Council sought ways to motivate developers to reinvest in developed areas instead of investing in green fields. This process included City customers and internal stakeholders and identified areas where our current policies and codes were unfavorable to reinvestment. The next step involved researching how other communities have addressed this same concern. This was extensive research of municipal, county, state, and Federal efforts nationwide. This generated a "raw data" collection of ideas that did not evaluate success, legality, cost, or any other factors - simply identifying "What has been tried?" This list was then taken back out to the stakeholders for discussion. (In bullet form, the list is included in the October 2013 Staff Memo to the City Council.) These discussions allowed us to separate out the ideas into "could be done" (Green boxes on the list), those with "fatal flaws" (Red boxes), and those that required City Council direction (Yellow boxes). In October of 2013, the items that required preliminary City Council direction were brought to a Work Session and discussed. The City Council provided direction that was then used to develop a Draft Community Reinvestment Plan. City staff then considered this complete list (green, yellow, and red) but also "thinned" list of ideas and further refined the plan for City Council consideration. The final draft was presented to the City Council in a work Session in November of 2014. The City Council had no changes or discussion that warranted changes. Presented for adoption on January 6, 2015, the City Council expressed a desire for the explanatory annotations of previous drafts to be placed back into the document and for the "Empty Building Tax" concept to be deleted. This final draft reflects those changes. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
1. See "Financial Impact" 2. At the January 6, 2015 presentation, the City Council had discussed having the annotations as an appendix. In looking at how to best communicate, and noting that the document is "a plan", staff believes that including the annotations in the plan is most clear and effective communication. The document has thus been prepared in that fashion - with the annotations included with it instead of as an appendix. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
Detailed cost expectations can be provided as implementation strategies are brought before the City Council for consideration. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Elimination of blight: A deteriorating area results in a negative image that affects economic vitality elsewhere in the community. This impacts not only tourism but also business attraction, retention, and expansion. Prevention of urban sprawl. Creation of new sources of tax revenue: Deteriorating areas cannot pay their own way and reinvestment puts non-producing or under-producing properties back on the tax rolls. Not only does reinvestment provide retail in underserved areas, it also provides neighborhood jobs, thus reducing personal and municipal costs of commuting. Reduction of pollution/environmental contamination: The re-use of buildings and infrastructure reduces landfill, consumption of raw materials, and the transportation costs associated with hauling out the old and hauling in the new. Import substitution: A central strategy in building a sustainable local economy is import substitution – creating locally what otherwise would have to be purchased elsewhere. Almost by definition reinvestment is locally based, using expertise, labor, and materials from the local market. Often new construction is the opposite, requiring the importation of expertise, materials, and often labor from elsewhere. Cultural preservation: Our sense of place, identity, evolution, ownership, and community. These are referred to as the Five Senses of Quality Communities and will, in the intermediate and long term, have considerable impact on the economic health of individual communities. All of these benefits provide the citizens of Flagstaff with an improved quality of life. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Collaborate - See "Background" section above. | |||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1. Adopt Plan. 2. Do not adopt plan and provide staff with direction for continued development of the plan. This option would allow the City Council to add or delete any materials or concepts that are or are not desired. 3. Do not adopt plan. This option would not provide any different policy for reinvestment than currently exists. |
|||||
Attachments: | Res. 2015-02 | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
15.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Preliminary Plat PPPL2014-0006: Request for Preliminary Plat approval from Evergreen-Trax, LLC, for the subdivision of approximately 27.2 acres into 18 lots. The proposed commercial development, known as The Trax, is located at the southwest and southeast corners of Route 66 and Fourth Street within the Highway Commercial (HC) zone (conditional). (Subdivision of 27.2 acres into 18 lots located at the southwest and southeast corners of Route 66 and Fourth Street) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Approve the Preliminary Plat as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
|
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
Since the relocation of the railroad tracks in 2006 to enable construction of the Fourth Street bridge over the tracks, the City has anticipated that the two parcels abutting to Route 66 should be redeveloped for commercial uses. Evergreen-Trax, LLC processed a Regional Plan amendment and Zoning Map amendment in early 2014, and purchased the subject property from the City of Flagstaff in October 2014. Evergreen-Trax, LLC intends to subdivide the two parcels into 18 commercial lots to be constructed in three phases. Evergreen plans to submit a Final Plat for Unit 1 following approval of the preliminary plat. This action approves the preliminary plat for all three phases. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
No financial liabilities are anticipated by the approval of this Preliminary Plat. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS: 3) Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics 9) Foster relationships and maintain economic development commitment to partners REGIONAL PLAN: Goal LU.5. Encourage compact development principles to achieve efficiencies and open space preservation. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
June 17, 2014: City Council approved a Regional Plan amendment (Resolution No. 2014-26). July 15, 2014: City Council approved a Development Agreement (Resolution No. 2014-25), a Zoning Map amendment (Ordinance No. 2014-14); and the City of Flagstaff and Evergreen Devco, Inc. entered into the Second Amendment of the Purchase and Sale Agreement. August 25, 2014: City Council approved the Third Amendment and the Fourth Amendment of Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City of Flagstaff and Evergreen-TRAX, LLC. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the Preliminary Plat as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
2) Approve the Preliminary Plat with no conditions, modified conditions, or additional comments.
3) Deny the Preliminary Plat, but only if the Council concludes that the preliminary plat does not comply with the Zoning Code, the Subdivision Code, and/or the Engineering Design Standards and Specifications for New Infrastructure. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
In May of 2014, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a Regional Plan amendment, under the 2001 Regional Land Use and Transportation Plan to change the land use designation of 33.6 acres of property, located at Route 66 and Fourth Street and Huntington Drive and Fourth Street, from Office/Business Park/Light Industrial and Light/Medium Industrial to Community/Regional Commercial. A concurrent Zoning Map Amendment (rezoning) request to amend 33.6 acres from Light Industrial (LI) and Light Industrial-Open (LI-O) to Highway Commercial (HC) zone was reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. In July 2014, City Council approved requests for the referenced Regional Plan amendment and rezoning. In October 2014, Evergreen purchased the 33.6 acres of property from the City of Flagstaff and immediately sold Area D (the 6.54-acre parcel located at the northwest corner of Huntington Dr. and Fourth St.) to a private developer; thus Area D is not part of the preliminary plat. A preliminary plat application consisting of 27.2 gross acres of land and proposing 18 lots was reviewed by staff in November and December 2014. The preliminary plat was approved by the Inter-Division Staff (IDS) with conditions on December 19, 2014. On January 28, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the preliminary plat with conditions. | |||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The City Council will find, based on the recommendation of 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), the Engineering Design Standards and Specifications for New Infrastructure (City Code Title 13); and is in conformance with the Zoning Map amendment (Ordinance No. 2014-14). |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
|
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform. 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. In 2014, the Regional Plan amendment and Zoning Map amendment required neighborhood meetings, property owner and public notification, Planning and Zoning Commission hearings and City Council hearings. The public notification was conducted as required. Staff received an email prior to the January 28, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for the Preliminary Plat request. The email was from a citizen concerned about the relocation of prairie dogs. Another member of the public, representing Habitat Harmony, spoke at the meeting expressing the desire to work with the developer in relocating prairie dogs in Phases 2 and 3 of the development. Evergreen Development has expressed willingness to work with Habitat Harmony for Phases 2 and 3. |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Attachments: | P&Z Minutes | ||||
P&Z Staff Report | |||||
Preliminary Plat | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||