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 None |
|||||||||
5. | PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Public Participation enables the public to address the Council about an item that is not on the agenda. 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: Planning and Zoning Commission. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Make three appointments to terms expiring December 2018.
|
||||||||||
B. | Consideration of Appointments: Water Commission | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
Make three appointments to terms expiring December 2018.
Make one appointment to a term expiring December 2017. |
||||||||||
8. | LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARINGS | |||||||||
A. |
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Brandon Kinchen, “Flagstaff Green Room", 15 N. Agassiz St., Series 06 (bar- all spirituous liquor), Person Transfer.
|
|||||||||
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: Financial Advisor Contract with Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
10. | ROUTINE ITEMS | |||||||||
A. | Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2015-19: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, amending the Flagstaff City Code, Section 3-10-001-0007 Cemetery to increase Cemetery fees by 10%. (Cemetery fee increase) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2015-19 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-19 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2015-19 |
||||||||||
B. | Consideration and Approval of Contract: Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement with the Coconino Community College District regarding the leasing of property to the City for the East Flagstaff Community Library (Approve the amendment to the IGA with the Coconino Community College District in the amount of $5,400.00 annually) | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||
C. | Consideration of Annexation Ordinance No. 2015-20: An annexation ordinance extending and increasing the corporate limits of the City of Flagstaff by annexing certain land totaling approximately 44.01 acres located at 3200 W. Route 66, and establishing city zoning for said land as Rural Residential, RR. (Annexation of property for the new McAllister Ranch public works yard located on West Route 66). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2015-20 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-20 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2015-20 |
||||||||||
D. | Consideration of Ordinance No. 2015-21: A zoning map amendment/direct ordinance amending the Flagstaff Zoning Code to rezone approximately 48.81 acres of real property from Rural Residential (RR) to Public Facility (PF) located at 3200 West Route 66 on parcel numbers 112-01-001D and 112-01-002. (Rezoning of property for the new McAllister Ranch public works yard located on West Route 66). | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2015-21 by title for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-21 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No.2015-21 |
||||||||||
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 | |||||||||
A. | Public Hearing, Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2015-38: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, amending the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 by amending Map 25 of the Plan and Establishing an effective date. | |||||||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | ||||||||||
1) Hold public hearing
2) Read Resolution No. 2015-38 by title only 3) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2015-38 by title only (if approved above) 4) Adopt Resolution No. 2015-38 by two-thirds majority per Arizona Revised Statute 9-461.06. |
||||||||||
15. | REGULAR AGENDA | |||||||||
A. | Discussion and Consideration: Joining Plastic Bag Lawsuit. | |||||||||
16. | DISCUSSION ITEMS | |||||||||
A. |
Review of Comprehensive Planning Work Program related to Specific Plans |
|||||||||
B. | Presentation and Discussion: Recommended Comprehensive Parking Management Program | |||||||||
C. | Policy discussion on proposed amendments to Zoning Code Chapter 10-30 (General to All). | |||||||||
D. | Policy discussion on proposed amendments to Chapter 10-40 (Specific to Zones) of the Flagstaff Zoning Code. | |||||||||
17. | FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS After discussion and upon agreement of three members of the Council, an item will be moved to a regularly-scheduled Council meeting. |
|||||||||
A. | Future Agenda Item Request (F.A.I.R.): A request by Vice Mayor Barotz to place on a future Work Session agenda a follow-up discussion of the the Student Housing Report. | |||||||||
18. | INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND REPORTS FROM COUNCIL AND STAFF, FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS | |||||||||
19. | ADJOURNMENT |
|||||||||
|
7.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of Appointments: Planning and Zoning Commission. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Make three appointments to terms expiring December 2018.
|
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
The Planning and Zoning Commission consists of seven citizen members, and serves as an advisory board to the Council on matters relating to the growth and physical development of the City. The commission also conducts hearings on amendments to the Zoning Map, tentative subdivision plats, and Development Review Board appeals. There are currently three seats available as the terms of David Carpenter, Steve Jackson, and Tina Pfeiffer will expire the end of December; all three are eligible for reappointment and two have submitted applications for consideration. 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 twelve applications currently on file, they are as follows:
Bart Bartel (new applicant)
David Carpenter (current commissioner) Kyle Chandler (new applicant) Ed Dunn (new applicant) Gregg Ensminger (new applicant) Robert Hubbard (new applicant) Steve Jackson (current commissioner) Robert Kelty (new applicant) Thomas Klimas (new applicant) Jeff Knorr (new applicant) Margo Wheeler (new applicant) David Zimmerman (new applicant)
It is important to note one of the applicants is a currently seated commissioner on another commission; David Zimmerman is a member of the Heritage Preservation Commission with a term expiring December 2015. While the handbook states that a commissioner cannot serve more than one commission at a time, it does not address applying for another commission while seated. The Council did discuss this situation during a work session and gave direction to the City Attorney to make changes to the Board and Commission Handbook; those changes are still being drafted and have not yet come back to Council for review and approval. If the Council appoints Mr. Zimmerman he will finish out his current commission seat and no longer be eligible for reappointment to the Heritage Preservation Commission.
COUNCIL APPOINTMENT ASSIGNMENT: Councilmember Evans, Councilmember Putzova and Vice Mayor Barotz |
|||||
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: | |||||
None | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Appoint three Commissioners: By appointing Commissioners at this time, the Planning and Zoning 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 Board members and City staff has occurred, informing others of these vacancies through word of mouth. | |||||
Attachments: | P&Z Roster | ||||
P&Z Authority | |||||
P&Z Applicant Roster | |||||
P&Z Applications | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
7.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of Appointments: Water Commission | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Make three appointments to terms expiring December 2018.
Make one appointment to a term expiring December 2017. |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
The Water Commission consists of seven citizens and a representative from the Planning and Zoning Commission. It reviews extensions of the water and sewer collection systems, treatment and use of water furnished by the City, treatment and disposal of the City's sewage system effluent, and water/sewer rates. There are currently four seats available; three commissioners have reached the end of their terms and Ms. Cortner and Mr. Malin have applied for and are eligible for reappointment. 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 seven applications on file and they are as follows: Lucas Bair (new applicant) Hanna Cortner (current commissioner) Ward Davis (new applicant) John Malin (current commissioner) Gavin O'Connor (new applicant) Kira Russo (new applicant) Abigail Wellumson (new applicant) COUNCIL APPOINTMENT ASSIGNMENT: Councilmember Overton, Councilmember Evans, Councilmember Putzova, and Councilmember Oravits |
|||||
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: | |||||
None. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Appoint four Commissioners: by appointing members at this time, the Water Commission will be at full membership, allowing the group to continue meeting to 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: Board members and City staff have informed the community of these vacancies through word of mouth in addition to the vacancies posting on the City's website.
|
|||||
Attachments: | Water - Roster | ||||
Water - Authority | |||||
Water - Applicant Roster | |||||
Water - Applications | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
8.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Action on Liquor License Application: Brandon Kinchen, “Flagstaff Green Room", 15 N. Agassiz St., Series 06 (bar- all spirituous liquor), Person Transfer.
|
|||||
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. Series 06 (bar- all spirituous liquor) licenses are obtained through the person and/or location transfer of an existing license from another business. The transfer is from Danny Thomas/Rand Jenkins of Flagstaff Green Room located in Flagstaff. Flagstaff Green Room was recently sold and the liquor license must be transferred to the new owner. 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. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Because the application is for a person transfer, consideration may only be given to the applicant's personal qualifications. A Series 06 (bar - all spirituous liquor) allows a bar retailer to sell and serve spirituous liquors, primarily by individual portions, to be consumed on the premises and in the original container for consumption on or off the premises. The deadline for issuing a recommendation on this application is January 4, 2016. |
|||||
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 November 10, 2015. No written protests have been received to date. | |||||
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: | Green Room - Letter to Applicant | ||||
Hearing Procedures | |||||
Series 06 Description | |||||
Green Room - PD Memo | |||||
Green Room - Code Memo | |||||
Green Room - Tax Memo | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
9.A.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Financial Advisor Contract with Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
|
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
The City of Flagstaff Management Services Division requires the services of a Financial Advisor to assist with working with rating agencies, advise on bond structure and market conditions, provide management with regard to issuing debt, and provide technical assistance with financing alternatives. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The financial impact of approving this contract will be based on the services requested by the City. Fees will only be charged to the City upon issuing/refinancing bonds or certificates of participation. These fees will then be charged to the capital project that is incurring the debt. Each capital project has the budget authority available. |
|||||
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 7) Address key issues and processes related to the implementation of the Regional Plan 9) Foster relationships and maintain economic development commitment to partners 11) Ensure that we are as prepared as possible for extreme weather events REGIONAL PLAN: Forest Initiative Bonds Goal E&C.3. Strengthen community and natural environment resiliency through climate adaptation efforts. Goal E&C.6. Protect, restore and improve ecosystem health and maintain native plant and animal community diversity across all land ownerships in the Flagstaff region. Open Space/FUTS Bonds Goal OS.1. The region has a system of open lands, such as undeveloped natural areas, wildlife corridors and habitat areas, trails, access to public lands, and greenways to support the natural environment that sustains our quality of life, cultural heritage, and ecosystem health. Core Facility Bond Goal LU.7. Provide for public services and infrastructure. Road Repair and Street Safety Bonds Goal T.8. Establish a functional, safe, and aesthetic hierarchy of roads and streets. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
No. |
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the contract with Stifel, Nicolaus & Company. 2) Choose one of the other five proposals submitted for the RFP. Cons-potential higher costs associated with the contract and risk of a formal protest from Stifel, Nicolaus & Company if we choose one of the other lower scoring proposals. 3) Do not approve any contract and provide direction to staff. Cons-Delays ability to issue debt related to current projects. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The City has contracted for financial advisor services for many years for professional assistance in working with rating agencies and to obtain advice on bond structure and market conditions. In addition, a financial advisor provides assistance throughout the year as special projects arise that need financing. The City's Purchasing Section conducted a formal competitive Request for Proposals (RFP), which was advertised on July 14, 2015. There were a total of six (6) proposal responses. Based on the scoring results, a decision was made to "short-list" and advance the three (3) highest scoring Proposers (1. RBC Capital Markets, 2. Piper Jaffray and 3. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company) to phase two (2) of the RFP process, which involved interview questions/presentations. Stifel, Nicolaus & Company's aggregate score, which included Phase One (1)--written proposal response and phase two (2)--interview questions/presentation, was the highest scoring Proposer and the evaluation team determined Stifel, Nicolaus & Company to be the most responsible and responsive Proposer whose offer is the most satisfactory and advantageous to the City based on the evaluation criteria outlined in the RFP document as follows: Phase 1 1. Method of Approach (50%) 2. Capacity of Offeror/Experience (30%) 3. Pricing (20%) Phase 2 1. Interview Questions/Presentations (10%) |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Financial advisor services are necessary for the City for special projects that need financing that will also involve working with rating agencies and to obtain advice on bond structure and market conditions. |
|||||
Expanded Financial Considerations: | |||||
The review committee received clarification on the service options and cost from the submitted proposals. Using a retainer option appeared to be more costly to the City as this would be an annual fee and we would not expect to issue debt on an annual basis. Half of the proposals included all the cost of services based on issuance of debt. Meaning the City would not be charged on an hourly basis for necessary services including items such as monthly phone calls and bond election planning assistance. Three proposals included a fee for bond election planning and one proposal had a fee for monthly phone calls. Stifel,Nicolaus & Company does not charge these extra fees. Furthermore, Stifel is including the cost of issuing the official offering statements within the cost of issuance. For all other submittal it would be an additional cost to the City. Therefore, the City will only be billed for services base on the size and type of debt issuance. Those fees billed will be charged to the City project responsible. In years that the City does not issue new debt, there will be no fee for services. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Having a contacted financial advisor helps the City manage its existing debt and issue new debt at the best rates. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
Attachments: | Scoring Tabulation | ||||
Agreement | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2015-19: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, amending the Flagstaff City Code, Section 3-10-001-0007 Cemetery to increase Cemetery fees by 10%. (Cemetery fee increase) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2015-19 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-19 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2015-19 |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
At the April 22, 2015 Council budget advance, the Council expressed support to increase Cemetery fees by 10%. The City has provided the required 60 day notification on the City website of this potential fee increase. Staff proposes a January 1, 2016 effective date. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The City of Flagstaff receives approximately $130,000 per year in Cemetery fees. The proposed fee increase is estimated to generate an additional $13,000 per year in revenue for the General Fund. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics | |||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
Yes, Cemetery fees were increased in August of 2009 after Council direction. This was also discussed at the February 2015 and April 2015 budget advances by Council. Additionally, first reading of this ordinance and discussion was held at the November 17, 2015, Council Meeting.
|
|||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1) Approve the fee increase to generate an estimated $13,000 new revenue to the General Fund. 2) Do not approve the fee increase. This option will lower the future recurring revenues in the General Fund and will be adjusted in the fiscal year 2017 budget process. |
|||||
Background/History: | |||||
The City owns and operates Citizens Cemetery. The City charges user fees to help pay for costs related to use of the Cemetery. As part of the City of Flagstaff annual budget process, certain user fees are brought forward to Council for consideration to increase. For FY2016, City staff provided information to Council on the Cemetery fees. In 2009, the City conducted a user fee study of services provided at Citizens Cemetery. At that time fees were adjusted based on actual costs to provide services. Historically fees have been charged differently between residents and non-residents. The fees that were adjusted were addressed in the ordinance based on the User Fee study in 2009. Fees have not been adjusted since 2009. The Cemetery master plan of 1999 recommended increasing user fees and yearly increases based on the consumer price index. This is not a practice that is followed currently. In this current fee structure, we addressed both resident and non-resident fees by 10%. At the April 22, 2015 City Council Budget advance, the Council reviewed several user fees. The discussion was to increase existing Cemetery fees by 10% to generate $13,000 in revenue. This will be revenue deposited into the General Fund. At the February budget advance there were two Councilmembers in full support and two Councilmembers providing tentative support. The item was brought before Council again at the April budget advance and the majority agreed to impose a fee increase to help fund ongoing expenditures for the fiscal year 2016 budget. City staff posted the statutorily required 60-day notice on the City website and stated this fee increase would be considered at the November 17, 2015 Council meeting. Staff is recommending that it become effective on January 1, 2016. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
The estimated new revenue of $13,000 has been included in the total ongoing resources used to balance the FY2016 City of Flagstaff budget. If this were not approved, expenditures of $13,000 would have to be reduced in the General Fund. Should Council decide not to increase the fees for the Cemetery, the ongoing revenue source will be adjusted with the fiscal year 2017 budget. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform The public has been notified through the website post that the City is considering this fee increase. The public will have the opportunity to provide feedback to the Council as the proposed Ordinance is considered by Council for approval. |
|||||
Attachments: | Proposed Cemetery fees | ||||
Notice of Proposed Increase in Fees | |||||
Ordinance | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.B.
| |||||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration and Approval of Contract: Amendment to Intergovernmental Agreement with the Coconino Community College District regarding the leasing of property to the City for the East Flagstaff Community Library (Approve the amendment to the IGA with the Coconino Community College District in the amount of $5,400.00 annually) | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
|
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
The Coconino Community College District and the City of Flagstaff are parties to an IGA to provide leased space for the East Flagstaff Community Library (EFCL). This Amendment to the agreement will provide an additional 500 sq. ft. of workspace for the EFCL. The workspace will ensure necessary storage space for children's programming which is currently being housed in the Community Room at the EFCL. The additional space will also provide for improved staff safety by allowing a 2nd entry and exit access. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The IGA amendment will increase the annual rent by $5,400. In addition, the City will incur a onetime cost of $2,450 to remove asbestos-containing drywall in connection with adding a doorway. Pursuant to the original IGA, the City is responsible for any costs related to remodeling of the premises. This is an unbudgeted item in FY2016 but will be covered with budget appropriation in account 030-02-035-0143-5-4321. |
|||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS:
1) Invest in our employees and implement retention and attraction strategies 3) Provide sustainable and equitable public facilities, services, and infrastructure systems in an efficient and effective manner to serve all population areas and demographics |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
None | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
1.) Not approve the amendment to the IGA and continue to utilize the existing square footage |
|||||
Attachments: | Amendment 1 -COF/Library IGA | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.C.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of Annexation Ordinance No. 2015-20: An annexation ordinance extending and increasing the corporate limits of the City of Flagstaff by annexing certain land totaling approximately 44.01 acres located at 3200 W. Route 66, and establishing city zoning for said land as Rural Residential, RR. (Annexation of property for the new McAllister Ranch public works yard located on West Route 66). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2015-20 by title only for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-20 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No. 2015-20 |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
Annexation of an existing city-owned parcel into the City limit will provide for the logical extension of City infrastructure within the Urban Growth Boundary defined in the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 as areas which can be efficiently and effectively provided facilities and services by the City. The location at 3200 W. Route 66 has been identified by the City as an ideal location for the development of a new public works facility to replace the undersized and outdated current public works facility. All substantive issues are addressed in the attached Planning & Zoning Commission report. At the conclusion of the public hearing on October 28, 2015, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 7-0 to forward the request to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. |
|||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The money resources for the Facility are $14,000,000 bonding authority, landfill fees, both debt and one time money, totaling $5,500,000 and the appraised values for McAllister Ranch at $2,178,000 and the Mogollon property at $2,256,000. Total resources: $23,934,000 available for the Facility. | |||||
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 11) Ensure that we are as prepared as possible for extreme weather events REGIONAL PLAN: The Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 provides the following goal and policy guidance with respect to annexation: LU.7.2 (page IX-32) - Require unincorporated properties to be annexed prior to the provision of City services, or that a pre-annexation agreement is executed when deemed appropriate. Policy WR.4.3 (page VI-13) - Development requiring public utility services will be located within the Urban Growth Boundary. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
On 7/15/14 the Council rejected a total of nine proposals for alternative sites for the McAllister Ranch public works facility (core services). First reading of this ordinance was held at the November 17, 2015, Council Meeting. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
The City Council may approve the ordinance as proposed, approve the ordinance with conditions, or deny the ordinance. | |||||
Background/History: | |||||
A request by the City of Flagstaff to annex approximately 44.01 acres generally located north of East Route 66 and west of Woody Mountain Road. The area subject to the annexation is Coconino County Assessor’s Parcel Number 112-01-001D. The majority of this city-owned parcel is vacant, forested land. The west portion includes the McAllister Ranch Complex which consists of several buildings and structures built in the 1930s, some newer building additions, and numerous corrals and fencing. The complex has been determined eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. These buildings will not be disturbed by the proposed development. The east portion of the parcel includes an unpaved access drive to the Clay Avenue Wash Detention Basin which is incorporated into the proposed development. If the property is rezoned to the Public Facility (PF) Zone, the City’s Resource Protection Overlay (RPO) Zone will also be applied and the parcel will be required to meet resource protection standards. The parcel is located within the Urban Growth Boundary. The 5-acre parcel adjacent to and south of the subject parcel is city-owned and within the City corporate boundary and will be combined with the 40.01-acre parcel if the annexation is approved. The annexation request is to allow for the development of a new public works facility consisting of 87,280 square feet of buildings, associated parking and outdoor storage. The developed public works site will cover approximately 24 acres. A comprehensive discussion related to public facilities and service impact analysis can be found in the Annexation Report (P&Z Commission Staff Report attached). The current application is being reviewed against the policies of the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 (FRP 2030). The FRP 2030 (Maps 21 and 22 on pages IX-27 through 29) designates the portion of this parcel closest to Woody Mountain Rd. as Future Urban within an Urban Activity Center, designates a portion west of the activity center as Future Suburban, and designates the northern portion of this parcel as Area in White. The proposed public works facility fits the Suburban description which encourages parks and associated service facilities in a campus setting, thus the minor regional plan amendment seeks to change the three existing area types to Existing Suburban. This annexation is the first of a three-step process. The second step is a proposed minor amendment to the Flagstaff Regional Plan and the last step is a request for a Direct Ordinance Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the annexed parcel (44.01 acres) and the parcel to the south (5.00 acres) from Rural Residential (RR) to the Public Facility (PF) Zone. The Regional Plan and Zoning Map amendment applications are being processed concurrently with this application but will not become effective until after the annexation has been completed. A full Zoning Map Amendment policy analysis can be found attached in that staff report. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
Annexations are adopted by the City Council via ordinance. Ordinance No. 2015-20 annexes 40.01 acres located at 3200 W. Route 66 into the City of Flagstaff. A development agreement is not required for this city-owned development. Requirements of the development are included in the zoning ordinance and include improvements to W. Route 66, a proportional-share contribution by the City to a future traffic signal at the intersection of Route 66 and Woody Mountain Road, and an off-site sewer extension that will be required to be extended along the northern portion of the property and ending at Route 66 (see attached letter : Waiver of Water and Sewer Impact Analysis, dated 10/21/15). | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform/Consult The City hired Shephard-Wesnitzer, Inc. (SWI) as the landowner agent/applicant to annex and rezone the property as well as compile and submit concept and site plan packages. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 5:00 pm to discuss the annexation, general plan amendment, and rezoning of the properties. Meeting notification letters were sent to all property owners and homeowner’s associations (HOA) within a 1,200 foot radius. Letters were also sent to the City’s “Registry of Persons and Groups” as provided by the City. The Citizen Participation Report (CPR), dated May 5, 2015, is attached to the rezoning packet. The applicant received three letters in response to the neighborhood meeting notice requesting information about the project. Fifteen people attended the meeting according to the sign-in sheet and had questions in regards to the case. Some of the attendees expressed concerns regarding the Annexation or Zoning Map Amendment about traffic, cost, noise and lighting. All of the questions and concerns are addressed in Table 1 of the CPR. Public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council will be conducted in conjunction with requests for annexation. In accordance with State statute, notice of the public hearing was provided by placing an ad in the Daily Sun, posting notices on the property, and mailing a notice to all property owners within 1200 feet of the site (exceeding the required 300-feet distance). The notices were also provided to the County Recorder, County Assessor, County Community Development Department and the Chair of the Board of Supervisors. Staff has not received any other comments in regards to this annexation. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing on October 28, 2015 at 4 pm. There was no public testimony at this hearing. |
|||||
Expanded Options and Alternatives: | |||||
|
|||||
Attachments: | P&Z Commission Staff Report | ||||
Annexation Application | |||||
Annexation Legal Description | |||||
Zoning Map w City Limits | |||||
Annexation Public Hearing Notice | |||||
Waiver of WSIA for Public Works Yard | |||||
Ord. 2015-20 | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
10.D.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Consideration of Ordinance No. 2015-21: A zoning map amendment/direct ordinance amending the Flagstaff Zoning Code to rezone approximately 48.81 acres of real property from Rural Residential (RR) to Public Facility (PF) located at 3200 West Route 66 on parcel numbers 112-01-001D and 112-01-002. (Rezoning of property for the new McAllister Ranch public works yard located on West Route 66). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Read Ordinance No. 2015-21 by title for the final time
2) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2015-21 by title only for the final time (if approved above) 3) Adopt Ordinance No.2015-21 |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
This request is third and last of three related items. The City of Flagstaff (applicant) is requesting a zoning map amendment to allow for the development of a new public works facility. The Flagstaff Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider this rezoning request at its regular meeting of October 28, 2015. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Commission voted (7-0) to forward the request to the City Council with a recommendation of approval with four additional conditions. Zoning map amendments are required to be adopted by ordinance. All substantive issues area addressed in the attached Planning & Zoning Commission report. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
The money resources for the Facility are $14,000,000 bonding authority, landfill fees, both debt and one time money, totaling $5,500,000 and the appraised values for McAllister Ranch at $2,178,000 and the Mogollon property at $2,256,000. Total resources: $23,934,000 available for the Facility. | |||||
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 11) Ensure that we are as prepared as possible for extreme weather events REGIONAL PLAN: A full discussion of the applicable policies is included in the Regional Plan staff report to the P&Z Commission (PZ-15-00077-02). |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
On 7/15/14 the Council rejected a total of nine proposals for alternative sites for the public works yard (core services facility). First read of the ordinance was held at the November 17, 2015, Council Meeting. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
The City Council may approve the ordinance as proposed, approve the ordinance with conditions, or deny the ordinance. | |||||
Background/History: | |||||
The Applicant, City of Flagstaff, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone approximately 48.81 acres from Rural Residential (RR) zone to Public Facilities (PF) zone located at 3200 W. Route 66. This amendment would allow the development of a municipal public works facility, consisting of 87,280 square feet of buildings including an administration building for employees and the public, and buildings to serve the following City of Flagstaff Public Works services and divisions: Parks, Solid Waste, Streets, and Fleet. The majority of the subject property is currently undeveloped, forested land with the exception of an existing cell tower approximately 330 feet north of W. Route 66 and the McAllister Ranch Complex at the west end of the property. The property slopes generally 2 to 3 percent towards the northwest which is the Clay Avenue Wash area and is fairly level with the exception of a small knoll at the southeast corner which will be protected for slope resources. An applicant requesting an amendment to the Zoning map may elect to pursue either a “Direct Ordinance with a Site Plan” or “Authorization to Rezone with a Concept Zoning Plan” per Section 10-20.50.040.D (pg. 20.50-5). This application is a Direct Ordinance with a Site Plan. If the Zoning Map Amendment request is approved, the next steps in the process will be Civil Improvement Plan and Building permit submittals. In a rezoning case, typically a development agreement is formalized between the City and the private developer. With this project, the City is the developer and a development agreement is not required. However, any requirements for the City will be included in the Zoning Map Amendment ordinance as stipulations. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
If the rezoning request is approved and the 48.81-acre site is rezoned to Public Facility (PF) zone, the proposed public works facility will be considered a permitted use in that zone. Per the Flagstaff Zoning Code (Section10-40.30.060, pg. 40.30-29). , “Government Service/Maintenance Facilities” is an allowed use under the sub-heading of Transportation and Infrastructure in the Public Facility (PF) zone. |
|||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
Community benefits and considerations are addressed in the Regional Plan Amendment request. | |||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform/Consult The City hired Shephard-Wesnitzer, Inc. (SWI) to act as the applicant to annex and rezone the property as well as compile and submit concept and site plan packages. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on January 21, 2015 to discuss the annexation, general plan amendment, and rezoning of the properties. SWI led the meeting with support provided by Johnson Walzer Associates (JWA) and City Public Works staff. Meeting notification letters were sent to all property owners and homeowner’s associations (HOA) within a 1,200 foot radius. Letters were also sent to the City’s “Registry of Persons and Groups” as provided by the City. The Citizen Participation Report (CPR), dated May 5, 2015, is attached to this rezoning report. The applicant received three letters in response to the meeting notice requesting information about the project. Fifteen people attended the meeting according to the sign-in sheet and had questions in regards to the case. Some of the attendees expressed concerns regarding the Annexation or Zoning Map Amendment about traffic, cost, noise and lighting. All of the questions and concerns are addressed in Table 1 of the CPR. As of this writing, staff has received one e-mail dated 10/16/15 from a property owner south of the subject site; the e-mail is attached to the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 Amendment report. Public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council are conducted in conjunction with requests for rezoning. In accordance with State statute, notice of the public hearing was provided by placing an ad in the Daily Sun, posting notices on the property, and mailing a notice to all property owners within 1200 feet of the site (exceeding the required 300-feet distance). At the October 28, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing, there was no public testimony. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Commission voted 7-0 to forward a recommendation to the Council for approval of the request with four additional conditions which have been incorporated into the zoning ordinance. |
|||||
Attachments: | Application Reg Plan & Zoning | ||||
Current COF Zoning Map | |||||
Rezone exhibit_existing | |||||
Rezone exhibit_proposed | |||||
Rezone legal descrip 001D | |||||
Rezone legal descrip 002 | |||||
Public Hearing Legal Notice | |||||
Citizen Particip Report | |||||
Civil Site Plan | |||||
General Site Plan | |||||
PZC Zoning Staff Report | |||||
Ord. 2015-21.Combined | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
14.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE: | |||||
Public Hearing, Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2015-38: A resolution of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, amending the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 by amending Map 25 of the Plan and Establishing an effective date. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
1) Hold public hearing
2) Read Resolution No. 2015-38 by title only 3) City Clerk reads Resolution No. 2015-38 by title only (if approved above) 4) Adopt Resolution No. 2015-38 by two-thirds majority per Arizona Revised Statute 9-461.06. |
|||||
Executive Summary: | |||||
City staff has prepared an application for a Major Plan Amendment to Map 25: Road Network Illustration (Map 25) and related text in the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended the amendment for adoption after holding two public hearings in September and October. The purpose of this major amendment is to bring Map 25 into compliance with Arizona Revised Statute 9-461.05 and to resolve inconsistencies between the Land Use and Transportation Chapters and other parts of the City Code related to Map 25. | |||||
Financial Impact: | |||||
After adoption of the plan amendment, the Comprehensive Planning program will incur the cost of providing replacement pages for hard copies of the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030, approximately $500. | |||||
Connection to Council Goal and/or Regional Plan: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS: 7) Address key issues and processes related to the implementation of the Regional Plan REGIONAL PLAN GOALS: Goal T.8. Establish a functional, safe, and aesthetic hierarchy of roads and streets. |
|||||
Has There Been Previous Council Decision on This: | |||||
City Council endorsed the strategy of carrying forward Map 25 as the first of several rounds of plan amendments to resolve errors and needed clarifications in FRP30 on June 6, 2015. Each amendment is meant to incrementally improve our ability to implement FRP30. For details about the scope of upcoming plan amendments, see Attachment 1: Future Plan Amendments Briefing Paper. | |||||
Options and Alternatives: | |||||
The text amendments being processed along with the change to the map amendment are severable from the decision. They could be processed as a part of a later minor plan amendment. Staff elected to process them together to clarify how Map 25 was intended to be used based on meeting and project management notes from the FRP30 process. | |||||
Background/History: | |||||
This amendment is proposed to resolve the following issues in the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030: • ARS 9-461.05.C.2 states that a General Plan must include, “A circulation element consisting of the general location and extent of existing and proposed freeways, arterial and collector streets, bicycle routes and any other modes of transportation as may be appropriate, all correlated with the land use element of the plan." Map 25 is included in FRP30 to meet this requirement but it does not display all of the existing and proposed arterial and collector roads. • Some of the roads that are displayed on Map 25 are not categorized in a way that logically corresponds to the explanation of these categories on page X-18. • It will replace the "Urban Network” designation and language describing the distinction between regional and neighborhood corridors with text that better describes corridors and their networks by area type. This term appears only on Map 25 and has no corresponding explanation in the Plan’s text. • Better explain the terminology around future routes, especially “Capacity Study Pending” and conditional roads. These changes are being processed as a major plan amendment because they are related to the major amendment category of “Addition of a Corridor or Great Street” on page III-9 in the FRP30. |
|||||
Key Considerations: | |||||
This amendment is one of several that will be proposed to make clarifications and correct errors in the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030. The scope of this amendment is not meant to change the intent of the original Regional Plan but to clarify which roads should be considered commercial corridors, the characteristics of corridors and their relationship to road functional classifications, and most importantly, to complete Map 25. Changes to major and minor plan amendment categories, descriptions of Great Streets, and the location and interpretation of activity centers are related topics that will be addressed in future amendments. | |||||
Community Benefits and Considerations: | |||||
The public will benefit from these changes because the Regional Plan will meet legal requirements and the direction for future land use and transportation coordination will be clearer. These amendments are not intended to alter the intent of the plan as adopted and ratified by citizens. Instead, they are designed to correct errors, resolve inconsistencies, remove legal vulnerability and improve the readability of the document. It is staff's hope that this will improve the City’s ability to implement the land use and transportation policies in FRP30. |
|||||
Community Involvement: | |||||
Inform and Consult: The amendment was made available for a 60 day public review in June and July 2015. Staff notified approximately 250 residents who live in the Southside neighborhood and Mt. Elden Hills about an open house held on June 29th at City Hall. As a result of the open house two routes were changed from "Access" to "Residential Access." For a summary of the discussion at that meeting, see Attachment 2. Record of Proceeding for Open House. The Transportation Commission held a discussion and recommended the amendment in July 2015. The Planning and Zoning Commission held a work session and two public hearings, which concluded on October 28, 2015. The Planning and Zoning Commission made a "motion to forward to City Council for approval Map 25: Road Network Illustration Major Plan Amendment with the recommendation to Council to prioritize updating the table of Major and Minor Plan Amendments on Page III-9 as the next highest priority for the Comprehensive Planning Program work plan and to add the word “commercial corridors” above the first three classifications of road on the road network on the map Moved by Commissioner Carpenter Seconded by Commissioner Dorsett. Motion carried unanimously." | |||||
Attachments: | Resolution 2015-38 | ||||
Future Plan Amendments Briefing Paper | |||||
Record of Proceeding for Open House | |||||
Map 25 Major Plan Amendment Application | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
15.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Discussion and Consideration: Joining Plastic Bag Lawsuit. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Council direction
|
|||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
On November 3, 2015, during discussion under Future Agenda Item Request, three Councilmembers supported placement of this item on a future agenda for consideration and possible action. The documents presented by Councilmember Evans during that discussion have been attached to this staff summary for your reference. | |||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
Attachments: | |||||
Memo | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
16.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Review of Comprehensive Planning Work Program related to Specific Plans |
|||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
This agenda item is an introduction to potential future specific plans. Staff will provide further information at work session in January 2016, at which time direction from Council will be requested about prioritizing specific plans and their consideration in the budget process.
|
|||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
The purpose of the City's Comprehensive Planning Program is to implement the vision of the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 (Regional Plan), "The Greater Flagstaff community embraces the region’s extraordinary cultural and ecological setting on the Colorado Plateau through active stewardship of the natural and built environments. Residents and visitors encourage and advance intellectual, environmental, social, and economic vitality for today’s citizens and future generations." The program accomplishes this vision through regular updates to the Regional Plan, specific plans, intergovernmental coordination, coordination in long range planning for all City departments, and assistance with development review. For the past two years, the focus of the program has been adoption of the La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Specific Plan, outreach and education on the Regional Plan, and updating City applications, policies and processes for consistency with the new Regional Plan. In January, staff will request direction from Council on how to balance the demands and priorities for the program over the next 2-3 years. |
|||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS: 7) Address key issues and processes related to the implementation of the Regional Plan 8) Improve effectiveness of notification, communication, and engagement with residents, neighborhoods and businesses and about City services, programs, policies, projects and developments REGIONAL PLAN: Policy LU.4.1. Develop neighborhood plans, specific plans, area plans, and master plans for all neighborhoods, activity centers, corridors, and gateways as necessary. Policy LU.10.4. Develop specific plans for neighborhoods and activity centers to foster desired scale and form. Policy LU.19.1. Develop a specific plan for each “Great Street” corridor. Comprehensive Planning Program Work Summary The following is a summary of work categories that fall within the Comprehensive Planning Program. The projects listed are recurring work, or projects that are anticipated in the next 2-6 years. The final staff report will include a summary of the scope, opportunities and challenges of each of the Area and Specific Plans listed below. Project Management for Area Plans and Specific Plans (50-60% of time/budget)
Regional Plan Amendments and Development Application Review (20-30% of time/budget)
|
|||||
Attachments: | Milton Corridor Study & Specific Plan | ||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
16.B.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Presentation and Discussion: Recommended Comprehensive Parking Management Program | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Hear presentation; hear public comment; discuss; provide direction.
|
|||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
The recommended Comprehensive Parking Management Program provides for your consideration a potential balanced and coordinated solution to address parking issues including Southside Spill-over, North End Spill-over, New Spill-over, Downtown Turn-over, Southside Turn-over, Customer Parking and Visitor Parking. The plan proposes that parking be managed using availability, cost, demand reduction, regulations, and enforcement. The plan also proposes that parking facilities would be constructed - both short-term and long-term solutions. Pedestrian, bicycle, and transit services and facilities would also be developed to reduce demand. Per prior City Council direction, it is financially self-sufficient and imposes no permit costs on residents. |
|||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
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 REGIONAL PLAN: See Attachment 2 within the attached plan. ASSOCIATED POTENTIAL POLICIES: The Recommended Comprehensive Parking Management Plan is based on the following potential general parking policies:
|
|||||
Attachments: | Plan | ||||
PowerPoint | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
16.C.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Policy discussion on proposed amendments to Zoning Code Chapter 10-30 (General to All). | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Staff will be seeking Council direction on any policy issues associated with proposed amendments to Chapter 10-30 (General to All) of the Flagstaff Zoning Code.
|
|||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
This work session is part of a series of work sessions with the Council on proposed amendments to the Flagstaff Zoning Code. In these work sessions, staff will introduce the more substantive amendments to the Council explaining the reason for them and why the new amendment is being proposed. The Council will be able to identify any policy issues that warrant a more in-depth discussion, either at the current work session, or in a future work session. | |||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS: 7) Address key issues and processes related to the implementation of the Regional Plan 8) Improve effectiveness of notification, communication, and engagement with residents, neighborhoods and businesses and about City services, programs, policies, projects and developments REGIONAL PLAN: The Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 supports the update and amendment of the Flagstaff Zoning Code with the following goals (policies are only included where needed to clarify a goal): Goal CC.1 Reflect and respect the regions' natural setting and dramatic views in the built environment. Goal CC.2 Preserve, restore, and rehabilitate heritage resources to better appreciate our culture. Goal CC.3 Preserve, restore, enhance, and reflect the design traditions of Flagstaff in all public and private development efforts.
Policy CC3.2 Maintain and enhance existing buildings and blend well-designed new buildings into existing neighborhoods.
Goal CC.4 Design and develop all projects to be contextually sensitive, to enhance a positive image and identity for the region.
Policy CC4.4 Design streets and parking lots to balance automobile facilities, recognize human-scale and pedestrian needs, and accentuate the surrounding environment.
Goal CD.1 Improve the City and County financial systems to provide for needed infrastructure development and rehabilitation, including maintenance and enhancement of existing infrastructure.
Policy CD.1.2 Work collaboratively with private and non-profit economic development groups to provide for the most efficient and effective use of public and private development dollars.
POLICY AMENDMENTS
The amendments identified by staff that may require a more in-depth policy discussion with the Council are summarized in the table in the first attachment (The Council may also identify additional policy issues as they review the proposed amendments). The Sections of the Zoning Code in which the topics for more in-depth policy discussion are located are listed below:
Division 10-30.30 Heritage Preservation
Staff has not identified any policy issues for the Council's consideration in this Division. While the scope of the amendments to this Division looks large, the majority are clerical in nature intended to improve the readability of the Division and to update the Division based on current practices and lessons learned now that it has been implemented and used for the past 3 - 4 years. As a result, a considerable amount of text is proposed to be deleted or sections and subsections have been moved to a more logical location. As stated above, two versions of this Division are attached, including a version in Track Changes format and a clean version with all proposed amendments accepted.
Division 10-30.50 Public Improvements
10-30.50.060 Minimum Requirements
Division 10-30.60 Site Planning Standards
10-30.60.050 Compatibility
10-30.60.060 Building Placement 10-30.60.070 Parking Lots, Driveways and Service Areas
Attached are three documents that contain all the amendments proposed in Chapter 10-30 (General to All), including:
If you have questions, or require clarification on the contents of this staff summary, please contact Roger E. Eastman, AICP, Comprehensive Planning and Code Administrator, at reastman@flagstaffaz.gov or (928) 213-2640.
|
|||||
Attachments: | Chapter 10-30 Policy Issues | ||||
Chapter 10-30 Amendments | |||||
Division 10-30.30 Amendments CLEAN | |||||
Division 10-30.30 Amendments RedLine | |||||
Photos - Site Planning Principles | |||||
Questions & Answers | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
16.D.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Policy discussion on proposed amendments to Chapter 10-40 (Specific to Zones) of the Flagstaff Zoning Code. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Staff will be seeking Council direction on any policy issues associated with proposed amendments to Chapter 10-40 (Specific to Zones) of the Flagstaff Zoning Code.
|
|||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
This is the third in a series of Council work sessions for a policy discussions on Chapter 10-40 (Specific to Zones) of the Flagstaff Zoning Code. In these work sessions staff will introduce to the Council the more substantive amendments proposed and the reason(s) for them. The Council will be able to identify any policy issues that warrant a more in-depth discussion, either at the current work session, or in a future work session. | |||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
COUNCIL GOALS: 7) Address key issues and processes related to the implementation of the Regional Plan. 8) Improve effectiveness of notification, communication, and engagement with residents, neighborhoods and businesses and about City services, programs, policies, projects and developments. REGIONAL PLAN: The Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 supports the update and amendment of the Flagstaff Zoning Code with the following goals (policies are only included where needed to clarify a goal): Goal CC.1 Reflect and respect the regions' natural setting and dramatic views in the built environment. Goal CC.4 Design and develop all projects to be contextually sensitive, to enhance a positive image and identity for the region. Goal LU.5 Encourage compact development principles to achieve efficiencies and open space preservation. Goal LU.6 Provide for a mix of land uses. Goal LU.9 Focus reinvestment, partnerships, regulations, and incentives on developing or redeveloping areas. Goal LU.13 Increase the variety of housing options and expand opportunities for employment and neighborhood shopping within all neighborhoods. POLICY AMENDMENTS The amendments identified by staff that may require a more in-depth policy discussion with the Council are summarized in the table in the first attachment (The Council may also identify additional policy issues as they review the proposed amendments). The Sections of the Zoning Code in which the topics for more in-depth policy discussion are located are listed below: Division 10-40.30 Non-Transect Zones
10-40.30.030 Residential Zones
10-40.30.040 Commercial Zones 10-40.30.050 Industrial Zones Division 10-40.40 Transect Zones
Transect Zones T4N.1-O; T4N2-O; T5; T5-O; and T6
Division 10-40.60 Specific to Uses
10-40.60.240 Micro-breweries and Micro-distilleries
10-40.60.250 Mixed Use 10-40.60.270 Planned Residential Development 10-40.60.300 Secondary Single-Family Dwelling The first attachment provides a detailed overview of the policy issues identified by staff for the Council's consideration. The second attachment details the proposed amendments to Chapter 10-40 (Specific to Zones). Full details of all the proposed amendments are included in these documents, including an explanation of why the amendment is proposed. This may be easily identified because it is written in italic font. A summary of the substantive amendments to this chapter is provided in a table on the first page with a brief description of the amendment and on what page it may be found. As the Council may not have enough time in this special work session to complete a discussion on all the policy issues in Chapter 10-50 (Supplemental to Zones), at the end of the work session staff will be asking the Council to select a date(s) for an additional work session(s), including a special work session to review the policy issues in Division 10-50.100 (Sign Standards). If you have questions, or require clarification on the contents of this staff summary, please contact Roger E. Eastman, AICP, Comprehensive Planning and Code Administrator, at reastman@flagstaffaz.gov or (928) 213-2640. |
|||||
Attachments: | Policy Issues Chapter 10-40 | ||||
Amendments Chapter 10-40 | |||||
Questions & Answers | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
17.A.
| |||||||||||
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF | |||||||||||
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT | |||||||||||
|
TITLE | |||||
Future Agenda Item Request (F.A.I.R.): A request by Vice Mayor Barotz to place on a future Work Session agenda a follow-up discussion of the the Student Housing Report. | |||||
RECOMMENDED ACTION: | |||||
Council direction.
|
|||||
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: | |||||
Rule 4.01, Procedures for Preparation of Council Agendas, of the City of Flagstaff City Council Rules of Procedure outlines the process for bringing items forward to a future agenda. Vice Mayor Barotz has requested this item be placed on an agenda under Future Agenda Item Requests (F.A.I.R.) to determine if there is a majority of Council interested in placing it on a future agenda. | |||||
INFORMATION: | |||||
None | |||||
Attachments: | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||
Minutes Attachments | |||||
No file(s) attached. | |||||