CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MARCH 31, 2015 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 211 WEST ASPEN AVENUE 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
|
|||||||
1. | Call to Order |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mayor Nabours called the Flagstaff Work Session of March 31, 2015, to order at 6:02 p.m. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
2. | Pledge of Allegiance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Council and audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
3. | Roll Call
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Others present: Interim City Manager Jeff Meilbeck; Deputy City Attorney Sterling Solomon. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
4. |
Preliminary Review of Draft Agenda for the 04/07/2015 City Council Meeting.*
* Public comment on draft agenda items may be taken under “Review of Draft Agenda Items” later in the meeting, at the discretion of the Mayor. Citizens wishing to speak on agenda items not specifically called out by the City Council for discussion under the second Review section may submit a speaker card for their items of interest to the recording clerk.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
A. | Discussion of Ordinance No. 2015-03. (Zoning Code Amendment to permit freight/trucking in RD zone) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comprehensive Planning and Code Administrator Roger Eastman provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following: MEETING PURPOSE RD ZONE AMENDMENTS |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
5. | Public Participation Public Participation enables the public to address the council about items that are not on the prepared agenda. Public Participation appears on the agenda twice, at the beginning and at the end of the work session. You may speak at one or the other, but not both. Anyone wishing to comment at the meeting is asked to fill out a speaker card and submit it to the recording clerk. When the item comes up on the agenda, your name will be called. You may address the Council up to three times throughout the meeting, including comments made during Public Participation. Please limit your remarks to three minutes per item to allow everyone to have an opportunity to speak. At the discretion of the Chair, ten or more persons present at the meeting and wishing to speak may appoint a representative who may have no more than fifteen minutes to speak. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adam Shimoni addressed Council stating disappointment about SB1241 and its efforts to strike everything regarding the ban of plastic bags. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
6. | Revisions to the Special Event Permit Packet and Ordinance | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Recreation Services Director Brian Grube provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following: SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT PACKET REVISIONS HISTORY DIRECTION NEEDED MINOR REVISIONS HISTORICAL PRECEDENT HERITAGE SQUARE: PRIMARY RETAIL SALES HERITAGE SQUARE: SECONDARY RETAIL SALES Councilmember Brewster asked if the primary retail sales are determined on a first come first serve basis. Mr. Grube indicated that first come first serve is the typical way however, if they have historical precedent they would be given a higher priority. HERITAGE SQUARE: ALCOHOL SALES HISTORIC DISTRICT: STREET CLOSURES Vice Mayor Barotz stated that she can see where it could be hard to define what substantially and unnecessarily is. Mr. Grube offered the example of a small fair that would like to close a street but only has a couple vendors and 100 people in attendance; that would be an example of where the discretion should apply. The suggestion is to make street closures a staff function with discussion and input by the Downtown District Manager. FUTURE REVISIONS TO THE SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT PACKET Councilmember Putzova asked how the street closure policies apply to downtown. Mr. Grube explained that currently any street closure would apply to the objective criteria; two way closures do not come to Council but one way street closures do regardless of location. Councilmember Putzova asked how it would be applied should the applicant not meet any of the criteria. Mr. Grube stated that it is not a cut and dry application and staff works with applicants to find alternative solutions. INPUT NEEDED FROM CITY COUNCIL Councilmember Oravits stated that he would like to further discuss Wheeler Park and the impacts to the lawn. Mayor Nabours asked if Wheeler Park is now able to be used. Mr. Grube stated that it is able to be used but there are some restrictions this season. The intent is to not necessarily deny Wheeler Park events but come up with other solutions that benefit all. The goal is to work through the restrictions and find a balance between passive and active use. Councilmember Overton asked if it would be up to the applicant to limit the retail sales or if the City would limit the number of retailers allowed. Mr. Grube explained that it is staff’s recommendation to come up with a number limit; they would like to find a suitable number and through trial and error come to a good solution. Councilmember Overton asked if the secondary retail has to be related to the primary use. Mr. Grube stated that they do not have to be but they typically are. Councilmember Overton suggested that making the retail vendors affiliated with the event could be a way to limit the number. He expressed concern about it being difficult to pick and chose who is in or out and it really should be up to the primary applicant to determine who to bring in for retail. Vice Mayor Barotz asked how the Council came to review this document as it seems to tread the line between administrative and policy. Mr. Grube explained that technically taking street closures and the event packet to Council is not supported by code but it seems to have become an accepted practice that was started some time ago. If it does not work with staff control it can always be brought back to Council. Councilmember Putzova asked if any commissions are involved with approving special events. Mr. Grube stated that the Parks and Recreation Commission is probably the closest but they do not weigh in on or approve events. They will be involved with input and suggestions of the changes in the permit packet. Councilmember Brewster stated that she is glad that staff has involved the personnel from the downtown district in this process. Terry Madeksza addressed Council on behalf of the Flagstaff Downtown Business Improvement and Revitalization District stating that they are in support of the special event process that is being proposed. She indicated that they were given an opportunity to review the document and provide input prior to this meeting. Mayor Nabours asked if the group is satisfied with how the policy is written now. Ms. Madeksza stated that they feel that the City is moving in the right direction and staff has been very supportive of input and comments from the District. Vice Mayor Barotz asked if the District has any specific thoughts about the recommendations and staff being able to make changes to the packet for Council to review annually. Ms. Madeksza stated that she feels comfortable with the dialogue so far and comfortable with the added language of having the District involved in the process. Debbi Grogan addressed Council with concerns about the wording in the packet. She stated that she and other event producers were not included in the process. She expressed concern about Wheeler Park and the lack of specific wording for new events. Councilmember Oravits asked about the challenges at Wheeler Park. Ms. Grogan stated that taking the City Council out of the process completely is concerning; while the staff is great now she is concerned about what happens when new people come in. Matt Ziegler addressed Council with concerns about not being included in the process. He expressed concern about all the authority going to the Public Works Director. He also has concerns with events being worked around the three day watering schedule and feels that bounce houses should be permitted for more than one day. Councilmember Oravits asked how long Hullabaloo has been held at Wheeler Park. Mr. Ziegler stated that the event has been held there for the past five years. They will only be doing a one day event this year due to the park conditions but they are looking forward to next year knowing they can do a two day event. Councilmember Evans asked who was contacted regarding the changes in the packet. Mr. Grube stated that staff began the process 18 months ago and they contacted some of the event producers. Staff has not met with event producers recently but the comments are reflective of what was gathered throughout the process. The historical precedent is a new concept. Councilmember Evans suggested that a focus group with event producers could be helpful in determining what items will be impactful for their events. She also expressed concern with all of the authority going to a single staff member and suggested a committee may be a better option than just one person. Councilmember Putzova added that she would like to see some of the City commissions involved. Mayor Nabours asked if she is suggesting that a commission have the ability to say yes or no to events. Councilmember Putzova responded that it may be worth trying it out for a season and then review the process to see how it went. Mayor Nabours asked staff to provide the Council with some pros and cons with the Parks and Recreation Commission taking on this role. Mr. Grube stated that a pro would be having additional sets of eyes looking at the events. Some of the cons would be keeping the Commission impartial on the events and since they only meet once a month it could slow the application process down. Vice Mayor Barotz also expressed concern about vesting the authority in a single person and she would welcome a discussion on how the City could set up a structure that involves feedback and decision making without involving the Council. Mr. Meilbeck stated that it seems that this much detail and approval seems onerous to Council but seems too much for one person; he suggested that staff can look for things in the middle that find the right balance. Councilmember Brewster suggested that a small committee that makes a recommendation on events to the City Manager may be a way to keep the process objective. Mr. Grube added that the appeal process for an event would go to the City Manager not the City Council. Councilmember Oravits requested additional information on Wheeler Park; what events are planned for the year and how the City can accommodate the historical events. Councilmember Putzova stated that it appears that there is great variability in the events that are seen in the community. Some of the insurance requirements seem too strict but in some cases they are not enough. She indicated that she would like to discuss the size and types of events and the type of liability the City may face. Risk Manager Dean Coughenour stated that every event will be reviewed differently and that there is a base line for insurance. There are some events that create a bigger hazard and there are various elements that could waive the requirements for insurance whereas increased risks could require additional insurance. It really depends on the event and the risks that they pose. All events must come to Risk Management for review and approval. Mayor Nabours asked if Risk Management determines how much insurance is required. Mr. Coughenour stated that he does make that determination and in most cases $1 million general liability insurance is all that is required; more insurance is typically required for fireworks and parades. Councilmember Putzova recommended that the language be clearer that higher insurance limits may apply. Councilmember Overton stated that increased insurance requirements could make it difficult for someone to secure a policy and he is concerned about getting to a point where such high insurance limits would limit events that come to Flagstaff. Mr. Coughenour explained that at times the City has reached out to the various brokers to work together to find a good solution for both parties; they try to be as accommodating as possible. Vice Mayor Barotz asked Mr. Grube to share with Council the concerns event producers have with the language after meeting with them. Mr. Grube agreed and stated that they will also work to clear up the insurance language. He went on to say that the process is a dynamic one and it is important to get as much input as possible. Staff will gladly reconvene with Council to provide all of the input gathered and bring forward additional changes and clarifications. A break was held from 7:14 p.m. through 7:26 p.m. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
7. | Parking Issues in the Vicinity of the Northern Arizona University Campus | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Community Design and Redevelopment Manager Karl Eberhard addressed Council stating that this item came out of the student housing effort. There will be more demand for parking around NAU as more housing comes in. A parking permit was brought before Council that was rejected. The major issue is students parking north and west of campus who then walk to campus or ride the bus. Students are also now parking in the lots on Phoenix, the City Hall lots, as well as Walmart and Target. Flagstaff writes about 5,000 tickets per year and about one third are written by enforcement officers in the Southside neighborhood; there is a need for more overtime and court time for the officers. The parking enforcement officers cost about $55,000 per year and they are able to monitor approximately 200 to 350 spaces. There are about 750 spaces that need to be enforced so two to three officers are needed to cover the entire area. Tickets do not generate enough revenue to cover the costs of enforcement and increasing the ticket amounts does little to the return. Staff has spoken with NAU who states they are committed to educating students and staff about options available for parking. Additionally, staff spoke with NAIPTA and they reported that they have implemented a student bus pass and they are looking at park and ride facilities and universal passes that would allow a student to ride from the east side of town to campus. There are seven options that have been generated to possibly address the parking issues:
Mayor Nabours asked if the officers needed for parking enforcement would be for continuous coverage or just various times of the day. Mr. Eberhard explained that it would be dependent on the number of officers assigned, the more officers there are the more cycles they can complete. Councilmember Oravits asked about the revenue generated from the parking enforcement. Mr. Eberhard stated that the revenue does come close to covering the parking permit program as permits do have the ability to pay for the enforcement. On the paid parking the consultant made a recommendation of $1 per hour and $60 per month for a permit. He explained that parking kiosks are a more modern metering technology and it can be a physical kiosk as well as software based depending on what the community desires. Councilmember Putzova asked what kinds of policies have been explored with NAU. Mr. Eberhard stated that while NAU is at the table they have their own directives that they are trying to accomplish with getting vehicles off campus and they have offered to help in some ways. Councilmember Putzova encouraged staff to push more in exploring policies that the institution can implement to reduce the number of cars in the neighborhood. Mayor Nabours asked for the travel and parking options for students. Mr. Eberhard stated that students can take the bus, drive a car and park lawfully on the street or purchase a $440 campus parking permit and park lawfully on campus. Mayor Nabours asked if the parking could be more randomly enforced so that people never know what days or times the areas would be enforced. Mr. Eberhard stated that while that discussion can occur it is often well worth the time and money for people to just take the ticket. Councilmember Evans stated that parking continues to be a major issue with the Southside neighborhood area, businesses along Milton, City Hall, and within the Plaza Vieja neighborhood. Flagstaff is the only city in Arizona where the residents in neighborhoods adjacent to universities do not have the protection of some kind of residential parking program. The issue is that NAU has a policy in place that they want to be a walking university; people drive and park and then walk or bike onto campus. The Phoenix parking lot was intended to be a lot that would help downtown businesses have a place for their employees to park and now students take the spaces up and park all day long. She added that some of the streets in Southside do not have sidewalks, curbs and gutters so having designated parking spots would be helpful because people are parking in what they think is a random strip of dirt but is actually how someone accesses their house. The police are unable to enforce the parking there because there are no sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Councilmember Oravits asked if the Phoenix parking lot is available all day. Mr. Eberhard stated that it is free all day parking. He stated that if the City were to move to a two hour enforcement strategy cost would be an issue because more staff would be needed. Councilmember Brewster added that the students are also taking up tourist spots. The reality of the issue is that when there is free parking available closer to campus there is no incentive for other alternatives. Councilmember Putzova stated that education is necessary every year, educating students on making the choice to bring fewer cars to town and utilize other transportation methods is key. Councilmember Overton stated that there are some things that can be done at the university level; the root problem is student overflow into the neighborhoods and it is time for the University to help solve the problem. Councilmember Evans stated that NAU has a parking problem and the City has a parking problem; while discussions can be had with NAU at some point the City needs to address the City parking issues. Mr. Meilbeck stated that NAU has managed their parking through incentives and decentives. Incentives are free bus service and decentives are high parking prices. The City’s challenge is to come up with a solution that will work and staff can continue to work on the pros and cons of each of the solutions offered earlier. The following individuals addressed Council in support of a parking program:
Mayor Nabours asked that staff look further into the solutions already given and look further at Tucson’s model as well as other areas with universities. Councilmember Oravits also requested cost estimates on what the solution will cost and where the funding will come from. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
8. | Consideration of Proposals: Remodel/Expansion of Municipal Court Building | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Court Administrator Don Jacobson provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following: FLAGSTAFF MUNICIPAL COURT HISTORY REDUCING THE COST PROPOSAL PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT PLAN PROPOSED OUTSIDE RENDERING PROPOSED CROSS SECTION RENDERING FIRST FLOOR FLOORPLAN CONCEPT Vice Mayor Barotz asked if there would be a separate accessible entrance due to the raised first floor. Mr. Jacobson stated that there would be ramp similar to what is currently at City Hall. Councilmember Putzova asked if Mr. Jacobson could speak to the type of building this would be from an energy perspective. Mr. Jacobson explained that the building would be a minimum of LEED silver certified. Councilmember Oravits asked if there is a holding cell planned for prisoners being transported to the courthouse. Mr. Jacobson stated that one is included in the design. Mr. Jacobson continued the presentation. SECOND FLOOR FLOORPLAN CONCEPT COSTS Councilmember Oravits asked for the previous cost estimate, the current square footage, and if the building addresses the future needs of the Court. Mr. Jacobson stated that the previous estimate was $23 million and the current square footage is 10,000 square feet. With regards to the future needs of the Court, Mr. Jacobson explained that if space were available today the court would operate four courtrooms; the new concept allows for six courtrooms. The exact number of years it would last is difficult to determine, his best guess is that it would take the court through 20 years before they start to feel the pinch again. Councilmember Oravits asked how the new design will impact parking. Mr. Jacobson stated that there is no change planned for the parking and the current parking would be maintained. Councilmember Oravits asked how many spaces are available now. Mr. Jacobson stated that there are 20 or 23 spaces at the south lot and staff parking to the north which would become separate and internal to the new structure. Councilmember Oravits asked if there is opportunity to have parking elsewhere. Mr. Jacobson explained that a parking garage has been proposed but there is no money in the proposal for a parking garage but should there be funding and opportunity a parking garage can be added. Councilmember Overton stated that he is willing to see the project go through the site planning and zoning process but he is concerned with adding that much more building with no additional parking. He suggested looking for a joint venture with some of the neighboring properties that are in redevelopment mode for a parking solution. Vice Mayor Barotz also expressed concern about adequate parking and asked if the current parking lot is monitored. Mr. Jacobson stated that the parking lot is posted for two hour parking and it is patrolled. Mayor Nabours stated that the Cherry Building was considered as an option as well and he asked if that building would be more suitable for a remodel with better parking. Mr. Jacobson stated that they did look at the Cherry Building. It is smaller than the current court building and it would have to take a larger expansion to get to the same level of proposal and it would chew through the parking lot that is there and while the parking is better now it probably would not be once it was complete. Councilmember Oravits asked if it is possible to use the spaces underneath to increase parking and then offer offsite parking at the Cherry Building lot. Mr. Jacobson stated that they will be looking at that and other possibilities with the study. They are very aware of the parking limitations and know that they will not get through site plan approval without adequate parking. Mr. Jacobson continued the presentation. FUNDING CURRENTLY AVAILABLE CURRENT FUNDING GAP CLOSING THE GAP OPTIONS Councilmember Oravits asked if it would be possible to phase the project out over time. Mr. Jacobson stated that it is possible but would require some changes to the design. Councilmember Oravits asked for phasing the project to be included as an option when brought back to Council. Mr. Jacobson continued the presentation. DOES THE COUNCIL SUPPORT THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OPTIONS Councilmember Overton stated that he would like to see staff get through the site plan review process before moving forward with the request for proposals and design work. Mayor Nabours asked if there is any benefit to selling the current courthouse and set aside the proceeds for a joint venture with the County. Mr. Jacobson explained that selling the property could generate some funding but any new property costs more. By recycling the existing property the project is much more cost effective. While having a new building from the ground up is preferred it has become an issue of doing it at a lower cost or not doing it at all. There was consensus from the Council for staff to move forward with the site plan review process and report back. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
9. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
10. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
11. |
Review of Draft Agenda Items for the 04/07/2015 City Council Meeting.*
* Public comment on draft agenda items will be taken at this time, at the discretion of the Mayor.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
None | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
12. | Public Participation | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
None | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
13. | Informational Items To/From Mayor, Council, and City Manager. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Councilmember Brewster reported that NAU won the game. Councilmember Putzova stated that she is worried about the bills that are going though the House and Senate lately and what the Governor has been signing; she expressed concern about the state of the State. Councilmember Evans requested a possible future agenda item concerning Senate Bill 1241 which is the State blocking the ban of plastic bags. She stated that she would like to have a discussion about what the City Council can do as the bill seems to be overreaching. She also requested a possible future agenda item on air bed and breakfasts. It is her understanding the people do not have to pay BBB taxes on these and she would like to explore if the City is able to regulate that and how. Councilmember Overton wished everyone a happy Easter. Vice Mayor Barotz requested a CCR on the City’s plans for a major train derailment in downtown. She would like to understand if a plan is required from the State or the Railroad as well. Councilmember Oravits thanked Assistant to the City Manager for Communication Kim Ott and the Streets Section for the weekly updates on what work is currently being done and what is coming up. Councilmember Oravits requested CCRs on the following:
Mr. Meilbeck reminded Council about the Pave the Way event Wednesday, April 1, 2015 at 11:00 a.m. Mayor Nabours reported that he spent the day in Phoenix to participate in an emergency response seminar. Flagstaff was used as the example; the seminar focused on fire and flooding and the potential catastrophic results in and around Flagstaff and how State agencies would come to be involved with the events. Deputy City Manager Josh Copley and Fire Chief Gaillard were also in attendance. It did not answer every question but it developed a lot of connections that was helpful in finding out what other agencies do in regards to emergency response. He also reported that he was invited to the House of Representatives for a Resolution in memoriam of Tyler Stewart. He was on the floor of the House with the Stewart family and representatives from the Flagstaff Police Department. The Stewart family received a standing ovation; it was a very moving and thoughtful reception. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
14. | Adjournment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Flagstaff City Council Work Session of March 31, 2015, adjourned at 9:08 p.m. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|