Public Hearing, Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2017-04: A resolution of the Flagstaff City Council amending the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 by amending Chapter 3 to change criteria under Major Plan Amendment Category 5 (Urban/Suburban/Rural) and establishing an effective date

The City Council gave direction to staff to work on a plan amendment to Chapter 3 in the Flagstaff Regional Plan in December 2015.  The Planning staff submitted an application for proposed amendments in March 2016. On December 6, 2016, after numerous meetings, the City Council adopted changes to the Flagstaff Regional Plan - Chapter 3: How this Plan Works under Resolution 2016-31.  As part of the motion to approve the Resolution, the Council held changes to the major plan amendment criteria related to Urban, Suburban, and Rural area types (Page III-14) pending further discussion and examples to January 17, 2017.

The difference between a major and minor plan amendment is primarily one of process and not content. All plan amendments are discretionary decisions and must have City Council approval and a robust public process.  The main differences are that major amendments have one additional public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission, must all be heard by the City Council in the same meeting, and require a two-thirds majority vote of the City Council. The current criteria for major plan amendments related to this area type are based on acre thresholds but the Future Growth Illustration (Maps 21 and 22) is an illustration and not parcel specific. The proposed criteria would remove the acre thresholds and would focus major plan amendments on projects that diminish the scale of development in an activity center, or increase the scale of development in neighborhoods and along commercial corridors, away from activity centers.

There will be no financial impact for the City based on this decision. Property owners may have to anticipate different costs and timelines for rezoning and annexation requests based on this change in criteria.

In the 2001 Regional Land Use and Transportation Plan, the land use map was parcel-specific and major plan amendments were only required for land use changes that exceeded 20, 40 or 80 acres depending on the proposal. In the current Regional Plan, the equivalent map is generalized (not parcel specific) and requires a major plan amendment for changes between Urban and Suburban area types greater than 10 acres, and Rural to Suburban area types greater than 20 acres. This is counterintuitive and has been a subject of much discussion since the plan was adopted.

Changes between Urban and Suburban area type amendments
Changes between Urban and Suburban area types are the most likely criteria to be proposed by private development. Urban area types are denser, especially in neighborhoods, and have a higher standard for connectivity and civic space. The Core Services Yard, for example, required a plan amendment from Urban to Suburban for rezoning. Even though the entire parcel was rezoned, the area impacted by development was more limited.  The City was, therefore, able to avoid a major plan amendment by limiting the amendment to 9.7 acres of the overall parcel. This example could easily be replicated in many locations throughout the City.

Staff believes that this creates a work-around that does not capture the true intent of the Future Growth Illustration and may allow it to be undermined incrementally. Staff proposes that the intent of these criteria can be maintained without a specific acre threshold. This would be achieved by requiring a major amendment for projects that reduce the range of intensity, density, and mix of uses for an activity center, except where it is done to protect cultural or natural resources, and outside of activity centers, where the change is from suburban to urban. This change would have the effect of concentrating growth in activity centers and preventing haphazard urban development.

Rural to Suburban area type amendments 
In the current Regional Plan, there is a major plan amendment category for “Rural to Suburban greater than 20 acres.” From August 16 to December 6, 2016, this criteria was a major point of discussion. Council considered two options for replacing this criteria, and ultimately, Council recommended major plan amendments for changes from Rural to Suburban area types outside of activity centers. It is important to note that of the area currently zoned either Estate Residential or Rural Residential (approximately 20% of land within the Urban Growth Boundary), most of this area is already designated as a future Suburban or Urban area types per the Future Growth Illustration. The remaining Rural area type only exists on 4.4% of the area within the Urban Growth Boundary (See Map in Attachment D for details).  The change proposed to major plan amendment criteria would increase the number of parcels potentially requiring a major plan amendment from 15 parcels to approximately 200 parcels. However, given the limited supply of rural landscapes in the future growth scenario, this would not have a City-wide impact.

Changes made through a Specific Plan
The Urban Growth Boundary, Urban/Suburban/Rural, Activity Centers and Goals and Policies categories are all proposed to have footnotes that allow for amendments proposed as part of a specific plan to be processed as a minor plan amendment. The rationale for allowing this exception is that specific plans, typically take a year or more to develop and they must follow all the same procedural steps as a major plan amendment per Title 11. So the only difference between a major amendment and a minor amendment with a specific plan is the annual timeline that major amendments must adhere to. Adding flexibility to this requirement ensures the same level of public notification and involvement but allows more time to negotiate complicated, multi-property-owner issues or development master plans for large areas.

Impact to pending or future projects
There are potential future projects that could be impacted by this amendment at the corner of Route 66 and Woody Mountain Road. There has been intense interest in development of the parcels around this intersection in the last few years.  The Regional Plan identifies the area as a future urban activity center, and thus, encourages high density mixed use development.  However, the needs of the Naval Observatory have been evaluated in more detail since the Regional Plan was adopted. As a result, there is a need to consider alternative scales and density of development in order to protect dark skies. 

To provide an example, the 37 acres on the southwest corner of the intersection is owned by Vintage Partners, which would like to expand their Timber Sky development pattern onto this parcel. The current language would not allow staff to support lower density for the protection of dark skies unless the area was limited to less than 10 acres of the parcel. The proposed language would allow a minor amendment to be used so long as the dark skies constraints are accommodated by the changes proposed to the Regional Plan.  

COUNCIL GOALS:
7) Continue to implement the Flagstaff Regional Plan and focus efforts on specific plans
8) Improve effectiveness of notification, communication, and engagement with residents, neighborhoods and businesses and about City services, programs, policies, projects and developments

REGIONAL PLAN:
C.4. Integrate available science into policies governing the use and conservation of Flagstaff ’s natural resources.
Policy CC.1.3. Design development patterns to maintain the open character of rural areas, protect open lands, and protect and maintain sensitive environmental areas like mountains, canyons, and forested settings.
Policy LU.1.1. Plan for and support reinvestment within the existing city centers and neighborhoods for increased employment and quality of life.
Policy LU.1.6. Establish greater flexibility in development standards and processes to assist developers in overcoming challenges posed by redevelopment and infill sites.
Policy NH.6.1. Promote quality redevelopment and infill projects that are contextual with surrounding neighborhoods. When planning for redevelopment, the needs of existing residents should be addressed as early as possible in the development process.
Goal ED.1. Create a healthy environment for business by ensuring transparent, expeditious, and predictable government processes.
Policy ED.1.2. Steadily improve access to easily understandable public information.

The City Council has been reviewing and analyzing this proposed amendment, since August 30, 2016. This is the seventh public hearing date at which the amendment will be discussed. Throughout this discussion many examples were considered and options narrowed.  All proposed changes, except for the Category 5 proposed language was adopted on December 6, 2016 and became effective on January 5, 2017.

 

Option 1 - Retain the current Regional Plan language for category 5:

• Urban to suburban greater than 10 acres
• Suburban to urban greater than 10 acres
• Rural to suburban greater than 20 acres

Option 2: Retain the current Regional Plan language for category 5 and apply footnotes 1 and 2 to this category:

1 This category excludes changes that are the result of a Specific Plan. Such changes will be processed as minor amendments.

2 See tables of Area/Place Type Characteristics found in Chapter IX: Growth and Land Use, and relevant Specific Plans for the range of density, intensity, and mix of uses

Option 3: Adopt the proposed language, and apply footnotes:

• In activity centers, changes to area types that reduce the intensity, density, and mix of uses, except where done to protect natural or cultural resources.
• In neighborhoods and along commercial corridors more than ¼ mile from an activity center, changes from rural to suburban, or suburban to urban area types.

Staff Recommendation: Option 3

The Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 is the City's adopted general plan. It can be found online at http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/index.aspx?NID=2945. The purpose of a general plan is to provide a roadmap to future development.  General plans include elements that cover a broad range of topics from the natural environment to infrastructure to social issues, with the intent to help guide future development in a long-term and comprehensive manner. The Regional Plan integrated growth projections, transportation, infrastructure, and natural resources into the land use chapter by engaging the public in a series of charrettes that allowed the public to evaluate trade-offs inherent in the future development choices that the Plan is meant to help inform. The Future Growth Illustration (Maps 21 and 22) is the result of this effort and extensive computer modeling to ensure the sustainability of the Plan.

Another important point about the Regional Plan is that it is a vision and policy document that does not impact current development rights provided by the Zoning Code, unless the property owner requests a rezoning or annexation. These applications are evaluated for their conformance with the Regional Plan's goals and policies. A plan amendment is only required when the proposal falls outside the parameters of the area type (Urban, Suburban, Rural, Employment, Special District) and the place type (Activity Center, Neighborhood, Corridor). When staff identifies this issue for an applicant, they can either choose to modify their project so that it conforms to the Plan or they can seek to amend the plan. Most rezoning and annexation cases will not require a plan amendment but will have an analysis of conformance to evaluate the proposal against the goals and policies of the Plan.

The change proposed to the major plan amendment criteria is tied directly to the Future Growth Illustration and how it is used in rezoning and annexation decisions. Staff is proposing to change the criteria from an acre threshold to an evaluation of how the project compares to the plan direction for the surrounding area. At the January 17th hearing, staff will walk the Council through multiple examples of how this shift in the framework could affect the evaluation of future rezoning cases throughout the City.

The key considerations to making this decision are:

• Will the proposed language be clearer to apply to future rezoning and annexation cases than the current language?
• Does the proposed language better uphold the future development guidance provided in the Regional Plan?

Consult - The Comprehensive Planning Manager met with individuals and groups that were involved in the development of the Regional Plan and asked about their thoughts on major plan amendments before developing a detailed proposal for the public to review. This early feedback influenced several criteria in the table, including making goals and policies a major plan amendment category.

Involve - Staff provided a traditional public review period and posted the sections that changed the most on the Flagstaff Community Forum for the public to comment on and share ideas about how the changes could be different or clearer.