*Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2013-21 and Resolution No. 2013-22 (Zoning Map Amendment):  An Ordinance Adopting That Certain Document Entitled “2013 Amendments to Chapter 10-20, Administration, Procedures and Enforcement,” By Reference; and Thereby Amending Division 10-20.50, Amendments to the Zoning Code Text and the Zoning Map, and Division 10-80.20, Definition of Specialized Terms, Phrases and Building Functions; and a Resolution of the Council of the City of Flagstaff, Arizona, Declaring as a Public Record That Certain Document Filed with the City Clerk and Entitled “2013 Amendments To Chapter 10-20, Administration, Procedures And Enforcement.”

1) Adopt Resolution No. 2013-22 (declaring the “2013 Amendments to Chapter 10-20, Administration, Procedures and Enforcement” as a public record)
2) Read Ordinance No. 2013-21 for the final time by title only
3) City Clerk reads Ordinance No. 2013-21 by title only (if approved above)
4) Adopt Ordinance No. 2013-21

The Council together with community stakeholders held a number of special work sessions from April through July 2013 to discuss the need for, and provide direction on, possible amendments to the zone change process. These amendments are now presented to the Council for review and adoption.

There is no direct financial impact to the City of Flagstaff by adopting this ordinance. However, many supporters of the proposed amendments have suggested that if they are adopted, more development supported by the Regional Plan may result.

1.   Zoning Code check in and analysis of the process and implementation
2.   Effective governance

Yes, in early 2013 the Council agreed to a work session with invited community stakeholders participating in the discussion. Ultimately, three special work sessions were held on April 8^th, May 20^th, and July 15, 2013, and specific direction to staff on an appropriate path forward was provided. A Public Hearing was held before the City Council on October 15, 2013; the resolution was read by title only, and the ordinance was read for the first time.

Under separate motion, staff was directed to add Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation #2 to the Submittal Requirements: "a maximum building envelope shall be defined for all proposed uses."

Please refer to the Expanded Options and Alternatives below.

On April 8, 2013, the Council held a special work session with selected members of the public to initiate a discussion on the City’s current zone change process as defined in the Flagstaff Zoning Code, Division 10-20.50 (Amendments to the Zoning Code Text and the Zoning Map). The stakeholders participating in the discussion with the Council included;

• Richard Bowen – ECONA ;
• David Carpenter – as chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission;
• Maury Herman – Flagstaff 40;
• Kent Hotsenpiller – local surveyor/engineer;
• Julie Pastrick – Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce;
• Keri Silvyn – representing Mr. Michael Manson, local property owner/developer;
• Don Walters – NABA and NAAR;
• Marilyn Weismann – Friends of Flagstaff’s Future; and
• Nat White – interested citizen and former City councilor.

This public meeting enabled the participants to work with staff to identify issues, acknowledge many perspectives on this topic, and establish a starting point for future discussion. It concluded with the agreement that staff would bring back suggestions for a possible path forward at the next meeting.
 
On May 20, 2013, the Council held a second special work session following the same format as the April 8^th meeting. Staff presented ideas on how to a find a solution to the issues identified by the group, including for example:

• An introduction to the principle of a concept zoning plan;
• Clarification and redefinition of submittal requirements for zone change applications;
• A review of process diagrams for the small, medium, and large scale zoning applications;
• Introduction of a fourth category, previously named “master plans,” and now called “multi-phase” projects;
• An explanation of conditional zoning;
• An explanation of a new process idea that gives a developer a choice for the process to be followed for a zone change application based on the nature of the request; and
• A brief discussion of a new idea (called “correctional zoning”).

Staff also presented six options for a path forward. After some discussion a majority of the Council agreed on an appropriate path forward as described in the following paragraph.
 
The July 15, 2013, special work session concluded with the Council agreeing that the appropriate path forward would include the need to: 

• Establish minimum submittal requirements to decouple details associated with site plan review from a concept zoning plan;
• Maintain the small, medium, and large scales and add a new “multi-phase” scale;
• Add a new process to give a developer choice;
• Expand the number of conditions applied to a zone change application; and
• Enable an additional public meeting hosted by the developer after final Council action and before site plan review.

When the City of Flagstaff Zoning Code was adopted in November 2011, a revised procedure was supported by the Council at that time for the City’s zone change process. As noted previously, in early 2013 the Council agreed that a work session(s) on the City’s zone change process were appropriate to review, discuss, and consider possible amendments to this Division of the Zoning Code. These special work sessions provided a forum for Flagstaff residents to provide their perspectives and opinions on this issue. The narrative in the “Community Benefits and Considerations” section below summarizes the pros and cons made by the participants in these work sessions, as well as comments made during the Planning and Zoning Commission’s August 21^st work session and September 11, 2013 public hearing.
 
The proposed amendments to the Zoning Code reflecting the City Council’s direction on the City’s zone change process are attached to Resolution No. 2013-22. New text is identified in underline, and text proposed to be deleted is shown as strikeout. A summary of the more significant amendments that warrant an explanation is provided in the narrative below:

Chapter 10-20            Administration, Procedures, and Enforcement
Division 10-20.50      (Amendments to the Zoning Code Text and the Zoning Map)
 
10-20.50.020   Applicability

Minor revisions are proposed to this paragraph to simplify and clarify the text.

10-20.50.030   Initiation of Amendments

1. Owner Initiation
   Minor revisions are proposed to this paragraph to simplify and clarify the text.

10-20.50.040   Procedures

1. Pre-application Review
   Minor revisions are proposed to this paragraph to simplify and clarify the text.
    
2. Citizen Review

3. Application Requirements
   Paragraph 2:
   a.Small-scale Zoning Map Amendments: Minor revisions are proposed to this paragraph to clarify its intent and to introduce a concept zoning plan, if required.
    
   b.Medium-scale Zoning Map Amendments: Amendments in this paragraph clarify the thresholds for medium-scale amendments and introduce the concept zoning plan in lieu of a concept site plan.
    
   c.Large-scale Zoning Map Amendments: Amendments in this paragraph introduce the concept zoning plan as a submittal requirement, and text that is no longer necessary is proposed for deletion.
    
   d.Multi-phase Scale Zoning Map Amendments: This is a new paragraph inserted to provide a new scale of Zoning Map amendments for large and often complex projects that for example, may include multiple zoning designations, multiple ownership, multiple subdivisions, and complex utility or street infrastructure issues.
    
4. Application Procedures – A Two-Pronged Approach: This is a new paragraph that provides an applicant with two options when considering a zone change. 

None.

The amendments proposed to the City’s zone change process attached to Resolution No. 2013-22 are based on direction from the Council at their last work session supported by a majority of the stakeholders who participated in the discussion with the Council. In the narrative below a brief assessment of the City’s current zone change procedure compared to the proposed amendments to this section of the Zoning Code is provided using the arguments “for” or “against” made by the participants at the April 8^th, May 20^th and July 15^th special work sessions, as well as comments made during the Planning and Zoning Commission’s August 21^st work session and September 11, 2013 public hearing.
 
Existing Zoning Code – Division 10-20.50
In general the group noted that “timing” and “uncertainty” are the two underlying issues; citizens are concerned with what will happen with the rezoning of property near them and how they may be impacted, whereas developers are concerned with the requirement for more concrete requirements at the beginning of the process, which while providing more certainty, in return provides them with less flexibility (adapted from the minutes of the April 8, 2013 work session).

• The existing zone change process is relatively untested since its adoption in November 2011 and, therefore, should be left intact.
• Requiring details up-front with the zone change application provides certainty to appointed and elected officials and Flagstaff residents.
• It is important to communicate as much detail about a project with Flagstaff residents as possible. 
   
• The existing zone change process discourages new development and capital investment in the City because of the uncertainty of the process.
• The existing process discourages zone change applications because full knowledge of the intended use is needed to determine the zoning, and it is too costly to develop detailed site plans, floor plans, elevations, etc. when the final user may not be known.
• Flagstaff has a low inventory of land suitable for development, and the current process tends to drive development to other communities.

Proposed Amendments to Division 10-20.50

• The proposed amendments will result in “speculative rezoning” within the City.
• Flagstaff residents and property owners will not be provided with sufficient information for them to be fully informed about the proposed rezoning application, including for example, the final use of the property. Removing details from the zone change application is the antithesis to public input and will hinder the Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision-making ability.
• Amendments to this division are unnecessary as the current process has not been tested sufficiently and it appears to be working.
• Speculative rezoning will be enabled by the proposed new process which will be beneficial to developers at the expense of Flagstaff residents as, for example, public participation will be reduced.
• The momentum for the proposed changes to the zone change process is coming from a small percentage of Flagstaff residents. This issue is not important to the general public.
• Concern for the amount of detail still required for impact analyses at the rezoning stage of a project given that the zone change application is based on a concept zoning plan.
• There should be more consideration given to a bulk and massing analysis as a requirement of a concept zoning plan. 
• The revised zone change process decouples the details associated with site plan approval from the minimum information necessary to entitle a property through the zone change application, yet it still provides City staff, appointed and elected officials and Flagstaff residents with sufficient information to make an informed decision.
• The existing three scales of development (small, medium, and large) have been retained and a new scale for multi-phase developments has been added.
• The proposed amendments establish a new process (Direct Ordinance with Site Plan) that enables a developer to pursue a potentially faster approval of both site plan and rezoning applications.
• Support for the idea of enhanced conditions associated with a zone change request, especially to allow for an additional informational public meeting between a developer and surrounding neighbors.
• Support for the amendment that clarifies that the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council may ask for additional information to assist them in their review of a rezoning application.

INFORM, CONSULT, & INVOLVE - In a work session at the beginning of the year, the Council discussed how to move forward with proposed amendments to the Zoning Code and a discussion of “policy” versus “technical” amendments ensued.  The Council also supported the idea of a special work session to discuss the merits of amending the City’s zone change process with community stakeholders selected by the Council as participants in the discussion. Eventually three special work sessions were scheduled (April 8, May 20, and July 15, 2013) with active participation by the Council and invited community stakeholders. Other members of the public participated in these work sessions and provided comment to the Council when invited to do so.
 
Staff has also discussed the proposed amendments with, and provided frequent updates to, such organizations as Northern Arizona Builders Association, Northern Arizona Association of Realtors, Friends of Flagstaff’s Future, etc.
 
An 1/8 page display advertisement was printed in the August 16, 2013 Arizona Daily Sun in advance of the August 21^st Planning and Zoning Commission work session, and a similar legal notice advertisement was printed in the August 23, 2013 Arizona Daily Sun at least 15 days in advance of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s September 11, 2013 public hearing and the Council’s October 15, 2013 public hearing as required by the Zoning Code.
 
At the August 21^st Planning and Zoning Commission work session four citizens addressed the Commission, all of whom were not supportive of  the proposed amendments to Division 10-20.50 of the Flagstaff Zoning Code. The commissioners also commented on the proposed amendments and provided their own perspectives.
 
At the Planning and Zoning Commission’s September 11, 2013 public hearing six members of the public spoke, three of whom encouraged the Commission to recommend approval of the amendments, and three who opposed the amendments. A copy of the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes for the September 11, 2013 meeting is attached with a summary of the public comments. After extensive discussion, the Commission moved to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to Division 10-20.50 (Amendments to the Zoning Code Text and the Zoning Map) and Division 10-80.20 (Definitions of Specialized Terms, Phrases, and Building Functions) with the inclusion of the following additional submittal requirements that would be applicable to all zone change applications, i.e. small, medium, large, and multi-phase scale projects:

(1) a three-dimensional bulk and mass analysis/visualization of the project;
(2) a maximum building envelope shall be defined for all proposed uses; and,
(3) a minimum boundary of protected natural resources shall be defined based on preliminary resource calculations.

At the October 15, 2013 City Council meeting, by a unanimous vote the Council agreed with the Planning and Zoning Commission's second recommendation (define a maximum building envelope for all proposed uses should be added to the required Submittal Requirements for a concept zoning plan submitted in support of a zone change application. Staff will ensure that this requirement will be added to Section 3.0 (Concept Zoning Plan) of the submittal requirements for a zone change application.

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2013-22 declaring that the document entitled “Amendments to Chapter 10-20, Administration, Procedures and Enforcement” be a public record
2. Do not adopt Resolution No. 2013-22 and, therefore, do not declare the proposed amendments to be a public record
3. Adopt Ordinance No. 2013-21 to amend Flagstaff Zoning Code Division 10-20.50 (Amendments to the Zoning Code Text and the Zoning Map) and Division 10-80.20 (Definitions of Specialized Terms, Phrases, and Building Functions)
4. Modify and adopt Ordinance No. 2013-21 to amend Division 10-20.50 (Amendments to the Zoning Code Text and the Zoning Map) and Division 10-80.20 (Definitions of Specialized Terms, Phrases, and Building Functions)
5. Do not adopt Ordinance No. 2013-21 and, therefore, make no changes to the existing text in the Zoning Code regarding the zone change process.