Councilmember Overton noted that he was present at the October 28, 2014, meeting and asked that the minutes be amended to reflect that.

Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz to approve the minutes of the City Council Special Meeting (Executive Session) of October 28, 2014, as amended.

Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously

Mayor Nabours opened the Public Hearing. There being no public input, Mayor Nabours closed the Public Hearing.

Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz to forward the application to the State with a recommendation for approval.

Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously

City Clerk Elizabeth Burke briefly reviewed the ordinance, noting that it reflected the changes requested by the Council at previous meetings.

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to read Ordinance No. 2014-28 by title only for the first time.

Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously

 City Manager Kevin Burke presented the annual City Manager’s Awards as follows:
 
                        Fremont Award
                                    Teamwork: Captain Steve Winicki, Fire Department
                                    Accountability: Pat Bourque, Public Works
                                    Communication: Angel Baca
                                    Quality: Police Officer Joseph Candeleria
                                    Leadership: Rick Barrett, Engineering
 
                        Agassiz Award
                                    Teamwork: Tim Harrington, Utilities IT
                                    Accountability: Rick Tadder, Finance
                                    Communication: (Group) CVB
                                    Quality: Jen Brown, Police
                                    Leadership, Jerry Bills, Fire Department
 
                        Humphrey Award
                                    Marcia Neal

Mr. Burke thanked everyone for coming and noted there would be a reception in the lobby, with the rest of the meeting continuing at 6:00 p.m.

Terry O’Neill, Flagstaff, said that he was present at the 4:00 p.m. portion of the meeting and was glad to see Ms. Neal receive the Humpheys Award as she was very deserving.
 
John Viktora, Flagstaff, said that the County, City and School District were all asking for more money from citizens and the Council should support an increase in the minimum wage. He said that a majority of cities with increased minimum wages have seen increases in employment.

Mayor Nabours said that this was a continuation of the Public Hearing from October 21, 2014. He said that they would have updates from staff and the applicant, and then public comment.
 
Tiffany Antol, Planning Manager, reviewed the few updates received since the last hearing:

1. Revised Development Agreement provided by applicant that addresses some of the concerns of last week. The language now reads the management agent shall live on site, and there shall be onsite staff members available on a 24/7 basis.
2. They have agreed to increased site security, increasing it from 6:00 p.m. on Thursdays with security guards to maintain order.

Ms. Antol said that staff heard some of the concerns as well with the project so they drafted some potential conditions of approval which were forwarded to the developers to help in any deliberations.
 
Councilmember Barotz asked if the Development Agreement addressed how they would deal with problems. Ms. D’Andrea said that the City could sue to enforce the DA. One of the remedies would be to seek the change of zoning back if the conditions were not met.
 
Councilmember Brewster left the meeting at this time telephonically (6:10 p.m.)

Jeff Meilbeck, CEO and General Manager of NAIPTA, addressed the Council stating that the Board is willing to work with the developer to provide service from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. when school was in session, every 15 minutes, through a contract rate of $137,802 annually for ten years. Mayor Nabours asked if that would be done through so many bus passes, etc. Mr. Meilbeck said that was one of the terms for them to work out. Based on their verbal discussions, every resident would receive an annual pass for this sum of money so they have access to not only Route 10A, but all of the buses in the linel.
 
Mayor Nabours asked if the applicant was comfortable with the general terms. Ms. Kjellgren said that they have been discussing these terms for 1.5 months with NAIPTA and staff, and the Board agreed to them generally, understanding that they need to work out the details.
 
Councilmember Barotz said that her impression was that the Board still has to sign off on the contract, and until the Board sees the final document, there is no final determination. Ms. Kjellgren said that her understanding was that the attorneys for NAIPTA would draft an agreement, the applicant would review it and then it would go to the Board and Aspen Heights for deliberations and a decision.
 
Mr. Meilbeck said that the next Board meeting was scheduled for November 20, 2014. Councilmember Overton asked if there was a revised version of the agreement with NAIPTA. Ms. Kjellgren said that the provisions they originally had in the Development Agreement were aspirational, stating that the developer would negotiate in good faith.
 
Ms. Kjellgren said that she believed they had zoning conditions before them that would require the developer to have an agreement with NAIPTA in place or provide a private shuttle service. Ms. D’Andrea said that until the property is completely constructed the City would have the ability to enforce zoning conditions and the Development Agreement through withholding permits.
 
Ms. Kjellgren then briefly reviewed the project noting that the main two issues previously brought forward were: 1) transportation; and 2) management of student housing. She said that because they are providing service to the entire City, they are hoping that students would leave their vehicles at home.
 
Ms. Kjellgren then reviewed the management issues and lighting concerns, incorporating information previously provided by Dr. Payne at a recent dark skies conference.  She said that if the property were not rezoned they could have an output of 10,000 lumens per acre, and they are proposing slightly less than that. She said that they also heard about concerns with the spectrum of light used, and amber LED’s is what is now being proposed.
 
Wayne Compton, lighting consultant for the developer, addressed the Council noting that prior to retiring he was in the outdoor lighting industry for 43 years and his company was one of the first to have fully shielded lumens. He then reviewed their proposed lighting plan and various mitigating options.
 
Mr. Vatterott said that this development is bringing already existing concerns to light with management policies, transportation and lighting. They feel the solutions will be through best practices, to be a model for future development in Flagstaff.
 
Councilmember Barotz said that she has seen a lot of e-mails come to the Council with big concerns about Aspen Heights developments in other communities, and she has googled some of those problems.
 
Mr. Vatterott said that they have created 13,000 beds over the last eight years and there are going to be times that they learn from their mistakes. Based on those past problems they have made adjustments. An example is that in Harrisburg, VA in Fall of 2013 they had an event that demonstrated they had the wrong person in the management position.
 
Thomas Giallanza, Deputy Receiver for Landmark (who was in receivership) said that they have been in the process of liquidating their 386 assets; they are now down to 14, one of which is this property. They have worked hard and this City has made a commitment to NAU. He said that they are looking for approval of a concept plan by annexing a small amount of land. They have been working diligently to meet the needs of the community.
 
The following individuals spoke re concerns with the development:

• Adam Shimoni
• Marilyn Weismann, representing Friends of Flagstaff’s Future
• Moran Henn
• John Fisher
• Dorothy Rissel
• Bart Bartel
• Bob Mason

The following comments were made:

• Looking at the development through the eyes of a cyclist, it is scary, and he had concerns about adding a bunch of students
• Hopes to see Council vote against the development
• Has researched Aspen Heights in other communities; concerned with allowing it here
• Valued according to the Regional Plan, it is not an appropriate development
• It discourages multi modes of transportation
• Concern with impact on Route 66, Milton, and parking on the southside
• Being off campus leads to more police calls; concerned with assaults
• There may be a need but the permanent residents should have more say
• Nowhere to walk
• Impaired driving concerns
• Inadequate bike paths
• Weekend bus service?
• Would like to see improvements on Route 66
• Still a plan 20,000 sq. ft. of retail; nightlight; Westside is incompatible with that
• Works at Gore; has ridden bike on West Route 66 to Woody Mountain; fairly dangerous route
• Dormitory housing is not as stable as apartments
• Was looking at policy of Columbia, MO development which did not permit more than four guests per bedroom
• Concerns with evening activity
• Potential for a lot of guest vehicles
• Road going up to Woody Mountain Road – when there is snow/ice vehicles are all over the place

A break was taken from 7:30 p.m. to 7:46 p.m. at which time public comment continued from the following:
 

• James Baker

 Comments included:

• That stretch of Route 66 is known as Blood Alley; concern with lighting, traffic, etc.
• Project is wrong for Flagstaff; shame on anyone that supports it

Captain William Doster of the US Department of Navy, addressed the Council noting that his father was a long-time member of the Buckeye Council. He said that he did not believe that it was well known exactly what goes on at the Observatory. He said that there are a few very sensitive missions that are not done anywhere else in the country. He said that the Department of Navy is in opposition to the development; they cannot and will not accept any negative lighting while it is yet to be defined. He said that that lighting plan on the website wasn’t sufficient to analyze. He said that the 305,000 lumens would have a significant impact. He said that he would propose that they leverage the Department of Navy’s Master Plan, and would be happy to partner with the City to address this difficult and complex issue.
 
Paul Shanklan, read into the record a letter from US Navy Captain B.D. Connon, Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
 
Mayor Nabours said that the property has certain zoning right now and under that zoning there can be so many lumens. The applicant has said if they got the other zoning, they would still honor the lumens limited under the existing zoning. He asked what their position would be if their proposals did not increase the lumens and provided screening.
 
Mr. Shankland said that he understood that concern. The challenge is that his mission is separate and impacted differently than what the City Code and Regional Plan provide. He said at this point, with the kind of operations, this makes the operations unacceptable and he is not in a position to speak differently that the Department of Defense.
 
Councilmember Overton said that he understood the significant encroachment concern; they have expressed that viewpoint strongly. He asked how they are supposed to address a national security concern at the podium with the City’s enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance, and wondered if they needed legal advice. Ms. D’Andrea said that she would be happy to address the issue further if they moved into executive session.
 
Capt. Doster said that when a formal proposal was submitted, they could provide comments but it was not something they could do at this time. Councilmember Overton said that it was hard for him to consider all of this when the City is drafting their zoning codes and they have not been involved in those discussions.
 
Councilmember Barotz said that the Observatory has been prohibited in engaging in any negotiations and it was transferred up; the Navy is following its protocol.
 
Mayor Nabours asked if the County had a Lighting Code and if it was similar to the City’s. Ms. Antol said that the County’s Code is almost the same as the City’s however, they are in the process of amending their codes and believed they were looking to expand Zone 1.
 
Public comments continued from:

• James Fredenberg
• Mary McClellan
• Jamie Hasapis
• Dale Hoskins
• Luke Maring
• Lauren Fielding
• Jim McCarthy
• Sharon Watkins
• Chris Luginbuhl
• Lance Diskan
• Renee Rosales
• Dennis Kirsten
• Debbie Coon
• Ted Reed
• Vaughn Peterson

Comments included:

• Student housing is associated with drinking. While he appreciated the developer’s attempts to make concessions, they need to keep in mind that kids will continue to drink and go right down Woody Mountain Road and into the National Forest and Trust Lands. They see that occurring now with students.
• City needs a Student Housing Plan in place.
• City has a wonderful, clean industry in astronomy; can’t take a chance with moving more development toward the Observatory.
• Public disturbance is a concern
• 712 students, plus guests, with one property manager
• Currently resides in Presidio in the Pines with a 1 ½ year old son. This development will bring in underage drinking with students drinking and doing silly things, like walking into their neighborhood and visiting their park, disturbing the residents
• A few weeks ago they had a community conversation on student housing; what did they learn from that?
• Communication works for security if the managers are willing to cooperate
• Distributed pictures after the parties at The Grove and trash left behind, two days later; similar parties could be carried over to Woody Mountain Road and possibly cause forest fires
• The concept of zoning is to provide for compatible uses; is this high density student housing compatible with Presidio in the Pines?
• The project is not ready to move forward
• Forget about lighting codes; need to consider light pollution
• Does not feel that this development complies with either the Regional Plan or the Lighting Code
• In 10-20 years they may not have this amount of students as more and more education is handled online
• There are seven communities that will be impacted by this development
• Thinks it is a great project, but in the wrong part of the City
• Developer needs to work with NAU and build it on their property

Additionally, written comment cards in opposition to the development were received from:

• Emily Outhwaite
• Natasha K. Warmenhoven
• Mike Bencic
• Dawn Dyer
• Brian Young
• Lauren Novoselac
• Carrie Monroy
• Pamela Martens
• Brad Hebets
• Linda Christy
• Beth Reed
• Vaughn Peterson
• Whitney Biggerstaff
• Enver M. & Nancy D. Zaky
• Anthony R.
• Renee Rosales
• Warren and Ruth Cutright
• Brad Denison
• Anaa L. Elliott
• Wayne McLellan
• John Erick Robbins
• Daniel Moan
• Sarah Hammer
• Jill Koelling
• Sarah Friedmann
• Ted Reed
• Jay Douglass
• Luke Maring
• Linda & Joseph Fox

Mayor Nabours closed the Public Hearing at this time.
 
A break was held from 8:46 p.m. to 9:02 p.m.
 

Mr. Vatterrott said that college is a balancing act of books, grades, part-time jobs, student loans, etc. It does include an aspect of enjoyment with peers, but the Grove is very atypical and is not the type of community they have.
 
With regard to bike safety, they were concerned as well and would like to speak to City staff further on where they see the connectivity. The plan is not to create a bike experience along Route 66. With regard to the dormitory style buildings, this development is restricted to one student per bedroom
 
Mr. Vatterott said that there were some issues with their developments in Missouri, South Carolina and Georgia with building codes. They have since gone back in to cure those problems with added insulation above and beyond the codes. He added that some of these units will be ADA units as required by law.
 
He said that the Grove is surrounded by bars. This development does have a retail component up to 20,000 sq. ft., but if the community wants a restriction on that to not allow bars, they would be happy to give that restriction.
 
He said that ADOT would have to look at the two lane versus four lane traffic issue. With regard to lighting, they need to cultivate some discussion with the Naval Observatory, but their inability to talk to them makes it difficult to show the sincere progress that they have made. He said that they were happy to get to less than rural residential lighting requirements and throwing in motion detectors, and they could look at a weekend shuttle if necessary. He would hope that the Council would see the efforts of Aspen Heights and be open to other things, perhaps create some focus group meetings.
 
Mr. Vatterott replied to the comments regarding Harrisonburg and asked if anyone called Rockingham County and their supervisors to find out what has happened in the last 14 months. He said that they had a difficult open, and had the wrong property manager which they no longer have. He said that Aspen Heights owns that mistake. They were not ready when they opened up, but they are now getting ready for Phase II in the same community. He continued with information on some of their other communities.
 
Stewart Watkins, Director of Public Relations, said that from the property management aspect, they have to have a robust plan—something they take serious. It takes months to put together and every plan is different. They have to be unique, through complete collaboration with local law enforcement, the university, city leaders, etc. They hosted community forums and brought in representatives from neighborhoods to talk about the issues.
 
Mr. Watkins continued that the method they use for managing guests is different at the various locations. At several they have initiated a limit of guests. They monitor that by having control when they enter a gate.
 
Brief discussion was held on the Code of Conduct through NAU. Vice Mayor Evans said that it was her understanding that the Student Code of Conduct cannot be extended off campus. Ms. Kjellgren said that the most it can be is communication and clear channels so management at Aspen  Heights can understand the trends NAU is seeing. It is not an established channel, but hopefully their discussions would lead to that. She added that according to her reading of it, the President of the University could adopt policies to make it apply off campus, but she did not know if NAU would choose to do that.
 
Vice Mayor Evans said that two weeks ago Mr. Vanderott said that this development was not going to be a gated facility. Mr. Vanderott said that the reason there may be some confusion is that it is something they look at with each development and try to reflect what the community wants. Their prior understanding was the Flagstaff does not like gates. He said that it would be fenced.
 
Mr. Watkins said that their Ft. Collins property is not gated and their team is able to manage the property. He said that at that facility they have implemented a wrist band and each resident gets two guest passes.
 
Ms. Kjellgren noted that Route 66 is an ADOT-controlled road. The City does not fund it and cannot make improvements to it. There is an urban trail section that will hook up with Kiltie in the future, but at this point the urban trail segments are not improved.
 
She asked why the Naval Observatory has not acquired the land within a certain radius of their property if it is deemed to be critical. They have not looked at that issue and had not made any effort to acquire the property or provide for conservation easements. She said that given the budget for the Department of Defense, purchase of that property would be a drop in the bucket.
 
Councilmember Barotz asked staff for further clarification of the FUTS trail. Ms. Antol said that there is a proposed segment of the FUTS trail. They would expect that as the adjacent properties were developed the respective segments of the trail would be developed.

Mr. Vanderott said that they would love to continue to have communication with the Observatory but right now they do not have a target to shoot for. If they could possibly table this for two weeks, he thought they could come back with additional questions/answers.
 
Mayor Nabours said that there has been some merit in the comments received tonight and believed it needed to be studied further. Councilmember Overton said that he also had a legal question to be addressed regarding possible wording for conditions of the zoning.
  
Councilmember Woodson asked about the mixed use development. He asked if anything was defined for the corner parcel. Additionally, he asked if there was a way to integrate a way to capture the costs for public safety calls.
 
Ms. Antol said that the mixed use definition comes from the Zoning Code and the standard from the 2001 Regional Plan is different than the new one, but it does not preclude what they are doing. The commercial component is to meet the mixed use. They do not yet know what the use is, but they have agreed to a list of uses. The retail service would be to serve that neighborhood.
 
Councilmember Woodson additionally had questions regarding the Lighting Code and whether there was a curfew for the Zone 1.
 
Councilmember Overton asked if they had ever had an ADOT representative come forward and talk about their TIA (Traffic Impact Analysis). Ms. Antol replied that they have not, but staff could ask them to attend. Councilmember Overton asked what could happen if the City disagreed with their analysis, and asked what their next level of discussion would be.
 
Jeff Bauman, City Traffic Engineer, said that they could request ADOT to come to the next meeting to address the TIA.

 
Mr. Burke noted that there were already 19 items on that agenda and asked if they anticipated further public comment. Mayor Nabours noted that the public comment portion of the Public Hearing was closed; this would be for Council questions to staff or ADOT.

Planning Manager Brian Kulina reviewed the resolution which authorized the execution of a First Amended and Restated Development Agreement.

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to read Resolution No. 2014-38 by title only.

Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN PINNACLE DEVCO, LTD., AND THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 18.6 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 800 EAST STERLING LANE

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to adopt Resolution No. 2014-38.

Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to approve the final plat and Map of Dedication and authorize the Mayor to sign the final plat, the City/Subdivider Agreement and Map of Dedication when notified by staff that all documents are ready for signature and recordation.

Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to cancel the December 23, 2014, Council Meeting.

Vote: 6 - 0 Passed - Unanimously

Vice Mayor Evans requested a Possible Future Agenda Item regarding a conversation of the Grove and its management. She also requested information from the Police Chief re the snow plow ordinance and how it would be enforced. Lastly, she asked that a residential parking permit system for the neighborhoods surrounding NAU be discussed.