Mayor Nabours stated that the Council will be receiving information about the Dew Downtown and will be taking action on it next week.

Diane Hope addressed Council regarding the forest thinning that is occurring on Observatory Mesa. She expressed concern about the potential soil damage and lack of oversight with the project.

Public Works Section Director Michael O’Connor stated that every year in the fall the City begins to prepare for the winter season. There are a number of departments that collaborate together in preparation for winter to manage the weather and protect the community. Snow operations rely heavily on temporary plow operators and the City’s permanent Street Section employees; the City competes with Coconino County and the Arizona Department of Transportation as well as private entities for snow removal operators. This year a new snow operation stipend will be introduced in an attempt to retain the permanent employees and attract temporary employees for snow removal. In addition to the Street operations the City collaborates with Flagstaff Unified School District and NAIPTA to make sure bus routes are clearly identified and up to date.
 
Mr. O’Connor showed the Council and public the Snow News website. This website includes several links that direct citizens to important information regarding snow operations. Also included are updates on current operations and information about road conditions throughout the area.
 
This preparation effort happens every year but with the anticipated strong El Nino staff felt that it would be good to give an update to Council and citizens on the outlook for the season. Mr. O’Connor introduced Brian Klimowsky from the National Weather Service who provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:
 

Recreation Supervisor Glorice Pavey provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:
 
DEW DOWNTOWN FLAGSTAFF URBAN SKI AND SNOWBOARD FESTIVAL – DIRECTION

Comprehensive Planning and Code Administrator Roger Eastman stated that the Council will be looking at Chapter 10-40 of the Zoning Code. The main issues are secondary single family dwellings, meeting facilities in the LI zone, residential uses in the Community Commercial zones specific to the Southside Neighborhood, micro-breweries and micro-distilleries.
 
Mr. Eastman began with the secondary single family dwelling issue. This portion of the Code was adopted in 2002; the purpose of the section was to allow for smaller lot splits in certain neighborhoods to provide greater opportunities for affordable homes. This is a lot splitting process and staff’s recommendation is to move this section into the sub-division section. To split a lot would require a minimum of 12,000 square feet of lot size. What the secondary single family lot split does is reduce the minimum lot size to 5,000 square feet. It also says that there has to be two dwellings existing on the property that were constructed prior to November 5, 2002. This requirement automatically limits the properties that the rule can be applied to. The purpose of this was to maintain a relationship between a larger primary building and a smaller secondary building typically towards the rear of the property.
 
In 2006/2007 the Council established the Historic Townsite Overlay District to help maintain the character of the community. Today if someone comes in with their two buildings and other necessary requirements and splits the lot, the concern that has been heard from the neighborhood is if the secondary building is demolished and it is now its own lot, what keeps the property owner from erecting a new primary dwelling which is out of character for maintaining a relationship between the primary and secondary dwelling. This is the issue that needs to be resolved. The amendment presented is to suggest a requirement for a restrictive covenant that is signed at the time of the lot split that restricts that rear lot to a secondary single family residence and it may only be rebuilt to the same size as before subject to the Townsite rules.
 
There is a concern with Proposition 207 because a more restrictive land use is being imposed. The alternative is to remove the R1N zone and only allow the secondary single family section to apply to MR and HR zones. Ultimately, there are three options, do nothing, go with restrictive covenant or move from R1N.
 
Councilmember Putzova asked if Proposition 207 has been tested in Flagstaff or Arizona in general; she stated that the Council often hears about the proposition preventing the Council from doing something but there does not seem to be much information on the application. Mr. Eastman stated that the first lawsuit that was filed in Arizona was filed out of Flagstaff by the Townsite Neighborhood; it was dropped on procedural grounds and the issue was never answered. There are a number of other cities that have had similar cases but it really has not been tested. In writing the 2011 Zoning Code staff did so in an effort to reduce the liability of Proposition 207.
 
Mayor Nabours stated that in hindsight when the section was first written it should have addressed the instance where either of the residences is demolished or destroyed then it is to be rebuilt to what was existing. Mr. Eastman agreed. Mayor Nabours asked Mr. Eastman what he felt was the best solution to the issue. Mr. Eastman stated that to remove R1N from the secondary single family section is the best option. Anyone in MR and HR can still apply for the split. The reason for that is that it protects the integrity of the historical neighborhood.
 
Councilmember Oravits stated that he is trying to get a visual understanding of how much of Flagstaff it effects to remove the R1N. Mr. Eastman explained that R1N is only applied to the Northend Neighborhood, Flagstaff Townsite Neighborhood, La Plaza Vieja and Southside; nowhere else in the City is the R1N zone applied.
 
There is a consensus of Council in agreement with the recommendation of Mr. Eastman to remove the R1N zone.
 
Duffie Westheimer addressed Council in support of staff’s recommendation and asked Council to move forward with approval.
 
Moving to the next issue Mayor Nabours stated that in the LIO zone there are things allowed such as schools, trade schools, public services major and minor, hospital, and much of this zoning is over in the Woodlands Village area and lies right along University Avenue. On the other side of University Avenue there are HC, apartments, and businesses. Part of the LIO has business centers and existing businesses. The purpose of the LIO zone is to develop certain commercial uses and provide appropriate uses in the areas that transition from industrial to commercial and residential. He feels that churches, synagogues and meeting places would be a good transition and would be a good use in the LIO zone under certain circumstances. He would like to consider adding churches, synagogues and similar meeting places as a use in that zone with a use permit and the Planning & Zoning Commission determining if it is an appropriate use in that area.
 
Councilmember Overton stated that his concern would be the other LIO or industrial zones, the City is limited on that type of zoning and that land use. The concern is that by allowing these uses it would further limit the LI zone when there are more suitable zones within the City.
 
Mr. Eastman stated that under the former Land Development Code the City had performance zones and established zones. When those zones were combined to create the LI and HI zones that exist today the City had to be thoughtful about the permitted uses. There are open zones, LIO and HIO, which relate back to performance zones in the old code. Resources need to be protected in the open zones and limited commercial is allowed in the LIO and HIO zones because that was what was allowed in the former Land Development Code. It is limited to hotels, offices, and general retail. There are regulations in the Floor Area Ratio Standard that provide limits on how much commercial can be in the industrial zones. The former Regional Plan had goals and policies that limited how much intrusion anything but industrial uses were allowed in those zones. The current Regional Plan has a similar goal and policy to protect existing business and industrial land uses from encroachment and allow for their expansion. Staff has worked to ensure that this goal is honored and to not allow too many other uses into the industrial zones. He feels that consideration could be given to adding the meeting use facility subject to the Floor Area Ratio restriction; it would still meet the intent of the Regional Plan but there is a limitation on how much on a particular parcel goes to anything that is not industrial.
 
Mayor Nabours stated that currently in LIO a charter school could be there, a trade school of some kind, a small hospital and day care center; it seems compatible to allow a church next to a Montessori school. Mr. Eastman agreed but indicated that there still has to be a balance with the Regional Plan policy. The Council agreed to have staff look into the concept further and bring back a recommendation.
 
Councilmember Oravits stated that he had received questions about the changes to rooming and boarding facilities; he asked for Mr. Eastman to explain the change. Mr. Eastman stated when the 2011 code was adopted, the Rooming and Boarding Facility category was created and that included dormitories, fraternities and sororities and single room occupancy. Hindsight has suggested that this was an error because each of these things are really separate functions. The change is that they are now separated out into their own categories and single room occupancy would not be allowed in the CC or CS zones. The reason for that is because those zones do not allow lodging. He stated that staff will be meeting with the lodging association to discuss the change and better understand any concerns that they may have. Councilmember Oravits requested that any concerns be communicated back to the Council.
 
Mayor Nabours indicated that there has been some concern about the CC zone and staff has indicated that there is some merit to those concerns and as a result, a modification was developed. Mr. Eastman stated that they found an unclear statement in the proposed standards which has been modified in the amendments presented. The proposal is that in the CC zone, which is in Sunnyside south of 6^th Street, a duplex or single family home may be built by right without going through the planned residential option or obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. If the density allows a duplex, someone could also build two single detached dwellings on the property. The recommendation became unclear in regard to building height and what it should be for single family homes; that has been clarified in the amendments and it should be the same as the R1 zone of 35 feet.
 
Jeff Knorr addressed Council indicating that he feels the issue has been addressed and asked what setbacks would be required with this change. Mr. Eastman stated that the setbacks would be the same as in the CC zones which are less restrictive than they are for the R1 zone. Mr. Knorr continued stating that this change could play a role in the revitalization of Sunnyside. His concern with the CC zone is that most of the lots in Sunnyside are 50 feet wide, the CC zone has 15 foot side setbacks leaving only 20 feet in the middle on which to build whereas the HR zone only has a five foot setback and the R1 zone has an eight foot setback. It makes it difficult to build anything in that area.
 
Councilmember Oravits asked for clarification on the setback requirements as it will be helpful in making the decision. Mr. Eastman stated that he has made note of the concern and will work on putting together a recommendation that makes the issue of setbacks more clear when building a residential structure in the CC zone.

Mr. Eastman provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:
 
OVERVIEW
REED V TOWN OF GILBERT, AZ
REED TAKEAWAYS
FLAGSTAFF’S SIGN STANDARDS
SIGN STANDARD
10-50.100.010
10-50.100.020
10-50.100.030
10-50.100.040
10-50.100.050
10-50.100.060
10-50.100.070
10-50.100.090
10-50.100.090 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
10-50.100.090 CURRENT CODE
10-50.100.100
10-50.100.100 – FLAGSTAFF SIGN FREE ZONE
NEEDED OTHER AMENDMENTS
DISCUSSION – A PATH FORWARD
 
Mr. Eastman stated that because of the Reed case, non-commercial signs may not be placed in the right of way. Mayor Nabours clarified that the City cannot say no signs in the right of way except for political signs and they cannot say no signs in the right of way except for non-profit signs. Senior Assistant City Attorney Kevin Fincel agreed stating that what applies to one must apply to all with regard to signs in the right of way.
 
Councilmember Evans suggested that the City should not allow any signs in the right of way. Vice Mayor Barotz agreed stating that it will be very important to be clear that it will only apply to the right of way and other opportunities for signs do exist.
 
A consensus of Council agreed that no signs should be allowed in the right of way.
 
Mayor Nabours asked about the free standing signs on vacant property and if any kind of sign is allowed to be placed in the vacant lot or if it can only be a for sale sign. Mr. Eastman stated that there cannot be restrictions on content, the property owner may put a sign or signs up to 32 square feet displaying their message.
 
Mayor Nabours asked about a business operation that has signs on their building as well as a pole sign or monument sign out front. He asked what other signs the business can have and what regulations can be placed on them. Mr. Eastman stated that the City could restrict temporary signs and not allow them at all or they can be allowed under certain time and size restrictions. The issue is with enforcement.
 
Councilmember Overton stated that finding a manageable solution without having to hire multiple staff members is the challenge. Mr. Eastman agreed stating that the implications to staff is enormous if the City begins permitting temporary signs which is why staff is recommending no permit except for wall signs and the signs be removed at the end of each day.
 
Councilmember Oravits asked if there are no time limits on temporary signs as they get destroyed is there something in the code that regulates the appearance of temporary signs. Mr. Eastman stated that there is a maintenance standard included in the code that can be applied to temporary signs.
 
Councilmember Putzova stated that in regards to temporary sign placement on commercial property, she is leaning toward an arrangement that the intent of the code is to have control over sign clutter but not going with permits. She is not sure if removing signs at the end of the day is the answer and it may be difficult for the property owners to follow because of weather. She would like to see established area and time limitations and not requiring removal at the close of the business day.
 
Councilmember Oravits stated that he is concerned about enforcement and bringing signs in every night is not practical. He feels that he needs more time to think about if a time limit should be required.
 
Mr. Eastman suggested that staff work on a draft that indicates no permitting and allows signs to remain out for 24 hours. Wall signs would be permitted and allowed to display for 30 days. Council could come back in six months to revisit the topic and see how it is working.

Vice Mayor Barotz requested that item 10A be moved from routine to the 6:00 p.m. regular meeting. She feels that the topic is more appropriate for the evening portion of the meeting.

Councilmember Evans requested a memo that discusses what is going on with the project at Observatory Mesa and the tree concern that was brought up at public participation. Vice Mayor Barotz stated that she is also interested in that information. Mr. Copley stated that he will have staff provide a memo and indicated that tours of the area can be arranged should Council wish to go out there.
 
Mr. Copley reminded Council about the Budget Retreat scheduled for tomorrow morning, December 9, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. at the Aquaplex.
 
He also indicated that the Working Calendar shows February 2, 2016 as the tentative first read for the zone change amendments. Vice Mayor Barotz requested that the Council vote on each section separately instead of one big vote for the entire code.