CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2016
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
211 WEST ASPEN
4:00 P.M. AND 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Nabours called the Regular Meeting of the Flagstaff City Council held March 1, 2016, to order at 4:10 p.m.
Mayor Nabours called the Regular Meeting of the Flagstaff City Council held March 1, 2016, to order at 4:10 p.m.
NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that, at this regular meeting, the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the City’s attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).
2.
ROLL CALL
Others present: City Manager Josh Copley and City Attorney Michelle D'Andrea.
| NOTE: | One or more Councilmembers may be in attendance telephonically or by other technological means. |
| PRESENT: MAYOR NABOURS VICE MAYOR BAROTZ COUNCILMEMBER BREWSTER COUNCILMEMBER EVANS COUNCILMEMBER ORAVITS COUNCILMEMBER OVERTON COUNCILMEMBER PUTZOVA |
ABSENT: NONE |
Others present: City Manager Josh Copley and City Attorney Michelle D'Andrea.
3.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MISSION STATEMENT
The audience and City Council recited the Pledge of Allegiance and Mayor Nabours read the Mission Statement of the City of Flagstaff.
MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the City of Flagstaff is to protect and enhance the quality of life of its citizens.
4.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS
A.
Consideration and Approval of Minutes: City Council Work Session of December 8, 2015; the Regular Council Meeting of January 19, 2016; and the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of February 23, 2016.
Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to approve the minutes of the City Council Work Session of December 8, 2015; the Regular Council Meeting of January 19, 2016; and the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of February 23, 2016.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
5.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public Participation enables the public to address the Council about an item that is not on the agenda. Comments relating to items that are on the agenda will be taken at the time that the item is discussed. If you wish to address the Council at tonight's meeting, please complete a comment card and submit it to the recording clerk as soon as possible. Your name will be called when it is your turn to speak. 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 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.
Public Participation enables the public to address the Council about an item that is not on the agenda. Comments relating to items that are on the agenda will be taken at the time that the item is discussed. If you wish to address the Council at tonight's meeting, please complete a comment card and submit it to the recording clerk as soon as possible. Your name will be called when it is your turn to speak. 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 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.
Linda Webb addressed Council to encourage the Council to develop a comprehensive plan on the development of Flagstaff. Additionally, she called for a moratorium on any construction until a comprehensive plan can be established.
6.
PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS
None
None
7.
APPOINTMENTS
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for the purpose of discussing or considering employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, demotion, dismissal, salaries, disciplining or resignation of a public officer, appointee, or employee of any public body...., pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(1).
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for the purpose of discussing or considering employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, demotion, dismissal, salaries, disciplining or resignation of a public officer, appointee, or employee of any public body...., pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(1).
A.
Consideration of Appointments: Tourism Commission.
Moved by Councilmember Karla Brewster, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to appoint Thomas D'Agostino to a term expiring January 2019.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
Moved by Councilmember Coral Evans, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to appoint Dino Dullbson to a term expiring January 2019.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to appoint Debbie Grogan to a term expiring January 2019.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to appoint Lynda Fleisher to a term expiring January 2017.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
B.
Consideration of Appointments: Beautification and Public Art Commission.
Moved by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to appoint Robert Chambers to a term expiring June 2018.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to appoint Jasmine Barber-Winter to a term expiring June 2018.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
C.
Consideration of Appointments: Heritage Preservation Commission.
Moved by Councilmember Coral Evans, seconded by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz to appoint Philip Scandura to a term expiring December 2018.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans to appoint Charlie Webber to a term expiring December 2018.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to appoint Jerry McLaughlin to a term expiring December 2018.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
D.
Consideration of Appointments: Board of Adjustment.
Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to appoint John van Wyke to a term expiring May 2018.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
Moved by Councilmember Coral Evans, seconded by Councilmember Eva Putzova to appoint Margo Wheeler to a term expiring May 2018.
Vote: 3 - 4
- NAY:
-
Mayor Jerry Nabours
Councilmember Karla Brewster
Councilmember Jeff Oravits
Councilmember Scott Overton
Mayor Nabours stated that he feels that the current board member should be reappointed.
Mayor Nabours asked Councilmember Evans if she would like to make another motion for the remaining applicant to which Councilmember Evans responded no thank you.
Mayor Nabours asked Councilmember Evans if she would like to make another motion for the remaining applicant to which Councilmember Evans responded no thank you.
Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to appoint Dan Anderson to a term expiring May 2018.
Vice Mayor Barotz stated that she thinks what happened is too bad.
Councilmember Overton stated that he hopes she did not speculate as to what happened and offered that he feels that Mr. Anderson has been a fantastic commissioner and should be reappointed.
Vice Mayor Barotz responded saying that he could have been reappointed with the first appointment rather than appointing a new member and given Ms. Wheeler, who has applied for other commissions, and every time gets voted out because she is a woman.
Councilmember Oravits stated that he feels that she is making broad statements and assumptions and he resents that. Mr. van Wyke is a long standing member of the community, he served in the United States Air Force for many years and will make a great addition to the commission.
Councilmember Putzova stated that she is disappointed in the process as well because she had other first choices as well for the other commission appointments but boards and commissions is an area where the Council can be a little less divisive and allow all of the Council to make appointments and make sure that the community is accurately represented. Each member of Council will get an opportunity to appoint to the various boards and commissions and should be respectful of the recommendations made by their peers.
Councilmember Evans stated she feels it is unfortunate if people vote against something because of something else. This should not be a tit for tat process. Ms. Wheeler is more than qualified for the position, she has applied for several different commissions and has been turned down. In this case, her planning and development background directly suits this commission.
Vote: 5 - 2
- NAY:
-
Vice Mayor Celia Barotz
Councilmember Eva Putzova
E.
Consideration of Appointments: Library Board.
Moved by Councilmember Karla Brewster, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to appoint Patricia Horn to a term expiring November 2016.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to appoint Margaret “Marney” Babbitt to a term expiring November 2018.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
F.
Consideration of Appointments: Transportation Commission.
Moved by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz, seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans to appoint Gary Robbins to a term expiring July 2018.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to appoint Julie Leid to a term expiring July 2019.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
G.
Consideration of Appointments: Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public Transportation Authority (NAIPTA) Transit Advisory Committee (TAC) Citizen Alternate Appointment.
Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to appoint Paul Wagner to a term expiring October 2018.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
8.
LIQUOR LICENSE PUBLIC HEARINGS
None
None
9.
CONSENT ITEMS
All matters under Consent Agenda are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion approving the recommendations listed on the agenda. Unless otherwise indicated, expenditures approved by Council are budgeted items.
Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to approve Consent Items 9A and 9B as presented.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
A.
Consideration and Approval of Cooperative Contract: Purchase of two (2) Residential Side Load Refuse Trucks and two (2) Commercial Front Load Refuse Trucks from Rush Truck Center through the Cooperative Purchase Agreement with the City Of Tempe, Contract# T15-097-01.
Approve the purchase of two (2) 2017 Peterbilt 320 Cab and Chassis including Scorpion Side Load Bodies in the amount of $264,268.64 each, and two (2) 2017 Peterbilt 320 Cab and Chassis including McNeilus Front Load Bodies in the amount of $258,996.37 each, for a total purchase amount of $1,046,530.02.
B.
Consideration and Approval of Purchase: Two (2) Police Interceptor Utility Vehicles
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the purchase of two (2) 2016 Ford Police Interceptor Utility Vehicles from Peoria Ford (current contract holder) out of a City of Flagstaff Contingency Fund account. These funds were identified as the preferred purchase account by the Budget Committee. The total purchase price for these two (2) vehicles would be $57,988.88 (taxes and fees included).
10.
ROUTINE ITEMS
A.
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-09: An ordinance to enter into a third Amendment to Development Agreement (DA) with Nestle-Purina Petcare Company to extend the agreement and underlying lease for up to six months (Possible extension of development agreement with Nestle-Purina).
Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to read Ordinance No. 2016-09 by title only for the final time.
Councilmember Putzova stated that one of the key considerations states that it will create a more appealing workforce option; she asked what the underlying issues with the workplace are, how they would be resolved and how it relates to the workforce. Business Retention and Expansion Manager John Saltonstall offered that the idea of working on the odor mitigation is in terms of trying to improve the perception of manufacturing in the community. There are a number of things that contribute to a viable and developable workforce for future generation. There is a perception that if manufacturing in the community is more clean it would be more appealing to future workforce generations. There is not an odor situation inside the Purina plant but how it is perceived by the community as a whole may influence the choice of future generations to work there.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF TO ENTER INTO A THIRD AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH NESTLE PURINA PETCARE COMPANY TO ALLOW TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT AND UNDERLYING LEASE; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Moved by Councilmember Karla Brewster, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to adopt Ordinance No. 2016-09.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
B.
Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2016-07: A resolution to adopt the Coconino County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
Fire Chief Mark Gaillard addressed the Council stating that staff has been working with Coconino County for about a year on revising the hazard mitigation plan. In March 2005 the City Council adopted a City of Flagstaff Mitigation Plan. Across the United States mitigation plans have evolved into multi-jurisdictional efforts. This is the second multi-jurisdictional update of the plan with the prior being in September 2011. Some FEMA standards were updated and a few additions were made such as earthquakes and facility hazardous materials risk. Additionally, there are some improved descriptors put into the plan. Much of the previous information regarding City planning remain.
Moved by Councilmember Karla Brewster, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to read Resolution No. 2016-07 by title only.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
A RESOLUTION OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE DECEMBER 2015 COCONINO COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTION HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN AND REPEALING RESOLUTION 2011-05 ADOPTING THE PRIOR PLAN.
Moved by Councilmember Karla Brewster, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to adopt Resolution No. 2016-07.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
C.
Consideration and Adoption of Clean-Up Ordinances:
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-11: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff Amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 1, Administrative, Chapter 15, Municipal Court, Division 1, Section 2, Municipal Judge, Presiding Magistrate, Hearing Officers, to Require all Municipal Judges to be Admitted to the Practice of Law in the State of Arizona; Providing for Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances, Severability, and Establishing an Effective Date (Municipal Judge Qualifications)
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-12: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 1, Administrative, Chapter 24, Insurance, Division 1, Section 7, Insurance, to Increase the Authority of the City Manager to Settle Claims up to Fifty Thousand Dollars; Providing for Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances, Severability, and Establishing an Effective Date. (Bringing City Code Consistent with Charter Regarding City Manager's Authority to Settle Claims)
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-13: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 11, General Plans and Subdivisions, Chapter 20, Subdivision and Land Split Procedures and Requirements, Division 1, Sections 30 and 40, Pre-Application Conference, and Land Split and Combination Applications, to Provide Opportunity for Additional Lot Splits for Long-Term Parcel Owners; Providing for Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances, Severability, and Establishing an Effective Date. (Lot Splits)
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-11: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff Amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 1, Administrative, Chapter 15, Municipal Court, Division 1, Section 2, Municipal Judge, Presiding Magistrate, Hearing Officers, to Require all Municipal Judges to be Admitted to the Practice of Law in the State of Arizona; Providing for Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances, Severability, and Establishing an Effective Date (Municipal Judge Qualifications)
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-12: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 1, Administrative, Chapter 24, Insurance, Division 1, Section 7, Insurance, to Increase the Authority of the City Manager to Settle Claims up to Fifty Thousand Dollars; Providing for Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances, Severability, and Establishing an Effective Date. (Bringing City Code Consistent with Charter Regarding City Manager's Authority to Settle Claims)
Consideration and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-13: An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Flagstaff, Amending the Flagstaff City Code, Title 11, General Plans and Subdivisions, Chapter 20, Subdivision and Land Split Procedures and Requirements, Division 1, Sections 30 and 40, Pre-Application Conference, and Land Split and Combination Applications, to Provide Opportunity for Additional Lot Splits for Long-Term Parcel Owners; Providing for Repeal of Conflicting Ordinances, Severability, and Establishing an Effective Date. (Lot Splits)
Michelle D’Andrea addressed Council stating that there are three ordinances that have been identified as needing clean up revisions. The first ordinance codifies the City’s current practice making it clear that judges need to have certain qualifications. The second ordinance deals with the City Manager’s authority to settle claims under the $50,000 threshold. This update is typically done when the City Charter is amended; however, it was not done when the authority moved from $25,000 to $50,000.
The last ordinance relates to lot splits. The City regulates lot splits to make sure they conform to City development standards, staff also checks to make sure that lots are split so many times to become a subdivision. Currently the code mentions that an applicant should include ownership information for the past 15 years but it does not say what providing that information will do or give to the applicant. The proposal is to make it clear that a long term owner can do an additional lot split. The reason for this policy is unknown. The Council can also have language removed that requires an applicant to provide information on how long they have owned the lot. Either way, the ordinance needs to be clear on what the applicant gets, if anything, when they provide the historical information.
Mayor Nabours stated that there are State laws on lot splitting that state a split is not allowed if there is or has been a pattern of splits. For example, a family with 20 acres splits into three lots, then those three lots are split into three lots which technically is not a subdivision however, if the original three lots were considered then it would be a subdivision. He believes that providing historical data does nothing for the applicant because there are no exemptions given for long term owners, but it does show the history of the lot to determine if other splits had been done in the past.
Ms. D’Andrea stated that the ordinance would allow people who have had their property longer than 15 years to do another split that they are otherwise not entitled to. As it stands now, the ordinance allows a for the creation of three parcels even if below 2.5 acres.
Mayor Nabours stated that he feels that the language is misleading. Ms. D’Andrea stated that the language asks for proof but it does not indicate an allowance for additional splits. Mayor Nabours stated that his inclination is to take the language out and a parcel either qualifies or it does not regardless of how long it has been owned.
The last ordinance relates to lot splits. The City regulates lot splits to make sure they conform to City development standards, staff also checks to make sure that lots are split so many times to become a subdivision. Currently the code mentions that an applicant should include ownership information for the past 15 years but it does not say what providing that information will do or give to the applicant. The proposal is to make it clear that a long term owner can do an additional lot split. The reason for this policy is unknown. The Council can also have language removed that requires an applicant to provide information on how long they have owned the lot. Either way, the ordinance needs to be clear on what the applicant gets, if anything, when they provide the historical information.
Mayor Nabours stated that there are State laws on lot splitting that state a split is not allowed if there is or has been a pattern of splits. For example, a family with 20 acres splits into three lots, then those three lots are split into three lots which technically is not a subdivision however, if the original three lots were considered then it would be a subdivision. He believes that providing historical data does nothing for the applicant because there are no exemptions given for long term owners, but it does show the history of the lot to determine if other splits had been done in the past.
Ms. D’Andrea stated that the ordinance would allow people who have had their property longer than 15 years to do another split that they are otherwise not entitled to. As it stands now, the ordinance allows a for the creation of three parcels even if below 2.5 acres.
Mayor Nabours stated that he feels that the language is misleading. Ms. D’Andrea stated that the language asks for proof but it does not indicate an allowance for additional splits. Mayor Nabours stated that his inclination is to take the language out and a parcel either qualifies or it does not regardless of how long it has been owned.
Moved by Mayor Nabours seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to remove the reference to the 15 year ownership.
Councilmember Evans stated that she believes that there is a reason that the language is in there and if it is to be removed she would like to have some additional time to research and understand the implications.
Moved by Councilmember Coral Evans, seconded by Councilmember Eva Putzova to postpone the item to the next available date.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
Moved by Councilmember Karla Brewster, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to read Ordinance No. 2016-11 by title only for the first time.
Councilmember Putzova indicated that the policy was discussed and approved by the Council in September 2014 and the City has been operating under that policy since then. She does not understand why it is necessary to make it an ordinance. Ms. D’Andrea indicated that it is the Council’s choice on whether or not it is included in the ordinance. She added that it is more transparent to the community when the code reflects the policy. Councilmember Putzova asked if there are other appointments that follow the same level of transparency when it comes to qualifications. Ms. D’Andrea stated that the City Manager and the City Attorney qualifications are contained in the City Charter.
Councilmember Putzova stated that she will be voting no on the ordinance as she was not a part of the original discussion and has not had a chance to hear the pros and cons associated with the qualifications. Councilmember Evans added that she too would not be voting in favor of the change because she did not agree with the original policy change.
Vote: 5 - 2
- NAY:
-
Councilmember Coral Evans
Councilmember Eva Putzova
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE, TITLE 1, ADMINISTRATIVE, CHAPTER 15, MUNICIPAL COURT, DIVISION 1, SECTION 2, MUNICIPAL JUDGE, PRESIDING MAGISTRATE, HEARING OFFICERS, TO REQUIRE ALL MUNICIPAL JUDGES TO BE ADMITTED TO THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans to read Ordinance No. 2016-12 by title only for the first time.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF CITY CODE, TITLE 1, ADMINISTRATIVE, CHAPTER 24, INSURANCE, DIVISION 1, SECTION 7, INSURANCE, TO INCREASE THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY MANAGER TO SETTLE CLAIMS UP TO FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, SEVERABILITY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
D.
Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2016-05 A Resolution to abandon 1,103 Sq. Ft. of sewer easement, recorded in Docket 196, Pg. 613 Coconino County. (Resolution to abandon an unused sewer easement near Route 66 and Ponderosa Parkway)
Real Estate Manager Charity Lee stated that in 2016 the portion of the sewer easement was already disconnected; the private property owner has requested that the City abandon it to unencumber the property.
Councilmember Overton asked if staff was sure that the City will not need the easement in the future. Ms. Lee explained that the Utilities Division issued a utility clearance that confirms that the site was reviewed for future need and none was identified; they are in support of the abandonment.
Councilmember Overton asked if staff was sure that the City will not need the easement in the future. Ms. Lee explained that the Utilities Division issued a utility clearance that confirms that the site was reviewed for future need and none was identified; they are in support of the abandonment.
Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to read Resolution No. 2016-05 by title only.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
A RESOLUTION OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL TO ABANDON 1,103 SQUARE FEET OF A UTILITY/WASTEWATER (SEWER) EASEMENT WHICH WAS DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF AS RECORDED IN COCONINO COUNTY DOCKET 196, PAGE 613 ON NOVEMBER 29, 1962, WHICH EASEMENT ENCUMBERS THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1688 EAST ROUTE 66, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA (APN 107-07-001G).
Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to adopt Resolution No. 2016-05.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
E.
Consideration and Adoption of Resolution No. 2016-04: A Resolution to abandon a vacant public utility easement. Recorded in Coconino County, Docket 245, Pg. 5, which easement encumbers the real properties described in Exhibit 'A' attached hereto. (Resolution to abandon an unused public utility easement)
Ms. Lee explained that the same situation applies to this request as well and a utility clearance has been issued for the easement.
Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to read Resolution No. 2016-04 by title only.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
A RESOLUTION TO ABANDON AN UNUSED PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT RECORDED IN COCONINO COUNTY DOCKET 245, PAGE 5, WHICH EASEMENT ENCUMBERS THE REAL PROPERTIES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT ‘A’ ATTACHED HERETO.
Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to adopt Resolution No. 2016-04.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
RECESS
The 4:00 p.m. portion of the March 1, 2016, Regular Meeting recessed at 5:00 p.m.
6:00 P.M. MEETING
RECONVENE
Mayor Nabours reconvened the Regular Meeting of March 1, 2016, at 6:09 p.m.
Mayor Nabours reconvened the Regular Meeting of March 1, 2016, at 6:09 p.m.
NOTICE OF OPTION TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
Pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.02, notice is hereby given to the members of the City Council and to the general public that, at this regular meeting, the City Council may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for legal advice and discussion with the City’s attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda, pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A)(3).
11.
ROLL CALL
Others present: City Manager Josh Copley and City Attorney Michelle D'Andrea.
| NOTE: | One or more Councilmembers may be in attendance telephonically or by other technological means. |
| PRESENT: MAYOR NABOURS VICE MAYOR BAROTZ COUNCILMEMBER BREWSTER COUNCILMEMBER EVANS COUNCILMEMBER ORAVITS COUNCILMEMBER OVERTON COUNCILMEMBER PUTZOVA |
ABSENT: NONE |
Others present: City Manager Josh Copley and City Attorney Michelle D'Andrea.
12.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Karin Eberhard addressed Council on behalf of Flagstaff Unified School District. She thanked the Council for their support of STEM and for creating a STEM City. She invited the Council to attend the third annual STEM Celebration being held on Monday, March 7, 2016.
Marilyn Weisman addressed Council with concerns that the student housing developers are not playing by the rules when withdrawing their Conditional Use Permit applications. She urged the Council to make sure that the zoning rules regulations are being adhered to as agreed.
Marie Jones addressed Council in regards to form based code not related to the HUB. She stated that the code is well written but there are elements that need clarification such as the words large and small. She urged the Council to review the code and make the necessary modifications to avoid confusion in the public and with the design industry.
Gabor Kovacs addressed Council and provided quotes regarding climate change and population control.
Andy Fernandez addressed Council with various concerns.
Marilyn Weisman addressed Council with concerns that the student housing developers are not playing by the rules when withdrawing their Conditional Use Permit applications. She urged the Council to make sure that the zoning rules regulations are being adhered to as agreed.
Marie Jones addressed Council in regards to form based code not related to the HUB. She stated that the code is well written but there are elements that need clarification such as the words large and small. She urged the Council to review the code and make the necessary modifications to avoid confusion in the public and with the design industry.
Gabor Kovacs addressed Council and provided quotes regarding climate change and population control.
Andy Fernandez addressed Council with various concerns.
13.
CARRY OVER ITEMS FROM THE 4:00 P.M. AGENDA
None
None
14.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A.
Public Hearing, Consideration, and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2016-08: An ordinance of the Flagstaff City Council amending the Flagstaff Zoning Map Downtown Regulating Plan designation of approximately 0.29 acres of land generally located west of the southwest corner of Mikes Pike and Phoenix Avenue from the T4 Neighborhood 1 - Open (T4N.1-O) and T5 Main Street (T5) transect zones to the T4 Neighborhood 2 (T4N.2) transect zone and of approximately 1.35 acres located at 17 S Mikes Pike from the T4 Neighborhood 1 - Open (T4N.1-O) transect zone to the T5 Main Street (T5) transect zone, conditional. (The Hub Zoning Map Amendment)
Mayor Nabours stated that there were a few speaker cards remaining from the last meeting and stated he will begin with those requests.
The following individuals addressed Council in opposition to the zoning map amendment for the HUB:
Mayor Nabours stated that the speaker requests have concluded. According to rules of procedure the applicant and City staff will have an opportunity to respond.
Lindsey Schube, attorney with Gammage and Burnham, addressed Council on behalf of Core Campus. Ms. Schube provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:
REGIONAL PLAN 2030
TRANSECT ZONING: DOWNTOWN REGULATING PLAN
REGIONAL PLAN: GROWTH AREAS & LAND USE
REGIONAL PLAN: ACTIVITY CENTERS MAP
REGIONAL PLAN: URBAN AREAS
REGIONAL PLAN 2030: FUTURE GROWTH MAPS
WALKABILITY: FLAGSTAFF URBAN TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS MAP
PUBLIC TRANSIT
WALKABILITY: DISTANCES
EXISTING USE OF THE PROPERTY
REGIONAL PLAN: COMPACT DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Schube asked Council to accommodate what was approved and to make the property better. The developer has worked with the City to improve the project and the design; for example, they have reduced the amount of glass and windows, they changed the design to flat roofs instead of pitched roofs, and they enclosed all of the amenities into the building. Through design review staff asked that the height on Milton be reduced from 64 feet to 52 feet and the developer agreed to that change. The height was also reduced on Mikes Pike and staff requested that the top story be pushed back. These are all things that have been able to be communicated and achieved between the developer and City staff. The zone change gives Flagstaff a better project.
One of the biggest concerns that has been heard is parking. The development adheres to the existing parking regulation and Core Campus is supportive of the parking district. They do not believe that there will be a problem but if there is it will be Core Campus’ problem to solve. Core Campus has agreed to make a $500,000 contribution to the City for parking solutions in the Southside neighborhood as well as a $75,000 contribution to a surface parking lot. In exchange, the City will make available 100 parking spots for Core Campus to rent on an annual basis if the spots are needed. Additionally, they have purchased the People’s Mortgage to allow for shared parking to access the commercial spaces along Milton.
This is different and this is change but through the rezone process the City gets a seat at the table to help develop how the project looks. She believes that the project as has been designed agrees and complies with the Regional Plan. There has been a 6-1 approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommendation from City staff who has worked countless hours with all aspects of the development. She encourage Council to approve the rezoning request.
Mayor Nabours asked if Core Campus is agreeable to the first five conditions of approval provided by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Schube indicated that they are in agreement with those conditions. Mayor Nabours clarified that Core Campus is proposing the monetary contributions and rental spaces in lieu of condition six to which Ms. Schube indicated yes.
Mayor Nabours stated that two weeks ago when Core Campus gave its presentation there was a slide that showed a view of what type of building could build without a change of zoning. The proposed design for the building with the rezone approval is quite different in style and Mayor asked if those changes were required by staff. Ms. Schube explained that it was heard at the public meetings and also required by staff to make changes to the look. There was a laundry list of things that the City wanted changed with the design. Because of the rezone process, it is a give and take in terms of design and conditions and not everyone walks away happy but the parties work together to make changes and concessions to develop a project that can be agreed upon.
Vice Mayor Barotz stated that she would like to see a draft development agreement soon. She felt like the Council should have had it tonight because that is what the staff report says. She stated that she is not prepared to move forward with the process without it.
Vice Mayor Barotz stated that she was appreciative of the Regional Plan policies that were highlighted throughout the presentation. She identified several policies and goals that were identified by the public in conflict of the project and she asked how that is interpreted by the developer in the context of the rezone. There is definitely a difference in opinion in the interpretation and she asked for justification from the developer perspective. Ms. Schube stated that the Regional Plan is a long term planning document and it looks at the community as it is today but also at how it will develop over time. In terms of design, the elements that are being used compliment and are inspired by the surrounding neighborhoods.
Vice Mayor Barotz stated that what she does not understand is that if Core Campus believes that the proposal before the Council tonight is a better project then why punish the community with a less visually appealing building should the rezone request be denied. Ms. Schube offered that the biggest reason it is a better building is because of the place making, it is the commercial on Mikes Pike, and it is the three building heights that are uniform and pushing the 5th story back which is not currently permitted in a T5. This building is a better building through the rezone process because the rezone would allow for the three uniform building heights, all the amenities contained in the middle of the project, and the underground parking that is shielded for dark skies. Without the rezone the building will be a good building and an attractive building but one that is designed for the client. The rezone has allowed input and modifications to get to a building design that is acceptable for both parties.
Councilmember Putzova stated that the Council has to make certain findings about going from one zone to another. She would like to have more information about the proximity of the development to the railroad, specifically how the project is taking into account the noise level from the railroad and the safety related to the crossing of the railroad. Ms. Schube stated that in terms of safety, something that is brought to the table with the rezone and redesign is that there is one point of ingress and egress for pedestrians and vehicles. There are key fobs for all the buildings and the development agreed to be part of the multi-family crime free community. The HUB will have a community assistance program which functions similar to residence assistance one finds on campus. If safe decisions are not being made management is contacted to address solutions. Dawn Cartier with Syntac added that the railroad crossings currently exist and are in operation, the City and the railroad have done a great job of encouraging single points of crossing. Additionally, the safety of railroad crossing are mandated and all of the necessary components are currently in existence. There is not a lot of additional implementations that can be put in. The crossings were evaluated in the study with additional pedestrian counts and the crash analysis showed there was no increased concern for pedestrian related crashes. Ms. Schube offered that in terms of noise, it will be contemplated in the building type and construction, the building will mitigate the train noise for the residents.
Councilmember Evans stated that the public has mentioned numerous times the houses currently existing on the property. Ms. Schube explained that there is one property on the site and they will be making accommodations to move the house to another location.
Councilmember Evans asked if it is Core Campus’ intention to manage the property forever or if it will be sold and managed to another agency. Ms. Schube explained that there are two arms to the Core Campus company; one side is development and the other is management. They could sell the property but the intention is to maintain the property and move it to the management side of the company once developed.
Councilmember Evans asked why Core Campus would not build something that the community wants if the rezoning is denied. Ms. Schube explained that what makes the presented design better is the land use and that is accomplished through the rezone. As far as the architecture is concerned the presented design is a result of input from City staff, the community, and the developer. If the rezone is denied the building will be an attractive building but at that point the property owner’s view and vision of the architecture may not match the view of the community, it is a matter of private property rights. One of the biggest disadvantages of not getting the rezone would be that the parking would be brought above ground.
Councilmember Brewster asked which of the two proposals are cheaper for the developer to build, the rezoned design or the existing zoning design. Ms. Schube stated that the building materials used in the proposal that includes the rezone are far more expensive.
Councilmember Putzova stated that the project should take into consideration all of the public input that was heard and use it in the development of the project without the rezone to make it the best project for the community.
Ms. Putzova asked for Ms. Schube to describe the leasing arrangements that will be implemented with the project. Ms. Schube stated that they are not able to lease by the bedroom so they will lease the units as a whole. There will be four renters per unit. Councilmember Putzova asked if Core Campus has other projects that utilize the lease by unit model. Ms. Schube explained that most Core Campus developments are leased by the bed and they prefer that model but it is not a consideration for the Flagstaff location.
Councilmember Evans asked a representative from La Plaza Vieja if Core Campus presented to the neighborhood. Laura Meyers, on behalf of La Plaza Vieja, stated that the neighborhood did attend the public meeting that was held at Our Lady of Guadalupe but that the neighborhood did not meet with the developer directly. Ms. Schube stated that at the very beginning of the project Core Campus met with Jesse Dominguez of La Plaza Vieja.
Planning Director Dan Folke provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ZONING DISTRICTS
PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: ESTABLISH PROPERTY RIGHTS
ZONING DISTRICT INTENT STATEMENTS
REQUESTED ZONING DISTRICTS
PROCESSING APPLICATIONS
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT REVIEW
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Planning Development Manager Brian Kulina continued the presentation
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF ZONING MAP
ZONING MAP OF PROPOSED LOCATION
DOWNTOWN REGULATING MAP
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
T4 NEIGHBORHOOD
T5 MAIN STREET
LOT COVERAGE
FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)
Mayor Nabours stated that there has been some discussion about the architectural view of the building. He asked for some background on how that evolved and the role staff played in that. Mr. Kulina offered that transect zones do not have specific design standards associated with them. Staff refers to the architectural design standards found elsewhere in the code. Within those standards there are various options available to the applicant and as long as those minimum standards are being met, they are meeting the intent of the code. Staff has more leverage when a zoning map amendment is requested, they have the ability to push harder to get a better design with rezone situations.
Mayor Nabours asked in terms of parking if the difference between the zoning that exists now and the transect zoning is nine parking spaces. Mr. Kulina indicated that he could not speak to the exact number of spaces because a site plan has not been submitted under the current zoning. It would depend on how the project was laid out. He offered that in the T4 zoning parking is based per unit and in the T5 zoning it is based on the square footage.
Mayor Nabours asked Mr. Kulina what his understanding of the parking proposal from Core Campus is. Mr. Kulina stated that $500,000 would be utilized for parking solutions in Southside and $75,000 would be used for the construction of a surface lot for 100 additional spaces. Those 100 spaces would either be leased back to the developer or utilized for city parking. Mayor Nabours asked which lot would be used for the surface lot. Mr. Kulina explained that staff has not done an analysis of the parcels in the area that would fulfill the requirements. That analysis would be brought back to Council when the development agreement was brought forward for consideration.
Councilmember Oravits asked what the duration of the parking lease agreement would be. Ms. Schube stated that Core Campus has proposed a 20 year term at half market rate and an additional 20 year term at 75% market rate should the lot need to be utilized by the HUB.
Councilmember Putzova asked for some background information on the reasoning behind the transect zones in specific areas. Comprehensive Planning and Code Administrator Roger Eastman stated that when the decision was made for the rewrite of the former Land Development Code staff knew the code would be moving into form based coding. At that time staff began a lengthy process of educating the public about what the City was doing and why it was the most appropriate path. Design charrettes were held with the consultants, staff, and the public to identify what parts of the community were special in terms of their open form. That open form would be coded and applied as the form based code. The result of the lengthy discussions with the consultants and the community resulted in the regulating plan boundary that is presented currently. Within that regulating plan boundary was the detailed analysis. The question became how it is applied; the consultants looked at the existing zoning together with logic. The intent was to have the T5 main street along a busy street. They considered T5 along Mikes Pike and it could be applied if it is anticipated that the street would have a higher volume of traffic or commercial, there is some logic to doing that. A lot of thought went into mapping it the way that it is but that is not to say that the community has changed since that was put in place in 2008. Since that time a new Regional Plan was adopted that shows three activity centers in the area which gives support for a consideration of rezoning to adjust the T5 boundary based on the Regional Plan.
Councilmember Putzova stated that the Council has heard different legal opinions on interpretations of the code. She asked how important legislative history is in representing and interpreting the code. Michelle D’Andrea stated that Council gave her direction that they have waived the attorney client privilege and she can give advice publicly this evening. A court and anyone interpreting a legal code will not look at legislative intent unless there is ambiguity in the standards that are articulated in the code. Here the standards are clear; the transect zones set standards for height, setbacks, and density. That is the language that controls, it is the more specific language that is looked at first and then it moves to the more general language and only then if there is ambiguity is the legislative intent considered.
Councilmember Putzova asked if staff can articulate how swapping the zones would add to public good. Mr. Kulina offered that staff believes that there is a benefit to the public in carrying forward the visions of the Regional Plan. By putting T5 on Mikes Pike, it forces the developer to carry forward the vision of the Regional Plan by putting commercial on Mikes Pike and increasing density intensity within the established urban areas. The Regional Plan asks for high intensity in specific urban areas as outlined by the activity center designations. Without the rezoning the developer has the option of doing some commercial along Mikes Pike but they are not required to. Mikes Pike only has two residential uses currently, the rest is commercial; forcing more residential along there goes against the established character of Mikes Pike. In his opinion the current designation along there does a disservice to the Regional Plan by not carrying forward the redevelopment in these urban areas.
Councilmember Putzova stated that she understands the Regional Plan perspective but she would like to understand how the change would add to the public good. Mr. Kulina stated that it adds to the public good by establishing the urban form that the Regional Plan calls for.
Moved by Mayor Nabours seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to read Ordinance No. 2016-08 by title only for the first time based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and find that the statements contained in sections 2, 3, and 4 of the enactments portion of the proposed ordinance are supported by the information that Council has received through the Public Hearing process. As to the conditions portion of the proposed ordinance I move to delete paragraph 6 regarding parking and replaces that paragraph with the following “this ordinance would be enacted subject to applicants contribution of $500,000 towards Southside parking solutions at the City’s discretion and $75,000 contribution for surface parking solutions and to allow the applicant to rent up to 100 spaces from the City if available for one half the market rate as more detailed in a development agreement to be made between the City and the applicant. Further, the development agreement referenced in section 7 of the enactments portion of the proposed ordinance include that the development agreement will encompass the proposed deal points for PZ-15-00164 dated March 1, 2016 subject to the parking provisions mentioned earlier.
Vice Mayor Barotz stated that she will not support the motion because it is totally irresponsible for her to do so without a development agreement. She would request that she has an opportunity to see the development agreement before being asked to vote. Mayor Nabours offered that the development agreement is typically brought forward before the second read of the ordinance.
The following individuals addressed Council in opposition to the zoning map amendment for the HUB:
- Charlie Silver
- Nancy Branham
- Miles Maurer
- Lily Maurer
- Kari Maurer
- Jeff Maurer read the attached letter at the podium
Moved by Councilmember Coral Evans seconded by Councilmember Eva Putzova to amend the rules of procedure to extend the three minute speaking limit to allow Mr. Maurer to finish reading the letter.
Vote: 4-3
NAY: Mayor Nabours
Councilmember Oravits
Councilmember Overton
Vote: 4-3
NAY: Mayor Nabours
Councilmember Oravits
Councilmember Overton
- Chris Gams
- Michael Amundson
- Ruth Ann Border
- Stuart McDaniel
- Sallie Page
- Leslie Pickard
- Sat Best
- Andy Fernandez
- Adam Shimoni
- Karen Enyedy
- Core Campus says they want to be part of the community but their words have quickly grown threatening.
- The project is so far down the development and planning path by the time the developer gets to the public meetings there is little room left for public input.
- Core’s business model is not part of Southside or Flagstaff’s vision.
- An online petition was started 6 days ago that there are over 800 supporters of the Stop the HUB Petition.
- As of 2/19 according to CD there were 144 comments opposed to this project and only 10 in support.
- The HUB is in the wrong location.
- Traffic, parking and safety are the common concerns with the project.
- The shadow the HUB will cast on Phoenix will be huge and ice will be an issue.
- They would like to know if there is a mitigation plan should there be a train derailment.
- The development does not meet all of the required findings needed to approve this rezoning amendment.
- The proposed zoning map amendment is detrimental to the safety of the city, this will not add to the public good.
- It is hard to understand how a developer can assume that they will get zoning approval.
- The developers' rendition of the HUB is not within what the transect zone requires.
- The transect zones are intended to ensure that development is consistent with the existing character of community. The HUB is out of character and out of scale for the area.
- Underlying the principles in the Regional Plan is the premise that future growth and development should be approached knowing that present actions have a direct impact on the future of the community.
- The project does not meet the objectives of transect zoning or the goals of the Regional Plan.
- Disappointed that the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to approve the zoning request and two CUPs.
- Without the amendment the HUB is wrong all together but with it, it becomes more out of place and more out of character than before.
- The findings of the staff report are flawed.
- Approval of this request will set a dangerous precedent for future development.
- I often have to drive around for long periods of time looking for a place to park to go to work; the HUB will make an already difficult parking situation much worse.
- I will be afraid of driving on Mikes Pike because of the increased foot traffic and bicycle traffic along with speeding cars.
- Please do not let the HUB ruin the vibe of a good place.
- Southside is a great community, the apartment building will change this community.
- Deny Core the transect zoning and save historic Southside.
- When did the City start negotiating with Core about the project?
- What did the City tell Core when they showed them the biggest building in Flagstaff going into this neighborhood?
- Does the Council think they have enough good information to make a decision?
- He lives near a large student development in Tucson.
- A primarily residential area has shifted to a primarily rental area.
- Parking is a huge issue in and around the development.
- Business in the area has had little to no uptick from the increase in students over the last four years
- The development is closed off and the residents do not engage with the community.
- The police department spends a lot of time responding to student issues and public safety issues in the area.
- Developments such as the HUB are examples of environmental racism.
- High density is a form of urban decay.
- Neighbors should not be threatening each other, the developer should sit down with the neighborhood to work out a solution.
- It is not too late to start over.
- The City should do all that it can to protect the people who have risked it all to bring their independent businesses to the Southside and make it a one of a kind neighborhood.
- This huge project should go anywhere out of the historic Flagstaff core, but if they want to stay here they should fit into what is already existing.
- What are the effects of the shadow on the railroad?
- Concerned about the increase in pedestrian traffic over the railroad.
- The HUB should be required to have 24 hour security.
- What impacts does this development have on the water supply in Flagstaff
- The HUB should be held to the same standard to have a parking space for each bedroom.
- Land on the south NAU campus is available, go build the HUB there and let NAU deal with providing housing for students and their behavior.
- There are enough judgment calls to find a way to justifiably not make the findings in this case.
- Do not be intimidated by the Prop 207 threats.
- Please spend my tax money and defend my community.
- Students are great and growth is a good thing but Core should work with NAU to build the HUB on campus.
- Encourage the City to hire attorneys to work against Grady Gammage.
- The Board of Regents funds based on student population, City needs to dialogue with Board of Regents about funding more students with less quality.
- John McCulloch
- Stuart McDaniel
- Flagstaff has grown a lot but the City has not changed.
- The relationships that people built in Flagstaff were built on the common interests we have. Buildings do not define this community to me.
- The building can work in this location.
- Students are an economic development piece of the Flagstaff puzzle, it is what sets us apart from other northern Arizona cities.
- The Chamber is in support of this project for economic reasons and the lack of available housing.
- Without NAU and its students Flagstaff would be Winslow.
- Students are part of the community and contribute to the community.
- Private property rights matter, they are constitutionally protected.
- The rezoning gives the opportunity for a better project.
- Without the rezoning the project will continue and the City and community will not have a seat at the table.
- Katy Harding
- Susan Alpera
- Nancy Wardell
- Connie Kim
- Julia Schwalenstoker
- Lucas Klein
- Frederica Hall
- Laura Myers
- Susan Hueftle
- Stanley Graves
- Paul Zeller
- Juliana Bartlett
- Ethan Miles
- Anthony Mancini
- Ann Walka
- Richard Klomassa
- Luke Dickinson
- Cathi Borthwick
- Steve Hirst
- Denise Hudson
- Deb Linda
- Maria Jensen
- Andrew Ryder
- Katarina Karjala
- Sky Black
- Lauren Amundson
- Joan Abbott
- Jill Lynn Farrell
- Emily Davalos
Mayor Nabours stated that the speaker requests have concluded. According to rules of procedure the applicant and City staff will have an opportunity to respond.
Lindsey Schube, attorney with Gammage and Burnham, addressed Council on behalf of Core Campus. Ms. Schube provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:
REGIONAL PLAN 2030
TRANSECT ZONING: DOWNTOWN REGULATING PLAN
REGIONAL PLAN: GROWTH AREAS & LAND USE
REGIONAL PLAN: ACTIVITY CENTERS MAP
REGIONAL PLAN: URBAN AREAS
REGIONAL PLAN 2030: FUTURE GROWTH MAPS
WALKABILITY: FLAGSTAFF URBAN TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS MAP
PUBLIC TRANSIT
WALKABILITY: DISTANCES
EXISTING USE OF THE PROPERTY
REGIONAL PLAN: COMPACT DEVELOPMENT
Ms. Schube asked Council to accommodate what was approved and to make the property better. The developer has worked with the City to improve the project and the design; for example, they have reduced the amount of glass and windows, they changed the design to flat roofs instead of pitched roofs, and they enclosed all of the amenities into the building. Through design review staff asked that the height on Milton be reduced from 64 feet to 52 feet and the developer agreed to that change. The height was also reduced on Mikes Pike and staff requested that the top story be pushed back. These are all things that have been able to be communicated and achieved between the developer and City staff. The zone change gives Flagstaff a better project.
One of the biggest concerns that has been heard is parking. The development adheres to the existing parking regulation and Core Campus is supportive of the parking district. They do not believe that there will be a problem but if there is it will be Core Campus’ problem to solve. Core Campus has agreed to make a $500,000 contribution to the City for parking solutions in the Southside neighborhood as well as a $75,000 contribution to a surface parking lot. In exchange, the City will make available 100 parking spots for Core Campus to rent on an annual basis if the spots are needed. Additionally, they have purchased the People’s Mortgage to allow for shared parking to access the commercial spaces along Milton.
This is different and this is change but through the rezone process the City gets a seat at the table to help develop how the project looks. She believes that the project as has been designed agrees and complies with the Regional Plan. There has been a 6-1 approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommendation from City staff who has worked countless hours with all aspects of the development. She encourage Council to approve the rezoning request.
Mayor Nabours asked if Core Campus is agreeable to the first five conditions of approval provided by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Schube indicated that they are in agreement with those conditions. Mayor Nabours clarified that Core Campus is proposing the monetary contributions and rental spaces in lieu of condition six to which Ms. Schube indicated yes.
Mayor Nabours stated that two weeks ago when Core Campus gave its presentation there was a slide that showed a view of what type of building could build without a change of zoning. The proposed design for the building with the rezone approval is quite different in style and Mayor asked if those changes were required by staff. Ms. Schube explained that it was heard at the public meetings and also required by staff to make changes to the look. There was a laundry list of things that the City wanted changed with the design. Because of the rezone process, it is a give and take in terms of design and conditions and not everyone walks away happy but the parties work together to make changes and concessions to develop a project that can be agreed upon.
Vice Mayor Barotz stated that she would like to see a draft development agreement soon. She felt like the Council should have had it tonight because that is what the staff report says. She stated that she is not prepared to move forward with the process without it.
Vice Mayor Barotz stated that she was appreciative of the Regional Plan policies that were highlighted throughout the presentation. She identified several policies and goals that were identified by the public in conflict of the project and she asked how that is interpreted by the developer in the context of the rezone. There is definitely a difference in opinion in the interpretation and she asked for justification from the developer perspective. Ms. Schube stated that the Regional Plan is a long term planning document and it looks at the community as it is today but also at how it will develop over time. In terms of design, the elements that are being used compliment and are inspired by the surrounding neighborhoods.
Vice Mayor Barotz stated that what she does not understand is that if Core Campus believes that the proposal before the Council tonight is a better project then why punish the community with a less visually appealing building should the rezone request be denied. Ms. Schube offered that the biggest reason it is a better building is because of the place making, it is the commercial on Mikes Pike, and it is the three building heights that are uniform and pushing the 5th story back which is not currently permitted in a T5. This building is a better building through the rezone process because the rezone would allow for the three uniform building heights, all the amenities contained in the middle of the project, and the underground parking that is shielded for dark skies. Without the rezone the building will be a good building and an attractive building but one that is designed for the client. The rezone has allowed input and modifications to get to a building design that is acceptable for both parties.
Councilmember Putzova stated that the Council has to make certain findings about going from one zone to another. She would like to have more information about the proximity of the development to the railroad, specifically how the project is taking into account the noise level from the railroad and the safety related to the crossing of the railroad. Ms. Schube stated that in terms of safety, something that is brought to the table with the rezone and redesign is that there is one point of ingress and egress for pedestrians and vehicles. There are key fobs for all the buildings and the development agreed to be part of the multi-family crime free community. The HUB will have a community assistance program which functions similar to residence assistance one finds on campus. If safe decisions are not being made management is contacted to address solutions. Dawn Cartier with Syntac added that the railroad crossings currently exist and are in operation, the City and the railroad have done a great job of encouraging single points of crossing. Additionally, the safety of railroad crossing are mandated and all of the necessary components are currently in existence. There is not a lot of additional implementations that can be put in. The crossings were evaluated in the study with additional pedestrian counts and the crash analysis showed there was no increased concern for pedestrian related crashes. Ms. Schube offered that in terms of noise, it will be contemplated in the building type and construction, the building will mitigate the train noise for the residents.
Councilmember Evans stated that the public has mentioned numerous times the houses currently existing on the property. Ms. Schube explained that there is one property on the site and they will be making accommodations to move the house to another location.
Councilmember Evans asked if it is Core Campus’ intention to manage the property forever or if it will be sold and managed to another agency. Ms. Schube explained that there are two arms to the Core Campus company; one side is development and the other is management. They could sell the property but the intention is to maintain the property and move it to the management side of the company once developed.
Councilmember Evans asked why Core Campus would not build something that the community wants if the rezoning is denied. Ms. Schube explained that what makes the presented design better is the land use and that is accomplished through the rezone. As far as the architecture is concerned the presented design is a result of input from City staff, the community, and the developer. If the rezone is denied the building will be an attractive building but at that point the property owner’s view and vision of the architecture may not match the view of the community, it is a matter of private property rights. One of the biggest disadvantages of not getting the rezone would be that the parking would be brought above ground.
Councilmember Brewster asked which of the two proposals are cheaper for the developer to build, the rezoned design or the existing zoning design. Ms. Schube stated that the building materials used in the proposal that includes the rezone are far more expensive.
Councilmember Putzova stated that the project should take into consideration all of the public input that was heard and use it in the development of the project without the rezone to make it the best project for the community.
Ms. Putzova asked for Ms. Schube to describe the leasing arrangements that will be implemented with the project. Ms. Schube stated that they are not able to lease by the bedroom so they will lease the units as a whole. There will be four renters per unit. Councilmember Putzova asked if Core Campus has other projects that utilize the lease by unit model. Ms. Schube explained that most Core Campus developments are leased by the bed and they prefer that model but it is not a consideration for the Flagstaff location.
Councilmember Evans asked a representative from La Plaza Vieja if Core Campus presented to the neighborhood. Laura Meyers, on behalf of La Plaza Vieja, stated that the neighborhood did attend the public meeting that was held at Our Lady of Guadalupe but that the neighborhood did not meet with the developer directly. Ms. Schube stated that at the very beginning of the project Core Campus met with Jesse Dominguez of La Plaza Vieja.
Planning Director Dan Folke provided a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ZONING DISTRICTS
PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: ESTABLISH PROPERTY RIGHTS
ZONING DISTRICT INTENT STATEMENTS
REQUESTED ZONING DISTRICTS
PROCESSING APPLICATIONS
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT REVIEW
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Planning Development Manager Brian Kulina continued the presentation
CITY OF FLAGSTAFF ZONING MAP
ZONING MAP OF PROPOSED LOCATION
DOWNTOWN REGULATING MAP
RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
T4 NEIGHBORHOOD
T5 MAIN STREET
LOT COVERAGE
FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR)
Mayor Nabours stated that there has been some discussion about the architectural view of the building. He asked for some background on how that evolved and the role staff played in that. Mr. Kulina offered that transect zones do not have specific design standards associated with them. Staff refers to the architectural design standards found elsewhere in the code. Within those standards there are various options available to the applicant and as long as those minimum standards are being met, they are meeting the intent of the code. Staff has more leverage when a zoning map amendment is requested, they have the ability to push harder to get a better design with rezone situations.
Mayor Nabours asked in terms of parking if the difference between the zoning that exists now and the transect zoning is nine parking spaces. Mr. Kulina indicated that he could not speak to the exact number of spaces because a site plan has not been submitted under the current zoning. It would depend on how the project was laid out. He offered that in the T4 zoning parking is based per unit and in the T5 zoning it is based on the square footage.
Mayor Nabours asked Mr. Kulina what his understanding of the parking proposal from Core Campus is. Mr. Kulina stated that $500,000 would be utilized for parking solutions in Southside and $75,000 would be used for the construction of a surface lot for 100 additional spaces. Those 100 spaces would either be leased back to the developer or utilized for city parking. Mayor Nabours asked which lot would be used for the surface lot. Mr. Kulina explained that staff has not done an analysis of the parcels in the area that would fulfill the requirements. That analysis would be brought back to Council when the development agreement was brought forward for consideration.
Councilmember Oravits asked what the duration of the parking lease agreement would be. Ms. Schube stated that Core Campus has proposed a 20 year term at half market rate and an additional 20 year term at 75% market rate should the lot need to be utilized by the HUB.
Councilmember Putzova asked for some background information on the reasoning behind the transect zones in specific areas. Comprehensive Planning and Code Administrator Roger Eastman stated that when the decision was made for the rewrite of the former Land Development Code staff knew the code would be moving into form based coding. At that time staff began a lengthy process of educating the public about what the City was doing and why it was the most appropriate path. Design charrettes were held with the consultants, staff, and the public to identify what parts of the community were special in terms of their open form. That open form would be coded and applied as the form based code. The result of the lengthy discussions with the consultants and the community resulted in the regulating plan boundary that is presented currently. Within that regulating plan boundary was the detailed analysis. The question became how it is applied; the consultants looked at the existing zoning together with logic. The intent was to have the T5 main street along a busy street. They considered T5 along Mikes Pike and it could be applied if it is anticipated that the street would have a higher volume of traffic or commercial, there is some logic to doing that. A lot of thought went into mapping it the way that it is but that is not to say that the community has changed since that was put in place in 2008. Since that time a new Regional Plan was adopted that shows three activity centers in the area which gives support for a consideration of rezoning to adjust the T5 boundary based on the Regional Plan.
Councilmember Putzova stated that the Council has heard different legal opinions on interpretations of the code. She asked how important legislative history is in representing and interpreting the code. Michelle D’Andrea stated that Council gave her direction that they have waived the attorney client privilege and she can give advice publicly this evening. A court and anyone interpreting a legal code will not look at legislative intent unless there is ambiguity in the standards that are articulated in the code. Here the standards are clear; the transect zones set standards for height, setbacks, and density. That is the language that controls, it is the more specific language that is looked at first and then it moves to the more general language and only then if there is ambiguity is the legislative intent considered.
Councilmember Putzova asked if staff can articulate how swapping the zones would add to public good. Mr. Kulina offered that staff believes that there is a benefit to the public in carrying forward the visions of the Regional Plan. By putting T5 on Mikes Pike, it forces the developer to carry forward the vision of the Regional Plan by putting commercial on Mikes Pike and increasing density intensity within the established urban areas. The Regional Plan asks for high intensity in specific urban areas as outlined by the activity center designations. Without the rezoning the developer has the option of doing some commercial along Mikes Pike but they are not required to. Mikes Pike only has two residential uses currently, the rest is commercial; forcing more residential along there goes against the established character of Mikes Pike. In his opinion the current designation along there does a disservice to the Regional Plan by not carrying forward the redevelopment in these urban areas.
Councilmember Putzova stated that she understands the Regional Plan perspective but she would like to understand how the change would add to the public good. Mr. Kulina stated that it adds to the public good by establishing the urban form that the Regional Plan calls for.
Moved by Mayor Nabours seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to read Ordinance No. 2016-08 by title only for the first time based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and find that the statements contained in sections 2, 3, and 4 of the enactments portion of the proposed ordinance are supported by the information that Council has received through the Public Hearing process. As to the conditions portion of the proposed ordinance I move to delete paragraph 6 regarding parking and replaces that paragraph with the following “this ordinance would be enacted subject to applicants contribution of $500,000 towards Southside parking solutions at the City’s discretion and $75,000 contribution for surface parking solutions and to allow the applicant to rent up to 100 spaces from the City if available for one half the market rate as more detailed in a development agreement to be made between the City and the applicant. Further, the development agreement referenced in section 7 of the enactments portion of the proposed ordinance include that the development agreement will encompass the proposed deal points for PZ-15-00164 dated March 1, 2016 subject to the parking provisions mentioned earlier.
Vice Mayor Barotz stated that she will not support the motion because it is totally irresponsible for her to do so without a development agreement. She would request that she has an opportunity to see the development agreement before being asked to vote. Mayor Nabours offered that the development agreement is typically brought forward before the second read of the ordinance.
Moved by Councilmember Eva Putzova, seconded by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz to postpone until there is a development agreement and time to digest the information received during the public hearings.
Councilmember Overton stated that he is not in support of the motion to postpone; action and direction need to be taken this evening. In regards to the motion from the Mayor, he is not supportive of the way the motion was worded he is comfortable weighing in on the zoning request. He understands the need for the development agreement and is comfortable in principle with the development agreement points but would like to see them flushed out in the development agreement prior to the second read.
Vote: 2 - 5
- NAY:
-
Mayor Jerry Nabours
Councilmember Karla Brewster
Councilmember Coral Evans
Councilmember Jeff Oravits
Councilmember Scott Overton
Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to amend the motion to read Ordinance 2016-08 by title only for the first time subject to an agreement between the City and the Developer.
Councilmember Putzova stated that she will be voting against the motion because she finds the proposed amendment inconsistent with the Regional Plan, specifically policies CC.3.1, NH.1.2, NH.6.1, T.1.8, and T.3.4. She also cannot find a way to assure the public that the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, safety, convenience or welfare of the City. She also cannot find how swapping the transect zones will add to the public good. She does not feel that there is enough time to look for all ways this proposal could meet the necessary requirements and believes no reasonable person can articulate them.
Vice Mayor Barotz stated that the question before the Council is to approve or deny the rezoning request and to do this the Council must make certain findings before they approve a rezone request. She cannot find that this proposed amendment is consistent with the Regional Plan even though staff states that it is. The following policies and goals support her position:
Policy CC.2.7
Goal CC.3
Policy CC.3.1
Policy CC.3.2
Policy C.3.3
Goal CC.4
Policy LU.5.6
Policy LU.10.5
Policy LU.18.13
Policy T.1.8
Policy NH.1.1
Policy NH.1.H.2
Policy NH.6.1
Policy N.1.2
Goal CC.3
Policy CC.3.1
Policy CC.3.2
Policy C.3.3
Goal CC.4
Policy LU.5.6
Policy LU.10.5
Policy LU.18.13
Policy T.1.8
Policy NH.1.1
Policy NH.1.H.2
Policy NH.6.1
Policy N.1.2
At 99 dwelling units per acre with a floor area ratio of 3.54 this project would become the most dense intense building in the city. She cannot find that the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare and it will not add to the public good as outlined in the Regional Plan.
Switching locations of the zones defeats the original intent of the way the zoning map was designed. The transect zoning between Milton and Mikes Pike was designed to make a transition from the T5 urban corridor into the neighborhood on the other side.
She has very serious concerns about parking issues that have been raised.
She feels that she cannot make the necessary findings because the urban infrastructure is not mature enough for the parking incentive offered by the transect zoning. The lack of adequate parking will exacerbate existing problems and create real problems for the residents and businesses in the neighborhood. She does not believe that the rezone is in the public’s interest. She is concerned about public safety, the mass and scale of the project and the issues with parking and traffic.
Mayor Nabours stated that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission spent a great deal of time working through the project and Council has spent many hours discussing the need for infill and redevelopment. This location is a perfect place to do infill and redevelopment. Through the rezone process the City and the public have been able to provide input on the design of the structure. The City will get some good things out of this including a huge contribution to a much needed parking garage. He would rather see this option move forward than to have no input. He also requested a roll-call vote.
Vice Mayor Barotz offered her thanks to everyone who has put time and effort into the participation of the process.
Councilmember Brewster stated that the HUB will be built with or without the rezoning and she would prefer it to be built to the standards developed by input from staff and the public.
Councilmember Evans stated that she has been watching the development in hopes that the community and Core Campus could come to an agreement. She has had the opportunity to speak with Core Campus about the parking issues and she was happy when Core offered to put up $500,000 and $75,000 for parking improvements. There are a lot of other issues as well but she believes that it is directly reflective of the direction that the Arizona Board of Regents has taken in terms of funding and the absence of anyone from NAU speaks to the kind of relationship the City has with NAU.
She offered that she was appreciative of the fact that Core Campus was a lot easier to speak with and have a conversation with then the last student housing developer. While they may not agree on everything Core was willing to have a conversation. She applauds everyone’s effort and thanked them for being there; having an engaged community is important and having the community engaged going forward is important.
She believes that there are a lot of unresolved issues with this development. The community feels that there are health and safety issues and have been clear that this is not appropriate development for the neighborhood or location. She is not in support of the rezoning on this project and would make the findings based on policy NH 1.1 and NH.6.1 of the Regional Plan.
She feels that she cannot make the necessary findings because the urban infrastructure is not mature enough for the parking incentive offered by the transect zoning. The lack of adequate parking will exacerbate existing problems and create real problems for the residents and businesses in the neighborhood. She does not believe that the rezone is in the public’s interest. She is concerned about public safety, the mass and scale of the project and the issues with parking and traffic.
Mayor Nabours stated that staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission spent a great deal of time working through the project and Council has spent many hours discussing the need for infill and redevelopment. This location is a perfect place to do infill and redevelopment. Through the rezone process the City and the public have been able to provide input on the design of the structure. The City will get some good things out of this including a huge contribution to a much needed parking garage. He would rather see this option move forward than to have no input. He also requested a roll-call vote.
Vice Mayor Barotz offered her thanks to everyone who has put time and effort into the participation of the process.
Councilmember Brewster stated that the HUB will be built with or without the rezoning and she would prefer it to be built to the standards developed by input from staff and the public.
Councilmember Evans stated that she has been watching the development in hopes that the community and Core Campus could come to an agreement. She has had the opportunity to speak with Core Campus about the parking issues and she was happy when Core offered to put up $500,000 and $75,000 for parking improvements. There are a lot of other issues as well but she believes that it is directly reflective of the direction that the Arizona Board of Regents has taken in terms of funding and the absence of anyone from NAU speaks to the kind of relationship the City has with NAU.
She offered that she was appreciative of the fact that Core Campus was a lot easier to speak with and have a conversation with then the last student housing developer. While they may not agree on everything Core was willing to have a conversation. She applauds everyone’s effort and thanked them for being there; having an engaged community is important and having the community engaged going forward is important.
She believes that there are a lot of unresolved issues with this development. The community feels that there are health and safety issues and have been clear that this is not appropriate development for the neighborhood or location. She is not in support of the rezoning on this project and would make the findings based on policy NH 1.1 and NH.6.1 of the Regional Plan.
Vote: 4 - 3
- NAY:
-
Vice Mayor Celia Barotz
Councilmember Coral Evans
Councilmember Eva Putzova
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF ZONING MAP DOWNTOWN REGULATING PLAN DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 0.29 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MIKES PIKE AND PHOENIX AVENUE FROM THE T4 NEIGHBORHOOD 1 – OPEN (T4N.1-O) AND T5 MAIN STREET (T5) TRANSECT ZONES TO THE T4 NEIGHBORHOOD 2 (T4N.2) TRANSECT ZONE AND APPROXIMATELY 1.35 ACRES LOCATED AT 17 S MIKES PIKE FROM THE T4 NEIGHBORHOOD 1 – OPEN (T4N.1-O) TRANSECT ZONE TO THE T5 MAIN STREET (T5) TRANSECT ZONE WITH CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
A break was held from 10:10 p.m. - 10:20 p.m.
A break was held from 10:10 p.m. - 10:20 p.m.
15.
REGULAR AGENDA
A.
Discussion and Possible Action re: Current Issues Before the Arizona Legislature
Assistant to the City Manager Stephanie Smith reported that there is a joint meeting coming up on Monday March 7, 2016 where an update will be given on the current issues and she will also be reporting on the recent trip to Washington D.C. at the Work Session of March 8, 2016.
Councilmember Evans asked about HB2566. Ms. Smith stated that the bill is on her list to report on. She added that it is a striker bill that restricts cities from collecting pawn fees. Currently the City collects around $140,000 each year in pawn fees that helps offset police staffing. Many cities and towns are fighting the bill. Councilmember Evans stated that the bill is troublesome for many reasons and requested that the Police Chief present before Council the importance of the pawn officer. Ms. Smith stated that Chief Treadway will be present to answer any questions at the upcoming meetings.
Councilmember Putzova requested an update on HB2579 during Ms. Smith’s future presentations.
Councilmember Evans asked about HB2566. Ms. Smith stated that the bill is on her list to report on. She added that it is a striker bill that restricts cities from collecting pawn fees. Currently the City collects around $140,000 each year in pawn fees that helps offset police staffing. Many cities and towns are fighting the bill. Councilmember Evans stated that the bill is troublesome for many reasons and requested that the Police Chief present before Council the importance of the pawn officer. Ms. Smith stated that Chief Treadway will be present to answer any questions at the upcoming meetings.
Councilmember Putzova requested an update on HB2579 during Ms. Smith’s future presentations.
16.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
None
17.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS
After discussion and upon agreement by a majority of all members of the Council, an item will be moved to a regularly-scheduled Council meeting.
After discussion and upon agreement by a majority of all members of the Council, an item will be moved to a regularly-scheduled Council meeting.
Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to suspend the Rules of Procedure and hear the last agenda item.
Vote: 4 - 3
- NAY:
-
Vice Mayor Celia Barotz
Councilmember Coral Evans
Councilmember Eva Putzova
A.
Future Agenda Item Request (F.A.I.R.): A request by Councilmember Putzova to place on a future agenda a discussion on Regional Plan Goals/Policies regarding Climate Change.
Councilmember Putzova withdrew her request for the Future Agenda Item.
18.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS AND REPORTS FROM COUNCIL AND STAFF, FUTURE AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS
Councilmember Evans stated that there is a continuing issue with Motel 6 and the posted pricing that gets changed. She requested additional information on this issue. Mr. Copley stated that staff will provide the information in a CCR.
Mr. Copley reported that Park maintenance staff is working to prune the dead and decaying limbs of the trees in Wheeler Park.
Mr. Copley reported that Park maintenance staff is working to prune the dead and decaying limbs of the trees in Wheeler Park.
19.
ADJOURNMENT
The Regular Meeting of the Flagstaff City Council held March 1, 2016, adjourned at 10:28 p.m.
↵
CERTIFICATION
I, ELIZABETH A. BURKE, do hereby certify that I am the City Clerk of the City of Flagstaff, County of Coconino, State of Arizona, and that the above Minutes are a true and correct summary of the Meeting of the Council of the City of Flagstaff held on March 1, 2016. I further certify that the Meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
| _______________________________ MAYOR |
|
| ATTEST: |
|
| _________________________________ CITY CLERK |
CERTIFICATION
I, ELIZABETH A. BURKE, do hereby certify that I am the City Clerk of the City of Flagstaff, County of Coconino, State of Arizona, and that the above Minutes are a true and correct summary of the Meeting of the Council of the City of Flagstaff held on March 1, 2016. I further certify that the Meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
| DATED this 22nd day of March, 2016. | |
| ________________________________ CITY CLERK |