Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to approve the minutes of the City Council Work Session of September 29, 2015; City Council Work Session of January 12, 2016; the Regular Council Meeting of February 2, 2016; The Regular Council Meeting of February 16, 2016; the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of February 29, 2016; the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of March 1, 2016; the Regular Council Meeting of March 1, 2016; the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of March 8, 2016; and the Special Meeting (Executive Session) of March 11, 2016.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Eva Putzova, seconded by Vice Mayor Celia Barotz to appoint Steve Hirst to the Open Spaces Commission, with a term to expire April 2019.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Karla Brewster, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to reappoint Jim Burton to the Open Spaces Commission, with a term to expire April 2019.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to reappoint Bryan Burton to the Open Spaces Commission, with a term to expire April 2018.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to appoint Monica Attridge to the Disability Awareness Commission, with a term to expire March 2019.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to appoint Kaitlyn Verfuerth to the Disability Awareness Commission, with a term to expire March 2019.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to appoint Michael Sanderfer to the Disability Awareness Commission, with a term to expire March 2019.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

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

Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to forward a recommendation to the State for approval of the liquor license application submitted by Rochan Goswami, VP Racing, 4501 N. Hwy. 89, Series 10 (beer and wine store), new license.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to approve Consent Agenda Items 9-A through 9-D.

Councilmember Oravits commended staff and C&E, a local contractor, for getting work going on the paving and sidewalks.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Deputy Police Chief Dan Musselman briefly reviewed the request, noting that this provides 75% funding for this officer and they can renew it for five years.

Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans approve the Intergovernmental Agreement DPS Contract #2016-023 between the State of Arizona, Department of Public Safety and the City regarding the State Gang Task Force.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Project Manager Randy Whitaker briefly reviewed the request, noting that this was continuation of the Fourth Street crosswalk project and they have been in contact with the property owners.

Moved by Councilmember Karla Brewster, seconded by Mayor Jerry Nabours to read Ordinance No. 2016-10 by title only for the first time.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

AN ORDINANCE OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY AS A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PEDESTRIAN RAMPS ON FOURTH STREET AT THIRD AVENUE AND AT DORTHA AVENUE AND DESIGNATING THE REAL PROPERTY AS PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY

Project Manager Christine Cameron came forward to answer any questions Council may have. Mayor Nabours noted that there were several bids received, and it was a heart breaker that they were unable to award it to a local firm.

Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Eva Putzova to approve the construction contract with Sellers & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $1,914,238.50 (includes a contract allowance in the amount of $89,605.00 and contract time of 200 days); approve Change Order Authority to the City Manager in the amount of $182,463.00 (10% of the contract amount, less allowance); and authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to read Resolution No. 2016-14 by title only.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF AUTHORIZING SIGNATURES FOR CHECKS AND PAYMENT VOUCHERS, AND REPEALING PRIOR RESOLUTION
 

Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to adopt Resolution No. 2016-14.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Councilmember Jeff Oravits, seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans to read Ordinance No. 2016-11 by title only for the final time.

Vote: 6 - 1

NAY:

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 Jeff Oravits, seconded by Councilmember Scott Overton to adopt Ordinance No. 2016-11.

Vote: 6 - 1

NAY:

Councilmember Eva Putzova

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster to read Ordinance No. 2016-12 by title only for the final 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
 

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to adopt Ordinance No. 2016-12.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Sustainability Specialist Tamara Lawless invited the Council and public to participate in Lights Out, which is a annual celebration of dark skies and energy efficiency, on Friday, noting that they would have telescopes in Heritage and a tour.

Dawn Tucker, Flagstaff, pleaded for a moratorium on building.

Emily Davalos, Flagstaff, said that she fully supported the request made for a moratorium on building.

Rob Wilson, Flagstaff, said that he has heard a lot about the character of Flagstaff and how it won't be the same with the addition of buildings. He said that it has been happening since it was first established. He said that as he travels, he often shares what he likes the most about Flagstaff--the natural beauty and its people. He said that they have signs coming into town that say that they are building an inclusive community, but he has been disheartened to see how people are treating each other and visitors. He asked his fellow citizens to treat all with respect and let the Council Chambers be a safe place for everyone to express their views.

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to postpone Item 14-A (Zoning Code Amendments - Sign Code) to the April 19, 2016, Council Meeting.

Vote: 6 - 1

NAY:

Councilmember Scott Overton

Planning Development Director Brian Kulina reviewed what has been happening with this application since the last meeting. He said that staff received a completed site plan application, which they have coined HUB 2.0 using the existing Transect T4 zoning along with T5 along Milton and Phoenix. Staff has not gone through the substantive review of that application; generally it takes two to four weeks to get through every staff member on site. He then began a PowerPoint, attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A, which addressed:

WHAT'S HAPPENED
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - CITY OBLIGATIONS

Lindsey Schube, attorney representing the HUB, said that there have been questions in town about whether there was a Plan B or Plan C and what it might look like if they built with existing entitlements. She then asked the architect, John Myefski to review a design based on existing entitlements.

Mr. Myefski provided a PowerPoint which included:

EXISTING ZONING PERSPECTIVES
EXISTING ZONING PERSPECTIVES: Phoenix Avenue
EXISTING ZONING PERSPECTIVES: Milton Road
EXISTING SITE PLAN
EXISTING ZONING - 1ST FLOOR
EXISTING ZONING - 3RD FLOOR
EXISTING ZONING - 3.5 AND 4TH FLOOR PLAN

MATERIALS

Mayor Nabours asked Mr. Myefski to review the drawing of the requested design versus by-right design and asked about the difference on the main floor. Mr. Myefski explained that with the requested design, it included retail on the bottom floor, but if they eliminate the retail on the bottom there are different requirements with regard to the floodplain that requires the floor to be higher off the ground.

Vice Mayor Barotz asked the architect if they drove around the City when they first came to Flagstaff. Mr. Myefski said that he came to Flagstaff three times before actually designing the project, and met with people in the area. He spent most of the time at this site, walking around. He said that it is a unique mixture of different types of facades--malapai, sandstone, bricks. He said that from where they started initially, they have made a huge change from a lot of input. He said that they believe that it is better to have retail along the bottom level.

Vice Mayor Barotz said that what she has heard is the question of compatibility to the neighborhood. She asked Mr. Myefski if he personally felt that the proposed building was compatible with the existing neighborhood. Mr. Myefski replied that he did, and it has made leaps and bounds to be even more compatible.

Councilmember Putzova asked Mr. Myefski if the windows depicted on the drawing were reflective of the actual density. Mr. Myefski replied that they were 100% accurate.

LETTER OF SUPPORT

Vice Mayor Barotz said that there is a huge difference between parking a project properly and underparking it. She asked how it was that they incentivized the transect zone.

Mayor Nabours noted that they were operating under the need for a supermajority vote (6 councilmembers) to approve the rezone.

The following individuals addressed the Council in opposition to the project:

•Rick Moore
•Diana Thorson
•Maury Herman
•Gloria Valencia

Comments received included:

•While he opposes the HUB, the larger question needs to be resolved of whether their transect zones can achieve the goals they wanted
•One of the intents of T4 is to allow such areas with integration of small building footprints and medium density housing
•If those words have meaning, he would ask that they reject the report and if the developer decides to litigate, so be it
•Real issue is density in neighborhoods
•High density equals American greed
•If it takes a lawsuit, so be it
•There has been a lot of discussion about the lesser of two evils
•They want the opportunity to challenge the interpretation of the transect zones altogether
•Before they can qualify for parking incentives it needs to qualify under the transect zone
•A large block building is incompatible with the existing neighborhood
•The buildings are ugly
•When did Flagstaff residents become the lower man on the totem pole? All she hears about is college, college, college
•Students will be inviting their friends; will put more pressure on police and fire
•Has not seen anything about housing for veterans or disabled
•Time for everyone to vote; need to cut off the head of the snake

The following individual spoke in favor of the project:

•Rob Wilson

Comments received included:

•The modified zoning code was developed for projects like this
•Friends of Flagstaff's Future have asked to stop projects, but they continue
•Community has opposed three consecutive student housing projects
•Citizens asking for no HUB have been misled; it will be built regardless
•As requested, it is the most beneficial for Flagstaff
•Ideally located, next to the university and mass transit
•A councilmember was part of the Regional Plan committee and works for NAU, but is opposed to project

Councilmember Putzova noted that they were talking about high density housing. They were talking about living and working in smaller units; they never had a discussion about housing projects that were built exclusively and marketed to students. She does not want them to have the impression that the Regional Plan committee got what they asked for. They realize there are deficiencies in the planning documents. None of them envisioned this is how the Zoning Code would be applied.

Councilmember Evans said that she was also on the Regional Plan committee and one of the things she had pointed out was that they spent over $800,000 working on the new Zoning Code, while she had to fight to get $30,000 allocated for the Regional Plan process. The Regional Plan is the guiding document and then the Zoning Code implements the guiding document. The community looks at the Regional Plan and the develoeprs look at the Zoning Code.

Jane Kuhn, representing NAU, addressed the Council stating that she had been asked to address any concerns related to NAU and the HUB project. She said that NAU did not invite the HUB to build this project; it is a private development. What NAU has been doing is addressing its housing units and enrollment growth. They are in conversations with the City of Flagstaff on how to remediate some of the parking problems caused as enrollment grows. That may look like a parking lot available 24 hours a day to commuter students. They are addressing as best as they can their growth. Enrollment growth is good for NAU and for the City. They know that the economic impact of NAU being part of the community is a lot and the City and NAU are grateful for that.

Mayor Nabours asked Ms. Kuhn if she knew what percentage of students in Flagstaff live on campus and how that compares to other universities. Ms. Kuhn said that they have 9,100 beds on campus and are breaking ground on an additional 620 beds. When completed they will have 9,700 beds on campus and that puts NAU in the top 1% of residential campuses. They have more housing on campus than 99% of other colleges in the nation.

They will be able to house 50% of the students attending campus; they had a little over 20,000 students this year. They will continue to watch their enrollment growth and demands for housing and as they can, they will continue to build on campus; however, not all students want to live on campus.

Councilmember Evans thanked Ms. Kuhn for attending the meeting. One of the things that has been lacking in the meetings is the fact that NAU has not been there. She said that one thing she hears a lot of is the question of why NAU does not build student housing south of the I-40, possibly through a PPP, to include housing for professors and staff.

Ms. Kuhn replied that in 2006 they actually did a study on providing faculty and staff housing. They put out an RFP and it came back that it was not feasible due to the cost of building in the community and in that area because of the grade changes. She said that it does not mean that it is off the table; it is a discussion that they have periodically.

Councilmember Evans said that another issue that comes up often is why the Code of Conduct for students at NAU does not apply off campus like at other universities. Ms. Kuhn said that actually they are working collaboratively with the City of Flagstaff. All Code of Conduct issues that come to them they are now getting involved with and if they are violating the Code of Conduct off campus and it is brought to their attention, they are bringing those students in. They are looking at a liaison position and once that position is filled, they will be able to do more of that.

Councilmember Evans said that when they talk about students they get grouped into one category, but there are those that do not always respect the neighborhoods. Ms. Kuhn said that NAU will be expanding on some of their educational programs. Last fall they produced a brochure on how to be a good neighbor and having the liaison position will help.

Councilmember Evans said that another issue is parking. She said that they have worked for eight to ten years to get a residential parking permit established. She was disappointed that NAU did not come to those conversations. The students cite the cost of parking in the NAU garage for why they do not use it. She asked if there was a way for NAU to find a cheaper parking lot or incentivize their employees to use it, realizing that NAU's funding has been cut as well.

Ms. Kuhn said that the parking permit this year is $400 and many choose not to buy. They tried to mitigate that and be a partner with NAIPTA and they have had thousands of students, faculty and staff take advantage of riding the bus. They are also looking to expand the commuter lot, and possibly building a remote lot for faculty and staff at a lower cost, and then they would have to ride the bus to their office on campus. She said that they tried that many years ago and it failed, but they are researching it again.

Councilmember Brewster asked if the new student housing being built on campus would include parking. Ms. Kuhn replied that they are building a 700 car parking structure; part of those spaces will be for the students and part will be for faculty.

John McCullogh then addressed the Council stating that his understanding of transect zones was not to be compatible, but to have similar uses with different elements of design, similar to what they have on the north side. He said that underparking is a policy, to drive people out of their cars and encourage them to bike, walk, use transit.

Councilmember Evans said that while the community may not have been there for the Regional Plan meetings, they thought the Council was looking out for them. The southside businesses use the parking spaces, but the residents don't care for that. There is already a parking program being worked on. She has been on the Council since 2008 and they have been talking about it all that time.

A break was held from 7:34 p.m. to 7:46 p.m.

The following individuals then addressed the Council:

•Mary Vasquez-Powell
•George Averbeck
•Kate Mahadry
•Nancy Branham, representing several people
•Frank Branham
•Bill Ring
•Marie Jones
•Charlie Silver

Comments received included:

•HUB project will negatively affect the Lady of Guadalupe Church
•They are trying to obtain national status for Lady of Guadalupe Church and this project will negatively impact those efforts
•Makes sense to find a solution to the traffic first
•Has worn many different hats; tonight was speaking as a member of the Beautification and Arts Commission, thinking back on decisions they have made in the past where they got it wrong
•He's more of a Plan C or Plan D person
•This project is inappropriate for where it is suggested
•Please do not be coerced by developer's statement that they can build by right; there is still the question of whether they need a CUP
•City needs to require sufficient parking
•This would be the building with the highest density in the City
•Speaking to the Mayor's Facebook comments...they realize that the developer has a right to build something on the project.
•They were the ones that bought it with the T4 zoning and decided to do transect zoning.
•She disputes the Mayor's claim that if they deny the Zoning Change they will build
•If they build under regular zoning, they are required to do one parking space per bed
•Believes that the City has the ability to ask for conditions in transect zones
•Ask Council to deny the request and oversee staff's negotiations with Core
•Would also ask that Core Campus make this a flagship project
•He and his wife own Cottage Place; they already have traffic and parking problems
•Part of the problem with the new parking program is that it is voluntary, block by block
•Speaking strictly as an individual, he lives three blocks from the HUB; there need to be findings.
•It is substantially underparked; the bulk and mass of the building is totally out of character, dominating its surroundings
•The Council cannot find this project to be in the benefit of the public's health, safety and welfare
•The City staff did not apply compatibility standard to this project; error of law
•He served on the Regional Plan committee and while they congenially disagreed on issues, they came to agreement about things like this; student housing should be compatible with its surrounding.
•This is about mega student housing projects which are coming online nationally; now they have the first one proposed for a neighborhood in a historic area of Flagstaff
•Is opposed; it makes a mockery of the city's Zoning Code. This project does not qualify for T4 and T5 zones for reasons previously stated
•Perhaps it is a ripe time for a moratorium while the City researches the High Occupancy Housing ordinance
•Something is not working; they need a Neighborhood Services Department

Ms. Schube said that they cannot lump all students together. They cannot lump all student housing programs together. They will work with the university. There is a Plan A and a Plan B; she asked which one was better. She said that her client is a property owner and taxpayer and they are going to build. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-1 to approve this request. Staff has worked hard, and they have worked hard and have brought forward a proposal with three stories on all sides which will not be there if they build at existing zoning.

A break was held from 8:28 p.m. to 8:49 p.m.

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to read Ordinance No. 2016-09 by title only for the final time, subject to the following: that the findings in Section 2-6 of the proposed ordinance have a basis that Section 7 is amended to make this ordinance contingent upon a mutually-acceptable Development Agreement approved by Council and applicant with changes to only the following sections of the proposed Development in the packet: 4.1, 5.1, 6.1.3, 6.3, 6.5, 6.6, 6.7, and 8.15.1; and a further condition that the site plan shall be amended to conform to the proposal by the developer in the letter to Council dated March 18, 2016, regarding the setback of the fourth and fifth floors, and to correspond with that, Condition #2 of the proposed ordinance be deleted; Condition 3 of the proposed ordinance will be amended to limit the number of units to 232 and the number of beds to 635; that Condition 6 be deleted regarding parking as the Development Agreement will require the developer to contribute $500,000 the southside parking solutions; and Section 11 be amended to reflect that it only becomes effective 30 days following Council's approval of the Development Agreement, with any recitals in the ordinance to be amended to conform with these revisions.

Mayor Nabours said that he was happy to have a discussion about transect zones, but it was not the role of Council to tell staff how to interpret the Code, and it was not their role to interpret the Code. The Council can rewrite the Code if they think it is ambiguous or not in a format they like, but it cannot be done retroactively. This property has zoning rights. To him it comes down to Plan A and Plan B. This location is in the middle of an urban activity center within the Regional Plan. They do not want acres of parking in the middle of an urban activity center; they want to discourage that. For all of those reasons, the rezoning is a much more attractive project and one that in 15 years he would rather have than the other. He hears the concerns, he has read the e-mails, but it is not for Council to retroactively try and interpret or rewrite any of the code. If this gets resolved another way in court, so be it.

Councilmember Brewster said that during the turmoil of this development it has become clear that they do not want this development at all, but that is not a choice. They have a choice of approving the zoning and having a better development (but now they are required to have a super majority), or vote no and have a larger building. She said that tonight the no votes will determine what the building looks like.

Councilmember Putzova said that she has more to say, but she wanted to point out that it was not clear to her in the motion what the setback would be for the fourth and fifth stores.

Councilmember Evans said that she spoke last time at length on why she voted against this rezoning. Sitting here tonight she has more thoughts. She finds it interesting that the community has had to go out and seek a super majority petition for the third time. There are some individuals here that think that is a problem. They have been talking a lot about basic rules. She reminded everyone that the reason why residents were able to seek that super majority was because it is in the rules.

She said that it was also interesting that they were told there was an Option A or and Option B. There is an Option C, where the developers could have drawn a proposal, and gone back to the comjunity to present something they would like. She does not think that this new option was presented to the community. Also she thinks that the worse time to make a decision is picking between two evils.

She said that she also finds it interesting that people say that the residents in the neighborhood are confused about the question and what is at stake. Everyone that she has talked to understands what is at stake. There is also talk about building by right, but they have talked very little about those that live there. To say that the Council should not be concerned or it is not their role to look at or determine this situation is wrong. There have been a lot of people think that it is their role.

Councilmember Overton said that he was not there to sway anyone, but he has spent a tremendous amount of time understanding the relationship between the Regional Plan, a Specific Plan and the Zoning Code. He probably spent more of his effort with the Zoning Code because that is the regulating document that attaches to all properties. He has had hundreds of property owners argue that they have a property right and cannot do what they want. He said that property rights have a value. The City can only do so much. There are the visionary documents and then they apply the true legal Zoning Code to it.

He said that sometimes they push the envelope a little bit and this case has required them to do that. It takes an underutilized site and does something different with it. They also need to recognize that there is a value in going through the exercise, recognizing the private property owner. In this case he has walked through every document. He has felt that they have gone through the process provided. They have guided an applicant through a difficult process. He believes that the transect zones make a lot of sense. It allows private ownership to work with neighborhoods to come up with building types. He has been supportive because it is an option and provides better flexibility in terms of trying to influence property owners.

Councilmember Overton said that they need to look at the entire community with land use in mind. He thinks it is manageable. He was supportive two weeks ago and will be tonight. The process they have gone through and the benefit of the revitalization is important. This is a positive and he wants to recognize the private property rights, and the rights of those in the neighborhood. He does not believe that Plan B is the way to go. He does not want to go down the legal road, but there is a venue there. He welcomes a discussion on the transect zones. He still thinks that they are a good thing.

Vice Mayor Barotz said that she has a different perspective re transect zoning. She recalls clearly that when this came before the Council, before amending the Code, that they were shown a lot of lovely drawings with images that suggested compatibility. They had little bungalows, two-story of three-story buildings, with coffee shops downstairs and apartments upstairs. She thought that by approving that policy behind the transect zoning that the standards developed by staff would reflect the policy choices that she thought they were going to be implementing. She sees that the standards, and the rules, and the charts allow for this kind of project. She did not understand that is what they would be getting.

She said that her purpose is not to go into a big discussion that. They know there are differences. She has talked to a lot of people in the community about this issue and spent a lot of time on it. She has listened. It is a difficult case, but the most important thing she can do is listen to most of the people. She believes that the community does understand the consequences or implications of a denial of the zoning. While the message may have been no on the HUB, that no on the HUB may not mean no to the HUB.

Councilmember Oravits said that he would be voting in favor, as before. He had a different perspective. He said that a lot of people are under the impression that a no vote is a stop the HUB vote. He appreciated the people coming out and a lot of the e-mails he has seen are about stopping the HUB. His wife thought it was too bug, and he wishes it was smaller, but he does appreciate the fact that it has been scaled down. With that said, there is a property right. He thinks that by voting no they will be blowing it. The reality is so clear. He is trying to do what is best for the community and trying to get the best deal for the community. He had someone ask him if he thought that $500,000 was enough for parking. He said that they contribute zero if they build by right. He urged his colleagues to get on board with this proposal, as the alternative is not good.

Councilmember Putzova said that they talk a lot about design and architecture. Those are not the items that they have to base their decision on. They have heard very little either from the developers or from staff to really help them articulate their findings either way. She thought that in the future it would be helpful that in rezoning cases they focus on the decision they have to make. She said that she knows this is technical and it is thought that if the project in someone's mind meets the findings, then it is okay, but she asked that they also consider what it means that the project "adds to the public good and is in the public interest." A lot of what she heard was negative and she cannot get behind this zoning map amendment. To her, it is not about Option A, B or C. She cannot find ways that this would add to the public good.

Councilmember Evans added that they have talked a lot tonight about personal property rights, and that is not being challenged. She has heard a lot say to let them build it by right. What she is saying is that a rezoning is a community right; the community gets the right to weigh in on the decision. The community has not seen a clear, concise benefit in order to grant this right and that is why they have been here time after time.

Vote: 4 - 3

NAY:

Vice Mayor Celia Barotz
Councilmember Coral Evans
Councilmember Eva Putzova

Since a super majority vote was required to approve the zoning map amendment, this request has failed.

A break was held from 9:15 p.m. to 9:23 p.m. Councilmember Overton returned at 9:25 p.m. and Councilmember Oravits arrived at 9:27 p.m.

Mayor Nabours noted that he was opening the Public Hearing for all of the items related to McMillan Mesa.

Planning Development Manager Tiffany Antol reviewed the applications and provided a PowerPoint presentation, Exhibit B attached hereto and made a part hereof, which addressed:

MCMILLAN MESA VILLAGE - Regional Plan, Specific Plan, and Zoning Map Amendment
     Regional Plan Amendment Request - Map
     Specific Plan and Concept Zoning Map Amendment Request - Map
          Zoning Code Compliance
          Traffic and Access
          Water & Wastewater
          Stormwater
     Citizen Participation
     Recommendation
     Regional Plan Amendment Request
          Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Consumption
          Habitat Protection
          Water
          Water Quality
          Scenic Resources and Natural Setting
          Reinvestment
          Suburban Area Type
          Transit, Bicycle and Pedestrian

Councilmember Overton said that he understands the densities were swapped, but he is more concerned with taking inventory of business park out of the land use category and converting it to the housing stock. He had comfort thinking about the properties to the north. He asked if that issue was discussed and if they were concerned to be cutting into the R&D area. Mr. Antol said that it is a concern. She believed that in the original application she did a breakdown and this amount of rezoning equates to an increase of 4% reduction. The R&D area includes 486 acres of land. This amount of land to be rezoned constitutes 3% and 7% of the total vacant land within R&D.

Mayor Nabours said that there have been some stormwater issues on the mesa and he asked if they were past that issue now. Ms. Antol said that they have worked long and hard with stormwater. There have been issues with how to handle a regional detention facility. It has been a process that has moved and gone through multiple reviews. They continue to monitor on a case-by-case basis. It requires modification as each project goes through. More work will be done through the site plan process.

She said that she cannot promise there won't be a problem, but they know that the plan was designed to handle this amount of stormwater. They will continue to work with the developer to make sure that the LID and detention basin is proper.

Mr. Hotsenpiller with Mogollon Engineering said that the detention basins and stormwater facilities have been partially built and are being completed. Within this downzoning, the stormwater facilities will be overbuilt based on the amount of business park and R&D property that was there.

Mayor Nabours said that the recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission has eight conditions, and he asked if those were acceptable to them. Mr. Hotsenpiller replied that they were.

Councilmember Putzova asked what the feedback from the community was on this zoning map amendment. Ms. Antol said that she did not attend either of the neighborhood meetings, but it was relayed that traffic was a big concern. At the first meeting before Planning and Zoning, they had a good sized crowd that attended. Three people spoke with one in favor and two represented concerns overall, which focused on traffic and why the staff did not require a new traffic impact analysis.

Councilmember Putzova asked if any concern was voiced about changing the land use designation from business park to residential. Ms. Antol said that there were some comments that they would prefer commercial uses over residential.

Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Coral Evans to read Resolution No. 2016-08 by title only.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

A RESOLUTION OF THE FLAGSTAFF CITY COUNCIL AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF REGIONAL PLAN 2030 TO CHANGE THE AREA TYPE DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 6.31 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY ON MAPS 21 AND 22 LOCATED AT 1800 N. GEMINI DRIVE FROM AREA IN WHITE AREA TYPE TO EXISTING SUBURBAN AREA TYPE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
 

Moved by Councilmember Scott Overton, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to adopt Resolution No. 2016-08.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Karla Brewster read Ordinance No. 2016-14 by title only for the first time, as there was evidence to support Sections 2 through 4 of the proposed ordinance.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

 

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FLAGSTAFF, AMENDING THE FLAGSTAFF ZONING MAP TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 26.17 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON MCMILLAN MESA, FROM SUBURBAN COMMERCIAL ("SC") TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ("MR") FOR 7.67 ACRES, FROM RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ("RD") TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ("MR") FOR 13.66 ACRES, AND FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY ("R1") TO PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ("POS") FOR 4.84 ACRES, AND AMENDING THE MCMILLAN MESA VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN TO REALLOCATE 192 DWELLING UNITS FROM DEVELOPMENT AREA B TO DEVELOPMENT AREAS C, D1 AND D3; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
 

Mayor Nabours said that due to the time he would like to move to Item 15-B next.

Mayor Nabours noted that it was after 10:00 p.m. and a motion would be required to continue with the agenda items.

Councilmember Overton moved to continue with the agenda; Vice Mayor Barotz moved to postpone the remaining items.

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to open the Public Hearings for all of the following items, to allow for public input this evening, and then postpone the Public Hearing to the April 5, 2016, Regular Meeting.

Vote: 6 - 1

NAY:

Councilmember Scott Overton

Laura Meyers, representing the La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood, read a statement of strong support for the proposed Regional Plan Amendment, adding that they appreciated the time and effort the City staff has put into support their neighborhood. She said that the rezoning of the park would assist with the Association's dedication to maintaining their cultural heritage within their neighborhood.

Mayor Nabours noted that the Public Hearing for all of the open space items would be continued on April 5, 2016.

Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Jeff Oravits to remove this item from the table and postpone it to a date to be selected by the City Manager.

Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously

None

There being no further business to be discussed, the Regular Meeting of the Flagstaff City Council held March 22, 2016, adjourned at 10:09 p.m.