| CITY COUNCIL COMBINED SPECIAL MEETING/WORK SESSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2016 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 211 WEST ASPEN 6:00 P.M. |
||
| MINUTES |
1.
Call to Order
Mayor Nabours called the Special Meeting of September 27, 2016, to order at 6:02 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 work session, 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.
Pledge of Allegiance
The audience and City Council recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
The audience and City Council recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
3.
Roll Call
| 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 Others present: City Manager Josh Copley and City Attorney Sterling Solomon |
ABSENT: NONE |
4.
Public Hearing for Resolution No. 2016-31: A resolution of the Flagstaff City Council amending the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 by amending Chapter 3 to change the categories of Major Plan Amendments and establishing an effective date.
Mayor Nabours said that this was a continuation of the Public Hearing held last week on the proposed amendments to Chapter 3 of the Regional Plan. He said that they would hold the hearing for about an hour and then it would be continued to next week and they would move to the next item on this evening's agenda.
Comprehensive Planning Manager Sara Dechter continued her PowerPoint presentation:
MAJOR PLAN AMENDMENTS, ACTIVITY CENTERS
Ms. Dechter said that the way that the City of Flagstaff has set up their rules (which are not consistent with the state), there are not many procedural differences between a Special Plan and a Major Plan Amendment except the annual timeline which comes from the state statutes.
She said that they are proposing to move away from the acreage threshold of 5, 10 and 20 acres, and move to a goal of using the characteristics to determine up or down. She said that there would be a little interpretation by staff, but they could do that consistently across the City, especially once they get more Special Plans adopted.
Ms. Dechter then gave some examples. She said that currently any change from rural to suburban, up in density of more than 20 acres, is a Major Plan Amendment. She said that there were very few parcels within the City that were more than 20 acres and the proposal would be to make that a Minor Plan Amendment. She said that it all comes down to providing the right information, at the right time, for the right decision by Council.
Vice Mayor Barotz said that she was concerned about a consequence that they may not be seeing at this time. She said that when they voted in the past on transect zones, it was never brought to their attention that a whole part of a block downtown could be combined. When they saw the drawings they saw little bungalows.
Councilmember Putzova said that in all of it, the combining or splitting of parcels may trigger a minor or major amendment, because they do have thresholds. She asked if there was a way to work in some language that it cannot be used to circumvent that. Ms. Decther said that she would have to ask Legal to respond to that. She said that she does not review annexations or rezonings if they are within the proper areas.
Mayor Nabours asked if it would be a Minor Plan Amendment if the parcel was less than 20 acres currently. Ms. Decther said that was correct. Since there are so few parcels over 20 acres, staff had suggested that those be put in with the others and come up with a different criteria, making them all Minor Plan Amendments, but people argued against that. The people felt that the rural areas were significant and were talked about in the Regional Plan as areas to preserve.
She reviewed the different options:
Option A - The proposed Critiera
Option B - Moving Existing Activity Center would be Major and Future Activity Centers would be Minor
Option C - All Moves of the Activity Center would be Major
Option D - Moving a Regional Scale Activity Center would be Major and Neighoborhood-Scale would be Minor
She said that staff was recommending Option A, "moving the center of an activity center more than 1/2 mile from its original location would require a Major Plan Amendment." She said that the people in the rural areas said they were more aware of Major Plan Amendments than they may be as aware of a Minor.
Discussion was held on the various options. Vice Mayor Barotz said that she was not prepared to support one over the other this evening. Councilmember Putzova said that she would like to understand how splitting and combining parcels factors into this and keeping that original provision.
Ms. Dechter then reviewed Major Plan Amendments with regard to Corridors and Great Streets. She said that this situation is one that triggered a request from the Planning and Zoning Commission. She said that they have some problems with categories related to Corridors and Great Streets. She and Legal have looked at other communities and have not found roads and road locations in their Major Plan Amendment criteria.
She said that it means that if they are far away from an Activity Center and are proposing commercial activity, it should be a Major Plan Amendment. The problem is that they do not have maps that show activities, and she does not think they could enforce this. To have a Plan Amendment, they have to change a map or text in the Regional Plan.
She said that they felt this was a poorly written category. To her it is a strong issue in the table that they currently have. Regardless of other changes, she would encourage Council to delete this category. Councilmember Evans asked if there was a way to write it correctly. Ms. Decther said that she did not think so. They do not discuss activities anywhere in the plan.
Councilmember Evans asked if they could pull information out of the other sections and use it here to clarify the language. Ms. Decther said that she would need to think about that.
Comprehensive Planning Manager Sara Dechter continued her PowerPoint presentation:
MAJOR PLAN AMENDMENTS, ACTIVITY CENTERS
Ms. Dechter said that the way that the City of Flagstaff has set up their rules (which are not consistent with the state), there are not many procedural differences between a Special Plan and a Major Plan Amendment except the annual timeline which comes from the state statutes.
She said that they are proposing to move away from the acreage threshold of 5, 10 and 20 acres, and move to a goal of using the characteristics to determine up or down. She said that there would be a little interpretation by staff, but they could do that consistently across the City, especially once they get more Special Plans adopted.
Ms. Dechter then gave some examples. She said that currently any change from rural to suburban, up in density of more than 20 acres, is a Major Plan Amendment. She said that there were very few parcels within the City that were more than 20 acres and the proposal would be to make that a Minor Plan Amendment. She said that it all comes down to providing the right information, at the right time, for the right decision by Council.
Vice Mayor Barotz said that she was concerned about a consequence that they may not be seeing at this time. She said that when they voted in the past on transect zones, it was never brought to their attention that a whole part of a block downtown could be combined. When they saw the drawings they saw little bungalows.
Councilmember Putzova said that in all of it, the combining or splitting of parcels may trigger a minor or major amendment, because they do have thresholds. She asked if there was a way to work in some language that it cannot be used to circumvent that. Ms. Decther said that she would have to ask Legal to respond to that. She said that she does not review annexations or rezonings if they are within the proper areas.
Mayor Nabours asked if it would be a Minor Plan Amendment if the parcel was less than 20 acres currently. Ms. Decther said that was correct. Since there are so few parcels over 20 acres, staff had suggested that those be put in with the others and come up with a different criteria, making them all Minor Plan Amendments, but people argued against that. The people felt that the rural areas were significant and were talked about in the Regional Plan as areas to preserve.
She reviewed the different options:
Option A - The proposed Critiera
Option B - Moving Existing Activity Center would be Major and Future Activity Centers would be Minor
Option C - All Moves of the Activity Center would be Major
Option D - Moving a Regional Scale Activity Center would be Major and Neighoborhood-Scale would be Minor
She said that staff was recommending Option A, "moving the center of an activity center more than 1/2 mile from its original location would require a Major Plan Amendment." She said that the people in the rural areas said they were more aware of Major Plan Amendments than they may be as aware of a Minor.
Discussion was held on the various options. Vice Mayor Barotz said that she was not prepared to support one over the other this evening. Councilmember Putzova said that she would like to understand how splitting and combining parcels factors into this and keeping that original provision.
Ms. Dechter then reviewed Major Plan Amendments with regard to Corridors and Great Streets. She said that this situation is one that triggered a request from the Planning and Zoning Commission. She said that they have some problems with categories related to Corridors and Great Streets. She and Legal have looked at other communities and have not found roads and road locations in their Major Plan Amendment criteria.
She said that it means that if they are far away from an Activity Center and are proposing commercial activity, it should be a Major Plan Amendment. The problem is that they do not have maps that show activities, and she does not think they could enforce this. To have a Plan Amendment, they have to change a map or text in the Regional Plan.
She said that they felt this was a poorly written category. To her it is a strong issue in the table that they currently have. Regardless of other changes, she would encourage Council to delete this category. Councilmember Evans asked if there was a way to write it correctly. Ms. Decther said that she did not think so. They do not discuss activities anywhere in the plan.
Councilmember Evans asked if they could pull information out of the other sections and use it here to clarify the language. Ms. Decther said that she would need to think about that.
Ms. Decther reviewed some of the issues related to the Corridors and Great Streets, which included:
1. Only additions/not deletions
2. New roads are common and necessary in newly-subdivided areas
3. Land use/transportation were integrated at a citywide scale
4. Need for a road may not be identified until later in the subdivision process or through the process outside of development review.
5. Commercial activities category is amendment with noting to amend
6. The blue bubble areas show need for roads, but adding future road will require an amendment
She said that they were proposing that this criteria be delivered and have all of these things as Minor Plan Amendments. She said that they could not find a template anywhere in Arizona where they did it the current way.
Councilmember Evans asked how much of a chapter of the Regional Plan can the Council eliminate or change without sending it back to the voters again. Mr. Solomon said that they can find out the threshold and let Council know.
Mayor Nabours and Councilmember Overton said that they agreed with staff on this one.
Councilmember Putzova said that when they were discussing this through the committee process, they spent a great amount of time looking at the network and where streets and Corridors are. They understood that once they identify the orridors, it was important that the Major Plan Amendment required 2/3 of the Council and while it may seem beneficial to have a more detailed plan, the key question that the committee was thinking about is where development will go. When they change the future roads and their plans, then they are changing the direction approved by the committee and the voters. She was not sure she would support that. She would have to think about it more.
Ms. Dechter said that they also have a controlled discretion of what is required for a Minor Plan Amendment. Right now the procedures are the same as a zoning case; however, the Council could require all decisions to be made with a 2/3 approval. Councilmember Evans thanked Ms. Dechter for reminding them of that. She said that when it comes to some of these, she would like to see the 2/3 come before some of the other things. It may be easier for some of them to agree if they knew there was already a 2/3 requirement in place.
Ms. Dechter said that at the next meeting she would go through the Activity Center options discussed last time and probably move on to Minor Plan Amendments.
1. Only additions/not deletions
2. New roads are common and necessary in newly-subdivided areas
3. Land use/transportation were integrated at a citywide scale
4. Need for a road may not be identified until later in the subdivision process or through the process outside of development review.
5. Commercial activities category is amendment with noting to amend
6. The blue bubble areas show need for roads, but adding future road will require an amendment
She said that they were proposing that this criteria be delivered and have all of these things as Minor Plan Amendments. She said that they could not find a template anywhere in Arizona where they did it the current way.
Councilmember Evans asked how much of a chapter of the Regional Plan can the Council eliminate or change without sending it back to the voters again. Mr. Solomon said that they can find out the threshold and let Council know.
Mayor Nabours and Councilmember Overton said that they agreed with staff on this one.
Councilmember Putzova said that when they were discussing this through the committee process, they spent a great amount of time looking at the network and where streets and Corridors are. They understood that once they identify the orridors, it was important that the Major Plan Amendment required 2/3 of the Council and while it may seem beneficial to have a more detailed plan, the key question that the committee was thinking about is where development will go. When they change the future roads and their plans, then they are changing the direction approved by the committee and the voters. She was not sure she would support that. She would have to think about it more.
Ms. Dechter said that they also have a controlled discretion of what is required for a Minor Plan Amendment. Right now the procedures are the same as a zoning case; however, the Council could require all decisions to be made with a 2/3 approval. Councilmember Evans thanked Ms. Dechter for reminding them of that. She said that when it comes to some of these, she would like to see the 2/3 come before some of the other things. It may be easier for some of them to agree if they knew there was already a 2/3 requirement in place.
Ms. Dechter said that at the next meeting she would go through the Activity Center options discussed last time and probably move on to Minor Plan Amendments.
Moved by Mayor Jerry Nabours, seconded by Councilmember Eva Putzova to continue the Public Hearing to the October 4, 2016, Council Meeting.
Vote: 7 - 0 - Unanimously
5.
Adjournment
The Special Meeting of September 27, 2016, adjourned at 7:11 p.m.
WORK SESSION
1.
Call to Order
Mayor Nabours called the Work Session of September 27, 2016, to order at 7:11 p.m.
Mayor Nabours called the Work Session of September 27, 2016, to order at 7:11 p.m.
2.
Preliminary Review of Draft Agenda for the October 4, 2016, City Council Meeting.*
* Public comment on draft agenda items may be taken under “Review of Draft Agenda Items” later in the meeting, at the discretion of the Mayor. Citizens wishing to speak on agenda items not specifically called out by the City Council for discussion under the second Review section may submit a speaker card for their items of interest to the recording clerk.
Mayor Nabours noted that they would be considering the Fire Code again at next week's meeting. A few of the councilmembers would be meeting with staff to further clarify some of the concerns.
3.
Public Participation
Public Participation enables the public to address the council about items that are not on the prepared agenda. Public Participation appears on the agenda twice, at the beginning and at the end of the work session. You may speak at one or the other, but not both. Anyone wishing to comment at the meeting is asked to fill out a speaker card and submit it to the recording clerk. When the item comes up on the agenda, your name will be called. 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 to have 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.
None
Public Participation enables the public to address the council about items that are not on the prepared agenda. Public Participation appears on the agenda twice, at the beginning and at the end of the work session. You may speak at one or the other, but not both. Anyone wishing to comment at the meeting is asked to fill out a speaker card and submit it to the recording clerk. When the item comes up on the agenda, your name will be called. 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 to have 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.
None
4.
Review and Discussion of Title 11.20.100 Land Splits and Combinations.
Current Planning Manager Mark Sawyers reviewed a PowerPoint presentation which addressed:
TITLE 11: GENERAL PLANS & SUBDIVISIONS
RESIDENTIAL ZONES: BUILDING FORM STANDARDS
Mr. Sawyers said that they would be focusing the presentation on residential districts.
LOT SIZE AND WIDTH
Mr. Sawyers explained how the front property setback is determined, noting, for example, with a pie-shaped lot, it starts when the lot measures 60 feet wide. He then reviewed the history of what occurred with the Silver Spruce parcel. He said that the property owner took advantage of the new provision to the Zoning Code from 2011 that allowed for a lot size of 6,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Sawyers said that if the Council would like staff to do some research as to how they could have a better uniform lot width that would assure better compatibility of lot widths within all zoning districts, and address irregular shapes they could give staff that direction and they would come back with options.
Councilmember Evans asked how they could have worded it better to address the Council's intent. She said that there seems to be a lot of loopholes in the Code.
Mayor Nabours asked if the proposed house meets the setback from the side property line. Mr. Sawyers said that it would be reviewed as part of the building permit. He said that the lot measures 60' at the front yard setback of 15'. They would still have to comply with the side yard setback as part of a building permit application. In reviewing the dimensions, Mayor Nabours noted that the house could only be 27 feet wide.
Mr. Sawyers said that if they looked comprehensively throughout the City they would find a lot of irregular shaped lots. He said that a lot of cities have some assurance that do not allow such things sa flag lots.
Mr. Sawyers said that in the 1990's there was a lot of movement to make provisions in the Zoning Code to address affordable housing. There were a lot of options, including such things as granny flats. This included a lot of smaller lot sizes, smaller setbacks and density changes. At that time the Council knew they were setting some gentle parameters on lot dimensions, but not governing it too much base they wanted to see more infill lots created.
Vice Mayor Barotz asked if staff anticipated this type of configuration when they brought forward this recommendation in the 2011. Mr. Sawyers said that this is an extreme configuration in his experience.
Councilmember Evans asked if the property owner had split the property to provide for the ability to build a building he could not build on one parcel, and once it was built planned on combining them again. Mr. Sawyers said that he was trying to get another lot so he could get a fee simple lot that he could sell.
Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Sawyers if he thought this would negatively impact the property values. Mr. Sawyers said that he did not know; they would need an appraisal to answer that question.
Councilmember Overton said that they have spent a lot of time over the past few years talking about accessory buildings. They were trying to encourage better land use, more dense land use.
Vice Mayor Barotz said that when she voted on the Zoning Code amendments in 2011, she did not realize her vote would allow something like this. She would like to see them at least address these extreme situations.
Councilmember Brewster said that she was not in favor of the extreme situations, but asked if it was not true that the smaller homes on smaller lots helps to bring down the cost of homes. Mayor Nabours said that theoretically that was true.
Steven Jenner, Flagstaff, then came forward noting that he lived across the street from the lot on Silver Spruce. He said that there is presently a home being built on the lot, and it was 26 feet wide. He said that it does not fit in the character of the neighborhood at all; the rest are 45 feet wide. He said that they filed a complaint back in June against the City, but recently withdrew mainly due to financial reasons. He said that they should look at the language used by the County; they measure lots at midpoint.
Vice Mayor Barotz said that when this comes back it would be good to talk about required notification.
Consensus of Council was to ask staff to bring back some suggested language to address these extreme parcels.
Councilmember Evans said that when they were first looking at this they were trying to meet the needs of the public. It seems that there are people whose intent is on finding the loopholes. Now she feels that they have to start looking at every loophole possible, and she hates to be that way.
TITLE 11: GENERAL PLANS & SUBDIVISIONS
RESIDENTIAL ZONES: BUILDING FORM STANDARDS
Mr. Sawyers said that they would be focusing the presentation on residential districts.
LOT SIZE AND WIDTH
Mr. Sawyers explained how the front property setback is determined, noting, for example, with a pie-shaped lot, it starts when the lot measures 60 feet wide. He then reviewed the history of what occurred with the Silver Spruce parcel. He said that the property owner took advantage of the new provision to the Zoning Code from 2011 that allowed for a lot size of 6,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Sawyers said that if the Council would like staff to do some research as to how they could have a better uniform lot width that would assure better compatibility of lot widths within all zoning districts, and address irregular shapes they could give staff that direction and they would come back with options.
Councilmember Evans asked how they could have worded it better to address the Council's intent. She said that there seems to be a lot of loopholes in the Code.
Mayor Nabours asked if the proposed house meets the setback from the side property line. Mr. Sawyers said that it would be reviewed as part of the building permit. He said that the lot measures 60' at the front yard setback of 15'. They would still have to comply with the side yard setback as part of a building permit application. In reviewing the dimensions, Mayor Nabours noted that the house could only be 27 feet wide.
Mr. Sawyers said that if they looked comprehensively throughout the City they would find a lot of irregular shaped lots. He said that a lot of cities have some assurance that do not allow such things sa flag lots.
Mr. Sawyers said that in the 1990's there was a lot of movement to make provisions in the Zoning Code to address affordable housing. There were a lot of options, including such things as granny flats. This included a lot of smaller lot sizes, smaller setbacks and density changes. At that time the Council knew they were setting some gentle parameters on lot dimensions, but not governing it too much base they wanted to see more infill lots created.
Vice Mayor Barotz asked if staff anticipated this type of configuration when they brought forward this recommendation in the 2011. Mr. Sawyers said that this is an extreme configuration in his experience.
Councilmember Evans asked if the property owner had split the property to provide for the ability to build a building he could not build on one parcel, and once it was built planned on combining them again. Mr. Sawyers said that he was trying to get another lot so he could get a fee simple lot that he could sell.
Councilmember Evans asked Mr. Sawyers if he thought this would negatively impact the property values. Mr. Sawyers said that he did not know; they would need an appraisal to answer that question.
Councilmember Overton said that they have spent a lot of time over the past few years talking about accessory buildings. They were trying to encourage better land use, more dense land use.
Vice Mayor Barotz said that when she voted on the Zoning Code amendments in 2011, she did not realize her vote would allow something like this. She would like to see them at least address these extreme situations.
Councilmember Brewster said that she was not in favor of the extreme situations, but asked if it was not true that the smaller homes on smaller lots helps to bring down the cost of homes. Mayor Nabours said that theoretically that was true.
Steven Jenner, Flagstaff, then came forward noting that he lived across the street from the lot on Silver Spruce. He said that there is presently a home being built on the lot, and it was 26 feet wide. He said that it does not fit in the character of the neighborhood at all; the rest are 45 feet wide. He said that they filed a complaint back in June against the City, but recently withdrew mainly due to financial reasons. He said that they should look at the language used by the County; they measure lots at midpoint.
Vice Mayor Barotz said that when this comes back it would be good to talk about required notification.
Consensus of Council was to ask staff to bring back some suggested language to address these extreme parcels.
Councilmember Evans said that when they were first looking at this they were trying to meet the needs of the public. It seems that there are people whose intent is on finding the loopholes. Now she feels that they have to start looking at every loophole possible, and she hates to be that way.
5.
Review of Draft Agenda Items for the October 4, 2016, City Council Meeting.*
* Public comment on draft agenda items will be taken at this time, at the discretion of the Mayor.
None
None
6.
Public Participation
None
None
7.
Informational Items To/From Mayor, Council, and City Manager, and future agenda item requests.
None
None
8.
Adjournment
The Combined Special Meeting/Work Session of September 27, 2016, adjourned at 7:58 p.m.
| __________________________________________ MAYOR |
|
________________________________________ 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 September 27, 2016. I further certify that the Meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
| DATED this 4th day of October, 2016. | |
| ________________________________ CITY CLERK |