Planning and Development Services Memo

Planning and Development Services Memo

January 28, 2011 TO: Mayor and City Council Kevin Burke, City Manager THROUGH: Mark Landsiedel, Community Development Director Jim Cronk, Planning Director FROM: Roger E. Eastman, AICP, Zoning Code Administrator RE: February 8, 2011 Council Meeting – Policy Review of Division 10-

20.50 (Amendments to the Zoning Code Text and the Zoning Map) of the Public Review Draft of the new Zoning Code

Meeting Date: February 8, 2011 The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information to the Council for the February 8, 2011 preview meeting/work session on Division 10-20.50 (Amendments to the Zoning Code Text and the Zoning Map). From this broad policy discussion by the City Council, staff is seeking direction on the approach and process for amendments to the text of the Zoning Code and the Zoning Map. The City Council has already approved a number of amendments to the rest of Chapter 10-20 (Administration, Procedures and Enforcement). Discussion on Division 10-20.50 was scheduled at a later date to provide staff with additional time to work on the contents of this Division. Division 10-20.50: Amendments to the Zoning Code Text and the Zoning Map Division 10-20.50 in the new Zoning Code is largely based on the existing provisions of the existing Land Development Code (LDC).

Division 10-20.50 Relative to the Existing LDC Est. percentage of this Division from existing LDC 80 Est. percentage of this Division that is new 20 Total 100%

Arizona statutes require that cities and towns establish a procedure for the amendment of that city’s or town’s zoning code text or zoning map. The statute requires consistency between the General Plan (Regional Plan) and adopted zoning codes, and establishes specific requirements for public notification, a citizen review process, public hearings, and protest procedures. These statutory requirements have been carried forward from the existing LDC into Chapter 10-20 (Administration, Procedures and Enforcement) with only minor amendments and a new organization and structure to make it easier to read, follow and apply. Ease of use of the new

Work Session Page 2 February 8, 2011

CCMemo_WKS_Policy_2011Feb8_ZneChng

Zoning Code was a primary goal and recommendation of the Process and Procedures Focus Group who also supported the idea of a more streamlined Zoning Map amendment process (zone change process). Thus the statutorily required process for amending the text of the Zoning Code or the Zoning Map remains essentially unchanged. However, there has been considerable discussion by staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council on the issue of how much information is necessary as part of an application for a zone change (Zoning Map amendment) in order for the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to make the best possible decision on the application. Staff has also met with representatives from the development community to review and discuss the proposed amendments to the existing Zoning Map amendment process. Resolution of this question is the purpose of the City Council’s discussion on February 8, 2011. Section 10-20.50.040 Procedures Section 10-20.50.040 (Procedures) of the new Zoning Code starting on Page 20.50-3, with specific reference to subsection C. “Application Requirements” is at the heart of this issue. In the narrative below, three versions of the how to draft this section are described and analyzed:

1. Public Review Draft of the New Zoning Code 2. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation 3. Revised Recommendation from Staff

1. Public Review Draft of the New Zoning Code

Subsection 10-20.50.040.C (Application Requirements) as originally drafted by staff and the consultant allows for the submittal of less detail with a request for a Zoning Map amendment. Thus, instead of today’s practice of reviewing detailed site plans and sometimes building elevations and architectural renderings of a development proposal that is the subject of a zone change, staff has suggested that the information provided for the zone change application needs only to support an analysis of the proposed use relative to the Regional Plan and the potential impacts (traffic, stormwater, utilities, etc.) of that proposed use. Thus, a concept plan with supporting data detailing the overall FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of the project, height, lot coverage, number of parking spaces, etc. is all that would be required. The details of the site layout, connections to utilities, building design, etc. will be resolved at the Site Plan Review stage of the projects review and approval. Note that typically a development agreement is negotiated at the same time as the Zoning Map amendment application is being processed. As has been discussed with the Planning Commission and the City Council, the reason for this change is a response to numerous complaints over the years from the development community citing the amount of detail required for a zone change as being not only expensive at the front end of a project, but also that it frequently results in discussions on project details that are not necessarily associated with the zone change request itself, and that are really more site planning related issues.



2. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation

A number of City councilors and commissioners have expressed concern with the proposal suggested by staff in the Public Review Draft for this scaled down approach to a Zoning Map amendment. After some discussion, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the following revisions to this section to address these concerns. The Commission offered no specific code language; instead, they supported the intent of the revisions noting that if these are accepted and approved by the City Council, then the final language would be drafted. • Retain the existing language in paragraphs C.1 and 2. on Page 20.50-3. This requires

submittal of a concept site plan and other supporting documentation to analyze the proposed new land use and zoning designation relative to the Regional Plan and impacts resulting from the use.

• Consistent with paragraph D., staff will review the application and forward a

recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff may recommend approval, approval subject to conditions, or denial.

• The Planning and Zoning Commission would review the application consistent with the

finding in paragraph E., and based on public comment, may add additional conditions to the zone change request that they felt were appropriate. (Paragraphs G. and H.)

• The City Council would consider the Planning and Zoning Commission’s and staff’s

recommendation and all suggested conditions of approval, and may approve, conditionally approve (with new or revised conditions) or deny the application. (Paragraph L.)

• As a new text amendment to the Code

, the Commission recommended that projects that have received a Zoning Map amendment under the new Code as described above, and that meet the thresholds for a major amendment (see below), would have to seek Site Plan review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. This is a new proposal. It allows residents an opportunity to attend the Commission’s public meeting and provide their comments, and it allows the Commission to review the project to ensure that all conditions of approval have been satisfied.

• The proposed Zoning Code includes a threshold for a “major development” that is based on the existing LDC, i.e. new developments with a gross floor area of 20,000 sq. ft. or more or 50 or more dwelling units. Site plan review for any new projects subject to a zoning map amendment that are less than these thresholds would continue to be reviewed by staff.

• Additional amendments to this section are required to implement the Planning and

Zoning Commission’s recommendation, as described below: 10-20.50.040 Add a new Paragraph M. Action Following City Council

Decision



10-20.40.140 Add a new Paragraph or two providing for Planning and Zoning Commission Site Plan review following approval of a Zoning Map amendment.

3. Revised Recommendation from Staff

After further review, staff realized there was a fundamental error in the Public Review Draft of the new Code. This error, combined with the use of the term “bubble drawing” in past meetings to describe a concept plan, may have caused some confusion in the understanding of what was originally intended in the Public Review Draft. An explanation follows. Subsection C.2 on Page 20.50-3 allows the Director to request any other additional information to assist in the review of the requested Zoning Map amendment. This is appropriate. However, this subsection refers to another subsection 3. on Page 20.50-4 which is a list of additional information the Director may request. The problem is that the “additional” information in subsection 3. is in reality a list of what should be the minimum required information for the Zoning Map amendment. To help make sense of what information is required for a successful review of a Zoning Map amendment under the LDC compared to the new Zoning Code, staff has prepared a number of documents that are included with this memorandum.

• A summary of submittal requirements for Zoning Map amendments as required by the LDC.

• A summary of submittal requirements for Zoning Map amendments as proposed in the new Zoning Code

Each of these summaries is divided into two broad sections; a list of general submittal requirements, and a list of more specific submittal requirements. It is noteworthy that the general submittal requirements lists are consistent, except that as proposed by staff, more information on the reason for the zone change request and the community benefits to be gained by it is requested, as well as additional mapping to analyze the use and zoning of surrounding properties. There are however, significant differences in the specific submittal requirements. Under the LDC the “concept plan” submittal requirements are inconsistent with the real intent of a concept plan, and thus in staff’s opinion far too much detail is required. This is a concern that has been frequently expressed by developers and property owners. For example, at the broad planning level that is characteristic of a concept plan, it is not necessary to show precise building footprints, sidewalks, sign locations, intersection clear view zones, detailed parking layouts, walls and fences, etc. However, a building envelope location (general placement of the building and approximate size), points of access, internal circulation and parking area locations, proposed parks and open space locations, etc. should be included on a concept plan. A new definition of a “concept plan” is proposed for inclusion in Chapter 10-80 (Definitions) as follows:

Concept Plan: A generalized plan that conceptually illustrates a development proposal, including the identification of proposed land uses, land use intensity, circulation, and open



space/sensitive areas. The relationship of the proposed development to existing surrounding development and uses should also be reflected.

Consistent with the form and structure of the new Zoning Code, the submittal requirements for a concept plan for a Zoning Map amendment will not be specifically listed in the Code. Instead, they will be included as a checklist provided with the application form that is maintained by the Planning Director and provided to applicants at their request prior to submittal of a Zoning Map amendment application. It is important to note that as an applicant prepares a site plan for a proposed development for which a zone change is requested, the applicant’s design team may develop more detailed plans as necessary to ensure for example, that a driveway grade, retaining wall or other aspect of the design meets minimum City standards. Similarly, more refined architectural drawings may be developed by the applicant if he/she determines that it is important to warrant the expense early in the project’s development. The applicant then may choose to submit the more detailed information to the City, but they are not required to do so.

Sample Site – Courtyard by Marriott on S. Beulah Boulevard: Staff has selected the Courtyard by Marriott project to illustrate the difference in the submittal requirements for plans submitted in support of a Zoning Map amendment application. Attached therefore is the original set of 11”x17” Concept Site Plans that was submitted to staff, the Planning Commission and City Council with the original request for approval in late 2006/early 2007. Also, attached is a set of revised 11”x17” Concept Site Plans for the same site developed recently by Woodson Engineering that shows the same site represented under the proposed plan submittal requirements. Some minor amendments to these plans are necessary, but they do closely reflect the intent of the revised submittal requirements. City staff is greatly appreciative of the assistance the staff at Woodson Engineering provided in compiling these revised plans. Staff has also reviewed the original reports submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council that were written in support of the zone change request for this development. Attached is a copy of the original report as well as a report that could likely be submitted under the revised submittal requirements described above. Note that a comprehensive rewrite of the report was not conducted; instead, staff has used Track Changes format (strikeout and redline

) and highlighted comments in a different font to identify where significant changes to the reports would be made.

Recommendation/Conclusion: After further review of the original recommendation included in Division 10-20.50 of the Public Review Draft and additional review of the Planning Commission’s recommendations, staff recommends that the best approach to ensure that the staff, Planning Commission and City Council can make the best possible decision on a Zoning Map amendment application, is to utilize the staff recommendation #3. with its revised submittal requirements generally described on page 4 of this memorandum, the details of which are attached.



Staff looks forward to discussing and seeking direction from the Council on the approach and process for amendments to the text of the Zoning Code and the Zoning Map as described above. Any comments, questions or requests for additional information from the Council are welcomed in advance of the work session. Please contact Roger E. Eastman AICP, Zoning Code Administrator at (928) 779-7631 Ext. 7606 or via e-mail at [email protected]. Attachments:

• Summary of Submittal Requirements for Zoning Map Amendments – LDC • Summary of Submittal Requirements for Zoning Map Amendments – Proposed New

Zoning Code • City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission – Staff Summary Report under the

New Zoning Code • City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission – Previously Submitted Staff

Summary Report under the LDC • Example – Concept Architectural Rendering of a Proposed Project • 11”x17” Concept Maps of the Courtyard by Marriott Project – Original Submittal under

the LDC • 11”x17” Concept Maps of the Courtyard by Marriott Project –Proposed Submittal

Incorporating Revisions to the New Zoning Code.

mailto:[email protected]�

Summary of Submittal Requirements for Zoning Map Amendments as Required by the Land Development Code

General Submittal Requirements (Chapter 10)

1) Application on a form provided by the City. 2) Signature of property owner(s) and applicant. 3) Project Information

a. Development name (e.g. A Concept Plan of XYZ) b. Site address c. Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) d. Scale, north arrow e. Preparer’s name and contact information, date prepared and legend f. Parcel boundaries and dimensions

4) A statement of the reasons for the request. 5) Names, addresses and Assessor’s parcel numbers of all property owners within three hundred

(300) feet of the proposed rezoning, along with pre-addressed, stamped envelopes to such property owners, pursuant to Section 10-10-003-0004.

6) A map showing the subject property as well as the surrounding property located within a distance of three hundred (300) feet.

7) A legal description and map of the subject property. 8) 9) Required number of plans in appropriate format (folded, electronic copy, etc.).

A Citizen Participation Plan and Report.

10) Development agreement (if required).

Concept Plan Submittal Requirements (Checklist)

1) Within the subject site and extending 200’ from the property’s boundaries, show the following: a. Contour lines at two-foot intervals (existing and approximate finished grade) b. Building footprints (existing and proposed) c. Dedicated rights-of-way and street names (existing and proposed with approximate grade

calculation) d. Points of access and driveways (existing and proposed) e. Clear view zones f. Pedestrian facilities/sidewalks (existing and proposed) g. Parking lot layout, including American Disability Act (ADA) compliant spaces (existing and

proposed); h. Miscellaneous improvements on properties (e.g. signs, vertical elements)

2) Preliminary assessment of natural resources and site capacity calculations for existing and

proposed zoning if applicable.

3) Public facilities and service impact analysis, including a traffic/access, water system, and sewer

system analysis per current "Engineering Design and Construction Standards and Specifications" if applicable.

4) Preliminary site concept plan, including conceptual street side architectural elevations for each structure on individual or single-phase sites, and schedule of development if applicable. For larger, multi-phase sites, conceptual architectural elevations beyond the first phase shall be submitted with the proposed development plans for Development Review Board approval.

5) A Development Master Plan, if required by the Planning Director.

6) Within the subject site, show the following:

a. Utilities (water, sewer, and fire hydrants/lines) size and type (existing and proposed) b. Drainage systems on the site (existing and proposed) c. Impervious surface calculations d. Walls and fences (existing and proposed) e. Open space or parks (existing and proposed) f. Existing and proposed signage g. Landscape opacity per the Land Development Code (LDC)

7) When applicable, a Preliminary Resource Protection Plan, including:

a. Forest canopy b. Slopes 17 to 24% c. Slopes 25% and greater d. Rural and Urban Floodplain e. Architectural/historical preservation site f. Wetlands g. Overlay building footprints and roads in relation to resources

8) Descriptive information, including:

a. Description of project/development request b. Site acreage c. Building floor area (non-residential projects) d. Number of dwellings units, types (e.g. single-family, duplex, condominium, townhomes

and apartments) and dwelling units per acre e. Architectural drawings, as required by the Planning Director. f. Any additional information or details pertinent to the case

Summary of Submittal Requirements for Zoning Map Amendments as Required by the New Zoning Code

General Submittal Requirements

1) Application on a form provided by the City. 2) Signature of property owner(s) and applicant. 3) Project information:

a. Project name b. Site address and APN c. Scale and north arrow d. Project boundaries and dimensions e. Preparer’s name, contact information, date, etc.

4) Explanation of reason for the request - summary of community benefits to be gained. This would include an analysis of the General Plan and how the requested amendment is supported by the General Plan.

5) Legal description. 6) Location/vicinity map. 7) All property owners within 300 feet (or as determined by the Director), and other requirements

for the Citizen Participation Plan and Report including the neighborhood meeting and required notification of the request.

8) Required number of plans in appropriate format (folded, electronic copy, etc.). 9) Map of surrounding and adjacent properties analyzing existing and proposed uses, zoning,

transportation systems (all modes) and relationships. 10) Development agreement (if required).

Concept Plan Submittal Requirements

1) Preliminary water, sewer and traffic impact reports and stormwater analysis (in accordance with minimum requirements of the Engineering Standards.

2) Concept plan requirements (Note these are minimum requirements. An applicant may elect to

provide more detail and more information than that described below.) a. Site analysis (See Section 10-30.60.030 (General Site Planning Standards) - may include,

for example, an analysis of slopes, view corridors and aspect; an assessment of existing site conditions; and, a study of surrounding uses.)

b. Contour lines showing existing grades (2-foot intervals preferred but not required) c. Building envelope area (building footprints optional)

d. Appropriate calculations showing the extent of development proposed, such as maximum building floor area, maximum number of dwelling units, preliminary maximum lot coverage and FAR, maximum building height, etc.

e. Location of public rights-of-way f. Points of access (all modes), public transit and driveways g. Internal circulation and parking area calculations (No detailed parking space layout is

required) h. Proposed parks and open space areas i. Preliminary resource protection calculations j. Connection locations to public utilities (water, sewer, etc.)

3) As required by the Director, an architectural rendering of the project or conceptual street side

architectural elevations of buildings (the number of elevations to be determined on a case-by-case basis).

4) The Director may request any other information that is relevant to assist in the review of the Zoning Map amendment, including for example, photo simulations, a view shed analysis, or other documentation to ensure that quality of life concerns to surrounding properties have been mitigated.

Item No. ___________ CITY OF FLAGSTAFF STAFF SUMMARY REPORT To: The Honorable Mayor and Council From: Mark Sawyers, Development Case Manager Supervisor Community Development Department Date: December 4, 2006 Meeting Date: December 19, 2006 TITLE: CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC HEARING PC 2006-003, REZONING OF

APPROXIMATELY 6.69 ACRES AT 2650 SOUTH BEULAH BOULEVARD FROM UC, URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT CONDITIONAL, AND RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO UC, URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT CONDITIONAL.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, receive citizen input and close the public hearing. ACTION SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the request for rezoning at its regular meeting on November 14, 2006. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to tabled the rezoning request for additional information. On November 28, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted (5-2) recommended approval of the rezoning request subject to the following conditions: 1. The subject property be developed according to the concept site plan and concept

architectural renderings, including high quality architecture details submitted for the “Courtyard by Marriot” as presented with the rezoning request.

2. All other requirements of the Land Development Code and other applicable City codes, ordinances and regulations are met by the proposed development including the conditions of the Development Review Board review of October 12, 2006.

3. The building plans and permits for the hotel are not to include a full commercial kitchen. However, serving and warming station is permissible.

4. The developer/property obtains a five year warrantee for all of the ponderosa pine trees to be planted with the associated landscaping/re-vegetation. [NOTE: this is not a typical condition as it addressed a former violation of the LDC and a pre-existing condition.]

REVISED CITY COUNCIL STAFF SUMMARY Based on Recommended Amendments to Division 10-20.50 of the New Zoning Code

Page 2

5. The landscaping on the project needs to be reevaluated as to density, buildability and planting types to encourage viewsheds and to eliminate the “hedge” look, at which time the number of trees needed will become apparent. Architecture of building 6/12 roof pitch and gables are appropriate. The Commission will have opportunity to view changes before development begins and with conditions as stated by staff. [NOTE: this is not a typical condition as it addressed a former violation of the LDC and a pre-existing condition.]

[Other conditions may be included by staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission to address unique issues with the site, including for example, the need for additional landscaping or tree protection as a buffer to an adjoining use, specific concerns with the building (height or massing), building placement relative to view corridors, specific concerns with regard to quality of life issues such as privacy concerns, or to address specific concerns provided by Flagstaff residents who attended the public hearing.]

All substantive issues relating to this public hearing are included with the applicable reports to the Planning and Zoning Commission dated November 28, 2006, and attached. DISCUSSION: The applicant/developer, The Summit Group Inc, requests rezoning for a hotel consisting of 164 guest rooms and a 7,000-square-foot restaurant on a site of approximately 6.69 acres. The development is referred to as “Marriot Courtyard at Flagstaff.” The site itself is located between South Beulah Boulevard and South Milton/Interstate 17. Access to the property is located at the intersection of South Beulah Boulevard and South Woodlands Village Boulevard. The site contains approximately 580 linear feet of street frontage along South Beulah Boulevard with the rear portion abutting South Milton/I-17. Key Considerations: Rezoning amendments require a public hearing by the City Council. If the public hearing is successfully concluded, a rezoning ordinance will be prepared for consideration by the City Council at the January 16, 2006 meeting. Background/History: As indicated in the Regional Land Use Plan amendment report, this rezoning request is the second of two related items on the Council’s agenda; the first item is identified as a Regional Plan amendment request. On November 14 & 28, 2006 the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the two related items. Community Benefits and Considerations:

Not applicable. [Under the new Zoning Code this is an important component of the staff summary report that should be addressed.] Community Involvement: Chapter 10-10 of the LDC requires that a Citizen Participation Plan be implemented prior to the public hearing and that a Citizen Participation Report be included with the application for rezoning. On July 26, 2006, the applicant hosted the required Citizen Participation meeting

Page 3

regarding the proposed development. A Citizen Participation Plan and correspondence is included with this report and application for rezoning. Copies are attached for review. Public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council are conducted in conjunction with requests for rezoning. In accordance with State statute, notice of the public hearing was provided by placing an ad in the Daily Sun, posting notices on the property, and mailing a notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the site. Financial Implications: Voters approved Proposition 207 in the November elections. Proposition 207 allows property owners to seek compensation from a municipality whenever a new land use law reduces the value of the property. If the two applicable applications are approved by the Council and if the Council attaches any conditions to the rezoning approval as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the land owner may file a demand for compensation under Proposition 207. Staff recommends that the City Council request the landowner to sign a waiver of any Proposition 207 claims before taking final action of rezoning the parcels. Staff is currently working with the Legal Department to develop a waiver form for this purpose. Options and Alternatives: No other options or alternatives are being considered as part of this request. [Depending on the nature of the Zoning Map amendment application, staff and/or the Planning and Zoning Commission may indeed offer different options or alternatives to the City Council to assist in their review of the Zoning Map amendment application.] Attachments/Exhibits: ► Staff report to the Planning and Zoning Commission ► Concept Site Plans, Elevations, Photo Simulation concept architectural rendering,

Landscaping Plans[Typically an architectural rendering would be submitted at the concept stage of a project’s development, rather than a photo simulation]

► Application, Rezoning & General Plan Request and Citizen Participation Report ► Draft Minutes of the November 14 & 28, 2006, P&Z Commission meeting. [If an applicant has prepared more detailed plans and drawings and chooses to submit them with the Zoning Map amendment application, they may be submitted and will be provided to the City Council.]

__________________________________

Department Head

BIDS/PURCHASES FINANCE/BUDGET INITIALS RESPONSIBILITY DATE INITIALS RESPONSIBILITY DATE

GRANTS/CONTRACTS IGAS LEGAL PLANNING DATE OF COUNCIL APPROVAL:

REZONING REPORT

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 07, 2006 PC REZ 06-003 MEETING DATE: REPORT BY:

November 28, 2006

Mark Sawyers

REQUEST:

Rezoning of approximately 6.69 acres at 2650 South Beulah Boulevard from the UC, Urban Commercial District Conditional (6.03 acres) and RR, Rural Residential District (.66 acres) to UC, Urban Commercial District (Conditional).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of PC REZ 06-003 with conditions as noted in the “Recommendation” section of this report.

PRESENT LAND USE:

The site’s physical character is undeveloped slope lands with the forest resources removed in the UC, Urban Commercial (conditional) and RR, Rural Residential Districts.

PROPOSED LAND USE:

A 164-room chain hotel (Courtyard Marriot) and a separate, free-standing 7,000 square foot standard restaurant.

ADJACENT LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT:

North: Olive garden & Red Lobster – UC District; East: Retail and Restaurants, – UC & C3-E Districts: South: I-40/I-17 Interchange; West: I-17/Milton and NAU – PLO-E.

REQUIRED FINDINGS:

STAFF REVIEW. An application for an amendment to the Zoning Map shall be submitted to the Planning Director and shall be reviewed and a recommendation prepared. The recommendation of the Planning Director shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the scheduled public hearing. The recommendation shall set forth whether the rezoning should be granted, granted with conditions, or denied, and shall include a recommended zoning district classification and the ground for any such recommendation as they relate to the standards and purposes of the zoning district classification set forth in Chapter 10-02 of the Land Development Code (LDC) and the City’s Regional Plan.

REVISED PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Based on Recommended Amendments to Division 10-20.50 of the New Zoning Code

ZC Marriot REZ 06-003_PZ_REV 2

STANDARDS FOR REVIEWING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: All proposed amendments shall be evaluated as to whether the application is consistent with the objectives and policies of the Regional Plan and any other adopted plan; and, the proposed change would not be detrimental to the majority of the persons or property in the surrounding area, nor to the community in general. If the application is not consistent, the applicable plan must be amended in accordance with the procedures of Chapter 10-02 of the LDC prior to considering the proposed amendment. [Section 10-20.40.050.E in the new Zoning Code provides more comprehensive findings for the review of Zoning Map amendments that would be inserted here.]

STAFF REVIEW:

Introduction/Background

As indicated in staff’s Regional Plan Amendment report, this rezoning request is the second of two related items on the Commission’s agenda. The first item is identified as a Regional Plan amendment request. The second item is a rezoning request for a change from UC, Urban Commercial District (Conditional see rezoning Ordinance 1850) and the southern property (.66 acres) in the RR, Rural Residential District to the UC, Urban Commercial District Conditional. In 1990, this site was proposed to be developed with a ten-story 300 room Holiday Inn. Although the request never received a formal public hearing, there were concerns expressed about the height of the structure, as it pertains to the southwest entrance to the city. In late 1994, the City Council reviewed and approved Rezoning Ordinance 1850 that allowed the development of two restaurants (existing Red Lobster and Olive Garden); and one 120-room three-story, 54,000 square foot hotel not to exceed 40 feet in height upon the subject site minus the portion of property requesting the Regional Plan Land Use amendment. On or around March 27, 2004 the city staff believe the forest resources on the entire 6.69 acres present at the time (see attached aerial photos) were removed by George Nackard and Consolidated Investment Co, Incorporated. On June 30, 2004 City of Flagstaff filed criminal complaints against the two above mentioned parties. On April 12, 2005 both parties entered a plea of no contest to the charges of “conspiracy and solicitation to fell or remove trees six inches or greater in diameter” (see attached plea agreements). The plea issued a fine of $4,500.00 to each party. According to the Summit Group Inc neither George Nackard nor Consolidated Investment have any interest in the property or in the development.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN

The applicant/developer, The Summit Group Inc, request a rezoning for a hotel consisting of 164 guest rooms and a 7,000-square-foot restaurant on a site of approximately 6.69 acres. The development is referred to as “Marriot Courtyard at Flagstaff.” The site itself is located between South Beulah Boulevard and South Milton/Interstate 17. Access to the property is located at the intersection of South Beulah Boulevard and South Woodlands Village Boulevard. The site contains approximately 580 linear feet of street frontage along South Beulah Boulevard and the rear portion abutting South Milton/I-17.


GENERAL PLAN/FLAGSTAFF AREA REGIONAL LAND USE PLAN

The Regional Land Use Plan categorizes the parcel in the Commercial Regional and Urban Open Space category. All substantive Regional Plan issues were addressed in the previous Regional Land Use Plan amendment report relating to the parcel designated as Urban Open Space. In general, the Regional Plan encourages development within the Urban Growth Boundary, as well as developments that promote quality-designed infill, which provides for mixed-use neighborhoods and places an emphasis on all transportation modes. Staff believes the proposed development implements the goals and policies of the Regional Plan as well as the Urban Commercial designation.

ZONING/LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE

The Land Development Code (LDC) classifies the northern 6.03 acre parcel as UC, Urban Commercial District (Conditional see Rezoning Ordinance 1850) and the southern .66 acres as RR, Rural Residential District. If both parcels were rezoned to the UC, Urban Commercial District for the 6.69-acre site, the maximum nonresidential district floor area yield for a hotel development would be approximately 110,642 square feet. The applicant/developer, The Summit Group Inc, requests rezoning approval to permit a hotel consisting of 164 guest rooms of approximately 94,200 square feet. The detached restaurant contains approximately 7,000 square feet, which brings the total square footage to approximately 101,200 which is within the permissible square footage yield. The developer has supplied elevations and floor plans for both buildings. Both buildings will incorporate the same building materials to the exterior elevations. The bulk of exterior of the buildings will utilize a sawdust colored 8" hardie plank lap and shake shingle siding; other portions of the buildings will be treated with brown-gray colored ledge rock and the roof will utilize a chateau-green architectural fiberglass shingle. The look of the buildings (hotel and restaurant) simulates the architecture found with and around the Colorado Plateau in terms of the massing, variable roof pitches and lines, exposed heavy timber gables, towers, stone, deep overhangs, exposed rafter wood tails, brackets, earthy colors, and heavy window trim. [Typically only an architectural rendering will be required with a Zoning Map amendment application, and thus less specificity relative to a description of the architecture of the project would be included within the staff report. Note however, (and this note applies to all aspects of the application), if a developer/applicant chooses to develop and submit more detailed plans for the project, they can be submitted to staff and will be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.] The restaurant is a one-story structure with a building height of approximately 28 feet at the roof line. The architecture replicates a large residential bungalow structure. This structure will be visible from South Beulah Boulevard, and inside of the restaurant will have views of the peaks. The hotel is a three-story structure with a building height of approximately 54 feet at the roof line. The structure also contains two architecture features at approximately 60 feet in height. The look and feel of the hotel is intended to replicate the lodges found in the West. The hotel design creates a literal courtyard from which the name was derived. This courtyard will be oriented west towards South Beulah Boulevard (courtyard space qualifies as the five percent public open space). The structure also contains a parking garage under the first floor that houses 158 parking spaces. Portions of the parking garage structure are visible from along Beulah Boulevard.


The development provides a total of approximately 313 parking stalls with 158 spaces in the hotel garage and 155 surface parking stalls located between the hotel and restaurant and eastern portion of the site. This portion of the property is elevated approximately 25 feet above South Milton/I-17. Restaurant parking was reduced 50% based on the information that the restaurant will provide service to the residents of the hotel. The hotel will not have a full kitchen. The parking stalls have been designed to meet the parking and circulations requirements of the Land Development Code. [In the revised staff report based on the new Code, more generalized information relative to parking will be provided.]

- Resources, Re-vegetation & Landscaping As discussed in the Introduction/Background the forest resources found on the site previously were removed intentionally from the site (except for three Ponderosa Pines). The Land Development Code requires all areas that were to be protected pursuant to Natural Resource Protection Standards that are accidentally or intentionally disturbed shall be re-vegetated/landscaped with a minimum of 15 plant units per acre. The landscaping plan provides for a total of 504 trees with 436 of those being ponderosa pine trees and 672 shrubs. The re-vegetation based on 6.69 acres required that a total of 100 plant units (each plant unit requires: 3 trees and 4 shrubs based on unit B) or a total of 300 trees and 400 shrubs. The landscape architect has transferred the required deciduous trees for re-vegetation to ponderosa tree in an effort to re-establish the natural forest. This amount of landscaping is in addition to the required bufferyard, on-lot and parking lot landscaping requirements. The applicant has provided a complete landscaping plan that complies with all requirements as well a Design Review Guidelines related to landscaping which is included within the application. Additionally the site provides a 51% Landscaping Surface Ratio (LSR) which exceeds the LSR of 25% required for hotel development located in the Urban Commercial District. [In the revised staff report based on the new Code, more generalized information relative to landscaping will be provided.] The applicant has provided resources found on the property to be disturbed, and protected as a part of this development. The site also contains both categories of steep slope resources. The Land Development Code (LDC) protection factors for resource in the UC, Urban Commercial District, are as follows: RESOURCE PROTECTION LAND IN THE UC DISTRICT

Courtyard Marriot at Flagstaff

RESOURCE

TOTAL Sq. Ft.

REQUIRED PROTECTION LEVEL & Sq. Ft.

PROTECTED LEVEL & PROTECTED Sq. Ft.

Forest

0

30% 0

*0

Slope 17 – 24.9%

59,890

60% 35,930

62% 36,883

Slope 25% and greater

28,480

80% 22,780

81% 23,015

* See discussion above in Resources, Re-vegetation & Landscaping.


The preliminary slope resource disturbance calculations/analysis indicates that all of the above-mentioned minimum protection threshold requirements are being met with this proposal. The three existing Ponderosa Pines located on the above mentioned slopes will be protect and preserved with the development. It must be noted that the previous concept plan (ordinance 1850) protected 81% of 25%+ slopes; 98% of 17-25% slopes and 48% of forest resources. [In the revised staff report based on the new Code, more generalized information relative to resources will be provided.]

- Design Review With the rezoning application review, the Design Review Guidelines Level 1 and parts of Level 2 were applied and approved by the Development Review Board. Level 3, Building Design, compliance is not required with rezoning applications, and however, the applicant has supplied some of the Level 3 information. The following information highlights some of Level 1, Neighborhood Design, Level 2, Site Design and Level 3, Building Design Guidelines: Concerning Level 1, Pedestrian and Bicycle Connection: The development willhas created an internal pedestrian system that connects development to the existing restaurants to the north as well as the existing public sidewalk along Beulah which connect to the FUTS systems located in Sinclair Wash located just on the east side of the Walmart property. All of the pedestrian crossings at intersection crossing will receive decorative paving and distinctive landscaping elements. Project will include a 5 foot wide sidewalk with a parkway along Beulah. Concerning portions of Level 2 and Level 3, Site Drainage: The developer is proposing an underground detention system that improves the overall efficiency of the design by not consuming surface land area. Outdoor Public Spaces: With major developments, 5% of the site is required to be developed for outdoor public spaces(s). The applicant has exceeded this requirement and provided a conceptual sketch that shows improved public open space (see detail of courtyard). Parking Lots: Also, with major developments, the parking supply shall not exceed the minimum requirement by 5% unless provided by structured parking. The parking within the development complies with this requirement. The design standards also require the dividing of the parking lots into smaller lots with planted buffers and pedestrian links to the building entrances. The design complies with these requirements. Building Materials: The building materials are of high quality and portray traditional building materials that create a balanced scale and mass to the elevation (see architectural drawings as well as the colored renderings). [In the revised staff report based on the new Code, more generalized information relative to parking, building and site design, etc. will be provided.] PUBLIC SYSTEMS IMPACT ANALYSIS:

- Transportation

Mr. Michael Pekala, with Pekala and Associates, prepared the Traffic Impact Study as the revised report for the Courtyard Marriott/Restaurant. The site will have one driveway at Beulah Boulevard on an alignment with Woodlands Village Boulevard. This intersection currently operates as a major, signalized tee (3 way) configuration without an east leg. The development will provide a fourth leg (4 way) to the existing intersection.


The revised Traffic Impact Study indicates that approximately 1902 external vehicles trips per day will be generated by the proposed development. The report reviewed the level of service analysis of the new additional traffic to the existing intersections and roadway segments. City staff reviewed and approved the final report. The base data, traffic projections, analysis, and final recommendations of the report were used in subsequent discussions among the development parties to determine the traffic design elements. The project will be required to construct a right turn lane into the development/intersection. In summary, no modifications, alterations or adjustment are necessary to any of the existing off-site intersections beyond the above mentioned improvements or roadway sections reviewed in the original report. The city’s traffic engineer approved the revised traffic report. The summary and conclusions from the TIA are attached with the rezoning application. [In the revised staff report based on the new Code, the narrative regarding traffic impact analysis would be equally comprehensive.]

- Transit and Pedestrian Facilities The nearest public transit stop to the proposed development is located across the street from Beulah Boulevard in front of the Fazoli’s restaurant, which is within ¼ mile entrance of the proposed buildings, accessible by the pedestrian phase signal located at the intersection of Beulah Boulevard and Woodlands Village Boulevard. On-site pedestrian facilities are discussed in the Design Review section of this report. [In the revised staff report based on the new Code, the narrative regarding transit and pedestrian facilities would be much the same as the above.]

- Water

A Water and Wastewater System analysis was prepared by the Utilities Department for this project. A copy of the results is provided with this report. The proposed development is served by Zone B water pressure system. Public water is available from an existing eight-inch water line located in Beulah Boulevard and a second source is available from an existing eight-inch water line located behind the Olive Garden Restaurant. These two water mains will form a complete eight-inch looped water line through the site with two new fire hydrants located onsite. The analysis demonstrated adequate supply/pressures for combined peak demand and fire flow. [In the revised staff report based on the new Code, the narrative regarding water supply would be much the same as the above.]

- Wastewater

The nearest sewer line to be utilized by this project will be the existing, eighteen-inch line located in Beulah Boulevard. Two separate private sewer service connections will be required to the above-mentioned sewer main. The conclusion of the analysis is that the development will have no adverse impacts to the current wastewater systems. Water and wastewater systems for the project will be designed and constructed per the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Specifications. [In the revised staff report based on the new Code, the narrative regarding wastewater disposal would be much the same as the above.]

- Stormwater A Preliminary Stormwater Analysis was prepared by Woodson Engineering and has been accepted in concept by the Stormwater manager. In an effort to maximize land development capabilities, the engineers involved in the design process have utilized an underground detention strategy. The proposed drainage


system will incorporate catch basins, storm drains and underground detention culverts. The developer has agreed to us low impact development (LID) best management practices to reduce stormwater volumes. The developer is proposing to retain, and reuse 75% water for irrigation purposed of the 100 year storm volume increase. This level of LID will approximate natural runoff conditions. [In the revised staff report based on the new Code, the narrative regarding stormwater facilities would be much the same as the above.] OTHER:

- Citizen Participation Public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council are conducted in conjunction with any request for rezoning. In accordance with state statute, notice of the public hearing was provided by placing an ad in the Daily Sun, posting notices on the property, and mailing a notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the site. In addition, Chapter 10-10 of the LDC requires that a Citizen Participation Plan be implemented prior to the rezoning public hearing, and a Citizen Participation Plan and correspondence is included with this application for rezoning and report. Copies are attached for review. [In the revised staff report based on the new Code, the narrative regarding citizen participation would be much the same as the above.]

- Discussion In review of Rezoning Ordinance 1850, and the 14 conditions relating to the development of this property (including the Red Lobster and Olive Garden) special care was given to how this property should be developed with respect to the City’s gateway. In 1994 the Land Development Code had been applied for approximately 3 years. The basic urban design principal with the Land Development Code in 1994 was to protect the natural resources found on a site based certain thresholds. These resources would be protected and integrated into the proposed built environment to create the city’s physical urban form from individual site to individual site. In 2001 the City adopted the Design Review Guidelines that required the development to integrate individual projects with the broader community development objectives (Level 1: Neighborhood), and address the manner in which a building is placed on its site in which site functions are organized (Level 2: Site) and addresses the basic mass, scale and the material of building (Level 3: Building Design). Now that the Land Development Code integrates and protects the resources found on a site based on certain thresholds and additionally integrates the development into the boarder neighborhood, site and building design provides favorable urban design results. However, with this site the forest resources were removed illegally, thus the urban design form has been interrupted. Based on these facts, over the last two years staff has worked with the developer/designers to provide a development proposal that concentrates on protecting the natural slopes, integrates the required landscaping and re-vegetation (504 trees with 436 of which will be ponderosa pine trees) of the site and provides a building design(s)/architecture that reflects the building traditions of the Flagstaff region. Staff believes the development proposal has provided a comprehensive design package that is comparable or better than the previous rezoning concept plan and additionally believes the project will be an asset to our City’s southwest gateway. [In the revised staff report based on the new Code, the discussion in this section would be based on the particular opportunities, issues or challenges peculiar to the application and the subject property. Staff might also describe the need for specific conditions of approval to resolve identified concerns.]


RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the rezoning request has been justified in light of the proposed Regional Land Use Plan amendment and would recommend in favor of rezoning the subject parcel to the Urban Commercial District. Staff would recommend that such rezoning be subject to the following conditions:

1. The subject property be developed according to the concept plan/including high quality architecture details for the “Courtyard by Marriott” as presented with the rezoning request.

2. All other requirements of the Land Development Code and other applicable City codes, ordinances

and regulations, including the conditions of DRB review of October 12, 2006 are met by the proposed development.

3. The building plans and permits for the hotel are not to include a full commercial kitchen. However,

serving and warming station is permissible. 4. The developer/property obtains a five year warrantee for all of the Ponderosa Pine trees to be planted

with the associated landscaping/re-vegetation.

ATTACHMENTS: Application with Request Statement, Traffic Impact Analysis, Citizen Participation Plan & Report. Location Map Water and Sewer Summary dated October 12, 2006 Concept Plans with slope analysis Landscaping and Re-Vegetation Plans Floor Plan and Elevations including Colored Courtyard Plans Under ground parking plan DRB Minutes of October 12, 2006 Rezoning Ordinance 1850 with Concept Plan Before and after aerial photos Correspondence

Item No. ___________ CITY OF FLAGSTAFF STAFF SUMMARY REPORT To: The Honorable Mayor and Council From: Mark Sawyers, Development Case Manager Supervisor Community Development Department Date: December 4, 2006 Meeting Date: December 19, 2006 TITLE: CONSIDERATION OF PUBLIC HEARING PC 2006-003, REZONING OF

APPROXIMATELY 6.69 ACRES AT 2650 SOUTH BEULAH BOULEVARD FROM UC, URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT CONDITIONAL, AND RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO UC, URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT CONDITIONAL.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, receive citizen input and close the public hearing. ACTION SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the request for rezoning at its regular meeting on November 14, 2006. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission voted unanimously (7-0) to tabled the rezoning request for additional information. On November 28, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted (5-2) recommended approval of the rezoning request subject to the following conditions: 1. The subject property be developed according to the concept plan, including high quality

architecture details for the “Courtyard by Marriot” as presented with the rezoning request.

2. All other requirements of the Land Development Code and other applicable City codes, ordinances and regulations are met by the proposed development including the conditions of the Development Review Board review of October 12, 2006.


4. The developer/property obtains a five year warrantee for all of the ponderosa pine trees to be planted with the associated landscaping/re-vegetation.

Item No.

ORIGINAL CITY COUNCIL STAFF SUMMARY Based on the Existing LDC

Page 2

5. The landscaping on the project needs to be reevaluated as to density, buildability and planting types to encourage viewsheds and to eliminate the “hedge” look, at which time the number of trees needed will become apparent. Architecture of building 6/12 roof pitch and gables are appropriate. The Commission will have opportunity to view changes before development begins and with conditions as stated by staff.

All substantive issues relating to this public hearing are included with the applicable reports to the Planning and Zoning Commission dated November 28, 2006, and attached. DISCUSSION: The applicant/developer, The Summit Group Inc, requests rezoning for a hotel consisting of 164 guest rooms and a 7,000-square-foot restaurant on a site of approximately 6.69 acres. The development is referred to as “Marriot Courtyard at Flagstaff.” The site itself is located between South Beulah Boulevard and South Milton/Interstate 17. Access to the property is located at the intersection of South Beulah Boulevard and South Woodlands Village Boulevard. The site contains approximately 580 linear feet of street frontage along South Beulah Boulevard with the rear portion abutting South Milton/I-17. Key Considerations: Rezoning amendments require a public hearing by the City Council. If the public hearing is successfully concluded, a rezoning ordinance will be prepared for consideration by the City Council at the January 16, 2006 meeting. Background/History: As indicated in the Regional Land Use Plan amendment report, this rezoning request is the second of two related items on the Council’s agenda; the first item is identified as a Regional Plan amendment request. On November 14 & 28, 2006 the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the two related items. Community Benefits and Considerations:

Not applicable Community Involvement: Chapter 10-10 of the LDC requires that a Citizen Participation Plan be implemented prior to the public hearing and that a Citizen Participation Report be included with the application for rezoning. On July 26, 2006, the applicant hosted the required Citizen Participation meeting regarding the proposed development. A Citizen Participation Plan and correspondence is included with this report and application for rezoning. Copies are attached for review. Public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council are conducted in conjunction with requests for rezoning. In accordance with State statute, notice of the public hearing was provided by placing an ad in the Daily Sun, posting notices on the property, and mailing a notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the site.

Page 2

Financial Implications: Voters approved Proposition 207 in the November elections. Proposition 207 allows property owners to seek compensation from a municipality whenever a new land use law reduces the value of the property. If the two applicable applications are approved by the Council and if the Council attaches any conditions to the rezoning approval as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the land owner may file a demand for compensation under Proposition 207. Staff recommends that the City Council request the landowner to sign a waiver of any Proposition 207 claims before taking final action of rezoning the parcels. Staff is currently working with the Legal Department to develop a waiver form for this purpose. Options and Alternatives: No other options or alternatives are being considered as part of this request. Attachments/Exhibits: ► Staff report to the Planning and Zoning Commission ► Site Plans, Elevations, Photo Simulation, Landscaping-Plans ► Application, Rezoning & General Plan Request and Citizen Participation Report ► Draft Minutes of the November 14 & 28, 2006, P&Z Commission meeting.

____________________________________ Department Head

BIDS/PURCHASES FINANCE/BUDGET INITIALS RESPONSIBILITY DATE INITIALS RESPONSIBILITY DATE

GRANTS/CONTRACTS IGAS LEGAL PLANNING DATE OF COUNCIL APPROVAL:

REZONING REPORT

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

PUBLIC HEARING DATE: November 07, 2006 PC REZ 06-003 MEETING DATE: REPORT BY:

November 28, 2006

Mark Sawyers

REQUEST:

Rezoning of approximately 6.69 acres at 2650 South Beulah Boulevard from the UC, Urban Commercial District Conditional (6.03 acres) and RR, Rural Residential District (.66 acres) to UC, Urban Commercial District (Conditional).

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends approval of PC REZ 06-003 with conditions as noted in the “Recommendation” section of this report.

PRESENT LAND USE:

The site’s physical character is undeveloped slope lands with the forest resources removed in the UC, Urban Commercial (conditional) and RR, Rural Residential Districts.

PROPOSED LAND USE:

A 164-room chain hotel (Courtyard Marriot) and a separate, free-standing 7,000 square foot standard restaurant.

ADJACENT LAND USE & DEVELOPMENT:

North: Olive garden & Red Lobster – UC District; East: Retail and Restaurants, – UC & C3-E Districts: South: I-40/I-17 Interchange; West: I-17/Milton and NAU – PLO-E.

REQUIRED FINDINGS:

STAFF REVIEW. An application for an amendment to the Zoning Map shall be submitted to the Planning Director and shall be reviewed and a recommendation prepared. The recommendation of the Planning Director shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the scheduled public hearing. The recommendation shall set forth whether the rezoning should be granted, granted with conditions, or denied, and shall include a recommended zoning district classification and the ground for any such recommendation as they relate to the standards and purposes of the zoning district classification set forth in Chapter 10-02 of the Land Development Code (LDC) and the City’s Regional Plan. STANDARDS FOR REVIEWING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS: All proposed amendments shall be evaluated as to whether the application is consistent with the objectives and policies of the Regional Plan and any other adopted plan; and, the proposed change would not be detrimental to the majority of the persons

ORIGINAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Based on the Existing LDC

PC REZ 06-003 November 28, 2006

2

or property in the surrounding area, nor to the community in general. If the application is not consistent, the applicable plan must be amended in accordance with the procedures of Chapter 10-02 of the LDC prior to considering the proposed amendment.

STAFF REVIEW:

Introduction/Background

As indicated in staff’s Regional Plan Amendment report, this rezoning request is the second of two related items on the Commission’s agenda. The first item is identified as a Regional Plan amendment request. The second item is a rezoning request for a change from UC, Urban Commercial District (Conditional see rezoning Ordinance 1850) and the southern property (.66 acres) in the RR, Rural Residential District to the UC, Urban Commercial District Conditional. In 1990, this site was proposed to be developed with a ten-story 300 room Holiday Inn. Although the request never received a formal public hearing, there were concerns expressed about the height of the structure, as it pertains to the southwest entrance to the city. In late 1994, the City Council reviewed and approved Rezoning Ordinance 1850 that allowed the development of two restaurants (existing Red Lobster and Olive Garden); and one 120-room three-story, 54,000 square foot hotel not to exceed 40 feet in height upon the subject site minus the portion of property requesting the Regional Plan Land Use amendment. On or around March 27, 2004 the city staff believe the forest resources on the entire 6.69 acres present at the time (see attached aerial photos) were removed by George Nackard and Consolidated Investment Co, Incorporated. On June 30, 2004 City of Flagstaff filed criminal complaints against the two above mentioned parties. On April 12, 2005 both parties entered a plea of no contest to the charges of “conspiracy and solicitation to fell or remove trees six inches or greater in diameter” (see attached plea agreements). The plea issued a fine of $4,500.00 to each party. According to the Summit Group Inc neither George Nackard nor Consolidated Investment have any interest in the property or in the development.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN

The applicant/developer, The Summit Group Inc, request a rezoning for a hotel consisting of 164 guest rooms and a 7,000-square-foot restaurant on a site of approximately 6.69 acres. The development is referred to as “Marriot Courtyard at Flagstaff.” The site itself is located between South Beulah Boulevard and South Milton/Interstate 17. Access to the property is located at the intersection of South Beulah Boulevard and South Woodlands Village Boulevard. The site contains approximately 580 linear feet of street frontage along South Beulah Boulevard and the rear portion abutting South Milton/I-17.

GENERAL PLAN/FLAGSTAFF AREA REGIONAL LAND USE PLAN

The Regional Land Use Plan categorizes the parcel in the Commercial Regional and Urban Open Space category. All substantive Regional Plan issues were addressed in the previous Regional Land Use Plan amendment report relating to the parcel designated as Urban Open Space. In general, the Regional Plan encourages development within the Urban Growth Boundary, as well as developments that promote quality-designed infill, which provides for mixed-use neighborhoods and places an emphasis on all transportation


3

modes. Staff believes the proposed development implements the goals and policies of the Regional Plan as well as the Urban Commercial designation.

ZONING/LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE

The Land Development Code (LDC) classifies the northern 6.03 acre parcel as UC, Urban Commercial District (Conditional see Rezoning Ordinance 1850) and the southern .66 acres as RR, Rural Residential District. If both parcels were rezoned to the UC, Urban Commercial District for the 6.69-acre site, the maximum nonresidential district floor area yield for a hotel development would be approximately 110,642 square feet. The applicant/developer, The Summit Group Inc, requests rezoning approval to permit a hotel consisting of 164 guest rooms of approximately 94,200 square feet. The detached restaurant contains approximately 7,000 square feet, which brings the total square footage to approximately 101,200 which is within the permissible square footage yield. The developer has supplied elevations and floor plans for both buildings. Both buildings will incorporate the same building materials to the exterior elevations. The bulk of exterior of the buildings will utilize a sawdust colored 8" hardie plank lap and shake shingle siding; other portions of the buildings will be treated with brown-gray colored ledge rock and the roof will utilize a chateau-green architectural fiberglass shingle. The look of the buildings (hotel and restaurant) simulates the architecture found with and around the Colorado Plateau in terms of the massing, variable roof pitches and lines, exposed heavy timber gables, towers, stone, deep overhangs, exposed rafter wood tails, brackets, earthy colors, and heavy window trim. The restaurant is a one-story structure with a building height of 28 feet at the roof line. The architecture replicates a large residential bungalow structure. This structure will be visible from South Beulah Boulevard, and inside of the restaurant will have views of the peaks. The hotel is a three-story structure with a building height of 54 feet at the roof line. The structure also contains two architecture features at 60 feet in height. The look and feel of the hotel is intended to replicate the lodges found in the West. The hotel design creates a literal courtyard from which the name was derived. This courtyard will be oriented west towards South Beulah Boulevard (courtyard space qualifies as the five percent public open space). The structure also contains a parking garage under the first floor that houses 158 parking spaces. Portions of the parking garage structure are visible from along Beulah Boulevard. The development provides a total of 313 parking stalls with 158 spaces in the hotel garage and 155 surface parking stalls located between the hotel and restaurant and eastern portion of the site. This portion of the property is elevated approximately 25 feet above South Milton/I-17. Restaurant parking was reduced 50% based on the information that the restaurant will provide service to the residents of the hotel. The hotel will not have a full kitchen. The parking stalls have been designed to meet the parking and circulations requirements of the Land Development Code.

- Resources, Re-vegetation & Landscaping As discussed in the Introduction/Background the forest resources found on the site previously were removed intentionally from the site (except for three Ponderosa Pines). The Land Development Code requires all areas


4

that were to be protected pursuant to Natural Resource Protection Standards that are accidentally or intentionally disturbed shall be re-vegetated/landscaped with a minimum of 15 plant units per acre. The landscaping plan provides for a total of 504 trees with 436 of those being ponderosa pine trees and 672 shrubs. The re-vegetation based on 6.69 acres required that a total of 100 plant units (each plant unit requires: 3 trees and 4 shrubs based on unit B) or a total of 300 trees and 400 shrubs. The landscape architect has transferred the required deciduous trees for re-vegetation to ponderosa tree in an effort to re-establish the natural forest. This amount of landscaping is in addition to the required bufferyard, on-lot and parking lot landscaping requirements. The applicant has provided a complete landscaping plan that complies with all requirements as well a Design Review Guidelines related to landscaping which is included within the application. Additionally the site provides a 51% Landscaping Surface Ratio (LSR) which exceeds the LSR of 25% required for hotel development located in the Urban Commercial District. The applicant has provided resources found on the property to be disturbed, and protected as a part of this development. The site also contains both categories of steep slope resources. The Land Development Code (LDC) protection factors for resource in the UC, Urban Commercial District, are as follows: RESOURCE PROTECTION LAND IN THE UC DISTRICT

Courtyard Marriot at Flagstaff

RESOURCE

TOTAL Sq. Ft.

REQUIRED PROTECTION LEVEL & Sq. Ft.

PROTECTED LEVEL & PROTECTED Sq. Ft.

Forest

0

30% 0

*0

Slope 17 – 24.9%

59,890

60% 35,930

62% 36,883

Slope 25% and greater

28,480

80% 22,780

81% 23,015

* See discussion above in Resources, Re-vegetation & Landscaping. The slope resource disturbance calculations/analysis indicates that all of the above-mentioned minimum protection threshold requirements are being met with this proposal. The three existing Ponderosa Pines located on the above mentioned slopes will be protect and preserved with the development. It must be noted that the previous concept plan (ordinance 1850) protected 81% of 25%+ slopes; 98% of 17-25% slopes and 48% of forest resources.

- Design Review With the rezoning application review, the Design Review Guidelines Level 1 and parts of Level 2 were applied and approved by the Development Review Board. Level 3, Building Design, compliance is not


5

required with rezoning applications, and however, the applicant has supplied some of the Level 3 information. The following information highlights some of Level 1, Neighborhood Design, Level 2, Site Design and Level 3, Building Design Guidelines: Concerning Level 1, Pedestrian and Bicycle Connection: The development has created an internal pedestrian system that connects development to the existing restaurants to the north as well as the existing public sidewalk along Beulah which connect to the FUTS systems located in Sinclair Wash located just on the east side of the Walmart property. All of the pedestrian crossings at intersection crossing will receive decorative paving and distinctive landscaping elements. Project will include a 5 foot wide sidewalk with a parkway along Beulah. Concerning portions of Level 2 and Level 3, Site Drainage: The developer is proposing an underground detention system that improves the overall efficiency of the design by not consuming surface land area. Outdoor Public Spaces: With major developments, 5% of the site is required to be developed for outdoor public spaces(s). The applicant has exceeded this requirement and provided a conceptual sketch shows improved public open space (sees detail of courtyard). Parking Lots: Also, with major developments, the parking supply shall not exceed the minimum requirement by 5% unless provided by structured parking. The parking within the development complies with this requirement. The design standards also require the dividing of the parking lots into smaller lots with planted buffers and pedestrian links to the building entrances. The design complies with these requirements. Building Materials: The building materials are of high quality and portray traditional building materials that create a balanced scale and mass to the elevation (see architectural drawings as well as the colored renderings). PUBLIC SYSTEMS IMPACT ANALYSIS:

- Transportation

Mr. Michael Pekala, with Pekala and Associates, prepared the Traffic Impact Study as the revised report for the Courtyard Marriott/Restaurant. The site will have one driveway at Beulah Boulevard on an alignment with Woodlands Village Boulevard. This intersection currently operates as a major, signalized tee (3 way) configuration without an east leg. The development will provide a fourth leg (4 way) to the existing intersection. The revised Traffic Impact Study indicates that approximately 1902 external vehicles trips per day will be generated by the proposed development. The report reviewed the level of service analysis of the new additional traffic to the existing intersections and roadway segments. City staff reviewed and approved the final report. The base data, traffic projections, analysis, and final recommendations of the report were used in subsequent discussions among the development parties to determine the traffic design elements. The project will be required to construct a right turn lane into the development/intersection. In summary, no modifications, alterations or adjustment are necessary to any of the existing off-site intersections beyond the above mentioned improvements or roadway sections reviewed in the original report. The city’s traffic engineer approved the revised traffic report. The summary and conclusions from the TIA are attached with the rezoning application.


6

- Transit and Pedestrian Facilities The nearest public transit stop to the proposed development is located across the street from Beulah Boulevard in front of the Fazoli’s restaurant, which is within ¼ mile entrance of the proposed buildings, accessible by the pedestrian phase signal located at the intersection of Beulah Boulevard and Woodlands Village Boulevard. On-site pedestrian facilities are discussed in the Design Review section of this report.

- Water

A Water and Wastewater System analysis was prepared by the Utilities Department for this project. A copy of the results is provided with this report. The proposed development is served by Zone B water pressure system. Public water is available from an existing eight-inch water line located in Beulah Boulevard and a second source is available from an existing eight-inch water line located behind the Olive Garden Restaurant. These two water mains will form a complete eight-inch looped water line through the site with two new fire hydrants located onsite. The analysis demonstrated adequate supply/pressures for combined peak demand and fire flow.

- Wastewater

The nearest sewer line to be utilized by this project will be the existing, eighteen-inch line located in Beulah Boulevard. Two separate private sewer service connections will be required to the above-mentioned sewer main. The conclusion of the analysis is that the development will have no adverse impacts to the current wastewater systems. Water and wastewater systems for the project will be designed and constructed per the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Specifications.

- Stormwater A Preliminary Stormwater Analysis was prepared by Woodson Engineering and has been accepted in concept by the Stormwater manager. In an effort to maximize land development capabilities, the engineers involved in the design process have utilized an underground detention strategy. The proposed drainage system will incorporate catch basins, storm drains and underground detention culverts. The developer has agreed to us low impact development (LID) best management practices to reduce stormwater volumes. The developer is proposing to retain, and reuse 75% water for irrigation purposed of the 100 year storm volume increase. This level of LID will approximate natural runoff conditions. OTHER:

- Citizen Participation Public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council are conducted in conjunction with any request for rezoning. In accordance with state statute, notice of the public hearing was provided by


7

placing an ad in the Daily Sun, posting notices on the property, and mailing a notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the site. In addition, Chapter 10-10 of the LDC requires that a Citizen Participation Plan be implemented prior to the rezoning public hearing, and a Citizen Participation Plan and correspondence is included with this application for rezoning and report. Copies are attached for review.

- Discussion In review of Rezoning Ordinance 1850, and the 14 conditions relating to the development of this property (including the Red Lobster and Olive Garden) special care was given to how this property should be developed with respect to the City’s gateway. In 1994 the Land Development Code had been applied for approximately 3 years. The basic urban design principal with the Land Development Code in 1994 was to protect the natural resources found on a site based certain thresholds. These resources would be protected and integrated into the proposed built environment to create the city’s physical urban form from individual site to individual site. In 2001 the City adopted the Design Review Guidelines that required the development to integrate individual projects with the broader community development objectives (Level 1: Neighborhood), and address the manner in which a building is placed on its site in which site functions are organized (Level 2: Site) and addresses the basic mass, scale and the material of building (Level 3: Building Design). Now that the Land Development Code integrates and protects the resources found on a site based on certain thresholds and additionally integrates the development into the boarder neighborhood, site and building design provides favorable urban design results. However, with this site the forest resources were removed illegally, thus the urban design form has been interrupted. Based on these facts, over the last two years staff has worked with the developer/designers to provide a development proposal that concentrates on protecting the natural slopes, integrates the required landscaping and re-vegetation (504 trees with 436 of which will be ponderosa pine trees) of the site and provides a building design(s)/architecture that reflects the building traditions of the Flagstaff region. Staff believes the development proposal has provided a comprehensive design package that is comparable or better than the previous rezoning concept plan and additionally believes the project will be an asset to our City’s southwest gateway. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the rezoning request has been justified in light of the proposed Regional Land Use Plan amendment and would recommend in favor of rezoning the subject parcel to the Urban Commercial District. Staff would recommend that such rezoning be subject to the following conditions:

1. The subject property be developed according to the concept plan/including high quality architecture details for the “Courtyard by Marriott” as presented with the rezoning request.

2. All other requirements of the Land Development Code and other applicable City codes, ordinances

and regulations, including the conditions of DRB review of October 12, 2006 are met by the proposed development.


8


4. The developer/property obtains a five year warrantee for all of the Ponderosa Pine trees to be planted

with the associated landscaping/re-vegetation.

ATTACHMENTS: Application with Request Statement, Traffic Impact Analysis, Citizen Participation Plan & Report. Location Map Water and Sewer Summary dated October 12, 2006 Concept Plans with slope analysis Landscaping and Re-Vegetation Plans Floor Plan and Elevations including Colored Courtyard Plans Under ground parking plan DRB Minutes of October 12, 2006 Rezoning Ordinance 1850 with Concept Plan Before and after aerial photos Correspondence Pea agreements

Sa

mpl

e of

a C

once

pt A

rchi

tect

ural

Ren

deri

ng fo

r a P

ropo

sed

Proj

ect

Not

e: T

his

draw

ing,

ori

gina

lly su

bmitt

ed in

col

or, i

s ac

tual

ly d

evel

oped

with

mor

e de

tail

than

may

ac

tual

ly b

e re

quir

ed, b

ut it

is n

onet

hele

ss il

lust

rativ

e of

the

arch

itect

ural

ver

nacu

lar o

f the

pro

pose

d pr

ojec

t

Documents

Planning and Development Services Memo