Click this link to optimize Flagstaff Community Forum for screen readers Skip to Content
Flagstaff Community Forum
Peak Democracy

What should be included in the scope to hire a consultant for updating current City codes that impact the development of property within the City of Flagstaff?


I. Public Notice

City of Flagstaff

NOTICE of REQUEST for STATEMENT of QUALIFICATIONS (RSOQ 2018-28):

PLANNING and TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL Services

Transportation Impact Analysis and Transect Zoning Code Amendments

The City of Flagstaff (Owner) is seeking Statements of Qualifications (SOQ’s) from Arizona licensed professionals to provide the following planning and transportation engineering professional services:

Conduct a study of potential amendments to the City of Flagstaff Transect Zoning Code and Transportation Impact Analysis Standards.

The selected Firm will be expected to enter into a base Contract for Professional Services (Contract). The Contract will be awarded at the Owner’s discretion. Fees associated with contracted services will be negotiated after a qualified Firm is selected.

SCHEDULE OF STATEMENT DEADLINES

Advertise for Services:    November 22, 2017

Last Day for Questions:   3:00 p.m. December 20, 2017

Statements Due:    3:00 p.m. January 24, 2018

Interviews (if necessary):  Week of February 12, 2018

Anticipated Award of Services Contracts:   May 1, 2018

Complete Request for Statement of Qualifications (RSOQ) packets are available for download from the PlanetBids online bid platform website at https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanyID=27606.

SOQs must be submitted electronically on the PlanetBids online bid platform website by 3:00 p.m. Local Time, January 24, 2018.

The Owner reserves the right to reject any or all SOQs, to waive or decline to waive irregularities in any submittals, or to withhold the award for any reason it may determine.

Published November xx, 2017 and November xx, 2017, Arizona Daily Sun

II. GENERAL INFORMATION 

A. Scope of Services

General Information

General Information

Northern Arizona University’s expansion of the Flagstaff Campus is creating stress on the adjacent neighborhood’s sense of place and the infrastructure capacity. Many in the community are dissatisfied with the results of the writing and implementation of the Transect Code, and the outcomes of the impact analyses, especially as it relates to the transportation network. There is a community desire to maintain and enhance neighborhood character by preventing large, inappropriately scaled buildings and properly mitigate the resultant impacts. Where there are ambiguities, inconsistencies and contradictions in the existing Transect Code, the City is seeking recommendations that will make the development standards consistent with the stated purposes of the code.

The City of Flagstaff Zoning Code was adopted prior to the ratification of the Regional Plan. A significant step in the replacement of the Land Development Code with the Zoning Code was the inclusion of a Form Based (“Transect”) Code. The intent of the Transect Code was to balance the community’s sense of character with the existing Euclidian zoning, which entitles properties to develop with densities and intensities far greater than what is currently developed within the Downtown, Southside, Townsite, and North Downtown neighborhoods. The ratification of the Regional Plan solidified the idea that these neighborhoods would be the epicenter of redevelopment and infill due to the inclusion of Regional Urban Activity Centers and Urban land use designations within a concentrated area.

The City of Flagstaff Transportation Impact Analysis requirements are a part of the City’s Engineering Design and Construction Standards. The City’s current TIA requirements are based on nationally recognized guidelines and procedures such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE’s) Transportation Impact Analyses for Site Development, 2010. (An updated version of this recommended practice that will consider a wider range of factors such as a project’s community context and how well if fits with overall community goals is currently under development by ITE.) Recently revisions were proposed to the City’s TIA requirements to address ongoing deficiencies in TIA submittals the City has received in the last several years, to formalize Level of Service (LOS) standards and multimodal impact analysis. While these revisions may have provided additional clarity and direction to applicants, they were still based on nationally accepted procedures and standards. These standards and traditional methods of transportation impact analysis, along with our current transect coding, have not always aligned with Council and neighborhood expectations to preserve neighborhood character, and to adequately mitigate resultant impacts.

Some of the additional concerns expressed by Council and citizens are trip generation, congestion and parking from entitled developments that are out-of-scale with the existing/historic neighborhoods.

Neighborhoods and Council have also raised concerns with incremental impacts of multiple smaller developments that historically have not been responsible for traffic impact mitigation. Individually these impacts are not measurable, but cumulatively they can have impacts on the City’s transportation network.

Finally, in trying to address all of these concerns, Council and staff recognize potential exposure associated with Proposition 207. While changes can easily be made to the Zoning Code and Engineering Standards, these changes could potentially put the City at risk of claims from property owners who feel their property values have been diminished as a result. Any proposed recommendations should take this into consideration.

Project Objectives

Project Objectives

The selected Firm will be responsible for conducting a thorough review of the City’s codes and standards that apply to the concerns and issues identified above. Extensive public outreach and participation shall be included to ensure the voices of the community are meaningfully integrated with City Staff’s and the Firm’s recommendations. Public outreach will involve online feedback through the Flagstaff Community Forum, and a series of public meetings where advocacy groups and the community at-large are able to communicate their thoughts and ideas at different stages of the project.

The Firm will prepare recommendations that may include amendments to the Transect Code and Zoning Map, the City’s Engineering Standards, the draft TIA Manual, or any other City Codes, guidelines or policies that apply. The Firm will present these recommendations in the form of a report directly to Council. All legal risks and costs associated with the recommendations will be presented by the Firm to Council.

This Study may be in multiple phases at the discretion of and as determined by the Owner. Dependent on the outcome of Phase I, the Owner may move forward with Phase II of the Study. Should the owner move forward with Phase II, it may negotiate the scope and fee with the Firm and process an amendment for the delivery of Phase II services.

Involvement and Education

A. SCOPE OF SERVICES

The Firm shall perform the tasks listed below, and at a minimum review, research, and make recommendations for the items and concerns listed below. The Firm also shall include information and recommendations on related items not identified below that are relevant to this work based on Firm’s specialized knowledge or on items revealed by Firm’s research for this project.

Involvement and Education

  • Public Involvement through Working Group
  • Discussion Forums (Traffic Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission, General Public Meetings)
  • Engagement and Education with City Council
  • Present findings and recommendations to City Council

Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)

Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)

1. Fully review TIA Code and draft TIA Manual for best practices.

2. Draft recommended and agreed upon changes to TIA Code and the draft TIA Manual. Provide particular emphasis on tailoring the process to meet Flagstaff specific needs, goals, and expectations.

3. Publicly Expressed Concerns to be Studied

a)  Public desire for review and comment on individual TIA scope, analysis methods, conclusions, and recommendations.

b)  Desire for a more understandable TIA Executive Summary for the general public.

c)   Need for Mitigation of Incremental and Cumulative Impacts of small developments.

d)  How to address Transect Parking Requirements and consistency with Zoning Code.

e)  Establish Quality of Life Standards for Neighborhood Streets.

4. Review and recommend how the transportation impact of proposed developments should be analyzed and what mitigation should be required in view of existing deficiencies of the City’s transportation network. For example, the community’s perception of the Route 66/Milton corridor 4 is that it operates poorly today, and any development in the vicinity will just make it worse, so how can additional development that adds traffic to this corridor still be allowed?

5. Alternative Mode Analysis and Mitigation

a) Current practice is to review network for deficiencies, typically missing links are identified and mitigated.

b) Transit

i) Requirements for bus pullout/stop infrastructure. Note: Pullouts are typically required by the City Engineering Section, not NAIPTA (Northern AZ Interagency Public Transportation Authority).

ii) Opportunity for developments to provide operating and/or capital (fleet) funding.

iii) Recommend procedure and criteria for determining a development’s impact on existing transit service, and threshold levels for requiring mitigation.

iv) Recommend procedure and criteria for determining impact of proposed transit enhancements on trip generation for other modes. For example, if a development pays for extending transit service to the development, what impact will that have on private vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian trip rates?

c) Bicycle and Pedestrian

i) Explore development providing bike and pedestrian facilities through a fee in-lieu of providing auto/truck facilities to mitigate motor vehicle impacts, including expected impacts of the non-mitigated motor vehicle trips.

ii) Explore possibility for developments to upgrade or provide new bike and/or pedestrian facilities based on current standards and plans in addition to mitigation

6. Impact Fees

a) Review the viability of all mode Transportation Impact Fees for Flagstaff.

b) Consider all mode Transportation Impact Fees by area (i.e. Downtown, Milton Corridor, Suburban areas).

7) In house TIA Development

a) Review the viability of City staff conducting TIAs.

b) Research best practices concerning City staff conducting TIAs.

8) FMPO Regional Travel Demand Model

a) Review the current use of the Regional Travel Demand Model in the TIA process.

b) Review the existing model’s strengths, weaknesses, and usefulness in the TIA process.

c) Identify expanded opportunities and any needed model changes for the model to improve the TIA process.

9) ADOT Jurisdictional Roadways

a) Explore options for ensuring impacts are identified and mitigated on ADOT roadways.

i) Identify weaknesses and recommend improvements/process changes.

b) Explore options for greater City involvement with respect to impacts on ADOT roadways, including impact on City resources of each option.

i) Route transfers.

ii) Delegate authority for ROW permitting.

iii) ADOT adoption of City Standards for TIAs.

10) Establish LOS (Level of Service) standards for neighborhood streets and sidewalks, and recommend appropriate standards or thresholds for determining what is an acceptable impact and what impacts should be mitigated through traffic calming or other means.

11) Study relationship between reduced parking requirement, parking demand, and trip generation in Transect zones. 

12) Review parking demand v required parking supply for single family and multi-family housing in areas that serve significant numbers of NAU students, and recommend changes if indicated.

13) Address need for a Flagstaff specific model v a national model, and what should be included in a Flagstaff specific model.

14) Evaluate unique characteristics of student housing and how these should be addressed in a TIA and the Zoning code.

15) Recommend appropriate treatment and conditions for Travel Demand Management, procedures for determining associated reduction in vehicle trips, and develop the framework for creating and staffing this new City program.

16) Recommend what the geographic extent of a TIA study area should be, and how it should be determined.

17) In view of all of the listed concerns and items for review/recommendations, clearly explain the purpose and legal basis for a TIA and resulting required improvements (mitigations) as well as any legal limitations on what may be required of a developer via a TIA process (nexus & proportionality). For any desired improvements beyond the legally allowable scope of a TIA, discuss options for exacting such improvements, if any.

Transect Zoning

Transect Zoning

1) Comprehensive Review of the Existing Transect Code

a) Compare and analyze existing standards to the previously completed micro-scale analysis

b) Make recommendations for additional calibration of development standards and zones

c) Make recommendations for new micro-scale analysis of specific areas or neighborhoods

d) Review and analysis of the Transect Code for implementation of the Regional Plan and other neighborhood planning efforts

2) Design Charrette

a) Review the purpose and intent of the Transect Code, including all Transect zones

b) Analyze an expansion/reduction of the Downtown Regulating Plan area

c) Evaluate elimination of conventional zoning in the Downtown Regulating Plan area

d) Evaluate elimination of the Transect Code

3) Publicly Expressed Concerns to be Studied

a) Parking

i) Compare and analyze the Transect and conventional on-site parking requirements

ii) Analyze parking based on need vs. availability

iii) Recommendations will take into account the implementation and availability of the parking management program

b) Building Bulk, Mass, Scale, and Height

i) Review existing Building Types for compatibility with the stated purpose of the Transect zone and the neighborhood in which they are permitted

ii) Review and report on existing building heights by Transect

iii) Prepare a comparison of Transect maximum height versus conventional zoning allowances

iv) Analyze standards for measuring building height in Transect zones in comparison to other national codes and best practices

c) Open Space (Lot Coverage) and Public Civic Space

i) Review current Open Space and Public Civic Space requirements by Transect

ii) Review amount and locational requirements for on-site Open Space based on lot coverage

iii) Provide an inventory of Public Civic Space by Transect

iv) Review the current Open Space and Public Civic Space master planning efforts in the Regional Plan and other City-adopted documents

v) Review the City’s policies on park land acquisition

vi) Review feasibility of a Transect-specific Open Space Plan for Public Spaces

4) Consolidate Transect Standards into one chapter or a Stand-Alone Code

a) Analyze the intermingling of conventional and Transect development standards

This study will conclude in a report of recommendations that will be presented to Council. In the event a Phase II is determined to be needed, Phase II of the Study will be implementation of Phase I recommendations. This may include, but shall not be limited to, additional analysis, drafting of Zoning Code amendments, drafting of TIA Standards amendments and drafting of other applicable codes and policies. At that time a detailed scope of work will be negotiated and discussed pending the outcome of Phase I.

GENERAL COMMENTS

General Comments

Please leave your general comments here. To read the whole document click here.

+
+
+
+
+
+
+