Flagstaff holds joint training on planning, zoning and public-process rules

Flagstaff City held a joint training session for the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 30, 2025, where city planners and the city attorney reviewed the legal framework for land-use decisions, rules on ex parte communications, and how the commission’s recommendations move to Council for final action.

The training, led by planning staff and legal counsel, reviewed where the Planning and Zoning Commission’s duties are set in City code, how the Regional Plan 2030 and specific plans are applied, the content of the zoning (Title 10) and subdivision (Title 11) codes, and the process for making written findings that tie facts to legal standards.

“My name’s Alexandra Puccarelli. I’m the current planning manager at the city of Flagstaff,” said Alexandra Puccarelli, who opened the session and framed the training as background for both commissioners and council members. Sarah Duchter, the city’s comprehensive and neighborhood planning manager, summarized the city’s guiding policy, saying the city “is currently under the Regional Plan 2030,” which staff described as the community’s legislative framework for transportation and land use. Michelle McNulty, planning director, told the group that “the planning process really exists to serve the public interest” and outlined ethical standards the commission should apply when weighing competing values.

Legal counsel Sterling Solomon reviewed open-meeting and ex parte rules intended to preserve transparency and due process. Solomon advised commissioners that if an outside contact occurs they should direct the person to submit materials to staff so the public can review them together, and to disclose any site visits or contacts on the record. “If somebody does reach out to you to discuss a case, tell them you’re very interested in hearing that and so is the rest of the public,” Solomon said, adding disclosure is the safest course.

Staff explained how written findings are used to connect legal standards in the zoning code to the facts of an application. Presenters emphasized that findings must show reasoning (for example by using the word “because”), state the specific facts considered, and not rest on public opinion alone. Planners also outlined common conditions of approval and the staff role in enforcing those conditions.

Council members and commissioners discussed the practical flow of cases from P&Z to Council. Several council members said they sometimes see modifications made by applicants between the commission hearing and Council and asked staff to make those changes and any dissenting- vote rationales clearer in the staff packet. Michelle McNulty responded, “that’s definitely something we can add to the staff reports,” and staff said they would include summaries that note when a project has changed and when commission votes were split or included substantive dissent.

The group also covered procedural questions: applicants can withdraw, amend and resubmit applications to go back before the commission; Council may remand an application to P&Z for further review; and remands require a new noticed hearing though they may not require repeating all administrative review steps. Staff advised that meetings between individual council or commission members and applicants are best conducted with planning staff and legal counsel present; Solomon noted he circulates guidance on that practice to elected officials and commissioners.

The session included examples of specific plans that refine the Regional Plan 2030 (La Plaza Vieja, Southside, McMillan Mesa Village and other property-owner-initiated plans adopted by ordinance) and practical reminders about code citations: zoning is Title 10 of the City Code and subdivision rules are in Title 11. Staff reiterated the penalties and personal risk tied to Open Meeting Law violations, noting a court can impose a fine of up to $500 on an individual for a violation.

The training concluded without formal votes or policy changes; staff and legal counsel fielded questions from council members and commissioners about disclosure, record-keeping and best practices. Staff committed to several follow-ups, including updating staff reports to highlight commission disagreements or changes made by applicants between hearings and reminding elected officials about taking counsel to meetings with applicants.

Looking ahead, staff said they will continue to support commission and council coordination, supply clearer written summaries in meeting packets, and circulate guidance on ex parte contacts and attendance at applicant meetings.