Flagstaff planning staff outline three code-change scenarios to boost housing and lower emissions

City of Flagstaff planning staff on Wednesday presented a land-availability and code-concepts report that models three alternative approaches to change development standards with the goals of increasing housing supply and advancing the city—s climate targets.

Michelle McNulty, Planning Director for the City of Flagstaff, told the Planning and Zoning Commission the project pairs a land-availability and site-suitability study with a zoning code diagnostic and three code-concept scenarios intended to address the highest-priority barriers identified in the diagnostic report.

The report models three broad paths: (1) optimize existing incentives for sustainable design and affordable housing, leaving most by-right standards unchanged; (2) elevate sustainability requirements across by-right development while offsetting costs through higher allowable density and reduced parking; and (3) prioritize maximizing market-rate housing production by increasing density and reducing parking without adding new mandatory sustainability requirements. Tiffany Andahl, the city—s zoning code manager, described the scenarios as a set of trade-offs: "We're looking for feedback on what outcomes we are wanting to get to, and how exactly should we be getting there, and what makes us comfortable, and what makes us uncomfortable."

Why it matters: Flagstaff faces high housing costs and an adopted climate goal of carbon neutrality. The staff modeling tested the scenarios against prototype development cases and greenhouse gas and vehicle-miles-traveled metrics to estimate likely housing and sustainability outcomes and project financial feasibility. Genevieve Parathree from the sustainability division said scenario 2 produced the largest greenhouse-gas reductions in the consultant—s modeling: "Basically, as wouldn't be surprised, scenario 2 performed the best there." The analysis found that applying sustainability incentives to by-right development yielded emissions reductions, but the greatest benefit came when sustainability measures were required rather than optional.

Key findings and choices: Staff summarized several recurring conclusions from the modeling. Flagstaff—s high construction and land costs limit what code change alone can achieve; prototype models are a snapshot in time and cannot capture every market nuance. Across the scenarios, reductions in required parking were critical to the financial feasibility of higher-density projects. Staff said concentrating density where vehicle miles traveled (VMT) are already low would require targeted rezonings, an overlay district, or proximity-based rules because no single existing zoning district matched that objective except the central business district. The report also recommends rethinking the city—s broad resource-protection overlay (RPO) to apply stricter standards only to areas inventoried as the most sensitive resources rather than to all vacant parcels over five acres.

What the scenarios change (examples): Under current code, zoning yields typical density ranges of roughly 6 to 29 units per acre depending on district; the sustainability density bonus is 25 percent and the affordable-housing density bonus is a sliding scale up to about 45 percent. Scenario 1 raises incentive payouts but does not change by-right standards. Scenario 2 would raise by-right maximum densities (in some zones modeled up to 80 units per acre in prototypes), introduce floor-area-ratio limits extended into residential zones, reduce base parking to roughly 1 to 1.5 spaces per unit in modeled areas, and add baseline sustainability requirements to by-right development. Scenario 3 resembles scenario 2 on density and parking but omits mandatory sustainability requirements.

Commissioner reaction and public comment: Commissioners expressed differing priorities. Commissioner Mary Norton said affordability, especially pathways to homeownership and smaller starter homes, should weigh heavily: "For me, it would be more affordable housing...more homeownership for people who can't afford to live in this community." Another commissioner signaled support for scenario 3 as a means to prioritize housing production.

A member of the public, developer David Hayward, urged separating density increases from new sustainability mandates. Speaking during public comment, Hayward said the city—s existing incentives are underused and suggested coupling density increases to sustainability requirements risks failure on both goals: "If we tie them together, we're just gonna set ourselves up for failure with both."

Staff outreach and next steps: Staff said the code-concepts phase is a request for policy direction. The project team will use commissioner and public feedback to direct consultant work on formal code recommendations and return to City Council for further review. McNulty said formal code recommendations will require an additional public process and noted a Council presentation scheduled for Feb. 4. Staff asked commissioners to submit written comments to staff prior to that meeting to inform the consultant—s next steps.

Unresolved issues and constraints: Staff repeatedly flagged legal and fiscal constraints. The presentation discussed Arizona—s House Bill 2721 (the state —missing middle— law) and the risk of claims under Proposition 207 if the city lowers allowed development entitlements without offsetting benefits. Staff said one strategy to reduce Prop 207 risk would be to offset new requirements with compensating increases in density or other developer allowances. Public-works and fire-code implications were cited as constraints on narrowing street cross-sections or reducing on-site parking, and staff warned that changed winter parking policies or on-street parking increases may require more public-works resources.

What remains to be decided: Staff asked commissioners for direction on several policy points including whether to support (a) substantial parking reductions to enable higher-density development, (b) applying new sustainability requirements citywide or targeted to specific zones, (c) replacing the RPO with a more narrowly focused overlay that protects inventoried resources while avoiding blanket density restrictions, and (d) using targeted rezonings or overlays to concentrate density where VMT is low.

The commission also approved the minutes from its Jan. 8, 2025 meeting as corrected; the motion carried with an "aye" vote and no individual vote record provided in the transcript. The meeting then moved on to public comment and other items.