Flagstaff staff pitch three zoning scenarios to boost housing, cut building emissions

City of Flagstaff planning staff on the Transportation Commission meeting on Jan. 1, 2025 presented the final code concepts report tied to a land-availability and suitability study, outlining three scenarios to increase housing production and reduce building carbon emissions.

The proposals, presented by Michelle McNulty, Planning Director for the City of Flagstaff, and zoning staff Tiffany Antal and Genevieve (Sustainability Division), ranged from enhancing existing incentives to raising by-right residential density and reducing parking requirements. Officials said the scenarios are intended to align zoning, development codes and sustainability incentives with the city’s housing and carbon-neutrality goals. “What is most important as we move through all of this information is there’s a lot of different details and a lot of different pieces of code, that could be affected or talked about as part of this. What we’re really trying to get people’s attention on is to focus on outcomes,” Tiffany Antal said.

The city’s diagnostic report identified a range of code- and process-related barriers to new housing, including residential and commercial zoning rules, parking requirements, the zoning-map amendment and subdivision processes, street-width standards, transportation-impact fees and the resource protection overlay. McNulty said the land-availability and suitability portion of the work is primarily a land inventory focused on residential development and identifying barriers such as infrastructure gaps and environmental constraints.

The staff outlined three scenarios they modeled: scenario 1 keeps base code largely intact while increasing incentives for sustainable design and affordable housing; scenario 2 increases by-right residential density and reduces parking requirements while adding a menu of elevated sustainability standards applicants must meet or choose from; scenario 3 mirrors scenario 2’s density and parking changes but retains sustainability measures primarily as incentives rather than required baseline standards. Genevieve, speaking for the Sustainability Division, summarized the carbon modeling: “No surprise, the scenario 2 where the base code has that menu of options people can choose from, that one had the biggest reductions in carbon emissions over a 30-year period.”

Staff said certain changes are already required by state law: they noted a recent state bill requires districts that allow single-family homes to also allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and townhomes, and a separate change now prohibits requiring off-street parking for accessory dwelling units. Antal emphasized that state law also limits what the city may require; she said explicitly, “we cannot require all-electric development,” but staff can include electrification options in a points-based menu of sustainability measures.

Models in the report estimate net new unit capacity under the scenarios. Staff said the status quo yields on the order of 47,000 net new units in the inventory, and scenarios 2 and 3 progressively increase potential capacity, with scenario 3 producing the most net new units. Staff cautioned that code alone will not solve Flagstaff’s housing affordability or production constraints: they cited high local costs for land, labor and materials and legal risks tied to Arizona property-rights law, including potential claims under Proposition 207 if standards are changed in a way that reduces property value.

Parking reductions were presented as a key lever for feasibility of higher-density projects. Antal and other staff said prototype economic modeling showed meaningful differences when parking minimums were reduced (examples included average parking assumptions falling from about 1.75 spaces per unit to 1.25 in model runs) and emphasized trade-offs, including potential increased reliance on structured (podium) parking that can add substantial cost. As one staff member noted in discussion, surface parking can cost roughly $3,000–$5,000 per space while structured parking can approach $30,000 per space.

The resource protection overlay — adopted in 1990 and now applied to much vacant land in the city — was another focus. Staff said the overlay currently places heavier preservation requirements on residential-zoned land than on properties developed as residential in commercial zones (for example, residential zones historically have required preserving about 50% of tree resources, compared with 20–30% in commercial/industrial zones). The fire department is engaged in revising the overlay to reconcile wildfire survivability objectives with development feasibility, staff said.

Staff also proposed testing narrower street cross-sections for new single-family subdivisions as a way to lower development costs and enable higher net densities, but they cautioned those changes would require coordination with Fire Department equipment and operations. Another operational topic is the winter-parking ordinance: staff asked whether the commission supports exploring options to allow more on-street parking year-round while adapting snow-removal operations.

Commissioners asked about wildfire updates to tree- and lot-density guidance; McNulty and staff said Flagstaff recently readopted a wildland-fire protection plan that includes updated defensible-space guidance and that the Fire Department is “very eager to dive into the resource protection overlay standards.” Commissioners also pressed staff on equity of impacts, the practical use of developer sustainability menus, and whether density increases should be citywide or targeted to existing low-vehicle-mileage corridors or permanent transit routes. Staff said the next steps include further modeling, targeted rezoning analysis (including potential overlay zones), and bringing code amendment language back to commissions and council.

Staff asked the commission for feedback on which outcome the commission prefers: (1) strengthen incentives only; (2) require elevated sustainability standards while offsetting impacts through increased by-right density and reduced parking; or (3) prioritize market-rate housing production and density while keeping sustainability measures primarily incentive-based. The presentation concluded with staff offering to return with more detailed code recommendations and additional modeling; they said they will consolidate feedback from commissions to share with City Council and the project consultant.