Flagstaff planning staff outlines code "2025 cleanup," corrects unintended density change
Loading...
Summary
City planning staff told the Planning and Zoning Commission that two small ordinance changes will correct an accidental density reduction in zoning footnotes and align subdivision rules with recent state law; commissioners asked about plat review, water supply implications and next steps. No votes were held.
City planning staff presented a two-part "2025 cleanup" to the Flagstaff City Planning and Zoning Commission on Jan. 14 aimed at correcting drafting errors in the zoning code and removing a subdivision provision now inconsistent with state law.
At the meeting, planning staff said a brief footnote drafted during recent code updates unintentionally changed the allowable density in some commercial/residential contexts and that staff will restore the original standard. "So it went from 29 units an acre to 14 units an acre," staff said, describing the mistake and the intent to revert the figure.
The second cleanup item involves the subdivision code. Staff said state legislation now requires administrative processing of subdivision plats, so a provision in Flagstaff's subdivision code that previously triggered City Council review is no longer valid and will be removed to match state requirements. Staff cited the relevant open-meeting notice language and state statute when describing legal process.
Why it matters: restoring the intended density figure matters for developers and neighborhood compatibility because density limits affect building form and how commercial zones accommodate residential development. Likewise, aligning the subdivision code with recent state law changes will change which plats receive public or council-level review.
Commissioners pressed staff for details about how plats are reviewed and when the public sees proposed subdivisions. Commissioner Mary Norton asked whether subdivision plats or planned residential developments (PRDs) are presented to the commission or to council; staff responded that plats are ‘‘ministerial’’ and approved when they meet the code, with only certain waiver requests previously triggering review. "We've been doing modifications though administratively for decades," staff said, noting that the practical effect of the state law is to limit discretionary review in some cases.
Members of the public and commissioners also raised water-allocation concerns tied to development. An unidentified commenter said constituents question the city's assertion of a "100-year assured water supply" and how that ties to planning. Staff replied that the city's Water Services Division performs water and sewer impact analyses — "we do what's called a water sewer impact analysis" — and that demonstrations of supply can require hydrogeologists, storage and infrastructure analysis and, in some places, formal proof of water rights.
Commissioner Joshua Maher asked whether the cleanup items were prompted by specific problems or discovered in routine review. Staff said the subdivision provision was left in after prior updates and that other issues surfaced organically after the middle-housing changes, calling this meeting a chance to tidy drafting errors and make technical corrections before formal ordinance hearings.
No ordinances were adopted at the meeting. Staff described the session as a work session and said the items will return for formal action in two weeks. "So we're not voting on anything," staff said. The commission adjourned at 4:19 p.m.
What’s next: Staff will prepare the formal ordinances and findings for the commission’s consideration at the next meeting; timelines for final council action were not specified at the Jan. 14 session.
