Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Code Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends Flagstaff City '2025 cleanup' zoning, subdivision text amendments to council
Summary
The commission voted Jan. 28 to recommend City Council approve a two-part '2025 cleanup' that clarifies which development standards apply in the CC zone (keeping density at 28 dwelling units per acre) and aligns subdivision review language with recent state law; no public comment was received.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Code Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Flagstaff City Planning and Zoning Commission voted Jan. 28 to recommend that the City Council approve a small set of zoning and subdivision code text amendments labeled the '2025 cleanup.' A city planning staff member said the changes clarify which development standards apply in specific scenarios and avoid an unintended change to density in the community commercial (CC) zone.
Planning staff told the commission the package contains two edits: a zoning-code clarification to specify which development standards apply so that “density” is not unintentionally altered, and a subdivision-code cleanup to remove residual language requiring non-administrative review for certain engineering modifications now governed by a state law that mandates administrative subdivision review. Staff said, “The CC zone density will remain 28 dwelling units an acre.” Staff recommended approval under the three normal findings for zoning text amendments.
After no public comment and no questions from commissioners, the commission voted to forward the recommendation to City Council. Ian Sharp was recorded as the mover and CJ Lukey as the seconder; the motion carried on an affirmative voice vote. The action relates to public hearing item 5A (as called at the meeting) identified in the record as PZ 25 0 0 2 5 1 - 20 25.
The package is framed as technical cleanup rather than a policy change; staff said the edits are internally consistent and not anticipated to be detrimental to public health, safety, convenience or welfare. The commission did not receive public testimony on the item at the meeting.
The commission’s recommendation sends the amendments to the next step: consideration by the City Council. No date for council consideration was given at the meeting.

