Flagstaff planners recommend rezoning Lone Tree site for 168 affordable units, forward measure to City Council

The Flagstaff Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to forward a recommendation to City Council to rezone three parcels at the Lone Tree Ranch site to High-Density Residential with a Resource Protection overlay, clearing the way for a 168-unit, 100% affordable rental development. Staff and the project team told the commission the project is conditioned to an approved site plan and a Development Agreement spelling out affordable-housing commitments and required improvements.

Planning Manager Alexandra Puccarelli told the commission the request would rezone one parcel from Suburban Commercial and remove conditions tied to a 1997 rezoning on the two other parcels. “All 168 are affordable,” she said, and explained the project uses a 45% density bonus for 100% affordable housing to increase the site from 116 to 168 units. Puccarelli also said the proposed units are planned for households earning on average up to 60% of area median income, and staff had concluded the three required findings (consistency with the regional plan, public benefit, and physical suitability) were met.

Why this matters: the site sits near existing multifamily development, a city park, transit and NAU, making it an infill opportunity the city says advances compact-growth and housing goals. Staff highlighted design and environmental safeguards, saying the project proposes to preserve about 93% of required steep slope area and approximately 26% of trees on site under affordable-housing incentives. The development would include a clubhouse, common open space that exceeds code minimums, bike racks and new sidewalks on Pine Knoll Drive; the applicant has agreed to dedicate right-of-way for a future sheltered bus stop.

Project financing and management: Applicant Lincoln Avenue Communities and counsel described the project as a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) development governed by Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. Matt Klein of Lincoln Avenue said owner/management will remain involved for at least 15 years and that “the affordability will persist for a minimum of 30 years.” The team said Covered parking with solar was part of the original plan but financing changes to federal tax credits have made solar-covered parking less certain; the project still preserves the option for covered parking and requests flexibility in landscaping and parking-related modifications tied to that uncertainty.

Tenant eligibility: Commissioners asked whether units could be used as short-term rentals or to house students. The applicant and staff said LIHTC and lease restrictions will prevent short-term rentals, and Section 42 rules bar full‑time students from LIHTC residents; housing staff provided 2025 income limits used for the project (60% AMI: $45,840 for a one-person household; $65,460 for a four-person household).

Public comment and legal question: Nearby property owner Stu Bone spoke during public comment, asserting he had been told there is a restriction on the subject property that limits development to for-sale housing and requesting a one-month continuance while he secures counsel to review deed restrictions. Staff responded that deed restrictions and CC&Rs are private civil matters the city does not enforce and therefore do not prevent the commission from making a land-use recommendation. Applicant counsel said they were not aware of deed restrictions affecting the three parcels and noted the team had followed neighborhood-noticing requirements.

Commission action and next steps: Commissioner PJ Lukey moved to forward PZ 2400220 to City Council with the five conditions listed in the staff report; the motion carried unanimously. The commission’s recommendation, the zoning-map amendment ordinance and the Development Agreement will be evaluated by City Council, which will consider the requested development-standard modifications and final approvals.

What remains unresolved: The neighbor asked for a continuance to investigate deed restrictions; the commission did not continue the matter. Any private deed restriction, CC&R enforcement or title dispute would be a civil matter between private parties and not a bar to the city’s land‑use recommendation, according to staff.