Flagstaff staff back consultant plan to raise allowable density, add FAR controls and align incentives to expand housing

City of Flagstaff staff told the Sustainability Commission that a multi‑year consultant review recommends raising base densities across zones, coupling density increases with floor‑area‑ratio limits and aligning scattered incentive programs into a unified, three‑tier framework to promote affordable and sustainable housing.

Jenny Eamon, climate action section director, said the land availability and suitability study and code analysis (LAST/CAP) drew on three years of consultant work and local modeling. "If you want to achieve high housing goals, if you want to achieve climate goals, density is that answer," Eamon said, framing higher by‑right density as central to cutting per‑unit development costs.

The consultants’ recommendations include increasing maximum by‑right density in R1 (single‑family) zones from about 6 units per acre toward 12 units per acre, and allowing substantially higher by‑right density in transit‑oriented commercial corridors — staff cited a 50–60 units‑per‑acre by‑right target for some commercial zones. Staff said modeling suggests new‑build prices in R1 could fall to roughly $500,000–$900,000 under the proposed changes from current new‑home sales near $911,000.

The presentation paired density increases with a proposed maximum floor‑area‑ratio (FAR) tool aimed at limiting overall building mass so that smaller, multi‑unit buildings (for example four‑unit structures) can sit within the same apparent scale as a large single‑family home. "FAR is one tool to help with that," Eamon said, noting it can reward projects that build smaller, lower‑cost units.

Staff also emphasized parking reform. The consultants flagged vehicle parking as a major cost driver — staff cited rough industry cost estimates of about $7,000 per surface parking space, $35,000 per structured space and $60,000 per underground space — and recommended lowering parking minimums while retaining a modest base requirement and offering reductions tied to trip‑reduction strategies and transit proximity. Eamon said the city would also need to revisit its winter parking ordinance because reduced on‑site parking could put more demand on street parking.

To steer outcomes, staff proposed an "integrative incentive framework" with three tiers: Tier 1 (sustainability measures), Tier 2 (affordability measures) and Tier 3 (both). Projects that meet higher tiers would be eligible for larger density bonuses. Staff said the incentives would be simplified and calibrated using pro‑forma modeling so that participation becomes financially viable for developers.

Commissioners pressed staff about ownership units and affordability set‑asides for condominiums; staff said the city cannot compel an owner‑developer to sell units at specific market prices but can require higher affordability set‑asides for projects that choose to target higher AMI brackets and can structure incentives to encourage dispersed affordable units rather than consolidated blocks of affordable units.

The agenda packet and staff repeatedly noted tradeoffs and next steps: consultant recommendations will be refined by staff, discussed at council and could be modified during the more detailed code rewrite. Staff asked commissioners to collect follow‑up questions by email; council will discuss the project at a June work session and a council meeting later in June.

The commission received a public comment from resident Ken Shives, who urged staff not to relocate Bonita Gardens to accommodate Rio de Flag equipment parking and suggested alternative storage locations such as city warehouses. Staff acknowledged the comment and said they would take it into consideration.

Next steps: staff will present the package to City Council for further direction and code drafting; any formal code changes will return to boards and council for adoption.