Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Flagstaff Open Space Commission reviews zoning reforms to boost housing density and meet climate goals
Summary
City staff presented consultant recommendations to raise base densities, use floor-area-ratio limits, lower parking minimums and require a sustainability baseline; the proposals aim to expand infill housing and reduce carbon emissions but prompted questions about infrastructure, parking and neighborhood character.
Tiffany Antl, a city planning staffer presenting consultant recommendations to the Flagstaff Open Space Commission, outlined proposed zoning changes intended to increase housing supply and advance the city’s carbon-neutrality goals. The package would raise base maximum densities in residential and commercial zones, adopt a scaled floor‑area‑ratio (FAR) to limit total building area, and reduce base parking requirements for multifamily projects.
Why it matters: staff said there are about 7,000 acres of buildable land in the city, mostly in residential districts, and that zoning adjustments are intended to channel most new housing as infill or through targeted rezoning. Antl told the commission the reforms aim to make by‑right development more predictable for developers while encouraging smaller unit footprints and transit‑supportive neighborhoods.
The recommendations combine several tools. Antl described FAR as “one of the tools” to prevent overly large units by limiting total floor area relative to lot size; in tandem, bedroom‑density rules and unit‑count targets would encourage more units on a lot rather than large single units. For parking, staff proposed reducing multifamily minimums from an existing average near 1.75 spaces per unit toward roughly 1.0–1.25 spaces, noting that accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and certain middle‑housing types already carry lower parking requirements.
On incentives, Antl described a three‑tier, point‑based menu that would let developers choose sustainability and affordability measures to earn density or other concessions. That package would include reductions for forest‑resource preservation requirements, density bonuses, landscaping relief and other tradeoffs intended to align carbon and housing goals. The team estimates the combined code changes could lower project emissions by up to 14% compared with an equivalent development under the existing code.
Commissioners asked about tradeoffs—how higher densities would affect neighborhood character, who would pay to upgrade infrastructure such as water and sewer, and how reduced parking would work during winter storm events. Antl said infrastructure shortfalls typically require developers to upgrade service lines for large projects and that winter‑parking rules will be revisited to balance on‑street parking and snow management.
The city also described proposed changes to affordability targets: staff recommended treating ownership and rental incentives differently, noting that a single AMI (area median income) target does not work equally for owner‑occupied units. The presentation cited potential ownership incentives tied to a city land‑trust model to enable lower purchase prices in exchange for resale caps.
Next steps: staff indicated they will move the draft code toward public hearings and further drafting with engineering and building‑code updates. Antl said the regulations remain subject to additional public input and refinement before council consideration.
