15.B.
City Council Meeting - FINAL
- Meeting Date:
- 08/26/2025
- From:
- Michelle McNulty, Planning and Development Services Director
TITLE
Land Availability and Suitability Study + Code Analysis Project (LASS + CAP) Code Concepts Report: Final Direction on Key Decision Points.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff seeks City Council direction and confirmation on next steps for six decision points that will guide the next phase of the project, which includes refining the core development standards, incentives, and concepts into more detailed, actionable recommendations for specific code amendments. Staff has prepared a recommendation for each decision point based on community feedback; staff will direct the consultant to proceed with each recommendation should Council agree.
Executive Summary:
The LASS+CAP is a multi-phased project to identify code barriers and recommend code revisions to remove these barriers to help achieve the goals and policies of the Flagstaff Carbon Neutrality Plan and Flagstaff 10-Year Housing Plan. This presentation is focused on the CAP Code Concepts report, which is the second of three project phases (phase 1: Code Diagnosis (complete), phase 2: Code Concepts (current), phase 3: Code Recommendations (future).
Staff is seeking City Council confirmation on next steps related to density, floor-area-ratio (FAR) caps, a menu of sustainable development standards, parking, street widths, and the City’s winter parking ordinance.
Staff is seeking City Council confirmation on next steps related to density, floor-area-ratio (FAR) caps, a menu of sustainable development standards, parking, street widths, and the City’s winter parking ordinance.
Information:
Project Overview:
The purpose of the CAP is to analyze and evaluate the City’s development codes and processes to understand and identify ways to overcome barriers to the City’s 10-Year Housing Plan and Carbon Neutrality Plan. Through these plans, the City has committed to achieving the following goals:
The 10-Year Housing Plan aims to reduce the affordable housing need in our community by half over the next ten years through two elements:
City staff last presented the LASS/CAP project to City Council in February 2025. Since then, the LASS + CAP project team (City staff from Planning and Development Services, Housing, and Sustainability divisions) distilled the code concepts into six decision points and solicited feedback from City divisions, City commissions and key partners, including:
Attendees provided feedback on each of the six decision points; this feedback is discussed in detail in the attached Facilitation Report. Each decision point is also summarized below, and includes a background information section, staff recommendations presented at the Community Conversation, feedback from City divisions and attendees at the Community Conversation, and staff’s recommended next steps.
Transit
The consultant team also prepared a Transit Assessment to identify options to improve transit access and transit-oriented development (TOD) in the community, as transit access is an important part of achieving Flagstaff’s housing and climate goals. The Transit Assessment is intertwined with the decision points presented at the Community Conversation. For example, locating highest-density development along the permanent transit network and implementing Travel Demand Management (TDM) strategies (i.e., subsidized transit passes, bus stop amenities, etc.) in the base Zoning Code for developers to choose from, both support enhanced transit access.
Staff presented the Transit Memo to Mountain Line, MetroPlan, and the City of Flagstaff Transportation Commission. Feedback on transit recommendations was positive, from highlighting the benefit to pedestrians and bicyclists of transit improvements like connectivity and the need for developers to have transparency in what is being asked of them from the start. This feedback informs staff’s recommended next steps for each decision point.
Decision Points
1. Density
Where and how should we increase density? Should by-right density increases be limited to areas where people tend to drive less? Do we want to increase density allowances for only affordable housing projects or all housing?
Background Information
The draft Code Concepts Report provides alternatives for code updates that address some of the most significant barriers identified in the Code Diagnostic Report. These alternatives focus on the core interrelated use regulations and development standards that have the greatest influence on the housing and climate outcomes of new development and redevelopment in Flagstaff changing zoning code standard. These core standards include use regulations and housing types by zoning district, maximum densities, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), minimum parking requirements, affordable housing and sustainable building incentives. The following questions help to inform how the code should be amended to support the preferred outcome.
Original Staff Recommendation
Where and how should we increase density?
Economic Vitality encouraged both ownership and rental residential building types.
The Fire Department indicated that there are challenges in serving denser and taller buildings, including increased emergency call volume, existing infrastructure and equipment likely being undersized to serve these buildings, and the fact that taller buildings present more complex emergency response operations, which could impact staffing levels, apparatus deployment, and pre-incident planning strategy. Minimum fire access requirements must be maintained.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Events (PROSE) indicated that greater density is an opportunity to introduce more park space into our neighborhoods, including preserving highly valuable pockets of nature, and building more complete neighborhoods. New development can help more residents have 10-minute access to Parks or Natural Areas.
Public Works indicated that higher demand for services from larger buildings must be matched with increases in staff and equipment. It is important to consider the costs of additional service and how will it be funded, because increasing density will compound existing challenges to meet the demand for services.
Water Services indicated that greater density aligns with water conservation goals and that it may be more cost-effective to upsize water/sewer infrastructure where it already is, rather than extend the system outward. It is also cheaper to install larger pipes with new development rather than upsize later.
Summary of Community Conversation Feedback
Concerns were raised about the current restrictions on density in Rural Residential (RR) and Estate Residential (ER) zones, with many advocating for increased base density in these zones to streamline development and avoid time-consuming rezoning processes. The Planned Residential Development (PRD) tool was discussed as a way to preserve land for future density, but some felt it may be unnecessary if base densities are increased.
Developers are frustrated by rezoning barriers, especially when higher by-right densities could drastically increase unit yields. Others emphasized that increased density alone doesn’t ensure affordability or the right housing product; more support is needed for smaller, more affordable units and diverse housing types, including rentals and ownership.
There was broad support for increasing density citywide, especially near public transit, to support working families and reduce reliance on cars. Fire risk and infrastructure costs were noted as critical challenges, particularly in forested areas, and the importance of thoughtful land use planning was underscored. Participants called for better alignment between zoning and the Regional Plan, more clarity on affordable versus attainable housing, and a stronger push to engage developers in building smaller-scale units.
Overall, the consensus was to simplify development pathways, support a broader mix of housing, and address affordability with urgency while considering Flagstaff’s unique environmental and infrastructure constraints.
Next Steps
The consultant team will examine base density increases for all zoning districts excluding the R1N zone, which is already higher than other similar zoning districts. The consultant will need to model the benefits of increasing density within the RR zone as this wasn’t considered in the original Code Concepts report. Staff will direct the consultant to focus on the highest density projects in areas that are supported by transit and other multimodal facilities to reduce reliance on cars.
Meanwhile, staff will work to simplify the rezoning process for these areas by developing a Planned Area Development (PAD) or Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone which would give greater flexibility to the development of these large land holdings. A PAD/PUD option allows a developer to create their own zoning parameters and provides greater flexibility to deal with site specific scenarios and may encourage a greater range of housing opportunities.
The Rural Residential zone has long been considered a “holding” zone or lands awaiting rezoning to meet the parameters of the Regional Plan. Increasing the density by right in this zoning district may slightly increase density within Flagstaff but could reduce the desire to rezone properties for additional density in Flagstaff. The following is a breakdown of the pros and cons of changing the base density in the Rural Residential zone:
2. Floor area ratio (FAR) caps
Do you support managing the intensity of residential land uses with floor area ratio (FAR) caps?
Background
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a zoning tool used to regulate the massing (size) of buildings on a lot. It's calculated by dividing the total floor area of a building (or buildings) on a lot by the total area of that lot. Essentially, it represents how much building floor space is allowed relative to the size of the land.
Adopting FAR caps in tandem with density increases has the potential to increase the number of units in Flagstaff that are smaller and more affordable than if only density is increased (without updating FAR caps).
The graphic below provides an example of how FAR caps shape the building size and monthly rent for four different developments on the same size lot: a single family home, a duplex with a 0.43 FAR, a quadplex with a 0.85 FAR, and a quadplex with a 0.60 FAR. On a 10,000 sq. ft. lot, for example, the total area of the duplex would 4,300 sq. ft., the quadplex 8,500 sq. ft., and the smaller quadplex 6,000 sq. ft.
In this example, the FAR cap has the biggest impact on the quadplex. Reducing the FAR from 0.85 to 0.60 reduces the size of the units without reducing the overall number of units on the lot. In this model, the reduction in unit size also has the potential to reduce the rent by 32%.
The image above provides specific FAR caps as an example only. Should Council provide direction to explore FAR caps further, staff will direct the consultant to research and evaluate FAR caps per the original staff recommendation and next steps (below).
Original Staff Recommendation
PROSE is supportive of FAR caps to help ensure that higher density can be used to preserve natural areas.
Public Works wondered if FAR could lead to more space for landscaping on a lot, and if the additional area can be used for snow storage.
Water Services wondered if FAR could lead to a smaller building footprint, and if a larger landscaped area could potentially increase water needs for landscaping.
Summary of Community Conversation Feedback
There is interest in using square footage and number of bedrooms—along with Floor Area Ratio (FAR)—as tools to influence housing product types, but this needs to be considered within the context of community character, structure type (single-family vs. apartments), and rural vs. urban settings.
FAR could help address building massing and ensure better design outcomes, especially in areas like Townsite, where higher densities feel appropriate and well-integrated. Concerns were raised about past developments like Presidio, where intentions for smaller homes resulted instead in large homes on small lots—raising questions about how FAR could have influenced that outcome.
There is also a need to understand how FAR relates to bedroom density, and how it differs from or complements other tools like lot coverage, which can be misleading in terms of perceived bulk. Visual aids and examples would help clarify these concepts, especially to show how FAR might create more livable density without the scale of large student housing complexes. Importantly, attention should be given to existing neighborhoods, supporting affordability and preservation rather than displacement or demolition.
Next Steps
Staff will relay to the consultant to consider the use of FAR in zones with the highest density allowances, including the R1N zone. Staff will ask the consultant to calibrate FAR caps to each individual zone, including exploring how lot coverage and FAR may work together in some zones, and how FAR may replace lot coverage in others. Staff will also direct the consultant to explore calibrating FAR for large and small parcels, and exploring how FAR may work in tandem with the maximum bedroom density for very large developments.
3: Menu of Sustainable Design Options
Do you support creating a menu of sustainable design standards in the base Zoning Code for developers to choose from?
Should a wider menu of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies (such as carpooling, transit-oriented design, bicycle facilities, transit passes, site design, etc.) be included in this menu?
Background Information
The Code Concepts report explored incorporating a menu of sustainable design standards into the base zoning code as part of a large set of potential base code changes, such as increasing density and reducing parking. Potential menu options include features related to building energy efficiency, electric vehicles, renewable energy production and storage, materials, waste reduction, water conservation, TDM, carbon sequestration and storage, and more.
Original Staff Recommendation
Do you support creating a menu of sustainable design standards in the base Zoning Code to choose from?
None
Summary of Community Conversation Feedback
The pre-event survey and the polling at the beginning of the meeting indicated strong support for a menu of sustainable design options. However, a handful of attendees expressed confusion about whether the menu would be required or optional and were less supportive of the menu when it was clarified that the menu would be required as part of the base Zoning Code. They expressed concerns that the menu would make development more complicated and add to the cost of construction.
Other attendees expressed overall support for the menu regardless of whether it was required or optional. They supported giving developers flexibility to accommodate different sites and developers’ needs, encouraged the menu to provide the greatest number of points for the most impactful features, and to consider long-term housing affordability, including savings on monthly utility bills from installing energy-efficiency features upfront.
Attendees expressed interest in learning more about what the menu would look like.
Next Steps
Staff will relay to the consultant team that there is support to explore what the menu could look like, focusing on the items with the greatest potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance climate resilience, and minimize impacts on costs (upfront costs and potential for long-term cost savings), particularly in relation to other code changes that could lower development costs (such as increasing density and reducing parking requirements). This includes TDM items.
Staff will direct the consultant to also explore ways to streamline the development process and identify any development regulations that could be removed or made easier.
4. Parking
Do you support moving forward with parking reductions?
Background Information
On-site parking reductions are in line with recent Arizona state law, which already limits parking requirements in specific circumstances. For example, cities cannot require parking spaces for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), nor can they require more than 1 parking space per unit for middle housing (up to a fourplex).
The image below shows the potential impacts of reducing required parking in commercial zones from 2.0 spaces per unit to 0.5 spaces per unit. In this model, the number of units stays the same across each example, but the building footprint gets smaller, and the building height decreases from 4 to 3 stories as the parking decreases. Reducing parking reduces the amount of land and infrastructure needed for parking, thereby providing more land area for housing and open space, and potentially lowering the monthly rent.
Original Staff Recommendation
Economic Vitality indicated that tourists’ parking needs in certain areas should be considered.
Fire stated that adequate parking should be provided to meet the needs of development to reduce obstructions to emergency response, particularly in areas with high tourist and non-resident activity.
Public Works stated that people will vote with their feet and will choose to live where the amount of parking or residential density suits them.
Water Services and Fire were concerned that a reduction in available parking may lead to increased illegal parking.
Summary of Community Conversation Feedback
Based on the pre-event survey, and the polling and comments during the meeting, the community is supportive of reducing parking requirements. Many commenters acknowledged that a reduction in parking is not the same as eliminating parking. There was also consensus that we have a housing crisis, not a parking crisis.
There was general acknowledgment that parking is not free. There were comments made about ‘unbundling’ the cost of parking from the cost of housing. There is support for the idea that parking, and the costs associated with providing it, should be optional for residents, just as residents should have more choice in housing that suits their needs/lifestyle. There was also discussion about the large amount of land that parking occupies and that the land would be better used for housing, parks, and open space, and that parking requirements can be a barrier to adaptive reuse projects.
There was support for implementing parking maximums in lieu of reduced parking minimums, although a few commentors favored keeping, but reducing, parking minimums. Comments also supported allowing developers to provide the amount of parking they think they need, which would allow them to deliver more housing and use land more efficiently. There was general support for using the public right-of-way to meet more parking needs, including through curb management and parking management districts.
There was some concern about the impact of reduced parking requirements on short-term rentals, primarily in single-family in neighborhoods.
Next Steps
Staff will relay to the consultant team that there is support for reducing parking requirements and that the consultant team should explore implementing maximum parking requirements in addition to lowering parking minimums. The outcomes of the reduced street width and winter parking ordinance decision points will need to be considered when making the final code recommendations for parking.
5. Street Widths
Do you support developing a strategy and outlining a process for creating a narrower local street design option?
Background Information
Narrower residential streets can have several benefits, including the following:
Fire states that the following minimum dimensions must be maintained:
Public Works can accept 20’ of unobstructed roadway if on-street parking isn’t included. Public Works has concerns about reductions in residential street widths because smaller roadways require smaller equipment. Further, everything has to fit in the ROW, including trash cans, parking, snow storage, and sidewalks, etc. If a street is too narrow with on-street parking, then trash trucks and snow plows can't get through. Only Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) funding is available for streets maintenance; it is important to pay attention to funding sources and their limitations.
Summary of Community Conversation Feedback
Based on the pre-event survey and comments during the event, the community is supportive of reduced street widths, due to safety concerns of wide streets, and the need for more land for housing. The community is very aware of the challenges surrounding snow plowing and trash pick-up in neighborhoods and wants to maintain sufficient space for all activities in the ROW.
There were comments about ensuring there is enough room to accommodate emergency service vehicles, how parkways are helpful places to store snow, and how narrower streets and parkways both contribute to road safety.
Next Steps
Staff will relay to the consultant team that community sentiment around reduced street widths is positive as long as we can figure out how to accommodate on-street parking, snow, and access for emergency vehicles, snow ploughing, and trash pickup operations. Staff will ask the consultant to explore reductions in the standard residential street cross-section, as well as options for alternatives, such as for attached townhomes and higher-density development along historic downtown streets.
The outcomes of the on-site parking and winter parking ordinance decision points will need to be considered when making the final code recommendations for reduced street widths.
6. Winter Parking
Do you support developing a strategy and outlining a process for replacing the current Winter Parking Ordinance?
Original Staff Recommendation
Fire does not anticipate negative impacts from implementing alternative or odd-even parking restrictions to allow parking on only one side of the street for snow removal or from limiting parking only during officially declared snow accumulation events. Fire has concerns that designating certain streets for snow removal could limit emergency access, cause delays, or negatively impact public safety services in unplowed areas.
PROSE echoed the need to have a conversation about community expectations around snow plowing.
Public Works indicated there are many pros and cons to the different options that impact staffing and equipment needs, and wondered if better forecasting tools anticipate snow plowing operations. They stated that any change to the Winter Parking Ordinance would require increased outreach and education. They also stated it is important to match community expectations with reality. For example, if the goal is to have more walkable neighborhoods, City resources should prioritize shoveling sidewalks (they currently prioritize plowing roads).
Summary of Community Conversation Feedback
Based on the pre-event survey, and the polling and comments at the event, the community is very supportive of revising the winter parking ordinance. There was support for exploring different options for winter parking, such as parking on one side of the street and having winter parking restrictions apply only during declared snow events, especially since weather forecasting technology is better than it used to be.
The community acknowledged that winter parking is tied to the narrower street width and reduced parking decision points, and that we may see fewer snow events each year in the future. However, some attendees expressed concerns about the impact of snowplay crowds on city streets, providing access to emergency vehicles, and keeping sidewalks clear. There was no clear consensus on having different rules for different parts of town.
Next Steps
Staff will relay to the consultant team that community sentiment around revising the winter parking ordinance is positive as long as we can figure out how to accommodate on-street parking, snow, and access for emergency vehicles, snow plowing, and trash pickup operations. Staff will ask the consultant to explore different options for revising the ordinance. Final code recommendations for the winter parking ordinance will need to be considered in tandem with decisions about reducing parking and street widths.
The purpose of the CAP is to analyze and evaluate the City’s development codes and processes to understand and identify ways to overcome barriers to the City’s 10-Year Housing Plan and Carbon Neutrality Plan. Through these plans, the City has committed to achieving the following goals:
The 10-Year Housing Plan aims to reduce the affordable housing need in our community by half over the next ten years through two elements:
- Impact at least 6,000 low-to-moderate income Flagstaff residents through a combination of unit creation or subsidy provision
- Create or preserve 7,976 housing units by 2031 with a minimum of 10% of them being affordable. This will increase the overall supply of market rate, workforce, and affordable housing occupied by local residents
- Achieve carbon neutrality by 2030 through a 44% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
- Prepare Flagstaff’s communities, systems, and resources to be more resilient to climate change impacts
- Address climate change in a manner that prioritizes those most impacted and ensures the costs and benefits of climate adaptation and mitigation are equitably distributed
City staff last presented the LASS/CAP project to City Council in February 2025. Since then, the LASS + CAP project team (City staff from Planning and Development Services, Housing, and Sustainability divisions) distilled the code concepts into six decision points and solicited feedback from City divisions, City commissions and key partners, including:
- Sustainability Commission
- Planning and Zoning Commission
- Housing Commission
- Transportation Commission
- Heritage Preservation Commission
- Commission on Inclusion and Adaptive Living
- Commission on Diversity Awareness
- MetroPlan Technical Advisory Committee
- MetroPlan Executive Board
- Mountain Line Transit Advisory Committee
- Mountain Line Board of Directors
- Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce
- Economic Collaborative of Northern Arizona (ECONA)
- Friends of Flagstaff’s Future (F3)
- Northern Arizona Climate Change Alliance (NAZCCA)
Attendees provided feedback on each of the six decision points; this feedback is discussed in detail in the attached Facilitation Report. Each decision point is also summarized below, and includes a background information section, staff recommendations presented at the Community Conversation, feedback from City divisions and attendees at the Community Conversation, and staff’s recommended next steps.
Transit
The consultant team also prepared a Transit Assessment to identify options to improve transit access and transit-oriented development (TOD) in the community, as transit access is an important part of achieving Flagstaff’s housing and climate goals. The Transit Assessment is intertwined with the decision points presented at the Community Conversation. For example, locating highest-density development along the permanent transit network and implementing Travel Demand Management (TDM) strategies (i.e., subsidized transit passes, bus stop amenities, etc.) in the base Zoning Code for developers to choose from, both support enhanced transit access.
Staff presented the Transit Memo to Mountain Line, MetroPlan, and the City of Flagstaff Transportation Commission. Feedback on transit recommendations was positive, from highlighting the benefit to pedestrians and bicyclists of transit improvements like connectivity and the need for developers to have transparency in what is being asked of them from the start. This feedback informs staff’s recommended next steps for each decision point.
Decision Points
1. Density
Where and how should we increase density? Should by-right density increases be limited to areas where people tend to drive less? Do we want to increase density allowances for only affordable housing projects or all housing?
Background Information
The draft Code Concepts Report provides alternatives for code updates that address some of the most significant barriers identified in the Code Diagnostic Report. These alternatives focus on the core interrelated use regulations and development standards that have the greatest influence on the housing and climate outcomes of new development and redevelopment in Flagstaff changing zoning code standard. These core standards include use regulations and housing types by zoning district, maximum densities, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), minimum parking requirements, affordable housing and sustainable building incentives. The following questions help to inform how the code should be amended to support the preferred outcome.
Original Staff Recommendation
Where and how should we increase density?
- Increase density across all zones, except:
- RR (Rural Residential) and ER (Estate Residential)
- R1N (Single Family Residential – Neighborhood)
- Calibrate increases for each zone to improve the viability of middle housing in all zones
- No, density should be increased in all areas
- Focus highest density development along permanent transit network (current and projected)
- Replace High Occupancy Housing (HOH) requirements with Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) requirements
- Increase density for all housing
- Improve the effectiveness of density bonuses for affordable housing
Economic Vitality encouraged both ownership and rental residential building types.
The Fire Department indicated that there are challenges in serving denser and taller buildings, including increased emergency call volume, existing infrastructure and equipment likely being undersized to serve these buildings, and the fact that taller buildings present more complex emergency response operations, which could impact staffing levels, apparatus deployment, and pre-incident planning strategy. Minimum fire access requirements must be maintained.
Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Events (PROSE) indicated that greater density is an opportunity to introduce more park space into our neighborhoods, including preserving highly valuable pockets of nature, and building more complete neighborhoods. New development can help more residents have 10-minute access to Parks or Natural Areas.
Public Works indicated that higher demand for services from larger buildings must be matched with increases in staff and equipment. It is important to consider the costs of additional service and how will it be funded, because increasing density will compound existing challenges to meet the demand for services.
Water Services indicated that greater density aligns with water conservation goals and that it may be more cost-effective to upsize water/sewer infrastructure where it already is, rather than extend the system outward. It is also cheaper to install larger pipes with new development rather than upsize later.
Summary of Community Conversation Feedback
Concerns were raised about the current restrictions on density in Rural Residential (RR) and Estate Residential (ER) zones, with many advocating for increased base density in these zones to streamline development and avoid time-consuming rezoning processes. The Planned Residential Development (PRD) tool was discussed as a way to preserve land for future density, but some felt it may be unnecessary if base densities are increased.
Developers are frustrated by rezoning barriers, especially when higher by-right densities could drastically increase unit yields. Others emphasized that increased density alone doesn’t ensure affordability or the right housing product; more support is needed for smaller, more affordable units and diverse housing types, including rentals and ownership.
There was broad support for increasing density citywide, especially near public transit, to support working families and reduce reliance on cars. Fire risk and infrastructure costs were noted as critical challenges, particularly in forested areas, and the importance of thoughtful land use planning was underscored. Participants called for better alignment between zoning and the Regional Plan, more clarity on affordable versus attainable housing, and a stronger push to engage developers in building smaller-scale units.
Overall, the consensus was to simplify development pathways, support a broader mix of housing, and address affordability with urgency while considering Flagstaff’s unique environmental and infrastructure constraints.
Next Steps
The consultant team will examine base density increases for all zoning districts excluding the R1N zone, which is already higher than other similar zoning districts. The consultant will need to model the benefits of increasing density within the RR zone as this wasn’t considered in the original Code Concepts report. Staff will direct the consultant to focus on the highest density projects in areas that are supported by transit and other multimodal facilities to reduce reliance on cars.
Meanwhile, staff will work to simplify the rezoning process for these areas by developing a Planned Area Development (PAD) or Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone which would give greater flexibility to the development of these large land holdings. A PAD/PUD option allows a developer to create their own zoning parameters and provides greater flexibility to deal with site specific scenarios and may encourage a greater range of housing opportunities.
The Rural Residential zone has long been considered a “holding” zone or lands awaiting rezoning to meet the parameters of the Regional Plan. Increasing the density by right in this zoning district may slightly increase density within Flagstaff but could reduce the desire to rezone properties for additional density in Flagstaff. The following is a breakdown of the pros and cons of changing the base density in the Rural Residential zone:
- A small base increase to the Rural Residential zone could reduce the desire to rezone property in many of the green field areas expected to develop within the next decade. This could lead to a lack of housing diversity, lack of supporting commercial development and densities that are much lower than are anticipated in the Regional Plan.
- A higher base increase to the Rural Residential zone could encourage greater densities as anticipated in the Regional Plan but could lower the ability to achieve community goals in regard to Carbon Neutrality and Affordable Housing through the use of incentives. This option may also lead to a lack of housing diversity and lack of supporting commercial development.
Do you support managing the intensity of residential land uses with floor area ratio (FAR) caps?
Background
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is a zoning tool used to regulate the massing (size) of buildings on a lot. It's calculated by dividing the total floor area of a building (or buildings) on a lot by the total area of that lot. Essentially, it represents how much building floor space is allowed relative to the size of the land.
Adopting FAR caps in tandem with density increases has the potential to increase the number of units in Flagstaff that are smaller and more affordable than if only density is increased (without updating FAR caps).
The graphic below provides an example of how FAR caps shape the building size and monthly rent for four different developments on the same size lot: a single family home, a duplex with a 0.43 FAR, a quadplex with a 0.85 FAR, and a quadplex with a 0.60 FAR. On a 10,000 sq. ft. lot, for example, the total area of the duplex would 4,300 sq. ft., the quadplex 8,500 sq. ft., and the smaller quadplex 6,000 sq. ft.
In this example, the FAR cap has the biggest impact on the quadplex. Reducing the FAR from 0.85 to 0.60 reduces the size of the units without reducing the overall number of units on the lot. In this model, the reduction in unit size also has the potential to reduce the rent by 32%.
The image above provides specific FAR caps as an example only. Should Council provide direction to explore FAR caps further, staff will direct the consultant to research and evaluate FAR caps per the original staff recommendation and next steps (below).
Original Staff Recommendation
- Yes, add FAR caps and calibrate by zone
- Evaluate how lot coverage and FAR may work together in some zones. For example:
- Possibly keep or update lot coverage in R1, R1N, and MH zones
- Consider removing or updating lot coverage in CC, MR, HR zones
- Consider calibrating FAR and lot coverage differently for large and small parcels
- Consider how FAR works in conjunction with maximum bedroom density per acre (currently in code) for very high-density developments
PROSE is supportive of FAR caps to help ensure that higher density can be used to preserve natural areas.
Public Works wondered if FAR could lead to more space for landscaping on a lot, and if the additional area can be used for snow storage.
Water Services wondered if FAR could lead to a smaller building footprint, and if a larger landscaped area could potentially increase water needs for landscaping.
Summary of Community Conversation Feedback
There is interest in using square footage and number of bedrooms—along with Floor Area Ratio (FAR)—as tools to influence housing product types, but this needs to be considered within the context of community character, structure type (single-family vs. apartments), and rural vs. urban settings.
FAR could help address building massing and ensure better design outcomes, especially in areas like Townsite, where higher densities feel appropriate and well-integrated. Concerns were raised about past developments like Presidio, where intentions for smaller homes resulted instead in large homes on small lots—raising questions about how FAR could have influenced that outcome.
There is also a need to understand how FAR relates to bedroom density, and how it differs from or complements other tools like lot coverage, which can be misleading in terms of perceived bulk. Visual aids and examples would help clarify these concepts, especially to show how FAR might create more livable density without the scale of large student housing complexes. Importantly, attention should be given to existing neighborhoods, supporting affordability and preservation rather than displacement or demolition.
Next Steps
Staff will relay to the consultant to consider the use of FAR in zones with the highest density allowances, including the R1N zone. Staff will ask the consultant to calibrate FAR caps to each individual zone, including exploring how lot coverage and FAR may work together in some zones, and how FAR may replace lot coverage in others. Staff will also direct the consultant to explore calibrating FAR for large and small parcels, and exploring how FAR may work in tandem with the maximum bedroom density for very large developments.
Do you support creating a menu of sustainable design standards in the base Zoning Code for developers to choose from?
Should a wider menu of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies (such as carpooling, transit-oriented design, bicycle facilities, transit passes, site design, etc.) be included in this menu?
Background Information
The Code Concepts report explored incorporating a menu of sustainable design standards into the base zoning code as part of a large set of potential base code changes, such as increasing density and reducing parking. Potential menu options include features related to building energy efficiency, electric vehicles, renewable energy production and storage, materials, waste reduction, water conservation, TDM, carbon sequestration and storage, and more.
Original Staff Recommendation
Do you support creating a menu of sustainable design standards in the base Zoning Code to choose from?
- Yes, develop a simple, understandable menu that focuses on most impactful design features while providing flexibility for developers to choose what works best
- Group menu items into different categories (energy, water, transportation, waste, materials, etc.)
- Options should have the greatest impact on climate and the smallest impact on costs
- Yes. All developments should earn points for TDM design features
- Tie parking reductions to TDM measures that reduce demand for travel by single-occupancy vehicles
- Update the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) process and mitigation requirements to work complement TDM and parking reductions in the Zoning Code
None
Summary of Community Conversation Feedback
The pre-event survey and the polling at the beginning of the meeting indicated strong support for a menu of sustainable design options. However, a handful of attendees expressed confusion about whether the menu would be required or optional and were less supportive of the menu when it was clarified that the menu would be required as part of the base Zoning Code. They expressed concerns that the menu would make development more complicated and add to the cost of construction.
Other attendees expressed overall support for the menu regardless of whether it was required or optional. They supported giving developers flexibility to accommodate different sites and developers’ needs, encouraged the menu to provide the greatest number of points for the most impactful features, and to consider long-term housing affordability, including savings on monthly utility bills from installing energy-efficiency features upfront.
Attendees expressed interest in learning more about what the menu would look like.
Next Steps
Staff will relay to the consultant team that there is support to explore what the menu could look like, focusing on the items with the greatest potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, enhance climate resilience, and minimize impacts on costs (upfront costs and potential for long-term cost savings), particularly in relation to other code changes that could lower development costs (such as increasing density and reducing parking requirements). This includes TDM items.
Staff will direct the consultant to also explore ways to streamline the development process and identify any development regulations that could be removed or made easier.
4. Parking
Do you support moving forward with parking reductions?
Background Information
On-site parking reductions are in line with recent Arizona state law, which already limits parking requirements in specific circumstances. For example, cities cannot require parking spaces for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), nor can they require more than 1 parking space per unit for middle housing (up to a fourplex).
The image below shows the potential impacts of reducing required parking in commercial zones from 2.0 spaces per unit to 0.5 spaces per unit. In this model, the number of units stays the same across each example, but the building footprint gets smaller, and the building height decreases from 4 to 3 stories as the parking decreases. Reducing parking reduces the amount of land and infrastructure needed for parking, thereby providing more land area for housing and open space, and potentially lowering the monthly rent.
Original Staff Recommendation
- Yes, on-site parking requirements should be reduced to 1-1.5 spaces per unit.
- Parking requirements should not be eliminated yet.
- More dramatic on-site parking reductions may be appropriate for transit-oriented development (TOD) located near the permanent transit network
- Explore future on-site parking reductions once we have a better understanding of the impacts of all of the code changes, including reducing minimum on-site parking requirements
Economic Vitality indicated that tourists’ parking needs in certain areas should be considered.
Fire stated that adequate parking should be provided to meet the needs of development to reduce obstructions to emergency response, particularly in areas with high tourist and non-resident activity.
Public Works stated that people will vote with their feet and will choose to live where the amount of parking or residential density suits them.
Water Services and Fire were concerned that a reduction in available parking may lead to increased illegal parking.
Summary of Community Conversation Feedback
Based on the pre-event survey, and the polling and comments during the meeting, the community is supportive of reducing parking requirements. Many commenters acknowledged that a reduction in parking is not the same as eliminating parking. There was also consensus that we have a housing crisis, not a parking crisis.
There was general acknowledgment that parking is not free. There were comments made about ‘unbundling’ the cost of parking from the cost of housing. There is support for the idea that parking, and the costs associated with providing it, should be optional for residents, just as residents should have more choice in housing that suits their needs/lifestyle. There was also discussion about the large amount of land that parking occupies and that the land would be better used for housing, parks, and open space, and that parking requirements can be a barrier to adaptive reuse projects.
There was support for implementing parking maximums in lieu of reduced parking minimums, although a few commentors favored keeping, but reducing, parking minimums. Comments also supported allowing developers to provide the amount of parking they think they need, which would allow them to deliver more housing and use land more efficiently. There was general support for using the public right-of-way to meet more parking needs, including through curb management and parking management districts.
There was some concern about the impact of reduced parking requirements on short-term rentals, primarily in single-family in neighborhoods.
Next Steps
Staff will relay to the consultant team that there is support for reducing parking requirements and that the consultant team should explore implementing maximum parking requirements in addition to lowering parking minimums. The outcomes of the reduced street width and winter parking ordinance decision points will need to be considered when making the final code recommendations for parking.
5. Street Widths
Do you support developing a strategy and outlining a process for creating a narrower local street design option?
Background Information
Narrower residential streets can have several benefits, including the following:
- Increasing safety by reducing car speeds and making roads safer and more pleasant for everyone who lives in the neighborhood
- Providing more land for housing
- Reducing the costs of development associated with building streets
- Yes, reduce street widths. At a minimum, reduce current Right of Way (ROW) width by 3', from 57' to 54'
- Explore creative ways to reduce ROW widths. For example, allow an alternative street standard (such 48' or narrower) to support higher-density single-family developments, including attached townhomes
- Consider how preserve our historic downtown streets
Fire states that the following minimum dimensions must be maintained:
- Code requires 20' of unobstructed roadway
- To accommodate on-street parking, additional width is required:
- 26' - 32': Allows for parking along one side of roadway
- 32' +: Allows for parking on both sides of roadway
- If a street includes a median, it must provide two unobstructed roadways, each 20' wide minimum, to meet fire access requirements.
- A street with no median can accommodate both directions of travel within a single 20' unobstructed roadway, without compromising emergency response or operations
Public Works can accept 20’ of unobstructed roadway if on-street parking isn’t included. Public Works has concerns about reductions in residential street widths because smaller roadways require smaller equipment. Further, everything has to fit in the ROW, including trash cans, parking, snow storage, and sidewalks, etc. If a street is too narrow with on-street parking, then trash trucks and snow plows can't get through. Only Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) funding is available for streets maintenance; it is important to pay attention to funding sources and their limitations.
Summary of Community Conversation Feedback
Based on the pre-event survey and comments during the event, the community is supportive of reduced street widths, due to safety concerns of wide streets, and the need for more land for housing. The community is very aware of the challenges surrounding snow plowing and trash pick-up in neighborhoods and wants to maintain sufficient space for all activities in the ROW.
There were comments about ensuring there is enough room to accommodate emergency service vehicles, how parkways are helpful places to store snow, and how narrower streets and parkways both contribute to road safety.
Next Steps
Staff will relay to the consultant team that community sentiment around reduced street widths is positive as long as we can figure out how to accommodate on-street parking, snow, and access for emergency vehicles, snow ploughing, and trash pickup operations. Staff will ask the consultant to explore reductions in the standard residential street cross-section, as well as options for alternatives, such as for attached townhomes and higher-density development along historic downtown streets.
The outcomes of the on-site parking and winter parking ordinance decision points will need to be considered when making the final code recommendations for reduced street widths.
6. Winter Parking
Do you support developing a strategy and outlining a process for replacing the current Winter Parking Ordinance?
Original Staff Recommendation
- Yes. People should be able to park on residential streets even during snow events
- Any changes to the Winter Parking Ordinance will need to consider impacts to other City divisions’ staff time and capacity. For example, staff time could be saved if there is no longer a need to enforce the Winter Parking Ordinance
- We need to change our expectations as a community around snow plowing, especially as Flagstaff grows
Fire does not anticipate negative impacts from implementing alternative or odd-even parking restrictions to allow parking on only one side of the street for snow removal or from limiting parking only during officially declared snow accumulation events. Fire has concerns that designating certain streets for snow removal could limit emergency access, cause delays, or negatively impact public safety services in unplowed areas.
PROSE echoed the need to have a conversation about community expectations around snow plowing.
Public Works indicated there are many pros and cons to the different options that impact staffing and equipment needs, and wondered if better forecasting tools anticipate snow plowing operations. They stated that any change to the Winter Parking Ordinance would require increased outreach and education. They also stated it is important to match community expectations with reality. For example, if the goal is to have more walkable neighborhoods, City resources should prioritize shoveling sidewalks (they currently prioritize plowing roads).
Summary of Community Conversation Feedback
Based on the pre-event survey, and the polling and comments at the event, the community is very supportive of revising the winter parking ordinance. There was support for exploring different options for winter parking, such as parking on one side of the street and having winter parking restrictions apply only during declared snow events, especially since weather forecasting technology is better than it used to be.
The community acknowledged that winter parking is tied to the narrower street width and reduced parking decision points, and that we may see fewer snow events each year in the future. However, some attendees expressed concerns about the impact of snowplay crowds on city streets, providing access to emergency vehicles, and keeping sidewalks clear. There was no clear consensus on having different rules for different parts of town.
Next Steps
Staff will relay to the consultant team that community sentiment around revising the winter parking ordinance is positive as long as we can figure out how to accommodate on-street parking, snow, and access for emergency vehicles, snow plowing, and trash pickup operations. Staff will ask the consultant to explore different options for revising the ordinance. Final code recommendations for the winter parking ordinance will need to be considered in tandem with decisions about reducing parking and street widths.