Proposed Flagstaff Zoning Code Changes: What Developers Need to Know
Flagstaff is considering substantial zoning-code changes intended to support housing production, affordability, climate goals, and community livability. On June 16, 2026, City Council unanimously directed staff to move the recommendations forward. However, the meeting was not an adoption hearing, and the recommendations were not adopted as one complete zoning-code package.
The Flagstaff Code Recommendations presentation outlines six major areas for potential change. These include higher base density in non-transect residential and commercial zones, scaled floor-area-ratio limits, lower parking minimums, a sustainable-design baseline, revised development incentives, and updates to resource-protection and street standards.
According to the June 16 City Council minutes, Council’s direction allows staff to continue refining the recommendations and moving them through the public process. Until a specific amendment is formally adopted and takes effect, the current zoning code and any separately adopted amendments remain the starting point for development applications.
This guide explains where the recommendations came from, what could change, how the proposals may affect future development, and what property owners and project teams should verify before relying on any proposed standard. It also examines how the recommendations relate to the City’s Land Availability and Suitability Study and broader housing and climate goals.
Flagstaff’s Proposed Zoning Changes at a Glance
Flagstaff is considering a coordinated set of zoning and development-code recommendations covering density, floor-area ratio, parking, sustainable design, development incentives, resource protection, and street standards. City Council unanimously directed staff to move the recommendations forward on June 16, 2026, but the meeting was not an adoption hearing.
The proposals do not automatically apply to current development applications. Applicants must follow the Flagstaff Zoning Code and any adopted zoning-code amendments legally in effect for their project. The table below summarizes the recommendations and their current status.
| Question | Current Information |
|---|---|
| What is Flagstaff considering? | A group of proposed zoning and development-code changes intended to support housing supply, affordability, climate action, and community growth and livability. |
| Have the recommendations been adopted? | No. The complete recommendation package was not adopted during the June 16, 2026, Council discussion. The City’s presentation specifically stated that the meeting was not an adoption hearing. |
| What did City Council decide? | Council unanimously directed staff to move the recommendations forward for additional refinement and public process. |
| What are the six main recommendations? | Higher base maximum density, scaled residential floor-area-ratio limits, reduced parking requirements, a sustainable-design baseline, integrated incentives, and refinements to resource-protection and street standards. |
| Do the proposals apply to current applications? | Not automatically. Current applications must follow the zoning requirements legally in effect and applicable to the property and project. |
| Which properties could be affected? | The recommendations primarily address non-transect residential and commercial zones inside Flagstaff city limits. They do not apply to unincorporated Coconino County. |
| Would higher density eliminate other standards? | No. Site planning, architectural design, building height, infrastructure, Fire, Engineering, safety, and other applicable requirements would remain part of project review. |
| Is there an effective date? | No universal effective date has been established for the complete recommendation package. Individual amendments may move through separate adoption processes. |
| Where can applicants check the current status? | Review the City’s current Flagstaff Zoning Code and Zoning Code Amendments pages before relying on a proposed standard. |
What Is the Flagstaff LASS-CAP Project?
The LASS-CAP project combines Flagstaff’s Land Availability and Suitability Study with an analysis of development codes and processes that may affect the City’s housing and climate goals. City staff began the project in 2023.
The land study evaluated where future development or redevelopment may be possible. The related code analysis examined zoning, subdivision, engineering, building, fire, and transportation requirements. Its purpose was to identify regulations or procedures that may limit housing options, increase development costs, or create conflicts with the City’s climate objectives.
The work progressed from identifying potential barriers to testing concepts and developing specific recommendations. The project provides a basis for possible future amendments, but it does not change the zoning code by itself.
What Did the Land Study Find?
The City’s Code Recommendations presentation identified approximately 7,000 acres of buildable land and 51 opportunity sites. Of those sites, 36 were located in commercial zones and nine were in rural residential zones.
The study suggests that a significant share of future housing could come from infill or redevelopment on commercially zoned properties, particularly near transit-oriented centers and corridors. Another possible source is the rezoning of larger properties near the city’s edges. Those peripheral projects may require substantial investment in roads, water, sewer, and other infrastructure.
The term “buildable land” is a study classification. It does not mean that all 7,000 acres are currently available, approved, serviced, or appropriate for housing. Every property remains subject to its zoning, infrastructure, environmental conditions, ownership, and applicable review requirements.
What Goals Are the Recommendations Intended to Support?
The City organized the recommendations around three policy goals:
Housing affordability and supply
Climate action
Community growth and livability
The recommendations are intended to advance these goals together. The City’s analysis connects more compact development with the potential to spread fixed land and site costs across more homes, support additional housing types, improve transit viability, and shorten some vehicle trips.
These are policy objectives and modeled possibilities. They do not guarantee lower home prices, specific development savings, reduced emissions, or a particular outcome for an individual project.
How Did the Project Reach the Recommendation Stage?
The project moved through several stages of analysis and public engagement. The City first identified code provisions that may create barriers, then evaluated possible approaches and gathered feedback before producing specific recommendations for consideration.
The June 16, 2026, Council presentation was another step in that process. It was not an adoption hearing. The recommendations still require refinement, code drafting, public review, and the applicable hearing and adoption procedures before any proposed standard can take effect.
Has Flagstaff Adopted These Zoning Changes?
No. Flagstaff City Council did not adopt the complete recommendation package during its June 16, 2026, meeting. Council provided unanimous direction for staff to move the recommendations forward, but the City expressly identified the meeting as a discussion rather than an adoption hearing.
What Council Direction Means
Council’s direction allows City staff to continue evaluating and refining the recommendations. Staff may use the report as the basis for drafting specific zoning, subdivision, engineering, or other code amendments.
The recommendations may not advance as one ordinance or on one schedule. Individual proposals could move through separate technical reviews, public meetings, Planning and Zoning Commission hearings, and City Council proceedings. Their details may also change during that process.
Council support for continued work is not the same as adopting an ordinance. A recommendation does not become an enforceable development standard unless it completes the required approval process and takes effect.
What Rules Apply Today?
Current projects must comply with the Flagstaff Zoning Code and individual amendments legally in effect for the property and application.
Applicants should confirm the property’s zoning designation, permitted uses, density limits, parking requirements, setbacks, height limits, overlays, and other applicable development standards before preparing a site design. They should also review the City’s Zoning Code Amendments page for active hearings and recently adopted changes.
Some related zoning matters may be adopted separately from the broader recommendation report. The adoption of one amendment does not mean that every recommendation presented on June 16 has taken effect.
Project teams should ask the City which standards will control a planned or active application. Submitting before a proposed amendment is adopted does not automatically guarantee review under the earlier code. Application status, effective dates, transition provisions, and other City requirements may affect which standards apply.
What Zoning Changes Has Flagstaff Recommended?
Flagstaff’s Code Recommendations presentation organizes the proposed changes into six areas: maximum density, floor-area ratio, parking, sustainable design, development incentives, and additional resource and street standards.
The recommendations are designed to work together. Higher density could allow more housing units, while proposed floor-area-ratio limits would help control overall building scale. Parking reductions, sustainability standards, and development incentives could also affect site planning, project documentation, and the approvals required.
The table below summarizes the recommendations and their potential effects. These are proposed changes, not current development standards. The details may change as the City drafts and reviews individual amendments.
| Recommendation Area | What Has Been Proposed | Potential Project Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum Density | Increase base maximum density across non-transect residential and commercial zones. | More housing units and a wider range of housing types may become feasible on qualifying properties. |
| Floor-Area Ratio | Add scaled maximum floor-area-ratio standards in residential zones. | Overall building scale could be regulated while projects with more, smaller units receive different floor-area allowances. |
| Parking | Reduce base parking minimums and offer additional reductions for qualifying projects. | Projects may be able to devote less land and construction cost to parking while still meeting an applicable minimum. |
| Sustainable Design | Establish a required, flexible, points-based sustainable-design baseline for covered development. | Sustainability choices, point calculations, and supporting documentation could become part of project planning and review. |
| Development Incentives | Combine existing incentive programs into three coordinated tiers. | Qualifying projects could receive development flexibility in exchange for documented affordability or sustainability commitments. |
| Additional Standards | Refine resource protection, street design, connectivity, and winter-parking policies. | Site constraints, subdivision layouts, infrastructure, and street-design options could be evaluated differently. |
How Could Residential Density Change in Flagstaff?
The report recommends increasing base maximum density across Flagstaff’s non-transect residential zones. The goal is to support more housing types and allow fixed costs, such as land, site work, utility connections, and fees, to be distributed across more homes.
These are proposed density changes. They are not current entitlements, and they would not allow every property to develop at the same density.
Proposed Changes to the R1 Zone
The City’s presentation identifies the R1 Single-Family Residential zone as an important source of potential future housing capacity. Its illustrative example compares existing R1 development at approximately six units per acre with a recommended concept at approximately 12 units per acre.
The proposed concept includes a mix of detached houses, small-lot homes, townhouses, and other middle-housing options. It is intended to create more variety than a neighborhood developed exclusively with conventional detached houses on larger lots.
The figures presented by the City are recommendation and modeling values. They should not be treated as density currently available by right on an R1 property. Actual development capacity would depend on the final adopted code, parcel dimensions, access, utilities, easements, resource restrictions, building requirements, and other applicable standards.
What Is Middle Housing?
Middle housing includes compact residential types positioned between a traditional detached house and a larger apartment building. Depending on the final code and zoning district, examples may include:
Duplexes
Triplexes
Fourplexes
Townhouses
Small-lot detached homes
Smaller walk-up apartment buildings
Flagstaff’s recommendations seek to make a wider range of these housing types feasible. Allowing a housing type within a zoning district would not guarantee that every parcel could accommodate it.
Lot size, dimensions, access, parking, utilities, building code requirements, resource protections, and other site conditions would still affect what can be constructed. The number of housing units permitted on a site is also different from bedroom density, which may trigger separate requirements.
Would Higher Density Mean Unlimited Building Size?
No. The City recommends pairing higher unit density with maximum floor-area-ratio standards to regulate overall building size and scale.
The presentation states that base maximum-height standards would not change as part of the density recommendation. Existing site-planning, architectural-design, infrastructure-planning, and mitigation requirements would also continue to apply.
Higher density would not override Fire, Engineering, utility, access, safety, or other development requirements. Separate incentive tiers could potentially provide height bonuses or other development-standard flexibility, but those benefits would require the applicable affordability or sustainability commitments.
How Could Commercial-Zone Housing Change?
Flagstaff recommends allowing more housing density by right in certain non-transect commercial zones. The proposal is intended to support apartment, mixed-use, and redevelopment projects near commercial corridors and transit.
“By right” does not mean permit-free or automatically approved. Residential use must still be allowed on the property, and the project must satisfy applicable site, infrastructure, access, design, building, Fire, Engineering, and other review requirements.
Proposed By-Right Commercial Density
The June 2026 presentation recommends a commercial-zone density range of approximately 50 to 60 dwelling units per acre by right. The City associates this range with three- to four-story apartment development and transit-supportive infill.
Higher density ranges could potentially be available through the proposed incentive tiers. Those ranges would depend on the project meeting the applicable affordability, sustainability, and documentation requirements.
The proposed density range would not make every commercial parcel suitable for housing. Permitted uses, parcel dimensions, access, infrastructure capacity, overlays, existing development, and location-specific standards would still affect what can be built.
Proposed Commercial Density and Incentive Ranges
The presentation identifies four possible development pathways. The recommended density increases as the project provides additional affordability or sustainability commitments through the proposed incentive framework.
The table below shows the recommended ranges presented to City Council in June 2026. These figures are proposals, not density entitlements currently available to every commercial property.
| Development Pathway | Recommended Density Range |
|---|---|
| By Right | 50 to 60 dwelling units per acre |
| Tier 1 Incentive | 70 to 80 dwelling units per acre |
| Tier 2 Incentive | 90 to 100 dwelling units per acre |
| Tier 3 Incentive | 100 to 120 dwelling units per acre |
Would the High Occupancy Housing CUP Disappear?
Not entirely. The June 2026 presentation states that a High Occupancy Housing Conditional Use Permit would still be required when a project exceeds the applicable bedroom-density maximums.
Unit density and bedroom density are different measurements. Unit density counts the number of dwelling units per acre. Bedroom density considers the number of bedrooms within those units.
A project could fall within a recommended unit-per-acre range and still trigger High Occupancy Housing requirements because of its total bedroom count. Applicants should evaluate both measurements rather than assuming that all multifamily projects would become automatically permitted by right.
Because Flagstaff has considered related High Occupancy Housing amendments separately, applicants should verify the current code and amendment status before relying on the June presentation.
Why Is Commercial-Zone Housing a Priority?
The Land Availability and Suitability Study identified 51 opportunity sites, including 36 in commercial zones. This makes commercially zoned land an important part of the City’s potential housing strategy.
Commercial corridors may also be positioned to support transit, mixed-use development, and infill. Redeveloping these properties could use land and existing infrastructure differently from developing large properties on the city’s edges.
However, commercial zoning does not guarantee residential eligibility or adequate infrastructure. Every project would still require property-specific analysis and review.
What Is Floor-Area Ratio and How Would Flagstaff Use It?
Floor-area ratio, or FAR, compares the total floor area of buildings on a site with the total area of the lot.
FAR = Total building floor area ÷ Total lot area
For example, a building with 5,000 square feet of floor area on a 10,000-square-foot lot has an FAR of 0.5. FAR regulates the amount of floor area relative to lot size. It does not independently determine the building’s height, footprint, setbacks, or design.
Flagstaff recommends adding scaled maximum FAR standards in residential zones. The proposal is intended to accompany higher unit-density limits while maintaining control over overall building scale.
Why Is Flagstaff Proposing Maximum FAR?
Unit density controls how many homes may be developed on a property, but it does not necessarily control their combined size. A project could include more units while still creating large buildings or unusually large individual homes.
A maximum FAR would limit the total floor area that can be constructed relative to the lot. The City’s stated goal is to encourage smaller, potentially lower-cost housing while preventing development that is out of scale with its surroundings.
FAR would operate alongside other requirements. Building height, lot coverage, setbacks, parking, resource protection, architectural design, and infrastructure standards could still affect the final project.
What Does “Scaled FAR” Mean?
Scaled FAR would allow the permitted floor area to vary based on the number of homes proposed. A project with more, smaller units could receive a different FAR allowance than a project with fewer, larger units.
The approach is intended to make smaller housing units more practical while discouraging projects that use additional density primarily to create more large units. It would regulate total floor area without relying on unit count alone.
The June 2026 presentation illustrates the concept, but its graphics are not current zoning requirements. Final FAR values, calculation rules, exemptions, and applicability must come from formally adopted code language. Applicants should not design or evaluate a project using the presentation as though it were an approved development standard.
How Could Flagstaff Parking Requirements Change?
The report recommends lowering minimum parking requirements for multifamily housing and allowing additional reductions for qualifying projects. The proposed reductions are connected to unit size, transit access, affordable-housing commitments, and strategies intended to reduce vehicle trips or ownership.
The recommendations would reduce required minimums. They would not prohibit developers from providing additional parking or eliminate every parking requirement.
Proposed Multifamily Parking Minimums
The June 2026 presentation proposes different base parking requirements based on the number of bedrooms in each dwelling unit. Studios would have the lowest proposed requirement, while larger units would continue to require more spaces.
The proposal would also remove the separate guest-parking minimum currently shown for units with two or more bedrooms. The City’s analysis suggests that guest parking may sometimes be accommodated through unused resident spaces or available on-street parking.
The table below compares the existing standards shown in the presentation with the proposed base minimums. These figures are recommendations, not current parking requirements.
| Unit Type | Existing Standard Shown in the Presentation | Proposed Base Standard |
|---|---|---|
| Studio | 1.25 spaces per unit | 0.75 spaces per unit |
| One Bedroom | 1.50 spaces per unit | 1.00 space per unit |
| Two or Three Bedrooms | 2.00 spaces per unit | 1.25 spaces per unit |
| Four Bedrooms | 2.50 spaces per unit | 1.50 spaces per unit |
| Five or More Bedrooms | 3.0 spaces plus 0.5 space for each bedroom above five | 1.75 spaces per unit |
| Guest Parking for Units With Two or More Bedrooms | 0.25 spaces per unit | No separate guest-parking minimum |
What Additional Parking Reductions Are Proposed?
Projects could potentially qualify for reductions beyond the proposed base requirement:
A 25% reduction for qualifying proximity to transit
Up to a 30% reduction for qualifying affordable-housing commitments
Up to a 15% reduction for approved trip-reduction strategies
The presentation states that eligible reductions may be combined up to a maximum total reduction of 80% of the base requirement. This would be a reduction from the applicable minimum, not the complete elimination of required parking.
Trip-reduction strategies could include transportation-demand-management plans, transit passes, bicycle facilities, and unbundled parking. Projects would need to satisfy the final eligibility and documentation standards established by an adopted code amendment.
Why Does Parking Matter to Housing Development?
Parking requires land that could otherwise support housing, landscaping, open space, or other project features. As density increases, a project may not be able to accommodate all required spaces in a surface parking lot.
Higher parking requirements can lead to tuck-under, structured, or underground parking. These options can add design, construction, and coordination costs to a development.
Lower minimums may make some smaller or denser housing projects more feasible. They would not require a developer to provide less parking. Market demand and project needs may still lead a developer to include more spaces than the minimum.
What Could Change With the Winter Parking Ordinance?
The report recommends further study of alternatives to Flagstaff’s Winter Parking Ordinance. It does not recommend immediately eliminating the current restrictions.
The City’s presentation identifies possible approaches such as alternate-side or day-of-week parking rules and restrictions activated by snow events. The goal is to determine whether on-street parking could remain available more consistently while still supporting snow-removal operations.
These options are subjects for additional study. They have not been adopted as City policy through this recommendation process.
What Sustainable-Design Requirements Are Being Proposed?
Flagstaff recommends creating a flexible, points-based sustainable-design baseline for covered development. This baseline would be a required development standard, not simply an optional incentive program.
Projects would select qualifying measures from a sustainability menu. Projects seeking certain development incentives would need to demonstrate higher sustainability performance. Final applicability, point totals, and documentation requirements would need to be established through adopted code language.
How Would the Points System Work?
Each qualifying sustainability strategy would receive a point value. The presentation indicates that measures with greater estimated carbon-reduction potential relative to cost could receive more points.
Applicants would choose a combination of strategies that meets the applicable minimum. Required point totals could vary by project type. Projects seeking the proposed Tier 1 Sustainable or Tier 3 Affordable and Sustainable incentives would need to reach elevated point totals.
City staff would use a calibration tool to compare possible combinations, estimate carbon effects, and evaluate whether a project meets the applicable threshold. The tool and presentation do not replace adopted standards. Final calculations, eligibility rules, submittal requirements, and verification procedures would need to be defined during the code-amendment process.
What Types of Sustainability Strategies Could Count?
The proposed menu includes measures related to energy, transportation, water, materials, and resilience. Examples presented by the City include:
All-electric buildings
Energy Star measures
Onsite solar
Energy performance exceeding code
Green-building certification
Transportation-demand-management plans
Transit passes
Bicycle facilities
Electric-vehicle charging
WaterSense certification
Low-water landscaping
Low-carbon or recycled materials
Onsite energy storage
Solar canopies
Cool surfaces
The points-based approach is intended to provide multiple compliance options. The presentation does not state that every project would have to use every measure or any one specific strategy. Final requirements would depend on the adopted code and the project type.
What Did the City’s Modeling Find?
The City’s presentation reported estimated carbon-emissions reductions of up to 14% for a modeled project compared with its stated comparison scenario under the 2024 energy code.
The modeling also indicated that proposed density and parking changes could help offset some costs associated with sustainability measures. The results depended on assumptions about building design, unit density, parking, energy systems, and the strategies selected.
The 14% figure is a modeling result, not a guaranteed reduction for every development. Actual emissions, construction costs, and project savings would depend on the final code, property, building type, design, materials, energy systems, and other project-specific conditions.
How Would Flagstaff’s Proposed Development Incentives Work?
Flagstaff recommends combining several existing development incentive programs into three coordinated tiers. Each tier would connect a defined public benefit with a corresponding level of development flexibility.
Tier 1 would focus on elevated sustainability performance. Tier 2 would require an affordable-housing commitment plus the baseline sustainability standard. Tier 3 would combine affordable housing with elevated sustainability performance and offer the largest proposed incentive package.
The proposed framework would not automatically apply to every project. Applicants would need to select a qualifying tier, satisfy its requirements, and document the incentives being requested.
| Proposed Tier | Required Public Benefit | General Proposed Incentive Level |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1: Sustainable | Elevated sustainability performance | Initial density, parking, and development-standard incentives |
| Tier 2: Affordable | An affordable-housing commitment plus baseline sustainability | A broader package of development incentives |
| Tier 3: Affordable and Sustainable | Affordable housing plus elevated sustainability performance | The largest proposed development incentive package |
What Benefits Could the Incentive Tiers Offer?
Depending on the selected tier, proposed benefits could include:
Density bonuses
Parking reductions
Height bonuses in applicable tiers
Resource Protection Overlay relief
Landscaping reductions
Increased lot coverage
Reduced setbacks
High Occupancy Housing exemptions when bedroom-density limits are satisfied
Expanded single-use residential opportunities in commercial zones
Adaptive-reuse opportunities
The value of the proposed incentives would increase with the level of public benefit provided. Tier 3 projects combining affordable housing and elevated sustainability performance could receive greater flexibility than projects participating through Tier 1.
These benefits would not override every development requirement. Projects would still be subject to the final eligibility standards and applicable building, Fire, Engineering, infrastructure, design, safety, and permitting requirements.
What Affordable-Housing Commitments Are Proposed?
The presentation describes several affordability pathways for Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects. The required commitment would depend on the percentage of income-restricted units, the maximum qualifying income level, and whether the project contains rental or ownership housing.
Under the proposed pathways, income-restricted units could represent between 10% and 30% of the project. Maximum qualifying income levels could range from 60% to 150% of area median income, or AMI.
The requirements would not be the same for every project. Rental and ownership developments would use different income limits. In general, selecting a higher qualifying income level would require a larger percentage of restricted units.
The presentation identifies the 30% set-aside at 150% AMI as an ownership pathway limited to lower-density zones. It should not be presented as a universal option for every development or zoning district.
These figures are recommendations from the June 2026 presentation. Final affordability percentages, AMI limits, tenure requirements, compliance periods, and eligible locations would need to be established through adopted code and program documents.
What Would Applicants Need to Document?
If the proposed framework is adopted, participating applicants should expect to document the public benefits offered and the development incentives requested. Potential coordination items could include:
Selected incentive tier
Proposed unit and bedroom counts
Sustainability strategies and point calculations
Affordable-unit percentage
Applicable income and tenure pathway
Requested density, parking, setback, lot-coverage, or height incentives
Long-term affordability or compliance documents
Supporting site, architectural, engineering, and financial information requested by the City
These are expected coordination points, not a final application checklist. The adopted code and future City guidance would establish the controlling documentation and review requirements.
How Could Resource Protection and Street Standards Change?
Flagstaff’s recommendations extend beyond density, parking, and development incentives. The report also proposes changes to resource protection, street design, and connectivity standards that could materially affect site feasibility, subdivision layouts, and infrastructure costs.
These recommendations are not adopted standards. Final maps, thresholds, design criteria, and approval procedures would need to be established through the applicable code-amendment process.
Resource Protection Overlay Changes
The City recommends making the Resource Protection Overlay, or RPO, more targeted and creating clearer resource-mitigation pathways.
One proposal is to establish a steep-slope overlay based on defined slope thresholds. The overlay could identify no-build areas and establish design requirements for development on or near steep slopes.
The City also recommends remapping the RPO around more specific resource-protection goals. This work could account for forest health, wildfire risk, topography, and other environmental conditions.
Additional recommendations include objective tree-mitigation options and potential RPO relief for projects participating in qualifying incentive tiers. Any relief would depend on the final standards and the public benefits provided by the project.
The recommendation report does not adopt new RPO maps, slope thresholds, or mitigation requirements. Projects must continue to follow the resource-protection standards currently in effect until specific amendments are formally adopted.
Narrower Street Design Options
The report recommends creating an exceptions process through which certain projects could request narrower street designs. Possible options include narrower local residential and minor-collector cross sections, reduced travel-lane widths, queuing or yield-street configurations, one-sided improvements, and more efficient rural street designs.
These options are intended to provide flexibility when a standard street section may be wider or more costly than necessary for the project context. A narrower street would not automatically be approved for every development.
City staff would review requests using defined criteria. Fire access, emergency response, parking, traffic movement, utilities, drainage, engineering, pedestrian safety, and maintenance requirements would still need to be coordinated.
Street Connectivity Standards
Flagstaff also recommends refining street-connectivity requirements. The proposed changes could limit excessive use of cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets and introduce maximum block-size standards.
The goal is to improve connections between streets, neighborhoods, pedestrian routes, and transit. Better-connected street networks may support walkability, distribute vehicle trips, and provide additional emergency-access options.
Final connectivity standards could affect subdivision layouts, street alignments, access plans, utility design, and civil engineering documents. The specific requirements and available exceptions would need to be defined through future code drafting and public review.
What Could the Recommendations Mean for Flagstaff Development Projects?
If adopted, Flagstaff’s recommendations could expand the range of housing and redevelopment options available during early project planning. They could also introduce new calculations, documentation, and coordination requirements.
A more permissive zoning standard would not eliminate development review. Project feasibility would still depend on the property, proposed use, adopted code, infrastructure, design, and applicable City requirements.
More Early-Stage Zoning Options
Higher base density could make a wider range of housing types feasible in residential zones. Smaller detached homes, townhouses, middle housing, and multifamily development could become possible on more properties.
Recommended changes in certain commercial zones could also create additional opportunities for residential infill, mixed-use projects, and adaptive reuse. Some projects that currently depend on rezoning or discretionary relief might eventually qualify for a different approval pathway.
These outcomes are not guaranteed. Residential use may not be permitted on every commercial parcel, and a project would not automatically become by right simply because the recommended density increases are adopted.
New Site-Planning Calculations
If the recommendations move into adopted code, project teams may need to evaluate additional or revised standards during site planning, including:
Maximum dwelling units
Bedroom density
Floor-area ratio
Base parking requirements
Eligibility for parking reductions
Lot coverage
Setbacks
Building height
Resource-protection requirements
Sustainability points
Affordable-housing commitments
Street design and connectivity
These standards would need to be evaluated together. A project that satisfies the proposed unit-density limit could still be constrained by bedroom density, FAR, parking, access, infrastructure, resource protection, or another applicable requirement.
Different Documentation Requirements
A less discretionary zoning pathway in one area could introduce new calculations or compliance documents elsewhere in the application.
Projects seeking sustainability incentives may need to identify selected strategies, provide point calculations, and document compliance. Affordable-housing incentives could require information about unit percentages, income limits, tenure, and long-term affordability.
Parking reductions may require evidence of transit proximity, affordable-housing commitments, or approved trip-reduction measures. Requests involving resource protection or narrower street designs could also require professional reports, civil plans, mitigation information, or coordination with multiple City departments.
The exact documentation requirements would come from adopted code language, application checklists, and future City guidance.
Continued Interdepartmental Review
Projects could still require coordination with several City departments, divisions, and review programs, including:
Current Planning
Zoning Code
Building Safety
Engineering
Fire
Transportation
Water and wastewater services
Sustainability
Heritage Preservation
Floodplain review
Other property-specific reviewers
The required review team would depend on the project and property. Higher density or broader use permissions would not override building, Fire, Engineering, infrastructure, environmental, or design requirements.
Takeaway: More permissive zoning could create additional development options, but it would not eliminate project-specific planning, permitting, or technical review.
Do the Proposed Changes Apply to Your Property Now?
Not automatically. Before relying on any recommendation, confirm the property’s jurisdiction, current zoning, applicable development standards, and the status of any related amendment.
The June 2026 report is a set of recommendations for future code changes. It is not a substitute for the zoning requirements currently in effect.
Confirm City or County Jurisdiction
A Flagstaff mailing address does not necessarily mean that a parcel is located inside Flagstaff city limits. Postal boundaries and permitting jurisdictions are not always the same.
Properties inside the City of Flagstaff are generally reviewed under City zoning and development requirements. Unincorporated properties may fall under Coconino County jurisdiction.
The Flagstaff recommendation report applies to City development regulations. It does not amend zoning or permitting requirements administered by Coconino County.
Confirm the Property’s Current Zoning
Begin with the City’s Flagstaff Zoning Map and current Zoning Code. Confirm the property’s zoning district and the standards currently associated with that district.
Property research may also need to include:
Recorded conditions of approval
Applicable zoning or resource overlays
Approved development agreements
Existing entitlements
Prior zoning cases or site approvals
Property-specific use restrictions
The online zoning map is a useful starting point, but it may not identify every condition affecting development. When the permitted use or applicable standard is unclear, contact the City’s Current Planning section or email the Planner of the Day.
Review Active and Adopted Amendments
Individual zoning amendments can move independently from the complete recommendation package. Some related topics may be adopted while others remain under study, revision, or public review.
Check the City’s Zoning Code Amendments page before completing a site design or submitting an application. Review both active cases and recently adopted amendments.
An adoption announcement does not always establish when a new standard begins applying. Confirm the ordinance, effective date, transition provisions, and any City guidance relevant to the project.
If an application is already in design, intake, or review, ask the City how a new amendment may affect it. When possible, retain written guidance with the project records.
What Happens Next With the Flagstaff Zoning Recommendations?
City staff must translate the recommendations into specific code language before they can become enforceable development standards. Applicable amendments would then move through technical review, public input, commission consideration, and City Council proceedings.
The June 2026 recommendation report establishes policy direction. It is not the final ordinance language. The table below summarizes the general process, although the exact steps may vary by amendment.
| Stage | What It Means |
|---|---|
| Recommendation Report | Identifies proposed policy and code direction for City consideration. |
| Council Direction | Authorizes staff to continue developing and refining the recommendations. It does not adopt them as law. |
| Code Drafting | Converts the recommendations into specific, enforceable code language. |
| Technical and Departmental Review | Evaluates infrastructure, safety, legal, operational, and administrative effects. |
| Public and Commission Review | Allows public input and Planning and Zoning Commission consideration of the proposed amendment. |
| City Council Hearing | City Council considers the actual ordinance language and determines whether it should be adopted. |
| Adoption and Effective Date | Approved requirements become controlling according to the ordinance and its established effective date. |
Is There a Published Effective Date?
No effective date has been established for the complete recommendation package. Different amendments may move forward under separate case numbers, schedules, and approval processes.
Final code language may also differ from the concepts, illustrations, and modeling presented in June. A requirement becomes controlling only after the applicable amendment has been adopted and takes effect according to the ordinance and City procedures.
Applicants should monitor the City’s Zoning Code Amendments page for hearing dates, staff reports, ordinance numbers, adoption information, and related materials.
Information reviewed: September 13, 2026. Check the City’s amendment page regularly and before relying on any proposed standard for a project.
Common Mistakes When Interpreting the Flagstaff Zoning Proposals
The recommendations contain significant potential changes, but they are easy to misinterpret when separated from their planning and adoption context. Project teams should distinguish proposed concepts from enforceable requirements throughout early design and permitting.
Reporting the Recommendations as Adopted Law
City Council did not adopt the complete recommendation package on June 16, 2026. Council directed staff to move the recommendations forward for further refinement and public process.
Designing a Project Around Presentation Numbers
Density ranges, parking ratios, incentive percentages, and other figures in the presentation are recommendations or modeling inputs. They should not be treated as current development standards until the City adopts specific code language.
Assuming Higher Density Overrides Other Requirements
A higher unit-density limit would not eliminate other project requirements. Access, utilities, infrastructure capacity, Fire review, building design, setbacks, height, resource overlays, and other standards could still constrain development.
Treating Reduced Parking as No Parking
The report recommends lower base parking minimums and additional reductions for qualifying projects. It does not propose a universal elimination of every parking requirement.
A developer may also choose to provide more parking than the minimum when site conditions or market demand support it.
Ignoring Bedroom Density
Unit density and bedroom density are different measurements. A project may fall within a permitted units-per-acre range while still exceeding an applicable bedroom-density threshold.
The June presentation states that High Occupancy Housing review may still apply when bedroom-density maximums are exceeded. Applicants should also check for related amendments adopted separately.
Assuming Every Commercial Property Can Become Housing
The recommendations do not make every commercial parcel automatically available for residential development. Permitted uses, location, parcel conditions, infrastructure, access, overlays, and final code language would still determine whether housing is allowed and feasible.
Confusing Base Height With Incentive Height
The density recommendation proposes no change to base maximum-height standards. Separate incentive tiers could offer height bonuses to qualifying projects.
A potential incentive benefit should not be treated as the base height available to every property.
Assuming Incentives Are Automatic
Density bonuses, parking reductions, height benefits, and other proposed incentives would require qualifying affordability or sustainability commitments. Applicants would need to document compliance with the selected tier.
Treating Modeled Cost Reductions as Guaranteed Savings
The City’s presentation includes development-cost and carbon modeling based on stated assumptions. Those figures do not guarantee a particular sale price, construction cost, carbon reduction, or project savings.
Actual results depend on land costs, financing, materials, labor, parking design, infrastructure, site conditions, and the final project design.
Ignoring City and County Jurisdiction
The recommendations concern development regulations administered by the City of Flagstaff. They do not apply automatically to unincorporated Coconino County properties, even when those properties have a Flagstaff mailing address.
Overlooking Separate Amendments
Related zoning topics may advance under separate case numbers and schedules. The adoption of one amendment does not mean that the entire June recommendation package has taken effect.
Review both active and recently adopted cases on the City’s amendment page before designing or submitting a project.
How Permit Pushers Can Help With a Flagstaff Development Project
Flagstaff projects may involve zoning research, property-specific restrictions, entitlement approvals, technical reviews, and multiple City or County departments. Proposed code changes can add another layer of uncertainty when project teams are planning around standards that may change.
Permit Pushers can manage the administrative research, document organization, submission, and review coordination needed to move a project forward under the requirements currently in effect.
During Early Project Planning
Permit Pushers can help confirm whether a property is under City of Flagstaff or Coconino County jurisdiction. We can research current zoning, applicable overlays, recorded conditions of approval, existing entitlements, and active or recently adopted amendments.
Our entitlement services can help project teams identify the likely zoning approvals and application pathways before substantial design work begins. We can also organize early project information and coordinate pre-application questions with the appropriate jurisdiction.
Through pre-construction project management, we coordinate information with owners, developers, contractors, architects, engineers, and consultants. This helps the team work from current requirements instead of relying on proposed standards that have not taken effect.
During Entitlement and Permit Review
Permit Pushers can organize application packages and submit them through the correct City or County pathway. Once an application is active, we can monitor departmental review, track requests, and maintain clear project records.
Our coordination services may include:
Tracking application status and review activity
Organizing agency comments
Assigning requests to the appropriate project team member
Coordinating responses and revised documents
Managing resubmittals
Retaining submission and approval records
Following the application through permit issuance
Learn more about how permit expediting works and where professional coordination can reduce administrative delays.
Permit Pushers cannot guarantee approval, greater density, or the adoption of a proposed amendment. We can help ensure the project follows the correct process and that the team responds efficiently to jurisdiction requirements.
Planning a Project in Flagstaff?
Permit Pushers can help you confirm the current zoning and permitting requirements, identify the correct application pathway, organize the required documents, and coordinate the review process through permit issuance.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Flagstaff Zoning Recommendations
-
No. Flagstaff City Council did not adopt the complete LASS-CAP recommendation package on June 16, 2026. Council unanimously directed staff to move the recommendations forward for further refinement and public review.
The June meeting was not an adoption hearing. Specific changes must proceed through the applicable drafting, hearing, and ordinance-adoption process before becoming enforceable. Review the June 16, 2026 City Council minutes for the official record.
-
Flagstaff’s LASS-CAP project combines the Land Availability and Suitability Study with an analysis of development regulations and processes that may affect the City’s housing, climate, and community-growth goals.
The project examines land availability along with zoning, subdivision, engineering, building, fire, and transportation requirements. It identifies possible policy and code changes, but the project itself does not amend the Flagstaff Zoning Code.
-
Flagstaff is considering recommendations in six main areas:
Higher base maximum density in certain non-transect residential and commercial zones
Scaled maximum floor-area-ratio standards in residential zones
Lower multifamily parking minimums and additional conditional reductions
A flexible, points-based sustainable-design baseline
Three coordinated development-incentive tiers
Changes to resource-protection, street-design, connectivity, and winter-parking standards
These are recommendations from the Flagstaff Code Recommendations presentation. They should not be treated as current requirements unless adopted through a separate amendment.
-
The report recommends higher base maximum density in certain non-transect residential and commercial zones. Final density allowances will depend on the code language that is formally adopted.
Greater unit density would not override building height, access, infrastructure, Fire, Engineering, design, resource-protection, or other applicable requirements. Each property and project would still require site-specific evaluation.
-
The June presentation illustrated a recommended R1 concept of approximately 12 dwelling units per acre, compared with an existing-condition illustration of approximately six units per acre.
The proposed concept included detached houses, small-lot homes, townhouses, and other middle-housing types. These figures are recommendations and modeling illustrations, not current development entitlements. Actual capacity would depend on the final code and the property’s size, access, utilities, easements, overlays, and other development standards.
-
The presentation recommends approximately 50 to 60 dwelling units per acre by right in certain non-transect commercial zones. Higher ranges could be available through the proposed incentive tiers.
These figures measure dwelling units, not bedrooms. They do not mean every commercially zoned parcel would permit residential development. Permitted uses, bedroom density, infrastructure, access, site conditions, design standards, and final code language would still apply.
-
Floor-area ratio, commonly called FAR, compares a building’s total floor area with the total area of its lot.
FAR = Total building floor area ÷ Total lot area
For example, a 10,000-square-foot building on a 20,000-square-foot lot has an FAR of 0.50. Flagstaff is considering scaled maximum FAR standards to manage overall building size while allowing projects with more, smaller homes.
-
The report recommends lower base parking minimums for multifamily projects. It also proposes additional reductions for projects that meet qualifying transit-access, affordable-housing, or trip-reduction conditions.
The recommendation would reduce parking requirements from a proposed base. It would not eliminate parking requirements for every project. Developers could also choose to provide more parking when market demand or site operations sup
-
No. The June presentation states that the High Occupancy Housing Conditional Use Permit would remain applicable when a project exceeds the relevant bedroom-density limits.
Unit density and bedroom density are separate measurements. A project could comply with a proposed dwelling-unit limit and still trigger High Occupancy Housing requirements based on its bedroom count. Applicants should also review the City’s current amendments page, which lists a separate High Occupancy Housing amendment among recently adopted changes.
-
Flagstaff recommends a flexible, points-based sustainable-design baseline for covered development. Projects would select qualifying measures from a menu and meet the required point total.
Possible strategies include energy-efficiency measures, solar energy, electric-vehicle charging, bicycle facilities, water conservation, low-water landscaping, low-carbon materials, and transportation-demand-management programs. Higher incentive tiers could require additional points. Final applicability, scoring, and documentation requirements have not been adopted through the complete recommendation package.
-
The three proposed incentive tiers are:
Tier 1: Sustainable
Tier 2: Affordable
Tier 3: Affordable and Sustainable
Each tier would connect qualifying sustainability or affordable-housing commitments with potential development incentives. Those incentives could involve density, parking, setbacks, lot coverage, height, landscaping, or other standards. Eligibility and benefits would depend on the final adopted requirements.
-
No, not automatically. Current applications must follow the zoning code and individual amendments that the City determines are legally applicable to the project.
Some related amendments may proceed or become effective separately from the broader LASS-CAP package. Applicants should confirm the controlling standards before completing a site design, entitlement application, or permit package.
-
No single effective date has been published for the complete recommendation package. Individual amendments may follow different schedules and take effect separately.
The City’s Zoning Code Amendments page lists amendments under preparation and recently adopted changes. Each adopted ordinance and its stated effective date should be reviewed individually.
-
No. These recommendations concern regulations administered by the City of Flagstaff. They do not amend the development requirements that apply to properties under Coconino County jurisdiction.
A Flagstaff mailing address does not necessarily mean a parcel is inside Flagstaff city limits. Confirm the permitting authority before relying on City zoning information.
-
Use the City’s official resources to confirm the requirements that currently apply:
For a specific project, confirm the property’s zoning, overlays, existing approvals, applicable amendments, and required review process directly with the City.
Plan for the Rules in Effect and Monitor What Comes Next
Flagstaff’s recommendations could significantly change residential density, parking requirements, sustainable-design standards, development incentives, and site design. However, the June 16, 2026 Council discussion did not adopt the recommendations as law. Council directed staff to continue developing the proposals through additional review and public process.
Individual amendments may move forward on separate schedules. Before completing a site plan, financial model, entitlement application, or permit package, confirm the property’s jurisdiction and the standards currently in effect. Project teams should also review the City’s Zoning Code Amendments page for active and recently adopted changes.
Permit Pushers can help you research current zoning requirements, identify the correct application pathway, organize project documents, and coordinate the review process when a proposed or recently adopted amendment creates uncertainty.