Background
The City of Flagstaff’s Comprehensive Planning Program has been working with members of the public, other City departments and government agencies, and Northern Arizona University for the past year and a half to develop a High Occupancy Housing Plan. The draft of this document was released for a 60 days review over the summer. Over 400 unique comments were received by email, at commission meetings, and through the Flagstaff Community Forum. The project team has held over 25 public meetings to inform, develop, and refine the content of the draft HOH Plan. In addition, there have been 8 online topics posted on the Flagstaff Community Forum. See Attachment A for more details.
Content of the HOH Draft Specific Plan
The HOH Specific Plan includes the following chapters:
- Introduction – provides a basic background of HOH and its development as a community concern as well as a history of density standards in the City of Flagstaff. Changes since public review draft: Better description of the historical context and replaced photos. Added sections on the values and trade-offs from the Regional Plan that the Specific Plan is trying to balance.
- Site and Area Analysis - goes into detail on each major component of development that relates to HOH. The purpose of this chapter is to illuminate potential ideas, solutions, and/or issues. Each section explains the current regulations, programs and conditions in Flagstaff that relate to HOH. Then a section describes principles and practices for moving forward. This section demonstrates a combination of concepts that have proven successful elsewhere, or situations or constraints that are unique to Flagstaff. Changes since public review draft: Replaced all maps with updated and consistent layouts. Made clarifications and added information based on public feedback. Added a Historic Preservation and Parks section. Added information on water supply and reclaimed water issues.
- Concept Plan - The Concept Plan is an illustration of the land use and transportation concepts in the document with accompanying descriptive text. The Concept Plan does not encumber private land or limit the ability of a private landowner to develop in accordance with their current zoning or City standards. It is intended to help with the interpretation of the Plan’s goals and policies. This chapter includes conceptual maps for activity centers, and illustrations of how the goals and policies in Chapter 4 and implementation strategies in Chapter 5 could influence future projects in Regional Urban and Suburban Activity Centers and Historic Urban Activity Centers. Changes since public review draft: Added parcel level illustrations of commercial core for Downtown (U1), Five Points (U8), and Sawmill (U2) activity centers. Identified that U1 and U8 should be designated “Historic” rather than regional or neighborhood-scale activity centers. Proposed moving the centroid of the U2 activity center to avoid overlap with the Southside National Historic District and increase overlap with the Future Urban pedestrian shed along Butler Ave. Added 3D illustrations and revised plan view illustrations to take into account existing policies and how the goals, policies and implementation strategies would change the built environment. Broke the urban regional-scale activity center graphics into a regional and historic version to illustrate the differences between U1 and U8 and other urban activity centers Goals and Policies.
- Goals and policies in the HOH Plan are topic-specific ways of advancing the goals and policies of the Regional Plan. Goals and policies in this chapter are written broadly because they are intended to be viable for a 10- to 20-year planning horizon. Implementation strategies identify specific actions or changes that could be made to implement the HOH Plan goals and policies. The goals, policies, and implementation strategies in this chapter are preliminary and subject to change based on public comments, direction from the City Council, changes in conditions, and further review by staff and partner agencies. Changes since public review draft: Split out implementation strategies into Chapter 5. Removed longer description of goals in favor of more concise description of goals. Combined goal to support existing urban patterns and stormwater goal. Added historic preservation goal. Clarified policy to break up building footprints. Added policies about streets and forms preferred in activity centers. Add policies about public art and commercial spaces. Added policies on coordination with NAU.
- Implementation Strategies - Implementation strategies are actions recommended for the City and its partners to take in order to move forward in achieving the goals and policies in the HOH Specific Plan. Strategies are organized by anticipated timeline (immediate, by 2019, by 2023, and long term), and the staff that will take the lead. Changes since public review draft: Moved implementation strategies to their own chapter. Some policies were moved to implementation strategies because they were action oriented. Added implementation strategies with more details about Regional Plan amendments for clarity. Added updates to Zoning Code and architectural guidelines, especially for Downtown. Expanded policy on blocks and alleys to apply in Sunnyside. Changed implementation strategy for Residential Sustainable Building Incentive to modify rather than delete. Added historic preservation strategies. Added strategies related to parking, on street and on site. Added strategy for parks funding to address concern from Commission and staff. Added strategy on electric vehicles.
Proposed Regional Plan Amendments
Any specific plan adopted by the City must be in conformance with the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030. Because the impetus for the High Occupancy Housing Plan included issues that lack clarity or have conflicting information in the Regional Plan, Regional Plan amendments are needed to adopt the Specific Plan. Chapter 3 of the Flagstaff Regional Plan allows for amendments to the Regional Plan that accompany a specific plan to be processed without a separate amendment process. Therefore, the 60-day review and other relevant process steps can be used for the purpose of meeting the regulatory requirements of both the plan amendments and specific plan adoption process.
The proposed plan amendments can be found in Appendix B of the Specific Plan. They are intended to clarify and assist in accurate cross-referencing between the Regional Plan, the HOH Specific Plan, the Zoning Code, and the Engineering Design Standards and Specifications. The proposed plan amendments include changes to both Chapter IX: Growth and Land Use and Chapter X: Transportation.
- Chapter IX: Growth and Land Use changes: Clarification of area and place types language and definitions constituted the majority of the changes proposed in Chapter IX. One policy is proposed to be deleted (LU.1.8), two policies are proposed to be added (LU.10.10 and LU.18.17), and two policies are proposed to be modified (LU.10.3 and LU 10.7). Major topics addressed in these changes are:
- The interpretation of the Plan concerning rezonings and development in Downtown (U1) and Five Points (U8) activity centers through a new designation as “Historic” activity centers.
- Clarification of density ranges and connectivity requirements for area-place types.
- Further definition and revision of Neighborhood and Regional scale activity centers, including reassigning some activity centers from Neighborhood to Regional, and disfavoring rezoning for large scale HOH in historic districts and neighborhoods (Regional Plan Map 14).
- Better definition of the commercial core and commercial corridors in urban and suburban settings.
- Movement of the Sawmill (U2) activity center to reduce overlap with Southside National Historic District.
- Chapter X: Transportation changes: During the process of understanding how the City can achieve better outcomes for High Occupancy Housing projects. Staff reviewed what types of decisions were not being made consistently or for which the plan provided unclear direction for decision-makers. The table in Chapter X that described area-level “Levels of Service” was not providing all the information needed to inform updates to the Engineering Design Standards and Specifications, and ultimately, the adoption of a Master Streets Plan for the City. The information on the updated tables is intended to inform decisions about changes to standards and does not directly change any City policies or ordinances without further action by the City.
Options for consideration at the Citizen’s Review Session
PROBLEM STATEMENT |
OPTIONS |
STAFF RECOMMENDATION & RATIONALE |
The Sawmill (U2) activity center overlaps too much of the Southside National historic district |
a) Leave as-is and rely on interpretation that HOH should not be located within historic districts and neighborhoods.
b) Move activity center's center-point to Piccadilly and Regent |
Option B: Move the activity center, because this will clarify and reduce the conflict related to new housing projects in the eastern portion of the Southside neighborhood
|
The Regional Plan needs to be clearer about our expectations for connectivity in Activity Centers
|
a) Only add descriptive text to the Plan.
b) Take policies HOH.2.7 and 2.8 and amend them to the Regional Plan under the Activity Center goal (LU.18)
|
Option B
|
The public believes there should be stronger historic preservation language in the Plan |
a) Add HOH Goal #5
b) Keep HOH Goal #5 but move the policies into the Regional Plan under Chapter VIII Community Character and put them in the box for Relevant Goals and Policies in the HOH Plan |
Option B
|
Height, bulk, mass and scale of HOH in areas where these projects are currently allowed is something that concerns the public
|
a) Leave existing entitlements as is and defer zoning changes to area specific plans.
b) Amend the Zoning Code to lower the building height in the conventional Community Commercial (CC) zone to 45 feet.
c) Change the standards for bulk, mass and scale to require buildings over 3 stories to set back vertically (wedding cake).
d) Amend the Zoning Code to set a maximum density (units and bedrooms) for all mixed use buildings
3) Change how building height is measured to ensure height limitations are interpreted correctly. |
|
The Regional Plan, Zoning Code, and Parks policies are misaligned in terms of creating park and civic spaces in activity centers.
|
a) Change the Parks department policy to not accept parks smaller than 2 acres to allow for parks under 2 acres to be accepted under certain conditions and along with a discussion of parks funding mechanisms.
b) Leave the Parks policy as-is, and amend the Regional Plan "Policy LU.13.8. Locate civic spaces, parks and institutional uses within neighborhood pedestrian sheds." And "Policy LU.18.2. Strive for activity centers and corridors that are characterized by contextual and destinctive identities, derived from history, environmental features, a mis of uses, well-designed public spaces, parks, plazas, and high-quality design."
c) Put together a subcommittee from multiple commissions to develop a wider range of options for addressing the lack fo park and civic space available in activity centers |
The public comments received, the Historic Preservation Commission, and Planning and Zoning Commission discussed support for option A. Option B is supported by the Parks and Recreation Commission because they believe the current policy is effective for operation and maintenance and cannot be changed without additional funding.
|
FAR/FAIR items for City Council addressed in the HOH Specific Plan process
Discussion on requiring High Occupancy Housing projects and other higher density projects to use reclaimed water for all non-potable uses in the development (Councilmember Putzova)
Map 4 on Page 32 of the HOH Specific Plan shows the current reach of the Reclaimed water system in Flagstaff. Flagstaff’s reclaimed system is designed and built to be a simple outdoor PVC irrigation line. It does not have a redundant piping system or two way feed in most areas of town. It does not have 24/7 operations 365 days a year, if a plant goes down the flow of reclaimed water stops. Flagstaff includes a clause in our contracts that allow the service (flow to customer) to be taken down for maintenance, relocation, line breaks and can disrupted at any time without warning. This presents a major impediment to requiring reclaimed water piping indoors for any new HOH building. In order to make such a requirement realistic, the Utilities staff estimates that a $20 million investment in reclaimed water infrastructure would be needed to provide a looped system so that a reliable and redundant service can be provided for housing. There may also be limitations because of ADEQ requirements for health and safety. Another impediment is that the reclaimed water system does not have the necessary water storage capacity to be used for fire flow and sprinklers in buildings and therefore cannot be used for firefighting. The city would also need to update its Building Codes to allow for this technology to be used safely.
Because of the significant investment that the City would need to make, reclaimed water plumbing was not included as a recommend strategy for the HOH Plan. However, the team does recommend that the future rewrite of the Residential Sustainable Building Incentives in the Zoning Code include reclaimed water as a part of the incentivized sustainability technologies. This strategy can be found on page 101 of the HOH Specific Plan.
Initiate a Regional Plan Amendment that creates a high occupancy housing overlay to indicate where the community finds development of high occupancy housing acceptable (Councilmember Putzova)
The HOH Specific Plan has attempted to clarify where HOH projects are preferred in the Regional Plan in a number of ways. First, it has identified “Historic” activity centers and moved an activity center to avoid overlap with a National Historic District. Second, it has clarified that large-scale high occupancy housing should be located in regional activity centers and calibrated where those are located based on public feedback and an analysis of their future potential. Third, the Plan has been clarified about expectations for urban v. suburban site characteristics. Lastly, clarifying language has been added that rezoning properties in historic districts and neighborhoods is not supported by the Regional Plan.
Overlays are a tool that the Zoning Code uses to identify more refined standards for a given area, such as the Resource Protection Overlay. Because overlays are a regulation that must be mapped at the parcel level, and the Regional Plan is an aspirational document, it would not be an appropriate tool to use in the Regional Plan. Through the Zoning Code, however, the City can regulate where future HOH projects are located and what scales are appropriate in different contexts. The HOH Plan implementation strategies propose to do this in the following ways:
- “Replace the rooming and boarding permit with a standard for the maximum number bedrooms per acre in addition to the dwelling units per acre density calculations for Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential, and mixed use projects in commercial districts. Staff initial proposal is:
- Medium Density Residential density: 7 to 13 dwelling units per acre with a maximum 32.5 bedrooms per acre.
- High Density Residential density 10 to 29 dwelling units per acre with a maximum of 72.5 bedrooms per acre.
- Mixed-use developments outside of Regional Activity Centers have a maximum of 2.5 bedrooms per dwelling unit when averaged across the project.
- Mixed-use development within Regional Activity Centers – no maximum bedrooms.”
- “In the Zoning Code, create a conditional use permit (CUP) that looks at transportation, nuisance, public safety, and lighting for mixed use buildings in Highway Commercial, Community Commercial, and Commercial Services zones that:
- Have a density of more than 50 units per acre or
- Have a bedroom density that is more than 125 bedrooms per acres, or
- Have a building footprint is larger than one half acre.”
- “Develop parcel-scale maps of each Regional Activity Center’s commercial core and pedestrian shed through a process involving public meetings with surrounding neighborhoods and a review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.”
- “Establish a petition process for historic neighborhoods to petition staff for Zoning Code changes, including signature and application requirements, timeline, resources, fees, and the minimum size and characteristics of the area to be considered.”
- “Consider creation of neighborhood compatibility overlays or local historic district overlays for the national districts and historic neighborhoods identified on Map 14 of the Flagstaff Regional Plan.”
The City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission can also consider adding some of the options presented by staff to further meet the objective of an overlay.
Discussion of current building height limits in different zones in the Zoning Code and consideration of changing the maximum building height to four stories (Vice-Mayor Whelan)
The draft of the HOH Specific Plan presented at the Citizen’s Review Session addresses building height with the implementation strategy to “Clarify in the Zoning Code, what circumstances warrant the Conditional Use Permit for additional height, such as roof pitch, topographic issues, etc.”
During the process of developing the HOH Specific Plan, City staff proposed lowering the building height of the Community Commercial Zone to 45 feet maximum. Community Commercial was the only zone proposed because: 1) widespread lowering of building heights in a city risks the exclusion of low and moderate income families by constraining the supply of housing, and 2) the Community Commercial Zone overlaps most of the historic districts and neighborhoods in the City. This was received with mixed reviews at the focus group. A few people fully supported the idea. Other believed changing the underlying zoning would dis-incentivize using the transect zones in the Downtown area. Another group did not believe lowering building heights was a fair action because it would lower the property values of moderate income families, who live in Sunnyside and Southside.
If you have questions, or require clarification on the contents of this memorandum, please contact Sara Dechter, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager at sdechter@flagstaffaz.gov or (928) 213-2631.
|