Flagstaff Planning Commission Approves Downtown Alley Swap and Receives Sweeping 3-Year Code Overhaul Roadmap Targeting Density, Parking Reform, and Sustainability

newbie. Um Welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission for May 27th. I'm calling it to order. Um Let's see. Notice of option to recess into executive session pursuant to ARS 38-431-02.

Notice is hereby given to the members of the commission and the general public that at this meeting the commission may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public for legal advice and discussion with the commissioner's commission's attorneys for legal advice on any item listed on the following agenda pursuant to ARS 38-431.03A3. Roll call. Carol Mandino? Excused. Joshua Mayor? Present. Christine Sheehy? Here. CJ Lukee? Here. Mary Norton? Here. Megan Weller? Excused.

And Rebecca Coppa? Here. Um item number three, open call to the public. At this time any member of the public may address the commission on any subject within their jurisdiction that is not scheduled before the commission on that day. Due to open meeting laws the commission cannot discuss or act on any items presented during this portion of the agenda. To address the commission on an item that is on the agenda, please wait for the chair to call for public comment at the time the item is heard.

Do we have any public comment for non-agendized items? No. Okay. Um moving on to four, approval of the minutes. Um motion to approve the minutes from May 13th. I'll move to approve. Second. Okay, we have a a motion Commissioner Mayor seconded by Commissioner Lukee. Any discussion, changes? All those in favor? I. I. I. Any opposed? I made I made those minutes myself, so thank you. Thank you. Uh number five, general business.

Uh recommendation for an abandonment of a portion of alleyway on block 19 of townsite of the Flagstaff plat. Good afternoon, commissioners. My name is Bryce Doughty. I'm the real estate manager for the city of Flagstaff. Prior to council acting on any abandonments, they first need a recommendation from planning and zoning. And through some lapse of reason, I am that staff represented representative responsible for shepherding abandonments to council.

So, here we are Here we are, and uh let's get into it. There's like a presentation mode, right? There we go. All right, where we're at in the world, we are in downtown. Specifically, block 19 of townsite. What you see here identified in green is the alley that we are proposing to abandon. It's uh the cross streets, so you've got Beaver to your west and Leroux to your east, and then you've got Birch to the north and Aspen to the south. Um prior to Let's see.

So, just a little history, it was always platted this way, so you can see right here, this is block 19. It was this kind of reverse L shape that was always like that. Prior to um you know, recently, there were two abutting buildings that were abutting into it, so it kind of created this more L L-shape here. Um the adjacent property owner, he's in for a development plan um for a development on this site.

And as part of that, the city um staff identified benefits to having a alley that would fully transect the entire block. And so um in discussions with that applicant, he said, "I'm willing to dedicate um the alley that you need to create an east-west alley as long as you abandon the north-south one." And so the proposal today is to consider um is this something that planning and zoning would recommend is the city would formally abandon the north-south leg of this.

Um any easement there would be an easement for underground utilities in there, so it wouldn't impact any ability to build over that piece of land in exchange for a dedication of the east leg um which is highlighted here in green. Um we've got some legal descriptions of what that would actually look like. Just for visuals, so this is what we would be abandoning, and this is what we would be receiving as a dedication or in exchange.

Um in terms of findings here, the franchise utilities have no issues with this um as long as they do reserve some easement rights um within the abandoned area. Um there's no staff concerns for the abandonment.

Um staff's preference is to have the the alley grid kind of match up with the the rest of the pattern in the city, and this is something that um regardless of a the development application in consideration right now working its way through the process on the adjacent property, this is something that we would pursue um absent that. So, that's kind of the conclusion of staff. And I am available to address any questions to the best of my ability. Any questions from the commissioners?

Uh Commissioner Lucky. What Do you know what the use is going to be with the the one where They used to be the Babbitt, right? So the Babbitt building. The Oh, for the uh for right here? Um so the current application is for a hotel with a parking garage structure. The Babbitt building that I think you're talking about is on a different parcel where the um Catholic school used to be. That's not the same block. Was this the Decker building? Yes. Okay.

So this um so my question would be, so this this gives them slightly more buildable land, increasing their parcel in a more usable way, but it gives the city a better alleyway from east to west. Correct. Okay. Any other questions? Is there a motion? I'll do it.

Madam Chair, I recommend that the Planning Commission approve the abandonment of the alleyway to City Council on the condition of the dedication of the east-west alley by the adjacent landowner in You don't have a case number so on this agenda item. Second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Motion or the recommendation moves forward. Thank you. Uh the next one, item 5B, is the land availability and site suitability code recommendations report. I'm Tiffany. Hi. Thank you so much.

Um, I'm here with all of my favorite people. Uh, we have Jennifer Michaelson, uh, with our housing team. We have Jenny Niemann with our sustainability team, of course Alex and Tory, and of course, um, our biggest fan of all Tyler Dunham. So, we're all very excited night for you to see our final code recommendations report. This has been 3 years in the works. So, I know you got a little light reading over the weekend.

Um, seriously, you know, we we spent a lot of time with the consultant trying to make the executive summary real pop. So, executive summaries are really good to give you a good synopsis. I think the biggest thing and the biggest takeaway from all of this that we want you to sort of digest with all of this information is is that these are the expert opinions of our consultant and that there's still a lot more work to be done as we develop, um, actual zoning code text amendments.

Um, and we plan to be spending a whole lot more time with you in the upcoming future, uh, working through those text amendments. They may not be 100% reflection of what's in this code recommendation report because there's still a lot of outreach and communication and internal work to do. Um, but this is some general guidance on how to move us forward in terms of both our housing and sustainability goals. So, with that said, I'm going to run through the million and a half slide. I'm just kidding.

But, please feel free to interrupt at any point in time in the conversation. I'm going to go to try to go through these slides quickly. Um, they're pretty good in the information that they have on them. I forget that I'm using, uh, a PDF. So, first and foremost, we're just going to give you that project background as well as a summary of recommendations. We're going to talk about some of the zoning district standard changes we're talking about.

We're trying to talk about recommendations for parking requirements. And the big one is the integrative incentive framework as well as some additional code barriers that they recommend that we start working on. Of course, during this 3-year time frame, you've also seen a lot of code changes. So, we've continued to move the mark on some of the barriers that were identified early on in this process. In terms of project background, we're here to give you this information.

I'm going to try to play the role of the consultant and provide you the analysis and reasoning behind these recommendations. And then of course, here to just try to answer any questions you have. The recommendations are designed to advance our three policy goals, the housing plan, the carbon neutrality plan, climate action, and then of course, the regional plan. We started this project several years ago. We first started with a diagnostic report.

That report was going out to people who use our codes primarily as well as a general public to try to assess what are the barriers to providing affordable housing, to meeting our sustainability goals. And report was published with a list of barriers. That list of barriers is quite large. The code concepts report that followed was how we could pursue different code parameters. We had different scenarios. Scenarios to focus on, you know, limiting our by right code.

It focusing fairly heavy on incentives. One was sort of a middle of the road and one was going all the way by right. We ended up between a scenario two and three, which was pushing our by right code. Pushing those base limits of what we allow cuz that will affect all development in Flagstaff, but also at the same time really beefing up and working on our incentives. So this final recommendations report is sort of the streamlined information from that code concepts.

We spent a lot of time on the code concepts report. We had the community conversation. Last summer and we were able to really give the consultants some really good direction and I feel like they've they've heard what we've said and at least have set us on a good path towards moving towards these text amendments. I swear I was going to go faster. All right, just really quickly the precursor to the code analysis project was the last the land availability site suitability.

This project helped us to understand as well what kinds of code barriers we need to do address to deal with just even the land sources that we had left available. This was also a precursor to the regional plan 2045. What we know from the land availability suitability study is we're really looking at infill or the rezoning of these large land or land holdings. Those are really going to be the sort of the the two big sources of development in the future.

The last helped stream helped us come up with some of the issues that we were facing. Streamlining the rezoning process is one of those. Positioning our single family residential and putting it in a position where it can help greenfield development as well as infill development. And then recalibrating key standards that limit high density housing in commercial zones.

So commercial zones the consultant really found that commercial zones is one of those better opportunities for higher density development in our city. So, the summary of recommendations, it feels really simple when you see it on the slide. It's only six recommendations. Really, there's a lot more to it and it's a lot more in-depth. But again, trying to keep this high-level. The big one, across the board, increase base maximum density across all residential and commercial zones.

That's the recommendation. How we approach this will be unique and different and the report talks about um how to increase that base density in both greenfield and infill. And we will likely pursue these differently. Um you know, implement as well a scaled maximum floor to area ratio. The consultant has very much heard our concerns.

Um you know, especially as you're increasing density in existing neighborhoods and existing developed areas, you want to be sensitive to those patterns, to those characteristics, and to the things and places that people love in Flagstaff. And so, FAR is one of those tools that we're looking at and trying to try to make sure that development is compatibly scaled. Um it is one of many tools um that may come down the line as we approach you with alternatives.

But again, we did um ask the consultant to look specifically into FAR for us. Also, reducing the base minimum parking requirements and allow further reductions for projects that support lower parking demand. Um in combination with this, we need to look at reforming our winter parking ordinance. We very much know that those things are tied together. Uh establish a required sustainable design baseline.

So, in order to get to carbon neutrality, we're looking at um having a standard baseline that all develop in Flagstaff will meet. Um and that would be applied through a flexible point-based system. And we're looking at an integrative incentive program.

So, instead of looking at an incentive policy that's over here and one that's over there, we have now combined them in a way, but still understanding that somebody may come in with a goal of really hitting climate action and maybe not affordable housing. Um there will be options for the for vice versa and there will be options for both. But there still will be that base standard. Also, we're looking at um refining additional code standards. We're We've We have been at resource protection.

Um looking at allowing more efficient street design and more creative street design, honestly. And aligning regulations with our other housing and climate goals. So, the recommendations are intended to help reduce the cost of development while advancing our housing and climate goals.

So, uh spreading the fixed land costs over more units, more efficient use of parking cost, sustainability requirements that are flexible and achievable, and incentives with benefits that outweigh the cost of participation. That has been one of the bigger issues with our incentives. They've grown old a little old, a little stale. Um and so, really to have a very successful incentive program, that the the cost needs to be worth the benefit.

So, you can see here that, you know, through modeling, we know that we can achieve some level of change through these features. Um in terms of the zone district standards, um higher density is really crucial to meeting the housing and climate goals. One, density can does have the ability to potentially reduce cost. Not always, but it can. Um it also has the ability to reduce carbon because the higher the density, we can potentially reduce um the transportation carbon emissions.

And there's a lot more community choice. With density becomes comes a different and vast array of style of products. Um single-family detached homes uh have long been sort of the held premiere, um but they they don't serve the need of everyone in the community and having that broad choice of things like duplexes, triplexes, and apartments um help build a more well-rounded community in terms of providing choice to our residents.

Um current density limits limit land where it's feasible to build lower-cost housing types. These are existing density limits. Um they're fairly low. So even when you compare these to other municipalities and other cities, we're still in this low-density range. This has been the case for us um going way back to the '70s with some of our first big um zoning standards and requirements. So this is what it looks like in terms of proposing density. Again, this is what the consultant would propose.

There will be room for conversation as we move things forward. Um and the point is to feel sometimes a little uncomfortable or like, "That feels different." Um there's a lot to work out in the conversation of what this all looks like. But um you know, essentially you can see in the single-family area in R1, we're looking at going from 6 to 12. Um but we don't just want to change the density. We know we also have to change the other parameters to make that density possible.

So you have to change lot size, you have to change setbacks, you have to change lot coverage. Um so there's a slew of things that need to happen in line with changing those density standards. The R1 zone is likely going to make up a large share of our future housing development.

So the more changes we make to that zone now, the the likelihood we're going to set ourselves up for more success in achieving what our regional plan goals and policies are um as well as the housing and carbon neutrality plan. Our current R1 standards do not support lower cost housing types. Um you know, it's six units an acre, which we don't always achieve now. Um when I see single-family developments, they come in at a range between two and four, sometimes five.

Um very rarely do we even hit six, but a lot of that has to do with that some a lot of the overlapping standards that we apply. And as we, of course, um work through those standards, there is that potential to reduce development. We understand that one of the ways that you most significantly change the cost of a structure is by reducing the size of a structure. Um and we're we're looking at how we can continue to incentivize reducing overall size of structure, right?

So, the ideas with planners have long been, well, if we create smaller lots and we create smaller setbacks and we give you more lot coverage, then maybe we'll get the smaller homes. And a lot of times we don't. Well, a lot of times we get larger homes on smaller lots. Um and certainly we know we absolutely know and have heard the concerns of the community that we do want to also want to attract small homes. And again, I think the the issue here is choice and range.

And so, we're trying to create codes that get us to choice and range as well. All right, so increasing density does allow more units, but there is currently no regulation to constrain overall building size and scale. Floor area ratio can help fill this gap. So, we've I've always struggled with how to explain floor area ratio. Um you know, essentially it is a way of assessing the size of the structure and all floors of the structure in relation to the size of the lot.

It is one tool that's out there for looking at mass and scale of a building. [snorts] Um we also know that we removed some of the high occupancy housing requirements off of our middle housing types. And we're also looking at replacing that in some of the density standards that will be coming back. So FAR may be one controlling factor. Additional bedroom densities may be another.

Um but you're going to see these all as a package and they're likely going to come with different alternatives for how we can implement these and how we can scale them. One of the complexities I think of our zoning code well how should I say this? In the '90s when we um had a big fancy zoning code done, it was um a very comprehensive dense big zoning code with lots of zoning districts.

And in 2011 when we revised our zoning code and tried to simplify it, we really dramatically reduced the number of zoning districts. And when we did that, we sort of made them all look alike. And so when you start to look at our zoning categories and our districts, we haven't built in the differentials. And that's one of the weaknesses in places in our code that we need to work on. And our regional plan now has set us up in a way that we can really start to build in those differentials.

It's worse in the commercial zones than it is in the residential zones, but um that will also you're also going to see a lot of that regional plan implementation coming in through these code amendments as well. Uh the max FAR is one of the tools that can be used to try to present prevent out of scale buildings and encourage smaller lower cost units.

If you are at all interested in this, I do have some pictures and some FARs calculated of some local places in Flagstaff and I can show you what the differences are. Sometimes people aren't impressed with what the results are of FAR, so, you know, come at it with an open mind, but if it's something if you really want to see what FAR really is, we can we can do a little walking tour and and I can show you what different structures structures sort of relate at.

Uh recommended FAR levels are scaled by number of units to reward projects that are building smaller lower cost units. Again, it's one of the tools that we're trying to consider to utilize to get uh smaller units, which we know really does help our community. And then centers and corridors, uh which are a key building block of the regional plan. This These are areas which are typically transit supportive.

Um they don't um transit does not operate efficiently if destinations, peoples, and jobs are spread out and difficult to access. Increasing density in proximity to existing transit can support higher frequency services. Building to support transit use is an economical efficient way to add travel capacity without significantly increasing roadway capacity, helping more people travel without increasing travel times.

Uh so, what we're looking at doing is really focusing on some of the largest density increases happening in our commercial corridors, which we know are served by transit. Um and so, what we're looking at is looking at on the prime main categories, the focal being mixed use. Um interior to neighborhoods, we're looking at um single use residential and commercial zones. So, we do have large neighborhoods. Sunnyside, for example, has a a fairly significant amount of community commercial zoning.

Um they're all small lot individuals. Some of them are a lot of them are single family. Uh, so we're looking at how we do single use residential. We're still thinking along the lines of keeping some of the affordable housing incentives for single use residential. So, keeping conditional use permit in play um, in certain areas, um, to also incentivize affordable housing.

So, there's a lot of things that are happening here, but our biggest bang for our buck is putting our biggest density on our transit corridors, and we know that a lot of those happen to be our commercial zones. The commercial current commercial zone standards either constrain density too strictly or require an uncertain approval process. So, high occupancy housing has um, caused some uncertainty in this area as well as the currently required conditional use permits.

Um, by increasing those by right development standards, um, rehashing on our mixed use standards, and refocusing where in the commercial zones, uh, we want to see the higher density development happen is what we're looking at in these areas. So, when we increase density, we automatically have to change the definition of high occupancy housing because the high occupancy housing is based on that 29 units per acre right now.

Recommended commercial zone standards allow transit supportive density by right and attractive uh, incentives for affordability and sustainability. So, you're starting to see where you can get to just by right, and then with the levels of incentives, um, tier one, tier two, and tier three, which tier one is housing only, tier two is sustainability only, and tier three is both combined together. Uh, so why is the by right density recommended for 50 to 60 units per acre in our commercial zones?

Um it allows for a very efficient construction type. It density level that would support high frequency transit services. And the density levels are above density levels above this range usually require more one or more of the following and that's structured parking and taller buildings um with concrete podiums. Incentive options for higher densities can both mitigate and avoid the need for structured parking and provide a public benefit in exchange for potential higher impact on community.

So, you know, the density level here is of that 50 to 60 units is still lower than developments you've seen mixed-use developments we've seen in the past. Um if you look at the Jack, you're looking at closer to 100 units an acre. Um and so as we bring these density standards back to you and the locations where they would be proposed, we can absolutely show you what they look like. So when they talk about four-story, that is realistic for that 50 to 60 units per acre.

Um and we'll bring back what these examples of different projects look like. Um but this is still higher density than what we've experienced um under the current by right allowances um outside of those mixed-use developments that we do have scattered right now in the community. Yes. Do you ever see a time when there would be five or six stories or is four sort of what you're looking at as the max? Um we absolutely have five-story buildings now. Um Okay. Um um Um, I I understand.

I I still consider five and six-story buildings to be mid-rise. Um, you know, our tallest buildings in Flagstaff are currently on the NAU campus. Um, you there's a lot of efficiencies to be gained with uh taller buildings. Um, efficiencies in terms of density and the like. Um, I think height will always sort of be a a preferential for some versus others. Um, what what people do like, what they don't like. Um, right?

Some people have a preference that we build denser infill and less exterior, have more open areas, that kind of philosophy. Um, yeah, there's there's pros and cons to be said about both. But, as we work forward through the conversations, that I think the important thing to understand is is that we do have an existing code. And in many of those zoning districts, we have a height limit of 60 ft currently with the allowance to go 5 ft above for certain roof slope pitches.

Um, and that we do have a number of buildings that have already built to that height limitation. And so, there it is a good grounding place to continue some of that development. It's It is about finding the locations that are compatible with our regional plan and making sure that our zoning code is in in conformance with those. And where where where it even suggests allowing these densities. These densities are discussed in the regional plan as well. I hope that helps.

It's not a It's not a sweet answer. Uh, addressing common concerns about higher densities. New buildings will be tall and boxy with high high lot coverage incompatible with character of Flagstaff. And Flagstaff doesn't have the infrastructure capacity, roads, and water to support A lot of the responses to that is that FAR and some of those other controlling features can help to control the size and compatible scale. Minimal changes um to existing lot coverage and setbacks.

There are minimal changes to the existing lot coverage and setback standards proposed. No change to base maximum height standards. None of that is No that So, let me rephrase like there we're not proposing to change the height limits that already exist by right in the code. We are considering the potential of allowing additional height as an incentive. And there are ways to do that. Um there are places in the code that already allow taller buildings, and we can talk about that as well, too.

So, when you hear that 60-ft height limit, I am talking about the conventional zone and not the form-based code. The form-based code measures heights mostly in stories, which is much different, and can result in a much taller building. If that um sort of helps in that conversation. Uh The current site planning and architectural design standards will continue to apply, although we definitely need bigger better standards for bigger buildings.

We have sort of a one-size-fits-all architectural standard, and sometimes I will say I'm going to say it, sometimes the materials we use on the large buildings are too small. They're too fine-grained, um and we need to have a big broader range of tools and options open to us. Uh current infrastructure planning and mitigation requirements will continue to apply. So, traffic impact analysis, water and sewer impact analysis.

Of course, we won't allow you to build a larger building or a higher density building if you if you can't provide the minimum resources to serve that building. Parking requirements. Higher density without coordinated parking reforms will limit the effectiveness of higher density toward meeting housing and climate goals. So, we've already made the first big change. It's been in play now for what is May? But we're almost June.

It's almost 6 months since we've had code effective that has reduced the parking requirements for four units and below. Nothing terrible has happened yet. Um I've seen three whole projects so far to date. Um I the first I've seen are a series of small units on some parcels. Um they are in Sunnyside. The units are um all less than 400 square feet in area. So, they're small cottages and they So, there's four units, four parking spaces. And um so, we have seen that change.

It It wasn't like the floodgates open and people barged down the doors. So, um I would expect whatever change would happen is going just remember that change happens gradual and over time. It's not a sort of instant, simultaneous, all of the sudden every development has smaller or less parking spaces. So, the direct cost of providing parking is substantial and does scale up if structured or underground parking is needed for higher densities.

So, the cost per parking space based on the type, right? So, surface parking is the cheapest. But the more surface parking you have, the less dwelling units you're going to have. Um if you do tuck under, you're looking at a $20,000 a parking space. If you do structured, you're looking at $35,000 and underground, you're looking at $60,000 a parking space. Those are pretty expensive.

Um when you compare that to the cost of housing, I think probably the most profound thing I heard in all of this is again, it goes back to choice. And that there are people that choose to live without a vehicle, but they don't if they don't build their own house, they don't get to choose what they rent in terms of this infrastructure because we're requiring this infrastructure to be built on every um property. And so every renter is then subsidizing parking lots.

Um and so I think the issue here is choice. I don't think that every developer is going to come in and immediately take advantage of every single parking space um or every single reduction. I think they're going to think wisely about what they choose to offer and what the market marketability of their property will be. Uh lower parking requirements encourage lower cost housing, smaller units, and lower emission. It shows up through the model over and over and over again.

But you know, when a parking space could cost 60 60,000 dollars, um you can see how that would impact um types of density and beyond. We did go so far. So this is their recommended base. We did have the consultant go so far as to look at at eliminating parking spaces cuz that was one of the requests. Um they still see a value for us incentivizing um the reduction of parking spaces in some ways. They do agree that there needs to be a base reduction.

Um so we're looking at that reduction from about 1.75 spaces per unit to 1 to 1.25 spaces per unit. Um also removing guest parking spaces. So not only do you have to pay for parking for yourself, now you got to pay for the parking for your friends. Um and getting back to using other parking facilities that we're still requiring developers to build these days on every single residential street. So there are incentives built in to the reduction.

Um you would see a 25% reduction for transit proximity. So, right now we offer 10. Um which on a small development often doesn't even result in the reduction of one parking space. Um affordable units, you could see up to 30%. And for trip reduction strategies, you could see up to 15%. So, all of these are also meant to sort of offset what we're going to see the change in the transportation. So, we're trying to refocus those incentives and tie those incentives to meaningful change.

And then the winter parking snow ordinance, we do know that with the reduction of on-site parking we're liable to see more parking on street. That is generally the impact that happens. Um so, we do know that we need to take a look at what um those alternati- alternative snow removal operations and policies are. And we do want to make sure that those align with one another. So, we did that you know, the consultant did look at a whole series of cities with similar snow.

Um you know, we [clears throat] do tend to have one of the more restrictive snow ordinances out there where we limit overnight parking for 5 months out of the year. Um so, there are definitely different ways to do this.

I mean, it it really comes down to one or the other where we just don't need as much on-street parking as we're requiring to be built, especially if it can't be used um for those 5 months of the year or we we go back to using that resource that we're that we're requiring to be built and use it in a more robust fashion. Addressing common concerns about reduced parking requirements. If develop- or I'm going to the common concern, there won't be enough parking.

Well, if a developer foresees that providing less parking will make their project less marketable, they often provide more than required. Um existing residents may have to park further from their home. Parking reductions are mainly targeted to projects that are expected to have lower parking demand. And then some streets in Flagstaff are too narrow to support on-street parking. There's often more capacity for on-street parking than perceived.

So, overflow parking may not always lead to congestion. This is one of the ones I do hear the most. The more I'm out and about and even when I talk with folks on the phone, they often say like, "Oh, I have to stop for the UPS or the FedEx truck to go by." And and I say, "Yes, that's okay. It's it's okay. That's that's actually what it should be." Um that's actually how the road should function. Um otherwise, we're building highways on every street.

And if every street was perfectly wide enough for every car to get by from every parked car, um we would be building literal highways in every location. And that's not what people want either, right? The The faster cars can move on residential streets is not a boon. It's it is not a positive. And I know folks think it is sometimes um cuz they think that 30 seconds they got to delay for that that car to move around them.

Um so, we've got to change people's perspectives on some things in terms of like it doesn't feel safe or I feel uncomfortable. Um and there are some standards we can look at and work at to get people to that place of comfort. But the slower we can make cars go on any street, the better. So, so I have an idea uh about what we might be talking about in terms of width. Uh-huh. You know, if we think about a neighborhood like Ponderosa Trails, for example, Mhm.

right, where that exact phenomenon that you described happens all the time. Is that more the standard or would we be considering even narrower streets than that? Um well, in this case, we're just talking about those parking requirements where if people if more people are parked on the street, we're going to experience that more. And what I'm trying to say is it's normal to experience that.

Um Uh there are situations, and then coming up we're going to talk about narrower street design, but there are situations and there are styles of development that can absorb smaller street sizes. Um and again, if you want to go on a tour, let's go on a tour. And I'll drive you through different developments and you'll see, but different development types, like town homes for example, um when you look at town homes, often times some of those developments happen on much smaller streets.

We can't change the fire lane. Let me just caveat this. We can't change the fire lane. We have a fire code. We've got to have that 20-ft clear. That's always what we're working in. But are there other parameters within the right-of-way that can change? 100%. We can change sidewalk widths. We can change parkway widths. We can change benches. We can move parking to one side of the street. There's lots of different flexibility, but we have very limited, very strict standards. It's one or nothing.

It's all or nothing. Um the integrated incentive framework. Yeah. I wanted to add one thing. When we're talking about street widths, I discovered that in Flagstaff, if you have a boat, an RV, any of these structure, any of these large vehicles, most cities, when I ran code enforcement, I never came across another city that you could park a vehicle more than like 72 hours for loading and unloading all the time. And I noticed that in my neighborhood. And they're all over the streets in the summer.

And you talk about when the streets get narrow up near some of the trails, the RV is there. I called about it cuz someone almost got hit. They walked out from behind the RV and there was parking for people that were using the trail. So, you only have this one little area to drive through and you had to stop. You couldn't fit two cars.

And then I was shocked to find out that as long as they're currently licensed, and I mean these vehicles cost can cost over a hundred thousand dollars or more and they're just out there. And most places and I know this as soon as you start a big master plan community, what are the first new developments? Storage facilities because you can't like in private developments, you can't park these things in your yard or typically on the street.

So, if we're starting to look at stuff like that, I really think we should look at I mean it I'll tell you it's on the to-do list. Okay. I just wanted to There there's been a whole council conversation about it. If you if you want me to I've reviewed the tape. [laughter] I know that there to me. I'd be happy to go and testify. I mean I was Well, they definitely gave staff direction. I wasn't the staff person at the time. They definitely gave staff direction.

We do have different elected officials now. I know it is still a priority issue to address. It is a problem for bikes and pedestrians as well and visibility and we also have limitations of where people can park them on site. So, you know, it's one of those compounding issues over time and really what it becomes is how you work with the neighborhoods that don't have HOAs and then how you work with neighborhoods that do have HOAs. So, for example, if you lived in Is it Ponderosa Trails?

They don't allow you to park them anywhere. So, and they will they will come for you. But, um Yeah, so it's definitely a known problem. We know we need to work on that, but every time you write code, you also have to deal with the implementation and the enforcement and know that you have to be prepared for that as well. All right.

So, the integrated incentive framework, I kind of already gave you the lowdown on this that we're looking at taking different pieces of the code and putting them together. What I didn't mention is plan residential development, which it is basically an incentive in our code right now. What PRD allows is for clustering of development or clustering of density. And it allows developer to come in and change their lot sizes and their setbacks if they provide certain design features.

Previously, it was tied to our trans act codes. Um, we know that we're going to take most of these standards that are in PRD and most likely incorporate them as base in the code. However, when I've shown you all these district changes and these density changes, there are two zoning districts that aren't included and that's ER and RR. Um, and we're going to need to leave PRD for ER and RR.

However, the design considerations are going to change and they're going to be replaced with the base sustainability menu. So, that's the spy right development. You're going to see required sustainability baseline. That's going to be applied every development. That's to offset any potential issues with development in ER and RR. Um, that PRD will be mixed with that required sustainability baseline. Everybody else is going to get the benefit of additional density.

It's most likely what you're going to see happen. So, that's one of those things that's kind of hard to track and follow in here, but PRD for R1, for MR, for HR is not going to exist anymore. It'll simply be a tool for ER and RR. Question with that. Mhm. Um Okay. I forget that this stays on all the time. Um I've always Well, having seen some of the PRDs that come through, and they are often in RR because it's greenfield land that hasn't had needed to be re-zoned, so they're able to use a PRD.

Mhm. And even though we redid the the menu options, Mhm. I don't think, in my opinion, that we probably got what we wanted out of it. Mhm. Um particularly like one of my bones of contention is, you know, the um the seating or the the the benches, you know, they're getting a point per bench, and there's five points total, and that's not getting us where we want to go. So, can you maybe explain a little further?

So, you're saying that those menu items will now become all part of code, or how will that work? And then will the consistency overlay help to fix some of those loopholes that we're seeing abused? So, I don't consider them to be loopholes, because I think the goal, no matter what, has been achieved, and that is is that we're we're creating a style of development that preserves future ability to add additional density in areas that aren't currently zoned for it.

So, the goal was always to get to not creating 1-acre um large home lots. And I think that was the ultimate goal of PRD, and I think that the success was is is still there in that, and that we achieved that primary goal. Um the design features were always secondary in trying to get a little something for giving these standards. Again, we try to do this too much in our code.

So, we've held the base code back in order to try to make incentives work, and sometimes we've fluffed and added on so many incentives. So, right now, what we're looking at is in terms of affordability and climate. Um where is the biggest bang for our buck? And the biggest bang for our buck, and what we came out with was these additional sustainability baseline requirements. So, these uh will I'll show you what some of the menu looks like.

The menu is talked about in the appendix of um the last cap report, but a bench, or um I'm trying to remember all of the different standards, the front porch, all of those go away. Those no longer are requirements. So, we are going to lose the design standards of things that the more aesthetic things that people would want to see on an on a home and replace them with requirements that meet our sustainability and carbon neutrality goals. Okay. So, less design-related, more carbon neutrality.

Is that Is there room in that and this is going down a different a path which will be one of my comments later, but when you're dealing with larger parcels and they choose to use a PRD and they have these opportunities, you know, the way they're they're kind of scattered within a larger parcel or a master plan community where there can be actual useful parcels, those I know where I know where you're going, and we already have code drafted.

So, I'll I'll just say there's two things that need to change in the PRD. The first one is adding that baseline, so we're just simplifying it, right? Instead of this whole tier, there's the baseline you'll have to achieve for sustainability, and most likely um a revamp of the 15% open space that's required and setting a true reasonable standard for that and what the expectation is for that. And I said I'm sorry, I said common open space, it's common space.

Um, we have some language um, that we vetted for a different purpose, but it's likely to get reflected throughout the code as well. So, you'll be you'll be seeing That's good to hear. And I what I would I would hope that we would start to see is, you know, trail connectivity through these communities and neighborhoods and where there's actually really useful [snorts] not just remnant pieces just scattered and left. I think you'll be pleased with this upcoming language.

You should see it in the next couple of months, but I think you're going to see that more reflected throughout the code as we make changes and use more uniformly. Okay, thank you. I have I just have one one comment to add on to yours. Like in the valley, PADs, PRDs, they're very common in the Phoenix metro area. And typically it's a percentage has to be open space and it like the last place I worked in Queen Creek, they had a certain then percentage of that had to be active or passive.

So, you would you wouldn't get and the remnant pieces couldn't count. Like gee, there was like this little thing. She's basically giving you the code that we're going to. That was very popular because it did provide, you know, basketball courts and tennis courts and other things that had to be considered active for a project and we didn't have that much problem.

People just did it because, you know, well, one, they had to, but it would made it pretty competitive and people they spent time figuring out what kind of amenities to put for, you know, was it more family oriented, playgrounds, was it running, you know, workout trails? Was it So, I think it was effective. So, you might I don't know if you've looked at theirs. There we had to fix ours. this this uh works into what open space and well, the pros department is doing.

It's a working We're working on a master plan. And we're currently open space is looking at these are the things that we are wanting to see hopefully come to code. So, good to hear that it's in the works. Yes. And all and and and I say things too definitively sometimes. We're coming back with options. We're coming back with options and alternatives. No definitives.

We're going to gauge this throughout the community and have these discussions and figure out what's works best, but there are some things already in the work. Okay. So, I talked about the sustainable, the affordable, the affordable and sustainable incentives. Uh it's very much a streamlining of the approach. The flexible point system with a required baseline would replace the current sustainability incentives. So, you'll get points for different things.

For example, you've got a category that's energy. Um you all electric building, energy star, on-site solar, energy efficiency above code, green building certification. These are examples of what you could see come through. Water sense certification, uh low carbon concrete, sustainable. We are trying to to we are trying to bulk up that incentive to really get what we want, right? Cuz sometimes our incentives end up a little soft.

Um and so, the we're really bulking up the what you can get with the incentive, but also expecting a bit more in in base of that. And remember, there is a base level requirement here for all development. Uh staff would have a tool available to further calibrate points and help the applicants to comply. So, um it would determine minimum points based on project type, provides immediate feedback on alternative com- combinations of strategies towards meeting point and category requirements.

It's a very sophisticated menu option of all of the different possibilities. And of course, you're going to vet and see all of these details, and I know this is super high level at this point. And as you might want to lean in to see what all of them are, but it's still a work in progress, um and we'll come back with that future code amendment.

Carbon emissions are estimated to be able to be reduced by 14% compared to an existing project under the new code, 20 the 2024 IECC, but costs of compliance can be offset by other code changes. And that's our goal here. Um is how can we offset the costs of what it is we're trying to achieve in the community? And we're ever aware and present.

Um the reason why [cough and clears throat] a lot of these details aren't really final is the building code is also still going through its process of adoption, and so we need to see what comes out in terms of adoption with that international energy code first. And that's our going to be our landing place and our place to start. So, the framework establishes a simple three-tier system with greater incentive value commensurate with greater public benefit.

And then, this is sort of an overview of what this framework could look like. Um you know, you every project would have to meet a baseline of sustainability points. Then there are elevated tiers as well. Um some of the bonuses or some of the benefits include um density bonuses, uh reduction of parking, reduction of forest resource requirements, uh landscaping reduction, lot coverage increases, setback reductions, um exemption from high occupancy housing standards.

Um single-use residential in commercial zones, um and adaptive reuse in commercial zones. So so those are some of the incentives. I would just remind you that like we currently have an incentive that pretty much can wave the vast majority of the zoning code if the project is 100% affordable. Um I think we've had maybe two or three projects go through that process to date.

Um think about how many more we could if by just tinkering with these numbers and figuring out where the the the sweet point is of how many more projects we can get over into those and meeting those things that we would really actually love to just require outright, right? If we had If the world was perfect and we could just require all of these things. I'm sorry. Agenda brought water. Um I've been talking way too long already.

Um so a developer could choose which income level to target for affordable units. This is also one of the things we really needed to look at is the area the income levels that we're serving. Right now to qualify as affordable housing, it's usually that around that 80% range. It's that 80% AMI. And when you try to take that and apply it to both rental and ownership projects, you succeed on rental all the time and it is not working for ownership, okay?

So we did that evaluation we had the consultant our housing team or is had the consultant do this amazing analysis and we're looking at changing what those AMIs and the population we're serving. And so, you know, if you look at ownership units, um anything in that 80 to 150% is rare in the market. Um so, a higher max income really does help fill that gap. Um rental units up to 100% AMI, which we've also done as well, are close closer much closer to market rent.

So, the incentives are maybe not as appropriate as you hit over some of those levels. So, really starting to make the differential between rental and ownership and that we need to scale the incentives differently. Also, you know, changing how or the the number of units provided based on the AMI or serving.

So, instead of saying, "You get you can pick five different incentives if you give 20% or and you can have three incentives if you give us 10%." Um instead, you can have all of the incentives, but the this person absolutely takes care of me. Um we should be married. Um Uh 2 seconds.

So, in this case, you know, we're looking at increasing the set-aside based on the the income level you're looking at serving, which is a totally different way of looking at this approach and it really does give you the incentives cuz the the incentives are also a benefit as well. They're not detrimental to um to the city. The So, they're reasonable to provide in in lieu of these um benefits. So, recommended maximum densities by zone and incentive tier, you know, we talked about that 50 to 60.

It would be possible to get up to 120 if you used all the incentives. It's It is really going to be the rarity of the project that comes in and hits all of those incentives, but I still don't even want 120 units an acre to scare you because we we pretty much have it now. Um and the world didn't end. You might not like it. I mean, you might not be like, "That's my favorite." But sometimes it's my favorite. I don't know.

Um different people have different feelings about um buildings and projects and architecture and art and um so these are realistically the numbers we would need to start to achieve in these density bonuses in order to start making it beneficial enough for a developer to to um provide those incentives. So, the [clears throat] pro forma modeling indicates that the incentives would likely be more effective than current incentives in delivering benefits that outweigh cost of compliance.

Project viability is similar to or higher than by right in lower tiers motivating participation. That's the mark we needed to hit. Um we're just not hitting it now. So, when they modeled our existing incentives in the code, we just weren't hitting that mark. Um this make the the proposal also makes the incentives more secure um with that 100 you know, with that one incentive that I talked about at the 100% development, it's still something that has to be approved by council.

So, there is that level of insurity um with it. There's an extra step. There's an extra hurdle. This would be administrative. You wouldn't not run into those. Um addressing common concerns about zoning incentives, the incentives are too generous. They go beyond what is necessary to motivate participation. Financial modeling and optimization tests were done to set the incentives at the level that will achieve similar returns as by right.

[clears throat] The incentives will allow forms of new development that are not compatible with the character of the zone district. And the incentives were designed to ensure new development remains consistent with the purpose and intent of each zone. Site planning and architectural design standards will continue to apply to incentive projects. [clears throat] Additional code barriers. Look, we're on site 46 of 52. I said there was a million. Um additional code barriers.

We've talked about resource protection overlay and we've talked a little bit about street design and there's some other engineering standards. So really quickly, um the RPO that bright green. So everything in 1990 that wasn't really developed that was large, basically 5 acres or larger and vacant, went into the resource protection overlay. The resource protection overlay focuses on slope, it focuses on trees and flood plains.

Flood plain regulations don't really exist in the resource protection overlay, which is really funny because we say that they're the primary resource we want to preserve, but those preservation requirements are found elsewhere in our storm water management [clears throat] codes. And really flood plains are regulated solely and separately through um other sets of requirements. So really when planners are sitting down to look at most cases, um we're looking at the trees and the slopes.

Um our tree standards were [sighs] our tree our tree preservation standards gave the greater bene- best of benefit to industrial and commercial and provided that residential preserve the vast quantity of forest resources. Um and in the world that we're living in today, we probably might have flip-flopped that, I don't know, or made them more equal and level across the course.

The thinking at that point in time was that we wanted to encourage more industrial and commercial development and make it easier. Though that was something we were always constantly trying to encourage and that we were less worried about residential and that's no longer the case.

Um you know, we've had success so far with some of the pilot program on the tree resources and I'll be happy to come back and show you what that's looking like, and I think we're developing a good status for what that code's going to look like in the future. Our GIS team is amazing. We're using lidar data. Um they've built us our own model. We can pick and choose the trees that come off of a site. We can add in somebody's development plan onto our GIS model. It's it's amazing.

Talk about building the plane while you fly it. I had no idea. I had no idea that it would be actually this good. So, sometimes the world jumps up and surprise you. Question. Yeah, so have you had somebody willing to try it out with you yet? Yeah. Good. Okay. Yeah. Uh we've definitely got a couple in uh we have one large lot subdivision. Um what I've really learned so far is that on large like the the amount of resources you preserve needs to also be related to the density that you deliver.

Um so, the higher the density of the project, the less resources you need to preserve. Um it's not as hard on large lot developments to save the right resources, and in fact, it's become more of a conversation of please remove more. Um so, it's definitely an interesting process. So, we're we're learning a lot, and we're really doing that fire management as well as what the site looks like. Most developers actually want to keep more of the trees than than they really ought to. All right.

Um the the So, the consultant spent their time also looking at making that RPO more targeted tool, right? There's a lot more technology out there, like I told you with the the trees. They stayed away from giving us a lot of um direction or recommendations on the trees because they knew we had that part handled. What they are recommending is of these large areas that we have left that we go out and identify what those slope resources are, and those are already set.

Um that we're really looking for ridgeline preservation and not just all general not every slope is created equal is what I could say. Um volcanic rock outcroppings are very unique but they they're not always represented in slope and those kinds of things and we want to make sure that the RPO hits on those resources. We also want to make it more um just setting those clear very direct like this is absolutely what needs to be saved in these particular areas.

But there will be a lot of work that needs to happen in this um the same way we're doing the trees. In terms of the engineering standards, looking at how do we come up with alternative street sizes? You can see here our existing is 57 ft wide for a residential street. It's pretty wide. Um you have your two travel lanes, your two parking lanes. Um you have the um the parkway, then you have your sidewalk, and then you generally you have 2 ft bench on the back of the sidewalk.

So there are ways to to slim up the parking, still meet fire code requirements. Um but more importantly what it what what changed for us and it's one of the things that we're going to continue to have to talk about is is that we used to allow alternative street standards. They needed to be private streets, so privately maintained.

And um we changed that where even private streets have to meet public street standards, so there is no incentive to to build a private street um because they have to meet private street standards. The benefit is to have the city maintain those. Um the some of the concerns over time have been communities that have come forward that haven't been able to maintain their streets. Their HOA is left with those private streets, right? So there's always a pro with the con.

Um so what can we do within the rights of way that we require everybody to build and what are the standards we could honestly consider um in as private street standards. Um the condo situation which you often see a lot of, too, is the alternative to to not allowing alternative street standards. Um so the issue still remains. It just remains it not in streets but in driveways. So I'm not sure that we've necessarily solved any hurdle or problem.

We've just created more condos rather than individual lots for sale. That's my two cents. Oops, I threw in some personal Anyway, street connectivity standards. Um This is This the So this disconnected network is a planner's nightmare. Uh and it yet it's what we see so often and so much of the time are these long drawn-out streets, not connected. Um it's difficult to maneuver if you're a pedestrian.

Um when you live in a neighborhood like this, you know, it's harder to walk anywhere or get anywhere. We're grid pattern and believe me, I know these pictures are not pretty, either of them um or or not, but and in a perfect world we would love that grid network. We also know topographically we have some constraints here. So we'd like to come up with some better standards for street connectivity. We do have some standards in our codes now.

They are very subjective and they're hard to work with and so having a bit more structure to some of those code requirements would be awesome and amazing. Yes. Back to PRDs when they're they're set up like that and they don't connect and they easily could connect, is that a goal of yours as well? Yep. Okay. For all development, not just PRD. Uh yeah, that's that's this one. Uh so questions, clarifications, there's summary. I made it to slide 52. I went slightly a little bit long. Yes.

Um sorry to go back. Um, and I it it was a lot of information to read and a lot of information to absorb. So, I apologize if you did make this statement earlier. But, in terms of the R1 and R1N occupy