Flagstaff advances state-mandated middle-housing code allowing duplexes through fourplexes citywide
FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA — October 10, 2025

Flagstaff advances state-mandated middle-housing code allowing duplexes through fourplexes citywide

Planning Commission received comprehensive staff presentation on 69-page middle housing code amendment implementing state HB 2721 requirements with two alternative approaches to high occupancy housing and parking standards, with public concern raised about parking adequacy and neighborhood impacts.

Flagstaff Planning Commission Reviews 69-Page Middle-Housing Overhaul, Splits on High-Occupancy-Housing Language

Flagstaff's Planning Commission convened October 8, 2025, for a substantive first reading of a sweeping code amendment designed to implement Arizona House Bill 2721, the state's mandate requiring municipalities over 75,000 population to authorize middle-housing types citywide by January 1, 2026. Staff presenter Tiffany delivered a detailed 45-minute overview of changes affecting parking standards, site-plan requirements, land-use tables across all residential and transect zones, and high-occupancy-housing definitions—revealing a fundamental divide between a staff-preferred "Version 1" that eliminates high-occupancy-housing categories for units under five, and a "Version 2" that retains conditional-use-permit triggers for large single-family homes.

The amendment runs 69 pages and touches nearly every section of Flagstaff's zoning code, reflecting months of work and earlier community outreach. While the state mandate is nonnegotiable, the scope and framing remain locally determined—and on the question of whether to regulate "large" single-family homes as high-occupancy housing, the commission revealed sharp uncertainty about both the legal risk and the philosophical justification.

Key Speeches

"I think they both meet the requirement components. It's really interesting. So I do participate in a group where several cities join in. The one other city that I know that kind of struggled with something similar is Tucson. Um their standards it for them it's they don't have high occupancy housing the way we do." — Tiffany, Staff

"The only comment I have is putting some type of a disclaimer. The last municipality I worked with, they added um a statement to make sure that people check their covenant codes and restrictions." — Christine Shehy, Commissioner

"I you know I can be so much more for all of this increased density and everything else if I know that's not going to be the use of them. So, I've been doing a lot of research and just found out, which I couldn't believe, 20 bills went through last year, all stopped in committee." — CJ Lukey, Commissioner (on short-term-rental regulation)

Timeline

Opposition

Number of speakers against: One (George, resident).

Main concerns:

  1. One parking space per unit inadequate in winter snow conditions when streets require plowing.
  2. Emergency-vehicle access compromised on narrow streets (Presidio cited as example).
  3. On-street parking overflow already a problem in existing neighborhoods.
  4. No distinction between adequacy today versus future transportation modes.

Most compelling arguments: George's concern about winter-weather parking and emergency access was framed as a practical, immediate risk in Flagstaff's climate. Tiffany's response acknowledged current codes no longer allow narrow street widths but did not directly address winter-parking adequacy for one-space standards.

Organized groups: None identified.

Support

No speakers explicitly voiced support during public comment. However, Commissioner discussion reflected acceptance of the state mandate's necessity, with Ian Sharp affirming that "Version one seems like it addresses what you guys are being asked to address by the state." Tiffany noted earlier community outreach (heritage preservation, housing, planning-zoning commissions, city council) had produced "direction across the board...to look at implementing this citywide." The tone suggested broad acceptance of HB 2721 implementation, with disagreement focused on implementation details (Version 1 vs. 2) rather than the mandate itself.

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

Final: No vote taken; first reading only.

Commissioners Present: Carol Mandino, Christine Shehy, CJ Lukey, Ian Sharp, Megan Weller, Joshua Mayer. (Mary Norton excused.)

Commissioners Absent: None; all present members participated in discussion.

Outcome & Next Steps

Decision: No formal action taken. Commission received first reading and staff presentation; no vote scheduled for this meeting.

Public Hearing: Scheduled October 29, 2025. Commission members invited to submit questions to Alex (staff) and Tiffany in the interim.

Staff Actions:

Next Step for Commission: Feedback on Version 1 vs. Version 2 expected prior to October 29 public hearing. Tiffany explicitly stated, "I do not expect feedback from you today on this. I expect you to think and absorb."

Controversies & Context

Version 1 vs. Version 2 Split

The core tension emerged around the high-occupancy-housing definition. Tiffany explained that Version 2 was created after conferring with the City Attorney, realizing that the original amendment's removal of all high-occupancy-housing categories would eliminate Council's prior regulatory tool—used to require conditional-use permits for single-family homes with 7+ bedrooms/5+ bathrooms. Version 2 preserves that tool for units under 4.

Ian Sharp pressed directly: "Why is there version two? Who said make version two?" Tiffany's candid response: the attorney and she "realized I have a bigger problem than I thought I did" after reconsidering Council's intent to regulate group-living scenarios and short-term rentals in large homes. Version 2 was created to honor that prior policy without violating HB 2721's mandate to permit middle housing.

However, Tiffany acknowledged Version 2's ambiguity and risk. Under Version 2, a four-unit building (fourplex) could theoretically include one unit with 7+ bedrooms/5+ bathrooms, triggering a conditional-use permit for the entire development—a result neither version anticipated. Sharp raised Proposition 207 scrutiny: "if either one is going to be looked at under a microscope, it might be version two." Tiffany downplayed the risk, noting Version 2 "really opens the door on the two, three, and four um bedroom units that wasn't there before" and that 7+ bedroom units in fourplexes are unlikely to be built. But the uncertainty lingered.

Parking Standards Reduction: Winter and Emergency Access

The most contentious single issue was the reduction of single-family parking from two spaces to one. Tiffany framed this as aligned with state statute and the city's 2045 regional-plan goals, noting that "not everybody wants to drive or needs to drive" and that parking subsidizes car ownership. She acknowledged this is "a substantial change" but reassured the commission that current code analysis had already recommended it.

Public commenter George directly challenged adequacy: "In the park that we're at, we have the same problem. You have one spot for a lot of the homes. Then in the winter time when they have to keep it the snows plowed from the roads, where are people supposed to park?" He also cited emergency-access concerns on narrow streets like Presidio.

Tiffany's response leaned on gradualism: "recognize that just because the zoning code change that it doesn't mean that everything comes in and changes overnight really quickly." She noted existing neighborhoods are unlikely to redevelop and that observation will occur before adjustment. CJ Lukey, in particular, flagged parking as "my interest" given concern that on-street overflow would result from a four-unit building with only four parking spaces (one per unit). Lukey also linked parking to short-term-rental concerns: "if you have a forplex and you only have four parking spaces, then they're going to be on the street."

Tiffany responded by speculating about future mobility: "50 years from now, we're not going to have personal vehicles...we're going to be using Whimos or whatever they will be...we might not need the individual parking for ourselves." This response, while philosophically coherent, did not directly address immediate winter and emergency-access concerns.

Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CCNRs) Conflict

Christine Shehy raised a nuanced legal concern: many subdivisions have CCNRs more restrictive than city code, prohibiting middle housing, accessory dwelling units, or short-term rentals. If a homeowner applies to the city for a permit that complies with new code but violates a CCNR, neighbors can sue (private right of action) and the city is powerless. Shehy cited Phoenix and her prior experience: "even later as the hearing officer. We had a couple of cases where people actually built something that met city code and then the neighbors sued and they tried to get some kind of waiver. It was awful."

Shehy recommended a disclaimer in the code warning residents to check CCNRs before applying. She noted the Swiss Manor area explicitly prohibits "only one single family unit is allowed per lot" in its CCNR. Tiffany agreed to "work on something in the in between" and add such language.

Short-Term-Rental Regulation

CJ Lukey raised a cascading concern: middle-housing code allows duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, but the city has no authority over short-term-rental use. If four units are rented short-term, the affordability and neighborhood-stability goals of HB 2721 are undermined. Lukey noted research showing 20 state bills addressing short-term rentals failed in committee last year, leaving cities preempted.

Tiffany acknowledged: "I'm hoping for the day that changes because I mean, I think that the thing is that, you know, we're in an era of zoning reform because zoning is being basically blamed for the high cost of housing. And if zoning reform doesn't move the needle, what then people are going to need to realize that there are other things that are going to have to move the needle." She expressed hope that state legislature will eventually address short-term rentals, but the city's hands are tied for now.

Definition Complexity and Building Form

Tiffany spent considerable time clarifying state statute's definitions: a "fourplex" is not necessarily four units in one building but four units on a lot, potentially as separate cottages (a "bungalow court"). Similarly, "townhouse" means "attached single-family," and "triplex" means three units on a lot in any form. This distinction between land use and building form required renaming all use categories from "duplex dwelling" to "two-unit residential," etc.

Ian Sharp asked whether the city could pre-approve design plans (like ADU plans) to streamline permitting. Tiffany affirmed yes and noted a new house bill is requiring model plans for single-family homes, expanding the library beyond ADUs.

Parking Requirement Language Clarification

Ian Sharp sought clarification on the one-space-per-unit rule. Tiffany confirmed: for a fourplex (four units), four spaces are required (one per unit), not one space total. This addressed a potential misreading where commissioners thought "one space per unit" in a fourplex might mean one space for the entire building.

Density Unchanged

A key reassurance: the amendment does not change density limits of any zone. It only makes certain building types (duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes) permitted uses. An applicant must still meet the zone's density threshold. For example, an R1 zone with a 1-unit-per-1-acre density requirement cannot accommodate a fourplex on a 0.5-acre lot, even though fourplexes are now permitted uses in R1.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Approval of Minutes: September 29, 2025 special meeting minutes approved unanimously (motion Shehy, second Lukey).

No Other Agenda Items: The meeting consisted primarily of the middle-housing amendment. No votes on other development applications or zoning matters were taken.