New regulations on student developments pass with loophole for affordable housing

The Standard
Nearing completion, the Standard student apartments on West Route 66 is now leasing for the fall semester. (file photo)Nancy Wiechec, Arizona Daily Sun

Adrian Skabelund

Flagstaff City Council gave final approval on several new and stricter regulations on large student-focused housing developments within Flagstaff, but not before carving out an exemption for affordable housing.

The exemptions would mean large developments that normally would be designated as high-occupancy housing and thus go through a higher-than-normal review process could be built with less public oversight if the project met definitions to be considered affordable.

New regulations would require large student-focused developments to go before Council prior to approval, giving the city more leverage to shape how and where such projects are built, and limit the loopholes developers can use to get around them.

Councilmember Charlie Odegaard proposed the amendment, saying that while he believed the public had demanded stricter regulation of student-focused developments, those regulations should not get in the way of addressing the city’s affordable housing crisis.

Throughout the last four years, several councilmembers have expressed angst regarding how little has been done to address the affordability issue, and Odegaard said this exemption could be one step in the right direction.

The exemption would take effect if all of a project’s units were designated for those making 60% or below of Flagstaff’s area median income, in compliance with regulations by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

For context, a family of four living in Flagstaff that brought in $45,000 would be making about 60% of the area median income in 2020, according to HUD.

But not everyone was so supportive of Odegaard’s suggestion.

Councilmember Jim McCarthy worried that this exemption would limit the input of residents who have been so vocal on the issue of large developments, suggesting the amendment contradicted the very spirit of the regulations to which it was attached.

“I think the motives behind this amendment are excellent, but my concern is we’ve spent the last four years or so talking to the public and they say they want to be involved in the discussion. So what this would do? This amendment would take the public out of the discussion,” McCarthy said.

McCarthy pointed out that under the original proposed regulations, an affordable housing project could still be approved; it would simply go before the Planning and Zoning Commission like everything else.