NEIGHBORHOOD SPECIFIC PLAN

Adopted OCTOBER 20, 2015
Resolution 2015-35

FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA

OCTOBER 20, 2015
The La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Specific Plan (Specific Plan or Plan) is a planning document that serves as a
roadmap to implement the community’s vision. This Plan is not intended to require or preclude any particular
action and does not provide specific criteria. Development criteria and standards are located in other documents,
such as the Flagstaff Zoning Code (Zoning Code).
This Plan should be viewed as a guide to better understand the community’s future vision for the area. The goals,
policies, maps, and illustrations within the Plan do not preclude any property owner from exercising their private
development rights.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
City Council
Mayor Jerry Nabours
Vice-Mayor Celia Barotz
Councilmember Karla Brewster
Councilmember Coral Evans
Councilmember Jeff Oravits
Councilmember Scott Overton
Councilmember Eva Putzova
Planning & Zoning Commission
Steve Jackson - Chairman
David Carpenter
Stephen Dorsett
Tina Pfeiffer
John Stigmon
Paul Turner
Alaxandra Pucciarelli
Project Core Team
Sara Dechter, AICP – Project Manager
Jennifer Mikelson – Assistant Project Manager
Kimberly Sharp, AICP – Past Project Manager
Laura Bustamante-Myers – La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Association Outreach Director
Jesse Dominguez – La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Association Board President
Dan Folke, AICP – Planning Director
Roger Eastman, AICP – Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Code Administrator
Mark Sawyers, AICP – Current Planning Manager
David Wessel – Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization Director
Rick Barrett – City Engineer
Karl Eberhard – Community Design & Redevelopment Manager
Andrew Hagglund – GIS Intern
Clay Donaldson – Planning and GIS Intern
Tyler Shute – Planning Intern
Project Extended Team
Malcolm Alter, Jeff Bauman, Leah Bloom, Justyna Costa, Sarah Darr, Jim Davis, Mark DiLucido, Martin Ince, Robb
Krause, Jim Janecek, Adam Langford (NAIPTA), Annie Lutes (SWCA), Erika Mazza (NAIPTA), Mike O’Connor,
Elizabeth Petroff, Nate Renn, John Saltonstall, Rebecca Sayers, Mike Scheu, Kristin Smith, Kent Snide, Stephanie
Stearns (FMPO/NAIPTA), Steve Zimmerman
Steering Committee
Mark Landsiedel, Steve Jackson, David Carpenter, Dan Folke, Roger Eastman, Sara Dechter, Laura BustamanteMyers, Jesse Dominguez

This page was intentionally left blank.

PREFACE
La Plaza Vieja is a neighborhood of single-family homes and a mixed-use activity center. The planning area has
examples of historic homes and neighborhood streets, parks, multi-family apartments, and automotive, tourism,
and service-oriented businesses. Many of the commercial uses currently south of Clay Avenue are lower intensity
than typical given its proximity to one of the busiest commercial intersections in town. These factors illustrate that
La Plaza Vieja is on the verge of a period of reinvestment. The Specific Plan for the La Plaza Vieja neighborhood is
designed to help ensure that as reinvestment occurs, La Plaza Vieja’s culture, history, and values are recognized
and residents benefit from it.
People desire to live in a safe, attractive, and welcoming neighborhood. Great cities, and the neighborhoods within
them, don’t just happen. As cities constantly grow and change, we can work to ensure positive changes through
good planning. Neighborhood plans provide a means for residents to:
•
•
•
•

Identify, preserve, and build on the positive qualities of their neighborhoods;
Add sense of place, culture, and history;
Acknowledge and mend existing issues or problems; and,
Set goals and priorities that will shape the future of the neighborhood.

The first goal for Growth and Land Use in the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 (FRP30) is “Invest in existing
neighborhoods and activity centers for the purpose of developing complete and connected places.” The intent of
the La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Specific Plan is to provide a clear and comprehensive guide for compatible
reinvestment that preserves and enhances the neighborhood character through encouraging:
•
•
•
•

Preservation and restoration of historic buildings;
Quality urban design;
Enhanced connections between the corridors, activity centers, and the neighborhood; and
Improved access to services and jobs.

City staff and the Board of La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Association (LPVNA) have created this Plan together in
order to capture the neighborhood’s historical and cultural identity, and address threats and opportunities in its
present and future. The Plan includes goals and policies for City government and LPVNA, and implementation
strategies that have the potential to be funded in the next 20 years. This Plan is a tool for all partners to
accomplish a shared vision for the community and the built environment.

This page was intentionally left blank.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Index of Tables .......................................................................................................................................................... iii
Index of Maps ........................................................................................................................................................... iii
Index of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................ iv
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................... i
A Specific Plan ............................................................................................................................................................ ii
Neighborhood History ............................................................................................................................................... ii
Chapter 1: Site and Area Analysis ..................................................................................................................................1
Neighborhood Boundaries.........................................................................................................................................1
Surrounding Area ...................................................................................................................................................2
Demographics and Housing .......................................................................................................................................4
People ....................................................................................................................................................................4
Market Analysis .....................................................................................................................................................5
Housing ..................................................................................................................................................................6
Heritage Resources ....................................................................................................................................................8
Land Use ..................................................................................................................................................................10
Regional Plan .......................................................................................................................................................10
Zoning ..................................................................................................................................................................12
Transportation .........................................................................................................................................................15
Roads ...................................................................................................................................................................15
Transit ..................................................................................................................................................................18
Pedestrian Environment ......................................................................................................................................19
Bicycling ...............................................................................................................................................................20
FUTS – Flagstaff Urban Trail System ....................................................................................................................20
Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Data ......................................................................................................................21
Infrastructure and Neighborhood Services .............................................................................................................22

Water and Wastewater .......................................................................................................................................22
Public Safety ........................................................................................................................................................23
Stormwater ..........................................................................................................................................................23
Chapter 2: Concept Plan ..............................................................................................................................................25
What are Neighborhood Policy Areas? ....................................................................................................................26
Concept Map 1: Land Use ........................................................................................................................................28
Concept Map 2: Streetscape Scenarios ...................................................................................................................30
Street Cross-Sections ...............................................................................................................................................34
Illustration 1: West Side Infill Reinvestment ...........................................................................................................37
Illustration 2: Mobile Home Park Redevelopment ..................................................................................................39
Illustration 3: McCracken Extension Block ..............................................................................................................41
Illustration 4: Commercial Edge Reinvestment .......................................................................................................44
Illustration 5: Transition Area Adaptive Reuse ........................................................................................................45
Illustration 6: Park Street Infill .................................................................................................................................46
Single-Family Cottages .............................................................................................................................................47
Old Town Springs Park .............................................................................................................................................50
Chapter 3: Neighborhood Goals and Recommended Policies .....................................................................................52
Neighborhood Empowerment .................................................................................................................................53
Parks and Community Spaces ..................................................................................................................................54
Preserving Neighborhood Character .......................................................................................................................55
Preserving Historic Identity .....................................................................................................................................59
Transportation .........................................................................................................................................................61
Economic Development ...........................................................................................................................................64
Infrastructure and Neighborhood Services .............................................................................................................64
Chapter 4: Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................................65
Neighborhood Empowerment .................................................................................................................................65
Parks and Community Spaces ..................................................................................................................................66

Preserving the Neighborhood Character .................................................................................................................67
Preserving Historic Identity .....................................................................................................................................68
Transportation .........................................................................................................................................................70
Economic Development ...........................................................................................................................................72
Infrastructure and Neighborhood Services .............................................................................................................72
Definitions ...................................................................................................................................................................73
Public Participation ......................................................................................................................................................81
Appendix 1 – Prioritization of Implementation Strategies ..........................................................................................82
Appendix 2 – Methodology .........................................................................................................................................88
Appendix 3 – Zoning Background ................................................................................................................................90
Density and Intensity ...........................................................................................................................................90
Summary of Zoning Relevant to La Plaza Vieja ....................................................................................................91
Appendix 4 – Milton Road Microsimulations ..............................................................................................................93
Appendix 5 – Bibliography ...........................................................................................................................................94

INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1: Neighborhood Businesses by Street ................................................................................................................5
Table 2: La Plaza Vieja Households by Income ..............................................................................................................7
Table 3: Current Density/Intensity and Build-out Potential by Zoning Category ........................................................12
Table 4: Location of Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes ...................................................................................................21
Table 5: Severity of Crashes .........................................................................................................................................21

INDEX OF MAPS
Map 1: Aerial of the La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Showing the Specific Plan Boundary..............................................1
Map 2: Surrounding Neighborhood, Corridor, and Master Plans .................................................................................3
Map 3: Historic Subdivisions and Buildings Previously Inventoried for Eligibility .........................................................9
Map 4: Future Growth Illustration (from FRP30) .......................................................................................................11

Map 5: Zoning Map of Neighborhood and Surrounding Area .....................................................................................13
Map 6: Transect Overlay Map of the Neighborhood...................................................................................................14
Map 7: Close-Up of Future Road Network (from FRP30) ...........................................................................................15
Map 8: Road Functional Classification .........................................................................................................................16
Map 9: Road Conditions and Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure ...........................................................................17
Map 10: Close-Up of FUTS Trails (from FRP30) ..........................................................................................................20
Map 11: Age and Location of Water and Sewer Utilities.............................................................................................22
Map 12: Clay Avenue Wash and Rio de Flag Floodplain and Floodway ......................................................................24
Map 13: La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Policy Areas ....................................................................................................26

INDEX OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Planning Pyramid ............................................................................................................................................ ii
Figure 2: Old Town Flagstaff, 1882 ................................................................................................................................ ii
Figure 3: Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Depot ............................................................................................................... iii
Figure 4: Old Town Spring Marker ................................................................................................................................ iv
Figure 5: Arizona Lumber Co., 1890 .............................................................................................................................. v
Figure 6: Kimberly Melchor (left) and Mr. Baca (right)..................................................................................................4
Figure 7: Population by Age in La Plaza Vieja ................................................................................................................5
Figure 8: Race and Ethnicity in La Plaza Vieja ................................................................................................................5
Figure 9: Business Types by Sector ................................................................................................................................6
Figure 10: Existing Home Built in 1920 and Infill Housing on Tombstone Avenue ........................................................7
Figure 11: Malpais Facade Typical of Historic Cottages ................................................................................................8
Figure 12: Adaptive Reuse of the Historic Armory on Clay Avenue ..............................................................................9
Figure 13: Illustration of the Relationships between Activity Centers and Place-making ...........................................10
Figure 14: Illustration of Build-out Using Current Standards ......................................................................................14
Figure 15: Examples of NAIPTA Bus Shelter ................................................................................................................18
Figure 16: Traffic Circles Will Improve Walkability on Florence Avenue .....................................................................19
Figure 17: Narrow Sidewalk, Traffic Volume, and Lack of Shelter are Barriers to Walkability on Milton Road ..........19

Figure 18: Clay Avenue Wash at Malpais Lane and Entrance to Arrowhead Village Mobile Home Park ....................23
Figure 19: Cross-Section of a New Minor Collector (69-foot right-of-way) .................................................................35
Figure 20: Cross-Section of New Local Street (60-foot right-of-way) ..........................................................................35
Figure 21: Cross-Section of FUTS Trail through the Neighborhood (24-foot right-of-way) .........................................36
Figure 22: Cross-Section of FUTS Incorporated into a Local Street (55-foot right-of-way) .........................................36
Figure 23: Overview of Site with Park..........................................................................................................................37
Figure 24: Alley Loaded Attached-Single Family Homes .............................................................................................37
Figure 25: Alley Loaded Attached Single-Family Homes .............................................................................................37
Figure 26: Attached Single-Family Homes ...................................................................................................................38
Figure 27: Block-Level View of Attached Single-Family Homes ...................................................................................38
Figure 28: Overview of Mobile Home Park Redevelopment .......................................................................................39
Figure 29: Interior View of Apartments .......................................................................................................................39
Figure 30: Birdseye View Showing Corner of Blackbird Roost and Realigned Chateau Drive .....................................40
Figure 31: View of Streetscape Heading North on Blackbird Roost ............................................................................40
Figure 32: Overview of the Block South of Clay Avenue with McCracken Extension ..................................................41
Figure 33: Commercial Building along Malpais Lane ...................................................................................................41
Figure 34: View of Shared Parking, West Side of Block ...............................................................................................42
Figure 35: Three-Story Mixed Use along McCracken Extension ..................................................................................42
Figure 36: Multi-Family Facing New Local Street, Mid-Block ......................................................................................42
Figure 37: Office Building at Blackbird Roost and McCracken Street ..........................................................................43
Figure 38: Apartment Houses along Clay Avenue, Looking Southeast ....................................................................... 43
Figure 39: Office Building along Blackbird Roost .........................................................................................................43
Figure 40: Reduced Impact Mixed-Use Development .................................................................................................44
Figure 41: Pedestrian-Level View from Milton Road ...................................................................................................44
Figure 42: Rear Architectural Treatment Facing Malpais Ln .......................................................................................44
Figure 43: Overview of Site ..........................................................................................................................................44
Figure 44: Adaptive Reuse of Old Fire Station along Malpais Lane .............................................................................45

Figure 45: Alternate View of Adaptive Reuse from Milton Road ................................................................................45
Figure 46: Birdseye View of Apartments Backing Milton Commercial ........................................................................46
Figure 47: Overview of Shared Parking with Milton Commercial................................................................................46
Figure 48: Bungalow 4-Unit Apartment Building ........................................................................................................ 46
Figure 49: Single-Family “L” Home at 1105 W. Lower Coconino Avenue ....................................................................47
Figure 50: Historic Home Converted to Triplex at 907 W. Clay Avenue (front and back yard views) .........................47
Figure 51: Single-Family Cottages at 829 and 831 W. Coconino Avenue ....................................................................48
Figure 52: Single-Family Cottage with Covered Stoop at 510 W. Tombstone Avenue ................................................48
Figure 53: Single-Family Double "L" Home at 923 W. Clay Avenue .............................................................................49
Figure 54: Single-Family Cottage on Steep Slope at 208 W. Dupont Avenue ..............................................................49
Figure 55: Existing Conditions and Conceptual Representation of Improvements .....................................................50
Figure 56: Illustration of Improvements to Enhance Old Town Springs Park ..............................................................51
Figure 57: Neighborhood Policy Area Photos ..............................................................................................................58
Figure 58: Neighborhood Gateway at Clay Ave and S. Milton Road ...........................................................................60
Figure 59: Traffic Calming Circles on W. Tombstone Avenue ......................................................................................62
Figure 60: View of Mars Hill from La Plaza Vieja Open Space .....................................................................................69
Figure 61: Clay Avenue Streetscape ............................................................................................................................71
Figure 62: An Alleyway in La Plaza Vieja ......................................................................................................................72

Introduction

INTRODUCTION
Flagstaff is a northern Arizona city of approximately 65,000 people at an elevation of 7,000 feet. The climate,
environment, and architecture draw influences from the Colorado Plateau tradition with a history steeped in
lumber, sheep, and cattle. Indigenous settlers were attracted to the region and settled here because of the
abundant wildlife and availability of water. Later, La Plaza Vieja developed around a naturally occurring spring
named “Old Town Spring,” which still runs today. The goal of this document is to produce a Specific Plan for La
Plaza Vieja and the surrounding area which defines future urban patterns identified by the Flagstaff Regional
Plan 2030 (FRP30) and the community itself, expressed through goals and policies, maps, illustrations, and
strategies.
The La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Specific Plan is desired for three main reasons:
LOCATION—The proximity of the historic community to Flagstaff’s downtown area and the Northern Arizona
University campus attracts residents and businesses seeking a central and walkable location;
CONNECTION—Residents of La Plaza Vieja “feel cutoff” from the rest of Flagstaff due to the railroad tracks
bisecting the neighborhood to the north, as well as the main arterials of Route 66 and Milton Road creating a
psychological and physical barrier into and out of the neighborhood. Efforts to reconnect La Plaza Vieja to the
adjacent areas will inject new life and economic opportunities into the community; and
SENSE OF IDENTITY—The residents and businesses express a desire to remain a “neighborhood” in the true sense
of the word—a friendly, culturally diverse place for all ages to live, work, and enjoy life.
The planning process included a core planning team that guided multiple public meetings with LPVNA and
stakeholders. The community meetings identified challenges, opportunities, goals, and projects to implement the
Plan. City divisions and other agencies helped develop the feasibility studies and policies to implement the
community’s goals (see the Public Participation Plan on the project website for more details).

VISION STATEMENT
Historical La Plaza Vieja will be a safe neighborhood which respects and preserves the
cultural dignity of the neighborhood.
La Plaza Vieja enhances growth and development by: maintaining the architectural language of
the existing buildings and environment; preserving a number of historical buildings; infilling vacant
lots with appropriate buildings; honoring significant historical places, names, and persons;
enhancing the community’s culture by promoting a diverse population, housing choices, and a
community center for children and adults; promoting local economic growth that nurtures local
businesses and employs neighborhood residents; and provides safe and beautiful streets for
pedestrians, bicycles, and cars within the neighborhood and connecting to adjacent neighborhoods.

i

Introduction

A SPECIFIC PLAN
A Neighborhood Plan is a Specific Plan that provides more information about a neighborhood and adds goals and
policies to be considered along with
FRP30. When approving a project,
Council and staff will also apply the
Zoning Code, Engineering Design
Standards and Specifications, and other
City codes. Implementation strategies in
the Specific Plan can be used to inform
the Capital Improvement Program’s
budgeting process and to plan for grant
applications.
Figure 1: Planning Pyramid
The document’s role in development
review is similar to the FRP30. The Specific Plan only applies in discretionary decisions and does not impact
existing entitlements. At the same time, the Plan is also a vision for compatible reinvestment, and is a tool for all
developments within the Plan boundaries to preserve and enhance the neighborhood character.

NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY
La Plaza Vieja, “Old Town,” in the City of Flagstaff is
located in northern Arizona near the southwestern
edge of the Colorado Plateau, along the western side
of the largest contiguous ponderosa pine forest in the
continental United States. The history of La Plaza Vieja
settlement begins with a mixture of events and people
involved with the westward expansion of the railroad
1
after the Mexican and Indian Wars.
American Expansion and Influence upon the Settlement
of Old Town
•

•
•
•

•

1

1846 - End of the Mexican War and signing of The
Figure 2: Old Town Flagstaff, 1882
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; Mexico confers
territories between Texas and California to the United States.
1848 - The U.S. Congress began to explore the new territories, sending out various parties to find resources,
make maps, and locate paths.
1849 - The discovery of gold in California adds fuel to the American expansion westward.
1853 - Army Lieutenant Amiel Weeks Whipple arrives in Flagstaff with survey crews in Antelope Spring.
1870s - After the Apaches had been driven out to southeastern Arizona, more Europeans began settling the
area.

The information in this section is based on a 2015 Report on historical Context prepared by Annie Lutes.
Historical information was also taken in part from “The Story of Flagstaff,” with permission by authors - Richard
and Sherry Mangum.

ii

Introduction

EARLY HISTORY OF LA PLAZA VIEJA COMMUNITY SETTLEMENT
La Plaza Vieja centered on a water spring and wagon road that was once well-traveled by emigrants going to
California. Between 1857 and 1860, these travelers began to settle in the area because the beautiful landscape
was rich in resources of grasslands, water, timber, and game. Eventually, sheep and cattle ranchers drawn to the
area established ranches. The first permanent settlement was built in 1876, when Thomas F. McMillan built a cabin
at the base of what is now called Observatory Mesa (or Mars Hill). In 1880, the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad began
to lay track westward from Albuquerque and a settlement began to take shape by a small spring on the slope of
Mars Hill—the location of the current La Plaza Vieja neighborhood. The small settlement underwent several name
changes beginning with Antelope Spring, then Flagstaff, and finally Old Town after the establishment of a new
“town” one half-mile east.
In early 1881, entrepreneurial merchants built businesses along the future railroad for the advance parties of
lumber workers who were coming to grade and cut ties in the abundant ponderosa forest. By fall of 1881, Flagstaff
boasted a population of 200 and swiftly became a wild railroad town filled with saloons, dance halls, and gambling
houses. With the arrival of the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad (now the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway) in
August 1, 1882, Old Town consisted of ten buildings and became an established stop for water. Sheep ranchers
used the railroad to transport wool, and cattle ranchers, drawn by the prospect of free or inexpensive land, could
now affordably ship their beef to the eastern market.
In advance of completion of the railroad track and subsequent arrival of the train, businessmen such as E. E. Ayers
constructed Flagstaff’s largest lumber mill and began shipping lumber within days after the rails arrived. By winter
1882, Flagstaff was a firmly established town with railroad, livestock, and lumber industries, as well as supporting
service industries of merchants, cafes, hotels, and saloons to serve the sheepherders, cowboys, lumberjacks, and
train travelers.
In the early 1880s, the area north of the railroad
right-of-way along West Coconino Avenue had
served as Flagstaff’s first commercial row. As these
early entrepreneurs tended to live near their
businesses, residences were constructed here as
well, primarily in the areas north (behind) the southfacing businesses (Cline 1976). With the
establishment of the Ayer Lumber Company around
the same time, Old Town was set to develop as a
center of commerce for the area.
In 1883, the railroad moved their depot about a halfmile east of the Flagstaff settlement so their trains
didn’t have to start up on the steep hillside. Local merchants followed the train depot, building a strip of shops,
saloons, and hotels along what became known as Front Street. When a post office was established near the new
train depot, the settlement assumed the name of “Flagstaff.” As a result, Flagstaff became two settlements: the
original site called “Old Town” and the site near the new depot named “New Town.” Old Town had water, but New
Town continued to grow with commerce and soon outgrew the older settlement. A catastrophic fire in 1884
practically wiped out all of Old Town, creating a new slate for growth. The mill escaped the devastation and
continued to operate, and, combined with the permanent relocation of Flagstaff’s business district with the
railroad depot, the void left in Old Town was quickly filled by new homes. With the establishment of the Arizona
Figure 3: Atlantic and Pacific Railroad Depot

iii

Introduction
Lumber and Timber Company (AL&T) by 1890, the Old Town area would begin to evolve into La Plaza Vieja, a
diverse community of the working middle class that would foster the economic and social growth of Flagstaff.
By the early 1890s, Flagstaff’s population reached 1,500 and it became the seat of the newly created Coconino
County. In the early days water was provided from the Old Town spring and other small area springs, but there was
not enough supply to fight several large fires that took a hefty toll. A logical
solution was to tap the springs in the San Francisco Peaks, but the cost and
logistics were not feasible. After a petition was circulated among the citizens,
on May 26, 1894, by action of the Coconino County Board of Supervisors,
Flagstaff became an incorporated town. This allowed for the sale of municipal
bonds to pay for the water project. Lumber quickly grew into the main industry
creating local wealthy entrepreneurs, notably lumber magnate Michael
Riordan. Three brothers by the names of Michael, Tim, and Denis Riordan
formed the Arizona Lumber and Timber Company. Though Denis would soon
move on to California, Michael and Tim would remain in the community
making essential contributions to Flagstaff ’s development, including bringing
electricity and building nearby Lake Mary, a reservoir servicing the city. In the
late 1800s, the lumber mills operating in Flagstaff were the Saginaw Mill,
located at Holiday Inn’s current location; the Southwest Mill, at its present
location; the Babbitt Mill, a small mill operation on the site of the Town and
Country Motel; as well as the Arizona Lumber and Timber Company, located on
Figure 4: Old Town Spring
Marker

West Coconino Avenue.

As a result of the various industrial developments that occurred during the
1880s, Flagstaff possessed a diverse cultural and ethnic composition by the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries. The end of World War I revealed a Flagstaff Townsite developed into distinct socioeconomic and ethnic
areas with the neighborhoods north of Santa Fe Avenue housing the working and middle class Anglo families. The
areas north and south of the railroad right-of-way in the original Flagstaff Townsite (the northern portions of La
Plaza Vieja) had developed into a community of primarily New Mexican families, with a few Mexican and Basque
immigrants as well. This diverse cultural element represents an important characteristic of Flagstaff’s heritage.

LA PLAZA VIEJA COMMUNITY IN THE 20 TH CENTURY
The Old Town settlement on either side of the railroad tracks became a neighborhood of principally Hispanic
families of New Mexico origin. A sizable population of Mexican immigrants was residing in Flagstaff by 1920, as
well as a Basque colony—primarily brought to Flagstaff by the sheep trade.
The Hispanic population and its influence upon Flagstaff is well documented. In the 1920 United States Census, of
the 784 families in Flagstaff, 245 families, or 30%, were Hispanic. With only two exceptions, all of the Hispanic
families resided in the Southside or Old Town areas of Flagstaff. Today, Old Town, or La Plaza Vieja, faces the
challenges of older housing stock, many without owner-occupants to care for them, along with an aging
infrastructure and rising land costs, which make infill and redevelopment challenging. The families that still own
and live in their homes are active community members, desiring the close-knit “family” and neighborhoods of the
twentieth century—one of community festivals, Mexican-American cultural gatherings, and interactive neighbors.
One of the earliest La Plaza Vieja families to come to Flagstaff from New Mexico was the Castillo family. Coming to
the area in the 1890s, Senin and Genoeba Castillo had four sons in the sheepherding industry. Building their family

iv

Introduction
home at 415 West Tucson Avenue in 1911, Castillo later built a rental home behind the main residence around
1925. The year 1911 also marked Nicholas Baca making his residence at 504 West Tucson Avenue. Baca had
traveled from New Mexico in 1905 to become a successful sheep raiser in the Flagstaff area. Also residing in La
Plaza Vieja were other families with New Mexican heritage including: Paul Rodriguez, Francisco Gallardo, Abencio
Anaya, Andres Chavez, Santiago J. Nuanez, Ambrosio Armijo, Manuel Velasco, Francisco Saiz, Rafael Samora,
Benigno Trujillo, and Francisco Gurule (Woodward Architectural Group 1993).
The lumber mills brought many
workers to Flagstaff, including a
sizeable Mexican population, who
first settled in “Los Chantes” or
Shantytown, where the current
Safeway shopping center on Plaza
Road stands. The population of
Mexican immigrants in La Plaza
Vieja for the first half of the
twentieth century depended largely
on the employment needs of the
AT&L Company. The Great
Depression hit this community and
the company hard.
Figure 5: Arizona Lumber Company, 1890

Many Mexican immigrants in the
neighborhood and larger Flagstaff
community returned to Mexico during the 1930s (Vance 1992). Other Mexican families then settled and built
homes within the current La Plaza Vieja neighborhood, primarily along West Clay Avenue. One of these families
was that of Juan Valdivia and his wife, Rosa, who emigrated from Mexico with their four children in 1908 and
constructed a home at 802 West Clay Avenue (Woodward Architectural Group 1993). Many of the homes are still
present today and belong to the same family many generations later.
Basque families, rather than living in boarding houses, resided in modest homes, sometimes constructed in a
vernacular style inspired by the folk habitation of their homeland in the Pyrenees. While none of the residences in
La Plaza Vieja appear to demonstrate this Basque tradition, there were Basque residents living in the
neighborhood. One unique example may have been Leandro Archuleta, whose surname is traditionally linked to
the Basque province of Guipuzcoa, representing a distinctly New Mexican Basque legacy going back to Juan de
Oñate’s 1598 expedition (Pearce 1965). It is believed that Archuleta may have built the residence at 519 West
Tombstone Avenue in 1912 (the other possibility is Manuel Velasco, whose last name is also Basque-derived). If
Archuleta was the builder of this house, he represents both the Basque heritage and New Mexican legacy
prominent in Flagstaff at the time. Maximo Jauregui, also of Basque heritage, was another longtime resident of the
area, residing in a house he built in 1930 at 611 West Tombstone Avenue (Woodward Architectural Group 1993).

v

This page was intentionally left blank.

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis

CHAPTER 1: SITE AND AREA ANALYSIS
General Vicinity: La Plaza Vieja is located in central Flagstaff, west of historic downtown, northwest of Northern
Arizona University, and bound by the original Route 66. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) bisects
the neighborhood. This area includes 108.7 acres.
La Plaza Vieja falls within Marshall Elementary school boundaries. Haven Montessori Charter School, a private
preschool and charter elementary school, is located within the neighborhood itself. Middle school students attend
Mount Elden Middle School, and high school students attend Flagstaff High School.

NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES
Map 1: Aerial of the La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Showing the
Specific Plan Boundary

Citizens and businesses involved in the
planning process identified and defined
their neighborhood boundaries. The group’s
consensus of La Plaza Vieja boundaries are
identified in Map 1 and generally described
as follows: beginning at Milton Road and
Route 66; north to West Coconino Avenue;
west on West Coconino Avenue—including
the properties on the north side of West
Coconino Avenue; south across the railroad
tracks and along property boundaries; east
along West Chateau Drive to Blackbird
Roost; south down Blackbird Roost—
including the mobile home park on
Blackbird Roost—to Route 66; and then east
on West Route 66 to Milton Road. The north
side of the railroad tracks used to be more
accessible because there was no fencing and
fewer trains per day. The homes along
Coconino Avenue and Lower Coconino
Avenue are still tied to the part of the
neighborhood south of the tracks by social,
familial, and cultural connections. The
commercial areas along Route 66 and
Milton Road have important modern and
historic connections to the neighborhood.
The businesses along the edge are
frequented by neighborhood residents more
than the businesses to the east and south of
the neighborhood boundary, because the
arterial roads are a barrier for pedestrians
to access other businesses for their day-today needs.

1

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis

Surrounding Area Plans:
Not all of the listed plans are adopted
by the City and they have varying
degrees of regulatory authority. They
are worth listing here because they all
provide vision and direction in some
way to the area surrounding La Plaza
Vieja.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•

2005 Southside Master Plan
Downtown Management Plan
Woodlands Village Master Plan
NAU Master Plan
ADOT Route 66 Corridor
Management Plan
Townsite Historic District - Historic
Overlay District
Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railway (BNSF)—plans for a third
rail and for an underpass for
pedestrians and bicycles at Florence
Street
Rio de Flag Flood Control Project –
Clay Avenue drainage
improvements

SURROUNDING AREA
La Plaza Vieja’s central location relative to downtown Flagstaff (Downtown),
Northern Arizona University (NAU), and the Southside neighborhood means
that the surrounding area has been the subject of numerous plans and
policies. All of these efforts have had different focuses and scope, but they all
influence the physical, social, and economic characteristics of the La Plaza
Vieja neighborhood.
The proximity of the railroad, South Milton Road, Route 66, and Northern
Arizona University present obstacles for maintaining the integrity of La Plaza
Vieja. Their influence has always been a part of the neighborhood’s history,
and has consistently presented challenges. It is, therefore, essential that this
Plan serve the entire neighborhood and the community-at-large. The staff
and participants who worked on this Plan acknowledge that there are tradeoffs inherent in this effort and that differing opinions may not be completely
resolved. Some issues may require future studies to resolve differences and
gather more information. Alternatively, they may be left out of the Plan so
they can be addressed through a separate city-wide effort.
The effort to develop a Specific Plan for the La Plaza Vieja neighborhood is
influenced by planning efforts of the surrounding neighborhoods, corridors,
and areas. Transportation connections, land use regulations, and other City
policies for these areas need to be compatible and at the same time be
tailored to the specific needs of each area. The shaded areas on Map 2
already have an existing master plan, overlay zone, or area plan. Information
about overlay zones can be found in the Zoning Code, whereas other items
listed are stand-alone plans. The orange line represents a study of the Milton
Corridor that has been proposed and is waiting for funding. The Regulating
Plan Boundary determines whether property is subject to regulation by a
form-based code for a Traditional Neighborhood Community Plan under the
Zoning Code (see Land Use for more information).
All of these area plans and overlay zones must work in concert to ensure the
Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030’s goals of compact development, walkable
communities, a healthy business environment, affordable housing, and a safe
and efficient transportation system for all modes. South Milton Road and
West Route 66 are major gateways into the City and are economic engines for
the commercial and retail sectors of our economy. These areas provide
housing and services that support NAU. Within this modern framework, the
neighborhoods in and around the central business district are the foundation
of neighborhood character and heritage preservation in our City. Holding
these in balance is a responsibility of all planning efforts in this area of
Flagstaff, not just the La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Specific Plan.

2

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis
Map 2: Surrounding Neighborhood, Corridor, and Master Plans

3

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis

DEMOGRAPHICS AND HOUSING
QUICK FACTS
2010 Estimated
1
Population: 1,072
Population Change since
2000 Census: decreased by
2
12%
Total Housing Units: 572

La Plaza Vieja consists of approximately 572 housing units, which are characterized
by a high ratio of renter-occupied housing to owner-occupied housing (4 to 1). The
low average household income within the neighborhood could be attributed to a
combination of retired older generation residents (most likely owner-occupied) and a
high percentage of Northern Arizona University students..

PEOPLE

1

Average Household Size:
1
3.0
Renter Occupied: ~80%
Owner Occupied: ~6%
Vacant: ~14%

2

2

3

Median Household Income
2
(family of four): $31,549
Neighborhood Area: 108.7
acres
Number of Businesses: 80

FOOTNOTES
1. These estimates are made

based on extrapolation of data
from three separate Census
Blocks that overlap the
neighborhood boundary; the
West Village area, the
residential core of Plaza Vieja,
and the Townsite neighborhood
north of the railroad.
2. These estimates are based on
the population of Census Block
53452, which is the residential
core of La Plaza Vieja. These
estimates exclude data from
West Village and the Townsite
neighborhood.

4

Figure 6: Kimberly Melchor (left) and Mr. Baca (right)
La Plaza Vieja has a higher percentage of Hispanic residents than Flagstaff as a whole.
Within the Hispanic community, there is a mix of families that are new to Flagstaff
who were drawn to the neighborhood for affordability, location, and cultural
similarities, as well as families that have lived in the neighborhood for generations.
Often, in the latter group, multiple generations have occupied the same residence.
This network of cultural and family relationships is essential to maintaining La Plaza
Vieja’s character.
The demographics of La Plaza Vieja show a younger population (over 50% under 24
years old). The bulk of younger residents are likely renters, but a majority of
homeowners are older residents.

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis

Figure 7: Population by Age in La Plaza Vieja

Figure 8: Race and Ethnicity in La Plaza Vieja

MARKET ANALYSIS
According to the City’s records, there are approximately 80 businesses within La Plaza Vieja and the surrounding
area. A number of these businesses could be home-based businesses, or businesses that no longer exist.
Businesses have employees, customers, and vehicular access needs, from large delivery trucks to motorcycles.
Customer parking currently does not cause conflicts, although there are infrequent reports of ballpark traffic that
interferes with Clay Avenue businesses, and the distinction between Chateau Drive and Blackbird Roost business
parking is unclear.
Table 1: Neighborhood Businesses by Street
Clay Avenue

Natural Grocers; Highland Country Inn; Haven Montessori Charter School; Canyon Explorations
Expeditions; Shine & Clean Janitorial; Clay Avenue Car Wash

Malpais Lane

Dept. of Economic Security; College America; Smoketree Ranchers; McCracken Realty

Blackbird Roost

Aspen Landscape; Pro Clean; Eurogeek Motorsports; Vintage Off-Road; Rick’s Custom Cycles &
Graphics; Ace Automotive; Route 66 Auto Body; Auto Rehab; Mountain Toppers Campers; University
Roost Apartments; PLS Stone Masonry Inc.; Consolidated Investment

West Route 66

Batteries Plus; Ogden’s Cleaners; Cash Advance; Super 8 Motel/Conference Center; Barnes & Noble

Milton Road
Coconino
Avenue

Mike & Rhonda’s “The Place”; Golden Memories Antiques; Overdrive Printing Services; Summit
Divers; Papa John’s Pizza; The “L” Motel; Canyon Inn; Jack-in-the-Box; Dairy Queen; Rodeway Inn;
Northern Arizona Stone Creations
Mountain Country Tools; Aspen Digital Printing; Northland Research Inc.

5

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis
The two largest business sectors in La Plaza Vieja
are retail trade and general services, which
include lodging, food/dining, and automotive and
automotive service (see Figure 9). Other business
types and subsectors in the area include finance,
insurance, real estate, construction, small-scale
manufacturing, government services, and some
businesses that are listed as “unclassified.” There
is a large quantity of home-based businesses and
businesses for rental properties in the interior of
La Plaza Vieja that do not have store fronts. A
number of businesses have recently completed
renovations or have been redeveloped, including
Natural Grocers and College America. The largest
business sector within the neighborhood is
general services. The businesses located along
Route 66 and the south end of Blackbird Roost
and Milton Road are primarily fast food
restaurants and diners, hotels, and automotive
Figure 9: Business Types by Sector
services, along with a few other household and
retail services. Due to flooding and the age of the structures, several of the Historic Route 66 motels have water
damage or have suffered from lack of maintenance. The interior commercial areas of Blackbird Roost, Clay Avenue,
Malpais Lane, and Coconino Avenue have a variety of retail, government services, construction, real estate, and
insurance businesses. The existing diversity of uses defines the character of La Plaza Vieja as an established
traditional mixed-use neighborhood.
Most daily needs for residents are within a convenient walking distance from the neighborhood. Natural Grocers
acts as the local grocery store due to its close proximity. Haven Montessori Charter School is located within La
Plaza Vieja, providing a convenient walk for students attending. Other businesses easily accessed from the area
include a variety of restaurants, fast food, automotive stores, general retail, and personal services. Although other
retail and general services are within a quarter mile walking distance, pedestrians coming from La Plaza Vieja will
sometimes have to cross either Milton Road or West Route 66. Crossing these roads can be frustrating and
perceived as unsafe due to traffic congestion, lack of sidewalks or crosswalks, and poor maintenance of walkways.
Making left turns into and out of the neighborhood except at Clay Avenue and Milton Road, which is a controlled
intersection, can also be difficult for residents and customers (for more on walkability and traffic, please see
Transportation). Therefore, businesses that depend on convenience as a factor to attract customers are less likely
to use the interior commercial areas of La Plaza Vieja.

HOUSING
La Plaza Vieja has some of the oldest housing units in Flagstaff in varying conditions. For the 480 units within the
neighborhood’s core Census block (53452), the owner-occupancy rate is 6% while the rental-occupancy rate is 80%
(see Quick Facts - page 4). This data shows a 14% vacancy rate in these units in addition to vacant lots from
buildings that were once demolished. This high vacancy rate was determined in 2010 during the Great Recession,
when there were numerous foreclosures and the rental market was not as good. Current conditions indicate very

6

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis
few homes and lots for sale in La Plaza Vieja at this time and few vacant homes. A 14% vacancy rate is historically
unusual for La Plaza Vieja given its proximity to the university.
While its location would be ideal for the
building of new homes, apartments, and
affordable housing, the cost of land in this
neighborhood has made it difficult to develop
in the past. The medium income for a family of
four in La Plaza Vieja is lower than the City of
Flagstaff as a whole; $31,549 and $60,200
respectively (2010 Census). La Plaza Vieja
would greatly benefit from more affordable
housing. There are several open lots within this
neighborhood, but they are on steep slopes or
in the floodway and floodplain, they need
rezoning to allow the development of housing,
or they border the train tracks and prove
difficult to develop because of noise mitigation requirements if federal or state funding is utilized (a common
occurrence in the creation of affordable housing).
Table 2: La Plaza Vieja Households by Income

La Plaza Vieja faces very unique housing challenges largely linked to its location and historic importance to
Flagstaff. Much of the existing housing stock has had ownership passed down from generation to generation and is
considered historic (over 50 years old), but the condition of the buildings is sometimes poor.
The other challenge faced by La Plaza Vieja is its proximity to the large rental market in Flagstaff that surrounds the
Northern Arizona University campus. Most of the newly built housing is not for sale, but rather becomes rental
units to fit the needs of the increasing number of students concentrated within this area of Flagstaff.
Over 50% of the population of La Plaza Vieja is under 24 years of age, and over half of that is between the ages of
20-24 (see Quick Facts – page 4). The proximity to Northern Arizona University’s campus has made La Plaza Vieja
appealing to developers for future student-housing development. Although this type of development is enticing to
developers, residents of La Plaza Vieja have voiced concerns about its negative potential impact on the
preservation of this historic area and influence on the current community character.

Figure 10: Existing Home Built in 1920 and Infill Housing on Tombstone Avenue

7

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis

HERITAGE RESOURCES
The styles of architecture represented in La Plaza Vieja are similar to those in other areas of Flagstaff that
historically coincided with large-scale, national trends. In particular, these style movements included the national
or vernacular folk tradition (1850–1930), the Craftsman bungalow (1905–1930), and the Minimal Traditional type
(1935–1950) that became a popular design of post-World War II houses (McAlester 2013). Locally, these style
trends appeared in La Plaza Vieja between ca. 1901 to ca. 1954.
In 1992, the portion of La Plaza Vieja south of the railroad tracks was inventoried for heritage resources as part of
an application to the State of Arizona for a National Register Historic District. Based on information gathered at
that time, 53 properties were inventoried as having historic potential; however, there may presently be additional
buildings that qualify for a historic designation. Significant remodeling or alterations of the structures and lack of
maintenance have contributed to the State Historic Preservation Office ruling that the area does not rise to the
level of a historic district, when the area was proposed as part of the original Southside Historic District. However,
that finding may not apply to individual properties or to smaller areas that could form districts. Since the 1992
inventory, some of the properties have been destroyed, some have been restored, and some further altered. Map
3 shows the location of the remaining structures that were part of the 1992 inventory and identifies other
structures that may potentially be historic resources but need further evaluation.
Two areas of La Plaza Vieja stand out as residential streets with contiguous historic and compatible structures: Clay
Avenue and Tucson Avenue. Both streets have at least one block where the majority of the structures have been
inventoried and have historic integrity, but their condition is variable.
The homes on Clay Avenue were moved from their original
locations in the early 1950s and are the last remaining
examples of AL&T workforce housing in the City. All built
between 1892 and 1901, these residences are primarily
national/vernacular cottages, designed with a T-shaped layout,
intersecting gable roof with enclosed eaves, and weatherboard
or clapboard siding. Stucco was applied to some of the
residences. A few of these residences experienced alterations
that added Craftsman-style details, such as exposed rafters,
with California-style bungalow inspirations of offset entryways
and stucco exteriors (McAlester 2013).
One of these AL&T company houses is an example of an early
vernacular cottage, built around 1892. A basic house with
simple form, it is a unique example of the “double-ell” cottage
popular in other neighborhoods in Flagstaff at the end of the
Figure 11: Malpais Facade Typical of Historic
nineteenth century. The symmetrical front gables are
Cottages
separated by a shed-roofed porch between the modestly
styled ells (Woodward Architectural Group 1993). Another house unique in its design is the AL&T company house
now at 907 West Clay Avenue. With its massed-plan layout, this box-shaped residence has a hipped pyramidal
roof, demonstrating the pyramidal family of the national folk housing tradition (McAlester 2013).

8

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis

Map 3: Historic Subdivisions and Buildings Previously Inventoried for
Eligibility

Figure 12: Adaptive Reuse of the Historic Armory on Clay Avenue

9

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis

LAND USE
REGIONAL PLAN
La Plaza Vieja is an established mixed-use neighborhood. Existing land uses include commercial, residential,
institutional, and parks. The diversity of land uses enhances the organic feel of a “neighborhood” in the interior of
the area; however, the parcels that front Route 66 and South Milton Road are commercial and highway-oriented
businesses, such as automotive, tourism, food, and hotel businesses. The part of the neighborhood north of Clay
Avenue has a gridded street system and south of Clay Avenue there is a larger block road system.
In the FRP30, two activity centers were
identified adjacent to La Plaza Vieja. The
proximity of these two environments allows
for residents to be within walking distance of
their daily needs. The current configuration of
these land uses and connectivity between
them, however, needs to be reexamined in
order to meet the desired conditions of an
activity center that provides a pedestrianoriented environment. The corner of Butler
Avenue and South Milton Road is identified in
the Plan as a neighborhood-scale urban
activity center, and the intersection of South
Milton Road and West Route 66 is identified
as a neighborhood-scale suburban activity
center (see Map 4). Each activity center is
made up of a commercial core that can be
Figure 13: Illustration of the Relationships between Activity
extended along corridors (South Milton Road
Centers and Place-making
and Route 66), and a pedestrian shed (the
circle). Within the commercial core and along corridors, mixed use and higher densities are encouraged and are
expected to transition to the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood within a quarter mile of the activity
center (Figure 13). Almost all of La Plaza Vieja falls within a quarter mile of these activity centers, except for the
western ends of Coconino Avenue and Lower Coconino Avenue.
The Future Growth Illustration in FRP30 also identifies a future urban area type in the western half of Clay Avenue
and along Blackbird Roost, which would transition into a more urban building form and street pattern as the area
is redeveloped. These area types in the Regional Plan indicate that La Plaza Vieja has been identified as an area of
the City that is expected to transition into a more urban place. Typically, this would be achieved by moving
buildings closer to the street with more building frontage and lot coverage, and breaking up large suburban blocks
into a smaller block size with public streets and possibly on-street parking. The transition to urban and mixed use is
not intended to replace the distinctive neighborhood context or identity, but to identify areas where there is
potential to meet the Regional Plan goals and policies. Achieving these goals within the context of La Plaza Vieja’s
character is a major objective of the Specific Plan.

10

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis
Map 4: Future Growth Illustration (from FRP30)

11

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis

ZONING
The current zoning for La Plaza Vieja is primarily Single-Family Residential Neighborhood (R1N) and Highway
Commercial (HC) Zoning. There are two areas with High Density Residential (HR) Zoning, one designated for
Commercial Services (CS), and one Manufactured Housing (MH) (see Map 5).
R1N allows single-family attached and detached houses at a slightly higher density and with smaller setbacks than
the R1 zone. It allows building heights up to 35 feet. Commercial uses except for home occupation are very limited
in this zone. HR allows 13 to 29 units per acre and building heights up to 60 feet. MH allows up to 11 units per acre
and building heights up to 30 feet. Residential densities in La Plaza Vieja are generally in line with what is allowed
by current zoning; except for the Arrowhead Village Mobile Home Park on Blackbird Roost, which is higher density
than what is allowed under current zoning. This mobile home park predated the Zoning Code (a nonconforming
development) and is therefore able to operate at this density. However, the park cannot be expanded and many of
the units are old enough that they cannot be moved to other mobile home parks in the City because of State laws.
The ability to maintain safe and affordable housing is a City-wide concern and this property poses a complex
challenge to achieving this goal in the La Plaza Vieja neighborhood.
HC is intended to promote a full range of automobile-oriented services and residential development above and
behind commercial buildings. This zone permits the widest variety of commercial uses of any commercial zone. The
2
zone allows small setbacks, a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 3.0 (see Appendix 3 for explanation of FAR) and building
heights up to 60 feet. Buildings over 60 feet in height can be approved with a conditional use permit (CUP). CS
zoning is intended to promote service industries and support activities necessary to maintain viable commercial
retail trade centers. It allows for residential development above and behind commercial buildings. CS zone allows
small setbacks, a Floor Area Ratio of 2.0, and building heights up to 60 feet. Buildings over 60 feet in height can be
approved with a conditional use permit. Residential uses located above commercial are not included in the allowed
FAR or building heights for commercial zones.
Along Clay Avenue, the north side of the street is R1N and the south side is HC. The current uses on the south side
of Clay Avenue are a grocery store, a school, an outfitter-guide business, a City park (that has not been rezoned),
and a few single-family homes. All of these current uses are appropriately scaled for the neighborhood character. If
they were redeveloped using most of their existing entitlements, the buildings and forms on the north and south
sides of the street would be incongruous. For instance, the FAR of the Highway Commercial properties in La Plaza
Vieja is currently 0.27, and in evidence there are very few two-story commercial buildings located in the
neighborhood. This means
that generally about 25%
Table 3: Current Density/Intensity and Build-out Potential by Zoning Category
of the lot is covered by
Zone
Acres
Current
Potential Build-out
existing buildings. The
Density/Intensity
Density/Intensity
HC
23.2
0.27 FAR
3.0 FAR
Zoning Code allows for
CS
6.2
0.1 FAR
2.0 FAR
approximately 45% of the
R1N
31.4
7.12 units per acre
2-14 units per acre
neighborhood area to be
HR
2.5
12.8 units per acre
13-29 units per acre
developed up to a FAR of
MH
3.1
17 units per acre
11 units per acre
3.0 (see Table 3).

2

Floor Area Ratio is a measure of intensity for non-residential buildings. It is the total useable area of the building
divided by the gross area of the lot. See Appendix 2 for illustration of FAR.

12

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis
Map 5: Zoning Map of Neighborhood and Surrounding Area

13

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis

Figure 14: Illustration of Build-out Using Current Standards
In 2011, the City of Flagstaff updated its
Zoning Code and provided an option for
some areas to use “transect zones” for
redevelopment projects. Transect zones are
part of a form-based code which focuses on
the physical design of buildings on a
property instead of uses. Each transect zone
has its own unique rules for physical design
that address such issues as building
placement, streetscape design, and setback
requirements. The transect zones apply to
properties within the Regulating Plan
Boundary. The part of La Plaza Vieja that is
north of the tracks is within this boundary,
which means that property owners who
3
want to redevelop may elect to use a
transect zone rather than conventional
(“non-transect”) zoning.

The potential twelvefold-increases in
commercial area within La Plaza Vieja
have been limited because of
construction requirements within the
100-year floodplain (see Map 12).
Once the larger Rio de Flag Flood
Control Project is completed, the
entire 100-year flood event would be
confined to the underground culvert
and channel, and this would allow for
greater commercial and mixed-use
intensities to be developed in La Plaza
Vieja using existing entitlements.
Figure 14 illustrates a development
project that has maximized the HC
zoning entitlements.

Map 6: Transect Overlay Map of the Neighborhood

Transect zoning allows for smaller lot sizes,
which can generally lead to increased
density. However, the T3N.1 zone only
allows for a limited number of residential building types and would not allow duplexes unless the use existed on
the property prior to enactment of the Zoning Code. Transect zoning more heavily regulates the layout and
appearance of structures. For example, front porches are required in T3N.1 and accessory units and parking must
be behind the primary structure.
3

Once a property uses transect zoning for infill or redevelopment, it cannot use conventional zoning at a later
time.

14

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis

TRANSPORTATION
ROADS
The existing road system in and around La Plaza Vieja consists of major arterials (South Milton Road and Route 66),
minor collectors (Clay Avenue, Blackbird Roost), local neighborhood streets (i.e., Tombstone and Tucson Avenues),
and alleys (see Map 8).
Both South Milton Road and West Route 66 are Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) jurisdictional roads,
and the intersection is one of the most congested in Flagstaff. The congestion on these roads has impacted the
ability of La Plaza Vieja residents to move in and out of the neighborhood on foot and by vehicle. Blackbird Roost
and West Route 66 is not a signalized intersection but is frequently used in conjunction with Clay Avenue as a
bypass when the intersection at Milton Road and West Route 66 is congested. This intersection is also frequently
used as a pedestrian crossing by residents going to the pharmacy, shopping, restaurants, or grocery stores.
In the interior of La Plaza Vieja, road conditions have recently been improved by the water and sewer project
funded by the 2010 tax collection ballot which also updated water and sewer lines (see Map 11). Through this
project, neighborhood traffic circles were installed at three intersections to slow traffic cutting through La Plaza
Vieja’s residential areas. Traffic is consistent throughout the day, and is fairly light overall, except at peak hours.
Therefore concerns have been raised about providing a safe crossing near the school and park for residents.

THE REGIONAL PLAN ROAD NETWORK
Because of the congestion issues and evidence of cut-through traffic, the Flagstaff Regional Transportation Plan
and FRP30 have proposed a road extension that connects the intersection of Butler Avenue and South Milton
Road to Kaibab Lane and Woodlands Village Boulevard. The Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization’s
Regional Transportation Plan identifies this as a conditional future road, which means that it needs further analysis
before the City decides to pursue it or not. LPVNA has opposed this concept because they are concerned that the
challenges for bicyclists and pedestrians on Milton Road and Route 66 would be extended further to the interior of
the neighborhood by making this connection. In conjunction with a package of transportation improvements that
are being considered on Milton Road, the FMPO conducted modeling of Clay Avenue. The modeling was
inconclusive as to whether the extension would relieve congestion, but further study is needed to confirm whether
or not the road would benefit the regional transportation system and if the traffic volumes that would be moved
to Clay Avenue could be mitigated.

Map 7: Close-Up of Future Road
Network (from FRP30)
Black roads denote Freeways; blue
denotes Circulation; and orange
denotes Access. Dashed lines are
future roads.

15

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis

Map 8: Road Functional Classification

Streets throughout the City
of Flagstaff are categorized
into functional
classifications: arterial,
collector, and local.
Arterials and collectors are
further refined into
categories of major and
minor. Roads are grouped
into classifications based on
the type of access they
provide and the nature of
the traffic on them. An
arterial serves cross-town
and longer distance trips,
has a faster speed, and
should have more limited
driveway access compared
to a collector or local road.

Every functional
classification of a street has
a standard width and
composition. A local road
has 11 to 21 feet for travel
lanes and parking on either
side. Traffic volumes are
low enough that bikes share
the travel lanes with cars.
With sidewalks, parkways,
curb and gutter, the total
width of a local street is
between 51 and 61 feet. Minor collectors carry more volume and allow travel at higher speeds and therefore have
bike lanes that separate bicycle and vehicle traffic and do not allow on-street parking. They also have a shared turn
lane that allows for vehicles making left turns to get out of the travel lane. Their standard width is 70 feet. Crosssections of road can be wide when they allow for more than 5 feet of sidewalk or FUTS trails to run alongside the
road.
The standard for alleys in Flagstaff is that they have a minimum 16 feet of right-of-way and, when paved, 12 feet
wide pavement. Alleys in older neighborhoods are often unpaved, but property owners can be required to improve
them when an existing alley is used as ingress-egress to required parking.
On the west end of Clay Avenue, there is a dirt road that is used for maintenance of the railroad. The road is
outside of the City limits and is maintained by BNSF railroad. All City-maintained roads in La Plaza Vieja are paved.
The unimproved BNSF maintenance road, private driveways, and alleys are often confused for City rights-of-way.

16

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis
Map 9: Road Conditions and Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure

17

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis

TRANSIT
In the past, Clay Avenue and Blackbird Roost were
frequently used for area bus routes because the
connection center was located on Malpais Lane.
Complaints about the frequency and noise caused by
bus traffic and the relocation of the connection center
to Southside resulted in buses being routed along
Milton Road and West Route 66. La Plaza Vieja still
benefits from relatively close proximity to the
Downtown Connection Center, without the impacts
associated with the connection center being within
the neighborhood boundaries. Currently there are
three bus routes that use Milton Road between Butler
Avenue/Clay Avenue and West Route 66, with
frequencies between 20 and 60 minutes. In the
future, NAIPTA may determine a need to move one of
these lines to Clay Avenue to provide better transit
access for the Haven Montessori Charter School,
ballpark, and neighborhood residents. This would also
provide a better car-alternative to NAU students, who
are tenants in the neighborhood but have classes on
central and south campus.

FUTURE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS IN LA
PLAZA VIEJA
An important step in any transportation planning
process is a robust consideration of alternatives.
Congestion in and around La Plaza Vieja has been a
concern for decades and many options have been
considered. As part of updating the Regional
Transportation Plan, the Flagstaff Metropolitan
Planning Organization is conducting traffic simulations
for options in this area (see Appendix 4 for details),
including:
•
•
•
•
•

Widening of Milton Road to six general
purpose lanes;
Adding outside lanes for bus, bike, and
left/right turns;
A traffic signal at West Route 66 and
Blackbird Roost;
McCracken Street connection and extension
as an alternative to the Clay Avenue
extension; and
Clay Avenue configuration alternatives using
various mitigation techniques.

Traffic simulations test the assumptions and possible
outcomes of these alternatives. La Plaza Vieja’s
Neighborhood Specific Plan may also be considered;
but ultimately, decisions about transportation
alternatives are made in corridor plans and studies.
Northern Arizona Intergovernmental Public
Transportation Authority (NAIPTA) is also looking at
options to improve transportation service in La Plaza
Vieja and regionally. Transit improvements along Clay
Avenue may include shelters and bus pullouts. Shelters
may be located close to the curb and street or setback
behind the sidewalk depending on the site and
landscaping. Bus pullouts may be shared space with
travel lanes, or they may be dedicated right turn and
bike lanes if there is additional shoulder space. A bus
pullout may also be located where there is currently
on-street parking. The relocation of a bus route and
associated improvements is not dependent on a Clay
Avenue extension. Improvements to the pedestrian
and bicycle network also strengthen transit access as
they increase mobility to and from bus stops.
Figure 15: Examples of NAIPTA Bus Shelter

18

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis

PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT
Sidewalks are present along both sides of most streets in La Plaza Vieja. Exceptions include:
•
•
•
•

The west side of Blackbird Roost between Clay Avenue and Route 66;
The north side of Phoenix Avenue for the first half-block west of Route 66;
Two short segments on the west side of Malpais Lane, south of the Haven Montessori Charter School
driveway and across the frontage of Dairy Queen; and
At the ends of several streets – Clay Avenue, Coconino Avenue, Tombstone Avenue, Phoenix Avenue, and
Florence Street – where the street dead-ends into BNSF right-of-way.
None of the sidewalks within La Plaza Vieja or on perimeter
streets have a parkway strip between the street and the
sidewalk. Curb ramps are present at most intersections and
have been recently replaced to better conform to Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. In 2008, the City and
ADOT conducted a walkability audit in La Plaza Vieja with
residents and community leaders from the neighborhood. The
audit yielded a number of significant observations about the
neighborhood’s pedestrian environment.
There is a significant difference in walkability between the
streets on the interior of La Plaza Vieja and streets on the
perimeter. Milton Road and Route 66 carry a lot of traffic,
which can move quickly at times, and the absence of parkways
places pedestrians uncomfortably close to the traffic.
Walkability on streets within La Plaza Vieja is generally good.

Figure 16: Traffic Circles Will Improve
Walkability on Florence Avenue

Figure 17: Narrow Sidewalk, Traffic Volume,
and Lack of Shelter are Barriers to
Walkability on Milton Road

Crossing Milton Road and Route 66 is difficult and creates a
barrier for pedestrians on two sides of the neighborhood: both
streets are wide, and large curb radii at intersections adds to
crossing distance; there are only two intersections along the
perimeter streets with crosswalks and traffic/pedestrian signals
(Clay Avenue/Butler Avenue/Milton Road and Milton
Road/Route 66), and at both of those intersections pedestrian
crossing is prohibited on one leg of the street; distances
between crossings are long and it is difficult for pedestrians to
cross mid-block or at non-signalized intersections.
The crossing for pedestrians at Route 66 and Blackbird
Roost/Metz Walk is difficult as a result of the speed and volume
of traffic, a high number of turning vehicles, the width of the
road, and the lack of crossing facilities for pedestrians. The
problem is complicated because there is a large retail area south
of Route 66 that is a draw for La Plaza Vieja residents and would
otherwise be within easy walking distance.

19

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis
The BNSF tracks along the north side of La Plaza Vieja also create a barrier for pedestrians. There are two well-used
but unauthorized railroad pedestrian crossings; one at the end of Globe Street connects the neighborhood to Old
Town Springs Park, and a second at the northeast corner of the neighborhood a little west of Milton Road.
Trash, weeds, overgrown vegetation, and parked vehicles are significant problems at a number of locations.
In 2014, the City of Flagstaff conducted a follow-up assessment of walking conditions and found that problems
with sidewalk obstructions have been reduced as a result of enforcement efforts. Most of the other issues still
remain. Residents also report that drivers use La Plaza Vieja as a bypass when traffic is backed up along Milton
Road. Residents view this non-local traffic as reducing pedestrian safety and adding congestion within the
neighborhood. During peak traffic hours, residents feel cut-off from services, and expressed particular concern
about crossings to the school and park on Clay Avenue.

BICYCLING
Bike lanes are present on Clay Avenue and Blackbird Roost and are part of the City-wide bikeway network. Clay
Avenue connects with bike lanes to the east along Butler Avenue, and Blackbird Roost connects with bike lanes to
the south on Metz Walk. When Milton Road and Route 66 were resurfaced and restriped several years ago, ADOT
added striped shoulders for bicycles on both sides of both streets. In some locations the shoulders are not
continuous, for example, the bike shoulder disappears for the duration of the right turn lane from southbound
Milton Road to westbound Route 66. Additionally, these shoulders are narrower than typical City of Flagstaff bike
lanes, although the width does meet minimum American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
standard dimensions. In keeping with ADOT policy, these shoulders are not signed or marked as bike lanes.
Strava data for Flagstaff indicates that a significant number of cyclists travel through La Plaza Vieja on Clay Avenue,
then continue west on Chateau Drive and Kaibab Lane. This route allows cyclists to travel west without riding along
West Route 66. Bicyclists traveling to or from La Plaza Vieja face some of the same difficulties crossing Milton Road
and Route 66 as pedestrians, particularly at unsignalized crossings at Blackbird Roost and Malpais Lane.

FUTS – FLAGSTAFF URBAN TRAIL SYSTEM

Map 10: Close-Up of FUTS Trails (from FRP30)

20

At present there are no existing FUTS trails in La
Plaza Vieja; however, the FUTS Master Plan shows
a planned alignment for the Santa Fe FUTS Trail
through the middle of the neighborhood (dashed
green line in Map 10). This planned trail would
begin downtown and travel west generally
parallel to the BNSF tracks. The trail would
provide direct non-motorized, bicycle, and
pedestrian access to downtown for several
neighborhoods along the south side of the tracks,
including Railroad Springs, West Glen, West
Village, Chateau Royale, and La Plaza Vieja. If the
road network in this area is expanded then there
will be more on-street connections for this trail
than dedicated FUTS routes, which is not
unusual for an urban area. Within La Plaza Vieja
there is not available right-of-way or space to

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis
allow a continuous alignment for the trail through the neighborhood. As a result, on-street connections are
planned to connect trail segments and create a continuous route. All of the streets – Florence, Malpais, and
McCracken – are low-volume, low-speed residential streets that are suitable for cyclists and have sidewalks for
pedestrians.

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CRASH DATA
Between 2001 and 2012 there were a total of 11 crashes involving pedestrians and 23 crashes involving bicycles in
La Plaza Vieja and on the perimeter streets.
Table 4: Location of Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes
Pedestrian

Bicycle

Milton/Butler

2

6

Route 66/Milton

4

2

Milton/Malpais

1

5

Route 66/Blackbird

1

1

Milton/Phoenix

1

1

Milton/Tucson

0

1

Florence/Tombstone

1

0

Milton (mid-block)

0

6

Route 66 (mid-block)

0

1

Blackbird (mid-block)

1

0

Locations with the most crashes include the intersection
of Milton Road and Butler Avenue (eight total
pedestrian/bicycle crashes), Route 66 and Milton Road
(six total crashes), and Milton Road and Malpais Lane (six
total crashes).There were also six bicycle crashes at midblock locations along Milton Road adjacent to La Plaza
Vieja.
Crashes were more likely to occur at intersections than
mid-block, and on busy perimeter streets rather than on
the interior of La Plaza Vieja. Ten of 11 pedestrian
crashes, and 16 of 23 bicycle crashes, were at
intersections. Only two of 11 pedestrian crashes, and
none of the bicycle crashes, occurred on interior streets
in La Plaza Vieja.

Table 5: Severity of Crashes
Pedestrian

Bicycle

Fatal

0

0

Incapacitating

1

1

Non-incapacitating

3

8

Possible injury

4

5

No injury

3

9

Totals

11

23

Injuries resulting from these crashes were typically fairly
minor; seven of the 11 pedestrian crashes were reported
as possible or no injury, as were 14 of the 23 bicycle
crashes. Three pedestrian crashes and eight bicycle
crashes reported non-incapacitating injuries.
Incapacitating injuries occurred in one pedestrian crash
at the intersection of Route 66 and Blackbird Roost, and
one bicycle crash at Route 66 and Malpais Lane. There
were no fatal pedestrian or bicycle crashes in La Plaza
Vieja.

21

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis

INFRASTRUCTURE AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
Supplying water, treating wastewater, controlling stormwater, and providing electric, gas, and fiber optic cable are
essential for urban neighborhoods.

WATER AND WASTEWATER
Through a 2010 tax initiative, water and sewer lines within La Plaza Vieja have been up-sized, in many cases
replacing infrastructure that was 50-75 years old. There are only a few water mains on the periphery of the
neighborhood that are more than 50 years old. They would likely be replaced as part of future capital projects. La
Plaza Vieja is not piped for reclaimed water use; therefore, landscaping must use either rainwater harvesting or
potable water for irrigation. With the below ground improvements, sidewalks and streets were replaced with new
curb, gutter, and sidewalk. The project also included three mini-traffic rounds in the neighborhood that are
designed to slow down cut-through traffic on residential streets (see Transportation for more information). The
remaining utility issue in La Plaza Vieja is that the parcels of land that are immediately west of Coconino Avenue
and Lower Coconino Avenue, due to the elevation of the parcels, would require an extension of the Zone “A”
water line from the Flagstaff Mesa development to the west in order to be developed.
Map 11: Age and Location of Water and Sewer Utilities

22

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis

PUBLIC SAFETY
In terms of public safety and service districts, La Plaza Vieja is part of:
•
•
•

Police – North of tracks: Beat 20; South of tracks: Beat 11.
Fire – Fire Station #1 serves south of tracks; Fire Station #2 serves north of tracks. Response times are
approximately four minutes from dispatch.
Trash collection – Trash is picked up once per week. Curbside recycling is picked up once per week. Curbside
glass pick-up is available for an additional fee. Glass recycling is located within one-half mile of most
residences at 116 West Phoenix Avenue. Bulk pick-up occurs once per month, except in February.

The entire La Plaza Vieja neighborhood is within Flagstaff’s Wildland-Urban Interface. Homeowners are requested
to maintain a clean property and adhere to recommended FireWise principles and practices to help ensure a
reduced fuel source for fires and increased overall community protection.

STORMWATER
A majority of the commercial properties in La Plaza Vieja lie in the regulated floodway or the 100-year floodplain of
the Clay Avenue Wash. Buildings located in these flood zones have restrictions on their development,
redevelopment, and improvement. These regulations are intended to prevent one property owner through their
actions from increasing the flood hazard to other properties.
In 2015, the City began working on a phase of the Rio de Flag Flood Control Project that will increase the capacity
of the Clay Avenue Wash. While this will ameliorate flooding issues in La Plaza Vieja, it will not change the
floodplain delineations until the entire Rio de Flag Flood Control Project from north of the Townsite neighborhood
through the Southside neighborhood is completed. Currently, the Clay Avenue Wash is an open floodway with a
ditch to convey smaller storm floods. The properties and buildings in the floodway, including the Arrowhead
Village Mobile Home Park and other properties shown on Map 12, continue to flood regularly in the summer. With
the floodplain regulations regarding substantial improvements for structures in the floodway, the ability of
property owners of older structures to improve their buildings has been limited. The project to improve the Clay
Avenue Wash will entail increasing the capacity of the drainage by burying a stormwater pipe beneath the existing
ditch alignment. At completion of the project, the floodway and floodplain will be reduced to a very narrow band
around the Clay Avenue Wash.

Figure 18: Clay Avenue Wash at Malpais Lane and Entrance to Arrowhead Village Mobile Home Park

23

Chapter 1 - Site and Area Analysis
Map 12: Clay Avenue Wash and Rio de Flag Floodplain and Floodway

24

Chapter 2 – Concept Plans

CHAPTER 2: 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
land owner to develop in accordance with their current zoning or City standards. It does provide an illustration of
compatible reinvestment within the Plan boundary, intended to help with the interpretation of the Plan’s goals
and policies. The Concept Plan takes into account feedback from public meetings as well as comments for this Plan
and The Standard development rezoning case held between 2011 and 2015. The feedback and comments were
used to develop the Concept Plan and related goals and policies in Chapter 3. The Future Growth Illustration in the
Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 (FRP30) and some development standards from the Zoning Code were also
considered in developing the Concept Plan.
The Concept Plan includes a map of potential land uses, two scenarios for streetscapes, 3D illustrations for
compatible reinvestment on private property, and a park improvements illustration for Old Town Springs Park. The
4
illustrations are indicative of a desirable “build-out” condition based on the goals and policies in Chapter 3. Some
illustrations could require a rezoning or conditional use permit in order to be built in the location they are shown.
The illustrations meet the parking ratio and general site-design requirements in the Zoning Code and the Plan’s
policy for compatible development in each Neighborhood policy area (Map 13). These build-out illustrations have
not been taken through the review process that an actual development application would be subject to and
therefore do not represent “pre-approved” projects. Staff has not done a financial feasibility of these illustrations
as the market and property values may change independent of the actions of the City.
Concept Map 1 shows a desirable build-out scenario for the area. Land uses and building forms assume the
floodplain issues associated with the Rio de Flag Flood Control Project have been resolved (Streetscapes Scenario
2). Streetscapes Scenario 1 accounts for the Rio de Flag Flood Control Project not going through. Reinvestment
that takes place in the interim may be laid out differently because of the Clay Avenue Wash floodway and
floodplain issues. Due to regulatory limitations on the substantial improvement of properties in the floodplain, it is
anticipated that most large-scale redevelopment in that area will occur after the Rio de Flag Flood Control Project
is completed or would require flood proofing similar to the redevelopment of Barnes and Noble and College
America in the Commercial Edge. The Concept Plan does not take into account utility easements and other deed
restrictions.

Concept Plan Illustrations were created in SketchUp Pro by:
Illustration 1: Clay Donaldson
Illustration 2: Clay Donaldson
Illustration 3: Tyler Shute
Illustration 4: Karl Eberhard, AIA
Illustration 5: Karl Eberhard, AIA
Illustration 6: Clay Donaldson
Old Town Springs Concept: Mark DiLucido, RLA

4

Desirable build out illustrations cannot be required. Existing entitlements cannot be changed by the Specific Plan.

25

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

WHAT ARE NEIGHBORHOOD POLICY AREAS?
La Plaza Vieja is a historically mixed-use neighborhood. In order to set goals and policies for the form and character
of the built environment, neighborhood policy areas have been identified to guide the implementation of current
zoning, Regional Plan direction, transportation and access, and preservation of neighborhood character. In Chapter
3, under Preserving Neighborhood Character, Goal 6 is divided into Neighborhood Core (6N), Transition Area (6T),
and Commercial Edge (6C). The locations of each illustration in this chapter are primarily in the Transition Area and
Commercial Edge because the desired form of buildings in these zones is not well illustrated by current examples
in the area.
The City cannot change land-use (zoning) entitlements without revising its Zoning Code. If a property owner does
not seek a zone change, then the goals, policies, and illustrations of the Specific Plan, like those of the Regional
Plan, will be aspirational and the Zoning Code will determine what the property owner is allowed to build and what
uses are available. The neighborhood policy areas are therefore not “zones,” but instead planning areas which
encourage compatible development and design of a variety of land uses.
Map 13: La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Policy Areas

26

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan
The Commercial Edge corresponds to the commercial core and corridor place types from FRP30. Corridors are
geographically defined as a half block from the road frontage and commercial cores are typically the parcels
surrounding the intersection that defines an activity center. Both of these definitions have flexibility depending on
the scale of the activity center (regional or neighborhood), location, and surroundings (such as topography). The
commercial core for La Plaza Vieja melds the urban neighborhood-scale activity center, suburban regional-scale
activity center, and two commercial corridors into a cohesive automotive-oriented commercial area. All of the
parcels in this policy area are zoned Highway Commercial (HC). The scale of the activity center primarily
determined the depth of the commercial core from the main street. All of these place types support higher
intensity of commercial, services, and mixed-use development.
The Transition Area corresponds to the pedestrian shed of activity centers as described in the FRP30. The
description of a pedestrian shed in FRP30 is primarily medium to high density residential with smaller scale
commercial. La Plaza Vieja is a unique circumstance because the area that would typically be the pedestrian shed is
zoned for commercial and mixed-use development. Therefore, the description of a pedestrian shed has been
expanded for La Plaza Vieja to include a wider range of commercial, services, and mixed-use development at a
scale and intensity that balances neighborhood preservation and the land uses that support the activity centers
and corridors. The largest block in the Transition Area has a great diversity of uses ranging from single-family
homes to high density apartment complexes closer to the activity centers and corridors. This demonstrates that
this part of the neighborhood already functions as a pedestrian shed. The smaller piece of the Transition Area is
located between Park Avenue and South Milton Road and is made up of 2 vacant parcels. The potential future
development of these parcels could have a major impact on the residential character of Park Avenue and would
diminish important views of the Our Lady of Guadalupe steeple, from the neighborhood. The majority of this area
is already zoned commercial, and therefore this Plan’s description of compatible and incompatible development
within the Transition Area cannot limit the exercise of existing entitlements. Even though a 60-foot tall building
may be an incompatible mass and scale for this area, it could be built if the parcel is currently zoned for it. All
development in the commercial zones must meet the design standards for the City, and the policies of this Specific
Plan can be used to determine appropriate appearance of streetscapes, landscaping, materials, form, colors, and
architecture (Flagstaff Zoning Code 10-30.60.080).
The Neighborhood Core corresponds to an urban neighborhood as described in the FRP30. Since this is a historic
neighborhood as identified on Map 14 in FRP30, some of the direction from the FRP30’s description of density
and intensity appropriate for urban neighborhoods does not apply in this case. The parcels in the Neighborhood
Core are all zoned Single Family Residential Neighborhood (R1N), which allows single-family homes, duplexes, and
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). There is no design review currently for single-family homes or ADUs, but
duplexes must go through concept review and design review along with their building permit. Non-conforming
structures in this area may continue to be used without expansion in accordance with the Flagstaff Zoning Code
10-20.60.030.

27

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

CONCEPT MAP 1: LAND USE
The Concept Plan’s land use map depicts structures and conditions that exist in the neighborhood today that are
expected to stay in a similar condition into the next 20 years, as well as examples of compatible redevelopment in
locations that may be redeveloped in the future. Existing parcels, parks, and street configurations make up the
base layer of the plan, along with the purple outlines of existing buildings. The Concept Plan does not target any
individual property for redevelopment. The map shows where there are opportunities for infill, redevelopment of
non-conforming structures, and reinvestment in commercial properties that are impacted by the Clay Avenue
Wash floodplain. If the Rio de Flag Flood Control Project is not carried out, then the buildings proposed on the
Concept Plan’s land use map may become infeasible, in which case all new development occurring in the
floodplain will be required to have a flood-proof first floor. Flood-proofing measures would create an added
expense to new construction in the Clay Avenue Wash floodplain. This additional expense may slow or prevent
redevelopment, especially in the Transition Area.
Reinvestment opportunities appear on Concept Map 1 in three different colors representing potential new
building footprints: blue for commercial/mixed use; pink for multi-family housing; and orange for residential.
These footprints represent an example of uses, building types, and forms that could meet the goals and policies
found in Chapter 3. All new single-family residential redevelopment is located within the Neighborhood Core policy
area, which is bound by a yellow dashed line. Pink and blue multi-family and commercial/mixed use buildings begin
to appear in the Transition Area, bound by the blue dashed line. And lastly the Commercial Edge policy area, bound
by the pink dashed line, shows many new commercial and mixed-use buildings. There are labels on the map to
show the locations related to Illustrations 1-6. Those areas have been modeled in greater detail in 3D illustrations
on pages 37-49.
Multi-family residential uses within commercial zoning districts are permitted by the Flagstaff Zoning Code as part
of a Planned Residential Development. Historically, Flagstaff’s land use patterns show generous amounts of
commercial property and are short on residentially-zoned land, especially in and around the City’s activity centers.
Activity centers call for compact mixed-use development. Activity centers are a concept that have appeared in City
planning documents since the 1990s and are mapped in the FRP30’s Future Growth Illustration. Given the lack of
residentially-zoned property and the ongoing shortage of affordable housing in the City, it was determined through
the public participation process in the City’s Growth Management Guide 2000 that residential uses be allowed in
commercial zones to promote self-contained neighborhoods, and to encourage more affordable and multi-family
housing developments. This shift in Flagstaff’s zoning regulation aligns with national Smart Growth policy
movements. The concept of “mixed use” development in an activity center setting supports a long-standing local
preference for a sustainable community by combatting urban sprawl. Mixed-use activity centers also help address
the high cost of living with infill and neighborhood reinvestment that provides affordable housing options with
access to nearby services.

28

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

29

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

CONCEPT MAP 2: STREETSCAPES SCENARIOS
The Concept Plan contains two scenarios of possible street and trail connections through the neighborhood.
Concept Map 2 depicts increased multi-modal connectivity with new FUTS paths (both on street and new
dedicated FUTS rights-of-way) and with several bike and pedestrian crossings at the edges of the neighborhood in
both scenarios (Policies 10.1, 11.1, and 11.2). Two crossings were considered in the draft plan that were not
carried forward to the final: an at-grade crossing of the railroad near Old Town Springs Park and a fourth crossing
at Butler Avenue and Milton Road. Both of these crossings occur in other jurisdictional right-of-way and do not
meet the standards of the regulating agency. They were, therefore, removed from the Concept Plan and
Implementation Strategies.
Scenario 1 is the preferred scenario of LPVNA and the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committees. It shows
the urban street grid north of Clay Avenue being extended approximately a block to the south. The FRP30 also
calls for the portion of La Plaza Vieja that is north of McCracken Street/Chateau Drive and south of Clay Avenue as
a “Future Urban” area, including a gridded street system. Urban block forms are generally smaller and the roads
more connected than suburban area types. Roads north of Clay Avenue already have a street grid pattern, and
extending the gridded street network into the commercial areas of the neighborhood would create a more
cohesive neighborhood character between these areas (Policy 6T.2). Additionally, completing the grid on the west
end of Clay Avenue will allow City crews to plow the road more easily.
Under Streetscapes Scenario 1, Clay Avenue and Blackbird Roost would remain the minor collectors for the
neighborhood. Depending on the treatments and improvements applied to Milton Road and Route 66, they may
see an increase in traffic and require traffic calming in order to maintain safe pedestrian access between the
neighborhood core and the Transition Area (Policy 12.1).
The FUTS trail in Streetscapes Scenario 1 follows the alignment in the FRP30’s Map 26 and the 2013 Downtown
FUTS Concept Plan. The trail would include an off-street connection to the west of the neighborhood and would
follow a portion of the Clay Avenue Wash. This would allow for a high quality bicycle and pedestrian environment
similar to the Karen Cooper Trail north of downtown. If the Rio de Flag Flood Control Project is not completed then
the FUTS trail may require a wider easement or right-of-way in order to accommodate a side-by-side wash and
trail. If the project is completed and the road connection to the west is not determined to be beneficial, then the
trail may be located over the stormwater pipe.
The “Future Urban” area type, south of Clay Avenue, presents an opportunity to consider an alternative route for
creating connectivity in the regional transportation system (Policy 13.1). Streetscapes Scenario 2 shows an
extension of McCracken Street to Malpais Lane and connects it to Chateau Drive and on to Kaibab Lane in the West
Village subdivision. The Regional Transportation Plan and FRP30 show the conditional need for a collector that
extends from Kaibab Lane to the intersection of Milton Road and Butler Avenue. The McCracken Street/Chateau
Drive alignment has been identified as an alternate to the Clay Avenue Extension by the project team. The road
alignment is only a concept and would roughly follow the Clay Avenue Wash from Malpais Lane until it connects to
Kaibab Lane in the West Village subdivision. A final alignment for the road would not be addressed until design
work has been completed. This alignment assumes that the Rio de Flag Flood Control Project has been
implemented, and would designate the McCracken Extension and a portion of Malpais Lane as the neighborhood’s
new minor collector.
The Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization (FMPO) and the City have conducted operational microsimulations to test the feasibility and benefits of using McCracken Street as the collector route up to Malpais Lane

30

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan
(see Appendix 2 and 4). The model confirms that this alignment could serve the same function as the Clay Avenue
Extension. The benefits of this strategy are the creation of more commercial frontage for property owners, and a
mixed-use street that reduces traffic volume on Clay Avenue. The challenges are determining how construction of
the route might be timed (it is conditioned on the Rio de Flag Flood Control Project), and how the City could pay
for it. The La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Specific Plan is not the appropriate mechanism for finalizing those details.
Corridor plans that include operational analysis, cost-benefit ratios, and project design work are part of the
appropriate mechanism for making decisions about road connectivity because they take into account the balance
of local neighborhood and regional transportation needs. If a corridor plan for the McCracken Street Extension,
Milton Road, or Route 66 comes to a different conclusion than this Specific Plan, then that corridor plan would
take precedence in transportation and infrastructure decisions (Policy 13.2).
The McCracken Street Extension would increase the traffic volume on the road and make it more viable for
commercial and mixed-use development. It would also reduce the amount of cut-through traffic on Clay Avenue,
given traffic calming in the neighborhood and the design of a new minor collector (Policy 12.1). Clay Avenue and
parts of Blackbird Roost could then be downgraded from minor collectors to local streets. The FUTS trail could then
take advantage of lower volume traffic to create on-street connections between the neighborhood, downtown,
the school, and park.
The FUTS trail in Streetscapes Scenario 2 could be accommodated with a small increase in the right-of-way for Clay
Avenue. It would be beneficial to keep the trail on the south side of the road where it can directly connect the park
and school to the wider FUTS network. About five additional feet of right-of-way would be needed over the current
condition to have a 5-foot sidewalk and planting strip on one side of the road and a FUTS trail on the other. One
lane of on-street parking (see Figure 22) would be given up in order to achieve this.
The original street scenario that is represented in FRP30 is the Clay Avenue Extension connecting the West Village
subdivision and the west end of Clay Avenue. Modeling showed this would more than double the peak traffic
volume, and the road alterations needed for that level of improvement was considered incompatible with the
neighborhood character (Policy 13.1). Therefore, the Clay Avenue Extension was not illustrated in the Concept
Plan.

31

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

32

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

33

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

STREET CROSS-SECTIONS
The right-of-way typical for new collector and local streets is depicted in Figures 19 and 20, respectively. These
would be applied to new roads constructed in both scenarios for Concept Map 2. On-street parking would be
allowed on local streets and bike lanes would be provided on minor collectors. Both scenarios for Concept Map 2
would increase the supply of on-street parking and provide for complete bicycle and pedestrian connections in
slightly different ways. Sidewalks and bike lanes depicted in Figures 19 and 20 are wider than the minimum
required by the City’s Engineering Design Standards and Specifications. The additional six inches to one foot of
right-of-way will make this road more attractive to pedestrians and cyclists and provide higher quality access to the
activity centers, corridors, Downtown, and NAU.
An important element of all streetscapes in the La Plaza Vieja neighborhood is the presence of trees, the majority
of which currently exist on private property. Additional street trees, whether they are planted in expanded rightsof-way with a parkway or in tree wells along the sidewalk, contribute to the enhanced pedestrian environment of
an urban neighborhood. Concept Map 2 shows new trees along many of the neighborhood’s streets as well as
along any new rights-of-way that may result from reinvestment in the area; it is assumed that newly constructed
streets will have an adequate parkway to plant trees between the sidewalk and the street. These would primarily
occur in commercial and mixed-use portions of the Transition Area. Additional trees for improving the pedestrian
environment on existing roads would be planted and preserved on the private property just outside of the
easement and be encouraged through urban forestry grants and cooperation with the La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood
Association.
In order to accomplish construction of new roads in the block south of Clay Avenue and to provide street
improvements under Streetscapes Scenario 1, the City would need to acquire new rights-of-way from property
owners. There is already a need to acquire land to complete the Clay Avenue Wash improvements associated with
the Rio de Flag Flood Control project in the same location. Streets would add to the needed right-of-way but could
also add value by increasing the commercial frontage of the properties. The right-of-way could be acquired
incrementally as properties redevelop, or could be done as a City project to reinvest in the neighborhood. If the
City proceeds with an extension of McCracken Street, property owners would have the opportunity to negotiate
the value of the property after receiving an appraisal. When Flagstaff acquires property, like other government
entities, the offer gives consideration to the impact of the acquisition on the value of the remaining property.

34

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

Figure 19: Cross-Section of a New Minor Collector (69-foot right-of-way)
The right-of-way for a minor collector is 69 feet in Figure 19. Along Streetscapes Scenario 2’s McCracken Street
Extension this could be acquired without removing any of the existing buildings. It would displace parking,
driveways, and fences for the commercial and multi-family properties. It is possible to have a narrower right-ofway by having an access management plan that limits curb cuts in the mid-block and therefore would eliminate the
need for a continuous center turn lane. In Streetscapes Scenario 1, the existing minor collectors are narrower than
a new collector would be. This is typical of older roads in the City. It is unlikely that enough right-of-way could be
acquired along Clay Avenue to improve the road to this standard without impacting existing buildings.

Figure 20: Cross-Section of New Local Street (60-foot right-of-way)
Figure 20 shows the right-of-way for a new local street. On a local street, traffic volumes are low enough that
bicycles can share the travel lane with vehicles. Traffic calming on Clay Avenue may be necessary if a new collector
is constructed under Streetscapes Scenario 2. Traffic calming is not depicted in this cross-section.

35

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

Figure 21: Cross-Section of FUTS Trail through the Neighborhood (24-foot right-of-way)
Figure 21 depicts a mid-block FUTS trail that could be located in the Clay Avenue Wash between McCracken Street
and Malpais Lane under Streetscapes Scenario 1. Even next to parking areas, proper landscaping along the FUTS
trail creates a high-quality pedestrian and bicycling experience.

Figure 22: Cross-Section of FUTS Incorporated into a Local Street (55-foot right-of-way)
Figure 22 shows a modified cross-section for Clay Avenue under Streetscapes Scenario 2. If the McCracken Street
Extension proceeds, it would be beneficial to bicyclists and pedestrians to provide a FUTS connection in an
alternate location with less traffic than the one shown on Map 26 of FRP30. The current right-of-way along Clay
Avenue is 50 feet and the right-of-way needed for the improvements as shown in Figure 22 is 55 feet. This
additional 5 feet of right-of-way could be acquired without impacting existing buildings between Malpais Lane and
the west end of Clay Avenue.
Source for Figures 19-22: www.streetmix.net

36

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

ILLUSTRATION 1: WEST SIDE INFILL REINVESTMENT
The parcel shown in this illustration is currently
vacant and used for stormwater retention. It is in
the Transition Area (see Concept Map 1). The
south side of the 4-acre property is in the Rio de
Flag floodway and floodplain. This illustration
shows how single-family attached houses can be
made compatible with the neighborhood
character (Policy 6T.1). Under the existing CS
zoning, this building type could be achieved
through the Planned Residential Development
process. The building types in the illustration
would be customized to the neighborhood
character of La Plaza Vieja and would not use the
typical “townhome” building type from the Zoning
Code. Grouping the single-family homes into
attached buildings of 2-4 units allows the buildings
to have more residential scale in relation to the
street, with a higher density than individual
single-family lots would allow. They would need to
be alley loaded according to Flagstaff’s Zoning
Code, which is consistent with the alleys seen
throughout the Neighborhood Core (Policy 6T.2).

Figure 23: Overview Figure of Site with Park

Figure 24: Alley Loaded Attached Single-Family Homes

Figure 25: Alley Loaded Attached Single-Family Homes

37

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan
Single-family attached homes can be managed as either a rental property or an owner-occupied condo
development. They are particularly appropriate in the context of this parcel because of the scale of single-family
homes east of the lot on Clay Avenue and the Mill Pond neighborhood to the south. They provide a compatible
medium density alternative to apartment-style housing seen along Blackbird Roost. Any development with
densities lower than medium density (6-14 units per acre) on a commercial parcel would not be financially feasible
because of the cost of acquiring the underlying property.

Figure 26: Attached Single-Family Homes

Figure 27: Block-Level View of Attached Single-Family Homes
These are illustrative examples of desired outcomes from the Plan, and do not impact existing land entitlement or limit the
ability of a private land owner to develop other uses in accordance with the City Code and Standards.

38

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

ILLUSTRATION 2: MOBILE HOME PARK REDEVELOPMENT
The reinvestment illustrations for the parcel
that is currently the Arrowhead Village
Mobile Home Park show the scale that would
be needed to replace all the units currently
on the site with multi-family units that meet
City standards. The tallest building is located
furthest from the Neighborhood Core and
the design is influenced by the lumber
company history within La Plaza Vieja (Policy
6T.1). This illustration depicts adequate room
for a playground and community room on
site (Policy 5.2). This could easily be a design
for affordable housing units as well as
market-rate units (Policy 7.5). The illustration
shows adequate parking for market rate
units and so an affordable housing project
may be able to have more units if developed
in a similar style. The illustration’s enhanced
streetscape and 2-3 story buildings placed
closer to the street provide a more urban
streetscape along Blackbird Roost (Goal 12),
Figure 28: Overview of Mobile Home Park Redevelopment
which fits the context of the apartments and
commercial services along the east side of the street. The illustration shows an overview of improved street
connectivity and new FUTS path: a reconfigured Chateau Lane connects with McCracken Street on the east and
over to Millpond Village on the west.

Figure 29: Interior View of Apartments

39

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan
The floodway and floodplain are major constraints to this parcel’s redevelopment, as is the relocation of current
residents. If the Rio de Flag Flood Control project is not implemented, the north building in this illustration would
need to be designed to avoid the floodway and the cost of flood proofing would make redevelopment of
affordable housing on this parcel more challenging. Relocation of low-income residents during construction and in
some cases permanently would also add to the project’s cost (Policy 6.1). Overcoming these challenges to provide
safe and affordable housing to La Plaza Vieja residents requires transparency, and early and frequent involvement
of stakeholders, the neighborhood, and City staff (Goals 6 and 7).

Figure 30: Birdseye View Showing Corner of Blackbird Roost and Realigned Chateau Drive

Figure 31: View of Streetscape Heading North on Blackbird Roost
These are illustrative examples of desired outcomes from the Plan, and do not impact existing land entitlement or limit the
ability of a private land owner to develop other uses in accordance with the City Code and Standards.

40

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

ILLUSTRATION 3: MCCRACKEN EXTENSION BLOCK

Figure 32: Overview of the Block South of Clay Avenue with McCracken Extension

McCracken Street currently
dead ends about 250 feet east
of Blackbird Roost. After the
completion of the Rio de Flag
floodplain improvements, it may
be possible to connect the road
with Malpais Lane and create a
mid-block connection to Clay
Avenue (Policy 6T.2). The
Figure33:
33:Commercial
CommercialBuilding
Buildingalong
alongMalpais
MalpaisLane
Lane
Figure
midblock connection would
displace the current accessible parking and playground equipment associated with the Guadalupe Park. In this
case, the City would need to acquire additional property proximate to the ballpark to reestablish the playground
area (Policy 3.3). The new roads would create the opportunity to have commercial, mixed-use buildings, and
apartments throughout the reconfigured block and not just along Malpais Lane and Blackbird Roost (Policy 6T.1
and 6C.1). New local roads would increase the amount of on-street parking for special events at the school, park,
or commercial buildings (Policy 6T.3, 6C.4, and Policy 3.1). Shared parking and driveways within this block will also
increase the parking capacity for commercial businesses that would typically occupy parking spaces during the day,
and apartments and the ballpark that would use the parking at night and on weekends. Proximity to transit and
bicycling opportunities will also improve the efficiency of parking within this block (Goals 10, 12, and 14).

41

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

Figure 34: View of Shared Parking, West Side of Block

Figure 35: Three-Story Mixed Use along McCracken Extension

Figure 36: Multi-Family Facing New Local Street, Mid-Block

The buildings illustrated in this block
along the McCracken Street Extension
include (from west to east) an office
building, a mixed-use building with
commercial and residential uses, facing
apartment buildings with stoops on the
street, and a corner-entry commercial
building at the corner of Malpais Lane
and the new McCracken Street Extension
that enhances the entrance into the
neighborhood. Illustration 3 shows an
adequate amount of surface parking for
all residential, commercial, and mixeduse buildings on the block. Shared
parking makes parking requirements
more feasible with a parking demand
study. Features that make these designs
compatible with the character of La
Plaza Vieja are their use of locally
significant materials, paseos to allow
views into interior courtyards from the
street, gables and hipped roofs, cupolas,
the use of residential features in
thedesign (dormers, stoops, balconies),
and landscaping (Policy 6T.1 and 6C.1).
These buildings are tallest along
McCracken Street and step back as
they approach Clay Avenue. Buildings
in the adjacent Commercial Edge may
be taller in the future. The office
building at the corner of Blackbird
Roost and the McCracken Street
Extension has a roofline that mimics
the historic school at the opposite
corner of the block, including cupolas
(Policy 6T.1). Patio spaces,

residential porches, courtyards, balconies, and various civic spaces all appear in Illustration 3 as a way of
blending residential and commercial spaces. The commercial buildings along the McCracken Extension
feature recessed entries and arched hallways, which, along with street trees and gathering spaces,
contribute to a varied and pedestrian-oriented streetscape. Residential entryways also face the street
throughout the block, and are given elevated and recessed entries and landscape buffers to better
distinguish private from public space.

42

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

Figure 37: Office Building at Blackbird Roost and McCracken Street

At the southeast corner of Blackbird
Roost and Clay Avenue, two four-unit
apartment houses are illustrated. The
front of the buildings has a single
entrance, mimicking the single-family
homes across the street (Policy 6T.1).
Half of their parking is covered and
shielded from view along Clay Avenue.
The buildings also face the street instead
of the side yard, which makes their
exterior more in keeping with singlefamily homes along the block. The
illustration shows some park space being
lost to a new local street, but it is
appropriately relocated to the west side
of the park, near the apartment houses
for public use (Policy 3.3).

Figure 38: Apartment Houses along Clay Avenue, Looking Southeast

Figure 39: Office Building along Blackbird Roost

These are illustrative examples of desired outcomes from the Plan, and do not impact existing land entitlement or limit the
ability of a private land owner to develop other uses in accordance with the City Code and Standards.

43

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

ILLUSTRATION 4: COMMERCIAL EDGE REINVESTMENT

Figure 40: Reduced Impact Mixed-Use Development

Figure 41: Pedestrian-Level View from Milton Road

Architectural techniques can be used to
improve the appearance of large
commercial and mixed-use buildings
(Policy 6C.1). Large structures with long,
unbroken facades and box-like forms
have a negative impact on the pedestrian
environment. Variation in roof forms and
heights, and in planes of walls and
facades, improve the aesthetics of large
buildings. A sense of entry and pedestrian
scale can be enhanced by stoops,
awnings, street trees, and landscaping
(Goals 6, 6C, Policy 6C.1). Authentic local
building materials at street level can
further improve the appeal of these
buildings (Policy 8.2). The illustrations for
Commercial Edge reinvestment within
this area show how large sidewalks and
minimal building setbacks create an urban
neighborhood environment even on a
high traffic volume road like Milton.
Placing windows and entries along
sidewalks better integrates these
commercial buildings with the nearby
neighborhoods.
These are illustrative examples of desired
outcomes from the Plan, and do not impact
existing land entitlement or limit the ability of
a private land owner to develop other uses in
accordance with the City Code and Standards.

Figure 42: Rear Architectural Treatment Facing Malpais Lane

Figure 43: Overview of Site
44

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

ILLUSTRATION 5: TRANSITION AREA ADAPTIVE REUSE

Figure 44: Adaptive Reuse of Old Fire Station along Malpais Lane
This illustration shows a potential repurposing of the former firehouse building, playing off the firehouse history
but adding architectural features such as patios, low walls, and other features that make it relate better to human
scale and the new uses (Goals 6, 6C, 8, Policy 8.4). It also shows the possibility of a second floor that contains four
residential units (Policy 6C.1). This space could potentially be offices if adequate parking could be secured (Policy
6C.4).

Figure 45: Alternate View of Adaptive Reuse from Milton Road

These are illustrative examples of desired outcomes from the Plan, and do not impact existing land entitlement or limit the
ability of a private land owner to develop other uses in accordance with the City Code and Standards.

45

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

ILLUSTRATION 6: PARK STREET INFILL

Figure 46: Birdseye View of Apartments Backing Milton
Commercial

Figure 47: Overview of Shared Parking with Milton

On the east side of Park Street, a local
residential road, there is a block between
Tucson Avenue and Tombstone Avenue of
Highway Commercial zoning that could
alter the neighborhood character
significantly, if developed to its maximum
potential. This block is important because
of the abutting Historic Route 66 Hotel,
views of Our Lady of Guadalupe Church
and NAU (Policy 6C.2), and the small-scale
residences on the opposite side of the
street. This block would be an important
area to implement Policy 6T.6 by
encouraging reduction in entitlements to
preserve neighborhood character. The
illustration of four multi-family buildings
shows how this block could be developed
as a compatible mixed-use area (Policy
6T.1). The multi-family buildings are
bungalow style similar to the two houses
across the street and can contain two to
four units. They also have shared parking
with the businesses along Milton Road
(Policy 6T.3) and landscaping that is
appropriate for the single-family
character of the street. If they were built
in this manner along with reinvestment of
the smaller building along Milton Road,
this would be an example of horizontal
mixed use. They could be developed
independently with a conditional use
permit or rezoning.
These are illustrative examples of desired
outcomes from the Plan, and do not impact
existing land entitlement or limit the ability of
a private land owner to develop other uses in
accordance with the City Code and Standards.

Figure 48: Bungalow 4-Unit Apartment Building

46

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

SINGLE-FAMILY COTTAGES
La Plaza Vieja’s historic integrity
is largely defined by its historic
single-family cottages. The
homes are primarily wood, one
to one and a half stories tall, and
have simple architectural styles.
Several families in the
neighborhood have receipts
from the AL&T lumber mill store
for the wood used in building
their homes (Figure 46). Corbels
under the eaves of homes are a
common architectural detail.
Floor plans are simple “L,”
double-“L,” or square patterns,
but additions are common. Most
homes have a front porch that is
included in the front, or extends
across the entire frontage, or a covered stoop. Front yards are usually used as gardens or have steep slopes and
decks that allow for views of Flagstaff. Low malpais walls and fences often separate the front yard from the public
sidewalk. Garages are set back behind the home and backyards are often used for parking, sheds, and accessory
dwelling units. Below are some examples of historic homes in the neighborhood that illustrate these elements of
single-family cottage design.
Figure 49: Single-Family “L” Home at 1105 W. Lower Coconino Avenue

Figure 50: Historic Home Converted to Triplex at 907 W. Clay Avenue (front and back yard views)
Triplexes are not allowed under the current zoning, but this property is an example of how rental units can be
managed compatibly with the neighborhood character. The exterior of this home is the same scale, materials, and
style of other houses on the block. The additional unit was added to the rear. The front yard is fenced and
landscaped and the rear yard provides parking. The landlord even provides garden beds and a bike rack for
tenants.

47

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

Figure 51: Single-Family Cottages at 829 and 831 W. Coconino Avenue
The home on the right is a historic single-family cottage, and on the left is an infill cottage that was designed to be
compatible with the neighboring house.

Figure 52: Single-Family Cottage with Covered Stoop at 510 W. Tombstone Avenue
This home was recently remodeled on the exterior to remove aging stucco. The owner returned to the wood
exterior materials and replaced old eaves and corbels to improve the home’s appearance.

48

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

Figure 53: Single-Family Double "L" Home at 923 W. Clay Avenue

Figure 54: Single-Family Cottage on Steep Slope at 208 W. Dupont Avenue

49

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan

OLD TOWN SPRINGS PARK
Master Plan for Old Town Springs Park Improvements

Figure 55: Existing Conditions and Conceptual Representation of Improvements

50

Chapter 2 - Concept Plan
Old Town Springs Park is of
particular significance to the
neighborhood. The Park was
developed through organizing
efforts of the local residents and is
one of three possible locations of
the original “flag of Flagstaff.”
During its renovation in the 1980s,
the City also unearthed numerous
archeological resources tied to the
original business district that was
located along the railroad.
These illustrations demonstrate
how the improvements under
Implementation Strategy 3.1 could
be achieved in the Old Town
Springs Park. The overall desire of
this plan is to improve the
entrances and appearance of the
park by making the spring a focal
point. The spring is currently
invaded by the adjacent bluegrass
and this proposal would include
removing the current vegetation
and replacing it with native sedges
similar to those found in hillslope
springs in Thorpe Park (i.e., Carex
Figure 56: Illustration of Improvements to Enhance Old Town Springs Park geophila, C. occidentalis or C.
duriuscula). The low wall around the spring would mimic the low rock walls seen in front of residences on the
adjacent streets.
The sign on the north side of the park would be maintained as it matches the sign at the neighborhood entrance at
Florence Avenue and Clay Avenue. These signs were designed and installed by neighborhood residents.
New lighting in the park would be similar to what has been installed at Bushmaster Park for ease of maintenance
and appearance. A small LED light would be added to the top of the new flagpole so that the American flag can be
flown at all times. This is the practice at Frances Short Pond and in front of the Chamber of Commerce, which are
also considered possible sites of the original “Flagstaff flagpole.”
This illustration also shows the addition of interpretive signs to provide details of the natural and cultural history of
the park and surrounding area. A plaque along the sidewalk would also identify that each of the spruces along the
north side of the park was planted by a family from the neighborhood as a part of Flagstaff’s centennial
celebrations.

51

Chapter 3 - Neighborhood Goals and Recommended Policies

CHAPTER 3: NEIGHBORHOOD GOALS AND
RECOMMENDED POLICIES
Goals and policies in the La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Specific Plan are area-specific ways of advancing the goals
and policies of the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 (FRP30). They are written broadly because they are intended
to be viable for a 10- to 20-year planning horizon. During the next 20 years, physical, financial, political, and social
environments may change, but the goals and policies should provide consistency in the path forward for
reinvestment and revitalization in the La Plaza Vieja neighborhood.
All City capital projects, or rezoning, annexation, and plan amendment applications will be reviewed by City staff to
determine consistency with the FRP30, but must also take into account any applicable Specific Plans when
projects fall within a Plan boundary. Specific Plans do not change existing entitlements, and development
applications that use their existing rights and comply with City standards are not subject to review for consistency
with FRP30. If an FRP30 goal or policy is tied to a goal in the Specific Plan, then it should be weighted more heavily
in future decision-making than a goal that is not listed in this chapter. The exception to this is if a Corridor Plan for
South Milton Road or Route 66 comes to a different conclusion than the Specific Plan, then that Corridor Plan
would take precedence in transportation and infrastructure decisions.
The Specific Plan is used in the regulatory decision-making process by the City Planning and Zoning Commission,
City Council, and City staff, such as in plan amendments and requests for rezoning. The Commission and the
Council are responsible for making development decisions such as zoning map amendments or annexations,
approval of rezoning requests which depends, in part, on whether the proposed changes or projects are consistent
with the Specific Plan’s goals and policies. When reviewing development proposals, City staff, the Planning and
Zoning Commission, and the City Council will review applicable goals and policies to determine whether a
proposed development is consistent with the Specific Plan. The Concept or Illustrative Plan and the text of the
Specific Plan will provide supplemental information for the interpretation of goals and policies. In case of any
conflict between the Concept or Illustrative Plan and the Specific Plan’s goals and policies, the goals and policies
will prevail. The Specific Plan is also used to guide decisions related to the expansion of public infrastructure, for
example, the building or improvement of new roads and trails, investment in parks or public buildings, and other
facilities. Many initiatives to improve the community start at the grassroots level. Thus, the Specific Plan may be
used by all citizens in order to advocate for new development that conforms to the Specific Plan and for assistance
in implementing actions that will further the Specific Plan’s vision and direction.
The headings and names of the goals are for reference purposes only and should be disregarded in interpreting the
language of the goals.
The Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 supports the neighborhood Vision Statement through Policy LU.10.3: Value the Traditional
Neighborhoods established around Downtown by maintaining and improving their highly walkable character, transit
accessibility, diverse mix of land uses, and historic building form.

52

Chapter 3 - Neighborhood Goals and Recommended Policies

NEIGHBORHOOD EMPOWERMENT
GOAL #1: BUILD UPON “NEIGHBORHOOD”
LPVNA and the community support the goals of the Plan by education, forming partnerships, recruiting volunteers,
and seeking out funding for projects.
Related FRP30 Goals: Policy NH.1.1: Preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods.

POLICY 1.1: Maintain an active partnership between City staff and LPVNA in order to facilitate grant writing,
communication with residents about city programs, public involvement of residents in Commission and
Council hearings, and beautification and preservation of La Plaza Vieja.
POLICY 1.2: LPVNA acknowledges outstanding contributions to restoration and enhancement of
neighborhood yards, houses, and commercial buildings, such as an annual award.
POLICY 1.3: LPVNA media outreach highlights outstanding contributions of La Plaza Vieja to the wider
Flagstaff community.

GOAL #2: BOOST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY
La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Association and City staff cooperate to provide a safe neighborhood and to prevent
and address violations of City Code. An awareness of community services and resources is widespread.
Related FRP30 Goals: Policy NH.1.1: Preserve and enhance existing neighborhoods. Goal NH.4: All housing is safe and sanitary.

POLICY 2.1: LPVNA works closely with City Code Compliance staff to assist with neighborhood clean-up,
including vegetation overhanging public rights-of-way and abandoned trash.
POLICY 2.2: LPVNA works with property owners and residents to address deferred exterior maintenance to
support an attractive and safe neighborhood for all residents.
POLICY 2.3: LPVNA and the City support remediation of overgrown vegetation and enforcement of City
camping restrictions to improve the appearance of La Plaza Vieja and promote a safe Wildland-Urban
Interface.

53

Chapter 3 - Neighborhood Goals and Recommended Policies

PARKS AND COMMUNITY SPACES
GOAL #3: ENHANCE PARKS MAINTENANCE, DESIGN, AND CONNECTION
Ensure City parks in La Plaza Vieja provide safe, user-friendly, and interactive neighborhood spaces for gatherings
and family activities.
Related FRP30 Goals: Goal REC.1: Maintain and grow the region’s healthy system of convenient and accessible parks, recreation
facilities, and trails.

POLICY 3.1: Provide well-designed, attractive, safe, and accessible amenities and entrances at all
neighborhood parks.
POLICY 3.2: Create opportunities for parks, especially Old Town Springs Park, to showcase La Plaza Vieja’s
identity and natural and cultural history through the use of native landscaping, and the installation of public
art and interpretive signs.
POLICY 3.3: If any public space or park amenity is displaced for future parcel reconfiguration, infrastructure,
or transportation need, relocate the amenity to an appropriate area within the neighborhood.

GOAL #4: COMMUNITY GARDENS
The neighborhood desires a community garden with irrigation and composting that allows residents to participate
in an affordable venue for education about health and local food systems.
Related FRP30 Goals: Policy NH.1.4: Foster points of activities, services, increased densities, and transit connections in urban
and suburban neighborhoods. Policy NH 6.2: Use urban conservation tools to revitalize existing underutilized activity centers to
their potential.

GOAL #5: COMMUNITY CENTERS AND SPACES
Provide publicly accessible meeting spaces throughout La Plaza Vieja for education and social events; and provide
resources for local children, seniors, and local small businesses.
Related FRP30 Goals: Goal REC.1: Maintain and grow the region’s healthy system of convenient and accessible parks, recreation
facilities, and trails.

POLICY 5.1: Create a community bulletin board in a park or other public space for advertising meetings and
outreach efforts.
POLICY 5.2: LPVNA and the City support development of gathering spaces, such as a community center,
meeting rooms, or plaza, that is available to the public in La Plaza Vieja.

54

Chapter 3 - Neighborhood Goals and Recommended Policies

PRESERVING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER
GOAL #6: REINVESTMENT CONSISTENT WITH NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER
In each area – the Neighborhood Core, Transition Area, and Commercial Edge (see Map 13) – revitalization,
redevelopment, and infill development occurs in a manner compatible with the character of the built environment
as defined by the scale, pattern, materials, and colors of historic residences and landmarks.
Related FRP30 Goals: Policy LU.1.2: Develop reinvestment plans with neighborhood input, identifying the center, mix of uses,
connectivity patterns, public spaces, and appropriate spaces for people to live, work, and play. Policy LU.1.3: Promote
reinvestment at the neighborhood scale to include infill of vacant parcels, redevelopment of underutilized properties, aesthetic
improvements to public spaces, remodeling of existing buildings and streetscapes, maintaining selected appropriate open space,
and programs for the benefit and improvement of the local residents. Policy LU.1.12: Seek fair and proper relocation of existing
residents and businesses in areas affected by redevelopment and reinvestment, where necessary.

POLICY 6.1: Redevelopment and reinvestment opportunities that do not require the relocation of existing
residents and businesses are preferred to those that displace them.

GOAL #6N: PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD CORE AS A PREDOMINANTLY SINGLE-FAMILY
NEIGHBORHOOD
Single-family residential cottages with yards are the primary building type in the Neighborhood Core with
compatibly-designed accessory dwelling units and duplexes that do not dominate the block or street as an element
of the urban neighborhood.
Related FRP30 Goals: FRP30 identifies the Neighborhood Core (see Map 13) as an Urban neighborhood within the pedestrian
shed of three Activity Centers. Policy NH.1.2: Respect traditions, identifiable styles, proportions, streetscapes, relationships
between buildings, yards, and roadways; and use historically appropriate and compatible building and structural materials when
making changes to existing neighborhoods, especially in historic neighborhoods.

POLICY 6N.1: Small lot and block sizes are retained north of Clay Avenue to preserve the small cottage feel
and open space within La Plaza Vieja.
POLICY 6N.2: Combination of residential lots to create a larger lot is compatible with the La Plaza Vieja
character when it does not allow for increasing height, proportions, and building massing of permitted
development above what is typical for the block or street.
POLICY 6N.3: Single-family cottages facing the street with landscaped front and back yards and an optional
smaller “carriage house” in back are the preferred building types in the Neighborhood Core.
POLICY 6N.4: Development within the Neighborhood Core is compatible with the single-family residential
character. Compatible development includes:
•
•
•
•

55

Buildings with mass bulk and scale at the pedestrian (street) level consistent to adjacent blocks.
Larger buildings with upper floors stepped back for consistent frontage with adjacent residences.
Front entrances facing the street as the primary entrance.
Front porches, landscaped yards, and facades that are consistent with surrounding context.

Chapter 3 - Neighborhood Goals and Recommended Policies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Maintained landscaping in the front yard for rental and owner-occupied houses.
Locally-appropriate building materials.
Gabled and hipped roofs.
Low malpais walls to separate front and side yards from the street.
Garages designed as a secondary structure or entrance, set back from the house frontage.
Setbacks consistent with other houses along the street.
Windows and doors along the building frontage with similar scale, design, and proportions to
historic residences.
Examples of incompatible development within the Neighborhood Core include but are not limited to: AFrame houses, houses with two-car garages that are not set back from the main house, and new mobile
homes.
POLICY 6N.5: Provide adequate parking on-site for residential units in the Neighborhood Core. It is preferred
that on-site parking be located along the alley or behind the main residence.
POLICY 6N.6: Have development applicants improve alleyways from the property to the road, when used as
the primary access for infill residences (per Zoning Code 10-30.50.070).
POLICY 6N.7: Preserve, enhance, and restore historic single family homes, whenever possible.
POLICY 6N.8: Encourage property owners to plant and maintain deciduous trees that shade the sidewalk in
the summer where there is no parkway strip for street trees.

GOAL #6T: ENCOURAGE CONTEXT-APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT IN THE TRANSITION AREA
BETWEEN NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS
The mass and scale of new development in the Transition Area are in context with the historic commercial
buildings and residential structures in the La Plaza Vieja interior with larger mass and scale occurring close to Route
66 and Milton Road.
Related FRP30 Goals: FRP30 identifies the Transition Area (see Map 13) as an existing Suburban/Future Urban area within the
pedestrian shed of two Activity Centers. Policy NH.1.3: Interconnect existing and new neighborhoods through patterns of
development, with complete streets, sidewalks, and trails. Policy NH.1.4: Foster points of activities, services, increased densities,
and transit connections in urban and suburban neighborhoods. Policy NH.1.6: New development, especially on the periphery,
will contribute to completing neighborhoods, including interconnecting with other neighborhoods; providing parks, civic spaces,
and a variety of housing types; and protecting sensitive natural and cultural features. Policy NH.1.7: Develop appropriate
programs and tools to ensure the appropriate placement, design, and operation of new student housing developments
consistent with neighborhood character and scale. Policy NH.1.8: Prioritize the stabilization of a neighborhood’s identity and
maintain cultural diversity as new development occurs. Policy LU.18.8: Increase residential densities, live-work units, and home
occupations within the activity center’s pedestrian shed.

POLICY 6T.1: Development within the Transition Area is compatible with La Plaza Vieja character. Compatible
development includes:
•
•

Gabled roofs are strongly preferred to flat roofs consistent with historic buildings (i.e.,
residences, the school, and armory).
Medium-scale multi-family housing or commercial and mixed-use development that faces the
neighborhood and street.

56

Chapter 3 - Neighborhood Goals and Recommended Policies
•

Buildings that mimic architectural features of established residences, the school, or the armory,
or incorporates elements of the significant historic periods of the railroad and timber industry.
• Buildings that incorporate paseos or walkable courtyards through buildings or a landscaped
plaza.
• Civic and gathering spaces and uses, such as community centers, parks, and schools.
Examples of incompatible developments within the Transition Area include but are not limited to:
5
commercial and mixed-use buildings with multiple-level structured parking garages; buildings over three
stories in height that are taller than buildings in the Commercial Edge; metal buildings; buildings without
compatible or historically appropriate architectural details; and buildings without doors and windows that
face the neighborhood and sidewalks.
POLICY 6T.2: Extend the urban street grid from Clay Avenue south and west to McCracken Place in order to
provide a smaller block atmosphere in the Transition Area. Public streets and alleys are preferred to culs-desac and private driveways.
POLICY 6T.3: Connections between parking areas and shared parking and driveways are encouraged in the
Transition Area.
POLICY 6T.4: Provide bicycle and pedestrian connectivity from the Neighborhood Core to commercial
developments within the Transition Area.
POLICY 6T.5: Medium density housing in the Transition Area is preferred when using building types that
protect the neighborhood character of La Plaza Vieja.
POLICY 6T.6: Support opportunities for willing property owners to reduce entitlements in the Transition Area
to ensure future development is appropriately scaled to the Neighborhood Core regardless of ownership.
POLICY 6T.7: Design new buildings to minimize impacts to views of the San Francisco Peaks, Mars Hill, Old
Main Historic District, Mt. Elden, or Our Lady of Guadalupe Church from residential streets and public parks.

GOAL #6C: ENHANCE THE COMMERCIAL EDGE
Plan for and design Milton Road, Route 66, and Malpais Lane as mixed use and commercial corridors that are
compatible with the La Plaza Vieja character and provide services and jobs for Flagstaff residents.
Related FRP30 Goals: FRP30 identifies the Commercial Edge (see Map 13) roughly north of the intersection of Malpais Lane and
Milton Road as the core of an urban activity center and associated corridor. South of Malpais Lane, the Commercial Edge is the
core of a Suburban Activity Center and associated corridor. Policy LU.18.2: Strive for activity centers and corridors that are
characterized by contextual and distinctive identities, derived from history, environmental features, a mix of uses, well-designed
public spaces, parks, plazas, and high-quality design. Policy LU.18.9: Plan activity centers and corridors appropriate to their
respective regional or neighborhood scale.

POLICY 6C.1: Development within the Commercial Edge is compatible with La Plaza Vieja character.
Compatible development includes:
5

Multiple-level parking garages may be considered compatible where the size of the lot or its width would
otherwise limit its ability to develop in a manner that would otherwise be considered compatible with the
neighborhood character.

57

Chapter 3 - Neighborhood Goals and Recommended Policies
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

Buildings with gabled roofs where they face the Transition Area and Neighborhood Core.
Commercial and mixed-use buildings with architecture and form that enhances the comfort of
the pedestrian environment on South Milton Road and interior neighborhood roads (if
applicable).
Commercial and mixed-use buildings that provide commercial services to tourists and residents
on the first floor facing the street.
Commercial and mixed-use buildings with architecture that faces the neighborhood and the
corridor.
Buildings that mimic architectural features of established residences, the school, or the armory,
or incorporates elements of the significant historic periods of the railroad and timber industry.
Buildings with outdoor seating, paseos, or walkable courtyards through buildings.
Office uses and residential units above or behind commercial buildings.

POLICY 6C.2: Consider impacts to views of Flagstaff’s iconic scenery (i.e., the San Francisco Peaks, Our Lady
of Guadalupe Church steeple, and NAU’s Old Main) and landscapes from the Neighborhood Core and the
roadway, when reviewing development applications in the Commercial Edge.
POLICY 6C.3: Recognize the history of automotive tourism along Route 66 by preserving and enhancing
National Scenic Byway-related landmarks in good condition, such as the L Motel and the Armory (Natural
Grocers building).
POLICY 6C.4: Connections between parking areas and shared parking and driveways are encouraged in the
Transition Area.
POLICY 6C.5: High occupancy housing, such as rooming and boarding, single room occupancy, and
dormitories, may be permitted provided that the project mitigates the effects on the neighborhood including
appropriate architecture, increased parking to account for occupancy, landscaping, traffic calming, and street
trees.

Figure 57: Neighborhood Policy Area Photos
Neighborhood Core (Upper Left)

Commercial Edge (Lower Left)

58

Chapter 3 - Neighborhood Goals and Recommended Policies

PRESERVING HISTORIC IDENTITY
GOAL #7: PRESERVE AND ENHANCE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK
Preserving the existing housing stock in La Plaza Vieja is one of the best ways to maintain the neighborhood
character and the affordability of the area for residents.
Related FRP30 Goals: Policy NH.4.1: Expand the availability of affordable housing throughout the region by preserving existing
housing, including housing for very low-income persons. Policy NH.4.2: Reduce substandard housing units by conserving and
rehabilitating existing housing stock to minimize impacts on existing residents. Policy NH.4.5: Renovate the existing housing
stock to conserve energy and reduce utility and maintenance costs for owners and occupants.

POLICY 7.1: LPVNA will promote the City’s Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Program through
education to address health and safety hazards and promote aging in place.
POLICY 7.2: LPVNA will promote the rehabilitation and maintenance of rental properties in La Plaza Vieja to
ensure that rental homes and multi-family housing in the neighborhood are well maintained and landscaped.
POLICY 7.3: LPVNA and the City are especially supportive of property owners who provide affordable housing
for low-income families and will seek to provide assistance to landlords who are financially struggling to
maintain their properties.
POLICY 7.4: Promote sustainability of residential buildings through the City’s Sustainability Program and
LPVNA by providing community education and outreach on grants, rebates, updated building codes, and other
programs.
POLICY 7.5: Promote the incorporation of sustainable building practices, such as passive solar gain,
photovoltaic panels, stormwater collection, grey-water plumbing, insulation standards, Energy Star ratings,
etc., into new buildings and remodeling.
POLICY 7.6: LPVNA and the City welcome affordable housing development opportunities in La Plaza Vieja by
providing supportive services, public improvements, and applying affordable housing incentives.
POLICY 7.7: LPVNA will serve as a resource for residents seeking information regarding absent owners of
units, and will assist in addressing the potential problems from absentee landlords, when appropriate.

GOAL #8: PRESERVE HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND LANDMARKS
Increase heritage preservation opportunities for property owners who want to receive assistance from City staff to
assist in preservation efforts.
Related FRP30 Goals: Goal CC.2: Preserve, restore, and rehabilitate heritage resources to better appreciate our culture.

POLICY 8.1: Identify, support, and encourage the preservation of eligible historic buildings and landmarks in
the Neighborhood Core and along the commercial corridors.

59

Chapter 3 - Neighborhood Goals and Recommended Policies
POLICY 8.2: Incorporate the historic context of the Hispanic community, Route 66, the railroad, and the
lumberyard in the formation and transformations of La Plaza Vieja through the design of future
redevelopment projects.
POLICY 8.3: Celebrate and preserve the rich history of La Plaza Vieja through partnerships that encourage
research and collection, interpretive signs, and programs and education for all ages.
POLICY 8.4: Promote adaptive re-use of historic residences, Route 66 hotels, the armory, fire house, and
school buildings over demolition. Assist property owners with reinvestment through grants and partnerships.

GOAL #9: GATEWAYS
Develop two gateways into La Plaza Vieja with landscaping and a “La Plaza Vieja” sign that reflects the culture of
6
the community.
Related FRP30 Goals: Policy CC.1.4: Identify, protect, and enhance gateways, gateway corridors, and gateway communities.

POLICY 9.1: Gateway projects should incorporate public art that fits the historic context of La Plaza Vieja by
working with local non-profits, the Beatification and Public Art Commission, NAU, and Coconino Community
College.

Figure 58: Neighborhood Gateway at Clay Ave and S. Milton Road

6

See implementation strategies for possible locations.

60

Chapter 3 - Neighborhood Goals and Recommended Policies

TRANSPORTATION
GOAL #10: FLAGSTAFF URBAN TRAILS SYSTEM (FUTS)
La Plaza Vieja is a refuge for bicycle and pedestrian traffic through off-road trails that safely connect to and
through neighborhood roads to the larger bicycle and pedestrian system. FUTS trails support safe routes to and
from the elementary school on Clay Avenue and neighborhood parks.
Related FRP30 Direction: Goal T.5: Increase the availability and use of pedestrian infrastructure, including FUTS, as a critical
element of a safe and livable community. Policy T.6.2: Establish and maintain a comprehensive, consistent, and highly connected
system of bikeways and FUTS trails.

POLICY 10.1: Plan for FUTS extensions by ensuring that trails and adequate right-of-way for complete
streetscapes are included in the design of redevelopment projects, and as part of City infrastructure projects.
POLICY 10.2: Enhance existing and future FUTS trails by constructing well-designed and beautiful crossings,
bridges, and underpasses; add landscaping along trails through La Plaza Vieja.

GOAL #11: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
Pedestrian crossings allow residents of La Plaza Vieja to walk and bike safely to businesses and community facilities
on the east side of South Milton Road, south side of Route 66, and north side of the BNSF railroad.
Related FRP30 Direction: Policy NH.1.3: Interconnect existing and new neighborhoods through patterns of development, with
complete streets, sidewalks, and trails. Policy T.2.3: Provide safety programs and infrastructure to protect the most vulnerable
travelers, including the young, elderly, mobility impaired, pedestrians, and bicyclists.

POLICY 11.1: Continue to work closely with BNSF and ADOT to create opportunities for pedestrian
underpasses and bridges to connect La Plaza Vieja to NAU, Downtown, Townsite, and Southside
neighborhoods.
POLICY 11.2: When future corridor studies are developed, include improvement of existing crossings and
facilities and provide additional pedestrian crossings and facilities on South Milton Road and Route 66 to
reduce barriers to walkability for the La Plaza Vieja and Southside neighborhoods and NAU students.

GOAL #12: INTERNAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS
La Plaza Vieja has a safe and attractive multi-modal streetscape on local streets and minor collectors that provide
for the safe movement of traffic and residential parking. A pedestrian-friendly environment encourages walking
and biking, enables attractive views, and supports positive street activity.
Related FRP30 Direction: Policy CC.4.1: Design streetscapes to be context sensitive and transportation systems to reflect the
desired land use while balancing the needs of all modes for traffic safety and construction and maintenance costs. Policy CC.4.4:
Design streets and parking lots to balance automobile facilities, recognize human-scale and pedestrian needs, and accentuate
the surrounding environment. Policy LU.10.3: Value the Traditional Neighborhoods established around Downtown by
maintaining and improving their highly walkable character, transit accessibility, diverse mix of land uses, and historic building
form. Policy T.1.2: Apply Complete Street Guidelines to accommodate all appropriate modes of travel in transportation
improvement projects. Policy T.1.3: Transportation systems are consistent with the place type and needs of people. Policy T.3.3:

61

Chapter 3 - Neighborhood Goals and Recommended Policies
Couple transportation investments with desired land use patterns to enhance and protect the quality and livability of
neighborhoods, activity centers, and community places. Policy T.3.5: Design transportation infrastructure that implements
ecosystem-based design strategies to manage stormwater and minimize adverse environmental impacts. Policy T.3.8: Promote
transportation options such as increased public transit and more bike lanes to reduce congestion, fuel consumption, and overall
carbon emissions and promote walkable community design. Policy T.4.1: Promote context sensitive solutions (CSS) supportive of
planned land uses, integration of related infrastructure needs, and desired community character elements in all transportation
investments.

POLICY 12.1: In the event that cut-through traffic is increased as a result of City policy or changes to the
management of State highways, provide maximum mitigations to reduce safety risk and provide a comfortable
environment for residents, bicyclists, and pedestrians.
POLICY 12.2: Phase in traffic calming measures such as roundabouts, curb extensions, bulb outs, and tree
plantings on internal neighborhood streets to increase pedestrian comfort, manage speed, and reduce the
proportion of cut-through traffic.
POLICY 12.3: Incorporate street trees and landscaping plants or public art into traffic calming and sidewalk
improvements.
POLICY 12.4: Use native drought tolerant plants for streetscapes that will not require ongoing irrigation after
the plants have established.
POLICY 12.5: Enhance lighting by adding sidewalk level lights on minor collectors within La Plaza Vieja to
improve the pedestrian environment, consistent with the City’s dark skies standards.
POLICY 12.6: Design future sidewalks, streets, and alleys to include low-impact development features in
order to manage stormwater runoff.
POLICY 12.7: Improve the public street connectivity in the area identified as Future Urban on the Future
Growth Illustration (FRP30). Private streets are not compatible in this area.
POLICY 12.8: Support City efforts to manage on-street parking in order to protect neighborhood character.

Figure 59: Traffic Calming Circles on W. Tombstone Avenue

62

Chapter 3 - Neighborhood Goals and Recommended Policies

GOAL #13: NEIGHBORING GREAT STREETS
Balance the needs of the regional transportation system and those of residents for safe, multi-modal streets
through access and mobility management, intersections and pedestrian improvements, and future studies of the
Route 66 and South Milton Road corridors.
Related FRP30 Direction: Goal T.1: Improve mobility and access throughout the region. Policy T.1.2: Apply Complete Street
Guidelines to accommodate all appropriate modes of travel in transportation improvement projects. Policy T.1.3: Transportation
systems are consistent with the place type and needs of people. Goal T.2: Improve transportation safety and efficiency for all
modes. Policy T.3.3: Couple transportation investments with desired land use patterns to enhance and protect the quality and
livability of neighborhoods, activity centers, and community places.

POLICY 13.1: Incorporate into the Regional Transportation Plan update and future corridor studies LPVNA’s
concerns and comments that the Clay Avenue extension is incompatible with the preservation of La Plaza
Vieja’s character and consider alternatives.
POLICY 13.2: Extension of a collector street, such as Clay Avenue or McCracken Street, through the
neighborhood for connectivity should be considered after the functionality and capacity of arterials have been
fully studied and maximized. Backage roads should support but not replace arterial functionality.
POLICY 13.3: If expansion of lanes, road extensions, or other efforts to ease congestion at the intersections
along Route 66 and South Milton Road occur that influence the quality of life in La Plaza Vieja, use Complete
Street principles and identify context sensitive solutions to mitigate impacts to residents.
POLICY 13.4: Any widening of travel lanes or major intersection improvements should include improved
pedestrian features to allow for safe crossings, bike lanes, transit access, and sidewalks.

GOAL #14: ACCESS TO TRANSIT
Transit options along Milton Avenue, Route 66, Clay Avenue, and Blackbird Roost will improve mobility for La Plaza
Vieja, especially for low-income and senior residents.
Related FRP30 Goals: Goal T.7: Provide a high-quality, safe, convenient, accessible public transportation system, where feasible,
to serve as an attractive alternative to single-occupant vehicles.

POLICY 14.1: Ensure that bus frequencies do not negatively impact walkability and La Plaza Vieja character.
POLICY 14.2: Provide lighted transit stops with amenities that are context appropriate. Consider
opportunities for public art at transit stops.
POLICY 14.3: Partner with LPVNA to provide outreach regarding para-transit services for residents to help
seniors age in place and to support residents with disabilities.
POLICY 14.4: Assist NAIPTA in conducting neighborhood specific outreach when transit changes are
proposed that impact the neighborhood.

63

Chapter 3 - Neighborhood Goals and Recommended Policies

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
GOAL #15: SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
La Plaza Vieja provides neighborhood-scale spaces for local small businesses, home-based businesses, and
entrepreneurship.
Related FRP30 Goals: Policy ED.3.1: Encourage regional economic development partners to continue proactive programs to
foster the retention and expansion of existing enterprises and home-based businesses in the community. Policy ED.3.5: Advocate
the economic sustainability and growth of businesses with opportunities for transitional commercial space, leased space, and
property ownership. Policy LU.18.8: Increase residential densities, live-work units, and home occupations within the activity
center’s pedestrian shed.

POLICY 15.1: Provide small business education and services through a neighborhood community center and
other economic development entities.
POLICY 15.2: Incentivize development of live-work units and workforce housing to support local small
business owners south of Clay Avenue and on properties facing South Milton Road.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
GOAL #16: PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY FROM FLOODING
Support redevelopment by investing in improved stormwater facilities for the Clay Avenue Wash.
Related FRP30 Goals: Goal WR.5: Manage watersheds and stormwater to address flooding concerns, water quality,
environmental protections, and rainwater harvesting.

64

Chapter 4 - Implementation Strategies

CHAPTER 4: IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Implementation strategies are designed to help realize the goals of the Plan, but they are not City policy like the
content of Chapter 3. The strategies do not represent commitments of City staff or resources. Their purpose is to
provide a complete and essential picture of how the City and LPVNA can reasonably achieve the goals and policies
of the Plan. Having strategies as part of the Plan allows LPVNA and the City to build partnerships, apply for grant
funding, and take advantage of opportunities that arise in the future in a well-coordinated way. Some of these
strategies may never come to fruition because of issues such as lack of funding, timing, changed conditions, or lack
of willing partners. Nevertheless, articulating these intended strategies clearly will allow for a more complete
dialogue as reinvestment takes place. If a strategy listed in this chapter is infeasible at a future date, it does not
need to be removed by Plan amendment.
For the prioritization of implementation strategies and potential means of funding them, see Appendix 1.
Implementation strategies may be added to the capital improvement 5-year plan based on the recommendations
in Appendix 1 or as opportunity allows. Appendix 1 can be updated without amendment to the Specific Plan based
on the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 (FRP30) annual report, or neighborhood input. Implementation strategies
noted with an asterisk (*) in this chapter may be Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) eligible in whole or
in part based on current evaluation criteria.

NEIGHBORHOOD EMPOWERMENT
GOAL #1: BUILD UPON “NEIGHBORHOOD”
Implementation Strategy 1.1: LPVNA may develop a work program to offer various resource directories (“How do
I…”), information packages, a neighborhood newsletter, and community building activities. This work program
could also partner with various community groups to market to appropriate businesses and development, as well
as retain and grow local businesses.
Implementation Strategy 1.2: Form a grant writing team for La Plaza Vieja that is led by LPVNA and comprised of
neighborhood residents, City staff, City Commission members, non-profit organizations with specialized
knowledge, and small business owners.
Implementation Strategy 1.3: Develop a website for outreach efforts for the LPVNA. LPVNA contact information
should be kept up to date on the City’s website.
Implementation Strategy 1.4: Through the use of Zoning Code regulation and the use of public participation,
LPVNA should become the lead organization to which developers contact for neighborhood feedback and
discussion on potential projects in and around La Plaza Vieja.

65

Chapter 4 – Implementation Strategies

GOAL #2: BOOST ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND NEIGHBORHOOD SAFETY
Implementation Strategy 2.1: Continue to build upon the Block Watch program successes by setting a goal of one
person to monitor every street, which can become the “phone-tree,” allowing a quick verbal connection to remind
people of meetings, to discuss a situation, or celebrate a moment.
Implementation Strategy 2.2: Continue La Plaza Vieja clean-up twice a year with distribution of trash bags and
gloves to participants. A dumpster and recycling collection is made available the day of clean-up.
Implementation Strategy 2.3: Establish Beautification Days. Focus on one block at a time to, for example, plant
trees, flowers, trim shrubs, or help neighbors fix and paint their porches, driveways, and sidewalks. Showcase
neighborhood pride by awarding prizes for “best landscaping,” “best front porch,” or similar.
Implementation Strategy 2.4: Advertise bulk pickup days to La Plaza Vieja residents to encourage the disposal of
large items and yard waste. Encourage apartments to provide bulk pickup containers and advertise them to the
apartment residents, especially at the end-of-semester.

PARKS AND COMMUNITY SPACES
GOAL #3: ENHANCE PARKS MAINTENANCE, DESIGN, AND CONNECTION
Implementation Strategy 3.1: Enhance Old Town Springs Park (Many of these strategies are reflected in the
Master Plan for Old Town Springs Park, which is a part of the Concept Plan in Chapter 2)
• Enhance the landscaping and signing on both sides of the park to provide an attractive entrance from
either West Coconino Avenue or Lower Coconino Avenue. Maintain the existing sign at the north entrance
to the park, which was built by neighborhood families.
• Provide a new flagpole and American flag to mark the Old Town Spring as a significant historical site in
Flagstaff. Install a small light at the top of the flagpole so that the flag can be flown permanently.
• Consider historically themed playground equipment when replacing or expanding.
• Add a second porta-potty near the parking area to accommodate large parties that use the park’s
Ramada, and indicate a limit on available parking spaces in the ramada rental permit (on- and off-site).
• Install interpretive signs to highlight the historic importance of the site and spring in local history.
• Set apart the spring in the park from the surrounding grass to assist with its ecological restoration by
improving drainage features and introducing native spring vegetation. Provide irrigation for establishment
of new plants.
• Incorporate native stone seating areas and low-profile decorative walls to better delineate the spring and
extend the gathering space.
• Install commemorative plaques for each of the pine trees planted by neighborhood families along
Coconino Avenue.
• Cut back the overgrown juniper trees along the northern slope of the park to improve the view of the pine
trees above. Add a decorative bicycle rack and new park lights to ensure attractive pedestrian safety and
access.

66

Chapter 4 - Implementation Strategies
Implementation Strategy 3.2*: Enhance Guadalupe Park
• Install dark-sky friendly lighting for evening games.
• Pave and stripe parking lot to provide accessible and efficient parking.
• Purchase a nearby parcel to allow for relocation and improvement of the playground area and parking if
the road network displaces these park features.
Implementation Strategy 3.3*: Enhance Plaza Vieja Park
• Incorporate a low ornamental wall that provides seating and separates the park from the traffic on Clay
Avenue.
• Replace some of the blue rug junipers with northern Arizona perennials. Provide irrigation for
establishment of new plants.
• Coordinate with the Beautification and Public Art Commission to provide public art opportunities that are
historically and culturally relevant to La Plaza Vieja.
• Provide picnic tables for gatherings.

GOAL #4: COMMUNITY GARDENS
Implementation Strategy 4.1: Provide City program support to sustain a community garden on the Natural Grocers
property at Clay Avenue and South Milton Road.
Implementation Strategy 4.2: LPVNA will help the City recruit and retain gardeners for the community garden and
build a partnership with the local school to provide youth education on food systems.

GOAL #5: COMMUNITY CENTERS AND SPACES
Implementation Strategy 5.1*: Look for opportunities to provide common areas that are open to all La Plaza Vieja
residents such as greenways and plazas.
Implementation Strategy 5.2: Actively research development opportunities as a stand-alone project or part of a
broader redevelopment project to establish a community center within La Plaza Vieja. LPVNA could assist with
efforts by establishing a business plan and exploring options and potential development partnerships.

PRESERVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER
GOAL #6N: PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD CORE AS A PREDOMINANTLY SINGLE-FAMILY
NEIGHBORHOOD
Implementation Strategy 6N.1: Consider a maximum lot size for R1N in the Neighborhood Core through an overlay
or other zoning code update.
Implementation Strategy 6N.2: Consider requiring an administrative design review for new single-family houses in
La Plaza Vieja in order to encourage consistency with the goals of the Plan.
Implementation Strategy 6N.3: Incorporate elements of the architectural and landscaping policies and details
from La Plaza Vieja’s built environment into an overlay zone for the planning area.

67

Chapter 4 – Implementation Strategies

GOAL #6T: ENCOURAGE CONTEXT-APPROPRIATE DEVELOPMENT IN THE TRANSITION AREA
BETWEEN NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS
Implementation Strategy 6T.1: For developments over 35 feet tall, step back buildings so they are closer to the
neighborhood scale away from Milton Road and Route 66. Incorporate residential scale details, such as windows,
doors and porches, on the building elevation facing the residential neighborhood.
Implementation Strategy 6T.2: For developments over 35 feet tall, buildings should have street-level design
features that provide a pedestrian-friendly sidewalk environment next to the building.
Implementation Strategy 6T.3: Rezone all City-owned parks in La Plaza Vieja to the Public Facilities zone.
Implementation Strategy 6T.4: Incentivize rezoning of Highway Commercial parcels in the Transition Area to zones
with lower height, mass, scale, density, and intensity of redevelopment to meet plan goals and policies. For
example, in order to develop housing without a mixed-use component, a property in the transition area could be
rezoned to Medium Density or High Density Residential. The Planning Director may submit applications on behalf
of property owners to request voluntary downzoning for parcels in the Transition Area, reducing the cost of the
application. Also consider buying development rights for key parcels to reduce entitlements, transfer of
development rights, financial credits towards building permit fees, or other means of compensating property
owners for voluntarily reducing mass, scale, density, and intensity.

GOAL #6C: ENHANCE THE COMMERCIAL EDGE
Implementation Strategy 6C.1: Consider development of enhanced design standards for first floors of commercial
and mixed-use buildings in the Commercial Edge.
Implementation Strategy 6C.2: Encourage LPVNA to participate and build partnerships with local businesses
around Route 66 events as a forum for telling La Plaza Vieja’s story in Flagstaff history.
Implementation Strategy 6C.3: Incorporate residential scale details, such as windows, doors and porches, on the
building elevation facing the Neighborhood Core or residences in the Transition Area.

PRESERVING HISTORIC IDENTITY
GOAL #7: PRESERVE AND ENHANCE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK
Implementation Strategy 7.1*: LPVNA to support efforts to establish a pilot rehabilitation program for rental
housing in La Plaza Vieja.
Implementation Strategy 7.2: Empower LPVNA to find non-federal grant funding for projects that can’t meet
federal thresholds because of costs or sound mitigation issues.

68

Chapter 4 - Implementation Strategies

GOAL #8: PRESERVE HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND LANDMARKS
Implementation Strategy 8.1: Consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for the purpose of
repackaging a proposal for smaller targeted historic districts within La Plaza Vieja, such as the relocated AL&T
houses on Clay Avenue, Lower Coconino Avenue, Coconino Avenue, and the homes along Tucson Avenue.
Implementation Strategy 8.2: The City of Flagstaff Zoning Code has a “Landmark Overlay District” mechanism to
protect structures aged 50 years and older. For eligible houses in La Plaza Vieja, the Planning Director may submit
applications to add historic buildings into the Landmark Overlay District with property owner’s permission.
Implementation Strategy 8.3: Conduct an inventory of eligible historic structures along Lower Coconino Avenue,
West Coconino Avenue, and Spring Street.
Implementation Strategy 8.4: Encourage groups of property owners who want to work together to submit an
application for a preservation grant to the SHPO with the help of the local Historic Preservation Officer at the City
of Flagstaff.
Implementation Strategy 8.5: Continue historic research into the origins, ethnography, and migration patterns of
La Plaza Vieja in order to support applications for landmark overlays and potential historic district designations by
SHPO.
Implementation Strategy 8.6: Create a partnership between the City, LPVNA, and NAU that provides students with
experience in historic neighborhood research and preservation. LPVNA may use this partnership to find grant
funding for a paid intern to work for them as part of a 1-year fellowship.
Implementation Strategy 8.7: LPVNA and the City’s Historic Preservation Commission may work together to apply
for grant funding to create a network of digital and real world interpretive opportunities to inform residents and
visitors about La Plaza Vieja’s rich history and vibrant past. Examples may include: historic plaques on residences
and businesses, guided tours, Quick Response Code (QR code) driven self-guided tours, etc. Leverage student
volunteers, local non-profits, historic resource professionals, and City resources to support this effort.

GOAL #9: GATEWAYS
Implementation Strategy 9.1: Preserve and enhance La Plaza Vieja gateway signs at South Milton Road and Clay
Avenue.
Implementation Strategy 9.2: Identify and acquire a location for a gateway sign on West Route 66 at the
intersection with Blackbird Roost.

Figure 60: View of Mars Hill
from La Plaza Vieja Open
Space

69

Chapter 4 – Implementation Strategies

TRANSPORTATION
GOAL #10: FLAGSTAFF URBAN TRAILS SYSTEM (FUTS)
Implementation Strategy 10.1*: Construct bicycle and pedestrian trails and on-street connections between La
Plaza Vieja and the West Village, Townsite, and Southside neighborhoods.
Implementation Strategy 10.2: Maintain right-of-way for comfortable bicycle and pedestrian access along the Clay
Avenue Wash after implementation of the floodplain improvements as outlined in the Rio de Flag Feasibility
Report and Final Environmental Impact Statement. If the McCracken Street extension is pursued, an alternate
location for a FUTS trail should be included in the design, if it cannot be accommodated along the original
alignment.
Implementation Strategy 10.3: Acquire pedestrian and bicycle access that connects the Guadalupe Park and
nearby elementary school to the future FUTS trail.

GOAL #11: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS 7
Implementation Strategy 11.1: Provide a pedestrian crossing at Route 66 and Blackbird Roost to create access to
groceries and services. This may be accomplished through a pedestrian-only crossing or as part of a fully signalized
intersection.
Implementation Strategy 11.2: Construct a railroad-pedestrian underpass between Florence Avenue and Walnut
Street to connect the La Plaza Vieja and Townsite neighborhoods. Incorporate public art designed with input from
LPVNA into the structure. If possible, allow passage to be used by vehicles in emergency situations, such as
flooding.
Implementation Strategy 11.3: Construct a pedestrian bridge over Milton Road to connect the La Plaza Vieja and
Southside neighborhoods. Work with BNSF to place the bridge in their right-of-way.
Implementation Strategy 11.4: Construct an under-grade crossing of Milton Road for pedestrians and bicyclists at
or near Malpais Lane that would be a direct access from the Northern Arizona University campus into and out of La
Plaza Vieja.

GOAL #12: INTERNAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS
Implementation Strategy 12.1: Coordinate with the LPVNA for shared responsibilities in applying for grants and
maintenance for streetscape and transportation improvements.
Implementation Strategy 12.2: Enhance and maintain streetscapes, dark-sky friendly lighting, and signage through
City reinvestment and private property redevelopment. Streetscape improvements include, but are not limited to:
curb, gutter, sidewalk repair or installations, crosswalks, street lights, street trees, planting strips, and street
furniture.
7

The bicycle and pedestrian crossings in this section are listed in order of priority. Not all desired crossings may be
possible to implement, but they provide aspirations for consideration in future corridor studies.

70

Chapter 4 - Implementation Strategies
Implementation Strategy 12.3: Regularly assess speed limit compliance and the need for residential traffic calming
on Clay Avenue and Blackbird Roost. If speed limits are regularly exceeded, consider school zone speed limit
restrictions on Clay Avenue at Haven Montessori Charter School to protect children walking to and from school or
other traffic calming measures as outlined in the Concept Plan.
Implementation Strategy 12.4: Acquire right-of-way to extend McCracken Street to Malpais Lane and create a
connection north to Clay Avenue in order to achieve the Future Urban form of these blocks.
Implementation Strategy 12.5: Complete missing sidewalks throughout the neighborhood.

GOAL #13: NEIGHBORING GREAT STREETS
Implementation Strategy 13.1: Ensure any potential extension of a collector road to the west is designed to not
increase the number of travel lanes on Clay Avenue, provides appropriate traffic calming and landscaping, and is
designed as a Complete Street in order to preserve the neighborhood feel of the street.
Implementation Strategy 13.2: Consider the McCracken Street Extension as a possible alternative to the Clay
Avenue Extension.
Implementation Strategy 13.3: Increase right-of-way dedication widths on Milton Road and Route 66 to allow for
wider sidewalks and landscaping that support the pedestrian environment.

GOAL #14: ACCESS TO TRANSIT
Implementation Strategy 14.1: Per NAIPTA’s Regional Five-Year and Long Range Transit Plan, provide bus service
on Clay Avenue and Blackbird Roost with neighborhood input.

Figure 61: Clay Avenue Streetscape

71

Chapter 4 – Implementation Strategies

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
GOAL #15: SMALL BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Implementation Strategy 15.1: LPVNA to provide resources for small business and entrepreneurs by working with
community economic development partners, including:
• Coconino Community College - Small Business Development Center.
• City of Flagstaff Economic Vitality Team: Enterprise Zone tax credits (non-retail businesses only);
workforce education; growth and success of existing businesses.
• City of Flagstaff Community Design & Redevelopment: architectural examples of how to address building
improvements, public space, and street engagement; utilize Historic Preservation Façade and Signage
Grant, when applicable.
• Chamber of Commerce for existing programs.
• NAU Business School—engage class project to conduct a market analysis to better understand which
commercial endeavors are most appropriate for this area.
• Economic Collaborative of Northern Arizona (ECoNA).

INFRASTRUCTURE AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES
GOAL #16: PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY FROM FLOODING
For a description of implementation strategies for stormwater, see the Rio De Flag Flood Control Project or other
City approved master plan.

Figure 62: An Alleyway in La Plaza Vieja

72

Definitions

DEFINITIONS
Definitions in this section are compiled from a number of sources. Definitions that are marked with a Z or R come
from the Zoning Code and the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 (FRP30) respectively. If the definition in either of
those documents is changed, it also applies to this document.
Absentee landlord: A property owner who lives outside of the economic region and leases their property without
assistance from a local management company.
Access (Z): A means of vehicular or non-vehicular approach or entry to or exit from property, a street, or highway.
Activity Centers (R): Mixed-use centers that vary by scale and activity mix depending on location. They include
commercial, retail, offices, residential, shared parking, and public spaces. This Plan identifies existing and
potentially new activity centers throughout the planning area, including urban, suburban, and rural centers.
Adaptive Re-use (R): Fixing up and remodeling a building or space, and adapting the building or space to fit a new
use.
Affordable Housing (Z): Housing that is affordable to those who cannot afford market-priced housing locally to
either rent or purchase. It is housing that may be provided with either public and/or private subsidy for people
who are unable to resolve their housing requirements in the local housing market because of the relationship
between housing costs and local incomes.
Alley (Z): A dedicated public right-of-way or passage or way affording a secondary means of vehicular access to
abutting property and not intended for general traffic circulation.
Apartment (Z): Any real property that has one or more structures and that contains four or more dwelling units for
rent or lease including mini-dorms.
Apartment House (Z): A building type that is a medium-to-large-sized structure that consists of four to twelve sideby-side and/or stacked dwelling units, typically with one shared entry.
Area Type (R): FRP30 designates three area types: urban, suburban, and rural on the Future Growth Illustration.
Area types may also be future or existing and overlap in some places.
Arterial Streets, Roads (Z): A road, street, or highway that is intended to provide for high speed travel between or
within communities or to and from collectors. Access is controlled so that only regionally significant land uses may
take direct access to these streets.
Bicycle Lane (Z): A dedicated lane for bicycle use demarcated by striping.
Block size: The size of the rectangular area surrounded by streets and usually containing several buildings.
Suburban blocks are typically larger than urban blocks.
Build-out: A visual or quantities illustration of the extent to which buildings or use may occupy a parcel or area in
the future. Maximum build-out refers to how much could be built if every lot was built to the maximum height and
floor area ratio (FAR). The Concept Plan demonstrates a desired build-out scenario.

73

Definitions
Bulb outs: A bulb out or curb extension is a traffic calming measure that shortens the crossing distance for
pedestrians by extending the curb into the street at an intersection or mid-block crossing.
Bus pullouts: A designated location where the curb of the street is moved closer to the sidewalk to allow for buses
to move out of traffic for pick-up and drop-off.
Business Sector: A business sector is a category defined by the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS), which is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the
purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy (U.S. Census
Bureau definition).
By Right (Z): Characterizing a proposal or component of a proposal that complies with the Zoning Code, and may
thereby be processed administratively, without public hearing.
Carriage House (Z): An accessory dwelling unit to a primary dwelling on the same site. A carriage house provides
on-the-ground-floor or above-a-garage, permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation.
Civic (Z): Not-for-profit or governmental activities dedicated to arts, culture, education, recreation, government,
transit, and municipal parking.
Collector Street (Z): A street that collects traffic from local streets and carries it to the arterial system. Collectors
may supplement the arterial system by facilitating some through traffic volumes and may also serve abutting
property.
Commercial (Z): Term collectively defining workplace, office, retail, and lodging functions for the purpose of
describing general land use.
Commercial Cores (R): The center of every activity center has a commercial core allowing and encouraging
commercial, institutional, high-density residential and mixed-use development; transit opportunities; and
encouraging pedestrian-oriented design.
Commercial Edge: A Neighborhood policy area for La Plaza Vieja comprised of properties zoned Highway
Commercial with frontage along Milton Road and Route 66. The area corresponds to the description of the
commercial core and corridors in FRP30 (see Map 13).
Community Garden (Z): An area where neighbors and residents have the opportunity to contribute and manage
the cultivation of plants, vegetables, and fruits.
Compatibility (Z): Capable of existing in harmonious, agreeable, or congenial combination with other buildings,
structures, blocks, or streets through the use of similar basic design principles including composition, rhythm,
emphasis, transition, simplicity, and balance. Work is compatible if it is designed to complement the physical
characteristics of the context and is cohesive and visually unobtrusive in terms of the overall patterns of
development, scale, and continuity.
Complete Streets (R): Streets, roadways, and highways that are designed to safely and attractively accommodate
all transportation users (drivers, bus riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists). Travelers of all ages and abilities can safely
move along and across a complete street.
Concept or Illustrative Plan (R): A plan or map that depicts (illustrates, but does not regulate), for example, the
streets, lots, buildings, and general landscaping of a proposed development.
74

Definitions
Conditional Use (Z): A use that would not be appropriate without restriction, but which is permitted provided that
all performance standards and other requirements of the zoning code are met.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP): Written government permission allowing a conditional use.
Congestion: A term describing the flow and volume of traffic on a given roadway. Congestion usually refers to a
situation where traffic is constrained by a bottleneck occurring further downstream in the system.
Connectivity: Describes how well a transportation network connects destinations for all modes (vehicle, bus, bike,
and pedestrians). Connectivity is a term that applies to roads, trails, on-street bicycle lanes, and parallel bicycle and
pedestrian paths.
Context (or Contextual Development) (R): Refers to the significant development, or resources, of the property
itself, the surrounding properties, and the neighborhood. Development is contextual if it is designed to
complement the surrounding significant visual and physical characteristics; is cohesive and visually unobtrusive in
terms of scale, texture, and continuity; and if it maintains the overall patterns of development. Compatibility
utilizes the basic design principles of composition, rhythm, emphasis, transition, simplicity, and balance of the
design with the surrounding environment.
Context Sensitive Solution (CSS) (R): A way of designing and building transportation facilities and infrastructure to
seamlessly reflect and minimize impacts on adjacent land uses and environmentally sensitive areas. A CSS project
complements its physical and natural setting while maintaining safety and mobility.
Corridor: A set of essentially parallel transportation facilities designed for travel between two points.
Corridor study: A study of land use and transportation facilities in a corridor that accounts for future growth over a
larger area.
Cottage: (See Single-Family Cottage)
Curb ramps: Graduated areas of the curb and gutter that are designed for wheelchair access.
Curb extensions: (See Bulb outs)
Cut-through traffic: Traffic that passes through a residential area as a means of bypassing congestion on larger
capacity arterial and collector roads.
Demographics: Statistical data relating to the population and particular groups within it.
Density (Z): The number of dwelling units within a standard measure of land area, usually given as units per acre.
Design Standards (R): Standards and regulations pertaining to the physical development of a site including
requirements pertaining to yards, heights, lot area, fences, walls, landscaping area, access, parking, signs, setbacks,
and other physical requirements.
Down zoning: The process by which an area of land is rezoned to a use that is less dense and less developed than
its previous zoning would have allowed.
Entitlement: (See By Right)
Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 (FRP30): The City of Flagstaff’s General Plan, ratified by voters on May 20, 2014.

75

Definitions
FUTS (Flagstaff Urban Trails System) (Z): A city-wide network of non-motorized, shared-use pathways that are used
by bicyclists, walkers, hikers, runners, and other users for both recreation and transportation.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) (Z): An intensity measured as a ratio derived by dividing the total floor area of a building or
structure by the net buildable site area.
Floodplain (Z): Any areas in a watercourse that have been or may be covered partially or wholly by floodwater
from a one hundred-year flood.
Floodway: The area designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the channel of a river or
other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without
cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than a designated height. Communities must regulate
development in these floodways to ensure that there are no increases in upstream flood elevations.
Future Growth Illustration: Map 22 in FRP30 which shows land designations for future growth patterns and the
areas designated for area types and activity centers.
Gable roof: The generally triangular portion of a wall between the edges of a dual-pitched roof.
Gateways: Gateways are spaces adjacent to intersections that provide entrance into the neighborhood, where
landscaping, neighborhood identifying signs, and public art may be installed. They provide the first impression
people have as they enter the neighborhood.
Goals (R): A desired result that the community envisions and commits to achieve.
Great Streets (R): Streets designed to take into account their entire three-dimensional visual corridor, including the
public realm and adjacent land uses. Great streets are “complete” streets, meaning they service and take into
account all users—not just motor vehicles—and serve as interesting, lively, and attractive community spaces.
Hipped Roof: A roof with the ends inclined, as well as the sides.
Historic Building (Property): A building with sufficient age, a relatively high degree of physical integrity, and
historical significance and, therefore, may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Historic
buildings may occur with or outside of a historic district and may be protected regardless of their relationship to a
historic district.
Historic District: a group of buildings or properties that have been nominated by the State Historic Preservation
Officer for the National Register or that have been protected locally through an overlay zone. Districts are
established based on their eligibility, significance, and integrity.
Historic Resource (Z): A type of cultural resource that refers to objects, structures, natural features, sites, places, or
areas that are associated with events or persons in the architectural, engineering, archaeological, scientific,
technological, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of the City of
Flagstaff, the state of Arizona, or the United States of America.
Home-based businesses (also called Home Occupation): Businesses that do not have a commercial presence on the
street and are generally run out of a residence.
Infill (R): Occurs when new buildings are built on vacant parcels within city service boundaries and surrounded by
existing development.

76

Definitions
Integrity, Historical Resource, or Cultural Resource (Z): The authenticity of a cultural resource's identity, judged by
how evident is the general character of the period of significance, the degree to which the characteristics that
define its significance are present, and the degree to which incompatible elements are reversible.
Intensity: The mass, bulk, and scale of buildings in commercial, industrial, institutional, and mixed-use settings.
Typically, intensity is measured by the Floor Area Ratio.
Landmark (Z): A property with a specific historic district designation known as the landmark district.
Landscaping (Z): Flowers, shrubs, trees, or other decorative material of natural origin.
Land Use (Z): The purpose or activity for which land or any building or structure thereon is designated, arranged, or
intended, or for which it is occupied or maintained; or any activity, occupation, business, or operation carried on or
intended to be carried on in a building, structure, or on a parcel or lot.
Live-Work (Z): A mixed-use unit consisting of a commercial and residential function. It typically has a substantial
commercial component that may accommodate employees and walk-in trade. The unit is intended to function
predominantly as work space with incidental residential accommodations that meet basic habitability
requirements.
Local Streets (R): Serve immediate access to property and are designed to discourage longer trips through a
neighborhood.
Low Impact Development (LID) (Z): A stormwater management approach modeled after nature by managing
rainfall runoff at the source using decentralized small-scale controls uniformly distributed throughout the
development area.
Major Intersection Improvement: Constructed improvements to an intersection that generally exceed $1 million in
costs and significantly increases capacity (reducing congestion).
Mixed Use (Z): The development of a single building containing more than one type of land use or a single
development of more than one building and use including, but not limited to, residential, office, retail, recreation,
public, or entertainment, where the different land use types are in close proximity, planned as a unified
complementary whole, and shared pedestrian and vehicular access and parking areas are functionally integrated.
Multi-Family Housing (Z): A residential building comprised of four or more dwelling units.
National Register Historic District: A district (as opposed to a single property) that has been included in the
National Register of Historic Places.
National Scenic Byway: A road recognized by the United States Department of Transportation for one or more of
six "intrinsic qualities": archeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and scenic.
Neighborhood (R): Includes both geographic (place-oriented) and social (people-oriented) components, and may
be an area with similar housing types and market values, or an area surrounding a local institution patronized by
residents, such as a church, school, or social agency.
Neighborhood Core: A Neighborhood policy area for La Plaza Vieja comprised of properties zoned Residential
Neighborhood (R1N) that is the architectural and cultural center of the Plan. The area corresponds to the Urban

77

Definitions
Neighborhood description in FRP30. The built environment within this policy area is what defines neighborhood
character and compatibility (see Map 13).
Parkway: A linear strip of vegetation between the curb and gutter of a street and the sidewalk.
Pedestrian Shed (R): The basic building block of walkable neighborhoods. A pedestrian shed is the area
encompassed by the walking distance from a town or neighborhood center. Pedestrian sheds are often defined as
the area covered by a 5-minute walk (about 0.25 mile or 1,320 feet). They may be drawn as perfect circles, but in
practice pedestrian sheds have irregular shapes because they cover the actual distance walked, not the linear
(crow flies) distance.
Plaza (R): A civic space type designed for civic purposes and commercial activities in the more urban areas,
generally paved and spatially defined by building frontages.
Place Type (R): Place types include activity centers, neighborhoods, and corridors, and provide the framework
around which our community is built. Land uses that occur within the different place types are further designated
into categories such as residential, commercial, and institutional, which define the type of use and zoning for those
place types.
Policy (R): A deliberate course of action, mostly directed at decision makers in government, but also may be for
institutional or business leaders, to guide decisions and achieve stated goals.
Redevelopment(R): Is when new development replaces outdated and underutilized development.
Regulating Plan (Z): A set of maps that shows the transect zones, special districts, and special requirements for
areas subject to, or potentially subject to, regulation by a form-based code for a Traditional Neighborhood
Community Plan. It may also show street and public open spaces, and designate where various building form
standards (based on intensity of urbanism) for building placement, design, and use will apply. The Regulating Plan
graphically shows, applies, and places the regulations and standards established in a form-based code for a
Traditional Neighborhood Community Plan.
Reinvestment (R): A community reinvests in an area through revitalization, redevelopment, infill, brownfield
redevelopment, and historic preservation, all of which play a vital role in improving the quality of life for those
living in and traveling to the City of Flagstaff and the region. Reinvestment promotes the resurgence of existing
activity centers and walkable neighborhoods in areas suffering from lack of maintenance, and within activity
centers and corridors.
Residential (Z): A land use type that is designated to accommodate single-family and multiple-family dwellings.
Includes mobile and manufactured homes.
Revitalization(R): Is to repair what is already in place, adding new vigor by remodeling and preserving.
Road Network Illustration: Map 25 in FRP30 which shows roads and corridors based on their role in land use and
transportation planning.
Scale (Z): Similar or harmonious proportions, especially overall height and width, but also including the visual
intensity of the development, the massing, and the shapes and sizes of the various design elements, such as the
windows and doors.
Single-Family Cottage (Z): A small house usually located on smaller sized lots in more urbanized areas.
78

Definitions
Single-Family Detached Dwelling (Z): A dwelling designed and used for single-family use that does not share a wall
with another dwelling.
Specific Plan (Z): Detailed element of the General Plan enacted under the provisions of A.R.S. § 9-461.08 that
provides a greater level of detail for a specific geographic area or element of the General Plan, and that provides
specific regulations and standards for the systematic implementation of the General Plan.
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO): A state governmental function created by the United States federal
government in 1966 under Section 101 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); the SHPO administers
preservation programs under the NHPA.
Strategies (R): Suggested ideas of how to specifically implement policies.
Streetscape (Z): Those features of either the man-made or natural environment which abut, face, or are a part of a
public street right-of-way including but not limited to, landscaping (materials and plants), street furniture, building
facades and utilities, and facilities which are visible to the public such as fire hydrants, storm sewer grates,
sidewalk, and street paving.
Substantial Improvement: Any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition or other improvement of a structure, the
cost of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure before the “start of construction” of the
improvement.
Suburban (R): Describes areas within the City in which a person is mostly dependent on the automobile to travel to
work or other destinations (sometimes referred to as Driveable Suburban), and to accomplish most shopping and
recreation needs. These environments may have areas where it is possible to walk or ride a bike for recreational
purposes, such as on FUTS trails, but due to the lack of connectivity or nearby amenities, are not favorable for
walking or biking as a primary mode of transportation on a day-to-day basis. Suburban areas have medium to low
densities of people, residences, jobs, and activities with some services and goods available to residents, the streets
and sidewalks vary in their design, and access to public transportation may be available.
Traffic calming: Features in the physical environment of a roadway intended to discourage speeding and cutthrough traffic.
Trail (Z): A bicycle way located separately and independent from a vehicular thoroughfare for the shared use of
bicycles and pedestrians.
Transect Zone (Z): One of several areas on the Zoning Map regulated by the standards found within the Zoning
Code. Transect zones are ordered from the most natural to the most urban. Transect zones are administratively
similar to the land-use zones in conventional codes, except that in addition to the usual building use, density,
height, and setback requirements, other elements of the intended habitat are integrated, including those of the
private lot and building and the public frontage (see Map 6).
Transition Area: A neighborhood policy area for La Plaza Vieja comprised of properties between the Commercial
Edge and the Neighborhood Core. The area corresponds roughly to the description of pedestrian sheds in FRP30.
This area is targeted for moderately scaled mixed-use development in order to meet the stated Plan goal of
preserving neighborhood character (see Map 13).

79

Definitions
Urban (R): Areas with a higher density of people, residences, jobs, and activities; buildings are taller and close to
the street; streets and sidewalks are in a grid pattern of relatively small blocks; the area is walkable and a variety of
services and goods are available; served by public transportation.
Viewshed (R): An area of land that is visible to the human eye from a vantage point with particular scenic value
that may be deemed worthy of preservation against development or other change.
Walkability Audit: A community-based exercise intended to highlight opportunities, identify obstacles, and
evaluate how easy it is to get around a neighborhood on foot.
Wildland-Urban Interface: The Wildland-Urban Interface for Flagstaff and surrounding communities at-risk
encompasses multiple jurisdictions and ownerships within a relatively large geographical area. It is sufficiently
large to: (1) Reduce the potential of a high intensity fire from entering the community; (2) Create an area whereby
fire suppression efforts will be successful; (3) Limit large amounts of wind-driven embers or “fire brands” from
settling on the community; and (4) Protect critical infrastructure (See Community Wildfire Protection Plan for
Flagstaff and Surrounding Communities in the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests of Coconino County, Arizona
for more information).
Zoning: Zoning describes the control of the use of land, and of the appearance and use of buildings by the City of
Flagstaff.
Zoning Code (R): A set of legally binding provisions adopted by the City Council consistent with state law regulating
the use of land or structures, or both, used to implement the goals and policies of FRP30.
Zoning District or Zone: Areas of land are divided into zones within which various uses are permitted and
development standards and guidelines apply. The standards and uses in zones are used to estimate entitlements
for private property.

80

Public Participation

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City and the La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Association would like to thank the members of the public who
participated in workshops and meetings from the beginning of the project in 2008 to its final draft. This plan would
not be possible without our community’s commitment to the future of the La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood.
Aaron Cirzon
Abel Sedillo
Adam Langford
Alfonso Reyes
Anamarie Lopez-Sepulveda
Anna & Jeff Smith
Anne Doyle
Annie Lutes
April Arroyo
Art Babbott, County Supervisor
Art Gastelo
Art Keith
Autumn Speer
Becky Daggett
Bernadette Barela
Betty Baca
Bob Alexander
Bob Reys
Brendon Ward
Brianne Lorents
C. Renee Lorents
Caleb Alexander
Caleb Waters
Carlos Perez
Carlos Sanchez
CeAnn Myers
Charlie Silver
Cherie McCracken
Christine Aldeis
Clare McCracken
Clint Jackson
Clover Collard
Concha Bustamante
CV Wells
David Carpenter
David Lehman
David Smith
Debra Sepulveda
Delia Munoz
Denise Gauthier
Denise Wynne
Devonna McLaughlin
Donna Smith
Duffie Westheimer
Edward Baca

81

Edward Hernandez
Elaine Valencia
Elisa McKnight
Emily Davalos
Erica Nowak
Evan Hawbaker
Evelyn Ramirez
Father Patrick Mower
Genevieve Garvin
Georgianne Farness
Gloria Baca-Valencia
Gloria Olin
Greg Brooks
Helen Ferrell
Ian Hublitz
James Gallardo
Jane Kuhn
Jay Farness
Jeanne Trupiano
Jeffery Allen Young
Jenia Kimbrough
Jennifer Brown
Jesse and Irene Dominguez
Jessica Gist
Jo Vocanda Baldo
John Aber
John Grahame
Johnny Anaya
Jon Robinson
Jonathan Robinson
Josh Robinson
Juanita Cobasky
Julie Leid
Kathy Milazzo
Kathy Turner
Kelly Graham
Ken Berkhoff
Kent Powell
Kevin Parkes
Kim Avery
Laura Bustamante-Myers
Lela Beatrice Montfort
Lisa Carroll
Liz Archuleta, County Supervisor
Louis Valencia

Lupe Anaya
Lynette Anaffe
M. Buckharlter
Madeleine Sinclair
Mandy Metzger
Marilyn Weissman
Mark T. Belsanti
Mary Jessie Sepulveda
Megan Gavin
Michael Leary
Monica Baker
Paul D. Bustamante
Peter Conteras
Phillip Garcia
Rebecca Dawn Hawley
Rick Brandel
Rick Lopez
Robert A. Gonzalez
Robert and Juanita Hernandez
Rod Wigman
Sam Green
Sharon Edgar
Shawn Niece-Pendergast
Stephen Lopez
Steve Dorsett
Tish Bogan-Ozmun
Tito Barela
Todd Martinet
V. Norton
Vernon Mayes
Veronica Barcela
Vicki Vega

Appendix 1 – Prioritization of Implementation Strategies

APPENDIX 1 – PRIORITIZATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
Chapter 4 contains dozens of implementation strategies that would help achieve the goals and policies of the La
Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Specific Plan. Not all of these will be achieved over the next 5 to 20 years and many will
be achieved based on funding and opportunities that are not currently foreseeable. This appendix identifies and
provides details about the top priorities for LPVNA. Ideally, these are considered potentially achievable within the
first 5 years after the Plan is adopted. These priorities do not represent a commitment of City resources. They do
provide time-specific objectives that help track LPVNA and the City’s progress that may be reported in the FRP30
annual report. Other strategies may be implemented in this timeframe as opportunities allow.
This appendix may be updated along with the annual review of the Flagstaff Regional Plan 2030 in coordination
with LPVNA, without a plan amendment.
NEIGHBORHOOD EMPOWERMENT
Priority Ranking
1

Lead Organization
LPVNA

Potential Partnerships
Community Development, other Neighborhood Associations,
League of Neighborhoods
Implementation Strategy 1.4: Through the use of Zoning Code regulation and the use of public participation,
LPVNA should become the lead organization to which developers contact for neighborhood feedback and
discussion on potential projects in and around La Plaza Vieja.
PATH FORWARD
Creating a neighborhood forum for civic discussion on a wide variety of issues is a central part of LPVNA’s mission.
LPVNA will reach out to the City’s Community Development staff, ADOT, and other partners to stay up-to-date on
planning issues and to disseminate information to La Plaza Vieja residents.
COSTS AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
This strategy is primarily accomplished through volunteer time and management of a phone tree, email list, and
text messages. Community Development staff time is already a part of the City program of work.
Priority Ranking
2

Lead Organization
LPVNA

Potential Partnerships
City of Flagstaff, other Neighborhood Associations, League of
Neighborhoods
Implementation Strategy 1.2: Form a grant writing team for La Plaza Vieja that is led by LPVNA and comprised of
neighborhood residents, City staff, City Commission members, non-profit organizations with specialized
knowledge, and small business owners.
PATH FORWARD
Forming a grant funding team to help with grant writing and administration is key to the success of the La Plaza
Vieja Neighborhood Specific Plan. Without this strategy and receipt of grants, many of the other priorities will not
be achievable.
COSTS AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Volunteer and staff time are the main contributions to this implementation strategy. Grant writing for partners is
not currently part of the program of work for City staff, but could be part of the roles assigned to staff without
additional allocation of funds.

82

Appendix 1 – Prioritization of Implementation Strategies
PRESERVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER
Priority Ranking
Lead Organization
Potential Partnerships
1
City
Implementation Strategy 6N.1: Consider a maximum lot size for R1N in the Neighborhood Core through an
overlay or other zoning code update.
Implementation Strategy 6N.2: Consider requiring an administrative design review for new single-family houses in
La Plaza Vieja in order to encourage consistency with the goals of the Plan.
Implementation Strategy 6N.3: Incorporate elements of the architectural and landscaping policies and details
from La Plaza Vieja’s built environment into an overlay zone for the planning area.
Implementation Strategy 6T.1: For developments over 35 feet tall, step back buildings so they are closer to the
neighborhood scale away from Milton Road and Route 66. Incorporate architectural features on the sides of the
building facing La Plaza Vieja.
Implementation Strategy 6T.2: For developments over 35 feet tall, buildings should have street-level design
features that provide a pedestrian-friendly sidewalk environment next to the building.
Implementation Strategy 6C.1: Consider development of enhanced design standards for first floors of commercial
and mixed-use buildings in the Commercial Edge.
PATH FORWARD
The Zoning Code administrator would develop a proposal for an overlay zone with enhanced public involvement
that addresses these strategies.
COSTS AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
The Zoning Code administrator can complete this work as part of the regular program of work.

Priority Ranking
Lead Organization
Potential Partnerships
2
City
LPVNA
Implementation Strategy 6T.4: Incentivize rezoning of Highway Commercial parcels in the Transition Area to zones
with lower height, mass, scale, density, and intensity of redevelopment to meet plan goals and policies. For
example, in order to develop housing without a mixed-use component, a property in the transition area could be
rezoned to Medium Density, or High Density Residential. The Planning Director may submit applications on behalf
of property owners to request voluntary downzoning for parcels in the Transition Area, reducing the cost of the
application. Also consider buying development rights for key parcels to reduce entitlements, transfer of
development rights, financial credits towards building permit fees, or other means of compensating property
owners for voluntarily reducing mass, scale, density, and intensity.
PATH FORWARD
Supporting voluntary down zoning with City sponsored applications may not include review fees and therefore
reduces the cost to the property owner. Opportunities to reduce development rights will be largely opportunistic.
COSTS AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Developing policies to implement this strategy would be completed as part of the Community Development staff’s
program of work. The cost to the City would be foregoing fees that would otherwise be collected. There are only
17 lots in the Transition Area to which this strategy could apply.

83

Appendix 1 – Prioritization of Implementation Strategies
PARKS AND COMMUNITY SPACES
Priority Ranking
1

Lead Organization
LPVNA

Potential Partnerships
City, Museum of Northern Arizona Spring Restoration Institute,
NAU, The Arboretum at Flagstaff, local nurseries
Implementation Strategy 3.1: Enhance Old Town Springs Park (Many of these strategies are reflected in the
Master Plan for Old Town Springs Park, which is a part of the Concept Plan in Chapter 2)
• Enhance the landscaping and signing on both sides of the park to provide an attractive entrance from
either West Coconino Avenue or Lower Coconino Avenue. Maintain the existing sign at the north
entrance to the park, which was built by neighborhood families.
• Provide a new flagpole and American flag to mark the Old Town Spring as a significant historical site in
Flagstaff. Install a small light at the top of the flagpole so that the flag can be flown permanently.
• Consider historically themed playground equipment when replacing or expanding.
• Add a second porta-potty near the parking area to accommodate large parties that use the park’s
ramada, and indicate a limit on available parking spaces in the ramada rental permit (on- and off-site).
• Install interpretive signs to highlight the historic importance of the site and spring in local history.
• Set apart the spring in the park from the surrounding grass to assist with its ecological restoration by
improving drainage features and introducing native spring vegetation. Provide irrigation for establishment
of new plants.
• Incorporate native stone seating areas and low-profile decorative walls to better delineate the spring and
extend the gathering space.
• Install commemorative plaques for each of the pine trees planted by neighborhood families along
Coconino Avenue.
• Cut back the overgrown juniper trees along the northern slope of the park to improve the view of the
pine trees above. Add a decorative bicycle rack and new park lights to ensure attractive pedestrian safety
and access.
PATH FORWARD
LPVNA will take the lead on finding grant opportunities and volunteers. The City Parks Section will approve site
plans and provide support for grant applications. Restoration and recognition of the historic importance of the
spring is a high value for La Plaza Vieja. With improved integrity it could be eligible for recognition in the National
Register of Historic Places. Improving appearance on the north side is also a priority. Trees planted by Hispanic
families for Flagstaff centennial would be retained and culturally interpreted. La Plaza Vieja will provide for
irrigation of new plants until established.
COSTS AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
The rough estimate cost of the improvements proposed at Old Town Springs Park could be $50,000-$75,000.
These improvements could be added to the Capital Improvement Plan list of unfunded projects next year in order
to allow it to be funded in a future year. The La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Association would set a year two goal to
find a 10-30% match to City funds for spring restoration, interpretive panel research and design, and landscaping
improvements. The projects in this park are not eligible for CDBG funding because the park is not in the targeted
Census tract. Federal grants from the National Park Service may be a possible source of funding for municipal
projects such as interpretive signs and restoration of the historic Old Town Springs.

84

Appendix 1 – Prioritization of Implementation Strategies

Priority Ranking
Lead Organization
Potential Partnerships
2
LPVNA
City, local nurseries, local businesses
Implementation Strategy 3.3: Enhance Plaza Vieja Park
• Incorporate a low ornamental wall that provides seating and separates the park from the traffic on Clay
Avenue.
• Replace some of the blue rug junipers with northern Arizona perennials. Provide irrigation for establishment
of new plants.
• Coordinate with the Beautification and Public Art Commission to provide public art opportunities that are
historically and culturally relevant to La Plaza Vieja.
• Provide picnic tables for gatherings.
PATH FORWARD
LPVNA will look for grant opportunities and coordinate volunteers for these efforts. The City Parks Section will
approve site plans and provide support for grant applications. Highest priority will be to replace junipers with
native vegetation. La Plaza Vieja will provide irrigation of new plants until established.
COSTS AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Total estimated cost of the proposed improvements at Plaza Vieja Park could be $5,000-$10,000 plus the amount
of a City grant for public art that would be determined along with design work. Some of these improvements
would be CDBG eligible and therefore it is likely that all or most of these costs could be grant funded. The City can
provide technical assistance to LPVNA in preparation of their application and design work for the park.

PRESERVING HISTORIC IDENTITY
Priority Ranking
1

Potential Partnerships
City Historic Preservation Officer, Pioneer Museum, NAU
Department of History, Cline Library Special Collections, Museum of
Northern Arizona, local independent historians
Implementation Strategy 8.5: Continue historic research into the origins, ethnography, and migration patterns of
La Plaza Vieja in order to support applications for landmark overlays and potential historic district designations by
SHPO.
PATH FORWARD
Historic preservation professionals can help identify grant opportunities. LPVNA will write grants and help
introduce researchers to local residents. Ultimately the products from this project could be used for applications
and interpretive signs throughout La Plaza Vieja.
COSTS AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Estimated cost of the proposed project is approximately $3,500 to $5,000 per subject. City staff has already built
the foundation for this work with an initial investment of $5,000 for a historic Context Report for the
neighborhood prepared by SWCA this year. Federal grants may be a possible source of funding for municipal
projects such as research and interpretive signs, the restoration of the historic Old Town Springs, and some private
projects.

85

Lead Organization
LPVNA

Appendix 1 – Prioritization of Implementation Strategies

Priority Ranking
Lead Organization
Potential Partnerships
2
LPVNA
City
Implementation Strategy 8.2: The City of Flagstaff Zoning Code has a “Landmark Overlay District” mechanism to
protect structures aged 50 years and older. For eligible houses in La Plaza Vieja, the Planning Director may submit
applications to add historic buildings into the Landmark Overlay District with property owner’s permission.
Implementation Strategy 8.4: Encourage groups of historic property owners who want to work together to submit
an application for a preservation grant to the SHPO with the help of the local Historic Preservation Officer at the
City of Flagstaff.
PATH FORWARD
The landmark overlay is available now. LPVNA will take the lead on educating property owners and using the
research to support the landmark application. Grant opportunities to improve integrity of historic structures can be
supported by the team from Implementation Strategy 8.4.
COSTS AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
Estimated cost of the proposed work is $3,500 to $5,000 per property for the background work needed for a
Landmark Overlay designation. Local grants are available for preservation work with approval by the Historic
Preservation Commission for $10,000 with a $10,000 match. The State Heritage Fund is not offering grants at this
time but may resume doing so in the future.

Priority Ranking
3

Lead Organization
City

Potential Partnerships
LPVNA, Pioneer Museum, NAU Department of History, Cline Library
Special Collections, Museum of Northern Arizona, local
independent historians
Implementation Strategy 8.3: Conduct an inventory of eligible historic structures along Lower Coconino Avenue,
West Coconino Avenue, and Spring Street.
PATH FORWARD
West Coconino Avenue and Lower Coconino Avenue are two of the longest habituated places in Flagstaff and have
never been inventoried for their historic or archeological significance and integrity. An inventory of this area is
needed in order to consider if portions of the area would be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
COSTS AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
The estimated cost of an inventory of this nature is $30,000.
TRANSPORTATION
Priority Ranking
Lead Organization
Potential Partnerships
1
ADOT
LPVNA, City
Implementation Strategy 11.1: Provide a pedestrian crossing at Route 66 and Blackbird Roost to create access to
groceries and services. This may be accomplished through a pedestrian-only crossing or as part of a fully signalized
intersection.
PATH FORWARD
Develop a capital project in coordination with ADOT. This plan cannot commit ADOT to this project, but it can state
the City and LPVNA’s desire to see it implemented. The project has already been identified as warranted.
COSTS AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
The estimated cost for a pedestrian-hybrid beacon (PHB) is $150,000 to $180,000 and a full signal would cost
approximately $400,000. The cost of this improvement could be shared between the City, ADOT, and potentially
private developers could provide a fair and roughly proportionate share. There are several potential sites along
Milton Road for these kinds of improvements and so a final decision on the location would be made by the
managing agency based on an assessment of future and current need along the entire corridor.

86

Appendix 1 – Prioritization of Implementation Strategies

Priority Ranking
Lead Organization
Potential Partnerships
2
City
LPVNA
Implementation Strategy 12.3: Regularly assess speed limit compliance and the need for residential traffic calming
on Clay Avenue and Blackbird Roost. If speed limits are regularly exceeded, consider school zone speed limit
restrictions on Clay Avenue at Haven Montessori Charter School to protect children walking to and from school or
other traffic calming measures as outlined in the Concept Plan.
PATH FORWARD
Monitor traffic calming needs and effectiveness including before and after transportation projects. The City will
accomplish this by using existing standards and measurements such as the traffic calming worksheet utilized by the
City’s traffic engineers.
COSTS AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
This is already a part of the Residential Traffic Management Program administered by the City’s Transportation
Engineering Section. Traffic calming measures along Clay Avenue that were considered as part of The Standard’s
2014 application for rezoning were estimated to cost $250,000 at that time.

Priority Ranking
Lead Organization
Potential Partnerships
3
City
LPVNA, BNSF
Implementation Strategy 11.2: Construct a railroad-pedestrian underpass between Florence Avenue and Walnut
Street to connect the La Plaza Vieja and Townsite neighborhoods. Incorporate public art designed with input from
LPVNA into the structure. If possible, allow passage to be used by vehicles in emergency situations, such as
flooding.
PATH FORWARD
Develop a City project that is planned and programmed in coordination with BNSF.
COSTS AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
This is a funded project under development. The cost of implementation is $2.8 million and is being funded by
FUTS funding, grant money for enhancements, and the 2014 road repair and street safety tax.

Priority Ranking
Lead Organization
Potential Partnerships
4
City
LPVNA
Implementation Strategy 12.5: Complete missing sidewalks throughout the neighborhood.
PATH FORWARD
Missing sidewalks are the “low-hanging fruit” of pedestrian safety and less than a quarter mile of them are missing
from the neighborhood. The City can look for opportunities to do this work in the next three years as part of the
Capital Improvement Program.
COSTS AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES
The estimated cost of completing sidewalks along Malpais Lane and Blackbird Roost is approximately $60,000. The
bike and pedestrian safety improvements money from the 2000 Transportation Tax could be a source of funding
for this project, or the sidewalk replacement money if willing property owners participate. This project would be
evaluated against other needs for pedestrian improvements city-wide, but would be competitive because the
missing segments are between a public bus stop and the Haven Montessori Elementary School.

87

Appendix 2 - Methodology

APPENDIX 2 – METHODOLOGY
Demographics and Housing
The Census Analysis prepared for La Plaza Vieja was compiled from three main sources. For broader information
concerning tracts, block groups, and overall population, we consulted information from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Our second source was information from the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), a geographic
information systems (GIS) and land-use consulting firm. Based on the ACS (American Community Survey)
information provided, we were able to analyze data from the housing summary, population summary, community
profile, household income profile, market profile, and business summary. Our third source was taken from the
City’s GIS information which includes GIS data from the Coconino County Assessor’s Office (County Assessor).
To calculate total area population and number of housing units, we used County Assessor’s GIS data to determine
the total number of housing units in the three census blocks that overlap La Plaza Vieja. We then calculated the
estimated population for La Plaza Vieja calculated by the total number of units (County Assessor’s data) multiplied
by the average family size (average of three census tracts).
For demographic data on race, ethnicity, age, housing vacancy, and household income, we only included the
information related to 2010 Census data for tract 53452 (Central La Plaza Vieja). The area north of the tracks is in
the same census tract as the Townsite neighborhood and Arrowhead Village Mobile Home Park is in the West
Village census tract. Both of these areas have more socioeconomic similarities to the Central La Plaza Vieja tract
than they do to the other areas that are included in their respective census tract based on local knowledge and
feedback from residents. Therefore, we assumed that percentages from Census Tract 53452 would be the best
representation of these areas.
An important anomaly in the 2010 Census data relates to the vacancy rate for La Plaza Vieja. 2010 was the year
after the Great Recession ended and a 14% vacancy rate was captured at that time. It is highly unlikely, based on
staff and LPVNA’s observations, that the vacancy rate is still that high. Approximately 5-6 units currently appear
vacant and new housing units have been created as part of infill projects in the last five years.
Heritage Preservation
In order to update our understanding of La Plaza Vieja’s historic context, Annie Lutes from SWCA Environmental
Consultants prepared an updated report of La Plaza Vieja’s history and architectural styles. This report
documented major historical events, migration of Hispanic families into and out of La Plaza Vieja, and the
movement of buildings into La Plaza Vieja after the closure of the Arizona Lumber and Timber Mill and the
redevelopment of Los Chantes.
A 1996 inventory of historic buildings, County Assessor’s data, a National Park Service survey of Route 66 landmark
hotels, historic photos, and information on individual commercial properties were used to determine the buildings
inventoried for eligibility on Map 3. County Assessor’s data is a reliable source for determining what buildings have
been demolished or replaced, but not for determining the age of buildings built prior to the 1980s. We therefore
were not able to determine what structures in the area north of the railroad tracks would be eligible. We know
that several of them are over 100 years old based on family records and the materials used in their exterior and
construction. This is an area that will require further research in order to be determined.

88

Appendix 2 - Methodology
Market Analysis
The market analysis for La Plaza Vieja covers two areas: (1) a count of businesses in the area, and (2) the types of
businesses in the area. For this portion, we have consulted three main sources to gather our information for the
market analysis. We looked over the ESRI data for topics concerning the count and types of businesses in the area.
For owner and tax information regarding the parcels, we used the parcel viewer provided by the County Assessor.
Lastly, we used the online Flagstaff Prospector economic development directory to gather information regarding
the names of the businesses, estimated sales, market history, and a description of the business.
Land Use
Maximum build-out refers to how much could be built if every lot was built to the maximum extent allowed by
right. Maximum build-out is ascertained by the maximum building height and floor area ratio (FAR) allowed by the
Zoning Code and accounting for design criteria for commercial and mixed-use buildings.
Transportation and Infrastructure
Infrastructure, road, and sidewalk condition data is maintained by the City’s Utilities, Engineering, and GIS
divisions. The data shown for this report is up-to-date as of August 2014 and includes recent construction including
replacement of water and sewer infrastructure and street surfaces. This was supplemented by a review of the
walkability audit and survey results.
The City of Flagstaff conducted an online biking and walking survey that was supplemented by in-person surveys in
health facilities for low-income residents and community events throughout the summer of 2014. The questions
posed were administered City-wide but requested information about specific locations from the respondents. For
the purpose of this analysis, responses for locations within the boundaries of the Plan were compiled.
The City of Flagstaff conducted a walkability audit in 2008 with residents and community leaders. A walkability
audit uses a standard form created by the National Center for Safe Routes to School and the Pedestrian and Bicycle
Information Center to assess the pedestrian environment for barriers and conditions that decrease the comfort of
the pedestrian. This allows the City to compare different neighborhoods and corridors in a consistent way. In fall
2014, Andrew Hagglund and Tyler Shute, City interns, went out to La Plaza Vieja to check for changed conditions
from the original survey. This was primarily to incorporate the changes after the construction work in the summer
of 2014.
Crash data and reports were examined for every accident in the area boundary between 2001 and 2012 in order to
better understand the pattern of crashes, most of which occur along Milton Road and Route 66. The vehicle
movement, condition of the pedestrian or cyclist, and the level of injury were examined in this analysis.

89

Appendix 3 – Zoning Background

APPENDIX 3 – ZONING BACKGROUND
DENSITY AND INTENSITY
Density refers to the intensity of development within a residential zoning district. In residential districts, density is
generally measured by the maximum number of dwelling units permitted on a zoning lot. The maximum number of
units is calculated by dividing the maximum residential area permitted on a zoning lot by the applicable factor for
each zoning district. (Fractions equal to at least three-fourths are considered one unit.) The factors for each district
are approximations of average unit size plus allowances for any common areas. Special density regulations apply to
mixed-use buildings that contain both residential and community facility uses.
Intensity is the mass, bulk, and scale of buildings in commercial, industrial, institutional, and mixed-use settings.
Typically, intensity is measured by the Floor Area Ratio. Below is a graphic describing how buildings with the same
FAR requirement can take different forms on the same site.

90

Appendix 3 – Zoning Background

SUMMARY OF ZONING RELEVANT TO LA PLAZA VIEJA
RESIDENTIAL ZONES IN NEIGHBORHOOD
Single-Family Residential Neighborhood (R1N)
The Single-Family Residential Neighborhood (R1N) Zone applies to those neighborhoods that are located between
the Downtown Flagstaff Historic District and outlying areas of more recent suburban development. The R1N Zone,
therefore, helps to maintain and enhance the historic character, scale, and architectural integrity of the downtown
and surrounding area. Single-family residential development is the primary use type. This Zone is intended to
preserve and build upon the existing development patterns inherent to Flagstaff’s oldest neighborhoods. New
development, renovations, and additions should, therefore, be in character and scale with the existing
architectural characteristics of this Zone.
USES PERMITTED
Public and private schools, home day care, most institutional residential uses (with CUP), most residential uses,
minor public services, hospitals (with CUP), neighborhood meeting facilities
USES NOT PERMITTED
Multi-family residential, live-work, trade schools, manufactured homes, retail trades, room and board facility
Density Range = 2 – 14 du/ac
Maximum Building Height = 35’
High Density Residential (HR)
The High Density Residential (HR) Zone applies to areas of the City appropriate for medium to high density
multiple-family residential development. This Zone is intended to provide an environment having maximum living
amenities on-site while providing affordable housing, residential design flexibility, more efficient use of open
space, and better separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. This Zone allows affordable and planned
residential development that allow for higher densities.
USES PERMITTED
Public and private schools, neighborhood meeting facilities, most residential uses, institutional residential uses
(with CUP), live-work (with CUP), offices (with CUP), room and board facility (with CUP), minor public services,
neighborhood markets (with CUP)
USES NOT PERMITTED
Manufactured homes, retail trades, trade schools
Density Range = 13 – 29 du/ac
Maximum Building Height = 60’
Manufactured Housing (MH)
The Manufactured Housing (MH) Zone is applied to areas of the City appropriate for orderly planned development
of manufactured housing parks and subdivisions to accommodate manufactured houses. This Zone also
accommodates conventionally framed or constructed single-family residences secondarily and accessory uses as
are related or incidental to the primary use and not detrimental to the residential environment.
USES PERMITTED
Public and private schools, neighborhood meeting facilities, day care, institutional residential (with CUP), minor
public services, room and board facility (with CUP)

91

Appendix 3 – Zoning Background

USES NOT PERMITTED
Multi-family buildings, two-family dwellings, retail trades, live-work, trade schools
Maximum Density = 11 du/ac
Maximum Building Height = 30’

COMMERCIAL ZONES IN NEIGHBORHOOD
Commercial Service (CS)
The Commercial Service (CS) Zone applies to areas of the City appropriate for those service industries and support
activities necessary to maintain viable commercial retail trade centers. The development of residential uses in
addition to commercial uses is encouraged in this Zone, provided that residential uses are located above or behind
the primary commercial service use.
USES PERMITTED
Mini-storage, truck yards, incidental manufacturing, regional meeting facility, public/private/trade schools, most
residential uses, institutional residential, live-work, room and board facility (with CUP), bars, all retail trades,
general service, office, hospital (with CUP), minor public services, parking lots and garages, most auto services and
sales
USES NOT PERMITTED
Warehousing, research and development, impound yard, commercial recreation facility, single-family homes,
retail/service drive-thru, lodging, major public services, car washes
Gross Density = 13 du/ac
Maximum Building Height = 60’
Setbacks = 15’ minimum side/rear setback when adjacent to residential
Highway Commercial (HC)
The Highway Commercial (HC) Zone applies to areas of the City appropriate for a full range of automobile-oriented
services. The development of commercial uses in addition to residential uses is encouraged in the HC Zone to
provide diversity in housing choices, provided that residential uses are located above or behind commercial
buildings so that they are buffered from adjoining highway corridors. The provisions of this Zone are also intended
to provide for convenient, controlled access and parking, without increasing traffic burdens upon the adjacent
streets and highways. This Zone is designated primarily at the commercial corridors of the City, with the intention
of making the City more attractive as a tourist destination while providing needed commercial activity.
USES PERMITTED
Research and development (with CUP), impound yard, warehousing, mini-storage (with CUP), incidental
manufacturing, all recreation, all education, all assembly, all residential and institutional residential, all retail trade
and services, garages and parking lots, all auto vehicle sales and services
USES NOT PERMITTED
Single-family residential, major public services, passenger transportation facility, various industrial uses
Gross Density = 13 du/ac
Maximum Building Height = 60’
Setbacks = 15’ minimum side/rear setback when adjacent to residential

92

Appendix 4 – Milton Road Microsimulations

APPENDIX 4 – MILTON ROAD MICROSIMULATIONS
The Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization (FMPO) has been working on operational microsimulations of
alternatives for improving access and reducing congestion on the Milton Road and Route 66 corridors adjacent to
the La Plaza Vieja neighborhood as part of the effort to update the Regional Transportation Plan. The
recommendations of the evaluation are still pending. The results of the study will inform a future corridor study
that aligns operational treatments with preferred land uses and urban design. The final study can be referenced at
a later date for a full performance evaluation of the scenarios discussed in this appendix.
The microsimulations bundled together improvements along Milton Road, Route 66, and related cross streets and
backage roads into varied packages of treatments. Treatments included intersection improvements, pedestrian
crossings, and new network connections. The treatments were tested against today’s conditions and future
conditions represented by a 20% growth rate in the corridor. Improvements included widening of Milton Road,
extensions of either Clay Avenue or the potential McCracken Street Extension, and a traffic signal at Blackbird
Roost among others. Clay Avenue extension was looked at in early iterations for its potential outcomes but was
dropped from future bundles after a consensus was reached that the McCracken Street extension could carry the
same volume and would better meet the goals and policies developed for the neighborhood Specific Plan.
Three final bundles will be constructed of the most effective treatments and add alternative transit services as
well. The operational performance including traffic delay, queue lengths, transit frequency, distance between
pedestrian crossings, and more will be reported on. A general assessment of land use policy alignment and
relative cost will also be provided.
One bundle will be more urban in nature. It will include the McCracken Street Extension, a fully signalized
intersection connecting Blackbird Roost and Metz Walk, a full system of backage roads on the east and west side of
Milton Road, and increased connectivity across Milton Road. Preliminary results for this bundle showed higher
traffic through the La Plaza Vieja neighborhood than other alternatives and more congestion on Milton Road as a
result of increased delay at the intersection of Clay Avenue, Butler Avenue, and Milton Road.
Another bundle will be more suburban and include six lanes for vehicle travel on Milton Road and major
improvements to the Humphreys and Route 66 intersection. Widening Milton underneath the BNSF bridge was not
modeled at this time, because it is difficult to predict when bridge replacement that would allow for six lanes will
be possible. The third lane on the northbound side of the road instead makes a right turn into the Southside
neighborhood on Phoenix Avenue. Preliminary results for this model show that these changes allow for all traffic
increases to be handled through the arterial network and congestion would improve.
The final hybrid bundle will include partially widening Milton Road to allow for six lanes between Riordan Road and
the BNSF bridge, bus rapid transit improvements, increased connectivity, and backage roads. Like the more
suburban bundle, the third lane on the northbound side of the road makes a right turn into the Southside
neighborhood on Phoenix Avenue. Preliminary results for this model are not yet available. See the final study for
more information.

93

Appendix 5 - Bibliography

APPENDIX 5 – BIBLIOGRAPHY
Census, United States Decennial. 2010. US Department of Commerce. www.census.gov.
Cline, Platt. 1976. They Came to the Mountain: The Story of Flagstaff’s Beginnings. Northern Arizona University,
Old Press, Flagstaff.
Cline, Platt. 1994. Mountain Town: Flagstaff’s First Century. Northland Publishing Company, Flagstaff, Arizona.
Lutes, Annie. 2015. La Plaza Vieja Neighborhood Historic Context, 1901–1954. SWCA Environmental Consultants.
McAlester, Virginia Savage. 2013. A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf Press, New York.
Pearce, T.M. 1965. New Mexico Place Names: A Geographical Dictionary. The University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Woodward Architectural Group. 1993. City of Flagstaff Southside/Old Town Historic Building Survey, Volume I: Final
Summary Report. Woodward Architectural Group, Tempe, Arizona.
Vance, Robert. 1992. Lumber and Sawmill Workers in the Flagstaff Timber Industry, 1917-1947: Migration,
Adaptation, and Organization. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff.
Uncited sources
http://www.arizonahandbook.com/flagstaff.htm
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/AZ-Flagstaff.html
Photo Credits
Northern Arizona University, Cline Library, Special Collections and Archives: (Photo A) Riordan, Mary and
Chambers, Roberts Collection.

94

For more information about the Comprehensive Planning Section, please contact:
Sara Dechter, AICP
Comprehensive Planning Manager
City of Flagstaff
211 West Aspen Avenue
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
Phone: (928) 213-2631
E-mail: sdechter@flagstaffaz.gov
Or visit our website at: http://www.flagstaff.az.gov/comprehensiveplanning.