[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6253093,"mediaKeyId","3183151-573ee20afdd91c8f46ee47731595fb85","parentId",3183151,"title","Flagstaff leaders narrow regional plan to focus on land-use priorities, implementation","audioSeconds",1419,"startMs",5934000,"endMs",7353000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3183151-573ee20afdd91c8f46ee47731595fb85&start=5934&end=7353","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3183151-573ee20afdd91c8f46ee47731595fb85/thumbnail_5934000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6253093/Flagstaff-City/Coconino-County/Arizona/Flagstaff-leaders-narrow-regional-plan-to-focus-on-land-use-priorities-implementation","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6253093-8fb98b34e9c3be0dda191bcdc76480a7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770444217&Signature=GMeZivp1yWUUDFIltgXh9SIw1AUUFUBySmL3SjrvhjKsEoy9oJikY6OUxewbaQD-kHKJkU3dZ1ROj4dnoYEQCjvS8fESYA7xArn4tmw6r319I5NTiOHThKceWwjra6IRN2qEXlur4zJOfZL-g1oOPS3DhY1DesuBV7A0AfvytHdekhv9aUxWTPcMKvXFqyxqkYo-B~-Xp4ZLtFJpsck4BsAP4Y5ZSC2AELoUsdCJWrrmQpliH9dBOJfq4xvlxpMudYOUDCl15MncqPSkF5kQkoKpaYtGFHsCejydsrirS40bvvcnR22L-g2XFz73foCkJkU4wyMwKE25nsYn3XzM9Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Flagstaff, AZ","date","2025-05-03T00:24:35.783Z","article","City and county planning staff presented a reorganized draft of the Flagstaff Regional Plan at a joint retreat Friday and asked elected and appointed officials to weigh in on a shorter, more implementation‑focused document.

The consultants and planning managers said the revised draft reduces the size of the policy section and removes duplicative “implementation guideline” pages that previously made the plan harder to use in day‑to‑day development review. “We made that guide for staff to use in a very different context,” said Sarah Dector, comprehensive and neighborhood planning manager for the City of Flagstaff, explaining why staff wants clearer, shorter guidance for decision makers.

Why it matters: staff and the regional plan committee said the old plan was “mom‑and‑apple pie” broad and difficult to use when actual zoning and public‑works decisions were being made. Officials at the retreat were asked to prioritize the plan’s focus so it would be used as a practical tool for rezones, capital‑improvement planning and application review rather than as a bookshelf policy document.

Key changes and the rationale
- Fewer goals and policies: Staff condensed the goals/policies section and removed many implementation guideline pages that duplicated material.
- Action list approach: The draft keeps a shorter set of high‑priority action items (about 22) intended to guide near‑term implementation, and a longer list of lower‑priority actions staff can reference.
- Stronger linkage to land use and the future growth illustration: Staff described the future growth illustration (the map) as the “kingpin” of the plan because state conformance findings hinge on land‑use guidance.

At the retreat, officials repeatedly asked staff to make how the plan will be used — for zoning, annexation, subdivision and capital projects — more explicit. Staff said that the statute requires general plans to show land‑use elements and that the city and county will each update their codes and procedures after the plan is adopted to implement it consistently.

Tensions and follow‑up
Elected officials pressed on two themes: (1) make the plan usable for near‑term housing outcomes and capital projects, and (2) preserve community character and view sheds where legally and practically feasible. Several commissioners and supervisors urged staff to keep a short “desk guide” or index of the plan’s goals and policies so case reviewers and the public can quickly find relevant standards. Deputy managers on both sides also flagged the need for coordination between the plan and upcoming city code updates (the “last CAP” code analysis project).

What staff will do next: staff said it will publish revised language that clarifies which plan provisions carry legal weight in land‑use decisions, which are implementation actions, and which are informational best practices. The regional plan committee already reviewed and endorsed the approach to fold most implementation guidelines into the goals/policies or into the implementation chapter, staff told the group.

Ending: Officials left the retreat with staff direction to finalize the reorganized plan and return more detailed code‑linkage proposals to both bodies. The city and county emphasized they will continue separate code and process work that implements the joint plan in ways that match each jurisdiction’s procedures.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Joint City/County Regional Plan Retreat - May 2, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","City and county planning staff presented a reorganized draft of the Flagstaff Regional Plan at a joint retreat Friday and asked elected and appointed officials to weigh in on a shorter, more implementation‑focused document.","taxTitle","Flagstaff City, Coconino County, Arizona","taxId",4650,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6253083,"Planned trails on private land prompt policy shift: officials favor flagged private‑land markers over exact lines",912,14636000,15548000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3183151-573ee20afdd91c8f46ee47731595fb85&start=14636&end=15548","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3183151-573ee20afdd91c8f46ee47731595fb85/thumbnail_14636000.jpg","/articles/6253083/Flagstaff-City/Coconino-County/Arizona/Planned-trails-on-private-land-prompt-policy-shift-officials-favor-flagged-privateland-markers-over-exact-lines","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6253083-751a62727f2f4cb9a3ded9c67657ebb8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770444217&Signature=FSYjMN~SEM8vo~kFNrrp11z1uVXR0AC6z7Vt9CTX-Ve~dpNS2Q-sBvb9dqWnWrzhAyZceEdcjRCfIHoJ5Kz1E6zMSAhoXqP0Qxg2drJ8esjwVX77iI5ALhfDbdxErUOP1IaVi6GA861DbMn06WWGC~x6CrmC0o4mrXojzoH0dmmBkLP5boagEsvYSpC37JvIw1myjrAaewhaIH9T6cSZZkzfzlDq5iOWFDhOxKkIFOWZ~WVE~KD2KgzxYmsQhkhzHcNmHkjGPpXsCQZQIWB5iQV0MVbmj4FDpHU7DFU~a4t8PnXNX89~PiLHAK1JBvHoXtvsYVH-5ce8arhkhtT40g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A central debate at Friday’s joint regional plan retreat concerned how the Flagstaff Regional Plan should show planned trails that cross private property.

At issue: the draft plan uses dashed lines to show “planned and proposed” trails. Several private‑land owners and the City’s legal and parks staff raised concerns that showing dashed lines on a public digital map can drive recreational trespass and create safety and fire risk on private property. “We just had a fire that came up. Fortunately it was snuffed out early, but it could have been a significant tragedy,” said a private‑land representative in public comment.

Public and official reactions
Developers and private owners urged the map to avoid an impression that the dashed line equals a legal public trail. Little America and other large parcel owners told officials dashed lines had encouraged social‑media‑driven trespass.

Most elected and appointed officials at the retreat preferred a middle ground: keep the plan’s trail intent visible but change the symbology or add clear disclaimers for private parcels rather than showing a final line. Several speakers suggested use of a distinct color or marking for planned trails on private land along with a map legend stating clearly: “Planned trail shown does not constitute legal public access unless a legal trail easement is recorded.”

Staff view and next steps
Staff described two options for responding to comments: (1) maintain the dashed‑line approach with an expanded disclaimer in the plan and online map; or (2) change to a less‑specific symbology (for example, arrows or a unique color) for planned trails that are located on private parcels where no easement exists.

After an on‑the‑spot vote among elected and appointed officials, a clear majority favored a private‑land distinction (the retreat’s “Sweet‑Mandino” compromise): show trail intent while using a distinct visual treatment and strong legal disclaimers for non‑easement routes. Staff said they will now draft revised map symbology and stronger legend language and circulate it for review.

Ending: The joint body asked staff to return the map with a clearer visual treatment for non‑easement trail corridors and with recommended language the city and county can use on the public web map to discourage trespass and explain legal status.","A major debate at the joint Flagstaff Regional Plan retreat concerned whether planned trails that cross private land should be shown as lines on the map or denoted by a different marker and a legal disclaimer.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6253088,"Officials press, developers question Flagstaff future‑growth map and density ranges",281,8203000,8484000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3183151-573ee20afdd91c8f46ee47731595fb85&start=8203&end=8484","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3183151-573ee20afdd91c8f46ee47731595fb85/thumbnail_8203000.jpg","/articles/6253088/Flagstaff-City/Coconino-County/Arizona/Officials-press-developers-question-Flagstaff-futuregrowth-map-and-density-ranges","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6253088-d80576bc3cdf7cde851833c12f8bdce7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770444217&Signature=jwFffvDGWHjZNdYyxSPH8MVqzV50YBUrJCrpZaXl21lZfcs4akRMNGt8skWhm9mOd8nr~x4625O4n7vFcD4gKrwhnhXtJgGN4KCBOnljzC9MjOO~7O-shX0ThK~BoVAjN21UkY2cIMVUP76mcgQtt1xZe04pLdrEvWfVduTGZ3hipUlsk82TtNMHKlg4FiExW2CMz3NQ8GB3QeKnTgsIySsdGbRvbkknucsviZ3CuzA0~ST6EOwgU4ydAn8A8kNGGwL06ZJDZ07kU3tUnIhfcfjkiPJddPtkS~oKm4t7Tryjd98aVDibEZjk5Tz8a-5xCl5LoNCUPrF1qkV1nSdssA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City and county staff presented the future growth illustration — a parcel‑level map that shows preferred land‑use categories and desired densities for the Flagstaff region — and asked elected and appointed officials and the public to flag locations for further discussion.

“Housing that is more affordable has been the number 1 answer on every single survey for the last 2 years,” said Sarah Dector, comprehensive and neighborhood planning manager for the City of Flagstaff, summing the engagement work that shaped the preferred scenario.

What the map is and why the city is using it
The illustration converts the plan’s scenario work into parcel‑specific land‑use categories: urban/suburban/rural centers; urban and suburban corridors; employment and university/research districts; parks and federal lands; and urban, suburban and rural neighborhoods. Staff said the map is parcel‑specific so it can trigger conformance findings under state consistency rules and guide capital investments.

Selected desired densities included in the draft
- Urban center: 50+ dwelling units per acre
- Suburban center: 29+ du/ac
- Rural center: 7+ du/ac
- Urban neighborhood: 20+ du/ac
- Suburban neighborhood (inside UGB): 5–40 du/ac; outside UGB: 2–14 du/ac
- Rural neighborhood: 0–4 du/ac
(Exact ranges and compatible zones are captured in staff tables and the zoning compatibility appendix.)

Points of contention
Developers and some elected officials asked staff to add flexibility for large greenfield parcels and to account for topography and non‑developable acreage when calculating effective density. Multiple speakers flagged the large state‑owned and privately‑owned parcels near John Wesley Powell and Butler as examples. Chris Harrison (Roberts Communities) and Jim Hill (Grand America/Little America parent company) asked that minimum effective densities be relaxed or clarified for very large master‑planned parcels so infrastructure costs and steep slopes do not force by‑right low‑density outcomes or make projects infeasible.

Staff response and process constraints
Staff said the map reflects a preferred scenario derived from scenario modeling (UrbanFootprint), community surveys and a technical advisory group. Alex Steinberger, consultant on the scenarios, told officials the preferred scenario was the one that best reduced vehicle miles traveled, reduced water and energy demand and put more residents near transit and parks.

Officials’ concerns
- Several elected officials said the city’s zoning already allows tall buildings in many places and asked staff to be clear about how the map interacts with existing zones and Prop 207‑era rights.
- County leaders reminded the group the Flagstaff Regional Plan is an amendment to the county comprehensive plan and that county process differs for conditional use permits and subdivisions.

Next steps
Staff said they will provide clearer documentation about how map designations map to existing compatible zoning, how developers might request minor plan amendments (e.g., to designate a parcel corridor if it fronts a planned collector), and how the plan will be used in city and county development review. Officials asked staff to return with a short, plain‑language desk guide and clearer code‑linkage proposals.

Ending: The map will remain draft while staff refines the zoning‑compatibility tables and responds to greenfield proponents’ requests for an approach that accounts for topography, infrastructure cost and non‑developable acreage.","City and county staff presented the future growth illustration — a parcel‑level map that shows preferred land‑use categories and desired densities for the Flagstaff region — and asked elected officials and the public to flag locations for further discussion.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6253078,"Officials debate ‘sense of place’ language; Indigenous voices and native landscaping urged",90,8165000,8255000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3183151-573ee20afdd91c8f46ee47731595fb85&start=8165&end=8255","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3183151-573ee20afdd91c8f46ee47731595fb85/thumbnail_8165000.jpg","/articles/6253078/Flagstaff-City/Coconino-County/Arizona/Officials-debate-sense-of-place-language-Indigenous-voices-and-native-landscaping-urged","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6253078-44462c21b0ce40cf2ecf66540ef64efe/orig.mp4?Expires=1770444217&Signature=ghqAici2rttCflVtgtzaexz8MeFPo92q70-Q9sKBvUp3WfGaNQdEQVIZuMepKr98tDdYjJhWMmZZ1R~fEuLZpdiPe-P3cKrd2n7ftTmx4uW-k87hd0mw-J28ZiXDc2nTkJFCtqHC6FC~tgBRoisv3sl2kPEJdiiK5JKvGV80fSV-sAEhMfseTFj~6xGt4ni5qkoEzcmmYvgc5ys6TrG5pPa3h4~ehhS0yjlcYmT34CXNq4hC1pyT~A5D1SbtXnlezXjq1yfFw3BdHuoFseoYTHbgAxNzV4ca5xssA-II6GkAQiTxjMvrBK6FIA4~JZJ8Xzx8JwZ6~ycyQJKT3snAUg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff introduced a new “sense of place” section in the reorganized regional plan and proposed several “best practices” — non‑regulatory, technical guidance that would help development respect local character.

Proposed best practices included design elements such as: emphasizing pedestrian‑oriented street frontages, repeating historic patterns where new development abuts historic districts, and using design techniques to break up building mass and bulk.

Public reaction and meeting highlights
Public commentators, indigenous representatives and several elected officials urged the plan to explicitly reflect Flagstaff’s Indigenous history and the region’s ecological character. “We humbly acknowledge the ancestral homelands of this area’s Indigenous nations,” said Council Member Carol House in a longer land‑acknowledgment passage during introductions; Commissioner Rose Tohi and others urged more explicit recognition of cultural connections to the landscape.

Landscaping and visual identity
Several commissioners recommended more explicit guidance promoting native, evergreen (ponderosa‑compatible) landscaping as a cost‑effective and immediate way to reinforce a local visual identity. One commissioner urged a “plant ecologist” role for the city to help ensure plant palettes reflect the region’s pine‑and‑high‑desert character and age into a coherent sense of place.

Design standards vs. plan language
Staff and zoning code managers reminded the group that the regional plan is not a design code and cannot in itself prescribe architectural details. Tiffany (zoning code manager) and other staff said some design review tools (for multifamily and larger projects) are available administratively but full citywide design standards would require code action and careful legal review, especially in light of recent state legislation that affects land‑use rules.

Accessibility and equity
Advocates asked for disability access and inclusion to be explicit priorities in any sense‑of‑place language. Housing advocates and several officials said sense of place must also be tied to affordability and access so that the character of Flagstaff does not become accessible only to higher‑income households.

Ending: Staff will refine the sense‑of‑place language and the best‑practices list, and will flag where topics require code changes (design standards) versus where non‑regulatory advisory language is appropriate.","At the retreat, staff proposed new \"best practices\" to help implement community character — including pedestrian‑oriented streetscapes, design approaches to reduce building bulk, and guidance on landscape and park entrance design — but officials and public commenters stressed the term \"sense of place\" must reflect indigenous history, a","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Flagstaff leaders narrow regional plan to focus on land-use priorities, implementation

Planned trails on private land prompt policy shift: officials favor flagged private‑land markers over exact lines

Officials press, developers question Flagstaff future‑growth map and density ranges

Officials debate ‘sense of place’ language; Indigenous voices and native landscaping urged