Coconino County supervisors review draft comprehensive plan; staff outlines high‑priority implementation items

Coconino County Board of Supervisors Chair Patrice Horstman and county planning staff reviewed a draft update to the county’s comprehensive plan during the board’s Oct. 1 work session, summarizing community feedback and listing high‑priority next steps for implementation.

The comprehensive plan update, a 10‑year guide for land use, transportation, natural resources, housing and community services, reflects extensive outreach and a 60‑day statutory public review period. "Every 10 years, the county reviews and, updates its existing comprehensive plan," said Melissa Shaw, long‑range planner in Community Development, who led the staff presentation.

Why it matters: The comprehensive plan shapes later land use approvals, development conditions and departmental priorities. Changes in the plan can affect how the county coordinates emergency services, manages growth, and plans infrastructure and conservation efforts — particularly in unincorporated and Flagstaff‑regional areas.

Key points from staff presentation - Public outreach and comments: Staff described letters and follow‑up responses to the Arizona State Land Department, the town of Tusayan and an individual commenter, and said the planning commission recommended approval at its Sept. 24 public hearing. Shaw told the board that the county does not include a formal “future land use map” but uses goals and policies to guide development. - Shared values and planning priorities: Shaw summarized three core priorities carried through the plan — maintaining rural character, protecting the natural environment (including water and forest health), and providing responsive public and emergency services and infrastructure. - High‑priority implementation items: Staff identified 11 items marked “high” priority, with a further subset flagged by the comprehensive plan advisory group. Items highlighted in the meeting included conducting a countywide housing needs assessment to inform a housing plan; seeking funding and developing a countywide multimodal connectivity plan; continuing public‑road safety countermeasures and capital improvements; exploring zoning updates to accommodate new and emerging rural businesses; pursuing forest fuels reduction and green‑waste disposal options; and considering a transfer‑of‑development‑rights program to protect ranchlands and open space.

Public safety, water and sustainability: Shaw said the plan contains required statutory elements on water and related resources and that the county worked with the Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Group to develop projections and policy options. She also said the draft includes a framework for a future countywide sustainability and resilience plan to look at energy efficiency, greenhouse‑gas reductions and carbon sequestration opportunities. Supervisor Tammy Ontiveras pressed staff to clarify whether sustainability measures would be mandatory; Melissa Shaw said the draft does not propose code mandates now but includes an optional program and recommended a separate countywide plan to evaluate appropriate actions.

Rural vs. municipal balance: Supervisors emphasized distinguishing policies that apply to unincorporated county areas from those used inside Flagstaff. Shaw said the plan intends county‑specific approaches informed by public input from rural residents and Flagstaff‑regional areas (for example, Doney Park, Kachina, and 180 corridor communities).

Next steps and implementation timing: The draft will return for a public hearing before the board on Nov. 18 and staff announced an open house Oct. 30 (4–6 p.m., Thomas Auditorium). Shaw described the draft’s implementation schedule categories: high (anticipated 1–2 years), medium (2–4 years) and low (initiated within about 8 years), and noted the advisory group prioritized items for board consideration. The board asked staff to add the county’s broadband (BEADS) program to the high‑priority implementation list; staff indicated broadband is already noted in the community services chapter but will be added to the implementation table.

Board comments and oversight: Supervisors said the plan should serve as the board’s ‘‘playbook’’ for future land use decisions and requested clearer population breakdowns for unincorporated areas, Flagstaff region communities and tribal areas (staff said those details are in the plan and will be provided in a slide). Several supervisors stressed the need for continued coordination with municipal, regional and tribal partners in advancing transport, broadband and sustainability work.

Ending note: Staff said the public hearing draft and comment letters are available online and asked the board to consider the advisory group’s priorities; the board signaled interest in bringing several implementation items — especially a housing plan, broadband, and sustainability/resilience planning — forward during its strategic planning discussions.