Coconino County has had a solid history of land use and development planning. The Coconino County General Plan 1990 (the county’s first COMPREHENSIVE PLAN) was adopted in 1974, 10 years after adopting the first ZONING ORDINANCE and SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. The county’s next comprehensive plan, adopted in 1990, differed from its predecessor by including GOALS and POLICIES for future growth and DEVELOPMENT. This new 2003 Coconino County Comprehensive Plan was developed in response to the state’s Growing Smarter Act of 1998 and Growing Smarter Plus Act of 2000, requiring counties to update their comprehensive plans prior to December 31, 2003. This current plan builds on the themes of previous plans and reflects the many changes that have occurred in Coconino County since the mid-1970s.

The Need for a Comprehensive Plan

Planning allows us to make conscious, informed choices about our future. The Comprehensive Plan offers GUIDELINES for making such choices and policies for helping us determine the future locations, forms, and acceptable impacts of development. The adoption of this plan signifies that all LAND USE decisions must be consistent with the plan's goals and policies.

Who This Plan is For

This Comprehensive Plan benefits county residents by ensuring that land use decisions are rational, democratic, and predictable. It helps landowners, private interest groups, and individual county citizens by providing the information they need to evaluate how these decisions fit the county’s goals. Likewise, it helps residents and landowners determine how to achieve their interests in a way that is consistent with these goals. The Comprehensive Plan forms the basis for other County plans and regulations.

Public and private agencies, property owners, developers, community groups, and COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT planners use this Comprehensive Plan in many ways. First, it guides County officials in making decisions about zone changes and developments. Second, citizens can use it to understand the County’s position on proposed changes in land use, ZONING, environmental regulations, and broader policy issues. Finally, the Comprehensive Plan sets policies that promote the County’s role as a model for actions related to capital improvements, road construction and maintenance, environmental protection, land use, and energy use in buildings.

How This Plan Was Developed

This Comprehensive Plan was developed through the collaborative effort of the Coconino County Comprehensive Planning Partnership, a volunteer group of individuals and organizations staffed by the Community Development Department. The BOARD OF SUPERVISORS appointed a project Steering Committee who represented diverse perspectives and met monthly to discuss, review, and approve all sections of the plan. In addition, a five-member Management Team met weekly to set the agenda and prepare materials for the Steering Committee.

Over the course of this 18-month project, the County consulted with representatives of state and federal land management agencies. This Interagency Workgroup met several times throughout the planning process to ensure that the Comprehensive Plan would complement and support their land use plans. In addition, an independent, Board-appointed Science Advisory Group guided and reviewed the CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK to ensure that the goals and policies of each ELEMENT were consistent with the plan’s CONSERVATION guidelines and overarching conservation goals. This group’s input assures both the Steering Committee and the public that the Comprehensive Plan is based on the best available scientific information.

Finally, county residents played perhaps the most important role in developing this plan. As outlined in the project’s Public Participation & Communications Action Plan, residents were involved from beginning to end, as they participated in the process of defining the county’s future vision and goals. Citizens learned about planning efforts through over two dozen open houses, the Partnership website, and monthly newsletters; they participated in these efforts by attending open houses and communicating with Steering Committee representatives. Many agencies, groups, and individuals brought a wide range of perspectives to the planning process. The resulting Comprehensive Plan strongly reflects the input and support of county residents.

Why This Plan is Different

Why This Plan is Different This Comprehensive Plan integrates conservation from the outset. The Conservation Framework outlines the plan’s major premise, which is based on the Ecological Society of America’s PRINCIPLES for land use planning . The Conservation Framework explains key ecological principles and specifies guidelines for maintaining healthy, functioning ECOSYSTEMS. It not only assumes that human beings are integral components of ecosystems, but it also acknowledges our role in shaping these environments. Like its 1990 predecessor, this Comprehensive Plan addresses ways to protect our natural LANDSCAPES from the adverse effects of unmanaged development. However, it broadens the means of such protection by encouraging greater awareness of conservation and providing specific goals and policies. Conventional zoning practices have focused exclusively on the separation of land uses, prohibiting more creative development patterns. This plan, on the other hand, provides more flexibility to mix different-but compatible-land uses in designated RURAL GROWTH AREAS.

To successfully implement this plan, the County must be able to provide incentives to support recommendations, alter ordinances and regulatory procedures, and establish joint agreements. The goals and policies of this plan consider ways to provide such incentives.

The Plan’s Scope

Although our vision extends to the next two decades and beyond, the goals and policies of this Comprehensive Plan are intended to serve for 10 years. The plan covers all areas of the county except Native American reservations and incorporated cities and towns. Although the County has no jurisdiction over public lands managed by agencies such as the U.S. FOREST SERVICE, the NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, and the BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM), many policies support the collaborative efforts necessary to protect the integrity of these lands.

This Comprehensive Plan does not address areas that lie outside County jurisdiction. For example, it does not outline a plan for new schools in each school district; it does, nevertheless, touch on issues such as the effect of new growth and development on schools. The goals and policies of the plan have applicability limited to areas of County influence.

The Relationship to Private Property Rights

Although the Comprehensive Plan’s policies direct the future development of private lands, they pose no limits on what landowners can do with their properties under their existing zoning. For example, most RURAL areas lie within a zoning district with a minimum parcel size of 10 acres; these landowners can continue to develop in accordance with that zoning. Although this plan does not encourage such development, it recognizes that owners are entitled to those development rights. The same approach holds true for existing commercial and industrial zones. The goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide more certainty in the development process, thereby maintaining or enhancing the economic viability of private property.

The Relationship to Other Plans

Planning for the future occurs simultaneously at the regional, county, and local levels. Agencies such as the ARIZONA STATE LAND DEPARTMENT, Forest Service, BLM, and Park Service develop plans for managing their lands. For example, the State Land Department has been developing conceptual plans for state trust lands, the BLM has been working on plans for the Arizona Strip and the Vermilion Cliffs National Monument, and the Forest Service completed the Flagstaff/Lake Mary Ecosystem Analysis, a major forest plan amendment, in 2002.

The Flagstaff Area Regional Land Use and Transportation Plan was completed and adopted by the Flagstaff City Council and the Coconino County Board of Supervisors in 2001 and approved by Flagstaff voters in May 2002. The Flagstaff Regional Plan applies not only to Flagstaff but also to about 460 square miles surrounding the city, encompassing the Flagstaff Regional Planning Area. Like this Comprehensive Plan, the Flagstaff Regional Plan contains goals and policies to guide growth. Its themes of concentrating development and protecting OPEN SPACE are consistent with those of this plan.

By mid-2003, the Board of Supervisors had adopted AREA PLANS for 10 communities in Coconino County. An official amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, an Area Plan reflects the local residents’ future vision. Some Area Plans include a DESIGN REVIEW OVERLAY to help developers and the County integrate new commercial buildings into the fabric of the existing community. All Area Plans contain goals and policies for future development, focusing on the unique concerns of the community. These plans can address specific neighborhoods, local roads, community character and land uses. Zone changes and conditional use permits must be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan as well as those of the appropriate Area Plan.

| Top of Page

Geography

Coconino County’s diverse topography is related to a wide range of climatic conditions, vegetation, and wildlife. Located in north-central Arizona, the county encompasses 18,608 square miles (nearly 12 million acres). Elevations range from 1,350 feet at the bottom of the Grand Canyon to 12,633 feet at the top of the San Francisco Peaks. Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests dominate the 15 percent of the county that lies above 7,000 feet; piñon-juniper WOODLANDS cover most of the 40 percent between 6,000 and 7,000 feet. The remainder of the county, which mostly lies between 5,000 and 6,000 feet, is covered primarily with grassland and scrubland. The county is characterized by canyons, plateaus, cliffs, mesas, cinder cones, mountains, and relatively flat areas.

Few perennial streams and rivers flow through the county, except for the Colorado River, its tributaries, and a number of streams that drain the Mogollon Rim—Oak Creek, the upper reaches of Sycamore Creek, the upper portion of West Clear Creek, East Clear Creek, and Chevelon Creek. There are few natural lakes in the county; Mormon Lake, Stoneman Lake, and Rogers Lake (although typically dry) are the most prominent. Many manmade lakes are scattered throughout the county; the larger ones include Lake Powell, Lake Mary, Ashurst Lake, Kinnikinick Lake, Long Lake, Blue Ridge Reservoir, Knoll Lake, Bear Canyon Lake, and Woods Canyon Lake.

The county’s physical characteristics have greatly affected human settlement. Topography dictated the alignment of the transcontinental railroad through Flagstaff and Williams, for example. Flagstaff, with its few surface SPRINGS and abundant wood for railroad ties, developed first as a railroad and lumber center and later as a sheep and cattle ranching area. Sedona grew around Oak Creek, which supported smallscale farming. This south-central core of the county holds almost three-fourths of its population, with communities elsewhere separated by large unpopulated areas. Fredonia offered farming opportunities along the banks of Kanab Creek. Page was founded during construction of the Glen Canyon Dam. Second-home communities have grown where private land is available. On the Navajo Reservation, populations were once scattered, when sheep played a more important role in the economy; now Navajos gravitate to established communities such as Tuba City, Cameron, Tonalea, and Kaibito. Large areas of the county contain mostly ranches with few residents.

| Top of Page

Population

At the time of the 2000 Census, Coconino County had 116,320 residents. Population estimates in 2002 indicate that growth continued at a rate of 3 percent and population increased to 125,420 residents. The population of Flagstaff during this period grew from an estimated 52,894 to 59,160 residents.

2002 Estimated County Population Distribution

From 1970 to 2000, the county grew by 67,994 residents. This 140-percent increase is nearly 2.5 times the national growth rate for the same period. Although Native Americans comprised 28.5 percent of the population in 2000, only about 20 percent continue to live on reservations. Nearly 60 percent of the county’s residents live within the Flagstaff Regional Planning Area; about 10 percent of county’s nonreservation residents live in unincorporated, RURAL areas outside this area. The median age for the entire county in 2000 was 29.6, compared to 34.2 in the state and 35.3 in the nation. The retirement age category has been stable.

| Top of Page

Communities

Coconino County’s incorporated cities and towns include Flagstaff, Fredonia, Page, Sedona, and Williams. A number of smaller, unincorporated communities fall under County jurisdiction for planning and development issues. These communities range in size from about 50 in Mormon Lake and Marble Canyon to over 8,000 in Doney Park; the “midsized” unincorporated communities of Valle and Tusayan have about 600 residents. In addition, Native American reservations include many established communities, which range in size from 562 in Tonalea to 8,225 in Tuba City.

| Top of Page

Land Management

Although Coconino County is the largest county in Arizona and the second largest in the United States, it is one of the most sparsely populated. Only 13.3 percent of the county is privately owned. Native American reservations (Navajo, Hopi, Kaibab-Paiute, Havasupai, and Hualapai) cover 38.1 percent of the land area. Federal and state agencies manage the rest of the county’s lands—the Forest Service (28.3 percent), the BLM (5 percent), the State Land Department (9.5 percent) and the Park Service (6.8 percent).

| Top of Page

Coconino County faces some unique planning challenges—a rapidly decreasing private land base, limited water resources, and public concern that incorporating high-density development will impact the area’s RURAL CHARACTER. Developing a plan that serves all of Coconino County is difficult because it encompasses such a large area of diverse people and landscapes. The needs of communities such as Marble Canyon, Forest Lakes, and Kaibab Estates, for example, differ significantly. Developing a uniform set of goals and policies requires that we generalize to some degree and acknowledge that the “one-size-fits-all” approach does not apply here.

| Top of Page

Land Constraints

Only 14 percent of the land in Coconino County is privately owned, mostly by ranchers with large holdings. Around existing communities, private land is rapidly being developed. Many SUBDIVISIONS are nearly built out, including Kachina Village, Mountainaire, Pinewood, and the platted subdivisions in Doney Park. Similarly, LOT-SPLIT areas in Doney Park and Fort Valley have been filling in rapidly.

Development also occurs on INHOLDINGS—small “islands” of private land interspersed throughout federal holdings. Once these are occupied, pressure mounts to acquire and develop federal or state lands. However, the process for exchanging national forest lands has become increasingly difficult and political because few residents want neighboring federal lands to be developed. State lands can be sold or leased, but adjacent residents view these lands as valuable OPEN SPACE. As a result, land prices are escalating rapidly.

In many cities throughout the nation, the rate of land consumption exceeds the rate of population growth. Countywide, this ratio is difficult to calculate because parcel sizes vary, many homes are seasonal, and we lack the data required to correlate building permits and parcel size. The County issued about 300 building permits annually between 1992 and 2002. If 75 percent apply to year-round residents, the unincorporated county is gaining about 600 new residents each year. If the zoned parcel size is 2½ acres, about 1 square mile would be required for each 600 residents; with 10-acre ZONING, 4 square miles would be required. However, many square-mile SECTIONS are split into 40-ACRE LOTS (and subsequently into 10-acre parcels) for second homes, a process that consumes land without adding population.

Growth in the unincorporated county over the last 25 years has occurred in platted subdivisions or on parcels created through lot splits. Unfortunately, the County’s authority under state law for reviewing lot-split development is limited to access and minimum zoning requirements. The County cannot assess drainage, the availability of utilities and other infrastructure, connectivity with adjacent properties, and other issues typically considered for subdivisions. This approach to development results in unplanned WILDCAT SUBDIVISIONS that usually feature large lots but often lack good roads and infrastructure. Statutory changes to subdivision laws combined with longterm regional planning can help correct the shortcomings of the uncoordinated development practices of the past.

| Top of Page

Water Constraints

In many parts of the unincorporated county, water is unavailable or very difficult to obtain. Depth to GROUNDWATER typically exceeds 1,000 feet. In some areas, residents share deep wells; others rely on small public WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS. However, many residents must haul water obtained from municipal standpipes, private water companies, and private wells. Water is another area of limited County authority. Although the County can require a subdivider to reveal the source of water for a subdivision, it cannot consider the impact a proposed well might have on other wells in the area or on the environment.

| Top of Page

Perceptions About Rural Character

Many residents of unincorporated communities share strong values about preserving the county’s rural character. These perceptions create additional planning challenges because rural character varies widely throughout the county. Each resident defines “rural” differently and desires different levels of rural amenities. Most residents have chosen to live in communities that already provide the level of infrastructure and facilities that they desire. However, as some areas grow and population increases, new infrastructure and facilities are required to meet demands. “Rural” is a highly revered term because it often equates to personal freedom, and residents are often concerned that nearby higher-density development will negatively affect their lifestyle. Rural values are best defined by communities themselves, either informally or in AREA PLANS.

Unlike the County’s previous comprehensive plans, this one strongly emphasizes INTEGRATED CONSERVATION DESIGN, which encourages more efficient LAND USE through shared open space and smaller lot sizes. Our ability to implement conservation design depends on residents’ willingness to change their perception of rural character from one that favors 2½- and 5-acre lots with no open space to one that embraces smaller individual lots with large areas of conserved open space. The application of an integrated conservation design approach provides open space areas that offer environmental and aesthetic values, a significant amenity for subdivision residents.

| Top of Page

A primary concern for Coconino County’s future is accommodating growth when all the available private land, especially the land around developing communities, is completely built out. If we do nothing, future development will continue at low densities until private land is no longer available. If this occurs and we have not made accommodations for continued growth, local housing and land costs will increase substantially and newcomers may be forced to move to distant communities, creating “sprawling” conditions and long commutes to work. Options for accommodating future growth include:

• Expanding our GROWTH BOUNDARIES, a process that generally requires exchanging federal lands or selling state lands for development.
• Redeveloping, INFILLING, and developing at higher densities within existing communities.
• Creating new communities in outlying areas where little or no development currently exists.

Each alternative has pros and cons; some present difficult political choices. Continuing our existing low-density development patterns, for example, hastens land consumption but preserves residents’ traditional perceptions of rural character. Many residents have moved to certain areas specifically to enjoy “low-density living.” Likewise, exchanging national forest lands and selling state trust lands is unpopular with adjacent property owners. However, in many cases, these state or federal lands occupy areas where transportation corridors and utilities could be logically extended, making them prime candidates for development. Higher-density redevelopment and infilling is also typically controversial with neighbors, even though it reduces land consumption and allows us to protect more open space. Although this Comprehensive Plan generally discourages high-density development in remote areas, developers could provide infrastructure and amenities in new communities such as Bellemont. As a potential long-term growth alternative, development of new communities could be considered in areas where land and water are available and where it is feasible to provide utilities.

| Top of Page

How the County Uses This Plan to Make Decisions

Many County officials use this Comprehensive Plan—the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, the BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, and planners from the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. The Commission and Board are responsible for making decisions about zone changes, SUBDIVISIONS, and CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS; their approval depends on whether the proposed changes are consistent with the GOALS and POLICIES of this Comprehensive Plan, which reflect the plan’s CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK. County planners typically meet with developers or landowners who wish to submit an application for a proposed project. Initial discussions include a review of the project’s consistency with the plan’s goals and policies. If the project deviates from these goals and policies, planners may then suggest appropriate modifications. Once the developer or landowner submits an application, a staff member prepares a report to the Commission that includes an analysis of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, along with related findings. The Commission uses the findings and other information in the staff report in deciding whether to approve the project.

The Commission and Board may also choose to implement the Comprehensive Plan by requiring that certain conditions of approval be met either prior to or during construction. These conditions reflect the plan’s goals and policies. They typically include obtaining health and building permits and addressing concerns about LANDSCAPING, lighting, roads, parking, grading, drainage, or signs.

The County uses the Comprehensive Plan not only to review ZONING cases but also to guide decisions about expanding major infrastructure such roadways or investing in government buildings, parks, and other facilities. It identifies sites for new infrastructure by indicating the probable and/or desirable directions for future growth.

| Top of Page

The Role of Ordinances

The ZONING ORDINANCE and SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE are the primary tools for implementing the Comprehensive Plan. Both ordinances provide for orderly growth, environmental protection, and adequate facilities and services; both also specify that the approval of a zone change, subdivision, or conditional use permit depends on consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and local AREA PLAN (where applicable). The ordinances contain detailed development standards for implementing the plan’s policies.

| Top of Page

The Role of Geographic Information Systems in Planning

An integrated GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) is a valuable tool available for developing and implementing a comprehensive plan. GIS methods allow us to associate areas or points on a map with “attributes” such as land use type, soil type, or habitat type. These attributes are stored in a large database that can be updated and modified as new information becomes available. Most importantly, GIS provides a way to analyze these attributes over large geographic areas, a task that could be extremely difficult and timeconsuming using other methods. GIS maps can illustrate existing and projected conditions and communicate planning concepts to citizens and decisionmakers. They are especially helpful for evaluating land management and policy scenarios and for identifying ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS.

| Top of Page

The Implementation Plan

ACTION ITEMS are specified in the IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, a supplemental document to this Comprehensive Plan. These items fall into one of four categories—project-specific, administrative, ongoing, or collaborative. Project-specific action items include activities such as developing informational materials such as a handout on how to revegetate disturbed areas. The administrative category of action items includes all activities related to ordinances, such as amending an ordinance to implement a specific policy. Ongoing projects or programs include activities such as developing and managing a county land trust. Collaborative action items involve relationships with other agencies or groups—for example, working with the Forest Service on forest ecosystem health issues. The County identifies and prioritizes these items to achieve the plan’s goals.

The Implementation Plan will be reviewed annually to track its progress, establish and prioritize action items for the coming year, and identify who is responsible for each action item. This review process will also involve describing the methodology, expected progress, and funding source (Annual Budget or CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM) for new action items. Finally, during the annual review, County staff will specify measurable indicators for gauging the progress of action items. These indicators will be included in the Annual Budget and departmental reports.

| Top of Page

Amendments

The goals and policies of this Comprehensive Plan are not static; as conditions change and new issues emerge, the Board may need to modify them. To be truly effective, this plan requires regular review and updating to incorporate citizen opinions and to track our progress. A regular review process also motivates us to carry out the plan’s goals and policies. As such, the Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed annually to ensure its consistency with our overall vision for Coconino County; it will also undergo a more thorough review and update about every 10 years. These reviews provide opportunities to assess changes in the county, update background data, and change implementation priorities as needed.

Many policies in this plan specify requirements for “major developments” and “large subdivisions,” terms that are left undefined and, as such, are subject to case-by-case interpretation by the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION and BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. These terms refer to subdivisions or commercial complexes that are likely to impact an area significantly—not sixlot subdivisions, five-unit apartments, or small retail stores. The plan’s goal is to require increasingly stringent conditions of approval as project size and potential impacts increase rather than to impose undue burdens on small developers.

Likewise, although the ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES specify requirements for reviewing proposed amendments, they leave the definition of “major” to the discretion of each jurisdiction. Coconino County defines a major amendment as any proposed project of 100 acres or more that is substantially out of compliance with one or more goals and policies in this plan or that represents a substantial alteration to the county’s land use mixture and balance.

Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan must meet one or more of the following criteria:

• The requested change must benefit the county or a specific community and address conditions that were unforeseen during the plan’s update process.
• Conditions have changed substantially since the last update; such conditions may involve surrounding land uses or economic factors.
• The subject property or concept was misinterpreted or overlooked in the plan.
• The amendment will effectively help us implement the plan’s other goals or the county vision.

Anyone may request amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Although citizens may request minor amendments any time, Growing Smarter states that the County should only consider major amendments once per calendar year—in our case, such applications will be accepted up to a specified date before the end of each year.

The Comprehensive Plan is also “amended” whenever a new AREA PLAN is adopted for a community within Coconino County. Area Plans, which are developed by local residents through a Board-appointed committee, add specificity to the Comprehensive Plan for individual communities. More like addendums than amendments, Area Plans can be adopted at any time—they are not subject to the same requirements as those mentioned above for amending the Comprehensive Plan.