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.