Fort Valley
Area Plan

An Amendment to the Coconino County Comprehensive Plan
Development by the Residents of the Fort Valley Community
with assistance of the County Community Development Department
Approved by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors on February 20, 1990

FORT VALLEY AREA PLAN

Approved by
Fort Valley - Highway 180 Corridor Study Committee
September 25, 1989

Approved by
Coconino County Planning and Zoning Commission
January 2, 1990

Adopted and Approved by
Coconino County Board of Supervisors
Resolution No. 90-6
February 20, 1990

Fort Valley - Highway 180 Corridor Study Committee
Jim David, Chairman
John H. Caskey
Lee Fitzhugh
Sharon Galbreath
Norm Johnson
Jimmie R. Nunn
Dianne Patterson
Verne D. Seidel, Jr.
Kathryn Stephenson
Peter B. Stilley
Nancy Taylor

Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................ 1
Study Area............................... 1
Land Use Survey.......................... 1
Implementation........................... 2
Water - Quantity & Quality ........................................................ 3
Water Quantity Information............... 3
Regulatory Framework..................... 4
Water Transfers.......................... 4
Wastewater Disposal and Water Quality.... 5
Utilities ........................................................................................ 8
Solid Waste Disposal................................................................. 9
Fire Protection.......................................................................... 10
Natural Resources & Environmental Quality ........................ 11
General Physical Characteristics........ 11
Air Quality............................. 12
Lighting................................ 12
Aesthetics.............................. 13
Vegetation and Wildlife................. 13
Natural Resources and Recreation........ 14
Environmental Policies.................. 14
Roads ........................................................................................ 17
Road Policies........................... 19
Land Use................................................................................... 21
Background - 1969 Zoning................ 21
Single Family Residential Uses.......... 21
Home Occupations........................ 22
Multiple Family Residential Uses........ 23
Commercial Uses......................... 23
Future Uses............................. 23
Open Space.............................. 24
Land Use Policies....................... 24
Special Considerations ........................................................... 27
Historical and Cultural Resources....... 27
Appendix: Property Owner Survey ........................................ 28

NOTE: The Study Area Map is not included in this electronic version.
It can be obtained from the Community Development Department.

Introduction
On August 15, 1988 the Board of Supervisors appointed an eleven-member
citizens' committee, entitled the Fort Valley - Highway 180 Corridor
Study Committee, to develop policies designed to guide future growth
and development in the Fort Valley area. The committee selected the
issues of concern which included water, fire protection, solid waste
disposal, utilities, environmental quality, roads, and land use. The
committee met for the first time on August 29, 1988 and met twice per
month through the end of September, 1989.

Study Area
The Committee established the study area at its first meeting. The
area decided upon was that depicted on the Department of Community
Development's Fort Valley Zoning Map. This includes all lands outside
of the incorporated City Limits of Flagstaff on both sides of Fort
Valley Road/Highway 180 out to and including the Fort Valley and
Baderville areas. The Committee decided to exclude Hart Prairie and
Kendrick Park.
Throughout the process, the Committee thought of the study area as
being in tow distinct parts. South Fort Valley included the Lockett
property, Colton Ranch area, Mount Elden Lookout Road, Schultz Pass
Road, the Magdalena/Van Sickle area, Forest Hills and Hidden Hollow.
North Fort Valley included Fort Valley Ranch, both sides of Highway
180 in the main valley, and Baderville.

Land Use Survey
During August of 1988 staff completed a land use survey of all
properties in the study area. The purposes were to establish existing
land uses, to identify patterns and problems, and to locate areas
where future development is likely to occur.
Land use in the entire study area is predominantly single family
residential consisting almost entirely of site-built homes. There are
no mobile home parks, multiple family residential developments, or
industrial uses in the study area. There are only four established
commercial uses. Considerably more than half of the private land in
the study area is undeveloped. There are 16 undeveloped parcels of 40
acres or more and 9 of 100 acres or more. Existing land uses are
discussed in greater detail in the Land Use chapter.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 1 of 27

Implementation
Upon adoption, this Fort Valley Area Plan becomes a part of the
Coconino County General (or Comprehensive) Plan and serves as the
official guide for future development. The Coconino County Zoning
Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance contain provisions that decisions
made by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors
shall be consistent with the General Plan. In order to approve
development projects, the following findings must be met:
For zone changes: That the change is consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the General Plan and this ordinance.
For conditional use permits: That the proposed conditional use is
consistent with and conforms to the goals, objectives, and policies of
the General Plan or specific plan for the area.
For subdivisions: That the proposed subdivision conforms to the goals,
objectives, and policies of the Coconino County Comprehensive Plan and
its amendments.
Requests for projects which are not consistent with the Plan either
should be denied or should be accompanied by a request to amend the
Plan.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 2 of 27

Water - Quantity & Quality
Virtually all residents in the study area are served by individual
wells located on each property. In a few locations there are communal
wells shared by a small number of households. In the Hidden Hollow
Road area and in certain isolated spots throughout the study area,
well drilling has been unsuccessful and residents must haul water from
the City of Flagstaff or purchase water from a commercial water
hauler. Most wells are relatively shallow (200 feet or less), located
in perched aquifers and have low pumping capacity. Many wells in the
study area are susceptible to water level fluctuations or even failure
following extended periods of low precipitation.

Water Quantity Information
A complete hydrologic study and analysis of the Fort Valley
groundwater basin has not been done. The best information currently
available is contained in a Master's Thesis completed in 1980 by
Ronald H. DeWitt entitled "Hydrogeology of Fort Valley." The thesis
contains a description of underlying geology, the perched aquifers,
weather, and recharge, and includes a description of existing wells.
The study addressed only the North Fort Valley portion of the study
area. Mr. DeWitt attended one of the Study Committee's meetings and
summarized his conclusions. He said the number of wells had at least
doubled since his research in the mid 1970's and the available
information as a result of the state's 1980 Groundwater Management Act
had increased significantly. He told the Committee a new hydrology
study would be very desirable.
The Study Committee requested that the Arizona Department of Water
Resources (ADWR) undertake a complete hydrology study of the Fort
Valley area which would include interpretation of sub-surface geologic
conditions, a comprehensive well inventory, a field inventory of all
wells including location, depth, and water level, and a complete
analysis of recharge to the basin. ADWR responded that they had
assembled some preliminary data on Fort Valley from which general
conclusions could be drawn, but that they did not currently have the
resources to conduct a complete hydrologic study. Their preliminary
study indicated that in the North Fort Valley area recharge to the
perched aquifer coming from runoff from the surrounding mountains and
infiltration within the basin itself amounts to approximately 300 acre
feet per year. They estimated present withdrawals are about 56 acre
feet per year based on 200 residences each using 200 gallons per day.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 3 of 27

Regulatory Framework
In 1980 the State Legislature passed the Groundwater Management Code
which was signed into law by Governor Bruce Babbitt. The overall goal
of the law is "safe yield," a balancing of groundwater withdrawals and
groundwater recharge. The principal focus was in areas where
withdrawals have exceeded recharge and where water levels have been
declining. Four such areas in the state - Phoenix, Tucson, Prescott,
and Pinal County - were designated as Active Management Areas where
the most extensive and comprehensive provisions for ground water
management apply. The code firmly established the Department of Water
Resources as the agency responsible for all aspects of groundwater
control.
There are several provisions of the law which apply statewide. These
include designation of groundwater basins, rules on transporting water
form one area of the state to another, mandatory well registration,
and requirements for developers of new subdivisions to evaluate and
report on water availability. All well owners in the state were
required to register their wells with ADWR with information on
location, depth, size and capacity. Those drilling new wells are
required to obtain a permit from ADWR. For new subdivisions, either a
100-year assured water supply must be demonstrated or a statement of
water inadequacy must be contained in the Public report and in all
sales and promotional literature.

Water Transfers
As mentioned above, the Groundwater Management Code specifically
permitted the transportation of groundwater from on basin to another.
Since this was authorized in 1980, it has become a very heated issue
as municipalities have purchased large acreage farms and ranches in
rural areas for the sole purpose of extracting and transporting the
underlying groundwater. If local water users are adversely affected by
water extraction and transportation, they may sue for damages;
however, they cannot stop the transportation. The burden is on the
local property owners to prove that the transportation is causing the
damage.
Although not involving a major municipality, water transfer has become
an issue in Fort Valley. In 1987 a Tusayan motel owner purchased a 15
acre parcel which had an existing well and storage tank on it in North
Fort Valley. The reason for the purchase was to truck water from Fort
Valley to Tusayan, located just south of Grand Canyon National Park.
Until recently, Tusayan did not have a water source within the
community, and all water had to be hauled in from some considerable
distance. Most of the water is purchased from Williams or Bellemont.
Recently, a well was drilled in Tusayan which will partially serve the
community's needs.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 4 of 27

It was county staff's opinion that the Squire's proposed water
withdrawal was permissible by right and was under the state's
jurisdiction according to the Groundwater Management Code. Staff
asserted, however, that the trucking operation required a Conditional
Use Permit approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. At the
Commission hearing, a subsequently at the appeal hearing before the
Board of Supervisors, numerous area residents protested the issuance
of a permit and both bodies denied the request. The Squire then filed
in Superior Court requesting a preliminary injunction preventing
Coconino County from interfering with their right to withdraw and
transport the water. The request for injunction was granted by Judge
John F. Taylor in Navajo County Superior Court.
Fort Valley residents continue to be extremely concerned about the
impact of large water withdrawals on their own private residential
wells.

Wastewater Disposal and Water Quality
There is no central sewer system serving any portion of the Fort
Valley study area. This means that wastewater disposal is handled by
individual on-site systems. Septic tanks and leach fields serve most
of the developed properties in the study area. Because of very high
groundwater in certain portions of North Fort Valley, alternative
systems are required on many parcels. These are typically "mound"
systems where leach lines are installed in imported fill above the
preexisting grade.
Regulations pertaining to wastewater disposal and wastewater systems
are developed and enforced by the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality. The state has delegated to the County Health Department
permitting, inspection and enforcement authority for conventional
septic tank systems. Other alternative systems must be approved by the
state.
There is very little, if any, information about the impact that onsite wastewater disposal might be having on water quality. Testing of
privately owned individual homeowner wells is not a requirement of
either the state or the county. Many residents voluntarily test their
wells occasionally, generally for bacteria, but testing for nitrates
or other substances that might indicate long term degradation of water
quality has rarely been done. The Study Committee requested that the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality conduct a one-time
sampling study to determine water quality. ADEQ responded that they
would be willing to assist the County in gathering this information.
The department agreed that such a study was appropriate.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 5 of 27

The Committee also expressed concern with the potential impact of
horses on water quality, especially in areas where large numbers of
animals are kept or boarded. There is a potential that nitrate levels
could be affected by this use.

Goals
•
•
•

The preservation and maintenance now and in the future of an
adequate supply of good quality water to all Fort Valley
residents
Availability of water should be a major consideration in
determining future growth in North and South Fort Valley
To assess, maintain, and strive to improve water quality in North
and South Fort Valley in an ongoing manner within the authority
available to the County

Policies

1. Water quality shall be protected by assuring that there is an
adequate wastewater system for all construction.
2. For all development requests requiring review by the Planning and
Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors water consumption should be
considered.
3. Water conserving plumbing fixtures shall be required in all future
development within the study area. Water conserving plumbing fixtures
should be encouraged for use in all existing single family residences
and other developments.
4. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), Coconino
County Health Department and landowners shall be encouraged to conduct
sampling at regular intervals of area wells to determine if nitrate
and coliform levels exceed current standards.
5. The Department of Water Resources (DWR) shall be encouraged to
conduct a comprehensive hydrology study of both upper and lower Fort
Valley to determine the source, nature and quantity of groundwater
resources.
6. All projects approved with individual wastewater treatment plants
should be encouraged to reuse treated wastewater for irrigation and/or
fire protection purposes.
7. All projects approved in the study area should be landscaped with
drought tolerant/water conserving plants and native species.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 6 of 27

8. The County shall encourage the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) and the DWR to review and revise floodplain/floodway mapping of
the study area, to fully cover the effects of stormwater runoff and
possible improvement of groundwater recharge from this runoff.
9. Potential degradation of water quality shall be a consideration
when reviewing any development proposal.
10. Substantiation of a reliable water supply for domestic use and
fire flow shall be required prior to County approval of subdivisions,
multiple family, commercial or industrial developments. For
subdivisions, this may be in conjunction with the evaluation of
adequacy and issuance of report of assured water supply by DWR as
required by ARS 45-108.
11. Applications for all development requests requiring review by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors involve
significant change in use of existing wells shall be evaluated in
light of possible impacts on adjacent or nearby wells. Such evaluation
shall not be the basis for denial of a project.
12. The County opposes water transfers within and without the study
area to the degree allowed by state law.
13. Zoning and Health Department regulations pertaining to the keeping
of horses and other animals should be strictly enforced.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 7 of 27

Utilities
The extension of utilities, including electric, gas, telephone, and
cable television, is part of the growth and development process.
Utility companies provide service as necessary and as demand dictates
under the control of the Arizona Corporation Commission. The County's
involvement is primarily through the subdivision review and approval
process. As part of this process, there is a Subdivision Review
Committee which examines preliminary plats prior to consideration by
the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Utility
representatives establish availability of service and comment on
easement requirements.
Outside of subdivisions, developers proposing higher density
residential and commercial projects are encouraged to locate where
utilities are available; where utilities are unavailable, very low
density rural uses are recommended.
Much of the study area is served by overhead electric and phone lines.
In open meadow areas and on properties with views of the San Francisco
Peaks, overhead lines can seriously detract from visual quality. While
underground lines are recommended in all new developments where
preservation of unmarred views is important, placement of lines
underground is currently only required in subdivisions with lot sizes
of less than one acre.
Development of new high voltage lines can also have significant
impacts. Location of such lines within existing corridors or in
heavily treed areas can mitigate this impact.

Policies

1. Public utilities shall be located, operated and maintained in a
manner that will not degrade environmental quality. The use of
underground electric and communication lines shall be required in all
new subdivisions with parcel size of five (5) acres or less and
strongly recommended in subdivisions with lot sizes greater than 5
acres.
2. The County shall coordinate with electric, gas, telephone, and
cable television services to assure that utilities are available where
needed. Conversely, development other than very low density
residential shall be discouraged where utilities are not available.
3. For the installation of new high voltage electric transmission
lines, use of existing corridors shall be encouraged.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 8 of 27

Solid Waste Disposal
Trash collection is currently handled by residents of Fort Valley in
one of two ways. Residents either haul their own or they contract with
a private garbage collection company. The nearest landfill is located
in Doney Park northeast of Flagstaff, a distance of almost 20 miles
from North Fort Valley. This landfill serves the entire Flagstaff area
and is operated by the City but is subsidized by the County based on
estimated population in unincorporated areas and usage by county
residents. In other areas more distant from Flagstaff, including
Pinewood, Mormon Lake, Tusayan, Long Valley, and Forest Lakes, the
County operates trash compactor facilities. Refuse is then transported
to the City landfill.
Another problem in the Fort Valley area possibly related to the
distance to the landfill, is indiscriminate dumping on public land.
Apparently, this is a fairly severe problem in the Schultz Pass Road
area. The Forest Service lacks the funds and manpower for effective
enforcement.

Policies

1. The County shall research and develop solutions for solid waste
disposal in North and South Fort Valley including but not limited to
contracting with the City for garbage removal services, providing
neighborhood dumpsters, or establishing a compacting station.
2. The County should expedite the enforcement of violations of current
ordinances and regulations regarding solid waste disposal.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 9 of 27

Fire Protection
Virtually all of the Fort Valley study area is considered to be part
of an urban wildland interface area which is a boundary between
populated urbanized areas and naturally forested areas. The threat of
a forest fire spreading into residential areas or conversely of a fire
in a residential area starting a forest fire is a very serious
concern. With the prevailing southwest winds, a fire caused by
lightning or by recreationists, transients, or smokers along I-40 in
the A-1 Mountain area could jeopardize all of the study area.
Likewise, an out-of-control residential fire could spread to the San
Francisco Peaks.
While the Forest Service is responsible for fire protection on
adjacent National Forest lands, private property owners must take
responsibility for fire prevention on private lands. Control of weeds,
slash, and construction debris, restrictions on outdoor burning,
avoidance of wood shake shingles and careful use of woodstoves
including use of spark arrestors and proper disposal of ashes would
all improve fire prevention.
Impediments to fire protection include the development of many areas
which are served only by private easements and the lack of an
addressing system. Easements which are not built to an adequate width
and which are not all-weather roads make access by fire equipment
difficult if not impossible. Absence of street names and addresses
slows response time by requiring the fire department to seek
directions.
The North Fort Valley Area has organized and formed the Fort Valley
Fire District. The District contracts with the City of Flagstaff for
fire protection. In the South Fort Valley area, residents must
contract individually with the City to receive fire protection
services. Construction of the fire station in the Cheshire Subdivision
dramatically reduced response time to all of the study area.

Policies

1. The County should establish an address numbering and street
identification system to assist fire departments in locating
properties.
2. The County should discourage the use of shake shingle roofs in
forested areas, especially where wood stoves are installed. If wood is
used, the County should recommend fire retardant wood shingles.
3. Private easements shall be developed and maintained to a full width
to be adequate to provide access to fire equipment.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 10 of 27

Natural Resources & Environmental Quality
As noted previously, the study area was considered as two distinct
areas identified as North Fort Valley and South Fort Valley. Both
areas enjoy location on one of Northern Arizona's more scenic routes,
Highway 180, which provides the main access to the South Rim of the
Grand Canyon as well as to year-round recreational areas on Forest
Service land including commercial enterprises such as Fairfield
Snowbowl and the Nordic Ski Center. Situated at the base of the San
Francisco Peaks the study area provides an unique rural living
environment. The preservation of this environment and the maintenance
of open space areas was continually stated as being of prime concern
to the committee members and also rated high in the survey of property
owners. It is no doubt the natural environment and rural setting which
enticed most residents and landowners to this area.

General Physical Characteristics
That portion of the study area identified as North Fort Valley
primarily consists of a wide, flat valley bound by a mature Ponderosa
Pine forest, including the Fort Valley Experimental Forest to the west
and to the east. A significant portion of this valley is encumbered by
the floodplain of the Rio de Flag, which originates on the
southwestern slopes of the San Francisco Peaks. The Rio de Flag is a
tributary of the San Francisco Wash which in turn flows into the
Little Colorado River. The Rio de Flag continues to make its way
toward Flagstaff in a southeasterly direction paralleling Highway 180,
and enters the study area again in south Fort Valley on the westerly
side of the highway. The majority of the property included in the
South Fort Valley area is not included in a designated floodplain
although some of the meadow areas near the Highway experience standing
water in periods of high run-off. The ground elevation in the South
Fort Valley area ranges from 200 to 400 feet lower than that in the
North Fort Valley area. Vegetation in both areas consists primarily of
that associated with the Ponderosa Pine forest. Since the area is one
of past volcanic activity soils tend to be cindery. Mean annual
precipitation in and around the study area ranges from approximately
20 inches near Flagstaff to approximately 35 inches on the Peaks.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 11 of 27

Air Quality
Although according to State officials there are no major air quality
problems in Fort Valley, there is an ever increasing cloud hanging
over the Valley which is due to high particulate levels, the primary
sources being woodstove emissions and dirt roads. Due to its location
in a valley, the cloud of smoke and dust tends to settle over the area
and is particularly a problem in the winter months due to the
increased use of woodstoves and the cold air inversion characteristic
of that season. The South Fort Valley area, due to its proximity to
Flagstaff's corporate limits, shares in the ever increasing air
quality problems of the City. Part of the problem is already being
addressed in that virtually all new woodstoves sold after January 1,
1989 will meet more stringent EPA standards for regulating emission.
However, there is currently no provision to address retrofitting
existing older models. In regard to the airborne dust created by the
number of dirt roads in the area, the lack of enforcement of State
laws requiring adequate dust control is a major element. By statute,
the owners of the road must treat the road with a dust suppressant.
This mandate applies to both public and private roads. Paving is
generally regarded as the most cost-effective long-term means for dust
suppression. Although the County currently maintains dirt roads in the
study area the current County Subdivision Ordinance requires new
subdivisions to provide paved roads in order to be accepted into the
county road system. However, in the past the Board of Supervisors has
granted waivers from the paving requirement if the roads are to remain
private.

Lighting
On March 6, 1989, the County Board of Supervisors approved an
amendment to the County Zoning Ordinance which created a new section
specifically addressing lighting. Due to Flagstaff's noted reputation
as an outstanding area for astronomical observation and in an attempt
to protect the observatories and still provide for reasonable growth,
the new lighting ordinance was initiated. Other purposes served by the
ordinance are reduction of energy consumption and elimination of
unnecessary glare. The Ordinance adopted by the Board creates four (4)
lighting zones with decreasing requirements as distance from the
observatories increases. The Study Area is at closest less than four
(4) miles from the naval Observatory which is located south of I-40
west of Flagstaff. The study area is identified as being within
Lighting Zone 2. The Ordinance requirements emphasize the use of Low
Pressure Sodium lighting and the shielding of fixtures to prevent the
escape of direct illumination onto adjacent properties. Although the
regulations are directed at commercial developments they are
applicable to residential properties.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 12 of 27

Aesthetics
The area described as the Highway 180 corridor currently provides one
of the most scenic gateways into the City of Flagstaff. In entering
the City from this northwestern direction travelers experience a range
in vegetation type and geologic forms. The trip begins through PinyonJuniper vegetation at Valle, where 180 divides from Highway 64,
heading south past Red Mountain through open meadow at Kendrick Park
and ultimately Aspen-Fir forests which lead into the Fort Valley area.
The vistas available on this route are unmatched, with the San
Francisco Peaks providing the continual focal point.
With the increase of commercial development clustered at most of the
other major entries into Flagstaff, the importance of preserving the
natural beauty of this northwestern entrance becomes even more
important. Methods of protecting this gateway from the influx of
unsightly and/or inappropriate distractions include the adoption of
Design Review Guidelines sensitive to the unique character of the
area, preservation of existing vegetation and enforcement of County
Zoning Ordinance screening requirements for outdoor storage.

Vegetation and Wildlife
Fort Valley area residents enjoy the benefits of living in part of the
largest Ponderosa Pine forest in the United States. Benefits derived
from this location include the natural vegetation associated with this
forest and the use of the area by a variety of wildlife including elk,
deer and even waterfowl.
Preserving the natural environment is important not only to provide
for continued use by wildlife, but also by maintaining native
vegetation or utilizing primarily indigenous plants, human residents
benefit as well. Future development with this in mind will work to
maintain the rural character of the area which attracted residents to
begin with, in addition to help toward conservation of resources, such
as water, which would otherwise be used in excess with the
introduction of exotic plant species.
One concern addressed by the Committee was the overgrazing on private
lands and the subsequent effects of loss of groundcover and soil
degradation. Enforcement of County limits on the number per acre of
farm type animals and education of area residents regarding the illeffects of such activity would help address this situation.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 13 of 27

Natural Resources and Recreation
Due to its location at the base of the San Francisco Peaks and its
proximity to other National Forest land, concerns arise which are
specific to the study area. Although the County has no jurisdictional
authority over management of the adjacent Forest Service land, the
impact of development or activities is directly felt by area residents
and impacts the Fort Valley environment. The forest land in the area
is under the control of the Coconino National Forest. Some of the
activities which prompt concern involve timber sales, land exchanges,
increasing use by transient population, the illegal dumping of solid
waste and the development of recreational use facilities. The
availability of public forest lands for year-round recreational
activities is of prime concern for area residents, who enjoy easy
accessibility to such areas, as well as residents of the Flagstaff
community and visitors traveling through the area.
In addition to recreational availability of the nearby forest land
there has been a movement within the Flagstaff Community to establish
a State Park on property known as the Lockett Trust land which
encumbers over 600 acres and constitutes the majority of undeveloped
private land in the South Fort Valley area. Although the idea is in
the conceptual stage and approval by the State Parks Board and
acquisition of the land is still pending, the idea is for a regional
recreational facility which would provide multiple type uses and
further serve as an access to forest land adjacent to the north,
including the Kachina Peaks Wilderness area, via the existing trail
systems.

Environmental Policies
Air Quality

1. Residents desiring to purchase a wood stove shall be encouraged to
purchase low pollution home heating and energy conserving units. Those
residents with existing units shall be encouraged to retrofit existing
units to minimize particulate emissions.
2. The County Highway Department shall be encouraged to provide dust
free surfaces on county roadways, and private property owners should
be encouraged to provide dust free surfaces on private easements.
3. Dust evaluation and mitigation measures shall be incorporated into
the subdivision and major development review and approval process.
4. The County or School District is encouraged to disseminate
information on the proper use of wood stoves to reduce air pollution.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 14 of 27

Aesthetics

1. Because of the importance of Highway 180 as a gateway to the City
of Flagstaff, the County should adopt design review guidelines for
multiple family residential and commercial projects.
2. The County should adopt a landscape amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance emphasizing the use of native and drought tolerant plant
species and encouraging the retention of existing native vegetation.
3. New freestanding signs shall be of the monument type, shall be
limited to six(6) feet in height and a maximum of 20 square feet in
area.
4. Outdoor storage areas in all zones, i.e. storage of materials such
as lumber, auto parts or household appliances etc. but not including
such things as operable personal vehicles, shall be screened or
landscaped.
5. The County shall encourage the Forest Service to provide adequate
buffering of roadways during timber sales. A sufficient depth of
timber should be retained to provide adequate screening from the
roadway.

Vegetation and Wildlife

1. Developers of all properties, including single family residential,
shall be encouraged to preserve as much existing native vegetation as
possible.
2. The County shall coordinate with state and federal wildlife
management agencies, conservation groups, and land management agencies
in the interest of preserving important habitat areas.
3. A landscaping plan shall be required as part of the application
submittal for all projects requiring review and approval by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The use of indigenous, low water using
plants shall be encouraged for all new landscaping.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 15 of 27

Natural Resources and Recreation

1. Significant archeological sites on public land should be preserved
by the U.S. Forest Service and should not be included in the base for
exchange in subsequent forest plans.
2. The County shall cooperate with the City of Flagstaff and the
Forest Service in the extension of the City's urban trail system into
the study area.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 16 of 27

Roads
The development of the roadway system in North and South Fort Valley
has evolved in response to the transition and intensification of land
uses. The earliest roads were developed to provide access to the
area's ranches and the national forest. As the larger tracts were
divided and residences established, the number of local roads grew.
Subdivisions developed in the 1950's, 60's and 70's were established
with roads constructed to county design standards. Other portions of
the study area, particularly the Mt. Elden area, have developed in a
spontaneous manner without benefit of proper design standards. Road
conditions in those areas are typically undersized and poorly
surfaced, impassable in poor weather. Since the residential population
growth of Fort Valley has occurred slowly, the proliferation of
inadequate roads has been as severe as elsewhere in the County.
Residents' perceptions of the condition of the road system in Fort
Valley varies depending on the portion of the Valley they live in.
Based on survey results, residents of North Fort Valley generally
appear satisfied with the road situation. In contrast, residents of
South Fort Valley appear more concerned about road issues. When asked
to prioritize the main issue for consideration by the Study Committee,
road development and maintenance was ranked first by South Fort Valley
respondents. Similarly, a majority of residents felt that more roads
should be paved and most frequently cited Elden Lookout Road.
Residents valley wide expressed concerns about congestion and safety
of Fort Valley Road/Highway 180.
The bulk of the public roadways in the study area are the
responsibility of the Coconino County Highway Department. The County
classifies roads under a 3-tier system. The first type is a Forest
Service Co-op road which the forest service owns the right-of-way but
the County maintains under a contractual agreement. Co-op roads within
the study area include Fort Valley Ranch and Roundtree Roads and a
portion of Mt. Elden Lookout Road. The second type of road is a
grandfathered road. Arizona Revised Statutes allow counties to provide
maintenance on roads that have been maintained 10 years or more prior
to 1960. Maintenance is limited to blading, no new materials may be
added. Examples include South Snow Bowl Road and Country Club Spur.
The third type is a County road, dedicated to and accepted by the
Board of Supervisors. Examples include Harmony Lane, Forest Hills Road
as well as all roads within County approved subdivisions. Paved County
roads in the study area include Magdalena, Bader, Cassette,
Antoinette, Suzette and Chambers Roads.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 17 of 27

The County has a 5-year plan identifying roads that warrant major
improvements. The criteria for inclusion are average daily traffic
volume, maintenance classification, bus route and road rating. No
roads in Fort Valley are presently included in the 5 year plan. The
County also has a Maintenance Management Program which categorizes all
roads. All roadways in Fort Valley are B roads, meaning twice monthly
blading.
The Committee discussed the County Subdivision Regulations in
conjunction with roads. The primary focus of discussion surrounded the
improvement standards for local streets in new subdivisions. These
standards require a 60 foot right-of-way and a 28 foot paved surface.
The Ordinance allows this requirement to be waived for private roads
where lot sizes exceed 5 acres. The consensus of the group was that
this requirement is too stringent. Consequently, the Committee
recommended relaxing the paving requirement for subdivisions with lot
sizes of 2.5 acres or larger. No other changes to the Subdivision
Ordinance were recommended.
The Committee spent considerable time discussing the abundance of
private roads and easements, many of which are merely dirt access
ways. Problems with these roads include inconsistent width, poor
surface, lack of street addressing and difficulty in providing
emergency service vehicle access. The problem is particularly acute in
the Mt. Elden area and hidden hollow and Fort Valley Ranch to a lesser
extent. Recognizing that the root of the problem is the unregulated
lot splits and the lack of County review, the Committee realized their
input would have little impact. Possible solutions discussed included
the utilization of County improvement Districts for dust suppression
or paving and the requirement that private easements be developed to a
width and surface adequate to provide emergency vehicle access.
Fort Valley Road/Highway 180 is the sole arterial providing access to
the entire study area as well as being the main route to the Grand
Canyon. The roadway is two (2) lanes in width and according to the
Flagstaff and Coconino Transportation Study, is "congested." The
combination of insufficient design capacity and high traffic volumes,
contribute to a roadway that is unsafe and inefficient. In response to
this perceived problem, representatives of the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) and City of Flagstaff Planning and Engineering
Departments made presentations to the Study Committee. Due to problems
involved with widening Humphreys Street, ADOT's position is to not
significantly expand Fort Valley Road/Highway 180. The selected
alternative north-south arterial is Gemini Parkway, a proposed roadway
running from I-40 over Switzer Mesa to Elden Lookout Road, ultimately
connecting with Fort Valley Road/Highway 180 at Cheshire. While
alternative alignments were considered, both the City and State have
committed to this choice. The City has allocated funding via the bond
election in 1988 for partial construction funding. The remainder of
the roadway will be constructed with private developer funding.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 18 of 27

The Study Committee uniformly recognized the problems of Fort Valley
Road/Highway 180. Concerns about Gemini were registered primarily from
those members residing in South Fort Valley, particularly the impacts
on existing residences and the potential for intensified commercial
land uses. The Committee expressed interest in city, county and state
agencies further examining a west side alternative.
Inspired by a presentation by a local cycling advocate, Elson Miles,
the Study Committee discussed the demand, types of design and various
applications of bike paths. The current preferred design is a 3 to 5
foot wide shoulder addition instead of a distinct path known as a
bikeway. Consensus was formed on the need for bike/pedestrian routes
on new and existing roadways being upgraded.

Road Policies
1. The County shall review dangerous intersections such as Hidden
Hollow, Snow Bowl and Bader Roads with Highway 180 and make a formal
recommendation to the State Transportation Board regarding possible
improvements.
2. Future land uses should be coordinated with existing and proposed
roadways.
3. All subdivisions developed within the study area shall be developed
in accordance with Section 6.4 of the Subdivision ordinance. Waivers
requesting relaxation of paving should be considered for parcels 2.5
acres or larger.
4. Traffic studies shall be required in conjunction with all
preliminary subdivision plat applications.
5. Bike lanes/pedestrian lanes/safety shoulders shall be encouraged
along all new arterial and collector roadways developed within the
study areas. Bike lanes/pedestrian lanes/safety shoulders shall be
added to existing arterials, collectors and highways whether city,
county or state in conjunction with any future widening or improvement
projects.
6. Property owners splitting land through the Minor Land Division
process shall be required to reserve sufficient right-of-way for
existing county standards.
7. The Coconino County Department of Community Development or Highway
Department should adopt, implement and administer a road naming and
street numbering system. In addition, the County should promote the
use of a uniform street signage system in the study area. In naming

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 19 of 27

new streets, local flora, fauna, history, and geography are preferred
over the use of personal names.
8. The Department of Community Development and Highway Department
shall conduct a feasibility study on the designation of U.S. Highway
180 through the study area, or portion thereof, for scenic highway
designation.
9. Property owners shall be encouraged to form road improvement
districts for paving or dust suppression programs.
10. Development of Gemini Parkway as a local street and landscaped
parkway should be considered.
11. In reviewing requests for new subdivisions, zoning changes or
other major development, the County shall consider the proposal in
relation to the proposed Gemini Parkway route.
12. The State Transportation Board and the ADOT District Engineer
shall be encouraged to explore the possibility of a west side roadway
alignment connecting I-40 and U.S. Highway 180.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 20 of 27

Land Use
Land use in the Fort Valley area is generally characterized by rural
large lot single family residential uses. Homes are scattered around
large undeveloped tracts enhancing the rural character. There are very
few mobile homes and no multiple family residential developments.
There are only four commercial uses and no industrial uses. Factors
affecting past, current, and future development include water
availability, wastewater concerns, and large lot agricultural
residential zoning.

Background - 1969 Zoning
Three years after zoning was first established in the County in 1964,
a letter was submitted by Edward Danson, Harold Colton, and Clay
Lockett requesting a study in the Fort Valley area for possible
rezoning. At that time, the entire area was zoned A-General, and their
interest primarily concerned the South Fort Valley area in the
vicinity of the Museum of Northern Arizona. On June 25, 1968, the
Planning and Zoning Commission placed the Fort Valley Land Use and
Zoning Plan as the top priority for Commission and staff action.
A survey was conducted of all property owners, about 100, to determine
each property owner's desired zoning. The focus was minimum parcel
size. There were five public hearings at regularly scheduled Planning
and Zoning Commission meetings between January and September, 1969 as
well as three Board of Supervisors hearings. The zoning adopted by the
Board on November 3, 1969, established one-acre zoning in much of
South Fort Valley, 2 ½ acre zoning in North Fort Valley, commercial
zoning at Northland Press, Purcell's and Stilley's property, and halfacre zoning south of the Museum. The only zone change that has been
approved since 1969 occurred in 1979 and involved 10 acres at the
corner of Snow Bowl Road for the store and parking area.

Single Family Residential Uses
A land use survey conducted during the summer of 1988 determined that
there were 253 residential dwelling units including six mobile homes.
A majority of these units are on unsubdivided acreage. Within the
study area, there are only four subdivisions approved by the Board of
Supervisors:

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 21 of 27

Subdivision

No. of Lots No. of Homes Year Approved

Forest Hills

12

9

1957

Fort Valley Trails

29

19

1964

Fort Valley Estates

43

29

1972

Baderville

10

10

1963

Much of the area has been developed through the lot splitting process
rather than through platted and recorded subdivisions. Because state
subdivision regulations allow parcels to be split three ways,
successive owners can split large parcels down to minimum lot zoning
without the dedication or construction of roadways and without the
installation of utilities. The result is usually substandard private
easements, 20 feet in width, which are often no more than extended
driveways. Every owner is responsible for providing his own water and
wastewater systems and for extending utility lines to his property.
Virtually all of the study area is zoned Agricultural Residential with
varying minimum parcel sizes. The AR zone permits both site built
single family residences as well as mobile homes. Perhaps because of
the high cost of land which generally leads to larger, more expensive
houses, there are very few mobile homes in the area. Some areas within
Fort Valley are deed restricted against mobiles, however, deed
restrictions are not enforceable by the county and can only be
enforced by the property owners where the restrictions apply. Rezoning
to Residential Single Family, which prohibits mobiles, may be
appropriate in some areas.

Home Occupations
Home occupations seem to have become more prevalent in the last 10
years of so with the need for most households to have two incomes, the
high cost of commercial land, and quite simply the desire to work at
home. Such pursuits are permissible in the county if they do not
change the residential character of the property, if there are no
outside employees, and if there is no undue impact on neighboring
properties. Uses which have generated complaints include trucking
operations, a cabinet shop, and a home office with numerous employees.
Such violations are handled by the Zoning Enforcement Officer.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 22 of 27

Multiple Family Residential Uses
There are no legally established multiple family residential uses in
the study area. There may be a handful of illegal duplexes, triplexes,
and rental guest houses. The only multiple family zoning is located on
the west side of Fort Valley north of Stevanna Way. This property is
not likely to be developed with a high density apartment complex
unless annexed by the City of Flagstaff.

Commercial Uses
In South Fort Valley, there are two legally established commercial
uses: Northland Press and the Peak View Store. Across from Northland
Press is a single family dwelling which was approved for commercial
zoning only for establishment of an art gallery and sculpting studio.
There is a rather sizable amount of commercially zoned property,
however. The art gallery is on 2.07 acres, and Northland Press
occupies approximately 1 acre of 7.62 acres which is zoned commercial.
Peak View Store is on 20 commercial acres. In addition, there is a 12
acre triangular piece bounded by Fort Valley Road, Schultz Pass Road,
and the gas line easement which is zoned commercial and is currently
vacant.
In North Fort Valley, Ski Lift Lodge occupies a small portion of a
6.53 acre parcel. The Snow Bowl Store and bus maintenance building are
on 3.1 commercial acres, while 6.9 acres are zoned for parking.

Future Uses
Requested changes in current land use patterns can be foreseen in a
few areas. Areas adjacent to the City Limits which are therefore
potentially subject of annexation requests may be developed at much
higher densities than current zoning allows. If high-density
residential development occurred, requests for commercial zoning would
undoubtedly follow. Development of Gemini Parkway could stimulate this
type of change. The Lockett property, consisting of approximately 764
acres, is the most likely for single family residential development at
urban densities, currently about 5 units per acre.
Ultimately, growth in the study area may stimulate commercial
development on vacant but commercially zoned properties on the north
side of Fort Valley Road between Schultz Pass Road and Magdalena Road.
Likely businesses include both those serving local residents and those
designed for tourists.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 23 of 27

In the North Fort Valley area, all highway frontage is subject to
requests for zoning changes. In addition there are a few large
undeveloped properties where the economics of creating a legal
subdivision with all the required infrastructure may cause requests
for higher density. The 2 and 2 ½ acre minimum lot zoning has been in
place for 20 years, however, and the reasons given for establishing
that zoning, water and wastewater, are still valid.

Open Space
Most of the recreational land use occurs on National Forest land.
Because there is so much public land surrounding the study area, there
does not appear to be a need to develop a county park. According to
the questionnaire, there is a strong desire to protect the National
Forest land.
Consideration is being given to creating a large state park on the
Lockett property which is adjacent to the City and also adjacent to
Buffalo Park. Such a park is envisioned as being a gateway to the San
Francisco Peaks utilizing the recently developed trail system in the
Elden District of the Coconino National Forest. A State Park could
very likely become a major draw for tourists.

Land Use Policies
Single Family Residential

1. Use of Agricultural Residential (AR) Zones for the construction or
emplacement of mobile homes, modular homes, manufactured or factory
built homes is discouraged. The use of AR Zones for the following is
discouraged: lumber mills and processing plants, sanitary landfill
operations, mineral extraction operations, borrow pits, and firewood
storage and sales yards. The Board of Supervisors is specifically
requested to create provisions in the zoning code, such as the
creation of a Rural Residential (RR) zoning category, which will
reflect this desire.
2. The current minimum parcel sizes in the study area shall remain in
place unless they conflict with other policy recommendations.
3. New subdivision proposals shall be scrutinized with primary concern
placed on water availability and wastewater disposal. Any new
subdivision proposals with parcels less than 2 ½ acres average lot
size should conform with all requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance, and waivers shall be discouraged.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 24 of 27

4. Master planned development of large parcels for residential
purposes under single ownership may be considered under the Planned
Residential Development (PRD) Zone. No PRD shall be considered with a
density of greater than one unit per acre.

Multiple Family Residential

1. Rezonings to multiple family residential shall be held in disfavor
taking into consideration the survey results; if such rezonings are
allowed, development shall be of a design which is compatible with the
rural character of Fort Valley and shall not be a stress on the water
supply and sewage disposal.

Mobile Home Parks

1. Mobile Home Parks and mobile home subdivisions shall not be allowed
within the study area.

Commercial

1. Development of existing commercially-zoned areas should be limited
to low water consuming uses; neighborhood-type commercial businesses
rather than those proposing regional commercial uses which would be
better located within the city; and, developments which show
sensitivity to the natural environment.
2. Commercial rezonings for spot and strip commercial development are
prohibited. New commercial rezonings are not recommended.
3. A DRO addressing building design (including height), site planning,
landscaping and signing shall be adopted applicable to multiple-family
residential, planned residential, and commercial developments.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 25 of 27

Industrial

1. Industrial rezonings shall be discouraged within the study area.

Open Space

1. The development of a State Park on Lockett Trust property is
supported. Review of such a proposal by the Planning Commission shall
be encouraged. If a State Park is developed within the Study Area it
should be respective of the natural environment and emphasize rural
recreational activities. Any development should be in consideration of
adjacent and nearby residents.
2. National Forest land exchanges to private ownership adjacent to the
Highway 180 study area shall be discouraged.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 26 of 27

Special Considerations
Historical and Cultural Resources
Preservation of cultural and historical resources is important for
educational and scientific purposes and to promote the economic and
general welfare of the county. Both archeological as well as more
recent historical resources exist in the Fort Valley study area. The
former are protected on National Forest lands through the Federal
Antiquities Act and other regulations.
More recent historical sites include old ranch buildings and other
structures, some of which date back as much as 100 years. In addition
to the structures, there are historical routes and trails through and
near the study area. The Beale Wagon Road, which preceded the
construction of the railroad, passes through Flagstaff just south of
the study area. One of the Flagstaff to Grand Canyon stage coach
routes is signed from near the end of Roundtree Road up to Hart
Prairie.
These and other cultural resources can be protected by careful
consideration and planning prior to and during development on or near
such sites. Assistance is available from other governmental entities
including the land management agencies and the Arizona State Historic
Preservation Office.

Policy

1. To the extent possible, historical and cultural sites shall be
preserved and protected. Where feasible, significant historical
structures shall be incorporated into development plans for properties
where such structures exist.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Page 27 of 27

Appendix: Property Owner Survey
To obtain the views and attitudes of property owners in the Fort
Valley area, the committee decided to distribute a questionnaire to
all property owners. The survey included questions related to lot
size, future land uses, roads, environmental issues, zoning
enforcement, and parks and recreation. Open-ended questions asked
respondents to rank the most important issues and to list special
characteristics of the area. Approximately 500 surveys were mailed to
all owners of record and 206 were returned, representing a response
rate of 41%. The committee decided to tabulate responses by North Fort
Valley and South Fort Valley. There were 132 responses from the former
and 74 from the latter.
In North Fort Valley, water supply was the number one priority issue
by far. This was followed by preservation of rural character and then
by zoning and planning. In South Fort Valley, roads were the number
one priority. Zoning and commercial development were number two. These
were followed by Highway 180 traffic, density, and protection of rural
character.
Almost all respondents thought there were special characteristics
worthy of preservation. Those most often mentioned included rural
character, forest/trees, low density, views, natural beauty, and
quiet.
A significant majority (85%) in both areas supported current large lot
zoning. In South Fort Valley, the preferred minimum parcel size was 2
acres (by 72%). Eighteen percent supported 1 acre or half-acre, and 9%
supported a minimum of 5 acres. In North Fort Valley, 48% supported a
minimum lot size of 1 acre or less, and 52% supported 2 acres or more.
By about 2 to 1 in South Fort Valley and 2.6 to 1 in North Fort
Valley, respondents did not think additional commercial uses are
needed. Of those who do, Snow Bowl Road was the most recommended
location followed by Schultz Pass Road. Again, of those who do,
appropriate commercial uses most mentioned included restaurants, small
retail, grocery, and motel. Industry was cited as most in appropriate.
Multiple family residential developments were opposed by a 4 to 1
margin, industry by a 10 to 1 margin, and there was virtually no
support for new mobile home parks.
More specific guidelines to control architectural style, height, and
other design features for all uses except single family residential
were supported 2 to 1 in South Fort Valley and 3 to 1 in North Fort
Valley. Many respondents cited signs and height as the two most
important aspects to control.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Appendix

A landscaping ordinance was supported by about a 2 to 1 margin in both
areas.
Few people thought the county should be less active in zoning
enforcement. A little less than half (41%) thought enforcement should
be at the same level with the remainder saying that the county should
be more active. Problems cited included junk, commercial use of
residential property, and multiple dwelling units.
In South Fort Valley, a majority (58%) thought more roads should be
paved. Elden Lookout Road was by far the most frequently mentioned. In
North Fort Valley, a majority (57%) did not think more roads should be
paved. Of those who did, South Snow Bowl Road and Suzette were most
frequently named.
In South Fort Valley, a slight majority (54%) would be willing to have
their property assessed for road paving, with half willing to spend
$1,000 to $2,500. In North Fort Valley, a 2 to 1 majority was not
willing to be assessed.
Gemini Parkway, the City of Flagstaff's proposed north-south road
which would connect Santa Fe Avenue at Enterprise with Highway 180 at
Schultz Pass Road, was opposed by 55% in South Fort Valley and
supported by 62% in North Fort Valley. Overall, 56% of those
responding to the questions supported the road. Many thought that an
alternate route should be considered, with most listing a route north
from the A-1 Mountain Interchange on Interstate 40. Thirty-six percent
would use the north-south road as proposed regularly, 35%
infrequently, and 27% almost never.
In North Fort Valley, the top 5 environmental concerns in priority
order were water availability, water quality, water source, air
quality, and National Forest protection. In South Fort Valley, the top
5 concerns were water availability, National Forest protection, water
source, water quality, and air quality.
A significant majority (67%) did not think there is a need for a
public park in the Fort Valley area.
Finally, over two thirds thought there should be a limit on the number
of dogs per parcel with over half of those in favor supporting a limit
of 2.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Appendix

North Fort Valley Questionnaire and Results
Survey of Fort Valley - Highway 180 Corridor Property Owners – North Fort Valley

1. What street is your property on? Fort Valley Ranch - 11, South Snow
Bowl - 10, Fort Valley Estates - 7, Suzette - 23, Abert - 3, Fort
Valley Trails - 25, Bader Road - 11, Chambers - 1, Antoinette - 10,
Roundtree - 12, Ridgeway - 2, Harmony - 7, Ft. Valley Road/Highway 180
-11.
If you are not on a street and not in the Fire District, in what
general area is your property?
2. Are you a:
71 Resident
12 Absentee Home Owner
49 Absentee Owner of Undeveloped Land
3. Is your Land:
2 Less than 1 acre
59 1 to 2 ½ acres
55 2 ½ acres to 10 acres
16 Greater than 10 acres
4. What are some of the main issues that should be considered by the
Fort Valley Planning Committee? Please rank.
1. Water Supply / Availability / Rights
2. Preservation of Rural Character
3. Zoning
4. Planning / Land Use
5 Lot Size / Density
6 Protection of Environment
7. Roads / Traffic
8. Building Quality
5. Which of the following do you feel are important environmental
concerns? Please rank in order of importance.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Appendix

None

5 National Forest Protection

4 Air Quality

6 Vegetation

2 Water Quality

7 Noise

8 Dust

9 Waste/Trash Disposal

1 Water
Availability

Other - Wastewater, Zoning, Light, Junk,
Roads, Unconfined Animals, Commercial
Development,
Transients, Snow Removal

3 Water Source

6. Should the county control the preservation of natural vegetation
(for example with a tree ordinance or landscape ordinance)?
Yes 88

No 35

7. Currently most of the South Fort Valley area is zoned for 1 and 2
acre minimum lots, and most of the North Fort Valley - Baderville
areas is zoned for 2 and 2 ½ acre minimum lots. Do you think smaller
lot sizes would be acceptable in certain designated areas?
Yes 21

No 109

8. Do you think there should be an established minimum lot size for
the whole area?
Yes 106

No 23

If yes, which of the following would you prefer?
4 Regular subdivision lot (10,000 square feet)
7 ½ acre
41 1 acre
33 2 acres
13 5 acres
10 Other (2 ½ -5, 1 ½ - 1, 2-5 - 3)
9. Do you think there is a need for additional commercial uses along
the Highway 180 corridor?
Yes 35

No 92

If yes, where (check any that apply)
14 Schultz Pass Road
6 Fremont

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Appendix

3 Magdalena or Peak View
1 Hidden Hollow Road
24 Snow Bowl Road
13 Bader or Roundtree
3 Elsewhere (Any site along 180)
If yes, what types of commercial uses would be appropriate? Restaurant
- 17, Grocery -11, Motel -10, Retail - 8, Gas - 6, Shopping Center 3, Convenience Market - 3, Laundry - 2, Hardware - 2, Service Business
- 2, Gallery - 2, Ski Store - 2. Others with One Vote: Book Store,
Clothing, Bank, Museum, Office, Golf Course, Condos.
Are there any that are not appropriate? Industry - 13, Hotel - 5, RV
Park - 4, Shopping Center - 4, Condos - 4, Gas - 3, Mobile Home Park 3, Bars - 3, Junkyards - 2. Others: Circle K, Kmart, Hardware, Auto
Repair, Auto Sales, Contractor's Yards, Liquor Store, Real Estate
Office, Restaurant.
10. Are you in favor of commercial development in certain locations?
Yes 43

No 81

If yes, where? On 180 - 12, Snow Bowl Corner - 10, Existing Commercial
Locations - 2, 180 and Bader - 1, Peak View - 1, Schultz Pass - 1,
Near Museum - 1.
11. Are you in favor of multiple family residential development in
certain locations?
Yes 24

No 104

If yes, where? Snow Bowl Road - 5, US 180 - 2, Bader and 180 - 2,
Below Suzette - 1, Just outside City Limits - 1.
12. Are you in favor of mobile home parks in certain locations?
Yes 2

No 128

If yes, where?
13. Are you in favor of industrially zoned land for such uses as light
manufacturing, cabinet-making, machine shops, contractors' yards,
etc.?
Yes 11

No 117

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Appendix

If yes, where? US 180 - 2, Baderville - 1, Peak View - 1.
14. Except for single family dwelling homes are you in favor of more
specific guidelines to control the architectural style, height and
color of buildings, as well as signs?
Yes 90

No 29

Comments? Signs - 9, Height - 9, Compatible with Area - 5,
Architectural Style - 3, Native Materials - 2, Regulate Single Family
also - 2, Lights, Color, Landscaping, View Protection.
15. Should the county be more active or less active in enforcing
zoning regulations?
More 70

Less 4

About the Same 47

If more, what are some of the enforcement and zoning violation
problems? Junk - 12, Multiple Dwelling/Rentals - 7, Illegal Commercial
- 5, Animals - 3, Setbacks, Illegal Subdivision, Parking, Unfinished
Buildings, Sewage Disposal, Raft Storage, Signs, Trailers for
Visitors, Dogs.
16. Should more of the roads in the Fort Valley area be paved?
Yes 50

No 67

If yes, which ones? South Snow Bowl - 13, Suzette - 10, Snow Bowl - 6,
All - 5, Harmony - 2, Bridle Trail - 2, Roundtree - 2, Main Roads - 2.
Other: Lake, Antoinette, Saddle, Ridgeway, Chambers.
17. If you live on an unpaved road, would you be willing to be
assessed to pave the road?
Yes 38

No 66

If yes, how much?
$500-1,000 16
$1,000-2,500 14
$2,500-3,000 3
$5,000-10,000 1
$10,000+ 0
18. Are you in favor of construction of the north-south road (Gemini
Parkway) as proposed by the City of Flagstaff?
Yes 64

No 39

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Appendix

If no, should there be an alternative connection from Highway 180 to
I-40?
Yes 24

No 24

If yes, where? A-1 Mtn. - 10, West of City - 3. Others with One Vote:
FS 174, FS 222, 2 Blocks West of Humphreys, Parks, Woody Mtn. North,
Hidden Hollow, 180 to 89 North of Parks.
19. If the road is constructed, would you use it:
Regularly (at least once/day) 37
Infrequently 43
Almost Never 30
20. Do you think there should be a limit on the number of dogs allowed
on each parcel?
Yes 82

No 34

If yes, how many?
Zero 3
One 19
Two 38
Three 11
Four 6
Other 1 (5)
21. Is there a need for a public park in the Fort Valley area?
Yes 34

No 91

If yes, where? Along US 180, Bader/Roundtree, Hidden Hollow, Sled
Hill, S. Fort Valley, Baderville, Snow Bowl, Near Colton House, N.
Fort Valley, Water Site, Tedeman Ranch, Across from Snow Bowl Road, at
Former Curve in US 180.
22. Are there any special characteristics of the Fort Valley area
which should be preserved?
Yes 85

No 6

If yes, what are they? Rural Character - 26, Low Density - 13,
Forest/Trees - 12, Views - 11, Noncommercial - 10, Open Space - 9,
Quiet - 6, AR Zoning - 5, Historic Sites - 4, National Forest Access 2, Residential - 2, Natural Beauty - 2. Others: Water, Natural
Environment, Air Quality, Water Quality, No Mobiles.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Appendix

23. Are there any other issues or concerns which have not been
addressed in this questionnaire?
Canyon Squire Water Use, Sewer/Septic Problems, More Local Control,
Property Taxes, Guest Houses, Soil, Fort Valley Road Widening, Natural
Gas, Horses per Acre, Bike Paths, AMA, Transients, Lighting, Woodstove
Control, Fort Moroni, Illegal Hunting, Trash Removal, Commercial
Kennels, ORVs, Open Wells, Fence Guidelines, Animal Control,
Commercial Logging, Highway Safety, Lack of Ability of Landscape.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Appendix

South Fort Valley Questionnaire and Results
Survey of Fort Valley - Highway 180 Corridor Property Owners – South Fort Valley

1. What street is your property on? Mt. Elden Lookout - 33, Schultz
Pass - 11, Hidden Hollow - 14, Magdalena/Van Sickle - 11, Forest Hills
- 7, Colton - 7.
If you are not on a street and not in the Fire District, in what
general area is your property?
2. Are you a:
58 Resident
5 Absentee Home Owner
11 Absentee Owner of Undeveloped Land
3. Is your Land:
1 Less than 1 acre
30 1 to 2 ½ acres
26 2 ½ acres to 10 acres
17 Greater than 10 acres
4. What are some of the main issues that should be considered by the
Fort Valley Planning Committee? Please rank.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Road Development / Maintenance
Zoning / Commercial Development
Route 180 Traffic / Alternate Route
Density / Lot Size
Protection of Rural Character
Land Use Planning
National Forest Protection
Water Availability

5. Which of the following do you feel are important environmental
concerns? Please rank in order of importance.
None

2 National Forest Protection

5 Air Quality

6 Vegetation

4 Water Quality

7 Noise

8 Dust

9 Waste/Trash Disposal

1 Water Availability Other - Development Density,
Wildlife.
3 Water Source

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Appendix

6. Should the county control the preservation of natural vegetation
(for example with a tree ordinance or landscape ordinance)?
Yes 43

No 23

7. Currently most of the South Fort Valley area is zoned for 1 and 2
acre minimum lots, and most of the North Fort Valley - Baderville
areas is zoned for 2 and 2 ½ acre minimum lots. Do you think smaller
lot sizes would be acceptable in certain designated areas?
Yes 9

No 61

8. Do you think there should be an established minimum lot size for
the whole area?
Yes 63

No 8

If yes, which of the following would you prefer?
0 Regular subdivision lot (10,000 square feet)
3 ½ acre
9 1 acre
48 2 acres
6 5 acres
1 Other
9. Do you think there is a need for additional commercial uses along
the Highway 180 corridor?
Yes 25

No 47

If yes, where (check any that apply)
14 Schultz Pass Road
13 Fremont
9 Magdalena or Peak View
2 Hidden Hollow Road
18 Snow Bowl Road
0 Bader or Roundtree
0 Elsewhere
If yes, what types of commercial uses would be appropriate? Restaurant
- 9, Small Shopping Center - 8, Stores - 8, Motel - 5, Convenience
Mart - 5, Service Businesses - 4, Theaters - 3, Gas - 3, Grocery - 2,
Hardware - 2, Car Wash - 2. Others with One Vote: Ski Rental, Ski
Lodge, Gallery, Feed Store.
Are there any that are not appropriate? Industry - 12, Shopping Center
- 8, Bars - 4, Hotels - 3, RV Parks - 3, Gas - 2, Car Sales - 2,

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Appendix

Polluting Business - 2. Others with One Vote: Boutiques, Kmart, Fast
Food, Convenience Mart, Church.
10. Are you in favor of commercial development in certain locations?
Yes 31

No 38

If yes, where? Snow Bowl Road - 5, Route 180 - 3, Schultz Pass Road 3, Fremont - 2, Major Intersections - 1, at Existing Commercial
Locations - 1.
11. Are you in favor of multiple family residential development in
certain locations?
Yes 16

No 54

If yes, where? Along US 180 - 3, Schultz Pass/Fremont - 2, Snow Bowl 1.
12. Are you in favor of mobile home parks in certain locations?
Yes 3

No 68

If yes, where? Baderville - 1.
13. Are you in favor of industrially zoned land for such uses as light
manufacturing, cabinet-making, machine shops, contractors' yards,
etc.?
Yes 8

No 62

If yes, where? On US 180 - 1, Off US 180 - 1, Baderville - 1, More
that 1000' from Residences - 1.
14. Except for single family dwelling homes are you in favor of more
specific guidelines to control the architectural style, height and
color of buildings, as well as signs?
Yes 47

No 22

Comments? Signs Only - 8, Control Height - 3. Also: Preserve Views,
Rural Design to Fit Forest Environment, Natural Colors, Nonglare
Lighting, Floor Size, Rustic and Rural Character, Sign Height.
15. Should the county be more active or less active in enforcing
zoning regulations?
More 37

Less 0

About the Same 30

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Appendix

If more, what are some of the enforcement and zoning violation
problems? Commercial Use of Residential Property - 5, Outdoor Storage
- 2, Illegal Subdivisions - 2, Building Codes - 1, Dumping on National
Forest - 1.
16. Should more of the roads in the Fort Valley area be paved?
Yes 37

No 27

If yes, which ones? Elden Lookout - 23, Forest Hills - 4, Hidden
Hollow - 4, Van Sickle - 4, Snow Bowl - 2.
17. If you live on an unpaved road, would you be willing to be
assessed to pave the road?
Yes 29

No 25

If yes, how much?
$500-1,000 5
$1,000-2,500 13
$2,500-3,000 3
$5,000-10,000 4
$10,000+ 1
18. Are you in favor of construction of the north-south road (Gemini
Parkway) as proposed by the City of Flagstaff?
Yes 29

No 35

If no, should there be an alternative connection from Highway 180 to
I-40?
Yes 26

No 15

If yes, where? A-1 Mtn. - 10, West of Town - 4, Woody Mtn. North - 2.
Others: Behind Cheshire, Baderville to Flag Ranch, Baderville to
Bellemont, Through Government Prairie, I-40 to Hidden Hollow, Schultz
Pass to Fourth St., Extension of Turquoise.
19. If the road is constructed, would you use it:
Regularly (at least once/day) 27
Infrequently 22
Almost Never 16
Never 1
20. Do you think there should be a limit on the number of dogs allowed
on each parcel?

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Appendix

Yes 41

No 24

If yes, how many?
Zero 0 One 5 Two 26 Three 4 Four 2 Other 2 ( 2 per 2 ½ acres, 2 per 5
acres)
21. Is there a need for a public park in the Fort Valley area?
Yes 29

No 38

If yes, where? Avery's CCC - 9, Schultz Pass - 3, Lockett - 2, Near
MNA - 2. Others: Former Curve in US 180, Baderville, Public Land,
Gemini Parkway Area, Snow Bowl Turnoff, Near High Density Housing.
22. Are there any special characteristics of the Fort Valley area
which should be preserved?
Yes 63

No 5

If yes, what are they? Rural Atmosphere - 20, Forests - 18, Vegetation
- 9, Peaks View - 7, Natural Beauty - 7, Quiet - 6, Low Density - 6,
Open Areas - 5, Horses - 4, Wildlife - 4, Horse and Foot Trails - 4,
National Forest Access - 2, Greenbelt - 2.
23. Are there any other issues or concerns which have not been
addressed in this questionnaire?
ORVs, Woodsmoke, Trash in Forest, US 180 Turn Lanes, Transients,
Shooting, Tax Assessments, Bike Paths, Light Pollution, Sheriff
Patrols, Fire Protection, USFS Exchanges, Wildlife, US 180 Speed
Limit, Natural Gas, Access to Forest, Underground Utilities, Property
Values.

Fort Valley Area Plan – Coconino County, Arizona – Approved February 20, 1990 – Appendix