[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,86,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6664707,"mediaKeyId","2372189-ef45e39d7430b719ac723f7243199b3c","parentId",2372189,"title","County reviewers recommend rewording aggregate/mining goal to reflect mining locations and incompatible uses","audioSeconds",473,"startMs",6969000,"endMs",7442000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2372189-ef45e39d7430b719ac723f7243199b3c&start=6969&end=7442","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2372189-ef45e39d7430b719ac723f7243199b3c/thumbnail_6969000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6664707/Coconino-County/Arizona/County-reviewers-recommend-rewording-aggregatemining-goal-to-reflect-mining-locations-and-incompatible-uses","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6664707-5a9609b8265796aebf248f6d42861b28/orig.mp4?Expires=1775575125&Signature=Y3WbYlM7Vw3t71rwNAyeQj7XVtMvk8vic5FyN1jKzxuth-gBq-ngESV7HppQGoXAX49Qjy6W~vqMtYWCDnW1T8XCtSqZC~M-uMA7aESWRLC3Oc5nKkLi1h9a~N4a7WFuxi48nk8-gjsp0K-yG336PU9qEvjOg8knycQG~JNIi0h6X2SmCj69iMBaH4U-ksgb1FJf~MYX0Ryy50mIqCLcjoVdNVVT7Y6rM4yccE2cqsdaQI2BCzbAIcImewBs1bFQ9SYhax-CKcL8j7AHt0tyckCPMjgVsazOysvHRnM97pniAFOh0~NipaAw4RX95YNfD70BgQOkk49C1z8RNYC1kw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Coconino County","date","2025-02-21T21:17:45.02Z","article","Advisory members discussed language in the draft land use chapter that addresses aggregate sources and mining operations and recommended rewording so the plan emphasizes not siting incompatible land uses near known aggregate sources, rather than framing the policy as siting aggregate operations to avoid incompatible uses.

Staff explained the state requires counties to identify aggregate sources and mines; participants noted aggregate resources are geographically fixed and that the practical planning response is usually to avoid placing sensitive residential or incompatible uses near existing or prospective mining sites. One participant urged reversing the policy wording to reflect that the county and developers should avoid building incompatible land uses next to identified aggregate sources, because aggregate deposits are where they are and development choices should be shaped by that fact.

Speakers also discussed the practical implications for road and construction costs when aggregate sources are distant from projects. Staff noted the county does not directly permit mine siting (mining operations are regulated at the state level) but that plan policy can guide local land‑use decisions and notification. The advisory group asked staff to revise the policy wording; staff said they would update language to reflect the conversation and clarify which entities regulate mines and aggregates.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Coconino County Comprehensive Plan Advisory Group Meeting | February 6, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Advisory members discussed a draft goal that refers to siting aggregate sources and mining operations and recommended flipping the policy language to emphasize avoiding incompatible land uses near known mines.","taxTitle","Coconino County, Arizona","taxId",2575,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6664711,"Advisory group highlights ranch‑land preservation, paper subdivisions and need for implementation tools",0,4432000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2372189-ef45e39d7430b719ac723f7243199b3c&start=4432&end=4432","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2372189-ef45e39d7430b719ac723f7243199b3c/thumbnail_4432000.jpg","/articles/6664711/Coconino-County/Arizona/Advisory-group-highlights-ranchland-preservation-paper-subdivisions-and-need-for-implementation-tools","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6664711-0eb0cbffe4d5dfa0b62b77416ef8fe54/orig.mp4?Expires=1775575125&Signature=au8yhvagLQWvuzkR7L2WJZFbm-3BvqPwHzsjFpuJztfBetl-J~veKoMRptRfbFfX-l7T79OT0oZRwUrw4p9BD9zDT7TG2D-gIL5PDwpgr4jSEtnQV9RUUTFQenlIuth7FHrBIjSXjJt0xiVGllaVlTvSIK7--~JgkmfvO2evFhj3ct-veQ7BE9JMayxyQmQLsm0byCmmKWjkYIxzDy53GxtIatr-~kjUjaJmnfp325OrzWWoRg3G-4UWQNsTit5ama5ttHUKziwvyeWcjoBOhMb2kyQFUhf~Mf1UvlIyEhp8Clm3nEgE1MLOdlmbBrdjD7JeWsJLYivcRrv-1ZmXjA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Coconino County planning staff told advisory members the county assessor\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000's land‑use codes show 77 percent of private parcels are coded as ranch land, prompting a broad discussion on how to preserve large‑acreage ranches, address abandoned parcels and update policies on older subdivisions that lack infrastructure.

Staff displayed a map and pie chart showing that 77 percent of private land is categorized as ranch land and that about 23 percent is other private uses. Participants raised the Grand Canyon Subdivision and other legacy platted areas as examples of ‘‘paper subdivisions’’ where lots were recorded decades ago but roads, water and sewer were not built. Staff explained those subdivisions were platted under earlier regulations and that today the county requires infrastructure or bonds before accepting plats. A staff presentation noted the Grand Canyon Subdivision contains several thousand parcels created in 1969–1970s and that many roads were never constructed.

Committee members argued the plan should better acknowledge the economic pressures facing ranch families, including succession and the need for funding mechanisms to keep large ranch properties intact. Speakers suggested policy tools to explore in implementation: conservation easements, transfer of development rights or density banking, and partnerships with state and federal conservation programs. Staff said the comprehensive plan update will include an implementation section and an action list; they noted the current plan included action items but they were not prioritized. Several participants urged the county to develop an implementation work plan that could include programmatic support and prioritized actions to preserve ranch lands.

On funding and mitigation, staff explained how impact‑fee studies operate and that a study would be necessary before the county could adopt a formal impact‑fee structure to charge new development for infrastructure impacts; staff said engineering and financial analysis would be required and that grants sometimes fund these studies. No formal policies were adopted at the meeting.","Advisory members and county staff reviewed data showing most private parcels are assessed as ranch land, discussed the legacy of undeveloped \"paper\" subdivisions and property abandonment in Valley, and urged clearer implementation tools such as conservation easements, density transfer and targeted impact‑fee studies.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6664716,"Reviewers urge clearer policies on dark‑sky protections and Indigenous place names in county plan",253,1496000,1749000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2372189-ef45e39d7430b719ac723f7243199b3c&start=1496&end=1749","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2372189-ef45e39d7430b719ac723f7243199b3c/thumbnail_1496000.jpg","/articles/6664716/Coconino-County/Arizona/Reviewers-urge-clearer-policies-on-darksky-protections-and-Indigenous-place-names-in-county-plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6664716-59892daddfbecaecb548f626592fbbf3/orig.mp4?Expires=1775575125&Signature=gKd5KYIDBRhJClDDOG8SS5DxELcKxO1td89gs2IL3v6MK7i0f9XjX3roCFeJWgiOxqhh3PxSt-IF33UH7I37ne9IXlZB3KJuiigLMnREZLWs3MZ7X6VHBEHH5LkjNlB0ITvVFwhHa~~IRG-A2SLzfnXVz99BpRybwiuOFZC0HBwCR9OXB7Z7FyjQEPKsyBY5KKDS4NrNVIxUNba08-DfsAAeyc4jdWOcOescuFPz9snzaB~Btm2LILPPhYBezI~dM7qFPhWcGqrqAljEROr1zTPDHOM94oCu8uYFqwXsu4pHsl~LnfypOK17S3rKq6rHDwnX7D1~7bMKwC9zeOGebQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","During a review of the comprehensive‑plan chapters on parks, open space and community character, advisory members and staff discussed dark‑sky protections, public safety concerns tied to lighting, and opportunities to add Indigenous place names and interpretive signage to county signage policy.

Staff told the group dark‑sky issues are already addressed in the community character chapter and by a county dark‑sky ordinance that was updated in recent years; the planning team did not add the item repeatedly to the parks and recreation chapter because it is covered elsewhere. One participant who serves on a dark‑sky coalition stressed that while dark skies are highly valued, planners should also acknowledge that some residents have safety concerns about reduced lighting.

Separately, members recommended adding a county policy encouraging use of Indigenous names for parks, trails and interpretive signage where appropriate. Staff said that policy would likely belong in the diversity, cultures and community character chapter and that additional conversations with county management and tribal partners will be needed before drafting any naming or renaming policy. Eric Stanfield of the Navajo Nation Heritage and Historic Preservation Department joined the meeting and staff said they will follow up with tribal leaders and county management on implementation and consultation for any naming or access policies.

Staff said they would convey the recommendation to county management for possible inclusion in a later draft and flagged the idea as a potential new policy that would require coordination across departments and consultation with Indigenous nations; no formal vote or final policy was adopted at the meeting.","Advisory members asked Coconino County planners to clarify dark‑sky protections, balance safety concerns, and add policy language to support Indigenous naming and interpretive signage.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6664721,"Coconino County reviewers press for clearer trail maps and stricter enforcement of off‑highway vehicle rules",269,1143000,1412000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2372189-ef45e39d7430b719ac723f7243199b3c&start=1143&end=1412","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2372189-ef45e39d7430b719ac723f7243199b3c/thumbnail_1143000.jpg","/articles/6664721/Coconino-County/Arizona/Coconino-County-reviewers-press-for-clearer-trail-maps-and-stricter-enforcement-of-offhighway-vehicle-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6664721-fed13bc7d7b03fdd288f10a5bb981e42/orig.mp4?Expires=1775575125&Signature=VKMrLIq7X7sLTk8oYyytJ7J2nnpAOli6g0J5P-gN0bk0pJWzc01QzT3zE2IkMQ4731JADMA9KCn7oKynfoCLN5jHHvxJ46i-4ngGlP-qr9b-8-22aq-EzI~9V17-b7rihBT3lJp0fZ4wkvFeb1WMYmFhwIxqFLQ3PBwN45nHU6X8yoOxY-f7kZxlNnciwSKYieL7go60Q74-yziRcP-EBrUX4Q9dNnRUdmx~gvgg4kuuWHmQZETG0j9efoCISDokIw21dDasXomCW1UvIHAiuzSBWQNDzuJHt9GkY2m8e99zYNlh3wa9DaIu2fpgrjknS6-DQOaE1KnV35Kh2JL9HA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Coconino County staff and advisory members reviewed proposed changes to the parks, recreation and open‑space chapter of the county comprehensive plan, focusing on trail mapping, compatibility of motorized routes with ranching, and enforcement of off‑highway vehicle (OHV) rules on private lands.

The revisions presented group park and recreation policies under a single introductory section and incorporate recommendations from the county\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000\u0000parks and recreation master plan. Staff said some trail‑related items should be clarified so the plan does not imply the county manages trails beyond the singular trails inside county parks and recreation areas. Cynthia, Parks and Recreation director, said the 15‑minute walk standard for access to recreational amenities is a national goal from the National Recreation and Park Association and should be described as an aspirational standard rather than a completed achievement.

Participants discussed motorized trails and ranch compatibility after several attendees urged the plan explicitly restrict motorized routes where they conflict with ranching uses. Michael Lisonbee questioned references to the Great Western Trail, saying the trail \"dead ends\" in parts of the county and that mapping needs to be precise; other participants suggested removing or qualifying the Great Western Trail reference pending verification. Laura Sprout, the consultant noted staff had modified the draft language to flag motorized routes as potentially incompatible with ranching.

The group also reviewed enforcement tools being used on private lands. A staff member described landowner compact agreements with the Arizona Game and Fish Commission and land managers that enable enforcement action for illegal off‑road use, and said, \"you are not allowed to drive any OHV vehicles off road, period,\" except for narrowly defined retrieval of legally taken game. Staff said some compacts are already effective and others will be brought to the board for update and renewal.

Participants asked staff to add cross‑references showing coordination with Public Works and engineering trail planning (including a large multimodal trail grant that was not awarded but remains an aspiration), to clarify which trails are county‑owned or maintained, and to document the outreach and education work done by the Niibaa Trust and other private partners. The plan text will be revised to avoid implying the county directly manages trails it does not hold responsibility for and to call out private‑land compacts and education efforts as distinct tools for addressing unauthorized trail use.

Staff said revised text and updated maps will be posted to the project website once edits are complete; no formal action or vote was taken at the meeting.","At a Coconino County comprehensive‑plan review meeting, staff and participants discussed revisions to the parks, recreation and open‑space chapter including trail mapping, Great Western Trail wording, and enforcement of off‑highway vehicle (OHV) restrictions via landowner compacts.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

County reviewers recommend rewording aggregate/mining goal to reflect mining locations and incompatible uses

Advisory group highlights ranch‑land preservation, paper subdivisions and need for implementation tools

Reviewers urge clearer policies on dark‑sky protections and Indigenous place names in county plan

Coconino County reviewers press for clearer trail maps and stricter enforcement of off‑highway vehicle rules