[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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",[32,75,87,99],{"_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",6612368,"mediaKeyId","2891523-0261aea56b671c4fad3e50ca076838ba","parentId",2891523,"title","Commission hears study-session previews of proposed kennel and equestrian facility ahead of April public hearings","audioSeconds",731,"startMs",89000,"endMs",820000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2891523-0261aea56b671c4fad3e50ca076838ba&start=89&end=820","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2891523-0261aea56b671c4fad3e50ca076838ba/thumbnail_89000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6612368/Coconino-County/Arizona/Commission-hears-study-session-previews-of-proposed-kennel-and-equestrian-facility-ahead-of-April-public-hearings","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612368-5ad19bc1f91b3d8e3ba31b61802f868a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173862&Signature=FjleOhBtJEVhL75eQoNMV~Ym0PLfh~JGEdnJSoFB44Mm0Me9s1npfKcyp-ceZaezxg3FGxv0Y4gHZu3ryxABtqfPWKGfBXrXDHI-QminBVQ9~ZL~kOopIrTLDwn9fmEbsFsrHN01uYKYtr2H0ZELromSiMyIkKnaBK4KRn8EBkVW13dmcheDOeJgczL7lpy-sdqcQuUzGqE7Gmco-4vitQ~2Mcq-GcQWCc~8r~ujoc4KKEW6Rc4JA~JoYtfnpRfAx3cGEieuJTOpRG41RpHoYrbmc5U0EEJroIM3pHDW9cnujge12DGRpGtVtFTm5dNed~Lu56Uc2GciI2c44sHJoQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Coconino County","date","2025-04-07T21:18:20.347Z","article","At a March 26 study session, Coconino County planning staff presented two applications that staff expects to come before the commission for public hearings on April 30: CP25009 (Aeropaw commercial kennel) and CV2511 (Joseph equestrian facility).

For CP25009, planner Bob Short summarized the application by applicant Lauren DeMarco for property described in the Donny Park/Donnie Park area at 5550 Lean Lane (R-2.5 zoning) on a 2.51-acre parcel. The application proposes to convert a garage into eight climate-controlled indoor kennels with a stated capacity “up to 12 dogs” (the applicant explained the capacity reflects multiple dogs from the same ownership in a single kennel). Plans call for insulated walls and ceilings for sound attenuation, a fenced outdoor play area enclosed by a six-foot fence, and anti-bark devices used only as needed. Short said the applicant provided waste-management and simple traffic-circulation plans and proposed a small sign meeting local design guidelines (about 3.5 ft by 4.25 ft). Short also noted that a neighborhood meeting had been held with no neighbors attending; notice had been mailed to nearby properties.

Commissioners asked for clarifications on allowed animal counts without a CUP, placement and visibility of the outdoor play area relative to adjacent residences, the nature of anti-bark devices (high-frequency deterrent), and whether dogs would have unsupervised 24/7 access to the outdoor area; staff said the applicant indicated dogs would be supervised and would be locked up at night. A commissioner also asked about potential conflicts of interest after saying they were friends with a neighbor; county counsel guidance (discussed by staff) said personal friendship without a direct economic interest is not in itself a disqualifying conflict but that recusal remains an option if the commissioner believes an appearance-of-impropriety concern exists.

For CV2511, Short summarized an application by Abigail Joseph to operate an equestrian facility and riding arena on two adjoining parcels on Sierra Drive in Valley (AR-1 zoning, roughly two one-acre parcels). The proposal describes equine therapy and equine-assisted learning, initially serving two-to-three clients per week with potential growth to 10–15 clients weekly; proposed operating days are Friday–Sunday, 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. during April–October. Short said parking would be along Vista Drive and that the office/cabin on site would contain restrooms for clients. The applicant told staff she had scheduled a neighborhood meeting; staff allowed the applicant to provide neighborhood meeting results by the following Monday.

Commissioners asked about dust control for the riding arena and parking on unpaved roads, as well as water availability (the site is on hauled/hold water), and staff said such issues would be examined during the formal hearing and could be addressed with conditions if necessary. Commissioner Waltz noted expected dust from vehicles on dirt roads but said small lesson groups (particularly for people with disabilities) are less likely to create significant dust than large events.

Staff did not present formal recommendations at the study session; both items were informational previews to help commissioners prepare for the April 30 public hearings.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning and Zoning Staff and Commission Study Session and Public Hearing | March 26, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Staff briefed the Planning and Zoning Commission on two conditional-use applications set for public hearing April 30: a commercial kennel (Aeropaw) proposing 8 indoor climate-controlled kennels on a 2.51-acre R-2.5 parcel, and an equestrian facility proposing equine therapy and equine-assisted learning on two one-acre parcels in Valley.","taxTitle","Coconino County, Arizona","taxId",2575,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6612373,"Commission approves conditional use permit for 8x40 storage container in Howard Mesa Ranch",95,3520000,3615000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2891523-0261aea56b671c4fad3e50ca076838ba&start=3520&end=3615","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2891523-0261aea56b671c4fad3e50ca076838ba/thumbnail_3520000.jpg","/articles/6612373/Coconino-County/Arizona/Commission-approves-conditional-use-permit-for-8x40-storage-container-in-Howard-Mesa-Ranch","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612373-ce9023191d3acb3a9d105917a3e77180/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173862&Signature=ift6~QzPcOjOTIvAVidzYt5alvfyuoMg1c3SJCFshCB1yN3VxA530iScpwhjxVJdblRGqubKdz-O9-Ce0hhcKBarpV6l7f2t7p0N1DFhZ8i5l7Bfna~QCNG2k5JdEsr1GisQhAVioAHiK~TEUmpStsJLn5380VKc0FstMU3m5PPpz0~dq4gzfZRA2msVWf4Fn2PWs647Thf8sSiuTNXLSzCmZs1mijB1kST1vNALAObJYXPiNTskPZRqKM4SNM~FHMQzfxrS4wmeGyBegI0Aq~Nt7nhBB8XLQylbpAn5YtABZhPhlE2sfodRfZI-IA3iSQpQwEHZxHc2uZz4Hn3oQA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Coconino County Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved Conditional Use Permit CUP-24-038 on March 26 to allow placement of an 8-by-40-foot storage container in the Howard Mesa Ranch area.

Staff told the commission that the zoning ordinance allows metal shipping containers to be used as accessory structures on vacant lots, and there were no public comments on the case. After a short staff presentation and no opposing public testimony, the commission’s motion to approve the permit passed without dissent.

The motion to approve was made during the public hearing by a commissioner on the record and seconded; the meeting minutes record the approval vote as unanimous among the commissioners present. The approval is binding unless appealed to the Board of Supervisors under the county’s appeal process.

Because the request was a standard accessory-structure permit and staff recommended approval, commissioners had no substantive debate beyond confirming that the zoning ordinance permits containers on vacant parcels.

The commission’s action authorizes the container under the conditions included in the staff report; any building or placement permits required by county code remain subject to normal permitting procedures.","The Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved CUP-24-038 to allow one 8-by-40-foot shipping/storage container on a vacant lot in the Howard Mesa Ranch area after staff confirmed county code allows metal shipping containers as accessory structures on vacant lots.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6612378,"County planners brief commission on Flagstaff regional plan and Envision 2045 comprehensive plan updates",2050,921000,2971000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2891523-0261aea56b671c4fad3e50ca076838ba&start=921&end=2971","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2891523-0261aea56b671c4fad3e50ca076838ba/thumbnail_921000.jpg","/articles/6612378/Coconino-County/Arizona/County-planners-brief-commission-on-Flagstaff-regional-plan-and-Envision-2045-comprehensive-plan-updates","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612378-b5fed25a283df093a2e6ae2f4e55e271/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173862&Signature=aTBd1f8EFx~N5RQVsZ8PV9bHFVVP5PZprDsi8YYY-zBKKugH2qDrODdB4g7~wu2QRapv28MjS9PhThJ7EcrSdrOMngGhTglh8pcznIB5~LO7IxSHtRuQzbKbxRQruwJ9BhBVRLQCqkMtrWcws7H4-Ybt7yoy3L5vQHQr5U57JZZ3VND9mqiqGDFvFVFKUEzH1KhwdEa1wXDOFZMBtPhgtUdmYHFC-F-R6Brx4JBB8M3V0per9CMQv7~R3dPP~0CColkKinrevjPkF58nxkvJBOD5efXVPeqQPpe6hKKRIbToyLjxCJQRcx9Mye9qizhA3-4AiQGtcuPKzPaWV7S~SA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Coconino County long-range planning staff updated the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 26 about two concurrent planning efforts: the Flagstaff Regional Land Use Plan update and the county comprehensive plan update (Envision 2045). Melissa Shaw, long-range planner, and staff summarized timelines, public feedback and how the two documents relate.

Shaw said the Flagstaff Regional Land Use Plan’s 60-day public comment period closed in December with about 2,400 comments; city staff prepared a summary of those comments and a spreadsheet of the raw submissions for review. Shaw told commissioners the county and City of Flagstaff are coordinating on the regional plan update but noted a legal and procedural difference: the Flagstaff regional plan will appear on the ballot for City of Flagstaff voters where applicable, while the county’s comprehensive plan update will proceed through planning hearings and Board of Supervisors approval without a ballot measure.

Staff urged commissioners to review the public-comments summary ahead of a joint retreat scheduled for May 2 and a work session with the Board of Supervisors on April 22 (staff said lunch may be provided at the April 22 session). Shaw said internal edits are ongoing to clarify “implementation strategies,” a new element in the regional plan intended to describe specific actions or work-plan items that could move policies toward prescriptive code or program changes. She said many implementation items are being trimmed and clarified in response to public feedback.

For the county comprehensive plan update staff said draft organization will be grouped into three broad sections organized around shared community values: quality of rural lifestyle; stewards of the natural environment and sustainability; and diverse communities and services. Shaw said the drafting phase is nearly complete and staff hopes a 60-day public review will start in late spring or summer, followed by public hearings and adoption steps.

Commissioners asked about when revised chapters will be available (Shaw said updated chapters are expected before the May 2 retreat, subject to final internal review) and about a new “implementation items” section; Shaw and other staff clarified that implementation items are intended to be actionable work-plan items linked to goals and policies and may be prioritized in an implementation plan. The updated comprehensive plan will include an implementation plan, an existing conditions appendix, and a proposed framework for countywide sustainability and resilience planning.

Commissioner Best raised several points: seeking more prominent, consolidated “goals and policies” desk guides; clearer definitions in the glossary for terms such as “attainable housing” and “market-affordable” (Shaw said the comprehensive plan glossary will align with definitions in the Flagstaff regional plan); and concern about doing two major plans simultaneously — staff said the overlap is challenging but provides opportunities for coordination between city and county staff.

On health-care concerns, Best asked whether the plans address regional hospital issues; staff said the comprehensive plan recognizes health and human services roles and the importance of a regional trauma center but does not, and should not, attempt to adjudicate specific hospital operational decisions.

Shaw said advisory-group review is ongoing (an April 3 advisory-group meeting and a planned April 14 review of the full draft before a 60-day public review). Commissioners were encouraged to study the public-comments summary and plan materials in advance of the April 22 work session and the May 2 retreat.

No formal commission action was required for the briefing.","Long-range planning staff told the Planning and Zoning Commission that the Flagstaff Regional Land Use Plan and the county comprehensive plan (Envision 2045) are both being updated with overlapping schedules; staff highlighted public-comment totals, upcoming work sessions and differences in approval processes.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6612383,"Planning commission approves design review for Oak Creek cabins despite debate over visible rooflines",3314,5834000,9148000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2891523-0261aea56b671c4fad3e50ca076838ba&start=5834&end=9148","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2891523-0261aea56b671c4fad3e50ca076838ba/thumbnail_5834000.jpg","/articles/6612383/Coconino-County/Arizona/Planning-commission-approves-design-review-for-Oak-Creek-cabins-despite-debate-over-visible-rooflines","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612383-0d1baf6827b190a2d5faeed685056880/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173862&Signature=JuIqQ~DJg-oxT2uLviFR8oTwd1ZeE4U24DZIRVli064l9rqlpFhhAZC~VroDzQlabYbYGdeZgBi8kp~R-vYRYIs~9mGLlE1esQ6SOuwkv~yg8E6p~ufRSZt0wiDVXQ3n9Ye9LroFfsLK8R9X0YxgJl03mZl1EdYS7t-erLx123VB5hUUr36SW8meUZVU3TgcmG~C2D~TK-~gc7xfE-XkO4ejLf64oHdR6VRDgqN4fFTF5YHWKz3HIr8R5hu0~0qmhnrw7nuSvJ7-nMqYqoWvHVxLmGNtd1vbf5qCU4Be2VeXS76CM1oZwfDWvoNQbxCY5DdrNGRTbLasQ7PPezXkNw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Coconino County Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7–2 on March 26 to approve DRO-25-001, a design review overlay application to replace and standardize the resort cabins at the Mesmerie Nature Resort (formerly Don Hall’s Cabins) in Oak Creek Canyon.

The commission’s action followed a staff presentation by planner Robert “Bob” Short and a design presentation by architect Fernando Mercado, who described the proposed cabins as one- and two-bedroom units with vertical siding, large windows and rooftop decks. Mercado said the project team plans to use cementitious, fiber-reinforced siding and other assemblies designed to achieve a one-hour fire rating to address Sedona-area fire concerns.

The commission’s approval was based on findings that the proposed cabin design “is compatible with the neighborhood and historic structures” and that materials and scale subordinate structures to the natural landscape, consistent with the Oak Creek Canyon area plan design guidelines cited by staff. Commission debate focused on visibility from Highway 89A, materials and whether the two cabins nearest the highway should use roof profiles that match the existing historic resort office. Commissioner Best moved to require that the two most-visible cabins (identified in the master plan as Cabins 7 and 14) have roof profiles matching the resort main office; that proposed condition failed to gain majority support.

Vice Chair Wilson and Commissioner Best voted against final approval. A majority of commissioners said the proposed modern, relatively simple cabin forms and nonreflective, dark brown finishes would blend with the canyon setting and that the area plan’s guidelines do not mandate imitation of historic styles. Several commissioners and staff also emphasized public-safety benefits from upgrading older, sometimes-rotted cabins to modern, fire-resistant assemblies.

The approved design review applies to the replacement of up to 29 cabins on the 16.77-acre resort parcel at 9440 N. State Route 89A in the Oak Creek Canyon area. Staff emphasized that the current application dealt only with design review; site plan and other development approvals for the resort master plan remain subject to separate processes and building-permit reviews, including fire-district and building-code requirements that may be addressed at permitting.

The commission’s formal motion to approve DRO-25-001 was made by Commissioner Walsh and seconded by Commissioner Williams. Vote record (as read into the meeting minutes): Vice Chair Wilson — no; Commissioner Walsh — yes; Commissioner Williams — yes; Commissioner Berger — yes; Commissioner Leslie — yes; Commissioner Best — no; Commissioner Hayward — yes; Chair Burton — yes. The motion passed, 7–2.

During the public hearing the applicant’s representative confirmed planned use of cementitious fiber-reinforced siding with factory-applied finish, selected in part to meet fire performance standards and potentially avoid sprinkler requirements.

The commission’s decision, as a design-review approval, is binding unless appealed to the Board of Supervisors on procedural grounds within the county’s appeal period.

The commission also received clarification from staff that design review in Oak Creek Canyon applies only to commercial, industrial and multiunit development in designated design-review overlay areas and that the Oak Creek design guidelines emphasize sensitivity to site and materials rather than prescribing one architectural style.

The meeting record shows that Commissioner Ruggles recused himself from an earlier agenda item after a site-visit disclosure; he did not participate in later deliberations on unrelated items.","The Coconino County Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7–2 to approve a design review overlay for replacement lodging cabins at Mesmerie Nature Resort in Oak Creek Canyon after discussion about materials, fire resistance and whether two front cabins should match the historical resort office roofline.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission hears study-session previews of proposed kennel and equestrian facility ahead of April public hearings

Commission approves conditional use permit for 8x40 storage container in Howard Mesa Ranch

County planners brief commission on Flagstaff regional plan and Envision 2045 comprehensive plan updates

Planning commission approves design review for Oak Creek cabins despite debate over visible rooflines