[{"_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",6455006,"mediaKeyId","5856846-6011c82fd6080ba604ec19a39e5bf1c1","parentId",5856846,"title","Planning commission backs zone changes, subdivision for Valley resort and 151-lot manufactured-home workforce park","audioSeconds",4147,"startMs",8639000,"endMs",12786000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5856846-6011c82fd6080ba604ec19a39e5bf1c1&start=8639&end=12786","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5856846-6011c82fd6080ba604ec19a39e5bf1c1/thumbnail_8639000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6455006/Coconino-County/Arizona/Planning-commission-backs-zone-changes-subdivision-for-Valley-resort-and-151-lot-manufactured-home-workforce-park","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6455006-9eb009c75b0399dc7fba54517e7fcb32/orig.mp4?Expires=1773620828&Signature=Rt1SaqFSvE8bDWVTFIG9NPvcVx8QYKmWg3LGz2bCyFNQtQuXb4BPW4I0ddNjvF5gTcUDDUxhCKsnLMuZG20yvvQZIZZG8RTvwoYLAuttnDfX0rVc5EPgNm~sUhoxB4D3hBlpksafKoQZzJkRICcNrIlAGeV2Fw6bYg~YghocvzbjVt7c3UbFVPjDrgmi9BOrRs-hbyaLbvw9nps2rHiZavd7ZrMbt4jplZCkvUXdBVZG3eWh7AH7zSVlZhGFRdEP23ZajqokweOi-Ap3Xettx-r7-SJXLYS3jGU0evwoSm4Nfyk3tLfT9O0vaUwDOi6OfKUK9rolG7~hS8hU4-JM~w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Coconino County","date","2025-09-29T23:32:48Z","article","The Coconino County Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously July 30 to forward to the Board of Supervisors a set of zone changes and a preliminary subdivision plat for a mixed-use project in the Valley area that includes an 82‑acre resort-commercial parcel and a 40‑acre manufactured‑home subdivision with 151 lots.

Developers said the project is intended to pair visitor lodging with workforce housing and community infrastructure. Company principal Ryan Scott said the team plans to construct a community water system fed by two wells, a centralized wastewater treatment system and an on‑site hydrant network sized to provide fire flow for the development. \"We're going to build out the full sewer system and have the water system when we do phase 1,\" Scott said.

County staff recommended approval, saying the proposal would supply services the Valley area currently lacks: maintained roads, community water and wastewater, and a mechanism to add fire protection. \"This development is proposed to bring things the Valley area needs,\" planning staff said in their presentation.

Why it matters: The Valley contains large numbers of undeveloped small parcels and limited public infrastructure. Commissioners and several public commenters said the project’s potential to finance and deliver community‑scale roads, water, wastewater and organized fire protection could unlock further development and improve public safety.

What was proposed and decided: The applicant presented a master plan showing 150 detached commercial lodging units, communal buildings (spa, restaurant, studios) and a 151‑lot manufactured‑home subdivision planned as improved lots with private roads and common open space. The applicant also proposed restrictions in the subdivision's covenants to prevent short‑term rentals on the manufactured‑home parcels and said portions of the resort amenities would be open to the public.

Commission discussion focused on emergency access, turn‑lane improvements on Highway 64, wildfire risk, invasive‑plant management and how the development could help create a taxing fire district for Valley. County staff and the applicant said they had already submitted a traffic impact analysis to ADOT and were pursuing the state encroachment permit for required turn lanes; the applicant said redundant access routes were included in the design.

Public comment: Neighbors raised concerns about traffic on Highgrove Road and Highway 64, the adequacy of local roads, and whether new services would benefit existing residents. Several commenters requested clearer, earlier outreach and asked whether proposed improvements would extend beyond the project footprint.

Vote and next steps: The commission voted to recommend the zone changes (ZC25‑005 and ZC25‑006) and the subdivision preliminary plat (SUB25‑007) to the Board of Supervisors. The commission's roll call recorded affirmative votes by Vice Chair Wilson, Commissioner Tohi, Commissioner Best, Commissioner Berger, Commissioner Leslie, Commissioner Hayward and Chair Burton. The developer will need to secure ADWR and ADEQ permits for the well and wastewater system, ADOT encroachment approvals for turn lanes, and the Board of Supervisors will review the zone changes and preliminary plat in a subsequent hearing.

Context and constraints: County staff noted the Valley area has thousands of small, mostly undeveloped parcels created decades ago; most lack power, community water or wastewater and have unmaintained roads. The county's Valley area plan and the comprehensive plan support improved, clustered development that provides community infrastructure and protects natural resources. The commission emphasized conditions to require wildlife‑friendly fencing, native/drought‑tolerant landscaping and dark‑sky‑compliant lighting.

What remains open: Permitting for the wells, final wastewater treatment design and ADOT encroachment and turn‑lane approvals must be completed before final platting. The Board of Supervisors will receive the commission's recommendation and hold the final decision on the zone changes and preliminary plat.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning and Zoning Staff and Commission Study Session for July 30, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Coconino County Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously July 30 to forward to the Board of Supervisors a set of zone changes and a preliminary plat for a mixed‑use project in Valley that includes an 82‑acre resort and a separate 151‑lot manufactured‑home subdivision intended for workforce housing.","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},6455002,"Planning commission recommends approval of 38‑lot Diablo Canyon subdivision near Mormon Lake",2494,6266000,8760000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5856846-6011c82fd6080ba604ec19a39e5bf1c1&start=6266&end=8760","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5856846-6011c82fd6080ba604ec19a39e5bf1c1/thumbnail_6266000.jpg","/articles/6455002/Coconino-County/Arizona/Planning-commission-recommends-approval-of-38lot-Diablo-Canyon-subdivision-near-Mormon-Lake","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6455002-937af397f3df1f1bdabb920e1c3a6d9a/orig.mp4?Expires=1773620828&Signature=GCGXksaKBr3WBp1IqUYYiaCEe1UF0pH97YxoNKfkx-74HbXZnTu7i30dEyf6wsT8Cg41OTGiGjr435hL~BWrUaOMzrnvFbGHeSHPkR2jkHzhMaiDaCwGMUHWwvVmlJ8jrDvZJDV8gtFeBRCPVnD7hlAPMOrofgfvJnMar2awT4RzRc5e7XZeJ5pYXW85pNAFGuU4fC6J2vjeAebMII3dQgPSjwSk-CP1YTZwH3XAIV0KKY-owvg26O3IpsjrXQIe2OdmnxWIOOc~gmpaOUZXrm1YiHDzGVuRLkENyat2u843uMiIJDxiPnSVFixsK3JdcODYDxca0pem1-tOyUdZew__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Coconino County Planning and Zoning Commission on July 30 voted to recommend the Diablo Canyon subdivision preliminary plat (SUB25‑003), a clustered conservation design that would create 38 residential lots from a 335‑acre ranch property near Mormon Lake while protecting roughly 202 acres—about 60%—as open space.

Staff and the applicant described the plan as an integrated conservation subdivision that concentrates building envelopes away from ponding and drainage features, preserves significant meadow and tree stands, and provides a publicly accessible trail network through the open space. Planner Bob Short noted the parcel contains stock ponds, a portion of mapped FEMA flood hazard zone A and a number of trees and rock outcroppings; the design places lots and roads to avoid the most sensitive areas.

Applicant representative Thomas Lampeau said the developer agrees with staff's recommended conditions. \"We agree with staff, with their recommended conditions,\" he told the commission.

Why it matters: The plan uses the county's subdivision density and clustering incentives to reduce lot size in return for large open‑space protection and trails. Planning staff recommended the design because it yields coordinated infrastructure (private roads, maintenance by a property owners' association), protects drainage and wildlife habitat and avoids the fragmented development pattern that can result from piecemeal 10‑acre lot splits.

Public comments and concerns: Neighbors raised standard subdivision concerns at the neighborhood meeting (density, flood hazards, water hauling, fencing and fire protection). During the public hearing several residents spoke about road use, off‑highway vehicle activity and potential septic/percolation issues on shallow soils; one commenter said she hunts in the area and questioned whether new septic designs had been tested on the site's soil types.

Staff response and conditions: County staff identified Arizona Game and Fish recommendations for wildlife‑sensitive construction and required wildlife‑friendly fencing where fencing is proposed. The applicant provided a tree inventory, indicated many trees would be preserved in open space, and submitted a citizen participation report showing outreach to neighboring property owners. Conditions require CC&Rs to govern private road maintenance, trail access and open‑space maintenance.

Commission action: The commission voted to forward a recommendation of approval to the Board of Supervisors. The roll call recorded affirmative votes by Vice Chair Wilson, Commissioner Tohi, Commissioner Best, Commissioner Berger, Commissioner Leslie, Commissioner Hayward and Chair Burton. Final approval and plat recordation will be contingent on the applicant satisfying conditions and completing technical approvals and any required permits.

Next steps: The recommendation will be considered by the Board of Supervisors. The developer must complete the detailed final plat documentation, secure any required permits for access and utilities and satisfy CC&R requirements for road and open‑space management.","The commission unanimously forwarded a recommendation July 30 for preliminary plat SUB25‑003, a clustered 38‑lot conservation subdivision on 335 acres near Mormon Lake that protects about 60% of the land as open space and includes public trails and private roads.",{"_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},6454993,"Commission briefed on Flagstaff regional land‑use draft and county comprehensive plan schedule; staff saw 195 public comments in 60‑day review",341,5053000,5394000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5856846-6011c82fd6080ba604ec19a39e5bf1c1&start=5053&end=5394","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5856846-6011c82fd6080ba604ec19a39e5bf1c1/thumbnail_5053000.jpg","/articles/6454993/Coconino-County/Arizona/Commission-briefed-on-Flagstaff-regional-landuse-draft-and-county-comprehensive-plan-schedule-staff-saw-195-public-comments-in-60day-review","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6454993-861e02b881ba4ec9153dffade025db24/orig.mp4?Expires=1773620828&Signature=Q2FlCDbf3rjAw5kliRdiF2u2vyM4XpLXZiK-WL4X5r-znud6dL6O53Ka84Kmf2n0MJ1esUsKvMtBYIjWlKKcIzoxq05gEc08pDkINLv1cOSQ8sSNlolhlpbUeQNIHFexdkyHw8zHNjJENrR4Fto5wWxjodpf99IVrL9cPu3YEaDFaJf~B92-PF4bAKIqABEHgN3QBcubp3eZki~djmR3dZJFRuvFZTdVKJxKYotMKY753D8Op1OIumQOUqgGFnSSE7TTKRVDYfE8MEjHTJ1H4HYNx7-sV1lruOdosPk31Gg0gkz0U3L-M7Ci5DwFRyIEt9WYL-cNS6eGOEI50jCLcg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Coconino County planning staff provided a progress report July 30 on two planning efforts: the Flagstaff Regional Land Use Plan public‑hearing schedule and the county's own comprehensive plan update.

Flagstaff regional plan: Melissa Shaw (county planning staff) said the city of Flagstaff’s public‑hearing draft was released and identified key upcoming events: the city’s citizen review session on Aug. 27, city planning and zoning hearings in September and the City Council hearing likely in October, followed by a May 2026 ballot measure for city residents. Shaw said county staff will brief the Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of Supervisors after the county's comprehensive plan process is adopted so the county can act on the regional plan's illustrations and policies.

County comprehensive plan: Staff reported the county’s 60‑day review concluded July 18 with 195 comments submitted from across the county; staff will publish comments and proposed responses. The advisory group will meet Aug. 7, and county commissioners and planning commissioners will have a joint work session Aug. 26 (3:15 p.m.) and additional meetings through September and November leading to a Board of Supervisors public hearing on Nov. 18. Staff said the draft plan organizes goals and policies under chapters (land use, natural environment, housing/economy, services and implementation) and includes an implementation plan with numbered actions.

Why it matters: The comprehensive plan will guide county land use and policy for years and is a prerequisite for area plan updates such as the Valley area plan. Commissioners requested an interactive mapping tool to visualize fire‑district boundaries, infrastructure and development patterns; staff said an interactive map is planned and will be linked to the draft plan.

Public comments: Staff summarized themes among comments—land use and sustainability chapters drew the most input, followed by transportation, natural environment and public services. Individual commenters submitted detailed critiques on energy policies, water conservation and wildfire risk; the town of Tusayan and Arizona State Land Department also submitted formal comments that staff will address.

Next steps: Staff will post the public‑hearing draft and responses to comments online, prepare the visual/print design of the plan, and return to commissioners in August and September with detailed materials ahead of the county planning commission and Board hearings.","At a July 30 study session staff updated commissioners on the Flagstaff Regional Land Use Plan public‑hearing schedule and the county comprehensive plan process, reporting the county received 195 comments during the 60‑day review and outlining joint work sessions and public hearings through November.",{"_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},6454997,"County study session reviews HB 2928 changes: more ADUs allowed, options to require affordable deed‑restriction",812,4186000,4998000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5856846-6011c82fd6080ba604ec19a39e5bf1c1&start=4186&end=4998","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5856846-6011c82fd6080ba604ec19a39e5bf1c1/thumbnail_4186000.jpg","/articles/6454997/Coconino-County/Arizona/County-study-session-reviews-HB-2928-changes-more-ADUs-allowed-options-to-require-affordable-deedrestriction","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6454997-708190d7e61e11f5366a111da55fb267/orig.mp4?Expires=1773620828&Signature=oTT2yAXWp--iC0NDGh0L-DXFbSVo-SfKb-rWxE6f6RGw81~nRjuYt7AbKgZVBdO6k-GXOobrosKGTkoX7tjyBg0XcikuJhjUs4AhE8ss35Af4EbY8PfcdTq5DZpZTpiX-ZVODQJVyvyBvh0EJou4GYN~ay3ar2TKKkw~so7zBt5LvfCuZ8AVbLjrJQQXeQqKU7ll0CA-g7r0flAgmg1MvPz5OkrRI0Rhg8cmlU9NM3T2l99Lzzr5JlpS9b6keVVei59eYkok3Z0btJU3DFuPL1DZy7w5EVuxAKFgx1C1EvotDbMPX~sJhfoI46IFnokfmXTNPsh3zvu93ia57aap1A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Coconino County planning staff briefed the Planning and Zoning Commission July 30 on changes required by state law HB 2928 to local zoning for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and on options for how the county could implement the new rules.

Under the new statute, staff said, owners of single‑family residential lots will be entitled to two ADUs: at least one attached to the primary dwelling and one detached. Parcels of one acre or larger will be entitled to a third ADU (an additional detached unit). The state law also gives counties the option to require that the additional detached ADU on one‑acre‑plus parcels be deed‑restricted as affordable housing, defined in statute as units rented to households at or below 80 percent of area median income (AMI).

Planner Jess McNeely told commissioners that the county’s existing ordinance already allows one ADU by right, and previously required a deed restriction; that deed‑restriction requirement had been removed in a prior update. HB 2928 requires changes to the county ordinance, including a maximum ADU size allowance and setback limits. The statute sets a five‑foot maximum side‑setback requirement where a jurisdiction imposes setbacks on ADUs; it also changes the allowable ADU size to up to 75 percent of the primary dwelling (still capped at 1,000 square feet).

Pros and cons discussed: Commissioners and staff discussed the benefits of requiring an affordability deed restriction on the third ADU on one‑acre parcels: it could expand locally accessible housing and would prevent that unit from operating as a short‑term rental. Staff cautioned that administering ongoing income verification and deed restrictions would be more complex and would require coordination with Health & Human Services, which staff said would be willing to income‑qualify tenants. Staff noted wastewater/permitting, septic capacity and setbacks as practical constraints that will limit take‑up of additional ADUs in many parts of the county.

Timing and next steps: State statute requires that the county adopt ordinance changes by the end of the calendar year; staff told commissioners they plan to return with an ordinance draft at the commission’s October public hearing, to allow Board of Supervisors action before year end. Several commissioners asked for more time to consider the affordable‑housing‑deed restriction option; staff said the commission will discuss the issue again at the August study session and at the October hearing.

Quotation: McNeely summarized the choice facing the county: \"This is our option—to make that second detached ADU restricted to affordable housing,\" he said, explaining the tradeoffs between increasing affordable rental stock and the administrative burden of enforcing deed restrictions and income verification.

Context: ADU policy is a county and statewide tool to increase housing supply. Commissioners noted competing interests: expanding affordable units versus the administrative cost and homeowner burdens of income‑restricted units. Staff said they are exploring incentives, model plans and a coordinated program with the City of Flagstaff to offer pre‑approved sustainable ADU plans to reduce design costs and speed permitting.","At a July 30 study session the county planning staff briefed commissioners on state law HB 2928, which requires most single‑family parcels to be allowed two accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and enables counties to require an affordability deed restriction on a third ADU on parcels one acre or larger.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning commission backs zone changes, subdivision for Valley resort and 151-lot manufactured-home workforce park

Planning commission recommends approval of 38‑lot Diablo Canyon subdivision near Mormon Lake

Commission briefed on Flagstaff regional land‑use draft and county comprehensive plan schedule; staff saw 195 public comments in 60‑day review

County study session reviews HB 2928 changes: more ADUs allowed, options to require affordable deed‑restriction