Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board grants 3‑year extension for Glittering Mountain planned community project

5603662 · August 20, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Supervisors unanimously approved a three‑year extension of the planned‑community zone change and development agreement for the 70‑acre Glittering Mountain project near the Twin Arrows interchange, after county staff and applicant representatives described delays and continued project readiness.

Coconino County supervisors on Aug. 19 approved a three‑year extension of the planned‑community (PC) zone change and development agreement for the 70‑acre Glittering Mountain project north of the Twin Arrows interchange (parcel 303‑38‑007F).

Background and staff comments: Community Development staff recalled that the county worked with project representatives when the application was first assembled and that the prior board approved the PC zone change and a development agreement. Staff noted the project is complex — involving multiple uses and utility and jurisdictional interfaces near the Twin Arrows casino and Trust lands — and that the current request is for a three‑year extension of the approval to allow the developer additional time to begin work.

Developer comments and timeline: Nicholas Taylor (acting executive director for Glittering Mountain LLC), Kurt Rosine (Novo Development) and others told the board that the project experienced a slow‑down during the pandemic and that they resumed work in 2023. The developers told supervisors they expect to break ground within the agreed three‑year extension period.

Why the board extended the approval: Supervisors said the project represents a multi‑use development that could create jobs and support nearby communities; the board noted staff work and a development agreement written by county counsel during the original review. Given the project complexity and the applicant’s timeline, the board found a three‑year extension appropriate and voted to extend the approval.

Vote: The motion to adopt the extension ordinance and associated resolution carried by unanimous voice vote.