It’s been a while since one topic has garnered as much interest in the Village of Oak Creek as has talk of a new hotel going in at the corner of State Route 179 and Jacks Canyon Road. Soon, a decision whether or not to approve a zone change request for the construction of a Hilton Garden Inn will be in the hands of county officials. 

The Big Park Regional Coordinating Council and its planning and zoning committee — both of which are advisory in nature and have no regulatory authority — have held several meetings this year on the topic. During the most recent Big Park planning and zoning meeting, its members voted 6-3 in favor of the project. 

The BPRCC was set to meet after press time on Thursday, June 13, to again discuss the topic. The BPRCC ultimately voted against the proposal.

Large crowds have turned out in opposition questioning the hotel’s height, viewshed, traffic and the need for another hotel. In addition, a group called Preserving Our Scenic Legacy recently formed and is encouraging people to attend the upcoming county meetings. 

The Yavapai County Planning and Zoning Commission is set to hear the matter at 9 a.m. on Thursday, June 20, at the county building in Cottonwood followed by the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, July 17.

The original design of the hotel showed it having three stories and 165 total rooms. The zoning for that piece of property has remained the same since 1968. Under the current zoning, only two homes could be built on the 4.74-acre lot, thus a zone change would have to be granted by Yavapai County to the owners, Chandrika and Jack Patel. 

Earlier this month, Patel attorney and spokeswoman Jennifer Boblick gave an update to the Sedona Rock Rock News regarding the project.

• Where do things stand right now?

We are continuing through the rezoning process with hearings approaching. The owners made significant design modifications and proposed multiple stipulations to address concerns regarding the proposal. The request will be considered by the Big Park Regional Coordinating Council at their next regular meeting in June. Their role is to provide a recommendation to the Yavapai County Planning and Zoning Commission. After that, the project proceeds to formal hearings with Yavapai County.

• How much of a redesign has taken place?

We made substantial revisions to the height, building massing and site layout to address community concerns with building height and setbacks. We tried to maintain as many of the original design elements as possible such as the rich materials and colors that allow the buildings to seamlessly blend into the background. 

At a glance, the new design looks very similar to the initial proposal, but is noticeably shorter. We always provided a larger setback along State Route 179 to preserve view corridors. To maintain that setback and modify the height and layout, the design team focused on fitting the new design in substantially the same building footprint. 

The building was lowered by an entire level, which significantly altered the internal configuration and eliminated some of the proposed amenity spaces. Reconfiguring the internal components of a new design to match the original building as closely as possible was no small feat, but our design team was up to the challenge and we are proud of the resulting project.

• Many in the Village are saying the zoning should remain the same. While that may not be realistic, what would you like to say in terms of their desire?

Every person living in one of the many residential subdi¬visions and every business owner in this community have benefitted from the rezoning of their property. All properties in this area were previously zoned RCU [residential] and had to be rezoned to allow all current uses, just like the Patels are requesting. If every property was held to the standard suggested for the Patel’s property, there would be no Village of Oak Creek. We simply ask for the same consideration.

Also, the property cannot be developed with two residential lots as allowed under the current RCU-2A district because the irregular shape of the property limits it to one residential lot. A single, residential home on this corner is not a reasonable use for this property. A single home would not be a compatible use at a major intersection and adjacent to the APS substation. Further, there are no other properties at a major intersection along State Route 179 that are zoned RCU-2A. 

• As for your clients, they say they want to be good neighbors but they are also business owners. How do they balance the two when it comes to this project?

As neighbors, the Patels made a number of compromises on this project in direct response to community input. As business owners, they confirmed that the business model can accommodate the concessions. Every business owner wants to have a successful enterprise and make a reasonable profit. The Patels are no different. As small business owners, the Patels use their success to give back to the local community and hope to do the same here. 

• Many have questioned the need for another hotel. Your clients have done their homework but how would you answer that question/concern in terms of why the need?

A cursory review of existing hotels and occupancy rates in the Village that is being used to question the need for another hotel does not reflect the comprehensive evaluation the Patels used to determine true market viability. There is no doubt that tourism plays a critical role in the Village’s economy. 

This proposed hotel will be one of only two new hotels built in the last 12 years and one of only three built in the last two decades. With newer rooms, amenities and meeting space, this hotel will fill demand for service in market segments not currently covered by the existing older hotel supply. The Patels have completed the necessary market studies to support their significant investment in this business

Ron Eland can be reached at 282-7795, ext. 122 or by email at reland@larsonnewspapers.com