The Sedona City Council overturned the Planning and Zoning Commission’s unanimous approval of a development review for the proposed Oak Creek Heritage Lodge during its Tuesday, June 25 meeting, by a 4-3 vote, with several members citing building size, parking, traffic and environmental concerns with the project that they argued did not conform to the city’s community plan.
P&Z’s approval had been appealed separately by a pair of Bear Wallow Lane residents whose homes adjoin the property and by an Uptown resident.
Refused to Recuse
The council hearing began with developer’s attorney Nick Wood asking two members of the council to recuse themselves.
“We now know that two of you who signed a petition before you were councilmembers are nos, that you are not in support of this case,” Wood said, referring to a petition asking P&Z to ensure the developer met the Schnebly Community Focus Area standards that had been included in additional public comments for P&Z’s April 16 hearing. As a result, he argued, a violation of open meeting law occurred because the agenda packet “contained the signatures of the two of you, and now it became a communication to you telling everyone on this council, and everyone in this room, and us particularly, where your votes are.”
The petition had been signed by Brian Fultz and Melissa Dunn before they were elected to council.
“As a resident at that time, you’re free to sign any petitions you want,” City Attorney Kurt Christianson said, adding that the petition’s inclusion in the packet was not an open meeting violation. No council members recused themselves.
Appellants
“The structures and the proposed lodging and accessory buildings are out of scale with the rural character in the CFA vision,” appellant Mark TenBroek of Uptown argued. “The development has obvious flood risks and does not protect the riparian corridor.”
Ann Kelley said council should demand changes to “deliver a development design that’s less traffic than medium-density single-family,” with development being excluded not only from the floodway but also from the projected 100-year and 500-year floodplains.
TenBroek further claimed that “natural setting” is “something that Sedona does not have much within its boundaries,” although 50% of the city of Sedona is undeveloped Coconino National Forest land.
“If it didn’t impact us, we wouldn’t be here today,” appellant Lauren Thomas said, citing traffic congestion and trespassing from people accessing Oak Creek. Thomas said residences are less destructive to the environment than visitors and questioned whether events and weddings were “a proper accessory use” for the zoning.
After appellant Christine Wagner objected to the developer defending the appeal, Christianson stated that P&Z would not be required to defend a case unless the city was an applicant, offering an analogy: “A trial judge may make the decision, but he doesn’t go up on appeal to the appellate court to defend his own decision. It’s up to the parties to do that.”
Applicants
“Both sides for 40 minutes were arguing a zoning case. This is not a zoning case,” Wood said. “All the things they brought up, things such as land use, the land use decision was made in 2020.” He noted that council could have added any land use restrictions it wanted to the zoning when the zoning area was established, but had chosen not to do so. “Once you approve the zoning case, traffic is no longer on the plate for you to reconsider … the zoning permits a hotel and they have a right to use it.”
If the proposed project “is permitted as a matter of law … you have to approve it,” Wood summarized.
“We have significantly scaled back the development as a result of work sessions and community outreach,” RD Olson Vice President Anthony Wrzosek said.
“We will be part of this community in a good and positive way … we want to be here for a long time and represent Sedona in a very high-quality way,” developer Robert Olson said.
Public Comment
“Their idea and our idea was very very different,” Bear Wallow resident Nancy Rob Dunst said.
“The waterways were the first settled” in the area, architect Stephen Thompson told the council, pointing out that the Hisatsinom had begun farming the area 1,200 years ago. “There’s not much riparian zone left there. It’s pretty much landscaped right to the water’s edge.”
“It’s important to me, owning the property across the street, that we have quality developments that come here,” said Jake Weber, who owns the historic Gassaway House, and described himself as “impressed” by the developers.
“The developer has not met the CFA,” Schnebly Hill resident Pandora Harris said. “It’s not a boutique hotel, which is what we were promised.”
Bear Wallow resident Mike McCarthy credited the developers for taking his input into account but expressed general concerns about “how the city can manage the hotels that are along the creek” to reduce noise.
“It’s going to lead to trespassing,” Michelle Thomas said. “People are going to have to trespass to get to your creek access … The city of Sedona, what they get from this, they get a creek easement, and that’s what the whole city of Sedona’s been all wild about.”
Michael Thomas said he had concerns about “critical habitat, adding, “I’ve been fishing that section of the river up from the bridge for 40 years.”
Building Scale
“That’s a big difference in my mind from modestlyscaled buildings,” Mayor Scott Jablow said of the project’s average building size of 1,638 square feet and maximum size of 4,198 square feet. “Can you address how you thought you were fulfilling the CFA?”
Wroszeck pointed out that the zoning area’s definition of modestly-scaled buildings is a maximum of 5,000 square feet, “so, yes, we believe they are modestly scaled.”
“That’s not a cabin and that’s not modest,” Jablow said. “It’s subjective. I don’t think it meets the basic form of the community plan.”
“I don’t see where a 70- unit hotel feels very small or designer,” Councilman Brian Fultz said.
Wildlife
“I’m concerned about these two threatened species,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said in reference to Lauren Thomas’ argument that the narrow-headed garter snake and yellow-billed cuckoo would be affected by the project.
“That is not a reason to approve or deny this project,” Christianson said. “Critical habitat areas don’t generally apply to citizens engaged on private property.”
Councilwoman Melissa Dunn worried about the effects of the hotel on the amount of light reaching the creek, sediment, wildlife corridors and the effects of human behavior on creek health. Planning Manager Cari Meyer explained that these elements are not code requirements.
Burden for Appeal
“I think it’s a big, big burden of fact that is needed to overturn on appeal,” Councilwoman Jessica Williamson said. “In my view, the burden has not been met by the appellants.”
“I do think I have a high standard for overturning a P&Z recommendation … and I don’t think that burden was met tonight,” Councilman Pete Furman said. He suggested adding requirements to incorporate wildlife corridors and endangered species protections in future Land Development Code revisions.
“I don’t think the two appeals meet the standard for overturning,” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said.
“I do find that appellant has exceeded my bar for overturning the P&Z decision,” Fultz said, adding there was no protection for open space or the creek.
“I don’t feel comfortable that the wildlife habitat is being protected,” Dunn said.
“I just don’t feel like that’s been met,” Ploog said regarding traffic access. She also described the area, which was the earliest part of Sedona to be settled and farmed, as “untouched.”
Fultz, Dunn, Ploog and Jablow then voted to uphold the appeal and revoke the approval of the development review on the grounds of LDC sections 8.3.E(5), paragraph C, lack of conformity with the community plan’s and focus area plan’s traffic, lodging and safety requirements; paragraph G, failure to minimize adverse environmental consequences; and paragraph J, failure to provide adequate road systems and traffic mitigation.
Developer’s Response
“In 2020, the City Council legislatively approved the existing zoning on our property which permits development of a hotel,” Olson said following the meeting. “However, the mayor and three council members, on a 4-3 vote, decided to overturn the planning commission’s unanimous approval by applying general plan guidelines and zoning considerations that had already been considered when the zoning was approved in 2020. The application of general plan and zoning considerations are not legally permitted and may not be revisited when the council is considering this administrative appeal from the final decision of the planning commission. We are considering all of our options.
