The city of Sedona’s consultants, Dig Studio of Phoenix, proposed four different options to redevelop the Western Gateway, the city’s term for the former Sedona Cultural Park, during a second planning meeting at the Sedona Performing Arts Center on Wednesday, Feb. 19.

The four options presented included three with high-density housing and one featuring the existing amphitheater surrounded by parking lots.

On entering the Sedona Performing Arts Center — across State Route 89A from the Sedona Cultural Park — attendees were directed past four possible site plans featuring, respectively, 673 housing units, including 288 units in multiple seven-story buildings; 447 housing units in a mix of two-, three- and four-story buildings; 490 units in a mix of two-, three- and four-story buildings; and the existing amphitheater and a number of parking lots.

The results of the first community meeting and survey, held last October, indicated that Sedona residents wanted the park’s revised master plan to combine fewer than 200 units of housing, a recreation center and a restoration of the amphitheater as well as park space.

The Sedona City Council voted in November 2022 to purchase the Sedona Cultural Park from a private developer in 2022 for around $23 million.

First Plan

The first proposal, which Dig Studio described as the “neighborhood concept,” included 288 housing units in seven-story apartment buildings, 160 units in four-story buildings and other assorted two- and three story townhomes and apartment buildings for a total of 673 units with 1,031 parking spaces.

Dig Studio principal Jay Hicks said that the first question his firm asked was, “What’s the maximum capacity we could get on this land?” He noted that by their count, participants at the first public meeting had most commonly asked for 70 apartments and 25 townhomes on the site.

“This to me is very near the carrying capacity of what this land could take,” Hicks said of the 673-unit proposal. He proposed stacking townhomes up the hill currently occupied by the Georgia Frontiere Performing Arts Pavilion amphitheater’s terraces, which he said would allow for great views and the possibility for incorporating swimming pools.

“Three- to four-story is probably could be appropriate because even from here, you’re probably only seeing the top 20 feet or so,” Hicks said of the lower elevations within the park. “Even if you put a six-story building … you would probably see only maybe 30 feet of the building from [State Route 89A].”

Second Plan

The second proposal, the “village concept,” included 323 units of four-story apartments, additional two- and three-story apartment and townhome buildings for a total of 447 units and 847 parking spaces and a 2.6 acre park with an adjacent 192-space parking garage.

“This lives as a community park on a day-to-day basis,” Hicks said of the park area included in the plan. “If there was to be an event area, and not necessarily even a formal amphitheater, this could probably accommodate a couple of thousand people informally. You could hold a festival, you could hold everything like that.”

Third Plan

The third proposal, the “residential and recreation concept,” included 324 units of four-story apartments, additional two- and three-story apartment and townhome buildings, a one-acre park, a 3.4 acre recreation center and two- to three-story mixed-used buildings along State Route 89A for a total of 490 units and 851 parking spaces. The recreation center, Hicks said, “is shown currently at about 30,000 square feet with a pool out back.”

“You could even take this entire block and make it more focused either on retail, or employment, commercial, museums,” Hicks said of the mixed-use space.

Fourth Plan

The fourth proposal, the “amphitheater concept,” included the existing amphitheater and pavilion, a small strip of commercial buildings along SR 89A and 15.4 acres of parking containing 1,472 spaces. The existing master plan, as approved by the Sedona City Council, includes 925 parking spaces on 5.7 acres.

“It may be a land bank,” Hicks suggested.

“These scenarios are conceptual plans,” Community Development Director Steve Mertes promised the audience. “If we still don’t have a major consensus, we will go back to the drawing board and create additional scenarios to bring back to the public.”

Hicks also announced for the first time that Arizona Water Company, which is currently being sued for proposing a 48% rate increase, has requested that one acre of the park be reserved for a future tank.

Following the presentation, attendees were asked to vote for their favorite and least favorite options among the four plans using colored tokens. In contrast to the process followed during previous public planning meetings, which had voters place their tokens in transparent jars so that their fellow members of the public could see the break down of support for the available options, meeting attendees were asked to deposit their tokens in opaque boxes, giving them no way to check or verify the results of the voting beyond accepting city staff’s statements about the outcome.

Costs

Cost estimates for each proposal were not presented during the meeting.

The second phase of the online survey for the redevelopment suggested potential costs ranging from $17 million to $48.6 million for a recreation center, and potential costs between $12 million and $64 million for the construction of a new amphitheater from scratch, while the existing amphitheater’s architects have estimated the structure could be renovated for between $3 million and $5 million.

Public Comments

Attendees wrote comments on Post-It notes:

• “So, where do you want to move? This is worse than I thought.”
• “Epic fail! Anything over two stories is unacceptable.”
• “Disagree with the rec center. Big expenditure for a small — and getting smaller — community.”
• “Too urban and too dense.”
• “Why not keep the rec center and add a small 2,000-person amphitheater, parking garage, remove so much housing.”
• “Seven-story — too high concrete jungle parking mecca.”
• “Go with the amphitheater. If it fails, turn it into one of these three.”
• “Where is culture? Where is art, museums?”
• “Obviously they’re pointing us in a certain direction, clearly. People wanted small gathering spaces, and to give us one that has 0%, one that has only 20% of community space, one that has 30% — obviously the last one has a lot — it seems like they’re not giving us options of what people are really asking for.”
• “Bring Sedona Cultural Park back. Add recreation center. Off-site parking. Add park, tech center.”
• “Absolutely not. Way too many houses.”
• “So low-income housing gets a killer view? No way.”
• “No houses, instead rec center and amphitheater and trailhead.”
• “No seven-story apartments!”
• “I love the proposed housing density. Great use of space.”
• “With this much acreage to work with, there should be more to it than just housing.”
• “That last one was really silly, too. It’s like, we know how to get everyone to vote this one down, let’s just pave it all.”
• “No low-income housing.”
• “Why not reduce green space around buildings and eliminate need for four stories?”
• “Let’s not give up the amphitheater.”
• “No parking garage!”
• “$40 million to build rec center, plus operating costs, not realistic.”
• “Four-story buildings are ruining the view for everyone.”