Council settles with RD Olson to end Heritage Lodge suit – Sedona Red Rock News
The Sedona City Council voted 5-2 on Tuesday, Dec. 10, to reverse its June 25 reversal of the Planning and Zoning Commission’s unanimous approval of Oak Creek Heritage Lodge hotel project on the grounds that it did not satisfy environmental and planning requirements.
The council reversed itself in order to enter into a settlement agreement with property owner RD Olson Development, which sued the city in Yavapai County Superior Court on July 24 for “effectuating [sic] a zoning decision in the context of an administrative appeal,” abusing its discretion and acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner by overturning the commission’s approval.
Prior to the council’s acceptance of the settlement agreement, oral arguments in the suit had been scheduled for Wednesday, Jan. 15.
Under the terms of the agreement, RD Olson will break up the southern cluster of buildings into a larger number of smaller buildings, reduce the extent to which balconies overhang the floodway on the property, increase the number of parking spaces from 90 to 118, set limits on the number of event attendees and non-guest customers and contribute $550,000 toward the city’s proposed creekwalk or pedestrian bridge adjoining the resort property.
The contribution will not be due until the city fully funds the creekwalk plan, the cost of which is estimated by city staff as being $5.5 million.
The City Council’s renewed interest in a creekwalk will be covered in the Dec. 25 edition of the Sedona Red Rock News.
In exchange for these concessions, the council agreed to reverse its previous finding and approve RD Olson’s development review, allowing the project to proceed, and to exempt the Heritage Lodge from the increased development fees that the council voted to approve later during the meeting.
The development fee increase will also be covered in the Dec. 25 edition of the NEWS.
“We’ve received a number of comments alleging that the city does not have authority to change course at this point and that it just has to accept the outcome of the litigation,” City Attorney Kurt Christianson told the council. “The City Council has both inherent authority and express authority to settle this litigation. City Council, just like all litigants, has authority to enter into settlement agreements.”
“No new traffic study was done,” Christianson said in response to a question from Councilman Brian Fultz. “It’s anticipated to be the same, or slightly less with the restrictions on the guests.”
Public Comment
Members of the public came down 10- to-4 in support of the settlement agreement during the hearing.
“It disturbs me that we have to have an attorney and an attorney and an attorney to present developments,” neighbor Jake Weber said, and recommended having either more lawyers or fewer lawyers on the council. “This will help the budget. This is a long-term tourist that stays with us.”
“I ask that you consider this to be a future classic addition to Sedona, because it will be one that we can all be very proud of,” Fred Shinn said.
“I am totally in support of this stellar development,” neighbor Terri Frankel said. “Planning and Zoning got it right … Robert Olson and his team have since polished the diamond.”
“The Olson development is a quality development,” neighbor Mary Kyllo said. “His development will be an asset to my neighborhood.”
“I am absolutely, completely and totally opposed to the scale of Mr. Oslon’s resort,” neighbor Miriam Wackerly said, and predicted that the creekwalk would have “horrible negative effects.”
“You want to open up an area to, what, we have 6, 8, 10 million visitors per year?” Wackerly asked. According to the city’s latest tourism study, the city received an estimated 3,160,322 visits in 2022 and averages 1.39 million unique visitors.
“They’re going to be walking basically in our backyard … It’ll end up a toilet because people will go in Oak Creek. If they have that access, they will … It’s insanity … during COVID, the ducks left, the eagles left, the animals left,” Wackerly said.
“This is a new application. The developer doesn’t want to go through the process again. He wants to steamroll through City Code,” Timothy LaSota said. “The vote was the vote, it was final, and that was it … your code requires you to stick with that decision or approve a new application.” LaSota also urged that arbitrary and capricious arguments are “practically impossible for anyone to win against the government.”
“You guys are trying to erode, with this plan, both sides of the creek,” Michelle Thomas said. “Who’s going to stop people from going in the water?”
“When a guest stays at a fine resort like this, that’s one less house being rented,” Al Comello said.
“Going through this whole process, I just kind of wonder, what is the point of doing it if we’re just going to be met with lawsuits and then not get anything out of it,” said Lauren Thomas, who had initiated one of the appeals of the commission’s decision and was personally sued by RD Olson as a result. “Inviting more people to come to our private area — it’s wrong.”
Councilwoman Melissa Dunn said that she was “cognizant of the compromises that have been made with the settlement” but was still not comfortable that the traffic issues previously raised by members of council had not been resolved.
“When I voted to overturn the P&Z decision, it was expecting that we would arrive at a point of a settlement negotiation,” Fultz said before echoing Dunn’s sentiments on traffic.
“The reality is, it was zoned. The hotel rooms are less than what could be built there … the Olsons have tried to work with us,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said. “I appreciate that we have to compromise in this world … I’m very very conflicted but I’m also very practical.”
“Sedona needs a new resort like I need a new hairbrush, but that’s not the standard,” said Councilman Derek Pfaff, who is bald. “As much as I would like to find an excuse to say no, I’m hard-pressed to figure that.”
“The best would be to leave it virgin land,” Mayor Scott Jablow said.
During the council’s previous hearing on the resort, architect Stephen Thompson told council that the land in question had been under cultivation for 1,200 years.
Jablow then added that the proposed revisions to the resort “solved the issues I had with it.”
The council voted 5-2 to approve the settlement agreement, with Fultz and Dunn opposed.
The yellow-billed cuckoo, which had been referenced by several of the appellants as a reason to overturn the P&Z vote, who suggested the area was cuckoo habitat, was not mentioned.