Pete Furman

City to buy West Sedona lot, sell 401 Jordan – Sedona Red Rock News

The Sedona City Council is flipping properties quicker than a short-order cook in a Clarkdale mining camp hurling flapjacks.

Council began its latest venture on Jan. 28, when it considered purchasing from the Dahya Revocable Family Trust of California a 1.8-acre commercial parcel at 2411 State Route 89A, next to Builders’ First Source in West Sedona, for $1.99 million with an estimated $25,000 in closing costs.

Since the city’s more than $18 million in housing reserves are already committed to other projects, the purchase would have to be funded by a transfer from the balance allocated to the Ranger-Brewer roundabout project.

“This potential property has the ability to score high for a 9% [Low-Income Housing Tax Credit] project,” Housing Manager Jeanne Blum said. “This property could support between 36 to 40 [housing] units.”

“The preliminary discussions I’ve had with the engineer tell me that the property looks normal,” Blum said, but added that there was an existing blanket easement on the property.

“This easement that was listed as unspecified,” City Attorney Kurt Christianson explained. “It actually has a defined geographical footprint on the very south side of the lot, and it also, by its own terms, will expire if the three utility poles are ever removed, and they’ve all been cut off, so it appears that it’s an expired easement. And it was on the very south end for electrical uses, so it wouldn’t have interefered with developing the property.”

Blum said the city had already issued a request for proposals to developers interested in building on the property that would run through Jan. 30, while Christianson added that closing on the sale, if approved by council, would be expected for Feb. 25.

Councilman Pete Furman asked if commercial uses on the ground floor of any buildings would be allowed if the property were developed as a LIHTC project.

“It absolutely is possible,” Blum said, although she noted that the commercial elements would have to be financed separately.

Christianson said the difference between developing the property with 4% versus 9% LIHTC funding would be whether the city had to make a contribution to the project between $2 million and $2.5 million versus “a couple hundred thousand,” respectively.

“We’re talking the $35,000, $36,000, $40,000, somewhere in that range,” Blum said with regard to proposed rents for the apartments. Median individual income in Sedona is $33,284. She added that some units for higher-income renters would also be allowed.

Community Development Director Steve Mertes said that the Land Development Code would allow “two stories with a possible of three on one side” and that if it was affordable housing, he would have discretion to allow up to 30 feet in height for the project.

“There’s plenty of commercial. I don’t think we need more,” Councilman Derek Pfaff said.

“This is our commercial corridor and it has a certain look and feel,” Councilman Pete Furman said. “A commercial operation on the streetfront that doesn’t have to exist on the whole first floor might actually be a useful amenity.”

“I would be willing to look at concepts that go above two floors,” Furman added.

“We should leave the possibility open for something on the commercial use on the first floor,” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said.

“I’m really uncomfortable with the process,” Councilman Brian Fultz said. “I am not convinced that we should be rushing, rushing, rushing for this round of 9% LIHTC funding on the basis of oh, well, it may get worse, the opportunities may be of lesser value … We’re just shooting at whatever happens to be in front of us.”

“We can go to three stories there,” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn said. “It’s not blocking anybody’s views.”

Mayor Scott Jablow said that the property’s location was “more suited” to housing than the city’s parcel at 401 Jordan Street in Uptown.

Council then approved the purchase unanimously, and followed it up on Feb. 11 with another unanimous vote to sell the city property at 401 Jordan to the Sedona Fire District as a location for a new Uptown station.

Christianson concluded that SFD’s appraisal had established the lot’s fair market value. He also stated SFD had asked for an extended due diligence period, moving the proposed closing date to June 1, and that the city and SFD would also have to discuss future plans to relocate the two electric vehicle chargers at the site.

Annexation process moves ahead with 6-1 vote – Sedona Red Rock News

The Sedona City Council voted 6-1 to proceed with annexing 3,422 acres of U.S. Forest Service land and cityowned property within the county at a public hearing on Tuesday, Jan. 14.

City Attorney Kurt Christianson confirmed to council that no property within the proposed annexation area is privately owned and that the three property owners within the annexation area, the city of Sedona, the Arizona Public Service electric utility and the Coconino National Forest, hold only property with no assessed value and therefore are not required to approve or vote on the annexation.

Christianson also said that three entities have leases or other rights associated with assessed property values within the annexation area: APS, EDP Renewables, which operates the solar panels at the city’s sewer plant, and Lumen Technologies.

“Of the three, we’ll need two of the three to sign in support,” Christianson said. “A majority of the property owners and a majority of the properties’ assessed value. EDP Renewables and APS have already indicated they have no issues with the annexation and would support it.”

“There will be a policing impact on city services but otherwise no impact on city services,” Christianson said, observing that the Sedona Police Department currently receives “hardly any calls for service” to the area, although the sewer plant is already under SPD jurisdiction pursuant to the city’s agreement with Yavapai County.

If annexed, the land within the annexation area will be automatically zoned single-family residential. City Manager Anette Spickard said that transfer of ownership of that land from the USFS to a private owner would be “technically possible” but “highly unlikely.”

“The Forest has a very strict policy and criteria that govern how any of the Forest land in this district could go out of Forest ownership,” Spickard said. “It has to either have an act of Congress request or they have to be eligible under some very specific federal acts to ask for an exchange. Even if a proposal came in out of one of those three things, they have to meet substantial criteria … and the city would have a say in that, because it has to meet a community need.”

Three residents spoke during the public hearing, only one of whom expressed a definite opinion on the proposal.

“I’m wondering if the city would consider placing a deed restriction on the entire property to prevent commercial development and residential development forever,” Oak Creek Canyon resident Rick Black said. “Placing a deed restriction on it tells the world, tells everybody, tells the city and its citizens that the property cannot be developed.”

Nena Barlow, owner of the Barlow Adventures Jeep tour company, asked that city staff consider devising a better way for off-highway vehicles to cross the highway as part of the planned redesign of the State Route 89A intersection at the Sedona Wastewater Reclamation Facility, which is within the annexation area.

“I’d like to focus more on the reasons why you’re pursuing this,” said Cliff Hamilton, a former Sedona vice mayor. “You’re concerned that Cottonwood may be trying to leapfrog annex more in our direction … the other one being, of course, this issue with Yavapai County having to do with building the bus barn out there at the wastewater plant. Starting with the first one, looking at that particular area, any sort of public infrastructure that you might want to think about in terms of future development, I would say personally is never going to happen … there were really none of them that really were suitable or appropriate for that area … Any kind of public infrastructure development out there was something that [Arizona Department of Transportation] told us they would not tolerate … they would not grant the city access to the road for that sort of thing.

“If you’re looking at this issue with Yavapai County and want to sort of get around them to build this bus facility out there, that seems a pretty thin reason to me,” Hamilton continued. “This looks more to me like trying to swat a fly with a sledgehammer.”

“While it changes jurisdictional boundaries, it doesn’t change ownership of the land,” Christianson clarified following the hearing. “There’s no possibility for the city to place a deed restriction on the Coconino National Forest land. It doesn’t own it.”

With regard to the city’s property within the annexation area, “if the city places some deed restriction on it, the city could just take it off,” Christianson added.

“One council can’t constrain a future council,” Councilman Brian Fultz said. “It kind of feels like we would be doing that by putting a conservation easement on that property, so I’m not really in favor of that … I don’t see a reason why we would want to preclude an opportunity to develop in future.”

“If development in the future … occurs on the Dells, and if that includes housing, then those people have a right to have a voice in Sedona,” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn said. “Unless we do this annexation, they will have no voice, because they will be living in the [Yavapai] County.”

“If there is to be residential development, then the people who live there should have a say in their government because it would be city-owned land,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said.

“Whether or not this property is annexed has no effect on whether there’s going to be a land swap,” Councilman Derek Pfaff said. “It doesn’t make it any more or less likely that there could be a land swap. If at some point in the future the standards for a land swap are loosened, and a land swap does take place, I’d rather we have jurisdiction over it than someone else.”

“I’m supporting this annexation with a preservation mindset for this area,” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said. “There’s land to still be built on in Sedona.”

Mayor Scott Jablow said that Yavapai County’s zoning guidelines are less “restrictive” than those of Sedona and commented that if “we’re going to do any kind of project, 20 years, 30 years from now, hopefully I won’t see that,” but should a future council allow development of the Dells, he also wanted potential future voters to be located within the city.

Councilman Pete Furman continued to protest the annexation proposal.

“This to me looks like a rushed — what I will call a major change in public policy in Sedona,” Furman said. “It was a very unheralded element in our Community Plan that changed for the first time in years and years and years and years without really a public debate. I would bet that 99% of our population does not know that public policy was changed by the Community Plan. I remain puzzled by the need and the timing … I’m also worried about unknown decisions by future council.”

“Leave a good thing alone,” Furman concluded.

Following a motion by Ploog to proceed with the annexation process, the council voted 6-1 in favor, with Furman as the sole dissenter.

A date has not been set for staff to bring the signed petition back to council for approval.