Pete Furman

Council chooses Phoenix firm for new Cultural Park master plan – Sedona Red Rock News

On July 9, the Sedona City Council unanimously voted to awarded a $254,242 contract to Dig Studio of Phoenix to create a new master plan for the Sedona Cultural Park. A total of five firms replied to the city’s request for proposals, none of which were based in Sedona.

“We will propose a series of concepts, including housing and mixed-use development types and adaptive reuse possibilities, streetscape, mobility, connectivity and public realm improvements, and trail and national forest access points design,” Dig Studio’s scope of work for the contract stated.

The contract will run through Aug. 5, 2025. The firm will be responsible for conducting the city’s proposed public outreach program regarding the park’s future development and producing three alternative concept plans “that will be vetted through the public and then brought to P&Z and finally to council,” Community Development Director Steve Mertes said.

“Is this going to be one big project? Is it going to be phased? Is it going to be parceled out in sort of multiple littler projects?” Councilman Pete Furman asked.

Mertes explained that the master planning process would not be part of the development process, but was instead intended to make development easier through “understanding what uses the public is looking for.”

“Is it going to be one RFP to build all the candy?” Furman asked.

“We can’t tell that at this point,” Mertes said.

“There has been some interest expressed around public facilities,” Councilman Brian Fultz said. “Do you anticipate we would get ballpark figures on what it would cost to do certain grandiose things with this land?”

“Will we get absolute numbers? Probably not. Will we get ballpark numbers? Yeah, I would assume so,” Mertes said.

Fultz asked if questions related to the proposed uses for the Cultural Park would be included on the city’s next budget survey in the spring of 2025. “Timing-wise, that’s not a bad time,” Fultz suggested.

“I think it’s a very good idea,” Mertes answered.

The city’s 2022 budget survey included a question on residents’ preferred future uses for the Cultural Park. Of the 11 options offered to respondents, four were various housing uses. Reopening the Georgia Frontiere Performing Arts Pavilion as a performance space was excluded from the city’s survey.

At the time, respondents ranked preserving the park as open space as their highest priority; open space preservation scored almost twice as high as any proposed housing use. Of the 185 written comments submitted in response to the “other” option on the questionnaire, 62, or 33%, called for the restoration of the park as a performing arts and music venue.

“Is there any concern you have that the public participation process isn’t robust enough, knowing how much the public likes to participate?” Fultz continued. “I expect there will be epic level of interest in engagement.”

“We’re having three [meetings] in a one-year process,” Mertes said. “This does and will give more than enough possibility for the public to provide their input.”

The scope of work for the contract calls for Dig Studio to have 26 biweekly design meetings with city staff, plus a kickoff meeting; eight stakeholder meetings with stakeholders defined primarily as city council members, city staff and adjacent property owners; two additional meetings with the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission; two public meetings to take public comment; and one public meeting to inform the public of their conclusions.

Then-Vice Mayor Scott Jablow stated at the time of the park’s purchase for more than $23 million that “the public outreach that’s going to be done is going to be extensive,” while thenCouncilwoman Holli Ploog stated that “there is no way this land will be developed without intensive public participation.”

When asked on Aug. 7 if she was confident that the limited number of public meetings would meet the definition of extensive and robust, City Manager Anette Spickard said, “I think so. I am positive that we will allow people to provide us input throughout. If they want to send things in during that whole process, there are opportunities always to provide input to us.”

“If we just said there’s only two public meetings but 30 staff meetings, that wouldn’t really characterize it since we’re going to be doing a lot of different types of outreach to try to capture as many people’s thoughts as we can, recognizing that everybody can’t come to an in-person meeting,” Spickard added. “Obviously there’s groups out there that have very specific ideas that they think should happen, and I’m hoping that they provide their input in this process.”

The contract and scope of work make no reference to the existing amphitheater or to potential arts and culture uses for the property long sought by the community. Spickard did not say if consideration of options for reopening the venue would be included in the planning process.

“I’m not going to close the door on anything or promise anything,” Spickard said. “This is supposed to be an open process from start to finish without any preconceived assumptions. It depends on what they gather from the public input … I think we’re open to all suggestions about uses for that property and ways they can complement each other.”

Spickard also said that the proposal to begin constructing apartments on the northeast corner of the property prior to any planning being done will now be “waiting for the master planning.”

4-3 Sedona City Council overturns unanimous P&Z approval of Oak Creek Heritage Lodge – Sedona Red Rock News

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.

City Council unanimously supports Oak Creek crossings to relieve traffic congestion – Sedona Red Rock News

After passing financing for the Uptown parking garage during the June 11 meeting, the Sedona City Council expressed unanimous support for Yavapai County constructing multiple crossings of Oak Creek to reopen alternative routes and relieve traffic congestion.

During his presentation to council on possible future transport collaborationss with the Northern Arizona Council of Governments, Deputy City Manager Andy Dickey proposed that the city begin “renewing a discussion on a need for a regional connection.”

“In 2018, we completed the transportation master plan, and one of the strategies within that master plan was SIM-13,” Dickey elaborated. “That particular strategy did identify a specific connection specifically at the Red Rock Crossing, the idea being that there is a need to connect from the south of the city to the west. This would be a connection that allows for bypassing congestion. At the time we did through our analysis determine that this would not necessarily be a congestion relief due to the anticipated amount of traffic that would bypass the congested area.”

“While that particular strategy did identify a specific connection, this renewed discussion is really centered on looking at the idea of multiple possible connections and whether or not the city wants to advocate to Yavapai County the possibility of analyzing those alternative connections,” Dickey continued. “Both NACOG and Verde Valley TPO are pursuing a transportation master plan update right now and so the city would notify them about the city’s desire to pursue this.”

Mayor Scott Jablow asked how the city would have standing with the county to pursue reopening of Red Rock Crossing, which is outside the city limits.

“I think we would go to the county and let them know they have the city’s support,” Dickey said. “Maybe advocating for certain funding opportunities that might be utilized with this sort of effort … just making it clearer to the county that the city is at the table and willing to help.”

“That might be the intent of the alternative analysis, to look at what options might be out there,” Dickey added. “Maybe that’s part of the partnering we do with the county is looking at alternatives.”

City Attorney Kurt Christianson reminded the council that in addition to entering into intergovernmental agreements to pursue such a project, “the city can also annex roadways outside of city limits and just annex the roadways.”

All seven council members said they were in favor of such a proposal.

“I’m supportive of the SIM-13 notion of trying to move that forward,” Councilman Brian Fultz said. “I think we do owe it to look at that periodically.”

“Any time we can make diversionary tactics for moving traffic and people around the city, it’s a good thing,” Councilwoman Melissa Dunn said. “I think it’s certainly worth investigation. We hear about it all the time.”

“For many years it’s almost been a sacred cow to not do a bypass,” Vice Mayor Holli Ploog said. “This is going to be a long process. It’s time to get started. I will give the [Sedona] Red Rock News credit for pounding us on this … We’re going to have to just bite the bullet, I think, and get started, because it’s probably a five-to-10-year process.”

“There need to be four, six, whatever locations looked at all at one to see what is feasible and what would it take at each,” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella said. “This is a personal priority now for me I’ve established for myself this year … there needs to be an alternate way to get around Sedona … We just can’t put our heads in the sand anymore.”

“Ditto,” Councilman Pete Furman said.

“I like the idea of not just one but three or four different ways,” Councilwoman Jessica Williamson said. “Then it’s not just a question of one person’s neighborhood, it’s a question of four peoples’ neighborhoods, and I always loved spreading it around.”

“We need to do something. There’s not question in my mind now is the time,” Jablow said. “I’m just worried about the pushback we’re going to get.”

The single public comment was made by Lars Romig, who supported the idea of regional connections, proposed the council look at reopening Chavez Crossing and asked the council to make sure that the area “was site-hardened really well” to prevent roadside parking along those roads.

Possible Routes

Council discussion mentioned two specific crossing locations:

• Improving and utilizing the existing lowwater crossing at Oak Creek Cliffs Drive, the historic Chavez Crossing, behind Poco Diablo Resort, as a connector route by extending Oak Creek Cliffs Drive along the north bank of the creek to join up with Chavez Ranch Road, thereby creating a link to Red Rock Loop Road and West Sedona.
• Reconstructing the historic Red Rock Crossing to reconnect Verde Valley School Road with Red Rock Crossing Road at the Crescent Moon Picnic Site as an alternate route to West Sedona. This lowwater crossing existed for decades before floods washed it in out in 1978, 1983 and 1993. The U.S. Forest Service granted an easement in 1986. In 1996, the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors announced its intention to build a 2,000-foot-long, 47-foot-wide bridge 27 feet above the creek near the site, but it was never built.