Home » From The Readers, Letters to the Editor » Another Three Story Sedona Hotel for VOC

Another Three Story Sedona Hotel for VOC

Sedona AZ – The following is a letter to the SedonaEye.com editor. At the request of its author and due to its continued relevancy, we are re-publishing this January 2019 letter again:

The Jacks Canyon and SR 179 roundabout southeast corner property owners (Patel) are requesting a zoning map change and variances and multiple setback waivers in order to erect a Hilton Garden Inn 165 room and 3 story hotel and extended stay facility in the VOC. The above rendering was submitted with the project. The 4.65 acre corner lot is presently zoned residential/rural RCU-2A.

Another 3-story hotel in the VOC.

Owners of the vacant property at the corner of Jacks Canyon and Hwy 179 have requested rezoning and variances. The county document dated, October 30, 2018 is available for community members to review.

The property at the corner of Jacks Canyon and Hwy 179 is zoned residential and will need to be rezoned to accommodate the proposed 3-story hotel, Hilton Garden Inn.

It is important that community members email Yavapai County with comments regarding the rezoning and variances by Friday, January 11, 2019. Use this email: planning@yavapai.us. (Leah Genovese – leah.genovese@yavapai.us is the plan reviewer.)

A recent controversial issue, a master sign plan, was strongly opposed by the community. The county dismissed the opposition as “too late” and approved the plan.

According to the county document, the comment deadline for this latest controversial development is January 11. The county P&Z meeting to recommend or not recommend the request is February 21, 2018. The board of supervisors will decide on the request on March 20, 2019.

The VOC is a cash cow for the county. Our tax dollars support a college in Prescott. Tourist development revenue will go out of the VOC. This is about money. Some things are more important than money. Water, traffic, housing, etc.

Take action. Spread the word. The county isn’t going to tell you.

Big Park Council doesn’t even have the issue on the agenda for the January meeting.

Stop the VOC from being turned into a resort town.

Send your comments to the county. Don’t let the deadline be an excuse for the county to ignore community comment.

Barb Gordon
VOC resident

Read www.SedonaEye.com for daily news and interactive views!



  1. Barb Gordon says:

    Update. Regarding Hilton Garden Inn. I attended the Big Park Council meeting today, January 10, 2019. It was reported the January 11th deadline is for the various departments, not the public comment. It was reported that the public may comment right up until the March 20th supervisors’ vote. Keep in mind, the supervisors criticized the public for not communicating earlier in the process with the sign plan. The latest message is that the public needs to influence Big Park Council and VOCA before those groups make recommendations to the county. The supervisors will rely heavily on the recommendations from Big Park Council and VOCA. Do not delay in sending opinions to the county, Big Park Council and VOCA (if you are a member of VOCA). The Big Park Council P&Z committee will meet tomorrow, January 11 at 9am at the Church of the Nazarene. No public comment will be allowed. The VOCA calendar indicates the Architectural Committee will meet on January 17 at 10am. If you are a VOCA member, confirm the day and time and agenda. VOCA will have a recommendation separate from Big Park Council. If you want to influence the recommendation, you must participate. At least that was the message I felt was sent at the meeting today.

  2. Rise and shine BIG PARK says:

    My view:

    The owners in that subdivision would have to give permission from the majority of Pine Creek 2 in order to change the zoning. I got that from VOCA years ago. Pre Hoamco.

    For a copy of the CCR’s call:

    690 Bell Rock Blvd., Sedona, AZ 86351
    fax: 928-284-3138

    Pine Creek 2 CCR’s.
    These CCR’s are self renewing and listed with the County.

    Tract B and Tract A are all part of this Pine Creek 2 Subdivision.

    Tract B may be used for public utility, sewage disposal, and business purposes.
    The operative word is MAY.

    The stakeholders of Pine Creek 2 under the guidance of a stakeholder in that subdivision that can be trusted to act with integrity should be overseeing process of making decisions or recommendations as a collective concerning re zoning. Someone might canvass that neighborhood and get consensus if possible.

    You might talk to the subdivision about the reality of traffic congestion out of Jacks Canyon Rd and 179, delivery trucks, dumpster trash removal noise, lights, cars moving in and out noise. People noise. What would happen to their RIGHT to quiet enjoyment as homeowners?

    Draft from 11/28/18 Voca Board Meeting

    Supervisor Garrison asked the VOCA BOD if they were interested in weighing in on any re-zoning requests that come forward regarding this parcel, considering that the parcel is within the VOCA HOA associations. The BOD will take this under advisement as developments occur.

    VOCA may decide to bypass the subdivision CCR’s because they seem to do whatever they want with out subdivisions knowledge or approval. That is documented.

    There is a conflict of interests with a VOCA board member sitting on the BPWWID finance Board.

    The County is supposed to consider the community Vision statement which seemed to be completely ignored when they approved the Westin at Oak Creek outlets.

    The County counted the outlet existing building as a basement so no community engagement for the third floor. That building has now obliterated our view shed for residents, visitors and affected the businesses across the street. You could ask if the County if they followed the legal interpretation of the builder without doing their own? Ask for documentation. It could set a precedence although these lots in the new request appear to be original elevation.

    There is also a loophole in the County ordinance concerning elevation that needs to be fixed. Ask the County (development services) what that loophole is and close it.
    I would focus on that before any more building. Talk to your County Supervisor Garrison. As most of you know, all of this building has started since the last supervisor left.


    The County is very aware of the Big Park communities desires concerning small town character yet were happy to make 200,000.00 in room fees for the Westin with a parking shortage. The hotel is borrowing 69 parking spaces from the other side of the outlet which is going to house 3 restaurants. They already have a parking problem as far as I am concerned. They did not feel a traffic study was in order so no traffic study.

    These parcels are right next door on the other side of Jacks Canyon Rd.

    Here are the Parcels in Tract B in Pine Creek 2

    Parcel 405-33-479G

    Bhagavanshriji LLC
    PO Box 217
    Flagstaff, AZ 96002

    Parcel 405-33-479

    Big Park Improvement District
    3603 Crossings Dr
    Prescott, AZ 86305-7101

    Check to see if the wastewater parcel(405-33-479)in that grouping is contaminated in any way. That might help. Call ADEQ on that one. Not BPWWID.

    PS if you call ADEQ to request that parcel be looked at, here is the number:

    There is a question that BPWWID never filled the abandoned wastewater piping with sand when they stopped using it on that parcel so is it still usable for the district? Who does it actually belong to? Look into that. There is talk of selling it.

    I would go deep into the ability of the wastewater district to handle capacity for all this building? They might tell you that it was factored in a long time ago. I would make them prove it with data, it might have been factored in as a residential with how many houses?

    There is a conflict of interests with an existing VOCA board member sitting on the BPWWID finance Board.

    Parcel 405-33-479D

    Double Eagle Development Corporation Inc
    PO Box 21059
    Sedona, AZ 86341-1059

    Parcel 405-33-479E

    Arizona Public Service Company
    PO Box 53999, Ms 9565
    Phoenix, AZ
    Do they have a plan?

    For business owner/parcel owner information, look it up on the Az Corp Commission or County website.



    Our school has been closed and we have no medical facilities to support Big Park. This lot was designated as Village Services in our old community plan which the County accepted before they placed an overlay on the corridor when the community plans were taken over by the County.
    Village Services designation was for buildings that would service the community like a hospital or urgent care, not the passerby, looking for a place to sleep.

  3. GG says:

    With 3D rendering available why is the county accepting project drawings that grossly misrepresent view and size impact? The drawings submitted for the project to the county do not represent the project truthfully. Why is Supervisor Garrison part of this subterfuge? The backlash in the voting booth will be tremendous. VOC isn’t Sedona city. They vote people out of office that don’t have or act in their best interests.

    Nobody I’ve ever spoken to cares if Prescott gets money from us. We don’t need or want Prescott in our local business, and the last Supervisor knew that and kept the braying dogs away. But Prescott serves as county seat and that’s fine.

    The past Supervisor chose not to run and was disliked by developers and some of VOCA board and the Big Park Council. Now we know why because he kept their groups greed in check. The people should ask him to run again and vote him back in. Let’s see 3D renderings of this project when its overlaid in Google maps street view and approach. Somebody ask local business to have it on view for people to see and comment on.

    VOC now has full views of Bell Rock and Cathedral and Courthouse on its scenic highway, named by the state because of those red rock views, but this project will allow a neon signed, higher building approach from the south that will block the view of Bell Rock / Courthouse and Jacks Canyon vistas when entering VOC and be seen from Las Piedras development and VOCA developments. This is an inappropriate usage of this piece of VOCA land. And it appears to be illegal.

    All the zoning variance and setback waivers should NEVER be considered and any business on this site should meet the most stringent height and footprint rules. That’s why its present zoning exists and not for some Supervisor and Developers to get variances and setback changes to line their pockets and leave the VOC decimated.

    VOCA better get busy and pass a restricted height and variance requirements for its properties which I thought it had – because the Hilton wasn’t allowed to add floors, why is this franchiser allowed to build higher than corporate Hilton? If this was an apartment complex with 165 rooms, people would be screaming bloody murder! This is no different except it appeals to transients which mean more need of police presence, more crime, more drugs, more traffic, more late night issues with transient hotel guests partying or walking our neighborhoods. This place will have a big bar which our VOC hotels presently don’t have because they cater to more high end boutique guests and outdoor aficionadas regardless of what the project developer denigrated the hotels as being. The developer denigrated all the locally owned and run properties even though they have proven track records and their financial return to the community is greater than any franchise or corporate return! That’s proven fact.

    Start to circulate petitions. Start to organize to replace present Supervisor. Share this story link with every single person you know. Start protests in Prescott and VOC to say no to this grossly inappropriate business application. Learn to say no. We sent Taco Bell packing. Send this project.

    We don’t need to be the spittoon for Sedona city tourists.

  4. Barb Gordon says:

    In early January, the VOCA architecture committee sent the county a letter stating opposition to the re-zoning and variances for the Hilton Garden Inn. Apparently, the VOCA architecture committee has the authority, without the board or the members, to decide on such things. This could have been but was not announced at the January 10 BPRCC meeting.

    BPRCC P&Z committee met January 18. Observers were invited. There was no sound system to allow observers to easily hear the committee members conversing about committee business.

    Question: Did the property owner request a THREE story hotel so that if a TWO story hotel is approved, it will look like the community won something? Remember the property is still zoned residential. The county can just say “No.”

    BPRCC P&Z acted to get the meeting dates regarding the Hilton Garden Inn set for later dates than were originally published in the application.

    BPRCC meeting to vote on recommendation to County: Thursday, February 14, 9 am, Village of Oak Creek Fire Station. Find out how to contact your representative. As of 1-18-19, the list of representatives on the BPRCC web site is years out of date. Contact your HOA to find out who represents you at BPRCC. Let your representative know your opinion.
    Yavapai County P&Z Commission meeting to vote on application recommendation:Thursday March 21, 9 am, Yavapai County Government Bldg, Cottonwood. Community members may attend.

    Yavapai County Board of Supervisors meeting to vote on application decision: Wednesday, April 17, 9 am, Yavapai County Government Bldg, Cottonwood. Community members may attend and should be allowed to comment.

  5. Barb Gordon says:

    The BPRCC P&Z committee does NOT allow comments from the audience at their meetings. Observers only. This is a CHOICE. There is nothing prohibiting the committee from allowing the community to speak at their meetings. Many public meetings allow observers to comment when it is not required. It may mean more effort to plan and facilitate the meeting, but is is worth the effort. I realize the committee is all volunteer. Volunteers should be ready to act in the best interest of the community. Allowing comments often results in gaining good information and better ideas.

  6. What's happening at Jacks Canyon says:

    To Rise and Shine BIG PARK: BPWWID took action at their November 2018 meeting to sell or lease 405-33-479.The meeting minutes are online. Interesting timing. Make me wonder if there is a connection to the Hilton Garden Inn.

    Pine Creek 2 should wake up and use their power to stop the Hilton Garden Inn.

    On a side note, BPWWID has not yet changed the mandatory hookup ordinance as they promised they would when VOCA granted the easement that will allow BPWWID to enter the Fairway Oaks subdivision. See the November meeting minutes again. No action on changing the ordinance.

  7. June Cosmo says:

    Why VOC homeowners organizations don’t see a need to keep its independence from Sedona city and from the County depresses me as a resident. Its the independence that is our strength. The homeowners associations need to be transparent and be strong in their rules and regulations and remove the layer of property management by a Phoenix corporation in VOCA. Go back to what gave you clout! You wouldn’t have a Westin giving the VOC its middle finger because they would have to come through the homeowners associations first. Big Park Regional Council has always been dominated by group-think and not VOC centered group-think! Do you think Hilton Resort is in favor of Patel’s franchise? They aren’t. Go to them and get their help. Do you think VOC businesses are in favor of losing parking to a behemoth that doesn’t and won’t provide them customers but suck them into higher rents and no increased customer base? Find out what power means. Toss out the Sedona Village mentality and embrace Dark Sky Golf Tennis Hiking Healthy Quiet Residential Scenic Highway Views Village of Oak Creek. Don’t allow what makes the VOC sought after disappear!

  8. What's happening at Jacks Canyon says:

    A third BPRCC P&Z meeting to discuss the Hilton Garden Inn was held on January 25, 2019. The committee is supposed to make a recommendation to BPRCC regarding the rezoning of the property from residential to commercial and variances to allow the hotel. The agenda indicated a motion on this issue was possible. Reports from the meeting indicate there was no motion.

    About six community members attended the first BPRCC P&Z committee meeting with the hotel on the agenda. That was on January 11. It was announced the day before at a BPRCC meeting. The lack of notice was likely the reason for low attendance. It was the choice of BPRCC P&Z committee not to allow the community members to comment at the meeting.

    The second BPRCC P&Z committee with the hotel on the agenda was on January 18. About 60 community members attended. It was the choice of BPRCC P&Z committee not to allow the community members to comment at the meeting. Reports indicate no recommendation to BPRCC was made at the meeting.

    About 30 community members attended the meeting on January 25. It was the choice of BPRCC P&Z committee not to allow the community members to comment at the meeting. Comments from at least one committee member included the need for community involvement. This was stated in front of a room full of community members who were not allowed to comment by the choice of the committee. There wasn’t even a straw pole to ask how many of these interested community members oppose or approve re-zoning. Several community members exited the meeting before it was over.

    The one very important thought expressed at the January 25 meeting is this: We need to be careful about how this project is handled. It may set a precedent. YES! We need to stop the rezoning. If we allow this residential property to be rezoned commercial it will open the door for developers to buy up apartments and homes. They can demand similar rezoning from residential to commercial. They could convert apartments and homes to hotels and other commercial businesses. Those businesses will likely cater to tourists.

    A report from the meeting on January 25: No vote regarding a BPRCC recommendation to the county will occur at the BPRCC meeting on February 14 as previously advertised.

    As for all these meetings, is it just the hope the community will wear out and stop paying attention? Who wants to attend unproductive meeting after unproductive meeting and be ignored?

    Yet we must attend. We must find ways to be heard. We must protect our residential zoning by stopping this rezoning application.

  9. Eddie H says:

    It is a good lessons learned example .
    A single collective voice that expresses a consensus point by point of the community is more effective then a room full of venting and anger .
    The support of the majority can be evident in just attendance .
    The whimsical fantasy on an alternate route is one example .
    The trouble is the county will look at what is the best use of that property. No one will build single family homes on that site as long as other more valuable properties are available. We don’t want apartments either . So along comes Hilton who can generate big tax dollars . The only real opposition is adjacent properties. Whom may be judged as ultimately a poor choice living near a highway and a vacant piece of land regardless of the zoning . Hilton will counter with privacy walls and endless throw the neighbors a biscuit changes to look like it’s compromise.
    Lesson learned .Never say never in a growing community .The it can’t happen here mentality kills quiet communities .I’ve seen zoning changed at the drop of a hat to accommodate anything from amusement parks to
    strip malls and gas stations.

  10. Change can be for residents not tourists says:

    Eddie H: Great points. Sure, if you purchase a home next to a vacant lot, you should be responsible for the risk. What is built may not be to your liking. But when you purchase next to a vacant lot that is zoned residential, you should have the expectation that the county will keep the zoning. Zoning is one method of balancing opposing desires. The developer who purchased the lot also took a risk that the lot may never be rezoned. The residential neighbors told the county they don’t want the rezoning. The collective voice of opposition should not be ignored. The “best use” of the land should not be determined by the best tax profit. A vacant lot may be the “best use” to maintain and increase residential development. Increasing residential appeal in the VOC is a valid direction to grow.

  11. Rachel Sedona says:

    Well said because the disturbing trend by local governments here (city and county) is to completely disregard why the zoning was instituted in the first place! It was to prevent uses of properties for specific uses! The VOC has a visual aid being built now that proves how greed and complete disregard by developers and their political and commercial-business handmaidens (local architects and engineers of all fields) don’t care and don’t mind lots of green space if its in their wallets and taken from the public. There is history here, social and economic necessities. We are desert dwellers watering our lawns with ill gotten gains from straining aquifers. A couple of private water companies doesn’t give you pause? They close them down occasionally for arsenic issues and import potable water! What is the capacity of these companies? What will be the infrastructure cost for the residents because the politicians disregarded impact fees and environmental constraints? Learn to sue in court to get your voices heard.

  12. @Change can be..... says:

    That was the most informative and interesting post that I have seen here in a very long time. I really wish more people would post factual information on SE instead of the twisted lies with a backdoor agenda that detracts from an educated discussion.

  13. George says:

    Heads up Rachel Sue.

    I spoke with a great Arizona, California and New Mexico development law firm. The mere fact that it is on the record that the Outlet was treated as a basement during an approval process that excluded the public, when it fact the Outlet fails to meet the definition of a basement or cellar, and was fully functioning, approved and legally liable as a single story building, and its original zoning and development applied and paid the appropriate tax of same and insurance throughout its lifespan (pull the records and find out), means that Yavapai Supervisors and its Planning and Zoning and others in the approval pipeline failed to perform as legally mandated by the Arizona constitution and its statues, not less than Yavapai County’s of importance, and as such they willingly and knowingly performed illegally and approved illegally, they can be sued as private individuals. The state may be compelled to investigate for improprieties or face consequences as well. There is also cause to stop the project in its tracks. Each of the local HOAs and businesses and other commercial entities impacted by this project may each have cause to sue in court. Might be time to call the big gun law firms down in the Valley or California and bypass the locals. All of this is my opinion based on conversations and I can be wrong.

    The parking swap schemes need to be addressed when the number of cars in a commercial complex area exceed capacity. This kind of parking arrangement will ultimately push commercial cars back into the residential communities. Either the commercial enterprise reduces its land footprint to accommodate more parking, or it doesn’t build.

  14. Jan in Sedona says:

    Most Sedona developments that maintain themselves have better roads than city. Sad true fact about our local government’s ineptness.

  15. @Jam says:

    Not true Jan… You people are crazy portraying that the roads are terrible in Sedona . Yet not one of you can give a simple truthful example of such…..

    Go head people lay out the roads that are oh so horrible and neglected. Be honest cause I’ll check … Mike H already got caught in a lie.

  16. Eddie H says:

    A good consensus from the prior posts would be :The county is to follow the zoning set forth for the betterment of the community. Then list out the point by point our case . Not intended purpose. Not best use . Subject to many variences . After hours business . Etc .However be forewarned .Tax greed is all powerful. Other developers and other land owners will be watching the outcome. Tell the county that . If you make a deal on this parcel , others will follow as you’ve now set a precedent. A slippery slope to any community .
    Some growth is inevitable in voc . What we demand is manged growth

  17. Roseanne Herbert says:

    The Patel’s and their government and business and legal and media types are at it again. The Patel’s are trying desperately to influence the outcome of the 3 story design approval process. They want to try and ignore the outpouring of dislike and nonacceptance. Look at their own pictures. An entire mesa and views obstructed? This is best for the VOC residents who live 365 days a year with this while a $80 buck a night once a decade visiting transient gets our view in place of us??????

    Activate. Show up at the school cafeteria. They should not be allowed to plan change the zoning and variances to uglify our VOC. Put together petitions and stand in front of the building with signs. Call radio and TV stations and tell them that hundreds of us are showing up to oppose raping our scenic views and environment. Pass out flyers and post cards that people can sign and mail in to Randy Garrison and the rest of the County Supervisors who need to be voted out of office if they allow this rape of our village. Activate, activate, activate.

  18. Brian & Kristina, VOCA says:

    Where and when? Big Park community school in VOC on feb 6 from 10-noon.

  19. Lisa says:

    Hey there. Where’s the Big Park Council meeting being held? Was told the website not giving the info. Are they Sneaking around behind our VOC backs?

  20. Barb Gordon says:

    The message at BPRCC P&Z on 1-25 was frat there would be more committee meetings and no vote at BPRCC on 2-14. However, there has been much publicity about a vote at BRRCC on 2-14. The committee has been meeting on Fridays. I have emailed every way BPRCC has suggested. No response. If I get information about a committee meeting, I will post it here. Sure would be helpful if meeting agendas and minutes were posted on the BPRCC website as promised

  21. Linda and Bruce Chicago says:

    It’s gonna be cool gettin a room on the third floor of the new hotel facing the red rocks… Awesome

    Love Sedona

  22. Andy says:

    We don’t like people from Chicago. Or Illinois. Or any state in between there to here. Love Sedona.

  23. Barb Gordon says:

    Here is some new information that I believe to be accurate.

    Why can’t the Patel lot remain residential? It can if the Patel’s don’t request rezoning. It can if the county supervisors choose to consider community opposition to increased hotel and tourist business as more important than zoning criteria. I have been told by reliable sources that neither is likely. In my opinion, that should not stop the residents from opposing rezoning. If we want to save our residential neighborhoods, we must keep speaking out.

    1. The county has criteria to guide them when considering rezoning. One criterion for rezoning the Patel lot from residential to commercial is that it is “adjacent” to a commercial lot. The outlet mall is across the street. The county considers that adjacent. Other sections of the Patel lot are directly adjacent to residential property. It only takes one adjacent commercial lot for a residential lot to be considered appropriate for rezoning. Another criterion for rezoning the Patel lot from residential to commercial is that it is along a main road, Hwy 179.

    2. The Patel lot is zoned RCU2A. That zoning allows for 2 homes, 2 acres each, on the Patel lot. The argument in favor of rezoning is that access to a home from Hwy 179 would not be convenient. Another is that a home across from the outlet mall would not be appealing.

    3. The Patel’s are asking for variances in addition to rezoning in order to build the Hilton Garden Inn. If the variances are denied, the rezoning is likely to be approved as a single issue. That would mean the Patel’s could build whatever they want within VOCA restrictions and county restrictions. A 2-story hotel is an example. A gas station is an example. A medical clinic is an example. Retail and restaurants is an example. They could even build a 3-story hotel if they dig down and call the first floor a basement as the Marriott project.

    4. It has been suggested the residents “work with the Patel’s” to get something built that the residents support. The residents don’t want another hotel. The Patel’s are in the hotel business. It is unlikely there will be an agreeable compromise.

    5. It has been suggested the community oppose the variances and take our chances with what is built after rezoning. In the opinion of many, any business that would serve the residents would be better than a hotel. Even if we are stuck with a hotel, the variances are not in the best interest of the residential property next to the Patel lot. It has been suggested a business other than a hotel will have offensive lights. Dark sky compliance should make sign lighting a non-issue. At least that was the argument for the outlet mall signage. Lights from inside 3-stories of hotel rooms will likely be more offensive.

    6. In my opinion, residents should continue to oppose the rezoning and the variances. We should not be discouraged from voicing our opinions because we are likely to lose on the rezoning. There is reason to argue that something other than the Hilton Garden Inn will be better. We don’t want more hotels or tourist business. We want business growth that will benefit the residents. We want our residential neighborhoods to stay residential. We should challenge the direction of development.

  24. Zoning is zoning says:

    Who / how determines these rules for zoning changes? “Adjacent to commercial” zoned property is automatic reason for a residential property to be rezoned commercial? What’s the poInt of zoning? This rule is a set up for a domino effect.

  25. @zoning is zoning says:

    Planning and zoning is not “automatic” but rather the powers that be determine what is APPROPRIATE. Rezoning a residential lot to commercial when the residential lot is adjacent to a commercial lot is considered APPROPRIATE. It is how communities GROW. We must stop this particular rezoning to prohibit more commercial growth rather than residential growth. Creating more residential properties that are adjacent to commercial along Jacks Canyon will destroy many neighborhoods.

  26. Barb Gordon - P&Z meeting 2-9-19 says:

    I found on a Facebook post by BPRCC. The post states the BPRCC P&Z will meet at 9am on Friday, February 8, at the Nazarene church. The agenda indicates a motion on the committee recommendation regarding the Hilton Garden Inn will take place. This is contrary to what the committee stated at their last meeting. The committee needs to vote if it is going to present their recommendation for HGI to BPRCC at the regular BPRCC meeting on February 14. Much publicity indicates BPRCC will vote on the HGI on February 14. FYI: The P&Z agenda also lists the proposed Veterinary clinic as an item for presentation. If you are not on Facebook, you can check http://www.bigparkcouncil.org for the agenda. Unfortunately, no current meeting minutes are posted on the website as promised. The roster of reps and alternates continues to be years out of date. I have yet to receive any response to my submitted questions to BPRCC or BPRCC P&Z. It is worth noting again, P&Z choose not to allow the community to speak at their meetings. There is nothing prohibiting them from allowing participation.

  27. Steve Segner says:

    The village is hot

    Cushman & Wakefield completed the sale of Coyote Station, located at the northeast corner of State Route 179 and Cortez Drive in Sedona, Ariz. Brochway, LLC of Cupertine, Calif. purchased the property from Sedona-based Crescent Properties, LLC for $7.7 million.

    Chris Hollenbeck and Shane Carter of Cushman & Wakefield’s Phoenix office negotiated the transaction on behalf of the seller.

    Coyote Station is a 10,028-square-foot multi-tenant retail center located on the main thoroughfare through Sedona. At the time of sale the property was 100 percent leased to a number of strong credit tenants such as Marathon Petroleum, Subway, Wendy’s, and Diamond Resorts.

    “We were pleased to help our client close this transaction in less than two weeks from opening of escrow. The buyer was an all cash buyer from California that understood how irreplaceable this real estate is in Sedona,” said Chris Hollenbeck.

  28. Marge, Sedona says:

    Thx @S.Segner for the heads up about sale of Coyote Station. That’s where I always go to buy my gas to avoid paying Sedona City sales tax:-)

  29. Steve Neely - VOC says:

    My wife and I attended the Patel Open House Wednesday at the Big Park School.
    I was able to talk with Mrs. Patel and was able to ask her a few questions. The answers were all the same tone that a) She visits their holdings in Sedona every three Months b) She is aware of the awful traffic lineups at the roundabout every season but mid winter c) She really doesn’t care about the added traffic the Garden Inn would add on top of the Element Hotel that is under construction now.

    The other thing that came up during the Big Park Planning and Zoning meeting was… the committee requested the Patels modify the elevation views to show a) a 2 Story Hotel option in the drawing and b) the Element Hotel outline in the drawing. The committee said this relatively easy computer work would show how the hotel would look as 2 story which may be more palatable to the community. It would also show the visual impact of both hotels within 1/8 mile space. Both requests were ignored.

    Yesterday we heard about the Verde Valley Land Use Master Plan which talks about things like “View Sheds” that will impact the future of the Verde Valley in general. This plan has not been replaced with an updated plan that overrides it’s directives to protect our future, however the powers to be seem to ignore it’s existence.

    The final item I would like to bring to your attention is that there really hasn’t been a Traffic Study that includes the impact of the 120 room Element Hotel being constructed. The Engineer told me yesterday that it’s too early in the project to spend money on that even though at the Big Park Planning and Zoning meeting he announced scary details like “during a period from 4 to 6pm expected traffic into the property is 67 cars and out of the property during the same time period is 52 cars. In the meeting he told us he submitted that info to ADOT and they told him that a 2 car length “Deceleration Lane” is all that ADOT requires. Really????

    The 2017 Sedona Transportation Master Plan dated October 2017 shows this section of road already over capacity without the Element or Hilton Hotel.

    I have asked the Supervisors to consider this information when gathering facts that may impact how another Hotel will affect our community.


  30. Eddie H says:

    That’s not a no from big park planning and zoning , that’s a yes and a request to make changes. 2 story not 3 .Which is bad and not in our interests .Someone is benefiting from the development other then the Patel’s and Hilton . The opportunity for us s to seize on the ignored requests is
    imperative . That’s a slow down and an opportunity . Time is money in real estate and development. We must be as aggressive as possible to let council and county know in a clear and concise point by point case
    our opposition. Zoning change from residential plan . Every variance they want and will ask for must be fought .Setbacks , lightning, walls, noise parking , hours of operation, bar liquor license, traffic , signage , landscaping , environmental. Slow them down point by point .This will set a precedent for remaining properties to be rezoned and commercialized. Stand now together.

  31. @Eddie H says:

    Eddie H. Great points. A two story hotel is not a compromise. It is still a hotel. The community does not want or need another hotel.

    Land use is not just about zoning. It is also about the effect of that zoning. Not sure the zoning can be changed from residential to any commercial category and stop a hotel. I heard from a reliable source that the community plan suggested Residential Services as appropriate zoning for the Patel lot. Residential Services zoning does not allow a hotel. The property owner must request rezoning. If only the Patel’s would request rezoning to Residential Services and sell the lot. That would be a compromise the community could tolerate.

  32. John, VOC says:

    Can you take time to explain the rezoning category residential services? What constitutes that specifically for the VOC? Wouldn’t it be easier for that Patel land to become part of VOCA to keep hands off it for bastardization of the community?

  33. steve Segner says:

    @Eddie H says:
    The community does not want or need another hotel.

    As a hotel owner I an not talking a stand on new hotels this is just an FYI.

    If a building project fits the zoning regulations for a property it is a done deal no review. Owners of land have the right to build what the city or county zoning allows!
    But if they want to change the zoning that opens the door for review in some cases.
    You say” The community does not need another hotel. Well that is not your call, if investors want to risk there money to build they can if they own the property have the zoning.
    More hotels are being build in the village because Sedona proper is liking commercial lots to build on and the cost of land is much higher. The village is out side the city limits and has less protection then Sedona when it come to building hotels Sedona hotel project are looked at by the city even if they have zoning. Many large hotels have been sold to large investment groups in the last several years, Sedona hot and investors will be looking to cash in get ready,

  34. Eddie H says:

    The residents of voc don’t want another hotel because it requires rezoning .For which was put in place to manage growth for the benefit of the community.
    True , there is no doubt others will benefit from a Hilton outside of the investors . Restaurants, bars, recreation and other tourist related businesses.The county gets the tax revenue , water and sewer revenue and the like.

    The downside is more people with more cars , that need more protection (sheriff , fire and rescue) that invariably attract more problems for the tax base to support . Alcohol related issues ,petty crime simply because tourists carry cash , risk of fire alarms that require response ,rescue and emergency services to handle essentially a larger temporary population, all that and more comes with another hotel . The Patel’s can still sell the property at no risk under the current zoning to home builders or other suitable groups. But they have chosen greed over rules set down by the governing boards whom represent the people . Take the money and run , build as big a hotel as we can get away with and who cares what the neighbors think . Good zoning make good communities . Stick to the plan . Don’t rezone ever .

  35. Mary Carol says:

    Building a Sedona memorial to tourists? Shield us from this aggression Mother Earth.

  36. @John says:

    Residential services zoning, for example, Sedona Winds, a library, businesses that serve residents’ needs.

  37. Christine says:

    Let’s get a permanent library on Patel’s property. It’s right for community because VOC wall and bike and it can be built with help from private funds and be a small footprint. Can be done same size as Chapel fire station.

  38. Barb Gordon - BPRCC meeting 2-14-19 says:

    BPRCC held a regular monthly meeting on February 14, 2019.

    The BPRCC P&Z chair presented a recommendation regarding the Hilton Garden Inn. There was a presentation by representatives of the property owner and the Hilton corporation. About 24 people commented. All the comments were in opposition to the hotel. The recommendation opposing the application was approved with one abstention. The abstention was stated as due to a conflict of interest.

    The meeting began at 9am and adjourned at about 11:30am. The room at the fire station was filled to over capacity. The fire Marshall told 35 people they had to move out of the room before he would allow the meeting to begin. Many people stood outside in the rain listening to the meeting.

  39. B.M. says:

    Barbara, are you saying BPRCC recommended in favor?

  40. @BM says:

    BPRCC voted in favor of the BPRCC P&Z recommendation. The recommendation was opposition to the application. No to the hotel.

  41. Eddie H says:

    Barb and voc residents who fought this greed land grab zoning change thank you.
    Next steps get the dates time and prep for county decision.
    Best case is Hilton drops application.
    Worse case county approves application regardless of bprcc.
    Comments ?

  42. Marceline says:

    Again Village of Oak Creek set a huge example for Yavapai County and city of Sedona. If Mr. Patel and his wife and family care about what we say, they’ll drop their application. If Sedona library system is smarter, they’ll purchase that Patel property like some one here suggested and build a small library. They don’t need to redo zoning or ask for any variance changes because they can build a one and a half story reading mecca with glass views from and rear for drivers, walkers and indoor readers. They don’t need to remove the mesa next to it. Ask Freddie Valdez to design a modern LED efficient small footprint library building. It’s hours must be compatible with the neighborhood, parking can be very minimal to encourage walking or multi-destination. An entrance from Jacks Canyon will handle the few cars just like the four spaces in front of the commercial center across 179 used by tjem now handle the need. Erect a two sided (sidewalk or entrance) drop off and pick up box for books and library materials that blends in with the building. Think how tiny the Holy Cross Chapel is and how many people it processes daily. No one needs special variances.

  43. Not done yet says:

    Follow up to this issue:
    – Write to the County stating your opposition. These are due the week prior to the March 21st P&Z Commissioners meeting.
    – Attend the County Planning & Zoning meeting on March 21st at 9:00am, Yavapai County Cottonwood Annex – 10 S. 6th Street, Cottonwood. Prepare a 2minute statement opposing the hotel. Wear red.
    – Attend the Board of Supervisors meeting on April 17th at 9:00am, Yavapai County Cottonwood Annex – 10 S. 6th Street, Cottonwood. Prepare a 2minute statement opposing the hotel. Wear red.

  44. Bruce, VOC says:

    Saving our natural vistas is not over! We need a height requirement of no more than 2 stories including any basement or foundation as equal to one story. We need to pass a vista protection common almost everywhere else across the country!

    Share these Yavapai County officials names and addresses with residents of the Village of Oak Creek (Big Park). There are five Supervisors on the Yavapai County Board so contact each one with a letter or an email and say “No Change of Zoning or Variamces for Patel’s Hilton Garden Inn” and give your reasons why:

    Randy Garrison represents the Sedona region DISTRICT 3. web.bos.district3@yavapai.us

    Rowle P. Simmons District 1 supervisor web.bos.district1@yavapai.us Prescott

    Thomas Thurman District 2 Supervisor web.bos.district2@yavapai.us Dewey, Cornville, Page Springs and Camp Verde

    Craig l. Brown District 4 Supervisor web.bos.district4@yavapai.us Prescott

    Jack R. Smith District 5 Supervisor web.bos.district5@yavapai.us Dewey

  45. Isabel, VOCA says:

    Give the people tools and those people will feed the world.

  46. F.Y.I. says:

    Four stories is not just a huge VOC travesty. Last week the Sedona City Council gave City staff administrative authority to increase building heights in the Sunset Live/Work CFA up to four-stories subject to a few easy fulfillable conditions, with anything beyond four stories requiring approval from City Council.

    John Currivan objected to increasing building heights without getting more extensive feedback from the public, while Mayor Sandy said any number of stories was okay with her. Although Sedona cannot accommodate more traffic, traffic was not part of the discussion.

    On Feb. 20th the RRN wrote: The city of Sedona has very strict ordinances in terms of the height of buildings — no more than two stories. Higher heights are not part of the Community Plan either.

    The Sunset Live/Work CFA has become an assault on the City’s well being.

  47. steve segner says:

    F.Y.I. Says: The Sunset Live/Work CFA has become an assault on the City’s well being.
    What part do you not like ? The live in Sedona part or the Work in Sedona part?
    NIMBY…. The traffic issue will be look at when a project goes to P@Z. And city council. A 3 stories apartments for work force housing is better then a bunch of 7,000 sq, Ft million dollar homes, with 5 cars. Cities grow and so will Traffic no city government can stop growth owners of property have the right to build,Perhaps you notices all the vacant land in Sedona when you moved here did you think is was just city owned open space.
    FYI said:On Feb. 20th the RRN wrote: The city of Sedona has very strict ordinances in terms of the height of buildings — Yes and it just got changed in a small area. Things change, it is a Liberal thing….. we love change! and lots of goverment

  48. Send oppostion letter before March 8 says:

    At the next meeting of the Yavapai County Planning and Zoning Commission on March 21, 2019 they will consider whether to recommend to the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors the rezoning and waivers regarding the proposed Hilton Garden Inn at the corner of SR 179 and Jacks Canyon.

    Letters opposing the Application for this change are due the first week of March and will not be included in the information provided to the Commissioners if received after March 8.

    I urge you to send a letter of opposition. One letter per name and address is adequate. If you have not written, please do so. If you know someone who has not written, please encourage him or her to write.

    Below is the address to mail or email you letter. Also below is a sample letter you may copy.

    Mail or email to:

    Ms. Leah Genovese
    Yavapai County Development Services
    10 S. 6th Street
    Cottonwood, AZ 86326

    Sample letter:

    Ms. Leah Genovese
    Yavapai County Development Services
    10 S. 6th Street
    Cottonwood, AZ 86326


    Re: Proposed Hilton Garden Inn, Village of Oak Creek
    Parcel number: 405-33-479G; Application number: H18052

    Dear Ms. Genovese:
    I/we are opposed to the Application for the rezoning and waivers related to a proposed Hilton Garden Inn at the corner of SR179 and Jacks Canyon in the Village of Oak Creek.

    ____ I am concerned about too much traffic being generated.
    ____ The three-story height is unacceptable to our Village.
    ____ The Village does NOT need any more hotels.
    ____ The Applicant’s proposal does not contain a single benefit for our community.
    ____ The Applicant has not performed a proper and acceptable Citizen Participation Plan Pursuant to Section 209 of the Yavapai County Planning and Zoning Ordinance.
    ____ Other:
    ____ Other:


  49. @rise and shine says:

    You have said it all. I hope you don’t mind if I use most of your comments in my letter.

    The County (failure to perform) did not do a traffic study on the Westin project because they used the one that was done when it was originally built 35 or so years ago. Talk about skating through all responsibility to the community. How to allow building without spending a dime by Development services.

    This was most unacceptable and they have not requested one for this area as far as we can tell.

    Did anyone look into the Big Park wastewater parcel ?

    Big Park Improvement District
    3603 Crossings Dr
    Prescott, AZ 86305-7101

    Check to see if the wastewater parcel(405-33-479)in that grouping is contaminated in any way. That might help. Call ADEQ on that one. Not BPWWID.

    PS if you call ADEQ to request that parcel be looked at, here is the number:

  50. Andrew says:

    Appreciate everything here.

Leave a Reply

Copyright © 2008-2017 · Sedona Eye · All Rights Reserved · Posts · Comments · Facebook · Twitter ·