After a lengthy appeals process, the Sedona City Council voted four to three to approve the Arabella Spa development review at its meeting on April 25.

The owner of the Arabella Hotel will submit a concept application to build a spa facility on the vacant commercial land adjacent to the hotel in June 2021, a development review application in May 2022, and a development review application in September 2022. I amended my application in October. The Planning and Zoning Commission rejected this. The petition was voted 3 to 3 on November 15, and was also rejected 3 to 3 by the city council on January 25. The same vote will be rejected.

City Councilman Melissa Dunne, who was absent on January 25, had called for a further review of the application.

Withey Morris attorney Benjamin Tate, who appeared on the petition’s side, said the spa is adding five to six EV charging stations and working to eliminate single-use plastics, in response to existing sustainability concerns. pointed out. Tate says that 72% of the existing trees on the property will be maintained or transplanted, the pool’s filtration system will reduce energy consumption by 50%, and the pool’s cover will reduce evaporation by 95%. said.

“Most of this site will remain undeveloped,” Tate said. The proposed development area occupies only 29% of the site.

Responding to a question by City Councilman Brian Fultz, Tate said the spa will use between 42% and 71% less water than the Nirvana mixed-use development that was approved at the location in 2008. explained that it can be done.

Kimley Horn Consultant Andrew Baird discussed revisions to spa facility traffic forecasts. Using “more site-specific data” rather than generic estimates, the project’s latest traffic study found that spa would likely see an average of 546 trips per day, August 2022. It concluded that the 1,121 was not determined in the applicant’s previous survey conducted in 1999.

Baird also noted that the Arizona Department of Transportation agreed with Kimley Horn’s findings.

“They don’t think this is heavy enough to affect the intersection.” [at State Route 179 and Sombart Lane]’, he told Congress.

“Meet and Exceed”

Fultz said Arizona is a state with strong property rights.

“While I’m not thrilled about the potential for further congestion on 179, I don’t think that’s the basis for making any decisions about this project,” Fultz said. “This project meets the requirements and is entitled to approval.” .

“You’re on your way to what we want,” Dunn said, adding that her concerns had been addressed. “I think it fits the character of our community perfectly.”

City Councilman Jessica Williamson said people should be able to expect the right to build on their land. “This project meets and exceeds the city’s requirements, but even if it meets and exceeds the city’s requirements, we are not going to do it anyway. ‘ said Williamson. “I think it’s unfair. I don’t think it’s right.”

Mayor Scott Jabrough said, “We can’t decide who will build and who won’t,” adding that approval must be determined “on the merits of the project.”

“I supported this project and I still support this project,” Jaburo said.

Applicants also provided letters of support from Hampton Inns, the Sedona Chamber of Commerce, the Arizona Accommodation and Tourism Association, and the Sedona International Film Festival.

“Airy Fairy”

Deputy Mayor Holly Ploog told Congress he disagreed with ADOT’s analysis and the fact that the rules of procedure allow reconsideration before calling revised traffic statistics “outlandish.”

“That doesn’t sound legit,” Plog said.

“No new information has been submitted here, even though it has been alluded to,” said City Councilman Kathy Kinsella. “There is nothing that addresses the concerns I expressed at the Jan. 25 meeting, including the non-existence of traffic analysis.” She also wanted to confirm the applicant’s interactions with ADOT. was

City Councilman Pete Furman said, “I don’t know why you think it’s a good idea,” arguing that the application didn’t meet the city’s land development law requirements because a proper traffic analysis had not been done. .

“We are in the midst of a historic drought and I think it would be unconscionable and unacceptable to consider building a spa at this time,” neighbor Suzanne Gossar told the city council. “It’s fine for the City of Sedona to choose open spaces. We don’t have that much anymore.”

The National Integrated Drought Information System released data on Dec. 29 indicating that Sedona and Yavapai County are no longer in drought conditions.

The City of Sedona occupies approximately 11,700 acres of land, half of which is national forest and vacant land.

“What they are proposing sounds beautiful, but it is like lipstick on a pig. asked to reject the application.

Neighbor Dennis Lewis complained that having to show up repeatedly to protest the petition “causes stress and anxiety.” He has a “mild fear of reprisal if this isn’t passed” with the city council, and the development will not only benefit the project owners, not the community, but also day trippers. said he insisted on inviting

Williamson’s motion to authorize a development review allowing the plan to move forward was passed by a 4-3 vote, with Jabrough, Dunn, Fultz and Williamson in favor and Progg, Furman and Kinsella against.