Sedona planning commission backs Land Development Code changes limiting private sport courts, sends recommendation to council

The City of Sedona Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6–1 on March 18 to recommend that City Council adopt Land Development Code revisions regulating private sport courts such as pickleball, tennis and basketball courts.

City staff introduced the code changes as a response to City Council direction given last October. Keri Myers, City staff, told the commission the amendments would allow private sport courts as an accessory use but add setbacks, limit a single-family property to one court, prohibit temporary or permanent lighting of courts and establish conditions under which a reduced setback could be considered.

The vote capped a public hearing that drew three speakers and lengthy commissioner discussion focused on noise, proximity to homes, enforcement and the potential for short-term-rental (STR) operators to install courts. Robert Pifke, a Sedona resident who said he also serves on the Tourism Advisory Board, told commissioners a recent STR owner installed a court near a neighbor’s property line and argued the city should “stop it before it happens.” Pifke said investors could add courts to STRs to increase revenue and that a Change.org petition opposing courts gathered more than 475 local signatures.

Becky Hoefer, a homeowner who said a neighbor intends to build a court near her property, urged stricter rules and requested additional requirements including required permits with plans, engineering sound assessments, drainage review and design standards for fences and other mitigation. Jim Blair, a Sedona resident, cited studies and industry sources he said show property resale values adjacent to paddle sports courts can decline 10 to 20 percent and asked that private courts be allowed only on sufficiently large parcels.

Staff told the commission that aerial review identified existing private courts in the city (five tennis courts, two pickleball courts and one basketball court) and that code enforcement records did not show noise complaints tied to those courts. Staff explained driveways and single basketball hoops mounted on garages are specifically exempted from the proposed sport-court definition.

Commission discussion covered several technical points contained in the draft amendments: a 200-foot setback from property lines as written in the packet, criteria that would allow the community development director to consider a reduced setback (for example an intervening building or adjacency to a park or national forest), an exemption for courts associated with commercial outdoor recreation facilities (such as public parks or hotels), and an explicit prohibition on court lighting to limit use to daylight hours. Commissioners and staff clarified that existing courts would be grandfathered and that commercial recreational facilities are reviewed under separate LDC provisions.

Several commissioners and members of the public urged stronger public notice and review. Commissioner Charlotte (last name not specified in the transcript) proposed that reduced-setback requests be subject to a conditional use permit (CUP) so neighbors could be notified and comment; staff amended the recommendation to move setback reductions and related exceptions from director discretion to a process requiring a CUP before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The commission’s final motion recommended approval of case PZ25-00001 as modified to add the conditional-use review and to prohibit court lighting; the motion, moved by Commissioner Joe Martin, was seconded (second not specified in the record) and passed 6–1.

The commission’s recommendation will go to City Council for consideration; staff said the council hearing is tentatively scheduled for April 22. Staff also told commissioners they reviewed Sedona’s noise ordinance (Sedona City Code chapter 8.25) and do not plan to propose changes to the city-wide noise code as part of this package.

The discussion reflected a split among commissioners: supporters said the changes respond to growing complaints in other resort communities and provide tools to manage high‑impact uses, while opponents and at least one dissenting commissioner said the draft could disproportionately limit recreational options for typical households and might favor large-lot owners. The motion summary and recommendation to council were recorded as passed 6–1.

Votes at a glance: Recommendation to City Council on PZ25-00001 (Land Development Code amendments regarding private sport courts). Motion (as moved): recommend approval of revisions to LDC to regulate private sport courts, consistent with LDC section 8.64, as modified by the commission (conditional-use review for setback reductions; prohibition on lighting; limitations on single-family properties). Mover: Commissioner Joe Martin. Second: not specified. Vote tally: yes 6, no 1, abstain 0. Outcome: approved (recommendation to City Council). Notes: staff indicated existing courts would be grandfathered; council review tentatively scheduled for April 22, 2025.

What changes would mean if council adopts them: private sport courts would be allowed as accessory uses in appropriate zones but restricted in single-family zones (one court per lot, significant setbacks or CUP-required reductions, and no court lighting). Commercial and public outdoor recreational facilities (parks, hotels) would continue to be reviewed under commercial/outdoor recreation LDC provisions and may be treated differently. Enforcement for noise complaints would rely on the existing noise ordinance (Sedona City Code chapter 8.25) and on the city’s standard code‑enforcement and citation process.

Council will consider the commission recommendation at a future meeting where the public may again comment; staff and several commissioners requested that neighbors be given explicit notice when CUPs are requested to reduce setbacks.