Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Don Holst Cabins Design Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission previews design review for Don Holst cabins in Oak Creek Canyon; site visit planned
Summary
Staff presented a design review application to replace aging lodging cabins at the Don Holst property in Oak Creek Canyon (DRO 25‑001). The commission discussed fire‑safety oversight from the Sedona/Oak Creek Fire District and several commissioners said they will join a planned site visit.
Coconino County staff presented a design review overlay application (DRO 25‑001) to replace aging lodging cabins at the Don Holst property in Oak Creek Canyon, and commissioners discussed fire‑safety requirements and a planned site visit before the matter returns as a public hearing.
Bob Short, Community Development Department planning staff, said the application comes from a new owner using the name DAS Development and would replace the existing cabins on the roughly 16.77‑acre parcel about halfway to Sedona. Short described existing cabins dating to the 1920s with additional cabins added in the 1930s and 1940s and said the structures have reached the point where replacement is warranted due to age, wood rot and fire risk.
Short reviewed the proposal visuals for new one‑bedroom and two‑bedroom lodging units. He said the new design uses siding that “looks like wood” but is not wood, which staff noted reduces vulnerability to fire. The elevations show decks and large windows intended to take advantage of the Oak Creek setting. Short also summarized property history: a zone change to resort‑commercial and design review overlay was approved in February 2012 and the earlier approval authorized up to 29 cabins for the site.
Commissioners asked about fire protection. Jess McNeely, Community Development Department staff, said Sedona’s Oak Creek Fire District maintains its own adopted fire code and conducts plan review for building permits in that district; she said the district’s code likely includes sprinkler requirements and other wildland‑urban interface (WUI) provisions. Short and McNeely characterized the proposed replacement as an improvement over the existing wooden log cabins because of the newer materials and expected fire‑safety features.
Several commissioners asked to join a site visit. Commissioners Best, Ruggles and Hayward indicated they would participate; staff agreed to arrange a Friday site visit and to send calendar invites and logistics to commissioners who wished to attend. No formal action was taken; the item was presented as an overview of a case anticipated for public hearing.
