Sedona council adopts Land Development Code updates to comply with HB2447, delays tighter wedding/event rules

Sedona’s City Council on Nov. 13 approved a set of land development code revisions to conform with Arizona House Bill 2447 and to clarify notice and appeal procedures, while postponing final action on expanded special-event restrictions that drew council concern.

The ordinance (case PZ25-00009LDC) amends city code to reflect HB2447’s requirement that many site plans, design reviews and lot line adjustments be handled through administrative staff review rather than public hearings beginning Dec. 31. Carrie (Community Development staff) told the council that planning staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission vetted the changes; the commission recommended approval 4–3.

“The state is requiring cities authorize administrative personnel to review and approve site plans, development plans, design review plans, land divisions and other items without a public hearing,” Carrie said during the presentation, summarizing why the code changes were needed.

Councilors directed two substantive edits before adopting the ordinance. First, they agreed to expand the city’s mailed-notice radius from 300 feet to 600 feet for mailed legal notices and to add a citywide mailing for city-initiated land-development projects. Staff estimated the postage impact at “a few thousand dollars a year” and said the city would absorb the cost rather than charging it directly to applicants.

Second, the council removed proposed changes to special-event language that would have broadened permit requirements for weddings and similar gatherings and asked staff to return with revised language on fines, thresholds and clearer definitions. City staff said weddings have required a temporary-use permit in Sedona for several years, and the additional language would have captured wedding receptions and related events to prevent short-term rentals from operating as commercial event venues.

Councilor Kinsella questioned applying broad permit requirements to private residents, saying a small family wedding should not be treated like a commercial event. “I’m concerned about that too,” Kinsella said, prompting the council to ask staff to revisit whether attendee thresholds, evidence of catering or other markers of commercial activity should trigger a special-event permit.

City staff told the council that enforcement has focused on short-term rentals (STRs) advertising wedding services; staff reported two or three STR-related complaints per month and cited examples of properties that clearly promoted weddings, including provision of bands, catering and shuttle services. Staff noted a single violation of the STR rules can lead to license revocation for a year.

Melissa (Councilor) moved to adopt the ordinance as amended; the motion passed after a roll-call vote. Councilors said they wanted to retain robust public notification options even as HB2447 reduces opportunities for public hearing testimony.

The council asked staff to return with: clearer special-event definitions, proposed fine structures (including options for warnings and graduated penalties), and a staff proposal for how the city might voluntarily bring some city-initiated projects back to Planning & Zoning for public discussion. The council retained the staff recommendation to preserve citizen-participation procedures for projects that no longer require a formal hearing.