Alpine Arizona Real Estate by jwj34226


More Info
									                    PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
                       MINUTES FOR APRIL 03, 2008

                                   In Attendance:
               Commissioners                              Staff
               Tom Tilford (Chairman)                     Milton Ollerton
               Nick Scienski                              Michelle Johnson
               (Kay Hauser absent)                        Ferrin Crosby
               Bobby Fite                                 Buzz France
               Eric Hamblin                               Liz Castillo
               (Stephen Nicoll absent)                    Lacie Belcher
               (Ambrose Shepherd absent)

Work Session

The work session started at 12:22 p.m. There was some discussion on the Vernon
advisory committee and a review of the applications/agenda.

Commission Meeting

Item # 1       Call to Order.

Chairman, Tom Tilford called to order the meeting of the Planning and Zoning
Commission at 1:03 p.m. Chairman Tilford announced the absence of a quorum.

Item #2        Approval of Minutes

Minutes were not approved, for the March 06, 2008 meeting at this time, due to not
enough commissioners present for a quorum.

Item #3        Consideration/Discussion/Possible Approval of a Conditional Use
               Permit submitted by Mr. Kevin Wynn, to operate a Bar and
               Restaurant at 42643 S. Highway 180, Alpine, Arizona.

Apache County Planning and Zoning Chairman, Tom Tilford, asked if applicant was
present. Applicant was not present. Chairman Tilford then asked if the public would like
to comment on this matter. No public comments were made.

Item #4        Consideration/Discussion/Possible Approval for a Conditional Use
               Permit submitted by Mr. Steven Barcak to fence a portion of a lot for
               vintage vehicle storage and construction of a building to be used for

               vehicle restoration on the property at 37536 Highway 191. Six miles
               south of St. Johns, Arizona.

Chairman Tilford asked if the applicant was present. Applicant was present, but chose
not to speak, except to respond to the public comments.

Chairman Tilford asked if anyone from the public would like to speak on the matter.
The following citizens came forth for comment:

Marian Barreras, St. Johns, Arizona
Mrs. Barreras stated that she owns property in Salado. Mrs. Barreras stated that the
construction of the building will ruin her view and lower the value of her property. Is
representing her in-laws, the Barreras family, and they all oppose this. Mrs. Barreras
informed the commission that they will be at next months meeting.

Chairman Tilford inquired of Mrs. Barreras the location of her property in relationship to
Mr. Barcak’s property. Mrs. Barreras stated that her property is located approximately 30
feet from the applicant’s, they are neighbors. Mrs. Barreras stated she own’s property
next to and across the street from the applicant and if she decides to sell, she is sure that
the buyers would not like to look at that eyesore. Mrs. Barreras stated it is a metal
structure. Mrs. Barreras stated, they want to keep their places the way they’ve been all
these years. Mrs. Barreras stated that people buy land here in St. Johns and out in the
country and feel they can put whatever they want out there.

Chairman Tilford asked Mrs. Barreras if her concern is her financial impact on the value
of her property.

Mrs. Barreras stated, she does not want anything to ruin the value of her property. Mrs.
Barreras stated she does not know the gentleman (applicant) or much of what he wants to
do but she doesn’t want to drive through there and see a big metal square there. Mrs.
Barreras stated they like it just the way it is right now.

Chairman Tilford asked the applicant, Mr. Barcak, if he would like to come up and talk
or wait until next month. Mr. Barcak stated he could answer any questions. Chairman
Tilford asked the commission if they had any questions at this point.

No questions were asked.

Item #5        Consideration/Discussion/Possible Approval of a Final Plat submitted
               by Mr. & Mrs. Don and Ann Poyas, for Amberian Point Homes at
               county road 1120, Greer, Arizona.

Chairman Tilford introduced the item asked if the applicant was present.

Applicant’s were present, and Anne Poyas stated they had no comment at this time.

Chairman Tilford opened to the public for comments.

The following citizens commented:

George Walsh, Vernon, Arizona.
Mr. Walsh commented that during the work session, it was mentioned that this item was
going to be brought back as an emergency item and if the applicant is here why is it not
addressed today in front of the public.

Chairman Tilford stated that the applicant’s Don and Anne Poyas requested that the
commission have an emergency planning and zoning commission meeting to address
their agenda item. Chairman Tilford explained that the item can be discussed, there is no
quorum, and the commission can talk about the item and do have legal council present.

The idea was to hold a meeting Monday, April 14, 2008 at 8:00 A.M. in the Board of
Supervisors Room. The initial conversation with council was that the commission has
the authority and the right to hold a special meeting.

Deputy County Attorney, Buzz France, explained that the item won’t be considered today
because there is not a quorum present.

Chairman Tilford asked if there was anybody in the public that would like to speak on
Item #5.

No public comment.

Item #6       Consideration/Discussion/Possible Approval of a Conditional Use
              Permit submitted by Mr. Douglas Sandahl, to make Ponderosa
              Property a Commercial Resort Property. Approve an existing 2’ x 3’
              non-illuminated identification sign located on the property at 27 A
              Main Street, Greer, Arizona.

Chairman Tilford introduced the item and inquired if applicant was present and if they
would like to speak.

Applicant was not present.
Chairman Tilford inquired if there was anyone from the public who would like to speak
on this item.

Community Development Director, Milton Ollerton, stated that the applicant was notified
of the opportunity to be here, the applicant chose not to attend because there was not a

Chairman Tilford opened to the public for comments, and informed the public of the
rules and regulations that the public has five minutes to address the board of

Jeff Saffer, Tucson, Arizona.
Mr. Saffer represents one of the partners in Molly Butlers. As a property owner in Greer
and someone that has invested in the community and is investing in business in Greer,
Mr. Saffer stated he spoke with a few people about expectations, and what the
expectations are as a Real Estate Attorney and a Developer in the community being:
     Greer Phase One to him is the bible, it sets the groundwork for everything he can
        do as a developer, and everything that the commission can rule on and has the
        authority to grant permission on, or not allow. Mr. Saffer stated in his review, of
        the uses subject to a Conditional Use Permit, nowhere did he see any discussion
        of nightly cabin rentals.

Mr. Saffer requests that the commission, staff, and council to spend some time looking at
it in the next 30 days. Mr. Saffer states that the only possible position that a single family
residence cabin could fit under a Conditional Use Permit to do nightly rentals, is possibly
the last kind of coverall sections where it says: all other uses not listed as permitted uses.
However, if you look at the opening paragraph of a Conditional Use Permit and the
subject uses, it says, such uses are considered to be unusual, unique, or potentially
incompatible or conflicting with the existing or permitted uses and the context of the land
use pattern or traditions within this area of Apache County. Mr. Saffer commented that
nightly rentals of cabins are not unusual, unique, or potentially incompatible, they are
simply a permitted use under the single family residence section of Greer Phase One.
There’s no discussion or no restrictions as to whether or not someone’s able to rent their
cabin on a nightly basis. Therefore, this commission has no authority to even rule on this
entire submittal and request for a Conditional Use Permit. There is no good reason we’re
here and no basis for a Conditional Use Permit to be granted for a nightly rental or to
convert something that already is a permitted use. Prior to this item even being on the
agenda for next month, Mr. Saffer wants to request that the council and staff gives some
real serious thought and review of this item and possibly try and get this item removed
from the next months agenda.

Dave Bennett, Greer, Arizona
Mr. Bennett stated he is a 23 year resident and a member of the Greer Advisory Council
who are currently in the process of revising the ordinance. He is also a member of the
Greer Civic Association, and a board member of the Greer Coalition. Mr. Bennett states
that he would like to emphasize that he has a pulse on the community. He stated he is
speaking for himself but is confident that he speaks for a lot of people in Greer to include
business and people who are concerned as well from the business side of the Greer area.
Mr. Bennett stated that they are in strong opposition to Mr. Sandahl’s request. Would
like to make his position very clear, he does not object to Mr. Sandahl owning the
specific property, and do not oppose the rental of the said property. Mr. Bennett stated
that he is opposed to the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. When the existing
Greer Phase One ordinance does not require one in order to rent a single resident unit,

which has been done by approximately 60 different property owners in Greer. Mr.
Bennett states: To change this now in light of the new ordinance that we are looking at
makes no sense, but he thinks does establish a precedent. He opposes the Conditional Use
Permit because it’s an unnecessary step, but more importantly he is concerned with the
implications and some of the underlying concerns associated with the Conditional Use
Permit, as it has been historically looked at. Under the existing Greer Phase One,
issuance of a Conditional Use Permit by nature, of how the ordinance is written places
the property into the commercial side of the ordinance rather than the residential side of
the ordinance. This and most of the 60 rentals now, are not now or have ever been
commercial, they are residential and fall under one residence per acre side of the
ordinance. Another concern that many people have had is that in the paperwork
provided, there is still reference to convert a free standing garage into a cabin, plus build
3 additional single story cabins. That is on page 10 given out with the staff
recommendations. Mr. Bennett stated his concern is to not have future buildings on the
property if it’s used as a rental. The main reason we object to the issuance of the
Conditional Use Permit, is that the Greer Advisory Council, sanctioned by the County is
currently addressing this issue and many more similar issues, and it makes no sense for
the County to make a leap of judgment by setting a precedence and designating this, and
other rental properties as commercial. They would like the community to give input
through the Advisory Council. To conclude, they would like to preserve the visual

Chairman Tilford advised Mr. Bennett that his 5 minutes were up.

Barbara Laske, Greer, Arizona
Mrs. Laske informed the commission that she and her husband Dex, are the property
owners of 25 Main, in Greer. Mrs. Laske stated that they needed clean air, fresh untreated
water, open space in their hectic lives that they could share with their children and
friends. Greer offered that unplugged life style away from crowds and zero lot lines.
They love the diversity of Main Street, and the heart of the village around Molly Butler’s
and the community center. Mrs. Laske stated that she wants to preserve the bucolic nature
of Greer for their grandchildren and future generations the gem of the White Mountains,
Greer. Mrs. Laske requests that we respect diversity among businesses, individual
property owners and more importantly the land and move forward with compromise, in
the best interest of all. Mrs. Laske asked the commission to work with the Greer
Advisory Council to ensure the future with planned and controlled growth.

Dick Bruneau, Greer, Arizona
Mr. Bruneau stated he is a member of the Greer Advisory Group. Mr. Bruneau stated he
was surprised to see this Item on the agenda, given that the advisory group is spending its
time and effort creating the zoning for the community. Mr. Bruneau believes that this
should be included as part of the zoning effort that the advisory group is working on right
now. Mr. Bruneau feels this item is a redundant issue that should not be coming before
Planning and Zoning at this time.

Dennis Barnes, Greer, Arizona

Mr. Barnes informed the commission that he and his brother own the property at 30 Main
Street, catty corner to the property in question. Their property has been in his family
since the late 40’s-early 50’s. Mr. Barnes stated that he has agreed with all of the public
comments, but has nothing more to add.

Mike Koblensky Greer, Arizona
Family has owned the property at 59 Main St. for 23 years. Asked for clarification or
verifications on what the applicant is asking for exactly.

Chairman Tom Tilford explains, applicant had submitted an application earlier in the year
to put additional cabins in and that was withdrawn. The application was submitted
differently and said that he was requesting what is being asked for which is a Conditional
Use Permit. At the present time he’s not asking for additional cabins.

Pat Bruneau Greer, Arizona
Asked the questions: If the applicant was to be given the permit would that not allow him
the ability to build the additional cabins?”

Chairman Tom Tilford answers: “It would give him the permission to do exactly what he
is doing at this point in time. If he was going to put additional cabins he would have to
come back before this commission and that would have to be addressed and approved.“

Pat Bruneau stated that she is confused about the paperwork. In the paperwork it says
“commercial resort”

Community Development Director, Milton Ollerton, explains: ’Commercial resort’ are
his words, he asked for Conditional Use Permit. When it goes to the Board of Supervisors
they grant permission for a specific thing. If there is any change to the diagrams it’s a
legislative action.

Ann Poyas Greer, Arizona
Asked for better clarification by next month on whether or not the Planning and Zoning
department considers this Conditional Use Permit to be also a consideration that this
property will be designated as Commercial.

Chairman Tilford asks for any other public comment. No public comment.

Commissioner Nick Sielski wanted to ask a question concerning the commercial and
residential issue. Asked if the property was now being rented and what constitutes a
rental business at this point? Asked if it was a legal interpretation that we were dealing

Chairman Tilford clarifies saying the property right now is a single family residence
being rented out on a nightly, weekly, or power basis. And in the community of Greer
there are probably 60 or greater homes that are being rented. There are management
companies in place that actually manage these and take the reservations, do the cleaning,

do deposits, pay the sales tax, and do all of that for the property owners. That is why
several years ago that that worked which was part of it known as section 2410 Guest
Accommodations. And that was in the process but has never been finalized. There is the
question on whether it is a commercial or is it a business or is it a residential, and how do
we regulate.

Item #7        Consideration/Discussion/Possible Approval of appointing                    a
               Commissioner to work with the Vernon Advisory Committee

Chairman Tilford asks Milton Ollerton to help him with Item #7.

Milton Ollerton speaks on request to re-formalize the Vernon Advisory Committee.
I would like to take it a step further and come back next month and conduct a public
meeting in the Vernon area and announce that we are considering reforming the Vernon
Advisory Committee, there are still some residents in the area that still belong to the
committee from the last time it was formally organized, we will go to them to and
identify a process to fill the empty spots. We’ll come back next month with a better item,
still a similar topic but it will be worded differently to where we will ask the commission
to approve Vernon’s Advisory Committee. I was notified this week of some grant
opportunities available from the University of Arizona, they will be more than willing to
come out and work on specific projects for these types of communities. There’s a request
for proposal we have to get submitted, I think Greer and Vernon may want to look at that
further, I have submitted some of this information to Vernon.

Chairman Tom Tilford urged the public to send a letter if they have something they
would like the Commission to discuss, or make agenda items.

Commissioner Eric Hamblin makes the comment that we need to hear what the Greer
Advisory Board is telling us, and we need to take that into consideration.

Milton Ollerton explains that we haven’t formalized that relationship on the advisory
committees and the commission. Right now, he uses the advisory committees to work out
ordinances and prepare documents to bring to the commission but we have not
formalized the committee although it is their request.

Chairman Tilford opens matter up to the public.

George Walsh Vernon, Arizona
Wanted to make a point that was discussed in the work session that when they mentioned
cross sections for these committees and Vernon is a little different from Greer because
the cross section goes from low income, to high income, to developers. Wants to include
the input of everyone.

Chairman Tilford clarifies that in the work session they discussed making sure that we
had a cross section, so it was a way in which the community could move forward, it

wasn’t just a one sided just residents only. They were taking a look at all property owners
and bringing them together.

Chairman Tilford asks if there are any more public comments.             No more public

Item # 8       Discussion Only: Review the amendments for Articles 9, 11, 12 of the
               Apache County Zoning Ordinance.

Chairman Tilford asked Community Development Director, Milton Ollerton if he had
any comments.

Milton Ollerton speaks on articles 9, 11, and 12. States that this is just moving the
process forward, and making it understandable to the public, where they have a chance to
come in on specific sections instead of being overwhelmed by a completely redefined
ordinance. Article 9 currently in the Planning and Zoning Ordinance is a Conditional Use
Permit application. Article 9 would be changed to the administration. Article 11 would be
changed to the Planning and Zoning Commission where it then addresses Conditional
Use Permits and rezoning and Article 12 is currently the board of adjustments and
appeals and that will remain the same. Except for it is a complete revision of Article 12.
The point of this was to allow an in depth discussion on these particular issues, and these
3 go together.

Chairman Tilford explains that there was some discussion in the work study and council
had some suggestions. Clarified it was for discussion only by the commission.

Chairman Tilford asks if there are any other comments from the commission. No more

Milton Ollerton explains the best way to communicate, or comment regarding these
issues is by email or through a letter.

Item #9        Discussion Only: Review Article 20. Community Master Planned

Milton Ollerton explains why: The comprehensive plan that’s been adopted by the Board
of Supervisors identifies a Master Planned Community so when a developer or a property
owner comes in with a large piece of property it allows the opportunity to do different
things with that. With the County soon to adopt zone definition, one of the things they
will be able to do is to identify on their property whether they want one portion
commercial, one portion residential, etc. You can use the different zones to create a
master plan community. Without having a master plan community ordinance in place we
end up with them having to re-zone actual pieces of property. This is a tool that will help
communicate to the public what a property owner wants to do. It gives the property
owner an opportunity to spell out and identify some of the specific things that we would
be concerned about looking at a large development. The bottom line is right now we

don’t have a tool for a development that is going to be mixed used. We end up with a
Conditional Use Permit, a subdivision ordinance. This will bring that all together and
make it neat and nice.

Chairman Tilford asks for any other comments from the commission. We will talk about
this again next month in a public hearing. No other comments.

Item #10      Adjourn

Chairman Tilford apologizes again for not having a quorum present. Thanks the public
for their patience. And says he looks forward to seeing everyone next month.


To top