PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES FOR September 6, 2018 In Attendance: Commissioners John Freeman, Vice-Chairman Dan Muth (Absent) Kay Hauser (Absent) Carey Dobson Bobby Fite (Absent) Jim Thornhill Brad Peterson Terry Smith (Absent) Michael Bragiel Staff Devin Brown, Director Shanna Pearce, Executive Assistant Robert Clark, Building Official Zenica Hall, Administrative Assistant Working Lunch Session Call to order 12:00 p.m. Item #1 Discussion of the Greer Community Plan and Land Use Map. The commission members will be discussing the plan in preparation for the public hearing at 1:00 p.m. Commission members will discuss it amongst themselves and may ask questions to the plan drafting committee to ensure they have a clear understanding of the plan. Vice-Chairman John Freeman advised the commission of three (3) matters; 1. the working team is the applicant presenter and most knowledgeable about the plan. 2. As suggested in the working session, during the normal meeting questions from the commissioners may be referred to the working team for input. 3. This was the process determined best for the flow of the meeting by former Chairman Oscar Miranda and Vice-Chairman John Freeman. Vice-Chairman John Freeman asked commissioners for their top two (2) interests or issues. Commissioner Mike Bragiel commented that the plan be noted either advisory or regulatory and the vision of the plan. Commissioner Carey Dobson had concerns with the vision of the plan; where its headed and the map; how things were going to work. Commissioner Brad Peterson believes there is a conflict of interest with Vice-Chairman John Freemen sitting in for the Chairman and discussing the Greer plan, and had concerns with the map. Vice-Chairman John Freeman advised that the conflict of interest concerns would be addressed during the regular meeting.
Vice-Chairman John Freeman stated that the vision of the community had been represented and that with the new plan Greer had the opportunity to change its trajectory. Mr. Peterson felt that it was Mr. Freemans opinion of the trajectory and shared the concerns of some Greer residents that had spoken with him. Mr. Peterson commented to the clarity of the downtown area designations and questioned whom decided what areas were commercial, non-commercial, etc. Mr. Dobson commented to the narrative page 6, 13 th bullet point, regarding the commercial water supply and questioned how they intended to evaluate and document their impact. Tom Kirk responded that the intent was that the applicant or business owner proposing the use be considerate of the water that served the community; there is not a public water system in Greer. Mr. Dobson requested clarification of being required. Mr. Kirk advised it would be based on what was being proposed Mr. Bragiel commented on the requests and comments from residents of keeping Greer rural and that the plan sounded like an HOA; he felt that the plan had no right to govern his property, as long as he was following Article 6 (Greer Ordinance). Steve Williams, member of the planning committee, responded referring to the Land Use Element of the comprehensive plan dated May 9, 2018 (an unapproved document) finally this goal of preserving the rural character. Mr. Kirk added that this plan did not change Article 6; it s merely trying to create a plan for the future, he did not feel that this plan was putting restrictions on what private property owners could do on their property. Mr. Bragiel disagreed. Mr. Kirk stated that they could state this in the plan, they would and that it was not the intent of the plan to trump what the zoning ordinance was in existence for that community. He added that general plans, by nature, didn t create zoning, didn t change zoning, and didn t change the zoning ordinances; they merely provided context for how a community wants their future planning and land use to occur. Mr. Bragiel questioned why the plan was legally binding vs. advisory if it was just a general plan. Mr. Kirk stated they needed to clarify what people think was legally binding vs. advisory. Mr. Brown felt that a legal opinion from the county attorney s office was needed for clarification. Mr. Freeman agreed. Mr. Kirk shared the goals of the committee; to have a picture of future development, to have a plan that the county used to evaluate land use changes, and to represent what the community wanted. Mr. Kirk to respond to Mr. Bargiel s concerns with the vision statement.
Mr. Dobson questioned the meaning of the statement on page 5, second paragraph, 3 rd sentence The intent is to limit and manage those activities involving development and growth Mr. Freeman wanted to first resolve the questions regarding the legality of the document being legally binding vs. advisory. Mr. Kirk felt that legal matters needed to be left to the county, he was trying to articulate the intent of the plan. Mr. Kirk responded to Mr. Dobson s question and stated that the intent of the plan was to be a meaningful document used in evaluating land use changes. Mr. Williams again referred to the guidelines published on May 9, 2018. Mr. Bragiel questioned whom would be responsible for deciding what was environmentally sensitive or beautiful or scenic and noted the differences that already exists. Mr. Williams responded and referred back to the May 9, 2018 land use element. Dr. Rob Shupak addressed commissioner s Mr. Dobson and Mr. Bragiel s concerns with the vision and the plan being a general plan. He stated that many people would consider most of the stuff fluff, he added that the plan gives an idea for the area. He stated that the ordinance is regulatory, but a plan was advisory with some directives and that language could be changed if needed. Mr. Peterson commented regarding the use of wells, Arizona laws, and language in the plan. He also commented on the preponderance of the population and the vision has been reviewed and modified by the Greer community and represents the view of a significant majority of the community, He shared that he had been told by several Greer residents that they don t like the plan but could not attend the meeting. Dr. Shupak addressed the concerns regarding wells. He stated that required may not be the right word and could be changed. Mr. Peterson agreed. Dr. Shupak commented regarding meeting attendance and their outreach. Mr. Peterson commented regarding the rights of the land owners and having this plan; the county nor the working committee have no right getting involved in HOA s or CC&R s, noted that basically that s what this plan was. Mr. Kirk addressed Mr. Bragiel s concerns with whom decides the outcome. He stated the Board of Supervisors (BOS); they would have to use the plan, the map, residents wishes, and applicant; the commission would merely be advisory. Mr. Bragiel noted that Mr. Brown and the attorneys had discussed the legalities of the plan being legally binding to the county. Mr. Brown stated they would need an attorney opinion.
Mr. Bragiel asked Mr. Freeman if this was what he had said in the past; that this plan would be legally binding to the BOS. Mr. Freeman stated there is both directive and advisory, vague and ambiguous language throughout the plan narrative; the plan was not purely directive. Mr. Bragiel questioned the plan being legally binding to the BOS. Mr. Freeman stated that the language reads it s a multi-step process and the BOS has the power to overturn any regulatory document; either Greer Phase I or Article 6. Mr. Peterson questioned Mr. Freemans having a conflict of interest and stated that he would not attend the regular meeting if Mr. Freeman continued to chair the meeting. Mr. Freeman stated he would address those concern in the regular meeting, with the attorney present. Mr. Bragiel commented regarding compromising and the unfair treatment toward Mr. Brown s comments in the last meeting, noting they were unwarranted. He s also concerned that some of the language in the plan was directive; he noted the language regarding commercial resort that it won t add or increase congestion or traffic, he comments that by adding one (1) more house, traffic was increased. He provided statistics from 2012 and noted that there had not been significant development; nine (9) residential permits had been issued. He noted that all the vacant land on main street was proposed as residential, and the issues that would create with future development. Adjourned 12:55 p.m. Commission Meeting Item #1 Call to Order. Vice-Chairman John Freeman called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Mr. Freeman explained that meetings of the Apache County Planning & Zoning Commission are held for the purposes of conducting county business with staff and its applicants. Members of the public are welcomed and encourage to attend commission meetings and speak on those agenda items of public interest however, there are some agenda items in which public involvement will be permitted only at the discretion of the chair of the commission, unsolicited comments, raised voices, or any actions that detract from an orderly meeting is disruptive of the operation of county business and will not be tolerated, any person acting in such a manner will be asked to leave the meeting. During the public hearings members of the public may make comments or ask questions relative to specific issue before the commission as long as it s presented in a respectful manner, the time limit on those wanting to address the board is been three (3) minutes. Our format is intended to be the staff report of the plan, presentation by the Greer community planning working team, which is essentially the applicant, basically open to the public for inputs; pro, con, in between, the search here is the common ground and resolution of differences, even in these last few minutes. After all public comments have been heard we will close the hearing and there will be no further public comments except by the chair, there will be a summation from the working team, the planning commission
members will discuss the issues, clarification regarding the plan may be referred to the working team or to others, as needed, and then there will be a vote. Mr. Freeman made some special notes; in remembrance of Senator John McCain, Vietnam Veteran, like some of the folks out there in the room, was a man of honor. A man of service was laid to rest in Annapolis, MD this past Sunday and he will be missed. He recognized and thanked Federal Court Judge Tillborg attending the meeting today, his care and love for Greer runs deep. Mr. Freeman recognized past chairman Oscar Miranda, he stated that he was a good man, he is a good man and explained that through administrative difficulties his membership on the commission was not reappointed, but he was a good man. Mr. Freeman explained that he was reading this in for the minutes, for the recording so that it goes in a permanent public record. He thanked him for his service, a man he got to know fairly well; a man who gave his time, his energy, and his personal self for the betterment of Apache County. He s a man who is intitled to the respect and gratitude of all those gathered here, as well as many more in Apache County, and in his home in Alpine. Oscar, I know you are not here, but thanks. Item #2 Roll Call/Determination of a Quorum. Vice-Chairman John Freeman determined a quorum was present. Five (5) commissioners present. Item #3 Call to the Public Vice-Chairman John Freeman opened the public session. No public comments. Vice-Chairman John Freeman closed the public session. Item #4 Approval of the minutes from the August 2, 2018 meeting. Vice-Chairman John Freeman opened for a motion. Commissioner Mike Bragiel motioned to approve the August 2, 2018. Commissioner Carey Dobson seconded the motion. Vote, 2 ayes to 3 abstentions; Commissioners Brad Peterson, Jim Thornhill and Carey Dobson abstained from vote, they were not present at the August 2, 2018 meeting. Tabled to October 4, 2018 meeting. Mr. Freeman stated that because he did not want all those attending to go home and that there had been a position stated by one of the commissioners that he would not remain here if he continued as chair because he believed that I have had a conflict of interest. Mr. Freeman addressed the conflict of interest, he stated that he had consulted with attorney s and all have quoted the same state statute relating to financial interests added that stated statutes supersede everything. Mr. Freeman stated he did not have a conflict there, he had no financial gain. He advised of personal interest, stated that someone
should not vote on a question which he has a direct personal interest that is applied where there is a conflict of interest, he advised that by leaving the language at direct personal interest that means that no commission such as this could have a sub-committee that normally contains a member of this commission and have that person vote of the proceeds of that sub-committee and also means that no legislature could vote on a bill that they have sponsored. He then defined conflict of interest where their involved in one interest would be working against another would adversely affect the duty owed to make decisions for the benefit of the third party. Mr. Freeman explained conflict, stated that Apache County has established as a goal, since 2004, to create a Greer Community Plan; that plan is here before us today, there is no other one. He added that he had worked on this plan, with this team and community, stated that a given but is not in conflict with the goals of Apache County. He concluded that by having said all of that we are at that point in the meeting and asked Mr. Thornhill if he would accept the chair for the remainder of the meeting. Mr. Freeman stepped down from the position of acting chair, Mr. Thornhill accepted the chair for the remainder of the meeting. Mr. Thornhill introduced himself and explained the procedure for the meeting. Item #5 PUBLIC HEARING, discussion, consideration and possible recommendation for approval of the Greer Community Plan and Land Use Map. This plan, if adopted, will be the official land use plan for the Greer area. It will be incorporated into the Apache County Comprehensive Plan. Citizens can see the plan and map on the county website at http://www.co.apache.az.us/community-development/greer-communityplan-and-land-use-draft/ Acting Chairman Jim Thornhill opened the public hearing. Steve Williams, member of the Greer Community Plan working team, presented to the commission the reason for the development of the Greer Community plan, quoted from the 2004 County Comprehensive plan and the May 9, 2018 Land Use Element, noting the preservation of rural communities. Mr. Williams explained the process in developing the Greer Community Plan, he provided the commissioners with a handout of the working teams communication summary and advised of the community meetings held, their notifications and publications, and their contact avenues. Richard Mosher, member of the Greer Community Plan Working Team, summarized the table of contents, the planning committee, the introduction, the mission statement, the vision statement, regional setting and planning area, jurisdiction and objective; noted a., d., and e., community survey summaries, and public meetings. Mr. Thornhill questioned the community participation in section 9, total 262 and asked if the same residents showed up to all the meetings. Mr. Mosher stated there were some new people at every meeting but did not have an exact number, he added they had made every effort for residents to attend meetings.
Mr. Shupak provided statistics for the June 2018 meetings; 88 different individual names and 19 full-time residents. Mr. Thornhill questioned how many of the 88 were repeats. Mr. Shupak stated none. Mr. Thornhill asked what the committee meant by to preserve and protect the environment. Mr. Mosher stated the ambiance of Greer; Greer is a congested community with lots of development and no open space. To preserve the environment is to preserve the open space; space between buildings, leaving the meadow open, and by preserving the mountain community feel. Mr. Peterson questioned the committee s ideas of open space and the rights of property owners, now and into the future. Mr. Freeman asked Mr. Shupak in his comment that the plan was vague and nebulous, open to interpretation by every individual and asked if that was the intent. Mr. Shupak responded no, the plans phrases and terminology could be interpreted differently by different people. Mr. Bragiel questioned if all the attendees of meetings were pro plan. Mr. Shupak responded no. Chief Mark Wade, Greer Fire District explained to the commission the Greer Fire District s role; the fire districts code, the IFC, and this plan do not work together they are based on what the use is at that time, not what s predicted into the future. He stated their primary goal, by being included in this plan, was available resources for fire protection and ingress/egress. Tom Kirk, member of the Greer Community Plan Working Team presented the proposed Greer area map; three (3) land use categories, Greer residential (GR), pink areas Greer commercial (GC), and green areas Greer commercial resort (GCR), dark lines around properties are existing zoning, the process in determining the proposed areas, and the timeline contemplated. Mr. Kirk noted the exclusion of the Owen s property. Mr. Kirk noted that the proposed areas were determined by the community feedback. Mr. Kirk provided statistics for the existing GCR and proposed GCR, noted there were10 existing GC and they added 12 locations in the downtown area to encourage business development. Mr. Kirk stated they understood the general plan map would be updated in the future and this is the best view that they saw at this time.
Mr. Kirk explained and clarified the criteria for future changes to the map; the criteria is not meant to evaluate individual zoning requests, they are merely a guide as to how the map gets updated in the future. Mr. Kirk provided development statistics since 2007; 25 permits issues, 8 GCR permits, 15 SFR and two unknowns. Mr. Kirk noted that based upon the past activities, it didn t appear there would be that much future growth and noted that the map could be updated as needed. Mr. Kirk pointed out that the map was not intended to prevent requests made for rezoning. Mr. Kirk explained the need and intent for developing a plan. Mr. Dobson questioned the process for re-zoning. Mr. Brown confirmed it would go through the planning & zoning commission. Mr. Bragiel questioned the probability of being granted a re-zone. Mr. Kirk stated it depended on their request and on the time of the request. Mr. Bragiel clarified the process. Mr. Bragiel questioned how they chose the designation and if they spoke with individual property owners. Mr. Kirk stated they did not approach property owners and explained the process of creating the map. Mr. Bragiel asked what the response of the community was. Mr. Kirk stated the committee didn t decide themselves, they had to apply some judgement but specifically sought feedback from the public. David Krick, full-time resident of Greer, resides at 47 Wiltbank Ave., provided a summary of the community comments; 52 comments were received, he also noted they received 127 signatures on a petition to support the plan. Mr. Williams made closing remarks and requested that the commission approve this plan to start with and make amendments as needed and stated that it does not create any hard zoning. Mr. Bragiel confirmed that there would be no hard zones created. Mr. Williams agreed. Mr. Bragiel questioned the wording that implied that the county contacted this specific group to be the group in Greer. Mr. Williams disagreed and explained the process. Mr. Bragiel and Mr. Williams discussed membership on the working committee. Mr. Peterson commented to the numbers presented for public participation; misleading numbers are misleading. Mr. Williams replied that they had 132 signatures that wanted to get the process started. Mr. Thornhill opened the public meeting and explained the process. Phala Andressen, resides at #5 N1107 Greer, AZ, spoke in support of the plan and map.
Lance Coon resides at CR1009 Greer, AZ, spoke in support of the plan. Barry Weller resides at lot #164 CR N5386 Concho, AZ spoke in support of the plan and advised the commission to listen to the residents of the Greer community and their request to approve this plan and move forward. Patricia Mosher resides at 49 CR 1121 Greer, AZ president of the board of director of the Greer community center, supported the plan and read a letter from Larry Warren in support of the plan, was unable to attend the meeting supporting the plan. Claudia Williams resides at 9 CR 1008 Greer, AZ spoke in support of the plan and read an email from Jay and Venessa Sargent, Greer residents also in support of the plan. Michele Iddings resides at 73 ACR 1324 Greer, AZ spoke in support of the plan. George Iddings resides at 73 ACR 1324 Greer, AZ spoke in support of the plan. Carmen Barela resides in Greer, AZ resident spoke in support of the plan. Dave Bennett resides at 6-1030 Greer, AZ spoke in support of the plan. Diane Lay resides at 38 693 State Route 373 Greer, AZ spoke in support of the plan and noted the unused motel in the downtown area. Jeff Saffer resides in Tucson owns property in Greer spoke in opposition of approving the plan with so many legal questions unanswered and support of more GCR zones, he noted the negative growth in the past 10 years noted that the only growth currently is commercial resort. Dave Lofquist resides at 143 Main Street Greer, AZ spoke in favor of the plan and the need to amend Article 6 to comply with this plan. Dave Krick resides at 47 Wiltbank Ave Greer, AZ spoke in support of moving forward with this plan and amending as needed. Judy Krick resides at 47 Wiltbank Ave Greer, AZ spoke in support of the plan as presented and read an email from Kathy Smith at #14 CR 1324 Greer, AZ in support of the plan. Steve Williams resides at Greer, AZ spoke in support of the plan. Mr. Thornhill closed the public meeting. Mr. Thornhill invited Mr. Williams to respond to the public comments. Mr. Williams spoke of property values, the community involvement on new development, the county use of the plan to assist in future development and the commission listening to the residents of Greer.
Mr. Peterson and Mr. Williams discussed the vision statements first sentence and hard zoning. Mr. Peterson commented that what s in writing outweighs the verbal words. Mr. Freeman requested that Mr. Kirk address the concerns with hard zoning. Mr. Dobson commented on the request of the county to develop a plan. Mr. Bragiel and Mr. Williams discussed the committee s intent of the plan if adopted. Mr. Kirk responded to the commissioners hard zoning concerns, he stated that the map does not hard zone anything, the map does not insure that what is shown will be approved; it merely defined what the communities vision of land use was and provided the county a guide. Mr. Brown provided staff report, he felt that the plan captured the majority of Greer residents desires and agreed that there were some legal questions that were unanswered. He recommended accepting the plan narrative as is, except for page 12 Section 10 a. and b., making those advisory and making the map a guideline and make it advisory. Commission discussed the legalities of having the plan updated every 10 years. Mr. Thornhill commented that this plan was a reaction to the communities feelings toward Doug Sandahl and supported Mr. Brown s recommendation to make Section 10 advisory. Mr. Peterson shared closing thoughts. Mr. Bragiel agreed with Mr. Brown s recommendations and shared closing thoughts, making note that the general map did not create or change current zoning but was only a plan for the future and recommended to designate areas on main street and 373 as resort, Greer commercial and Greer resort. He also recommended that properties on either side of main street match zoning, they would still have to meet the criteria for GC or GCR zones. Mr. Freeman shared closing thoughts, he agreed with Mr. Brown s recommendations and referred to the comments made in the 2004 and proposed 2018 Comprehensive plan about how it is the county s intention that communities create these plan for themselves. Mr. Thornhill called for a motion Mr. Freeman asked Mr. Kirk if that by adding Mr. Browns recommendations of making the map advisory would fit into his consideration of the map. Mr. Kirk stated that if the county puts significant weight behind it when evaluating future land uses and that they remember this was the plan the community wanted, he didn t care if it was called advisory or directive. Mr. Freeman motioned to approve the plan as drafted making page 12 a & b advisory and the map advisory.
Mr. Peterson seconded the motion. Mr. Bragiel request to amend the motion by stating that the general plan will be strictly a guide to the BOS and planning & Zoning. Mr. Freeman did not agree and stated that the language in the plan spoke for itself; some portions were directive and some portions were advisory, some were vague and ambiguous, and created from input from the community. He cautioned that it would be a governmental overreach to second guess the community. Mr. Bragiel stated it was the comments made by the committee that some of the language may need to be changed, he added that it would be more difficult to make those changes once the plan was approved and would not happen. Mr. Dobson clarified concerns with the language regarding the water, which superseded state law. Mr. Freeman stated in which case that clause would be invalid. Commission discussed the wording in more than a dozen areas of the plan; water, congestion, traffic, walking, etc. Mr. Freeman stated that Mr. Brown s recommendation to make page 12 advisory took care of all those concerns. Mr. Brown referred to the table of contents, section 1-9, stated that they were advisory by nature and by making section 10 a. & b. advisory would addresses those concerns. Mr. Freeman did not accept to amend to his motion as requested by Mr. Bragiel. Mr. Thornhill asked the question on Mr. Freeman s original motion, to approve the plan as drafted making page 12 a & b and the map advisory. Vote is 4 ayes to 1 nay, Mr. Bragiel stated there was a conflict of interest with Mr. Freeman. Item #6 Election of a new chairman for the P&Z Commission. Tabled to October 4, 2018 meeting. Item #7 No report. Item #8 Report from Staff to the Commission. Adjourn Jim Thornhill opened for a motion to adjourn. Vice-Chairman John Freeman motioned to adjourn. Commissioner Carey Dobson seconded the motion. Vote, unanimous Adjourned 4:07 p.m.