Minutes – Verde

November 17, 2010

Page 1

6.Minor Community Plan Amendment, H#10073, and Major PAD Amendment, H#10074; APNs 405-34-001Y, T, R, X, V and N.

THESE MINUTES CONTAIN PUBLIC COMMENT

Applicants:Pinto Lane Partners, LLC, Two Jays Publishing Inc., Burdett Lumis, Casa de Piedras HOA Assn., and Truly Sand, LLC

Agent:Steele Sacks

Project:Las Posadas Bed and Breakfast

Request:Consideration of a Minor Community Plan Amendment to the Big Park Community Plan and a Major PAD Amendment to allow the existing Bed and Breakfast Inns to be used as a hotel/motel/resort to add a swimming pool, commercial kitchen and additional signage on approximately 2.1 acres in a PAD (Planned Area Development) zoning district. Located on the northeast corner of the intersection of SR 179 and Avenida de Piedras in the Community of Village of Oak Creek.

Located in SEC 24 TWN16N R5E G&SRB&M

Tammy DeWitt, Planner made the staff presentation noting that subsequent to the preparation of the Commission packets one letter of opposition had been received. She mentioned that VOCA had submitted a letter of support but had requested that the proposal be processed as a Use Permit instead of a PAD amendment.

Ms. DeWitt concluded her presentation by stating that there were ten (10) stipulations being offered should the Commission choose to recommend approval.

Chairman Stewart opened the discussion to the Commission.

Commissioner McClelland requested an explanation regarding the VOCA approval as to why the application could not be processed as a Use Permit. Ms. DeWitt explained that the current PAD allowed for RS-type uses, however, a hotel/motel/resort was a C1-type use so if the underlying zoning of the PAD was changed through the PAD amendment and the pool, commercial kitchen and additional signage were installed it would not be possible to return the property to four (4) individual residences, therefore a Use Permit was not an option.

Commissioner Kerkman requested confirmation that the zoning change was the basis for the determination that a Minor Community Plan Amendment was required. Ms. DeWitt explained that anytime someone was proposing a use that was not consistent with the Community Plan a Minor Community Plan Amendment was required. She noted that the Community Plan showed this area as Village Services which was similar to the County’s Residential Services district but that this was a C1 use which precipitated the need for a Minor Community Plan Amendment. Commissioner Kerkman asked if this change would allow the property to be used for all C1 zoning activities or was it a specific zoning. Ms. DeWitt responded that this change would be specific to the site plan and to the Major PAD Amendment approval stipulations. Commissioner Kerkman asked which homeowners were represented by the Las Piedras Homeowners’ Association. Ms. DeWitt replied that the Las Posadas Homeowners’ Association maintained and operated the Bed & Breakfast Inns. Commissioner Kerkman requested confirmation that the Homeowners’ Association managed the Bed & Breakfast Inns as a non-profit corporation. Ms. DeWitt responded affirmatively.

Commissioner McClelland requested confirmation that if this was approved, it would be a commercial venture and could be a hotel. Ms. DeWitt responded affirmatively. Commissioner McClelland asked what was to stop the owners from selling out to a hotel chain and if it was possible to put something in the stipulations to prevent that. Ms. DeWitt explained that PAD would be changed to allow for a hotel/motel/resort so as long as the use did not change and there were no changes to the property the ownership was not relevant. She noted that if the new owners wanted to expand or change the approved use it would have to go through the public hearing process.

Commissioner Garner requested confirmation that any expanded use or change in use would trigger the public hearing process and that a change in ownership would have no bearing on that. Ms. DeWitt responded affirmatively.

Commissioner McClelland commented that when these structures were built the Assessor determined that they were commercial but that they had been approved by the Supervisors as owner-occupied Bed & Breakfast Inns. Ms. DeWitt explained that per the Assessor’s statutory regulations a Bed & Breakfast with five (5) or more guest units was considered a hotel/motel, however, six (6) or more guest units was the commercial threshold under the State Statutes regulating zoning/land use.

There being no further questions of staff, Chairman Stewart asked the applicant to address the Commission.

Steele Sacks, Agent said that he was a co-owner in the Bed & Breakfast Inns. He stated that when they looked at this project approximately three (3) years ago, they discovered that it would need a zoning change, and decided not to pursue it at that time. He said that at their owners meeting in 2009 they decided to proceed with the project and contacted the County to start the process. He noted that they were told about the anonymous complaint at that time.

Mr. Sacks said they were asking for three (3) changes – a pool, increased signage and a commercial kitchen. He explained their reasons for the request for the pool and the increased signage, noted that the open space allocation of the PAD would not change, mentioned that his owner space would be converted to the kitchen/serving space and gave an overview of their citizen participation efforts. Mr. Sacks concluded by requesting a positive recommendation and said he would be happy to answer any questions.

CommissionerProvince asked if the kitchen would be advertised for off-property clientele. Mr. Sacks responded negatively, it would only be for guests of the Bed & Breakfast Inns.

Commissioner Kerkman asked staff if this was approved and the project failed would the Minor Community Plan Amendment be extinguished. Ms. Dewitt replied negatively, noting that it would stay in effect, for this use only, and that any other use would need a public hearing. Commissioner Kerkman asked if the Amendment changed the use of the property. Ms. DeWitt responded negatively.

There being no further questions of the applicant, Chairman Stewart opened the floor to public participation.

Support:

Kathy Nelms said she was representing the Sedona Village Business Association and that at the September 16th Board of Directors meeting they had unanimously adopted a resolution of support. She then read the resolution into the record.

Mel Copen said he was the Big Park Regional Coordinating Council (BPRCC) President [Council unanimously voted in favor of the proposal] and also a member of the Sedona Golf Resort Community Association [Association submitted a letter of positive support]. He said Las Posadas was a good addition to the community and that approval of this request would strengthen their ability to further serve the community.

Bert Berkshire said he was a resident of Sedona Golf Resort [180 Ridge Rock Road]. He said he and his wife had been residents since 1988, described his personal background, and expressed his support.

Commissioner Garner requested an update on the Sedona Golf Resort situation in regards to a possible sale of the golf course. Mr. Berkshire explained that the golf course had been retained by the lender Pacific Life, that the lender had met with the Association and expressed his opinion that the golf course should be fine. Commissioner Garner asked if the lender was providing financial stability for the golf course. Mr. Berkshire responded affirmatively.

Henry Reiter said he lived at 35 Heritage Court, which was approximately a ½ mile west of the site. He noted that he represented the only abutting property owner [Brentwood] and had submitted a letter of support. Mr. Reiter presented two (2) slides on the overhead. He said that Las Posadas was a good neighbor and was in a pivotal location in respect to the entrance into the Las Piedras Subdivision and the Village of Oak Creek [Highway 179].

Mark Mumaw said he lived at 138 Horse Ranch Road and was the BPRCC Planning and Zoning Committee Chair. He stated that the Committee had recommended approval, there was overwhelming support for the project, and that Las Posadas was a good neighbor as well as an asset to the community. Mr. Mumaw expressed the opinion that this was an excellent use of the property and requested approval of the application.

Bob Powers said he was a member of the VOCA Architectural Review and Restrictions Committee and that they were in support of the application. He said they represented 2400 homes in the BigPark area. Mr. Powers noted that while the property was not located within the Association’s boundaries, they felt it was an appropriate use of the facilities. He said they now understood why this was not a Use Permit application and that approval of the amendment would not be a blanket approval for all C1 uses. Mr. Powers concluded by stating that they were in favor of the application and noting that all their requested stipulations had been met.

Tom Graham said he was one of the Bed & Breakfast Inn owners. He described the loss of business sustained due to there not being a pool or adequate signage. He confirmed that they were not asking for full C1 uses on the property, noted that there would be no change to the footprint of the buildings, and that any events would be limited in scope to only the lodging guests. Mr. Graham reiterated that if the property was sold it would still be under the PAD conditions and any change would require additional approval through the hearing process. He concluded by requesting a positive recommendation.

Commissioner Garner asked if it would be possible for a single family to rent the entire facility to have a wedding and make use of the commercial kitchen as well. Mr. Graham replied affirmatively, subject to approval of the application. Mr. Sacks mentioned that there was a stipulation regarding no outside amplified music. Commissioner Garner said he understood but that would not preclude someone utilizing the facility for an event at which not all the guests would be staying at the facility. Ms. DeWitt responded that a stipulation could be added to require that events be restricted to registered guests.

Commissioner Garner said that if the applicant had no objection to that he would like to see that added to the stipulations. Ms. DeWitt said that staff could also add a stipulation that the commercial kitchen would serve only registered guests. Commissioner Garner asked that be added as well. Mr. Graham said they had no problem with the additional stipulations. [Stipulation added: “Any on-site events will be restricted to registered guests only.” Stipulation #2 revised to include: “…to serve registered guests only...”]

Commissioner Kerkman asked what would happen if one of the partners opted out. Mr. Graham said that would not be possible as their CC&R’s prohibited opting out.

Dana Brush said she was a member of the Las Piedras Homeowners’ Association Board of Directors and that their subdivision would be the most affected by this amendment. She said that Las Posadas were wonderful neighbors and that she concurred with the previous speakers. Ms. Brush noted that there were no objections from any of the Las Piedras homeowners, they supported the venture, and felt it would be an asset to the community.

Bob Carabel said he was a Village of Oak Creek resident and was a member of the BRPCC Planning and Zoning Committee and the VOCA Architectural Review and Restrictions Committee. He said both of those entities had approved the proposal and he had voted positively both times. Mr. Carabel said he felt the buildings were an attractive entry into the Village. He noted that this was an operational change only and requested that the Commission grant the permit.

Opposition:

Elaine Brown said she was a Village of Oak Creek resident and described the background regarding her research and personal experience. She said Las Posadas had not followed the County’s rules, nor had they followed the Community Plan. She expressed her concern regarding the dissolution of their Declaration of Condominiums as pertained to the open space and the roads, the number of events and event participants, allowing commercial in a residential area, and setting a precedent.

Chairman Stewart asked the applicant to respond to the opposition’s comments.

Mr. Sacks said he was not sure how to address Ms. Brown’s concerns except to say that they had agreed to the additional stipulations and there would be no major changes beyond the pool and additional signage.

CommissionerProvince asked the applicant to address Ms. Brown’s concern regarding events. Mr. Sacks said events would be for registered guests only and explained the logistics of holding events on the property.

Commissioner Garner commented that propagation of continued commercial properties had always been an issue in the Village of Oak Creek. He said that was not what was intended at the start of this process as at the time the Commission felt that Residential Services was a complement to the development. He said this was basically the same thing, with the same concerns regarding commercial activity on the property. Commissioner Garner noted that there was not a tremendous amount of community opposition to the application.

Commissioner Kerkman commented that, in reality, a community with no commercial enterprises would not last very long and that some commercial-type entities/ventures were necessary and beneficial to the community as a whole.

There being no further public participation, the floor was closed to public participation and returned to the Commission for further discussion and/or a motion.

Action #1: Commissioner Reilly made a motion to recommend approval of hearing applicationsH#10073, Minor Community Plan Amendment and H#10074, Major PAD Amendment subject to the following stipulations as shown on the overhead:

  1. Approval of Minor Community Plan Amendment to the Big Park Community Plan.
  2. Approval of Major PAD Amendment to allow the property to be used as a hotel/motel/resort with a maximum of 23 guest units and 1 commercial kitchen to serve registered guests only in accordance with the site plan dated 10/12/10 and in accordance with all applicable codes, regulations and ordinance requirements.
  3. In the event the owner of the subject property files a claim under ARS Section 12-1134 regarding this Major PAD Amendment, this Major PAD Amendment shall be null and void.
  4. The total signage would not exceed 96 square feet consisting of a 56 sq. ft. monument sign, a 30 sq. ft. building mounted sign and the existing sign 6 sq. ft. sign converted to a welcome sign for a total of 92 sq. ft.
  5. The swimming pool would be screened from SR 179 with a masonry wall softened by landscaping.
  6. There will be no outdoor amplified music.
  7. Any on-site events will be restricted to registered guests only.
  8. Waiver of screening requirement.
  9. Owner’s quarters used as guest units cannot have lockouts and will count as one (1) guest unit.
  10. Change of Use to be applied for within 3 months of Board of Supervisors’ approval.
  11. Certificate of Compliance to be obtained within one year (1) of Board of Supervisors’ approval.

Commissioner Kerkman seconded the motion.

Commissioner Jackson commented that most states relied heavily on what the leaders of the communities did to make them grow. He noted that often when the leadership of a community was promoting projects such as this one it was mainly in the interest of growth. Commissioner Jackson expressed the opinion that this would be a good utilization of the property, it had the support of all the involved community groups, and as such he would have no problem voting in favor of the application.

The motion carried unanimously. This item will be heard by the Board of Supervisors on December 20, 2010.