View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

 

 

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

                                                                               

12425 W. BELL ROAD, SUITE D-100

SURPRISE, AZ  85374

 

REGULAR MEETING

* MINUTES *

 

August 17, 2004

 

 

Call to Order:

Chairman Ken Senft called the Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. at the Surprise City Hall – 12425 West Bell Road, Suite D-100, Surprise, Arizona, 85374, on Tuesday, August 17, 2004. 

 

Roll call:

Also in attendance with Chairman Senft were:  Vice Chairman Jan Blair and Commissioners Robert Gonzalez, Skip Hall, Randy Nachtigall, and Antonio Segarra.  Commissioner Daniel Morris was absent. 

 

Staff Present:

City Attorney, Jeff Blilie; Acting Community and Economic Development Director, LaTonya Finch; Vice-Mayor Don Cox; Planner, Andy Jochums; and Planner Stephanie Wilson.

 

PRESENTATIONS:

OLD BUSINESS:

 

Regular Agenda Items Requiring a Public Hearing:

 

·                     ZTA04-139 - Consideration and Action – Zoning Text Amendment

For Section 17.28.080 – Forman related to Automobile Sales

 

Planner Andy Jochums gave presentation:  Due to current limitations with regards to the automobile sales in the C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning district, the applicant has requested an amendment to Title 17 of the Municipal Code to allow for the sale of used automobiles in the C-2 zoning district.  The zoning amendment was presented at the July 20, 2004, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and was approved subject to stipulations from the Commission.  Stipulations are now presented as revised by staff.   The new language would not change any other portions of the code, such as temporary sales of used vehicles, or new and used recreational vehicles, as well as manufactured homes.  We are just changing what types of conditions will be required and that also includes motorcycle sales.  

 

Further discussion and questions:  on “the retail sale of new and/or used late model automobiles” in C-2 District.  Commission wanted further clarification on “used late model”…big concern about “used” in this district and how this will be enforced.  City Code Enforcement Officers would be responsible for enforcing the “used” and “not older than 4 years old”. 

Where it states “repair of vehicles in the form of a minor automobile service center”, this relates to any service center that does not include complete teardown of a vehicle or a body shop.   In the proposed language under “d”, item “b”…this is language from the existing section of the code.  This would relate to something like manufacturing of brake pads, processing of treatment of the chemicals that come out of vehicles, etc.  That is unchanged from the code as it reads today.  Under “e”, which reads…”no amplified music or loud speaker paging system is permitted”.  The cost of paging systems are no longer appropriate and most businesses no longer use them anyway.  The amplified music and paging systems is not appropriate within the C-2 District.

 

Any vehicle sales dealership will be required to go through the Conditional Use Permit process and would be required to comply with the Municipal Code as well as the City’s Planning and Design Guidelines.   So any of the architectural design guidelines and layout guidelines that we apply to every single commercial project that comes in the City would still be applied to any type of vehicle sales. 

 

Jeff Blilie:  What we are trying to do tonight is we’re establishing conditions in a C-2 zone.  C-2 is a much more limited type commercial use, then we’ve got these additional conditions.   And, that’s what we’re trying to get at.  If a business comes in and they don’t want to comply with these additional conditions and regulations, then they go to a C-3.   So, if the Commission feels that this type of use is appropriate for an arterial-to- arterial intersection, we could put that in as another stipulation.   What we’ll ultimately get to is when we get these types of uses and we get the conditions under which they are permitted, if they meet the conditions, then it would be permitted.  You would not be able to come back and say, “I just don’t think that’s appropriate for Bell Road C-2 because I just don’t like it on Bell Road.”  If it meets all the conditions, then it would be permitted.

Even if the conditions are met, the applicant has to meet all to comply with all Planning and Zoning Guidelines.  An Autoplex would not be good in C-2.   An enclosed auto display would be appropriate.  Boats, rv’s, and mobile homes have not been addressed in this particular amendment.   These would require, most likely, C-3 zoning.  Concern was of not seeing automobile sales appropriate on Bell Road between Grand Avenue west to the White Tank Mountains. 

 

Planner Jochums:  Staff’s intent in drafting this language, which does allow the sale of used late model vehicles.  Obviously, there is a certain perception associated with “used” vehicles.   Our intent was to allow used vehicles, but that the are used late model.  Those tend to have a better dealership association.  The question is…Is the use acceptable but, beyond that, is the design of the property acceptable along any arterial within the City.

 

Discussion by Commissioners with having no flexibility to say “no”.

 

Attorney Blilie:  The sale of used vehicles is currently not allowed in C-2 District with the exception of no more than 6 months.  Currently, new automobile sales are allowed in the C-2 with the provisions/conditions outlined.   A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is not supposed to be a legislative process.  It should be administrative.  An applicant who seeks a CUP should be able to look at our code, see the conditions under which he can get that permit.  If he meets all those conditions, then he should be issued the permit.   It would still have to come before the Commission.  What we don’t have now are those delineated conditions.  What happens is there is a lot of discretion left to the Commission whether or not to issue a CUP.  The Commission is not a discretionary body.  It really should not have that legislative type function.  So, you end up falling back to Public Health Safety and Welfare, which is not my recommended way to address the CUP’s.  Used auto sales would still need a CUP.   They would still have to come back to the Commission for review.  You would review them to make sure they have complied with all the conditions.  You would make sure they are complying with the Planning and Design Guidelines Manual.   And, if they meet all of those conditions and they comply with all our Rules and Regulations, then the Commission should then issue that permit.  What I’m trying to get at is that we are trying to establish conditions under which you would always say “yes”.   Maybe it’s not appropriate to see such permits given between certain arterial-to-arterial intersections.   Maybe we don’t want to see that type of use. 

 

Need to have specific conditions and stipulations in C-2 and C-3.  Do not want to have a car lot, a drug store, gas station, etc. on every corner – want more control.  Need to add language to prevent that from occurring.

 

Attorney Blilie:  You could stipulate a certain distance between each dealership.  Planning and control is by zoning.

 

LaTonya Finch:  As we focus on the item that is before us, is focus your attention on two issues.  First, you need to determine whether or not you wish to see nearly new (used) late model vehicles in C-2 District with the CUP.  Do you want to allow that or not?  Once you determine whether or not you want to do it, then you can go from there.   If you really choose to allow these used vehicles to be sold in a C-2 District, then you can look at what types of conditions should be associated with the ordinance.

 

Planner Jochums:  This provision, as drafted by staff, would affect “new” and “nearly new” vehicles and adds motorcycles, removing the section that only talks about “new”.  Used sales of older than 4 years old would be unchanged in the code.

 

OPEN TO PUBLIC:

Paula Foster, 16333 W. Escondido Ct., inquired about the height of lights.  A lot of car dealers put up light fixtures that are very high and very bright.  Is the height where the restriction should be?  (There is a city-wide commercial applied section of the code and does not need to be .)  It speaks of “new” and/or “used late models” in stipulation “a”.    There are a lot of times when buying a new vehicle, with 10,000 mile or 10-year warranty, will this interfere with what we are trying to pass?

 

Attorney Blilie:  There may be some confusion in how it is written, but we’re adding “and/or used” and the three criteria that they have to meet is no more than 4 years old, still under factory warranty, and with no more than 50,000 miles.

 

Applicant, Ron Forman, 8351 W. Alyssa Lane, Peoria:  The vehicles that I sell are very late model, very expensive – BMW, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, Mercedes, those types of vehicles.  People purchasing these types of vehicles are not looking at the facility with the lights and the amplified music, etc.   My facility would be more of a delivery center, an upper scale dealership, indoor facility.  These types of vehicles are very high dollar.  I will only have maybe ten or twelve vehicles only because of being cost prohibitive to have 50 or 100 vehicles and would be cost prohibitive to build a building large enough to house that number of vehicles in an indoor facility.

 

It was decided to take out items b and c and e in the proposed language as presented by staff, and add item b to read…“must be an indoor facility”.  This would be in C-2 District.

 

No further comments or questions from Commissioners or public.

 

Motion made by Commissioner Segarra and seconded by Commissioner Nachtigall to accept the proposed language as presented by staff, removing items b and c and e, adding as item b to read…”No outside display or storage.”  Motion approved and passed with 6 for and 1 absent.

 

 

 

·                     SP04-177 – Consideration and Action – Site Plan –

LDS Church in the Sierra Montana Development

Approximately 4.36 acres located at the southwest

corner of Sierra Montana Loop and Verde Vista Drive

 

Planner Andy Jochums presented with overhead site plan, front elevation, and standard stipulations a through o.  Stipulation a in the Recommendations referenced an incorrect date.  The correct date is August 5, 2004.

 

Discussion regarding stipulation on appropriate number of drywells to dissipate retention per the code.  The required retention of the code is 36 hours.

 

Discussion on parking and landscaping:  The City code requires 1 parking stall per 4 seats.  The 194 parking spaces exceed the number require by the Municipal Code.    It was suggested to the Applicant to widen the drive aisle in the north lot adjacent to the main structure to 27 ft. because there is plenty of space due to the very generous number of parking spaces and landscaping.  Commission felt this is a very nice looking plan. 

 

Applicant Scott Lutes, Emc2 Architects, Mesa, AZ:  Does not feel there would be a hardship in widening the drive aisles.  There is an excess of space and room to do it.  The fire lanes have already been widened to 28 ft.   Excited about the project – a unique shape and able to situate the placement of the building so that it’s different.

 

Motion made by Commissioner Nachtigall and seconded by Commissioner Segarra to accept all recommendations as stated in items a through o, adding stipulation p to read…”Drive aisle north of the church building to be widened to 27 ft.”   6 for and 1 absent.

 

·                     SP04-183 – Consideration and Action – Site Plan –

TGI Friday’s Restaurant – Approximately 1.26 acres

Located South of Bell Road, East of Bullard Avenue,

and West of Litchfield Road

 

Planner Andy Jochums presented. With site plan and architectural design on overhead.  This proposed site plan is part of Phase 2 of the City at Surprise, including one freestanding restaurant building, a TGI Friday’s, consisting of a 7,445 square ft. building.  The TGI Friday’s Restaurant includes features such as painted stucco finish with an applied arcade, varied rooflines including corniced flatfoot and tiled hip roofs featuring decorative brackets, contrasting window and door popouts, divided light windows, a stone wainscot, glass block accents, fabric awnings with ornate metal brackets and a complementary color palette.  These elements combined with the general layout of the building, appears to comply with the required Mediterranean architectural style, which was the required style as approved by the City Council as part of the City at Surprise PAD zoning.

 

Extended discussion on the architectural design, namely the stucco sections of the building, which faces Bell Road.  It was felt by the Commission that these stucco sections were too plain and something needs to be added to dress it up or plant some small trees in the middle of each of these stucco sections.  Small discussion on the patio area and the landscaping.

 

Applicant, Tim Keenan, Surprise Center Development Company, 11811 N. Tatum Blvd., Phoenix:  The landscaping on the Bell Road side of the building is a green groundcover and does not take a lot of water.  TGI Friday’s will be responsible for taking care of all landscaping and watering of everything north of the property line.  Tim indicated that he had to fight for the patio because they say that people don’t like to sit outside, but Commission commended him on this as patio areas are nice for sitting outside when it is cooler, especially during the winter. 

 

Architect, Rick Clark:  There could be a change made to the solid stucco surface sections on the side of the building facing Bell Road – could add some reveals, which would indent back into the stucco and create shadows, or create some kind of a horizontal or vertical line or criss-cross, or some kind of pop-out.  This part of the building is the kitchen area, so no windows could be added.  Addition of trees in front of these areas could be added.  There is room for that and it softens the hardness to that part of the building.  However, there already are a lot of trees and landscape plants in the site plan and there are existing trees present.  There is also sidewalk along this side of the building.

 

Commission is looking for articulation on the solid stucco surface sections on the Bell Road side of the building as long as they already have trees.  Landscaping stipulations can be added during the landscape permit process.

 

OPEN TO PUBLIC:

Paula Foster, 16333 W. Escondido Ct., inquired that since there are sidewalks, has there been consideration of a bicycle rack so that people can ride to the restaurants instead of taking cars?  This actually would apply to any restaurant.

 

Probably not been brought up before, but would be left up to the developer.  The suggestion can be made to the developers, it could be added as a stipulation, but most likely, staff can start looking for it when we start reviewing the landscaping.

 

No other comments from Commission or public.

 

Motion made by Commissioner Nachtigall and seconded by Vice Chairman Blair that standard recommendations and stipulations a through l and the addition of m be approved.  Stipulation m to read…”Applicant to provide additional surface articulation or landscaping on the north elevation with review and approval by the CEDD Director.”  

6 for and 1 absent.

 

·                     SP04-162 – Consideration and Action – Site Plan –

Enclaves Condominiums – Approximately 13.7 acres

located at the Southwest corner of Reems Road and

Mountain View Boulevard

 

Planner Andy Jochums presented with site plan on overhead, plus elevation of one of the seven-plex buildings, and elevation of general example of 3-story buildings that will be at the rear of the site.   There will be three 3-story buildings totaling 195 units and nine 2-story seven-plex buildings, as well as a clubhouse, and landscaped recreation and open space amenity areas located throughout the site.  The applicant is also requesting approval for a temporary sales trailer on the site for use until the permanent sales office is completed.  This ha been added as stipulation n to read…”A temporary sales trailer to be allowed on site until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the permanent sales facility.  The site plan associated with the trailer shall be reviewed and approved by the CEDD Director prior to issuance of a permit for the placement of the trailer on site”.  Vehicular circulation within the site will be by way of 25 ft. wide drive aisles and 90-degree parking stalls, providing a total of 581 parking spaces.  The buildings on the site will share a contemporary southwest architectural design theme, utilizing features such as diverse building massing with a painted stucco finish, varied rooflines featuring cornice topped flat roofs as well as tile covered shed, gable and hip roofs, geometric façade accents, contrasting door and window pop-outs, divided light windows, metal railing, wood trellises, and a bold color palette.  The buildings are all designed to feature the same detail on all sides of the structure, thus creating the required “four-sided architecture.”

 

Discussion on:   The sales trailer including a parking lot.  The applicant’s map has that the gross acreage is 15.3 acres.  The patching area on the site plan map is a decorative pavement element that will do some sort of traffic calming, rather than speed bumps.  The front elevation will face inward of the complex and the rear elevation will face either Reems Road or Mountain View Blvd., depending on location within the site plan and those with garages (the seven, the garages face internal on the site.  This is not an age restricted complex.  It was questioned why there is only 1 swimming pool, based on the size of the property.

 

Applicant, Jordan Scott, 6030 E. Jeffer Street, Scottsdale, AZ:  60% of clientele registered so far is 55 or older – other 40% are young professionals, 25 to 35 in age.  It is a for sale property complex.  Most condo residents do not have children.  There is no “tot lot” – this is a typo.

 

Architect, Greg Zimmerman, 14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Scottsdale, AZ:  Deep consideration on the amenities package.  Feedback came back from clientele, indicating they would like a larger clubhouse facility rather than another body of water.  Our clubhouse facility is over 6,000 sq. ft., 2-story and includes an exercise facility, hibachi  court, an entertainment facility, and we have a jogging track around the perimeter of the property.  There is a small bird sanctuary on site and integrated throughout the property are “people spaces.”  So, with all of these other amenities, we didn’t feel another pool was necessary.  Other similar projects that we looked at in Scottsdale were mostly rentals. 

 

Discussion on where the parking spaces are and the different colors of the buildings.

 

Architect Zimmerman:  The parking for the seven-plex are in their own garages and all other parking is in the interior of the complex for the 3-story buildings.  There are 2.5 spaces allowed for each of the 3-story buildings, so there will obviously be ample parking.  There are distinct articulations from building to building.  There is no symmetry.  The face of each building is unique in its own way to some extent from another building.

 

Chairman Senft referred to letter from Luke and wanted to clarify that this project was included in a 577 acre parcel and there was an agreement that this project would not meet the GEC requirements.  So now it became considered a parcel of 577 acres.  What assurances do we have that there will be no other changes to the other 577 acres?  Luke agreed that there would be no density changes or other zoning changes permitted within the 577 acres.  There are going to be other projects coming forward.

 

Attorney Blilie:  You can protect yourselves because you don’t have to approve any zoning changes.  There will be additional site plans and more high-density projects, probably including apartments.  The densities within that square mile aren’t going to exceed the GEC.  If someone wants to rezone, Luke would be made aware of it, and then we would have to re-do and make sure of the densities.

 

Architect Zimmerman:  This property basically encompasses the area behind the Albertson’s and Safeway along Grand Avenue.     

 

Discussion on what type of zoning surrounds the complex.  There are not single-family homes to the south, but are vacant zones, but there are single-family homes to the west.

 

Architect Zimmerman:  The residents to the west were individually notified and there was a meeting held and there were no complaints.

 

Discussion ensued on indicating a time frame of when the sales trailer will be removed as there are other sites within the City where the permanent sales facility is completed, but the sales trailer is still sitting on the property, which is against City code, and we need to do something about that.

 

Architect Zimmerman:  Asked for a 30-45 day time frame be allowed for the sales trailer to remain on site even once the permanent sales facility as it would take that amount of time to get the C of O, which may be temporary, and to get all furniture moved into the sales facility.  And, then allow approximately 60 days after that to actually remove the sales trailer once the permanent C of O is issued.  The removal of this sales trailer will be self-inflicting as we are going to be staging and we are not going to want that sales trailer sitting around very long as it sits right on one of our paths.  We have a 19-month lease on the sales trailer and so this time allotment is going to be tight, but we will work with the Commission in any way regarding the removal of the sales trailer.

 

LaTonya Finch:  We actually have a TCO process that would allow you to transition into the C of O process so that once that C of O is issued, you’d be up and running and ready to go.   You might want to utilize those opportunities of the TCO so that you can furnish the sales facility, do your staff training, and things of that nature.

 

OPEN TO PUBLIC:

Paula Foster, 16333 W. Escondido Ct.:  For the area that is backing up to the homes off Reems Road, I’m curious as to where the garbage collection would be and would it interfere with the single-home owners.

 

Architect Zimmerman:  There is a trash compactor in the southeast corner of the property – only one – no dumpsters.  There is a trash chute system within the buildings that goes to a garbage collection area.  Then, maintenance will transfer the garbage via electric cart to the trash compactor.

 

Foster:  Wanted to know if there were elevators in the 3-story buildings and will there be designated parking?

 

Architect Zimmerman:  Yes…there are in all buildings, as well as stair wells.  Regarding the designated parking, that has to be deferred to the developer, but a for sale product usually has designated parking, but don’t believe the parking designation is definite yet. 

 

Developer Scott:  Parking designation is not set up yet, but will be designated for the owners and, also, visitor parking will be designated.

 

No other questions or comments from Commissioners or the public.

 

Motion made by Commissioner Segarra and seconded by Vice Chairman Blair to approve a through m and add n to read…”A temporary sales trailer to be allowed on site until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the permanent sales facility.  The site plan associated with the trailer shall be reviewed and approved by the CEDD Director prior to issuance of a permit for the placement of the trailer on site”.   6 for and 1 absent.

 

·                     PP04-153 Consideration and Action – Preliminary Plat -

Surprise Farms Phase IV – Approximately 211.07 Acres

Located North of Greenway Road, West of Citrus Road

 

Planner Stephanie Wilson made presentation (site plan on overhead).  Proposal of 521 single-family residential lots, specifically Sections 2 and 3, minimum lot sizes 50 x 120, with several variation in lot sizes up to 75 x 125, comprised of 119 acres of residential land, approximately 22 acres of open space, 54 acres dedicated to the City as a city park, and 14.31 acres of right-of-way. The planned area of development has designated this particular piece as low-density residential with maximum of 5.5 dwelling units per acre.  What we’re seeing on this preliminary plat is 2.65 dwellings per unit.  This proposal will not adversely affect the public health safety or welfare and is consistent with the City of Surprise General Plan 2020 as well as the Luke Graduated Density Concept.  The request is also consistent with the approved Village at Surprise South (Surprise Farms) P.A.D. zoning and subsequent amendments to the P.A.D.

 

Discussion regarding a school.

 

Applicant Tim Keenan, Surprise Center Development Co., 11811 N. Tatum Blvd., Phoenix:  There are 3 elementary school sites within Surprise Farms – one has been built, Cimmaron Springs off Cotton Lane.  Another school within 1B is between 175th Avenue and Cotton Lane, and then the third proposed being donated in Phase 2, and then there is a high school site.

 

Discussion regarding lighting.

Applicant Keenan:  We’ve done the lighting on every particular phase and disclosed to the buyer of the home.  Within our package of the builders debt, it says what they have to disclose.  That’s one of the issues.  Another issue is Cox Communications can serve telephone in this area and things like that.

 

LaTonya Finch:  In support of that, I have potential home buyers contact me all the time and ask more questions about the SLID because of the disclosures, so that process is working.

 

Discussion on the HOA taking care of landscaping.

Applicant Keenan:  The HOA takes care of landscaping outside the perimeter wall of the property even within right-of-way.   We also have some other areas within Surprise Farms where there are landscaped medians.  The HOA maintains that and that is all disclosed to the home buyer. 

 

 

Discussion on roadway paving.

Applicant Keenan:  We have no responsibility of paving Greenway Road to the south.

 

Chairman Senft:  When this project came forward, we decided that they would open 175th Avenue and provide initial access to the high school and through the park and we would not require the doing the north side improvement to Greenway because the original 10-year old agreement did not require them to open 175th Avenue and Citrus and 183rd Avenue.  The south side improvement would be the responsibility of the developer on the other side.

 

Applicant Keenan:  183rd Avenue and Citrus Lane wind around and go through the development and we will be paying for the cost of these roads through Phase 4.  Citrus Lane will extend to the high school.  I have an agreement with Mark Coronado regarding the road through the park after they have their meeting on the layout of the park.

 

No further questions or comments from Commissioners.

 

OPEN TO PUBLIC:

No questions or comments.

 

Motion made by Commissioner Segarra and seconded by Commissioner Nachtigall that stipulations A through I be accepted and ADD stipulation J to read…”Applicant shall either provide a road or an in-lieu payment for a road through the City park subject to the approval of the Parks and Rec Director.”  Motion carried 6 for and 1 absent.

 

·                     STA04-210 – Consideration and Action – Sign Text

Amendment – Master Sign Programs

 

Planner Stephanie Wilson made presentation.  Typically the homebuilders require what we consider a long-term temporary signage to market home sales and usually these temporary signs would exceed that which is allowed under the new temporary sign ordinance, especially with the way it has recently been amended.  In order for the homebuilders to have adequate signage, they have the option to request approval of a master sign program.  The current ordinance does not allow for a request for a master sign program for any residential development not in a planned area development.  This would preclude certain developments such as Litchfield Manor and Bell West Ranch from the opportunity to process an application for a master sign program.  Even though these developments are not part of a Planned Area Development (PAD), they still meet the intent of the master sign program.  Along with that on the flip side, there are situations that would not necessitate a master sign program such as commercial developments in a PAD that have less than four businesses.  So what we’ve done on the first section of the amendment is tried to clarify some of that criteria.  (Put up overhead.)  Basically, what we’re doing is we’re just going to add in some additional language to clarify this a little bit more by adding under Item C… “residential subdivisions of ten (10) or more lots” because that would be an appropriate size to begin thinking about increasing some sign area or intensity of the sign use.  And we want to add “containing four or more individual businesses with separate business licenses”.  The separation of business licenses is very critical because you might run into a situation of a car wash where they also do lube, oil, and different types of services, but they are only one business and only need to be marketing that one business.  So, we want to be able to limit individual businesses from being able to expand their sign areas on one particular parcel just because they fall into a PAD.  In general, the master sign program is a request to increase the amount of signage that would be normally allowed on a particular site.  It is based on specific criteria…how many businesses will be on a particular site, etc.  There is quite a bit of thought and consideration as to how much signage is appropriate and how it should be utilized.  There are many different components that reviewed that collectively create program that include marketing, direction for both pedestrian and vehicular movement on a site, as well as general safety.  And, we’re adding under Item D…”Amendments to a Master Sign Program” as in the Ordinance.  We would like to add in a further stipulation that master sign program shall be submitted after or concurrent with the associated site plan for a commercial site and the first final plat for a residential subdivision because we are trying to bring these two timelines closer together. 

 

Discussion ensued regarding the Kohl’s Center as an example as how this relates to the master sign program.  The Kohl’s Center does currently have a master sign program.  It will not be possible to list all occupants on the sign because the signage would be so small, it would cause a traffic hazard as drivers are trying to read the sign while signing.  The major tenants would be on the monument sign itself.

 

No further questions or comments from Commissioners.

 

OPEN TO PUBLIC:

Paula Foster:  Just a point…there’s a monument sign in the front of the medical building on Mountain View across from the Del Webb building.  The way the monument sign is located, you can see it on Mountain View, but on the other side street, you don’t see the sign.  A lot of those signs are so small that you almost have to stop in the street to read the sign.  Some are better than others.  Is there any unity in the signs that they are all visible and readable from the street?  It might be something to think about in the future.

 

No other comments.

 

 

 

 

 

Motion made by Commissioner Nachticall and seconded by Vice Chairman Blair that this Sign Text Amendment STA04-210 be approved with the addition of stipulation to read…”Master Sign Program shall be submitted after or concurrent with the associated site plan for a commercial site and the first final plat for a residential subdivision.”  Motion carried.  6 for and 1 absent.

 

OPEN CALL TO PUBLIC:

 

CALL TO THE PUBLIC

Note:  During this time members of the public may address

The Commission on any item not on the agenda.  At the

conclusion of the open call, Commissioners may respond

to criticism, may ask staff to review the matter, or may

ask that the matter be put on a future agenda.  No discussion

or action shall take place on any item raised.

 

Paula Foster:  At the last meeting, I asked a couple of questions and have not gotten answers.  I wanted to know about if seals are given out before there’s paving on businesses, in particular to the church at Clearview and Goldwater Bridge.  Another was stipulations on the height of the four churches going in the area.  Were addressed with her by Planner Andy Jochums.

 

Vice-Mayor Don Cox, 17737 Becky Lane, Surprise:  He just wanted to make a comment regarding the signal light on Bell and Citrus in front of the school that Tim Keenan installed.  I was so happy that they paid for it - $150,000.  Then, LaTonya said we had to pay them back, so then I was unhappy, but we paid it back.  I told Tim he could donate that $150,000 to the park and I talked to Tim tonight and he tells me they are donating that $150,000 back to the park.

 

CURRENT EVENTS REPORT:

 

Chairperson and Commissioners:

 

Antonio Segarro will be on vacation for 5 weeks – gone September 19

through October 25.

 

Community Development Director – LaTonya Finch (Acting Director in

Philip Testa’s absence)

 

            We currently do not have a Planning and Zoning Secretary.  Marceil Crull, who is here tonight, is our “temp” presently, but we’re hoping she’ll be staying.  Dawn has left employment at the City.  If you need a contact, use Lee Lambert, one of our new planners.

            If you happen to call Lisa Padron, our new Planning Tech, she is very busy.

            LaTonya had a handout.  See “Community and Economic Development Major Project Status Report” dated August 17, 2004, which she briefly went over.   Probably most important is the status of the Unified Development Code (UDC).  We hope to have the first draft completed in September.  We have completed 3 chapters and have gone over chapter 4 several times and need to keep making changes.  Hope to complete all 19 chapters by the end of September.  In October, we’ll hold a Joint Commission Workshop regarding the project overall and discuss a couple of major chapters – zoning, infrastructure – will do a brief summary to bring up-to-speed on what we are doing.  In November, we hope to have the graphics completed.  In December, there will be an external agency and City departmental review.  In January of 2005, we hope to have the final draft completed.  In February of 2005, there will be Joint Council/Commission Workshop.  In March of 2005, there will be Planning and Zoning Commission Hearing.  In April of 2005, there will be first reading by the City Council.  In May of 2005, if all things work as intended, there will be a public awareness and education campaign.  And, in June of 2005, we hope to implement.  So, this Ordinance will impact many departments.

 

No comments or questions from Commissioners or the public.

 

CONSIDERATION AND ACTION TO HOLD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION:

           

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3), the Planning and Zoning

            Commission may go into executive session with the City

            Attorney for legal advice on any item listed on the agenda.

 

NONE

 

ADJOURNMENT:

 

Chairman Ken Senft adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                        ___________________________________

                                                                        LaTonya Finch, Acting Director

                                                                        Community and Economic Development