PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
12425 W. BELL ROAD,
SURPRISE, AZ 85374
Call to Order:
Chairman Ken Senft called the Regular Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting to order at 6:05pm at the Surprise
City Hall – 12425 West Bell Road, Suite D-100, Surprise, Arizona,
85374, on Tuesday,
February 1, 2005.
In attendance with Chairman Senft were: Commissioners Robert Gonzalez, Commissioner
Daniel Morris, Commissioner Skip Hall, and Commissioner Jan Blair. (Commissioner Antonio Segarra and
Commissioner Randy Nachtigall were absent).
City Attorney Jeff Blilie, Planning and Zoning Manager Robert Millspaw, Planner Stephanie
Wilson, and Planning Department Secretary Linda Bernsdorff.
Council Members Present:
There were no council members present.
Regular Agenda Items Requiring A Public Hearing
There were no items on the
agenda not requiring a public hearing.
SP04-417, Site Plan Approval for
Stephanie Wilson presented the
staff report. In her presentation,
Planner Wilson noted that the school will have a capacity of 750 students. Access to the site along Cactus Road will accommodate all types
of vehicles. The secondary access on Bullard Avenue
will permit right turns in and right turns out and left turns in through a
median cut. Parking is shown at 40
spaces. Long driveways with
turn-arounds will accommodate parents dropping off and picking up
children. The architecture is
southwestern Spanish, with 22% of the total site in landscaped areas, which
exceeds the City minimum requirement of 15%.
The staff recommendation is for approval subject to the 11
stipulations in the staff report.
added a twelfth stipulation, stipulation “l” which will require the erection
of view fencing along Bullard
The design of this view fencing shall require the approval of the
Community Development Director.
Chair Blair asked about points of access to this site and if the City were
aware of plans for adjacent land uses on sites around the school.
explained that any C-2 commercial use with exception of certain liquor
licenses may locate on adjacent properties.
Attorney Blilie briefly discussed requirements for buffering liquor
establishments from certain land uses, such as schools and churches.
Gonzales questioned the architectural style proposed for the school and asked
why it couldn’t be dressed up a little bit.
stated that the architecture proposed is traditional southwest Spanish.
Hall pointed out that trash enclosure is next to residential development and
asked if it can be moved to another place on the site.
Libman, 571 W. Iowa Ave, Mesa, AZ; identified himself as
one of the applicants. He stated that
the trash dumpster is located where it is not in the front yard, not visible
from the main school grounds and yet is still accessible by the school staff.
Senft asked what the distance was between the trash enclosure and the
adjacent single family residential neighborhood. Planner Wilson stated that the enclosure was
approximately 12 feet from the fence line.
Chairman Senft opined that this location is pretty close to the
Gonzales suggested that the applicant reconsider this location and possibly
move the trash to another location.
commission asked if there will be a cafeteria. Eric Kendall, a co-applicant,
explained that a proposed multipurpose room will also serve as a luncheon
room. The school will not serve a
breakfast meal, but will provide snacks for children after school.
Commissioner Hall questioned the proposed site lighting,
stating that he didn’t want to put a lot of lighting onto lots 29-30 of the
adjacent residential development, but acknowledged that a grade separation
explained that all lighting will be directed towards site and away from
residential area, in accordance with the requirements of the Surprise Design
Manual. The applicant also explained
that no evening activities are planned on a regular basis, however, an
occasional night meeting would take place in the multi-purpose room.
Commissioner Morris noted that the playfield is 6.8
acres in size, and is small compared to most school playfields, which are 10
acres or more in size. He noted that
the playfield is also being used as a retention basin, which will be unusable
for a period of time after a rain event.
He questioned where the children will play outdoors when the retention
basin is flooded.
Eric Kendall explained that children would use the
multipurpose room during inclement weather.
In response to Commissioner Morris’ question, Mr. John
Griffin, a co-applicant, explained that there is an additional play area
that is above the retention area. He
also noted that the city engineer requires that the water can be in the basin
for a maximum time of 36 hours.
Commissioner Morris commented that the fields are still
wet and unusable after this time period elapses.
City Attorney Blilie explained that retention basin cannot
be greater than three feet deep and he discouraged the use of underground
retention. In some instances, depths
greater than three feet may be permitted; however, fencing of the area is
still required. He also stated that
drywells cannot be used for retention storage.
Commissioner Morris noted that the City code requires
235 parking spaces; however, the applicant is only providing 80. He questioned the amount of reduction.
Doug Bouma, 4101 Roger B. Chaffee Boulevard SW, Grand
Rapids, MI, representing the application, stated that no assembly uses
are proposed, that buses will be provided for transportation, and that 80
parking spaces will be provided. He
noted that staff informed him that 40 parking spaces should be sufficient to
serve the proposed use. Mr. Kendall
further explained that is not uncommon for charter schools to find
operational needs to reduce parking, physical education space, and other land
Commissioner Morris noted that there are no
architectural features below the window.
Tracy Lee, from the Orcutt/Winslow Partnership, 1130
N. 2nd Street, Phoenix, AZ; the architects for the project,
noted that they discussed adding wainscoting or other architectural features
to the buildings but felt as if they would conflict with the southwest
Spanish architectural style envisioned.
She noted the sloping window sills shown on the photo of their other
school in Phoenix, and noted that the windows are set back (recessed) within
the wall, which provide “relief” to the building elevations.
Chairman Senft asked what material was proposed for the
roof. Mr. Bouma stated that the roof
would be three tab architectural grade shingles, and not clay tiles, as
depicted in the photo of their existing school in Phoenix.
Chairman Senft opined that he wanted the project to contain a tile
roof, and not a shingle roof. He
questioned why the roof was not a tile roof.
Ms. Lee explained that tile was not proposed for this project due to
its cost. Chairman Senft noted that many buildings in the area have tile
Commissioner Morris opined that the southwest
traditional Spanish design does not include roof shingles and opined that he
wanted to see clay tiles of some sort used on the roof of this school. Mr. Bourma stated that they could consider
using tile on only the visible exposures of the roof and use shingles
Chairman Senft opined that he wanted to see a completely
tiled roof on this school so that it would complement the neighborhood. After further discussion on this point, Mr.
Bourma agreed with Chairman Senft’s observation.
Chairman Senft stated that he will require tile roofs and
add it as a stipulation for approval.
He also stated that the building should have wooden window sills,
similar to those shown in the photo of the school in Phoenix.
Commissioner Morris opined that the architecture proposed
did not show any treatment below the window sills, and expressed a concern
that the treatments depicted in the photo on the overhead would direct
rainwater downward across the front of the building elevation. He opined that this would cause the
elevation to deteriorate over time, as the rainwater would direct dirt
downward across the building elevations.
Libman stated that they have existing buildings and don’t have this
problem. He added that the building is
now one year old and it does not have any dirt on the elevations below the
windows. He opined that he had no
problems with the commissioner’s recommendations, and will comply with the
type of window sills they would like to see.
Lee stated that standard windows proposed for this project will have sloping
sills that should eliminate this problem.
She added that they could install a pre-cast window to make them look
like those illustrated in the photos.
Morris opined that there is a need for some sort of pre-cast feature to
eliminate the dirty rainwater cascading down the building elevation and
making it unsightly.
Senft noted that the applicant stated that they didn’t appear to have that
problem with their other school with the same elevation design.
Morris asked if this building would have the same architecture and
architectural features as the other school building.
Lee stated that this building would not have the short block wall around the
front of the building, as is shown in the photo on the overhead.
Morris asked about the location of the flagpole. Ms. Lee stated that it would be located up
front adjacent to the parking lot.
Morris stated that he would like to see a one-foot drop in the drainage/retention basin area. Chairman Senft responded that if you drop
the elevation of the play field then you would lose additional play area.
Morris responded that he feels that the drainage should be placed at the
bottom of the field where the water would collect.
Gonzales opined that the style of roof depicted in the photo was not what the
applicant was proposing for this project, and he felt that what was shown was
deceiving to the commission. He
requested that when the applicants come back again that they present exactly
what they propose to build.
Libman offered an apology, stating that the photo was merely illustrative of
the elevations of their existing school building. He noted that he felt that they were very
clear with what was submitted with their application because they called out
the type of materials they proposed for this project.
that she inherited this project from a planner no longer in the Department,
and therefore did not attend the TAC meeting.
As such, she could not specifically address the requirements placed on
this project as a result of the TAC meetings with the applicants. She added that the photos were displayed
only as a means to enhance the project proposed.
Senft stated that he wanted to add additional stipulations to the project;
Stipulation ‘m’, which would require tile roofing; Stipulation ‘n’, which
would require eight-inch sills be added to all windows, and suggested that
the applicant work closely with staff to ensure that the intent of the
commissioner’s comments are addressed.
He added that the applicant should work with city engineer to help
create more useable field space.
Morris opined that he wanted to add a stipulation to require that the play
fields be more usable. He also wanted
the applicant to work with the City Engineer to see if more usable space can
be created within the retention basin.
City Attorney Blilie responded that this stipulation could be added as
re-read the wording for Stipulation ‘l’ and stated the basic intent of the
three additional stipulations requested by the commission with City Attorney
Blilie’s assistance. City Attorney
Blilie stated that the exact wording of the additional stipulations will be
added to the final staff report.
Commissioner Morris made a motion to approve SP
04-417, a request for approval of a site plan for a new charter school,
subject to stipulations a through k as contained within the staff report, and
with the addition of an additional stipulation ‘l’ as proposed by the
planning staff, and adding additional stipulations, ‘m’ through ‘o’, as
requested by the commission.
Commissioner Hall seconded the motion.
Upon a vote, the motion passed with a unanimous vote (5-0), with
Commissioners Segarra and Nachitgall absent.
Chairman Senft called to
the public to discuss any issues that are not on the agenda.
Paula Forester, 16333 W.
Escondido Surprise, AZ; asked a question regarding land uses in the large wash area by the
bridge on Bell Road. She noted that a park was built in a
similar area on 59th
Avenue and Thunderbird Road. She opined that this park was very clean
and looked great. She stated that the
City could undertake a similar effort to clean up the Agua
Fria area since it was an entryway into the city. Chairman Senft responded that the
commission will work with the city to address this issue.
Chairman Senft closed the