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

 

MINUTES

 

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

                                                                               

12425 W. BELL ROAD, SUITE D-100

SURPRISE AZ  85374

 

REGULAR MEETING

 

February 4, 2003

6:00 P.M.

 

Call to Order:

           Roll call:

 

Vice Chair Dan Morris called the Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. at the Surprise City Hall – 12425 West Bell Road, Suite D-100, Surprise, Arizona 85374, on Tuesday, February 4, 2003.  Also in attendance with Vice Chairman Dan Morris were Commissioners Bob Gonzales, Ken Senft, Lyn Truitt, Tony Segarra, and Jan Blair.   Chairperson Bails was absent (excused).

 

Councilman Roy Villanueva was also in attendance.

 

Staff Present:

 

Deputy City Attorney, Jeff Blilie; Community and Economic Development Director, Phil Testa; Planners Grant Penland, Andrew Jochums, Desmond McGeough, and Planning Tech Stephanie Wilson.

 

·        Approval of Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2003 

 

Truitt made a motion to recommend approval of January 21, 2003 minutes.  Blair seconded the motion.  6 yes votes.  1 absent (Bails).  Motion carried.     

 

OLD BUSINESS:

 

REGULAR ITEMS NOT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING: n/a

 

REGULAR ITEMS REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING: n/a

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

REGULAR ITEMS NOT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING:  n/a

REGULAR ITEMS REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING:

 

·                                          CUP02-329 – Consideration and Action – Conditional Use Permit – Hughes Oversized Garage

 

Planner, Jochums, gave the presentation.

 

No discussion by commission.

 

There were no public comments.

 

Truitt made a motion to approve CUP02-329 subject to stipulations a-e, attached hereto as Exhibit A.  Blair seconded the motion.  6 yes votes.  1 absent (Bails).  Motion carried.

 

·        PP02-240 – Consideration and Action – Preliminary Plat – Greer Ranch South

 

Planner, McGeough, gave the presentation. 

 

General discussion took place regarding issues with Luke over flight, typo on the applicant’s narrative, questions on the school and park sites – total amount of land and who will be maintaining the park areas.  More discussion took place regarding the school site being constructed in Luke over flight path and the total combined amount of open space giving Luke area to consider for emergency landings if necessary.

 

The applicant, Mike Curley, was present and acknowledged the error in the written narrative.  He addressed Tony’s questions about the parks – site to the south may be a city park and the pocket park will fall under the responsibility of the HOA.  Tony would like a stipulation added making it public knowledge that the park is City property, if that becomes the case.  Applicant asked that two of the existing stipulations be modified slightly for clarification:  Stipulation k - "within this parcel" between the words "constructed" and "to" and stipulation l - Prior to release of building permits, there must be two points of emergency vehicle access per fire department standards.

 

Commissioner Truitt commented that as a commission they are concerned about the protection of Luke AFB.  As a member of the commission he wants direction from City Council as to whether or not an application is in compliance with the General Plan 2020 and if there is any legal basis for the commission to deny this application.  Deputy City Attorney, Blilie, reviewed the ‘role’ of the Planning and Zoning Commission in the project approval process, based on Council direction.   The role of the Commission is to review zoning applications and to review them in compliance with the ordinances that have been adopted by the city.  To deny approval of a project based on health and safety reasons is probably an inadequate justification for denial.  Until council gives the commission direction and specific parameters on how to evaluate what the application is consistent with, the commission’s focus should be to evaluate the plat to determine that it is consistent with PAD that has been approved; is it consistent with General Plan that has been adopted; and to determine if it is consistent with zoning ordinances that the city has in place.  This is the basis for any recommendation made by the commission until council puts something in place that gives the commission clear direction on how to vote on these projects.  General Plan has designated that the JLUS lines are the lines that are to be used in the Luke matter, for example.  The Commission has not been empowered to adopt it’s own parameters and needs to stay consistent with the direction given by the Council for evaluation of projects that come before the commission.  Commissioner Truitt would like to see Council give the commission more stringent direction with regards to development but until that happens the commission is compelled to operate within the direction standing. 

 

Commissioner Senft acknowledged that the time to object was when the PAD went through.  PAD is the zoning and that was passed March of 2002.  Deputy City Attorney, Blilie, stated that this project has gone through many stages including General plan amendment and rezoning, both of which were approved by the Council.  PAD dictates what the development of the project will look like.  Commission’s role is to determine if the plats being submitted now are in compliance with the approved PAD.  Senft agreed but referred back to stipulation he’d like to see added regarding school sites and where they are built, keeping in mind Luke flight paths, requiring the developer and city to work with Luke and coordinate the development of the school site with their approval.  Deputy City Attorney, Blilie, mentioned this is a request the commission can make but until Council puts something in place giving more specific direction to the commission about where school sites are to be located, commission must continue to approve or deny as directed.  Right now, school sites need to be designated in developments.  JLUS lines represent direct flight paths and does preclude building schools under those lines.  Councilman Villanueva felt staff was following policy direction adopted by the General Plan.  Community and Economic Development Director, Testa, reiterated how Council had presented a position statement to the Department of Commerce study on the land use compatibility plan stating that the city adopted the General Plan and was adhering to this plan.  By taking this very clear position, Testa believes Council gave additional policy direction back to commission that the General Plan is the guiding document in the development of this community.  Senft noted that Luke was more ‘agreeable’ in a letter written addressing the project at an earlier stage; that the proposed uses were compatible; and that the zoning has been approved but he wants the stipulation added regarding location of school sites.

 

There were no public comments.

 

Truitt made a motion to recommend approval for PP02-240 subject to stipulations a-n (language of k and l clarified and two additional stips: m) If the park site is maintained by the City, then such information shall be included in the public report; and n) The City will ensure that no school will be built under the Luke flight paths.  Prior to approving or selecting a school site the developer and City planners will meet with officials from Luke to agree upon an appropriate school site, attached hereto as Exhibit B.  Segarra seconded the motion.  5 yes votes.  1 no vote (Blair).  1 absent (Bails).  Motion carried.

 

·                                            PP02-293 – Consideration and Action – Preliminary Plat – Kenly Farms, Phase II

 

Planner, McGeough, gave the presentation.  A letter from Luke was presented to the Commissioners.

 

General discussion took place regarding the letter from Luke being the ‘strongest’ in tone to date, the change in Luke personnel (a general and a planner), if the City was planning any sort of response to Luke letter, how “grandfathering” in existing zoning worked with Luke’s plans, Luke crash zones, differences between the areas of concern being decibel levels vs. actual crash potential zones, and addressing the balance of protecting Luke while granting property owners their legal right to use their land as their zoning status would dictate.

 

Staff and commission agreed that representatives from Luke needed to be included in a discussion on these issues.  Mike Curley, applicant, asked to be invited to the planned workshop.  Motion was made to continue PP02-293 to February 18, 2003.  Tentative plans were made to hold the workshop one hour prior to the scheduled February 18th commission meeting.

 

There were no public comments.

 

Truitt made a motion to recommend continuance of PP02-293, to be placed on the agenda for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of February 18, 2003.   Blair seconded the motion.  6 yes votes.  1 absent (Bails).  Motion carried.

 

·        CUP02-303 – Consideration and Action – Conditional Use Permit – Surprise Farms Phase 1A, Master Sign Program

 

Planning Tech, Wilson, gave the presentation.

 

General discussion took place regarding the height of the windmill.  The applicant, Tim Keenan with Carefree Partners, agreed to a stipulation being added that the height of the windmill shall not exceed 28’ from grade.

 

There were no public comments.

 

Senft made a motion to approve CUP02-303 subject to stipulations a-h, attached hereto as Exhibit C.  Segarra seconded the motion.  6 yes votes.  1 absent (Bails).  Motion carried.

 

·        ZTA02-349 – Consideration and Action – Zoning Text Amendment – City Initiated Ordinance to Amend the Setback Requirements for Schools, Civic, Cultural, and Religious Institutions – within R1-5, R1-8, R1-18, and R1-43 Zones

 

Planner, Penland, gave the presentation.

 

General discussion took place regarding the concern about property owners combining parcels to take advantage of these new setbacks; would like a formula established to eliminate ‘loopholes’ and to establish an acceptable balance of buffer, parking, and building space to protect surrounding residential areas.  A motion was made to continue this item to the next scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to allow time for staff to ensure that approving the new setbacks wouldn’t create a conflict with existing Design Guidelines.

 

There were no public comments.

 

Truitt made a motion to recommend continuance of PP02-293, to be placed on the agenda for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of February 18, 2003.   Blair seconded the motion.  6 yes votes.  1 absent (Bails).  Motion carried.

 

 

OPEN CALL TO THE PUBLIC:

 

Glen Theobald, 17200 W. Bell Rd, commented on the poor design of arterial roads (with specific reference to Cotton Lane) with all the new housing developments spouting up in the area.  Not enough thought/foresight given to the process.  Thanked the commission for their hard work and for not getting hung up by backtracking on issues.

 

CURRENT EVENTS REPORT:

 

Chairperson and Commissioners: 

 

 

Community and Economic Development Director:  Director Testa wanted to encourage the Planning and Zoning Commission members to attend the upcoming Economic Development Town Hall meeting.  Invitations have been sent.

           

ADJOURNMENT:

 

There was no further business.  On a motion duly made and seconded.    Vice Chairman Dan Morris declared the meeting adjourned at 7:50 P.M.

 

           

__________________________                          _________________________

Vice Chairman Dan Morris                                      Philip A. Testa, Director

Planning and Zoning Commission                          Community Development