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

 

August 19, 2003

6:00 P.M.

 

Call to Order:

Roll call:

 

Chairman Ken Senft 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, August 19, 2003.  Also in attendance with Chairman Ken Senft were:  Vice Chairman Dan Morris and Commissioners Jan Blair, Tony Segarra, Randy Nachtigall, and Mike Woodard.   Commissioner Bob Gonzales was absent.

 

Staff Present:

 

Acting City Attorney, Jeff Blilie; Community and Economic Development Director, Phil Testa; Planning Manager, Scott Phillips; Planner, Grant Penland; Planner, Andy Jochums.

 

City Council present: 

 

Vice Mayor Don Cox

 

·        Approval of Planning and Zoning Meeting minutes of August 5, 2003 

 

Segarra made a motion to approve the August 5, 2003, minutes.  Blair seconded the motion.  5 yes votes.  1 abstained (Morris). 1 absent (Gonzales).  Motion carried.     

 

 

PRESENTATION:

 

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: 

 

l        SP03-185 – Consideration and Action – Site Plan – Olive Garden Restaurant at Surprise Marketplace

 

Planner, Jochums, gave the presentation.

 

General discussion took place regarding the outside patio area being close to highway; highway higher elevation than patio area; landscaping; entry monument to PAD; when construction is to start; parking spaces; crosswalk areas to protect customers; problem with sidewalk dead ending; and the setback. 

 

Applicant, Steve Hale, addressed the issue of the patio.  He pointed out that the traffic is moving away from patio area and that, with everything taken into consideration, the applicant feels it’s best place for patio.  Construction to start in within next month; 30- 60 days to complete; pilasters and large pots for flowers, etc. seasonal; sign copy for center as a whole with a lot of landscaping.  Regarding the parking spaces and how pedestrian friendly the site is, the applicant spoke of the shared field of parking spaces and detailed the justification behind dead ending the sidewalk to protect the pedestrian by encouraging them to use the pedestrian spine already built into the site.  Woodard wants designated area for walkway.  If commission wants to stipulate this, staff would like to consult with engineering to confirm. 

 

Morris made a motion to approve Application SP03-185, subject to stipulations a – n.  Nachtigall seconded the motion.  5 yes votes.  1 no vote (Woodard – sidewalk issue). 1 absent (Gonzales).  Morris then made a motion to reconsider the original motion in order to add stipulation o, which stated The applicant shall extend the sidewalk along the Grand Avenue entrance further into the site to provide safe pedestrian access across the entrance; subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer.”  Segarra seconded the motion to reconsider.  Motion approved.  Morris made a motion to approve Application SP03-185, subject to stipulations a – o, with o added as noted above, attached hereto as Exhibit A.  Nachtigall seconded the motion.  6 yes votes.  1 absent (Gonzales).  Motion approved.

 

 

l        SP03-210 – Consideration and Action – Site Plan – Grand Hotel Plaza Hampton Inn

 

Planner, Jochums, gave the presentation.

 

General discussion took place regarding staff’s desire for additional window articulation; the amount of setback; problem with the design being too flat, too institutional, too bland; landscaping issues overall and, specifically, along Grand Avenue; and necessary improvements to Grand Marketplace Way.

 

Applicant, Paul Vanderveen, detailed problems with staff recommendations because such articulation draws attention away from visual on wings; agreed to stipulation added regarding necessary improvements to Grand Marketplace Way.  Discussion took place regarding landscaping required on Grand Avenue.  Applicant has concerns over drainage plans, not timely to do it all at once as pieces are sold off.  Cannot predict drainage uses.  If prep area, afraid they’ll do the work only to have area ripped up.  Staff points out that the master developer is responsible for landscaping.  Staff and commission agreed on the need to control the perception from Grand Avenue.  Necessary to get some of the landscaping done initially and fill it out as the pads are sold off.  Pads will come in for consideration with preliminary landscape plans for approval.  The master site developer responsible for landscaping frontal strip along Grand Avenue.  Stipulation added regarding applicant providing a rough grade interim groundcover.

 

Morris made a motion to approve Application SP03-210, subject to stipulations a – q, with “a” amended as such “Development shall be in accordance with the plan narrative date stamped August 12, 2003, and the elevations date stamped August 18, 2003”; old “k” deleted and replaced with “During future submittals for further development of the subject property, the conditions of the private drive known as Grand Marketplace Way shall be reviewed by the City and improvements may be required if determined to be necessary”; and “q” added - “Applicant shall rough grade the outlying pads and provide a decomposed granite ground cover,” attached hereto as Exhibit B.  Segarra seconded the motion.  6 yes votes.  1 absent (Gonzales).  Motion carried.

 

 

l        SPA03-234 – Consideration and Action – Site Plan Amendment – CVS Pharmacy

 

Planner, Penland, gave the presentation and noted that the agenda was in error, that staff was recommending disapproval of the CVS Pharmacy site plan amendment. 

 

General discussion took place regarding lack of consistency between finished product and originally approved plans; why amendment is being requested after the fact; problem with height elevation; applicant’s dismissal of the city process; how commission expects the product that was originally approved; single hump vs. double hump; and if repairing the existing structure and attempting to match the materials up would make the situation worse.

 

Applicant, Jason Morris, developed a history and timeline delineating communication with staff.  During the construction process, the developer decided the architecture was detracting from an overall look of structure and site.  A desire to simplify the line so that it did not detract from the building, initiated the change to flat parapet; more true to Mediterranean design; southwestern wanting to flatten out parapet.  Staff wanted decorative corners as approved.  Staff reviewed.  Miscommunication regarding the buildup of the corners, builder believed that if element was raised staff would approve of this.  Staff reiterated that this does not meet intent of site plan as approved.  CVS corporate wants to work within individual municipalities, customizing building to specific site.  Questioned how great of an impact granting this amendment would have on the citizens of Surprise, customers of CVS.  The applicant noted that this became a bigger issue than anticipated.  He feels the changes are not discernible, that the height has not changed.  Ultimately the direction from staff was to bring this back before commission as an amendment.  Minimal nature of the change is not critical for success of site.  Feels staff is nitpicking. 

 

Chairperson Senft stated that it was the builders’ responsibility to wait for approval before initiating action.  Setting a precedent, asking for amendment after the fact.  The commission expects the product that was approved.

 

Planning Manager, Phillips, spoke of the Planning and Design Guidelines and the desire to create the little piece of identity for Surprise, which involves keeping in mind the overall content.  Details such as these add a little extra flare, little extra style.  Which is what the City of Surprise expects.  Staff stands behind decision to not support – changes the feel of the building.

 

Applicant detailed the pedestrian links, landscaping added, etc.; consider themselves very community conscious.  Thought the change was minor and would be administratively approved – made an assumption and built out.  Made a mistake, seeking a concession, offered to make a charitable contribution.

 

Director, Testa, spoke of this as being an issue of principal.  It’s up to the commission to determine how they want to enforce this principal.

 

Commissioner Segarra suggested approving with the understanding that because the building is already constructed and the change made is not a major architectural change, the changes are not significant enough to warrant denial of this application. 

 

Segarra made a motion to approve Application SPA03-234, subject to stipulations a – f. Morris seconded the motion.  2 yes votes.  4 no votes.  1 absent (Gonzales).  Motion did not carry.  Woodard made a motion to deny Application SPA03-234.  Blair seconded this motion.  4 yes votes. 2 no votes.  1 absent (Gonzales).  Motion to deny carried.

 

 

REGULAR ITEMS REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING:

 

l        CUP03-015 – Consideration and Action – Conditional Use Permit – Surprise Village Self Storage

 

Planner, Penland, gave the presentation.

 

General discussion took place regarding inappropriate use for location, noting retail sales and office uses surrounding this site; belongs in an industrial area; height of structure; third facility of its sort in close proximity; ramps; exterior storage; security of site; lighting; hours of operation; design; canopy; materials used; strategic placement of mature landscaping; and how the artist’s rendition compares to the actual product

 

Planner, Penland, stated applicant decision based on market research.  Staff also felt the structure is appropriate for the area because it blocks the view of the side of WalMart building from Litchfield road. The structure would be a positive attribute to site.

 

Applicant, James Day, addressed the commissions concerns stating that there are no ramps on facility.  No loading docks.  Handicap ramp, yes.  No roll up doors.  Typically users are primarily for household overflow.  Six or seven cars at a time, average stay 15 minutes.  As far as lighting, their goal is not for signage such as U-Haul.  Automatic timer, lights will go off when body not present.  Site lighting is consistent with shopping center.  Right now windows are clear but applicant wouldn’t object to clouded glass.  Commission suggested adding stip not to use clear glass and not to use bright lights.  Applicant agrees with this.  Applicant notes there will not be any exterior storage and that the hours of operation will be consistent with shopping center.  Applicant then detailed the entrance design and materials used to create a unique structure.  Applicant notes the front desk is right inside front door.  Manager will know what’s going on. 

Morton Van Horne, the developer representing Americorp, addressed questions regarding the interior and overall height of the building.

 

Opened public hearing.  Ken Christopherson feels a self-storage facility is very inappropriate for the area as is the height of building.

 

Staff read into record a letter of objection regarding the CUP from Alan and Ilene McDonald – felt use was inconsistent, an inappropriate use for site.

 

Closed public hearing.

 

In response to commission’s question, staff noted self-storage facility is a permissible use in C-2; that a zoning text amendment is an option for the commission.

 

Nachtigall made a motion to approve Application CUP03-015, subject to stipulations a – m.  Morris seconded the motion.  3 yes votes.  3 no votes. 1 absent (Gonzales).  Motion to approve did not carry the majority, therefore the request for Application CUP03-015 was denied.

 

 

l        CUP03-199 – Consideration and Action – Conditional Use Permit – Sierra Montana Master Sign Program

 

Planning Manger, Phillips, gave a brief presentation.

 

General discussion took place regarding how the plan and the lack of any dimension, as presented, left the commission with more questions than answers and an entrance site plan giving more dimension/detail was requested by the commission.

 

Applicant, Debbie Oleskow, and Christina Long, with Taylor Woodrow, agreed to rework the master sign plan and bring it back before commission with further details on how the builder’s signs could possibly be used as a permanent structure denoting directions to existing neighborhoods in the development as suggested by Commissioner Morris.

 

There were no public comments.

 

Morris made a motion to continue Application CUP03-199 to the September 2, 2003, commission meeting.  Woodard seconded the motion.  6 yes votes.  1 absent (Gonzales).  Motion carried.

 

OPEN CALL TO THE PUBLIC:

 

There were no public comments.

 

CURRENT EVENTS REPORT:

 

Chairperson and Commissioners:  Chairperson Senft introduced seven topics:  CPTED, General Plan 2020, Landscaping, Traffic, Architectural Design, Military Airports, and emergency services, for consideration by the commission members.  He would like to have each commissioner accept the assignment of identifying which one of these topics that they would like to become the ‘expert’ in for the commission.

 

Nominations for Vice-Chair should be forwarded to staff for consideration at the September 2, 2003, commission meeting.

 

Community and Economic Development Director: 

Director, Testa, reiterated the importance of all commissioners to attend the Arizona Department of Commerce training scheduled to take place on Tuesday, September 23rd.  The training will take place in the NW Regional Library conference room on the Surprise Recreation Campus at 16089 N. Bullard Ave. and will run from 6:00 PM to 9:00 PM, with a light meal served just prior to the start of the meeting.

 

Anyone interested in attending any of the mobile workshops offered at the APA annual conference in Glendale should contact staff as soon as possible so that arrangements can be made.  Once again, the following commissioner/council members have been registered to attend the Arizona Planning Association 2003 Annual Conference taking place October 15 – 17, 2003, at the Glendale Civic Center: Jan Blair, Ken Senft, Randy Nachtigall, Dan Morris, Don Cox, Mike Woodard.

 

He also wanted to clarify that the planning staff does NOT administratively approve major deviations as suggested by the CVS applicant.  What the commission approves is what is built.

 

 

ADJOURNMENT:

 

There was no further business.  On a motion duly made and seconded, Chairperson Ken Senft declared the meeting adjourned at 9:55 P.M.

 

           

__________________________              _________________________

Ken Senft, Chairman                                    Philip A. Testa, Director

Planning and Zoning Commission              Community and Economic Development