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

Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes  - June 1, 2004

 

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, June 1, 2004.  Also in attendance with Chairman Senft were:  Vice Chairperson Jan Blair and Commissioners Dan Morris, Randy Nachtigall, Tony Segarra, and Bob Gonzalez.  Commissioner Skip Hall was absent.

 

Staff Present:  

 

City Attorney, Jeff Blilie; Acting Planning Manager, LaTonya Finch; Planner, Andy Jochums; Planner, James Atkins; Planner, Desmond McGeough, and Planner, Stephanie Wilson.

 

Pledge of Allegiance

 

·         Approval of the workshop minutes of May 18, 2004, and the Planning and Zoning Meeting minutes of May 18, 2004 

 

Segarra made a motion to approve the May 18, 2004, workshop meeting minutes.  Blair seconded the motion.  6 yes votes.  1 absent (Hall).  Motion carried.  Nachtigall made a motion to approve the May 18, 2004, regular Planning and Zoning meeting minutes.  Segarra seconded the motion.  6 yes votes. 1 absent (Hall).  Motion carried.  

 

PRESENTATION: none

 

OLD BUSINESS:

 

REGULAR ITEMS NOT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING: none

 

REGULAR ITEMS REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING: none

 

NEW BUSINESS:

 

REGULAR ITEMS NOT REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING:

 

·        SP04-003 – Consideration and Action – Site Plan – Retail and Office Center at NEC of Litchfield and Greenway Roads

 

Planner, Jochums, gave the presentation. 

 

General discussion took place regarding: diagonal parking and 30’ wide drive aisles.

 

No comments from the public.

 

Segarra made a motion to approve Application SP04-003, subject to stipulations a – m, attached hereto as Exhibit A.  Morris seconded the motion.  6 yes votes.  1 absent (Hall).  Motion carried.

 

·        SPA04-102 – Consideration and Action – Site Plan Amendment – Sherwin Williams at Surprise Pavilions

 

Planner, Jochums, gave the presentation. 

General discussion took place regarding: approval date of master site plan; land uses in site plan; setbacks off of Grand Ave.; landscaping; layout of building on site; and length of building.

 

Staff addressed the commission’s questions:  Master site plan approved in May of 2003; general retail uses; setback off of Grand Ave. is approximately 55 feet from back of curb; and the length of the building is 60 feet wide and it is 32 feet at it’s highest point.

 

No comments from the public.

 

Morris made a motion to approve Application SPA04-102, subject to stipulations a – k, attached hereto as Exhibit B.  Nachtigall seconded the motion.  6 yes votes.  1 absent (Hall).  Motion carried.

 

REGULAR ITEMS REQUIRING A PUBLIC HEARING:

 

·        CUP04-004 – Consideration and Action – Conditional Use Permit – Valley Child Care

 

Planner, Jochums, gave the presentation. 

 

General discussion took place regarding: location of entrance; architectural features; handicapped parking spaces; conditional use permit process; height of fence; safety measures taken; state guidelines on operations; possible traffic and pedestrian interaction; and implementation of emergency plan.

 

Applicant:  Gerald Gagnepain, with Lamb Architects addressed the commission regarding the tower being an architectural feature only; entry at front and covered; handicapped parking nicely located in relation to entry.  The fence is 6’ high and wrought iron and nonscaleable for safety purposes.  Traffic flow is one way and parents must accompany children in to and out of the facility.

 

Discussion opened to public.  Paula Forster, 16333 W Escondido Ct, inquired about traffic flow and pedestrian interaction; Don Cox, 17737 Becky Lane, inquired about an emergency plan and age of children accepted.  Discussion closed.

 

Applicant, Gagnepain, responded that an emergency plan is in place, as per state requirements.  Children will range in age from infant through 12 years old.  All standards will be met.  The area of refuge is per city code.  State regulates ratio of adult to child.

 

Nachtigall made a motion to approve Application CUP04-004, subject to stipulations a – n, attached hereto as Exhibit C.  Gonzalez seconded the motion.  6 yes votes.  1 absent (Hall).  Motion carried.

 

·         CUP04-015 – Consideration and Action – Conditional Use Permit – Lee Myles Transmission

 

Planner, Jochums, gave the presentation. 

 

General discussion took place regarding: drawing being distorted, proportion-wise; location of entrance and bays; contemporary southwest theme; design too similar to M&I Bank and Goodyear Tire plans; and overall problems with design.

 

Planner, Jochums, addressed the commission: meets design theme with its elements, similar elements but each building is subtly different; reminded commission it may add stipulations to address their specific concerns.

 

Discussion opened to public.  Paula Forster, 16333 W Escondido Ct, inquired about why there is row after row of vehicle specific usage; Don Cox, 17737 Becky Lane, made suggestions on the proposed design that would make it more uniform.  Discussion closed.

 

City Attorney, Blilie, addressed comments from the public: City cannot dictate uses if they meet zoning classification; commission cannot deny an application to avoid duplicating similar uses; cannot evaluate application on market; must keep zoning in perspective; usage must present safety, health, and welfare issues to warrant separation restrictions; and such usage is heavily regulated by state regarding disposal, etc.

 

Morris made a motion to continue Application CUP04-015 to the July 6, 2004, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.  Segarra seconded the motion.  6 yes votes.  1 absent (Hall).  Motion carried.

 

·         CUP04-044 – Consideration and Action – Conditional Use Permit – Marley Park Irrigation Storage Tank

 

Planner, Wilson, gave the presentation.  Made note of corrections to buffering language in staff report.

 

General discussion took place regarding: setbacks; suggestions on how to buffer the neighboring residential lot; landscaping and size of trees used; size of tank; need for details on walls and gate; and noise levels and lighting concerns for surrounding properties.

 

Planner, Wilson, addressed commission: distance between tank and wall - east – 9 feet; front – 9 feet; west – 14 feet; size of tank 105 in diameter and 8 foot tall at side walls, 11 feet at peak; pump station on NWC within the fenced area; and water is drawn from the well from Parcel 4, Maricopa Water District at SEC of Reems and Waddell.

 

Discussion opened to public.  Paula Forster, 16333 W Escondido Ct, inquired about why the subdivision needed the tank and the heavy cost to the HOA; Don Cox, 17737 Becky Lane, made suggestions based on previous experience living next to a water tank – watch sound and light levels and lower the tank.  Tank should be completed prior to construction of residential units.  He also suggested trees, lots and lots of trees to aid in buffering neighboring property.  Noise is constant at 65 decibels.  Discussion closed.

 

City Attorney, Blilie, advised commission that it is their prerogative to stipulate more landscaping separating the tank and the residential lot.  Commission added stipulations g & h as follows: g) The applicant shall be responsible for installing 24” box trees along the western boundary of the property prior to Certificate of Occupancy being issued on Lot 4040; and h) The applicant shall submit wall and gate detail, including color of the wall and gate, for final approval by the Community and Economic Development Director.

 

Morris made a motion to approve Application CUP04-044, subject to stipulations a – h (w/ g & h added), attached hereto as Exhibit D.  Blair seconded the motion.  5 yes votes.  1 no vote (Segarra).  1 absent (Hall).  Motion carried.

 

 

·         PP04-084 – Consideration and Action – Preliminary Plat – Sierra Montana, Parcel 7

 

Planner, Jochums, gave the presentation. 

 

General discussion took place regarding: fire access lanes; landscaped emergency access lanes; view fencing and solid walls; theme walls; privacy and securing the perimeter; use of mini theme walls; church site, school site; and fencing to provide security, privacy, and sound buffering.

Applicant, Gary Claybaugh, detailed for the commission how his team worked with staff to present their award winning, totally open design.  However, Sierra Montana does have a consistent theme wall throughout the project.  Security offered and privacy factor.  Applicant would be willing to keep view fencing along park and school.  Internalize and secure perimeter.  Mini theme wall along proposed church property; want to keep theme wall on three sides. 

 

Staff wants view fencing.  Some solid, some view penetration.  Showcase the site.  Present a ‘face’ of development.  Staff wants to encourage more openness, walkability, traditional neighborhoods; provide a visual connection between projects.  Intent is to provide a connection to city.  View fencing is a desired element.

 

Applicants, Gary Claybaugh and Janice Miller, want to keep most of the theme wall; 2 ft of wrought iron on 4 ft of block or a 4 on 2 dimensions would be acceptable but applicants noted that Dysart may want full block wall.  The fencing on the arterial road provides security, privacy, and sound buffering.  Concerns about buyers.

 

Commissioner Morris suggested a compromise that offered visual penetration by alternating solid and view fencing.  Stipulation i was amended and j added as follows: i) The final design and specific locations of solid and view fencing to be determined and approved by the Community and Economic Development Director after working with the applicant; and j) If the entry into any parcel has a divided entrance and exit, the entrance roadway shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide and the exiting roadway shall be a minimum of 16 feet wide.

No comments from the public.

 

Blair made a motion to recommend for approval Application PP04-084, subject to stipulations a – j (with i amended and j added), attached hereto as Exhibit E .  Nachtigall seconded the motion.  6 yes votes.  1 absent (Hall).  Motion carried.

 

CALL TO THE PUBLIC:

 

Paula Forster, 16333 W Escondido Ct, inquired about Planning and Zoning Commission’s stance on big box development and the second WalMart store.

 

CURRENT EVENTS REPORTS:

 

CHAIRPERSON AND COMMISSIONERS: 

 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT: Acting Planning Manager, Finch, mentioned the  joint workshop on water features and parking; a tentative workshop schedule and topics; update on UDC – completed first draft by July 16th; and Chapters 1-3 to P&Z workshop in August.

 

ADJOURNMENT:

 

There was no further business.  On a motion duly made and seconded, Chairperson Ken Senft declared the meeting adjourned at 8:33 P.M.

 

 

 

           

__________________________                           ________________________________   

Ken Senft, Chairperson                           LaTonya Finch, Acting Planning Manager

Planning and Zoning Commission                        Community Development Department

 

 

 

CITY OF SURPRISE

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION WORKSHOP

* MINUTES *

TUESDAY, JUNE 1, 2004

SURPRISE CITY HALL

12425 WEST BELL ROAD, SUITE D-100

SURPRISE, ARIZONA 85374

 

Roll Call:

Chairman Ken Senft called the Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop to order at 5:00 p.m. at the Surprise City Hall – 12425 West Bell Road, Suite D-100, Surprise, Arizona, 85374, on Tuesday, June 1, 2004.  Also in attendance with Chairman Senft were:  Vice Chairperson Jan Blair and Commissioners Dan Morris, Randy Nachtigall, Tony Segarra, and Bob Gonzalez.  Commissioner Skip Hall was absent.

 

Staff Present:  

City Attorney, Jeff Blilie; Acting Planning Manager, LaTonya Finch; Planner, James Atkins; Planner, Desmond McGeough; Planner, Andy Jochums; and Planner, Stephanie Wilson.

 

PRESENTATION:

 

Planner, Atkins, made the presentation.  Definition / timeline / staff review / approval process of Planned Area Developments.  Definition:  PAD is a zoning classification.  It is a zone.  Unique to PAD is that it allows a lot of flexibility.  It is an overlay zone.  Sycamore Farms PAD held up as an example.  Overlay zone gives the developer land use designations.  PAD is rezoning the property to Planned Area Development  - a mixed-use development.  Staff review process – a PAD is a timely application; once submitted, application is reviewed and comments are given to the applicant based on General Plan, detailing where circulation, open space, and residential goes on the parcel.  Review process, time-wise:  staff review process, staff goes back and forth with applicant; defining what elements is necessary.  When comfortable with application, staff moves it forward to P&Z and Council, with a recommendation of approval. Then the Planning and Zoning Commission reviews the application, the applicant makes his presentation, and, if recommended for approval, application proceeds to Council where it will receive two readings and becomes an ordinance. 

 

The Sarah Ann Ranch PAD was held up as an example: all subsequent site plans, pre plats, and final plats must comply with narrative in PAD.  Sarah Ann Ranch is a good example of concise, well laid out information for a PAD.  Applicant must comply with approved PAD: City at Surprise held up as an example of an approved PAD with a site plan falling short of providing the required Mediterranean elements approved in the PAD.  Wasn’t clearly defined, making it difficult to enforce effectively.  Planner, Atkins, mentioned several sites where “theming” is very successful:  Seaside in Florida; the Kentlands, where there is a value to a sense of community identified by the architecture itself.  Themed, characters, sense of place, level of architecture are all very valuable elements in development.  Visual interest is necessary. 

 

General discussion took place regarding: including the rezone language consistently in all text referring to PADs; rezoning all or a portion of a PAD; how the General Plan impacts designations; discussion about creating an area of sameness and questioned if this is truly desirable; and the importance of reading and fully comprehending the UDC as it comes in front of the Commission.

 

City Attorney, Blilie, mentioned there would be a change with the new UDC.  Showing the PAD as an overlay so that you can see what the designations are within the PAD.  Identify land use.  He went on to clarify for the commission that a PAD can be amended as a major or a minor amendment; major being a change of use and intensity; emphasized the importance of reading the entire PAD narrative to know what is being ultimately approved; and the Planning and Design Guidelines supercede what’s in the Municipal Code.

 

ADJOURNMENT:

 

There was no further business.  On a motion duly made and seconded, Chairperson Ken Senft declared the meeting adjourned at 6:02 P.M.

 

           

__________________________         ________________________________   

Ken Senft, Chairperson                                 LaTonya Finch, Acting Planning Manager

      Planning and Zoning Commission                 Community Development Department