Design Review Board Minutes Regular Meeting

January 18, 2001

COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Darrell Truitt, Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, Board Member Bob Deardorff, Board Member David Gibson, Board Member Robin Schneider, Board Member John Tomasson

COMMISSION ABSENT: Board Member Roxanna Rojo

STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Jerry Swanson, Planning Manager Maria Cadavid, Planning Manager Linda Edwards, Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks, Planner David Marsh, Planner Dennis Newcombe, Planner Shellean Roberts

ALSO PRESENT: Recorder Leslie Morton

I N D E X

PLANNER
CASE
PAGE
VOTE

CONSENT
DR00-9
2
APPR.

CONSENT
DR00-134
2
APPR.

CONSENT
DR00-152
3
APPR.

CONSENT
DR00-154
4
APPR.

CONSENT
DR00-156
4
APPR.

MR. FAIRBANKS
DR00-133
5
APPR.

MS. ROBERTS
DR00-132
6
APPR.

MR. MARSH
DR00-135
14
APPR.

MS. CADAVID
DR00-145
20
APPR.

< — > = deleted text bold = added text in stipulations

CALL TO ORDER:

Vice Chairman Petterson called the meeting to order at 5:10 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Recorder Morton called roll and a quorum was determined to be present.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

Vice Chairman Petterson commented that the Board did not have a problem with any of the consent items with the exception of item # 3, DR00-133, which was to be moved to public hearing. He also stated that items #2 (DR00-9) and #3 (DR00-133) had been modified.

A motion was made by Board Member Gibson, seconded by Board Member Deardroff, to recommend approval of the minutes from December 14, 2000 and the following items on consent.

Motion Carried 5-0.

Note: Chairman Truitt was not present at this time; he arrived at 5:35 p.m.

DR00-9 - Amendment to the open space and lighting design for parcel 17 in the Spectrum at Val Vista located at the southeast and southwest corners of Williams Field Road and Val Vista Drive.

All the original applicable conditions for monuments, walls, structures (ramadas), and amenities from the original ordinance and Phase I open space master plan conditions shall remain in effect.

Landscaping, active and passive recreation areas and illumination design for parcel # 17 shall be constructed per plans presented and approved by the Design Review Board on January 18, 2001.

The illumination of all courts shall be on a time device mechanism to be off by 11:00 p.m. Specifications shall be addressed on the landscaping/electrical construction documents to be approved by Staff prior to final plat recordation.

Bollard lighting along the pathway shall be installed at approximately 80â?? on center.

The overall height of the poles throughout the project including the first row along E. Spectrum Way shall not exceed 14â?? high from finished grade. Base of poles shall be painted a neutral color.

The type of lighting for the poles in the parking lot shall be metal halide and should be fully concealed and not to exceed 200 watts.

Size of trees along the west side of parcel # 17 shall be 50% 36″ behind lots 1-6 and lots 12, and 13. The rest of the Mondel pines along this boundary shall be 24″ box in size.

DR00-134 â?? Approval of the comprehensive sign package for Inverness Commons located at the northeast corner of Higley and Baseline Roads.

Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board at the public hearing of January 18, 2001. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Board prior to the issuance of a sign permit.

All signage installed shall conform with the requirements of the Unified Land Development Code Article III, Signs as amended by Ordinance No. 1286.

All signage shall require review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Department prior to the issuance of a sign permit.

A minimum three hundred (300) foot distance shall be maintained between freestanding signs, as required by the Sign Ordinance.

All proposed freestanding signs to be presented for sign permit approval shall address future building colors, as well as the colors and materials approved with the Comprehensive Sign Program.

Freestanding sign bases shall use scored concrete masonry units, as depicted in the Comprehensive Sign Program, and shall be integrally colored or painted to match the approved color scheme.

The project entry sign (Sign Type A1 main entrance monument) shall not be located within the twenty (20) foot landscape setback or the sight visibility triangles. The height and coverage of the monument / wall shall be adjusted as required to ensure ample exposure of the commercial development on lot G-4.

If monument / tenant signage is located in commercial zoning, and the corresponding building has a setback less that seventy-five (75) feet, the sign area shall not exceed forty (40) square feet in area or six (6) feet in height.

Within the commercial zoned sites, individual pan-channel letters shall have bronze returns.

Within the industrial zoned sites, individual pan-channel letters shall have return colors to match the building fascia, accent the darker building color or cornice detail.

The applicant shall revise the text, illustrations and notes in the Inverness Commons Comprehensive Sign Program document to reflect stipulations herein prior to the issuance of a sign permit.

DR00-152 â?? Approval of Open Space Program for Trilogy Unit 4 located at the northwest corner of Power Road and East Village Parkway.

Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board on January 18, 2001. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Board prior to the issuance of a building permit.

All conditions of approval for the preliminary plat and Ordinance shall be complied with for the development of this project.

A greater number of trees shall be located adjacent to the pedestrian path within tract “E”. The landscape construction documents shall identify trees, scaled at full maturity, in a manner that shades 25% of the pedestrian path.

The applicant shall install bollard security lighting within open space tract “E”, consistent with the 100 wall high pressure sodium security lighting used within Trilogy. The applicant shall provided catalog cut sheets and specifications at the time of landscape construction document review.

The minor entrance at the intersection of Power Road and East Village Parkway shall incorporate a freestanding monument sign constructed of ledge stone, as approved by staff during construction document review. The adjacent perimeter wall shall incorporate two additional ledge stone pilasters at this location.

The gated entrance at Power Road and East Village Parkway shall include a ledge stone entrance feature to match the Trilogy planned community as approved by staff during construction document review.

DR00-154 â?? Approval of site plan, landscaping, preliminary grading and drainage and building elevations for the addition to New Hope Community Church located at 1380 E. Guadalupe Road.

Project shall be constructed per exhibits reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board at its January 18th, 2001 hearing.

Screening walls for parking areas shall be designed to match the materials and colors of the existing screen walls.

Two landscape islands shall be placed on the southern edge of the Phase 2 parking area.

The landscaping area immediately adjacent to Scott Avenue, Marble Street, and North Park Village shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the expansion.

SES panels shall be screened by a wall of the same height of the cabinet, finished to match the color and treatment of the building, or recessed into the building.

The columns on the proposed addition and on the existing buildings shall be repainted to match the color of the existing metal roofing, as shown in the exhibit submitted to Staff.

The area designated as “future parking area” on the site plan shall be dust proofed to Town of Gilbert standards, utilizing minimum 1″ depth of ¼” minus decomposed granite.

The area designated as â??future sanctuaryâ?? shall require separate review and approval by the Design Review Board.

The project lighting shall be revised as follows:

All lighting shall match that utilized in existing New Hope Community Church project.

Lighting cut-sheets for pole-mounted and building-mounted fixtures shall be reviewed and approved by Staff prior to issuance of building permits.

DR00-156 â?? Approval of (7) seven standard plans proposed by Fulton Homes in San Tan Ranch, Parcel 13 proposed at the southwest corner of Pecos and Recker Roads.

These seven (7) standard plans are approved for 204 lots (lots 1-204) within San Tan Ranch P.A.D. Parcel 13 zoned R1-5 (Single-Family). Any additional standard plans shall require review and approval by the Design Review Board or by staff, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

The applicant shall adhere to the standard house plan conditions adopted by the Design Review Board by resolution on December 14, 2000.

The applicant shall provide for an upgraded material, i.e.: masonry, brick, clapboard siding, etc. as a standard feature, on one (1) elevation for each standard plan. This shall be standard and clearly labeled on the construction documents.

The decorative metal detailing shown on the elevations shall be wrought iron and labeled on the construction documents.

No similar rear elevation shall be allowed adjacent to the R.W.C.D. Canal.

The approved design review stipulations, standard residential house plan conditions, and the approved zoning development standards shall be placed on the cover sheet of the first and all subsequent house plan construction submittals for each individual standard plan.

PUBLIC HEARING

DR00-133 â?? Approval of (11) eleven plans proposed at Providence Homes at Coronado Ranch, Parcel 2 located east of the northeast corner of Queen Creek and Higley Roads

Senior Planner Fairbanks presented DR00-133. He noted there have been four changes made to the house products. Arch windows have been introduced where there were rectangular windows previously. He mentioned a wider color palette for the tile, three new elevations (2400, 2700 & 3000), bigger lots and more diversity.

Board Member Gibson had a question on massing. He stated that for plan 1440, elevations A and C have the same massing. The only difference is the brick and the windows. He went on to comment that the Board looks for diversity in the roofing elements. The elevations are too similar. Board Member Gibson believes plan 1440 is a problem.

He discussed plan 1650, mentioning the porch and exposed underside of the roof. He commented that a lot of builders will create wider mass. He also commented on elevation A.

Board Member Gibson also discussed plan 1700. He stated that elevations A and C were similar; mentioning the garages and entry towers.

Regarding Plan 1840, he stated the windows were done better. He discussed the entry porch being a conventional frame noting that elevations A and C are like that.

Board Member Gibson went onto to mention that in plan 2400, elevations A and C are identical except for the brick. Regarding plan 2700 elevation A, the gable over the garage should be moved to the right to center it. He mentioned the side yard of elevation C of plan 2700, stating the flat arched windows should be consistent. He also remarked that in plan 3000, elevations A and C are similar.

He wrapped up his comments by stating that the applicant should work these things out with Staff.

Mr. Fairbanks stated those items could be stipulated.

The applicant, Mr. Reed of 1350 E. McKellips Road, Suite 2, came forward. He stated that most of what was discussed could be worked out and they would like to move ahead and take the stipulations. He talked about the use of brick, how it stands out and is different. He noted that no one could offer it in their price range

A motion was made by Board Member Gibson, seconded by Board Member Schneider, to recommend approval of DR00-133 subject to Staff stipulations, modified as follows.

Motion Carried 5-0.

These eleven (11) standard plans are approved for 132 lots (lots 1-132) within Coronado Ranch Parcel 2. Any additional standard plans shall require review and approval by the Design Review Board or by staff, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

The house products shall adhere to the standard house plan conditions adopted by the Design Review Board by resolution on December 14, 2000.

Dormer roof ventilation shall not be permitted. Alternate ventilation techniques such as ridge vents or Oâ??hegan ventilation shall be used, as approved by staff during construction document approval.

All houses shall have standard patio covers. The construction documents for each plan shall include three differently designed patio options as demonstrated in the attached patio options supplement, for use adjacent to open spaces and arterial streets.

A total of ten roof tile options shall be provided in accordance with the submitted color and materials scheme summary.

A revised lot fit analysis shall be submitted to staff prior to construction document submittal identifying the fit of all house plans with the alternating 20â?? and 25â?? setbacks.

The approved design review stipulations, standard residential house plan conditions, and the approved zoning development standards shall be placed on the cover sheet of the first and all subsequent house plan construction submittals for each individual standard plan.

Staff to work with builder to revise the plans and elevations as discussed.

DR00-132 â?? Approval of site plan, landscaping, preliminary grading and drainage and building elevations for Signature Salon Studios proposed at the northwest corner of McQueen and Guadalupe Roads.

Planner Roberts presented DR00-132. She stated it is one parcel in a commercial center. Ms. Roberts mentioned the history of the center, the C-2 zoning and size of the building.

Ms. Roberts noted that the site plan meets the setback requirements, however staff is recommending that the parking canopy include upgraded features and recessed lighting, which is not addressed in the stipulations.

Regarding landscaping, Planner Roberts stated the requirements had been met but stipulations provide for Evergreen Elms to replace the Chilean Mesquites proposed in the parking lot and Brazilian Peppers to replace the Chilean Mesquites proposed adjacent to the building. She also noted that additional landscaping should be provided around the refuse enclosure and north of the parking canopy.

Planner Roberts stated that there was a revision regarding the height of the building; it was 34 feet but was revised to 30 feet. It now meets code requirements.

Regarding the palette of colors and materials, the applicant has submitted an alternative color scheme, which replaces the accent color used on the metal shade screens.

Board Member Gibson asked Ms. Roberts to identify the shade screens.

Ms. Roberts also mentioned the signage monument needed to be reduced to meet requirements.

Ms. Roberts indicated the screens on the elevations and stated Staff would review the signage monument.

Planner Roberts commented to the Board that Staff had received several calls from the public. These citizens expressed concern about the landscaping, the setback for the building and its height.

Board Member Gibson asked if the metal canopy was solid.

Ms. Roberts believed it was but the applicant could verify that.

Board Member Deardorff asked if the project met code requirements except for the landscaping. He wondered if the applicant accepted Staffâ??s stipulations.

Board Member Gibson asked about the glazing.

Ms. Roberts responded it was vision glazing.

The applicant, Mr. Coverdale from Robert Kubicek Architects, 2233 E. Thomas Rd., Phoenix, came forward. He stated they agreed with Staffâ??s stipulation on the parking canopy and they would work with Staff on the design detail. He commented they would like to get approval tonight on their request. He also remarked he would like to hear the neighborsâ?? concerns and respond to them.

Regarding the color scheme, Mr. Coverdale explained they prefer the rust color for the shade screens. He noted that the shadings have hat channel trellises.

Mr. Coverdale remarked they have three parcels remaining, which they intend to develop in the future.

Board Member Gibson asked again about the glazing.

Mr. Coverdale replied it had a slight reflective quality and was smoked.

Board Member Schneider asked how wide was the area with the accent color.

Mr. Coverdale stated it was approximately 1 inch wide but it would not really be noticeable.

Vice Chairman Petterson turned the meeting over to Chairman Truitt who had arrived at 5:35 p.m.

Chairman Truitt opened the public hearing.

Fred Pane, 1834 W. San Angelo, Gilbert, came forward to speak. He stated he was the president of the El Dorado HOA. They support development of the property but want to make sure it is not obtrusive. He stated the HOA was not notified of the meeting adding a resident, Ed Cook, had noticed the sign last week and mentioned it to him.

Mr. Pane commented they had received information from Staff but were not sure if they are for or against it due to the poor quality of the faxed information. His also said the sign was placed by Walgreenâ??s and is not visible. He believes the sign should have been on the proposed building site. He emphasized that no one had seen the sign.

Mr. Pane also expressed a concern about the safety of cars exiting and entering the property. He talked about making a right turn, discussed the sidewalks and curbs and asked the landscaping be removed because it blocks traffic heading West on Guadalupe when exiting Walgreenâ??s. He is asking the Board to postpone their decision. The HOA would like to meet with El Dorado Holdings and walk the site. Mr. Pane believes they would most likely go along with the proposal with a few exceptions. Again, he stressed that the HOA should have been notified.

Chairman Truitt commented on notification and asked Ms. Roberts to address the issue.

Ms. Roberts stated registered that HOA representatives within 1,000 feet and all residents within 300 feet should have received a letter from the applicant. A list of registered representatives which 1,000 feet was given to the applicant from Neighborhood Services. She indicated some of the letters were returned. Ms. Roberts also noted that the HOA representative name and address listed was different concluding that Neighborhood Services was not updated. Staff discussed the situation with the Townâ??s legal counsel and it was determined the notification requirements were met.

Chairman Truitt asked who puts up the sign.

Ms. Roberts replied the applicant is responsible for putting it up.

Chairman Truitt remarked that the problem is the site is the whole 10 acres but this project is only one parcel.

Ms. Cadavid interjected that this is a commercial PAD and although the sign could have been more in front of the site, it was placed in a reasonable and acceptable location.

Chairman Truitt stated that it could have been placed in a better location.

Mr. Pane went on to talk about the previous meeting in November and how no one had been notified at that time.

Chairman Truitt asked Mr. Pane if the HOA was incorporated.

Mr. Pane replied that it was incorporated.

Chairman Truitt commented that the AZ Corporation Commission filing would list the HOA president or statutory agent. He mentioned this was a flaw in the system and discussed the possibility of the applicant contacting the AZ Corporation Commission.

Mr. Pane indicated that Neighborhood Services was updated with the change in officers. He believes the information they pass onto Neighborhood Services is not passed on properly.

Chairman Truitt mentioned he was just trying to bring up ways to improve the process.

Karl Kohlhoff, 1863 W. San Angelo, Gilbert, came forward to speak. Mr. Kohlhoff stated he had four concerns. He mentioned that El Dorado Drive is a Signature entrance and there were no palm trees on the elevation.

Chairman Truitt informed him that trees are not put on elevations because they tend to hide the buildings.

Mr. Kohlhoff continued with his four concerns. 1). There should be some respect for the Signature entrance. 2). The setbacks concern him. The corner is crowded and he believes this building should be consistent with the whole parcel. He mentioned that Walgreenâ??s is setback with parking in the front.

Mr. Kohlhoff mentioned six ordinances and read Ordinance No. 1045 stipulation X: “The uses allowed for the 11 acre C-2 parcel located at the northwest corner of McQueen and Guadalupe Roads, excluding the existing Walgreenâ??s store, shall be limited to an assisted care facility, to be located in the northwest corner of the site, retail establishments, restaurants and offices. No establishments with drive-through window facilities will be allowed. Conditional use permit approval shall be required for development of the PAD building proposed for the northeast corner of the parcel.”

Mr. Kohlhoff questioned how each site plan can be developed separately yet still fit the whole project. He mentioned there was a site plan dated 12/20 that showed all single story buildings, which helped them to agree to Sterling House.

Chairman Truitt asked if he had a copy of that site plan.

Mr. Kohlhoff stated it was not an exhibit. He also remarked that this is only 50 feet from single-family homes. He questioned whether anyone here tonight would want a commercial project 50 feet from his or her home.

Ms. Roberts gave the site plan mentioned to the Board to review.

Chairman Truitt asked Mr. Kohlhoff to briefly state his four concerns again.

Mr. Kohlhoff stated them as follows:

There should be respect for the Signature entrance.

The setback should match Sterling House

Commercial projects should be 75 feet from residential areas.

Ordinance 1045 dated 7/8/97

He also mentioned a traffic study and his concern about safety.

Chairman Truitt clarified with the applicant that El Dorado Holdings was the property owner of the remaining parcels. Also, he verified that they are the current property owners but would be selling the parcel to Signature Salon.

Ed Cook, 1760 W. Aspen, Gilbert, came forward to speak. He stated he lives south and diagonally across from the property. Mr. Cook gave a petition to Chairman Truitt that represents 10% of the HOA. Mr. Cook did receive a mailing and contacted Ms. Roberts. He stated it was Ms. Roberts that had told him about the sign. He walked to Walgreenâ??s to see it.

Mr. Cook presented the Board with several snapshots showing the location of the sign. He mentioned the Signature Monument, the palm trees and the Sterling homes. He stated they had come to an agreement with El Dorado Holdings that all the buildings would be single story, which the site plan shows.

Next, Mr. Cook talked about traffic and safety. He stated that McQueen and El Dorado Drive is rated one of the worst intersections. Mr. Cook also stated not knowing the lighting of the parking lot is a concern to the homeowners.

Lastly, Mr. Cook talked about the colors stating that he would like them to be the same as the Signature Monument.

Chairman Truitt asked the Staff if the print is in file that allowed the care facility.

Ms. Roberts replied it was the same as the small one and that none had a stamp of approval.

Board Member Gibson asked if the parking was sufficient.

Ms. Roberts responded that it was more than required.

Chairman Truitt asked if the palm trees would remain.

Ms. Roberts stated that they would remain and that it was stipulated.

Chairman Truitt questioned whether the monument sign not being removed was also stipulated. He stated that it should also be a stipulation.

Ms. Roberts answered that the sign was not stipulated.

Chairman Truitt emphasized that the stipulation should state both the palm trees and monument sign would not be removed.

Board Member Deardroff stated that stipulations are needed to cover yourself.

Mr. Kohlhoff interjected that the two palms behind the monument are more expensive.

A discussion followed regarding traffic, line of sight, exiting the property and the number of entrances.

Chairman Truitt asked Staff if El Dorado Holdings could affect the driveway.

Planning Director Swanson replied no, it is Walgreenâ??s parcel. If the visual problem is caused by line of sight it can be signed for right turn.

Chairman Truitt suggested it be referred to Traffic and Engineering for them to determine if its an issue. He added that this is not an element the Board can affect tonight.

Ms. Cadavid verified it was the Western most entrance.

Mr. Matthews from El Dorado Holdings came forward. He discussed the location of the sign stating the intent was for it to be closer to higher traffic volume.

He stated they received the notification information from Neighborhood Services and the HOA president listed was not Mr. Pane. Mr. Matthews expressed support for Signature Salon. He requested direction from the Board so they might do it â??more rightâ?? in the future.

Mr. Coverdale commented they were willing to meet with the neighbors. He said he had spoken to Mr. Cook and sent him some information but no one had requested a meeting. Mr. Coverdale pointed out that the landscaping is three times the 10% requirement. He indicated they are detrimentally reliant upon this site plan explaining that taking away what had been approved would be detrimental to them.

He went on to talk about the placement of the building as an important gateway statement and the parking location as more esthetically pleasing. Addressing the height of the building, he talked about the perception of two story buildings remarking that Walgreenâ??s, at 26 feet, is roughly the same height. He also talked about building mass.

Regarding traffic, Mr. Coverdale stated there was a traffic study proving there would not be an adverse traffic impact on El Dorado Drive. He mentioned that the parking lot lighting is identical to the Walgreenâ??s site. Finally, he stated they were willing to work with the Board on the color scheme. They believe it is sympathic to the existing color scheme on site.

Mr. Kohlhoff stated that El Dorado Drive is for guests only. It was not intended to have a commercial entrance.

Chairman Truitt asked Mr. Coverdale how long he had been with Robert Kubicek Architects and who had drawn the site plan for SP364 that they had before them.

Mr. Coverdale stated that he had drawn it.

Vice Chairman Petterson asked about the height of Sterling House. He believed it to be close to a two-story.

Mr. Coverdale did not know the height but thought it was closer to a three-story building.

Planner Roberts measured the height on the drawing to get a rough idea. It was approximately 23 feet.

Regarding the old site plan, Ms. Roberts commented that Staff had looked at the ordinance. She stated the Townâ??s legal counsel indicated that with this ordinance the exhibits were not adopted therefore any height restriction should have been stipulated.

Chairman Truitt closed the public hearing.

Vice Chairman Petterson stated he likes the building being in the front. He believes it is nicer and cleaner. He commented that the landscape could be enhanced on the entrance side. He also believes the height of the building will not have as much affect as everyone perceives.

Chairman Truitt remarked that all parties operated in good faith but they could have done a better job. He believes the sign should have been on the site of the proposed building. Regarding notification, he recommended the Town change the procedure to have the applicant contact the AZ Corporation Commission. He likes the building forward and the parking away from traffic, which he believes is a good site plan tool. Chairman Truitt mentioned having the applicant provide a line of sight design.

There was some discussion among the Board about line of sight. There were no objections to the color scheme.

Board Member Schneider stated she hears the neighbors talking about the location of the building but believes they should see the building as a buffer to the parking lot lights, which can be intrusive.

Board Member Deardorff stated that he does not like corner parking. He also commented that people have a right to develop their property and that everyone had operated in good faith.

Board Member Gibson commented on the line of sight issue.

Chairman Truitt was ready to entertain a motion.

Board Member Deardorff made a motion to recommend approval of DR00-132 subject to Staff stipulations, modified as follows:

Planning Manager Edwards reminded the Board to include a stipulation regarding the conservation of the monument sign, the salon hours and preservation of the palm trees.

The motion was amended by Vice Chairman Petterson to include those stipulations. There was some discussion on the color scheme. The Board decided to accept the color as submitted, which was old redwood. Board Member Gibson seconded the motion.

Motion carried 5-1.

Planning Manager Edwards called a point of order to verify that all Board Members had voted.

Chairman Truitt responded they all had voted.

Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board at the January 18, 2001 public hearing. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Board prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project.

All refuse enclosures shall be screened from public view with a gate of opaque materials and gates should not encroach into drive aisles while open. Location of the trash enclosure shall be approved by the Town of Gilbert Public Works and Planning Departments prior to the issuance of a building permit. A detail of the refuse enclosure, to comply with Town of Gilbert standard detail #80 should be included with the construction document review.

All outdoor storage areas for materials, equipment, and service electrical systems (SES) shall be recessed or fully screened from view by a masonry wall of the same height of the cabinet and landscaping, or by projections of the building.

All S.E.S. panels, utility pedestals and vaults shall be painted to match the primary building color.

Screen walls shall incorporate materials and color consistent with that of the approved building.

All retention basins shall be landscaped per the Unified Land Development Code and its design shall have a natural, curvilinear appearance, avoiding a ditch layout.

Roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screen by the parapet wall. Said parapet shall meet or exceed the height of the mounted mechanical equipment. To the extent permitted by law, satellite dishes shall be required to be fully screened from public view.

Vehicular access points (driveway entries off of Guadalupe Road) and pedestrian access ways shall provide for special paving treatment such as integral colored stamped concrete, Bomanite, or any similar approved alternative. Location and material shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Stamped and/or colored asphalt shall not be permitted.

All landscaped areas adjacent to vehicular parking and access areas shall be protected by six (6) inch vertical concrete curbing in order to control storm water flows and minimize damage by vehicular traffic.

Evergreen Elms (24″ Box) shall replace the Chilean Mesquites proposed in the parking lot and east of the refuse enclosure.

Brazilian Pepper (24″ Box) shall replace the Chilean Mesquites proposed adjacent to the building.

Two additional 24″ Box Evergreen Elms shall be placed in the landscaped area east of the refuse enclosure.

The two Chilean Mesquite trees located adjacent to the parking canopy shall be replaced with two Swan Hill Olive trees.

Two additional Swan Hill Olive trees shall be provided north of the parking canopy to provide additional screening for the Sterling House to the north.

The landscaping plan submitted for construction document review shall properly indicate the landscaping on adjacent lots as â??existing to remainâ??.

All existing palm trees and turf along Guadalupe Road and El Dorado Drive shall remain and the existing landscaping shall be protected. If plant material is damaged during construction, the original landscape palette shall be replaced. This shall be clearly noted on the construction documents.

Retention areas shall be revised, reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department at the time of construction document submittal.

Old redwood shall be used as the accent paint color on the metal shade screen.

Parking lot and security lighting shall comply with the light and glare criteria set forth in Section 11.22.A of the ULDC, as amended by Ordinance No. 1315.

All lighting shall be fully shielded and downward directed.

Lighting sources shall not be located within any required setback or buffer yard except for unobtrusive, low level lighting.

Parking lot and security lighting shall not exceed a maximum mounting height of fourteen (14) feet within one hundred (100) feet of a residential district and a maximum of twenty-five (25) feet in all other areas.

Wall mounted lighting shall not exceed fourteen (14) feet above finish grade.

If the proposed lighting is recommended to be revised by the Board or if the plans depict a revision to the specifications submitted, the applicant shall provide cut sheets at time of construction document review.

Cut sheets for all exterior lighting shall be provided at the time of construction document submittal. Cut sheets shall indicate type, style and method of illumination.

Parking canopy lighting shall be recessed, and the source shall not be visible from outside of the canopy structure.

All freestanding light poles shall be located within landscaped areas. Concrete light pole bases shall be painted to match the primary building color and have a maximum height of 24 inches.

Based on the building setbacks for Signature Salon Studios the monument sign must not exceed forty (40) square feet, or a height of six (6) feet. The sign will be required to be revised prior to the issuance of a sign permit.

Any signage proposed for this development shall receive approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a sign permit. Said signage shall meet Code requirements concerning size, location, and design.

The architecture of the parking canopy structure shall be revised to have materials and colors that match the proposed building structure. Review and approval by the Planning Department shall be required prior to the issuance of a building permit.

The landscaping shall be enhanced near El Dorado Drive. Review and approval by the Planning Department shall be required prior to the issuance of a building permit.

The entry monument signs located at the entrance to El Dorado Drive shall remain.

The Swan Hill Olive shall be replaced with a fruitless species.

DR00-135 â?? Approval of site plan, landscaping, preliminary grading and drainage and building elevations for Edu-Prize Phase 3 proposed at the southeast corner of Baseline and Cooper Roads.

Planner Marsh presented DR00-135. He stated the proposed expansion for the Edu-Prize School would consist of an approximately 33,000 square foot building on the northeast portion of the site, and is meant to replace the existing portable buildings on-site. He also stated this expansion includes some additional parking.

Mr. Marsh mentioned the proposed landscaping is in conformance with the Townâ??s requirements. A total of 121, 237 square feet of landscaping is being provided on-site, for a total of 42.4% of the net site area, which exceeds the Townâ??s minimum requirement of ten percent (10%). Staff has added a stipulation requiring the placement of four (4) canopy shade trees in the landscape area east of the fire and drop off lane.

Mr. Marsh talked about the traffic congestion and mentioned the cut through traffic. He commented that the solutions are not part of this project because a different party owns the property. He emphasized they were seeking site approval only.

Board Member Deardorff noted the applicant had done what Staff had requested. He wondered if the parking was determined to be insufficient due to use.

Mr. Marsh responded that they did not add additional parking spaces when they added the portables. Currently, there are 67 parking spaces and 56 additional spaces will be added, which will exceed code requirements.

Chairman Truitt asked how many square feet the portables were.

Mr. Marsh stated the applicant could provide that information. He also had some questions regarding the number of students in the portables.

Board Member Deardorff wondered if there was a gym in the portables now.

Chairman Truitt asked Mr. Marsh to point out the cut thru(s) on the map he had given the Board.

Mr. Marsh pointed it out on the map and stated that traffic was making an informal loop through the subdivision. Staff has asked the Town traffic engineer to look at the issue. He mentioned several ways to address the problem, which included the school working with the neighbors, the school discouraging the cut thru traffic and putting in speed bumps. Mr. Marsh stated Staff recommends approval subject to the stipulations.

Chairman Truitt opened the public hearing.

The applicant, Dr. Lynn Robershotte, Superintendent and operator of the school, came forward to speak. She discussed the three phases of development noting that the modulars were to go away in phase three.

Chairman Truitt asked if any of the modulars had gone away.

Ms. Robershotte responded that of the 24 modulars, nine remain and are used in conjunction with the existing building. She stated that there are 14 classes in alternative spaces such as the media center. The difference will be five additional classes, which equates to 100 students.

Board Member Deardorff clarified the new building would house 19 classes. Right now 14 of those classes are scattered throughout the campus therefore the number of additional classes this expansion will allow is five.

Mr. Marsh noted that with the expansion the number of parking spaces almost doubles.

Chairman Truitt asked if the classrooms were at full capacity.

Ms. Robershotte stated they were which is 20 students per class.

Vice Chairman Petterson wondered if there was any development in the future for the property to the North.

Mr. Marsh indicated that the property to the North and East had common ownership. A vehicle storage facility has been proposed for the property to the East. The property to the north has been proposed to be rezoned to C-2 commercial and developed into professional offices with a retail mix. He stated that connecting Monterey to Baseline was critical to solving the current traffic problems.

Board Member Gibson wondered if the elimination of the knockouts would inhibit the applicantâ??s use of the building.

Ms. Robershotte stated that the knockouts were mitigated per Staff. She indicated they were looking to build a multi-use building, anticipating that in the future the building might change to retail space. She acknowledged that without the knockouts they would be limiting future potential use.

Chairman Truitt read the following comments from the cards of those not wishing to speak.

Kathy Selder, 1260 N. Golden Key St., Gilbert, wrote “A building will be more appealing than portable currently in place”.

Debbie Tooken, 1493 N. Quail Lane, Gilbert, wrote “I live in the Stonehenge neighborhood. Traffic problem short lived. The building is an asset to the area”.

Jean Sladicka, 1915 S. Sandstone St., Gilbert, wrote “The school and staff are wonderful! The new building will be much more appealing than the current portables”.

Al Selder, 1260 N. Golden Key St., Gilbert, wrote “Traffic/parking impact will be minimal since this expansion replaces existing portables currently used for grades 7 & 8″.

Terrel Pochert, 461 W. Merrill Ave., Gilbert, came forward to speak. Mr. Pochert stressed that this expansion would directly impact the traffic. He stated this was putting the cart before the horse. Mr. Pochert asked why would we expand without having the streets and access in place. Why expand without realizing the overall picture. He demanded they need a solution now! He counted 300 cars one afternoon when checking his mailbox. He commented that a letter he had sent to the Board somehow ended up at the school and he received a letter back accusing him of using the schoolâ??s trash dumpsters.

Mr. Pochert asked the Board to defer the decision on this project until the traffic problem is analyzed and studied. He requested the other problems be solved first adding that the school needs to work with the HOA.

Joe Connolly, 461 W. Merrill Ave., Gilbert, came forward to speak. He stated that the school contends connecting Monterey to Baseline would solve the problem but he disagrees believing it would increase traffic. Most of the traffic is from outside the neighborhood. He is requesting a better plan for the traffic adding that he does not want speed bumps.

Mr. Connolly informed the Board that during evening school functions the parents park illegally on the streets. He is asking the Board to wait until there is better infrastructure.

Board Member Deardorff stated adding more streets would not help the traffic problem.

Mr. Connally suggested extending Melody to Neely as a better solution.

Board Member Deardorff mentioned blocking off Golden Key, which would solve the whole problem. Mr. Connally agreed.

There was some discussion of the streets and what would be feasible.

Board Member Schneider asked Mr. Connally how doing nothing would help him.

Mr. Connally responded that it would prevent it from getting worse. He urged the Board not to build the school until the traffic problems are fixed and infrastructure is in place.

Planner Marsh reminded the Board that the site plan is what they are considering tonight. He stated that the applicant has the legal right to build if it meets the code requirements. He admitted traffic was a problem but stressed it is beyond the Boardâ??s authority. Mr. Marsh emphasized the solution is on property owned by another owner.

Mr. Marsh presented to the Board a letter received from Mr. Pochert. The Board discussed with Mr. Marsh the traffic problem and the direction traffic was flowing through the neighborhood.

Chairman Truitt asked Mr. Pochert which way the cars were headed when he checked his mailbox.

A brief discussion followed with Mr. Pochert regarding the direction of the cars.

Leona Minsay, 105 S. 131st St., Gilbert, came forward to speak. Ms. Minsay is a teacher at the school. She asked everyone to see the expansion as an improvement. She stated the improvement would not double traffic.

Kevin Ashby, 1373 N. McKenna, Gilbert, came forward to speak. He is the president of the HOA and a parent with children attending the school. He stated the HOA was not notified about the meeting

Mr. Ashby is in favor of the expansion but stated the additional parking will not eliminate the congestion. He talked about the flow of traffic and explained that the parents donâ??t want to get caught in the loop so they park illegally to drop off and pick up their children. This also adds to the congestion. He commented that connecting Monterey to Baseline would not help because most of the parents come from the South. He stressed expanding Melody to Neely is more critical; there are no driveways on Neely.

Board Member Deardorff asked if he believes the expansion would make the situation worse.

Mr. Ashby responded that he lives in the area and he believes there needs to be signs to prevent parking on the street.

Board Member Deardorff discussed the signs and police enforcement of them.

Planning Director Swanson interjected that Staff had written up a stipulation requesting a traffic management plan be submitted to the traffic engineer for approval. The engineer would look at the public streets. He stated this plan would do best outside this arena.

Planner Marsh added that they are discussing this problem with the Townâ??s traffic engineer.

Fred Pinkney, 466 W. Gary Ave., Gilbert, came forward to speak. Mr. Pinkney stated that maybe connecting Monterey to Baseline would help but that it would not happen in the near future. Possibly expanding Melody to Neely would be a good idea. He is concerned about safety for the kids. Mr. Pinkney believes the Board should consider the outlet before approving this expansion. He asked how much of the development of Monterey is the schoolâ??s responsibility.

Mr. Marsh answered that the school is only responsible for half the width of the street where it meets Melody to the North property line.

Chairman Truitt replied that it was about 2/3rds of the street.

Board Member Deardorff stated it was half way from Melody to Baseline.

Ms. Robershotte came forward to respond to the comments made by the citizens. She stated they were so concerned about safety and the parking that she had the custodial crew paint a curb red to eliminate the parking and waiting by parents. The Town did ask them to remove the red paint. She questioned who should initiate contact with the neighbors and HOA.

Ms. Robershotte also apologized to Mr. Pochert regarding the letter he received from the school. She explained they find trash from the neighborhood in the schoolâ??s trash bins and had sent letters out to the neighborhood asking them not to use their trash bins.

Ms. Robershotte was surprised to hear of the double parking and remarked that it was an illegal infraction. She requested the citizens to call the police when they come across it again. She believes the school and neighborhood can work together to solve the problems. Ms. Robershotte also commented that there is a master development plan.

Chairman Truitt asked where most of the kids come from.

Ms Robershotte replied they had anticipated almost 100% to come from the local area; but currently 50% are from Gilbert and 50% from outside Gilbert. The number from the local area is growing.

Chairman Truitt commented on the Melody to Neely connection and stated it was critical to the problem.

Planner Marsh stated that the Monterey property would probably be developed soon and therefore Monterey to Baseline would happen first.

Chairman Truitt stated the Board needs to be careful in reviewing the case to understand circulation. He remarked that the packet information conflicts and asked if the exhibits were accurate.

Planner Marsh replied they were and that the second exhibit showed the overall project.

Chairman Truitt observed that the problem is somewhat mitigated by the improvement. He stated the student population will increase by 15% while the parking area will increase by 70%. There will be two drop off points rather than one, which will help with the traffic. He believes many of the problems are the design of the neighborhood and not the site design; punching through Monterey will also help. Chairman Truitt liked the idea of a traffic management plan, stating it was an excellent stipulation. He also asked the school to do an origin/destination study.

Vice Chairman Petterson asked if there ever was a meeting of all the parties; traffic & engineering, police, school and HOA.

Planner Marsh responded that there was not a meeting with all the parties.

Chairman Truitt asked Ms. Robershotte if the school had staggered start times.

Ms. Robershotte replied no but they have staggered dismissal times because the end of the day causes most of the parking and traffic problems.

Mr. Connally asked if the plan as presented provides for Monterey to be developed to Baseline or only part of the way.

Mr. Marsh stated it only provides for the development of Monterey part of the way.

Chairman Truitt closed the public hearing.

Planner Marsh stated that Staff would like to add the stipulation proposed by Director Swanson regarding the traffic management plan. Mr. Marsh then proceeded to read the stipulation.

Vice Chairman Petterson stated a meeting of all the parties should be required.

Chairman Truitt commented that there are all kinds of ways to help with the traffic problem such as carpooling and park & ride. He stated that the Town should consider whether there is a public need to connect Melody to Neely. He remarked that it is difficult to assess the outcome but he believes the expansion will help with the parking. The site plan will help with the drop off points and with the traffic. He suggested a traffic study would also be of benefit. Chairman Truitt reiterated that connecting Melody to Neely would also help. With that, he was ready to entertain a motion.

A motion was made by Board Member Gibson, seconded Vice Chairman Petterson, to recommend approval of DR00-135 subject to Staff stipulations, modified as follows.

Screening walls for parking areas shall be designed to match the materials and colors of the existing screen walls.

The elevations shall be revised as follows:

The color palette shall match that utilized by the existing building.

The top of the center entrance â??towerâ?? shall utilize the same architectural appliqué details as the entrance â??towerâ?? on the existing building.

The recessed â??arcadeâ?? element on the front façade shall be extended up to the “Angel Hairâ?? banding element, and the associated â??columnâ?? elements shall be redesigned to match the proportions shown on the existing building.

The control cut to the left of the entry â??towerâ?? element shall be shifted to the left 6 ½ feet.

The future knock-outs for windows shown on the plan shall not be permitted, or shall be matched on the right side of the front elevation with identical windows or mock windows.

SES panels shall be screened by a wall of the same height of the cabinet, finished to match the color and treatment of the building, or recessed into the building.

The elevations shall be revised as follows:

The color palette shall match that utilized by the existing building.

The top of the center entrance â??towerâ?? shall utilize the same architectural appliqué details as the entrance â??towerâ?? on the existing building.

The recessed â??arcadeâ?? element on the front façade shall be extended up to the “Angel Hairâ?? banding element, and the associated â??columnâ?? elements shall be redesigned to match the proportions shown on the existing building.

The control cut to the left of the entry â??towerâ?? element shall be shifted to the left 6 ½ feet.

The future knock-outs for windows shown on the plan shall not be permitted, or shall be matched on the right side of the front elevation with identical windows or mock windows.

SES panels shall be screened by a wall of the same height of the cabinet, finished to match the color and treatment of the building, or recessed into the building.

Four (4) additional canopy shade trees shall be placed in the landscape area east of the fire and drop off lane. Said canopy shade trees shall be minimum 24″ box in size or greater.

Half-street improvements for the Monterey Street frontage shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

The project lighting shall be revised as follows:

All lighting shall match that utilized in existing Edu-Prize project.

Down lighting fixtures shall be 70 W Metal Halide fixtures, or lower wattage.

The treatment of the base of the pole-mounted lighting shall match the “Classic Burgundy” split face CMU element utilized in the existing development.

Prior to obtaining a certificate of occupancy for the addition, the applicant shall submit a plan for managing pick up and drop off activities for approval by the Town Traffic Engineer. The plan will address signage, enforcement, traffic flow management, parking, car-pooling, or other suitable mitigation measures.

The school shall meet with the neighbors and HOA regarding traffic mitigation issues.

DR00-145 â?? Approval of Forest Lawn Memorial Park located ¼ mile east of the southeast corner of Warner and Higley Roads.

Planning Manager Cadavid presented DR00-145. She stated the overall project approved in 1999 will be built in three phases. Phase I of the project encompasses 11.75 acres of the total acreage, approximately 79, that will constitute the entire development. The facilities to be offered within this phase include standard burial sites, cremation plots, ash scattering area, and areas dedicated to specific clientele. Ms. Cadavid stated there are two issues; the site plan and the landscaping.

Regarding landscaping, Ms. Cadavid informed the Board that Staff is concerned with certain species proposed that are not adapted to our climate. She stated the landscaping plan should be revised to reflect the selection of shrub species that are hardy for our climate.

Board Member Gibson commented on the walkway. He stated Staff should take into consideration that people will walk a straight line.

Board Member Schneider asked about the type of lighting used.

Ms. Cadavid stated there was not a lighting plan.

Board Member Gibson asked about the grading; if it was 3 to 4 foot.

Ms. Cadavid responded that it was five feet to the higher contour and to the center of the higher areas. She reminded the Board that they are seeking final site plan approval for phase 1 tonight.

Vice Chairman Petterson commented on the trees and shrubs. He stated they should be hardy for our climate and that he had concerns about the ones listed in the landscape plan.

Board Member Gibson asked about the gates and if there were deceleration lanes.

Chairman Truitt invited the applicant to come forward.

Tom Stapley, 1700 E. Lakeside Drive #37, Mesa, came forward.

Mr. Stapley introduced several members of the design team. He spoke about the phases of the project. He had two questions on the Staff stipulations. First, he wondered why the width of the circular drive was changed from 20 feet to 24 feet and Second, he questioned why a wrought iron fence was needed on the South side. He asked if it was to hide the farming. Mr. Stapley suggested doing nothing or a 2-foot berm with shrubbery.

Chairman Truitt responded to the question on the circular drive. He discussed the possible need for fire and medical emergency personnel. Michael Wilkes, the landscape architect, stated that the gates are manually opened and closed. Regarding the lighting, he said there was no provision for it.

Chairman Truitt commented there would be lights for the funeral home and along the drive.

Mr. Wilkes responded that it will be addressed in Phase 1-A.

Mr. Stapley commented they were originally told the minimum width of the road would be 20 feet but the stipulation states 24 feet. He believes the wrought iron fence is not needed. They had intended to expand gradually and would prefer to use something more temporary. Regarding the turning lane off of Warner into the site, they did not receive any further guidance from Staff.

Mr. Stapley talked about the lake and mentioned there is a scattering lawn and niches for urns.

Chairman Truitt wondered who the planner was for the project.

Mr. Stapley replied that Bruce Lazenby was the planner.

Chairman Truitt remarked that the future phases exhibit a strange circulation pattern.

Mr. Stapley responded that it was the original as approved with the zoning. He explained that the Memorial Park is for the living and not the dead. Itâ??s a place for people to come and sit.

Chairman Truitt commented that he did not have a problem with phase one.

Mr. Wilkes stated they only went into detail on phase one.

Vice Chairman Petterson suggested putting the lake in the middle of the property otherwise it would be a lot of pumping.

Chairman Truitt asked Ms. Cadavid why a fence on the South was stipulated.

Ms. Cadavid replied it was to define the site that will be used for 10 to 15 years.

Vice Chairman Petterson suggested putting a hedgerow for the dust and tumbleweeds. He discussed the types of trees and shrubs used in the landscape plan. He suggested using those adapted to this climate.

Mr. Wilkes explained the client for the cemetery incorporated large park like trees. They used a mix of native evergreen also.

Vice Chairman Petterson remarked that there should be more evergreens.

There was some discussion about modifying stipulation # 6 for the hedgerow and the width of the road. It was decided the 20-foot road with the 2-foot ribbon, as shown in the exhibit, was acceptable for emergency vehicles.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Petterson, seconded by Board Member Gibson, recommending approval of DR00-145 subject to Staff stipulations, modified as follows.

Planning Manager Edwards requested the Board stipulate the road width because it changes phases two and three.

The landscaping improvements along Warner Road (right-of-way and landscaping easement) for phases 1 and 1-A, the landscaping, hardscape, theme wall along Warner Road and on the east, west and south of this portion of the project shall be constructed per plans approved by the Design Review Board at the Public Hearing of 1/18/01, subject to Staff and any additional Board stipulations.

The installation of a temporary trailer for office/sales facility within Phase 1 will require the approval of an administrative Use Permit.

The landscaping plan shall be revised to reflect the selection of tree and shrub species that are hardy for Gilbert climate. The species in need of replacement due to weather sensitivity are:

Rosemary grevillea and autumn sage shall be replaced for another species of similar design characteristics adaptable to Gilbert weather. The other shrub and ground cover species substitution for better growth pattern and weather adaptation are as follows:

Replace: Cape leadwordt with Cape plumbago; and Pink oleander with dwarf oleander â??Petite Pinkâ??

Replace the sycamore and the Swan Hill olive specie shall be replaced with any fruitless specie. Dalbeighie Sissoo and Southern Life Oak shall be used in the tree palette.

The solid portion of the fence to the east of the project should incorporate the column design finished with the stone veneer material at intervals of approximately 90â??. An additional two (2) columns should be installed on the east side of the project wall facing Warner road.

The theme wall depicting a column finished with stone veneer should be extended on the east and west sides of the project for approximately 100â??. The remainder of the enclosure may be wrought iron fencing.

The perimeter of phases 1 and 1-A of the project to the south should be edge row of shrubbery. Finally, the color of the view fencing around the project shall be either dark green, maroon or any other color than the black proposed.

Final site plan for phase 1-A shall require further review and approval by the Design Review Board.

The width of the circular roadway is to be a minimum of 20â?? wide, with 2â?? ribbon curb on both sides.

Discussion of Design Guidelines for the new Municipal Building.

Senior Planner Fairbanks led the discussion of the new Municipal Building with the Board. He talked about the project, the status and the design guidelines. He stated he would be coming back to the next several meetings to update the Board on the progress.

Mr. Fairbanks informed the Board that the Town is pursuing a design/build contract to construct a new 35,000 square foot Class A Municipal office building for the Community Development Staff. He stated this was an opportunity for the Board to provide design input to the selected design/build team. He is looking for direction on the design guidelines.

Chairman Truitt asked if it was short-listed and whether price was an issue or if it was negotiable.

Mr. Fairbanks replied it was short listed to five design teams. The price is negotiable with the selected design group.

Chairman Truitt talked about qualification-based selection. He mentioned that in Chicago they negotiated design, reduced to 30% design and negotiated construction. He emphasized it is difficult to negotiate cost without concept drawings.

Mr. Fairbanks listed the names of the five design teams. He commented that the contract is for a two-story, expandable building with a private drive, landscaping and parking. The RFPs were available on 12/7/00 and submittals where due 12/22/00. The Town received 13 proposals of which 12 met the qualifications. The selection committee narrowed the list to five. Interviews will be held on 1/19/01. The interview panel includes George Pettit, Ray Patten, Rick Allred, Parks & Recreation individual, a general contractor and himself.

Mr. Fairbanks stated this was an opportunity to provide design guidelines, to identify concerns and to address how elements should be included for an integrated campus. He explained that the design team would come before the Board at the February meeting. The design guidelines are to be approved at that meeting also.

Chairman Truitt discussed the quality of the materials and building mass concepts.

There was a lot of discussion among the Board and Staff about the project and how much it would cost to build a class A building.

Mr. Fairbanks informed the Board he would e-mail them the design guideline draft and would like their comments within 10 days or two weeks. He mentioned that the Board would have the design team when they start the conceptuals.

Chairman Truitt questioned how a building could be designed without concept drawings and site plans. He commented that this building should not be a guide for the new one.

The Board asked if there were any specs on the office furniture for the new building.

Mr. Fairbanks responded that a committee was working on the office furniture specifications. He stated that Ray Patten is the Town Project Manager.

Report from the Chairman on current events.

Chairman Truitt did not have any current events to report on.

Report from the Planning Director on current events.

Non-per capita Water Conservation Ordinance

Director Swanson discussed the ordinance. He will make sure they get copies. There will be a presentation at the next work-study session. The Town Council adopted the water conservation ordinances and they will impact the type of landscaping used in the future. These ordinances dictate the vegetation that can be used in open space s, model homes, etc.

Design Review Board Bylaws example to Chairman

Planning Manager Evans requested one or two Board members to work with her on a draft of the by laws. Board Members Schneider and Tomasson volunteered.

Director Swanson informed the Board that on commercial projects

Digg this