Design Review Board Minutes Regular Meeting

February 15, 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, Board Member Roxana Rojo

STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Jerry Swanson, Planning Manager Maria Cadavid, Planning Manager Linda Edwards, Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks, Planner Dennis Newcombe, Planner Shellean Roberts, Planner Aruna Vasudev, Senior Planner Geir Sverdrup

ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Town Manager George Pettit, Water Conservation Specialist Kathy Rall, Recorder Trasie Johns

I N D E X

PLANNER CASE PAGE VOTE

CONSENT DR00-139 2 APPR.
CONSENT DR00-141 2 APPR.
CONSENT DR00-144 2 APPR.
CONSENT DR00-147 2 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-02 2 APPR.
CONSENT DR00-159 2 APPR.
MR. NEWCOMBE DR00-150 3 APPR.
MR. NEWCOMBE DR01-01 5 APPR.
MR. FAIRBANKS DR00-140 8 APPR.
MS. CADAVID DR00-146 13 APPR.
MS. ROBERTS DR00-148 14 APPR.
MR. FAIRBANKS DR00-151 20 APPR.
MS. CADAVID DR00-157 23 APPR.
MS. VASUDEV DR00-162 26 APPR.

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Darrell Truitt called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

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

CONSENT CALENDAR:

Chairman Truitt commented that the Board wanted to modify the agenda by pulling Consent items #6 and #7 and put them on the Public Hearing. He stated that he also wanted to add item #17 to the Consent Calendar.

A motion was made by Board Member David Gibson, seconded by Board Member Roxana Rojo, to approve the agenda, the minutes from January 18, 2001 and the items on consent.

Motion Carried 6-1, with Chairman Truitt abstaining.

DR00-139 - Approval of (4) standard plans proposed by Toll Architecture at Chaparral Estates located at the southwest corner of Williams Field and Higley Roads.

DR00-141 - Approval of Open Space Program including plant materials, amenities, wall plans and monument sign and ramada structure for Bella Vista located on the south side of Ray between Higley and Recker Roads.

DR00-144 - Approval of the final site plan, landscaping, preliminary grading & drainage, signage, and building elevations for the proposed Walgreenâ??s facility; preliminary approval of the site plans, landscaping, and grading & drainage for Pads A-C; approval of the Sign Package for the commercial center corner located on the northwest corner of Power and Queen Creek Roads.

DR00-147 - Approval of site plan, landscaping, preliminary grading and drainage, building elevations, site lighting and signage for Auto Zone located 1,500 west of the southwest corner of Warner Road and Val Vista Drive.

DR01-02 - Six (6) standard plans (Plan 55-2726, Plan 55-2462, Plan 55-2945, Plan 55-3152, Plan 55-4047, & Plan 55-3496) for Williams Lyon Homes, Inc. at Seville Planned Area Development (P.A.D.) Parcels 4 & 10A proposed at the southeast corner of Higley and Chandler Heights Roads.

DR00-159 - Approval of the site plan, preliminary grading & drainage, and elevations for the El Dorado Lakes Homeowners Association Meeting Facility proposed at approximately the NEC of Guadalupe Road and El Dorado Drive at the existing park.

COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS

Chairman Truitt asked if there were any citizens that wanted to comment on an item that wasnâ??t on the agenda. No one came forward.

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

Approval of Design Guidelines for the construction of the new Municipal Office Building II.

Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks stated that he would summarize the status of the Design Build selection process and the guidelines that were provided in the Boardâ??s packets. He showed a visual aid relating to the New Town Building.

Mr. Fairbanks stated that in December, the Town distributed RFQs (Requests for Qualifications) for the construction of a 35,000 square foot Class A, two-story office building as part of the Municipal Campus. That RFQ included the proposal that it would be the building shell, furniture fixtures and equipment, construction of a private drive located north of the building, the grading and drainage work, and the associated landscape with a four million dollar budget for that project. Twelve statements of qualifications were submitted to the town. Using a decision matrix based on qualifications, the Selection Committee short-listed the twelve teams to the five finalists for the design build process. The Selection Committee interviewed those five teams on January 19th. Based on that interview process and the statement of qualifications, the Design Build Team of Johnson and Dick & Fritsche Design Group were selected. Johnson/Carlier is the general contractor; Dick & Fritsche is the architectural firm.

Mr. Fairbanks stated that the Design Build Team is not under contract with the Town, but are very close. They are resolving issues relating to insurance. They have started some of the work and have met with the departments that will move into the building including: Planning, Engineering, Building and Economic Development. They provided a survey to the departments to identify specific needs of these departments. They have met with the Town Staff to look at some of the grading issues relating to this new building. Vicky Norri, with Johnson Collier and Mike Schmit, with Dick & Fritsche Design group were present that evening. He stated that there were not any conceptual elevations or conceptual floor plans for the Board to review but they should have some conceptual items next month.

Regarding the guidelines, Planner Dan Fairbanks stated that Staff had prepared the final version of the Design Guidelines; which included additional comments from George Pettit, Board Member Gibson (missed in the earlier review) and the Planning Staff. He asked if the Board would like him to go over the changes. He added that he highlighted the changes that were in the report. He concluded that in all, there were twelve minor changes to the Guidelines.

He asked the Board to adopt the Guidelines and stated that the consultants had already received these guidelines and would receive the final version as they proceeded through this project.

Chairman Truitt asked for clarification on the bolded words and phrases, asking if they were new items since the packet they had received.

Planner Dan Fairbanks stated that was correct and that all comments from the Board were incorporated including the 13 of the 14 changes that Chairman Truitt had sent to him were included in this version.

Board Member Roxana Rojo asked for clarification of this project.

Mr. Fairbanks clarified that this project was the Townâ??s new building and that it is not related to the new Public Safety Complex.

Chairman Truitt asked for a motion to approve the guidelines.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, seconded by Board Member David Gibson, to approve the Design Guidelines for the construction of the new Municipal Office Building II.

Motion Carried 7-0.

DR00-150 - Approval of the site plan, landscaping, preliminary grading and drainage, and elevations for the proposed Casa Southwest Office/Warehouse/Manufacturing Facility proposed at SWC of San Pedro Street and American Sky Boulevard at Fiesta Ranch on

lots 15-17.

Planner Dennis Newcombe told Board Member Robin Schneider that the light fixture and the up lighting was in error, that it would be a different light fixture and it would not be approved this way. He asked what the concern was from Board Member Schneider regarding this if it was to be up lighted on the building.

Board Member Robin Schneider stated that it was a very glary fixture and suggested a glare shield. She also wanted to be sure that it complied with the Ordinance.

Chairman Truitt asked if the applicant wanted to add anything to the presentation.

The applicant did not have anything to add.

PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Truitt asked if there was anyone from the Public to talk on this issue.

No one came forward so Chairman Truitt closed the Public Hearing.

Chairman Truitt asked for a motion to be made.

Board Member Bob Deardorff verified that stipulation #2 covered the lighting concerns.

A motion was made by Board Member Bob Deardorff, seconded by Board Member Roxana Rojo, to Approve DR00-150 subject to Staff stipulations, modifying stipulation number two to make it clear that they are not approving light fixtures.

Motion Carried 7-0.

Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board on February 15, 2001. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Board or staff, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

All illumination on the new building and site shall comply with the recently adopted Light & Glare Ordinance No. 1315. All lights shall be 90-degree cut-offs. Cut-sheets shall be submitted with the construction documents submittal for review and approval by the Planning Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Decorative wall mounted lighting that blends with the architecture of the building shall be provided on three (3) sides of the building. The rear only shall be allowed to utilize the typical â??boxâ?? style mounted lighting fixture. Cut-sheet shall be provided of a decorative wall fixture at the time of construction documents review for approval by the Planning Department.

The proposed 8â?? Dooley block wall along the southern property line shall be painted on both sides to match the building.

The proposed bicycle parking shall be in-ground mount and detail provided at the time of construction documents review for approval by the Planning Department.

The applicant shall maintain and/or replace any existing landscaping or berming disturbed during the construction of the building and parking lot.

The applicant will be required to re-plat lots 15-17 with water mains within the site placed in an exclusive 12â?? water line easement that will be dedicated at the time of Final Plat.

The applicant shall adhere to the originally approved grading & drainage plan for Fiesta Ranch P.A.D. The applicant is also responsible for submitting a master plan for water, sewer, and drainage covering the entire project site. Review and approval by the Planning & Engineering Departments shall be required, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

The applicant will be responsible for half-street improvements that shall include landscaping and sidewalks.

DR01-01 - Four (4) standard plans, (Plan 40-2022, Plan 40-2349, Plan 40-3154, & Plan 40-2766) for Williams Lyon Homes, Inc. at Seville Planned Area Development P.A.D.), PARCELS 2 & 13 proposed at the southeast corner Higley and Chandler Heights Roads.

Planner Dennis Newcombe stated that the Staff wanted to pull this item because of a point of contention between the applicant and Staff. The applicant is William Lyon Homes, Inc. and the project is Seville P.A.D. Parcels 2 & 13 at the southeast corner Higley and Chandler Heights Roads. He clarified that this was the Seville Project and that they were familiar with the recent submittals with Shea Homes on the setback requirements. He quickly went over the setbacks listed in the Project Data table in the Staff Report.

He stated that the Staff was concerned with the elevation on the three-car garage being on the same plane and that it didnâ??t deviate from the depth that they were proposing. He stated that there wasnâ??t much mitigation done to elimination the predominance of the garage itself. Under the Medium Design Guidelines, the Staff asked that no more than 40% of the front elevation be occupied by the garage. In this case, he stated that they were pushing the limit to the degree with no real means of mitigating that. Staff had suggested that one of the garages or two be side entry, depending on how it worked. Since there is the Ordinance that allows for a 10â?? front yard setback, they would like to see that more be used in this application. The Applicant was concerned with that because they are at their max; this is 40% maximum lot coverage already and once they start flipping garages around this may provide additional lot coverage issues. It is an R1-6 Zoning. Staff had also suggested that they could potentially recess the garage doors or at least the 3rd car garage door back 2â??-3â?? to provide a little more of a recessed shadow line and potentially change out the roof pitches.

Planner Newcombe stated that Staff was asking that the Board give comments or ideas on this elevation. He provided the additional elevations and showed visual aids of the two story elevations. He discussed the porch area and the visual changes, and that it didnâ??t provide shadow line.

Board Member David Gibson confirmed that the garage was 18â?? wide and that they looked like they were on the setback. He commented that they could possibly pull one of the garages out.

Mr. Newcombe stated that the other concern Staff had was that this might be too much house for this lot.

Chairman Truitt agreed with Mr. Newcombe adding that these were all self-imposed problems and that they needed to go back and find a solution. He stated that his other concern was that this was the 3rd or 4th Seville project they had seen recently and that every one so far has been pushing the envelope to the max of what he thought they should be doing. He said that he would not be inclined to approve this one.

Board Member David Gibson stated that they might have some play on the front porch and that it may not have to come out to the other wall line & may be able to pick up some of the lot coverage.

Mr. Newcombe stated that the other option Staff could recommend would be that if they canâ??t do a side entry, that they only do a two car garage and not a three car garage.

Chairman Truitt stated that even if this was done, the elevation wouldnâ??t be a lot better because it was still a flat plane, going all the way across.

Mr. Newcombe explained what might happen if the garage wasnâ??t there.

Chairman Truitt asked the Applicant to come forward.

Bryan Cazier, 8800 E. Chaparral Road, Scottsdale, with William Lyon Homes came forward. He stated that they originally came in with three product lines for Seville. The other 35â?? wide product line, in working with Staff, was dropped because it didnâ??t have the requirements needed. This project originally had three plans and they came up with a fourth plan to give it more diversity.

Mr. Cazier stated that they had mitigated this by recessing all the garage doors 1â??. The stone was standard, the balconies were standard and it had large French doors set back almost 8â??. He added that the house was 2,766 square feet and the three-car garage will be a desirable feature. They would like it to be a standard feature, with an optional two-car garage. The problem is that in the price range of Seville with the golf course lots and the square footage of the house - the three-car garage will be desirable. He showed the plot plan with the two-car garage explaining that the third bay was only 16â?? deep. He wasnâ??t sure if people would take it as a third car garage but that they might use it with a recreation vehicle. He concluded that this would stager itself because the consumer will choose both options. He again pointed out that the balcony was much larger and did mitigate it much more because the French doors were back over 7â??.

Board Member David Gibson asked if Mr. Cazier had a elevation of the 2 car garage house and wondered what would happen with this area.

Mr. Cazier explained that it would recess back and there would be a window on the library. He stated again that the garages were all recessed by a foot with an overhang.

Board Member David Gibson asked if it would be viable to recess back the garage to 14â??.

Mr. Cazier didnâ??t feel this would be viable since most cars wonâ??t fit in this space. He said that they looked at this. He stated that they also tried to pull the two car garages out further and they ran into lot coverage problems and that would create a greater front, making it also not a viable option. Turning the side entry was not financially practical. He explained that in the series there was a side entry and two other houses that have two car garages with a tandem ability to go in. With the rooflines, the colors, and the fact that it was specifically designed for Seville, he felt that this was the nicest 40â?? product in all of Gilbert.

Board Member David Gibson asked if it stated in the Guidelines that three garages could not be straight in a row.

Mr. Newcombe stated that in the Subdivision Design Guidelines of the Town Policy, this is stated. He added that they typically state that the third car garage must be recessed back.

Chairman Truitt asked Mr. Cazier to explain why one house that had 3,154 square feet didnâ??t have lot coverage problems like the one they were discussing.

Mr. Cazier showed a floor plan and discussed what was included on the lot coverage.

Chairman Truitt stated that he still didnâ??t understand why the 3154, which appeared to have less two-story area, didnâ??t occupy a bigger envelope.

A short discussion ensued about the lot coverage and what was included in this for the different houses. The Board examined the floor plans.

Chairman Truitt stated that as an option, they could drop the elevation and only have three plans if the Board wasnâ??t willing to approve this.

Mr. Cazier stated that although they would not want to do this, they could limit the number of three car garage houses sold and require that some had to be the two-car garage houses; which also helps diversify the neighborhood more. The problem with that, he stated, was that people would be put in a good size house with only a two-car garage option. Where the other houses have a tandem capability, this one did not. This would be the only three-car garage in the neighborhood and would give the neighborhood a very diverse look.

Board Member Roxana Rojo asked for clarification on the color schemes, asking to see the other color selections.

Mr. Cazier showed her the color schemes and the roof tiles, stating that the diversity was far and above the norm.

Mr. Newcombe asked what the Board would like to do now. He asked if they should go back to the Applicant and redesign the project through Staffâ??s approval and review.

Chairman Truitt asked for a motion.

Board Member David Gibson stated that he didnâ??t have a problem with the fact that the balcony was only covering the one portion with the hip roof off the side of it. His concern was the precedence it would set.

Chairman Truitt stated that the other choice they had was to recognize that the recessing of the second story maybe addresses the spirit of the idea as opposed to the letter of the idea. He didnâ??t know that he was too precedent oriented because of the design of what they had done. He asked Mr. Newcombe to read the applicable portion of the Guideline.

Mr. Newcombe read from the Guideline.

Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that if there was a three-car garage, it shouldnâ??t be more than 40% of the front elevation, or it shouldnâ??t all be in the same plane. He concluded that this doesnâ??t meet this requirement.

Chairman Truitt agreed that it missed the first phrase, â??emphasize the front entryâ??. He stated that he didnâ??t see how they emphasized the front entry when 85% of the elevation is in garages.

Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that he didnâ??t see this meeting either the spirit or the letter of the Guidelines.

Chairman Truitt asked for a motion.

A motion was made by Board Member David Gibson, seconded by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, to approve DR01-01, subject to Staff stipulations; striking the first sentence of stipulation number three.

Motion Carried 6-1. Ayes: Chairman Darrell Truitt, Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, Board Member Bob Deardorff, Board Member David Gibson, Board Member Robin Schneider, Board Member John Tomasson. Naye: Board Member Roxana Rojo.

These four (4) standard plans are approved for Parcel 2 (lots 27-95) and Parcel 13 (lots 1-89) within Seville P.A.D. zoned R1-6 (Single-Family) and shall be built per approval by the Design Review Board at the public hearing of February 15, 2001. 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 revise Plan 40-2766 for review and approval by the Planning Department, prior to submitting for construction documents review.

The materials shown on the rendered drawings, i.e.: masonry, brick, decorative wrought iron, window detailing, shutters, etc. shall be standard features. These shall be clearly labeled on the construction documents.

The same color scheme that includes reversing the body and popout colors shall not be permitted on adjacent residences.

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.

DR00-140 - Approval of site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plan, site lighting and signage for retails shops, Parcel B located at the northwest corner of McQueen and Guadalupe Roads.

Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks stated that DR00-140 was retail shops Parcel B, located approximately 300â?? north of the NWC of McQueen Road and Guadalupe Road Zoned C-2 PAD. This request was by El Dorado Holdings, Inc. The request was for the Design Review approval for a 14, 824 square foot multi-tenet building with 96 associated parking spaces and associated landscape. The building was located in the same shopping center as the Signature Salon facility that was recently before the Board.

Mr. Fairbanks reminded the Board that they had discussed this at a Study Session on December 14, 2000. The Board had a number of concerns about the project that included a desire for: improved building massing, more vertical relief to the building, and a materials and color pallet that matched the adjacent Walgreenâ??s. In response to the items addressed by the Board, the Applicant raised the height of the central tower features approximately 3â?? to provide more vertical relief. He stated that they increased the size of the towers that are on the backside of the building on the rear elevation. They increased them in both width and in height to match the towers that are on the front side. The applicant shifted the building so it is no longer symmetrical and the central feature is slightly to the south side to accommodate an outdoor dining and pedestrian area located south of the building. He stated that the materials pallet did match that of Walgreenâ??s in terms of the accents and the split face block.

Mr. Fairbanks addressed the major issues in the Staff Report:

1. There was concern with the relationship to the Sterling House and this retail building. The wall in between those two users was a 2â?? masonry wall with 4â?? of wrought iron on top of the wall. Essentially, there is a residential type of use next to the service area for the retail building. There isnâ??t a required 6â?? or 8â?? wall or landscaping based on the Zoning Ordinance, as this building and the Sterling House are both located in a C-2 zoning district. As part of Staffs Report, they believed that the Applicant either needed to work with the adjacent owners and replace the existing wall with a 7â?? wall or incorporate a 10â?? landscape buffer as stipulated in the Staff Report.

2. The Staff asked the Applicant to match the landscape pallet that was used through the rest of this center. Essentially, that would replace the Mesquites that were shown on the landscape plan with Evergreen Elms. They also asked for a better canopy tree in the pedestrian plaza as opposed to the Mexican Fan Palms.

3. Stipulations that pertain to the materials. He stated that the building used predominantly colored CMU, where as Walgreenâ??s used a smooth finish stucco. So another stipulation stated that a stucco surface be used on this building.

Mr. Fairbanks stated that there was also one concern from a resident of El Dorado Lakes about a future pad building located north of this building, adjacent to the R-2 zoned neighborhood.

Mr. Fairbanks added that the Zoning that approved the preliminary site plan for this shopping center requires a Use Permit for the vacant pad site to the north to ensure compatibility between this development and the single-family lots to the north. The site plan that was approved by the Counsel actually showed a 40â?? setback between the residential lot line and the vacant pad site to the north. This plan actually showed a 50â?? setback for the building on the vacant pad to the north.

Mr. Fairbanks asked for questions from the Board.

Board Member Robin Schneider asked for clarification on the light fixture and recommended a different fixture that didnâ??t have so much glare.

Board Member Roxana Rojo asked if there was a restaurant planned to go into the future pad to the north.

Mr. Fairbanks stated that he wasnâ??t sure what they had in mind for that pad.

Board Member Rojo asked what the distance was from the proposed building to the Sterling House building.

Mr. Fairbanks used a scale and found the distance to be approximately 72â??-73â??.

Board Member Rojo asked if they would be loading behind the retail shops.

Mr. Fairbanks stated that there are doors at the back of the building, which were service doors.

Board Member Rojo asked about the use of the Sterling House.

Mr. Fairbanks informed her that it was an adult congregate care facility.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked the Applicant to come forward.

Don Andrews, 1425 W. Southern Ave #10, Tempe of Andrews Design Group came forward. He stated that he only had one concern regarding the wall. He asked for clear direction on the wall or landscape screening. He stated that their preference would be to put a site wall in their property instead of going through the legal issues of going to someone elseâ??s property to tear down a wall and build a wall. If it was a landscape issue, he stated that in the original site plan there was about a 5â?? strip of landscape against the back of the building. He proposed to take the 5â?? against the property line where the existing wall was and plant trees on their side of the wall to create a buffer. Since the Sterling House already had an existing row of landscape, he proposed to put another set on his side of the wall, creating a more effective buffer.

In regards to service, Mr. Andrews stated that this was standard retail shops, not like a large retail center. The prominent sizes of the tenants would range from 1,000 square feet to 4,000 square feet. For code reasons, they have back doors used more as exits than as service doors. They may be used for service as well, but not with large semiâ??s. Most trucks, like UPS, will be serving the tenants from the front.

Board Member Rojo asked the Staff if two walls were against fire code.

Mr. Fairbanks stated that it was not desirable to have two walls although it wasnâ??t against fire code. He stated that if they went with the landscape option it would affect the size of their retail shops, impacting it quite considerably.

Board Member David Gibson asked about the emergency lane behind the building and the distance required to do this.

Mr. Fairbanks stated that there was a fire lane on the plan in the front of the property that has been reviewed by the fire department, meeting their requirements.

Board Member Rojo asked Mr. Andrews what he would prefer to do, the walls or trees.

Mr. Andrews stated that they preferred to do the landscaping, giving up 5â??, and put the trees in the staggered fashion next to the wall.

Chairman Truitt stated that it would be difficult to find a tree that will grow in 5â?? and not interfere with the 24â?? drive. He would recommend going 10â??, with a 20â?? one way drive. He agreed that he didnâ??t like the two-wall idea either.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked if there was any foundational landscaping.

Mr. Fairbanks stated that there was not any.

Mr. Andrews stated that horizontally, when they have over 200â?? they try not to break up that distance with a long, thin 2â?? landscape buffer.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson stated that he didnâ??t think one planter in this large area sufficed.

Mr. Andrews stated that normally in retail shops in front of the shops is 8-10â?? taken up with canopy overhangs and pedestrian walkways. For plants to grow, they need to get outside the canopy and if you put them in the 4â??-5â?? planter, 2â?? will be taken by an overhang of a car, in addition the pedestrians will need to walk through there.

Vice Chairman Petterson recommended that they put another planter in that replaces one parking spot, breaking it up a little.

Mr. Andrews stated that they could do this.

Mr. Fairbanks stated that they have 96 parking spaces required and there are 96 in this site. But, he stated that the code allows them to put parking on adjacent lots. One of the stipulations stated that there is a need for an additional landscape planter, which would use one parking space. He stated that as a center, this was vastly over parked so the loss of one parking space is not material.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked if there were Cross Access Agreements in place for the various pads or ownerships to be able to share that parking.

Jamie Coverdale, 2233 E. Thomas Rd, Phoenix of Robert Kubicek Architects came forward. He stated that there was not cross parking throughout the center, there was cross access. He said that they had some flexibility to reduce the restaurant space and increase the retail space to allow for a better parking situation. This would reduce the required number of parking spaces.

Board Member Rojo asked how many spaces of parking are needed for a landscape island.

Mr. Fairbanks stated that at every twelve spaces of parking, they need a landscape island. This was the reason there is a stipulation in the Staff Report requiring another landscape planter.

PUBLIC HEARING

Frank Pane, 1834 W. San Angelo St, Gilbert came forward. He explained that he was the president of El Dorado Lakes Golf Community. He informed the Board that they were voting in favor of this project. He stated that the landscaping project is a good alternative.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if anyone else from the Public wanted to speak. No one came forward and he closed the Public Hearing.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked for a motion.

Chairman Truitt asked to have the next site plan larger with more readable dimensions.

A motion was made by Board Member Roxanna Rojo, seconded by Board Member John Tomasson, to approve DR00-140 subject to Staff stipulations; with the stipulations that they add a parking island in front of the building as stipulated by staff, revising stipulation number twelve to say 8â?? landscaping buffer (one row of trees) in the back of the property and that they delete the light fixture that didnâ??t meet Ordinance.

Motion Carried 7-0.

1. Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board at the February 15, 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.

2. 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 shall be included with the construction document review.

3. 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.

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

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

6. Roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened 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.

7. Vehicular access points 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.

8. 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 protect landscape from vehicular movements.

9. Project stormwater retention shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department at the time of construction document submittal.

10. 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.

a. All lighting shall be fully shielded and downward directed. The wall-pack provided with the submittal does not meet code and shall be prohibited.

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

c. Freestanding light poles shall match the light pole design of Walgreenâ??s and shall have a maximum height of twenty-five (25) feet.

d. Wall mounted lighting shall be lowered on the building to meet a maximum height of fourteen (14) feet above finish grade.

e. Site lighting measured at the eastern property line shall not exceed .3 foot/candle during business hours and .1 foot/candle one hour after the close of business.

f. 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.

11. Concrete light pole bases shall be painted to match the primary building color and shall have a maximum height of 24 inches.

12. The developer of shops B shall provide an 8â?? landscape buffer with 1 row of 24â?? box trees adjacent to the Sterling House site.

13. Evergreen Elms (24â?? Box) shall replace the Chilean Mesquites proposed in the parking lot. One additional Evergreen Elm (24â?? Box) shall be provided adjacent to the refuse enclosure to provide additional screening.

14. Three (24â??Box) evergreen elm trees shall replace the four Mexican fan palms along the southern outdoor pedestrian area in order to provide a canopy shade tree.

15. An additional landscape planter shall be located in the parking area directly in front of the tenant spaces to match the proposed landscape planters within the parking lot to the east.

16. An EIFS finish shall be required for the areas now identified as painted CMU block.

17. Downspouts shall be designed as internal downspouts.

18. In accordance with ULDC chapter I, section 3.7, an integrated sign package shall be submitted and approved for this development prior to the issuance of permits for project signage. The sign package shall also apply to the remaining vacant parcels, which includes parcel A to the north, and parcel E located west of Walgreenâ??s.

DR00-146 - Approval of revised landscaping plan for the Safety Complex proposed at the southeast corner of Civic Center Drive and Gilbert Road.

Planning Manager Maria Cadavid stated that this item, the Gilbert Public Safety Complex, was back on the agenda after being approved by the Design Review Board last December because they had asked the applicant to come back with the landscaping portion, in front of the building in the public area, for further review and action. She showed a visual aid of a blowup of the Public Plaza in front of the Public Safety Complex, including the landscaping plan. She also showed two sheets that the applicant addressed to cover the recommendations by the Board which had to do with: site plan items, placement of the lighting fixtures in landscaping islands and the wall enclosement in front of the Fire and Police areas.

She stated that after the Board recommended approval of the rest of the project there were two meetings with the landscaping consultant, present that evening, and George Pettitâ??s staff to discuss the final alignment, distribution of the planting materials in front of the buildings. Following the recommendation by the Board that they needed to create an interesting, inviting space in arrangement of the planting materials and trees, paying attention to the hardscape in that area to promote circulation from one entrance of the building to the other. She stated that people would enjoy a very well thought outdoor space.

In addition, Ms. Cadavid stated that the Staff handed to Board Member Schneider all the type of lighting fixtures that the applicant is proposing throughout the public area. In general terms, the type of plant materials that will be the focal point of the Public Plaza will be made out of Palobreas, Desert Museums and Native Mesquites (large species). The foundation landscaping in the large area will be Arabian Jasmine, Indian Hawthorn, Cape Plumbago (blues and whites) and a variety of plant materials that are colorful year-round and tolerant of the shade areas. The revised design was accepted by the consultant and the Staff also recommended approval of this landscaping. She explained the lighting fixtures that were proposed and how they would be used. She asked the Board if they had questions on the hardscape design or the lighting fixtures.

Board Member Schneider stated that she would like to give her recommendations to the applicant regarding the lighting.

Chairman Truitt asked if the applicant had any thing to add to the presentation.

The applicant didnâ??t have anything to add and the Board did not have any questions for the applicant.

Chairman Truitt asked for a motion.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, seconded by Board Member David Gibson, to approve DR00-146 as submitted.

Motion Carried 7-0.

DR00-148 - Approval of a.) Final site plan for Big â??Oâ?? Tires, b.) Landscaping, preliminary grading and drainage, and building elevations for Big â??Oâ?? Tires, c.) Master Sign Program for the commercial center, and d.) Preliminary site plan for the entire commercial center located at the northwest corner of Warner and Lindsay Roads.

Planner Roberts explained that DR00-148 was for Big â??Oâ?? Tires, located in a larger commercial center at the northwest corner of Warner and Lindsay Roads. The entire parcel is Zoned P.A.D with an underlying zoning designation of PSC-1 (Planned Neighborhood Shopping Center). She explained that the Board would be reviewing the following items: a.) Final site plan approval for Big â??Oâ?? Tires, b.) Landscaping, preliminary grading and drainage, and building elevation approval for Big â??Oâ?? Tires, c.) Master Sign Program approval for the commercial center, and d.) Preliminary site plan approval for the entire commercial center.

Ms. Roberts stated that the Big â??Oâ?? Tires Parcel was just under an acre and the building was just over 5,000 square feet. She reminded the Board that they reviewed this project at a Working Session in December. Some of the architectural issues that the applicant had addressed based on Board and Staff recommendations, were the roof materials for the entry area, widening the columns at the front entry to provide a better a proportion, and the exterior lighting. In addition they had provided conceptual elevations for the rest of the center.

She explained that Staff did have a couple of additional recommendations for the elevation, following what had been proposed for the overall design. She explained some of the stipulations that were in the Staff Report. She also noted that Staff would also like to have the bay doors recessed an additional 18â?? to help mitigate the appearance of them and perhaps cast a better shadow on them. She stated that the applicant had addressed all the comments by the Board at the Working Session.

Ms. Roberts stated that regarding the final site plan for Big â??Oâ?? Tires, the Board and Staff discussed the screen wall at the north area of the site. She showed a visual aid of this plan and described where the screen wall should be placed. Staff did recommend that the screen wall should be put in for the Use Permit to be approved. The grading and drainage was functional, however the Staff felt that it could be revised a little to provide earthen berms along Lindsay Road, matching what is already at the existing Circle K.

With regards to the signage, she stated that Staff required the applicant to provide a comprehensive Sign Package with their second submittal. She added that there were several stipulations for the Sign Package because it was their first review.

She explained the Staffs comments regarding the preliminary site plan for the rest of the commercial center: all pads will be reviewed by the Board at another time when they come through final site plan and architecture for those buildings, there may be some concerns with the loading bays from the anchor building, as well as concerns about the trash receptacles. She explained the stipulations that were in the Staff Report regarding these issues.

She stated that Staff believed that the stipulations provided should address all the concerns and they recommended approval of the project, subject to those stipulations.

Board Member David Gibson commented that he didnâ??t recall changing the roofing to a seam metal roof and would prefer the look of the concrete tile roofing material.

Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that he liked the metal roof but was concerned about the color.

A short discussion ensued regarding the roofing material and color.

Ms. Roberts explained the order of the stipulations and the subjects that they addressed.

Board Member Roxana Rojo expressed her concern that by the time they got to the anchor location, that they would not have much say about what it entailed.

Planning Manager Maria Cadavid explained the process of the approval for the entire center and that the Board would be involved in approval at each final site plan.

Chairman Darrell Truitt stated that if anyone on the Board had any specific issues that they be asked and addressed that evening.

Board Member Rojo expressed her concern about the dumpsters next to lots 29 & 30 and questioned the ability to move them to another location.

Chairman Truitt remarked that if they were moved to another location, they would disturb another neighbor.

Ms. Roberts stated that the Staff did recommend screen walls to help in buffering for the neighbors who would have the dumpsters next to their property.

Chairman Truitt asked the applicant to come forward.

Jamie Coverdale, 2233 E. Thomas Road, Phoenix, with Robert Kubicek Architects came forward. He stated that he was concerned with stipulation number 11 & 4. He said that based on a traffic study, they would like to propose 60â?? stacking instead of 80â?? stacking, reconfiguring the medium for the north bound traffic lane. He wanted to submit this to the Planning Department.

Board Member Deardorff explained that this stipulation #11 did state this intent.

Mr. Coverdale also added that in stipulation #4, they would like to keep the existing curb cuts and 8â?? band of exposed concrete until the remaining portion of the center is developed.

Board Member Deardorff stated that they could add the word â??Newâ?? at the beginning of stipulation #4.

Board Member Rojo asked for clarification on the intersection of the Anchor with Shop A and wondered if the two buildings connected, leaving an empty space behind their intersection.

Chairman Truitt informed her that this was a detail that will be discussed at a later point in the over all project.

Richard Presto, the Big â??Oâ?? Architect came forward and expressed his concern about recessing the bay doors an additional 18â??. Since the bays were open all day, he stated that it would not create the shadow the Staff was looking to accomplish and that it would be hard for larger vehicles to have that shortened turning radius.

Board Member Bob Deardorff suggested a pop out of 4â??.

PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Truitt asked for the Public Hearing and stated that there were several neighbors that wanted to speak.

Wendy Rocco, 619 E Pinto Ct, Gilbert came forward. She stated that her neighborhood had a meeting about this addition and had sent a letter to the applicant regarding their concerns. She addressed some of the issues in the letter for the Boards review. Included in these concerns was the type of landscape used as buffer between the shopping center and their neighborhood. She stated that they would like to see some thorny bushes put in to deter from theft, making it difficult for people to access their properties from the shopping center.

Louisa Patterson, 614 E Pinto Ct, Gilbert came forward. She added to Ms. Roccoâ??s comments by stating that although they didnâ??t have a homeowners association, they were awarded the Neighborhood of the Year Award last year because they are a very close community. She stated that she would prefer an 8â?? wall to the existing 6â?? wall. She stated that they felt screens were necessary for the trash bins. In addition, she was concerned about the delivery hours, wanting them to be limited to 7:00 a.m.-9:00 p.m. She expressed that with the traffic, they have a problem getting out of their neighborhood now and inquired if it was going to be a right in, right out only. Her last concern was regarding the possibility of a drive-through.

Chairman Truitt clarified which were site plan issues and which were land use issues. He stated that delivery hours were a stipulation of a Zoning Case, not of a site planning case. He recommended that she look at the original Zoning Case to review these requirements. He stated that he thought Lindsay was not a right in, right out. He stated that they may come up with an alternative to allow for a left out, left in and that this was being discussed by the applicant at this time. The Traffic Engineer and the applicant would work this out. Chairman Truitt recommended that she communicate with them about this turn. He said they could stipulate the wall height and landscaping. The landscaping would be discussed at a later time. He stated that he would address the screening for the loading dock in the more detailed site plan.

Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that stipulation #26 addressed many of these issues.

Suzanne Pager, 602 S San Marcos, Gilbert came forward. She asked about the entryway from Warner Road, if this was an existing entry.

Board Member Deardorff stated that they could enter off of Warner Road.

Ms. Pager requested that there be landscaping or trees along side the houses.

Board Member Deardorff informed her that there would be landscaping or trees along side the houses.

Ms. Pager thought the Spanish Tile roof would look better than the metal roof.

Nancy Masterson, 620 E. Pinto Ct, Gilbert came forward. She stated that her main concern was safety. She asked if there was a time frame as to when things would happen.

Mr. Coverdale stated that they had no one interested in this property and it could be five years until this is developed.

Chairman Truitt informed her that until someone takes the anchor property, there wouldnâ??t be a lot of movement on this project.

Board Member Roxana Rojo stated that the conceptual elevation didnâ??t match what they had approved in the past. She inquired about the sign package. She asked if they would be doing directional and pedestrian signs.

Ms. Roberts stated that only the monument signs were proposed and that they were listed in the Staff Report. She reviewed the sign locations with the Board.

Chairman Truitt stated that it would be a reasonable stipulation to request that they could only put up one sign at this time. He asked if they could build all their signs now.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson stated that they could only put the monument signs on the Big â??Oâ?? Property and not on another tenantâ??s property.

Ms. Roberts reviewed the monument sign locations and mentioned that Big â??Oâ?? Tiresâ?? shared monument sign was moved further north because there had to be 300â?? between monument signs. Therefore, the sign was not located on the Big â??Oâ?? Tire site.

Mr. Coverdale stated that the intent of the monument sign was meant to be a shared multi-tenet sign and to have a Big â??Oâ?? Tires sign on it. He stated that the sign was moved and that the Phase Line was not modified to reflect this. He asked that the monument sign be included in Phase 1 and that the rest of the monument signs would not be put in now. He also stated that they were in receipt of the neighborsâ?? letter but did not get a chance to respond to it, but that they intend to work with them. With regard to the additional landscaping, they were willing to do this as the sites develop. He requested that at the time that they do the landscaping that there would not be additional requests.

Chairman Truitt stated that the neighborsâ?? comments were not stipulations; they were for information and would be attached to the minutes. He said they wouldnâ??t make stipulations on a conceptual site plan approval and this would be done when they came in for final site plan approval.

Mr. Swanson added that the Staff would recommend that the Board not take action on all the areas of the Staff Package and that they could give a more thorough report at a later time.

Board Member Robin Schneider stated that in the parking lot lighting, it would be beneficial to go with High Pressure Sodium Lighting.

Chairman Truitt asked for a motion.

A motion was made by Board Member Bob Deardorff, seconded by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, to approve DR00-148, striking stipulations 17-21, not approving the comprehensive sign package, modifying stipulation number 4 to add the word â??newâ??, adding stipulation #27 to increase the depth of the column elements at and between the bay doors on Big â??Oâ?? Tires to at least 4â?? to create deeper pilaster elements on the exterior of the building, adding stipulation #28 to increase the thickness of parapet elements above the 21â??4â?? building height a minimum of 4â?? and to increase the thickness of those visible portions of the parapet, adding stipulation #29 changing the metal roof to mission tile which will be submitted to the Staff for review and approval, adding stipulation #30, changing the parking lot lighting to High Pressure Sodium and the new fixtures shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department for review and approval.

Motion Carried 7-0.

1. Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board at the February 15, 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.

2. All refuse enclosures shall be screened from public view with a gate of opaque materials and gates shall 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.

3. Mounding and contouring of landscaped area adjacent to public right of ways shall be required. Earthen berms a minimum of 36 inches tall shall be incorporated into the landscape setback along Lindsay Road next to the pedestrian paths. No more than fifty (50) percent of the landscaped areas fronting adjacent streets shall be designated as a retention basin.

4. New vehicular access points and pedestrian access ways shall provide for special paving treatment such as integral colored stamped concrete, Bomanite, or any similar approved alternative. Material and coverage of the special paving 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.

5. 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.

a. All lighting shall be fully shielded and downward directed.

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

c. 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.

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

e. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

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

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

10. 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.

11. As proposed, the Lindsay Road north driveway shall be restricted to right in, right out only. Any revisions shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and Traffic Engineering Department prior to issuing a building permit.

12. The north screen wall shall be staggered and a landscape planter shall be provided at the base. A color elevation of the screen wall shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to construction document submittal.

13. Materials stored within the tire storage area shall be fully screened by the masonry wall.

14. The exterior wall mounted lighting shall be relocated from above to along side the bay doors. Revisions shall be clearly noted in the construction document submittal.

15. The wood vigas proposed for the conceptual major and shop elevations shall also be placed above the bay doors on the Big â??Oâ?? Tire elevations. Revisions shall be clearly noted in the construction document submittal.

16. All landscaping improvements within the Big â??Oâ?? Tires site and within the right of way along Lindsay Road, in front of Pad A, shall be required to be completed with construction of the Big â??Oâ?? Tires facility. The landscape palette shall comply with the requirements of Street Theme District 5. The landscape improvements shall be clearly noted in the construction document submittal.

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

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

19. Construction signs shall also conform with the requirements of the Unified Land Development Code.

20. The Master Sign Program packet shall be revised as follows:

a. Open channel letters with exposed neon and neon strips or stripes shall not be allowed.

b. All wall mounted signage shall have gold trim caps and black returns.

c. All graphics on free standing signs shall be routed aluminum face with acrylic back up. Only the copy and shall be illuminated. The sign background shall be opaque and shall match the color of the monument sign structure.

d. Color and materials for the monument signs shall be clearly noted in the revised package.

e. The freestanding center tenant signage (Sign Type D) shall not exceed forty square feet in area or six feet in height.

f. Freestanding monument signs shall be set back a minimum of three feet from the property line and shall be placed outside of established visibility triangles.

g. Text and exhibits in the sign program packet shall be revised to reflect the above requirements. Three copies of the revised Master Sign Program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to issuing a sign permit.

21. Wall mounted signage for Big â??Oâ?? Tires shall be limited to 70 square feet, based on 1.5 square feet for every linear foot of street frontage. Revised signage shall be required to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuing a sign permit. This signage shall be place on the east and south elevations only. No signage shall be permitted on elevations facing the residential district. >

Preliminary Site Plan for Commercial Center:

22. Any revisions to the preliminary site plan will require the on site circulation to be revisited and reviewed by the Planning Department.

23. Any proposed drive through pads shall provide a minimum of five to six car lengths for stacking. Final site plans for such uses shall indicate the location of menu and order boxes and provide the distances from the drive through entry.

24. The final site plan shall clearly indicate and note integrally colored, patterned concrete at the entry located west of Pad B.

25. At the time of final site plan review for Pad B, the location of the refuse enclosure shall be revised to provide better visibility.

26. At the time of Final site plan submittal for the Anchor and Shops, additional landscaping and screen walls shall be required to the north and west to provide a buffer between the adjacent neighborhood, loading bays and refuse collection. Screen walls for the loading bays shall match or exceed the height of the proposed bay door. Review and approval of said site plans shall require review and approval by the Design Review Board.

27. The depth of the column elements shall be increased at and between the bay doors on Big â??Oâ?? Tires to at least 4â?? to create deeper pilaster elements on the exterior of the building.

28. The thickness of parapet elements above the 21â??4â?? building height shall be increased a minimum of 4â?? and increase the thickness of those visible portions of the parapet.

29. Change the metal roof to mission tile, which will be submitted to the Staff for review and approval.

30. The parking lot lighting shall be High Pressure Sodium. Fixtures shall be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Department for review and approval.

DR00-151 - Approval of the final site plan, landscaping, preliminary grading and drainage, building elevations, site lighting and signage for Somburros Restaurant at Cooper Crossing, Lot 4 located at the southeast corner of Baseline and Cooper Roads.

Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks stated that this project was for Somburros Restaurant at Cooper Crossing, Lot 4 located at the southeast corner of Baseline and Cooper Roads. He said that he provided the Board a new report with revised stipulations as the report they received in their packets was incomplete.

He asked that the Board modify two stipulations as a part of their motion. The first stipulation asked the applicant to extend the screening wall and increase the landscape as shown in the revised landscape plan so there was better screening of the drive-through. He noted that this was not a conventional drive-through. It is pick-up only, you cannot order at the window.

The second stipulation that he identified was that the wall packs that were on the building had been revised to a decorative sconce.

Mr. Fairbanks stated that there was only one point of contention regarding the design review application, which is the type of stone required for the project. Stonehenge, this center and the storage facility all use stacked stone and the applicant would like to use a field stone pilaster. He stated that the mix would be a little bit unusual and the stacked stone pilaster would be highly visible from the perimeter streets. He stated that the mix of materials that should be avoided.

Mr. Fairbanks stated that they were not stuck on the color scheme of the pilasters. The real issue was whether to use the stacked stone for the pilaster to tie into the integrated center, or use the fieldstone. The Staff Report stipulates that the pilasters match the rest of the center in Stonehenge.

Board Member Roxana Rojo asked to see the materials pallet to make sure the color would not be as bright as what was shown in the visual aid.

Mr. Fairbanks agreed that the accent tile color would be bright. He added that in the Study Session they discussed that this wouldnâ??t follow the integrated theme of the center because it was a theme restaurant with a Mexican theme. He showed the elevations for the rest of the center and noted that this particular pad on the outskirts had a very different character.

Board Member Bob Deardorff verified that they had let some of the other pads vary a bit.

Mr. Fairbanks agreed that the day care and the tire facility had used different colors and different features.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked for clarification on what the Staff recommended was:

Mr. Fairbanks stated that Staff Recommendation would be to modify stipulation 10 & 18 as identified in the revised stipulations, which was given to the Board, and to retain the stipulations that are in the Staff Report going with stacked ledge stone rather than fieldstone.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked the applicant to come forward.

Don Andrews, 1425 W. Southern Ave came forward. He started by showing the Board the revised light fixtures. He then stated that the stone they were requesting goes with the Spanish theme they were trying to accomplish. He explained the difference between the two types of stone and the importance of using th