Posted by Design Review Board Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes
1025 S. Gilbert Road
June 14, 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 Roxanna Rojo
STAFF PRESENT:
Planning Director Jerry Swanson, Planning Manager Maria Cadavid, Planning Manager Linda Edwards, Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks, Planner Shellean Roberts, Planner Dennis Newcombe, Planner Aruna Vasudev, Planner David Marsh
ALSO PRESENT:
Recorder Trasie Johns
I N D E X
PLANNER CASE PAGE VOTE
CONSENT DR00-82 2 APPR.
CONSENT DR00-143 2 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-12 4 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-23 4 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-32 5 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-33 5 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-34 6 APPR.
MR. FAIRBANKS DR01-30 7 APPR.
MR. NEWCOMBE DR01-35 9 APPR.
MR. FAIRBANKS DR01-38 15 APPR.
MR. MARSH DR01-39 19 APPR.
MS. ROBERTS DR01-24 23 APPR.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Darrell Truitt called the meeting to order at 5:40 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Recorder Johns called roll and a quorum was determined to be present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Chairman Darrell Truitt asked for a vote to approve the agenda.
A motion was made by Board Member Bob Deardorff, seconded by Board Member John Tomasson to approve the agenda and to move DR01-30 to the Public Hearing.
Motion Carried 7-0.
COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS
Chairman Darrell Truitt announced that at that time members of the public may comment on items not on the agenda. He stated that the Boardâ??s response was limited to responding to criticism, asking staff to review a matter commented upon or asking that the matter be put on a future agenda. He asked if anyone would like to speak.
No one came forward.
CONSENT ITEMS
Chairman Darrell Truitt asked for a motion to approve the consent items.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to approve the consent items, subject to Staff stipulations.
Motion Carried 7-0.
DR00-82â?? Approval of revised elevations for Pet Resorts located at the southeast corner of Elliot Road and the Union Pacific Railroad.
The wainscot application shall be carried through the recessed portion of the secondary entrance along Elliot Road, and shall be consistently applied around the entire building.
The secondary entrance along Elliot Road shall include two salmon-colored square metal accents to match the metal canopy brace plates used over the main entrance.
Project shall comply with the previously approved site plan, landscape plan, and grading and drainage plan, and all conditions of approval for these plans.
DR00-143 â?? Approval of site plan, landscaping, preliminary grading and drainage and building elevations for Primrose School located at the southeast corner of Guadalupe and Lindsay Roads.
The Landscape Plan to address the following:
Remove turf designation from retention basins and replace with cobbles at the base.
Use only native mesquite trees within the 25-foot landscape setback adjacent to the Consolidated Canal.
A landscaped area shall be provided between parking screen walls and parking areas.
The grading and drainage plan shall clearly illustrate information on the height of earth berms and parking screen walls to ensure that the project complies with code requirements, which call for a minimum height of 3 feet above the grade of the parking lot or adjacent street, whichever is higher in elevation. Design of earth berms shall allow for gentle transition and contouring and shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Phase 1 shall include the parking located on the west side of the drive aisle in front of the future Phase 2 building. Phase 2 areas of the site shall be dust-proofed.
Faux beam application at the gable ends shall project a minimum of 3 inches from the wall plane to produce the simulated beam effect.
Signage is not approved with this application. Design Review Board approval of a sign package application for all signage is required prior to issuance of a sign permit.
Building windows shall be recessed no less than 4 inches from the wall plane. Building doors shall be recessed no less than 2 inches from the wall plane.
The parking screen wall along Lindsay Road shall include greater horizontal variation, subject to the approval of the Planning Department.
Parking screen walls shall be installed with Phase 1 prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
The exterior wall-mounted light fixture shall be fully shielded and shall look similar in appearance to the product originally proposed with the flared lamp housing and goose-neck mounting arm, or as approved by the Planning Department.
Decorative paving for driveways and pedestrian pathways and crossings shall be Bomanite, roman cobble pattern, desert sand color, as provided with the application materials. Location shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
The topographical grade within the 25-foot landscape easement adjacent to the canal shall be maintained as existing and shall not be used for retention.
All trash enclosures shall meet Town of Gilbert standard #80 and shall include fully opaque screening gates. Screening gates shall not open into vehicular drive aisles. Trash enclosure gates shall be kept closed unless in use.
All outdoor storage areas for materials, equipment, and service electrical systems (SES) shall be recessed or fully screened from view by a masonry wall the same height as the utility cabinet.
All S.E.S. panels, utility pedestals and vaults shall be painted to match the primary building color. Construction plans shall identify the final location of utility vaults.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened by a parapet wall equal to or exceeding the height of the mechanical units. To the extent permitted by law, satellite dishes shall be fully screened by a parapet wall. Ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from public view by a combination of a six foot (6â??) decorative wall and dense landscaping.
All backflow preventers 2″ or larger shall be screened with landscape located within a 6â?? radius of the backflow preventer. All backflow preventers less than 2″ shall be placed in a wire mesh basket and painted to match the primary building color.
All freestanding light poles shall be located within landscaped areas. Concrete light pole bases shall be painted to match the primary building color. Concrete bases for light poles shall not exceed a height of 24″ from adjacent grade.
The project shall undergo an illumination test by the Code enforcement Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Building downspouts shall be internalized.
Retention, driveway and parking cross-access and use agreements shall be recorded with Maricopa County and submitted to the Building Department prior to issuance of a building permit for Phase 2.
DR01-12 â?? Approval of the site plan, landscaping, preliminary grading & drainage, and building elevations for Cooper Crossing Pad E located at the southeast corner of Baseline and Cooper Roads.
The gates on the refuse enclosure shall utilize a single swing gate, mounted such that the gate will swing towards the building and not obstruct the drive aisle.
The colour palette shall match that utilized for the existing Shops â??Aâ?? building.
DR01-23 â?? Approval of the monument signage and amended sign package for the Fairways Superstition Springs development located north of the northwest corner of Guadalupe and Power Roads.
The colours and materials of the monument signs shall match that utilized by the buildings on-site.
Any proposed external illumination of the monument signs shall be reviewed and approved by Staff.
Monument signs shall be setback a minimum of 3â?? from the property line.
For Building A, the total area for wall signs on both the north and east elevations cannot exceed 35 square feet.
For Buildings E, J, and M, the total area for wall signs on both the south and east elevations cannot exceed 30 square feet.
For Buildings B, G, and L, the total area for wall signs on both the north and east elevations cannot exceed 30 square feet.
DR01-32 â?? Approval of the site plan, landscaping, lighting, preliminary grading and drainage, and building elevations for CE Industrial Building at East Valley Commerce Center located at the southeast corner of Baseline and McQueen Roads.
Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board on June 14, 2001. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be subject to the process requirements identified in the ULDC.
Water mains within the site shall be placed in an exclusive 12-foot waterline easement that is to be dedicated by a final plat.
A master plan for water, sewer, and drainage covering the overall project/site must be submitted for approval prior to any development.
Project drainage shall conform to the East Valley Commerce Center Master Plan.
A subdivision re-plat will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The applicant shall submit construction document grading and drainage plans that shall be in accordance with the Town of Gilbert requirements and shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of permits for this facility.
Mondel Pines (Pinus eldarica) proposed within narrow planting areas, interior of the parking screen wall, shall be relocated to larger planting areas in substitute for the Live Oak (Quercus virginana).
All landscaping design shall comply with the provisions of Standard Detail No. 92, Sight Distance at Uncontrolled Intersections.
Downspouts shall be architecturally integrated into the building design by framing the downspouts with masonry units that emphasize a vertical column feature, providing additional vertical articulation and massing relief. Additionally, the downspouts shall be painted Dunn-Edwards “Chintz” (DE3772M2) to match the banding color.
All outdoor storage areas for materials, trash, equipment, and service electrical systems (SES), shall be fully screened from view by a masonry wall and/or landscaping, or by projections of the building. Trash enclosures shall incorporate screening gates that shall not encroach into driveway areas.
All utility boxes shall be painted to match that of the approved color palette for the project and shall be screened from the public street.
Design for any future monument signage should complement and be integral to the design of the building and not include any internal illumination.
All project lighting shall conform to Section 11.22.A of the ULDC and all provision s of the lighting standards for East Valley Commerce Center. Wall mounted lighting shall not exceed a height of 12â?? from finished grade.
DR01-33 â?? Approval of the site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage, building elevations, site lighting and signage for Missions Bay Ward Church of Latter Day Saints located between Mission Bay Drive and Driftwood Drive, south of Baseline Road.
Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board at the June 14, 2001 public hearing.
All existing plant materials including trees and turf within the right-of-way, shall remain as illustrated in the Landscape Plan. All turf areas within the right-of-way, that may be damaged in the construction process shall be refurbished and/or re-seeded.
A minimum of three bike racks shall be provided at the entrance of the building and the bike racks shall be clearly labeled in the site plan.
Special paving treatment shall be used at all driveway entrances at a depth of no less than fifteen (15â??) feet to match the commercial center. Said special paving shall be laid out behind the right-of-way line at the driveway entrances. The pavers at the driveway entrances and pedestrian walkways proposed on the site shall appropriately match the color of the church building.
All parking lots shall be screened from public view by a combination of earthen berms and/or screen walls, constructed at least three (3â??) feet above the grade of the parking lot or adjacent street, whichever is higher. Design of said wall shall match the materials, colors and design theme of the church facility.
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, finished and painted in the same colors used on the building.
Illumination for the project shall comply with the Light and Glare Ordinance No. 1315. 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.
All freestanding light poles within one hundred (100â??) feet of any residential lot shall be a maximum of fourteen (14â??). All other freestanding light poles shall be a maximum of twenty five (25â??) feet, fixtures shall be designed with a 90 degree cut-off, and the lighting source shall be recessed in the lighting fixture so as not to be visible.
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.
Signage proposed for this development shall receive approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a sign permit.
The approval of site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plan, building elevations, lighting and signage for DR01-33, Mission Bay Ward LDS Church is subject to the Town Council approval of the Val Vista Lakes PAD amendment for the subject site in rezoning case Z01-7.
DR01-34 - Approval of the site plan, landscaping, lighting, preliminary grading and drainage, and building elevations for an Office Warehouse on Lots 45 and 46 at Fiesta Ranch located at the northeast corner of McQueen and Guadalupe Roads.
Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board on June 14, 2001. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Board prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project.
All outdoor storage areas for materials, trash, equipment, and service electrical systems (SES), shall be fully screened from view by a masonry wall 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.
Roof mounted equipment shall be fully screened by a parapet wall. To the extent permitted by law, satellite dishes shall be required to be fully screened from public view.
Site lighting shall comply with the light and glare criteria set forth in Section 11.22.A of the ULDC, including fully shielded wall-packs with 90 degree cut-offs.
Refuse enclosure location shall be subject to Engineering & Planning Staff review and approval.
All refuse enclosures shall utilize opaque gates.
Recorded Cross access easements between Lots 45, 46, 37, & 38 will be required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any structure.
Additional articulation will be provided on the screen walls on either side of the Harvard Street entrance.
Water mains within the site shall be placed in an exclusive 12â?? waterline easement that is to be dedicated by a final plat.
Project drainage shall conform to the Fiesta Ranch Commerce Park Master Plan.
A plan for water, sewer, and drainage covering the overall site must be submitted for approval prior to any development.
Signage shall require review and approval by the Design Review Board, prior to issuance of a sign permit.
PUBLIC HEARING
DR01-30 â?? Approval of the site plan, landscaping, preliminary grading & drainage, and building elevations for Springer Industrial located at the northeast corner of McQueen and Guadalupe Roads.
Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks explained that DR01-30 was the Springer Industrial building that was a 15,000 square foot warehouse and office building in the Fiesta Ranch Business Park located at the northeast corner of Guadalupe and McQueen Roads. He explained that the issue that the Board needed to review was regarding stipulation number six. He understood that the Board was comfortable with the elevations and that they could delete stipulation six at the Boards discretion. He concluded by asking for questions from the Board.
Board Member Robin Schneider asked where a light fixture was to be located.
Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks replied that on page 13 in the packet; there was a layout of where the wall pack would be located.
Board Member Robin Schneider stated that she didnâ??t think the fixture would comply, since it didnâ??t have a ninety-degree cutoff.
Mr. Fairbanks asked for further input on the issue. He added that in attachment number 15, the applicant submitted that the wall pack unit was fully shielded. He explained that they didnâ??t have a problem with another wall pack, but would like direction as to its design.
Board Member Robin Schneider stated that it would need to conceal the space since the light was coming straight out. She added that the light would need to have a covering over the lens and should not have an outward throw.
Mr. Fairbanks recommended that she add this as a stipulation with the approval.
Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if the applicant wanted to add anything. Since the applicant agreed to the changed stipulation, Chairman Truitt asked for a motion.
A motion was made by Board Member Robin Schneider, seconded by Board Member Roxanna Rojo to approve DR01-30, subject to Staff stipulations; modifying stipulation number 8 to state that the fixture was fully shielded with ninety degree cutoffs that the cut sheet doesnâ??t show; and striking stipulation number six.
Motion Carried 7-0.
Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board on June 14, 2001. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Board prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project.
All outdoor storage areas for materials, trash, equipment, and service electrical systems (SES), shall be fully screened from view by a masonry wall and landscaping, or by projections of the building.
The construction document grading plan shall be revised to clearly reflect meandering earthen berms ranging from 12″ in height to 36″ in height adjacent to Harvard Street and Acacia Drive.
All S.E.S. panels, utility pedestals and vaults shall be painted to match the primary building color.
Roof mounted equipment shall be fully screened by a parapet wall. To the extent permitted by law, satellite dishes shall be required to be fully screened from public view.
Prior to the submittal of the construction documents, the applicant shall submit revised building elevations to Planning Staff for review of revised column features which frame the external building downspouts on the east and west elevations. A total of three vertical features, appropriately spaced, shall be provided on the east elevation. The accent CMU features adjacent to the downspouts shall be revised to downplay the projecting accent features. Approval of the revised building elevations shall be granted by staff prior to the submittal of the project construction documents.
All project signage shall be submitted to Planning Staff for review and approval prior to the submittal of the construction documents.
Site lighting shall comply with the light and glare criteria set forth in Section 11.22.A of the ULDC, including fully shielded wall-packs with 90 degree cut-offs. The fixture shall be fully shielded with ninety-degree cut-offs that the cut sheet doesnâ??t show.
The construction document submittal for the landscape plans shall identify that Evergreen Elm will be installed as a canopy tree adjacent to the street curb on Acacia Drive and Harvard Street and as an internal canopy tree within the parking area. Mondel Pine should be incorporated adjacent to the building.
DR01-35 â?? Approval of the site plan, landscaping, standard plan elevations, and entry/wall design for Arbor Walk, located approximately 1/8th mile west of Gilbert Road and Juniper Avenue.
Planner Dennis Newcombe reminded the Board that the case had come before them about a year ago from Whitehawk Development who was proposing a similar development in the redevelopment district 1/8 of a mile west of Gilbert Road on Juniper Ave. They had since abandoned the project and Trend Homes had taken the project, keeping a similar landscape pallet and the same number of lots. They were suggesting some changes in the elevations of the product line they were proposing. The number of units that Whitehawk proposed was 98 and Trend Homes was proposing 139 units. This was based upon them providing a different product line where there were two units in the 801 and 802 series. The 803, 804 and 805 series were single units that were articulated nicely proving a Neo-Traditional design. He noted that it was originally proposed as a gated community, which they had removed and provided a more open, free flowing design. Along the canal, there would not be any fencing. In addition, they would have white picket fencing.
Mr. Newcombe provided a visual aid of what Whitehawk had submitted saying that the product was very similar to it. He described the project while showing the visual aid. He concluded that the Staff was asking for approval with some minor adjustments to make sure the project was in tune with their overall design as stipulated with concurrence from the applicant.
Chairman Darrell Truitt asked to see the renderings of the streetscape.
Mr. Newcombe provided the renderings for the Board to review and explained the design of the product.
Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked to see the elevations of 801 and 802. She asked if these units were duplexes.
Mr. Newcombe answered that 801 and 802 were duplexes.
Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked if duplexes were within the zoning requirements.
Mr. Newombe replied that they were because the R-4 allowed for approximately 22 du per acre and the applicant was proposing 12 du per acre. Height requirements in the R-4 district allowed a 36â?? height, which would be three stories and these units would also be within the range.
Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked where the front doors were located.
Mr. Newcombe showed the site plan and described where the front doors, alleys and roads were located. He explained how the units would be laid out within the development.
The Board reviewed the elevations and briefly discussed them among themselves.
Chairman Darrell Truitt verified that the Board was the site plan approval group for the modified site plan.
Mr. Newcombe concurred that they would be the only approving party of the site plan. He explained that the site plan stayed the same from what was originally approved.
Chairman Darrell Truitt asked how they were getting more density.
Mr. Newcombe stated that they were providing a duplex on some of the lots, gaining more density.
Chairman Darrell Truitt clarified that the lots and streets were the same; they were just adding some duplexes on some of the lots.
Mr. Newcombe stated that he was correct.
Chairman Darrell Truitt verified that the zoning case was proposed without any tie into a specific density.
Planning Manager Maria Cadavid replied that Chairman Darrell Truitt was correct.
Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked what the street widths were.
Mr. Newcombe replied that the street widths were 33â??.
Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked what the minimum width was between buildings.
Mr. Newcombe answered that they were within the requirement, which was 10â?? between buildings.
Board Member David Gibson asked about the guest parking.
Mr. Necombe replied that the applicant was providing 37 visitor parking spaces and that the code required one visitor parking space for ten units.
Board Member David Gibson asked if there was parallel parking along the streets.
Mr. Necombe replied that there was parallel parking along one side of the street, which was concurrent with the original approval.
The Board briefly reviewed the plans.
Mr. Newcombe explained that according to the Redevelopment Commission, they might have a future road through the development and the applicant had provided a stub for this future road allowing for access onto another road along the eastern boundary of the property.
Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked if they could make it a policy that the applicants needed to provide a lighting plan for the open spaces.
Planning Manager Maria Cadavid replied that the Board could request that the lighting plan be incorporated into any proposal that they reviewed.
Mr. Newcombe stated that they had a lighting ordinance that was comprehensive and also gave them a lot of flexibility. He added that there was a stipulation that stated that all lighting would be submitted to the Staff for their review and approval.
Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if a north/south road could be widened to allow for additional parking. He informed the Board that in other projects that he had done, they were allowed to park on one side of the street if the street was 28â??. He thought that the road that was at the end could be widened from 28â?? from 24â?? to allow for parking. This would only be needed in the corners of the development, as the center properties appeared to have enough parking.
Mr. Newcombe asked for clarification on where to park.
Chairman Darrell Truitt stated that if they put the parking on the outside, it would allow for more parking. He was open to where they decided to put the parking, since Mr. Newcombe felt it might be better on the other side of the street.
Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked if there was a stop sign located on one of the streets.
Mr. Newcombe answered that it would be up to the Streets Department to determine and that since the streets had low speeds, it would most likely not be needed.
A short discussion ensued about the width of the streets and what might be required to widen them.
Chairman Darrell Truitt asked the applicant to come forward.
Joel Houston, 1324 N. Conner, Gilbert with Trend Homes came forward. He stated that they werenâ??t prepared to talk at length about the site plan, since it was their understanding that the City Council and Redevelopment Commission had already approved it. He explained that they had just replaced their plans and were trying to get a little bit of a different ambience with the plan to make the homes have more of a single family feel. As far as the parking was concerned, he stated that it was his understanding that they met the requirements of the Town. As opposed to most apartment complexes that would fit into this type of zoning, they had two car garages available on all of the units. In addition, with the garages in the back, they hoped that people would use the visitor parking less than they would if the garages were in front of the buildings. In addition, he stated that it would have a great ambiance with the picket fences and front porches. He concluded by asking for questions from the Board.
Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if they were opposed to widening the one tract by four feet.
Mr. Houston answered that if they could do it within the setback requirements or by giving up some landscaping, they would not have a problem with widening the street by 4â??.
Board Member Bob Deardorff asked to have the focus placed on the walkway so that it would deter people from parking in the area they were discussing.
Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked if they had ever combined single-family homes with multi-family homes in the past and how it was working with the different price ranges.
Mr. Houston replied that this was the first time they had done this in Gilbert. He explained that people were attracted to the fact that they had some separation between the homes that made it have a single-family feel. There were also double walls between the buildings to help with the noise.
Chairman Darrell Truitt asked what the typical set back was between the buildings.
Mr. Houston answered that they had a minimum of ten feet between the buildings.
Board Member David Gibson stated that in looking at elevation 805A and the large mass on the roof, he wanted to know if they could do a similar shedded dormer window like they did in the 805B elevation.
Mr. Houston answered that they did a lot of consideration on the project and pointed out that they were looking at elevation drawings that werenâ??t drawn to perspective and had a little bit more of a vertical feel to them. He explained that they would have a little lower feel to them when they had the actual perspective built into it. Again, he stated that it was their answer to an R-4 zoning.
Chairman Darrell Truitt stated that it wouldnâ??t be a roadway elevation; it wouldnâ??t be noticeable from a pedestrian scale.
Mr. Houston agreed and stated that the roof wouldnâ??t be seen as a pedestrian.
Board Member David Gibson announced that the other element he was concerned with was the fourth elevation on the rear since it was a two-story mass without a cantilever. He explained if there were a couple of these elevations in a row and across the street, they would end up with a tunnel effect.
Mr. Houston informed the Board that these duplex units would be located at the end of the stubs, so they wouldnâ??t have this tunnel effect.
Board Member David Gibson asked if it had a single car garage or tandem garage.
Mr. Houston answered that it was a tandem garage and they were 22â?? wide; therefore there was room in the garage for the trash.
Board Member David Gibson discussed the massing on the duplexes.
Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked where the air conditioning units would be located.
Planner Dennis Newcombe replied that the air conditioning units would be located on the side yards, which would be screened.
Chairman Darrell Truitt stated that when looking at single-family homes they looked for variation of massing within the units. He explained that although there wasnâ??t as much deviation of massing, as they usually like to see, he thought it worked all right for this development.
Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked how the economics worked with putting a duplex next to a single-family home.
Mr. Houston explained that they were allocating the cost of the home sites proportionately across the property. Although the duplex would be the lesser expensive home, it didnâ??t have the smallest square footage. Therefore, there will be a good ramping of the prices and there wouldnâ??t be a major difference in price between the units.
The Board briefly looked at the material pallet.
Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if there were any other questions. Seeing none, he asked for a motion.
A motion was made by Board Member Bob Deardorff, seconded by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson to approve DR01-35, subject to Staff stipulations; adding stipulation 23 to state that the southern most east west road would be increased to a width of 28â?? to provide parking adjacent to the canal and that the pedestrian access and focus would be preserved.
Motion Carried 7-0.
The previous approved stipulations for this property/project: Z99-29, DR00-38, & SP641 shall be in effect, except for those concerning the standard plans or as modified below:
The site plan, landscaping, four (4) standard plans, and entry/wall design are approved for Arbor Walk zoned R-4 (Multi-Family) and shall be built per the approval by the Design Review Board at the public hearing of June 14, 2001. Any changes shall require review and approval by the Design Review Board, prior to the issuance of a permit.
All applicable R.O.W. dedications and off-site improvements shall be completed prior to the Town issuing a Certificate of Occupancy for model homes.
Provide sight distance requirement, per Town of Gilbert detail #93, at the time of construction documents review.
A Final Plat is required to develop the project. Coordination with the Engineering Department is required regarding existing easements along the southern boundary.
Water mains within the site shall be placed in an exclusive 12-foot waterline easement that is to be dedicated by a Final Plat.
Parking shall be allowed on one (1) side of the street only for visitors. This shall be incorporated into the CC&Râ??s for this development.
Special paving treatments shall be installed at the driveway entrances, pedestrian plaza areas, and pedestrian connections within the project. The finish of the special paving at shall be pavers. The entrance shall have a minimum 15â?? wide treatment installed behind the property line. Review and approval by the Planning Department shall be required prior to issuance of any permits.
The applicant shall provide a plat plan showing the location of each of the proposed Standard Plans. The side-entry, main entrance on the side, shall be only allowed at the corner lots. The Planning Department shall review and approve this plan prior to the issuance of any building permits. A copy of the approved plan shall be on file with the Building Department, any changes shall require approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The landscaping palette needs to incorporate more shade tolerant and evergreen plants with more year-round color.
Light poles, benches, trash receptacles, tot lot equipment, etc. shall be designed to blend with the neo-traditional design proposed for the homes. The applicant shall provide cut-sheets of the above at the time of construction documents review. The Planning Department shall review and approve the design prior to the issuance of any permits.
All illumination shall comply with the recently adopted Light & Glare Ordinance No. 1315. All lights shall be 90-degree cut-offs. A lighting plan shall be submitted along with cut-sheets with the construction documents for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any permits.
No more than 50% of R.O.W.â??s and/or required landscape setbacks shall be used for retention purposes. Earthen berms with natural contours a minimum of 36″ high above the highest grade shall be provided along Gilbert Road and the future roadway along the eastern boundary. This shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Engineering Depts. prior to issuance of any permits.
The pedestrian gates, as shown at the main entry, shall be eliminated. There is no need to have these gates anymore.
Treatment around all the windows shall be consistent with the design of the main entrance window treatments. A standard band around the windows will not be allowed. This shall be a standard feature on all windows, including the first floor windows, and clearly shown on the construction documents and reviewed by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
Plans 803, 804, & 805 shall provide for a window or glass block within the kitchen areas to provide articulation along these elevations and light into the kitchens. This shall be clearly identified on the construction documents for each plan and shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
Clipped roof on both side elevations for Plan 805 shall be provided to mitigate the massiveness of that wall plane. This shall be clearly shown on the construction documents.
No similar elevation shall be built adjacent to or across from one another. Across is defined as any lots having common frontage.
A minimum of three (3) different garage doors shall be offered as a standard feature for each standard plan. Different designs may include short vs. long panels and decorative, divided-light panels.
Detailing (i.e. veneer stone, brick, shutters, window mullions, decorative corbels, etc) as shown on the approved elevations shall be standard and clearly labeled on the construction documents.
All ground-mounted mechanical equipment must be screened by a finished wall, as shown on the wall plan, to match the color/design of the building.
The applicant shall place on the cover sheet on each individual standard plan construction documents submittal to the Town of Gilbert both the approved design review stipulations above and the approved zoning development standards.
The southern most east west road would be increased to a width of 28â?? to provide parking adjacent to the canal and that the pedestrian access and focus would be preserved.
DR01-38 â?? Approval of the site plan and open space plan for Kaufman and Broad at Baseline and Higley Roads.
Chairman Darrell Truitt announced that he needed to abstain from DR01-38.
Mr. Fairbanks explained that DR01-38 was a site plan and open space approval for Kaufman and Broad at Claiborne Road south of Baseline Road. He announced that he would be giving the Board a brief overview of the project. He used the site plan and discussed the area around the project. He stated that the Board recently approved a Safeway on the corner and that Mariah Properties has two strip shopping centers that would be coming forward in the near future. The proposed property was 12.7 acres and was tucked behind the commercial uses and was adjacent to a residential subdivision, which had a range of lot sizes from 55â?? to ½ acre lots. The lots closest to the proposed site have the 55â?? wide lot widths and then the lots transition into larger lots to the south.
Mr. Fairbanks discussed the development standards. He informed the Board that the development standards would be approved with the zoning application. The cluster development consisted of single-family homes with 5â?? and 5â?? side yard setbacks, 12â?? front setbacks with an 18â?? driveway, and an 15â?? rear setback. The perimeter lots around the open space actually have wider side yard setbacks to provide more transition from the road.
Mr. Fairbanks gave an overview of the project. He stated that the project was developed as a cluster lot development with a single access point. He described the public street that would be owned and maintained by the Town of Gilbert. The individual clusters off of the public street would be HOA maintained private drives providing access to the individual residential units. The setback from Claiborne Road was 30â??, typically decomposed granite with some trees. As part of the open space plan approval the Staff had asked KB Homes to match the existing landscape pallet that was used for the adjacent subdivisions. The development plan provided an 8â?? wall that wrapped around the development, which was intended to secure the lots from the commercial development. All the lots that back up to the commercial development have enhanced setbacks. Mr. Fairbanks stated that the minimum rear setback was 15â??, but in the perimeter lots adjacent to the commercial site, the single stories had 20â?? rear setbacks and the two story units had 30â?? rear setbacks.
In looking at the central open space amenity, Mr. Fairbanks explained that it consisted of .9 of an acre. Half of the open space consisted of usable turf area. In addition, there was a path system that provided access to the open space. There was a 144 square foot Ramada that matched the perimeter wall theme. Also included in the open space area were a barbeque, benches, and tot playground. The tot lot facility provided for 17 stations.
Mr. Fairbanks stated that the Board had an attached lighting plan, which had a 3â?? high bollard fixture in the central open space. The guest parking was also provided around the open space because the clusters couldnâ??t accommodate any additional parking. The units would accommodate two parking spaces in a garage and two spaces in a driveway, which was typical to a single-family home.
Mr. Fairbanks explained that after looking at a project that KB Homes had done in Chandler, Cooper Commons, they worked to make revisions. There was a lack of sidewalks to encourage pedestrian use of the common area. In addition, there was a lack of street trees, both along the common areas and in the individual clusters. In the Cooper Commons development, the applicant had done very nice upgraded paving units within the individual clusters. In working together, they were able to accommodate the street trees on the public street, which would be maintained by the homeowners association. The clusters had a pedestrian system with a 4â?? sidewalk that ran along the public right of way and extended into each cluster, except in the hammerhead units since the dimensions from the site plan prohibited space for the sidewalk back into that area.
Board Member David Gibson asked if the islands were raised in the cluster area.
Mr. Fairbanks replied that there was a 20â?? paved area with raised islands.
Board Member David Gibson stated that they needed a 24â?? radius to pull out of the driveway and asked if 20â?? would be sufficient.
Mr. Fairbanks explained that from the sidewalk to the inside of the curb there was 22â??. In addition, there was potential as you were backing out to overhand the landscape a little bit, providing enough turning area. He added that it also provided enough for the turning movements for sanitation and fire vehicles.
Board Member David Gibson asked where the trash pickup was located.
Mr. Fairbanks replied that the trash pickup was within the central island. He described how the sanitation would pick up the trash. He stated that the plan had been reviewed by the Sanitation and Fire Departments.
Board Member Bob Deardorff asked when they would see the elevations on the project.
Mr. Fairbanks answered that they had seen the elevations for Ray Ranch, which he expected would be very similar to the proposed property. He informed the Board that they would see the elevations at the July or August meeting. He explained that K B had done a significant job in meeting the Staffâ??s concerns by revising their plans.
Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked where the tot lot was located.
Mr. Fairbanks showed the Board on the site plan where the tot lot was located.
Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked if he knew what the play equipment would look like and if it would be ADA approved.
Mr. Fairbanks replied that there was a stipulation that stated that the tot lot would have an ADA approved surface.
Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked if they would be using wood chips, as pictured in the illustration.
Mr. Fairbanks recommended that they use tot turf, which was a rubberized material, on the whole lot.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked the applicant to come forward.
Chris Lindahl, 432 N. 44th Street #115, Phoenix with KB Homes came forward. He thanked Mr. Fairbanks for his presentation. He informed the Board that he wanted to make a couple of points of clarification. He reminded the Board that they received unanimous approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission on the project. He added that they had gone through three different revisions to get the plan where it was. In addition, they had three neighborhood meetings to gain support from the neighbors and had gone from a negative opinion to the full support of the neighbors in the vicinity. The minimum required open space for the development was 18% and they were providing 22% open space. With regard to the auto courts, they were proposing an interval-colorized concrete with scoring patterns throughout. He emphasized the street trees and informed the Board that in their other project these trees werenâ??t used and had a very sterile feel. The trees in the proposed project were Evergreen Elm giving a canopy effect in both the ingress and egress.
Mr. Lindahl requested a couple of modifications to the Staffâ??s stipulations. On stipulation two, he asked that they change it to state a 2â?? spacing on the scoring for decorative driveways so they would have even spacing. The other stipulation he asked to change was with the bollard lighting in the open space. The potential existed that the streetlights and the bollard lights would not light the center of the open space, making it unusable in the evening. He asked the Board to consider either a shoebox fixture on a shortened pole or a carriage style shielded light design. He informed the Board that their choice would be to use the shoebox style light, similar to the other lights in the development. He passed out visual aids of the lighting samples to the Board and requested support of the project.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson stated that they should change the Pistachio trees to Southern Live Oak trees because they were evergreens. He discussed the trees in the development and which trees would lose their leaves.
Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked if there was a water fountain proposed for the playground.
Mr. Lindahl replied that they had not included a water fountain in the tot lot.
Board Member Robin Schneider asked to see a picture of the bollard lighting.
Mr. Lindahl answered that they did not have a picture of the bollard lights since it was the Staffâ??s recommendation to include this and they were proposing the other options that he had provided in the visual aids.
Board Member Bob Deardorff asked where the bollard lighting was located on the plan.
Mr. Lindahl used the visual aid and discussed where the bollard lighting would be located.
Board Member Robin Schneider asked how big the area was that they were trying to light.
Mr. Lindahl replied that the area they wanted to light was ½ acre, 120â?? by 200â??.
Board Member Robin Schneider announced that she was not in agreement with either of the applicantâ??s proposed lighting alternatives. She explained that the overgrowth of the trees would hide the lights on the poles. She thought the bollard lights would be the best solution and that they did make bollards that threw a lot of light out. In addition, she stated that it would also be a benefit to the people facing the open space to look at a low level bollard opposed to a light on a pole.
Mr. Lindahl stated that he wanted to pick a lower pole height of 10â??-12â?? and the trees that they were proposing in that area would be modified to accommodate trees of a larger size. He explained that they wanted to illuminate the path as well as the open space.
Board Member Robin Schneider stated that the shoebox light was not aesthetically pleasing and it didnâ??t blend with anything else.
Mr. Lindahl asked for a compromise, to look at another type of light fixture on a pole mount.
Board Member Robin Schneider replied that she would be agreeable to review another fixture that the applicant brought forward.
Mr. Fairbanks explained that with the street lighting, they might not need as much light as they were proposing.
Mr. Lindahl asked if they could stipulate the Staff to review and approve the lighting.
Board Member Bob Deardorff replied that would be agreeable to him, as long as the Staff worked with Board Member Robin Schneider to approve the lighting.
Mr. Fairbanks agreed that he would discuss the lighting plan with Board Member Robin Schneider to be approved.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked for a motion.
A motion was made by Board Member Robin Schneider, seconded by Board Member Roxanna Rojo to approve DR01-38, subject to Staff stipulations; changing stipulation two to include a 2â?? interval instead of the 3â?? that was stated; modifying stipulation nine to state that lighting in the park area shall be revisited with point by points, reviewing the street lighting as well as any necessary supplemental perimeter lighting to be approved by staff; adding stipulation 14 to state that the tot lot shall incorporate an ADA approved drinking fountain; adding stipulation 15 to state that Southern Live Oaks shall replace the Pistachio trees either in the middle or at the ends of median landscaping in each hammerhead cluster.
Motion Carried 6-0.
Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board on June 14, 2001. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Board prior to the issuance of a building permit.
The construction documents shall identify that the colored, scored concrete within the private drives shall incorporate integral color with scoring at a 2′ interval on center.
The public sidewalk on Claiborne Street shall be a designed as a meandering sidewalk detached by a minimum of 5′ from the Claiborne street curb.
In order to reinforce the street tree theme, the applicant shall install a minimum of six - 24″ box Evergreen Elms and irrigation system in the residential cluster containing the model homes. The placement of the street trees shall be consistent with the approved landscape construction documents.
The project CC&Rs shall identify that each lot shall include a 15-gallon street tree (evergreen elm) located within 5′ of the private drive or public right-of-way. The CC&Rs shall further specify that the trees and appurtenant irrigation shall be installed within 90 days of the close of escrow on the single-family residence.
The proposed construction document grading plan shall be revised so that the concrete path system located within the central retention basin will be placed one-foot above the bottom of the retention basin so that the pedestrian path will not be inundated for minor storm events.
The landscape palette for Claiborne Street shall match the existing landscape palette for the Baseline/Tone subdivision consisting of Evergreen Elm, Model Pine, ‘Petite Pink’ Oleander, Texas Ranger, Rosemary, Yellow Trailing Lantana, and Madison gold decomposed granite, as approved during construction document review.
The tot lot shall incorporate an ADA approved surface such as “tot turf”.
Lighting in the park area shall be revised, reviewing the street lighting as well as any necessary supplemental lighting to be approved by staff.
All walls shall be integral colored, stained or painted to match the two-color theme wall of the adjacent Baseline/Tone subdivision.
In order to assure appropriate aesthetics, the 8′ wall adjacent to the commercial site should incorporate the project tan color on both sides.
The individual lot return walls shall be constructed of single-score CMU which is integral colored, stained or painted to match the light tan color of the Baseline/Tone residential development.
The approved design review stipulations shall be placed on the cover sheet of the project construction document landscape plans.
The tot lot shall incorporate an ADA approved drinking fountain.
Southern Live Oaks shall replace the Pistachio trees either in the middle or at the ends of median landscaping in each hammerhead cluster.
DR01-39 â?? Approval of the open space plan for Layton Lakes located at Queen Creek and Lindsay Roads.
Chairman Darrell Truitt announced that he needed to abstain from DR01-39.
Planner David Marsh explained that DR01-39 was an approval of the open space plan for Layton Lakes located at Queen Creek and Lindsay Roads. He reminded the Board that the item was reviewed at the last working session. Therefore, he stated that he would just go over the highlights of the project. He explained that the Town of Gilbert portion of the Layton Lakes project was 460 acres of a larger 800-acre project that was also in the City of Chandler. He used the visual aid and described the areas of the project and which municipality in which they were located.
Mr. Marsh explained that they were asking the Board to review the overall design and Phase I of the open space plan, which was all the area north of Queen Creek Road. The first phase of the project consisted of approximately 300 acres. The project was in the San Tan Area Plan, which required a minimum open space of 15%. During the rezoning process, the developer came in with a 16.1% open space. He commended the applicant for increasing the open space to 18.7%. Mr. Marsh clarified that the open space acreage overall was 85.96, not the information that was listed in the Staff Report. The open space plan was the central unifying element of the development, forming the skeleton of the development. The project was dependant upon using reclaimed water from the City of Chandler via an intergovernmental agreement. He used his visual aid to describe how the water would be pumped into the development and explained that the water would form a gravity fed stream and lake system that would also serve as a floodway in the instance of a 100-year flood. It would also serve as an irrigation system of all the open spaces and common areas. He explained that the streams were just visual amenities and that there was no motorized water craft or swimming allowed.
Mr. Marsh explained that the development had a large open space park along the canal and several larger theme parks with an individual theme. He described some of the park themes and stated that there was a public access trailhead to have access to the extensive trail that would run up the canal. In addition, he explained that there were tot lots in each of the subdivisions. The open space was all linked together so people could start in their neighborhood tot lot and run throughout the whole projectâ??s park systems and into a trailhead that linked to the overall trail system.
Mr. Marsh stated that the applicant had proposed three types of theme walls. The first wall would be a white picket fence to run along the arterial networks, in conformance with the agrarian character that was required by the San Tan Area Plan. They also had a solid screen wall with a batter face stone column with split face in fluted block. Lastly, they had a view fence with a batter face column. He described the walls and clarified that the screen walls would be used along the arterials and collector streets. The view fences would be used all along the open space networks. Along the streets, they had an extensive open space network. Along Queen Creek Road, there was a 65â?? road landscape tract on either side of the right of way and within the right away, there would be another 60â?? providing a very expansive linear open space network with meandering sidewalks and equestrian trails. Pedestrian refuges would be located along the sidewalk every 500â??. There are also equestrian trails that ran along the north and south side of the project, and along the canal.
Lighting had also been proposed for the plan. Mr. Marsh reminded the Board that they had seen four different lighting standards at the working session. The Board had concerns over one type that had to do with the flood lighting for the monument signage. In response to Board Member Robin Schneiderâ??s comments, the applicant had deleted this lighting fixture and replaced it with a small spot light that was fully shielded for the signage. The only other type of lighting that they would be using in the open space network would be the shoebox style pole mounted lighting that had a maximum height of ten feet. Mr. Marsh informed the Board that the early example had a bulge lens and the applicant had agreed to comply with the lighting ordinances and provide a flat lens.
Mr. Marsh explained the phasing of the project. The first phase was located north of Queen Creek Road. The second phase was located entirely in the City of Chandler. The third phase would be located east of the Canal, located in both municipalities.
Mr. Marsh discussed the SRP substation issue. During the rezoning process, the day of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, SRP informed the applicant that they needed to provide a substation within the project. They preferred to put it on the corner of Lindsay and Queen Creek Roads, which the Staff and applicant were not receptive to doing. There were still ongoing negotiations between the applicant and SRP, therefore Staff had placed a stipulation about the issue. He asked the Board to change stipulation 12 to state “if” the substation went into the site, they would need to provide a revised open space plan to the Board. It wasnâ??t clear whether the substation would be located in the project or in a different area. He read the revised stipulation to the Board. He concluded by asking if the Board had any questions.
Board Member Robin Schneider asked for clarification on the lighting, as it looked more decorative than a shoebox light.
Mr. Marsh apologized and stated that she was correct; it was a hatbox light, not a shoebox light that was proposed.
Board Member Robin Schneider commented that the lighting was very nice. She asked about the lighting for the mailbox centers.
Phillip Miller, 5070 N 40th Street #240, Phoenix with Commerce Realty Advisors came forward. He explained that it was piano type lighting off the structure of the mailbox center.
Mr. Marsh explained that the applicant had slightly raised the road, providing decorative elements one either side of the road so it felt like you were coming over a bridge into the development.
Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked if they had the details on the tot lot.
Mr. Miller replied that they had not picked out the playground equipment yet.
Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked if there was a manufacturer picked out for the equipment yet.
Mr. Miller stated that he wasnâ??t aware of the manufacturer at that time.
Board Member Roxanna Rojo stated that she would like to be involved in the decision on the tot lot equipment. She asked they had water fountains proposed to go into the tot lots and if they were ADA approved.
Mr. Marsh answered that drinking fountains were proposed to go into the larger tot lots, but wasnâ??t sure if they were included in the smaller lots. He agreed that they would meet the ADA requirements.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked if they had landscape plans.
Mr. Phillip replied that they were still working on the landscape plans. He informed the Board that Steve Vulmer was the landscape architect.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked if there were any additional questions for the applicant or Staff.
Mr. Miller explained that it was a great project working with the Town of Gilbert Staff and that they missed being the finalist for the MAG award by one vote. He thought they would have a very nice project that would be at the door of the southeast area of Gilbert.
Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked if the parks would be public parks.
Mr. Miller explained that the parks within the development would be private parks, but that they wouldnâ??t be fenced. The equestrian trails would have a 10â?? public access easement on them, so they could link into the other regional trails.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked if any part of the project was gated.
Mr. Miller replied that some of the subdivisions would be gated.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked if there were any other questions. Seeing none, he asked for a motion.
A motion was made by Board Member John Tomasson, seconded by Board Member Bob Deardorff to approve DR01-39 subject to Staff stipulations; and changing stipulation twelve based on Staffâ??s recommendation.
Motion Carried 6-0.
Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board on June 14, 2001. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Board prior to the issuance of a building permit.
All bicycle parking racks shall be in-ground mount.
One third of the tot lot play structures shall be accessible to handicapped persons, as required by the American Disabilities Act.
Equestrian/multi-use paths shall be constructed with ¼-inch minus decomposed granite, well compacted and to a depth of approximately 2 inches.
Details of enhanced pedestrian and equestrian crossings, and enhanced signal crossings, shall be submitted for Staff review and approval.
Lighting poles within the active open space areas shall be limited to ten (10â??) feet in height, fixtures shall be designed with a 90 degree cut-off, and the lighting source shall be recessed in the lighting fixture so as not to be visible.
Lighting shall be provided for security purposes in all linear open space areas and â??tot lotâ?? neighbourhood parks. Said lighting shall be submitted for Staff review and approval.
Lighting fixtures for tennis courts shall be submitted for Staff review and approval. Lighting poles shall be limited to fourteen (14â??) feet in height.
Applicant shall submit a colour and materials palette for the walls, mailbox kiosks, directional signage, and ramadas for Staff review and approval.
“Welcome to Gilbert” and monument signage design, colours, and materials shall be reviewed and approved by Design Review Board.
Per the conditions of the intergovernmental agreement, the City of Chandler shall have the right to inspect the reclaimed water irrigation system for the Layton Lakes development.
A revised open space plan will required to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board if the applicant or developer executes an agreement with SRP regarding the location of an SRP substation within the boundaries of the Layton Lakes development.
An open space plan will be required to be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Board for Phase III of the Layton Lakes development, per the phasing plan contained within the PAD document.
All the above mentioned conditions shall be reflected on the improvement plans, reviewed and approved by the Planning Department.
DR01-24 - Approval of (4) four standard plans, Plans 2202, 2689, 2841 and 3609 proposed by VIP Homes for Bella Vista located west of the southwest corner of Recker and Ray Roads.
Chairman Darrell Truitt announced that he would need to abstain from DR01-24.
Planner Shellean Roberts explained that DR01-24 was a request for approval of four standard plans by VIP Homes, which was located in Bella Vista, located west of the southwest corner of Ray and Recker Roads. She stated that it was zoned P.A.D. with an underlying zoning of R1-8 (Single Family Residential). The development was located in the Gateway Area Plan with a minimum lot size of 75â??x120â?? and side setbacks of 10â?? and 10â??.
Ms. Roberts informed the Board that when the floor plans and elevations had first come in, one of the concerns that had come up with the applicant was that it was in the Gateway Area and that they were trying to get away from the garage dominance. Since then, the plans had been revised with front porches added, one plan had a courtyard added that came out in front of the garage, some of the tower entry elements had been projected out in front of the garage, and massing had been changed in some of the plans to give some variation. The applicant had informed the Staff that they would be bringing some additional floor plans that would comply with the Neo-Traditional standards that they were