Design Review Board Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes

1025 S. Gilbert Road

July 19, 2001

BOARD PRESENT: Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, Board Member Bob Deardorff, Board Member David Gibson, Board Member John Tomasson

BOARD ABSENT: Chairman Darrell Truitt, Board Member Robin Schneider, Board Member Roxanna Rojo

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

ALSO PRESENT: Council Member Don Skousen, Recorder Trasie Johns

I N D E X

PLANNER CASE PAGE VOTE
CONSENT DR00-12 2 APPR.
CONSENT DR00-87 2 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-09 3 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-37 4 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-45 5 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-46 5 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-48 6 APPR.
MS. ROBERTS DR01-42 7 & 25 APPR.
MS. ROBERTS DR01-43 24 APPR.
MR. FAIRBANKS DR01-61 11 APPR.
MS. GUNDERMAN DR01-57 13 APPR.
MS. GUNDERMAN DR00-158/S550 15 APPR.
MR. NEWCOMBE DR01-54 18 APPR.

CALL TO ORDER:

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson called the meeting to order at 5:45 P.M.

ROLL CALL:

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson announced that on DR01-37, listed on the Consent agenda, stipulation 5 would be changed to read “Building permits for model homes on parcels 3 and 7 shall not be issued prior to approval of the final plat for said parcels”. He also stated that they needed to pull DR01-42, DR01-43 and DR01-61 off the Consent agenda and move to the Public Hearing. He called for a vote to approve the agenda.

A motion was made by Board Member John Tomasson, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to approve the agenda and to move DR01-42, DR01-43 and DR01-61 to the Public Hearing.

Motion Carried 4-0.

COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson 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

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked for a motion to approve the consent items.

A motion was made by Board Member Bob Deardorff, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to approve the consent items, subject to Staff stipulations.

Motion Carried 4-0.

DR00-12 - Approval of revised design for the ramadas and entry monument for the Estates at Spectrum at Val Vista PAD generally located west and south of the southwest corner of Val Vista Drive and Germann Road.

The original plans: planting materials (L1 and L2), site amenities (sheets L4 and L5), and the wall monument plan (L3) shall be implemented as originally approved by the Design Review Board on March 9, 2000 with the exception of the revised perimeter wall and the entry monument design.

The materials proposed for the perimeter wall, entry monument and ramada design shall be reflected on the construction landscaping plans as presented to the Board on July 19, 2001.

The proposed cultured stone pilasters on the theme wall shall occur at every 200â?? on center.

DR00-87 â?? Approval of amended sign package for the Western Skies Village Center located at the northwest corner of Val Vista Drive and Ray Road.

Car wash signage shall be constructed as reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board at itâ??s July 19, 2001 hearing.

Cabinet signage shall not protrude more than two (2) inches from the wall.

The words ” Enter”, “Exit”, and “Soft Touch Car Wash” shall consist of individual pan channel letters.

Individual pan-channel letters shall have bronze, black, or gold returns.

Individual pan-channel letters shall not protrude more than five inches (5″) from the wall plane.

All other signage on site shall be constructed as approved by the Design Review Board on November 9th, 2000 (DR00-87).

DR01-09 â?? Approval of the site plan, landscaping plan, preliminary grading and drainage, lighting, signage and building elevations for Arizona Veterinary Specialist, located between Olive Avenue and Juniper Avenue approximately 400â?? west of Gilbert Road.

Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board at the July 19, 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.

The SES equipment and all outdoor storage areas for materials and equipment 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.

On-site public utility cabinets shall be painted to match the primary building color.

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.

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.

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

All 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.

The one-way driveway at the northwest corner of the site shall be reduced from a 30′ wide driveway to a 24′ wide driveway to reinforce the one-way nature of this entrance.

The design of the parking near the southern property line on the landscape plan and grading and drainage plan shall be revised to be in conformance with the site plan.

The trash enclosure located near the southwest corner of the site shall be screened by an additional 24″ box evergreen elm.

The project stormwater retention basin shall accommodate the project stormwater from the adjacent half streets. Stormwater may be placed in the landscaped setbacks on Olive Avenue and Juniper Avenue, but shall not exceed 50% of the landscaped area within these areas.

Any recontouring of landscape adjacent to Olive Avenue and Juniper Avenue shall occur in a natural manner and shall be extended to areas that do not accommodate retention to further emphasize a naturally contoured area within the front landscaped setbacks.

The wall pilasters and building wainscot shall be decorative “harvest brown” split-face block.

The site lighting shall have a maximum pole mounted height of approximately 16′.

The future construction plan submittal shall include lighting catalog cut information which clearly identifies a 90-degree cut-off.

Pole mounted site lighting shall not exceed 250 watts.

The monument sign and signs A, B, C, D, E, F, and G shall incorporate a “Montex” or EIFS finish on the sign can to provide a superior appearance.

Signs E, F, and G require approval of a variance prior to permit issuance.

All directory signs and monument signs shall incorporate a split-face masonry base to match the “Harvest Brown” split-face building wainscot.

Requests for additional signage should complement the proposed building design and shall require approval of the Design Review Board.

DR01-37 - Approval of (5) five standard plans, Plans 105, 106, 107, 109 and 204 proposed by Trend Homes located in The Gardens parcels 1, 3 and 7. The Gardens is located at the northeast corner of Ray and Recker Roads and is zoned P.A.D. with underlying zoning designation of R1-5 (Single Family Residential).

All standard plans shall meet requirements set forth in the Resolution of the Design Review Board adopting standard residential house plan conditions.

All standard plan elevations shall be built per exhibits approved by the Design Review Board as presented at the public hearing of July 19, 2001 subject to staff stipulations and any additional conditions imposed by the Board at said meeting.

These standard plans are approved for 126 lots, lots 1 through 76 of Parcel 1, lots 1 through 25 of Parcel 3 and lots 14 through 38 of Parcel 7within The Gardens P.A.D. Any revisions to the approved standard plans, or additional plans shall require review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit.

All standard plans shall adhere to the lot coverage and setback requirements stipulated by Ordinance No. 1238 in rezoning case Z99-28. Coverage is interpreted as the area under roof including patios, porches and garages.

Building permits for model homes on parcels 3 and 7 shall not be issued prior to approval of the final plat for said parcels.

Two additional standard plans shall be required to be submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Board. The additional plans shall fit on the following lots: Parcel 1, lots 16 and 17, Parcel 3, lots1, 2, 20 and 21, Parcel 7, lots 25, 26, 27 and 28. The additional standard plans shall also fit on those lots where the lot fit analysis currently indicates that only plan 109 will fit.

The final plat shall predetermine the plans to be built on the above lots.

The garage doors shown on the color elevations shall be standard design to assist in mitigating the garage dominance.

On the 55 foot wide lots, Plan 204 shall provide the front porch that wraps around to the entry, as it is presented in the attached exhibits.

DR01-45 â?? Approval of site plan, landscaping preliminary grading and drainage, and building elevations for US Filters located north of 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 July 19, 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.

All refuse enclosures shall utilize opaque gates.

All Mondel Pines (Pinus Eldarica) provided along the site frontage shall be a minimum of 24″ box.

Water mains within the site shall be placed in an exclusive 12â?? waterline easement that is to be dedicated by a final plat.

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.

DR01-46 - Site plan, landscaping, preliminary grading and drainage, lighting, and building elevations for the building addition for Uncle Bob’s Self Storage, located east of the southeast corner of Elliot Road and the Union Pacific Railroad.

Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board at the July 19, 2001 meeting.

Existing landscaping located on lot 4 and located within the common tracts north and south adjacent to lot 4 and lot 3 shall be in conformance with the approved landscape plans for the project or as approved by the Planning Department to meet code requirements.

Project shall comply with the master grading plan for Elliot Industrial Park. The grading and drainage plan shall require Engineering approval at the time of construction drawing review.

Standard stipulation requirements:

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.

All outdoor storage areas for materials and equipment 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.

On-site public utility cabinets shall be painted to match the primary building color.

All S.E.S. panels shall be fully recessed into the building with doors painted to match the building.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

An illumination meter test shall be conducted by the Town prior to issuance of an occupancy permit to ensure compliance with the light and glare ordinance.

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.

DR01-48 â?? Approval of a sign package for Elliot Ranch Plaza located at the northeast corner of Elliot Road and Val Vista Drive.

The overall length of the wall sign on the front elevation (south) of pad B shall not exceed an approximate length of 13â??.

The color “Warm Sand” proposed for the monument signs on the upper portion of the side elements shall be replaced with Dunn Edwards, Travertine SP 63 to match recent revision made by the developer on the secondary color for the main building.

The sign criteria proposed (DR01-48) approved by the Board shall apply to retail building B and pad A when constructed.

PUBLIC HEARING

DR01-42 - Review and approval of the site plan, landscaping plan, lighting, and building elevations for Complete Waste Services Maintenance Building located east of the southeast corner of Guadalupe and Cooper Roads on lots 18 and 19 within the Golden Key Plaza.

Planner Shellean Roberts informed the Board that DR01-42, Complete Waste Services Maintenance Building, was located in the Golden Key Plaza, which was an older industrial subdivision. She reminded the Board that they had seen the project at the last Working Session. She stated that they had talked about the architecture and came up with what they had thought would be acceptable for the building. Photographs were presented to the Board regarding the project. The applicant was asked to add some banding, texture and color to the elevation to provide more interest to the elevations. In response to the Boardâ??s comments, the applicant had added the banding across the base of the building with the 12″ scored texture. The office building, DR01-43, also had banding added to the building. Ms. Roberts showed the Board an amended color pallet.

Ms. Roberts explained that the main reason the project was pulled off the Consent calendar was that a member of the public wanted to speak about the project. She informed the Board that the applicant had addressed all the comments from the Board and Staff and therefore Staff was recommended approval of the project with the stipulations as stated in the Staff report. She concluded her presentation and asked for questions from the Board.

Board Member David Gibson asked where the canvas awning was located.

Ms. Roberts answered that the canvas awning was located on the office building, above the windows.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked what kind of canvas they were using.

Ms. Roberts replied that it was a true canvas and showed him the sample on the materials pallet.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked if there were any other questions for the Staff. Seeing none, he asked the applicant to come forward.

Christopher Holly, 866 E. Baseline, Apache Junction came forward.

Board Member David Gibson asked if Mr. Holly was agreed with all the stipulations.

Christopher Holly replied that he agreed with the stipulations and had addressed all the Board and Staff concerns.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. Seeing none, he opened the public hearing.

John Manchak, 670 N. Golden Key came forward. He used the visual aid to show the Board the location of his property, which was located to the west of the proposed property. He informed the Board that he had a few concerns regarding the property. The first concern he expressed was with the fence that needed to be appropriately high to hide the waste containers that were in the back of the property. The plans showed the fence to be 6â?? tall and the waste containers would be up to 8â?? tall; therefore he stated that the Staff report didnâ??t allow for a high enough fences to hide the containers. Secondly, he asked what type of fence was proposed along his property border. Thirdly, he stated that he went through the design review process, which was a challenge. When his building, a cabinet business, was submitted, it looked very similar to the proposed project. He informed the Board that he was told that they would not approve a box shape and he needed to modify his plans several times which added considerably to the cost. He stated that the standard he was being kept to was with the newer buildings being added to the complex, not the existing architecture. His final concern was that there was a similar, but different company in Mesa that does waste management and the trucks come in full and canâ??t be dumped while they are being worked on. When they sit for two to three days, the trucks smell and he was concerned that this would be very detrimental to his property. He concluded by stating the he wasnâ??t against the project and didnâ??t want to make anyoneâ??s design review process as miserable as his was, but he wanted his concerns and questions addressed by the Board.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked if the Board had any questions for Mr. Manchak. Seeing none, he asked the Staff to address Mr. Manchakâ??s concerns.

Ms. Roberts described the fence. She stated that it was a 6â?? block wall fence along the perimeter. She added that she wasnâ??t present at the last design review case that Mr. Manchak had referred to, so she couldnâ??t address his concerns regarding his case. Regarding the use, she stated that this was an allowed use in the industrial zoning designation. If the odors did occur, it would become a code enforcement issue. She explained that the trucks that were used were designed to have the materials that they collected enclosed; therefore odor wouldnâ??t be an issue.

Board Member David Gibson clarified that the odor was a code enforcement issue and could not be addressed by the Board.

Ms. Roberts confirmed that the use was allowed in the industrial zoning designation and if there were an odor, it would be a code enforcement issue.

Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that it looked like chain length fencing was used toward the back of the property and asked what was required in the industrial area for screening from one property to another.

Ms. Roberts replied that a chain length fence was not allowed within public view, but was allowed further back on the property. She added that the Board could stipulate that there be a block wall fence further back if they felt it was necessary.

Planning Manager Linda Edwards informed the Board that not all industrial properties require fencing. They use the fencing for security reasons and for aesthetics for public view.

Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that he knew of an industrial area that used chain length fencing all along the golf course.

Planning Manager Linda Edwards replied that they had stipulated for a 6â?? wall to screen the activity from the street.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked if the requirement was that they screen the activity, or that they use a 6â?? wall.

Planning Manager Linda Edwards explained that they were required to screen unattractive areas to the public view, not to adjacent industrial properties.

Mr. Holly came forward to address Mr. Manchakâ??s concerns. Regarding the wall, he explained that the property sloped down significantly as it went back. He didnâ??t think they would ever see the trucks in the back of the property. He stated that if they were asking for the wall to be an additional two feet across the front that would not be a problem to change. Regarding the odor, he explained that the biggest concern with the company in Mesa was with a housing development that built their homes after the industrial area was in place. He explained that behind his facility was a sewer treatment plant and he didnâ??t feel that his trucks would smell any more than that plant. In addition, the wastes in the other companyâ??s trucks consisted of municipal solid waste, which was garbage from the homes and grocery stores. He informed the Board that they didnâ??t pick up that kind of garbage, they picked up debris from construction sites. If the trucks came in loaded because the landfill was closed, the boxes would consist of wood sticks and those types of materials. In addition, if the truck broke down, they could pull the box off the truck and pull it with another truck.

Planning Manager Linda Edwards informed the Board that code 10.22, a-g discussed the screening and stated that the wall needed to be 6â?? tall to screen materials on the street frontages. It was not a requirement to screen other industrial properties, but could be stipulated if the Board so desired.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked how far the wall went back next to Mr. Manchakâ??s property.

Mr. Holly stated that the wall went back about 90â?? down the property.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked where the banding was located and what it was made of.

Ms. Roberts showed the visual aid and described that the banding was located at the back of the building.

Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that he would have liked to see the banding carried around the front of the building and on the other two sides.

The Board briefly discussed the possibilities of banding that could be added to the building.

Board Member David Gibson asked about the lunchroom and if they could add a window.

Mr. Holly stated that for security reasons, he would prefer not to add a window in that area. He didnâ??t want people to be able to see into the building and steal the equipment and tools that were used by his employees.

Mr. Manchak came forward. He stated that he was concerned that his building, which he proposed to be very similar to the one Mr. Holly was bringing forward, was not acceptable. He added that he had to cut into the square footage of his building in order to make the required changes to appease the Design Review Board. He also stated that he was told that banding was not acceptable to his building and wasnâ??t sufficient. He asked why the same standard of architecture was not being applied to the current project that Mr. Holly was proposing. Regarding the fence issue, he asked why the stipulation stating that all outdoor storage areas for material and equipment should be recessed or fully screen from view with a masonry wall of the same height was not being upheld.

Board Member Bob Deardorff explained that the ordinance stipulated that the materials and equipment be screened from public view not from other industrial uses.

Mr. Manchak asked if there was an ordinance change, which now allowed for chain length fencing. He was told he had to have a masonry fence, not a chain length fence on his property.

Planning Manager Maria Cadavid informed the Board that Mr. Manchakâ??s building was a combination of offices and warehousing. The project required more articulation because of its use and because the entrance faced the street. Furthermore, she explained that Mr. Hollyâ??s building was located further back in the cul-de-sac, where Mr. Manchakâ??s building was closer to the street and was more exposed to public view.

Mr. Manchak stated that he was told he couldnâ??t have banding, needed roof change lines and couldnâ??t have a box building. He stated that he couldnâ??t understand why the standards were being changed when the architecture of Mr. Hollyâ??s building, which was a simple box, would also be seen on the street and was right next door to his building. He stated that he did not have offices in his building. Instead, his building was a warehouse. He asked if a warehouse required higher standards than a maintenance facility.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked if the Staff still had the file for Mr. Manchakâ??s building. He stated that he would like to table the item until the file was found for them to review his project.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson stated that in fairness to everyone, he would like to table the item until the end of the meeting.

Mr. Manchak asked if the odor concern was an issue that could be brought up to the Design Review Board.

Board Member Bob Deardorff replied that the Design Review could not discuss the odor issue, it would be a zoning code enforcement issue.

Mr. Holly stated that he understood his concerns and frustrations. He asked the Board if the banding met their needs, he wanted to address any other issues with the appearance so they could address his building that evening. He asked that they not hold up his project because Mr. Manchak had more problems with his aesthetics than he was having. He stated that he would like to address any further issues at that point rather than tabling the item.

Eric Jones came forward. He explained that he dealt with commercial properties. He stated that it would be prejudicial to allow Mr. Holly to build the building he had proposed and apply a different architectural standard based on the use. He added that the Board would be saying that if someone had a lighter industrial use, they would be required to spend more money and engineering fees to make the building more presentable. He asked the Board if they were going to apply the same standards of architecture to both uses.

Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that they were trying to define the issue by tabling it and reviewing it further. He asked what Mr. Jones relationship was to the project.

Mr. Jones answered that he was Mr. Manchakâ??s broker.

Mr. Holly stated that there wasnâ??t a lot he could do to the building. He explained that trucks would be worked on in the building and that he could provide windows with bars on them if the Board desired, but that no one would want to look into the building. He added that he could do banding or make color changes, but he didnâ??t know what other changes could be done to it.

Board Member Bob Deardorff informed Mr. Holly that they would resolve the issues that evening; they just wanted to table it to the end of the agenda.

A motion was made by Board Member Bob Deardorff, seconded by Board Member John Tomasson to table DR01-42 until the end of the agenda.

Motion Carried 4-0.

DR01-61 â?? Approval of the comprehensive sign package for Oasis at the Islands, located at the southeast corner of McQueen and Elliot Roads.

Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks informed the Board that DR01-61 was the approval of the comprehensive sign package for Oasis at the Islands, located at the southeast corner of McQueen and Elliot Roads. He explained that the applicant had requested that they remove the item from the Consent agenda so they could discuss stipulation 5 on the Staff report. This stipulation identified that there would be no illumination of the spanner signs and the spanner signs would be limited to twelve square feet per fuel dispenser. He explained that the spanner sign was the sign that went on top of the fuel dispenser.

Mr. Fairbanks gave the Board a review of the project. He stated that the architecture for the center had already been approved for both the commercial center and the Chevron on January 14, 1999. The applicant for the Chevron Food Mart came back later in 1999 and received a second approval for the Chevron food mart which included an expansion to include a car wash as a part of the facility. One of the stipulations that was included in the approval stated that there would be a maximum of twelve square feet on the spanner signs and required them to not be illuminated. He identified that the approval was on the Consent agenda and there was not any discussion by the Board regarding the signs. He added that there was no discussion in the minutes from that meeting that described the rationale for the square footage of the sign.

Mr. Fairbanks showed the Board pictures of other spanner signs and described where they were located and how big each sign was. The two previous Chevronsâ?? that were reviewed were located at Guadalupe and Gilbert Roads; and at McQueen and Warner Roads. Both facilities had spanner signs that were thirty-six square feet. For comparison, he photographed a Conoco at the northeast corner of Warner and Gilbert Roads; and a Texaco at Gilbert and Elliot Roads. He explained that there was a tremendous range in size for the spanner signs.

Mr. Fairbanks described the Staffâ??s position on the signage. Regarding the stipulation that included provision for non-illumination, he stated that the Staff didnâ??t have a concern with illumination. As far as the size was concerned, the Staff felt that the thirty-six square foot signs were out of scale for the canopy. He stated that the code required that the signage on the canopy be a maximum of six square feet, limited to the logo.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked how long ago the gas stations were built that Mr. Fairbanks had described.

Mr. Fairbanks explained that the Chevron at Gilbert and Guadalupe was built approximately 18 months ago.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked when they adopted the new sign ordinance.

Planning Manager Linda Edwards stated that the new sign ordinance was adopted about three or four months ago.

Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that any example that could be used would have been built prior to the sign ordinance and the thinking and rationale that had gone into the ordinance.

Mr. Fairbanks agreed with Board Member Bob Deardorff and added that there was a provision in the ordinance that allowed the Board to approve the spanner signs, but there was not a guideline regarding the maximum size.

Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that the sign at twelve square feet would be two foot high by six foot wide, which would still be wider than the pump.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked if there were any additional questions for the Staff. Seeing none, he asked the applicant to come forward.

Tom Weathers, 3830 N. 40th Avenue, Phoenix came forward. He informed the Board that he was with Flasco Signs and was representing Chevron. He gave the Board new calculations of the spanner signs that Chevron was using. He explained that the spanner signs were supported by the columns and werenâ??t supported by the pump. He stated that the actual area of the Chevron logo was two square feet. The blue bar, information area, was estimated at 9.2 square feet. The white illuminated area would be 17 square feet. The illumination, he explained, was about half of what it used to be.

The Board reviewed the drawing that the applicant had provided and briefly discussed how big the sign would be at twelve square feet.

Mr. Weathers informed the Board that in other cities, they had dropped the Chevron logo off the spanner sign.

Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that he was not opposed to them having their logo on the sign and them having the ability to market their product. The issue he explained was that they were trying to minimize the effect of signage in the Town of Gilbert.

Board Member John Tomasson confirmed that the spanner sign was just supported by the one column.

The Board reviewed where the spanner sign was located over the pumps and how the signs were attached to the columns.

Board Member John Tomasson asked what the overall length was of the pump and the trash enclosure.

Mr. Weathers stated that he was unsure. He explained that they didnâ??t make a sign for Chevron that was supported off the pumps. He informed the Board that Chevron only made one standard size of a sign, which was 11â??2″ wide. He stated that they didnâ??t have any other provision for smaller spanner signs.

Mr. Weathers asked how they calculated the spanner sign and if they only calculated the sign where the information was located on it.

Mr. Fairbanks explained that they calculated the size of the spanner sign by the height and by the width. He stated that it was irrelevant whether there was signage on it or not.

Board Member David Gibson asked if it mattered if it was illuminated.

Mr. Fairbanks replied that it didnâ??t matter if the sign was illuminated; it was up to the discretion of the Board.

The Board briefly discussed the size of the sign and felt that the previous approval of 12 square feet was consistent with the direction they were going in the Town of Gilbert.

A motion was made by Board Member David Gibson, seconded by Board Member Bob Deardorff to approve DR01-61, subject to Staff stipulations, changing stipulation five to state that the sign can be illuminated.

Motion Carried 4-0.

Construction of all signage shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board at the July 19, 2001 public hearing. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Board prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project.

All signage within the Oasis at the Islands shall conform to the approved sign program.

All painted metal surfaces on sign cans and sign faces on the freestanding monument signs and directional signs shall incorporate a “Montex” finish to provide a textured surface.

With the exception of the Chevron monument signs and Chevron logos, the method of illumination for the Oasis at the Islands shall be achieved by illuminating the sign copy only.

All gasoline dispenser toppers/spanners may be illuminated and shall have a maximum square footage of 12 square feet.

The sign copy “DESERT ROSE EXPRESS” on the west elevation of the Chevron convenience mart shall be reduced from 24″ letters to approximately 18″ letters to bring the copy in scale with the building.

DR01-57 - Approval of five standard plans located with the Phase 1 R1-7 areas of Agritopia, consisting of 157 lots on approximately 49 acres. Agritopia is generally located at the northwest corner of Ray and Higley Roads.

Planner Suzanne Gunderman stated that DR01-57 was the approval of five standard plans located with the Phase 1 R1-7 areas of Agritopia, consisting of 157 lots on approximately 49 acres. Agritopia was generally located at the northwest corner of Ray and Higley Roads, which was in the Gateway area. She informed the Board that this was the first Neo-Traditional project to come through of that magnitude. She added that the Staff didnâ??t have a lot of review comments on the project and that they had thought the design and color schemes were excellent. The options book, which was very thick, addressed some of the garage and other options for the buyers. She informed the Board that the reason they had not put the item on the Consent calendar was to show it to the Board and give credit to BSB Architects, Scott Homes and Joe Johnson who put the vision behind the project. The housing incorporated four different types of design of architecture; Craftsman; Spanish Eclectic; Northern European; and Arizona Ranch. She added that she wanted the Board to see this project since the Gateway Area plan called for a Neo-Traditional design and this was a very good product to use as examples for others to follow in the future. She concluded the presentation and asked for questions from the Board.

Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that it was unfortunate that the front elevation didnâ??t show how far back the garages actually were located. The plan view and the side elevations showed this garage feature much better.

Ms. Gunderman agreed and added that in many cases the garages were 45â?? behind the front elevation and were alley loaded in other cases. She discussed some other ways the garages could be hidden in the different options that the buyer could choose. She stated that the applicant wanted to clarify stipulation number six. Typically, she stated that when the drawings donâ??t provide the dimensions, Staff would stipulate the recession of windows. In stipulation six, they had stipulated that the windows would need to be recessed or projected four inches. Because of the Arizona Ranch and the Craftsman Bungalow, they would be using a different articulation around the windows, which would make the recession or projection not appropriate. She asked the Board to clarify that stipulation based on the applicantâ??s discussion.

Bradley Sonnenburg, 7525 E. Camelback Road #204, Scottsdale with Bloodgood Sharp Buster came forward. He asked the Board to strike all of stipulation six. With the different styles of architecture, they would like the ability to change the width of the columns. He gave some examples of the homes that might need the columns changed. In addition, he explained some of the other treatments that they might do to the windows.

Board Member Bob Deardorff clarified that the windows would be articulated in some way and that was what the Board wanted to achieve. He stated that he didnâ??t want to allow the developer to create columns of any width. He explained that he would like to stipulate that the window treatment and column sizes were consistent with the documents presented at that meeting.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. Seeing none, he opened the public hearing.

David Dobson, 131 W. 1st Street, Mesa came forward. He informed the Board that his family had farmed out next to the Johnson family as long as he had been around. He explained that he became a part of Gateway steering committee, as a landowner in the area three years ago. He stated that this was the first site since the plan had passed last year. He hoped that this would be the first of many projects that would look the same. He complimented Scott Homes and Joe Johnson for coming up with a project that was “out of box” for Arizona standards. He concluded that he hoped the Dobson family would be coming forward with a similar project.

David Longey, 706 W. Brown Street, Tempe came forward. He informed the Board that he had been the consultant to the Town of Gilbert for the Gateway Plan. He commented that Mr. Dobson had just said everything that he had wanted to say and added that he was also the Dobson family consultant. He commended Joe Johnson, Scott Homes and BSB Architects for an excellent job. He stated that they were excellent dwelling units and exactly what the Gateway Plan had called for.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked the applicant to come forward and asked the Board if they had any questions for Mr. Johnson.

Joe Johnson, 301 N. Gilbert Road, Gilbert came forward. He thanked the Board and previous speakers.

There were no questions for the applicant.

A motion was made by Board Member David Gibson, seconded by Board Member John Tomasson to approve DR01-57, subject to Staff stipulations, changing stipulation number six to state that the elevations were to be consistent with the presentation exhibit presented that evening.

Motion Carried 4-0.

All standard plans shall meet requirements set forth in the Resolution of the Design Review Board dated December 14, 2000, which adopted standard residential house plan conditions.

All standard plan elevations shall be built per exhibits approved by the Design Review Board as presented at the public hearing of July 19, 2001, subject to Design Review Board stipulations.

Standard plans 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are approved for 157 lots, lots 1 through 157 of Phase 1 within the Agritopia P.A.D. Any revisions to the approved standard plans, or additional plans shall require review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Options for extended porches, porte cocheres, detached garages, and extensions to floor plans are approved in design. Building height and setbacks shall conform to the requirements of Ordinance No. 1305 in zoning case Z00-1.

All standard plans shall adhere to the lot coverage and setback requirements stipulated by Ordinance No. 1305 in rezoning case Z00-1. Coverage is interpreted as the area under roof including patios, porches and garages.

The elevations shall be consistent with the presentation exhibit presented at the Design Review Board meeting on July 19, 2001.

Column material shall be approved by the Planning Department with construction document review.

Approval of DR01-14 is contingent upon approval of S550, Preliminary Plat for Agritopia by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

DR00-158/S550 - Approval of the open space program for Agritopia and the site plan for the R-CH areas in Agritopia (S550). Agritopia is generally located at the northwest corner of Ray and Higley Roads.

Planner Suzanne Gunderman informed the Board that DR00-158/S550 was the approval of the open space program for Agritopia and the site plan for the R-CH areas in Agritopia (S550). She explained that the R-CH was required by code to have a site plan review by the Board but also was a part of the preliminary plat, which was provided in the Boardâ??s packet. The R-CH lots were the smaller lot areas. She used the visual aid to describe the R-CH lots.

Regarding the open space, Ms. Gunderman stated that they had worked very hard at looking at the various amenities, monumentation, walls and plant materials. She informed the Board that they had gone through three reviews of the open space plan. She stated that Staff was recommending approval of the open plan and did not have any outstanding issues with the plant materials or placement of the amenities. She described some of the amenities that were included in the project.

Regarding the R-CH, Ms. Gunderman stated that they had a lot of concerns initially about parking and refuse containers, but the applicant had worked very hard to mitigate these concerns. She stated that the Staff felt they had done a good job mitigating these concerns by providing a landscape buffer and minimizing parking that sided against lots. They had moved the refuse containers as far off of the alley intersections as they could. Staff had included a stipulation to include opaque gates on the front of the refuse containers to further minimize their appearance from the alley. All the refuse containers were accessed by the alleys and were all rear-loaded lots. The lots were also facing onto open space areas. She concluded by stating that Staff was recommending approval of the R-CH site plans subject to Staff stipulations.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson commented that the Redilia plant was very sensitive to the cold. He informed the applicant that it would freeze out and would be killed in the cold.

David Longey, 706 W. Brown Street, Tempe came forward. He commented that the layout of Agritopia was the direction that they wanted to go for the Gateway Plan. He stated that the plan was very well done and there was a lot of time spent in the development of the plan. He added that he supported the project one hundred percent.

Byron Sampson, the landscape architect came forward. He thanked the Board for the comment on the Redilia and stated that he would take their comments into consideration. He informed the Board that they were in agreement of the Staffâ??s stipulations except for stipulation three, which stated that the said trail and path should be fully constructed in Phase I. He explained that during the zoning agreement, it was agreed that Johnson Farms would maintain the alfalfa operation and farming within Phase II unil it came on line. He thanked the Staff for their hard work and job well done.

Ms. Gunderman stated that her concern was that if only a portion of the trail was developed in Phase I, then the trail would dead end. She showed the proposed trail on the visual aid and described the path that people would take. Her concern was that not knowing the market and how long it would take Phase II to develop out, it would be beneficial to put the trail in with Phase I so it would become part of the public access trail system. If it was phased as with the phasing that was approved with the zoning for the roadway improvements, then she felt it would become more difficult for the usability of the trail. She stated that if they could put the trail on an access road through the alfalfa field without being a detriment to the farming operations, that would be beneficial. She also understood their concerns and would be open to another option for the phasing of the trail.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked if the irrigation ran through the field at the location they could use for the trail.

Mr. Johnson answered that it would be a difficult thing to farm around since they would need to run pipes for water under it. Right now, he stated that Knox Road was still in place in the form of a dirt road that people do use it for horseback riding. He explained that there was access to Crossroads Park that went through the Greenfield Lakes area. He stated that he would be happy to put the trail system in Phase II A.

Ms. Gunderman agreed to this change in the stipulation and informed the Board that they could strike the last sentence of stipulation 3.

A motion was made by Board Member Bob Deardorff, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to approve DR00-158/S550, subject to Staff stipulations, modifying stipulation 3 to state Phase IIA in the third sentence and striking the last sentence.

Motion Carried 4-0.

Open Space Program Stipulations:

Construction of the project shall conform to the approved plans, including submitted exhibits, color and material boards, and cut sheets, and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board on July 19, 2001. Revisions to the approved plans or conditions shall be reviewed by the Board prior to the issuance of a building permit.

If the Developer elects to use turf and moderate-to-high water use trees in the landscape easements adjacent to the dedicated roadways, then a stabilized lime base shall be used, subject to review and approval of the Public Works and Engineering Departments.

The public access trail and path shall be constructed in general accordance with the Trail Design Guidelines, currently being developed by the Town as part of the Parks, Open Space, Trails and Recreation Plan 2000 implementation. Said trail and path shall be fully constructed with Phase IIA of the Agritopia project. Landscaping associated with the trail and path located within Phase II may be installed with Phase II improvements.

The multi-modal paved trail that is part of the public access trail system shall be increased to at least 6 feet in width.

The master grading and drainage plan shall locate the public access concrete trail above the bottom of any retention basins so that the trail will not be inundated in major storm events.

Decorative paving shall be used at pedestrian crossings of the Agritopia loop road near the community center, and in the R-CH area where open space areas are next to each other, but are separated by an alley or street, subject to Planning Department approval at the time of improvement plans review. Sidewalks and decorative pedestrian crossings shall be used to connect open spaces that are nearby each other.

Alternative streetlights, as indicated in the attached Niland Co. cut sheets, shall receive the approval of the Engineering Department during the review and approval of the improvement plans.

The security wall located along Ray Road shall be subject to Engineering approval at the time of improvement plans review to ensure durability and sound attenuation comparable to a solid masonry wall, as required by the Agritopia zoning ordinance.

The monument sign shall receive a sign permit through the Building Department and shall comply with the Gilbertâ??s Sign Ordinance

R-CH Site Plan Stipulations:

The R-CH typical lot detail depicted on the preliminary plat shall be revised to indicate the enlarged side yard setback (16.5â??) required on R-CH lots that side onto lane, street and loop roads to allow the landscape and public access/sidewalk easements that were approved with the Agritopia zoning ordinance.

The side of R-CH lots that are adjacent to lane, street or loop roads shall comply with the typical landscape section depicted on page L5.2 of the Open Space Program, which calls for vines to be planted between the sidewalk and lot privacy wall. The privacy wall shall be located a sufficient distance into the lot to allow for this planting strip.

Refuse enclosures shall include opaque front gates and provide shrub landscaping in addition to trees to further screen refuse containers.

All common refuse containers within the R-CH areas shall comply with Standard Detail No. 80 and shall be approved by the Public Works Sanitation Department prior to approval of improvement plans.

The decorative paving required in the alleyways by the Agritopia zoning ordinance shall be approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments during review of improvement plans.

Dimensions of all parking spaces shall meet the minimum requirements of the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) and no parking overhang areas shall be allowed within the open space tracts.

At 7:05 P.M., Vice Chairman Gary Petterson called for a five minute break.

DR01-54 - Approval of six (6) standard plans, three (3) single story homes and three (3) two story homes for Maracay Homes, Inc. at Chandler Ginning P.A.D. lots 1-59 (59 Lots) located at the southeast corner of Higley & Frye Roads.

Planner Dennis Newcombe informed the Board the DR01-54 was for Chandler Ginning, which was the first product line that would be built in the planned area development. This project consisted of approximately 60 acres at the southeast corner of Frye and Higley Roads. He asked the Board to follow along in their packets and look at the typical plat. He stated that they followed Agritopia, which was in the Neo-Traditional design and started out at that level and was designed from the initial start up with Neo-Traditional values in mind. He added that they went through a lot of time with the property owner who took charge in getting the Agritopia project done. He stated that the proposed project was in the southwest corner of the Gateway Plan.

Mr. Newcombe explained that the open space and standard plans were done and that he had to work with the applicant to make the Neo-Traditional theme work within the project. He informed the Board the Maracay Homes met with Staff to determine the areas that needed to change in order to meet the Neo-Traditional standards. On plan 601, he stated that they originally had a two-car garage facing the front with the one car side entry. Staff asked the applicant to bring the two-car garage to the side and only put the one car garage up front. Market dictated that they needed to have a three-car garage because people request this. The one car garage could be a bonus room and would be finished as such, therefore changing the garage look on the front elevation.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked if the home designs were pre-approved during the zoning process.

Mr. Newcombe answered that the designs were not approved and therefore the applicant had met with the Staff in April to find out what they needed to do to accomplish the goal of being approved through the Design Review Board.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked if they could make whatever changes to the plans as needed in order to accomplish the Neo-Traditional design.

Mr. Newcombe answered that whatever the Board dictated as Neo-Traditional would be at their discretion. He explained that Neo-Traditional design was a difficult issue that people were trying to understand. Staff felt that bringing the livable and active space to the front of the home was very important in the Neo-Traditional design. He described the area he lived in and the different housing styles around his home, stating how different they were in their design based upon when they were built. During the zoning, they were told that side entry garages were favored so the applicant had an idea of what they could do with their floor plans. Therefore, Staff worked with the applicant to accomplish this and added porches to the front of the homes. He stated that he went to other developments with these porches and noticed that people were using these front areas.

Mr. Newcombe described some of the floor plans. On plan 602, the courtyard was added. On plan 603, on the one story; and the 604 on the two stories, were compromises based on the other things that were done on the other elevations. He used the visual aids and described some of the elements that were added in order to try to accomplish the Neo-Traditional design.

In order to see the Maracay product line, Mr. Newcombe drove to Chandler to see another built development. He stated that they had different setbacks and a similar product line was built there.

Since there was such confusion on the Neo-Traditional design, Mr. Newcombe informed the Board that Planner David Marsh put together a presentation on this design to further educate the public. Mr. Newcombe stated that Neo-Traditional design was different based upon the area. Since he was from Boston, he stated that he was familiar with the Neo-Traditional design in the east coast. This was very different than what would be seen in Arizona. In California, he stated that it was also very different with Santa Fe, Spanish and Mission Revival styles. He stated that they would not in all cases have the garages non-visible.

Mr. Newcombe informed the Board that Neo-Traditional design also called for diversity. Within the 59 lots, the applicant was providing six standard plans with an A, B, and C elevation. He stated that there were some elements of Neo-Traditional design within the project and that the applicant had done an admirable job. He stated that BSB, who was the architect on this project, also did the Agritopia project. He added that there were some distinct things that were different with Agritopia in the way it was designed, conceived and the additional allowances for lot coverage. The proposed project was planned as a traditional subdivision. He stated that he had been advising the applicant to adjust the project based on his knowledge of Neo-Traditional design that he had seen in the past. He stated that if the project was located anywhere else outside the Gateway Plan area, he would have listed the project on the Consent calendar. He concluded his presentation and asked the Board for their comments.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked if the applicant was allowed to have a 5â?? side yard setback, which was what was also allowed in the Agritopia project.

Mr. Newcombe replied that they were allowed a 5â?? side yard setback.

Board Member Bob Deardorff commented that most of the lots were 70â?? wide and the lots in Agritopia were 60â?? wide. Therefore, they had an extra 10â?? to deal with and could have used the 5â?? side yard setback. He questioned whether a home that had all garage out front and wasnâ??t moving the livable area forward, could be considered Neo-Traditional. He addressed Planner David Marsh and asked for his clarification on this issue based upon his presentation on the Neo-Traditional design.

Planner David Marsh stated that many of these issues should have been addressed several months earlier when they were still discussing the Neo-Traditional design. Since this was not done since they were still in the discussion phase of this design type, he suggested that they make an exception with this project and clarify that it would not be the standard that they would be setting by approving it.

Board Member Bob Deardorff clarified that the applicant came into the process of the evolution of the Neo-Traditional standards.

Mr. Newcombe agreed but stated that there were some definitive statements within the Gateway plan, including side entry garages. However, he stated that the Neo-Traditional design was new and there was not anything to judge it against. Now they had Agritopia, which they could refer to as a good Neo-Traditionally designed development.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked the applicant to come forward.

Howard Pals, 7525 E. Camelback Road #204, Scottsdale with BSB Architects came forward. He informed the Board that his understanding of the zoning process was that during the process the plans were utilized by the applicant as exhibits of the kinds of homes that they were proposing to build. Maracay Homes moved forward with the understanding that these homes would be acceptable. He stated that Maracay Homes was one of the finest homebuilders in the valley. He stated that based on the meeting with Mr. Newcombe they had made adaptations to the plans. He added that they did meet some of the Neo-Traditional principals that were mentioned in the Gateway Area Plan. This document does speak to Neo-Traditional concepts but does not say that all garages must be removed from the street.

Board Member David Gibson asked if in plan 603, with everything flush in the front elevation, if they had the depth to pull the entry porch out.

Mr. Pals replied that elevation B was flush and elevation A was a little forward.

Board Member David Gibson stated that it was nice to have diversity with a couple front entry garages, although he would prefer to see what the architect had done on the other project. He went through the plans and discussed the different garages.

Mr. Pals stated that they would have an additional 5â?? to pull the elevations forward with plan 603.

Board Member David Gibson commented that he thought it would help to pull it forward along with tying the entry tower in.

Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that he wasnâ??t sure what element needed to be pulled forward. He suggested that they pull forward those elements that werenâ??t too difficult to do and give the plan a little more porch area.

Mr. Newcombe stated that some of the courtyards that were added provided a livable area outside, bringing people to the front of the homes.

The Board discussed some of the changes that could be made with the plans and reviewed each plan and possible changes.

Board Member David Gibson commented that on plan 605, on elevation A and B the mass to the left of the windows appeared to be blank. He showed the area he was discussing on the plans and suggested that it looked a little odd on the elevations. He asked what was in that location.

Mr. Pals stated that there was a restroom behind the blank area.

Board Member David Gibson suggested that they introduce a window in the area by the restroom on plan 605, A and B.

Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that it was a good-looking product and agreed with Mr. Newcombe in that if it was located anywhere else, it would have been on the Consent calendar.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson opened the public hearing.

David Longey, 706 W. Brown Street, Tempe came forward. He informed the Board that as enthusiastic as he was with the Agritopia project, he was that much against this project. He read a comment from the policy statement that was in the General Plan for the Gateway Area. He agreed that some of the policies werenâ??t very specific in the Plan, but there was one paragraph that was in the Gateway Plan that was very specific. He read, “â?¦provide recessed side entry or rear garages accessed by side driveways or alleys. ” He stated that he knew that Maracay had elevations where they could have side entry garages and he didnâ??t see them using this in the elevations before the Board that evening. Neo-Traditional was to be oriented to the street because it was to be the carrier for pedestrians. Even the side-loaded garages have the driveway in the front. He explained that the Neo-Traditional concepts allow for the driveway to come off the side or off an alley way in the back. The front of the home is not to be oriented in an automobile nature. He announced that there was no way that the elevations in his estimations at all met the Gateway Plan.

Planner David Marsh stated that Mr. Longey raised some very valid points and verified that the policy that he read from the Gateway Plan was available to the applicant when they were working on the project. He informed the Board that he felt the applicant had also made the changes and improvements to the best of their ability from the direction of the Staff. Over the past month or two, he stated that Staff had been working very hard to define the details of what Gilbert wanted to see in the Neo-Traditional design. He reminded the Board that the project consisted of 59 lots out of several thousand acres in the Gateway area. He thought it would be prudent to state that this project would the exception and not the standard expected in the Gateway area. He suggested that the Board compliment the architect for the good architecture and the good efforts in following the Staffâ??s direction and make a strong statement that future projects would need to be more in line with the Neo-Traditional standards in order to be approved.

Planner Dennis Newcombe informed the Board that the applicant would be coming in with R1-6 lots as well in Chandler Ginning. In addition, they would be pursing other acreage in the Highland 5, which would

Digg this