Design Review Board Regular Meeting Minutes - 9 August 2001

Design Review Board Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes

1025 S. Gilbert Road

August 9, 2001

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

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

ALSO PRESENT: Council Member Don Skousen, Recorder Wendy Rocco

I N D E X

PLANNER CASE PAGE VOTE
CONSENT DR00-136 2 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-59 4 APPR.
MS. GUNDERMAN DR00-136 2 APPR.
MR. MARSH DR01-55 6 APPR.
MR. MARSH DR01-56 8 APPR.
MS. GUNDERMAN DR01-59 4 APPR.
MR. FAIRBANKS DR00-128 11 APPR.
MR. NEWCOMBE DR01-50 12 APPR.
MS. CADAVID DR01-53 13 APPR.
MS. ROBERTS DR01-60 17 APPR.

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Darrell Truitt called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Chairman Truitt requested that consent agenda items 3 & 4 be pulled and be heard in the Public Meeting. He asked if there were any members from the public that would like to comment on matter not on the agenda. No one came forward.

A motion was made by Board Member Petterson, seconded by Board Member Rojo, to approve the agenda.

Motion Carried 7-0.

COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS

No one came forward.

CONSENT ITEMS

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked for a motion to approve the consent items.

A motion was made by Board Member Petterson, seconded by Board Member Rojo, to approve the consent items, including the minutes, DR00-136 and DR01-59 subject to Staff stipulations.

Motion Carried 7-0.

CONSENT ITEMS

DR00-136 â?? Final site plan, landscaping, preliminary grading and drainage, lighting, and building elevations for the Osco Drug building, and preliminary site plan for the remainder of the commercial center, located at the southwest corner of Baseline and Lindsay Roads. The project site is zoned PAD with underlying C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning.

Staff recommends approval for DR00-136, final site plan, preliminary landscape plan, preliminary grading and drainage, building elevations, and lighting for the Osco Drug and preliminary site plan for Phase 2, subject to the following conditions:

Final Site Plan Stipulations:

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. Said grading and drainage plan shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Phase 1 shall include the limits of improvement shown on the phasing plan, and shall also include the installation of the 8-foot high perimeter wall along the entire width of the southern property boundary. Phase 2 areas of the site shall be dust-proofed.

The Y-rake columns for drive-through canopy and associated column bases shall be increased slightly in scale, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Department at the time of construction document review.

The exterior light sources shall be fully shielded. Pole-mounted lighting shall be removed from the southern landscape setback to reduce impacts to adjacent residential. The applicant shall reduce parking lot illumination wattage and height to comply with the light and glare ordinance, and shall provide a revised point-by-point analysis for review by the Planning Department at the time of construction document submittal.

The project shall undergo an illumination test by the Code Enforcement Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Bicycle racks shall be in-ground mounted and shall provide a minimum of 3 bicycle parking spaces, subject to the approval of the Planning Department at the time of construction document review.

Design Review Board approval of a Comprehensive Sign Program application for Osco Drug wall signage, retail/office building wall signage, and free-standing signs for the overall commercial area 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.

Decorative paving for driveways and pedestrian pathways and crossings shall be integral-colored stamped concrete or Bomanite, as approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Stamped asphalt shall not be allowed.

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.

Building downspouts shall be internalized.

Preliminary Site Plan Stipulations:

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.

A cross-access driveway shall be provided to the west adjacent C-2 parcel at the time of Phase 2 development, if allowed by the owner of the C-2 parcel.

DR01-59 â?? Site plan, landscaping, preliminary grading and drainage, lighting, and building elevations for the Bank One building, located north of the northwest corner of Guadalupe and Higley Roads. The project site is zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial).

Staff recommends approval for DR01-59, final site plan, preliminary landscape plan, preliminary grading and drainage, building elevations, and lighting for the Bank One project, subject to the following conditions:

The site plan shall be revised as follows:

All existing and proposed improvements surrounding the project within 150 feet shall be depicted on the site plan provided with the construction documents.

A note shall be added on the site plan stating that the refuse container for the Bank One facility is to be located inside of the building, and is to be privately serviced. If a future external refuse enclosure is added to the facility, it shall receive the approval of Public Works and Planning Departments to ensure compliance with codes and standards prior to installation.

The landscape plan shall be revised as follows:

Landscaping shall be provided within the arterial right-of-way, including the median. Said landscaping shall comply with the Streetscape Development Guidelines for District No. 6 and shall comply with the Unified Land Development Code for intensity and placement.

The landscaping provided within the 25-foot landscape setback adjacent to the Tone Ranch residential subdivision shall consist of a double row of evergreen trees, 50% minimum 36-inch box size and 50% minimum 24-inch box size.

The landscape plan shall be revised to match the approved base site plan.

A seven to eight-foot high perimeter security wall, a minimum six-inches thick, shall be provided adjacent to residential on the north and west sides of the project and shall be designed to match the masonry color and material used for the body of the Bank One building. Said wall shall be installed along the entire northern and western lengths of the commercial center, with the Bank One project or with phase 1 of the siteâ??s development, whichever occurs first.

The parking screen walls along the street frontage shall be varied in alignment and broken up with naturally contoured berming to achieve a continuous screen of no less than 36 inches above the highest adjacent grade.

The parking screen wall should be designed to match the masonry color and materials used for the body of the Bank One building.

Developer shall revise the traffic impact study to provide additional information on adjacent existing and proposed curb cuts along Higley Road, as requested by the Traffic Engineer, to confirm the appropriateness of the median cut with the construction document review.

The grading and drainage plan shall be revised as follows:

The grading and drainage plan shall include no more than 50% of the street frontage for retention basins. Naturally contoured berms shall be used in combination with retention basins to provide site screening and variation to the project frontage and streetscape.

The grading and drainage plan shall provide more natural contouring within the north and west landscape setbacks.

The exterior light sources shall be fully shielded. External light sources shall be limited to a maximum of 14 feet in height and shall comply with the Townâ??s Light and Glare Ordinance. Pole-mounted exterior lights shall not be installed within the landscape setbacks adjacent to residential uses.

A revised point-by-point analysis shall be provided for review and approval by the Planning Department at the time of construction document submittal.

The project shall undergo an illumination test by the Code enforcement Department prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

Bicycle racks shall be in-ground mounted and shall provide a minimum of 3 bicycle parking spaces, subject to the approval of the Planning Department at the time of construction document review.

Design Review Board approval of a Comprehensive Sign Program application for wall signage and free-standing signs for the overall commercial area is required prior to issuance of a sign permit for any portion of the project.

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.

Decorative paving shall be provided at all driveway entrances to the project for a minimum width of 15 feet.

A pedestrian pathway with matching decorative paving shall be provided from Higley Road into the Bank One site along the landscape island bordering the south side of the driveway entrance to the site. The landscape islands shall to be increased 5-feet in width to accommodate the pedestrian pathway to the Bank One building as well as a minimum 5 feet of landscaping.

All external 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.

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.

Building downspouts shall be internalized.

PUBLIC MEETING

DR01-55 - Approval of the site plan, landscaping, lighting, preliminary grading and drainage, and building elevations for building pad â??Fâ?? of the Cooper Crossing Development, located at the southeast corner of Cooper & Baseline Roads.

Planner David stated that DR01-55 and DR01-56 are from the same applicant and he would like to present the one issue for both of them at the same time and to do one motion for both of the cases to save some time.

Chairman Truitt requested to hear the one issue instead of the whole case.

Planner Marsh stated the one outstanding issue is the use of split facing CMU for the entire wainscot. He stated on Pad C there is a use of split face wainscot at the base of the columns but the remainder of the wainscot is done in a CMU. He mentioned the same concept applied for Pad F. He explained Staff stipulated the entire wainscot CMU so that it would blend with the rest of the center. He noted that the applicant objected to this stipulation and he stated staff revisited what was approved for Pad E by the Board several months ago. He noted in that case of the bottom of the columns were done as split face CMU and the rest of the wainscot was done as stucco over frame. He expressed that staff would like to agree with the applicant and suggest that stipulation number 9 for case DR01-56 and stipulation number 7 in DR01-56 be struck.

Chairman Truitt inquired if there was a horizontal difference in the plane between the columns and the rest. Planner Marsh replied that it was minor but on Pad C the columns do protrude. He advised that the end columns are about a foot and the actual center tower element comes out about five or six feet.

Chairman Truitt asked if there were any other questions for the Staff. Board Member Tomasson thought the applicant was doing fieldstone instead of split face to match the center. Planner Marsh replied that the fieldstone was only done for Somborrro’s whereas Shops A and Pad E were done as a split face CMU. He mentioned that Somborrowâ??s was a slightly different architecture and there were some elements that made it compatible with the rest of the center. He felt Somborrow’s is the exception. He noted that the rest of the center has been done with a split face CMU at the base of the columns.

Fred Woods, Woods Associates Architects, 1901 E. University, Mesa, Arizona, came forward and affirmed that the existing center utilized a split face block just at the column elements. He felt it accentuated the columns more to have it just at that element, and then just going with the stucco band for the rest of the buildings. He and felt it would be more successful architecturally. He concurred with Staffâ??s latest recommendations and asked for approval of the case. Board Member Tomasson asked if there was going to be a stucco wainscot of a contrasting color. Mr. Woods stated it basically matched the way the existing center has been developed. Board Member Tomasson was not sure the color was that contrasting in comparison to the elevation. He felt there was material contrast and horizontal distance contrast but the color was the same. Planner Marsh replied there were two different tones and contrast utilized in Shops A and Pad E. Board Member Deardorff wished to know if there were any pilaster elements that might be removed from the face. Mr. Wood replied that is what they are stating, as there are pilasters at the corners to represent more of a column element. Board Member Deardorff asserted that those should receive the CMU wainscot as well. Mr. Woods agreed.

A motion was made by Board Member Gibson and seconded by Board Member Tomasson striking stipulation number 9; subject to the rest of the stipulations.

Board Member Deardorff felt within the amendment it should be stated that the column/pilaster elements should have CMU bases. Planner Marsh stated that the column and pilasters are shown on the drawings as being split face CMU, and if the Board approved this with a motion, the applicant would be required to build it as shown.

Motion Carried 7-0.

Building mounted lighting will consist of 175 W Metal Halide fixtures, downward directed, fully shielded. The maximum height of a building mounted light fixture is 14â??.

Pole mounted lighting fixtures shall match those utilized by Shops A. Concrete light pole bases shall be painted to match the primary building color or finished to match parking screening walls. Concrete bases for light poles shall not exceed a height of 24″ from adjacent grade.

The refuse enclosures shall be further recessed to the east, such that the opaque gates will not obstruct the drive aisle when open. 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.

S.E.S. panels shall be fully recessed into the building elevation or shall be screened by a decorative wall equal to or exceeding the height of the S.E.S. panel. Design Review plans shall note the tentative location of electrical utility vaults. Construction plans shall identify the final location of utility vaults.

The pedestrian connection to Pad â??Dâ?? shall be relocated so that the connection is at a straight north-south orientation, and not the angled design as shown. All pedestrian connections shall be constructed of decorative paving materials, matching that utilized by the overall development. Stamped or coloured asphalt is prohibited.

Design detail and colour / material palette for the covered parking spaces shall be submitted for Staff review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.

The wainscot shall be constructed of a split face CMU block.

9. The colour palette shall match that utilized for the existing Shops â??Aâ?? building.

DR01-56 - Approval of the site plan, landscaping, lighting, preliminary grading and drainage, and building elevations for building pad â??Câ?? of the Cooper Crossing Development, located at the southeast corner of Cooper & Baseline Roads.

A motion was made by Board Member Tomasson, seconded by Board Member Gibson, to strike stipulation number 7 as directed by Staff.

Motion Carried 7-0.

1. Building mounted lighting will consist of 175 W Metal Halide fixtures, downward directed, fully shielded. The maximum height of a building mounted light fixture is 14â??.

2. Pole mounted lighting fixtures shall match those utilized by Shops A. Concrete light pole bases shall be painted to match the primary building color or finished to match parking screening walls. Concrete bases for light poles shall not exceed a height of 24″ from adjacent grade.

3. The gates on the refuse enclosure shall utilize a single swing gate, mounted such that the gate will swing towards the north and shall not obstruct the drive aisle. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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 decorative walls and dense landscaping.

6. S.E.S. panels shall be fully recessed into the building elevation or shall be screened by a decorative wall, equal to or exceeding the height of the S.E.S. panel. Design Review plans shall note the tentative location of electrical utility vaults. Construction plans shall identify the final location of utility vaults.

7. The wainscot shall be constructed of a split face CMU block.

7. The colour palette shall match that utilized for the existing Shops â??Aâ?? building.

DR00-128 - Approval of (9) nine standard plans, Plans 1160, 1357, 1365, 1575, 1836, 2259, 2313, 2429, and 2619, proposed by KB Home located in Ray Ranch. Ray Ranch is located approximately 1,260 feet southwest of the intersection of Recker Road and the Santan Freeway and is zoned P.A.D. with underlying zoning of R-CH (Single Family Residential, Cluster Home).

Chairman Truitt advised that he will abstain from discussion and vote on this project and agenda item number 7, DR01-50, and referred Chairman duties to Vice Chairman Petterson.

Senior Planner Fairbanks explained previously in the working session there was discussion about a conventional house project in Ray Ranch. He noted that these homes are developed in a cluster concept and the position of each house project within each cluster is identified on the plan. It involved two phases in Ray Ranch. He mentioned that this is the first phase the cluster development would take place and pointed a subsequent second phase on the exhibit. He stated that to the north of the site is the San Tan Freeway alignment. He mentioned that these house projects range in a width from 31 ft to 36 ft and are required to have 5 and 5 foot side yards with a 18 foot minimum driveway in front of the house and a 15 foot minimum front yard set back. He stated he would go directly to the stipulations and then answer any questions from the Board. He explained that he would not summarize Stipulation 1 through 6, as they are standard stipulation and the applicant is in support of them. He mentioned that Stipulation 7, which pertains to patio covers, would be located on 23 lots and are adjacent to open space. It advised that this stipulation was to insure that there would not be the same patio cover on unit after unit as the residences are viewed either from the arterial street or the open space amenity. Stipulation 8 eliminates one elevation due to a very large gable. He mentioned the Board might want to discuss some other ways to address this plain area. He mentioned stipulation 9 through 11 relate to specific house products that have a garage-oriented house plan. He noted that this project is in the Gateway Area where there are emphases on Neo-Traditional development. In contrast, he stated these homes are developed in clusters where there are no sidewalks or street trees. He stated that Staff only recommended changes to homes that had prominent garages. Staffâ??s recommendations was to mitigate the garages through an enhanced patio or courtyard that could be constructed with the home.

Board Member Gibson poised a question regarding front setbacks. Board Member Gibson called out that the staff report says 12 feet. Planner Fairbanks acknowledged that he mis-stated the front setback and that the staff report was correct in that the front set back allows the living area to project out to 12 feet, but the garage must meet a 18-foot set back.

Chris Lindahl, KB Homes, 432 N. 445h St., Suite #115, Phoenix, and Cecil Hernandez, KB Architecture, Pomona California came forward. Mr. Lindahl wanted to thank staff for all the work and coordination they had done and asked the Board to approve this project subject to some modifications in Staff stipulations. He disagreed with Stipulation number 8 that states elevation 1357A be deleted. In informed the Board that he would like for it to remain if they incorporated a clipped hip roof in the front gable. He also disagreed with Stipulation number 8 whereas staff recommended they extend the front porch feature in the B and C elevations. He stated it has been his goal all along to establish diversity within the elevations and by extending a front porch across all three elevations would defeat that purpose. He asked the B elevation be allowed to move forward as is, incorporating an 80 square foot courtyard and to allow the C elevation to remain. He also requested to modify stipulation number 11 by stating that the A elevation incorporated the same 80 square foot courtyard in the front and to allow elevation C elevation to remain as is.

David Longey, previous Town Gateway Area Planner and currently the planner for the Dobson family came forward. He told the Board that he sees a lot of the Gateway area slipping away from the original policies of the Gateway Plan. He brought a map that showed the Gateway Area Plan and pointed to those areas that have not been approved residential and stated a good deal of it is not neo-traditional design. He acknowledged that some of this project was approved before the approval of the Gateway Area Plan. He mentioned that KB Homeâ??s site plan approval and zoning happened before the adoption of the Gateway Area Plan, but itâ??s submittal for the product came in after adoption of the Gateway Area Plan. He asked that the Board keep in mind the Gateway Plan was completed two years prior and took another year for approval. He noted KB Homes were submitted after the Plan was adopted; therefore, all the policies stated in the Plan should have been clear. He presented to the Board an exhibit showing how a substantial area in the Gateway Area is being developed and that people who brought you “to the dance” are all on the steering committee. He felt what was shaping up are only the steering committee land owners are the ones doing the right job. He stated that everybody else did not play a strong role in the Gateway Plan and are ending up being able to do projects that do not follow in line with the Gateway Plan. He did not believe any of the subject case presented conformed to the Gateway Plan.

Dave Dobson, representative of the V7 Dobson Ranch came forward and stated that KB started the process long before the Gateway Plan was adopted. He mentioned he attended the study session and heard some of the changes that might occur with some of the side entry garages and felt Board Member Deardorff had a great term of neo-transitional. He concurred with Mr. Longey and believed this project was not neo-traditional.

Board Member Deardorff questioned that at the last meeting the Board had discussed carriage type doors and wanted to know if the vertical line in the middle of the garage door addressed this issue. Senior Planner Fairbanks thought the garage doors showed a different number of designs but felt the carriage garage doors could be stipulated.

Board Member Deardorff inquired about a previous project and wanted to know if the timeframe was the same. He asked if the project was submitted before adoption of the Gateway Plan. He questioned if the KB Homes essentially had the same timeline as the Maracay Homes. Senior Planner Fairbanks agreed and stated the Gateway Plan was approved well before any of the house products presented were submitted. However, he noted the zoning was approved well before the Gateway Plan amendment.

Board Member Tomasson felt that the Board did not have a lot to work with in the cluster zoning. He agreed with the increased front porch issue. Board Member Schneider asked if those specific items would make it look Neo-traditional. She did not understand what would make this project look more Neo-traditional other than carriage doors and other architectural elements.

Board Member Gibson did not see any pedestrian orientation or sidewalks. Senior Planner Fairbanks that that Neo-traditional concepts design the streets for people not just cars. They included detached sidewalks, street trees, narrow streets to slow street speeds, smaller blocks, focal points and amenities for pedestrians.

He stated that this cluster project had nothing to do with Neo-traditional development. He mentioned that these homes are located on courtyards and they are essentially asphalt streets, no sidewalks or trees, and in many cases, are developed with additional parking being the focus of the cluster. He thought it would be tough to say this is a neo-traditional development. He felt what could be done would be to redesign the homes so they could accommodate front porches, courtyards, and use different design techniques to de-emphasize the garage. He stated because the setbacks and lots are so narrow, side entry garages are not an option. Board Member Rojo inquired if the applicants were provided with these guidelines. She could not understand how an applicant can get to the point of submitting their product to the Board and not be guided from step one. Senior Planner Fairbanks replied that this is a cluster type of product that KB Homes does valley wide, and because they achieved zoning approval well before the Gateway Area Plan was adopted, they never had the intention to pursue Neo-traditional development. He stated in the first review by staff, they did not point the applicant in the direction of Neo-traditionalism because the project was not Neo-traditional. He mentioned at the eleventh hour, based on Board meetings, he had conversations with the applicant on how they could improve the relationship between the living areas of the home and the clusters. He stated that the Gateway Plan is a policy and that was where Staff was directing the applicants. He noted that some of the developments that preceded the Gateway approval were headed down a different path and felt this project was one of them. Board Member Gibson asked how the Board and planners could encourage developers if we are not going to specifically state it is required. Senior Planner Fairbanks stated that not only does this house project have a difficult time meeting those objectives, but also the existing subdivision already approved never met any of the objectives. Board Member Gibson asked where would the Board draw the line. Planner Fairbanks responded that it is a difficult question, but in cases where there are conventional subdivisions with wider lots, there would be flexibility in trying to meet the objectives of Neo-traditionalism. He stated as the planners bring products through, there would be different situations whereas some neighborhoods meet the Neo-traditional designs and others wonâ??t.

Board Member Gibson commented that the Board needed some direction. Board Member Deardorff felt that the issue was not whether the Board should deny the project and to start over, but whether it was fair to the applicant that had worked since last October on a project based on Staff instructions. Planning Director Swanson clarified the issue by stating that new projects coming in are for projects filed prior to the adoption of the Plan. He stated that Staff is not using discretion; it is the Town policy that new projects comply. He mentioned that there have been a variety of projects submitted, including proposals for cluster projects, that Staff had advised the applicant that their product would not be accepted and not have Staffâ??s support. He explained that the applicant considered this recommendation and said they understood the policy and would develop a land plan that allows Neo-traditional design. He stated that Neo-traditional is not just the subdivision or house, it is the combination of the land plan and project that work together to put more activity on the street and de-emphasize the automotive nature of the residential area and puts street activity in front. He charged that all of that is being implemented today. He pointed out for projects filed prior to the adoption of the Plan, it was Staffâ??s opinion it would not be fair to the applicant to go back and demand that a part of the project meet the standard but approve the rest.

A Motion was made by Board Member Deardorff, seconded by Board Member Gibson to approve DR00-128, subject to Staff stipulations, adding a stipulation to revise elevation 1357″A” and adding stipulation number 12 stating the garage doors should be the carriage type door.

Board Member Rojo commented to Staff that if another project such as this were to be presented, it should be noted if the project was submitted prior or latter to the Gateway Planâ??s adoption.

Staff recommends approval of DR00-128, KB Home at Ray Ranch, Classic Series, for (9) nine standard plans, 1160, 1357, 1365, 1575, 1836, 2259, 2313, 2429, and 2619, subject to the following conditions:

All standard plan elevations shall be built per exhibits approved by the Design Review Board as presented at the public hearing of August 9, 2001 subject to staff stipulations and any additional conditions imposed by the Board at the meeting.

These standard plans are approved for 167 lots including lots 94 through 178 of Ray Ranch Unit I and lots 1 through 82 of Ray Ranch Unit II. 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. 1221 in rezoning case Z99-33. Coverage is interpreted as the area under roof including patios, porches and garages.

Rear patio covers shall be provided as a standard feature on all elevations.

Plan 2429 “A” shall be enhanced by a more substantial integral stucco pop-out/pot shelf above the garage door as approved by staff during construction plan review. Wrought iron detailing is optional on the pop-out/pot shelf. All shutters on the 2429 “A” shall incorporate the same design.

The “B” elevations of plan 1160 and 1357 shall be considered the same in terms of prohibiting the same elevation on adjacent lots.

Staff recommends that for lots that back onto an open space tract or back onto Ray Road that the “A’ elevations for plans 1365, 1575, 2259, 2429 and 2619 have a shed patio cover, the “B” elevations for these plans have a gabled patio cover, and the “C” elevations have a parapet patio cover.

Elevation 1357 “A” elevation shall be revised to provide a clipped gable design as approve by Staff. Elevations 1357 “B” and “C” shall provide a minimum front porch area of 45 square feet, which may be added in front of the house facade or the area may be removed from the living area and converted to front porch as approved by staff during construction plan review.

The porch on plan 1836 “B” and “C” elevations shall be similar to the 1836 “A” front porch as approved by staff during construction plan review, or the “B” and “C” elevations shall provide an additional enclosed courtyard area with a minimum of 80 square feet.

Plan 2313 “A”, “B” and “C” elevations shall provide a larger front porch measuring a minimum of 9′ of width or shall include an enclosed courtyard with a minimum of 80 additional square feet as approved by staff during construction plan review.

Plan 2619 “A” and “B” shall incorporate a 13′ wide front porch similar to elevation 2619 “C” as approved by staff during construction plan review.

The applicant shall provide carriage type garage doors, as approved by Planning Staff.

Motion Carried 7-0. .

DR01-50 - Approval of an amendment to DR99-122, to allow seven (7) standard plans, five (5) single-story homes and two (2) two-story homes for Shea Homes, Inc. at Ashley Heights P.A.D. lots 1-103 (103 Lots) located at the southeast corner of Recker & Ray Roads.

Planner Newcombe outlined the history of the case by stating Shea Homes wanted to offer more diversity within the R1-8 zoning classification. Staff commends the applicant for addressing issues regarding the elevations, street with courtyards, porches, livable space, side entry garages and other elements. He pointed out some elements the applicant used to conform to neo-traditional designs such as portcochares (sp?), courtyards, porches, etc. He mentioned the two elevations Staff looked at that were not neo-traditional designs were those with front load garage element. He stated they all have front load garage elements but some were pushed back 35 feet and some were side entry providing less of a focal dominance. He noted plans 1213 and 1216 Staff reviewed and were concerned with the forward facing garages that came past the livable space. He mentioned the applicant had added a courtyard per Staff direction. He showed for elevation 1213 it has a similar elevation with a garage foreword past the livable space. He noted again the applicant had provided a courtyard area (elevation A) and in elevation B & C had mitigated also with the porch element on the top providing a small porch yard area. He felt there were two plans Staff had a concern with, but felt the applicant has made great strides in providing diversity. He noted the other Plans 1211A and 1213B since they were very similar in design, asked they not be adjacent to one another as stipulated. He felt the applicant has done an admirable job with what they had. He mentioned the applicant had approval prior to the Gateway Area Plan. He believed this product is much more superior in design from what has already been approved in the area. He asked for any comments from the Board.

Martin Reil, Shea Homes, 8800 North Gainey Center Drive, Scottsdale, Arizona, came forward and agreed with all the stipulations. He asked for any questions from the Board.

Dave Longey stated he had reversed his opinion on the project, as he did not realize this was a revision to what was already originally submitted. Mr. Longey felt Shea Homes complied with his request they change their streetscape landscape on the Ray Road and Recker Road in the case of the Ashley Heights project. He understood this project was well ahead of the Gateway Area Plan.

Board Member Gibson felt the carriage door style was not appropriate for some of the elevations. He questioned if the glazing was an option or a standard. Planner Newcombe replied it was standard.

A Motion was made by Board Member Tomasson, seconded by Board Member Rojo, to approve DR01-50 with the following conditions:

Motion Carried 7-0.

These seven (7) standard plans are approved for lots 1-103 (103 Lots) located within Ashley Heights P.A.D. zoned R1-8 (Single-Family) and shall be built per the approval by the Design Review Board at the public hearing of August 9, 2001. Any additional standard plans shall require review and approval by the Design Review Board or by staff, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

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

All details, as shown on the elevations, shall be standard features and clearly shown on the construction documents.

Courtyards, as shown on the elevations, shall be standard features and clearly shown on the construction documents.

Standard Plan 1211 “A” and Standard Plan 1213 “B” shall not be built adjacent to one another.

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

DR01-53 - Approval of the site plan, foundation landscaping, grading, elevations, and monument sign for a commercial building on lot 6 of the Gilbert Town Square.

Planner Cadavid explained that the overall site plan, Phase 1, was approved by the Board last year. She indicated that this project is the first in Phase II and is on lot 6 on the southwest corner of Civic Center Drive and Gilbert Road. It is a commercial spec building and is proposed on 1.1 acres with the building being proposed at 9600 square feet. She mentioned Staff presented this case to the Board last month for initial consultation. She stated Staff wanted to emphasize the opportunity for an outdoor space between the proposed building and any future facility on lot 7. She stated staff also requested the treatment of the pavement to be a different color and texture in the pedestrian areas. She added it was required to develop a hierarchy of elements on the elevations mostly to emphasize the corner, which is the incoming statement to the development. She commented that staff and the applicant met several times and came to a halfway point and since it is very important for the developer to maintain the vehicular circulation around the entire building, the outdoor utility areas needed to be moved to the west. She felt the applicant should make the utilities area invisible to the users of the outdoor space and take opportunities to produce an attractive foundation landscaping. She stated staff and applicant were in agreement with the treatment and revisions made to the elevation. She explained the staff report was based on verbal agreements with the applicant. She indicated that 90% of the recommendations were in agreement with the applicant and were represented on the exhibits. However, she added Staff felt the treatment of the outdoor space was misinterpreted. She stated that Staff felt the portion of the utilities should be revised and moved further west, reorienting the refuse enclosures, take the transformer out of outdoor area and produce a 8 foot wall to separate these spaces and that would allow for a combination of hardscape and landscaping to promote opportunity for gathering and business for the future building on lot 7. She noted Staff had developed revised stipulations, which the applicant was aware of, however the applicant may have comments. She mentioned Staff took pictures of some examples in the Town as well as in Chandler that have similar conditions in neighborhood shopping centers. She noted that the other part of the application is the proposal of signage. She stated the two items that are pending: installation of a monument sign to be shared between Parcels and 7, would require placing the monument sign closer than what is allowed by code for free monument signs. She indicated this would require granting a variance by a Hearing Officer. She noted the elements of the sign, height and sign area meet code requirement. She indicated the other set of stipulations are standard for all commercial projects. She explained that stipulation number 7 Staff called for expansion of the coverage of the cultural stone veneer on the nine columns that identify the entrance to the dining spaces and also to the main larger suite. She mentioned the applicant had agreed on this issue for the center suite and southern dining space and the interior of the corner suite. She mentioned Staff indicated that the coverage should be at the front columns on the northern suite if the Board was in agreement.

Board Member Rojo requested clarification of which elevation faces Gilbert Road. Planner Cadavid replied it would be the east elevation.

Board Member Rojo asked if the two colors presented matched the scheme in the shopping center. Planning Manager Cadavid replied that the scheme is basically being adhered to, but the applicant has introduced deeper accent colors that have been required by the user of the northern most restaurant space. Board Member Rojo was concerned about the mustard and orange colors and asked for clarification as to where they will be used. Planning Manager Cadavid clarified that the color E03 is only an accent at the top of the projecting canopy and the lighter mustard is the field color. She added there is a new color for the recessed areas that will be made part of the color board.

Board Member Rojo asked when the lighting would be approved. Planning Manager added that there were cut sheets in their packets for the lighting poles and building fixtures and were part of the submittal. Board Member Rojo was questioning if there was going to be any accent lighting for the building. Planning Manager Cadavid stated that Staff included a stipulation that all lighting on the building would need to be of an architectural match. Board Member Rojo inquired if there was a stipulation to increase the base of the columns. Planning Manager clarified that stipulation number 7 was to expand the coverage of the stone veneer to meet the height of the suspended canopy. She stated this took place on the recessed portions of the building but Staff wanted it to be extended also to the columns that define the tower element of the corner. She requested the help of the architects on the Board to see if that is not too much for the building. She felt it would show better if the finish was applied to the out columns that define the tower elements.

Applicant, Mike Clements, Triple 5 Arizona Development Corp, 1201 S. Alma School Rd. Suite 10550, come forward and introduced the design team present. He wanted to thank the Staff stating they came up with several ideas that were helpful and enhanced the design. He added that he did have a couple different interpretations on some issues. He stated they gave up five parking spaces and changed it into a more landscapable area. He thought that his design team fully complied, except for the stipulations just handed out. He was concerned with Stipulation number 2 stating a request for an 8-foot wall. He had assumed it was an 8-foot lineal way because of the distance off of the wall, whereas Staff assumed it was a 6-foot vertical wall. He turned over the technical questions to the rest of his design team.

Board Member Rojo called attention to the recess areas and felt it was still a large mass. Mr. Clements explained that this would never be seen. He remarked that he had an architectural challenge whereas there are three front doors: Gilbert Rd., Civic Center Dr., and Gilbert Town Square Ave. He stated they have to put a dumpster and transformer somewhere. Board Member Rojo cited to use the theory that another building is going to be built right away would work around here. Mr. Clements voiced per the sight plan there would be a building there and that is where the dumpsters were going to be placed.

Board Member Deardorff pointed out the need for vehicular linkage between the two parking area. He proposed a discussion of a pedestrian area to create an environment between the two buildings that is significantly better than asphalt paving. He commented if it has only one sidewalk with a trees would be fine with him versus two trash enclosures, a transformer and a driveway. The applicant noted when they signed a development agreement with the Town of Gilbert it was exhibited to show the buildings in the middle of the parcels. Board Member Deardorff noted that was conceptual. He stated the only change from the site plan approval in 1998 was the four-story hotel was moved.

Board Member Rojo questioned the placement of the trash enclosures on the sides that face the pedestrian area and wanted to know if there was a wall there. Planning Manager Cadavid responded that by code it has to have an enclosure. She mentioned in defense of the applicant, and the meeting involving herself and Planning Director Jerry Swanson, there was a compromise to let the applicant to maintain the utility area instead of putting them on the street. She explained the intent was to move all the trash enclosures further west as much as possible tilting the enclosures to maintain a 30-degree, for front loading and to maximize the front area to incorporate hardscape, combination of shade trees, and vines growing against a wall. She stated Staff revised Stipulation number 2 because after the meeting with the applicant, the concept was somehow misinterpreted. She asked, if the Board allowed, to work with the applicant to achieve the best product within the space.

Jeff Curan, WRG Design, 4808 N. 7th St., Phoenix, Arizona, came forward and mentioned they went to a lot of effort to find a place for the trash enclosures. He stated that they had placed the enclosures as far west as possible and they had followed Town code. Board Member Gibson asked if they were put the trash enclosures with the back-out area into the driveway. Mr. Curan asked for clarification. He noted that they had looked on the perimeter to provide the 50 feet clearance needed on the face of the concrete pad. He addressed the modified stipulation number 2 and stated in order to maintain the Town of Gilbert trash detail; he could not slide the refuse enclosure any further west.

Chairman Truitt summarized the main points of the discussion. He mentioned of the points being should there be a drive between the two buildings. He felt it was a much superior design to not have the drive between the two buildings. He indicated that by putting the trash enclosures adjacent to the building would not gain Board support. If the staff has directed them to do that he would like to un-direct Staff. He commented he has never enjoyed walking by a trash enclosure on his way out to dinner. He stated trash enclosures located next to restaurants are going to smell even if they are covered. He doesnâ??t think the Town should be encouraging a sidewalk to go right past two trash enclosures. He felt the trash enclosures should be brought down to the drive west of building. He gave an example of the Olive Garden at Superstition Springs whereas pedestrians walk by the trash enclosures. Mr. Clements remarked that they could move the trash enclosures and it would not be a problem. Board Member Deardorff was concerned the trash enclosures were fairly visible from Gilbert Road. He suggested the trash enclosures be tucked behind the building in the corner so they would be screened. He felt by accomplishing this would have the benefit of the enclosures more accessible to the rear entrance. He did not see any reason why it shouldnâ??t work as long as the angle is 30 degrees. He felt by not putting the drive in, the applicant would have the benefit of picking up the five spaces plus another five along what is now a double loaded drive. Mr. Curran stated they have a 24-foot drive isle in the parking stall but felt he could not get 50 feet at the end of the concrete pad next to the curb and would have to slide the entire pad and curb to make it work. Board Member Deardorff mentioned unless the code had changed in the last three days, he had worked trash enclosures on 24 foot drive isles angled in and double-loaded. He stated if the applicant strategically located the enclosures and put the parking space back in instead of the drive there would be room. Wendy Radell from Bues Gilbert declared they would agree to this stipulation subject to sanitationâ??s approval. Chairman Truitt expressed that it could be done but not at a 45-degree angle but it could be done at a 30-degree angle. He stated they wouldnâ??t have to take out more than two parking spaces but they would get the spaces back where the enclosures were being moved. Ms. Radell exclaimed as long as they would get the 5 parking spaces back and gain sanitation approval, they would agree to the recommendation.

Board Member Schneider had some questions regarding lighting. Tony Brisendine, WPH Architecture, 513 NW 13th Ave., Suite 300, Portland, Oregon stated that the lighting were decorative and pole mounted with a bracket with the bulb on the top. Board Member Schneider thought the lighting on the building should be more decorative. She felt what was presented was not decorative. She expressed the lighting be decorative in terms of the architecture. She would like to see something that is more architecturally integrated.

Chairman Truitt mentioned he was in agreement with Board Member Deardorff and would like the trash enclosures screened by the building so they are angled similar to the sketch. He stated by doing this would allow the applicant to recapture five parking spaces and maximize the landscaping. Planning Manager Cadavid advised that the revised stipulation number 2 stated the final site plan for the outdoor space should be reviewed by the Planning Department and would invite the refuse department to discuss the trash enclosure issue prior to construction documents approval.

Board Member Rojo was express her concern that Board Member Schneider had been on the Board close to a year and the lighting plans that have before the Board are still lacking in detail and elevations are not showing the fixtures. She mentioned the applicants have asked for lighting plan approval but there are no plans to review. Planning Manager Cadavid explained that the master plan lighting package for Phase I was approved for this project and all of Civic Center Drive. She stated that Staff compared the cut sheet of the site plan poles with the information contained in the lighting plan. She pointed out the applicant had done a very comprehensive lighting plan for Phase I and this was an extension.

Chairman Truitt commented that the trash enclosure design should be compatible with the building design using similar materials.

A motion was made by Board Member Tomasson, seconded by Board Member Gibson, to approve DR01-53 with the following stipulation changes: revise stipulation number 2 to relocate the 2 trash enclosures away from the building to the west of the property with materials being compatible to the building and allowing the recapture of 5 parking stalls; Adding to stipulation number 13 stating the building lighting to be addressed with the intention of blending and accenting the architecture of the building along with being functional to be reviewed and approved by staff; adding to stipulation number 12 on the south elevation to break up the mass that will be exposed now by the relocation of the trash enclosures to blend more with the remaining elevations to be discussed by Staff and applicant.

Site and Landscaping Conditions:

The refuse enclosures and transformer court shall be relocated as far west as possible to allow the creation of an outdoor area to the south of the building.

Relocated the 2 trash enclosures away from the building to the west of the property with materials being compatible to the building and allowing the recapture of 5 parking stalls.

The existing landscaping island to the southeast of the building shall be expanded and include a pedestrian path to allow pedestrians to access the front of the building from the south.

The parking island to the northeast of the building shall be converted into a landscaping area with opportunity for a 24″ canopy tree and under story planting.

The planting pots in front of the central suite shall be relocated somewhere along the store frontage to allow a minimum of 6â?? clearance between the curb and the columns that frame the entrances.

Elevations Design Stipulations:

Add store frontage penetration to wrap around the south elevation. It shall extend a distance that creates a reasonable sequence on this elevation and reads well with the remainder of the faÃ§ade exposed to the outdoor space.

Expand the coverage of the cultured stone finish on the nine columns that define the entrances to the retail suite and the restaurant spaces to match the height of the canopy in front of the building, approximately 12â??.

Apply a second color, lighter tone of the field color (Sun Valley â?? “ICI” 417-MP), shall be applied to the recessed areas where the tenantsâ?? signs are proposed

Signage Stipulations:

The Gilbert Town Center Master Signage Design Criteria shall be revised to develop a master sign plan indicating the location of a single free standing sign to be placed between parcels 6 and 7 and intended to serve the commercial buildings on these parcels.

The Gilbert Town Square Master Signage Criteria, exhibit TS112, shall be revised to illustrate the overall height of 8â?? for the multiple tenant monument signs. All other sign ordinance requirements for free standing signs shall be met.

A variance granted by the Hearing Officer shall be applied for to allow the deviation from the spacing requirement for free standing signs prescribed by the sign code.

The south elevations shall be revised to break up the mass that will be exposed now by the relocation of the trash enclosures to blend more with the remaining elevations and to be discussed by Staff and applicant.

Illumination Stipulation:

Cut sheets for lighting fixtures with an architectural design to match the building design shall be submitted for review by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit. The building lighting to be addressed with the intention of blending and accenting the architecture of the building along with being functional to be reviewed and approved by staff

Standard Miscellaneous Stipulations

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.

All outdoor storage areas for materials and equipment shall be fully screened from view by a masonry wall.

All freestanding light poles shall be located within landscaped areas. Concrete light pole bases shall be painted to match the primary building color or finished to match parking screening walls. Concrete bases for light poles shall not exceed a height of 24″ from adjacent grade.

Motion Carried 6-1.

DR01-60 - Approval of six standard plans, Plans 110 through 160 proposed by Maracay Homes located in Chandler Ginning. Chandler Ginning is located at the southeast corner of Higley and Frye Roads and is zoned P.A.D. with underlying zoning designation of R1-6 (Single Family Residential).

Planner Roberts explained this proposal was the R1-6 product that followed the R1-7 product, which was proposed by Maracay Home last month. She stated the minimum lot size requirements are 55 feet and the products proposed are about 35 feet wide and are allowed 5 and 10-foot side set backs. She mentioned with this zoning ordinance the applicant was given a little relief for side entry garages and were allowed to have a 10-foot front setback if they had a side entry garage. She stated that Staff had been really working with the applicant and the product has come a long way since first submitted. She felt overall the product would meet minimum requirements for neo-traditional design as they do all either have a side entry garage and/or front porches or a combination of livable space forward with a courtyard. She stated plans 110, 120, 130 and 160 either had side entries or they had a least 12 feet of a projection of combination livable space and porch that extended in front of the garage. Plan 140 had the front facing garage and did extend beyond the plane of the livable space and had a front porch that is even with the garage as well as a courtyard element. She felt this plan was borderline since the porch is even with the garage. She mentioned staff recommended to project the porch out another 5 feet. She stated by bringing the porch forward it would present some roofline issues that the applicant may not be fully comfortable with. She explained Plan 150 did have some livable space in front of the garage by about two feet, but the plan did have a covered porch that brought it out about 12 feet. She stated Staff recommended adding carriage doors. She mentioned the applicant has not bee able to find a manufacturer therefore, the applicant would be hesitant to comply with this request. Board Member Gibson pointed out there is a company called Nesco that markets carriage doors.

Planner Roberts stated the applicant is proposing six color schemes with a combination of accent colors and the base colors are tan. She advised that Staff asked for additional two color schemes to provide more variety. She stated staff also requested an additional two tile colors to match with the additional requested color schemes. She felt those issues could be submitted to Staff for review.

Planner Roberts also noticed on Plan 130, elevations A and B the massing are similar except for the clip. She suggested the Board address this issue and make recommended changes to the elevation.

Planner Roberts noted the garage doors were all the same. At the time of construction document review Staff would want to see three different garage door panels for elevation A, B and C.

Planner Roberts stated that Staff is recommending approval with the changes stated in the stipulations. She also noted the additional issues of the garage doors and similarity between Plans 130 A and B.

Board Member Rojo recommended three more building co

Design Review Board Regular Meeting Minutes - 9 August 2001

Recently Commented

Archives by Tag

Recent Entries