Design Review Board Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes

1025 S. Gilbert Road

September 20, 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 Shellean Roberts, Planner Dennis Newcombe, Planner David Marsh, Planner Suzanne Gunderman

ALSO PRESENT: Town Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward, Recorder Trasie Johns

I N D E X

PLANNER CASE PAGE VOTE
CONSENT DR98-43 2 APPR.
CONSENT DR00-73 2 APPR.
CONSENT DR00-110 3 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-37 3 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-44 4 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-51 5 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-52 5 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-65 6 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-68 7 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-86 8 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-62 8 APPR.
MR. MANGIAMELE DR01-36 9 APPR.
MR. MARSH DR01-64/DR01-66 14 APPR.
MS. GUNDERMAN DR01-67 19 APPR.
MR. FAIRBANKS DR01-16 21 APPR.
MR. FAIRBANKS DR00-129 27 APPR.

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Darrell Truitt called the meeting to order at 5:35 P.M.

ROLL CALL:

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Chairman Darrell Truitt announced that there was a revised agenda available at the back of the room. He asked that DR01-62 be moved to the consent agenda, with the revised stipulations that were given out at the Working Session. He informed the Board that DR01-51 had revised stipulations that were also a part of their packet.

A motion was made by Board Member Bob Deardorff, seconded by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson to approve the agenda, moving DR01-62 to the consent agenda.

Motion Carried 7-0.

COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS

Chairman Darrell Truitt announced that at that time members of the public may comment on items not on the agenda. He stated that the Board?s response was limited to responding to criticism, asking staff to review a matter commented upon or asking that the matter be put on a future agenda. He asked if anyone would like to speak.

No one came forward.

CONSENT ITEMS

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

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

Motion Carried 7-0.

Minutes ? Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of August 9, 2001.

DR98-43 ? Approval of revised site plan and clubhouse design for the Groves Apartments proposed on the west side of Power Road, south of Guadalupe Road.

All the original conditions imposed by the Board on the Groves apartments project DR98-43 at the meeting of August 13, 1998 addressing landscaping, and grading design, garage structures articulation of side and rear walls, finish of the covered parking structures, design of lighting fixtures throughout the project, screening of mechanical equipment, and overall design of the project are in full force and effect.

DR00-73 ? Approval of (1) one additional standard plan, Plan 65-6 and two additional elevations to Plan 65-5 proposed by Camelot Homes located in Artemina. Artemina is located west of the southwest corner of Elliot and Cooper Roads and is zoned P.A.D. with underlying zoning designation of R1-7 and R1-8 (Single Family Residential).

All standard plan elevations shall be built per exhibits approved by the Design Review Board as presented at the public meeting of September 20, 2001 subject to staff stipulations and any additional conditions that may be imposed by the Board at said meeting.

These standard plans are approved for 77 lots, lots 89 through 165 within Artemina. 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. 1160. Coverage is interpreted as the area under roof including patios, porches and garages.

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

DR00-110 - Approval of Highland 5 P.A.D. Open Space Program which includes: amenities, monument sign, ramadas, lighting, perimeter walls, grading, and landscaping located approximately ¼ mile east of the southeast corner of Frye and Higley Roads.

Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board on September 20, 2001. Any revisions to the approved open space program shall be reviewed by the Board or staff, prior to the issuance of a permit.

Water conservation measures shall be utilized to maximize the longevity of the project, while providing a lush appearance.

The American Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that a minimum of 1/3 of the tot-lot be accessible to handicapped persons. The applicant shall ensure equal accessibility, which may require a rubberized surface material or other approved ADA material.

The light poles proposed within the main open space area and the area at the northwest corner of the project shall be limited to 12 feet in height from finished grade to the top of fixture, per the Light & Glare Ordinance No. 1315. Detail of the lighting shall be provided at the time of the improvement documents submittal.

The lighting proposed along the 40? wide open space/equestrian trail shall be low-level bollards, similar to Pecos Park 2 and Chandler Ginning.

The light poles located by lots 3, 4, 22, & 35 shall be removed.

The lighting proposed for the ramada shall not be visible below the edge of the fascia. This shall be noted at the time of the improvement documents submittal.

The lighting along Frye Road shall match the approved design fixture theme, per the Gateway Area Plan.

DR01-37 ? Approval of (2) two additional standard plans, Plans 105, 106, 107, 109 and 204, as required by stipulation at the July 19, 2001 DRB Meeting. The plans are proposed by Trend Homes and are 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 September 20, 2001 subject to staff stipulations and any additional conditions imposed by the Board at said meeting.

Standard plans 102-4 and 104 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 shall not be issued prior to approval of the final plat for parcels 3 and 7.

Plans 102-4 and 104 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.

DR01-44 ? Approval of the site plan, landscaping, lighting, preliminary grading and drainage, signage and building elevations for AZ Hardware located at the southeast corner of Baseline and Hobson Roads.

The development shall be built per exhibits approved by the Design Review Board at the public hearing on September 20, 2001, as approved through the construction document review process, subject to staff stipulations and any additional conditions imposed by the Board at the meeting.

The site plan shall be revised to reflect that the asphalt area immediately west of the trash enclosure shall be converted to landscaping, as approved by staff during construction document approval.

The proposed native mesquite shall be replaced with Chinese Evergreen Elm to match the East Valley Commerce Center plant palette.

Six-inch (6″) extruded curb shall be used to separate the new proposed decomposed granite landscape areas from the existing turf landscape.

The existing East Valley Commerce Center identification sign immediately adjacent to the intersection of Hobson Street and Baseline Road and theme landscaping within the landscape easement shall be refurbished to restore the original condition of this primary entrance to the business park.

The retaining walls used in conjunction with the retention basins to the south and east of the building will match the combination fluted block and stucco parking screen wall used elsewhere in the development.

The parking screen wall located within the front landscaped setback shall be constructed of stucco and fluted CMU per the design submittal. The decorative masonry parking screen wall will use fluted block on both sides.

The submitted construction document 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.

All bicycle racks shall be in-ground mounted subject to the approval of the Planning Department.

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.

All project lighting will incorporate a 90-degree cutoff.

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.

Evidence of a recorded cross access easement between this property and the adjacent Roy Edwards property shall be provided at the time of construction document review.

A construction document plan for water, sewer and drainage covering the overall project site must be submitted for approval prior to any development.

A final plat will be required to develop the property.

DR01-51 - Approval of the sign package for the Primrose Schools day care facility located at the southeast corner of Lindsay and Guadalupe Roads.

Construction of all signage shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board at the September 20, 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 future building freestanding monument sign shall conform to the approved comprehensive sign package.

The Primrose Schools logo wall signage located at the west building entrance shall have an approximate diameter of 42 inches.

Freestanding monument signs for the commercial site and the Primrose Schools logo wall sign shall not be illuminated internally.

All lighting fixtures used to illuminate signage shall be fully shielded and directed to illuminate the sign copy only.

DR01-52 - Amend the site, landscaping, and grading plans (Phase 1 & 2) for the proposed Lots 4 Rent storage & rental yard, in replace of the previous user, on approximately 9.8 acres at 625 West Guadalupe Road zoned I-3 (General Industrial).

Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board on September 20, 2001. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Board, prior to the issuance of a permit.

The applicant shall record CC&R?s with the County Assessors office regarding the following issues: all structures shall meet the Town code requirements and be permitted by the Town; maintenance of individual rental lots; Certificate of Occupancy?s shall be required for all rental & permanent users, to be issued by the Town of Gilbert Building Department; maintenance on-site and off-site of the landscaping, retention, and driveways/parking areas; and separation of combustible/hazardous uses. The applicant shall provide a copy to the Town of Gilbert Planning Department prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy.

All rental areas and structures shall require a Certificate of Occupancy by the Town of Gilbert. Each potential rental user shall be required to provide a written narrative of the use, number of people who will utilize the site, and written approval/authorization by the property owner or manager of the property. Also, a site plan showing the location of parking, any structures proposed, hazardous materials location and mitigation to control those materials, and show they are meeting all the Town codes.

Parking shall not be allowed along the main 24?-30? circular drive aisle (Main Street).

The applicant shall submit for the appropriate permits through the Building Department within 60 days from the date of the Design Review Board approval regarding all work competed without a permit, for review and approval by the Town Departments.

The applicant shall submit Improvement Plans for the site to the Town of Gilbert for review and approval, prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy?s.

A portion of the site lies within an existing Flood Plain. Any development within this area, other than general outdoor uses without structures, shall adhere to the Town of Gilbert?s Flood Plain Ordinance. This shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Gilbert Planning and Engineering Departments, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

A six foot block wall shall be built within 2 years up to the Flood Plain line along the east & west boundary lines, as shown on the Grading & Drainage Plan, with chain link fencing utilized in those areas within the Flood Plain. This shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning & Engineering Departments, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Any new structures anywhere on-site shall require review and approval by the Planning & Building Departments for those less than 1,000 square feet and those over 1,000 square feet shall require review and approval by the Design Review Board.

The existing two buildings are non-conforming: one shed and one office/warehouse and shall be allowed to remain. Any changes in location or sizes shall require review by the Design Review Board.

All existing and new structures shall be required to receive a permit and meet the minimum requirements of all Town codes.

All additional signage, outside of the monument sign, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and shall meet the minimum requirements of the ULDC for signage, prior to the issuance of a sign permit.

All illumination on site shall comply with the recently adopted Light & Glare Ordinance No. 1315. All lights shall be 90-degree cut-offs and be limited to 20? high measured from finished grade to the top of fixture. Cut-sheets shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department, prior to the issuance of a permit.

DR01-65 ? Approval of the site plan, landscaping, preliminary grading & drainage, and building elevations for New Image 21 on lot 15 at East Valley Commerce Center, located at 1255 North Mondel Drive.

Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board on September 20, 2001. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Board or staff, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

The applicant shall provide a written statement, acknowledged by the property owner, that the trash enclosure location and pick-up shall be private or made to accommodate the Town of Gilbert?s detail. This letter shall be recorded at the Maricopa County Assessors office for future potential owners of the building and placed on the construction documents, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Final approval by the Fire Department Chief regarding the turning radius (UFC 902.2.2.4) issue shall be resolved prior to the issuance of a building permit.

The applicant shall provide a minimum of three (3) bicycle spaces within close proximity to the entrance of the building, which shall be in-ground mount only.

No more than 50% of the R.O.W. and landscape setback shall be utilized for retention purposes and this area shall utilize a more natural design with berming used to screen areas for retention. The design shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Gilbert Planning and Engineering Departments, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

The roof ladder shall not be visible along the R.O.W. and shall be relocated or removed.

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

Any future signage will be required to integrate with the design of the facility and shall meet the minimum requirements of the ULDC for signage. Planning Department review and approval will be required prior to the issuance of any sign permit.

DR01-68 - Approval of the site plan, landscape plan, preliminary grading and drainage and building elevations for WKFG Office Warehouse, located near the northeast corner of Guadalupe and McQueen Roads. The subject site is located in the Fiesta Ranch Commerce Park and is zoned P.A.D. with underlying I-2 (Light Industry) zoning.

Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board at the September 20, 2001 public meeting. 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, equipment, and service electrical systems (SES) shall be recessed or fully screened from view by a masonry wall of the same height of the cabinet and landscaping, or by projections of the building.

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

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.

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.

At the time of construction document review, the grading and drainage plan shall be revised to provide changes in grade along the front landscape area.

The elevations and electrical plans shall be revised to reflect a mounting height not to exceed 14 feet. The revisions shall be incorporated into the construction document submittal.

DR01-86 ? Approval of (6) six standard plans, plans 5521, 5524, 5530, 5533, 5538 and 5543 proposed by Ryland Homes for Tone Ranch Estates located at the southwest corner of Higley Road and Houston Avenue.

These six (6) standard plans are approved for 70 lots (1 - 70, 72, 73, 110 ? 127, 150 and 151) within Tone Ranch Estates. Any additional standard plans may be approved by staff or staff may refer the plans to the Design Review Board for their review.

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

All homes constructed on lots adjacent to White Fence Farms shall be limited to a single-story height.

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

DR01-62 ? Approval of the preliminary site plan, final site plan, landscaping, lighting, preliminary grading and drainage, and building elevations for Southwest Concrete located east of the northeast corner of Melody and McQueen Roads.

Final site plan for Southwest Concrete

Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board at the September 20, 2001 public meeting. 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, equipment, and service electrical systems (SES) shall be recessed or fully screened from view by a masonry wall of the same height of the cabinet and landscaping, or by projections of the building.

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

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.

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 refuse enclosure location shall require approval by Public Works prior to the approval of the construction documents.

Prior to construction document approval the grading and drainage plan shall require revisions to the compensatory storage calculations, and shall note that the site is within the 100 year flood plain. Final design shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of a building permit.

All driveways shall comply with the Town of Gilbert standard detail 93 for sight distance.

The driveway radii on the street side shall be a minimum of 20 feet to accommodate the large truck turning radius.

Any intersection improvements to the south median island and McQueen/Melody Drive will be at the developer?s expense.

The following off-site improvements shall be required prior to a certificate of occupancy:

Half street improvement shall be constructed to match the street section for Melody Drive as improved in East Valley Commerce Center Said improvements shall occur along the subject property frontage and connect to East Valley Commerce Center.

A minimum two lane paved access shall be required from McQueen Road and shall be no less that 24 feet in width, to accommodate truck traffic for Southwest Concrete.

Extension of water and sewer lines, underground utilities and fire hydrants to the Southwest Concrete site

Off site improvements may be constructed and funded via a proposed improvement district, if approved, formed and funded by the property owners in the area.

Preliminary Site Plan/ Master Site Plan for Hills Family LLC, (Parcels 302-11-5B, 302-11-11N, 302-11-115, 302-11-010G, 302-11-10F, 302-11-10D)

The preliminary site plan (Master Plan) shall require further review and revisions to the following prior to final site plan approval of parcels 302-11-5B, 302-11-11N, 302-11-115, 302-11-010G, 302-11-10F, 302-11-10D:

Coordination with the City of Mesa for the driveway located off of Baseline Road.

A deceleration lane shall be required for the driveway off of Baseline Road.

Truck traffic shall be limited to the driveways off of Melody Road. Access will not be allowed from the Baseline Road driveway.

PUBLIC MEETING

DR01-36 ? Review and approval of DR01-36 containing building elevations, floor plans, exterior colors and materials for two (2) standard plans (803A, 803B, 803C, 803D, 804A, 804B, 804C, and 804D) to be located within Parcel 2 of The Gardens. These 2 standard plans would be added to the approved 600 Series standard plans for this parcel. The initial request for standard plan 805 was withdrawn because it did not meet minimum development standards for Parcel 2.

Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele informed the Board that DR01-36 was a request to add two standard plans, four elevations each, to Parcel 2 at The Gardens Development, located at the northeast corner of Recker and Ray Roads. The standard plans were proposed to be added to an already approved 5 standard plans of the 600-Series for Trend Homes in that parcel. He illustrated the Board?s previously approved plans. In addition to the 600 approved series, he also displayed a visual aid of the elevations of the 800-Series.

Mr. Mangiamele briefly described the history of the project. In 1999, he explained that the Town Council adopted Ordinance 1238, which provided for a conceptual site plan that illustrated that Parcel 2 would contain the 600-Series plan. He asked the Board to review pages 65 and 66 in their packets to view the exhibit that was taken out of the Town Council approved development plan which was approved as a part of the Ordinance. He stated that the Staff had interpreted that the development plan had approved pedestrian oriented elevations. He explained the development plan illustrated that the standard plans were proposed around a common open space with rear-loaded garages. It conceptually showed that the front porches were the dominant feature for the units. In addition, the development plan further prescribed incorporation of design features on all elevations.

With the proposed addition of the two units, Mr. Mangiamele announced that Staff had three main concerns. He informed the Board that Staff did feel the 800-Series would allow for architectural diversity to the already approved 600-Series plans, however they were concerned with the lack of the prominent front porch elements. In looking at the 600-Series, the porches ranged from 4? to 6 ½ feet. With the 800-Series, porches ranged from 2? 2″ to 3?6″. He stated that Staff didn?t feel that was an acceptable porch, but was an architectural element. This, in Staff?s opinion, didn?t lend itself to being pedestrian oriented, which they felt was the intent of the Planning Commission and Town Council when they adopted the development plan.

Mr. Mangiamele described the second concern with the 800-Series plan. He stated that Staff was concerned that these plans could be overbuilt in the Gilbert area. He explained that they had currently approved or proposed 800 units and or lots for the 800-Series. In looking at the Town?s policy for the transfer of standard plans, it described that they could have 225 standard plans transferred. Although it wasn?t a transfer of standard plans, he stated that it was a submittal to avoid the transfer policy.

Mr. Mangiamele explained the third Staff concern. He informed the Board that it was an incomplete submittal. The project had been submitted quite some time ago and had a lack of information that was required as the formal submittal. He noted that the applicant met with Staff on Monday afternoon to help complete the application, but it was a week past the Staff Report deadlines. The applicant did submit the narrative that was requested by Staff and the street scene analysis of how the 800-Series elevations would fit in with the 600-Series elevations. However, he explained that they had not seen a lot fit analysis, which is of grave concern since they had three standard plans that did not fit on the approved lots. He reminded the Board that the development and product was designed by Trend Homes.

Mr. Mangiamele used a chair to illustrate what 2?6″ would look like, in order to show the depth of the average patio. He described the visual aid of the elevations of the 800-Series and their porch dimensions. He reinforced the idea that the Staff didn?t feel the porches were indeed true porches, but an architectural feature. Therefore, the plan didn?t adhere to the intent of the development plan that the Planning Commission recommended and the Town Council approved for the project.

Mr. Mangiamele summarized the Staff?s position on DR01-36. Lack of pedestrian orientation, lack of dominant front porches on the elevations, and the amount of 800 lots that were being proposed of the 800-Series caused the Staff to deny the project. He concluded his presentation by informing the Board that Staff didn?t like to bring projects before them that they didn?t recommend, but the applicant did desire to come forward to the Design Review Board for their decision.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked how many of the 800-Series could be built in the project.

Mr. Mangiamele replied that Parcel 2 had 103 lots and they could build on all of the lots with the 800-Series if approved by the Board.

Chairman Darrell Truitt commented that they would more than likely build forty of the 800-Series.

Mr. Mangiamele answered that the number of 800-Series built would be hard to determine and even harder to enforce.

Chairman Darrell Truitt put the number of 800-Series homes to be built in perspective. With the 800 homes that were already proposed, he didn?t feel that 40 more were that big of a concern.

Mr. Mangiamele informed the Board that there were 400 units in Parcel 5 of the development.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked what the footprint was of the 800-Series compared to the 600-Series.

Mr. Mangiamele replied that the 800-Series were considerably smaller than the footprint of the 600-Series.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked why the Staff was concerned about a lot fit analysis.

Mr. Mangiamele answered that a lot fit analysis was a part of the standard requirements that Staff requested with any standard plan application. He added that he had not been able to determine if the 800-Series adhered to the development standards to Parcel 2, including the required setbacks.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked the applicant to come forward.

Reed Porter, 225 N. Skee Court, Gilbert with Trend Homes came forward. He apologized for not having answered some of the concerns that were raised by the Staff. He informed the Board that they had submitted a packet on Monday and hand delivered the packets to those they could reach. He commented that they had a little bit of an adversarial relationship on the project. Therefore, he asked the Board to review the Power Point presentation on the project so they could get a better idea of the development. He corrected some errors that he felt were given out about their company. He informed the Board that they were not proposing 800 of the units. He added that they had three projects in Gilbert, totaling 662 units, on less than 50 acres. He explained the locations of the three projects describing that two of the projects were hidden in the community.

Mr. Porter illustrated their housing product in a Power Point presentation. He showed three homes that they were building in Gilbert, two of which were already approved by the Board to be built in The Gardens. The homes that they were asking to be approved were displayed and discussed by Mr. Porter. In addition, he illustrated the master plan of the development and discussed the layout of the property. He explained that the 800-Series was developed as a result of ADOT taking some of the land for their right of way for the freeway. He reminded the Board that they had already approved 17 different homes in The Gardens and showed some of these homes for the Board to review. He informed the Board that the homes have come in sporadically since they were all new products designed especially for The Gardens.

Mr. Porter explained the reasons that they wanted to add the 800-Series. One reason to add the new homes was to add some architectural diversity and create more attractive streetscape. In addition, these homes would add a lot of color diversity. The new homes would add a broader range of square footage. Lastly, the new 800-Series would increase their parking in the development. The 600-Series didn?t have a driveway behind the homes that you could park a car in. The 800-Series has a smaller footprint and they would be able to provide an 18? driveway between the garage and the private access way behind the home to allow more parking.

Mr. Porter explained the purpose of the front porch and announced that they felt they were the front porch builder of Gilbert. He stated that every home that they built had a front porch. He added that the porch created a very nice sense of arrival, a warm inviting feeling, allowing the person to personalize their home by adding pots and patio furniture, and allowing the builder to better differentiate one home from the next with the way they designed the porch. He showed a picture of a home with a 3? deep porch and described how the homeowner had used the porch.

Mr. Porter concluded his presentation by informing the Board that they had two additional homes in the 800-Series that weren?t appropriate for Parcel 2 that would go in the northern section. He asked for questions from the Board.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked how many 800-Series homes they thought would be in the development.

Mr. Porter replied that it was a predetermined product mix and all the homes were preplotted. Therefore, he stated that there would be approximately 40 homes, of the 873 homes that are in The Gardens development.

Board Member Bob Deardorff noted that he had conversations with the applicant?s attorney. He asked if the porch was determined by the size of the overhang or of the size of the floor.

Mr. Porter answered that the measurement of the porch was found by taking the columns that hold up the overhang and measure from the inside of the column to the exterior wall.

Board Member Bob Deardorff commented that they did have the opportunity to increase the floor area of the porch.

Mr. Porter informed the Board that he had another issue that he forgot to mention in his presentation. He explained that every plan was completely oriented to the front of the house that sat on the greenbelt, making them pedestrian oriented.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked about one of the porches and how deep the porch was.

Mr. Porter explained that the home she was referring to did not go into The Gardens development and that it had a 3? porch.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo stood next to the chair and asked about how big the porch would be in relationship to the size of the porch.

Mr. Porter replied that he had a hard time with the example that was shown that was completely out of context. He explained that if the Board were to drive through their existing developments, they would see people using their porches in lots of different ways.

Board Member David Gibson asked about the depth of the porch behind the railing of one of the plans.

Mr. Porter stated that the railing added 3-4″, making the porch 2?9-10″. He added that they could remove the railing if the Board desired.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo announced that she would not be voting on the item since she was buying a Trend Home. She showed the Board the home that she was buying and declared that the porch had a lot of space.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked about the yard and how big it was since the 600-Series had a larger footprint and wondered where they were adding the additional space.

Mr. Porter stated that The Gardens had a large greenbelt and the additional space was being utilized in the back with an 18? driveway.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. Seeing none, he asked if the Staff had anything to add.

Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele reminded the Board that the project was in the Gateway area and The Gardens project was approved prior to the Gateway Plan. He added that the Gateway Plan promoted pedestrian orientation of the homes within the area. They would be seeing many more plans for the area and he asked the Board to evaluate what they considered to be pedestrian orientation. He added that he didn?t think they were seeing four-sided architecture since the ones that were displayed were only for the corner lots on the street. The standard side elevations were quite different than the corner lots. The architectural element of the porch was only provided on 50% of the elevations, the other four elevations didn?t even contain a porch that front onto the open space.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if there was a stipulation in the original zoning case that the units should have a porch.

Mr. Mangiamele replied that they typically do not stipulate the things that were indicated in the development plan and were shown as exhibits. He added that they had architectural renderings in the development plan, but he didn?t think the 800-Series was included in this plan.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked if the side elevations for the 800-Series were comparable to the elevations of the 600-Series where they don?t front onto a street.

Mr. Mangiamele showed an example of the 600-Series and its side elevations.

Board Member Bob Deardorff replied that he thought they should have the same stipulations for the side elevations of the 800-Series that they had for the 600-Series.

Mr. Mangiamele agreed that the Board could stipulate this.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked if there was a standard written requirement for a porch size in Gilbert.

Mr. Mangiamele answered that he didn?t believe there was a written policy regarding porch sizes. He added that they were reviewing this issue, especially in the Gateway area and were talking about requiring the porch size to be 6?.

Mr. Porter clarified the four-sided architecture. He informed the Board that wherever the side was exposed, they would see four-sided architecture. He added that they would be willing to stipulate to only build the two elevations with the homes that contained the porches, if that was the direction that the Board thought they should go.

Board Member David Gibson asked what the side yard setback was between the units.

Mr. Mangiamele answered that they had 10? between building setback.

Board Member David Gibson asked to look at the elevations that only had the porches and evaluate what they would lose if they didn?t allow the other homes without porches.

Mr. Porter announced that plans 803B, 803C, 804A and 804B had porches.

The Board briefly discussed the options of deleting the plans without porches.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked the Board to express their opinions on keeping the elevations without porches.

Board Member Robin Schneider replied that she didn?t see any advantages in keeping the plans without porches. Although it may offer some diversity, she felt that if the intent was to promote pedestrian and neighbor interaction the ones without porches should be deleted.

Chairman Darrell Truitt answered that he wasn?t convinced that a porch was the only way to promote pedestrian and neighbor interaction. He added that he had a porch all of his life and never used it, except to park their bikes.

Chairman Darrell Truitt opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to come forward to speak on the issue. No one came forward. He asked for a motion from the Board.

A motion was made by Board Member John Tomasson, seconded by Board Member Robin Schneider to approve DR01-36; adding a stipulation to state that only plans 803B, 803C, 804A, 804B are approved to be built on Parcel 2 (deleting plans 803A, 803D, 804C, 804D); adding a stipulation to state that a maximum of 45 units of the 800-Series could be built on Parcel 2; adding the appropriate stipulations from the approved 600-Series Plans to be added to the stipulations of the 800-Series.

Motion Carried 6-0, with Board Member Rojo abstaining.

In addition to the approved 600 series, only plans 803B, 803C, 804A, 804B are approved to be built on Parcel 2 of The Gardens (deleting plans 803A, 803D, 804C, 804D).

A maximum of 45 units of the 800-Series shall be built on Parcel 2 of The Gardens.

The appropriate stipulations from the approved 600-Series Plans will be added to the stipulations of the 800-Series and are as follows:

Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board on September 20, 2001. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be subject to the process requirements identified in the ULDC.

In addition to the approved 600-Series plans, only plans 803B, 803C, 804A, and 804B are approved to be built on Parcel 2 of The Gardens (deleting plans 803A, 803D, 804C, 804D).

A maximum of 45 units of the 800-Series shall be built on Parcel 2 of The Gardens.

The appropriate stipulations from the approved 600-Series (DR00-43) Plans will be added to the stipulations of the 800-Series and are as follows:

There shall be no similar front elevations on adjacent lots or across from one another. Elevations that merely change in minor features such as window location or small architectural features will be considered similar.

Detailing from the front elevations shall be wrapped to a natural stopping point on the side elevations or create a finished end-column design.

The railings proposed shall be wrought iron.

Window detailing from the front elevations, as shown on the renderings, shall be carried to the rear & side elevations and shown on the construction documents as a standard feature.

No similar color scheme package shall be allowed next to each other.

DR01-64/DR01-66 - Approval of the final site plan, landscaping, lighting, preliminary grading and drainage, and building elevations for the proposed CVS Pharmacy building (Parcel 1), and preliminary site plan, landscaping, lighting, preliminary grading & drainage; conceptual building elevations for the remainder of the proposed Mirador Square commercial development (DR01-64), and the proposed sign package for the development (DR01-66), located at the northeast corner of Lindsay & Warner Roads.

Planner David Marsh informed the Board that DR01-64/DR01-66 was a request to approve the final site plan, landscaping, lighting, preliminary grading and drainage, and building elevations for the proposed CVS Pharmacy building (Parcel 1), and preliminary site plan, landscaping, lighting, preliminary grading & drainage; conceptual building elevations for the remainder of the proposed Mirador Square commercial development (DR01-64), and the proposed sign package for the development (DR01-66), located at the northeast corner of Lindsay & Warner Roads. He displayed visual aids to illustrate the proposed building and development. He commended the applicant for the great working relationship they had through the process of making changes to the project. He described the area surrounding the project and discussed the similarity of the project to the buildings in the area.

Mr. Marsh described the minor stipulations regarding the architecture. The bottom of all the pilasters needed to be finished the same as the pilasters around the principal entrance. He explained that the cover of the drive through window projected out further out than the roof lining and they had asked it to be flush as it was earlier shown. The delivery tube for the outer drive through shall be finished as the same color as the principal building. He announced that the applicant had agreed to the stipulations.

Mr. Marsh showed a visual aid of the signage and stated that the Staff didn?t have any outstanding issues with the proposed signage. He explained that they did have a minor stipulation to state that the signs match the materials and colors of the principal buildings.

Mr. Marsh discussed the lighting. The only issue that Staff was concerned about was the wall packs that were shown on the elevations. The wall packs that were shown on the elevations were different than the wall packs that were shown with the lighting cut sheets. The Staff stipulated that the wall packs were to be a decorative feature that was shown on the elevations. The applicant did not have a concern with this.

Mr. Marsh informed the Board that all the other issues with the exception of the site plan had been resolved. He used a visual aid to discuss the original and revised site plans, changes having to do with a curb cut. He explained that across the street was Big O Tires and they had requested the median to be cut to provide a right in and right out. This did not occur and the proposed property had two alternative site plans that needed to be evaluated by the Town?s Traffic Engineer to determine which plan would be appropriate. Mr. Marsh discussed the two alternatives using the visual aid, showing the Board the two options for the curb cuts.

Mr. Marsh informed the Board that they wanted to revise the stipulations that were given to the Board earlier that evening. He explained that the revised stipulations that were different than the ones received in the Staff Report were stipulations 2, 3, 4 and 5. He discussed the changes that were made and how he would like to change it again to reflect the most current information that was gathered after discussing the issue with the Town?s Traffic Engineer and the applicant earlier that day. He concluded by asking for questions and announcing that Bruce Ward was available for further questions if needed.

Town Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward came forward. He informed the Board that the traffic impact study was being done by Ken How at Task Engineering and it hadn?t been completed yet. He stated that El Dorado Holdings had a couple of things that were misconstrued. The first issue regarded an area where the applicant thought they had a left in where it had not been approved yet. He explained what was approved for the Big O Tires across the street.

Chairman Darrell Truitt discussed an option of how they could line the driveways and what they would need to do to prohibit the left turns.

Town Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward agreed with Chairman Darrell Truitt and stated that they were trying to work with the applicant to solve the issues.

A short discussion ensued about the possible options for the driveways with the Board and Town Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked the applicant to come forward.

Rick McGee, 3003 N. Central #1700, Phoenix with Carter & Burgess, the architectural firm for the applicant came forward. He started by stating that the Staff had been excellent to work with and that they had provided a good project for the Town. He informed the Board that the applicant agreed to the stipulations in the Staff Report. He requested that the Board approve the project and asked if they had any questions.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked if the south and west elevations were gray as depicted in the visual aid.

Mr. McGee replied that the correct colors were as shown on the north and east elevations on the visual aid.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked if they needed the standing seamed metal-hipped roof over the drive through. He explained that it appeared to be incongruous with the other elevations and if it would be better to not have this type of roofline.

Mr. McGee replied that there were a couple elevations that weren?t shown that they were using the metal standing seam element and they wanted to keep the material the same. The client preferred a hip roof since they liked the design and needed the cover.

Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that he didn?t think the drive through roof seemed as well integrated into the pharmacy as it had the potential to be on the shopping center.

Board Member David Gibson agreed with Board Member Bob Deardorff?s comments.

Mr. McGee replied that the client preferred the slope roof, as it was a component of their image.

Board Member Bob Deardorff suggested that if they put a shed roof instead of the parapet above the colonnade it would look more like the rest of the center.

A short discussion ensued about the drive through roof and options that might be available.

Mr. McGee explained that they were using a multitude of variations to create a different pattern of overhang and cover for pedestrians to come to the center in order to give it a character of a lot if individual shops rather than one continuous façade. He used the visual aid to discuss the different elevations in the center.

Board Member David Gibson asked if there was a possibility to create a curved look over the roof.

Mr. McGee agreed that was possible, as long as the applicant was agreeable to this change. He asked the Board to consider approving the project and let them work the details of the roof out with Staff.

Board Member Bob Deardorff agreed to approve the project as long as they didn?t do the hip roof.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo stated that the project appeared very cold to her, with the choice of color and design.

Chairman Darrell Truitt replied that it wasn?t the residential character that they often get at other centers but a more high tech look.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if there was anyone from the public wanted to speak. No one came forward.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked for clarification on what they were approving for the signage.

Mr. Marsh used the visual aid to show the Board the monument signs and the wall signs.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if the Staff found the monument signs and wall signs to be consistent and in harmony with the architecture.

Mr. Marsh agreed that the signage was different but acceptable.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if there were any other questions from the Board. Seeing none, he asked for a motion.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked for clarification on the stipulations that were changed.

Mr. Marsh reviewed the changes to the stipulations with the Board.

A motion was made by Board Member Bob Deardorff, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to approve DR01-64/DR01-66, subject to Staff stipulations.

Motion Carried 6-1.

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

Nay: Board Member Roxanna Rojo

Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board on September 20, 2001. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Board prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project.

DR01-64:

A revised site plan shall be submitted to Staff for review and approval, aligning the southern curb cut of Lindsay Road with the curb cut approved for Big ?O? Tires (DR-00148), and restricting traffic flow to right-in right-out only. The plan, or revisions thereto that may provide additional turning movements, shall be reviewed and approved by Planning, Engineering, and Traffic Engineering Staff prior to issuance of a building or grading permit.

The applicant will be responsible for median improvements as identified by the project traffic impact analysis (TIA) report. Said TIA and median improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of a building or grading permit.

Revised landscape plans, and preliminary grading & drainage plans, modified to comply with the revised site plan listed in condition #2, shall be submitted to Staff for review and approval prior to issuance of a building or grading permit.

A revised site plan with refuse enclosures behind the minor anchor buildings in compliance with ULDC Standard Detail # 80 shall be submitted to Staff for review and approval prior to issuance of a building or grading permit.

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

All backflow preventers 2″ or larger shall be screened with landscape located within a 6? 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.

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.

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 elevations for the CVS Pharmacy building shall be revised as follows:

The base of all pilasters shall be finished in tile, to match the colour shown for the base of pilasters adjacent to the principle entrance to the building.

The columns on the drive-through shall match the pilasters in terms of design, materials, and colour.

The band element below the standing seam roof on the drive-through shall be revised so that it does not protrude past the columns.

The decorative element called out by keynote “2F” shall be a decorative metal cable & awning element, with a minimum depth of 6?, on all elevations.

The “delivery tube” for the outer drive-through aisle shall be finished to match the building.

All refuse and trash compactor enclosures and gates shall be finished to match the principle building.

The applicant shall work with Staff to redesign the roof element above the drive-through window and pilasters. Said redesign shall be subject to Staff review and approval.

Revised cut sheets and design for wall mounted lighting fixtures shall be submitted to Staff for review and approval. Said fixtures will match the design illustrated on the CVS Pharmacy building elevations.

All landscape berms shall have a 4:1 slope, and shall be naturally contoured.

Storm water from the right-of-way shall be piped to the proposed retention basins.

A master plan for water, sewer, and drainage covering the overall project / site must be submitted for approval prior to any development.

DR01-66 Sign Package:

Monument signs shall be finished to match the colours and materials of the principle building.

DR01-67 ? Approval of the site plan, landscaping, preliminary grading and drainage, lighting, and building elevations for the Print Radiant Laser Charge Inc. building, located on lot 40 and 41 of Fiesta Ranch Commerce Center, at the northwest corner of Scott Avenue and Acacia Drive. The project site is zoned PAD (Planned Area Development) with underlying I-2 (Light Industrial) zoning.

Planner Suzanne Gunderman informed the Board that DR01-67 came before the Board on August 9, 2001 in the work-study session. She reminded the Board of the comments that were made at the meeting and explained how the applicant had addressed the issues. She stated that there were only building elevation comments from the Board and the site plan was very clean and complied with the Town?s code. She reviewed the Board?s comments from the working session by stating that they related to the terminus of the building at the southwest building and they wanted to see some sort of design element added that wouldn?t compete with the building entrance but would give some interest to that corner of the building. In addition, the Board had requested that the down spouts, which were located on the west elevation, be increased. The applicant had increased the size of the down spouts and had created some relief by adding an additional plate to it. She added that that side of the building didn?t have a lot of visibility to the street. Finally, in looking at the color scheme the Board had wanted to see more contrast to the colors, which were shown on the color palate for the Board?s review.

Ms. Gunderman announced that the applicant had revised their plans to address all of the Boards and Staff?s comments. The only remaining issue with the project was with the colors that the applicant had chosen to remain the same as they were in the study session. The applicant provided a model so the Board could see what the colors looked like together in the building. She explained that Staff was also concerned about the color scheme and wanted to leave the decision up to the Board?s discretion. She explained that stipulation number 6 allowed for the Staff to approve a color scheme with some greater contrast and asked the Board to provide some direction on what those colors might be if they chose to keep that stipulation.

Ms. Gunderman explained that there were a few stipulations that the applicant wanted changed, that the Staff was comfortable with allowing. In addition, she stated that “southwest” needed to state “southeast” and the words “approval of a building permit” shall replace the words “submittal of construction drawings” on stipulation five. On stipulation four, the applicant wanted clarification that the Landscape Plan shall be for the Construction Drawings. She concluded her presentation and asked for questions from the Board.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if the colors were represented on the model were accurate and not the ones represented on the rendering.

Ms. Gunderman replied that the applicant had tried to represent the correct colors on both the rendering and the model. She reminded the Board that they had not made any changes from the ones they had seen in the working session in August.

Board Member David Gibson stated that the color on the rendering did not look the same as the color on the model.

Ms. Gunderman asked the applicant to clarify the color scheme.

Grant Olds, 1608 E. Diamond Drive, Tempe with Grant Olds Architects came forward. He explained that they had worked very diligently with the Staff and appreciated Ms. Gunderman?s efforts in helping them with the project. He stated that the model was built prior to some of the adjustments that were recommended by Staff. He described some of the changes that had been made since the model was built. He explained that the client was not receptive to changing the colors that were originally proposed. After building the model, he stated that they were happy with the colors and how they worked with the building. He clarified that the client had approved the color on the color board, not what was listed on the visual aid.

Mr. Olds brought one issue up that he asked the Board to consider in the future since it had become a recurring problem for his previous designs. He was concerned about the lighting standard for industrial parks requiring 14? for building mounting lighting. With Rodeo Park, he received good feedback from everyone with the exception of how many wall packs were included in that development. When they put the lights at 14? the throw was so shallow they ended up with so many of the wall packs that took on a character that was more of a design element than the building itself. He asked the Board to consider revising the lighting standard when the industrial park was not near any residential developments.

Board Member Robin Schneider replied that she understood what Mr. Olds was saying, but that wall packs don?t always have to be the answer. One of the most important issues about the lighting ordinance was to get people to integrate lighting within the building not to just add a wall pack. Therefore, she stated it was forcing architects to look at more creative answers.

Mr. Olds answered that in looking at lighting that was a security issue and not a design issue, a pole-mounted light was not a good option. He added that he didn?t understand why they could put a pole mount at 20? and only go 14? on a wall-mounted light.

Chairman Darrell Truitt requested clarification on where the colors in the color pallet would go on the building.

Mr. Olds described each color and where they would be located on the building.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if there were any other questions from the Board. Seeing none, he asked for a motion.

A motion was made by Board Member Roxanna Rojo, seconded Vice Chairman Gary Petterson to approve DR01-67, subject to Staff stipulations; adding the words “Construction Drawings” to stipulation four; changing stipulation five to state “approval of a building permit” and “southeast”; striking stipulation number six.

Motion Carried 7-0.

Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board at the September 20, 2001 public meeting. Any revisions to the approved plans or colors and materials shall be reviewed by the Board prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project.

Project stormwater retention and drainage shall conform to the Fiesta Ranch Commerce Park Master Drainage Plan.

A replat of Fiesta Ranch Commerce Park to combine lots 40 and 41 into one lot is required prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Construction Drawings of the Landscape Plan shall be revised prior to submittal of construction drawings to conform to the placement and plant material palette of the typical internal street landscape theme for Fiesta Ranch Commerce Park approved by the Town.

The Grading and Drainage plan shall be revised prior to approval of a building permit to extend the 36-inch high berm located at the southeast corner of the site to the west so that it overlaps with the screen wall.

Building colors shall be revised to provide greater contrast/color shade diversity, subject to the approval of the Planning Department.

External wall-mounted lights shall be placed no higher than 14-feet above the finished grade of the building.

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

DR01-16 - Final site plan, landscaping plan, grading and drainage plan, lighting plan and building elevations for Albertson retail store and shop building A. Preliminary site plan approval for pad A and B at Albertson’s Shopping Center. The site is located at the southwest corner of Power Road and Queen Creek Road.

Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks informed the Board that DR01-16 was the approval request for the final site plan, landscaping plan, grading and drainage plan, lighting plan and building elevations for Albertson retail store and shop building A. In addition, they were asking for preliminary site plan approval for pad A and B at Albertson’s Shopping Center. He explained that the site was located at the southwest corner of Power Road and Queen Creek Road. He added that the gas station that wasn?t a part of the approval would have to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a use permit prior to coming to the Board. He described the surrounding buildings in relationship to the proposed development. Using the visual aide, he showed the Board the driveways and the full turning movements that would be allowed, as there weren?t any medians in that area. He explained that there would be a median on Power Road, which would restrict the entrances to a right in, right out movement. The perimeter landscape exceeded the minimum 20? landscape setback, using a combination of split face screen walls and split rail fences where burming was very prominent.

Mr. Fairbanks described the site. He commented that the Albertson?s was a 57,000 square foot grocery store with a drive through facility to the north for the pharmacy. He explained that the loading area to the west of the site was an issue for the Design Review at their working session. He reminded the Board that they directed the applicant to enhance the elevations to provide landscape screening and upgrade the west and north elevations. There were a number of areas of enhanced paving within the main drive aisle to the center. In addition, there was a Town well site that had a prominent location within the site. The design approach for the applicant was to take the well site and place it behind a very prominent focal point to the development, containing seating benches and enhanced paving. He showed the Board with the visual aid the equestrian easement that allowed equestrian users that cross under the Queen Creek Bridge to traverse through the area and then on to Queen Creek.

Mr. Fairbanks explained the architecture to the Board. He stated that the architecture matched the architecture that was used at the Power Ranch clubhouse. He used the visual aid to discuss the architectural features of the building.

Mr. Fairbanks discussed the issues that were addressed from the Design Review Board when it was reviewed in March 2001. He reminded them that the Board had said they were comfortable with the orientation of the building as long as the landscaping and architecture was increased. The applicant had made subsequent changes to allow for enhanced elevations.

Mr. Fairbanks highlighted the main points in the stipulations. On stipulation number 4, it identified that the westernmost of the three driveways would be closed and access would be provided from the remaining two driveways. The ideal standard for driveway placement was 330?; the minimum standard for driveway placement was 220?. The spacing did not meet the requirement, requiring them to delete one of the driveways. In addition, to eliminate the concern of the number of left turning movements out of the site conflicting with left turning movements into the site, they had agreed to only use the revised driveways into the site. In addition, stipulation number 5 was revised so that as part of the final plat the access easement to the well site would be manipulated so they have access to the site through an easement. Stipulation seven was changed to gain good turning movements to the right and to the left. The last stipulation Mr. Fairbanks covered related to the lighting. He identified that the lighting that the applicant was proposing incorporated some very nice thematic light fixtures on the Albertson?s and on the tenant spaces. The Staff had expressed some concern with the lighting within the parking field, which was 1000-watt metal halide shoebox, creating a number of bright spots, which were in the 15-candle foot area. He described some of the complaints that they had when the Target went in at Val Vista and Warner Roads since the lighting was so bright. He described stipulation 13 that requested the applicant to decrease the lighting to a 750-watt fixture. He asked the Board to comment on this issue. He completed the presentation and asked for questions from the Board.

Board Member David Gibson requested clarification on which driveway would be eliminated.

Mr. Fairbanks pointed out the driveway that would be deleted.

Board Member David Gibson stated that in looking at the development, when someone drives in, his or her first view would be of the loading area. He asked if it was critical to keep the drive. He reviewed other options of where they could change the drives.

Mr. Fairbanks explained that the three driveways don?t meet the Town?s preferred spacing of 330? spacing nor do they meet the minimum standard of 220?. Changing the site plan to the revised plan was the best option for the applicant and met the required spacing objectives.

Board Member Bob Deardorff reminded the Board that at the working session they had decided they would approve the driveway and understood the need for the truck circulation as long as they increased the landscape in the area.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo voiced her concerns regarding the equestrian trail. Although she stated she didn?t ride a horse, she was seriously concerned at how narrow the trail was. With cars and trucks on one-side and golf balls on the other side, she was concerned for the safety of the horse riders. She asked the applicant to have an equestrian consultant review the trail plan to ensure the safety of the trail.

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

Paul Gilbert, 3200 N. Central #1000, Phoenix came forward. He announced that he was there representing a multitude of clients; Sunbelt, the owner of the property; Albertson?s, the grocery store user; Gary Davidson, the developer. He commented that one of the most rigorous reviews they had of an Albertson?s store that they received from the Power Ranch Homeowners Association since the center was located in their gateway. He added that they met with Walgreen?s across the street and had worked to coordinate the site with them. Finally, they had sent out copies of all their plans to the Power Ranch Homeowners Association to be displayed at a meeting in July. The response from the homeowners in the area was very positive to their plans. In addition to the three reviews, he informed the Board that they had made a lot of changes in response to the comments from the Staff and previous working session with the Board.

Mr. Gilbert reviewed some issues that were of concern of the Board. He stated that they spent a lot of time working on the driveways. The driveway in question was critical to the traffic of the large trucks to access the loading docks. In response to the concerns of the Board, they had increased the landscaping and enhanced the elevations of the building. Regarding the equestrian trail, he announced that they had designed the trail exactly as the master developer had required.

Sean Walters, 4734 E, Queen Creek, Gilbert with Sunbelt Holdings came forward. He informed the Board that he was involved with the Parks, Open Space and Trails Committee and he thought the detail was similar to what was recommended with the exception of the width, which would be preferable at 12? instead of 8?. He discussed the process that the applicant had been willing to do to create the design that they were very proud of. When he was involved in the Parks, Open Space and Trails Committee he discovered that the trail needed to somehow go by their property. He used the visual aid to show the equestrian trail and the landscaping that was incorporated. The trail was originally proposed to be on the main street and they thought the trail would be safer behind the development. He commented that they thought they had made the best of a bad situation and that they had worked hard to make the trail connect behind the site. Although the trail was a few feet shy of where it should be, he explained that detail was what was recommended from the Town. In addition, he informed the Board that all the comments had been very positive regarding the site.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo replied that four feet was a big deal when they were combining horses with other uses. She explained that they wouldn?t be able to prevent other users from using the trail and that it was a dangerous situation. She asked again if they had an equestrian consultant on board when they developed the trail.

Mr. Walters answered that they didn?t have an equestrian consultant involved, but had worked out the details from the consultants involved in the Parks, Open Space and Trails Committee. He explained that although other people could use the trail, they had provided another hard trail that would be utilized by pedestrians and bicyclists.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo commented that people would not go around and use the hard trail, but cut through on the equestrian trail.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked what Board Member Roxanna Rojo suggested to rectify the situation.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo answered that she felt they needed to have an equestrian consultant review the plan or make the trail wider.

Board Member David Gibson suggested that they put up a taller screen fence to protect the equestrians from the golf balls.

Mr. Walters explained that they had tried to be responsive to Staff by creating a view to the golf course. In addition, the main tee boxes were located next to the existing fence and golfers would hit away from the trail.

Mr. Fairbanks informed the Board that they had some discussions with the Town Attorney on the issue and they would be comfortable with a stipulation that would require a consultation with an equestrian expert. The Planning Department would be concerned about requiring a wider easement since the acquisition of an equestrian easement is something that can be easily incorporated into a legislative act like the approval of a zoning. He explained that it raised a lot of issues that the trail should somehow have a nexus with the site and the proposed site doesn?t provide a lot of horse traffic.

Mr. Walters pointed out that the easement was 19? from back of curb to the wall. The exhibit showed planting on either side, but there was no reason that the trail could extend closer to the wall.

Chairman Darrell Truitt suggested that they increase the trail to ten feet, which was very similar to many of the trails he had done in the past.

Robert Saemisch, 48 W. Main Street #200, Mesa came forward. He assured the Board that they could increase the trail to ten feet, which would most likely be the width once the granite was placed in the trail.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked what the landscaping was proposed to be in the trail.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson replied that the landscaping was decomposed granite.

A brief discussion ensued about the type of granite that was proposed for the trail and how the trial could be increased by not delineating where the trial would be in the easement.

Paul Gilbert came forward and discussed the stipulations that he was concerned about. On stipulation twenty, he didn?t feel it was a Design Review issue. After meeting with the City Engineer he discovered that stipulation twenty which required final plat prior to the issuance of a building permit didn?t preclude an at risk rating permit. With that clarification, the wording of stipulating twenty was acceptable. Regarding stipulation six, he had two days of discussion with the attorney that the Town would be the recipient of the easement for the trail. With that clarification, they would agree with stipulation six. If that changed, he stated that he would like to discuss that stipulation again.

Mr. Saemisch discussed stipulations 8 and 13. Regarding the screen walls, he asked if they needed to have split face block facing the inside. He stated that they preferred to have the top block to be smooth on one side, split face on the other side and smooth down to the ground. Stipulation 13 called for a 750-watt metal halide fixture and he asked the lighting consultant if she was aware of any of these fixtures.

Board Member Robin Schneider suggested that they use Kim Lighting and that they should carry this fixture. She asked the applicant to contact her if they had difficulties finding this fixture and she would research it for them. She pointed out that the highest foot-candle level with the 1000-watt metal halide was 15 and the IES recommended standards for parking lots were 1 to 3 foot candles. She understood that grocery centers were looking for higher lighting but she felt this number was rather excessive.

Mr. Saemisch replied that the requirement for Albertson?s was 4-foot candles for the parking lot.

A short discussion ensued between Board Member Robin Schneider and Mr. Saemisch about the lighting of the center.

Mr. Saemisch proposed that they shield the lens on the outside perimeter poles rather than worry about the foot-candles at the ground.

Board Member Robin Schneider disagreed with him because she felt they were setting precedence for lighting the grocery store parking lots. She advised Mr. Saemisch to look at a 750-watt light and find one that has less than 15 foot-candles.

Mr. Saemisch stated that he could do this if they were all right with seeing more light poles.

Board Member Robin Schneider agreed to this and stated that she would prefer to see lower poles and more of them to get a softer affect. She continued to say that they wanted the building to stand out and the parking lot would just be lighted as a security.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if there were any other questions for the applicant.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo stated that she thought that the massing needed to be broken up and it hadn?t been approved in the past from other buildings. She added that the quality of the renderings did not meet what they usually see.

Chairman Darrell Truitt replied that he thought they were rendered well and it was perhaps the colors that were being misinterpreted.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if there was anyone from the public wanted to speak. Seeing none, he requested a motion.

A motion was made by Board Member Bob Deardorff, seconded by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson to approve DR01-16, subject to Staff stipulations; adding a stipulation to increase the equestrian trail to 10?.

Motion Carried 6-1.

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

Nay: Board Member Roxanna Rojo

The development shall be built per exhibits approved by the Design Review Board at the public hearing on September 20, 2001, as approved through the construction document review process, subject to staff stipulations and any additional conditions imposed by the Board at the meeting.

The gasoline facility is not a component of this site plan approval. The future design of the gasoline facility is subject to approval of a use permit and future design review application. The conceptual depiction on the site plan does not reflect a level of support from Planning Staff.

A combined deceleration lane/bus bay turn-out shall be constructed north of the northernmost driveway access on Power Road. Minor relocation of berming and project signage shall be permitted adjacent to the deceleration lane as approved by staff during construction document review to assure smooth and aesthetic grading design.

The design of the three westernmost driveways located on Queen Creek Drive shall be revised to eliminate the westernmost of the three driveways. The remaining two driveways shall meet a 220? spacing, centerline to centerline.

A realigned access easement to the Town well site shall be conveyed to the Town of Gilbert prior to the issuance of any building permits.

The future final plat shall reflect the conveyance of the equestrian easement, as identified on the site plan.

The striped asphalt area west of the drive-through pharmacy shall be replaced with a raised landscape planter including shrubs, groundcover and a minimum of two trees as approved by staff during construction plan review. The configuration of this area will be revised to widen the exiting drive aisle to a minimum of 30? The trees within the landscape area shall be located within the eastern one-half of the raised landscape planter. Additional minor reconfiguration will occur to facilitate turning movements for large vehicles.

The parking screen wall within the front landscaped setback shall be constructed of split-face block on both sides of the wall.

The applicant shall submit an upgraded design for the cart corral to match the agrarian theme of the shopping center. Staff shall review and approve the redesigned cart corral prior to the issuance of building permits for the development.

Long-term storage of shopping carts shall occur within the building. Should the major tenant pursue an operational change to store shopping carts outside, the major tenant shall submit a plan to aesthetically screen the long-term storage of the shopping carts adjacent to the building.

Decorative paving for driveways and pedestrian pathways at crossings within the parking field shall match the Power Ranch decorative paving, as approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. Stamped asphalt shall not be allowed within the parking field. The decorative scored concrete under the pedestrian colonnade shall be stained or integral colored concrete.

All bicycle racks shall be in-ground mounted subject to the approval of the Planning Department.

The 1000-watt metal halide shoebox parking lot fixtures shall be reduced to a 750-watt fixture.

The project shall undergo an illumination test by the Code Enforcement Department to assure that the lighting level does not exceed .3 foot/candles at the property line prior to the issuance of a permanent certificate of occupancy.

The decorative flared lamps shall not have a lens projecting below the lamp housing.

The vertical scored block features running from the wainscot to the parapet on the Albertson’s building shall be recessed a minimum of 1 ¼” (one and one-quarter inches).

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.

Design Review Board approval of a Comprehensive Sign Program application for the building wall signage, free-standing monument signage and directional signage for the overall commercial development is required prior to issuance of a sign permit.

A construction document plan for water, sewer and drainage covering the overall project site must be submitted for approval prior to any development.

A final plat will be required to develop the property prior to the issuance of a building permit.

21. The width of the equestrian trail shall be 10?.

Chairman Darrell Truitt excused himself from the meeting at 8:00 P.M., saying that he needed to abstain from the final item on the agenda.

DR00-129 - Approval of (8) eight standard plans, plans 1990, 2166, 2492, 2725, 2886, 3094, 3360, and 4109 on lots 1 ? 93 proposed by KB Home located in Ray Ranch.

Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks informed the Board that DR00-129 was an approval of (8) eight standard plans, plans 1990, 2166, 2492, 2725, 2886, 3094, 3360, and 4109 on lots 1 ? 93 proposed by KB Home located in Ray Ranch. He explained that the zoning was approved nine months prior to the Gateway plan being approved. In some ways, he stated that the house plans don?t meet all the objectives of the Gateway Plan.

Mr. Fairbanks reviewed the comments that the Design Review Board had made a month ago at the working session. The Board had commented that they wanted some upgrades on the porches and more of a pedestrian emphasis on the house products. The Board asked for enhanced rear patio covers and for some of the house products to provide a turn in garage where possible. In addition, the Board had some questions about the setbacks and whether they could incorporate detached garages that could be placed at the rear of the home.

Mr. Fairbanks identified what the applicant was able to incorporate in their revisions since the Board?s comments and working session. He explained that they had provided turn in garages on Plan 2166 and Plan 3094. He showed a visual aid of Plan 3094 and described the changes. The house products ranged from 1,990 to 4,100 square feet, providing a range of house products, which were predominately two stories. He showed a visual aid of Ray Ranch and described the development. In addition, he commented that the applicant provided the enhanced patio covers. Where the homes had a small entrance feature they now incorporated an enclosed courtyard area. He added that other house products used an expanded front patio.

Mr. Fairbanks discussed the stipulations that were in the Staff Report. On Plan 2492 had a very shallow front entrance, with only 8″ of recess for an entryway. Staff felt that this plan was not acceptable. Generally Staff found the house products acceptable.

On attachment page 66, Mr. Fairbanks explained that they identified a matrix in how the house products fit in terms of the concept of Neo-Traditionalism. The Staff found that the house products had somewhat of an orientation to the street through the use of the enclosed front courtyard and prominent living areas up front. What was found more than any thing else was that the subdivision missed the whole goal of orienting toward pedestrian environment. With Neo-Traditionalism, they can create this pedestrian environment with sidewalks on both sides of the street, with street trees, with detached sidewalks, grid streets and pedestrian amenities. Since the subdivision was already approved without the pedestrian orientation, the house products that bring the residents out to the street had nowhere to go. He concluded his presentation and asked for questions from the Board.

Seeing no questions from the Board, Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked for the applicant to come forward.

Chris Lindahl, 432 N. 44th Street #115, Phoenix with KB Homes came forward. He thanked the Staff for all their help with the project. He pointed out that when they started the process and submitted elevations over a year ago and have completely re-elevated all the elevations that the Board was reviewing that evening. He informed the Board that this product line was better than anything KB Homes had done in the area before. He explained that they were reviewing the second half of the Ray Ranch development. The proposed parcel consisted of R1-6 (Single Family Residential) lots with a larger more traditional detached lots. He emphasized that the zoning was approved prior to the Gateway Plan that was incorporated in the Town. He added that he thought they had gone a long way to try to accomplish the goals of the Gateway Plan. He stated that Neo-Traditionalism wasn?t specific to the architecture of the home, but more to the layout of the subdivision itself. He concluded by stating that they were in agreement with the stipulations as stated and asked the Board to approve the project.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked if the garage doors were standards to have windows.

Mr. Lindahl replied that the garage doors that were represented in the elevations would be the garage doors that were offered as standard.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked the Board if when an applicant came before them and showed them a product, if they were they obligated to provide what was shown.

Chairman Darrell Truitt replied that the applicant should clarify whether the item on the project was an option or standard.

Board Member David Gibson asked why they decided not to do all the elevations as side entry garages and chose to offer a front entry garage on one of the plans.

Mr. Lindahl answered that it was their desire to provide as much diversity as possible for the streetscape. In addition, they wanted to give an option to the homebuyer in case they didn?t want to negotiate the turn into the side entry garage because they had a larger vehicle.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked if there were any additional questions.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked about elevation C on the Spanish Style home.

Eric Coh, 2539 Fairway Drive, Costa Mesa, CA the architect for the project came forward. He added that some people didn?t like the entire pavement out front and might therefore opt for the front loaded garages. He stated that they could add the third option to be a side entry garage; they just wanted to give the buyers more of an opportunity to have less pavement if preferred.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked what the square footage was on a house.

Mr. Coh replied that the home in question was 3,094 square feet.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked for clarification on how many bedrooms were in the home she was reviewing and whether the garage was a side entry or front loaded garage.

Mr. Coh reviewed the house plan that Board Member Roxanna Rojo had asked about.

Board Member David Gibson commented that on the Monterey elevation the Dutch hip above the second floor area appeared a little contradictory to what they had set up with the rest of the elevation. He suggested that the architect provide a regular hip and asked the purpose of the Dutch hip.

Mr. Coh stated that they had found there to be a lot of massing in the area and wanted to break it down with the Dutch hip. He agreed that they could change to a simple hip and achieve the same outcome.

Board Member David Gibson discussed a cantilever element over the garage and thought it was a little awkward.

Mr. Coh replied that the cantilever portion was more of an architectural interpretation to break up the plane.

Board Member David Gibson stated that on one plan they had taken the wider mass and center it over the garage and it gave them a better proportion.

A short discussion ensued about the massing of the elevations.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked if there were any additional questions.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone from the public wanted to speak on the item. Seeing none, he brought it back to the Board for action.

A motion was made by Board Member John Tomasson, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to approve DR01-13, subject to Staff stipulations.

Motion Carried 6-0.

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 September 20, 2001 subject to staff stipulations and any additional conditions imposed by the Board at the meeting.

These standard plans are approved for lots 1 through 93 of Ray Ranch Unit I. 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.

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

Two different patio covers (shed or parapet) shall be permitted. On lots 1-8 and 65 ? 67 which are adjacent to open space or arterial roads, no more than two of the same patio cover (shed or parapet) shall be permitted on adjacent lots.

Plans 2492B and 2492C shall be redesigned to provide a defined entrance feature or front porch with overhead climate protection as approved by staff.

The enclosed courtyard on plan 2725A, 2725B and 2725C shall be expanded to a minimum interior dimension of 8′.

Three-car garages facing the street shall not be permitted.

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.

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

Review Draft Standard Plans Transfer Policy

Planning Manager Linda Edwards informed the Board that they had a variety of requests come in from different home builders that varied from the current policy to transfer a set of approved standard plans. For instance, once the plans were approved, a homebuilder could come back to the Staff within eighteen months and ask for an administrative review, pay a building permit and start building the set of plans with certain criteria. She referred to the criteria that was located in the Board?s packet that was dated 2000 which allowed for the transfer to happen once, to be built on no more than 225 lots, and be transferred within 18 months. After reviewing these issues, the Planning Department decided that they needed to modify the policy. She asked the Board to review the new drafted policy and give input back to the Staff.

Ms. Edwards discussed some of the changes to the new policy. The Staff believed 36 months to be a more appropriate time period, since by the time they are approved and get built in the field, 18 months had already passed. In addition, the Staff estimated that a typical subdivision was between seventy five to one hundred lots. She stated that the Staff thought there should be opportunity for a good set of standard plans to be transferred into pockets of small projects. Therefore, the Staff felt 500 lots would be acceptable. She explained that they had received requests for no maximum lots and no time period from a number of homebuilders recently. The Staff felt that the set could contain a combination of approved standard plans, as long as there are at least four standard plans included in the set. In addition, the Gateway area and the Redevelopment area should receive special attention from the Board; therefore they could not transfer into those areas.

Ms. Edwards informed the Board that they would like to take the Policy to the Homebuilders Luncheon on 10/03/01 and then bring it back to the Board for their final review at the 10/11/01 meeting for approval. She concluded and asked for comments or questions from the Board.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked if there were any comments or questions for the Staff.

The Board replied that they would review the Policy.

COMMUNICATIONS

A Report from the Chairman on current events.

There was no report given.

Report from the Planning Director on current events.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson reminded the Board that the joint meeting with Town Council, Design Review Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, and Economic Development Advisory Board would take place on October 9, 2001.

Mr. Swanson informed the Board that they had an update on Neo-Traditional Design. They had been trying to provide as much guidance to the development community on what constitutes Neo-Traditional Design. He announced that they would be giving the Board an update on this progress each month. In Mr. Fairbanks earlier report, Mr. Swanson explained that a chart was included to give the Board a more objective way to determine what constitutes Neo-Traditional Design. In this project, the chart showed that the subdivision was very conventional and yet the house products did go some distance towards accomplishing the Neo-Traditional objectives. Therefore, this chart told the Staff that they needed to be more careful within the Gateway area at the subdivision stage. Since this project went through this process prior to the adoption of the Gateway Plan, the project was acceptable. He explained that they would need to look at wider lots to enable the garages to be pulled to the back or side of the home and the possibility of shared drives. He described what some developers were doing to achieve the Neo-Traditional Design goals. Therefore, they were working on more definitive guidelines so the developers start off correctly when working through their plans. He explained that they would be using the same planners to work in the Gateway area in order to have internal consistency.

Mr. Swanson discussed the progress of the ULDC. He commented that Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele was able to work on the ULDC more would be getting the stakeholder group back together in the next few weeks with a consultant. They were finishing up Staff review of the use regulations and would amend the contract to add a zoning district for the Village Center; the high-density part of the Gateway mixed use component as well as the Downtown Heritage District. He informed the Board that they expected to have a final draft approved by Staff by the end of the year and would start up the hearings in January.

Mr. Swanson informed the Board that the Redevelopment Commission met and approved the Arbor Walk project. The Town Council approved the rezoning to allow the smaller side yard set backs that were a part of that project. Therefore, he announced that they would have the first downtown redevelopment housing project by Trend Homes.

Mr. Swanson described the subcommittee on Affordable Housing that the Town Council had formed. He announced that the first meeting would be in a few weeks and if anyone was interested in attending the meeting they should let him know.

ADJOURNMENT:

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson requested a motion to adjourn.

A motion was made by Board Member David Gibson, seconded by Board Member Roxanna Rojo to adjourn the meeting.

Motion Carried 6-0.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson adjourned the meeting at 8:35 P.M.

ATTEST:

Recorder Trasie Johns

Digg this