Design Review Board Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes

1025 S. Gilbert Road

November 15, 2001

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

BOARD ABSENT: Board Member Robin Schneider

STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Maria Cadavid, Planning Manager Linda Edwards, Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks, Planner David Marsh, Planner Jessica Galloway, Planner Brooke Bailey, Planning Technician Tanya Castro, Planner Suzanne Gunderman

ALSO PRESENT: Town Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward, Council Member Dave Petersen, Council Member Don Skousen, Recorder Trasie Johns

I N D E X

PLANNER CASE PAGE VOTE
CONSENT DR01-71 2 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-94 3 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-75 3 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-89 4 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-90 5 APPR.
MR. FAIRBANKS DR01-77 5 CONT.
MR. MARSH DR01-26 6 APPR.
MS. GUNDERMAN DR01-80 10 APPR.

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Darrell Truitt called the meeting to order at 5:45 P.M.

ROLL CALL:

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Chairman Darrell Truitt announced that they would like to move DR01-89 and DR01-90 to the consent agenda. He requested an approval of the revised agenda.

A motion was made by Board Member Bob Deardorff, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to approve the revised agenda, moving DR01-89 and DR01-90 to the consent agenda .

Motion Carried 6-0.

COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS

Chairman Darrell Truitt announced that at that time members of the public may comment on items not on the agenda. He stated that the Boardâ??s response was limited to responding to criticism, asking staff to review a matter commented upon or asking that the matter be put on a future agenda. He asked if anyone would like to speak. He reminded the audience that they needed to fill out a yellow slip if they wanted to speak during that time or regarding any of the items on the public hearing.

No one came forward.

CONSENT ITEMS

Chairman Darrell Truitt reviewed the consent items with the Board and asked for a motion to approve the consent items.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, seconded by Board Member John Tomasson to approve the consent items, subject to Staff stipulations.

Motion Carried 6-0.

Minutes â?? Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of October 11, 2001.

DR01-71 â?? Approval of site plan, foundation landscaping, elevations, lighting and conceptual signage for a commercial spec building on lot 5 of the Val Vista Towne Center located at the southeast corner of Val Vista Drive and Warner Road.

Staff recommends approval of DR01-71 subject to the following stipulations:

Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board at the November 15, 2001 public hearing.

All outdoor storage areas for materials, equipment, and service electrical systems (SES) shall be recessed or fully screened from view by a masonry wall of the same height of the cabinet, finished and painted to match the main building.

A minimum of three bicycle racks shall be provided. Bike racks shall be distributed along the south elevation in close proximity to the entrances to the suites. Their location and design shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit.

The width of the four columns on the north elevation shall be widened by approximately 25% to be in proportion with the height and width of this façade. The window store frontage on both sides of the center bay shall be adjusted to accommodate the wider columns.

All 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.

If wall mounted lighting fixtures are proposed for the building, cut sheets illustrating fixture design, type of lighting, and intensity shall be provided for review by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit.

Any additional pole mounted light shall match lighting type, appearance and wattage within Val Vista Towne Center. 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.

Any signage proposed for this building (free standing signs or wall mounted signs) shall comply with the design criteria of the sign package approved for the Val Vista Towne Center (DR99-33). Size, placement, and proportions of wall signage shall comply with the ULDC sign ordinance requirements.

DR01-94 â?? Approval of the master sign program for the Seville Planned Area Development located at the southeast corner of Chandler Heights and Higley Road.

Staff recommends to the Design Review Board to approve DR01-94, subject to the following stipulations:

All signage shall comply with the current Gilbert Sign Code and shall be consistent with the submitted exhibits as stipulated and approved by the Design Review Board.

Any combination of Primary Entry Signage, Secondary Entry Signage, Gated Neighborhood Signage, Community Primary Directional Signage and Community Secondary Signage shall not exceed a maximum of 50 sq/ft at any entrance (two sides of street) or 25 sq/ft per sign (one corner of an intersection) in conformance with the ULDC, unless otherwise approved through a variance process.

All commercial Tower Identification Signs, Business Identification Sign I, and Business Identification Sign II within Seville shall be consistent with the submitted exhibits. A separate comprehensive sign package shall be required for each individual commercial center to include the wall signage, canopy signage, pump topper signage, directional signage, etc.

The approval of tower signs for the commercial centers shall be in conformance with the ULDC.

All ground-mounted external sign lighting shall be fully shielded in conformance with the light and glare ordinance.

DR01-75 â?? Approval of the site plan, landscaping, lighting, preliminary grading and drainage and building elevations for the IHOP restaurant proposed on Parcel 1, Gilbert Town Square, generally located south of the southwest corner of Gilbert and Warner Roads.

Staff recommends approval for DR01-75, the site plan, landscaping, lighting, preliminary grading and drainage, building elevations, and signage for the proposed IHOP restaurant, Gilbert Town Center, located south of the southeast corner of Gilbert and Warner Roads, subject to the following stipulations:

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

Pole mounted lighting fixtures shall be no more than 25â?? in height.

The proposed upward-directed roof lights shall be removed.

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.

The proposed pole-mounted lighting fixture to the southwest of the building shall be moved, and a canopy shade tree placed within the landscape planter area.

Individual pan channel letters shall not protrude more than 5″ from building fascia. Cabinet signs shall not protrude more than 2″ from building fascia.

All backflow preventers 2″ or larger shall be screened with landscape located within a 6â?? radius of the backflow preventer. All backflow preventers less than 2″ shall be placed in a wire mesh basket and painted to match the primary building color.

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.

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.

DR01-89 - Request for approval of five additional standard plans proposed by Ryland Homes in Tone Ranch Estates located at the northwest corner of Guadalupe and Higley Roads. The subject site is zoned P.A.D. with an underlying zoning designation of R1-10 (Single Family Residential).

Staff recommends approval of DR01-89, (5) five additional standard plans for Ryland Homes at Tone Ranch Estates, Plans 1712, 1720, 1722, 1730 and 1740 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 meeting of November 15, 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 61 lots, lots 71 â?? 109, 128 - 149 within Tone Ranch Estates. 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.

Plans shall only be built on lots where the lot fit analysis indicates a fit. Variances shall not be allowed.

All standard plans shall adhere to the lot coverage and setback requirements stipulated by Ordinance No. 1197. 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.

DR01-90 â?? Approval of (6) six standard plans for Pecos Park II located ¼ mile east of Higley Road on the north side of Pecos Road.

All standard plans shall meet requirements set forth in the Resolution of the Design Review Board dated November 15, 2001, which adopted standard residential house plan conditions.

All standard plan elevations shall be built per exhibits approved by the Design Review Board as presented at the public hearing of November 15, 2001, subject to Design Review Board stipulations.

Standard plans 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are approved for the 131 lots within Pecos Park II subdivision. Revisions to the approved standard plans, or more than one additional plan 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. 1253 in rezoning case Z99-52. Coverage is the area under roof including patios, porches and garages.

Decorative driveway paving shall be installed on lots where side entry garages are provided.

Exterior garage door wiring for lighting fixtures shall be a standard feature on all standard plans.

PUBLIC MEETING

DR01-77 - Preliminary review of the site plan, landscaping plan, and building elevations for the Gilbert Main Wire switching facility, located within the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district, located approximately 250′ east of the southeast corner of Gilbert Road and Guadalupe Road.

Chairman Darrell Truitt announced that at the applicantâ??s request, they would like to continue DR01-77. He opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak on the item. Seeing no one, he requested a motion.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, seconded by Board Member Roxanna Rojo to continue DR01-77 to the next meeting.

Motion Carried 6-0.

DR01-26 â?? Approval of the open space master plan, including plant materials, open space for active areas, pedestrian amenities, wall plans, lighting, and ramada structures for the Lindsay and Warner Development, generally located at the southeast corner of Lindsay and Warner Roads.

Chairman Darrell Truitt announced that he would need to abstain from DR01-26.

Planner David Marsh informed the Board that DR01-26 was the Lindsay and Warner Development open space plan. He explained that the project consisted of a 24.5 acre 194 unit residential property that was zoned P.A.D. with an underlying zoning of R-TH, part of the Nealy Farms P.A.D. He used the visual aid to discuss the surrounding area and access to the subdivision.

Mr. Marsh noted that most of the items had been resolved in the case with the exception of a few remaining items. The first item of concern was the open space amenities in the central open space. The applicant had shown a tot lot with 24 play stations and the amount required was 50. The exhibit that the applicant provided Staff had a tot lot that displayed 50 play stations. He stated that after talking to the applicant, he verified that there was a misunderstanding and they were prepared to provide the necessary play stations.

Mr. Marsh described the second point of concern with the project. He pointed out that on the central open space, there was a bench that was located with an exposed western face with a wall that the Staff had suggested be moved to under the canopy shade trees.

Mr. Marsh explained the only point of contention between the applicant and Staff had to do with the auto courtyards. He used the visual aid to illustrate the configuration of the pods of four to six homes around a central auto court. By the P.A.D. amendment that was done for the project there was a stipulation that was approved by Town Council that the auto courtyard be done in enhanced paving materials. He referred to another project that was similar done at Baseline and Higley for KB Homes. He displayed an exhibit of the project done by KB Homes. He described the interlocking brick pavers that the applicant had proposed at the entrance and stated that Staff didnâ??t feel it was meeting the intent of what was approved in the zoning ordinance. He added that they would like to see the area be done in an intervaly colored scored concrete. He referred to stipulation six where they stipulated the type of pavers they would like to see. Since the time of report submittal, Staff had revisited the stipulation because the preliminary plat was coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission and they would be resubmitting, Staff felt they should have some resolution on the item. Therefore, Staff was proposing a revised stipulation six to state that the internal private drives (automobile courtyards) shall consist of intervaly colored scored concrete. He concluded his presentation and stated that Staff recommended approval with the stipulations and change to stipulation six.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked to see the language of the zoning stipulation.

Mr. Marsh replied that the stipulation was number fifty one and stated “The paving material of the internal private drives (automobile courtyards) shall consist of upgraded paving materials such as colored and stamped concrete, brick pavers, or similar as approved by the Design Review Board.” He added that the Staff felt that since it was a more of a site planning issue that the Design Review Board should handle the exact design and amount of materials. He pointed out that the Staff interpreted the intent of the zoning ordinance was meant to be a substantial area of the auto courtyard and not just a small band.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked for clarification on the play stations. She pointed out that the stipulation called for 49 play stations, not 50 play stations.

Mr. Marsh agreed that there would be 49 play stations and Staff felt that there would be ample room on the playground for the additional required stations.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked about handicap accessibility to the play stations and what type of surface would be used.

Mr. Marsh replied that they would be handling the specific details at the construction document level improvement plans. He added that he would be considering a resilient surface and they would be putting enough play stations at grade that it would meet the intent.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo inquired why they didnâ??t include these issues in the stipulations.

Mr. Marsh answered that they believed they could resolve these issues at the construction documents and that they wanted to give the developer flexibility.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked about the colors of the play stations.

Mr. Marsh replied that they were proposing the colors to match in the adjacent Nealy Farms residential development.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked if there was access to Nealy Farms.

Mr. Marsh used the visual aid to show several access points from the development to Nealy Farms.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson commented on the landscape plan. He stated that they had Carob Trees in the bottom of the retention basin and Texas Root Rot was very prevalent in the area and the trees would not last more than five years. He recommended that they change it to another species that the landscape architect could choose.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked the applicant to come forward.

Greg Davis, 4435 E. Holmes Ave, Mesa with AMEC came forward. He handed out some exhibits that were put together as part of the zoning presentation for the project. He commented that they were in agreement with all the stipulations in the report with the exception of stipulation number six. He explained that it was a design issue in that the project was a brand new product for Shea Homes that they developed specifically for the site. He stated that they wanted to avoid the cluster homes as they have the tendency to get the density up but donâ??t create any livable spaces that were beneficial. He mentioned the exhibit for the Higley and Baseline project and stated that all the front doors and driveways focused on the auto court. In contrast, he stated that they wanted to avoid this on that project. The front doors and patios were away from the driveway in their project. On the lot detail, there were only two driveways supporting the eight units, with a big space in between that acted as a buffer and setback from the road. In addition, he pointed out that the subdivision featured detached sidewalks with shade trees along the front. Therefore, a lot of emphasis was given to take the attention away from the auto courtyard and onto the front and the street. He argued that putting enhanced pavements across the whole driveway would bring more emphasis to the driveway. However, since they felt it was important to mark the difference between the public and private drive they had provided the six to eight foot section of pavers to help give an enhanced feeling when they cross the threshold.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked what the view would be from the back of the homes.

Mr. Davis stated that the units would be mirrored on the backside and there was a privacy wall between the units so that there wouldnâ??t be any view from the backside.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked the Staff if an ordinance were put in place they would have the ability to change the ordinance.

Planning Manager Linda Edwards stated that their job was to enforce the ordinance and not change it.

Board Member Bob Deardorff read the ordinance again and stated that his interpretation was that they needed to provide enhanced paving in the entire private drive. He commented that he didnâ??t think they had a choice on how much of the courtyard be paved, only that they could dictate what type of paving materials were used.

Mr. Marsh stated that from his experience it wasnâ??t what other cities were requiring, in that they were just asking for the front portion is paved.

Mr. Davis agreed that his interpretation in the zoning case was that the Board could determine the amount and type of paving materials were used. He added that the ordinance was clearer than what was indicated to them earlier.

Mr. Marsh stated that it didnâ??t show what type of paving was provided in the zoning case.

Ms. Edwards recalled seeing a Power Point presentation on the project in the zoning case and that the enhanced paving consisted of approximately three quarters of the courtyard.

Mr. Davis agreed that a Power Point presentation had been presented at the zoning case and the presentation showed a larger portion of the courtyard having the enhanced paving materials.

Mr. Marsh added that in the attachments to the P.A.D. amendment there were two lot details where they didnâ??t show a delineation using the pavers.

Board Member Bob Deardorff commented that he didnâ??t think they had a choice in the matter and needed to support the ordinance and stipulation number six. He added that they could write the stipulation by keeping it flexible to enable the applicant to appeal the case.

Mr. Davis agreed with the revised stipulation and asked for direction from the Board on what they felt was appropriate.

Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that he would support stamped concrete at the threshold and they could use a less detailed scored concrete back in the courtyard.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson agreed with Board Member Bob Deardorff and added that since children would be playing in the courtyards they wouldnâ??t want the concrete to be heavily scored.

Board Member David Gibson advised the applicant that he had seen an asphalt type of stamped material that was color impregnated and lasted longer than concrete and was less expensive than stamped concrete.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to come forward. Seeing no one, he requested a motion.

A motion was made by Board Member Bob Deardorff, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to approve DR01-26, subject to Staff stipulations, modifying stipulation six to strike the remainder of the sentence after “Staff review and approval”, adding stipulation eight to change the specie of tree from Carob to something else at the bottom of the retention basins.

Motion Carried 5-0.

Staff recommends approval of the open space plan for the Lindsay and Warner development, DR01-26, subject to the following conditions:

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

A tot lot with a minimum number of forty-nine (49) play stations shall be provided. Play stations shall not include benches, picnic tables, or other non-playground equipment.

One third of the tot lot play structures shall be accessible to handicapped persons, as required by the American Disabilities Act.

The western-most bench in the central common area shall be relocated to the south under one of the canopy shade trees.

The base of the pole-mounted lighting fixtures shall not exceed 24″ in height, and shall be finished to match the colours, materials, and design of the ramada and subdivision walls.

The paving materials of the internal private drives (automobile court yards) shall consist of upgraded pavement materials such as coloured and stamped concrete, brick pavers, or similar materials. The location, quantity, and quality of the paving materials shall be subject to Staff review and approval, and shall be reflected as a detail on the preliminary plat.

All the above mentioned conditions shall be reflected on the improvement plans, reviewed and approved by the Planning Department.

The specie of tree shall be changed from Carob to something else at the bottom of the retention basins.

DR01-80 â?? Site plan, landscaping, preliminary grading and drainage, lighting, and building elevations for the Above All Steel Inc. building located on lot 33 of Fiesta Ranch Commerce Center, located 150 feet east of the southeast corner of W. Scott Avenue and N. Abalone Drive. The project site is zoned PAD (Planned Area Development) with underlying I-1 (Garden Industrial) zoning.

Planner Suzanne Gunderman informed the Board that DR01-80 was for Above All Steel located on lot 33 of the Fiesta Ranch Commerce Center. She noted the project consisted of a single building on a single lot. She stated that they were within the code for their parking. She added that their preliminary grating and drainage plan was adequate. As far as landscaping, she pointed out that they didnâ??t have any significant issues with their proposed landscaping.

Ms. Gunderman discussed the only issues that Staff had remaining with the project dealing with the site plan and the east elevations. She used the visual aid to discuss the elevations and stated that there was a primary local street frontage on the north elevation with some visibility to the east elevation. With respect to the site plan issues, she stated that the P.A.D. ordinance for the subdivision required that vehicle access points have the decorative pavement. The applicant was not proposing this pavement, so the Staff had added a stipulation to require the decorative paving. Secondly, Staff had asked for a location for a picnic table for outdoor seating area for the workers in the facility. The subdivision had a retention area about two blocks away that had some seating areas in it, but it didnâ??t have any sidewalks to the retention area. She added that it was common to ask for that amenity where it was possible for industrial sites to make a more friendly environment for the workers. She pointed out that the parking screen wall should be wrapped around to block the view of the vehicles as you travel eastbound on West Scott Avenue.

Ms. Gunderman discussed the elevation issues that were remaining with the project. She noted that the decorative bands were flat against the building plane and they were requesting that the applicant recess them to create some shading lines and a little more interest to the elevations. She added that the east elevation appeared to be untreated since it was visible to the street. She commented that they had discussed creating some relief column elements along the elevation that would break up the horizontal feel of the building. She informed the Board that the west elevation was at zero lot line so they expect another building next to it. She suggested that they wrap around some of the treatment along the north west side of the building in the event that the building that comes next it is smaller that wouldnâ??t have a blank untreated area. She concluded her presentation and asked for questions or comments from the Board.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked to see the materials board.

Ms. Gunderman passed out the materials board and noted that she had brought some other files of other projects that had been approved in the past in the area.

Board Member David Gibson asked if the color depicted was black or bronze.

Ms. Gunderman stated that she was unsure and asked the Board to address the color question to the applicant.

The Board briefly reviewed the elevations and materials board.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked the applicant to come forward.

Tom Hunt, 10225 N. 38th Street, Phoenix with Hunt Architects came forward. He commented that they would not like to recess the color bands two inches because it would force them to go to a 10″ block wall versus an 8″ block wall. In addition, he informed the Board that there had been extreme problems with water leakage and performance of buildings when they use straight masonry walls and recess portions of them. He added that the process of recessing two inches involves a two-inch ledge, which lets water come into the building and it would increase the cost beyond the builderâ??s capability of budgeting the project. He stated that his intention was not to emphasize those bands but to make them an element to give some relief and character to the building.

Mr. Hunt stated that regarding the return of the screen wall for the parking, he informed the Board that they kept the wall straight to avoid a maintenance corner since inside corners tend to trap dirt and debris. Since the area was so heavily landscaped, he thought the bushes and trees would hide the vehicles. He brought the change of lighting fixtures to the Boardâ??s attention and stated that regarding fixture F, which was a recessed canned fixture in the canopies, they did not want to change the fixtures since they werenâ??t visible.

Mr. Hunt discussed the site plan issues. He explained that they were unable to find the requirements in any of the regulations for the special pavement treatment and park benches. He stated that they talked to the developer of the Fiesta Ranch Commerce Center and was told that he was required to provide the special treatment in the streets and park benches and shade structures. He stated that he was concerned about this since the owner couldnâ??t find an adequate place to put the picnic bench. The bench couldnâ??t be put in the right of way and to put it back by the truck dock would be very inappropriate. He commented that the owner would prefer that they not be required to install that type of structure.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked how many employees would be working at that building and what the use would be.

Mr. Hunt stated that he wasnâ??t aware of how many employees would be utilizing the building and that the building was up for sale and the owner had not been determined.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo commented that when they first landscaped the building the area would be bare and the vehicles would be noticeable from the street. She added that she felt they should include stipulation five that required the additional wall.

Mr. Hunt replied that his experience with the density of landscape was that within twelve months it the landscaping was so thick that it was hard to see the building.

Chairman Darrell Truitt commented that he didnâ??t feel the shade structure was necessary for a picnic table. He added that he would like to see the decorative concrete coming into the site as it had been consistently done on other lots within the subdivision. He asked how many square feet the building was.

Mr. Hunt answered that it was about 14,000 square feet.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked how many employees might be utilizing the building.

Mr. Hunt replied that there might be approximately ten employees since it was a warehouse building.

Chairman Darrell Truitt stated that he wasnâ??t concerned about wrapping the wall since it would be well landscaped within twelve months. In addition, since it was an industrial park he felt it was all right to see some cars while the landscaping grew.

Board Member David Gibson asked how the band was achieved on the building.

Mr. Hunt replied that it was a painted finish. He added that the blocks were all 8″ coursed, except for the color bands which were 4″ coursed.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked for clarification on the trim color.

Mr. Hunt stated that they wanted the trim color to be dark bronze.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked what color the light fixtures were.

Mr. Hunt replied that they would also be dark bronze. He added that on the east elevation there was a tree line and since it was fairly narrow it would be fairly difficult to see into from the street. He stated that they had a hard time justifying spending a lot of money to do something to change the elevation.

Chairman Darrell Truitt pointed out that they might want to consider what the building would look like from the inside and not just from the outside.

Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that the smaller the building gets, the less necessary articulations were. He added that the whole point of the articulation in the past was to break up large masses. He pointed out that they had permitted enhanced materials in the past to take the place of the articulation. Also, since almost the entire building was split face he felt that they would get a surface with a lot of shadow and texture.

Mr. Hunt passed out a rendering that was shot in three dimension of the building for the Board to review.

Board Member John Tomasson asked if they were using the same paint for the entire block.

Mr. Hunt replied that they were using the same color for the entire block, letting the texture of the split face read against the flat face of the single scored block.

Board Member David Gibson commented that he thought it looked nice in the rendering to have a little bit of contrasting color.

Mr. Hunt answered that they would be agreeable to stipulate one or two shades darker on the split faces.

Chairman Darrell Truitt opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak on the item. Seeing no one, he brought it back to the Board for discussion and action.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked to see the other projects in the area.

Ms. Gunderman handed out the visual aids of the other projects in the area for the Board to view. She informed the Board that it wasnâ??t the Staffâ??s intent that they do a major shade structure, but just to allow for a picnic table. She added that it was her experience that people tend to put a table outside to use once they occupy the building. She described some of the other benches that were used by other businesses in the area that were located in the front of the building.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if there were any additional comments regarding the item. Seeing none, he requested a motion.

A motion was made by Board Member John Tomasson, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to approve DR01-80, subject to Staff stipulations; striking the last two sentences of stipulation three; striking stipulations five, six and seven; adding stipulation nine to provide contrasting colors of two shades differential on the two types of block subject to Staffâ??s approval.

Motion Carried 5-1. Ayes: Chairman Darrell Truitt, Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, Board Member Bob Deardorff, Board Member David Gibson, Board Member John Tomasson Nay: Board Member Roxanna Rojo

Staff recommends approval of the site plan, grading and drainage, landscaping and building elevations for DR01-80, Above All Steel subject to the following conditions:

Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board at the November 15, 2001 public meeting. 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.

External wall-mounted lights shall be placed no higher than 14-feet above the finished grade of the building. The wall-mounted lights referred to as type H on the cut sheets shall be used on the rear of the building, type F shall be deleted and a more decorative lighting fixture shall be used for the north and east elevations. Specifications for upgraded lighting fixtures shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit.

Vehicular access points and pedestrian access ways shall provide for special paving treatment to match the color, pattern and materials used within the Fiesta Ranch Commerce Park.

The parking screen wall shall be extended to south to create an â??Lâ?? shape to fully screen the front parking space.

An outdoor shaded employee seating area shall be provided.

The green accent band shall be recessed at least two (2) inches.

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

Contrasting colors of two shades differential shall be provided on the two types of block subject to Planning Department for approval.

COMMUNICATIONS

A Report from the Chairman on current events.

Chairman Darrell Truitt discussed the joint meeting regarding the Village Center zoning regulations for the Gateway Village Center and Heritage District Village Center. He informed the Board that the meeting was an informational meeting and that there wasnâ??t a lot of discussion on what the regulations would be. He encouraged the Board to attend one of the meetings that would be held in the future regarding the Village Centers. He thought that they would eventually get into some design related comments.

Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that he thought it was important for the consultant and the Staff to understand that the Board and Commissions felt they needed to offer maximum flexibility to the developers and the applicants within some structure. He added that they would like to offer incentives in order to get variety and diversity that they wanted to achieve.

Chairman Darrell Truitt added that he would like to see high standards with fewer regulations, which would also accomplish the diversity. He suggested that they have more performance related standards and a description of standards without so many rules.

Report from the Planning Director on current events.

Planning Manager Linda Edwards announced that the General Draft was approved by 84% of the Gilbert voters, which consisted of 13% of Gilbertâ??s residents. She informed the Board that once Senior Planner Geir Sverdrup finished cleaning up some of the small technical errors, the plan would be available on CD and also on the website.

Ms. Edwards introduced the new Planning Staff to the Board: Planner Jessica Galloway, Planner Brooke Bailey, and Planning Technician Tanya Castro. She announced that Planner Suzanne Gunderman would be leaving the Staff and moving to a position in Scottsdale as a Senior Planner.

Council Member Dave Petersen welcomed the new planners to the Staff. He commented that he liked Chairman Darrell Truittâ??s comments about high standards and fewer rules. He commended the Board on their stipulation clarification as it made it easier for the Town Council to interpret their desires. He added that he liked the Boardâ??s “common sense approach”. He asked who was up for renewal.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo replied that she was up for renewal and that the meeting in December was her last meeting. She added that she would not be asking for a reassignment.

Board Member Bob Deardorff and Board Member John Tomasson stated that they were also up for renewal.

Council Member Dave Petersen informed the Board that it was not an automatic reassignment and that the Board members needed to submit an updated application for renewal. She thanked the Board for the good job that they were doing.

Chairman Darrell Truitt thanked Council Member Dave Petersen for coming and for his support.

ADJOURNMENT:

Chairman Darrell Truitt requested a motion to adjourn.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, seconded by Board Member Roxanna Rojo to adjourn the meeting.

Motion Carried 6-0.

Chairman Darrell Truitt adjourned the meeting at 7:00 P.M.

ATTEST:

Recorder Trasie Johns

Digg this