Design Review Board Minutes Regular Meeting Minutes

1025 S. Gilbert Road

December 13, 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 Member
Robin Schneider

STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Jerry Swanson, Planning Manager Maria Cadavid, Planning Manager Linda Edwards, Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks, Planner David Marsh, Planner Jessica Galloway, Planner Brooke Bailey, Planner Shellean Roberts

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 DR01-22 2 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-78 3 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-87 3 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-95 4 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-97 4 APPR.
CONSENT DR01-103 5 APPR.
MR. FAIRBANKS DR01-77 6 CONT.
MR. MARSH DR01-74 6 APPR.
MR. FAIRBANKS DR01-91 11 APPR.
MR. MARSH DR01-92 16 CONT.

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Darrell Truitt called the meeting to order at 5:30 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 DR01-77 to the public meeting since the Staff had requested a continuance. He pointed out that DR01-78 had a material change proposed, but he wanted to leave it on the consent agenda unless someone wanted to discuss the item.

A motion was made by Board Member John Tomasson, seconded by Board Member Roxanna Rojo to approve the revised agenda, moving DR01-77 to the public meeting.

Motion Carried 7-0.

COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS

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

Motion Carried 7-0.

Minutes â?? Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of November 15, 2001.

DR01-22 â?? Approval of (6) six standard plans, Plans 1-6, proposed by Shea Homes in the Lindsay and Warner development located east and south east corner of Lindsay and Warner Roads.

Staff recommends approval of DR01-22, Shea Homes Plans 1 through 6, subject to the following stipulations:

1. These six (6) standard plans are approved for 194 lots (1 â?? 194) the Lindsay and Warner development. Any additional standard plans may be approved by staff or staff may refer the plans to the Design Review Board for their review.

2. A minimum of three architecturally different garages doors shall be provided as a standard feature for each standard plan.

3. A clipped roof line shall be provided on the right side of the front elevation for Plan 1, Elevations B & C.

4. A clipped roof line shall be provided on the right side of the front elevation for Plan 2, Elevations B & C.

5. A minimum of three roof tile types shall be provided as a standard feature.

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

7. 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.

DR01-78 â?? Approval of East Valley Bible Church Phase I which will include classroom addition, office facility, and worship/multi-purpose facility; and Phase II will be a 2500 seat worship center located at the northwest corner of Elliot and McQueen Roads.

Staff recommends to the Design Review Board to approve the building elevations, site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plan and site lighting for the East Valley Bible Church expansion, subject to the following stipulations

1. Project approval is granted based on the submitted building elevations, site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plan and lighting plan, as approved and stipulated by the Design Review Board. Construction documents for the East Valley Bible Church expansion shall reflect said stipulations. The Design Review Board shall review any revisions to the building elevations, site plan, landscape plan, or grading and drainage plan.

2. Site lighting shall comply with the light and glare criteria set forth in Section 11.22.A of the ULDC, including a maximum freestanding light fixture height of 25â??. The maximum height of a building mounted light fixture is 14â??. The building shall not incorporate utilitarian wall-packs.

3. A point-by-point photometric study will be submitted with the future construction plan submittal that shall meet the requirements of the light and glare ordinance maximum lighting level.

4. The applicant shall process a Final Plat to re-plat the existing parcels into one parcel.

5. Future campus signage shall be reviewed by staff through an administrative design review process.

6. A plan for water, sewer and drainage covering the overall project/site must be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a building permit.

DR01-87 â?? Approval of a final site plan for a 1.36 acre commercial site, including architectural review for Nandoâ??s Mexican Café located at the southwest corner of Val Vista Drive and Baseline Road.

Staff recommends approval for DR01-87, final site plan, building elevations, and landscape plan approval for the Nandoâ??s Mexican Cafe, subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall be built per exhibits approved by the Design Review Board at the public hearing on December 13, 2001, as approved through the construction document review process, subject to staff stipulations and any additional conditions imposed by the Board at the meeting.

2. The construction document landscaping plan shall be revised to address the following items:

a. All new trees shall be planted at a minimum size of 24″ box, with the Eucalyptus Trees being replaced by Brazilian Peppers.

b. Landscape and hardscape plans shall be altered to avoid creating narrow landscape strips that will not support plantings.

3. Site lighting shall comply with the light and glare criteria set forth in Section 11.22.A of the ULDC, including a maximum freestanding light fixture height of 25â??. The maximum height of a building mounted light fixture is 14â??. The building shall not incorporate utilitarian wall-packs.

4. All building scuppers shall be decorative only.

DR01-95 â?? Approval of a final site plan for a 0.876 acre commercial site, including architectural review for Dahleâ??s Big and Tall located at the southwest corner of Burke and Baseline Roads.

Staff recommends approval for DR01-95, final site plan, building elevations, and landscape plan approval for the Dahles Big and Tall, subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall be built per exhibits approved by the Design Review Board at the public hearing on December 13, 2001, as approved through the construction document review process, subject to staff stipulations and any additional conditions imposed by the Board at the meeting.

2. The construction document landscaping plan shall be revised to replace Red Dwarf Oleanders with Fairy Dusters.

3. Site lighting shall comply with the light and glare criteria set forth in Section 11.22.A of the ULDC, including a maximum freestanding light fixture height of 25â??. The maximum height of a building mounted light fixture is 14â??. The building shall not incorporate utilitarian wall-packs.

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

5. Project drainage shall conform to the Gilbert Gateway Center Master Plan.

6. Applicant will be required to complete half street improvements on Baseline Road to Town of Gilbert standards. 3-lanes in each direction with a raised median.

DR01-97 â?? Approval of the site plan, landscaping, lighting, preliminary grading and drainage, and building elevations for the proposed retail building, Lot 3, Elliot Ranch Plaza, located at the northeast corner of Elliot Road and Val Vista Drive.

Staff recommends approval for DR01-97, the site plan, landscaping, lighting, preliminary grading and drainage, and building elevations for the proposed retail building, Elliot Ranch Plaza, Lot 3, subject to the following stipulations:

1. Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board on December 13, 2001. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Board prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project.

2. 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.

3. All commercial and industrial developments adjacent to residential zoning or land designated for residential development by the General Plan must undergo an illumination test by the Code Enforcement Division prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

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

5. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened by a parapet wall equal to or exceeding the height of the mechanical units. To the extent permitted by law, satellite dishes shall be fully screened by a parapet wall. Ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from public view by a combination of decorative walls and dense landscaping.

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

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

8. All signage shall conform with the approved master sign package for the commercial center (DR01-48).

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

10. Fire Code notes shall be indicated on the construction documents.

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

DR01-103 â?? Approval of (6) six standard plans, Plans 1301 through 1306, proposed by Shea Homes located in Seville Parcel 20. Parcel 20 is located at the NEC of Riggs Road and the Recker Road Alignment and is zoned P.A.D. with underlying zoning designation of R1-15 (Single Family Residential).

Staff recommends approval of DR01-103 Shea Homes at Seville Parcel 20 six (6) standard plans 1301 through 1306, subject to the following conditions:

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

2. All standard plan elevations shall be built per exhibits approved by the Design Review Board as presented at the public hearing of December 13, 2001 subject to staff stipulations and any additional conditions imposed by the Board at said meeting.

3. These standard plans are approved for 57 lots, lots 189 through 245 of Parcel 20 within the Seville P.A.D. Any two or more additional standard plans or major revisions to the approved plans shall require review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to the issuance of a building permit.

4. All standard plans shall adhere to the lot coverage and setback requirements stipulated by Ordinance No. 1264 in rezoning case Z99-62. Coverage is interpreted as the area under roof including patios, porches and garages.

5. Elevation 1305 B shall be revised to provide relief to the roof line above the first floor windows. Revisions shall be reviewed and approved by Planning and Zoning Department staff prior to submittal of construction documents for building permits.

PUBLIC MEETING

DR01-77 â?? Approval of the 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. (Staff has requested a continuance to January 17, 2002)

Chairman Darrell Truitt announced that he had a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance on DR01-77. He requested a motion to continue the item.

A motion was made by Board Member Roxanna Rojo, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to continue DR01-77.

Motion Carried 7-0.

DR01-74 â?? Approval of the final site plan approval for the proposed CVS Pharmacy, generally located at the southwest corner of Greenfield & Guadalupe Roads.

Planner David Marsh informed the Board that DR01-74 was a request for approval of the final site plan for the proposed CVS Pharmacy, generally located at the southwest corner of Greenfield & Guadalupe Roads. He reviewed the surrounding area and discussed the site plan. He stated that the Greenfield Medical and Dental Center was located on the northeast corner and the Southeast Regional Library was located on the southeast corner. He reminded the Board that the architecture of the area consisted of a modern style. He pointed out that the applicant had incorporated some similar features in their elevations. He stated that the pad was 1.6 acre zoned C-1 PAD. He explained that there were some significant restrictions placed through the rezoning process of the land due to concerns of the neighbors.

Mr. Marsh announced that the Staff didnâ??t have any concerns with the site plan on site. However, he explained that they had some concerns regarding the overall circulation. He discussed the full motion access drive on Guadalupe and a three quarter access drive off of Greenfield Road. He stated that the Town Traffic Engineer requested that the applicant provide a revised median design. He used the visual aid to discuss the circulation.

Mr. Marsh pointed out the recorded cross access easements, another concern that the Staff had with the project. In addition, the Staff was concerned with how the proposed project related to the parcel to the south. He explained that the Staff wanted to see some cross access between the two parcels. He discussed the original site plan that was approved and the cross access between the parcels. He used the visual aid to illustrate the cross access points that the Staff was requesting. He referred to the stipulation that requested the cross access be dependant upon the future development.

In terms of the architecture, Mr. Marsh stated that the applicant had addressed all the architectural issues. He used the visual aid to discuss the changes the applicant had made to create a building that had similar modern architecture to the buildings in the area. He discussed the landscaping and the Staffâ??s remaining concerns. He stated that the landscape plan reflected the boundary incorrectly on the southern boundary, landscaping needed to be incorporated around the dumpster, and all the landscape buffering needed to be placed along Guadalupe Road.

Mr. Marsh described the concern the Staff had regarding the grading and drainage. The overall grading and drainage worked technically in terms of retention. The Staff had some concerns with the manner that the basin had been designed. They were working with the applicant to come up with a more aesthetically pleasing design. In addition, the basin appeared to be deeper than it needed to be and the Staff wanted to avoid the ditch like retention basin. Therefore, he pointed out that Staff wanted to add a stipulation to state “A revised grating and drainage plan indicating a revised drainage concept in depth of basins shall be submitted for Staff review and approval prior to submittal of construction documents.”

Mr. Marsh discussed the lighting that the applicant had proposed. He explained that the lighting met all the requirements but they had one clarification regarding the pole lighting that needed to be restricted to 14â?? by the zoning code and the signage was subject to approval of the master sign package. He concluded his presentation by stating that Staff recommended approval based upon the stipulations.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked if the owners of the property would build the drive in the northwest area, since it was located on someone elseâ??s property.

Mr. Marsh replied that they would be required to build this drive since they were required to have a cross access easement, promoting better traffic flow.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked about the retention basin and if it would also be going across the property line.

Mr. Marsh answered that they could go across the property line with the retention because in a commercial center the Staff looked at retention as a master site concept, not just specifically for each pad.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked about the drive aisle going out to Guadalupe and how it appeared to be going into the building on the adjacent parcel. She asked if they were allowed to comment on that issue since it was a part of another project.

Mr. Marsh explained that the drive aisle was to be built with the proposed project. He stated that they could place a stipulation that the drive be reviewed and approved by Staff.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked if the Town Traffic Engineer had reviewed the site and the drive.

Mr. Marsh answered that the Town Traffic Engineer had reviewed the site as a whole and the main concerns he had was with the median design.

Chairman Darrell Truitt agreed with Board Member Rojo concerning the drive aisle with the diagonal direction of the drive from Guadalupe Road to the parcel. He was concerned that people would not make a 90-degree turn into the project, but would instead drive diagonally across to the drive. He thought this wasnâ??t very well thought through and suggested that the Staff look at the drive more thoroughly.

A short discussion ensued within the Board about the drive aisle.

Mr. Marsh replied that the Board could provide a stipulation for the Staff to review the drive. He agreed that they should discuss changing the drive with the applicant.

Board Member David Gibson asked if the applicant could provide color blocking on the west elevation to be similar to the other three elevations.

Mr. Marsh replied that he thought the applicant would be agreeable to this change.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked if on stipulation three they should restate the south access to “may be required” rather than “shall be required” since the access was potential.

Mr. Marsh agreed with the change in stipulation three.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked why a color board wasnâ??t provided for the review of the Board.

Mr. Marsh replied that the applicant originally submitted a color pallet with the boards and materials and then significantly changed their design in their colors. He apologized that they did not have a hard copy of the change but that it was located in their file.

Board Member Robin Schneider asked about who would be illuminating the area off the drive isle since it was located on another personâ??s property.

Mr. Marsh answered that they would build the associated improvements with the access drive.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked the applicant to come forward.

Joseph Goforth, 2100 Wharton Street #700, Pittsburgh, PA with The Gustine Company came forward. He announced that Steven Bowser, the architect and Stan Strom, the owner were in attendance that evening. He thanked the Staff for being so helpful and informed the Board that they agreed with the stipulations. He stated that the drive isle was a solution that would be temporary since they were the first building in the site to be developed. He informed the Board that they would agree to change the drive isle based upon the recommendations of the Board and Staff.

Stan Strom came forward. He addressed the issue on the driveway by stating that they were trying to add some extra parking. He used the visual aid to discuss the drive and stated that they would be submitting on parcel B shortly to keep the existing house structure for an office building and another little pad with a 3,000 square foot building. He pointed out that they thought it was a compromise to create a large open face along the Guadalupe frontage to exceed the 50â?? by 250â?? landscape tract. He agreed to change the drive isle and asked if there were any questions or comments.

Chairman Darrell Truitt commented that he didnâ??t like the drive isle.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked about the sign font on the building.

Mr. Marsh replied that the trademark logo was their standard logo that they use on their buildings.

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

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked what the Staff felt they should stipulate regarding the drive isle.

Mr. Marsh replied that they could stipulate that a revised site plan indicating a revised drive isle orientation for the Guadalupe Road entrance be reviewed and approved by the Town Traffic Engineer and Staff prior to issuance of building permits.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if there were any other comments or questions. Seeing none, he requested a motion.

A motion was made by Board Member Bob Deardorff, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to approve DR01-74, subject to Staff stipulations.

Motion Carried 7-0.

Staff recommends approval for DR01-74, approval of the final site plan, landscaping, lighting, preliminary grading and drainage, and building elevations for the proposed CVS Pharmacy at Greenfield Arbours, located at the southwest corner of Greenfield and Guadalupe Roads, subject to the following conditions:

1. Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board on December 13, 2001. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Board prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project.

2. Recorded cross access agreements between subject property and the undeveloped properties to the west and south shall be executed prior to issuance of a building permit.

3. A drive aisle connection may be required to the parcel to the south. The location and design of the connection shall be reviewed and approved by Staff current to development review of the parcel immediately to the south.

4. A revised site plan indicating a modified left turn median cut on Greenfield Road shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town Traffic Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit.

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

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

7. The pole mounted lighting fixtures shall utilize a flat lens, and shall be limited to a maximum height of 16â??.

8. 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.

9. Vehicular access points (15â?? depth minimum) and pedestrian access ways shall include special paving treatment such as integral colored stamped concrete, Bomanite, or similar alternative. Location and material shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department staff prior to the issuance of a building permit. Stamped and/or colored asphalt is not permitted.

10. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted for Staff review and approval prior to issuance of any building or grading permit, incorporating the following:

a. Provision of a landscape planter area along the southern boundary and indicating the correct property line location.

b. Replacement of the Shamel Ash with Evergreen Elm

c. A minimum 24″ box size for all trees within the parking area.

d. List and call outs indication of the size and colour of the decomposed granite.

e. Provision of landscaping around the refuse enclosure

f. Provision of a canopy shade tree and groundcover within the western most landscape island in the parking area.

g. Provision of a 20â?? landscape buffer yard along Guadalupe Road to the eastern edge of the Bristol Square subdivision.

11. Mounding and contouring of landscaped areas adjacent to public right-of-ways is required. No more than 50% of the landscaped area fronting adjacent streets may be designated as a retention basin. Landscape areas within the right-of-way and front setback areas shall be naturally contoured with a 4:1 maximum slope.

12. 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.

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

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

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. A master sign package for the Greenfield Arbours commercial development shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board prior to issuance of any sign permit.

18. Construction of all the required off-site road and sidewalk improvements for Greenfield and Guadalupe Roads shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Construction of all the required off-site right-of-way landscaping improvements, and landscape setbacks adjacent to Guadalupe Road shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

19. A non-residential subdivision plat shall be required prior to the issuance of any permits.

20. A revised grating and drainage plan indicating a revised drainage concept in depth of basins shall be submitted for Staff review and approval prior to submittal of construction documents.

21. A revised site plan indicating a revised drive aisle orientation for the Guadalupe Road entrance be reviewed and approved by the Town Traffic Engineer and Staff prior to issuance of building permits.

22. The west elevation shall receive similar color blocking treatment as the other elevations to be approved by the Staff.

DR01-91 â?? Approval of Surrey Garden Christian School located west of the northwest corner of Higley and Ray Roads.

Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks informed the Board that DR01-91 was the request for approval of Surrey Garden Christian School located west of the northwest corner of Higley and Ray Roads. He explained that Surrey Garden was a private Christian school within Agritopia. He displayed the site plan and the exhibit that was used in the zoning case. He pointed out that Agritopia was the premier Neo-Traditional/Agrarian community located south of the San Tan Freeway. He stated that the parcel was a C-1 zoned site located on Agritopia Loop Road. He described the road and the surrounding area.

Mr. Fairbanks used the visual aid of the site plan and described the site as 3.6 acres, which would be a phased development. He pointed out that there was a total of 36,000 square feet of building area. He discussed phase one, which consisted of three classroom buildings, totaling 18,900 square feet. In addition, there was a mixed-use building which was a gymnasium/classroom/auditorium, consisting of 18,600 square feet. The buildings were developed around clustered areas with an open space courtyard located in Phase II. He pointed out that there were two points of access to the site, a full turning movement access located on Agritopia Loop Road and an out only point on Promenade Lane.

Mr. Fairbanks reminded the Board of the parking issues that were addressed at a working session back in November. He pointed out that one concern the Board had was that the applicant didnâ??t provide enough parking. He explained that he applicant had increased the level of parking from 68 spaces to 103 spaces. One significant thing they did to meet this requirement was that they provided parking off site to an area that served the community open space. He referred to a stipulation that would require a reciprocal parking agreement to be recorded of shared use of the parking area prior to any building permits being issued.

Mr. Fairbanks discussed the retention on the site. He stated that since the retention could not entirely be provided on the site, most of the retention would be going to the southeast common open space.

Mr. Fairbanks reviewed the building elevations. He reminded the Board of their review in November and that they were generally comfortable with the architectural interpretation of the “turn of the century” school site. The exception was with the gymnasium/multi-use building. He used the visual aid to discuss the changes that the applicant had made at the suggestion of the Board and Staff. He pointed out that the applicant had changed the multi-use gymnasium from a warehouse appearance to a barn appearance by changing the elevation that was viewed from the common area. Mr. Fairbanks used the visual aid to show the changes that the applicant had incorporated in the elevations. In addition, he referred to the material board to discuss the materials that were proposed for the building.

Mr. Fairbanks pointed out the outstanding issues with the project. He stated that the landscape plan incorporated some steel headers, which were very narrow separations between turf and decomposed granite. Upon review, the landscape technician had expressed some concern about the steel headers. He referred to a memorandum that was in the Boardâ??s packet from the technician which expressed a safety concern and that it wouldnâ??t accomplish the goal of preventing the grass from spreading into the granite. The other concern the Staff had addressed was with the wood chips that were being proposed instead of decomposed granite. Agritopia had a very specific color of granite that was approved to give the appearance of the bark feel. The landscape technician was asking that the same granite that was approved for Agritopia be used for the school site.

Mr. Fairbanks identified that at the end of the memorandum that was in the Boardâ??s packet were two lighting fixtures. The first one was a change in the lighting fixture to a wall-mounted fixture, which the Staff agreed to the change. The second fixture was a freestanding light pole, which is the same pole that was used on Agritopia Loop Road. He recommended that the Board make a change to stipulation six that would identify that “exterior site lighting shall be consistent with fixture B and C as faxed on December 7, 2001″. He concluded his presentation by stating that the Staff recommended approval of the project and asked for questions or comments from the Board.

Board Member David Gibson inquired about the drop off locations.

Mr. Fairbanks informed the Board that Surrey Garden Christian School consisted of 400 children ranging from elementary school to high school. He pointed out that they had staggered start times for the students and had provided two drop off points to accommodate the flow of traffic. He explained the flow of traffic and how the traffic could not come in one of the entrances, but could only exit. He commented that the Town Traffic Engineer had reviewed the plan and found the drop off locations to be sufficient.

Board Member David Gibson noted that the color board showed a different color than what was represented on the visual aid of the roof. He felt they might have lost opportunity for some color blocking along the roof and siding. He thought there didnâ??t appear to be enough contrast.

Mr. Fairbanks asked the applicant to go over the color scheme when they did their presentation.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked if there was a covered walkway between the buildings.

Mr. Fairbanks used the visual aid to show the locations that had covered walkways. He explained that the multipurpose auditorium did not have a covering since it was next to the fire lane.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo asked if wood chips were allowed in the tot lot.

Mr. Fairbanks replied that wood chips were allowed in the tot lot, but the landscape technician had requested the other landscaping be done in decomposed granite.

Board Member Robin Schneider requested that the light fixture changes be reviewed.

Mr. Fairbanks referred to the fixture on page 13 and stated that it would be deleted and replaced with the two fixtures that were included in the memorandum. He asked the applicant to display the lighting plan when she did her presentation.

Board Member John Tomasson asked if the connection between the classroom buildings and the auditorium was paved.

Mr. Fairbanks answered that it was paved and not covered since it was a fire lane.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked the applicant to come forward.

Kathy Sponsel, 1600 W. Broadway #110, Tempe with Barduson Architectural Group came forward. She referred to the lighting plan and described the round lights, which were the poles lights.

Board Member Robin Schneider asked if the lights under the overhangs in the walkways were recessed.

Ms. Sponsel replied that since the overhangs didnâ??t have a soffit, the lights were not recessed.

Ms. Sponsel stated that the school was currently in Gilbert and one of their prominent features was the wood chips. She added that they received a lot of compliments on the wood chips and had not had a problem with the wood chips in their current location.

Chairman Darrell Truitt inquired where the Staff had asked the wood chips be removed.

Mr. Fairbanks replied that the two areas that the applicant had requested the wood chips were in the right of way and next to the building in a planting area.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson commented that the wood chips were a maintenance problem. He asked if the wood chips were bark chips.

Ms. Sponsel answered that they were requesting bark chips.

Vice Chairman Gary Petterson added that in addition to a maintenance problem, wood chips were also a fire hazard.

Board Member Robin Schneider asked how close the light posts were to the parking spaces.

Ms. Sponsel replied that the lights were on the other side of the parking screen wall.

Board Member Roxanna Rojo noted that she was still uncomfortable with the drop off zone and didnâ??t think it was adequate.

Ms. Sponsel answered that the school had staggered schedules and that their current school didnâ??t have a drop off zone. Therefore, parents were used to parking and taking their children to the classrooms.

A short discussion ensued about the drop off zone.

Mr. Fairbanks suggested that the Board stipulate that the Town Traffic Engineer review the plan again since they had some latitude with parking spaces and the project exceeded their parking requirement.

Chairman Darrell Truitt agreed with Mr. Fairbanks suggestion.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked Mr. Fairbanks to review the additional lighting stipulation.

Mr. Fairbanks stated that the new sentence could be added to stipulation six: Exterior lighting shall consist of Fixture B and Fixture C, as faxed on December 7, 2001.

Chairman Darrell Truitt opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding the item. No on came forward.

Chairman Darrell Truitt requested a motion.

A motion was made by Board Member Bob Deardorff, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to approve DR01-91, subject to Staff stipulations; adding a sentence to stipulation six: Exterior lighting shall consist of Fixture B and Fixture C, as faxed on December 7, 2001; adding stipulation 13 to state that the Town Traffic Engineer shall review the drop off zones.

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

Staff recommends to the Design Review Board to approve the building elevations, site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plan and site lighting for the Surrey Garden Christian School, subject to the following stipulations

1. Project approval is granted based on the submitted building elevations, site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plan and lighting plan, as approved and stipulated by the Design Review Board. Construction documents for the Surrey Garden Christian School shall reflect said stipulations. The Design Review Board shall review any revisions to the building elevations, site plan, landscape plan, grading and drainage plan or lighting plan.

2. The stipulations as discussed and revised at the Design Review Board meeting of December 13, 2001 shall be affixed to the cover sheet of the construction document submittal.

3. The site plan construction document shall be revised to address the following site plan items:

a. The construction of all on-site parking shall be required in the first phase of construction.

b. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for phase II, the applicant shall provide evidence of a reciprocal parking easement between the school site and the adjacent community recreational facility. The construction of the adjacent off-site parking shall occur in the second phase of development of the school, in order to meet the parking ordinance requirements.

c. Access to Promenade Lane from the school site shall be limited to one-way egress (outbound) only. Appropriate signage and pavement striping is required, as determined through construction plan review, to assure egress only to Promenade Lane.

d. The maintenance of sidewalks and landscape areas adjacent to Agritopia Loop Road and Promenade Lane shall be assigned to the Agritopia Property Owners Association, through the recordation of the final plat. A public access easement shall be conveyed to assure public access on all sidewalks adjacent to the streets.

4. The construction-landscaping document shall be revised to address the following items:

a. The parking screen wall shall meet a minimum 2′ 6″ distance from the parking spaces to the vinyl screening fence to assure that the parking screening fence is not damaged by cars.

b. All landscape planters located immediately adjacent to the driveway entrances shall include shrub plantings to provide screening of parking.

c. Foundation plantings shall be incorporated within a minimum 6′ wide planter adjacent to the two building elevations having a northwest building exposure to Agritopia Loop Road. The foundation plantings shall have a minimum length of 70′, with turf allowed in the remaining area.

d. Wood chips shall be limited to within the play area located adjacent to the southwest property line. Decomposed granite consistent with the Agritopia PAD should be used in all other landscape areas.

e. Brick or concrete landscape headers shall be used rather than steel headers.

5. The applicant shall provide evidence of a recorded final plat for Agritopia that provides for the conveyance of this project’s stormwater to the adjacent community recreational facility prior to the issuance of a building permit for Surrey Garden Christian School.

6. A point-by-point photometric study will be submitted with the future construction plan submittal, which shall meet the requirements of the light and glare ordinance maximum lighting level. Exterior lighting shall consist of Fixture B and Fixture C, as faxed on December 7, 2001.

7. Future campus signage shall be reviewed by staff through an administrative design review process.

8. All utility cabinets shall be painted a neutral color compatible with the building architecture.

9. Sewer Buy-ins will be required.

10. A plan for water, sewer and drainage covering the overall project/site must be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a building permit.

11. All adjacent half-street improvements for Agritopia Loop Road shall be completed in the first phase of development. The full improvements for the 16′ wide Promenade Lane right-of-way shall be completed in the first phase of development.

12. The arterial street improvements adjacent to Agritopia shall be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit for Surrey Garden Christian School, as approved by the Town Engineer.

13. The Town Traffic Engineer shall review the drop off zones.

At 6:35 P.M. Board Member Roxanna Rojo excused herself from the meeting.

DR01-92 - Approval of final site plan for the proposed Gilbert Hockey Rink, generally located south and east of the southeast corner of Gilbert and Warner Roads, immediately adjacent to the Town of Gilbert Civic Center.

Chairman Darrell Truitt announced that DR01-92 was going to be continued to the next meeting. He asked the Staff to be brief in their presentation since it was going to be discussed at a future meeting.

Planner David Marsh informed the Board that he wanted to get some comments from the Board regarding the site plan and elevations of DR01-92, the Gilbert Hockey Rink. He explained that the applicant was requesting a continuance because of some escrow issues and Staffâ??s concerns regarding the drainage off the site. He used the visual aid and described the proposed drainage and the Staffâ??s concerns regarding how it left the site.

Mr. Marsh referred to the meeting that the Board had back in November when they reviewed the case and stated that the applicant was not able to move the footprint of the building, as suggested by the Board, since it wouldnâ??t be efficient with the three rinks and equipment areas. Instead, he pointed out that the applicant had worked with the Staff to introduce massing elements on the elevations. He used the visual aid to discuss the massing changes that the applicant had made. He illustrated the multiple materials on the elevations that the applicant had introduced to break up the mass of the building. He asked the Board to give them feedback on the changes that the applicant had made.

Chairman Darrell Truitt announced that his biggest concern was the site distance triangle. He stated when they come out the driveway, the site distance triangle was usually ten times speed and they would need to go back about four hundred feet. Therefore, he felt it wasnâ??t in compliance with Gilbertâ??s landscape ordinance.

Mr. Marsh used the visual aid to discuss the landscaping and retention areas.

Chairman Darrell Truitt commented that he was concerned about the trees and shrubs that would obstruct the view. He added that the drive was in a bad location at the end of curb.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson informed the Board that the Town was about to change the speed limit on Civic Center Drive from 35 mph to 30 mph.

Chairman Darrell Truitt replied that they would need to discuss the site distance triangle with the applicant to ensure they were aware of the issues.

Mr. Marsh agreed that they would work with the applicant regarding Chairman Darrell Truittâ??s concerns.

Mr. Marsh stated that the building was located in the footprint that was presented because of the larger overall site plan that wrapped around the Municipal Center. He referred to the visual aid to discuss why the drive was located where it was located. He informed the Board of the issue that came up during the Use Permit process, which was the sidewalk that connected the formal entrance to the building to Civic Center Drive. Based upon the neighbors concerns that people would use the sidewalk and park in their neighborhood, the Staff was asking for direction from the Board to keep the sidewalk or remove it.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson suggested that the Board take public input on the issue before deciding whether to keep or eliminate the sidewalk.

Board Member Robin Schneider asked about the tinted glass and how much light would be spilling out of the space into the neighborhood.

Mr. Marsh illustrated the color glass that the applicant was proposing and noted that they would ask the architect to review the glass.

Board Member Bob Deardorff commented on one are of the roof and asked why it wasnâ??t colored.

Mr. Marsh replied that if they colored that area of the roof it would significantly change the mechanical efficiency of cooling for the building.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked why that was the only piece of roof that wasnâ??t hidden with the parapet.

Mr. Marsh answered that they could direct the applicant to revise that if the Board would like.

Chairman Darrell Truitt opened the public hearing and asked Arthur Wirtz to come forward.

Arthur Wirtz, 276 E Nunnely Road, Gilbert came forward. He informed the Board that he lived in the fourth house from the corner. He used the visual aid to illustrate where his house was located. After talking to all the neighbors, he commented that they were not opposed to the use, rather the possibility of people parking in their neighborhood. Since the parking was approved was less than what was required for the building, he wanted to ensure that people would not use the sidewalk from the main entry into their neighborhood. He was concerned that people would prefer to park in their neighborhood since it was closer than parking in the parking lot. He suggested that they landscape the area, instead of providing a sidewalk to discourage the use of parking in their neighborhood.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked if there was a crosswalk proposed across Civic Center Drive.

Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward replied that there was not a crosswalk proposed.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson informed the Board that the sidewalk that came from the entry didnâ??t go anywhere; it was just a ceremonial part of the entrance. Since people were not allowed to park on Civic Center Drive at the end of the sidewalk and there wasnâ??t a proposed crosswalk located in the area, he noted that the Board might choose to delete it. He suggested that they provide a sidewalk to another end of the building since there were two other entrances into the building at either side of the building.

A short discussion ensued about the sidewalk and whether people would continue to use the main entrance and park across the street.

Chairman Darrell Truitt announced that since they werenâ??t having a motion on the item to approve it that evening, the Staff could work out the detail of the sidewalk with the applicant and bring it forward at the next meeting.

Board Member Bob Deardorff pointed out that they had a very narrow site, the entry was not on the main corner where most of the traffic flow and circulation was coming in and the drop off was at the other end and was going the wrong direction. He felt that the project was not put together very well. He stated that it was a project that was not designed for the site.

Chairman Darrell Truitt added that he felt the concerns of the neighborhood were site-planning concerns and were the same concerns that the Board had risen the last time they reviewed the project. He added that he was still not very happy with the site.

Chairman Darrell Truitt requested a motion.

A motion was made by Board Member David Gibson, seconded by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson to continue DR01-92.

Motion Carried 6-0.

COMMUNICATIONS

A Report from the Chairman on current events.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if there was a replacement selected for Board Member Roxanna Rojo.

Council Member Dave Petersen informed the Board that they would be interviewing three applicants the following week. He thanked Board Member Bob Deardorff and Board Member John Tomasson for serving their terms since their terms were up for a vote as well. He suggested that the Board drive past some of the projects that they approve to see if they turned out the way they expected them to. He referred to a project on the west side of Power Road, north of Guadalupe. He asked them to review the project and see if the elevation and the color was what the Board had approved.

Report from the Planning Director on current events.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson announced that he did not have a report and wished the Board a happy holiday.

ADJOURNMENT:

Chairman Darrell Truitt requested a motion to adjourn.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, seconded by Board Member David Gibson 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