Posted by Design Review Board Regular Meeting Minutes
1025 S. Gilbert Road
February 14, 2002
BOARD PRESENT: Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, Board Member Bob Deardorff, Board Member Chris Lindahl, Board Member John Tomasson, Board Member David Gibson
BOARD ABSENT: Chairman Darrell Truitt, 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, Jessica Leigh Galloway, Planner Brooke Bailey
ALSO PRESENT: Council Member Dave Petersen, Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward, Recorder Trasie Johns
I N D E X
PLANNER CASE PAGE VOTE
CONSENT DR01-106 2 APPROVED
CONSENT DR01-121 3 APPROVED
MR. MARSH DR01-92 3 TABLED
MR. FAIRBANKS DR01-61 3 APPROVED
MS. CADAVID DR01-76 5 APPROVED
MS. CADAVID DR01-122 9
APPROVED MS. GALLOWAY DR01-112 13
APPROVED MS. BAILEY DR01-99 16
APPROVED MS. BAILEY DR01-109 23 DENIED
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson called the meeting to order at 5:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL:
Recorder Trasie Johns called roll and a quorum was determined to be present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson announced that they would like to move DR01-121 to the Consent Items. He asked if there were any comments from the applicant or public on moving the item. No one came forward.
A motion was made by Board Member John Tomasson, seconded by Board Member Bob Deardorff to approve the revised agenda.
Motion Carried 5-0.
COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson announced that at that time members of the public may comment on items not on the agenda. He stated that the Boards 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
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson reviewed the consent items with the Board and asked for a motion to approve consent items.
A motion was made by Board Member Bob Deardorff, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to approve the consent items.
Motion Carried 5-0.
Minutes Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2002.
DR01-106 - Approval of an approximate 22,444 SF site for Leighton Roberts Warehouse Building. The subject site is located on lots 66 and 67 within the East Valley Commerce Center at the southeast corner of Baseline Road and Hobson Street. The parcels are zoned I-2, PAD (Garden Industry, Planed Area Development).
Staff recommends approval for DR01-106, the site plan, landscape plan, preliminary grading and drainage, elevations, and lighting for Leighton Roberts Warehouse Building, Lots 66 and 67, East Valley Commerce Center, 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 February 14, 2002 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.
A true zero line will be created to prevent a 1 gap between the buildings.
Special colored paving materials shall be utilizing at all pedestrian/ADA crossings, such as interlocking pavers, integral colored stamped concrete, or any other similar approved alternative. Stamped and colored asphalt shall not be permitted.
Any signage proposed for this development shall receive approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a sign permit.
DR01-121 - Request for Final Site Plan approval for the proposed Arizona Farm Bureau Agricultural Center on a 9.0 acre site located south of the southeast corner of Elliot Road and Higley Road. The subject site is zoned P.A.D. with underlying zoning of E-R (Entertainment and Recreation).
Staff recommends approval for DR01-121, final site plan, preliminary landscape plan, preliminary grading and drainage, building elevations, and lighting for the Arizona Farm Bureau Agricultural Center project, 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 February 14, 2002 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 southernmost driveway on Higley Road is to be closed when the property to the south is developed and a shared drive is constructed.
Design Review Board approval of a Comprehensive Sign Program application for wall signage and free-standing signs for the overall project is required prior to issuance of a sign permit for any portion of the project.
At the time of construction document submittal, the site plan shall be revised to include standard commercial and industrial site plan notes.
PUBLIC MEETING
DR01-92 - Request for approval of the site plan, grading and drainage, landscaping, building elevations and signage Gilbert Hockey Rink located at the southeast corner of Warner and Gilberts Roads. Staff requests that this item be tabled.
Planner David Marsh informed the Board that DR01-92 was continued from the past two Design Review Board meetings due to issues between the applicant and the property owner. He stated that Staff was requesting that the Design Review Board table the item, which will allow Staff and the applicant to notify the public when the issues had been resolved.
A motion was made by Board Member David Gibson, seconded by Board Member John Tomasson to table DR01-92.
Motion Carried 5-0.
DR01-61 Reconsideration of Chevron Spanner located at the southeast corner of Elliot and McQueen Roads.
Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks informed the Board that DR01-61 was the reconsideration of the spanner sign for Chevron, located at the southeast corner of Elliot and McQueen Roads. He provided some background to the Board. The Design Review Board approved the Chevron in December 1999. The applicants were then required to come back for the comprehensive sign package for the Oasis at the Islands. When the applicants came back on July 19, 2001 they received approval of the comprehensive sign program but the Board stipulated that the spanner signage would have to be approved by Staff and it would be a maximum of 12 square feet each. He explained that as a part of the comprehensive sign program the Chevron had asked for spanner signs that were 33 square feet.
Mr. Fairbanks discussed the ordinance regarding spanner signs. He pointed out that the ULDC did not provide a maximum size for spanner signs, it identified specifically that the Design Review Board was required to approve any spanner signs for new construction. He explained that the proposed item was a reconsideration from a previous Design Review meeting in July of 2001 where the applicant provided signs of 33 square feet. Staff recommended a stipulation for a maximum of 12 square feet and the Board had approved this stipulation. He pointed out that Chevron was there that evening to present an alternative to the maximum of 12 square feet. He used a visual aid to illustrate the different Chevron spanner signs that were located in the Town. He explained that the applicants current proposal was to reduce the spanner signage to 24.75 square feet (9 X 29″). Therefore, the spanner would not expand past the column feature.
Mr. Fairbanks informed the Board that Staff was recommending approval of the project and believed that the initial objective was not to extend the signs past the column element. In addition, he stated that the Staff felt there was an equity issue since four Chevrons were approved in 1998 and 1999 and were able to use the larger 33 square feet spanner signs. Ultimately, he explained that Staff would like to identify in the new ULDC the appropriate size for spanner signs. He concluded his presentation and asked for questions from the Board.
Board Member Bob Deardorff asked what the likely spanner size would be that the Staff would recommend in the new ordinance.
Mr. Fairbanks replied that he didnt have a desired size and asked the Board to consider an appropriate number. He added that they would be looking for input from the industry to identify the appropriate size. He noted that Chevron was the only oil company that used the large spanner size.
Board Member Bob Deardorff asked if the average size for other oil companies was 12 square feet.
Mr. Fairbanks responded that other oil companies have spanner signs that averaged around 12 square feet.
Board Member Chris Lindahl asked if the sign was illuminated.
Mr. Fairbanks answered that the signs were illuminated internally. He added that the illuminated signs were a part of Chevrons image and that the logo itself was quite small but the whole sign was calculated as signage.
Board Member John Tomasson recalled that the signs initially were not going to be illuminated.
Mr. Fairbanks agreed and reminded the Board that Staff had recommended that the signs not be illuminated and that the Board had agreed with Staffs recommendation.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked the applicant to come forward.
John Hink, 101 N. 1st Ave #2700, Phoenix came forward. He explained that he was representing Chevron. He reminded the Board that at that last meeting they had discussed that the signs be 12 square feet and be illuminated or let them be larger and not illuminated. He explained that Chevron, from a branding and trademark standpoint, normally had the big spanner signs as they currently existed in the three other locations in Gilbert. He indicated that the proposed spanner was smaller and a lot more in scale with the site. He added that Chevron had agreed to change the canopy as well and would need the spanner sign so that people could identify their location as a Chevron.
Board Member Bob Deardorff asked the Staff if they were recommending approval of the 24 square foot illuminated spanner.
Mr. Fairbanks responded that Staff was recommending approval of the signage for a number of reasons. He explained that there were a number of Chevrons that were approved in 1998 and 1999 and this Chevron appears to have been regulated more than the other three. Therefore, they felt there was some equity in allowing the proposed spanner signage. In addition, the Staff felt this was an improved spanner sign. He explained that they had a concern with the previous spanners and how they extended over the columns and beyond. The present spanner was limited to where they have a fuel dispenser and trash facility.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked if anyone from the pubic would like to come forward to speak on the issue. Seeing no one, he closed the public hearing and opened it up to the Board for discussion and action.
A motion was made by Board Member Chris Lindahl, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to approve DR01-61, subject to Staff stipulations.
Motion Carried 3-2.
Ayes: Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, Board Member David Gibson, and Board Member Chris Lindahl
Nayes: Board Member Bob Deardorff, Board Member John Tomasson
Staff recommends to the Design Review Board to approve DR01-61, a reconsideration of the spanner signage for Chevron at the Oasis at the Islands subject to the following stipulations:
Construction of all signage within the Oasis at Islands shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board at the July 19, 2001 public hearing, as amended by stipulation # 2 below. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Board prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project.
Spanner signage associated with the fueling facility shall not exceed 24.75 square feet per dispenser, consistent with the exhibits approved by the Design Review Board at their hearing of February 14, 2002.
DR01-76 - Request for building elevation, signage, landscaping, preliminary grading and drainage and final site plan approval of an approximate 58,319 sf site proposed for Burger King. The subject site is located within Cooper Crossing at the southeast corner of Baseline and Cooper Roads and is zoned C-1, PAD (Neighborhood Commercial, Planned Area Development).
Board Member Bob Deardorff excused himself from the Board and mentioned that he needed to abstain from the item.
Planning Manager Maria Cadavid informed the Board that DR01-76 was a request for building elevation, signage, landscaping, preliminary grading and drainage and final site plan approval of an approximate 58,319 square foot site proposed for Burger King. The subject site was located within Cooper Crossing at the southeast corner of Baseline and Cooper Roads and was zoned C-1, PAD (Neighborhood Commercial, Planned Area Development). She used the aerial map to identify the existing zoning and level of development in the area. She explained that to the west across Cooper Road was zoned C-2 and the remainder of the C-1 parcel was undergoing development with the Some Burro Restaurant on the corner. In addition, under construction there was a multiuse commercial building immediately to the south of the subject project. Across the street was Mesa Grand in the City of Mesa consisting of 80 acres of commercial development in the City of Mesa. The northwest corner was also a commercial development. She noted that the overall commercial site zoned C-1 was over ten acres and the Burger King site was 1.3 acres.
Ms. Cadavid pointed out that the project met the development requirements for the setbacks. Originally, she noted that they had issues with ingress and egress but the applicant had addressed these issues and provided a revised site plan that complied with those revisions recommended by the Town Traffic Engineer. She explained that to alleviate stacking at the Cooper Road entrance, the Town Traffic Engineer had required a diverter, which the proposed site plan illustrated.
Ms. Cadavid described another initial issue that had been resolved, the placement of the parking spaces. She noted that the parking spaces were closer to the driveways and the applicant had recessed these spaces into the property allowing more queuing and decision-making space before reaching the parking spaces. The pad offered 28 parking spaces where 21 spaces were required by the ordinance.
Ms. Cadavid provided visual aids for the Board to review that illustrated the architecture and compatibility of the buildings in the shopping center. She discussed the existing buildings. Regarding the elevations, she explained that the applicant had revised the plans three times to included the character and the important areas of design that identified the main center into the proposal. She pointed out the thin blue wall that was proposed on the north elevation perpendicular to Baseline Road. Staff felt that although the wall was a new corporate identity, they did not make it part of the sign package for the facility and felt it made an architectural contribution. She pointed out that the second submittal had a different look and the applicant had made a great effort to be in harmony with the style, color palette and roof material as the rest of the main center.
Ms. Cadavid discussed the drive thru canopy, which faced Baseline Road. She noted that it had the required depth to make the architectural contribution to the elevation and to be a usable drive through space. She added that Staff was recommending that the trellis feature would be required to be solid so that it provided shelter from the weather elements. The project proposes a small outdoor covered space, which was to the south and allowed for an outdoor seating space.
Ms. Cadavid informed the Board that the applicant was not agreeable to the stipulation that restricted them from the usage of the red banding around the building. Staff recommending that instead of the plastic banding a tile inset application be incorporated into the building to be of a more muted red color to complement the palette of the center. In addition, it was stipulated that they apply that tile inset around the windows that were presently proposed to have a similar bright red as the top banding.
Board Member John Tomasson asked if Staff had addressed the vertical yellow banding on the windows.
Ms. Cadavid stated that they had not addressed the mullions on the windows, but had discussed the yellow fascia that they considered to be signage. She informed the Board that they had added a stipulation to the Staff Report because someone in the community had wanted to appeal the Use Permit. She reviewed the stipulation, which stated “Approval of DR01-76 is contingent upon final action on UP01-15, a Use Permit authorizing a drive thru facility for Burger King.” She concluded her presentation and asked for questions from the Board.
Board Member David Gibson asked if there would be permanent furniture in the Ramada area.
Ms. Cadavid replied that the plan didnt show any permanent furniture in the outdoor eating area.
Board Member David Gibson thought that they had directed permanent furniture to be placed in fast food restaurants in the past.
Ms. Cadavid agreed that they could require the applicant to provide permanent outdoor furniture. She gave an example of a Wendys that the Board had requested this.
Board Member David Gibson referred to the blue wall and requested that the applicant use more of the same color wrapped around the building in other applications.
Board Member John Tomasson agreed with Board Member David Gibson and added that he thought they should incorporate the blue color more or not use it at all.
Board Member Chris Lindahl referred to the landscape plan. He asked if there was existing landscaping to the north and west. If so, he asked if the Town had a method of requiring the applicant to replace any landscaping if it was damaged during development of the project.
Ms. Cadavid explained that they had required the landscaping to be replaced in previous cases but had not stipulated this for the proposed project. She discussed the existing landscaping.
Board Member Chris Lindahl asked about the screen wall that wrapped around the northwest portion of the property since it wasnt detailed in the project.
Ms. Cadavid responded that the wall was already in place and was the theme wall for the center.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked the applicant to come forward.
Bob Marini, 1235 S. Gilbert Road #7, Mesa came forward. He explained that he was the franchisee for Burger King. He announced that Jeff Zindel from Burger King and Mark Gable, the architect were also present.
Jeff Zindel came forward. He stated that they were in compliance with the Staff recommendations with the exception of stipulations four and five. He addressed the outdoor furniture that was discussed earlier by stating that they normally have concrete benches in their outdoor seating area and were planning on utilizing these tables for this project. On the stipulation for the blue wall/handlebar, he referred to it as part of their image. He added that they would be willing to remove the blue wall and the mullions if they could replace it with blue tile, since that was the corporate identity of Burger King. He compared the Some Burros green fascia to Burger Kings yellow fascia. Lastly, he addressed stipulation four by handing out a picture a Burger King that depicted the actual color of the red used in their banding and noted that it was more muted than it appeared on the color pallet.
Mark Gable came forward. He announced that they would support going to a red tile instead of the red banding as discussed in stipulation four.
Bob Marini informed the Board that his competition was the In and Out Burger across the street in Mesa. He passed out pictures of the In and Out Burger and expressed his concern that people would not be coming into Gilbert to his Burger King unless they were able to notice the building in the shopping center. He asked for a level competitive playing field with everyone across the street in Mesa. He pointed out that his building would not be noticed if it was subdued and blended into the rest of the shopping center.
Board Member David Gibson asked if they could incorporate the blue somewhere else in the building so that it wasnt so isolated.
Mr. Marini suggested that they could have a blue tile roof.
Board Member David Gibson did not agree to change the roof tile to be blue.
Mr. Marini offered that they could have blue playground equipment inside the building that would match the blue wall. He referred to the color pallet and stated that they were using the blue throughout the valley and it looked very good. In addition, he stated that the red tile was more of a subdued color and they would like to bring the tile down to keep the restaurant cleaner.
Mr. Zindel referred to the yellow mullions and stated that they could incorporate the blue there as well.
Board Member David Gibson commented that he thought the blue mullions would look better than the yellow.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked if anyone from the pubic would like to come forward to speak on the issue. Seeing no one, he closed the public hearing and opened it up to the Board for discussion and action.
A motion was made by Board Member David Gibson, seconded by Board Member John Tomasson to approve DR01-76, subject to Staff stipulations, adding stipulation seven to state that permanent furniture be included in the outdoor eating area, adding stipulation eight to state that the blue trim color would wrap around the building in a appropriate manner to be approved by Staff.
Motion Carried 4-0.
Staff recommends approval of the site plan, grading and drainage, landscaping, building elevations and signage for DR01-76, 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 February 14, 2002 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 site plan shall be revised to provide decorative paving at the driveway entrances and shall be clearly noted on the construction documents.
The trellis canopy over the drive thru windows shall provide full protection from weather elements.
The ceramic tile around the windows shall be revised to provide a more muted red hue that better complements the proposed color palette.
The red illuminated banding and yellow fascia shall be considered signage and shall be removed. Said corporate accent shall be replaced with ceramic tiles insets. The color selection shall match the recommended tile application color for the windows. Any other alternative proposed by the applicant should also be considered.
Approval of DR01-76 is contingent upon Town Council final action on UP01-15, a Use Permit authorizing a drive thru facility for Burger King.
Permanent furniture shall be included in the outdoor eating area.
The blue trim color shall wrap around the building in an appropriate manner, minimal application, to be approved by Staff.
Planning Manager Maria Cadavid asked for clarification as to where the Board wanted the blue color to be incorporated around the building.
Board Member David Gibson suggested that the blue color should be added at a minimum amount. He identified that they could replace the yellow mullions around the windows and provide blue playground equipment inside the building.
Mr. Marini asked if the red banding would have to be removed and if the red tile could be used in place of the bright illuminated red banding.
Board Member David Gibson replied that the muted red tile would be acceptable in place of the bright red banding.
DR01-122 - Approval of (6) six standard plans, Plans 4017, 4019, 4025, 4025-6, 4027 and 4029 proposed by Capital Pacific Homes located in Seville Parcel 2, located near the northeast corner of Chandler Heights and Higley Roads. The parcel is zoned P.A.D. with underlying zoning designation of R1-6 (Single Family Residential).
Planning Manager Maria Cadavid informed the Board that DR01-22 was a request for approval of (6) six standard plans, Plans 4017, 4019, 4025, 4025-6, 4027 and 4029 proposed by Capital Pacific Homes located in Seville Parcel 2, located near the northeast corner of Chandler Heights and Higley Roads. The parcel was zoned P.A.D. with underlying zoning designation of R1-6 (Single Family Residential). She referred to the packet that was given to the Board to identify where Parcel 2 was located within the master plan. She pointed out that the parcel backed unto the alignment of Chandler Heights and onto a commercial development. She explained that the main master builder was Shea Homes and that the Town Council had approved the master plan two years ago.
Ms. Cadavid discussed the facts about the project. She stated that the minimum lot sizes were 55 x 110. The R1-6 lots allowed for a 10 front yard setback when the builder proposed a side entry garage. If the garage faced the street, the front yard setback would be 18. She pointed out that side setbacks were 5/10 and the rear setback was 20 with the variation of 25 and 35 when backing onto the commercial piece or an arterial street.
Ms. Cadavid next discussed the elevation analysis. She mentioned that the six standard plans offered four two stories and two single story homes. They had adopted different themes proposing elevations “A” to illustrate a mission revival vernacular, the “B” elevations would depict a Bungalow style, and “C” elevations would incorporate a Spanish Colonial Revival style. Upon Staff evaluation, they felt that the entryways were adequately celebrated. She added that they had initially had some concerns between standard plans 4025 and 4019 for having the same massing on elevations B and C at the ground floor. Roof lines and massing had been adequately treated and they felt they had provided enough variation in the roof lines in applications of massing that maintained an appropriate diversity. Although many of the plans proposed front facing garages they had very good detailing in the types of garage door designs proposed. She noted that the rear elevations also offered good variation in the roof lines across the different standards.
Regarding colors and materials, Ms. Cadavid identified that twelve house color schemes were proposed complementing the styles offered by the builder. Four schemes were proposed for each vernacular of architecture. In addition six roof tile colors were proposed with each roof color tied to a specific color scheme. Roof tiles were offered in S-tile, textured flat tile and smooth flat tile.
Ms. Cadavid informed the Board that the applicant had notified her that evening that the color renderings showed different styles and different variations in the garage doors that were optional to the buyer. She added that the Staff understood that the color renderings had the correct garage doors, but the applicant had a visual aid of the garage doors that would actually be used and would address the issue with the Board.
Board Member David Gibson clarified that the project was outside of the Gateway area.
Ms. Cadavid identified that the project was in the San Tan Character area.
Board Member David Gibson asked if garage dominance was an issue to be considered.
Ms. Cadavid replied that the Town had the Medium Density Guidelines, which recommended that the garage not dominate the majority of the street plane of the house. She gave examples of how builders had accomplished this; by providing side entry garages and bringing forward the livable areas. She commented that she felt the project accomplished this task very well.
Board Member David Gibson noted that Plan 4017 had the garage six feet in front of the patio.
Ms. Cadavid gave several examples of how the garage was on different planes than the rest of the house.
Board Member David Gibson verified that there were two Plans, 4029 and 4017, that had the garage out in front of the rest of the house.
Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that with respect to the rear or side elevations that front onto streets and open spaces, he didnt see a stipulation regarding the articulation that they normally requested. He asked if this requirement was a part of the Resolution that the Design Review Board had adopted.
Ms. Cadavid replied that this requirement was in the Resolution and Staff had asked the applicant to display these features on the first page of the construction documents.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson requested that the applicant come forward.
David Maza, 1006 E. Broadmore, Tempe with Capital Pacific Homes and Don Ryden, 902 W. McDowell Road, Phoenix with Ryden Architects came forward. Mr. Maza handed out the visual aid of the garage doors that would be used in the project. He explained that the artist that provided the color renderings designed doors that were not in existence. He discussed the garage doors that would be offered in the project.
Board Member David Gibson asked if the carriage door would be wood.
Mr. Maza replied that the carriage door would be a steel door with an applied poly product.
Board Member David Gibson questioned whether they could offer the carriage door at an affordable price.
Mr. Maza responded that it was not as efficiently priced as would be appreciated by most buyers.
Board Member David Gibson asked if the carriage doors would be so expensive that they wouldnt see it being used in the community.
Mr. Maza replied that it wouldnt be so expensive that people wouldnt purchase the carriage doors, but would require the buyer to be someone that appreciated the old world architecture. He added that he thought they had invested a lot into the themes and character of the project by hiring Don Ryden, who is a known preservation architect in the area. He pointed out that they wanted the “old world” feel but also wanted to keep the homes affordable.
Board Member David Gibson referred to Plan 4017B and asked about the exposed rafter tail on the left front and side of the front elevation.
Mr. Ryden replied that it was a wood fascia and proceeded to show photos of the detail.
Board Member David Gibson stated that on the elevation they were showing the rafter tails werent concealed by a fascia.
Mr. Maza stated that this was a mistake made by the artist in the drawing.
Board Member David Gibson commented that on Plan 4025-6 B, there appeared to be a typical tri-vent. He added that they appeared to be more of a rear elevation vent versus a bungalow style vent. He asked if they were planning on articulating this vent in a manner appropriate to the style. On some of the other elevations, he suggested that the rectangular vent was more appropriate than the tri-vent look.
Mr. Ryden pointed out that the tri-vent look was very popular in the older neighborhoods.
Board Member David Gibson asked them to consider the other alternatives that he had suggested from the other plans. He asked about Plan 4027A and why the porch wasnt extended all the way to the left side since it didnt look appropriate where it was currently located.
Mr. Maza replied that the porch was a redesign after working with the Staff that the artist had attempted to convey and could make the necessary adjustments if the Board wished.
Board Member David Gibson asked if he would consider taking the porch all the way to the left on Plan 4027A.
Mr. Maza agreed to this change.
Board Member John Tomasson noted that the second story window on Plan 4027A was cut off in the middle of the window by the entry.
Board Member David Gibson discussed Plan 4029. He pointed out that on the plan it showed the porch on the side but all the elevations appeared to show it elsewhere.
Mr. Maza replied that the plan was a three-car garage front and they had redesigned the home to slide the two-car garage over and than recess the other area back to a half garage with the porch. He agreed that there could be some artwork mistakes since it was purely a design and the home would need to be redrawn and submitted to the city. He noted that the elevation would be the closest version to what they would like to build.
Board Member David Gibson identified that in the elevation for Plan 4029 he noticed that they had a duplication of the garage door element to a low arch. He thought that this brought more attention to the fact that the garage was out in front. He suggested that they take a look at two smaller arched openings or something else rather than a duplication of the same element. On elevation C, he thought it was very awkward for the full arch adjacent to the flat one to stop at the roof. He added that he liked the arch of elevation A better than that of B and C.
Mr. Maza agreed that the detail was awkward and would be happy to go with the arching that Board Member David Gibson had recommended.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked if anyone from the pubic would like to come forward to speak on the issue. Seeing no one, he closed the public hearing and opened it up to the Board for discussion and action.
Mr. Maza asked if it would be an option to have a third car garage on Plan 4029.
Board Member David Gibson asked Staff if they could grant Mr. Maza his request.
Ms. Cadavid referred to the Medium Design Guidelines and stated that the third garage facing the street would be contrary to the these guidelines.
Board Member David Gibson informed the applicant that they could not consider his request for the third car garage on Plan 4029.
A motion was made by Board Member David Gibson, seconded by Board Member John Tomasson to approve DR01-122, subject to Staff stipulations; adding stipulation six to state that on Plan 4017, the left and side elevations shall be shown consistent with the fascia on the front elevations. Plan 4025-6 shall include a more appropriate gable vent than the tri-vent or more articulation shall be added to that at the base and corrivals. Plan 4027A shall extend the front porch out to the left side similar to elevations B and C. Plan 4029 shall show the plan appropriately with the porch moving in front of the storage workshop area looking at the articulation of the columns on elevations A and C (perhaps adding two columns versus the one column) as decided by Staff.
Motion Carried 5-0.
Staff recommends approval of DR01-122, Seville Parcel 2 proposed by Capital Pacific Homes, six (6) standard plans, Plans 4017, 4019, 4025, 4025-6, 4027 and 4029 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 February 14, 2002 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 1 26 and 96 - 146 within Seville Parcel 2. 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.
All standard plans shall adhere to the lot coverage and setback requirements stipulated by Ordinance No. 1264. 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.
Each floor plan shall provide one standard patio a minimum of 8 X 10 in dimension.
On Plan 4017, the left and side elevations shall be shown consistent with the fascia on the front elevations. Plan 4025-6 shall include a more appropriate gable vent than the tri-vent or more articulation shall be added to that at the base and corbells. Plan 4027A shall extend the front porch out to the left side similar to elevations B and C. Plan 4029A shall show the plan appropriately with the porch moving in front of the storage workshop area looking at the articulation of the columns on elevations A and C to provide additional columns in B and C (adding two columns versus the one column) as decided by Staff.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked the public that was present for DR01-99 to pick a few spokespeople to represent them. He asked them to keep their presentation to thirty minutes.
DR01-112 - Approval of (5) five standard plans, PK 430, 431, 433, 435, and 437 proposed by Centex Homes for Pecos Park, located at the northeast corner of Pecos and Higley Roads. The parcel is zoned PAD with an underlying zoning of R1-7 (Single Family Residential).
Jessica Leigh Galloway informed the Board that DR01-112 was the approval of (5) five standard plans, PK 430, 431, 433, 435, and 437 proposed by Centex Homes for Pecos Park, located at the northeast corner of Pecos and Higley Roads. The parcel was zoned PAD with an underlying zoning of R1-7 (Single Family Residential). She announced that out of the plans two were one story and three were two stories. In addition, the applicant was proposing three distinct architectural styles: Spanish, Traditional and Monterey. She pointed out that the applicant was proposing five different roof color tiles and ten different color schemes for the homes. The garage placement on two of the models, in order to further diversify the neighborhood, have recessed garages on both PK430 and PK437.
Ms. Galloway noted that the Board had received a revised set of recommendations that evening. She commented that Centex Homes objected to stipulations five and seven. After speaking to the applicant, Staff agreed to delete stipulation number seven because the applicant agreed to move the tower element forward on PK430. However, when moving the tower forward, there ends up being a blank wall space. Therefore, the Staff agreed with the applicant to leave the tower where it was currently. She announced that the Staff was recommending approval of DR01-112 and asked for questions from the Board.
Board Member David Gibson asked for clarification on stipulation five.
Ms. Galloway responded that stipulation number five stated that all standard plans shall provide gable, parapet and articulated shed rooflines. She stated that there was a Design Review Board Resolution for the standard plan conditions that all plans that back onto local roads and local space have the articulated roofs. She informed the Board that the applicant was proposing to have a standard type shed roof for the patio covers.
Board Member Bob Deardorff reviewed stipulation six and clarified that they would have a variety of patio covers, and where they back up to streets and open spaces the Staff would work with the applicant to determine where they happen.
Ms. Galloway agreed that Board Member Bob Deardorff was correct in his understanding of stipulations five and six.
Board Member David Gibson asked if the Staff had any problems with the elevations looking too similar. He gave the example of Plan 435 where the massing of A and B were very similar.
Ms. Galloway responded that they had worked with the applicant and had changed some of the features of the homes to help differentiate the plans. She explained that this was the second review of the product and Staff now felt that the plans were different because of the changes in style elements.
Board Member David Gibson suggested that they change the top right elevation from the gable to a hip. He added that he didnt think the plans were bad, just too similar.
Board Member Bob Deardorff reminded the Board that in the past they had requested that plans that were too similar could not be built next to each other or across the street from each other.
Board Member Chris Lindale commented that Plan 437 B and C had the same rooflines.
Ms. Galloway informed the Board that the Standard Resolution of the Standard House Plans did not allow the same house plan to be side by side or across the street from each other. Therefore, the different elevations for each house plan could not be next to each other.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked the applicant to come forward.
Jeff Alcaraz, 4711 N. 12th Street, Phoenix with Centex Homes came forward. He agreed to the deletion of stipulation seven. He expressed his concern with stipulation five and stated that his understanding of the Resolution was that the only patio covers that needed additional articulation were lots that were adjacent to the streets and open space.
Board Member Bob Deardorff commented that he thought stipulation five was in the Resolution that they had adopted for standard house plans.
Board Member David Gibson agreed with Board Member Bob Deardorff s comment and noted that they had requested this stipulation in all the projects that they had reviewed over the past couple of years.
Planning Manager Linda Edwards announced that they would bring the Resolution back to the Board to review and make necessary changes.
Mr. Alcaraz pointed out that he had seen another community in the area that didnt have the same requirement and didnt see this requirement in the Resolution.
Ms. Edwards explained that in previous cases the Board had requested that the patio covers have articulated shed rooflines when they felt the project needed these additional features. She mentioned that it was the Boards discretion to make this determination.
Board Member Bob Deardorff reviewed the Resolution and found that the patio covers only needed to have additional articulation when facing a street or open space. He stated that he was mistaken and that he would approve striking number five, as long as they included the comments about the patio covers that was listed in stipulation five and included this description in stipulation six.
Jessica Leigh Galloway informed the Board that upon further review she found that the same elevation for the same plan could not be next to each other. This would not preclude different elevations from the same plan being placed across the street or adjacent to each other.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked if anyone from the pubic would like to come forward to speak on the issue. Seeing no one, he closed the public hearing and opened it up to the Board for discussion and action.
A motion was made by Board Member John Tomasson, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to approve DR01-112, subject to Staff stipulations, striking stipulation five and seven, revising stipulation six to state “The locations of the patio covers with provisions for gable, parapet, and articulated shed roof lines backing up to local streets and open space shall be predetermined and approved by staff prior to construction document submittal”, adding a stipulation to state “Plan 435, elevations A and B shall not be constructed adjacent to or across the street from each other. Plan 437, elevations B and C shall not be constructed adjacent to or across the street from each other”.
Motion Carried 5-0.
Staff recommends approval of DR01-112, Centex Homes at Pecos Park, (5) five standard plans 430, 431, 433, 435 and 437, subject to the following conditions:
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 February 14, 2002 subject to staff stipulations and any additional conditions imposed by the Board at said meeting.
These standard plans are approved for 128 lots, within Pecos Park 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.
Plans PK 431 and PK 435 shall incorporate courtyards and courtyard walls appropriate to the theme of the product. Subject to staff review, and approval prior to construction document submittal.
Standard plans regardless of location, shall provide gable, parapet, and articulated shed roof lines.
The locations of the patio covers with provisions for gable, parapet, and articulated shed roof lines backing up to local streets and open space shall be predetermined and approved by staff prior to construction document submittal.
The tower element on PK 430 shall be relocated 2 behind the front of the garage eve.
Plan 435, elevations A and B shall not be constructed adjacent to or across the street from each other. Plan 437, elevations B and C shall not be constructed adjacent to or across the street from each other.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson called for a five-minute break at 7:10 P.M.
DR01-99 - Request for Final Site Plan Approval for Lots 4, 7 and 10, and amended preliminary site plan approval for the remainder of the 13.4 acre site at the southeast corner of McQueen & Elliot Roads. The subject site is zoned PSC-1 (Planned Neighborhood Shopping Center).
Planner Brooke Bailey informed the Board that DR01-99 was a request for final site plan approval for Lots 4, 7 and 10, and amended preliminary site plan approval for the remainder of the 13.4 acre site at the southeast corner of McQueen & Elliot Roads. The subject site was zoned PSC-1 (Planned Neighborhood Shopping Center). She reviewed a visual aid of the site plan. She pointed out that the applicant was asking for final approval for the retail shops A, the four office buildings, and the restaurant site. She explained that the rest of the site would be for preliminary site plan approval for conceptual uses.
Ms. Bailey described the history of the project. She explained that it was part of the Islands PAD. In 1984, the Town Council approved the Islands PAD (Planned Area Development). As a part of the PAD, the subject site was zoned for commercial uses. In 1985, they increased the commercial site from 15 acres to 19 acres. In 1999, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of UP99-01, SP475, SP545; a Use Permit to authorize a gasoline service station, approval of the final site plan for the proposed Chevron service station, and approval of the preliminary site plan for the Oasis at the Islands commercial center. She explained that the applicant was before them that evening for an amendment to the site plan and the conditions that were outlined in the Staff report.
Ms. Bailey discussed what the applicant was proposing to do in the project. She explained that they wanted to do a mixed-use project. She brought to the Boards attention the visual aid of the elevations of the office building, the restaurant, the two-story office building, the one-story office building and the retail buildings. She pointed out the changes that the applicant had made to the site plan.
Ms. Bailey noted the corrections that the applicant had made to the landscape pallet. She indicated that they replaced, at the recommendation of the architectural review committee, many of the plants in the landscaping. She reviewed the changes that they had made to the landscaping.
Ms. Bailey informed the Board that she had several discussions with neighbors. In addition, the applicant had several meetings with the architectural committee, the homeowners association and had gone to homes in the neighborhoods. She noted that some of the concerns that she had heard from the neighbors regarded the increased traffic with the project. She mentioned that Bruce Ward, the Town Traffic Engineer, was present that evening to help with those issues. She concluded her presentation by stating that the Staff was recommending approval of the project with the conditions outlined in the Staff report.
Ms. Bailey announced that there was a possibility of requiring a deceleration lane that the Town Traffic Engineer had proposed. Since some of the neighbors had some concerns about keeping the trees in the area, she asked the Board to consider this issue. She clarified that on the landscape plan it showed 15 gallon and 24″ box trees, but the applicant had agreed to 24″ and 36″ inch box trees in the area adjacent to the lots on the southern property line.
Board Member Bob Deardorff asked if the Town Traffic Engineer believed the deceleration lane to be necessary.
Bruce Ward, the Town Traffic Engineer, replied that the deceleration lane was not necessary since there would be a signal at the intersection of Elliot Road and South Island Drive. He added that the signal would probably go in when the project was built.
Ms. Bailey pointed out another concern of the neighbors. She explained that in the previous site plan approval there was a drive on the southern portion of the property going east and west that was to be used for emergency access only. The applicant was asking for deletion of that stipulation with the amended site plan to allow full access onto McQueen Road. She explained that the other drive off McQueen Road was too close to the intersection and would be right in and right out only.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked how many feet it was from the external wall to retail shops A.
Ms. Bailey replied that it was 60 from the wall to retail shops A.
Board Member David Gibson asked what the distance was between the two-story office building and the R-2 development.
Board Member Bob Deardorff replied that it was approximately 33 to the property line and 54 to the centerline. It was a total of approximately 140 from the two-story office building to the R-2 development.
Board Member David Gibson asked if on the east side of the property the houses on South Island Drive were backing up to the development.
Ms. Bailey answered that the houses were backing onto South Island Drive.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson requested that the applicant come forward to make his presentation.
Jay Taranton, 6621 N. Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale with Taranton Development & Management Services came forward. He stated that he represented the owner of the property. He informed the Board that they had spent a lot of time redesigning the project since the last time they had seen it. He added that the project was about 10,000 square feet less than it was originally approved. They had also changed the mix of the project to include 50% retail and 50% office. The previous project had a larger retail component and therefore increased traffic. He referred to the plan and explained the changes that he felt enhanced the project. He pointed out that they had internalized the parking so it wasnt along South Island Drive. Also, they had increased the setbacks from 40 to 60, they took the fast food store and moved it back to create a larger buffer, and increased the landscape setback to 22.
Mr. Taranton informed the Board that they were in support of the Staff report with the exception of stipulation three. He explained that this item would require them to delete the parking on Lot 2 because it backed into the main drive. He explained that the parking was necessary since they expected the pad next to the parking to be a fast food restaurant. He added that the additional parking on Lot 8 would be utilized for the employees for the daycare center and backing out of the lot would be minimal. He requested that the Board delete stipulation three and approve the project.
Board Member Chris Lindahl asked if there was any way to reconfigure the parking in the pad to accommodate the parking needed. He suggested that they reconfigure the queuing of the drive-thru.
Ms. Bailey responded that the Staff was concerned with the double loaded parking on Lot 2.
Board Member Bob Deardorff pointed out that they had just approved another case earlier that evening where they had approved double parking for a fast food restaurant. He suggested that they keep the standard the same.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson opened the public hearing and asked Mary Montague to come forward. He announced that each speaker would have three minutes to speak.
Mary Montague, 840 W. Calypso Dr., Gilbert came forward. She informed the Board that she was the Chairperson for the Islands Architectural Review Committee. She noted that they had worked with Mr. Taranton over the last several months and they were very pleased with the development that he was proposing. She added that they felt it had a nice residential feel to it and was architecturally integrated with the Islands community. She pointed out that they had agreed to desert landscaping around the perimeter and more of tropical look along Islands Drive. She commented that they were opposed to unrestricted access along the southern east and west bound road because the homeowners had a valid complaint with the traffic. She announced that they agreed to the setbacks for the office buildings and approved of the two-story office building. She explained that most of the homes in that area were two story and they felt that the building was designed so it would fit right in with the community. She mentioned that they had not given final approval of the project yet, but expected to see and approve the project once the Board had approved it.
Michael Pollack, 134 S. Diamond Key Court, Gilbert came forward. He announced that there were two areas of major concern with the project. The first concern was with the southern most east and west bound drive and the flow of traffic and garbage trucks that would run behind their homes. He recommended that they take the building north of the drive and turn the building the other direction, parallel to the street, allowing them to put the trash on the other side and create less traffic. Additionally, he suggested that they move the building back about ten feet. He stated that they would only lose a few parking spaces and would make it a beautiful project. Since Elliot was pretty impacted getting out or onto Islands Drive, he felt it would be a good idea to provide the deceleration lane. He mentioned that the office buildings were also too close together and could be spaced another five feet apart.
Jody Hove, 1538 W. Pacific Drive, Gilbert came forward. He expressed his concern about the traffic that would occur on the southern street that ran east and west that was located directly behind his house. He referred to the previous developer that had informed the residents that the drive could be emergency access only if they moved the buildings closer to the property line. The neighborhood agreed to this change. He stated that the current developer told them that they did not have a choice in the project and that the drive would be a through street.
Bruce Swanson, 1533 W. Pacific Drive, Gilbert came forward. He noted that the neighborhood was in support of the project with the exception of the cut through traffic between Lots 7 and 8. He mentioned the current traffic patterns in the area and the increased traffic that would occur with the development of the rest of the project. He expressed his concern about the heavy traffic on the proposed road that would be behind his home. He requested that the drive be kept emergency only. He asked the Board to keep the stipulation that was in the previous project for the development and allow the drive to only be used for emergency. He added that he was concerned about the integrity of the developer since he thought they would have an additional meeting with the neighborhood to discuss the issues. Instead of having the meeting, which Mr. Swanson thought they would have based on a conversation with the developer, Mr. Taranton went door to door to try to gain support and have the neighbors sign a letter that they had seen the project. He concluded by stating that his main concern was with his quality of life and his property value.
Eva Cutro, 1355 W. Starfish Drive, Gilbert came forward. She stated that she was pleased with the project and appreciated that the parking was internalized. She expressed her concern about the traffic and the pedestrian traffic. If the entrance on Island Drive remained, she asked if there would be a walkway or if people would try to cut across the traffic. She added that she had concerns with the landscaping. Due to the proximity with the residential development around the project, she recommended additional landscaping rather than the 11% that was proposed. Being that 10% was required, she hoped that the developer would increase the landscaping respecting how lush the rest of the development was. She referred to the traffic study and asked what type of offices the study was based upon. She asked about the details of the walls around the perimeter along Islands Drive, since it wasnt addressed that evening.
Ms. Bailey responded that there werent any walls proposed except in the areas where the parking was screened.
Board Member Bob Deardorff commented that there were walls between the buildings. He added that the buildings were serving as a buffer.
E.E. Murry, 133 S. Diamond Key Court, Gilbert came forward. He informed the Board that he had some concerns with the layout and the setbacks. He pointed out that South Island Drive was a major entrance into their community. He discussed how the residential properties were set back 80 and the commercial properties were only required to have a 20 setback. He thought that this would have a great impact on their area. He referred to the traffic report that called for 7621 cars on a weekday. He illustrated how the traffic would back up trying to get into the shopping center since they would not have a deceleration lane. He stated that he didnt think the entrance street was necessary since it would send a lot of traffic into the Islands. He mentioned that he thought they had an aesthetic problem with the office buildings being so close to each other. He used the visual aid to discuss how the buildings could be moved to create a better project.
Craig Chapman, 142 S. Diamond Key Court, Gilbert came forward. He used the visual aid to discuss the lake and grass areas that were around the property. He read a letter from a crossing guard that worked in the area and had to leave earlier that evening:
I am a homeowner with the back of my house looking at the two-story building. I am also the crossing guard at that corner. If this building happens the traffic will be outrageous. It is bad now with people not watching the road. If you add the office, it will not be good. People will be cutting through. I have had a near miss with a car almost hitting me. Along with accidents, the high school kids will be cutting through the parking lot, and now they go across Islands Drive. There are too many people working in the morning and afternoon to be putting in this office building.
He expressed his concern over the safety issues related to the entrance. He discussed how the traffic flow would impact the safety of the children trying to get to school. He concluded by stating that the developers interests were purely economic and the neighbors interests were safety, economic and aesthetics. He asked the Board to consider the neighbors interests over the interests of the developer.
The other neighbors that were in attendance and allowed the spokespeople to speak for them were: Georgia Strisik, 1501 W. Key Largo Court; Shawn Nichols, 102 S. Bay; Diane Murry, 133 Diamond Key Court; Jeannie Chapman, 142 S. Diamond Key Court; Marion Cunningham, 1556 W. Pacific Drive; Diane Shawbazian, 20 S. Sundial Drive; Mehdi Abadi, 123 Diamond Key Court; Lee Owens, 1502 West Silver Key Court; Susan Myrabo, 117 S. Diamond Key Court; Ray Myrabo, 117 S. Diamond Key Court; Pat Mulqueen, 109 S. Diamond Key Court; Bridget Mulqueen, 109 S. Diamond Key Court; Risa Simonis, 126 S. Diamond Key Court; Daniel Abraham, 1526 W. Pacific Drive; Larry Bandura, 1544 W. Pacific Drive; Barb and Robert Escobar; Jay Strisik, 1501 W. Key Largo Court.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson announced that the applicant could have five minutes to discuss the issues that were raised by the neighbors.
Mr. Taranton pointed out where the trash receptacle was located and stated that they would look into relocating the one trash receptacle to another area. He referred to the hand out of the traffic study that they did at the entry that the neighbors were concerned about. At the driveway on weekday, they expected to have a total of 1391 cars use the southwest entry. He used the visual aid to discuss how the cars would drive through the shopping center and the number of vehicles they expected to go down each drive. In the morning and afternoon peak hours, there would be about one car a minute driving down the southwest drive going east or west bound. He informed the Board that the drive was important to the project since it was their only all access drive into the shopping center on McQueen. He added that he didnt think there would be any cut through traffic through the development. He stated that he believed the setbacks from the property line were more than adequate to mitigate the issue and that the number of cars that would use the drive would be minor. He asked the Board not to restrict the property.
Board Member Bob Deardorff asked if the traffic study plan was revised from the plan that was in their packet.
Mr. Taranton replied that the traffic study plan was the older plan.
Board Member David Gibson asked what the anticipated maximum stacking of cars to the dry cleaners would be.
Mr. Taranton answered that there would only be 2-3 cars in line at the dry cleaners at once.
Board Member Bob Deardorff announced that given the limited amount of traffic that would be going behind Lot 8 and since the drive behind that lot went out to a full motion drive into the project, he thought there would be potential for the office traffic to exit behind Lot 8 rather than using the exit at the light. Therefore, he felt it might be beneficial to create a landscaping area south of Lot 8. He pointed out the traffic flow that would be changed and improved through the development. He added that they could reconfigure the site to bring the building down a little bit and create more parking in front of the building instead of behind the building on Lot 8.
Glen Thorengood, 7600 N. 15th Street, Phoenix with Kinley Horne and Associates came forward. He asked for clarification on where the office traffic would be routed if the drive did not go through behind Lot 8 to McQueen.
Board Member Bob Deardorff responded that it would depend on where the office traffic was going as to which route they would take. He pointed out that the traffic would either go to the light or around the shopping center and exit to McQueen.
Mr. Taranton offered an alternative of putting speed bumps on the drive to slow traffic down.
Board Member Bob Deardorff did not think speed bumps would greatly mitigate the problem of the increased traffic. He added that if they changed the drive by stopping it at Lot 8, they might even be able to relocate the trash receptacle.
Board Member David Gibson asked the Board what they thought about the office buildings being too close together.
Board Member Bob Deardorff didnt think they could ask the developer to provide more landscaping when they had already exceede