Posted by Design Review Board Regular Meeting Minutes
1025 S. Gilbert Road
March 14, 2002
BOARD PRESENT: Chairman Darrell Truitt, Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, Board Member Bob Deardorff, Board Member Chris Lindahl, Board Member John Tomasson, Board Member David Gibson, Board Member Robin Schneider
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Jerry Swanson, Planning Manager Linda Edwards, Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks, Planner David Marsh, Planner Jessica Leigh Galloway, Planner Brooke Bailey, Planning Technician Tanya Castro
ALSO PRESENT: Council Member Dave Petersen, Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward, Recorder Trasie Johns
I N D E X
PLANNER CASE PAGE VOTE
CONSENT DR01-116 2 APPROVED
CONSENT DR02-4 3 APPROVED
CONSENT DR02-11 3 APPROVED
CONSENT DR01-117 3 APPROVED
MS. BAILEY DR01-99 4 RECONSIDER
MR. FAIRBANKS DR01-115 4 APPROVED
MR. MARSH DR01-70 5 APPROVED
MR. MARSH DR01-108 5 APPROVED
MS. BAILEY DR01-93 11 APPROVED
MS. EDWARDS DR01-118 14 APPROVED
MR. MARSH DR00-58 19 APPROVED
MR. FAIRBANKS DR02-02 25 APPROVED
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. Board Member Robin Schneider had not yet joined the Board.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Chairman Darrell Truitt announced that they would like to move DR01-117 to the Consent Calendar. He added that they would like to move DR01-93 to the Public Hearing. He asked if there were any comments from the applicant or public on moving the items. No one came forward.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, seconded by Board Member John Tomasson to approve the revised agenda.
Motion Carried 6-0.
COMMUNICATION FROM CITIZENS
Chairman Darrell Truitt announced that at that time members of the public may comment on items not on the agenda. He stated that the Boardâ??s response was limited to responding to criticism, asking staff to review a matter commented upon or asking that the matter be put on a future agenda. He asked if anyone would like to speak. He reminded the audience that they needed to fill out a yellow slip if they wanted to speak during that time or regarding any of the items on the public hearing.
No one came forward.
CONSENT ITEMS
Chairman Darrell Truitt reviewed the consent items with the Board and asked for a motion to approve consent items.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to approve the consent items.
Motion Carried 6-0.
Minutes â?? Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of February 14, 2002.
DR01-116 - Final Site Plan approval of an approximate 41,140 SF site for Scott Gilbert LLC Warehouse Building. The subject site is located at NWC of Guadalupe Road and Acacia in Fiesta Ranch parcel 39, and is zoned I-2 (Light Industry).
Staff recommends approval for DR01-116, the site plan, landscape plan, preliminary grading and drainage, elevations, and lighting for Scott Gilbert Warehouse Building, Lot 39, Fiesta Ranch 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 March 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.
Any signage proposed for this development shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a sign permit.
At the time of construction document submittal, the site plan shall include standard commercial and industrial site plan notes.
Landscape plan will comply with the landscape theme established in Ordinance 1254.
DR02-4 â?? Approval of El Dorado Center Master Sign Program. El Dorado Center is located at the northwest corner of Warner and Lindsay Roads and it is zoned PAD PSC-7 (Planned Neighborhood Shopping Center).
Staff recommends approval of the Master Sign Program for El Dorado Center, DR02-04, subject to the following conditions:
All signs (wall signs and monument signs) shall be permitted in conformance with the criteria and exhibits contained in the Master Sign Program presented to the Design Review Board at the March 14, 2002 public meeting as revised herein.
Criteria for lease and sales signs contained in the Master Sign Program under the section Miscellaneous Signage is not approved. This type of signs shall comply with section 3.4 of the sign code.
All signs shall be permitted through the Building department under a separate permit prior to installation.
DR02-11 â?? Approval of the building signage for US Filter, located on lots 5, 6 and 7 of Fiesta Ranch Commerce Park.
Staff recommends approval for DR02-11, the building signage for US Filter located on lots 5, 6 & 7 in Fiesta Ranch Commerce Park, subject to the following conditions:
Any future revisions to the approved building signage, or requests for additional signage including monument signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department.
DR01-117 â?? Final Site Plan approval for an approximate 37,500 square foot site for Brakes Plus. The site is located within the Greenfield Village Shopping Center, west of the southwest corner of Baseline and Greenfield Roads, and is zoned PSC-1 (Planned Shopping Center).
Staff recommends approval of the site plan, landscaping plan, signage and building elevations for the Brakes Plus facility within Greenfield Village Shopping Center with the following conditions:
Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board at the March 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 parking stalls adjacent to the sidewalk on the west side of the building will be required to have a depth of 18â??.
All monument and wall signage shall comply with DR99-83, The Greenfield Village Sign Package.
At the time of construction document submittal, the site plan shall be revised to include standard commercial and industrial site plan notes.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM
DR01-99 â?? Oasis at the Islands â?? Staff requests the Board consider a motion to reconsider the final site plan for Lots 4, 7 and 10, and amended preliminary site plan for the remaining 13.4 acre site. The project is located at the southeast corner of Elliot and McQueen Roads.
Chairman Darrell Truitt explained that he could entertain a motion from someone who voted for the project at the last meeting. He pointed out that they would then vote on the motion and the item would be scheduled for the next regular meeting of the Design Review Board.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, seconded by Board Member Bob Deardorff to reconsider DR01-99 at the next Design Review meeting on April 11, 2002.
Motion Carried 6-0.
PUBLIC HEARING
DR01-115 â?? Approval of the site plan, grading, landscaping, elevations and wall signs for an office/warehouse facility on lot 11 of Sunrise Business Park zoned PAD â?? I-2 (Light Industrial).
Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks informed the Board that DR01-115 was the approval of the site plan, grading, landscaping, elevations and wall signs for an office/warehouse facility on lot 11 of Sunrise Business Park zoned PAD â?? I-2 (Light Industrial). He announced that the building was a 10,154 square foot building on a 26,197 square foot site. He pointed out that the only reason the item was on the Public Hearing agenda was that there was one issue that needed to be worked out. He explained that it would require the applicant to work with the adjacent site owner and work with the Fire Department. The site would need an access easement to the adjacent site in order to meet the Fire Departmentâ??s requirements. The Fire Department was comfortable with it going on the agenda and being approved and would work out the issue with the applicant. He mentioned that stipulation seven depicted the stipulation requested by the Fire Department. He announced that they were comfortable with the building elevations and site plan and recommended approval of the project.
Board Member David Gibson asked what material the canopy was that was located on the west side of the building. He wondered if the material was non-combustible.
Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks replied that the canopies were all constructed of a steel material.
Planning Director Jerry Swanson announced that if the canopy were combustible, they would be required to have a sprinkler system.
Steve Tegethoff, P.O. Box 368, Flagstaff with Tegethoff Associates came forward. He informed the Board that he was the architect for the project. He commented that his subcontractor had met with the Fire Marshall and the Fire Chief and worked out an agreement to add fireplugs. He showed the Board a new copy of the site plan that had been changed since his meeting.
Chairman Darrell Truitt explained that they could leave the stipulation as it was written and they could work out the details with the Fire Marshal.
Chairman Darrell Truitt opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wanted to comment on the case. Seeing no one, he closed the Public Hearing and requested a motion.
A motion was made by Board Member David Gibson, seconded by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson to approve DR01-115, subject to Staff stipulations.
Motion Carried 6-0.
Staff recommends approval of the site plan, grading and drainage, landscaping, building elevations and wall signage for DR01-115, 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 March 14, 2002 public meeting.
The refuse enclosure shall be slightly tilted to the south to allow adequate back up space (approximately 50â??) for the refuse truck. Final orientation to be approved by the Sanitation Department.
The applicant shall note on the construction documents for the elevations the finish and colors for all the materials and architectural elements including the column at the main entrance to the building.
All applicable industrial site plan notes to this project shall be implemented on the construction documents.
The wall mounted lighting fixtures shall be installed at 14â?? high to the bottom of the lamp.
All signage shall be applied for under a separate permit through the Building department. Any monument signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
Design Review Board approval is contingent upon review and approval of revised site plan alternative for exceeding the 150â?? distance requirement of the Fire Code, by the Fire Marshalâ??s office prior to issuance of a building permit.
Chairman Darrell Truitt requested that DR01-118 be presented next.
Planning Director Jerry Swanson informed the Board that the applicant was still working with Staff on DR01-118 and would be ready to present later that evening.
DR01-70 â?? Final Site Plan approval for the proposed Fryâ??s shopping center, and preliminary site plan approval for remainder of approximately 40 acre site, at the southeast corner of Gilbert and Williams Field Roads.
DR01-108 â?? Approval of “Gilbert Fiesta” Design Guidelines for the proposed Fryâ??s Shopping Center at the southeast corner of Gilbert and Williams Field Roads.
Chairman Darrell Truitt informed the Board that DR01-70 and DR01-108 would be presented together. He announced that he would not be voting on the items because of a conflict of interest. He excused himself from the Board.
Planner David Marsh announced that DR01-108 was the approval of “Gilbert Fiesta” Design Guidelines for the proposed Fryâ??s Shopping Center at the southeast corner of Gilbert and Williams Field Roads. He pointed out the exhibits from the Design Guidelines that consisted of the 40-acre commercial center. He discussed the surrounding area around the project. He stated that the Design Guidelines were meant to have a unified development across the center in terms of architectural quality, materials, colors and signage.
Mr. Marsh pointed out that the vast majority of the issues had been worked out with only a few remaining. He provided a visual aid of the gateway feature signage. Since it was a designated gateway to the town, the applicant was required by ordinance to provide a “Welcome to Gilbert” sign and monument entry. What the applicant had provided was a simple notation below the gateway entry feature, which the Staff felt was insufficient. He pointed out other gateway entry signage that was provided in other areas of the Town. He commented that the applicant was proposing to do a halo illumination in white, however some of the signs were proposed to have a red halo illumination. Staff had some concern with this since they would prefer to only have white halo illumination. Also, the internal signs, such as the monument sign and wall signage were proposed to have internal illumination with LED strips. He stated that the applicant indicated that this was more of a modern, energy efficient and cheaper alternative. However, Staff was not aware of any good examples of this illumination and had some concerns with the proposal and would prefer to go with more conventional lighting standards. He asked the Board to consider this issue and Staff would defer to their judgment.
Mr. Marsh indicated that the issue that Staff had the most concern with the Design Guidelines was the proposed monument signage. He used the visual aid to discuss the signs that were using the stacked stone columns that pull off of the main building, using some of the same elements. Staff was concerned that the copy area projected two inches out from the main fascia of the sign, which was not permitted, by the sign code. In addition, Staff was concerned about the overall design of the sign and had stipulated that the applicant work with Staff to come up with a more comprehensively designed monument signage.
Mr. Marsh discussed the architectural features, which were shown in the inline shops. Staff had some concern with the hardscape that was proposed in front of the in line shops and major tenants. He used the visual aid to describe the proposal for the hardscape and referred to another hardscape plan that was done by the same architect in a different project. He explained that the other plan portrayed the type of detail that Staff wanted to see in the proposed project. He informed the Board that Staff had placed a stipulation that the applicant increase the level of the hardscape. He completed his presentation by stating that Staff was recommending approval of the Design Guidelines based on the revised stipulations that were passed out that evening.
Board Member Bob Deardorff asked if the hardscape design was appropriate as general hardscape but where they have focal elements they would like to see that level of detail increased.
Mr. Marsh used the visual aid to show the pedestrian focal areas that they wanted to see more detailed hardscape.
Board Member Bob Deardorff confirmed that the Staff would work with the applicant to identify the focal areas that needed a greater level of detail to the hardscape.
Board Member Chris Lindahl asked if they would want to keep the same plant materials as was shown in the detailed hardscape plan.
Mr. Marsh replied that the proposed project had a different plant pallet than the other project.
Board Member Chris Lindahl asked if they would want to keep the same density of plant materials.
Mr. Marsh replied that they were focusing more on the hardscape than the landscape.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson commented that he would like to see more blooming perennials put in the project as there appeared to be a lack of color in some areas.
At 5:55 P.M., Board Member Robin Schneider joined the Board.
Mr. Marsh discussed DR01-70, which was the Final Site Plan approval for the proposed Fryâ??s shopping center, and preliminary site plan approval for remainder of approximately 40-acre site, at the southeast corner of Gilbert and Williams Field Roads. He explained that the applicant was looking for approval of the final site plan, landscaping, lighting, preliminary grading and drainage, lighting, and building elevations for Phase I, the preliminary site plan, landscape plan, lighting, and grading & drainage plan for Phase IA, and preliminary site plan for the remainder of the 40 acre site for the proposed Gilbert Fiesta development, located at the southeast corner of Gilbert & Williams Field Roads. He used the visual aid to point out what the applicant was applying for that evening.
Mr. Marsh announced that the applicant and Staff had been working diligently for the past month to work out all the issues on the project. There were only a few minor issues remaining, which had to do with traffic and grating and drainage. The outstanding traffic issue had to do with a southern most full motion curb cut. The issue was that there was an existing curb cut on the other side of the street. Gilbert Road was a part of a Town project to improve the road south of the Civic Center to Pecos Road. The roadway improvements had already been designed so that applicant was required to shift their access point down to line up with the full motion. Therefore the access point would straddle the property line. The applicant was working with the property owner to do an access easement or purchase a small portion. He commented that they were working with the applicant on the issue.
Mr. Marsh described the grating and drainage issues that had to do mainly with how the drainage in the back portion of the site was handled. He pointed out how the water was going to be drained and be conveyed via pipe down to the rear retention area. Using a combination of retention basin, drywall and vaults, he pointed out the area the water would be stored. He stated that they had some preliminary concerns about some of the design aspects and had worked with the applicant to come up with a solution to the problem. He explained that the applicant would be revising the grating and drainage and would work with Staff to reach the correct solution.
Mr. Marsh commented that the Staff didnâ??t have a problem with the architecture. He reminded the Board that they had reviewed the architecture at a previous working session. In terms of public input, he mentioned that there were two people in the office the day before concerned about the full motion access point and a few calls earlier that day asking what the applicant was proposing. He concluded his presentation by stating that Staff recommended approval with the revised stipulations given to the Board that evening.
Chairman Darrell Truitt requested that the applicant make his presentation.
Rick Redpath, 7400 E. McDonald Drive #101, Scottsdale came forward. He explained that he was the architect on the project. He thanked the Board for hearing their case and stated that he didnâ??t have anything to add to the Staff report.
Chairman Darrell Truitt opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present that wanted to speak on the item.
Susan Brunner, 74 E. Canyon Creek Drive, Gilbert came forward. She announced that she lived on the property south of Boston Road. She commented that she was a board member on the homeowners association. She was concerned about safety and noise abatement. She asked when construction would start. She added that she was concerned about safety during construction and asked if there would be security twenty-four hours a day. She inquired about the landscaping and retention.
Chairman Darrell Truitt replied that the case consisted of the front piece of the property and when the back piece of property was up for design the residents would be notified.
Rick Redpath added that Fryâ??s would have security and would be fenced during construction. Noise abatement would be subject to the Town ordinances. He informed the public that construction would start in May.
Mr. Marsh noted that there were Town ordinances that restricted the hours of operation for construction. For dust abatement, there was both County and Federal laws that needed to be followed.
Board Member Chris Lindahl asked about the mini storage and if the site had been submitted.
Mr. Marsh responded that the site plan was still conceptual, but there was not a formal submittal for a mini storage.
Debbie Anderson, 2751 S. Palm Court, Gilbert came forward. She asked what type of lighting the parking lot would have and what the hours of operation would be.
Rick Redpath replied that they had not determined the hours of the store. The lighting would meet the Townâ??s ordinance and would consist of metal hallow lights.
Mr. Marsh clarified that the applicant was required to submit a lighting survey and were required to meet a minimum level of .35 foot-candles at the property line and all lighting poles on the perimeter next to the residential shall be restricted to 14â?? tall.
Paul Galvon, 153 E. Lowell Avenue, Gilbert came forward. He mentioned that he was on the Homeowners Association Board for Gilbert Commons. He asked where the pedestrian walkways would be located and how they would be separated from the automobile driveways. He questioned how many pads would be planned and what use they were looking to have in the future.
Mr. Marsh answered that on the perimeter of the project there was a requirement by Town code to have sidewalks. In addition, there was substantial pedestrian connection throughout the site using enhanced paving materials that clearly delineated where the pedestrian versus the vehicular realm was. He used the visual aid to discuss where the pads would be located on the site. He explained that any future pads would have to come through the Design Review Board process and the community would be notified of these hearings.
F. Wolcott Jackson, 169 E. Canyon Creek Drive, Gilbert came forward. He pointed out that he lived in Gilbert Commons. He asked when the deliveries would be done in the evening and what kind of thought process had gone into the noise abatement.
Paul Galvon responded that delivery times would vary and they would have to meet the Town ordinances.
Mr. Marsh informed the public that the loading bays to the grocery store were about 400-500 feet away from the residential development and they would be required to be screened. In addition, he pointed out the six-foot high property wall and the residential wall. As the other sites develop, the buildings would be between the loading bays and the residential neighborhoods. In terms of Town ordinances, he explained that there were not any time limits for delivery. He stated that there was a Town noise ordinance that would allow the Town to investigate and take action if there were a lot of noise complaints.
Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if anyone else from the public wanted to speak on the item. Seeing no one, he closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Board for discussion and action.
A motion was made by Board Member John Tomasson, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to approve DR01-108, subject to Staff stipulations.
Motion Carried 6-0.
Staff recommends approval of DR01-108, Gilbert Fiesta Design Guidelines, subject to the following conditions:
The applicant shall work with Staff to revise the design of the monument sign and the “Welcome to Gilbert” signage. Said signage shall be subject to Staff review and approval.
The applicant shall work with Staff to revise the design and details of the enhanced paving materials. Said details shall be subject to Staff review and approval.
Three (3) revised copies of the Gilbert Fiesta Design Guidelines shall be submitted to the Town of Gilbert prior to the issuance of building permits for the subject site. The following revisions are required:
Revisions reviewed and approved by Staff per Conditions of Approval #1 & #2.
White halo illumination shall be utilized for the individual pan channel letters on the entry wall feature. Halo illumination shall be from a non-LED illumination source.
A non-LED illumination source shall be utilized for the internal illumination of the wall mounted individual pan channel signs.
Relocation out of the bottom of the retention basin of the accent trees shown in Exhibit A “Major Accent Feature at Street Intersection”.
Colour details shall be called out on the 6â?? Screen Wall Exhibit on page 8c-2.
The “Parking Lot Light Fixture” Exhibit shall be revised to indicate that the concrete base of the pole mounted fixture shall be finished to match the materials, colours, and design of the principle buildings.
The wall mounted signage section shall be revised to remove the restriction requiring all tenant signage to be red.
A motion was made by Board Member John Tomasson, seconded by Board Member Chris Lindahl to approve DR01-70, subject to Staff stipulations.
Motion Carried 6-0.
Staff recommends approval of DR01-70, Gilbert Fiesta, the final site plan, landscape plan, grading & drainage plan, lighting, and elevations for Phase I, preliminary site plan, landscape plan, lighting, and grading & drainage plan for Phase IA, and preliminary site plan for the remainder of the site, subject to the following conditions:
Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board on March 14, 2002. Any substantial revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Board prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project.
All development within the site shall comply with the approved Gilbert Fiesta design guidelines.
A revised landscape plan shall be submitted for Staff approval prior to submittal of construction documents with the following revisions:
The Blue Palo Verde trees immediately adjacent to the gateway feature element shall be relocated out the bottom of retention basins.
The phasing lines of the project shall be clearly indicated.
The developer shall be responsible for ½ the cost of landscaping the future medians on Gilbert & Williams Field Roads.
Additional Challenger 175 W Metal Halide wall mounted fixtures be added at the junction of Shops A & the Fryâ??s building, above the two loading areas on the rear of the Fryâ??s building, and immediately adjacent to the refuse enclosures behind Shops A and Shops C.
A final plat shall be required prior to the issuance of any building permits.
Sewer buy-in will be required to tributary facilities.
Water mains within the site shall be placed in an exclusive 12â?? water line easement that is to be dedicated by a Final Plat.
A revised grading and drainage plan shall be reviewed and approved by Staff prior to submittal of construction documents.
A revised Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) report shall be reviewed and approved by Staff prior to submittal of construction documents.
The full motion access point and median break on Gilbert Road shall be revised to comply with the approved Town of Gilbert design plans for Gilbert Road improvements project.
DR01-93 - Final Site Plan approval of an approximate 84,180 SF site for Exxon Mobil gas station. The subject site is located on northwest corner of Higley Road and Guadalupe Road, and is zoned C-1, PAD (Neighborhood Commercial, Planed Area Development).
Planner Jessica Leigh Galloway informed the Board that DR01-93 was a Final Site Plan approval of an approximate 84,180 SF site for Exxon Mobil gas station. The subject site was located on northwest corner of Higley Road and Guadalupe Road, and was zoned C-1, PAD (Neighborhood Commercial, Planed Area Development). She explained that the item was moved off of the Consent calendar to discuss the lighting stipulation, “Lighting under the gas canopy shall be reduced from 320 to 250 watts with a maximum 50 foot candle level.” She stated that Staff had been concerned about the high level of lighting under the canopy. The maximum candle power was 73.8 with an overall average of 49.98. She informed the Board that Board Member Robin Schneider shared some of the same concerns as Staff. She concluded her presentation and asked for comments from Board Member Robin Schneider.
Board Member Robin Schneider explained that the maximum foot candle under the canopies only needed to be about 20-30 foot candles, which was a nation wide standard. The last time they reviewed the project, she pointed out that they had exceeded 100-foot candles in some areas. She noted that the applicant was now proposing an average of 50-foot candles and a maximum of 73-foot candles. She expressed her concern that this lighting was more than necessary. Therefore, they were asking the applicant to take the lighting down to 250 watts and look at the placement of the fixtures to get a more even lighting level. Most importantly, she explained that they were concerned with safety. When people are under intense light levels, the eye closes up to a certain extent and when driving into a street that has a fraction of a foot-candle level, your eye could not adjust, becoming a safety issue.
Board Member David Gibson asked what the foot-candle level was for the 320 watts that was currently proposed.
Board Member Robin Schneider replied that the foot-candle ranged from 74 to 21 foot-candles. The average foot-candle was 50.
Board Member Bob Deardorff asked what the ordinance required for the foot-candle levels.
Board Member Robin Schneider responded that the ordinance did not call out specific required levels for foot-candles, but it was an area they were currently working on determining.
Board Member Bob Deardorff clarified that the Board decided the foot-candle level.
Chairman Darrell Truitt commented that he thought the lighting level might be considered signage.
Greg Lambright, 398 S. Mill Avenue #301, Tempe with Architekton came forward. He informed the Board that they had taken the light levels down on the site three times and had just found out that evening that they needed to bring the levels down again. He reviewed the stipulation and the lighting study that was provided, which indicated an average of 50-foot candle illumination. He referred to a Shell station that was in the county close by and the type of lighting used that they were also concerned about. He explained that if the lights were recessed up in the canopy the lighting would be narrowed down. He stated that they felt that if they dropped the lights to 250 watts, they might still exceed the 50 foot-candles and would need to do a study to determine this. He asked the Board to consider giving them the opportunity to work with Staff or the Board to do a study to determine what was the proper illumination under the canopies. He added that they wanted a facility that was well lit so that customers would feel safe coming into the site. He mentioned some sites in Tucson that they had been required to lower the foot-candles to 50 and the stations were extremely dark and did not give the customer a safe feeling. He pointed out that recessed and shielded lights make it hard to see what is happening outside the canopy since the light level is so low providing dark areas on the site. He requested that the Board consider the 320 watt reduced size light fixtures as proposed in the light study.
Chairman Darrell Truitt stated that he was still not convinced that the lighting that they were requesting was needed. He asked if the applicant felt strongly that they needed 320 watts for safety reasons, and not that they had reduced the lighting several times.
Greg Lambright agreed that they needed 320-watt lights in order for people to feel safe. He added that 50-foot candles max would only give 25-30 lumens under the canopy as an average.
Board Member Robin Schneider asked if the last submittal had the lights at 320 watts.
Greg Lambright responded that the wattage was the same, but the light fixtures were smaller and the lights were up higher in the light box.
Board Member Robin Schneider commented that she understood the applicant would reduce the wattage on the lights with this submittal. She thought that reducing the opening would not make much of a difference.
Greg Lambright explained that reducing the light size dropped the foot-candles from 116 maximum to 73 maximum and from 77 average to 50 average. Therefore, they had taken the lighting down by one third.
Board Member Robin Schneider informed the applicant that she thought they would be reducing the lighting down to 250 watts.
Greg Lambright replied that he had not heard the request for 250 watts until that evening.
Planner Jessica Leigh Galloway explained that when they originally requested a reduction of lighting, they had requested that the applicant reduce the lighting through spacing, wattage or the combination of both.
Chairman Darrell Truitt announced that he thought most service station canopies were over lit and were not aesthetically pleasing from the road.
Board Member Robin Schneider used an illuminated basketball court as a comparison and stated that they only used about 10 foot-candles for the courts. She asked why they would need 70 foot-candles to put gas in a car.
Greg Lambright explained that there were several functions going on when people obtained gas, such as processing credit cards.
Board Member Robin Schneider replied that she understood what Greg Lambright was stating, but when a person was coming in from a street that had a fraction of a foot-candle it became a contrast. She added that when you came in from a low light level, they would not need the enormous light levels to do the tasks that you would do during the day.
Board Member Bob Deardorff asked what was a good reading light level.
Board Member Robin Schneider answered that offices were generally lit around 40-50 foot- candles.
Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if there was a way to get the 20-30 foot candles with spacing and frequency and have the 50 maximum foot-candles.
Greg Lambright replied that he wasnâ??t sure and would need to do a light survey to determine the appropriate lighting.
Board Member Robin Schneider referred to Samâ??s Club gas canopy lighting study that used 250 watt lights and obtained an average of 32 foot-candles with a maximum of 50 foot-candles.
Greg Lambright asked if that requirement would be stipulated for every case in the future.
Board Member Robin Schneider agreed that they would be requesting this for other gas stations and were working on an ordinance to require the lighting levels described.
Board Member Bob Deardorff clarified that they were considering 55-foot candles as a maximum and 30 foot-candles as the average. He pointed out that the stipulation should state that they have a combination of fixtures that were no more than 250 watts that achieve 55 foot- candle maximum with an average of 30 foot candles.
Chairman Darrell Truitt commented that he didnâ??t understand lighting well enough to discern how much of the issue had to do with design versus safety.
Board Member David Gibson asked if the pumps had illumination.
Greg Lambright replied that the card reader board was backlit.
Chairman Darrell Truitt noted that since they didnâ??t have an ordinance in place yet that set the required lighting levels he thought they should just state the maximum and average foot candle and allow the applicant to provide the wattage that was required to achieve the result.
Board Member Robin Schneider agreed with Chairman Darrell Truittâ??s statement on requiring the result and not the means to achieve the desired lighting.
Chairman Darrell Truitt opened the public hearing and asked Wally Cantrell to come forward.
Wally Cantrell, 2915 E. Libria, Gilbert came forward. He informed the Board that he was part of the homeowners association in White Fence Farms 4. He stated that they had been involved in every development that has come forward in the area. He provided some history of the discussions that had occurred between their association and the developer. He commented that they had requested commercial development that would not have business hours in the evening. He asked the Board to mitigate the lighting and noise effects that would occur with the convenience store.
Board Member Bob Deardorff asked Board Member Robin Schneider to discuss the lighting around the perimeter of the site next to the residential development.
Board Member Robin Schneider commented that the applicant had done a nice job with lighting around the perimeter of the site and had used low-level lights.
Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if anyone else from the public wanted to speak. Seeing no one, he closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Board for discussion and action.
A motion was made by Board Member Robin Schneider, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to approve DR01-93, subject to Staff stipulations, adding a stipulation to state that lighting under the canopies shall be reduced to a maximum foot-candle level of 55.
Motion Carried 7-0.
Staff recommends approval for DR01-93, the site plan, landscape plan, preliminary grading and drainage, elevations, and lighting for ExxonMobil Gas Station, located in the northwest corner of Guadalupe and Higley Roads, 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 March 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.
Any signage proposed for this development shall receive approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a sign permit.
At the time of construction document submittal, the site plan shall include standard commercial and industrial site plan notes.
Lighting under the canopies shall be reduced to a maximum foot-candle level of 55.
DR01-118 â?? Final Site Plan approval for Hale Centre Theater located at the northeast corner of Ash Street and Page Avenue within Gilbertâ??s Heritage District.
Planning Manager Linda Edwards passed out a new packet to the Board that had just been revised that evening. She informed the Board that DR01-118 was the Final Site Plan approval for Hale Centre Theater located at the northeast corner of Ash Street and Page Avenue within Gilbertâ??s Heritage District. She introduced the owner, David Dietlein and the architect, Ken Oâ??Dell. She explained that the project would go to the Redevelopment Commission the following week for final approval of everything they were seeing that evening and for a recommendation for the zoning to the Town Council.
Ms. Edwards reviewed the site plan. She noted that the difference between the site plan that was previously given to the Board and the one that they were discussing that evening was that they had moved the handicap ramp, which was in a landscape island, to be between the ADA parking. In addition, the SES panels in the back had been recessed along the eastern elevation and the parking along the north side had a 6â??6″ sidewalk and a 6â?? planter. Previously, the 2â?? overhang went over some landscaping and a 4â?? sidewalk. Since they were concerned that the landscaping would be damaged, they had moved the site plan out to the property line to allow for a wider sidewalk and a wider landscape planner on the north side. The applicant had also added a data table that calculated the open space and building square footage. The ADA parking along Page Avenue needed the cuts through the curb, which was not shown on the site plan. She used the visual aid to discuss the site plan and the surrounding area. She explained that the area would become a very pedestrian oriented area.
Ms. Edwards pointed out that because the Town Council had not yet approved the zoning, they had a little window to recommend a stipulation that allowed for a deviation from the sign code. The signage on the rendered elevations was close to what Staff was recommending for approval with two deletions. She referred to the visual aid of the elevations and pointed out that they were recommending deletion of one of the signs on the north elevation since it was beyond the square footage that was typical for a single standing commercial building 75â?? behind right of way line. She noted that the building was 65â?? behind the right of way line. On the east elevation, she pointed out the sign on the visual aid that they were recommending to delete because they were trying to keep the square footage for the building within what the code would allow if the building had ten more feet of setback.
Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if the setback were greater if they would be allowed more square footage for signage on their building.
Ms. Edwards replied that 75â?? behind the right of way line contained the greatest square footage for signage. She clarified that if the Board recommended approval of the project, they were allowing the applicant to get more square footage for signage, since they were at 65â?? instead of 75â?? behind the right of way, then they would be allowed by code.
Ms. Edwards reviewed the components of the signage. She explained that the largest round sign would be about seven and a half feet by seven and half feet. She referred to the visual aid to illustrate the burgundy purple color that was painted on a 3″ cabinet installed flush to the fascia with wall transformers behind it. The sign then had white neon exposed lighting on top of the lettering and purple around the whole circle. She informed the Board that Staff supported the signage for the building.
Ms. Edwards discussed the sign on the west side of the building. She pointed out that the sign was painted aluminum with the same paint colors with a goose neck illuminated lighting.
Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if the applicant could remove the lineal signage instead of the round signage on the east elevation.
Ms. Edwards replied that the square footage was about the same for the lineal and the round signage and the owner could determine which sign he preferred to eliminate. She noted that the applicant had informed her that he preferred to have the lineal signage. She explained the lettering on the lineal sign as being open-faced 3″ pan channel burgundy painted inside and out with an exposed purple neon inside the lettering. Staff was recommending reverse pan channel, or hallow lighting, for this sign with 18″ letters and white neon. Therefore it would appear to have a soft glow in the evening. She asked for the Boards opinion and recommendation for the lettering, whether it should be open channel or the hallow lighting.
Board Member Robin Schneider agreed with Staff by stating that she preferred the black appearing letters with the white back lighting.
Ms. Edwards described some of the minor site plan changes that had taken place since the Board reviewed the project. She commented that since the Board and the Redevelopment Commission liked the project, there had not been many changes. She noted that the footprint of the building had changed. She used the visual aid to illustrate the changes. She added that there were a couple of minor changes to the site plan that would be put in place for the next hearing by the Redevelopment Commission; putting the bike racks to the side, adding decorative pavement and that the seat benches shall comply with the outdoor furniture pallet in the Redevelopment Plan.
Chairman Darrell Truitt commented that he thought the bike racks should be moved so they didnâ??t interfere with the circulation.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson recommended that the street tree along Page Avenue be changed from a thorny tree next to the sidewalk to a better variety. In addition to the thorns, he stated that the tree proposed lost its leaf during the winter and would not be very attractive, especially in the elegant area.
Ms. Edwards referred to the Evergreen Pear that was proposed on the west elevation which Staff felt would be too hot.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson replied that the Evergreen Pear could withstand the heat.
Ms. Edwards added that the felt there was a need to modify the landscape plan because trees were planted too close and there was an enormous amount of boulders which could be costly. She referred to the changes that Staff was recommending in the Staff report. She commented that they wanted to work with someone with landscape expertise and stipulated this in the conditions.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson recommended that they add more color in the landscape pallet, since many of the trees and plants would freeze and loose their leaves. He commented that he would be happy to help the applicant get better materials with more color on a year around basis.
Board Member Robin Schneider asked about the east elevation computer generated site plan lights that were on either side of the door, but were not located on the lighting plan.
Ms. Edwards replied that the lighting plan that was submitted, the wall mounted light fixture was not confirmed but the ten-foot pole was confirmed. The data on the plan did not reflect what the applicant had chosen and would need to be corrected. In addition, the applicant had not finalized the wall-mounted fixture and need to confirm that it would give the type of illumination they were trying to achieve. She suggested that they stipulate that the lighting plan supercede the elevations. In addition, she noted that the signage was conceptual on the elevations. Therefore, she suggested that the Board stipulate that signage and lighting was conceptual on the elevations.
Chairman Darrell Truitt requested that the applicant make his presentation.
David Dietlein, 3530 Amarillo Avenue, Simi Valley, CA came forward. He informed the Board that they approved of changing the signage to have hallowed lighting. He stated that he was excited about the project and did not have anything else to add to the presentation done by Ms. Edwards.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson pointed out that he would like to see some changes to the landscaping pallet to include more color.
David Dietlein agreed to make some changes on the landscaping.
Board Member David Gibson suggested that the colors on the color board be changed to provide more contrast. He referred to the color board and pointed out the colors he was concerned about.
Board Member Robin Schneider referred to the fixture in the parking lot and stated that they needed to be shielded. The decorative lights usually have a lower wattage of 40-60 watts. She asked what the wattage was on the gooseneck lights and what type of lighting would be used on the south elevation.
David Dietlein replied that they wanted enough wattage to light and give accent, but not so dim that they werenâ??t noticeable. Therefore, he thought they might provide a 100-150 watt light in the gooseneck lights.
Board Member Robin Schneider commented that she liked the look of the gooseneck lamp but was concerned that usually building mounted lights only went to 14â??
Chairman Darrell Truitt pointed out that typically they were concerned with building lighting if the building was backing up to a neighbor, where as in the proposed project the building would be next to an alley or street. He suggested that they make a stipulation about the lighting that would be subject to Staff approval and they could confirm the lighting with Board Member Robin Schneider prior to approval.
Board Member Bob Deardorff noted that the rendering was a lot warmer and richer with contrast than the color pallet. He added that he liked the green cornice better than that the plain brown cornice.
A short discussion ensued about the rendering and what the Board preferred.
Chairman Darrell Truitt asked what the applicant preferred on the colors of the building.
David Dietlein stated that he liked the colors that were depicted on the color board and that he felt there was contrast in these colors. He added that they had recommended simulated copper look on the seamed metal rooflines on the front of the building. He pointed out on the visual aid where they would provide the simulated copper look on the cornice.
Board Member Bob Deardorff noted that the colors on the renderings were warmer than the colors on the color pallet.
Board Member David Gibson added that the sun would bleach the colors as well.
Chairman Darrell Truitt pointed out that they would get some contrast with the brickwork.
Board Member Robin Schneider asked if the sign would have white neon or beige neon.
Ms. Edwards replied that the neon would be beige.
Board Member Robin Schneider replied that she preferred the beige neon.
Chairman Darrell Truitt asked the Board to summarize the stipulations that they were proposing.
Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that the body and accent color of the renderings were more representative of what they wanted to see than the color pallet. The cornice of the main mass shall be the simulated copper matching the roofing elements.
Vice Chairman Gary Petterson suggested that they eliminate the Acacia Smalia and provide another species that wasnâ??t thorny such as a Delbergia Assusu. The landscaping shall include more perennials that provide more color and withstand the cold.
Ms. Edwards asked for a clarification on the color change of the mass of the building. She asked if it would be a paint color change or a material change.
Board Member Bob Deardorff replied that it would be a color change on the cornice.
A motion was made by Board Member David Gibson, seconded by Board Member Robin Schneider, subject to Staff stipulations; adding a stipulation to state that the body and accent color of the renderings were more representative of what they were approving than the color pallet. The cornice of the main mass shall be the simulated copper, matching the roofing elements; adding a stipulation to state that the Acacia Smalia shall be eliminated and replaced with another species that wasnâ??t thorny such as the Delbergia Assusu. The landscaping shall include more perennials that provided more color and withstand the cold.
Motion Carried 7-0.
Staff recommends approval of DR01-118 for the site plan, preliminary grading and drainage plan, landscape plan, signage plan, lighting plan, and building elevations for the Hale Centre Theatre, located at the northeast corner of Ash Street and Page Avenue, subject to the following conditions:
The Design Review Board’s approval of this application is contingent upon adoption by the Town Council of an ordinance rezoning the property in Z01-31, from R-3 to PAD/E-R, Planned Area Development/Entertainment Recreation.
Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Redevelopment Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project.
The revised Landscape Plan will be reviewed and approved by the Redevelopment Commission.
A lighting plan will be reviewed and approved by the Redevelopment Commission.
Any signage proposed for this development shall receive approval by the Redevelopment Commission prior to the issuance of a sign permit.
Final location of the bike racks to be approved by the Planning Department.
Decorative pavement will be added to the site plan to connect the pathway along the west elevation to connect with future development to the north.
Building elevations will be revised to provide dimensions for recessed façade areas.
Seat benches will comply with the Outdoor Furniture Palette of the Heritage District Redevelopment Plan and will receive final approval by the Redevelopment Commission.
At the time of construction document submittal, the site plan shall include standard commercial and industrial site plan notes.
The body and accent color of the renderings were more representative of what they were approving than the color pallet. The cornice of the main mass shall be the simulated copper, matching the roofing elements.
The Acacia Smalia shall be eliminated and replaced with another species that wasnâ??t thorny such as the Delbergia Assusu. The landscaping shall include more perennials that provided more color and withstand the cold.
DR00-58 â?? Proposed elevation modifications to the Fairways at Superstition Springs development located north of the northwest corner of Guadalupe and Power Roads.
Planner David Marsh informed the Board that DR00-58 was the proposed elevation modifications to the Fairways at Superstition Springs development located north of the northwest corner of Guadalupe and Power Roads. He used the visual aid to discuss the site and surrounding area. He stated that the project was approximately 8.5 acres with 102,400 square foot office building with multiple buildings. He pointed out that the Board and the Town Council approved it in the summer of 2000. He explained that at the request of a Town Council member, Staff had a site inspection visit to the site because of some construction regularities. Upon inspection, the Staff found that Buildings B and Buildings E, which were currently occupied by temporary Certificate of Occupancy, were found to be in non-compliance on four issues.
Mr. Marsh described the four issues that were in non-compliance. The buildings have been constructed without the control joints in the exterior stucco / EIFS finish. He used the visual aid of the approved elevations and compared them with the pictures of the actual project that were constructed without the control joints. He stated that the applicant had attached a letter to explain the reasons the joints were not constructed.
The second non-compliance issue, Mr. Marsh explained, was that the buildings had been finished with the wrong exterior stucco / EIFS color. The approved plan color was Dunn Edwards Custom “2/3 Fandango” color, whereas the buildings have been finished in a color approximate to Dunn Edwards “Bronze Nude”. He showed the Board the color chips of the approved color and compared it to the actual colors that were used in the field.
Mr. Marsh indicated that the third non-compliance issue was that the buildings as constructed feature unenclosed SES areas. Fourthly, the buildings had roof tiles that were lighter than the exterior stucco / EIFS color, whereas the approved plans required a roof tile to be a darker color. Moreover, the approved plans called out that the roof tiles are to match the same color as the stucco / EIFS trim, and not the same color as the main field color; however, the constructed buildings do not have a different color for the trim and main field.
Mr. Marsh explained that after meeting with the applicant and the Planning Director they determined that since it was such a substantial change it could not be approved by Staff. Therefore, they were asking for the Board to review the project that evening. After working with Staff, he noted that the applicant requested that the Board approve their elevation modifications as they were built on site. He referred to the elevations that were included in the Boardâ??s packet and stated that the applicant was proposing these elevations for approval.
Mr. Marsh pointed out the proposed changes in the approved elevations:
Deletion of the score joints or â??control jointsâ?? in the exterior EIFS finish.
Changing the main field color to ICI “Nutty Brown” and the accent color to ICI “Brown Study”.
Recessing of SES panels 24″ into the shell of the building wall, and painting the equipment to match the main field color.
Approval of the roof tile color as constructed.
Mr. Marsh informed the Board that they may elect to take one of the following actions:
The Design Review Board may approve the proposed elevation modifications, as presented by the applicant; or
The Design Review Board may approve the proposed elevation modifications with conditions; or
The Design Review Board may deny the proposed elevation modifications. This would require the applicant to modify the existing structures to conform with the elevations approved by the Design Review Board on May 11th, 2000.
Mr. Marsh stated that the Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions listed in the Staff report. He indicated that the Staff accepted the color as is; the roof tile as is; that the score joints be placed in the buildings that were under construction and all in all future buildings; the score joints shall be retrofitted into the existing buildings; and the SES panels shall be screened by a wall that was the same color, texture and design as the main structure. He explained that they had considered enclosing the panels with doors, but the SES panels project several inches beyond the recess of the building. Therefore, they would need to bring walls out to add the doors and they felt it would not be compatible with the building design. He concluded his presentation and asked for questions from the Board.
Chairman Darrell Truitt pointed out that the applicant had built several project in the east valley. He asked if the Staff had looked at any of the other projects.
Mr. Marsh replied that some of the other projects had exposed SES panels but they didnâ??t face the street. He explained that the current project had stipulated that the SES panels be placed on an elevation that didnâ??t face the street or be screened.
Board Member David Gibson asked if there was a stipulation to screen the walls in the other projects.
Mr. Marsh responded that it was not stipulated for the SES panels to be screened. He noted that in the current project during the course of review the Staff had looked at the comment letters that stated that they were to recess or enclose the SES panels. The applicant then resubmitted the elevations that were approved by the Board, which stated that the SES panels would be painted to match the building. He stated that the plans indicated that a door would enclose the panels, but it was not explicitly listed as such. Since Staff, after reviewing the elevations, felt that the panels were being enclosed, they did not stipulate that they needed to be screened.
Board Member David Gibson verified that the Staff supported leaving the colors the way they were in the field.
Mr. Marsh replied that with the EIFS material it would be detrimental to the project to retrofit the color. Therefore, they felt it was better to leave the colors as they were currently on the buildings.
Board Member David Gibson asked if it would be compromising to the EIFS system to go back and score the joints.
Mr. Marsh answered that there was an argument for sealing for invasion of moisture. He added that they had heard differing opinions as to whether it could be done or not.
Board Member John Tomasson commented that he would not suggest scoring the joints since it would not look appropriate. He suggested that they change the EIFS color than to try to put scored joints in.
Board Member Bob Deardorff stated that he thought they had little recourse when someone disregards the approved set of plans and builds whatever they want.
Mr. Marsh explained that the applicant had informed them that they built a test wall with the approved set of colors and that it didnâ??t look good. Therefore, they elected to change the colors and didnâ??t seek approval through the Town.
Board Member Bob Deardorff questioned the roof tile color.
Mr. Marsh answered that as approved with the elevations, the roof tile was to match the trim color, which was slightly darker than the main body. Because the main field color was slightly darker than approved, the roof tile did not have as much contrast as approved. After reviewing the project, the Staff felt that it would be too expensive to ask the applicant to change the roof tiles or paint the tiles.
Board Member Bob Deardorff asked if the roof tiles were the approved color.
Mr. Marsh responded that the roof tiles were the approved color, but since the body was a darker color there was not the contrast that was approved.
Chairman Darrell Truitt asked the Board to consider their options on the colors. He indicated that they needed to consider their options for the existing buildings and for the future buildings. He explained that they could consider other colors on the remaining buildings that were compatible but not perpetuating what was already there. He stated that they ought to consider whether or not to score the existing buildings and the future buildings.
Chairman Darrell Truitt requested that the applicant come forward and make his presentation.
Steve Beck, 3850 E. Baseline Road #128, Mesa with UTAZ Development Corporation came forward. He provided a history of the project. He explained that they always build sample walls to see what the actual building would look like. He used the visual aid of the elevations to show what they envisioned the building to look like. As they built the sample wall the Fandango paint color was unbelievably orange. Upon realizing this, they tried to match what was approved on the renderings. With that, they determined to use the colors they currently had in the field. He compared the photographs of the existing buildings and the renderings that were approved and stated that they felt the colors were very close. He stated that they recognized that there was a change and that they should have got the colors approved by the Staff and Board. However, he summarized that it was their intent to try and most fully meet what they had approved on the colors on the renderings.
Mr. Beck discussed the scored joints. He stated that initially they were going to do a sand stucco finish. As they looked at the project, they decided it would be better to do an EIFS finish with the integral color and long-term value. It also cost the developer almost twice as it would have to do the stucco. In making this change, he explained that they eliminated the scored joints. He added that if they looked at the buildings they would see the reveals and pop outs horizontally that were built and looked good. He stated that they were concerned about how busy the scored joints would make the building look. He commented that they felt the building as built was superior to the business that the scored joints created on the approved plans.
Mr. Beck discussed the roof tile and stated that it was the same color as approved and that it matched the trim color. He used the color board to illustrate the current colors that were being used in the project and explained that there were two colors used. In addition, they had tried to tie in the cultured stone to the buildings.
Mr. Beck stated that when they had their designed completed the service entrances were all on the interior of the project. In the design phase, SRP required that all the service entrance sections for the buildings on Power Road be put on the Power Road side of the buildings because that was the only place that they would allow the feed for those buildings be put into. He noted that they had a batter stone pier going up the side of the building that would block the SES cabinet until they were right in front of