Design Review Board Regular Meeting Minutes

1025 S. Gilbert Road

April 11, 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 ABSENT: Board Member Robin Schneider

STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Jerry Swanson, Planning Manager Linda Edwards, Planning Manager Maria Cadavid, Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks, Planner David Marsh, Planner Matt Everling, 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 DT99-61 2 APPROVED
CONSENT DR00-48 3 APPROVED
CONSENT DR00-82 4 APPROVED
CONSENT DR01-114 4 APPROVED
CONSENT DR02-08 4 APPROVED
CONSENT DR02-07 5 APPROVED
CONSENT DR02-09 5 APPROVED
CONSENT DR02-12 6 APPROVED
MR. FAIRBANKS DR01-105 6 APPROVED
MS. BAILEY DR01-99 9 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.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Chairman Darrell Truitt announced that there were revised stipulations to DR02-07 that were passed out to the Board that evening. He stated that he understood that everyone was in agreement with the new stipulations and requested a motion to approve the agenda.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, seconded by Board Member David Gibson to approve the 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 public and asked for a motion to approve consent items.

Board Member Chris Lindahl noted that there was a photometric study mentioned on DR01-114 that was not included in the Staff report. He asked if the study had been submitted.

Planner Brooke Bailey replied that they had just received the photometric study on DR01-114.

A motion was made by Board Member John Tomasson, seconded by Board Member Chris Lindahl to approve the consent items.

Motion Carried 6-0.

Minutes â?? Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes of March 14, 2002.

DR99-61 â?? Re-approval of site plan, landscaping and building elevations for a Sonic Drive-In proposed east of the southeast corner of Warner and Cooper Roads. The site is zoned PAD with the underlying zoning designation of C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial).

Staff recommends approval of DR99-61, Sonic Drive In Restaurant proposed as phase I of Cooper Marketplace II, subject to the following conditions:

Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board on December 9, 1999. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Board prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project.

The driveway access and pedestrian crossing shall be identified by special paving treatment to match the existing center.

All pole lighting shall be limited to 16â?? in height. Exterior security lighting and parking lot poles shall be directed downward, with a 90-degree cut-off, away from residential properties and public streets. Exterior lighting, including cut sheets and a Photometric Study, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department at the time of construction documents review.

The landscape plan shall be revised to include the following changes:

The turf indicated along the street frontage shall be eliminated. The plan shall be revised to be in conformance with the existing center.

The decomposed granite shall be ½” minus to match the existing center.

All existing landscape material shall remain; any material damaged during the construct of the project will be replaced in size and kind. The landscape will be inspected at final inspection for full conformance with the Cooper Marketplace I plans and the Sonic Drive-In plans.

Two additional “Desert Museum” Palo Verde Trees shall be added along the east property line at wider portions of the planter.

Earthen Berms shall be incorporated along the street frontage to create visual appeal and screen the basins behind. Said earthen berms shall be a minimum of 24″ in height ranging to 36″ in height above the adjacent street curb. Review and approval of the revised grading and drainage plan by the Planning Department shall be required prior to final action of the final site plan for Sonic Restaurant by the Town Council.

The grading and drainage plans shall be revised to include basins of curvilinear design with no more than 50% of the street frontage shall be utilized for retention basins. Review and approval of the revised grading and drainage plan by the Planning Department shall be required prior to final action of the final site plan for Sonic Restaurant by the Town Council.

The fluorescent light fixtures shall require a lens; the light source shall not be visible from public view. Details shall be provided with the construction documents for review and approval by the Planning Department Staff.

All signage shall comply with the previously approved sign package for Cooper Marketplace I, DR98-87. Color, materials and placement must be consistent with the sign package. All signs are required to receive a permit through the Town of Gilbert Building Department.

DR00-48 - Reactivation of the Design Review Board approval given on May 11, 2000, for the site plan, landscaping, preliminary grading and drainage, and building elevations for CBS Technologies Inc. proposed to locate on lots 40 and 41 of Sunrise Business Park at the NWC of Elliot and McQueen Roads.

DR00-82 â?? Pete and Macâ??s Pet Resort Monument Sign â?? 373 E. Elliot Road

Staff recommends approval of DR00-82 for a new 22 square-foot monument sign to be located adjacent to the western entrance of the existing commercial site., subject to the following condition:

These plans are presented for a new monument sign for Pete & Macâ??s Pet Resort. Amendments to the approved plans shall require either administrative review and approval by staff or the Design Review Board as required, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Construction documents for the sign will comply with the plans presented to the Board at the public meeting of April 11, 2002.

DR01-114 - Request for approval of the site plan, landscaping plan, and building elevations for the Exxon/Mobil and approval of the conceptual site plan design for the shopping center, located in a PAD with an underlying C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district, located at the southeast corner of Pecos and Gilbert Roads.

Staff recommends approval of the final and preliminary site plan, grading and drainage, landscaping, building elevations and signage for DR01-114, 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 April 11, 2002 public hearing.

At the time of construction document submittal, the site plan shall include standard commercial and industrial site plan notes.

DR02-08 â?? Approval for final site plan, and building elevations for Petco located at southwest corner of Power and Baseline Roads in the Superstition Springs Albertsonâ??s Center and is zoned C-2 (General Commercial).

Staff recommends approval for DR02-8, the site plan, elevations, and lighting for Petco Building, Superstition Springs Albertsonâ??s 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 April 11, 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, with the exception of note 11 regarding internalizing the downspouts.

DR02-07 â?? Approval of (6) six standard plans, Plans 1 through 6 proposed by William Lyon Homes located in Gateway Village I. Gateway Village I is located west of the southwest corner of Ray and Power Roads, and is zoned P.A.D. with underlying zoning designation of R-2.

Staff recommends approval of DR02-7 William Lyon Homes at Gateway Village I six (6) standard plans 1 through 6, 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 April 11, 2002 subject to staff stipulations and any additional conditions imposed by the Board at said meeting.

These standard plans are approved for 235 lots, lots 166 through 401 of the Gateway Village PAD. 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. 1330 in rezoning case Z00-31. Coverage is interpreted as the area under roof including patios, porches and garages.

Plan 1 shall be restricted to side turn in garage only, except for those lots indicated on the attached â??Illustrative Site Plan â?? Gateway Village Iâ??, where a side turn in garage or front loaded garage option may be permitted..

All Plans shall have a minimum eighty (80) square foot covered porch, patio, or balcony.

DR02-09 â?? Approval of (5) five standard plans by Morrison Homes for 68 lots within the Chapparal Estates West subdivision, located south of the SWC of Higley and Williams Field Roads. The property is zoned PAD with an underlying zoning designation of R1-10 (Single-Family Residential).

Staff recommends approval of DR02-09, for five (5) standard plans proposed by Morrison Homes on lots 171-186, and lots 221-272 in Chaparral Estates West P.A.D., located at the southwest corner of Williams Field and Higley Roads, subject to the following conditions:

These plans are presented for lots 171-186, and lots 221-272, within the Chaparral Estates West Subdivision. Amendments to the approved plans shall require either administrative review and approval by staff or the Design Review Board as required, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Construction documents for houses proposed by Morrison Homes will comply with the plans and Conditions of Approval presented to the Board at the public meeting of April 11, 2002.

All standard plans shall adhere to the lot coverage and setback requirements stipulated by Ordinance No. 1167. Lot coverage is interpreted as the area under a roof including patios, porches and garages.

The Standard Plans shall comply with the standard residential house plan conditions adopted by resolution of the Design Review Board on December 14, 2000.

All two-story homes shall include detailing around openings on all elevations. Both single-story plans shall have detailing treatment on the rear and side elevations when abutting open space or any public street comparable and secondary to the front elevation treatment. This condition applies to homes sited on lots 171, 186, 221, 241, 242, 257, 258, and 272.

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

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

DR02-12 â?? Approval of the open space program for Power Ranch Neighborhood 5 proposed on the west side of Power Road between Germann and Haven Crest Roads.

Staff recommends approval of the Open Space Program for Neighborhood 5 of the North Village at Power Ranch subject to the following conditions:

Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board on April 11, 2002. Any revisions to the approved plans, shall be reviewed and approved by the Board, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

DR01-105 â?? Approval of the site plan, landscaping plan, and building elevations for Brakes Plus within the Bayshore Plaza Shopping Center, located in the PSC-1 (Planned Shopping Center) zoning district, at the northwest corner of Warner Road and Cooper Road.

Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks informed the Board that DR01-105 was the approval of the site plan, landscaping plan, and building elevations for Brakes Plus within the Bayshore Plaza Shopping Center, located in the PSC-1 (Planned Shopping Center) zoning district, at the northwest corner of Warner Road and Cooper Road. He reminded the Board that the Bayshore Plaza was approved in the late 1990s with Smithâ??s as the major tenant, but had vacated the site since the plaza was approved.

Mr. Fairbanks provided an overview of the site improvements. He used the visual aid of the site plan and listed the surrounding uses in the area. To the west of the site beyond the shopping center was the Islands residential development in excess of 200 feet away, which was a requirement when there was an automotive use in the C-1 zoning district. He stated that the seven service bays for Brakes Plus were oriented to the north with one bay oriented to the east. The primary access to the building faced south.

Mr. Fairbanks identified the four items that were noted from the previous Design Review Board workshop regarding the application. He reminded the Board that they had commented on the prominent entrance feature that was designed with a hipped roof and was a similar scale to the rest of the building. He explained that the Board had suggested that they provide a more prominent entrance feature by increasing the height of that feature. The applicant had provided a provision in their deed restrictions, which limited the height to 26â??, but in order to meet both objectives, they had changed the design from a hipped roof to a parapet roof and were at the maximum of 26â?? height. Another concern of the Board at the working session was that the previous elevations, which were typical Brakes Plus elevations, did not tie into the center. He showed the Board the approved elevations for Bayshore Plaza. The split face and scored CMU that was prominent in the center was now being used as a prominent wainscot throughout the building. The accent details, which were on the major column features, were being used. The scoring of the stucco, which was done throughout Bayshore Plaza, was being matched. The cornice and the accent features were also being matched to the rest of the Plaza. Another item that the Board had noted in the previous meeting was to see if there was a potential to reorient the bays away from the restaurant users. He explained that Brakes Plus identified that their bays did not face the outdoor restaurant users. He used the visual aid to discuss where the bays were located in relationship to the restaurant users. He identified that the bays were located next to tenants that were less pedestrian oriented. He reminded the Board that they had encouraged some mitigation for the site to account for the different types of uses versus the automotive use in the center. The applicant had increased the landscape buffer to a 10â?? buffer with 36″ box trees to provide something that would mitigate the sound that would come from the facility from the retail users to the north.

Mr. Fairbanks pointed out some of the stipulations that were in the Staff report. He noted that the sanitation department would have to go inside the site to service the trash enclosure and there was a stipulation that required them to make changes in those landscape planters to facilitate that access. In addition, there was a stipulation that required some of the trees to change from evergreen elm to be a more evergreen species. He requested the Board to give their input on this stipulation. There was also a stipulation that required a screening wall to be placed in a landscape planner that was an ordinance requirement. Finally, he commended the applicant for matching the adjacent elevations for Bayshore Plaza, however he noted that the accent features were painted on the elevations. In contrast, Bayshore Plaza had ceramic tiles so the applicant was asked to upgrade their accent features to match.

Mr. Fairbanks explained that he had provided the Board a letter from the adjacent homeowners association from Bayshore Plaza. In the letter, they identified that they had not had an opportunity to work with the applicant on the facility. He identified that the applicant had met all the requirements that the Town had and had posted the property fifteen days in advance. The Town posted the meeting notice in advance in three different public places. In addition, the applicant had sent letters to all the residents within three hundred feet and to four homeowners associations. He stated that he was unsure why the architectural review committee was not notified. He concluded his report and asked for questions from the Board.

Board Member David Gibson asked what the width of the sidewalk was in front of the building.

Mr. Fairbanks replied that he thought the sidewalk was 7â?? with the parking spaces overhanging 2â?? providing a substantial sidewalk.

Board Member Chris Lindahl asked if the trees on the north side of the service bays were 36″ box trees or 24″ box trees.

Mr. Fairbanks responded that he made an error earlier in stating that they were 36″ box trees, but they were actually 24″ box trees. He explained that the Town required that half of the trees be 24″ box trees and the applicant had met that standard.

Chairman Darrell Truitt invited the applicant to come forward for his presentation.

Dean Pashata, 5652 S. Yampa Street, Centenial, CO with Brakes Plus came forward. He announced that he was the Vice President of Brakes Plus. He pointed out that along the north area of the property they had 24″ box trees and a decorative wall which was 8â?? to 6â??, which helped to buffer the noise to the north. He added that most of the adjacent tenants were to the west of the building. He addressed the issue about the architectural committee and explained that they were unaware of any architectural committee having to be notified and that the CC&Rs governing the shopping center didnâ??t require a submittal to the committee.

Chairman Darrell Truitt opened the public hearing and asked Lou Boscia to come forward.

Lou Boscia, 825 W. Wagner Dr., Gilbert came forward. He informed the Board that he was the President of the Islands Homeowners Association and that this was the first time he had seen the plan. In the past, he explained that he Islands Homeowners Association had worked with three other commercial developments prior to the project coming to the Design Review Board. He noted that the Association did have control over the architecture of all the properties in the Islands. He urged the Board not to vote on the project until the applicant had come to the Islands Homeowners Association and fulfilled the obligation of their CC&Rs.

Chairman Darrell Truitt explained that they didnâ??t have the authority to do what Mr. Boscia had requested.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson explained that the Townâ??s obligation was public notification and that the issue Mr. Boscia had addressed was a private and contractual matter.

Chairman Darrell Truitt stated that if the Board voted on it that evening and the applicant worked out something different with the Association that was substantial they would then need to come back to the Board to review the revisions.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson added that if the changes were minor, than it could be handled through administrative means rather than through the Board.

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

A motion was made by Board Member Chris Lindahl, seconded by Board Member Bob Deardorff to approve DR01-105, subject to Staff stipulations.

Motion Carried 6-0

Staff recommends approval of the site plan, landscaping plan, signage, lighting and building elevations for the Brakes Plus facility within Bayshore Plaza, 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 April 11, 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 landscape planters southwest and southeast of the building will be redesigned to provide a 35′ inside radius to facilitate sanitation pick-up.

The construction landscape plan submittal shall identify that the four (4) evergreen elm trees proposed northwest of the service bays shall be replaced with four (4) Ficus nitida.

A combination of a stair-step 6′ wall and landscape, to be located east of the east facing service bay, shall be approved during the construction document review process. The scored CMU wall shall be painted “chocolate frost” and will include perforated block, with the decorative internal perforations painted “deep red” to match the decorative split-face block of the building.

At the time of construction document approval, the buff-colored integral concrete shall be reviewed and approved for the pedestrian areas adjacent to the building.

All wall signage shall comply with DR96-78, the comprehensive sign package for Bayshore Plaza. The logo sign shall be recessed within the building facade so that the sign face shall be flush with the building facade. The sign face shall be embossed to provide a dimensional quality to the sign.

The decorative accent features on the building columns and screening wall north of the building shall be revised to be decorative ceramic tile, rather than painted EIFS.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson informed the Board that there was a Gilbert High School student that was visiting the Planning Department for student government days. He noted that the student was following him around to learn his job and would have a mock council meeting in the morning. He expressed how impressed he was with the student.

DR01-99 â?? Reconsideration of the Final Site Plan Approval for Lots 4, 7 and 10, and amended preliminary site plan approval of the remainder of the 13.4 acre site at the southeast corner of McQueen and Elliot Roads. The subject site is zoned PSC-1 (Planned Neighborhood Shopping Center).

Planner Brooke Bailey informed the Board that DR01-99 was the reconsideration of the Final Site Plan Approval for Lots 4, 7 and 10, and amended preliminary site plan approval of the remainder of the 13.4 acre site at the southeast corner of McQueen and Elliot Roads. The subject site is zoned PSC-1 (Planned Neighborhood Shopping Center). She pointed out that the applicant had worked on both the Design Review Board and Islands Review Board recommendations to make revisions to the site plan.

Ms. Bailey discussed the changes that the applicant had made to the site plan. She used the visual aid to point out that the original site plan had 20â??-30â?? setbacks along the project and the applicant had increased the setback to 40â?? from the property line along South Island Drive. In addition, they had increased the landscape area south of Retail Shops â??Aâ?? from 22â?? to 31â??. The drive aisle south of Retail Shops â??Aâ?? was conditioned to be one-way in the February approval, but due to stacking concerns it was now proposed to be two-way, but will only run the length of Lot 6. The waste enclosure for Retail Shops â??Aâ?? was relocated away from the residential neighborhood.

Ms. Bialey pointed out that the applicant met all zoning requirements for the site, including building and landscape setbacks, parking building height coverage and use. She concluded her presentation and asked if there were any questions.

Since there werenâ??t any questions for the Staff, Chairman Darrell Truitt invited the applicant to come forward and make his presentation.

Jay Taranton, 6621 N. Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale with Taranton Development and Management came forward. He explained that they had several meetings with the homeowners and had agreed to do some things that had impacted their project and made it better. He stated that they agreed to the larger setbacks, which were double the requirement that was required by the Town and the Islandâ??s Homeowners Association. He explained that the setback was 40â?? from the property line and the homes across the street had a 15â?? setback. He announced that the buildings across the residential neighborhood were not taller than the homes in the development. He informed the Board that they were in agreement with the Staff and the stipulations as stated in the Staff report. He referred to a letter that was given to the Board from the Islands Board that indicated that they approved the site plan and building elevations.

Board Member John Tomasson referred to the two-lane road that was located behind Lot 6 and asked if there was going to be a road there in the original approval.

Mr. Taranton explained that the original approval that took place two years ago had a fast food store and a building with a fire drive where the existing road was located. He used the visual aid of the site plan to show where the original buildings were to be placed.

Board Member John Tomasson stated that he was concerned about the two-lane road behind Lot 6 and parking behind Lot 8 because of the noise. He asked how they would get fire access through from Lot 6 to Lot 8 since it appeared to have trees blocking the road.

Mr. Taranton replied that they would have a 12â?? strip with a rolled curb that the fire department could use.

Board Member John Tomasson asked how much parking was located behind Lot 8.

Mr. Taranton responded that they were proposing to have parking for the day care center employees behind Lot 8.

Board Member David Gibson asked how they would be able to service the building that was located on the south west corner of the site plan.

Mr. Taranton replied that the lane behind the building was 24â?? and there would be room to service the building.

The Board briefly discussed the lane behind Lot 6 and whether it could be one way instead of two way.

Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward came forward. He announced that they had reviewed the project and the amount of traffic that would be generated at the southernmost driveway would require a two way drive to alleviate some of the traffic. He added that with the project they anticipated only an 8-9% increase of traffic along South Islands Drive. He noted that they anticipated about 400-500 total vehicles to use the McQueen Road access during an eight hour day.

Board Member John Tomasson asked if the deceleration lane would be needed.

Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward replied that when the signal went in, they would not need the deceleration lane.

Board Member Bob Deardorff asked if the signal would be installed during the Certificate of Occupancy during the first phase of buildings.

Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward replied that the signal was scheduled to be installed in 2003.

Chairman Darrell Truitt opened the public hearing and requested that Craig Chapman come forward.

Craig Chapman, 142 S. Diamond Key Court came forward. He informed the Board that they had two meetings since the last Board hearing. He explained that the developers agreed to go back and make revisions on their plan based on the neighborhood input. He described some of the concerns expressed; construction access and set back requirements. After the second meeting, the developers asked the neighborhood to agree that their improvements were acceptable and would support the project. He expressed his concern about the setback requirements that were staked off by the developer. He asked for clarification on where the property line was located since all the stakes were marked at 60â?? from the curb line. He was concerned that when the buildings were constructed the stakes would be pulled and the property line, which was hard to determine, may end up closer to the curb creating a smaller setback than what the neighborhood agreed to. He asked the developer to agree to build based on where the markers were currently placed which was 61â??-65â?? from the curb.

The Board briefly reviewed the site plan to try to determine where the property line was.

Chairman Darrell Truitt clarified that it looked like the building setback lines were 49â?? from the face of the curb plus another foot or two.

Lou Boscia, 825 W. Wagner Dr., Gilbert came forward. He pointed out that he was the President of the Islands Homeowners Association. He stated that the developer had agreed to the property lines as posted on the property. He added that they had the stake measurements noted in their records for future review when the property is developed.

Ray Myrabo, 117 S. Diamond Key Court, Gilbert came forward. He expressed his concern over the necessity of the road off of South Islands Drive into the commercial property. He commented that the road would bring in a lot of traffic into the Islands property. There was already an issue in the neighborhood with people cutting through the area in order to get around the traffic light. He used the visual aid to illustrate the traffic flow that was diverted through their neighborhood to reach other surface streets. He requested that they keep their Islands entrance the way it was and not add the commercial traffic to their neighborhoods. He added that the commercial road leading into their development would decrease the value of their homes. He informed the Board that they had over 100 signatures regarding the issue from the homeowners in the Islands. Traffic and safety was also a big concern as there was an elementary school in the area. He described a situation where a crossing guard was almost hit a couple weeks ago because of the great amount of traffic. He requested that the Board review the exit onto South Islands Drive and determine that it not be required for the project.

Board Member Bob Deardorff reviewed the traffic patterns in the area and how the project would impact the traffic.

The Board briefly discussed how the traffic might travel through and around the proposed project.

Manny Murry, 133 Diamond Key Court, Gilbert came forward. He explained that the neighbors had requested a wall along Diamond Key Court, but compromised because the developer had agreed to move the setbacks further back from the property line. Unfortunately, the property line was not a concrete measurement since there wasnâ??t anything on the site that confirmed those lines. He passed out a measurement that he had taken himself, as a retired general contractor. His other concern regarded the floor elevations facing South Islands Drive. He explained that they had proposed that the developer set the buildings at one foot above curb height since the homes across the street could be viewed over the walls into the bedrooms.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked the Staff if they had gone out and looked at the stakes.

Ms. Bailey replied that no one from the Staff had reviewed the stakes and measurements.

Chairman Darrell Truitt requested that the Staff review the stakes while they were still in the field. He asked if anyone had verified the face of curb dimension. He added that it wasnâ??t very often that they built 48â?? face to face of curb streets for collector road details in the Town of Gilbert, since the standard was 33â??.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward to come forward so they could ask him some questions. He asked if Mr. Ward had any knowledge on what the street curbs measurements were.

Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward replied that he was unsure of the street dimensions.

Chairman Darrell Truitt requested Mr. Wardâ??s opinion on the traffic impacts on South Islands Drive and whether the ingress and egress off South Islands Drive would significantly impact the T and the drive going to the southwest.

Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward responded that the South Islands Drive exit would not impact the traffic very much, perhaps 5%-6%. He expected an additional 40-50 cars coming out of the development in the afternoon. With the building of the traffic signal, he anticipated that much of the traffic would make a left turn onto Elliot Road and would not cause too much of an impact going into the Islands development.

Chairman Darrell Truitt agreed with Mr. Ward and added that he didnâ??t think people would go through the development unless they lived there. He asked Mr. Ward to comment on the concerns the homeowners had about people bypassing the McQueen and Elliot intersection and using the South Islands Drive.

Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward answered that the only way they could verify if people were cutting through the neighborhood would be to do a license plate study. He explained that Elliot Road was one of the busier roads since they opened up the freeway. He added that they were reviewing the traffic on the road and were working on some ways to move the traffic along Elliot Road better. He stated that there were about 30, 000-35,000 vehicles a day on Elliot Road.

Board Member Bob Deardorff verified that the increase of traffic would happen during the peak traffic times in the morning and afternoon.

Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward agreed that the increase in traffic would be during the peak traffic hours. He added that if they didnâ??t allow the exit on South Islands Drive it would be very detrimental to the project.

Chairman Darrell Truitt added that if they closed the exit on South Islands Drive they would be requiring the neighbors to go out on the arterials making it more difficult for it to function as a neighborhood center. He thought that the project and exit on South Islands Drive might actually help the traffic that was trying to bypass the busy intersection. He reviewed the traffic patterns that might occur in the area.

Chairman Darrell Truitt requested that the applicant come forward to discuss the neighborhood issues. He asked Mr. Taranton to clarify the setback.

Mr. Taranton replied that the setback was 40â?? from the property line. He passed out the letter from the professional surveyor that indicated that they had a 40â?? setback from the property line.

Chairman Darrell Truitt suggested that the confusion was in the site plan that the architect put together. He added that there was hardly a project built that didnâ??t have a tract beyond the right of way line. He noted that he would prefer to look at the plat and not the architects drawing. He reviewed the plat and noted that they needed to resolve the issue since the plat appeared to be 49â?? from the curb to the buildings and it actually measured up to 65â?? in the field.

A brief discussion ensued where the Board discussed the setbacks and reviewed the plat.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if the applicant would be willing to stipulate to a finished floor height relative to the curb.

Mr. Taranton replied that they had not yet finished the grating and drainage studies; they would not be able to verify the floor height.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if the applicant thought the natural grade on the south side of South Islands Drive was higher or lower than the curb height.

Mr. Taranton replied that the grade appeared to go down from the project to the south where the lake was located.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if the homes south of the proposed buildings would side onto South Islands Drive.

Mr. Taranton replied that the home across from the project sided onto South Islands Drive. He stated that the homes were about a foot above the curb.

Ray Mulqueen came forward. He expressed his concern over the new lights that would be placed on Palo Verde and South Islands Drive that would enable traffic to move easier through their development, creating more traffic flow through the development.

Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward responded that the way they did their signals was based on the Federal Highways Departmentâ??s series of warrants for traffic signals based on volumes, accidents and other factors. The traffic coming out of the development was already approaching the number needed for a warrant to require a traffic signal.

Chairman Darrell Truitt addressed the public and informed them that the Design Review Board was not the place to determine whether or not a signal was placed on a street. He suggested that they appeal the case to the Town Council if they didnâ??t want a traffic signal. He added that the idea behind the traffic signal was to create a safer environment for the neighborhood.

Manny Murry came forward and stated that he was concerned that when the stakes should have been based on the curb line and not on a property line that could not be properly determined.

Chairman Darrell Truitt agreed that it was an error on the site plan but that the developer had paid a professional to determine the stakes that determined the setback for the building, which should be correct.

Craig Chapman explained the history of the project and the agreement that they had made with the developer on the setback lines. He stated that they would not be happy if the developer didnâ??t keep to his agreement since they compromised on other items in order to agree on the setback.

Chairman Darrell Truitt replied that he thought the developer had done all that he could do by hiring a professional surveyor and that there might not be any problems. He added that a 40â?? setback from the property line was a generous setback and that if it was 60â?? from the curb that would be even better.

David Benson, 1250 E. Seagull Drive, Gilbert came forward. He stated that he was the applicant. He explained that they had a professional surveyor go out to try to determine the exact setback. When the neighbors complained that the markings were different than what they had found, he hired the surveyor to go back and verify that the stakes were correct from the site plan. The surveyor did go back and clarify that the markings were correct. He informed the Board that they intend to place the buildings on the markings that were currently in the field. He added that they had tried to go the extra mile to work with the neighbors and responded to their concerns.

Chairman Darrell Truitt suggested that it was a survey issue and not a setback issue. If it were surveyed properly, then there would not be an issue. He asked someone to stipulate when they made a motion that the floor would not be more that 2â?? above the curb line.

Board Member Bob Deardorff expressed his concern about the parking behind the daycare center since it was stipulated last time that it would be a landscape area. Unless the fire department needed the through access, he wanted to return to the previous stipulation.

Ms. Bailey confirmed that the Fire Department had required the through access behind Lot 8.

Board Member Bob Deardorff commented that the parking did not need to be behind the building even if the Fire Department needed access. That way they could limit the traffic and allow for landscaping behind the building.

Chairman Darrell Truitt asked if there was any more discussion on the item. Seeing none, he requested a motion.

A motion was made by Board Member John Tomasson, seconded by Board Member Bob Deardorff to approve DR01-99, subject to Staff stipulations adding stipulation seven to state that there would not be any parking allowed south of Lot 8 and fire access would be the only allowed traffic. Landscaping would be increased to be concurrent with what was behind Lot 6; adding stipulation eight to state that the finished floor levels for offices D, C, B and the two story office would not exceed 2â?? above the top of curb of South Island Drive.

Motion Carried 6-0.

Staff recommends approval for DR01-99, 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 and Elliot Roads, subject to the following conditions:

Approval of DR01-99, 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 and Elliot Roads will replace the Conditions of Approval for SP475.

Construction of the project shall conform with the exhibits presented and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board at the February 14, 2002 meeting for Architectural approval and the April 11, 2002 public hearing for Site Plan approval. Any revisions to the approved plans shall be reviewed by the Board prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project.

Office buildings â??Eâ?? and â??Fâ?? on Lot 10 will be required to come back to the Design Review Board for approval of the final design and layout.

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 site plan notes for commercial and industrial uses.

Landscape median on the south side of Lot 8 is required to provide Fire Department access across through use of rolled curbs, use of a stable base capable of supporting 7,500 lbs., marking as a Fire Lane and crash gates if needed. Detail to be provided and approved by staff before a building permit may be issued.

Parking shall not be allowed south of Lot 8 and fire access will be the only allowed traffic. Landscaping shall be increased to be concurrent with what was behind Lot 6.

The finished floor levels for Offices B, C, D and the two story office shall not exceed 2â?? above the top of curb of South Island Drive.

COMMUNICATIONS

A Report from the Chairman on current events.

There was no report given.

Report from the Planning Director on current events.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson informed the Board that they would be conducting interviews for the Senior Planner positions on April 22nd and asked if there would be a Design Review Board member available to sit in on the interviews.

Chairman Darrell Truitt commented that since the date had changed since the last time they discussed the interviews he would like the date e-mailed to everyone so they could check their schedules again. He noted that he might be able to attend that date.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson pointed out that the State Department of Commerce had a Board and Commission training coming up on November 18, 2002. He commented that the training was very good and worth the Boardâ??s time if they were available to attend.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson added that there might be a need for an additional Design Review meeting on May 23.

Chairman Darrell Truitt requested that the Staff send an e-mail to the Board to remind them of these dates, as he didnâ??t have his calendar with him.

Council Member Dave Petersen thanked the Board for the way they handled the last case. He commended them for taking the time to allow the residents to express their concerns on the project and had resolved some difficult issues.

ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Darrell Truitt adjourned the meeting at 7:12 P.M.

ATTEST:

Recorder Trasie Johns

Digg this